I was sort of baffled by the black guy that quoted John Taylor

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Maybe God really did intend to withhold the priesthood from blacks until 1978, a couple of very early exceptions in the 1830s/1840s notwithstanding. God didn't want the Gospel preached unto the Gentiles until after the death of Christ...

Did he also want his mouthpiece(s) to make embarrassing racist statements?

The explanation that goes "not every tribe in the house of Israel held the priesthood" should be captured, condemned, and executed.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Maybe God really did intend to withhold the priesthood from blacks until 1978, a couple of very early exceptions in the 1830s/1840s notwithstanding. God didn't want the Gospel preached unto the Gentiles until after the death of Christ...

I think it's very reasonable to say both sides of this are right. Blacks didn't get the priesthood because the saints (and more accurately America in general) was racist. And God didn't intend for the church to give the priesthood to blacks because racial tensions were so high that it would have caused too many problems. So you could both be right. I'm not saying I believe that, but it's possible.

[MikeWaters]

Let's face it. 1978 is date so contemporaneous as to be severely embarrassing.

I remember as a very young man, that I figured out that blacks had been denied full membership during my lifetime. I was shocked.

The church had the weight of history and precedence. That is why it took so long. It meant that a lot of respected people were wrong, if they were to change the policy.

If we are going to argue that it didn't change because the church members were too racist, then I think we are arguing that we are one of the most racist institutions in the country.

And I don't think that is true, at the member level. I can't speak to the church leadership pre-1978.

[SteelBlue]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Maybe God really did intend to withhold the priesthood from blacks until 1978, a couple of very early exceptions in the 1830s/1840s notwithstanding. God didn't want the Gospel preached unto the Gentiles until after the death of Christ...

When you look at it from a numbers point of view, I don't think this makes sense. The policy was set in the time of BY and excluded almost nobody because the message wasn't being taken to black America. It wasn't until 1960 or so that we really had black men wanting to join the church and get the priesthood. So basically we're looking at a time period of approximately 1960-1978 that blacks wanted but could not have the priesthood. I find it difficult to believe that God would exclude them from the priesthood for such a brief and random time. I find it far more reasonable to believe that it was an errant policy, corrected by revelation when a prophet finally, really asked.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by fusnik11

Seems there is little congruency between how the church was, and how I know Jesus to be. Which begs the question, in my mind at least, are the heavens and our church leadership really, at times, that far apart?

And I derive from this statement the question that no one seems to want to handle: Did God intend for it to happen this way? Or if you want to be more provacative, "Is God a racist?"

People wish to rag on the prophets of old for being crusty old racists; meanwhile God is sitting quietly off in the heavens, permitting millions of black folks to live and die unawares, twidding his thumbs waiting for his white leadership to sort out their personal racism. Somewhere along the way he taps a pre-mortal Spencer Kimball and says, "I'm sending you down there to sort all this out."

That doesn't entirely jibe with me.

We are unwilling to deal with the question Indy asks--that God may have done it that way on purpose--because then we have to try and answer the question why. Fusnik doesn't like that question because it doesn't matchup with "how I know Jesus to be."

Well, I'll tell ya ... the Jesus of the New and the Jesus of the Old didn't matchup too well either. In fact, one could read the Old Testament and make a pretty good argument that God was indeed a hopeless racist, and I'm not talking about white vs. black.

This is why Hinckley's approach to this topic is so wonderful. He makes it perfectly clear where the church, himself, and God stand on the issue today, and in reference to the past he says, "That's behind us."

Nothing good can come of either (1) being critical of past leadership to the point of questioning their prophetic call, or (2) imputing human frailties to a God who has a plan broader and greater than any of us could ever fathom.

As Neal Maxwell once said, "We can't do the math because we don't have all the equations."

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by Tex

And I derive from this statement the question that no one seems to want to handle: Did God intend for it to happen this way? Or if you want to be more provacative, "Is God a racist?"

People wish to rag on the prophets of old for being crusty old racists; meanwhile God is sitting quietly off in the heavens, permitting millions of black folks to live and die unawares, twidding his thumbs waiting for his white leadership to sort out their personal racism. Somewhere along the way he taps a pre-mortal Spencer Kimball and says, "I'm sending you down there to sort all this out."

That doesn't entirely jibe with me.

We are unwilling to deal with the question Indy asks--that God may have done it that way on purpose--because then we have to try and answer the question why. Fusnik doesn't like that question because it doesn't matchup with "how I know Jesus to be."

Well, I'll tell ya ... the Jesus of the New and the Jesus of the Old didn't matchup too well either. In fact, one could read the Old Testament and make a pretty good argument that God was indeed a hopeless racist, and I'm not talking about white vs. black.

This is why Hinckley's approach to this topic is so wonderful. He makes it perfectly clear where the church, himself, and God stand on the issue today, and in reference to the past he says, "That's behind us."

Nothing good can come of either (1) being critical of past leadership to the point of questioning their prophetic call, or (2) imputing human frailties to a God who has a plan broader and greater than any of us could ever fathom.

As Neal Maxwell once said, "We can't do the math because we don't have all the equations."

Disgusting. Your God may be a racist but mine isn't.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by jay santos

Disgusting. Your God may be a racist but mine isn't.

Peter and the other disciples only preach the Gospel to the Jews (racism?). God gives Peter a dream telling him that the Gospel should go unto the Gentiles. Problem solved.

Are you (and I'm speaking collectively, not just to Jay) saying that God wanted the Gospel and priesthood blessings to go to blacks, but was frustrated by the collective racism of 11 successive presidents of the church?

Certainly the membership of the church during this dispensation could be NO MORE racist against blacks than Jews were 2,000 years ago against Gentiles.

I just think there's too many logical incongruities that can't be just swept under the "well, the prophets, apostles and members were too racist" rug.

[myboynoah]

Here is a picture of our Primary just after last November’s Sacrament Meeting Primary Presentation. Not hard to find my children.



Watching the Blacks and the Priesthood portion of the PBS program was very moving and emotional for me, in large part due to my experience here in this ward. The Church did these people a great disservice (that verbiage doesn't even begin to capture what I'm trying to say, but it is the best I can do right now). Racist leaders, racist members, bureaucratic inertia, God’s will. My view is that one of these things doesn’t belong as an explanation.

The Church can still be “true” despite the missteps, even bigotry, of a large portion of its members. I was a missionary in Japan in 1978 and barely understood the significance of the revelation. I think I understand a lot better now.

I long for the day when The Church will address this matter in a forthright manner. That would be a true turning point in terms of our collective maturity.

IMO, of course.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by jay santos

Disgusting. Your God may be a racist but mine isn't.

I didn't say "my" God was racist. I only raised the question in an effort to illustrate that, as Indy said, it's a lot more complicated than just laying it at the feet of prophets past.

It is amusing, though, to see the visceral reaction to the suggestion... almost as though you own God, and if he doesn't react the way you want him to, then you disown him.

myboynoah, that is an awesome picture. How grateful I am that this uncomfortable chapter in the church's history was closed nearly thirty years ago!

[Archaea]

Noah's last post is heart warming.

I'll admit, having come from a fairly vanilla background the consequences of 19th century racism in the Church was something I didn't fully appreciate, until one met members who wanted to belong.

Defending BY's and Taylor's racism is difficult, especially in light of Joseph Smith's open mindedness. More disturbing was the racism of Harold B. Lee, but thank goodness for SWK. He was my first prophet and I always admired the image he portrayed.

The Church doesn't issue apologies for its mistakes for fear that people might use this as an example that they aren't always inspired. Well, they aren't and distinguishing when they are and when they aren't would be difficult. Plus, leadership believes it would undermine their authority. If done in a tasteful way, I actually believe it would strengthen it, but my opinion will never matter.

Good post Noah.

One of my first hometeachers in Vegas occurred in 1985, and a longstanding African American member who faithfully visited even summer clerks. While our ward is not that diverse, it is more diverse than it might elsewhere. The story of Ghanaian saints always sends chills down my back.