Blacks and the priesthood: the church never actually ...

[_Drifting]

Has anyone ever noticed that, at least according to my knowledge, the Mormon church has never actually retracted the reasoning behind why blacks weren't allowed to have the priesthood? In other words, even though the 1978 revelation rescinded the ban on giving the priesthood to blacks, it never actually retracted or debunked the reasoning (as explained by the statements of several general authorities) behind the ban in the first place: that blacks were "fence sitters" in heaven.

To wit, does the Mormon church still support (or at least not reject) the statements of its previous general authorities that blacks were fence sitters in heaven? If not, what statements by general authorities can be cited showing this retraction of the reasoning behind the initial priesthood ban?

The Church still recommends to its youth, via a Priesthood lesson on choosing a marriage partner, that they do not marry someone of a different race. (lesson 31 of Aaronic Priesthood Manual 3).

[_keithb]

The Church still recommends to its youth, via a Priesthood lesson on choosing a marriage partner, that they do not marry someone of a different race. (lesson 31 of Aaronic Priesthood Manual 3).

This is pretty much the central question of the OP. I am just curious whether blacks == less valient in Jesus v. Satan war has been relegated to the same status as polygamy (Mormons believe it but don't practice it) or whether is is something that the church has actually retracted. To my mind, the church has never retracted this idea, but I wanted to hear other opinions on whether or not they have.

[_Drifting]

The Church still recommends to its youth, via a Priesthood lesson on choosing a marriage partner, that they do not marry someone of a different race. (lesson 31 of Aaronic Priesthood Manual 3).

This is pretty much the central question of the OP. I am just curious whether blacks == less valient in Jesus v. Satan war has been relegated to the same status as polygamy (Mormons believe it but don't practice it) or whether is is something that the church has actually retracted. To my mind, the church has never retracted this idea, but I wanted to hear other opinions on whether or not they have.

The Church reversed the Priesthood ban, but not the reasons for it.
The Church claims to not know why it was instigated in the first place, although Brigham seems to have been very clear about it.

[_Buffalo]

But back in the 70's, his message about sexual purity was in a way right on target

If only you had listened. :(

[_Fence Sitter]

What color do faithful members believe the skin of a faithful black person will be when he/she is resurrected?

[_Buffalo]

What color do faithful members believe the skin of a faithful black person will be when he/she is resurrected?

I always heard they'd be white in the resurrection. That was in the 80s. By the time I was a teenager it seems we stopped talking about black people in the church, or at least talked about them much less.

[_cinepro]

You mean the guy who was working without light or knowledge? I think that would be Bruce R. McConkie. I believe he said those words as well.

I think that was who it was. Now we need a google ninja to find the talk.[/quote]


Apologists and regular members often misrepresent Elder McConkie's statement:

There are statements in our literature by the early brethren which we have interpreted to mean that the Negroes would not receive the priesthood in mortality. I have said the same things, and people write me letters and say, "You said such and such, and how is it now that we do such and such?" And all I can say to that is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.... We get our truth and our light line upon line and precept upon precept. We have now had added a new flood of intelligence and light on this particular subject, and it erases all the darkness and all the views and all the thoughts of the past. They don’t matter any more.... It doesn’t make a particle of difference what anybody ever said about the Negro matter before the first day of June of this year.

Bruce R. McConkie, 1978 (All Are Alike Unto God, A SYMPOSIUM ON THE Book of Mormon, The Second Annual Church Educational System Religious Educator's Symposium, August 17–19, 1978)

(Emphasis added)

McConkie only tells us to forget the things which were said that contradict OD2. As far as I can tell, the only thing that was taught that contradicts OD2 was that blacks would never have the priesthood in this life, or they would have it last, or only during the millennium. Everything else that was taught (the how and why) still applies.

[_Lizard Jew]

Has anyone ever noticed that, at least according to my knowledge, the Mormon church has never actually retracted the reasoning behind why blacks weren't allowed to have the priesthood? In other words, even though the 1978 revelation rescinded the ban on giving the priesthood to blacks, it never actually retracted or debunked the reasoning (as explained by the statements of several general authorities) behind the ban in the first place: that blacks were "fence sitters" in heaven.

To wit, does the Mormon church still support (or at least not reject) the statements of its previous general authorities that blacks were fence sitters in heaven? If not, what statements by general authorities can be cited showing this retraction of the reasoning behind the initial priesthood ban?

why would the church retract what it never said? CFR on any of this fence sitting stuff. not only is this not doctrinal, its not even taught. the church has nothing to apologize for and has long led the way in civil rights. so, a friendly CFR

[_Morley]

why would the church retract what it never said? CFR on any of this fence sitting stuff. not only is this not doctrinal, its not even taught. the church has nothing to apologize for and has long led the way in civil rights. so, a friendly CFR

Emphasis mine.

Please provide some examples of this, Lizard.

Welcome to the board.

[_Buffalo]

why would the church retract what it never said? CFR on any of this fence sitting stuff. not only is this not doctrinal, its not even taught. the church has nothing to apologize for and has long led the way in civil rights. so, a friendly CFR