From what I understand, any one found with a trace of either Cain's or ham's seed was forbidding to hold the Priesthood. I do have my reasons for thinking why the african race was denied the priesthood, but ultimately it had to do with time, and the opportunities of the fore fathers. I do not believe one bit it was because the blacks werent valiant in the pre-existance, for there were no such thing as black or white there, we were spirit offsprings of the same parents. there are many whites down here though they know better and yet persecute the church from the time of Joseph Smith till pesent. More white descedants have cause more troubles, headaches for the church from infancy than any blacks i know. The black issue is a very delicate issue and the adversary is unfortunately using that as a stumbling block to blind the eyes and and hardened the hearts of these people from knowing the truth. in the near future I will write what I from both Biblical accounts and of course the Book of mormon and history of the U.S to show or bring more light on the Black and the priesthood Issue.
Yes I am Black and I am an active member of the church.
Nothing motivates a man more than to see his boss put in an honest day's work. -- Unknown
|there are many whites down here though they know better and yet persecute the church from the time of Joseph Smith till pesent. More white descedants have cause more troubles, headaches for the church from infancy than any blacks i know.|
Please make sure to update your profile. That way your religion can be 'LDS' and the frog will go away, etc. Thanks.
|do not believe one bit it was because the blacks werent valiant in the pre-existance, for there were no such thing as black or white there, we were spirit offsprings of the same parents.|
welcome aboard, hope you have a great time in our forum :)
We discussed this a year or so ago in our High priest group and there were some differing opinions. One man, well into his 70's is a former mission president and regional representative. He worked closely with both Pres. McKay and Pres. Kimball. Back in the 1950's, Pres. Mckay was of the opinion that the Priesthood ban was not doctrinal. He stated it has been a custom in the church but as far as he knew, there was no law from God prohibiting the priesthood to blacks. Pres. Mckay told this brother that he is aware of some of the teachings of church leaders through the years that claim blacks were less valiant in the preexistence but that was not his opinion.
When the ban was finally lifted in 1978, it was the result of a unanimous vote by the chorum of the twelve and the first presidency. But this was not the first time the issue was brought to a vote. Apparently on a few other occasions, the effort was made to lift the ban but there were dissenting votes by one or more of the bretheren.
I tend to agree that it isn't doctrinal, especially in that I know of no scriptural support at all.
However, Brigham Young and other leaders in his time were very insistant that it WAS doctrinal. This is another of those conflicts that bother me from time to time, although this one doesn't bother me much. ;) I think it is a moot point right now.
I personally don't think it was doctrinal for the simple fact that the banning of the Priesthood to the blacks was not brought to the Church for vote (isn't ALL doctrine of the Church be brought to the Church for sustaining and vote?). So I don't fully understand why the Quorum of the Twelve in 1978 and First Presidency voted to stop the banning of the Priesthood to the blacks, I don't understand it because if I'm not wrong (please people feel free to tell me if I am) the matter was not brought to the Quorum of the Twelve in the first place. (to ban blacks from holding the Priesthood). The Church did not sustain such thing as far as I'm concerned.
No, basically I think you are right. That is why I said that Brigham Young and other leaders taught it as doctrine. I don't know of anyplace where it was brought to the vote.
But this is basically true of a few other "doctrines", as well, several of which we are discussing in other topics, such as plural marriage (the end of it), Adam/God, etc.
In all fairness, I should mention that just because something is "doctrine" doesn't necessarily make it true, and just because something is not doesn't necessarily make it untrue. Especially if we are discussing "unofficial doctrine".
Edited: Nighthawk on 7th Apr, 2004 - 4:27pm
|But this is basically true of a few other "doctrines", as well, several of which we are discussing in other topics, such as plural marriage (the end of it), Adam/God, etc.|
|In all fairness, I should mention that just because something is "doctrine" doesn't necessarily make it true|