Post Reply
Page 3 of 3  •  Prev 1 2 3
Switch to Forum Live View Cause of the Priesthood Ban Unknown
2 years ago  ::  Mar 11, 2012 - 10:22AM #21
Posts: 15,786

Second, a more recent apostle, I don't have the name at my fingertips, stated in an interview that the revelation came at a time when the church was having difficulty providing enough manpower to lead the church in South America.  There was simply too much "mixed blood" to find sufficient numbers of men eligible for the priesthood.  The prophet and the quorum prayed about the problem, and God accommodated them.

That, and BYU's basketball team was in the toilet.

Quick Reply
2 years ago  ::  Mar 12, 2012 - 1:07PM #22
Posts: 1,224

Mar 9, 2012 -- 2:39PM, Ironhold wrote:

Mar 9, 2012 -- 11:45AM, Habala?! wrote:

Mar 8, 2012 -- 5:48PM, Ironhold wrote:

Mar 8, 2012 -- 5:41PM, Kemmer wrote:

Mar 8, 2012 -- 5:31PM, Ironhold wrote:

Actually, from what studying I've done, it would appear that there was a rather massive degree of regional variation - even congregation-to-congregation variation - concerning how the ban was treated, both during and retroactively.

So, were God and your "prophet" not speaking while all this was going on, or what?

What it means is that the membership weren't as monolithic as the OP would have people believe.

Source? I'd like to see this research.

When explaining the need for a prophet I often hear Mormons quoting 1 Corinthians 14:33. Is You are basically saying that God is indeed the author of confusion. You also ignore the many official church statements on the matter which the membership should all have been aware of. The church's position over the years has been pretty clear and now they're trying to muddy the waters to cover up what was an obviously racist policy.

it's an apologetics site put together by several African-American members of the church.

the church leadership was actually pushing for the ban to be removed as early as the 1950s, but kept receiving revelation that it wasn't quite the time. what's more, blacks the world over were slowly flocking to the church again during the 1960s, something that one would think counter-intuitive given the ban being in place.

That website doesn't change the fact that church leadership has taught that black people are under the curse of Cain and now they're pretending that they didn't. The reasons for the preisthood ban were put in pretty simple terms in past official church statements and it was taught from the pulpit. Try to stay on topic.

"When you walk, you might like to take the hand of a child. She will receive your concentration and stability, and you will receive her freshness and innocence." -Tich Naht Hanh
Quick Reply
2 years ago  ::  Mar 12, 2012 - 10:38PM #23
Posts: 4,819

The history of Blacks and the Priesthood is presented here.  The specific the part of the menu talking about "Black Pete" gives the reason for the ban.

A policy based on the resentment of William McCary poaching some potential nubile brides at Winter Quarters was a mostly borne of jealousy with the backing of racial bias. The decision to eliminate the competition through white-balling was definitely a comedy of errors that lasted around 132 years.

Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace
Quick Reply
2 years ago  ::  Mar 26, 2012 - 3:43AM #24
Posts: 27

What I find awesome about this statement is that they are admitting that the LDS Institution has been teaching and praciticing Dogma and Praxis for over a century without knowing where it came from!

For all they know it was a "doctrine of man" or Billy Bob or Henry or whoever.  They just don't know???

They would rather sweep all the teachings of the Prophets from Brigham on and their witness statements of Joseph's ban-confirming teachings and imply that the whole LDS Institution is a fraud (by implying that it teaches and practices things without knowing it came from God) than just say this is what God has revealed to us, take it or leave.  Do you know why?

It's because Brigham Young and many of the following LDS prophets all said that the ban was permanent until the 2nd coming of Christ, that all worthy non-black males would receive the priesthood before the blacks did.  The lifting of the ban obviously contradicts this.  So instead they say they don't know.

Really?  That's better than the contradiction?

Quick Reply
Page 3 of 3  •  Prev 1 2 3
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing

    Beliefnet On Facebook