Close Topic Options

Blacks & The Mormon Priesthood - Page 6

The full title is The Bruce R. McConkie Story: Reflections of a Son
by Joseph Fielding McConkie published by Deseret Book Company, 2003.
As far as I can tell, it is out of print. It is 'currently unavailable' through Amazon.

From what I understand, there never truly was a ban, but President Kimball brought the issue to the Lord to determine his will on the matter. There was no 'revelation' so to speak, but rather an out pouring of the spirit in a way described that none of the individuals involved had ever felt. They knew it was the Lord's will that there should be no ban.

Priesthood Mormon and Blacks

Interesting. These bring more questions:

1. Were the Presidents prior to Kimball interested in consult with the Lord in prayer on this matter if such a ban never existed?

2. Why doesn't the Church speaks about this issue more directly by stating that the Lord never imposed a ban but somehow allow it? Are we afraid as a Church to be seen as "racist" (not like we are not seeing as such already) Are we afraid to admit Prophets are not infallible and they can commit mistakes? What is the issue really? And by the way, I do not think the "We don't know" answer from the Church helps at all neither I think is the best approach dealing with these difficult issues.

Blacks & The Mormon Priesthood Studies Doctrine Mormon

Flexes fingers, dusts off the keyboard and leans down having prepared...

I can echo what one other said. I was advised that prior to the ban being lifted the missionaries in Brazil were required to look and see if there were any ancestors who were black in order to determine if the person would be able to receive the blessing. Any mix was apparently good enough to cause the ban to take effect.

My mind is not made up. However, I could see this reason as being rational. Consider, IF none of us were white/black in the preexistence, there being no race, then the theory given that God sent less valiant spirits to the black race would have nothing to do on whether or not there were white/black races formerly. It doesn't matter. It merely means that God would put the "less valiant" spirits in a line for a body from a particular race.

Certainly that is possible (and logical). That doesn't say it's true or not.

I also am not sure that there might not have been races in the preexistence. I would hope that we have races in the after life, else we would lose part of what is beautiful. But who knows. But IF we did have races (don't know) then I would find it extremely hard to believe that ALL members of a certain race in the preexistence were less valiant. So actually, your argument against the claim cuts to support it, in my view.

I'm not sure that there's needs to be a "vote" to establish doctrine. There wasn't a "vote" that I am aware of to determine that hot drinks constitutes coffee and tea.

As to this whole claim, I'd first strongly argue that early LDS leaders were not as prejudiced as some make them out to me. Brigham Young was not a friend of the slavery. He, and most LDS leaders, were all from the North. Further, while other Christians banned blacks from attending their services, the LDS Church never did. It always allowed for blacks to fully participate in worship EXCEPT for receiving the priesthood.

That's it.

And that's why you have BLACK Baptist churches and BLACK Methodist churches, etc. Those Christian leaders did NOT allow blacks to participate either in partaking of the sacrament or even, in some cases, in even attending in the congregation. They were refused entry. It's for this reason that blacks formed alternatives to the Christian churches in America.

That's a strong reason in support that Brigham Young did NOT institute this for a reason of prejudice, but believed it to be doctrine and from God. Were he prejudiced, he would have acted likewise, would he not? But since the theory of Cain/Ham and blacks had been widely taught to Christians, certainly Brigham Young could be understood to have viewed this doctrine to be consistent with the Pearl of Great Price, and receiving no revelation from God to counter it, he restricted it to the manner that he believed necessary.

Rather off topic, but... I could write loads, more, but my fingers hurt. Other issues are understanding the context of what early LDS leaders said and remember the day and age in which they were addressing those comments.

Message Edited... JB: Italic Tags corrected. Please look over your Post and ensure your tags are correct before moving on to other Posts.

Page 6 Priesthood Mormon and Blacks

Tortdog:

Basically, he was WRONG. Prophet or not, I repeat, he was WRONG. It is even today that the Church says they do not know the reason behind of why the Blacks were not allowed to have the Priesthood. Brigham Young had the mentality of most people at that time with regards to Blacks, the fact that he may have thought about them not so "bad" as other Christian leaders, does not make him any more "right" with regards to this issue neither, neither with respect to his racist statements about the "Negro".

Rather off topic, but... QUOTE I'm not sure that there's needs to be a "vote" to establish doctrine. Of course is needed. Check all the pages of this thread, particularly pages 4 and 5 where quotes and references are provided: https://www.bordeglobal.com/foruminv/index....=official&st=24

Of course is needed. Check all the pages of this thread, particularly pages 4 and 5 where quotes and references are provided:

https://www.bordeglobal.com/foruminv/index....=official&st=24

Priesthood Mormon and Blacks

How about showing me the vote that coffee and tea are hot drinks but herb teas, hot chocolate and Tang are not?

You cannot authoritatively state that BYoung was wrong (or right). The Church has said it does not know. What makes you so certain otherwise (knowing it is not something is the same as a claim you know)?

Finally, Young's view toward the "negro", a proper term in that era, was far more liberal than many other Christian leaders at that time. I provided examples of this attitude. We cannot condemn Pres. Young in a vacuum.

Blacks & The Mormon Priesthood

Tortdog:

I provided as an offtopic, a link that discuss the issue of what can be doctrine and what cannot. I cannot expand on this thread about your question.

Why are you focusing in the other Christian leaders? I for once do not care what others may have felt or viewed. I am interested in Brigham Young as well as the other leaders who supported this view.

He was wrong when he said:

The fact of the matter is (whether you want to accept it or not) is that early Church leaders (Brigham Young, Joseph Fielding Smith, John Taylor, Orson Pratt, etc) they ALL shared similar views of an "inferior" race. They were men and they committed a mistake, fine, but I am not going to justify such racist claims as ANY part of our doctrine. I see in the back of my Scriptures the revelation given in 1978 where the Priesthood was extended to ALL worthy males regardless of their race. Have you seen a similar document when Brigham Young decided (on his own) that the Blacks could not longer had the Priesthood?

Blacks & Mormon Priesthood - Page 6

First, this seems to have really hit you in the craw. Let me start with this point. The God of Abraham is racist. That means, the God of Abraham (our God) has made decisions based on a man's race since the beginning.

That is a fact.

The question is whether God was justified in those decisions (I can present a rational argument for God discriminating based on race - I can even make a compelling argument for doctors discriminating based on race) or, perhaps, whether the Bible is just patently wrong, with these racists decisions being made by man in the guise of prophets without God's blessing. This might be a whole different thread.

Rather off topic, but... Okay. I missed that Brigham Young specifically mentioned coffee and tea during General Conference prior to the vote. But apparently he did, so my point is moot. I added the question on pornography (and as I was drafting that question, also considered lesbian acts) on whether those are doctrine. I think it makes the same point.

Antis used stuff like this to hit Mormons over the head all the time, making out that we are racists and such. It's absurd, since the LDS Church was MORE open to blacks than the other Christian churches (who are our critics) were during the time. In fact, they ignore that the very doctrine that Brigham Young relied on came from THEM.

Here is my point. You need to judge President Young by the world in which he lived in. We can't judge him using 21st century standards. It's not fair. Likewise, it seems pretty bad for Moses to command the execution of men, women and children, but he did.

In the era in which President Young lived, the black people were not educated. In fact, it was ILLEGAL to instruct blacks to read/write, etc. They did not have the same religious training. They did not enjoy training in various arts. One reason was because whites considered the black race to be inferior. And then they acted to maintain that inferiority.

In fact, there are scholarly articles that review the history of Europe, and point to Portugal's "demise" as being chiefly the result of high integration of blacks with the Portuguese. They point to the widely held belief that Africans brought with them various social diseases that Europeans believed were linked to the black race and their view of God's condemnation of that race (never being prosperous and forward thinking).

The opinion of President Young mirrored the opinions of America's Founding Fathers (inspired, according to Joseph Smith, remember), of prominent religious leaders of that era, and even of Abraham Lincoln (as well as European leaders).

Rather off topic, but... I'm not arguing this is correct. I'm arguing that these were the circumstances of that generation.

But despite all that, President Young still maintained that blacks (all blacks) had equal rights to worship with the Saints. THAT was a HUGE difference between the LDS Church and the other churches. So give President Young credit for that.

So is it a shock that President Young and others looked at the black race as inferior? A race of people who had been kept down by the white race, and forced to live in poor circumstances? A race of people who could not read, write, do basic math, comport themselves socially, etc.?

Rather off topic, but... Try driving through Red Neckville, Arkansas ... and see the "stature" of some of the red necks who live there and you'll get my point. It's not necessarily an issue of race, but of social status. And remember, I am not arguing that 19th century blacks (in general) could not have ACTED better and READ and WRITTEN. I'm merely stating the facts that, as a class, they did NOT. And, yeah, I'd blame white society for that.

What you are asking was for President Young to "overturn" the long-held belief by Christians (we are Christians, right?) that blacks are a race condemned by God. And maybe had President Young approached God on the question it would have resulted in the 1978 revelation a couple centuries early.

But it didn't. Maybe that is President Young's fault. Maybe God believed society was not ready. Maybe President Young's belief that this was necessary and God ordained this was true.

I don't know. The Church doesn't know. You don't know.

I would equate this with common law. and that the LDS Church took this Christian doctrine unto itself, unchallenged, as opposed to revelations that reversed longstanding and wrong Christian doctrine, e.g., the trinity. For example, who is to say that President Young and the other leaders felt this doctrine to be from God when God had not addressed it and requested its reversal (as God had for other doctrines).

For whatever reason, the treatment of the black race was not revealed to be wrong.

Rather off topic, but... I am not so sure that the LDS view on women not receiving the priesthood might never be reversed for similar reasons.

Edited: tortdog on 30th Aug, 2007 - 1:56pm

Blacks & Mormon Priesthood Mormon Doctrine Studies - Page 6

Tortdog:

Let's just say I feel pretty passionate about the topic and I have researched quite a bit about it.

I am not going to discuss this issue in circles. I repeat, the Church may have been MORE open to blacks than other denominations yet does not mean the early leaders who hold views on Blacks as an "inferior" race were not racist/prejudice. They WERE. It is a fact.

Oh I do, I really do. I fully understand and I agree that he hold the views most people had at that time, now this does not mean I am going to justify his statements or even hint he was right because I think most of his statements about Black people were wrong. So in few words, I understand WHY he said what he said but it was WRONG.

My issue with Brigham Young is the fact that he connected the ban as something the Lord declared and I do not believe that for a second. He also connected that "view" to Joseph Smith who clearly gave the Priesthood to Black men while he was alive.

We do know something and the Church did not give ANY statement to say that this guy is lying. And I personally know, he works closely with the Brethren in many African-American issues related to the Church. Quoting from Deseret News, Church-owned Newspaper:

https://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,695197408,00.html



Hmmm the ban was not imposed by God. My whole point on this thread.