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

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Read thread. You have defended Brigham Young positiing all sorts of support, never once positing BY was wrong in his decision.

My "support" all along has been to claim that it wasn't the collective racism of 11 consecutive prophets that kept blacks from receiving the priesthood. It doesn't matter what various prophets may or may not have said. Eleven consecutive prophets would not prevent God from extending priesthood blessings to all worthy males, if that's what God really wanted to do.

[All-American]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

My "support" all along has been to claim that it wasn't the collective racism of 11 consecutive prophets that kept blacks from receiving the priesthood. It doesn't matter what various prophets may or may not have said. Eleven consecutive prophets would not prevent God from extending priesthood blessings to all worthy males.

And again, I think the quote I gave earlier shows that David O. McKay would have changed it, had he felt that he had the permission to do so.

[fusnik11]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

My "support" all along has been to claim that it wasn't the collective racism of 11 consecutive prophets that kept blacks from receiving the priesthood. It doesn't matter what various prophets may or may not have said. Eleven consecutive prophets would not prevent God from extending priesthood blessings to all worthy males, if that's what God really wanted to do.

You and Tex both leave the impression that God allowed the prevailing thought to exist, so what do you make of the initial thought regarding blacks and the priesthood?

Did Jesus flip the scrip after Joseph was killed? Joseph allowed it and appears he embraced the thought of blacks in the infant church, (new Joseph movie at temple square makes a point of demonstrating this) so did Jesus within a span of 5 years rescind his previous offer of salvation to all
men?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by fusnik11

You and Tex both leave the impression that God allowed the prevailing thought to exist, so what do you make of the initial thought regarding blacks and the priesthood?

Did Jesus flip the scrip after Joseph was killed? Joseph allowed it and appears he embraced the thought of blacks in the infant church, (new Joseph movie at temple square makes a point of demonstrating this) so did Jesus within a span of 5 years rescind his previous offer of salvation to all
men?

You are persistent, fusnik, if not wholly attentive to what we've been saying. Are there very many other ways you have to formulate the same question? Because I only have one way to answer it.

[SteelBlue]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

My "support" all along has been to claim that it wasn't the collective racism of 11 consecutive prophets that kept blacks from receiving the priesthood. It doesn't matter what various prophets may or may not have said. Eleven consecutive prophets would not prevent God from extending priesthood blessings to all worthy males, if that's what God really wanted to do. (emphasis added)

Of course God can do whatever He wants to do. Nobody has argued otherwise. But God often allows his church to figure things out in their own time. Our history is full of instances where God could have intervened but didn't. Why is it so difficult to imagine that against the backdrop of an America that was quite racist a policy mistake occurred that has been repaired. I mean, if the issue is so cut and dried why was there such vigorous debate among the apostles?

[SteelBlue]

Originally Posted by Tex

The only thing I've really advocated here is not to factor God out of the discussion. We've all been talking like Brigham Young, etc. were a bunch of nasty, evil racists, and the God of Heaven just threw his hands up and said, "Can't do much with these bozos ... we'll just have to wait for Spencer!"

What a B.S. characterization of this thread. Please don't put the words nasty, evil and bozos in our mouths. I don't think anyone here has come close to saying those things. I respect all of our prophets very much, even if I find some of their views on race disappointing. This country has a racist history and these men were men and products of their time. To deny there was racism in our church is to make an argument that really can't be defended. To say that racism just might have had something to do with the policy on blacks and the priesthood is at the very least logical. And for heaven's sake, we all know that God's hands weren't tied and that He could have intervened at any time. Some of us just believe that He lets his church work some things out for itself.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by All-American

Even as a caricature, that's not a fair representation of the discussion here.

Originally Posted by SteelBlue

What a B.S. characterization of this thread. Please don't put the words nasty, evil and bozos in our mouths. I don't think anyone here has come close to saying those things.

It's called hyperbole. It's deliberate exaggeration for dramatic effect in order to make a point. And maybe some good-natured ribbing, too.

If you read very carefully, you might be able to figure out my point without me having to actually tell you!