Close Topic Options

Blacks & The Mormon Priesthood - Page 9

If this is not instituting a ban, what is it? If you say this is hearsay, then you say that Coltrin is lying to the quorum when he says he asked Joseph about the issue and the same prayed about it and received a revelation on it. John Nuttall was Brigham's scribe, and would've certainly made a note if the Prophet Brigham would've corrected Coltrin. he did not. That way Brigham would be supporting Coltrin's lie, and by also stating that Prophet Joseph taught a ban you're basically saying Brigham is lying about the whole issue as well. Personally, I have issue with that. If you want to believe it, you may of course, but I just think that if they lie about those kind of things, it just seems like the roots of the tree are pretty bad. Plus the strong unison of early brethren regarding the ban and the origin thereof seems to imply there's something to it. I call it truth. Others may call it a well maintened racist conspiracy to ban blacks from the priesthood because Mormons didn't like blacks. As we can see from 3 statements by Young that I quoted, I think it seems very unlikely he hated blacks or was trying to get back at them for some sort of disdain against their race. I believe the ban was of God, and find ample proof to substantiate that belief in the statements of the brethren.

Your point 2 is well made. I cannot explain, and I find it more disturbing that blacks were ordained rather than that there was a ban. The ban is supported by scripture and the interpretation thereof by Joseph Smith. And his successors. And lots of others. The ordinations have been troubling at their time, and remain weird at this time. There was much more controversy about the ordination than about the ban. And I don't think that's because of racism. The only ways I can understand it is either a) my thought in my first post was right, and God may have granted an exception to these brethren and removed the curse for them due to their personal rigtheousness or the ordinations were not according to the word of God, and therefore invalid.

Regarding your scripture question: I follow the text Joseph Smith translated. I don't think anybody has the right to change the Book of Mormon at will or to conform with something they believe may or may not have changed.

I still wonder how you reconcile your standards with OD's 1&2. It doesn't seem quite clear to me. We don't have a revelation for either, so both are "hearsay." OD-2 directly contradicts statements made by the prophet of God that he declared as God's law (that blacks wouldn't have the priesthood until the children of Abel would have a chance), and OD-1 clearly contained information that was simple untrue (e.g. That neither the church nor Wilford Woodruff taught or encouraged plural marriage), the procedure for voting on OD-1 was not correctly followed nor unanimous, and the church leaders didn't even follow through with the manifesto (Wilford Woodruff himself taking a plural wife AFTER the Manifesto).

I find the whole ban very plausible given the statements made by Joseph and leaders who were very familiar with him. I have a friend who's a historian, and one of the first things a historian learns (according to him) as that the absence of a first-hand source does not mean that a specific event did not take place. Rather often second- and third-hand accounts in their sum have to be used to establish whether or not something has happened. Like I said, I just don't see why they would pull off this conspiracy and still be full of the Spirit of the Lord, etc. I find the notion of them lying a whole lot more complicated and much worse for the church than to accept that the Lord spoke through Joseph Smith, and said it was so that Africans ought not to be ordained to the priesthood.

I also think that we try and make this early period of our history fit with out notion of us "having more light" nowadays, and that they were simply backwards, prejudiced, etc. Yet they had more of the spirit, knew more of the so-called "mysteries of Godliness", had more revelations, etc. I think we just try to justify their behavior and make it and our faith seem acceptable to the world by implying they were simply delusional and racist regarding the matter rather than they having acted on behalf of God.

Priesthood Mormon and Blacks

Wow, do you truly take Brother Coltrin's words to heart huh? His story is NOT reliable for MANY reasons:

Source 4

I am NOT saying he was lying or is some sort of conspiracy, what I am saying is that his words should NOT be taken as 100% accurate as you seem to take them. The fact you are not able to explain why other black early members were giving the Priesthood should be enough evidence that this is not so black and white (no pun intended).

My whole point is simple. Just because these people were church leaders does not mean they didn't have personal views on different issues and Brigham Young certainly make his quite clear.

How do I reconciles the two points you have made? Simply, I see in BOTH cases there were LOTS of personal opinion, social pressure and philosophies of men mingled with scripture.

Blacks & The Mormon Priesthood Studies Doctrine Mormon

I found some interesting information that could explain the "why" blacks were not able to hold the Priesthood, even though Brigham Young denied this is the reason:

Source 4

Why did Joseph F. Smith changed his stance with regards to Elijah Abel?

Source 7

Page 9 Priesthood Mormon and Blacks

From what I have read and seen it is either this was doctrinal or simply introduced because men at the time were not acting by inspiration but tradition. It was common then to think of Africans and dark races as less than white. The interesting thing is Jews are not white but they saw the white Romans as less than them. Honestly, I think the Church has a big mistake on their shoulder and they would like it to go away, but it can't because its a big part of their history. John Taylor said that Blacks were representatives of Satan on earth. Any of you that are reading this a Black person?

Priesthood Mormon and Blacks

I notice that a lot of people online mention the fact that only those of African heritage were under the priesthood ban however, we need to keep in remembrance that in 1958 is when Melanesian "Blacks" were given the Priesthood because David O. McKay defined them as from a different linage and not under the priesthood ban. Before that, they were under the same ban.

Source 6

Blacks & The Mormon Priesthood

I watched Part 1 of the DVD produced by Darius Gray called "Blacks in the Scriptures" and the first part deal with the interpretation that the word "black" anywhere in the scriptures refer to skin color but as a synonym of sin or evil.

Blacks & Mormon Priesthood - Page 9

I believe this is the only quote I came across from a Prophet stating the possibility of the ban being an error, the same Prophet who lifted the ban.

In "The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball" (6/15/63) he said:

Blacks & Mormon Priesthood Mormon Doctrine Studies - Page 9

When I first came across Blacks not having the priesthood I 'accepted' or maybe brushed it off as being based on the same Old Testament racialism / tribalism but looking to it more it seemed to be more about racial prejudices at the time. Now I see it as natural given the scenario of the US at the time, but among Prophets and Apostles who should know better or even be informed by the Lord better? Then again if you are thought that the Black race is the representative of Satan on earth from the same people that are supposed to guide you to salvation how can you think otherwise - that is... If you are White.