There are so many truths coming out about church history that it becomes, to me, very obvious to the question of “was it revelation or was it societal?” That it is likely both. I think that, not only are we still in the “restoration of all things” stage, but also in the “more to come” stage as well, speaking of new things. It is going to be very fascinating to watch how this unfolds. And, to those who see President Nelson as a fallen prophet in these times, I’d ask you to humbly try to see things differently. He and those that come after are going to be the only North Star available outside of our relationship to the Spirit.
Agreed. Also, Let's not forget in the last days even the very elect will be deceived. We need to be careful when watching "informative" videos that we don't allowed them to change our course and cause us to wander in the wrong direction. I agree with you, Nelson isn't a fallen prophet. He's still human, not God himself and I think that's why so many people are disappointed in him. Expectations are that he's to be flawless and being human that's not possible. Christ was the only perfect human to walk this earth so we need to remember that Nelson will make mistakes. We are definitely coming to a time when more is being revealed but it won't be revealed on UA-cam by some random person, it'll be by church leaders only as to make sure we're being taught the spirit and not by world standards
As a devoted, third generation member of the church, who also happens to be a racial minority, I really appreciate this video. For me a couple of things: 1. I don't believe this was an actual revelation but rather Brigham Young's personal racist attitude towards Blacks. That's how I feel. 2. That said, questioning the directives of the prophet is treading on very sacred ground for us, because we believe that when he speaks as a Prophet, he is speaking for the Lord himself, so that's why it's so hard for us to really have an honest discussion because it's difficult for us to separate Brigham Young's calling as a prophet, from his personal bias having a role in an official church policy-but we should be okay with that, because it doesn't make the church 'less true'-on the contrary this is confirmation that despite the failings of man, the church remains true, the organization itself is still perfect, and the work is still directed by the Lord. 3rd, there are no words to adequately explain to the satisfaction of Blacks why or how this occurred, so we shouldn't even try, it was terrible, it was wrong, it threw generations of families away from a covenant path that they could have been on(and now Im crying), and that is incredibly sad, but like I said, words are not enough in this case, which is why 4th, the Atonement must be applied to really allow for true healing to occur in the hearts of people hurt, the Lord himself is the only person who can and has taken upon himself the pain from his, and if people come to realize that, they can rest this burden at his feet, they can find peace and look to the future, not the past. I have experienced racism, blatantly in fact, within the church, but my testimony is not based on those folks, but rather my relationship with and faith in the Lord, and the confirmation I have received countless times, that this is HIS church, period, so I leave the hurt feelings with him, and understand that all things will happen in his time, including understanding. LASTLY and I think most importantly(well, after the atonement of course), the Church in 2022 is not the same as the church in 1978 and prior-we definitely a seat at the table, we are given opportunities to serve in every capacity, millions of lives are blessed,and that is regardless of race, and I applaud the current dialogue that we are seeing each and every day---talking is good, moving on and moving forward together is even better. Sorry for the novel.
It’s my understanding that David O. McKay was interested in giving the priesthood to blacks and he stated that when he inquired of the Lord, the answer he got was “not yet”
President McKay told Church architect Richard Jackson, "I’ve inquired of the Lord repeatedly. The last time I did it was late last night. I was told, with no discussion, not to bring the subject up with the Lord again; that the time will come, but it will not be my time, and to leave the subject alone."
BYU studies has a long article I believe called Spencer W Kimball and the Revelation on the priesthood. It doesn't mention David O McKay getting that answer specifically, but it has a ton of info about how different apostles and especially president Kimball approached the situation and how it evolved up to the 1978 revelation.
It's a tough call. There are no first hand accounts of this, and my understanding is that the accounts we do have are all recollections after the 1978 revelation. It's difficult to know how accurate those recollections are.
@@nathanphair2054 I agree. But I wonder if it caused some of the same problems that we experience today as Heavenly Father decided to give it to some and not others.
@@drewhanna9057 This isn't an analogous comparison. There is a clear revelation that the Levites were to have stewardship over priesthood and temple duties. There is no clear revelation to support the institution of the priesthood and temple ban in modern times, particularly when the priesthood had already been extended to black men.
@@nathanphair2054 he didn't even say a reason "why" they didn't have priesthood, he just asked why people were feeling a certain way because of it. Good Grief.
I agree that there were pressing issues that came before the brethren in 1849 that we don't have any knowledge of. Why the ban occurred was not written. The brethren wrestled with this for many years. Through my studies I haven't been able to find anything written as to why. However, I believe the brethren were led as Spencer W. Kimbal had written by the Lord concerning the ban. The brethren struggled with this for years. I know that President Lee struggled with the ban and felt that revelation was needed to change it. I have read Bruce R. McConkie's description of the revelation received by the brethren. It is awesome.
It reminds me of what Church architect Richard Jackson said. Regarding the desire to lift the ban, President McKay told him, "I’ve inquired of the Lord repeatedly. The last time I did it was late last night. I was told, with no discussion, not to bring the subject up with the Lord again; that the time will come, but it will not be my time, and to leave the subject alone."
It is difficult to understand in 2021 what the Country was like in 1849 …think the vax/ mask debate times 100 …the “black “ issue was a bomb waiting to explode . The Very fledgling Church had their hands full with polygamy and the government , it could NOT take on the slavery issue . Imagine the questions and problems that would come with full participation of the black population of the Church …could missionaries teach slaves “owned “ by others ? “ Could Utah become a sanctuary for run away slaves if they joined the Church ? “. The situations were endless and would have added greatly to conflicts with the government. The ban was for Everyone’s protection in 1849 . The ensuing years , especially early half of 1900’s were perhaps the unreadiness of the members to fully accept black members ? The Lord had His time table with His understanding which We don’t have . It is worth noting that the Church WAS within cultural norms as it became possible for Full participation . It was exceeding rare ( not done ) for a Black man to have authority over a white congregation prior to 1970’s in ANY Religion …in other words the culture was not prepared until after civil rights movements .
@@nathanphair2054 where and how can it be found? It seems that many prophets following Brigham Young knew the ban needed revelation to lift but not why it was given. The curse of Ham is rejected as the reason by the prophet and the rest of the apostles. President McKay was told by the Lord not yet and not in his time. I would like to read the revelation.
The Moabites were not allowed in the Jerusalem temple court. Only the Levites had the priesthood in the Old Testament. Jesus instructed his 12 apostles only to preach to the Jews initially. Was all this examples of racism? Or could it be there is a time and season for everything. And God's ways are not man's ways.
While we may not receive answers in mortality regarding why the ban was initially instituted there are some important lessons that we can learn about revelation, especially the struggle of receiving revelation where deeply held belief systems are not already aligned with the Lord's will regarding such matters. Joseph Smith was spared some of these struggles since he was untainted by such matters, having developed revelatory patterns at such a young age. Those that followed him were raised without the light of the restored gospel until they were of a mature age. No doubt, the leaders that followed had to reverse or correct many of the belief systems that were not consistent with the Restored Gospel. As the Church matured over the years its later leaders were raised in that light from their youth. For me, this simply is a manifestation of how difficult revelation is to receive (e.g., Oliver Cowdery's attempts to translate the Book of Mormon). With that being said, it is still not clear, as mentioned in the podcast, how much of the ban was revelation and how much was error.
Hello!! I’ve been watching for several weeks now, and have enjoyed it immensely. Can you please explain what DBR is? I’ve heard you mention it several times, and tried to go back through episodes that I missed because I hadn’t discovered your videos yet, but I can’t find anything that explains what DBR stands for. Thank you so much!
Yes, there was revelation,or inspiration involved, but the bottom line the ban should never have happened in the first place. President Kimball, from what I have read saw the ban as a mistake. It's similar to President Nelson saying it was a mistake for the church to allow the nickname Mormon Church to hold such influence for so many years (150+). It never was the Mormon Church. That nickname did its damage. It was and is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, not the Mormon Church. I'm a convert to the church back in 1970 and it was common for non-members to have the belief that the Mormon Church wasn't really a Christian church, as we were known as Mormons first, Christians second. The Church is the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ, with all priesthood keys restored. I have no doubts. Joseph Smith is the Prophet of the Restoration. The Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants came from Jesus Christ through his prophets. However, God appoints fallible, not infallible human beings to run his earthly organization. I don't know why (nor does it appear anyone else knows for sure either-The mark of Cain?) it took so long to correct the blacks and the priesthood issue and set straight the incorrect emphasis on the name "Mormon" Church rather than emphasizing the Church of Jesus Christ as its rightful appellation. The key to spiritual safety in the Church is to obtain and maintain a testimony that the Church and the Book of Mormon are true through the Holy Ghost and the promise that the Church has had all the priesthood keys from Christ's ancient church restored through the Prophet Joseph Smith. Those same keys continue with the Prophet President Nelson and will continue until Jesus Christ returns a 2nd time. That is a promise regardless of what mistakes are made or leadership hiccups that take place. The key is to "stay in the boat" and not jump ship because of mistakes made by fallible leaders who are sincerely trying to follow God's commands.
D&C 46. vrs 4 Ye are also commanded not to cast anyone who belongeth to the church out of your Sacrament meetings;...... Yet.. in Melbourne Australia, you are unless you are vaccinated! No church activities..nothing!
Actually. ..I made the bishop aware that even the Savior didn't cast out lepers. .and the unvaxed were treated as lepers..even by members! He spoke to the Stake President and now we can have a sacrament meeting for the unvaxed in our ward.
What I find interesting is that we know the signs of the times and yet the silence of what is going on in the world is deafening . Millions of people around the world are standing up to the tyranny of the governments yet so many christians are silent .. why?
Can't speak to 1849, however, I know what I was taught from my birth in 1950 to 1978. It was clearly taught from the pulpit, Sunday School, Seminary, that it was because skin color was the curse of Cain.
Yes, I believe that is what the First Presidency was referring to when it condemned "a contradictory and confusing legacy of racist, religious folklore."
My daughter said something g interesting about the priesthood ban. She wonders if it was withheld as some kind of protection to them. Maybe accountability wise or physical or persecution protection during slavery somehow. Just a thought.
@@CwicShow perhaps you can work with some students to start an official club. I did that at Oregon State as a student. Started an official club with on campus and off campus "advisors". Then you can schedule seminars, group meetings etc on campus. Advertise them and recruit kids to join. The "CWIC Heterodox Student Club". " Come join us and learn to think through the difficult issues...." When I say "hetordox" I mean against the current ubiquitous critical social justice ideology in church members thinking and governmental policy.
@@mca4093 I think this idea has a lot of merit. If Cwic Hetordox started an online group NOW I’d join. MCA I’m in the PNW as well is your campus group still active?
Greg, I wonder, in the spirit of this comment, if you’d do a show on how the Gospel has changed your perspectives in life? After all, information is only as good as the change it makes in us, right? I know I’ve changed in many ways because of the things I’ve learned here and from other notable people in my life experience.
Doctrine and Covenants 98 4 And now, verily I say unto you concerning the laws of the land, it is my will that my people should observe to do all things whatsoever I command them. (Gods law is supreme over any earthly government) 5 And that law of the land which is constitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before me.(only laws supporting that principle of freedom are justifiable before God) 6 Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land;(are we justified in supporting unconditional/oppressive laws??) 7 And as pertaining to law of man, whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil. 8 I, the Lord God, make you free, therefore ye are free indeed; and the law also maketh you free. The Twelfth Article of Faith should be understood in context with revealed scripture.
D&C Section 107:40 is extremely clear who could hold the priesthood. 85th section speaks of the lawful heirs according to the flesh, who is unlawful? Can’t have lawful without unlawful !
Yet if, an erroneous teaching & deemed "racist religious folklore" then why was it also taught by Joseph Fielding Smith in his book "The Way to Perfection" admittedly this could well be the opinions of the man rather than the Prophet (JFS) but it was taught in a book by him.
When I said "books" in the episode, I was referring to him and a few others. The books are not doctrine. They are opinions. Great stuff in those books, but not all doctrine. It is worthy of note that most of the books that the prophets and apostles wrote in the 20th century were not written after they were called as the President of the Church, and for some, such as Mormon Doctrine, were not even written when serving as an apostle.
I met as a young child ( and was kissed on the forehead ) by Joseph Fielding Smith and I can attest to his kindness . I had foolishly done something a child would do at Church and he reassured me that I was loved by The Lord . I have never forgotten his kindness . I think he is seen as being much stricter than he actually was . Many Church leaders hearts …like ours …were enlarged with the mantels placed upon them . Just a thought on a Prophet .
The first shall be last and the last shall be first.. to the jew first... Was this racism against gentiles? No But the inverse, to the gentle first... but now all of a sudden it's racist
Growing up why blacks were not able to have the priesthood in my day was the only question I had about the gospel. I was thrilled when the Revelation that blacks could have the priesthood happened. I had come to think that "perhaps"it couldn't happen earlier in order that the church could survive, that with Revelations from God and angels, a golden Bible, polygamy, the belief that women, native Americans, blacks and others were all equal plus their political clout, the church just seemed to threatening to Americans; so this one thing was held back until the time when our country and even our membership were able and worthy enough to accept a higher doctrine. That was my thought anyway.
I'm not sure that logic holds though. Polygamy was *far* more threatening to the Church, such that the government almost destroyed the Church. That there was serious racial prejudice against most non-white races but only blacks were barred from the priesthood and temples also seems to work against this reasoning.
For people complaining about blacks not being able to hold the priesthood for a time, I bring up the Levites, the first born sons of Aaron, how Gentiles didn't hold priesthood at the time of Jesus, etc. There have always been restrictions. The restrictions being removed is a new thing.
The priesthood and temple ban isn't really analogous though, especially because the ban didn't exist, African American men were ordained, and *then* the ban was imposed. *And* the ban prevented black women from participating in baptisms for the dead, participation in which does not require priesthood. As someone else points out: "Restricting priesthood *to* one narrow part of the faithful is not the same as restricting priesthood *from* one narrow part of the faithful. Members of the tribe of Levi performed rituals at altars and in temples for all of the congregation of Israel; the priesthood restriction in our dispensation prevented faithful members of the Church from receiving the blessings of the temple, whether in life or after death. The tribe of Levi exercised priesthood functions as a duty imposed on them by God, not because Levites were worthy and every member of every other tribe was unworthy; black Latter-day Saints, no matter their faithfulness, no matter their works of righteousness, no matter their obedience to commandments, were deemed unworthy, and nothing they could possibly do or be or become would change that, under the restriction. There is, of course, one more glaring and inescapable difference between the priesthood duties granted to the tribe of Levi and the priesthood restriction suffered by black Latter-day Saints: Any Bible reader from the date of its compilation to the days of Brigham Young to the greenest seminary teacher of today can point to the revelation by which God directed Moses to assign priesthood practice to the tribe of Levi. No one . . . can point to anything resembling a divine origin for the priesthood restriction in this dispensation." www.keepapitchinin.org/2016/07/05/draft-a-stealthy-return-to-bad-practices-of-the-past/
I was informed there were two things that needed to happen before the blacks could attain the priesthood. #1 Blacks need to be allowed (accepted) into America. #2 Blacks need their own role models.
@@nathanphair2054 I believe African Americans, before the priesthood ban, could attain the lower priesthood but not the higher priesthood. Is that correct?
@@richardholmes7199 That is not correct. This was a proposal from (I think) Hugh B. Brown, but it was never acted on. No African American man could be ordained to an office in the priesthood, and no African American man or woman could enter the temple for any ordinance.
There are so many truths coming out about church history that it becomes, to me, very obvious to the question of “was it revelation or was it societal?” That it is likely both.
I think that, not only are we still in the “restoration of all things” stage, but also in the “more to come” stage as well, speaking of new things.
It is going to be very fascinating to watch how this unfolds.
And, to those who see President Nelson as a fallen prophet in these times, I’d ask you to humbly try to see things differently. He and those that come after are going to be the only North Star available outside of our relationship to the Spirit.
Amen!
Agreed. Also, Let's not forget in the last days even the very elect will be deceived. We need to be careful when watching "informative" videos that we don't allowed them to change our course and cause us to wander in the wrong direction. I agree with you, Nelson isn't a fallen prophet. He's still human, not God himself and I think that's why so many people are disappointed in him. Expectations are that he's to be flawless and being human that's not possible. Christ was the only perfect human to walk this earth so we need to remember that Nelson will make mistakes. We are definitely coming to a time when more is being revealed but it won't be revealed on UA-cam by some random person, it'll be by church leaders only as to make sure we're being taught the spirit and not by world standards
@@StompMom5 and like Brigham Young, he's presiding over a very politically divided time.
As a devoted, third generation member of the church, who also happens to be a racial minority, I really appreciate this video. For me a couple of things: 1. I don't believe this was an actual revelation but rather Brigham Young's personal racist attitude towards Blacks. That's how I feel. 2. That said, questioning the directives of the prophet is treading on very sacred ground for us, because we believe that when he speaks as a Prophet, he is speaking for the Lord himself, so that's why it's so hard for us to really have an honest discussion because it's difficult for us to separate Brigham Young's calling as a prophet, from his personal bias having a role in an official church policy-but we should be okay with that, because it doesn't make the church 'less true'-on the contrary this is confirmation that despite the failings of man, the church remains true, the organization itself is still perfect, and the work is still directed by the Lord. 3rd, there are no words to adequately explain to the satisfaction of Blacks why or how this occurred, so we shouldn't even try, it was terrible, it was wrong, it threw generations of families away from a covenant path that they could have been on(and now Im crying), and that is incredibly sad, but like I said, words are not enough in this case, which is why 4th, the Atonement must be applied to really allow for true healing to occur in the hearts of people hurt, the Lord himself is the only person who can and has taken upon himself the pain from his, and if people come to realize that, they can rest this burden at his feet, they can find peace and look to the future, not the past. I have experienced racism, blatantly in fact, within the church, but my testimony is not based on those folks, but rather my relationship with and faith in the Lord, and the confirmation I have received countless times, that this is HIS church, period, so I leave the hurt feelings with him, and understand that all things will happen in his time, including understanding. LASTLY and I think most importantly(well, after the atonement of course), the Church in 2022 is not the same as the church in 1978 and prior-we definitely a seat at the table, we are given opportunities to serve in every capacity, millions of lives are blessed,and that is regardless of race, and I applaud the current dialogue that we are seeing each and every day---talking is good, moving on and moving forward together is even better. Sorry for the novel.
It’s my understanding that David O. McKay was interested in giving the priesthood to blacks and he stated that when he inquired of the Lord, the answer he got was “not yet”
President McKay told Church architect Richard Jackson, "I’ve inquired of the Lord repeatedly. The last time I did it was late last night. I was told, with no discussion, not to bring the subject up with the Lord again; that the time will come, but it will not be my time, and to leave the subject alone."
BYU studies has a long article I believe called Spencer W Kimball and the Revelation on the priesthood. It doesn't mention David O McKay getting that answer specifically, but it has a ton of info about how different apostles and especially president Kimball approached the situation and how it evolved up to the 1978 revelation.
It's a tough call. There are no first hand accounts of this, and my understanding is that the accounts we do have are all recollections after the 1978 revelation. It's difficult to know how accurate those recollections are.
I wonder how all the tribes of Israel felt about Moses saying that only Levi got the priesthood as it was his tribe.
That's not why the tribe of Levi had priesthood and temple duties.
@@nathanphair2054 I agree. But I wonder if it caused some of the same problems that we experience today as Heavenly Father decided to give it to some and not others.
@@drewhanna9057 This isn't an analogous comparison. There is a clear revelation that the Levites were to have stewardship over priesthood and temple duties. There is no clear revelation to support the institution of the priesthood and temple ban in modern times, particularly when the priesthood had already been extended to black men.
@@nathanphair2054 he didn't even say a reason "why" they didn't have priesthood, he just asked why people were feeling a certain way because of it. Good Grief.
@@nathanphair2054 We all know you've got an agenda behind your words, bud.
I agree that there were pressing issues that came before the brethren in 1849 that we don't have any knowledge of. Why the ban occurred was not written. The brethren wrestled with this for many years. Through my studies I haven't been able to find anything written as to why. However, I believe the brethren were led as Spencer W. Kimbal had written by the Lord concerning the ban. The brethren struggled with this for years. I know that President Lee struggled with the ban and felt that revelation was needed to change it. I have read Bruce R. McConkie's description of the revelation received by the brethren. It is awesome.
It reminds me of what Church architect Richard Jackson said. Regarding the desire to lift the ban, President McKay told him, "I’ve inquired of the Lord repeatedly. The last time I did it was late last night. I was told, with no discussion, not to bring the subject up with the Lord again; that the time will come, but it will not be my time, and to leave the subject alone."
@@jaredshipp9207 I think the words of the Lord to President McKay proves that there was revelation given to the brethren in 1849 concerning the ban.
It is difficult to understand in 2021 what the Country was like in 1849 …think the vax/ mask debate times 100 …the “black “ issue was a bomb waiting to explode . The Very fledgling Church had their hands full with polygamy and the government , it could NOT take on the slavery issue . Imagine the questions and problems that would come with full participation of the black population of the Church …could missionaries teach slaves “owned “ by others ? “ Could Utah become a sanctuary for run away slaves if they joined the Church ? “. The situations were endless and would have added greatly to conflicts with the government. The ban was for Everyone’s protection in 1849 . The ensuing years , especially early half of 1900’s were perhaps the unreadiness of the members to fully accept black members ? The Lord had His time table with His understanding which We don’t have . It is worth noting that the Church WAS within cultural norms as it became possible for Full participation . It was exceeding rare ( not done ) for a Black man to have authority over a white congregation prior to 1970’s in ANY Religion …in other words the culture was not prepared until after civil rights movements .
"Why the ban occurred was not written." This is not accurate. Brigham Young explained why he implemented to priesthood and temple ban.
@@nathanphair2054 where and how can it be found? It seems that many prophets following Brigham Young knew the ban needed revelation to lift but not why it was given. The curse of Ham is rejected as the reason by the prophet and the rest of the apostles. President McKay was told by the Lord not yet and not in his time. I would like to read the revelation.
The Moabites were not allowed in the Jerusalem temple court. Only the Levites had the priesthood in the Old Testament. Jesus instructed his 12 apostles only to preach to the Jews initially. Was all this examples of racism? Or could it be there is a time and season for everything. And God's ways are not man's ways.
While we may not receive answers in mortality regarding why the ban was initially instituted there are some important lessons that we can learn about revelation, especially the struggle of receiving revelation where deeply held belief systems are not already aligned with the Lord's will regarding such matters. Joseph Smith was spared some of these struggles since he was untainted by such matters, having developed revelatory patterns at such a young age. Those that followed him were raised without the light of the restored gospel until they were of a mature age. No doubt, the leaders that followed had to reverse or correct many of the belief systems that were not consistent with the Restored Gospel. As the Church matured over the years its later leaders were raised in that light from their youth. For me, this simply is a manifestation of how difficult revelation is to receive (e.g., Oliver Cowdery's attempts to translate the Book of Mormon). With that being said, it is still not clear, as mentioned in the podcast, how much of the ban was revelation and how much was error.
What is DBR? I am newer to this podcasts. Love, love, love listening and learning. Thank you!!
Welcome - Here is info on DBR - ua-cam.com/video/nBHGClSxWOQ/v-deo.html
Well said
Hello!! I’ve been watching for several weeks now, and have enjoyed it immensely. Can you please explain what DBR is? I’ve heard you mention it several times, and tried to go back through episodes that I missed because I hadn’t discovered your videos yet, but I can’t find anything that explains what DBR stands for. Thank you so much!
Oh- wait- in this context of the Articles of Faith, I just had an idea. Is it Doctrine By Revelation?
Watch this - ua-cam.com/video/nBHGClSxWOQ/v-deo.html
Yes, there was revelation,or inspiration involved, but the bottom line the ban should never have happened in the first place. President Kimball, from what I have read saw the ban as a mistake.
It's similar to President Nelson saying it was a mistake for the church to allow the nickname Mormon Church to hold such influence for so many years (150+). It never was the Mormon Church. That nickname did its damage. It was and is the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, not the Mormon Church. I'm a convert to the church back in 1970 and it was common for non-members to have the belief that the Mormon Church wasn't really a Christian church, as we were known as Mormons first, Christians second.
The Church is the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ, with all priesthood keys restored. I have no doubts. Joseph Smith is the Prophet of the Restoration. The Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants came from Jesus Christ through his prophets. However, God appoints fallible, not infallible human beings to run his earthly organization. I don't know why (nor does it appear anyone else knows for sure either-The mark of Cain?) it took so long to correct the blacks and the priesthood issue and set straight the incorrect emphasis on the name "Mormon" Church rather than emphasizing the Church of Jesus Christ as its rightful appellation.
The key to spiritual safety in the Church is to obtain and maintain a testimony that the Church and the Book of Mormon are true through the Holy Ghost and the promise that the Church has had all the priesthood keys from Christ's ancient church restored through the Prophet Joseph Smith. Those same keys continue with the Prophet President Nelson and will continue until Jesus Christ returns a 2nd time. That is a promise regardless of what mistakes are made or leadership hiccups that take place. The key is to "stay in the boat" and not jump ship because of mistakes made by fallible leaders who are sincerely trying to follow God's commands.
D&C 46. vrs 4
Ye are also commanded not to cast anyone who belongeth to the church out of your Sacrament meetings;......
Yet.. in Melbourne Australia, you are unless you are vaccinated! No church activities..nothing!
What is the law there?
Actually. ..I made the bishop aware that even the Savior didn't cast out lepers. .and the unvaxed were treated as lepers..even by members!
He spoke to the Stake President and now we can have a sacrament meeting for the unvaxed in our ward.
What I find interesting is that we know the signs of the times and yet the silence of what is going on in the world is deafening . Millions of people around the world are standing up to the tyranny of the governments yet so many christians are silent .. why?
I think this link explains the answer. It long but watch the whole thing
Can't speak to 1849, however, I know what I was taught from my birth in 1950 to 1978. It was clearly taught from the pulpit, Sunday School, Seminary, that it was because skin color was the curse of Cain.
Yes, I believe that is what the First Presidency was referring to when it condemned "a contradictory and confusing legacy of racist, religious folklore."
Merry Christmas
Merry Christmas!
My daughter said something g interesting about the priesthood ban. She wonders if it was withheld as some kind of protection to them. Maybe accountability wise or physical or persecution protection during slavery somehow. Just a thought.
Is the timing and the will of God something we should apologize for?
I say let it be a stumbling block
You need to be a professor at BYU. I appreciate the dedication to objective presentation and free thought.
I would love that.
@@CwicShow perhaps you can work with some students to start an official club. I did that at Oregon State as a student. Started an official club with on campus and off campus "advisors". Then you can schedule seminars, group meetings etc on campus. Advertise them and recruit kids to join. The "CWIC Heterodox Student Club".
" Come join us and learn to think through the difficult issues...."
When I say "hetordox" I mean against the current ubiquitous critical social justice ideology in church members thinking and governmental policy.
@@mca4093 I think this idea has a lot of merit. If Cwic Hetordox started an online group NOW I’d join. MCA I’m in the PNW as well is your campus group still active?
Hmmm . . the name is great. I will talk to some BYU professors I know about this next month and see if it has wings.
Greg, I wonder, in the spirit of this comment, if you’d do a show on how the Gospel has changed your perspectives in life? After all, information is only as good as the change it makes in us, right?
I know I’ve changed in many ways because of the things I’ve learned here and from other notable people in my life experience.
Doctrine and Covenants 98
4 And now, verily I say unto you concerning the laws of the land, it is my will that my people should observe to do all things whatsoever I command them. (Gods law is supreme over any earthly government)
5 And that law of the land which is constitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before me.(only laws supporting that principle of freedom are justifiable before God)
6 Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land;(are we justified in supporting unconditional/oppressive laws??)
7 And as pertaining to law of man, whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil.
8 I, the Lord God, make you free, therefore ye are free indeed; and the law also maketh you free.
The Twelfth Article of Faith should be understood in context with revealed scripture.
D&C Section 107:40 is extremely clear who could hold the priesthood. 85th section speaks of the lawful heirs according to the flesh, who is unlawful? Can’t have lawful without unlawful !
Yet if, an erroneous teaching & deemed "racist religious folklore" then why was it also taught by Joseph Fielding Smith in his book "The Way to Perfection" admittedly this could well be the opinions of the man rather than the Prophet (JFS) but it was taught in a book by him.
Why do you think?
When I said "books" in the episode, I was referring to him and a few others. The books are not doctrine. They are opinions. Great stuff in those books, but not all doctrine.
It is worthy of note that most of the books that the prophets and apostles wrote in the 20th century were not written after they were called as the President of the Church, and for some, such as Mormon Doctrine, were not even written when serving as an apostle.
I’d be open to the possibility that President Joseph F. Smith was trying to give an answer to a pressing question as he saw it as personal opinion.
I met as a young child ( and was kissed on the forehead ) by Joseph Fielding Smith and I can attest to his kindness . I had foolishly done something a child would do at Church and he reassured me that I was loved by The Lord . I have never forgotten his kindness . I think he is seen as being much stricter than he actually was . Many Church leaders hearts …like ours …were enlarged with the mantels placed upon them . Just a thought on a Prophet .
@@CwicShow Yes , Thank you.
The first shall be last and the last shall be first.. to the jew first...
Was this racism against gentiles? No
But the inverse, to the gentle first... but now all of a sudden it's racist
This is not an accurate depiction of the history of the ban. African-Americans were ordained for years before the ban.
Growing up why blacks were not able to have the priesthood in my day was the only question I had about the gospel. I was thrilled when the Revelation that blacks could have the priesthood happened. I had come to think that "perhaps"it couldn't happen earlier in order that the church could survive, that with Revelations from God and angels, a golden Bible, polygamy, the belief that women, native Americans, blacks and others were all equal plus their political clout, the church just seemed to threatening to Americans; so this one thing was held back until the time when our country and even our membership were able and worthy enough to accept a higher doctrine. That was my thought anyway.
I'm not sure that logic holds though. Polygamy was *far* more threatening to the Church, such that the government almost destroyed the Church. That there was serious racial prejudice against most non-white races but only blacks were barred from the priesthood and temples also seems to work against this reasoning.
For people complaining about blacks not being able to hold the priesthood for a time, I bring up the Levites, the first born sons of Aaron, how Gentiles didn't hold priesthood at the time of Jesus, etc. There have always been restrictions. The restrictions being removed is a new thing.
The priesthood and temple ban isn't really analogous though, especially because the ban didn't exist, African American men were ordained, and *then* the ban was imposed. *And* the ban prevented black women from participating in baptisms for the dead, participation in which does not require priesthood. As someone else points out:
"Restricting priesthood *to* one narrow part of the faithful is not the same as restricting priesthood *from* one narrow part of the faithful.
Members of the tribe of Levi performed rituals at altars and in temples for all of the congregation of Israel; the priesthood restriction in our dispensation prevented faithful members of the Church from receiving the blessings of the temple, whether in life or after death.
The tribe of Levi exercised priesthood functions as a duty imposed on them by God, not because Levites were worthy and every member of every other tribe was unworthy; black Latter-day Saints, no matter their faithfulness, no matter their works of righteousness, no matter their obedience to commandments, were deemed unworthy, and nothing they could possibly do or be or become would change that, under the restriction.
There is, of course, one more glaring and inescapable difference between the priesthood duties granted to the tribe of Levi and the priesthood restriction suffered by black Latter-day Saints:
Any Bible reader from the date of its compilation to the days of Brigham Young to the greenest seminary teacher of today can point to the revelation by which God directed Moses to assign priesthood practice to the tribe of Levi. No one . . . can point to anything resembling a divine origin for the priesthood restriction in this dispensation."
www.keepapitchinin.org/2016/07/05/draft-a-stealthy-return-to-bad-practices-of-the-past/
I was informed there were two things that needed to happen before the blacks could attain the priesthood. #1 Blacks need to be allowed (accepted) into America. #2 Blacks need their own role models.
I don't think this makes sense. The Church ordained African Americans for years before the ban was instituted. Who informed you of this?
@@nathanphair2054 A former teacher informed me of this.
@@nathanphair2054 I believe African Americans, before the priesthood ban, could attain the lower priesthood but not the higher priesthood. Is that correct?
@@richardholmes7199 That is not correct. This was a proposal from (I think) Hugh B. Brown, but it was never acted on. No African American man could be ordained to an office in the priesthood, and no African American man or woman could enter the temple for any ordinance.
@@nathanphair2054 Not sure I understand.
Well said