Did God endorse the priesthood ban? | with Paul Reeve, Part 2
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 6 авг 2024
- **If you haven't seen Part One to this episode with Paul Reeve, watch it here: • Did the priesthood ban...
In this second part of the two part series with Paul Reeve on Blacks and the Priesthood, Paul talks about the things that happened after the priesthood ban. He discusses the following:
- Did God endorse the priesthood ban?
- Was the priesthood ban God's will?
- Did the LDS Church believe that certain races should be left out from the gospel?
- What was the history of the ending of the priesthood ban?
- Were there Black Latter-day Saints during the priesthood ban?
- And more!!
We know this is a very difficult topic and it can be hard to digest but we need to acknowledge the history and strive for more equality.
Let us know what you learned from Paul in the comments below!
SUBSCRIBE:
saintsunscripted/subscribe
Follow Us:
Facebook: / saintsunscripted
Instagram: / saintsunscripted
Website: saintsunscripted.com/
Follow the Hosts:
Justin: / motioncoaster
David: / davidesnell
Taylor: / tsyorg
Allex: / allex_lennon
Kaitlyn: / kait_fotheringham
As a mixed member of the Church I get a unique perspective of this.
It's weird to think that if the ban was in place today I wouldn't be allowed to have the priesthood.
I gotta say I am grateful for these discussions, members need to hear these things. I agree with the historian.
One thing that hurts is when I hear members say how they don't care because in the end it's all ok.
Like the historian said we need to have empathy and Charity.
Very well done. I am so impressed that this channel would have such an open and true discussion on this topic. It would do the church so much good to publicly acknowledge that prophets make mistakes and that’s okay. Our faith is in Christ, not the prophet.
Prophets make mistakes?? Soo they are not mouth pieces of God.. they dont talk to God like the church teaches??? Idk what's stupider.. the people who run the church or the people who follow it smh
I have some questions. If the ban was not God’s will, why did it take God so long to correct it? Why did it take a revelation from God for it to be changed? President Kimball said he struggled and prayed about this for a long time. Why didn’t God just tell him it was wrong? It seems to me that God was okay with the ban. The reason why, I have no clue.
I’m old enough to remember the ban and as I look back, I’m disturbed at myself that I wasn’t disturbed about it back then. But I also remember the joy we felt when it ended. I wish Paul Reeve would have addressed why God didn’t end the ban much sooner.
or allow it from the beginning?
I really appreciate your honesty. As to your question: it's because it was not of god. This was man using his agency to restrict blacks.
They felt for whatever reason they needed a revelation but it has been theorized that the correct question was never asked. It wasn’t until President Kimball came to the Lord with a spirit of repentance that the Lord acknowledged their prayer and gave an answer.
I think we have to remember that God teaches line upon line and precept upon precept. We have a lot of examples of God taking time for people to work through their issues before making things hard gospel. The WOW taking 60 years before becoming a hard commandment is a good example. When you have a growing church being created among a group of people who are culturally racist, I think God gave people time to come to grips with it and grow under the light of Christ. AS much as the appeal of the "strong man who fixes everything" is in politics, God doesn't work that way. He works gently changing people for the better.
@deniseg.9503 do we have any documentation about when later prophets started asking the Lord to lift the ban, and the exact language of their questions? I agree that the ban was not inspired, and I am sad it ever happened, and I wish it would have ended much sooner. But did the Lord allow it, and did he allow it to last until 1978 for a purpose? Did He allow it to last, to be a stumbling block? I would think not, why would the Lord keep any covenant keeper out of the temple. But the Lord does have his purposes, it's a fair question.
Very informative and well done! I wasn't aware until watching this video that there was enough of a historical paper trail to figure out how this Priesthood ban began in the church. I also appreciated Paul's, David, and Allex's take on it, and how it was presented.
Thanks. It gives us good info and helps us understand better.
Don't teach your children that this is right or even something they should tolerate.
This has been such a great pair of segments. Thank you for all your excellent work!
I also remember when it was announced throughout the church building. Someone came into my Sunday school class to announce it, I was 8… I could feel the joy and celebration and light!
Love your work so so much!
@16:05 This starts in making sure CES and the sunday school programs read an official statement by the church that educates them on the reality. We need to educate the church about this. The Brethren should perhaps consider doing this.
Agreed.
The doctrines supporting the priesthood ban will never really be stamped out unless the brethren publicly admit that it was a mistake and not of God.
From an Ex-Mormon, well done episode!
This is a topic that's always fascinated me. President McKay apparently intimated that he had pushed too hard on this issue, so he stopped. But here's the thing. Plural marriage was hard on church members to start and once begun, it was hard on them to stop. They were trials. After that, the priesthood ban was hard on blacks, then when it was corrected, it remained a tough pill to swallow. Each time the Lord was making it hard on someone. Obviously, blacks weren't going to find plural marriage a trial, but the priesthood ban? Yeah, it's even a trial for blacks now!
Next we have a revelation being given to President Kimball. He's the twelfth president of the church. What's twelve? It's the priesthood number, and the revelation was given also to whom? The Quorum of the Twelve. It didn't _have_ to be given to the Twelve. Kimball _could_ have received it and the Twelve would have backed him up. But whatever the revelation was, it was too sacred to be revealed. I know, based on the word of a family member, that when Ezra Taft Benson got home the evening of that revelation, that he was walking on air. He didn't go into detail, I was told, but he said it was the greatest spiritual experience of his life. So it was more than just a buzz.
Whether it was just a doctrine that got out of hand in a racially segregated society or a commandment, we don't know. Certainly the country wasn't ready for black bishops and elders called on missions and so forth, and as I said, it could have been an intentional stumbling block, much as plural marriage was, and is, for white members. But if we'd sent out black missionaries in the North or South, or to Europe, where the Lord wanted opened up, they would have been returned in boxes. Now we're making great inroads in Africa, and the priesthood is being an immense help. I can see this thing being of GOD or, if of man, that it was something that happened for the greater good. The Lord is on a very slow timetable, and we tend to be impatient.
Yeah, there is a lot of "leaning to your own understanding" going on here in this discussion. This is all really great stuff and I appreciate Paul Reeve sharing his knowledge concerning the history of priesthood restrictions. What concerns me is that neither in part 1 or part 2 here was it ever said that we should seek the Lord out in prayer for understanding and enlightenment on this issue. I know that God will speak to each person according to their own way of understanding. I received teaching on this issue directly from the Holy Ghost and it wiped out all concern and gave me total peace about it. It was a perspective that never occurred to me and is also not mentioned in this discussion. This came in a moment of pondering on it and also acknowledging to God that I knew He knows more than I do. This is way more important than just making assumptions based on knowing the historical details according to our "own understanding". Isaiah 55:8-9 is clear: “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the Lord. As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts."
Would you be open to sharing what perspective you were offered? I have no qualms about this issue, but I am curious to know what understanding you received.
@@DannyAGray I would be open to a private conversation about it. If you want to send me a personal contact method I am happy to have a conversation with you. It was very personal to me and so I am not convinced others would understand it the same way. I have experienced that many times over the years.
Thanks for asking!
The answer is very, easy all they had to do was open the Bible, God's word for it (2 Timothy 3:15-17) in 1 Peter 2:9 God say that ALL believers in Christ are part of his Royal Priesthood here on earth, ALL doesn't mean only white men. I don't know why none of these videos cite any Bible verses or use them for understanding God's Will as 2 Timothy states, that is what the Bible is for. @Dannyagray look at the bible verses I cited above, the Bible is the source for God's Word and how we learn to live accordingly.
My thought is...did Brigham Young do this as an act of self-preservation for the Saints as a whole? The saints, after having already been driven from Ohio, Missouri, and Illinois, had just walked across half the country to find a place of peace. They are no sooner there than Johnson's army comes to put these people in their place. Could Brigham Young have looked at the slave question in the nation at the time and consider that issue a potential problem to be added to the saints? I don't know. Just a thought to consider. It's sad it happened...but it doesn't answer the question of why?
Wait a minute, so your saying that just because Young didn't say, "this is revelation or doctrine." That means it doesn't count? So the spokesman of God can say and do whatever he wants but as long as he doesn't say this revelation. Than everything is gravy baby? Someone help me out please 🙏
Truth is true because it is true. Things that are false are false because they are false. It doesn't matter if the prophet or an atheist says it. My advice is not to worry about what a prophet said years ago or says now, follow the spirit, follow your intuition, follow love, follow christ, and listen to the prophet and other wise people and you may be inspired by there words.
The Doctrine and Covenants establishes a procedure for documenting revelation. Revelation is only to be considered binding if it follows this process; which requires the unanimous confirmation of the presiding quorums and presentation to the general body of the Church. The priesthood restriction did not follow this process, while the Revelation on the Priesthood did.
I agree with others that this whole series on Blacks and the Priesthood has been phenomenal. Thank you so much for what you're doing.
Been loving all the recent videos on this topic, thanks!
You all should reach out to Tim Overton, if you haven't already. Not sure if you have heard of him. But he is an African American Latter-day Saint who tackles these issues too in the Church and as a profession. He is also a stake president in AZ. We had him do a special fireside for us here in Arkansas, it was great. But he is another person who can really add to this dialogue.
Don't matter how many black latter-day saints say it's tolerable, it's moral wrong and God did approved and he wasn't communicating with those men.
Thanks for this discussion. It was helpful. I wish you would have talked about Abraham 1:26-27.
"We participated in racism, and we've come to learn its consequences. We experienced [some prejudice] ourselves." We are bound and well-positioned to take a pro-active stance against racism. This is good, Paul.
I agree that "Why did the Lord institute the ban" is the wrong question (because he didn't institute the ban), but I still think "Why did the Lord allow the ban to happen and persist for 100 years" is a fair question. And a fair answer is that we don't know why. It felt to me like this conversation made a case that the only acceptable answer is that is was a mistake made and a mistake perpetuated; that God allowed it because He values agency so highly. I also think this could be why, but also maybe there's something else...
I think about the Israelites being led by a prophet through the wilderness for 40 years and it wasn't because Moses made a mistake and it wasn't because God wanted his people to wander, but it was because the Israelites were too hard-hearted, they were unprepared, to go into the holy land. An entire generation had to perish before the people could accept the greater light and knowledge God had prepared for them. The comparison is far from perfect, but it does suggest that the Lord sometimes leads his people to sub-optimal situations because of what they are willing/able to accept or understand.
when plural marriage was first instituted was there unanimous agreement in the quorums? Nope.
I absolutely love this series. Thank you, guys. My heart is full.
If the first prophet of God of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints was so pure and true that he was close enough to God to bring forth clear revelation from God. How could the second prophet, the one right after the pure and perfect Joseph Smith, be so corrupted as to make a ban on many persons' right to the temple from a revelation that was clearly and agreeably not of devine origins?
Well, the Church has never made the claim that Joseph Smith was "so pure and true" that he could receive revelation. Rather the official claim has always been that he was an imperfect human in constant need of repentance and forgiveness.
We do not believe any prophets of God whether in the latter days or in ancient times are perfect in anyway. IMO That’s foolishness. Brigham Young never did claim to have a revelation to ban the priesthood, I believe, instead of seeking divine guidance he was influenced by men in the church, pushing the racist fears of race mixing, and the curse of Kane and Brigham Young fully adopting these popular ideas of the day. Really sad and a complete turnaround from the first 20 years of the church.
So then the church was corrupted.
One justification I hear all the freaking time is…”The church just wasn’t ready for it yet”. I really wish he had addressed that one. It makes me feel like my hair is catching on fire.
He probably didn't address it because we all know it was a stupid excuse to use.
Agree. Not everyone was racist. I would think most saints back then would have been much more open to equal treatment of Black Africans, than being open to polygamy. But they learned to at least be open to polygamy. They would have been much more open to Black equality.
Paul Reeve needs a medal. Now go teach this history to all LDS folks so that nobody can simply claim ignorance thereof.
No discussion of priesthood bans in the P of G P? Also, the Egyptian pharoahs concern about priesthood as discussed by Hugh Nibley was not addressed? Priesthood restrictions were not just a product of 19th century racism.
I absolutely love this series. I do think it leads to some important questions - if the ban wasn't from God, did members have a moral duty to push back against it? Would it have been okay for them to vocally disagree with Church policy and doctrine at the time, and speak out against it? Then applying this lesson to today - should we as members ever question or push back against policies our leaders make when they aren't claiming they received specific revelation on a subject? For example, if we don't have an original revelation that says women can't hold the priesthood, just beliefs and policies that have been passed down from generation to generation, is there a case to be made for members being allowed to question such a policy, or push back against it? Or should we just quietly assume everything our leaders are doing is perfect, and we as members have no role in helping correct potential imperfections in the Church?
From what I got of the first part (and other studies I've done), it sounds like certain members did push back on this and there wasn't solid consensus until JFS that it started to fully crystallize into a universal policy. This wasn't a policy made in unity and consensus but hodge podged together over time based on prevailing sentiments of the people. It was also a change from the oringinal practices of the church. As much as it can be an indication for change, it can also be a cautionary tale about how we change. That it shouldn't be rushed into or reactionary to the concerns of our day. Personally I do assume things will change further for women in the priesthood...they already have in many ways. But I'm cautious in naming how because that isn't something I (or even a substantial section of members) alone can completely decide.
I do think it means though that we should expect some forms of change to happen as the church grows into a more zion people...just having humility in projecting what it will look like.
I think there is a difference between disagreement and contention. Asking questions and offering opinions is different from blocking the doors of the Tabernacle during General Conference.
I think there is a fine line to be walked when dealing with things you disagree with in the church in this sense. Remember that the prophet of the church holds the priesthood keys and directs how they are distributed and performed. In the example you give: while you may disagree and think that women should be priesthood holders in the way men are, those keys are still directed by the prophet as he is directed by the Lord. What I'm saying is, changes of this magnitude don't come easy or even as you expect them to. And while you or me or we may think things *should* be a certain way, that doesn't mean that's what His plan calls for.
I can understand your confusion. And you have every right to be. It gets confusing for me because Elder Uchtdorf teaches us to doubt our doubts and have faith in the leaders.
Also just a point of order, there really weren’t too many people back in the day who didn’t see people of colours as anything but less than them. Thank goodness for Lincoln. I would have a lot more respect for the church leadership if they could just be honest and say that some of the leaders beliefs in the day were skewed and incorrect. But they keep trying to justify it.
@@OS-yf3ko I don't see anyone justifying, some claim ignorance, but that isn't quite the same thing. Point of order, Lincoln had some fairly racist belief himself, his wife even owned slaves for a period of time. His primary objection to slavery was the spiritual/emotional harm the practice inflected on the owners. He did believe that Africans were people and not animals, but he was against interracial marriage. History gets complicated. Heros are never as good as we wanted, and villians are rarely as terrible as we expect.
Very well done. Thank you so much.
Priesthood bans are still practiced all over the place today. We ban non-baptized members from the priesthood. We ban women from priesthood offices. We ban baptized members that are not worthy from the priesthood, and in fact, will remove their priesthood if needs be.
Dictionary definition of "a ban" is "official or legal prohibition". The Father will "ban" terrestial and telestrial beings from the celestial kingdom. Etc. et al
"Bans" in and of themselves are part of Gods plan in the dictionary sense that He is going to "officially prohibit" people in many different ways.
I think if people read their scriptures through the lens of all the times that Jehovah "officially prohibits" which implies division or segregation, then they can see how traditional members could have reasonably come to the conclusion that the "African priesthood ban" was of God.
I am not saying that it was, but if you look at a more meta view of the scriptures "bans" or "division by God" are common.
“…there was no one that was barred from receiving all of the rituals required by their faith at that time…”. This is comparing apples to oranges, as is a lot of what is said here. Conversion was possible, but generally through the Old Testament and up until specific revelation after Christ’s death “the faith” was, at Jehovah’s direction, exclusive to the nation of Israel… and intermarriage was a grave sin. Is God racist?.
I am not sure that you were paying close attention. Many of the most righteous examples of faith found in the Bible were non-Israelites, both Ruth and Obadiah the Prophet comes to mind.
God was a Van Halen fan. He waited for their first album to come out to synchronize the churches view of blacks in the church.
What is up with the audio?
There just doesn’t seem to be any real answers to this except it was put in place due to racist attitudes of the time. It’s ashamed it ever happened.
God will not give a revelation that will lead us astray… but, the prophet could technically lead us astray if we just obey blindly?
In this case was the church was lead astray for 140 years?
And yet, not so far astray since the Lord offers a chance to erase the ban through vicarious work performed in the temples. We can straighten out all those lost years by making sure we can help move the work forward.
@@DannyAGray
Seems a little to convenient don't you think? at this point the church and leaders can do no wrong, and yet we are lead to believe that if we don't follow the teachings to the T we are basically dammed... even using the nickname Mormon offends GOD and is a major win for the adversary.
Please help me understand, how not giving these brothers the priesthood (generations upon generations) wasn't a major offense to GOD and a massive win for the adversary?
@@tomsterb I'm not saying it wasn't an offense to God; after all, He is compassionate and mourns with us when we mourn. But His plan is so much bigger than ours. He knows that He has provided ways for that pain to be erased and made right. While I'm sure He was sad, I know He is still loving and full of hope and righteousness and excited for the vicarious work to be done.
If GOD did endorse the Ban against the black priesthood holders then it should stay a ban. Now on the other hand if it wasn't and the LDS was just making it up as they went along and it was condoned for all those years then that can mean only 1 thing. The LDS was not sanctioned by GOD.
That specific policy not being sanctioned from God is not the same as the entire foundation of the restored church, not being sanctioned from God. There is no sufficient evidence to support that God endorsed the ban. IMO this was strictly fear of race mixing influencing the opinion of Brigham Young to the point where he Instituted the ban primarily on his own. As bad as it sounds, it doesn’t mean he stops being aa prophet of God. The same as Peter of old, after denying Christ three times we know that he continued being an apostle of the Lord. Prophets and apostles are not infallible, still have their own agency.
I'm so confused.
So if it is not of devine origin then the real question is how did it happen?... if brigam young, the man behind the ban, was really a prophet of God?
Prophets are not perfect. God respects everyone’s agency, including those he calls as his prophet. That’s the moral of the story here. In my opinion, instead of relying on divine guidance he leaned more on the fears he heard from Church members on the subject of race mixing and fully bought into that fear as well as the false teaching of the curse of Kane. Very sad, nevertheless, he was still a prophet of God. Just like Peter old. Who denied the Christ three separate times, yet he continued to be an apostle of the Lord, the rest of his life.
While doing my genealogy, I found out I have dark skin cousins.
My skin is peach. Although I have always felt I was mixed.
If the “Levite justification” is not doctrine then neither is anything said in this interview. The justification is simply that God is able to choose who He gives authority to and who he withholds it from …which He continues to do.
Or God doesn't and never has, but church leaders continue to. Not saying that's the answer, but in my opinion is just as likely
considering all of these discoveries. How do we know when the prophet is declaring a revelation vs. his opinion? Pretty standard question but 've never been giving a good answer.
Collective Witness Model
This is how members should judge and compare the words of our prophets.
ruclips.net/video/omi6rKpWfoQ/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/omi6rKpWfoQ/видео.html
@@wes2176 what ?
There is a proper methodology of how revelation should be received by Church leaders. It is that the First Presidency and the Quorum of the 12 Apostles need to be unified in their decision. The ban being lifted followed that. The bans implementation seems like it didn’t follow that from the records that we can find; it was a unilateral decision made by Brigham Young, followed by a unilateral ratification by Joseph F Smith.
If it is official revelation for the whole church the entire First Presidency, Q12, and most often the Presidents of the 70 and Presiding Bishopric will all confirm, and it will be presented as such in General Conference with a request for a sustaining vote. Easy.
I think it is important to remember that only the Aaronic Priesthood was limited to the tribe of Levi, there is no record of such a restriction for the High Priesthood.
Levitical priesthood is something slightly different than Aaronic priesthood.
I don't think the Lord was pleased with the priesthood ban, but He allowed it to continue. I have to trust His wisdom and know that Christ will resolve the injustice, and those who perpetrated that injustice will be held accountable. There is still racism inside and outside the church, but our prophet is telling us we need to repent of that. It's time to listen and seek to follow that admonition.
I think Christ is resolving that injustice in the vicarious work that is performed in the temple.
Toda restricción al sacerdocio se quitó en la era de Jesucristo. Es inútil tratar de encontrar algo w justifique una enseñanza falsa con la plenitud del Evangelio q José Smith trato de enseñar en su tiempo.. Que triste.
I think the mindset comes from placing prophets on a pedestal. Prophets are still sinners, are still human. That's my thought on why people follow blindly.
I’m an active member and have a firm testimony, and I’m just trying to understand this topic. I’m curious what your thoughts are on the principle: “by their fruits, ye shall know them.” What are some fruits you could mention from
Brigham Young? He said and did some indefensible things as I’m discovering.
Like what?
Yet he was the right man for the right time for God to call as a prophet. From the ashes in Navu, directing thousands of Saints across the planes, thousands of miles to build a community of Saints in the Rocky Mountains 300+ communities despite ongoing persecution. Did he make mistakes? Absolutely he did. He’s not the first prophet to do so, nor the last. Despite his flaws, he was still a prophet of God. Much like Peter, although denying the Christ, three separate times, continued as an apostle the remainder of his days. Heavenly father respects everyone’s agency, that also goes for his prophets and apostles, whom he calls.
Common is not Universal. Saints have taught to live a Higher law, even when that teaching went against the grain of social fabric. We weave with stiffer, but still flexible materials. We Have Grown, in the Desert, in the Face of Salt Flats...
Wait...so the idea that outside forces could have harmed the church in regards to race is false but you're going to bring up that God told us to abandon polygamy because of outside pressures? Regardless of if BY implemented the priesthood ban without revelation, God never sat any subsequent prophet down and told them otherwise. God has been shown to reprimand his prophets.
Exactly. And we are to assume that the Prophets were all unwilling to change even if it was God's will. And where is the "revelation on ending polygamy"? Oh wait. We don't have one. We just believe Wilford Woodruff when he says the Lord made it clear to him. Yet this video implies if none of the Prophets said the didn't have a revelation, then none of them did.
@@LatterdaySaintIdeas agreed. Their logic also teaches to question the direction given us by the Prophet. I hold true to the principle taught "follow the Prophet, don't go astray, follow the Prophet he knows the way"
@@Dandeeman26 when he is functioning in the office of "the Prophet", which I believe they were when the questions of race and the priesthood and access to ordinances were raised, we should follow "the Prophet". When he speaks as a man, we have no obligation to. Joseph Smith even taught this. The question of the racial restriction seems to really boil down to this question. This video judges all of these Prophet and says "they weren't really speaking or acting as the prophet in this case, so we don't have to support the decision."
@@LatterdaySaintIdeas you are absolutely right! Thank-you for the clarification. I can't see how though if he were wrong on such an issue this would not have been corrected by other men all close to God. Nor do I see why revelation was needed to correct something President Young chose to do out of racism. President David O. Mckay was more than willing to lift the ban. If President Young had done wrong why then did God not answer his inquiries? Sorry I think you said that you agreed with me and I'm not trying to come off argumentative. I just wanted to explain my view.
@@LatterdaySaintIdeas while we have no obligation to follow the prophet when he speaks as a man, there are a couple factors I think you might be forgetting. First, a few following prophets said they asked God about lifting the ban and were told it wasn't the right time. So the Lord was at least in some control of the ban. Second, while h may have been speaking as a man, the prophet is also the one who directs who holds the priesthood, as he is the only one who holds all the keys. So even if we disagree, it takes higher power than us to affect the kind of change that would question or discipline the president of the church. I am inclined to believe that there have been times apostles have gone to the lord directly and questioned a position the president took, and worked it out for themselves. In short, I think there is a lot we can take comfort in through our leaders, and we have reason to believe their standings with the Lord on what they say in large part.
Paul is a member, correct?
This is just all ridiculous, all that your leaders had to do was to look in the Bible, the New Testament under Christ; I do not know why you guys are even referring to the old testament in Leviticus, that is Jewish Law and practices. Once Jesus came and sacrificed himself for us we are to follow his Revelations, 2 Timothy 3:15-17 and all believers in Christ are part of his priesthood here on earth 1 Peter 2:9, your prophets only needed to look in the bible for the answers, yet they didn't. It makes no sense at all. "But you are a chosen people, a royal PRIESTHOOD, a holy nation, a people for God's own possession, so that you may proclaim the excellence of Him who has called you out of Darkness into His marvelous light." This verse in 1 Peter 2:9 is directed to all believers in Jesus the Christ, plain and simple. All the answer you need are in God's word the Bible, looking to other earthly men and their practices or traditions are not relevant. God's Word is all you need.
So we're gonna go right ahead and refute Elder Oaks' stance - that we don't know why God instituted the priesthood ban huh? Well, it did need to be done. If he is reading this (dream on) I would like to say: "Elder Oaks, this video is the best way to put unsavory history behind us. No need to worry about long-ago prophets saving face. Continuing to pin this on God is counterproductive. Pres Nelson gave no room for Monson/Hinckley to save face, when he declared that using the nickname Mormon offended Jesus and gave a major victory to satan. We have precedent now for one prophet to say historical prophets were dramatically wrong. Use that to put this color restriction thing in the past. It is not going away otherwise. It's just going to cause more and more pain to rising generations - the ones who still believe you speak for God, and at the same time have very keen consciences. They know it was wrong, and they know why it was wrong. They can't believe God was behind it. Stand with them please. OR would you, Elder Oaks, rather continue believing in a God who would exclude some of his children as cursed, identified by the color of their skin? The deepest question here is: What is God really like? That's the gravity of this issue, and that is why it will not ever just go away."
I believe Oaks has been clear that he thought the ban was wrong and he wished it would have ended much sooner. He wept in joy in 1978. But he, nor anyone, knows absolutely for sure why the Lord allowed this to happen, and why it wasn't ended for such a long time.
Can you point to where Oaks said he thought the ban was wrong please? As far as I know he never said that. He only said he wasn't convinced of the REASONS put forward for the ban. That's all he said. He never said he thought the ban itself was wrong. He thinks God approved and directed the denial of church authority and temple entrance to part of the human family because of the color of their skin. It's bad, and it won't get better until the highest church leaders see that the ban itself was wrong - and say it offended Jesus and was a major victory for Satan. Now, I think Jesus has higher character than to be offended by his name not being spoken every time we reference the church - But saying Jesus was offended by mistreatment of black people makes so much more sense than a nickname being used. Seriously! I'm really out to help all the current members like you, You know it was wrong. You even said, "I believe Oaks has been clear that he thought the ban was wrong". He did not. He still thinks God was behind it. And that doesn't fly when almost everyone now-a-days knows treating people different because of the color of their skin is wrong. @@mp112501
Indeed, each of the persons with racist views will work our their own salvation. However, their collective actions and opinions gave life to a priesthood ban that our existing chruch supported. With the leadership of existing leaders, the existing church needs go through the similar steps of repentance to both set the record straight and try to undo the damage that was done. For a start, the church should offer a formal apology/statement that the ban was wrong. Short, simple, with no qualifications. Once that happens, significant efforts ought to be made to demonstrate a change of heart within the church policies.
What policies need changing? I was following you train of thought until, "Once that happens, significant efforts ought to be made to demonstrate a change of heart within the church policies." which implies that there are still currently racist policies that have not yet been changed. To my understanding all the racists policies were abandoned decades ago.
As a black man I'm so happy you're only focusing on my race. Race is the most important thing. Not what we do but the color of our skin. And since we are about race nothing I like to see more than 3 white men talking about black ppl.
They did one where a black man talked about the issue a few days ago. Look it up, it was well done.
However, I find it frustrating that skin color is defining a group of people. Skin ought to be thought of no differently than hair or eye color, right? Why is it we define ourselves by skin color? Race used to be understood to be equivalent to culture or ethnicity, as that the Irish and Italians used to be considered their own race and not simply “white people”. A dark skinned person from South Africa is completely different in ethnicity than a dark skinned man from Brazil, and there are other factors than just skin tone regarding the differences too.
It is racist to continue to use the racial understandings of the 18th & 19th century as they were given by scientists who have since proven them to be bunk. We should not have 5 races as defined by our government based on skin color. We should just identify based on ethnicity if we are going to divide ourselves.
Our race is “children of God” and that doesn’t erase anyone’s dark skin nor value white skin to be more valuable. We need to stop using the talking points of the media when talking about how to define each other. Just use one label: HUMAN RACE
@@joeoleary9010 Did you even watch the video?
@@joeoleary9010 The church has apologized, made many reparations, debunked, and even funded the efforts to promote change. The doctrine of salvation is equal for all no matter their skin color. There is still more to go in educating some members who live in a box, but how does antagonism toward the Church for the past still help anything?
1 nefi 12:23 THE BEST! 👨🏿🦲👍🏿
They're talking about history. The history is about race. There's no getting around that fact. Do you also complain when white people talk about the civil rights movement?
God is not in the Mormon church, false Jesus, believes in millions of gods. These prophets are no where near to the prophets of the Bible. Sorry
Please clarify where I, as a member of the church, worship millions of gods. I worship one god - always have and always will. However, if you're referring to us having the potential to become gods, that IS in the bible (know ye not that ye are gods?/ heirs to the kingdom of god and joint-heirs with Christ) and if you don't agree with that you either don't know your bible well enough or you maybe don't agree with everything it says. Maybe you could point out to me where the bible endorses the idea of "Original Sin" as taught by Catholicism.
Brayn. Just wondering why you think the prophets of the Bible were so much better? They were not perfect by any stretch of the imagination.
@@DannyAGray first off I believe the Bible is the only complete and true Word of God. Note the capital “G”- that’s a literary comprehension tool for you while reading the Bible. Also in John 10:34 Jesus is referring to “the Law” which the Jews saw as inspired true Word of God, He uses a “reference” another literary tool. So in John 10:34 Here the Lord Jesus quoted to the -“jews”- talking to the Jews now not you or Jospeh smith. Jesus uses this from Psalm 82:6. Which reads, “ I said, ‘ You are gods, and all are children of the Most High.” This psalm was speaking to the judges of Israel. They were called “gods” not because they were divine but because they represented God when they judged the people. The Hebrew word for “gods” is (elohim) which means “mighty ones” and was applied to important figures of the day. And also this shows that Christ new what he was talking about the rest of psalm shows how wicked men can be, for they judged the people unjustly as the the Jews are condemning Jesus.
@@DannyAGray and if you keep reading don’t just take verse from chapter and take things out of context Jesus is showing that He and the Father are 1. That the Father sent him! Jesus was not conceived naturally but born of the Holy Spirit sent by God. Man that once were called “gods” can not Jesus who was sent by the father, a man that does the fathers will completely doing miracles and good works deserve to be called the Son of God? ….men like Joseph smith and all your prophets love to think of themselves as spokesmen and speakers for God but only speak for the god of this world. Never telling their lost sheep the truth but telling them a lie to lead them to hell. The Bible is the infallible Word of God, history and the Bible prove it to be true. The Bible shows the prophets were not perfect but they got hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of prophecy correct by and through the power of God, unlike the Mormon churches false prophets. Sad sad to see that the history of Joseph’s smiths real life posted on the church website yet none of their congregation goes to look at it…he lived a sick terrible life and yet was a great man of god? Nah not my god, he wasn’t apart of Jesus’s vine, Jesus did not know him. Nor this LDS church.
@@DannyAGray original sin….
I’m guessing it’s mans sin nature that is talked about in the whole Bible. Adam and Eve sinned against God and because of that all of man was born to die. Unlike Mormons we Christians go by what Jesus taught and we believe that we are born as children that are sinful. We must be born again.