Race, God, and the LDS Church

[CatholicGuyNY]

Can the Lord change His mind?

If you can’t answer my question, please just say so.

The really issue here is this: was the priesthood ban due to a commandment from the Lord, or was it due to the LDS leaders being a “product of their environment”? You seem to advocate the latter, however the First Presidency issued a statement saying that it was due to a commandment from the Lord. So which is it?

 

[Ahimsa]

If you can’t answer my question, please just say so.

The really issue here is this: was the priesthood ban due to a commandment from the Lord, or was it due to the LDS leaders being a “product of their environment”? You seem to advocate the latter, however the First Presidency issued a statement saying that it was due to a commandment from the Lord. So which is it?

Whenever God interacts with humans, God is interacting with a certain “environment”. Jesus Christ incarnating as human is incarnating into a certain “environment”. Any commandment the First Presidency makes, or that Moses makes, or that the Holy Spirit makes, is in the context of a certain “environment”. Environments change, because humans (who are composed of mind and body) change; thus, commandments may change as well. Development of Doctrine anyone?

 

[MelanieAnne]

Question: Why do you (fill in the name of some group here) always answer a question with another question?

Answer: Do we?

 

[CatholicGuyNY]

Whenever God interacts with humans, God is interacting with a certain “environment”. Jesus Christ incarnating as human is incarnating into a certain “environment”. Any commandment the First Presidency makes, or that Moses makes, or that the Holy Spirit makes, is in the context of a certain “environment”. Environments change, because humans (who are composed of mind and body) change; thus, commandments may change as well. Development of Doctrine anyone?

So it was a commandment from the Lord, and not something absorbed from the surrounding environment.

 

[Ahimsa]

So it was a commandment from the Lord, and not something absorbed from the surrounding environment.

A commandment is shaped by the surrounding environment. God’s commandments to Moses were in a language Moses and the Hebrews could understand. A commandment cannot be separated from its environment.

 

[CatholicGuyNY]

A commandment is shaped by the surrounding environment. God’s commandments to Moses were in a language Moses and the Hebrews could understand. A commandment cannot be separated from its environment.

Right. I just want to be clear that you are saying that the ban was from God, and not of human origin.

 

[Ahimsa]

Right. I just want to be clear that you are saying that the ban was from God, and not of human origin.

What God reveals to a community, is what at the community at the time can understand. What God bans, is based on the community and what it does. God allowed sacrifice amongst the Hebrews, because the Hebrews at the time thought in terms of sacrifice.

 

[CatholicGuyNY]

What God reveals to a community, is what at the community at the time can understand. What God bans, is based on the community and what it does. God allowed sacrifice amongst the Hebrews, because the Hebrews at the time thought in terms of sacrifice.

Great, thanks.

 

[SirThomasMore]

We are far afoot here.

The bottom line is that LDS leaders, based on their comments about blacks, showed they were NOT messengers from god, but just another cult who, ion the spare time, said horrible things about blacks

 

[aquabatix]

The “development of doctrine” is new ways to understand or impliment a doctrine that has been in place, most often for a long time. The priesthood ban change was NOT a development of that doctrine, it was a REVERSAL. Definately not the same. THAT is changing one’s mind.

 

[Ahimsa]

The “development of doctrine” is new ways to understand or impliment a doctrine that has been in place, most often for a long time. The priesthood ban change was NOT a development of that doctrine, it was a REVERSAL. Definately not the same. THAT is changing one’s mind.

Priesthood ban is not even a “doctrine”. It’s more analogous to the Catholic ban on married men becoming priests.

 

[aquabatix]

I can’t believe that after as far as this forum has come, you would try to pass of that statement. Read post #18 of this forum for a statement from the First Presidency of the LDS stating explicitly that it is a DOCTRINE and not policy, and subsequently ParkerD acknowledging it as such.

Secondly, priesthood celebacy is a practice, not a doctrine. That is why we have married priests who converted from other faiths and married priests in other Catholic Rites. It is only a practice and disciple in the Latin Rite. But please, keep trying with the Red Herrings and diversions, it’s fun.

 

[scipio337]

Priesthood ban is not even a “doctrine”. It’s more analogous to the Catholic ban on married men becoming priests.

Wrong. That is a discipline of the Latin Church. Other Roman Catholic Churches have different practices.

That’s a comparison of apples and rutabagas. The LDS priesthood ban (which also banned blacks from receiving any other, or higher, “saving ordinances”, including endowment, marriage, sealing to parents, 2nd anointment, and effectiveley banned blacks from "exaltation) was part of doctrine, based on the BOM, and was LDS-wide.

For an idea about “the environment” in which the priesthood ban was revesed, in 1978, I humbly submit:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Jones_University_v._United_States

The original case began in 1970, went to Court of Appeals in 1974, and the tax exempt status was revoked in 1976.

Like “plural marriage” and the Edmunds-Tucker Act, LDS leadership responded with a “revelation” when they saw the legal writing on the wall.

 

[SirThomasMore]

Priesthood ban is not even a “doctrine”. It’s more analogous to the Catholic ban on married men becoming priests.

No…it was doctrine.

And is it just me, or do you sound a lot like Whyme?

 

[Ahimsa]

I can’t believe that after as far as this forum has come, you would try to pass of that statement. Read post #18 of this forum for a statement from the First Presidency of the LDS stating explicitly that it is a DOCTRINE and not policy, and subsequently ParkerD acknowledging it as such.

The First Presidency is not the primary source for LDS “doctrine”, no matter if such “doctrine” is thus claimed. Show me something from the BoM, D & C, or other such texts, if you will.

 

[Ahimsa]

The LDS priesthood ban (which also banned blacks from receiving any other, or higher, “saving ordinances”, including endowment, marriage, sealing to parents, 2nd anointment, and effectiveley banned blacks from "exaltation) was part of doctrine, based on the BOM, and was LDS-wide.

Lots of ideas can be “based” on the BoM (as well as on the Bible), without those ideas being fully understood. Is the priesthood ban actually stated in the BoM?

 

[SirThomasMore]

Lots of ideas can be “based” on the BoM (as well as on the Bible), without those ideas being fully understood. Is the priesthood ban actually stated in the BoM?

irrelevant. Doctrine in the LDS Church does not just refer to stuff from the B of M. The doctrine came from lds “prophets”

 

[Ahimsa]

irrelevant. Doctrine in the LDS Church does not just refer to stuff from the B of M. The doctrine came from lds “prophets”

Then such “doctrine” is not at the level of LDS ideas on God, Jesus, salvation, etc. The reason Prophets exist is because revelation evolves, “doctrine” (or more precisely, in the case of a priesthood ban, “practice”/“discipline”) changes. Why be surprised that the LDS church evolves in this way, when its very structure allows/demands such evolution?

Apparently, Kimball spoke of the ban as a “policy”:

Although not refuting his belief that the policy came from the Lord, apostle Spencer W. Kimball acknowledged in 1963 that it could have been brought about through an error on man’s part. In 1963, he said, “The doctrine or policy has not varied in my memory. I know it could. I know the Lord could change his policy and release the ban and forgive the possible error which brought about the deprivation.”

McKay spoke similarly:

In 1954, Church President David O. McKay taught: "There is not now, and there never has been a doctrine in this church that the negroes are under a divine curse. There is no doctrine in the church of any kind pertaining to the negro. We believe that we have a scriptural precedent for withholding the priesthood from the negro. It is a practice, not a doctrine, and the practice someday will be changed. And that’s all there is to it.’

 

[SirThomasMore]

Then such “doctrine” is not at the level of LDS ideas on God, Jesus, salvation, etc. /QUOTE

 

[scipio337]

Then such “doctrine” is not at the level of LDS ideas on God, Jesus, salvation, etc. The reason Prophets exist is because revelation evolves, “doctrine” (or more precisely, in the case of a priesthood ban, “practice”/“discipline”) changes. Why be surprised that the LDS church evolves in this way, when its very structure allows/demands such evolution?

Apparently, Kimball spoke of the ban as a “policy”:

McKay spoke similarly:

Other Presidents (“prophets, seers, and revealators”) spoke of it not as their plan, but God’s.
LDS President John Taylor:

And after the flood we are told that the curse that had been pronounced upon Cain was continued through Ham’s wife, as he had married a wife of that seed. And why did it pass through the flood? Because it was necessary that the devil should have a representation upon the earth as well as God; and that man should be a free agent to act for himself, and that all men might have the opportunity of receiving or rejecting the truth, and be governed by it or not according to their wishes and abide the result; and that those who would be able to maintain correct principles under all circumstances, might be able to associate with the Gods in the eternal worlds." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 22 page 304).

LDS President Joseph Fielding Smith in 1963:

According to the doctrine of the church, the negro because of some condition of unfaithfulness in the spirit — or pre-existence, was not valiant and hence was not denied the mortal probation, but was denied the blessing of the priesthood.

emphasis mine

utlm.org/onlinebooks/curseofcain_appendix_c.htm

Fielding also said this:

I am aware of the fact that he “the negro”] can find membership and be given a place in the ministry of any of the so-called Christian churches. However, these churches are not governed by revelation, and are without divine authority…My statement is not contrary to the “original” writings of the church…In the Book of Abraham in the Pearl of Great Price is a statement to the affect that the seed of Canaan were denied the Priesthood…Now, if the Lord declared to the Prophet Joseph Smith that for some reason the Negro was not to receive the Priesthood, then that is the end of th question.

I am aware that the Catholic Church and most if not all of the Protestant churches receive the Negro into their ministry, but they have not had any revelation from the Lord to the Contrary

utlm.org/images/curseofcain/curseofcain_p115appendixc.gif

The practice is, was, and will always be, indefensible.