Add Reply
Add Comment As A Guest
Close Topic OptionsBlacks & The Mormon Priesthood - Page 8 of 20
QUOTE (OldSouth @ 22-Jan 10, 11:43 AM) LDS, - Page 8 - Mormon Doctrine Studies - Posted: 22nd Jan, 2010 - 5:34pm
Play Text RPG
- Location:
- International Discussions
- ➢
- ➢ Discuss
- ➢ General Religious Beliefs
- ➢ Mormon Doctrine Studies
Posts: 155 - Views: 13598
Controversial Mormon Issue.Blacks & The Mormon Priesthood - Page 8
An interesting response by Elder Holland with regards to the Blacks and the Priesthood. Is he indirectly admitting the early brethren were wrong?
| 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. ... [How did you learn about the Mountain Meadows Massacre in which Mormon militia men killed at least 120 men, women and children on a pioneer wagon train from Arkansas?] I grew up in the shadow of Mountain Meadows and knew about it -- sometimes in sort of hushed tones -- but knew about it from my childhood on. ... My next-door neighbor ... was the grandson of John D. Lee, ... [who] is known in the church as having been one of the local leaders who paid for that with his life, who was executed at governmental direction in some effort to bring that to closure. ... As a young man, as a teenager, ... that's when I first came in contact with Juanita [Brooks'] book [Mountain Meadows Massacre]. Juanita was my high school English teacher. I grew up with her sons and daughter, and they're still dear friends to this day. ... I don't ever remember her ever talking to me about it. I don't think she saw that as her call. Certainly she never talked about it in any public way, not like a high school literature class. I don't even remember a back-lawn conversation about it. What little bit I knew, I knew from her book, and that's probably the way most people knew about it. ... It was the way most of us became acquainted with the challenge, the difficulty, the tragedy of Mountain Meadows. ... Nobody's done more than President Hinckley in current times, in current terms, to try to get closure, to try to express regret, apologies or whatever -- not for the church, not institutionally. No, try as people may, there has never been any smoking gun in Brigham Young's hand or anyone else's at that level of leadership of the church. But there was clearly local responsibility. I don't think anybody's denying that. ... What we do know is that it was a tragedy. What we do know is that lives were taken, and that never should have been. |
Sponsored Links:
Priesthood Mormon and Blacks
Okay so one of the Twelve is saying that they were wrong. We have been beating that here for a long time along with other opinions, BUT now we must wonder, is that all they were wrong about? Maybe they were wrong about Plural Marriage? Wrong about the Word of Wisdom? Wrong about what else? Do we have inspired leadership or is it possible that one hundred years from now one of the Twelve will say Holland was wrong or Hinckley was wrong?
Blacks & The Mormon Priesthood Studies Doctrine Mormon
For first time ever, the Church will host a celebration of the 1978 revelation. What are your thoughts?
| QUOTE |
| For the first time ever, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints will host a celebration of the 1978 revelation ending the ban on blacks being ordained to the church's all-male priesthood. In past years, Genesis, a support group for Mormon blacks and their families, organized the commemoration. On June 8, the 30th anniversary festivities will feature a speech by Elder Sheldon F. Child of the LDS First Quorum of Seventy and several black members sharing their experiences. Mack Wilberg, conductor of the Mormon Tabernacle Choir, will direct a multicultural choir. The LDS Church also will present a short video commemorating the momentous event. The video will include interviews with several Genesis members as well as other African-American Latter-day Saints. LDS President Thomas S. Monson and Apostle Boyd K. Packer, who were among Genesis' organizers when the group was established in 1971, were scheduled to attend and speak but are not on the program now. "The announcements of program specifics for the June 8th commemoration had not been finalized and were released prematurely," said LDS spokesman Mark Tuttle. "Schedules and travel requirements for general authorities frequently shift and therefore speaking assignments are always subject to change.... |
Post Date: 22nd Jan, 2010 - 2:23pm / Post ID: #
Priesthood Mormon and Blacks
The ban was instituted by revelation, and Joseph knew and believed it. He removed the priesthood from Elijah Abel. He was however allowed to serve a mission interestingly, and I read somewhere that he was a very light skinned African (that is something I cannot say for sure though). Also, a ban can very well be on a whole group of people and the Lord can still lift it for an individual when he becomes righteous as in Book of Mormon with the Lamanites, who couldn't hold the priesthood and were also cursed with a black sin.
Interestingly, 2 Nephi 30:6 read this prior to the 1978 revelation:
QUOTE (2 Npehi 30:6)"And then shall they rejoice; for they shall know that it is a blessing unto them from the hand of God; and their scales of darkness shall begin to fall from their eyes; and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a WHITE and delightsome people."
Moses 5:22 says the descendents of Cain had no place among the people of the Lord. Joseph Smith taugh that "Negroes are descendants of Cain" (19 June 1831, History of the Church 1:75), and later spoke of "the Negroes or sons of Cain", thus equating the black race and lineage of Cain together. (Joseph Smith Journal, 25 January 1842; History of the Church 4:501).
He also said
QUOTE (Times & Seasons 6:85)"A black skin ... has ever been a curse that has followed an apostate of the holy Priesthood."
QUOTE (Abraham 1:26 @ 27)Pharaoh, being a righteous man, established his kingdom and judged his people wisely and justly all his days, seeking earnestly to imitate that order established by the fathers in the first generations, in the days of the first patriarchal reign, even in the reign of Adam, and also of Noah, his father, who blessed him with the blessings of the earth, and with the blessings of wisdom, but cursed him as pertaining to the Priesthood. [27] Now, Pharaoh being of that lineage by which he could not have the right of Priesthood, notwithstanding the Pharaohs would fain claim it from Noah, through Ham, therefore my father was led away by their idolatry.
Who was Ham? Ham was the son of Noah, who had married a daughter of Cain, and thus carried on the Curse of Cain. What was the curse of Cain? We know he was cursed with his skin color turning black and that he should be a "servant of servants" (Joseph Smith Translation 9:29,30). From Abraham we know he was also cursed pertaining to the priesthood.
God has always worked with lineages. Look at Genesis 9, and you have the three big groups of people there and their lineage. A good talk on this by President Dyer (1962) can be found here: "For What Purpose"
Did Joseph Smith ever pray about it? Yes, he did:
QUOTE (Journal of L. John Nuttall 1:290-93)Saturday, May 31st, 1879, at the house of President Abraham O. Smoot, Provo City, Utah, Utah County, at 5 O'Clock p.m.
President John Taylor, Elders Brigham Young, Abraham O. Smoot, Zebedee Coltrin and L. John Nuttall met, and the subject of ordaining Negroes to the Priesthood was presented.
Brother Coltrin: The Spring that we went up in Zion's Camp in 1834, Brother Joseph sent Brother J. P. Green and me out to gather up means to assist in gathering out the Saints from Jackson County, Missouri. On our return home we got in conversation about the Negro having a right to the Priesthood, and I took up the side that he had no right. Brother Green argued that he had. The subject got so warm between us that he said he would report me to Brother Joseph when we got home for preaching false doctrine, which doctrine that I advocated was that the Negro could not hold the Priesthood. "all right" said I "I hope you will." And when we got to Kirtland, we both went to Brother Joseph's office together to make our returns, and Brother Green was as good as his word and reported to Brother Joseph that I said that the Negro could not hold the Priesthood. Brother Joseph kind of dropped his head and rested it on his hand for a minute, and then said, "Brother Zebedee is right, for the Spirit of the Lord saith the Negro has no right nor cannot hold the Priesthood." He made no reference to Scripture at all, but such was his decision. I don't recollect ever having any conversation with him afterwards on this subject. But I have heard him say in public that no person having the least
particle of Negro blood can hold the Priesthood.
Was this revelation? If the Prophet of the Lord, especially the one that is the head of this dispensation, goes into prayer, and receives the Spirit of the Lord telling him something, that is revelation, whether the exact revelation is ever presented to the church (the revelation for 1978 was never presented, and OD1 was not claimed to be based on a revelation until Heber J. Grant). Also, the word of the Lord is the word of the Lord, whether or not the church as an organisation votes on it or not. We need not forget that the church and priesthood are different, the first being a mere appendage to the latter. The church is a democracy, but the priesthood is a pure theocracy. The word of the Lord is binding upon the priesthood, whether they like it or not. If the don't, the Lord will no longer honor their priesthood.
think about these as well:
QUOTE (George Q. Cannon @ Council Minutes, 22 August 1900)President Young held to the doctrine that no man tainted with Negro blood was eligible to have the Priesthood; that President Taylor held to the same doctrine, claiming to have been taught it by the Prophet Joseph Smith.
QUOTE (Journal of William I. Appleby @ 19 May 1847)In this branch [in New York State] there is a coloured Brother [Walker Lewis], an Elder ordained by Elder William Smith [in 1843] while he was a member of the Church, contrary, though to the order of the Church on the law of the Priesthood, as descendants of Ham are not entitled to that privilege.
Further, about Elijah Abel:
QUOTE (Caleb A. Shreeve @ Sr, Salt Lake Tribune, "Forum", 26 October 1970)The Prophet Joseph Smith was commanded by God to withdraw the Priesthood from Elijah Abel, and revoke the ordination. ... Although there is no official Church record as to the revocation, Elijah Abel affirmed the fact to my father, Thomas A. Shreeve, when both were living in the Salt Lake 10th Ward, during 1872-77. At the time, Brother Abel told young Thomas, who baptised Abel's grandchildren that the Prophet Joseph "came to him with tears in his eyes one day, and told him that he had been commanded by the Lord to withdraw the holy Priesthood from him."
QUOTE (Meeting @ 31 May 1879, as related by Willian E. Berrett, Mormonism and the Negro)Brother Coltrin further said Brother Abel was ordained a Seventy ... And when the Prophet Joseph learned of his lineage he was dropped from the Quorum, and another was put in his place.
Also of interest:
QUOTE (George Albert Smith Papers @ Manuscripts Division, Marriott Library, University of Utah)President [George Q.] Cannon remarked upon this subject, as he said, he had on a prior occasion when this subject was under consideration, that he had understood hat the Prophet Joseph [Smith] had said during this lifetime, that there would be a great wrong perpetrated if the seed of Cain were allowed to have the Priesthood before Abel should have posterity to receive it, and this curse therefore was to remain upon the seed of Cain until the time should come that Abel should have posterity. He understood that that time could not come until Abel should beget spirits in the eternal worlds and those spirits obtain tabernacles;
Joseph firmly must have believed in the curse because he mentioned it to quite a few people, and his words were published by the church on it. Here's another one:
QUOTE (Joseph Smith @ Messenger & Advocate 2:290; History of the Church 2:438)I say the curse is not yet taken off the sons of Canaan, neither will it be until it is affected by as great power as caused it to come; and the people who interfere the least with the purposes of God in this matter, will come under the least condemnation before Him; and those that are determined to pursue a course, which shows an opposition, and a feverish restlessness against the decrees of the Lord, will learn, when perhaps it is too late for their own good.
Just because God choose to withhold the priesthood from part of his children does not at all make anybody racist, whether you mean God or His servants. Do you remember Pauls dream in Acts prior to his preaching to the Gentiles? He was told not to declare anything as unclean that the Lord has declared as clean. He did not say everybody is clean or anything, just that those that the Lord declares as clean we should declare as clean; and those whom He declares as unclean we should also delare as unclean. Remember, this pertains to the priesthood only, not to them as human beings or our brothers and sisters. And here are some short quotes that can show neither Joseph nor Brigham banned them from the Priesthood for racist reasons:
QUOTE (Joseph Smith @ History of the Church, Volume 5, p. 216)Elder Hyde inquired the situation of the negro. I replied, they came into the world slaves mentally and physically. Change their situation with the whites, and they would be like them. They have souls, and are subjects of salvation. Go into Cincinnati or any city, and find an educated negro, who rides in his carriage, and you will see a man who has risen by the powers of his own mind to his exalted state of respectability. The slaves in Washington are more refined than many in high places, and the black boys will take the shine of many of those they brush and wait on.
Elder Hyde remarked, "Put them on the level, and they will rise above me." I replied, if I raised you to be my equal, and then attempted to oppress you, would you not be indignant and try to rise above me, as did Oliver Cowdery, Peter Whitmer, and many others, who said I was a fallen Prophet, and they were capable of leading the people, although I never attempted to oppress them, but had always been lifting them up? Had I anything to do with the negro, I would confine them by strict law to their own species, and put them on a national equalization.
QUOTE (Brigham Young @ Journal of Discourses 10:111)Negroes should be treated like human beings, and not worse than dumb brutes. For their abuse of that race, the whites shall be cursed, unless they repent.
QUOTE (Brigham Young @ Journal of Discourses 11:272)The Lamanites or Indians are just as much the children of our Father and God as we are. So also are the Africans.
QUOTE (Brigham Young @ Journal of Discourses 10:250)Men will be called to Judgment for the way they have treated the Negro.
Blacks & The Mormon Priesthood
QUOTE (OldSouth @ 22-Jan 10, 10:23 AM) The ban was instituted by revelation, and Joseph knew and believed it.
Would you mind backing that statement with scripture sources? If it was instituted by revelation, how come the church did not agree through common consent? (as it is supposed to be). Where does Joseph say it was was instituted by revelation? Is it FIRST HAND information or once again journals or hearsay?
QUOTE He removed the priesthood from Elijah Abel.
Again, I would appreciate some sources for this. As far as I know, the priesthood was never removed from him and his descendants were given the Priesthood. Within this thread, there are also examples of another couple of black members who hold the priesthood at the time of the Prophet Joseph Smith. The information you provided is hearsay, hence cannot be count it as true in my opinion.
QUOTE (2 Nephi 30:6)"And then shall they rejoice; for they shall know that it is a blessing unto them from the hand of God; and their scales of darkness shall begin to fall from their eyes; and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a WHITEand delightsome people."
You mean this scripture:
QUOTE 6 And then shall they rejoice; for they shall aknow that it is a blessing unto them from the hand of God; and their bscales of darkness shall begin to fall from their eyes; and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a pureand a delightsome people.
Source 9
The word WHITE was removed and replaced for PURE.
I think in this discussion we all came up with the conclusion that the early church leaders thought about black people within the context of their time. It doesn't mean they were right.
Post Date: 22nd Jan, 2010 - 3:43pm / Post ID: #
Blacks & Mormon Priesthood - Page 8
LDS, I did provide quotes.
Revelation for ban: Journal of L. John Nuttall 1:290-93 (see my post)
Elija Abels Priesthood removed: Caleb A. Shreeve @ Sr, Salt Lake Tribune, "Forum", 26 October 1970 (see my post)
&
Meeting @ 31 May 1879, as related by Willian E. Berrett, Mormonism and the Negro (see my post)
about the white and delightsome: Check the the quote tag, you quoted the 1981 edition of the scriptures. I specifically mentioned that from the first BoM up until the 1981 Edition ALL editions read "white and delightsome" rather than the modern "pure and delightsome."
I addressed the common consent issue:
QUOTE (Myself)Was this revelation? If the Prophet of the Lord, especially the one that is the head of this dispensation, goes into prayer, and receives the Spirit of the Lord telling him something, that is revelation, whether the exact revelation is ever presented to the church (the revelation for 1978 was never presented, and OD1 was not claimed to be based on a revelation until Heber J. Grant). Also, the word of the Lord is the word of the Lord, whether or not the church as an organisation votes on it or not. We need not forget that the church and priesthood are different, the first being a mere appendage to the latter. The church is a democracy, but the priesthood is a pure theocracy. The word of the Lord is binding upon the priesthood, whether they like it or not. If the don't, the Lord will no longer honor their priesthood.
I don't see why we cannot count it as true if in the early church it was repeatedly reported Joseph Smith received a revelation banning Africans (not blacks, Africans) from the Priesthood, it was reported time and time again, people have given their testimony on the matter etc., but OD-1 and OD-2 are believed without reservation. How come? I also just don't believe that Brigham who was visited by Joseph after his death, or John Taylor who was also visited by Joseph after his death, and George Q. Cannon, Wilford Woodruff etc. All would lie about Joseph having received this revelation, all lie about him praying about it, etc. Just to justify their racism or something like that. It doesn't make sense to me. Denying Joseph's revelation on the lack that he wrote it down and had the church vote on it is like denying Joseph Smith ever lived Plural Marriage. We don't have specific sayings of his that can prove he lived it, but we have tons of testimonies. We know he lived it, and even RLDS scholars agree to that by now. I think these cases are similar.
I think from what the early church taught, they very much knew why Africans didn't hold the priesthood. Nowadays we say we don't know to spare embarrassment in my opinion. I think it's just the same as when Gordon B. Hinkley said on the Larry King show he didn't know why the Saints ever really practiced plural marriage and he believed it wasn't doctrinal.
Blacks & Mormon Priesthood Mormon Doctrine Studies - Page 8
QUOTE (OldSouth @ 22-Jan 10, 11:43 AM) LDS, I did provide quotes.
Revelation for ban: Journal of L. John Nuttall 1:290-93 (see my post)
Elija Abels Priesthood removed: Caleb A. Shreeve @ Sr, Salt Lake Tribune, "Forum", 26 October 1970 (see my post)
&
Meeting @ 31 May 1879, as related by Willian E. Berrett, Mormonism and the Negro (see my post)
Revelation for ban: Journal of L. John Nuttall 1:290-93 (see my post)
Elija Abels Priesthood removed: Caleb A. Shreeve @ Sr, Salt Lake Tribune, "Forum", 26 October 1970 (see my post)
&
Meeting @ 31 May 1879, as related by Willian E. Berrett, Mormonism and the Negro (see my post)
Well, I'm quite surprised you will think of these as sources because:
1. No where does it say that Joseph Smith instituted a Priesthood ban to Blacks. He gave the Priesthood to Brother Abel and there is NO proof he removed it from him (according to your source). Hearsay.
2. The information you provided about Elijah Abel is quite clear: There is not documentation that proves he was removed from the Priesthood. It is hearsay. But for the sake of discussion, if that's true how do you explain the son of Elijah Abel (Enoch Abel) receiving the Priesthood in 1900 and Enoch's son (Elijah Abel) in 1935? How do you explain Walker Lewis receiving the Priesthood in 1844? What about William McCary in 1846?
QUOTE about the white and delightsome: Check the the quote tag, you quoted the 1981 edition of the scriptures. I specifically mentioned that from the first BoM up until the 1981 Edition ALL editions read "white and delightsome" rather than the modern "pure and delightsome."
I agree. Now what is your take on this? Which scripture do you follow?
QUOTE I don't see why we cannot count it as true if in the early church it was repeatedly reported Joseph Smith received a revelation banning Africans (not blacks, Africans) from the Priesthood, it was reported time and time again, people have given their testimony on the matter etc., but OD-1 and OD-2 are believed without reservation.
Because there IS proof that more than one black person had received the Priesthood prior to 1978! (see my first paragraph) How do you explain that?. I can make a list of things our early church leaders allegedly say and that antis use as weapons, the whole thing is that most of it is second or even third hand accounts. It should be taken with a grain of salt. Having said that, I believe Brigham Young as well as others have clear prejudice against black people which was very common at that time.
TOPIC: Blacks & The Mormon Priesthood