Comments on: Poll: Origins of the Priesthood Ban http://www.juvenileinstructor.org/poll-origins-of-the-priesthood-ban/ Wed, 08 Sep 2010 22:48:52 -0400 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: Juvenile Instructor » Teaching About the Priesthood Ban and Official Declaration 2 in Sunday School http://www.juvenileinstructor.org/poll-origins-of-the-priesthood-ban/comment-page-2/#comment-54703 Juvenile Instructor » Teaching About the Priesthood Ban and Official Declaration 2 in Sunday School Tue, 08 Dec 2009 01:19:27 +0000 http://www.juvenileinstructor.org/poll-origins-of-the-priesthood-ban/#comment-54703 [...] Poll: The Origins of the Priesthood Ban [...] [...] Poll: The Origins of the Priesthood Ban [...]

]]> By: Joel http://www.juvenileinstructor.org/poll-origins-of-the-priesthood-ban/comment-page-2/#comment-16129 Joel Tue, 30 Sep 2008 12:03:12 +0000 http://www.juvenileinstructor.org/poll-origins-of-the-priesthood-ban/#comment-16129 Richard, This is a very interesting fundamentalist book of scripture. It would be interesting for you to provide us with some more information about how this book was put together, and something about the group of which you are a part. Richard,

This is a very interesting fundamentalist book of scripture. It would be interesting for you to provide us with some more information about how this book was put together, and something about the group of which you are a part.

]]> By: Richard Holmes http://www.juvenileinstructor.org/poll-origins-of-the-priesthood-ban/comment-page-2/#comment-16087 Richard Holmes Tue, 30 Sep 2008 02:02:56 +0000 http://www.juvenileinstructor.org/poll-origins-of-the-priesthood-ban/#comment-16087 There are very clear revelations in the Second Book of Commandments on this matter. http://www.2bc.info/pdf/2BC%20Cain.pdf There are very clear revelations in the Second Book of Commandments on this matter.

http://www.2bc.info/pdf/2BC%20Cain.pdf

]]> By: Juvenile Instructor » “I Was Told That It Was True, and It Was a Marvelous Day” http://www.juvenileinstructor.org/poll-origins-of-the-priesthood-ban/comment-page-2/#comment-3482 Juvenile Instructor » “I Was Told That It Was True, and It Was a Marvelous Day” Sun, 09 Mar 2008 06:27:08 +0000 http://www.juvenileinstructor.org/poll-origins-of-the-priesthood-ban/#comment-3482 [...] earlier posts on the priesthood ban or on this film, see here, here, here, and here. [...] [...] earlier posts on the priesthood ban or on this film, see here, here, here, and here. [...]

]]> By: Juvenile Instructor » Narrating the Priesthood Ban and Constructing Selves http://www.juvenileinstructor.org/poll-origins-of-the-priesthood-ban/comment-page-2/#comment-1191 Juvenile Instructor » Narrating the Priesthood Ban and Constructing Selves Wed, 19 Dec 2007 17:54:38 +0000 http://www.juvenileinstructor.org/poll-origins-of-the-priesthood-ban/#comment-1191 [...] & Seasons » Narrating the Priesthood Ban and Constructing Selves: Poll: Origins of theKent Larsen: Buenas noticias para losKent Larsen: Buenas noticias para losbfwebster: From the Center [...] [...] & Seasons » Narrating the Priesthood Ban and Constructing Selves: Poll: Origins of theKent Larsen: Buenas noticias para losKent Larsen: Buenas noticias para losbfwebster: From the Center [...]

]]> By: Times & Seasons » Narrating the Priesthood Ban and Constructing Selves http://www.juvenileinstructor.org/poll-origins-of-the-priesthood-ban/comment-page-2/#comment-1190 Times & Seasons » Narrating the Priesthood Ban and Constructing Selves Wed, 19 Dec 2007 17:51:13 +0000 http://www.juvenileinstructor.org/poll-origins-of-the-priesthood-ban/#comment-1190 [...] categories and narratives that whites use to explain the Priesthood ban? An admittedly unscientific poll was conducted a few weeks ago at the Juvenile Instructor, and the majority of ‘nacle voters [...] [...] categories and narratives that whites use to explain the Priesthood ban? An admittedly unscientific poll was conducted a few weeks ago at the Juvenile Instructor, and the majority of ‘nacle voters [...]

]]> By: Jared http://www.juvenileinstructor.org/poll-origins-of-the-priesthood-ban/comment-page-2/#comment-846 Jared Wed, 05 Dec 2007 02:18:38 +0000 http://www.juvenileinstructor.org/poll-origins-of-the-priesthood-ban/#comment-846 Kathryn, I don't remember having heard this argument brought up in scholarly circles. I encountered it flipping through the "Setting The Record Straight" book on Blacks and the priesthood, but it doesn't seem to be a very strong theory to me (the same goes for most of that book as well). From the Missouri period the Church had spoken out about not interfering with slaves or preaching the gospel to them without their master's permission. So, no black slaves would have recieved the priesthood anyway. In that case, why take the privilege away from non-slave blacks? The idea just doesn't hold water for me. As far as not giving the priesthood to blacks to protect them and the Church, or the idea that the Church wasn't ready, that's hard speculation at best. Newell Bringhurst presented on this in MHA this year. He talked about how the RLDS Church did not have such a ban. I'd have to refer back with Bringhurst, but I remember him talking about proselyting and blacks enjoying a greater standing and fellowship in the RLDS Church than in the LDS Church. Granted, times had changed by 1860 when JS III decided to take charge, but I'm suspect of the idea that the Church wasn't ready or that it would have been a huge problem. <blockquote>I cannot see that it would have been possible for the church to have moved forward IF the Lord had given the priesthood to the blacks. First of all, they did NOT even have their freedom…</blockquote> This doesn't take into account that not all blacks were slaves. As stated above, non-slaves wouldn't have been subject to the "awful consequences of this situtation", so why restrict them as well? Etc... Kathryn, I don’t remember having heard this argument brought up in scholarly circles. I encountered it flipping through the “Setting The Record Straight” book on Blacks and the priesthood, but it doesn’t seem to be a very strong theory to me (the same goes for most of that book as well). From the Missouri period the Church had spoken out about not interfering with slaves or preaching the gospel to them without their master’s permission. So, no black slaves would have recieved the priesthood anyway. In that case, why take the privilege away from non-slave blacks? The idea just doesn’t hold water for me.

As far as not giving the priesthood to blacks to protect them and the Church, or the idea that the Church wasn’t ready, that’s hard speculation at best. Newell Bringhurst presented on this in MHA this year. He talked about how the RLDS Church did not have such a ban. I’d have to refer back with Bringhurst, but I remember him talking about proselyting and blacks enjoying a greater standing and fellowship in the RLDS Church than in the LDS Church. Granted, times had changed by 1860 when JS III decided to take charge, but I’m suspect of the idea that the Church wasn’t ready or that it would have been a huge problem.

I cannot see that it would have been possible for the church to have moved forward IF the Lord had given the priesthood to the blacks. First of all, they did NOT even have their freedom…

This doesn’t take into account that not all blacks were slaves. As stated above, non-slaves wouldn’t have been subject to the “awful consequences of this situtation”, so why restrict them as well? Etc…

]]> By: Manuel http://www.juvenileinstructor.org/poll-origins-of-the-priesthood-ban/comment-page-2/#comment-844 Manuel Wed, 05 Dec 2007 01:37:20 +0000 http://www.juvenileinstructor.org/poll-origins-of-the-priesthood-ban/#comment-844 Yes Mike. It happened five years after Joseph Smith's death on January 16th, 1849. Wilford Woodruff asked Brigham Young if men who are not completely black but have a partial African heritage were also banned from the Priesthood as were men of full African heritage. The quote is Brigham Young's response to that question: "Any man having one drop of the seed of Cain in him cannot hold the Priesthood, and if no other Prophet ever spake it before I will say it now in the name of Jesus Christ." (Wilford Woodruff, Deseret News Press, 1909, p.351) So you bring a good point. It seems as if Brigham Young hadn't heard such teaching from any other prophet. Thanks for bringing this up. Yes Mike.

It happened five years after Joseph Smith’s death on January 16th, 1849. Wilford Woodruff asked Brigham Young if men who are not completely black but have a partial African heritage were also banned from the Priesthood as were men of full African heritage. The quote is Brigham Young’s response to that question:

“Any man having one drop of the seed of Cain in him cannot hold the Priesthood, and if no other Prophet ever spake it before I will say it now in the name of Jesus Christ.” (Wilford Woodruff, Deseret News Press, 1909, p.351)

So you bring a good point. It seems as if Brigham Young hadn’t heard such teaching from any other prophet.

Thanks for bringing this up.

]]> By: Mike http://www.juvenileinstructor.org/poll-origins-of-the-priesthood-ban/comment-page-2/#comment-842 Mike Wed, 05 Dec 2007 00:32:43 +0000 http://www.juvenileinstructor.org/poll-origins-of-the-priesthood-ban/#comment-842 I remember reading a quote the other day (from Woodruff's journal if I recall correctly) that attributed Bro. Brigham as saying something like this when he officially announced the restriction "if no other prophet has said blacks couldn't hold the priesthood, I am telling it to you now"--or something like that. Does anyone know the exact reference? My point is that when I read that it seemed like even Brigham realized no one had actually said this prior to himself and that it couldn't actually be attributed directly to Joseph. Any thoughts on this? Oh, and Craig (if you are still around), you're not living in PA are you? I remember reading a quote the other day (from Woodruff’s journal if I recall correctly) that attributed Bro. Brigham as saying something like this when he officially announced the restriction “if no other prophet has said blacks couldn’t hold the priesthood, I am telling it to you now”–or something like that. Does anyone know the exact reference? My point is that when I read that it seemed like even Brigham realized no one had actually said this prior to himself and that it couldn’t actually be attributed directly to Joseph. Any thoughts on this?

Oh, and Craig (if you are still around), you’re not living in PA are you?

]]> By: Kathryn http://www.juvenileinstructor.org/poll-origins-of-the-priesthood-ban/comment-page-2/#comment-841 Kathryn Wed, 05 Dec 2007 00:20:24 +0000 http://www.juvenileinstructor.org/poll-origins-of-the-priesthood-ban/#comment-841 After studying the scriptures very carefully, I find absolutely zero evidence to support any curse that has been suggested by earlier brethren and unfortunately taught as doctrine, as well as the premortal status of some of our brothers and sisters. It is doctrine that we are here because we ALL kept our first estate. It is also my understanding that Joseph did ordain at least one black man to the priesthood, maybe another, but apparently this was not the time yet... I am of the opinion that since this entire church could not even begin it's restoration until this free country was established, then it is very easy for me to accept that for the blacks to need to wait a bit longer, was simply necessary, to protect them and the church. I cannot see that it would have been possible for the church to have moved forward IF the Lord had given the priesthood to the blacks. First of all, they did NOT even have their freedom... Even today, a person cannot join the church as a new member if they are in prison or even on parole, as they cannot exercise their individual agency. Consider the dynamics of this situation IF the slave of a white man then joined the Mormon Church and was then given the Priesthood of God? Whoa! Now, could this be a possible reason that the Lord saw fit in His wisdom to protect His Kingdom and His Children from the awful consequences of this situation... until a quite enough time came about where the blacks could freely enjoy fully ALL of the blessings without fear of man, that are a part of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I prefer this reasoning over curses, which men bring upon themselves according to commandments and law. And not skin color, etc... particularly of an entire race of people throughout generations... really? After studying the scriptures very carefully, I find absolutely zero evidence to support any curse that has been suggested by earlier brethren and unfortunately taught as doctrine, as well as the premortal status of some of our brothers and sisters. It is doctrine that we are here because we ALL kept our first estate.

It is also my understanding that Joseph did ordain at least one black man to the priesthood, maybe another, but apparently this was not the time yet…

I am of the opinion that since this entire church could not even begin it’s restoration until this free country was established, then it is very easy for me to accept that for the blacks to need to wait a bit longer, was simply necessary, to protect them and the church.

I cannot see that it would have been possible for the church to have moved forward IF the Lord had given the priesthood to the blacks. First of all, they did NOT even have their freedom…

Even today, a person cannot join the church as a new member if they are in prison or even on parole, as they cannot exercise their individual agency.

Consider the dynamics of this situation IF the slave of a white man then joined the Mormon Church and was then given the Priesthood of God?

Whoa!

Now, could this be a possible reason that the Lord saw fit in His wisdom to protect His Kingdom and His Children from the awful consequences of this situation… until a quite enough time came about where the blacks could freely enjoy fully ALL of the blessings without fear of man, that are a part of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

I prefer this reasoning over curses, which men bring upon themselves according to commandments and law. And not skin color, etc… particularly of an entire race of people throughout generations… really?

]]>