BKP on the Priesthood Ban

[Non Sequitur]

this is a positive development. hopefully the next step is an apology.

Is less negative the same as positive?

[pellegrino]

this is a positive development. hopefully the next step is an apology.

[Uncle Ted]

Footnote:

9. In the same session of the territorial legislature in which Brigham Young announced the priesthood ordination policy, the territorial legislature legalized black “servitude.” Brigham Young and the legislators perceived “servitude” to be a more humane alternative to slavery. Christopher B. Rich Jr., “The True Policy for Utah: Servitude, Slavery, and ‘An Act in Relation to Service,’” Utah Historical Quarterly 80, no.1 (Winter 2012): 54–74.

See... There was no slavery in the Utah territory. Just "servitude".

[Uncle Ted]

Jane Manning James, a faithful black member who crossed the plains and lived in Salt Lake City until her death in 1908, similarly asked to enter the temple; she was allowed to perform baptisms for the dead for her ancestors but was not allowed to participate in other ordinances.12

They forgot to mention this part about Jane Manning James...

After Isaac died in 1891, Jane asked that she and her family be given the ordinance of adoption so that they could be sealed in that manner. Her justification, according to her correspondence with church leaders, was that Emma Smith had offered to have her sealed to the Smith family as a child. She was now reconsidering her decision, and asked to be sealed to the Smiths.


Her request was refused. Instead, the First Presidency "decided she might be adopted into the family of Joseph Smith as a servant, which was done, a special ceremony having been prepared for the purpose."[2] The ceremony took place on May 18, 1894, with Joseph F. Smith acting as proxy for Joseph Smith, and Bathsheba W. Smith acting as proxy for Jane James (who was not allowed into the temple for the ordinance).[3] In the ceremony, Jane was "attached as a Servitor for eternity to the prophet Joseph Smith and in this capacity be connected with his family and be obedient to him in all things in the Lord as a faithful Servitor".[4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Elizabeth_Manning_James

[Uncle Ted]

Seems things are changing....

https://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng

Does this mean the church is laying the ban at the feet of BY and no longer using the "we don't know" theory? Could be....

Church leaders pondered promises made by prophets such as Brigham Young that black members would one day receive priesthood and temple blessings.

No reference to Brigham Young saying this? I am guessing it was this quote from Brigham Young...

"You must not think, from what I say, that I am opposed to slavery. No! The negro is damned, and is to serve his master till God chooses to remove the curse of Ham..." (New York Herald, May 4, 1855, as cited in Dialogue, Spring 1973, p. 56).

Maybe it was good they didn't reference it.

[Uncle Ted]

I need to shoot the link of this to a certain ex-bishop of mine, who was certain (and vocal) of the correlation between race and pre-earth valiance. I was unable to convince him otherwise. I wonder if this article would. I actually kind of doubt it. Like DS7 on CB, he would, I think, believe that the church is doing this simply for PR reasons, and that it is a sham.

Be sure to CC Dr. Randy Bott and the other BYU religion professors that taught this bullshit up until at least 2012... Given my religion education at BYU Bott wasn't the only one teaching this crap:

In his office, religion professor Randy Bott explains a possible theological underpinning of the ban. According to Mormon scriptures, the descendants of Cain, who killed his brother, Abel, “were black.” One of Cain’s descendants was Egyptus, a woman Mormons believe was the namesake of Egypt. She married Ham, whose descendants were themselves cursed and, in the view of many Mormons, barred from the priesthood by his father, Noah. Bott points to the Mormon holy text the Book of Abraham as suggesting that all of the descendants of Ham and Egyptus were thus black and barred from the priesthood.

It’s not clear whether Joseph Smith, the religion’s founder, who ordained at least one black priest, supported the ban. But his successor, Brigham Young, enforced it enthusiastically as the word of God, supporting slavery in Utah and decreeing that the “mark” on Cain was “the flat nose and black skin.” Young subsequently urged immediate death to any participant in mixing of the races. As recently as 1949, church leaders suggested that the ban on blacks resulted from the consequences of the “conduct of spirits in the pre-mortal existence.” As a result, many Mormons believed that blacks were less valiant in the pre-Earth life, or fence sitters in the war between God and Satan. That view has fallen out of favor in recent decades.

“God has always been discriminatory” when it comes to whom he grants the authority of the priesthood, says Bott, the BYU theologian. He quotes Mormon scripture that states that the Lord gives to people “all that he seeth fit.” Bott compares blacks with a young child prematurely asking for the keys to her father’s car, and explains that similarly until 1978, the Lord determined that blacks were not yet ready for the priesthood.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/the-genesis-of-a-churchs-stand-on-race/2012/02/22/gIQAQZXyfR_story_2.html

[wuapinmon]

So if the ban didn't come from God how come we had to wait until God lifted the ban.

Don't ask questions you don't want the answer to.

[RC Vikings]

Seems things are changing....

https://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng

Does this mean the church is laying the ban at the feet of BY and no longer using the "we don't know" theory? Could be....

So if the ban didn't come from God how come we had to wait until God lifted the ban.

[Clark Addison]

Some pretty cool stuff in that document.

I need to shoot the link of this to a certain ex-bishop of mine, who was certain (and vocal) of the correlation between race and pre-earth valiance. I was unable to convince him otherwise. I wonder if this article would. I actually kind of doubt it. Like DS7 on CB, he would, I think, believe that the church is doing this simply for PR reasons, and that it is a sham.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Seems things are changing....

https://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng

Does this mean the church is laying the ban at the feet of BY and no longer using the "we don't know" theory? Could be....

Some pretty cool stuff in that document.

Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form

[Jeff Lebowski]

Seems things are changing....

https://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng

Does this mean the church is laying the ban at the feet of BY and no longer using the "we don't know" theory? Could be....

Progress.

[Moliere]

You always overplay the significance of that scripture. I recommend that you (and everyone interested in the topic) check out this article by Mauss. He addresses that scripture in the first page or two.

http://www.sunstoneonline.com/magazine/issues/134/134-56-61.pdf

Some excerpts (my emphasis):



Regarding the "we don't know" line:

Seems things are changing....

https://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng

In 1852, President Brigham Young publicly announced that men of black African descent could no longer be ordained to the priesthood, though thereafter blacks continued to join the Church through baptism and receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost. Following the death of Brigham Young, subsequent Church presidents restricted blacks from receiving the temple endowment or being married in the temple. Over time, Church leaders and members advanced many theories to explain the priesthood and temple restrictions. None of these explanations is accepted today as the official doctrine of the Church.

Does this mean the church is laying the ban at the feet of BY and no longer using the "we don't know" theory? Could be....

[SoonerCoug]

When testimonies duel, groupthink prevails.

[byu71]

That is a good question. I would say 1. The BofM is true, literally, this is Gods church on earth, and that the TSM and the 12 are prophets of God.

I could say that, but we could still be miles apart or maybe in agreement. For instance, you and I might disagree on what a prophet says is commandment or counsel?

For me, it is to big to put into convenient sound bites. I am not accusing you of doing so by the way.

[Jeff Lebowski]

How did this thread come back to life??

It's resurrect one of the Dude's classic Foyer threads week. Haven't you noticed?