A
Ahimsa
Guest
That’s like asking what ‘good’ can come from the Egyptians enslaving the Hebrews.
- Status
A
Ahimsa
Guest
Scholarly and progressive Mormons tend to argue that the African priesthood ban was not a revelation:
Due primarily to the groundbreaking research
of such scholars as Lester Bush, Newell
Bringhurst, and Armand Mauss, as well as the
more popular writings of Darius Gray,
Margaret Blair Young, and Darron Smith,
among others, it now seems clear that the
Church’s denial of priesthood ordination to
blacks was based not on scripture or revelation
but on deeply entrenched racist traditions
that flourished in Europe after the
fifteenth century and came to the New World
beginning in the seventeenth century. Two
new scholarly studies, David M. Goldenberg’s
The Curse of Ham: Race and Slavery in Early
Judaism, Christianity, and Islam and Stephen R.
Haynes’s “Noah’s Curse”: The Biblical
Justification of American Slavery explore, respectively,
the evolution of the tradition of the
curse of Cain or Ham and the justification for
American enslavement of black Africans.
Both offer convincing evidence that all ideas
relating to the placement of blacks in an inferior
or cursed position are based on misinterpretation
of language, misreadings of
scripture, and misanthropic impulses towards
blacks. Ideas for which Mormons and others
have claimed to have a basis in antiquity are
in fact rather modern inventions.
In his seminal study, “Mormonism’s Negro
Doctrine: An Historical Overview,” Lester
Bush challenged the doctrinal foundation on
which the denial of priesthood ordination to
blacks was based. A consensus that has been
building since Bush’s article appeared is that
the teaching was based not on revelation but
rather on myth and tradition. As Armand
Mauss explains, “The full-fledged racialist
framework of modern Mormonism . . . was a
product not of any particular revelation but
of a social and intellectual movement among
some of Mormonism’s most powerful and articulate
leaders.” Mauss argues that the
twin influences of “British Israelism and
Anglo-Saxon triumphalism” prohibited the
full and equal embrace of all God’s children
for more than a century. So influential were
these beliefs that they overpowered the egalitarianism
of the New Testament and the
Book of Mormon, as summarized in the
scripture: the Lord “inviteth . . . all to come
unto him and partake of his goodness; and
he denieth none that come unto him, black
and white, bond and free, male and female”
(2 Nephi 26:33).
Due primarily to the groundbreaking research
of such scholars as Lester Bush, Newell
Bringhurst, and Armand Mauss, as well as the
more popular writings of Darius Gray,
Margaret Blair Young, and Darron Smith,
among others, it now seems clear that the
Church’s denial of priesthood ordination to
blacks was based not on scripture or revelation
but on deeply entrenched racist traditions
that flourished in Europe after the
fifteenth century and came to the New World
beginning in the seventeenth century. Two
new scholarly studies, David M. Goldenberg’s
The Curse of Ham: Race and Slavery in Early
Judaism, Christianity, and Islam and Stephen R.
Haynes’s “Noah’s Curse”: The Biblical
Justification of American Slavery explore, respectively,
the evolution of the tradition of the
curse of Cain or Ham and the justification for
American enslavement of black Africans.
Both offer convincing evidence that all ideas
relating to the placement of blacks in an inferior
or cursed position are based on misinterpretation
of language, misreadings of
scripture, and misanthropic impulses towards
blacks. Ideas for which Mormons and others
have claimed to have a basis in antiquity are
in fact rather modern inventions.
In his seminal study, “Mormonism’s Negro
Doctrine: An Historical Overview,” Lester
Bush challenged the doctrinal foundation on
which the denial of priesthood ordination to
blacks was based. A consensus that has been
building since Bush’s article appeared is that
the teaching was based not on revelation but
rather on myth and tradition. As Armand
Mauss explains, “The full-fledged racialist
framework of modern Mormonism . . . was a
product not of any particular revelation but
of a social and intellectual movement among
some of Mormonism’s most powerful and articulate
leaders.” Mauss argues that the
twin influences of “British Israelism and
Anglo-Saxon triumphalism” prohibited the
full and equal embrace of all God’s children
for more than a century. So influential were
these beliefs that they overpowered the egalitarianism
of the New Testament and the
Book of Mormon, as summarized in the
scripture: the Lord “inviteth . . . all to come
unto him and partake of his goodness; and
he denieth none that come unto him, black
and white, bond and free, male and female”
(2 Nephi 26:33).
S
SirThomasMore
Guest
The black ban was doctrine. One of the historical footnotes on the link I posted from another thread had an apostle whi stated that the ban was directly from God.
N
NewSeeker
Guest
That’s precisely the issue at hand. Any “prophet, seer, or revelator” who claims the ban was from God, when it was not, loses all credibility. He has preached false doctrine and is no prophet. Brigham Young is perhaps the most egregious example.
Stephen168
New member
But you didn’t answer the questions: How could a revelation come from God but God not ‘want’ it? Does it seem more reasonable the ban did not come from God at all?
Stephen168
New member
Then it should be easy to answer the question: What good came from 134 years of Mormon racist doctrine?That’s like asking what ‘good’ can come from the Egyptians enslaving the Hebrews.
Stephen168
New member
Are you a Mormon?
C
CatholicGuyNY
Guest
And we should believe them over the First Presidency statement that it was a direct commandment from the Lord, why?
A
Ahimsa
Guest
If God didn’t ‘want’ it, then God didn’t reveal it. Many Mormons reject the idea that the APB was a divine revelation.
A
Ahimsa
Guest
It allows Mormons to have a more realistic view of the human encounter with God. It also allows Mormons to more easily question anyone who claims to speak God’s thoughts, and to use their own reason and judgement. This is not to say that all Mormons question all doctrine, of course.
A
Ahimsa
Guest
No, why would you think so? I’m just correcting the misunderstanding that core LDS scripture explicitly justifies the APB. You don’t have to be a Mormon to see that.
A
Ahimsa
Guest
Is there any core LDS scripture that says the First Presidency is infallible?
Stephen168
New member
When was theory #2 introduced into Mormonism? Was it taught by the Mormon leaders before the ban repeal?
Stephen168
New member
Was it an encounter with God or a racist policy of men?
Stephen168
New member
We are not talking about “many Mormons”. We are talking about the caims of Mormon leaders: How could a revelation come from God but God not ‘want’ it? Does it seem more reasonable the ban did not come from God at all?(yes/no)
M
Marc_Anthony
Guest
Aren’t Prophets those who communicate God’s messages to the people?
Mormon apostles claimed that racism was a teaching of God.
Is God infallible?
M
MelanieAnne
Guest
My answer to the last question is “YES”. At least if you’re talking about the God I know.
As to the ideas promoted by Mormon prophets ~ that’s up to them or their followers to answer about ~ and, from what we have seen so far, never assume an answer is final.
C
CatholicGuyNY
Guest
LOL who said anything about infallibility? Why should I trust their words over the words of a First Presidency statement? The Pope isn’t infallible in everything he says or does, but surely Catholics would give more significant weight to Papal encyclicals, Papal Bulls, etc. then the statements of non-authoritative apologists.
C
CatholicGuyNY
Guest
LOL who said anything about infallibility? Why should I trust their words over the words of a First Presidency statement? The Pope isn’t infallible in everything he says or does, but surely Catholics would give more significant weight to Papal encyclicals, Papal Bulls, etc. then the statements of non-authoritative apologists.
“Scholarly and progressive Mormons” claim that the priesthood ban was not revelation. The First Presidency issued a statement that the priesthood ban was due to a direct commandment from the Lord. Who should we believe, non-authoritative “scholarly and progressive Mormons” or an official statement from the highest priesthood quorum of the LDS church?
A
Ahimsa
Guest
- Status