Official LDS doctrine: Priesthood Ban Divinely Appointed

[_Buffalo]

Droopy, do you feel that your late night rest stop activity gives you the moral authority to call strangers on the internet to repentance?

[_Jason Bourne]

Droopy

I do hope you feel good having the last word because it sure was a lot of words. Take care and be at peace. Not sure how much I will be interacting with you in the future. We shall see. It just seems so futile.

[_Droopy]

It just seems so futile.

We can, indeed, agree on this.

[_Jason Bourne]

It just seems so futile.

We can, indeed, agree on this.

Well there you go. We accomplished something today. And the earth did not tilt on its axis.

[_bcspace]

Doesn't seem to fit the criteria.

That doesn't seem fair. Lehi and Nephi had negro blood, but apparently held the priesthood. Why the double standard?

Who said they had "negro" blood?

[_Brackite]

So if a black person (negro) before 1978 had any white ancestors, they could have the priesthood, right?

Doesn't seem to fit the criteria.

Here is more from that essay, By Lester E. Bush:

The most important of the new developments was the incorporation of Joseph Smith and the Pearl of Great Price into the immediate background of the Negro policy. There were also several important decisions. [p.84] In 1902 the First Presidency received an inquiry concerning the priesthood restriction to a man who had one Negro great-grandparent. The basic question was what defined a “Negro” or “descendant of Cain.” There were precedents for a decision, and Joseph F. Smith recounted that Brigham Young applied the restriction to those with any “Negro blood in their veins.” Even so, Apostle John Henry Smith “remarked that it seemed to him that persons in whose veins the white blood predominated should not be barred from the temple.” It is not clear exactly what Apostle Smith had in mind, but if he meant cases in which there were more Caucasian grandparents, for instance, than Negro, he would have been much more liberal in his definitions than the vast majority of his contemporaries.164 It had long been the peculiar notion of American whites that a person whose appearance suggested any Negro ancestry was to be considered a Negro, notwithstanding the fact that perhaps fifteen of his sixteen great-great-grandparents were Caucasians. This was particularly so if it were known that there was a black ancestor. Theoretically, the presence of a “cursed lineage” should have been discernible to a Church patriarch. However, a previous Council had already been faced with a problem which arose when a patriarch assigned a man of “some Negro blood” to the lineage of Ephraim.165 Joseph F. Smith’s answer to the proposal by Apostle John Henry Smith was unusually revealing:

President Smith … referred to the doctrine taught by President Brigham Young which he (the speaker) said he believed in himself, to the effect that the children of Gentile parents, in whose veins may exist a single drop of the blood of Ephraim, might extract all the blood of Ephraim from his parents’ veins, and be actually a full-blooded Ephraimite. He also referred to the case of a man named Billingsby, whose ancestors away back married an Indian woman, and whose descendants in every branch of his family were pure whites, with one exception, and that exception was one pure blooded Indian in every branch of the family. The speaker said he mentioned this case because it was in line with President Young’s doctrine on the subject; and the same had been found to be the case by stockmen engaged in the improvement of breeds. Assuming, therefore, this doctrine to be sound, while the children of a man in whose veins may exist a single drop of negro blood, might be entirely white, yet one of his descendants might turn out to be a pronounced negro. And the question in President Smith’s mind was, when shall we get light enough to determine each case on its merits? He gave it as his opinion that in all cases where the blood of Cain showed itself, however [p.85] slight, the line should be drawn there; but where children of tainted people were found to be pure Ephraimites, they might be admitted to the temple. This was only an opinion, however; the subject would no doubt be considered later.166

By 1907 the First Presidency and Quorum had reconsidered, and ruled that “no one known to have in his veins negro blood, (it matters not how remote a degree) can either have the priesthood in any degree or the blessings of the temple of God; no matter how otherwise worthy he may be.”167 The doctrinal concept related by Joseph F. Smith is virtually identical to the now outdated theory of “genetic throwback.” Though once a widely accepted phenomena, modern geneticists doubt that such cases ever existed.168

Link: http://signaturebookslibrary.org/?p=445

Who said they had "negro" blood?

You have already basically stated here that the Priesthood ban was based on Abraham 1:21–27. Please Compare Abraham 1:21–27, to Genesis 39:1, 41:45-52, to 1 Nephi 5:14, to Alma 10:1-3. I have already quoted Genesis 39:1, 41:45-52, and Alma 10:1-3 for you here.

[_bcspace]

Who said they had "negro" blood?

You have already basically stated here that the Priesthood ban was based on Abraham 1:21–27. Please Compare Abraham 1:21–27, to Genesis 39:1, 41:45-52, to 1 Nephi 5:14, to Alma 10:1-3. I have already quoted Genesis 39:1, 41:45-52, and Alma 10:1-3 for you here.

I refer you to history. Are all Egyptians, or even every pharaoh, Negros?