Lifting of the priesthood ban for black males

[_Trevor]

Nowhere does any GA I know of claim that race was the basis for determining the lineage, and I did not make such a claim. If you had read my post a little more thoroughly you would have seen that I do not subscribe to the concept of race as a valid intellectual category. Human beings are all of one type or species, and are differentiated by a plethora of variations involving minor anatomical and physiological modifications. There are no human "races" distinct from one another in the manner that the doctrine of racism assumes.

The entire concept of the Priesthood ban was based on the idea of lineage. But then, lineage looms large throughout LDS doctrine regarding exactly everybody, so this is no surprise at all.

What Brigham Young and others taught was that black people were of a specific lineage which was denied the higher Priesthood. He didn't say that race determined the lineage but that this particular race was a part of that lineage.

But, again, as this was never official church doctrine, the point is moot. Yes, it was taught in authoritative tones-in the same authoritative tones some GAs have denounced evolutionary theory, but the Church does not function on the teachings of one, or even a body of GAs. That isn't how official, settled doctrine is understood to be received and accepted by the general membership.

Don't worry Coggins7, I wasn't representing what you wrote so much as commenting on it.

I guess the important thing for you is that you believe this. From where I sit it looks rather self-contradictory. I mean, how is it, do you suppose, that all black people are lumped into a single lineage that was denied the priesthood? So, all it took was for you to look black, or be known to have a black ancestor, and *pow* you were denied the priesthood. The whole concept is implicitly racist. I am surprised you don't see that.

It is funny how something that was never Church doctrine was still able to bar black people from the priesthood and the temple for over a century. If only people had taken the King Follett Discourse as seriously as the concept of "lineage" (coughs); the Church might have something more than a warmed over Protestant theology today!

[_Coggins7]

only an OJ juror or someone in the Church would believe what you wrote but not one person outside the church that has a decent education. I pointed out that the church and the state in Utah were the same for many years. That legislation passed by the congress to address the "Mormon" problem was ingnored by the Mormon church, that at the reed smoot hearings at the beginning of the twentieth century Mormon apostles were sent out of the country and went into hiding instead of testify which would show the Mormon church in the early 1900's was almost the same Church that it had been prior to the Edmonds-Tucker act. They still were running coporationd, they still were performing bogus marriages, which created a situation where adultery was openly practiced (the second marriage is illegal therefore it's not a legal marriage - just like an illegal contract is void from the beginning) The church has been on good behavior for about one hundred years, has repented and changed, but they were the prodigal son of the 1800's.

Proof positive that at the heart of many a red blooded anti-Mormon is a equally red blooded totalitarian despot ready to have the state impose his own bigotry on the hated out-group.

You should take a look at the actual provisions of the Edmunds-Tucker act. Among other things, it required voters, jurors, and public officials to deny polygamy (here again, in classic anti-Mormon Leninist tradition, the state, Spanish Inquisition style (and old Southern Jim Crow style) requires voters to jump through an arbitrary hoop ( in this case, deny a deeply held religious conviction) in order to to participate in a constitutional right. Wives were required to testify against there husbands in court against their crimes (the victims of which were precisely who?), and woman, who had had the franchise for sometime in Utah, had it pulled out from under them by the enlightened, progressive 19th century congress here defended by our illustrious interlocutor.

Didn't the debacle at Waco teach people like you anything?

[Guest]

only an OJ juror or someone in the Church would believe what you wrote but not one person outside the church that has a decent education. I pointed out that the church and the state in Utah were the same for many years. That legislation passed by the congress to address the "Mormon" problem was ingnored by the Mormon church, that at the reed smoot hearings at the beginning of the twentieth century Mormon apostles were sent out of the country and went into hiding instead of testify which would show the Mormon church in the early 1900's was almost the same Church that it had been prior to the Edmonds-Tucker act. They still were running coporationd, they still were performing bogus marriages, which created a situation where adultery was openly practiced (the second marriage is illegal therefore it's not a legal marriage - just like an illegal contract is void from the beginning) The church has been on good behavior for about one hundred years, has repented and changed, but they were the prodigal son of the 1800's.

Proof positive that at the heart of many a red blooded anti-Mormon is a equally red blooded totalitarian despot ready to have the state impose his own bigotry on the hated out-group.

You should take a look at the actual provisions of the Edmunds-Tucker act. Among other things, it required voters, jurors, and public officials to deny polygamy (here again, in classic anti-Mormon Leninist tradition, the state, Spanish Inquisition style (and old Southern Jim Crow style) requires voters to jump through an arbitrary hoop ( in this case, deny a deeply held religious conviction) in order to to participate in a constitutional right. Wives were required to testify against there husbands in court against their crimes (the victims of which were precisely who?), and woman, who had had the franchise for sometime in Utah, had it pulled out from under them by the enlightened, progressive 19th century congress here defended by our illustrious interlocutor.

Didn't the debacle at Waco teach people like you anything?

Do you agree that the Bishops, Stake Presidents, Apostles and President of Mormon Church had one wife and many mistresses. Do you agree that every marriage after 1862 was illegal and therefore void from the beginning and therefore they committed adultery - In which they were prosecuted. Over a thousand went to Federal Prison.

[_Coggins7]

Don't worry Coggins7, I wasn't representing what you wrote so much as commenting on it.

I guess the important thing for you is that you believe this. From where I sit it looks rather self-contradictory. I mean, how is it, do you suppose, that all black people are lumped into a single lineage that was denied the priesthood? So, all it took was for you to look black, or be known to have a black ancestor, and *pow* you were denied the priesthood. The whole concept is implicitly racist. I am surprised you don't see that.

It is funny how something that was never Church doctrine was still able to bar black people from the priesthood and the temple for over a century. If only people had taken the King Follett Discourse as seriously as the concept of "lineage" (coughs); the Church might have something more than a warmed over Protestant theology today!

Nice try trevor, fumes have gotten you this far, but not farther. The whole concept might be implicitly racist were it not for the fact you conveniently overlooked that many people as dark skinned as many black Africans in the South Pacific were being ordained to the Priesthood from the very outset and continued to be right up to the ending of the ban. If it was traditional white racism, than it would have extended out to traditional boundaries. But it was confined to blacks and blacks only because of the lineage restriction, not because they were black per se. Again, I'm not saying that culture did not influence early GAs, only that, from a theological perspective, the ban, whatever else it might have been at the periphery, was not at the core racial in nature.

[_Coggins7]

Do you agree that the Bishops, Stake Presidents, apostles and President of Mormon Church has one wife and many mistresses. Do you agree that every marriage after 1862 was illegal and therefore void from the beginning and therefore they committed adultery - In which they were prosecuted. Over a thousand went to Federal Prison.

No, I don't agree, because Utah didn't' become a state until 1896, and so the marriages performed there under the auspices of the LDS Church were valid in that territory, under LDS authority and LDS law, which was not officially under legal constitutional authority until nearly the turn of the century.

And no, they did not commit adultery. Adultery can only be committed with one to whom one has not been betrothed through authority of the Priesthood or, under legal civil authority. By definition, adultery is sexual relations with one to whom one is not married. If one is plurally married, one cannot, obviously, commit adultery with them.

[_karl61]

Do you agree that the Bishops, Stake Presidents, apostles and President of Mormon Church has one wife and many mistresses. Do you agree that every marriage after 1862 was illegal and therefore void from the beginning and therefore they committed adultery - In which they were prosecuted. Over a thousand went to Federal Prison.

No, I don't agree, because Utah didn't' become a state until 1896, and so the marriages performed there under the auspices of the LDS Church were valid in that territory, under LDS authority and LDS law, which was not officially under legal constitutional authority until nearly the turn of the century.

And no, they did not commit adultery. Adultery can only be committed with one to whom one has not been betrothed through authority of the Priesthood or, under legal civil authority. By definition, adultery is sexual relations with one to whom one is not married. If one is plurally married, one cannot, obviously, commit adultery with them.

I think the Poland act, 1862. signed by President Lincoln, (our greatest president) outlawed bigamy in territories. The second wife was an illegal wife, plural marriages or celestial marriages (another name for I want variety) were creations of the Mormon priesthood mind. Evolution and Biology will tell you more about the mind of the Mormon males in the 1800's than any other source. Off to my gym class and be back in a few.

[_Coggins7]

not all educated folks are thinkers, some are simply 'rememberers'...

And, as you have proven again, not all folks are particularly educated...

[_karl61]

Do you agree that the Bishops, Stake Presidents, apostles and President of Mormon Church has one wife and many mistresses. Do you agree that every marriage after 1862 was illegal and therefore void from the beginning and therefore they committed adultery - In which they were prosecuted. Over a thousand went to Federal Prison.

No, I don't agree, because Utah didn't' become a state until 1896, and so the marriages performed there under the auspices of the LDS Church were valid in that territory, under LDS authority and LDS law, which was not officially under legal constitutional authority until nearly the turn of the century.

And no, they did not commit adultery. Adultery can only be committed with one to whom one has not been betrothed through authority of the Priesthood or, under legal civil authority. By definition, adultery is sexual relations with one to whom one is not married. If one is plurally married, one cannot, obviously, commit adultery with them.

I think the Poland act, 1862. signed by President Lincoln, (our greatest president) outlawed bigamy in territories. The second wife was an illegal wife, plural marriages or celestial marriages (another name for I want variety) were creations of the Mormon priesthood mind. Evolution and Biology will tell you more about the mind of the Mormon males in the 1800's than any other source. Off to my gym class and be back in a few.

acutally it was the morrill act:

here is the evil man who thought marriage should be one man and one woman, who would ever think something like that - may be the Apostle Paul.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_Smith_Morrill

[_karl61]

now back to the thread topic.

[_Phaedrus Ut]

Hi Phaedrus...
You bring up a great point.

I have asked before,(never received an answer), why black women were not allowed to get their endowments during the ban for black men.

I mean this seriously makes NO sense whatsoever... actually none of it ever did but still.. ;-)

So, black men can't have the priesthood but what has that got to do with a woman getting her endowment?

Black women who couldn't have the priesthood anyway due to their body parts, were not allowed to marry a white man because they were not allowed to go through the temple due to their skin color.
~dancer~

It wasn't just the endowment it was all temple work. I bring this up when people go off on some priesthood lineage explanation about the priesthood ban. From the treatment of both black men and women it's clear that it was a racial policy not some contrived biblical pedigree.

Adding to the evidence is the specific language of the 1978 "revelation". All worthy males Where is the revelation for the ban on black women ending?

Phaedrus