I wish mormonism would be the dominant religion

[Katzpur]

So you are saying that it the Church did not claim that it was a doctrine revealed to Joseph Smith by the Lord?

That's what I'm saying. Furthermore, there is no record of it ever having been revealed to anyone. Had it been doctrine, we would find it in the "Doctrine and Covenants."

So ... where did it come from? There are only three possibilities: Scripture, Smith or Young.

Young.

Note the past tense in my statement and the present tense in yours.
Note the past tense in my statement and the present tense in yours.

Irrelevant. There was never any official "doctrine" prohibiting Black men from holding the priesthood. There was, however, a policy which did so. I'm not sure you understand the difference between the two (policy and doctrine). Perhaps this official Church statement will help clarify:

Not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. A single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church. With divine inspiration, the First Presidency (the prophet and his two counselors) and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles (the second-highest governing body of the Church) counsel together to establish doctrine that is consistently proclaimed in official Church publications. This doctrine resides in the four “standard works” of scripture (the Holy Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price), official declarations and proclamations, and the Articles of Faith. Isolated statements are often taken out of context, leaving their original meaning distorted.

Some doctrines are more important than others and might be considered core doctrines. For example, the precise location of the Garden of Eden is far less important than doctrine about Jesus Christ and His atoning sacrifice. The mistake that public commentators often make is taking an obscure teaching that is peripheral to the Church’s purpose and placing it at the very center. This is especially common among reporters or researchers who rely on how other Christians interpret Latter-day Saint doctrine.

So, you would have us believe that Smith and/or Young were, "off the reservation" so-to-speak.

Actually, Joseph Smith himself ordained at least one Black man to the priesthood. The ban did not go into effect until Brigham Young was President of the Church. "Off the reservation"? I've never heard that one before. If I'm understanding you correctly, the answer (with regards to Brigham Young) is "yes." Brigham Young instituted a policy which unfortunately was not overturned for over 100 years.

Mormon is claimed to be: God's one, true church, led by prophets that communicate with God about important doctrinal matters. How could the founder Smith, and the every prophet since Young till Kimball be so wrong about something so important?

Once again, if you're going to cast blame, cast it on Brigham Young, not Joseph Smith. As to how they could be so wrong, well, they were human, and humans have a long history of being wrong about a lot of important stuff. Mormonism has never made the claim that its leaders are infallible. (Actually, that brings to mind a little quip I once heard: In Catholicism, the Pope's supposedly infallible; Catholics, however, don't seem to believe it. In Mormonism, the Prophet's supposedly fallible; Mormons, however, don't seem to believe it. )

Why would this not be challenged by any of the prophets since Young, if they were indeed prophets?

It may very well have been challenged. The decision to revoke the ban would have required approval of fourteen men in the Church's leadership, other than the Prophet/President of the Church. A single hold-out could have prevented the ban from being overturned at any time prior to 1978. My personal feelings (based on comments I've read from the men who served as President of the Church between Brigham Young and Spencer W. Kimball) are that there was always likely at least one dissenter to overturning the ban.

Why did a change in doctrine have to wait until the US Government was threatening to revoke BYU's and perhaps even the LDS Church's tax exempt status, until the new temple in Brazil was causing major issues since most Brazilians have some black blood and thus couldn't use the temple, until members of the LDS Church themselves were very embarrassed by the policy and were expressing their concern if all God had to do was whisper in the current Prophet's ear?

You've not only greatly oversimplified the process, but are wrong in the "facts" you've presented. While it is true that the situation in Brazil presented many challenges, and was almost certainly a factor in the change of policy, it is not true that the Church's tax-exempt status was ever being threatened -- not in 1978 and not prior to that time. Social pressure on the Church to admit Blacks to the priesthood had actually declined significantly some fifteen or so years earlier. The main factor was actually the enormous growth of the Church in Nigeria and Ghana. Practical issues provided the impetus for change. God never instituted the policy, but He doesn't stop people from making mistakes either.

By the way, Jan Shipps (a Methodist and noted scholar of Mormon history and culture) states that "this revelation came in the context of worldwide evangelism rather than domestic politics or American social and cultural circumstances." I assume you'd consider her opinion on the matter to be relatively objective.

 

[Scott C.]

As a practicing Mormon pre-1978, I accepted that the ban was based on inspired or "revealed" interpretation of scriptures, especially some versus found in the Pearl of Great Price. I believed that the prophets and apostles, from Brigham Young forward, were using the inspiration inherent in their callings to interpret the scriptures correctly and conclude that the church was bound to start and to continue the priesthood ban. I therefore considered it "doctrine", as did many, many church members.

But I do agree now with Katzpur that it was not actually doctrine, rather it was a policy. There are no records or official pronouncements that declare a revelation to start the ban. Recent statements from high ranking church leaders seem to concur that the ban was a mistake. While I never believed that prophets are infallible, I did believe that they would not err on something of this magnitude. I was wrong. I've had to adjust my view of doctrine and policies and be more careful in what I accept as revelation or opinion or policy.

Why am I saying this to you all? Am I conceding too much and weakening my position to argue in behalf of my church? I don't know, nor do I care. I simply want to provide insight into the mind of at least one run-of-the-mill Mormon believer. I'm not perfect. My leaders are not perfect. My church is not perfect. I've had to adapt my views over the years.

But I will say that I feel strongly the presence of God in my church, in our scriptures, and in the teachings of our prophets and apostles. I believe in the revelations proclaimed by Joseph Smith. I believe in the restoration of the Gospel and in the Church of Jesus Christ. I believe in the integrity and goodness of my leaders. While the ban was wrong, I'm fully satisfied that it was not motivated by hatred of people of any race.

As I said, I believed that the prophets had correctly interpreted scriptures which led to the priesthood ban. I didn't like the fact that the ban was there, but I accepted it as God's will. I was not attracted to my church because of it's position on race. I didn't enjoy my membership since I could rub shoulders with people who enjoyed that blacks could not hold the priesthood. I looked at the ban as a burden on blacks, on me, and on the church. I didn't like it, but accepted it based on my view of prophets and scripture. This is why when the revelation was announced in 1978, it was received so quickly and so joyfully. The reaction was not "oh crap, there goes my racist club, this will not be so fun anymore". Rather the reaction was "Praise God, the burden is lifted, the ban is ended."

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Reading through the last few posts has made it clear that the Mormon Church has a least a process that can accept change, even on matters close to doctrine.

Other Christian churches have found this as equally difficult. My church (Anglican) fortunately never had a colour barrier in the UK, however its sister church in the USA did.
For very many years there tended to be Black or white congregations. This has been largely overcome, not by some church policy change, but by the social realities of those congregations.

More recently the battleground has been over sexuality, and in particular the admission of women priests and Bishops. This is largely settled in the Anglican churches in the west. But is mainly rejected by our churches in Africa.

The Mormon Church Like The Catholics and the Orthodox churches largely dismiss the possibility of ordaining women, as it is a doctrinal matter for them.

The Anglicans on closely examining the scriptures could find no confirming scriptural authority to bar women priests. But could find only reasons that were based on conjecture interpretation and precedent. This may well be the case for other churches in times to come.

I would not Condemn the Mormons and others for following what was historically the normal practice of Christian churches.

Christians were once all known as Saints, both men and women.
It would seem that at the time that the Didache was in use, there were no distinctions between men and women in the church, as it was written in the gender inclusive form.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

True. It says in the book of mormon, that due to some humans being neutral in the fight between good and evil (God vs Devil) God put a curse upon them and they got black skin. While those who fought on God's side where white. Cain was the wicked, so he was cursed black, Abel was the righteous. It can kinda be ment like this, the day is (Light) and the night (Darkness).

So you are right on that. But mormons don't practice racism today, maybe in the past but thats all over now. 1979 i think it was put away. So theologically absolutely, but in practice of religion then no.
Black people and Mormonism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Curse and mark of Cain - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So the theology is racist but the practice of the theology is not?

Yeah, tell me how Mormonism, which in 1997 had "approximately 500,000 black members"* "absolutely rests upon racism." Or is there some other form of racism going on?

* From Rotcha's link

I also feel that Islam is highly sexist but it has a huge female population. How did that happen? If you can understand why I can hold that Islam is sexist and that women are involved in Islam then you will understand why I feel Mormonism is racist while it has black members.

And the above has already answered and explained the reasons for my position.

 

[Norman]

Normally I'd make an effort to address such points,

I don't see that in your post's.

but in as much as you seem to enjoy jumping to conclusions of all colors,

What conclusions would that be?

and I'm in no mood to prob your questionable indignity,

I am not the one who shoots out disparaging and childish posts and then don't even have the ability on an adult level to be respectful and respond with dignity.

and am already gagging on your irrelevant tidbits of "learning," I'm just going to ignore it all. Have a good day.

Your tidbits of learning is nothing more than insulting people with your post's and then you run like a little kid. You have a nice day.

 

[Skwim]

Your tidbits of learning is nothing more than insulting people with your post's and then you run like a little kid. You have a nice day.

Nothing worth staying around for. And thank you, I am having a nice day.

 

[Norman]

Thank you for those details, but they hardly change the reality.

What is the reality Sapiens?

 

[Norman]

Nothing worth stay around for. And thank you, I am having a nice day.

Agnostic, believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God Or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God. Skeptic, doubter, doubting Thomas, cynic

Skwim, Wouldn't you feel more at home if you went to the "Agnosticism" room? I think you will feel better about yourself if you did.

 

[Sapiens]

The reality was that for more than a century people of color were second class citizens are far as the LDS was concerned.

 

[Scott C.]

The reality was that for more than a century people of color were second class citizens are far as the LDS was concerned.

It's well established and not debated that blacks could not hold the priesthood for over a century in the LDS Church. Are you arguing the point that "can't hold the priesthood" = "second class"?

 

[Sapiens]

No, could be third, fourth, whatever, but clearly not equal, especially when the concept is based on am inherited "mark of Cain."

 

[Scott C.]

It's hard for me to defend a policy, which has been changed, and which I think was a mistake. But I feel the need to say that even when the ban was in place, it was always taught that God did not consider people of color to be "second class". But, I do clearly see why people would equate not holding the priesthood with a lower class of citizenship. It's probably not worth me debating.

 

[Triumphant_Loser]

It's well established and not debated that blacks could not hold the priesthood for over a century in the LDS Church. Are you arguing the point that "can't hold the priesthood" = "second class"?

Well they certainly didn't ban them from the priesthood just for "slaps n' giggles." Find me one single nonprejudicial reason to bar one race from the priesthood and not others.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It's hard for me to defend a policy, which has been changed, and which I think was a mistake. But I feel the need to say that even when the ban was in place, it was always taught that God did not consider people of color to be "second class". But, I do clearly see why people would equate not holding the priesthood with a lower class of citizenship. It's probably not worth me debating.

I can't think of any reasonable definition of "citizenship" where, when one group receives greater rights, privileges, responsibilities, and opportunity for advancement that another group doesn't, the group who hasn't received these things isn't in a lower class of citizenship.

Would you consider it a part of good citizenship for an observant Mormon man to take on a leadership role in the LDS Church when he feels called to do so?

If this man was unable to do this, would he be able to fulfil all the rights and duties of good citizenship?

 

[Katzpur]

It's hard for me to defend a policy, which has been changed, and which I think was a mistake. But I feel the need to say that even when the ban was in place, it was always taught that God did not consider people of color to be "second class". But, I do clearly see why people would equate not holding the priesthood with a lower class of citizenship. It's probably not worth me debating.

It's not worth either of us debating, Scott. We've both acknowledged that the ban was a racist policy and that we're glad it no longer exists. At this point, we might as well let the non-Mormons slap their own labels on Blacks and insist that it's on our behalf, because that's what they're going to do anyway.

You mentioned hearing about the lifting of the ban when you were on your mission. Here's my story:

I was 28-years old when the ban was lifted, and working at an ad agency in downtown Salt Lake, just a couple of blocks from Church headquarters. It was late morning. I guess someone in the office had a radio on, because that's the only way any of us would have found out that soon after the announcement. News spread through the agency like wildfire. Some people didn't believe it; they assumed it was a hoax, because there has been absolutely no hint that it was going to take place. I was so excited I could hardly stand it. I decided I was going to take my lunch a little bit early since I simply couldn't concentrate on my work. I walked across the street to the large downtown mall. As I walked, I became aware that I was smiling. Actually, I was grinning from ear to ear. I was so thrilled that I just couldn't contain myself. When I realized what I was doing, I became very self-conscious. I mean, who walks down the street alone with a huge smile plastered on her face? I tried to stop smiling and look normal, but as I looked around to see who might have noticed me, everyone I saw was smiling, too! Big smiles! It was the strangest thing imaginable. Everybody I saw was thrilled. I guess that's what happens when people you consider 2nd class all of a sudden get a promotion and are considered your equals.

 

[Sapiens]

It's hard for me to defend a policy, which has been changed, and which I think was a mistake. But I feel the need to say that even when the ban was in place, it was always taught that God did not consider people of color to be "second class". But, I do clearly see why people would equate not holding the priesthood with a lower class of citizenship. It's probably not worth me debating.

Then don't defend it, show us that you are as upset about it as anyone else is. Tell us what you're going to do to make up for it. Tell us what changes you would make in the leadership and the leadership system to assure that such wrongs are not committed in the future.

 

[Katzpur]

Then don't defend it, show us that you are as upset about it as anyone else is.

I fail to see how Scott even attempted to defend the policy. He said he believed it to be a mistake.

Tell us what you're going to do to make up for it. Tell us what changes you would make in the leadership and the leadership system to assure that such wrongs are not committed in the future.

I know you addressed this to Scott and not to me, but I can't help but wonder what you think either he or I could possibly do to make up for the pain and heartache caused by a policy we would never have implemented in the first place. I'd also like to know how you think either of us (or any Latter-day Saint, for that matter) should go about changing the LDS leadership or "the system." It's easy enough for a non-Mormon to tell us that we need to be pro-active, but from a practical standpoint, there really is nothing we can do to change a system that is not based on the democratic process. When I believe our leaders have made mistakes in the past, I've always been willing to say so, and it sounds to me as if Scott is willing to, too. I'm just saying that it's really pretty pointless for someone who doesn't know how the system works to be saying that the lay membership of the Church ought to do something to fix it. All we can do as individual Mormons is be honest about these issues (which I believe we have been) and try our best to live the gospel of Jesus Christ as we believe it should be lived. We can't force the Church's leadership to change. Period.

 

[4consideration]

Then don't defend it, show us that you are as upset about it as anyone else is. Tell us what you're going to do to make up for it. Tell us what changes you would make in the leadership and the leadership system to assure that such wrongs are not committed in the future.

Why should someone still be upset about a policy in their church that was changed a long time ago? This member didn't implement that policy, himself. To ask him to tell us what he's going to do to make up for something he didn't do is a bizarre request, IMO.

I think it's perfectly acceptable the way he acknowledged it as not being a good practice, and something he seems glad to see has changed.

 

[Sapiens]

"Gee wilikers, I'm sorry" seems inadequate.

 

[Katzpur]

"Gee wilikers, I'm sorry" seems inadequate.

No, it will actually do nicely.