Add Reply
Add Comment As A Guest
Close Topic OptionsBlacks & The Mormon Priesthood - Page 16 of 20
I am having a hard time understanding your - Page 16 - Mormon Doctrine Studies - Posted: 13th Apr, 2014 - 11:34am
Play Text RPG
- Location:
- International Discussions
- ➢
- ➢ Discuss
- ➢ General Religious Beliefs
- ➢ Mormon Doctrine Studies
Posts: 155 - Views: 13610
Controversial Mormon Issue.Sponsored Links:
Priesthood Mormon and Blacks
QUOTE (Sarah)I think it was just a race thing and nothing more. When Joseph was around there were black men that had the priesthood and then it suddenly stopped with Brigham, the same guy that said they were cursed.
You are, of course, free to think what you like, but it is an undeniable fact that it was Joseph and not Brigham who gave us both the book of Moses and the book of Abraham, which say that the seed of Cain was black, that Enoch did not preach to the blacks, and that the Canaanites were cursed as pertaining to the priesthood. Everyone who knew Joseph personally agreed that he taught that blacks were not to hold the priesthood "at this time." While Joseph was the Prophet, three apostles visited St. Louis, and they all unanimously agreed in asking Elijah Abel not to use his priesthood. Why were they so unanimous on that point if they had not received some instruction from Joseph on that issue, since he was still alive at that point?
Blacks & The Mormon Priesthood Studies Doctrine Mormon
The seed of Cain may have been cursed with black sin but how do you know that means Africans? So if you were in the 1950s and you had a quarter black in you then you could not have the priesthood? Let's not forget how the allowance for all to have the priesthood came about in the first place.
Page 16 Priesthood Mormon and Blacks
QUOTE (Sarah)The seed of Cain may have been cursed with black sin but how do you know that means Africans? So if you were in the 1950s and you had a quarter black in you then you could not have the priesthood? Let's not forget how the allowance for all to have the priesthood came about in the first place.
I think that you already know the answer to that--if I had lived in the 1950s, which I did, and I had had a quarter black in me, the I would not have been able to hold the priesthood. I don't think that there's any question about that, do you? And no, I am not forgetting how the allowance for all to have the priesthood came about in the first place. It came about by revelation from the Lord to the entire First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve at the same time. But let's not forget what the First Presidency of the Church said when they announced that revelation:
"the long-promised day has come when every faithful, worthy man in the Church may receive the holy priesthood" (Official Declaration 2)
The very clear implication of their words is that there was a particular time when the blacks were supposed to get the priesthood, and that time came in 1978, which was the whole point of my original post on the subject.
Priesthood Mormon and Blacks
QUOTE (tragula)While Joseph was the Prophet, three apostles visited St. Louis, and they all unanimously agreed in asking Elijah Abel not to use his priesthood.
1. Could you please provide a source for that? Elijah served as a Seventy until his death.
2. Are you saying that these three apostles or others also visited Walker Lewis (Who also was ordained in the Priesthood at the time of Joseph) William Mc Cary, Enoch Abel (Son of Elijah Abel) and Elijah Abel (Grandson of Elijah Abel, ordained as far as 1935) and told them the same thing?
Darion Gray, a prominent black LDS members who works very closely with LDS leaders said:
QUOTE "The official answer (From the church) is, 'we don't know why"' the ban was in place, Gray said. "And that's important. It does away with the rationale that Cain killed Abel, or that blacks were less valiant (In a pre-Earth life), or that Noah's son, Ham, was cursed" with black skin that marked his descendants as unworthy.
"The brethren (Top LDS leaders) have disavowed that."
In fact, a few black Latter-day Saints did hold the faith's priesthood during the nearly 150 years since the church was founded in 1830, Gray said, though that fact was not well-known among church members, either then or now.
Gray, a black man who joined the church before the ban was lifted and who was among the first to receive the faith's priesthood in 1978, has long worked with top LDS leaders to help facilitate ministry among African-Americans. He said he's been given permission by those same church leaders to share his belief that the ban "was not imposed by God but was allowed by God" as a test for Latter-day Saints of all ethnic backgrounds.
https://www.deseretnews.com/article/695197408/Priesthood-for-blacks-is-focus-of-film.html
Also Elder Holland interview:
QUOTE PBS: I've talked to many blacks and many whites as well about the lingering folklore [about why blacks couldn't have the priesthood]. These are faithful Mormons who are delighted about this revelation, and yet who feel something more should be said about the folklore and even possibly about the mysterious reasons for the ban itself, which was not a revelation; it was a practice. So if you could, briefly address the concerns Mormons have about this folklore and what should be done.
Holland: One clear-cut position is that the folklore must never be perpetuated. ... I have to concede to my earlier colleagues. ... They, I'm sure, in their own way, were doing the best they knew to give shape to [the policy], to give context for it, to give even history to it. All I can say is however well intended the explanations were, I think almost all of them were inadequate and/or wrong. ...
It probably would have been advantageous to say nothing, to say we just don't know, and, [as] with many religious matters, whatever was being done was done on the basis of faith at that time. But some explanations were given and had been given for a lot of years. ... At the very least, there should be no effort to perpetuate those efforts to explain why that doctrine existed. I think, to the extent that I know anything about it, as one of the newer and younger ones to come along, ... We simply do not know why that practice, that policy, that doctrine was in place.
PBS: What is the folklore, quite specifically?
Holland: Well, some of the folklore that you must be referring to are suggestions that there were decisions made in the pre-mortal councils where someone had not been as decisive in their loyalty to a Gospel plan or the procedures on earth or what was to unfold in mortality, and that therefore that opportunity and mortality was compromised. I really don't know a lot of the details of those, because fortunately I've been able to live in the period where we're not expressing or teaching them, but I think that's the one I grew up hearing the most, was that it was something to do with the pre-mortal councils. ... But I think that's the part that must never be taught until anybody knows a lot more than I know. ... We just don't know, in the historical context of the time, why it was practiced. ... That's my principal [concern], is that we don't perpetuate explanations about things we don't know. ...
We don't pretend that something wasn't taught or practice wasn't pursued for whatever reason. But I think we can be unequivocal and we can be declarative in our current literature, in books that we reproduce, in teachings that go forward, whatever, that from this time forward, from 1978 forward, we can make sure that nothing of that is declared. That may be where we still need to make sure that we're absolutely dutiful, that we put [a] careful eye of scrutiny on anything from earlier writings and teachings, just [to] make sure that that's not perpetuated in the present. That's the least, I think, of our current responsibilities on that topic. ...
Holland: One clear-cut position is that the folklore must never be perpetuated. ... I have to concede to my earlier colleagues. ... They, I'm sure, in their own way, were doing the best they knew to give shape to [the policy], to give context for it, to give even history to it. All I can say is however well intended the explanations were, I think almost all of them were inadequate and/or wrong. ...
It probably would have been advantageous to say nothing, to say we just don't know, and, [as] with many religious matters, whatever was being done was done on the basis of faith at that time. But some explanations were given and had been given for a lot of years. ... At the very least, there should be no effort to perpetuate those efforts to explain why that doctrine existed. I think, to the extent that I know anything about it, as one of the newer and younger ones to come along, ... We simply do not know why that practice, that policy, that doctrine was in place.
PBS: What is the folklore, quite specifically?
Holland: Well, some of the folklore that you must be referring to are suggestions that there were decisions made in the pre-mortal councils where someone had not been as decisive in their loyalty to a Gospel plan or the procedures on earth or what was to unfold in mortality, and that therefore that opportunity and mortality was compromised. I really don't know a lot of the details of those, because fortunately I've been able to live in the period where we're not expressing or teaching them, but I think that's the one I grew up hearing the most, was that it was something to do with the pre-mortal councils. ... But I think that's the part that must never be taught until anybody knows a lot more than I know. ... We just don't know, in the historical context of the time, why it was practiced. ... That's my principal [concern], is that we don't perpetuate explanations about things we don't know. ...
We don't pretend that something wasn't taught or practice wasn't pursued for whatever reason. But I think we can be unequivocal and we can be declarative in our current literature, in books that we reproduce, in teachings that go forward, whatever, that from this time forward, from 1978 forward, we can make sure that nothing of that is declared. That may be where we still need to make sure that we're absolutely dutiful, that we put [a] careful eye of scrutiny on anything from earlier writings and teachings, just [to] make sure that that's not perpetuated in the present. That's the least, I think, of our current responsibilities on that topic. ...
Post Date: 13th Apr, 2014 - 3:43am / Post ID: #
Blacks & The Mormon Priesthood
QUOTE Could you please provide a source for that? Elijah served as a Seventy until his death.
The reference is from "Neither White Nor Black," Pp. 130-131. To correct my original statement, they did not actually ask him to not use his priesthood but to limit his ministering to the black community.
I am well aware of the fact that Abel served as a Seventy until his death, but he was still limited as to what he could do with that Priesthood. For example, he was not allowed to enter the temple to receive his endowments, nor to be sealed to his wife or family.
QUOTE Are you saying that these three apostles or others also visited Walker Lewis (Who also was ordained in the Priesthood at the time of Joseph) William Mc Cary, Enoch Abel (Son of Elijah Abel) and Elijah Abel (Grandson of Elijah Abel, ordained as far as 1935) and told them the same thing?
Did I say that? No, I did not. Those brethren just happened to be in the same area as Elijah Able, that's all. If they had been in the same area as one of the other brethren, then perhaps they might have done the same thing, except for Abel's posterity, who were well-known exceptions to the general rule.
I am not impressed by a quote from someone who "Works very closely with LDS leaders." Many people work "Very closely with LDS leaders." That doesn't make them experts on LDS doctrine.
There is only one man on earth who has authority to pronounce doctrine for the Church, and neither Dorian Grey nor even Elder Holland is that man.
In spite of what anyone may say, the fact of the matter is, we do know why the Lord would not allow those blacks who lived and died prior to 1978 to hold the priesthood. It was revealed to us by none other than the Prophet Joseph Smith, himself:
QUOTE Now the Lord had shown unto me, Abraham, the intelligences that were organized before the world was; and among all these were many of the noble and great ones.
And God saw these souls that they were good, and he stood in the midst of them, and said: These I will make my rulers, for he stood among those that were spirits, and he saw that they were good, and he said unto me: Abraham, thou art one of them: thou wast chosen before thou wast born. (Abraham 3:22-23)
And God saw these souls that they were good, and he stood in the midst of them, and said: These I will make my rulers, for he stood among those that were spirits, and he saw that they were good, and he said unto me: Abraham, thou art one of them: thou wast chosen before thou wast born. (Abraham 3:22-23)
Now, what does the Lord mean when He says, "These I will make MY rulers"? Who are the Lord's rulers? They are clearly NOT the kings and queens or Presidents of the world. Those rulers have been anything BUT noble and great. But what is Priesthood? The Prophet Joseph Smith revealed the answer to that question in the following:
QUOTE Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man. (D&C 121:37)
Clearly, the Lord equates priesthood with authority. Thus, when the Lord says, "These I will make my rulers," He is talking about those to whom He would give authority, I.e., priesthood.
This interpretation is supported by the fact that the Lord goes on to tell Abraham that he was one of the "Noble and great ones" Who had been chosen before they were born. Was Abraham a king or a ruler? Obviously not, but he did hold the priesthood. Thus, it should be clear that when the Lord said, "These I will make my rulers," He was talking about those to whom He was planning to give authority, or Priesthood.
Now, some people might be inclined to think that this only applies to the prophets, but I would disagree. Yes, the Prophets of God do preside over the Lord's people, along with their counselors, the Quourm of the Twelve, the Seventy, and the Area Presidencies, but so do the Stake Presidencies, High Councils, Bishoprics, High Priest Group leaders, Elders' Quorum Presidencies, Teachers' Quorum Presidencies, and even the Deacons' Quorum Presidencies. And most of these callings are not lifetime callings but are only for a period of time, after which they are released and others are called to fill those positions. Thus, virtually all faithful priesthood holders can expect to be called to a presiding position sometime in their life. That is why I say that when the Lord said, "These I will make my rulers," He as not just talking about the Prophets but about all Priesthood holders.
Was everyone "Noble and great" In the preexistence? Obviously not. In fact, one third of the host of heaven were so ignoble and ungreat that they were actually cast out of heaven. Does it seem likely that the two thirds who remained were all on the same level? I don't think so, but it was only the "Noble and great ones" To whom the Lord was planning to give His priesthood.
And if there was a group that was actually prohibited by the Prophets of God from holding the Priesthood, then what does that tell us about those spirits in the preexistence? Obviously, they were not among the "Noble and great" Ones in the preexistence.
Of course, it should be obvious that this only applies to those who lived and died prior to 1978. Those blacks who hold the priesthood today must have been among the "Noble and great" Ones in the preexistence, including some in my own ward.
Nevertheless, there are many who seem to be overly sensitive about the fact that their ancestors were not among the "Noble and great" Ones. This is a pride issue. They are too proud to admit that their ancestors were not "Noble and great" In the preexistence.
The fact of the matter is that we all have ancestors who were not "Noble and great" In the preexistence, because we all have ancestors who did not hold the Priesthood. And if we are descendants of the House of Israel, then we have ancestors who were actually prohibited from holding the priesthood, because for hundreds of years, the tribe of Levi was the only one that could hold the priesthood, and even they could only hold the Levitical or Aaronic Priesthood and not the Melchizedek Priesthood.
Donna Hill says:
QUOTE Anson Call said that Joseph had told him and several others that some spirits had remained neutral during the council in heaven, and because of that came to earth as Negroes, through the lineage of Cain, whose black skin was perpetuated after the flood through the seed of Ham and his son Canaan.
Yes, I know that Brigham taught that there were no neutrals in the preexistence, but if Anson Call "And several others" Were saying that Joseph had taught that doctrine, then that would explain why Brigham found it necessary to come out and correct what he considered to be a false doctrine.
But then why were Anson Call "And several others" Going around saying that Joseph had taught that doctrine? Suppose, for the sake of argument, that they were merely misquoting the Prophet as saying that the blacks had been neutral in the preexistence, when in fact what he had actually said was that the blacks were leas valiant in the preexistence, but Anson Call "And several others" Merely interpreted him as saying that they had been neutral, when he had not actually said that? That would clarify the apparent discrepancy between Brigham Young and Anson Call, and now we know that Joseph actually would have had a basis for saying that the blacks, in his day, had been less valiant in the preexistence--Abraham 3:22-23--which he actually revealed to us, himself, and it did not come to us from Brigham Young.
Blacks & Mormon Priesthood - Page 16
QUOTE "1. Could you please provide a source for that? Elijah served as a Seventy until his death."
2. Are you saying that these three apostles or others also visited Walker Lewis (Who also was ordained in the Priesthood at the time of Joseph) William Mc Cary, Enoch Abel (Son of Elijah Abel) and Elijah Abel (Grandson of Elijah Abel, ordained as far as 1935) and told them the same thing?
"Darion Gray, a prominent black lds members who works very closely with lds leaders said:"
2. Are you saying that these three apostles or others also visited Walker Lewis (Who also was ordained in the Priesthood at the time of Joseph) William Mc Cary, Enoch Abel (Son of Elijah Abel) and Elijah Abel (Grandson of Elijah Abel, ordained as far as 1935) and told them the same thing?
"Darion Gray, a prominent black lds members who works very closely with lds leaders said:"
1. Yes, but I was wrong--it was Cincinatti and not St. Louis, and it was four apostles, not three. Newell G. Bringhurst, "Elijah Abel and the Changing Status of Blacks within Mormonism," in Lester E. Bush, Jr., and Armand L. Mauss, eds., Neither White nor Black: Mormon Scholars Confront the Race Issue in a Universal Church," Signature Books: Midvale, UT., 1984, pp. 130-131.
2. Did you see where I said that? No? Then, I am not saying that, although it is a possibility. I know of no evidence of that. Members of the Church who doubt the inspiration of the early Church leaders with respect to this issue habitually overlook a few things: 1.) "In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established." (D&C 6:28) Both Zebedee Coltrin and Abraham O. Smoot, who were contemporaries of the Prophet Joseph Smith, quote him as saying that the negroes were not to have the priesthood "at this time." Not one single person ever quotes him as ever saying anything other than that on the subject. 2.) All of the scriptures that I quoted in my original post. 3.) The incident with the four apostles mentioned in my original post. 3.) The fact that the priesthood ban fits a pattern found in the scriptures, as clearly described in my original post. 4.) The fact that OD 2 clearly states that "the long-awaited time has finally come," which clearly implies that there was a set time for the blacks to get the priesthood, and that time did not arrive until 1978, thus vindicating all the previous Prophets who said that the time had not yet arrived.
3. I quote scriptures, and you quote Dorian Gray and Jeffrey Holland? Was either one of them ever President of the Church, because the last I heard, there is only one man on earth who has the authority to pronounce doctrine for the Church, and that is the Prophet. Therefore, anything that they say is only their own opinion and not official Church doctrine. I, on the other hand, quoted scripture, which is official Church doctrine, and NOT folklore! According to the scriptures, it is an absolutely undeniable fact that, with regard to who could and could not hold the priesthood, the Lord has discriminated on the basis of lineage in the past. So, if He discriminated on the basis of lineage in the past, why do members of the Church automatically assume that if a Prophet discriminates on the basis of lineage, then that Prophet is not inspired of the Lord?
2. Did you see where I said that? No? Then, I am not saying that, although it is a possibility. I know of no evidence of that. Members of the Church who doubt the inspiration of the early Church leaders with respect to this issue habitually overlook a few things: 1.) "In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established." (D&C 6:28) Both Zebedee Coltrin and Abraham O. Smoot, who were contemporaries of the Prophet Joseph Smith, quote him as saying that the negroes were not to have the priesthood "at this time." Not one single person ever quotes him as ever saying anything other than that on the subject. 2.) All of the scriptures that I quoted in my original post. 3.) The incident with the four apostles mentioned in my original post. 3.) The fact that the priesthood ban fits a pattern found in the scriptures, as clearly described in my original post. 4.) The fact that OD 2 clearly states that "the long-awaited time has finally come," which clearly implies that there was a set time for the blacks to get the priesthood, and that time did not arrive until 1978, thus vindicating all the previous Prophets who said that the time had not yet arrived.
3. I quote scriptures, and you quote Dorian Gray and Jeffrey Holland? Was either one of them ever President of the Church, because the last I heard, there is only one man on earth who has the authority to pronounce doctrine for the Church, and that is the Prophet. Therefore, anything that they say is only their own opinion and not official Church doctrine. I, on the other hand, quoted scripture, which is official Church doctrine, and NOT folklore! According to the scriptures, it is an absolutely undeniable fact that, with regard to who could and could not hold the priesthood, the Lord has discriminated on the basis of lineage in the past. So, if He discriminated on the basis of lineage in the past, why do members of the Church automatically assume that if a Prophet discriminates on the basis of lineage, then that Prophet is not inspired of the Lord?
Blacks & Mormon Priesthood Mormon Doctrine Studies - Page 16
I am having a hard time understanding your views Tragula. If you are one of those who believe in the inspiration of our Church leaders who at the present time have stated they DO NOT KNOW WHY the blacks did not receive the priesthood until 1978, why is that you think otherwise? I am curious because for one side, you claim to believe in inspiration but the other hand you are disregarding the "we don't know" statements.
Also, personally I have a very hard (Generally speaking in LDS history) believing second and third hand accounts. So far, I haven't seen any quote from Joseph Smith himself where he bans blacks from Priesthood but quite the opposite on his actions.
About Darius and Holland, no they are not the Prophet and even if they were they would share their own perspective of things. I don't believe the Prophet is infallible and everything he speaks is doctrinal. Again, unless you can provide a quote by JS that states the ban then I don't believe it.
TOPIC: Blacks & The Mormon Priesthood