Did the priesthood ban start with Joseph Smith or Brigham Young? | with Paul Reeve
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 24 авг 2024
- Correction: The image at 8:20 is not William Appleby, it is B. H. Roberts. Our mistake.
We are back with another episode about the priesthood ban. If you haven't seen the faith and beliefs episode on this subject, be sure to watch it first and then come back to this one!
Watch here: • What was the Latter-da...
Paul Reeve has joined us for today's episode. He is the author of the book "Religion of a Different Color" and he is the Simmons Chair of Mormon Studies at the University of Utah. He has done a lot of research on this topic and has so many great insights and answers. Some of the questions he addresses include:
- Did the priesthood ban start with Joseph Smith or Brigham Young?
- Was there a fear or race mixing and was that a common issue throughout the United States at the time?
- Was there any pushback between other leaders of the Church and Brigham Young?
- What is the curse of Canaan?
There will be a part two with Paul Reeve so stay tuned! What did you learn? COMMENT BELOW!
To watch more episodes about the priesthood ban, check out the episodes in this playlist: bit.ly/3gLcSI8
SUBSCRIBE:
saintsunscripted/subscribe
Follow Us:
Facebook: / saintsunscripted
Instagram: / saintsunscripted
Website: saintsunscript...
Follow the Hosts:
Justin: / motioncoaster
David: / davidesnell
Taylor: / tsyorg
Allex: / allex_lennon
Kaitlyn: / kait_fotheringham
![[DOKKAN BATTLE] Worldwide Campaign Announcement Video](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/zxfEiMksZQs/mqdefault.jpg)
How to reconcile? Good question. I have personally struggled with prophetic fallibility over the years. One day when I was praying about this topic (mistakes made by prophets), I received a beautiful vision where I saw Joseph and Emma talking with the Lord. He gave each of them a small candle and asked them to go forward and spread His light. When the Lord departed, I noticed that they were alone in a very large and very dark room. This room resembled an enormous celestial room with the lights turned off. I watched Joseph and Emma slowly stumble around, and do their best to spread that small amount of light, so that they (and other early church members) would have an opportunity to enjoy all of the beautiful things in this room.
I then saw Brigham Young and other church leaders trying to light more candles, but they also stumbled and even caused some very large problems (i.e. the Temple and Priesthood Ban).
At the end of the vision my thoughts became clear and these words entered my mind: "Be charitable. These good men and women were operating with limited light. You also operate with limited light, and I will be merciful unto you as you repent and progress."
This is beautiful. I have struggled understanding many of these things for years. I have finally realized that the Lord has used Israel to be examples of what to do and what not to do in building Zion. Our commission is to build Zion and the only way to do that is to be charitable to BOTH the afflicted AND the afflicters. We have to let God be the judge and let HIM give vengeance upon injustice because he will do it right and we won’t.
Also how to reconcile: Remember that Brigham Young did this policy himself, and did NOT follow the outlined process in the D&C for receiving revelation. The Brethren have to come to an agreement in unity in order to get revelation. He did this only by himself.
Woah, thanks for sharing
My wife and I struggled with discussing plural marriage several years ago. One day my wife was really upset and prayed for relief. She had a vision of Emma coming to her, telling my wife she was happy and joyfully with Joseph and that all was alright, that it wasn't my wife's burden to bear. While we both still cringe at even the idea of it, we have comfort knowing that, whatever they went through together, the Lord has it sorted out and they are happy. That's all the confirmation we need to know that these things are only temporary for us, living on this plain of existence.
@@DannyAGray That's an incredible example. Thank you so much for sharing. I wish more people would seek answers like this. The historical record is fragmented and inconsistent. We cannot see into the hearts and minds of these people (e.g. Joseph and Emma) without receiving revelation.
Thank you for your videos! It’s hard to hear the history behind the priesthood ban and the racism that heavily influenced the church. My grandfather(who passed away a few months before I was born) was a baptized member of the church and he waited for the priesthood ban to be lifted so that he could be the priesthood holder that baptized his children. I can’t even imagine the faith it trust in our Heavenly Father’s that was required to hold out and stand against the criticism from others. All of his children fell away from the church, but my brother, my cousin, and I joined the church prior to knowing our heritage. I’m grateful for the faith of my grandfather and can’t help but to feel that part of my desire to be a part of the church is because of his commitment to trusting our Father in Heaven. As difficult as it is to accept the history of the church (polygamy, racism, etc.) it would be more difficult to reject my testimony of the gospel and the Book of Mormon.
I'm a member who is a person of color and have never had an issue with what happened in the past because I know this is the Lord's kingdom for I received a witness for myself by the power of the holy ghost. As we press forward more things will shed light on past situations and give us a better understanding and may enlightening us on the answers to some of the questions that bother people who struggle with such topics and things as this topic that transpired in the past. Let us remember that God calls, chooses and ordains imperfect people to be his servant and beckons unto them to follow him and he will bless them.
We must also understand that the leaders are not infallible. They are at times left to make and organize instructions and policies to help govern the Church and live in accordance to the laws of men, but we must remember that policies are not the doctrine of Christ nor his gospel but they do help us live the doctrine and the gospel of Jesus Christ and contain at times gospel doctrines and principles attatched to them that help us live the gospel and serve to protect the leaders and members alike.
Certain policies as we learn get adjusted as the Lord directs his living servants like what we have recently seen with General Conference and our Sunday meetings which President Nelson explained but at times policies are prayerfully implemented. At other times policies as we can see here where put in place to help govern certain things but not always the policy is right, but when revelation is given to the Lord's anointed we must obey and abserve the revelation and by doing so receive the promised blessing for our heed and obedience to the revelations or the curses for our disobedience to the revelations. For that is the will of the Lord and the mind of the Lord and the word of the Lord to his people for their salvation.
Thanks for the video, it's very informative and sheds more lite on this topic. Hopefully it helps those who struggle with this topic. 🙏
I was raised in the era where they said the prophet’s words were modern day scripture.
Nowadays they say their fallible.
Also, in my day (1960-90s), they never had a separation of “policy” and “doctrine. Everything was doctrine and came straight from God.
@@katbos4995 I believe you are mistaken on that because there has always been a difference in policy and the doctrine of Christ. The doctrine of Christ is eternal and doesn't change meanwhile policy changes. Though policies have doctrinal teachings associated with them but policy is not the doctrine of Christ.
Members have said a lot of things which were in error like what you have shared. The words of the prophets are only scripture when they act in their office as such when moved upon by the holy spirit their words become the mind of the Lord and will of the Lord unto the salvation of men. There words than are scripture because they are given by the spirit of God, it comes by the spirit prophecy and revelation and no other means.
Joseph Smith Jr the prophet testified and taught, "A Prophet is not always a Prophet' only when he is acting as such." (This means that “a statement made by one leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, not meant to be official or binding for the whole Church." "It’s usually obvious when the prophet is “acting as such,” such as addressing Church members in an official capacity.")
We need to understand that there truly is a difference and I hope this is helpful.
The definition for policy is,
1. a course or principle of action
2. a set of ideas or a plan of what to do in particular situations that has been agreed to officially by a group of people, a business organization, a government ect.
Let us remember the words of Nephi which he says about doctrine, "Behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and there will be no more doctrine given until after he shall manifest himself unto you in the flesh. And when he shall manifest himself unto you in the flesh, the things which he shall say unto you shall ye observe to do." 2 Neph 32 :6
Always remember that the doctrine of Christ doesn't change and Christ will give us more of his doctrine in due time "whether by his own voice or the voice of his servants it is the same." D&C 1:38
@@rock5948 look up randy Kay to address your doubts about whether God would allow or do these things
@@photostreet2711 I have no doubts brother. Did you read my comment or understand what I said? It seems you've mistaken because I have no doubts. I don't need to look up Randy Kay because I received a sure witness from God of the truthfulness of this great work and the restoration there of of the fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ through the prophet Joseph Smith Jun.
I don't rely on men but on God, I seek not to trust in the arm of flesh but in the witness of the Holy Ghost which has enlightened my understanding and bore witness to my soul.
I love that we are encouraged to pray to God our Eternal Father and seek a witness by his spirit having faith in Jesus Christ the Lord with real intent. The witness I received from God, no man or men could ever take this from me and this has brought me such great joy! 😊🙏🏽
Thank you for your faithfulness.
I'm in an interracial marriage and am a progressive person. I've never related to conservative Christianity and this topic in the church added to the racist trope that I hated so much. I'm happy to see this being talked about and shared, it's increasing my faith.
I think you’re equating conservatism with racism. That’s flat wrong. I’d just like to remind you of two things:
1. Democrats were responsible for slavery and Jim Crow laws/segregation. That’s history.
2. The definitions of conservative and progressive has changed continuously over time. Even over my lifetime. For example, when I was a kid, a progressive was a liberal. Today a progressive is a socialist and even an communist, but is far from being a liberal.
Bottom line: by today’s definition, conservative and Christian are synonyms. Progressive is more synonymous with agnostic or atheist.
Personally: The more devoted I become to God, the more “conservative” (as defined by conservatives, not as defined by enemies of conservatism) my views become.
@@bkgoulding Yet conservatives nowadays are typically against movements like BLM and stop Asian hate. They are also, against lgbtq and most the time don't consider us a marginalized group.
@@flowerpower1747
You’re repeating what leftists tell you about conservatives. I know hundreds of conservatives and can speak for us: we are NOT racist, even though Hillary and most other Democrats try to paint us that way. It’s a tactic. And it’s working. It’s shameful.
But you’re right about not supporting BLM. I don’t support it because it’s founders are self-proclaimed marxists who want to end capitalism, and it excuses violent protests (riots). OF COURSE Black Lives Matter, but the organization falls far short of Christian values.
@@bkgoulding Plus conservatives have rioted haha and I am not just talking about the capitol riot.
@@bkgoulding you can't speak for all only for those you presume not to be racist.
The closing remarks by Brother Reeve were very well put!
You can read all the history you want to about this subject, but if you really want it resolved in your mind and heart then you need to seek out God in prayer and meditation to get a better understanding from the Spirit of God. Prepare yourself by reading in the scriptures, and then go to Him in prayer and tell Him that you know He knows more than you, then ask and listen. You might be astonished at what you learn. I certainly was and I do not wonder about this any more, and have an exalted view of black Africans now.
Moses wife was Ethiopian! And moses was middle eastern
imagine how different the entire scope of the church would be if orson pratt would have been prophet. crazy.
Or, rather, if Brigham Young had remembered to follow the rule of unanimous consent. This would not have been implemented.
Isn’t the most likely explanation that Brigham Young was not a prophet of god?
Well, I think Paul said it best, that God works with imperfect people on every level and Brigham Young was no exception. I do, however, wish that there were some kind of divine intervention and a call to repentance for Brigham Young to clean this all up - and maybe there was and we simply don't know about it. On the other hand, regardless of mistakes made, I know God has a way to make everything turn out right for his plan. For me, I see that God has a progressive gospel plan that allows for us, now, to do vicarious work for those who were denied. So while they may have been wronged in this life, the Lord will not allow their eternal progression to be hindered.
@@DannyAGray: I’m not sure how much gray area there is between religious bigots and a perfect person, but probably enough to allow for me to consider “imperfect” to be too vague of a term to be useful in determining whether it is more or less likely that Brigham Young was was ever in any kind of special contact with any gods.
Since I know you love my hypotheticals, here’s a humdinger. If you read a Wikipedia article about a person in, say, Vermont who claimed to be a prophet of god and who cited scripture as their source for claiming that god sponsored white supremacy, would it say the most likely explanation is that this person was a true prophet of god but simply a flawed tool?
@@seans5289 I think there is a big leap from Brigham Young to white supremacy. Remember, what Brigham Young said really wasn't too far off or strange for people of the time. I'm not saying that makes it right, but maybe harder to distinguish any difference. Brigham also, according to this information, never said this was sponsored by God Himself. He acted on his own, I suppose. I also don't think Brigham Young ever endorsed violence against other races to push any illusion of white supremacy.
I can't answer for why President Young went from fully supporting priesthood ordination to banning it - I don't know what he was thinking or even what was circling around him mentally, emotionally, spiritually, etc. What I can say is that it happened, it continued to happen, and the Lord's work in the temple today allows for vicarious work to negate the banas if it were never a thing.
@@DannyAGray: So, are you saying you wouldn’t accept the flawed Vermont prophet as a true prophet? Or are you saying the white supremacy thing ruined the analogy?
@@seans5289 I'm saying that flaws are inevitable and unavoidable. I'm saying that, if it were something that happened today I would have major questions and concerns. I would hope that if I were alive 150 years ago I'd question it and have a better view of my neighbors. But my religious beliefs are not rooted in man; I want to follow the Lord. So I hope that, whatever the expressions of said prophet, I would have the sense to pray and follow what I thought the Lord wanted out of me. I understand what you're asking in this example, but my faith is not rooted in flawed men either way.
I am a multi-generational saint on both sides of my family. I don't remember hearing much about the Priesthood ban from my maternal side, but my paternal side was quite "knowledgeable." I was taught the issue of the descendants of Cain. It seemed plausible.
At the same time, my grandparents and parents were not racist. My paternal grandparents thought my children would be under the Lamanite curse if I married a dark Hispanic (which I did), but a General Authority disavowed us of such a belief after I had already decided that there was no such curse still existing.
I know these beliefs were not out of racism both from how my family treated everyone and from what they taught us, to never consider anyone as inferior based on appearances, but to love and support all.
So I have very much rankled at the accusation that the policy indicated the church or its membership was racist. I saw racism in very few members of the church in my childhood and youth, and it was usually manifested by someone who wasn't white or by teenagers with little judgment. I was anxious for the priesthood to be given to all. I and my whole family rejoiced when the day came.
I'm sorry Brigham Young got it so wrong. It obviously was not revelation because it wasn't sustained by the high quorums.
The curse of Cain was a mark. Not skin color. It does not apply to African Blacks.
I absolutely love this video. I feel like it strengthened my faith as a Black, African member of the church. I also would like to commend the evolution of this channel. I made a comment about race on this channel a few years ago and it was deleted. My heart was so broken because I felt like my voice wasn't heard. But like I said, I love this video and the facts that it presents.
Brother nooooo, they have deceived you.
A man that speaks for God does not speak false revelation, how many times does the Mormon church have to get it wrong for people to see???
@@bryankeithr16 I kinduv understand your basic moral misgivings, but, read Brother Reeves’ book and you’ll see it wasn’t just a black-and-white moral issue.
@@towardcivicliteracy it’s not about black and white it’s about the “curse of Cain” false prophetic word. God never spoke in the Bible like how these false prophets speak in the Mormon cult. Starting with the adulteress, coveting, child molesting, blasphemous Joseph smith. That guy is a sicko.
@@bryankeithr16 No prophet of the Lord's Church, The Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter - Day Saints have spoke false revelations.
Thanks for sharing. These are important details to understand.
At last, a faithful member telling the truth about the priesthood ban. The most concerning part for me is the 126 plus years that allowed this false policy to stay in place. I still do not accept the 1978 event as a revelation. It was simply the correction of a mistake and should have been positioned as such. If they would have just told the truth in 1978, we would not still be talking about it. I am still waiting for the apology that needs to happen to close the books on this horrible mistake.
Excellent video! So informative and not shying away from hard history. I love the transparency. Thanks for posting!!!
Well there you have it. An official apology from the Church, rather than just a disavowal, would go a long way to healing the considerable impact of these horrors.
The States we're a very different place in those days!
David: I know in past episodes I have challenged your Faith promoting angles, this channel is commissioned to make by its funders. However, this was a great episode that primarily dealt with just facts of the time, and I found it very interesting and learned some new things. I will be purchasing Paul's book for sure. I enjoyed his narrative on this subject, especially at 34:50 when he states that "Racism was a sin before 1978". Because if you just go by the statements the Churches Prophets before 1978 it wasn't.
One point I would like to challenge, that I keep hearing in these recent "Race and Priesthood" episodes you have done. Is that you keep saying the "Prophets are just like us human". Yes that is true to a point but your under selling the point that they are also NOT like us in that they have a direct line to GOD himself, that they are the Lords anointed. That they will never lead its members astray. That God will would have the prophet killed before he would allow him to lead the church astray. We are taught at an early age to "Follow The Prophet" That even if the prophet is wrong and we still follow him we will be blessed. So to just sweep all of these prophets statements under the rug by saying they are Human just likes us, Is just a little to convenient for the faith promoting narrative. It should give True Believing Members pause when evaluating the truthfulness of the Mormon church.
Orthodox LDS theology is that the Prophet has the exact same same access to revelation and the same direct line to God as Stake Presidents, Bishops, Deacon Quorum Presidents and Ministering Brothers and Sisters. The difference is the scope of authority not type. The Gift of Revelation is part of the Gift of the Holy Ghost every member gets at baptism. The Keys to the ministering of angels is associated with the office of Deacon. You are misquoting the "will not lead us astray" line, which is in reference to official revelation like Declaration 2. IT was never an endorsement of infallibility.
I agree on your point about the Prophet. When else in scripture history has the Prophet ever lead the people astray? Yes Lehi complained when Nephi broke his bow, Moses didn't react right when the water came from the rock, Jacob tricked Isaac into giving him the birth right. It is true prophets with the exception of Jesus aren't perfect. They will make mistakes but I can't find anywhere in the scriptures where the Prophet taught the people to act contrary to God's will. This explanation makes exactly 0 sense. Also there have been a number of times the Quorum has not agreed on something yet it has been a correct principle. Oliver Cowdery did not agree on polygamy. Yet Joseph was commanded of God to do it. William Law also disagreed with Joseph on thus subject. Again Sydney Rigdon disagreed. So much here that doesn't make sense.
Look up randy Kay to gain more certainty of what God says
I think it’s so cool that God gives us so much agency. I recently had an experience where I was judging between three things and I got the distinct impression that I’d be blessed no matter what I chose. That was so faith-affirming. God wants the best for me! And he wants to let me know what I can do!
Excellent video. These are the same conclusions I came to when I did a deep dive years ago on this subject. Well said. Let’s not forget that accusations from Missourians including their fear of racial mixing and their way of life got LDS people slaughtered, mlested, and evicted from Missouri. I believe Brigham Young acted for the safety of the saints when he made that policy. Saints all across the southern states would have been in mortal danger had the ban been changed before the feds were willing to enforce the civil rights act of 1964, which is when, IMHO, the ban should have been removed. Orson Prat was correct on doctrine, wrong on policy for his time. Same thing with the servitude policy and the indenture policy. The natives were selling rival tribe’s children in the Mexican slave trade, and had been for hundreds of years when the Mormon pioneers showed up. Growing up with pioneer families working for survival was a much better alternative at the time. Read “The Other Slavery” by Andres Resendez
I believe that Brigham Young promoted the false doctrine to make the policy stick in a very difficult time.
Also, considering the senate balance of slave and free states, Brigham policy may have been intending to help get statehood.
According to LDS canon, the priesthood prohibition did not start with Brigham Young and has absolutely nothing to do with early 19th century racial theories and segregation/slavery. According to the Book of Mormon, the Book of Moses, and the Book of Abraham i.e
modern (and the most correct) revelation, sinners (Cain, Ham, Laman, and Lemuel) were quote "cursed" with dark skin so that they and their offspring would not mix with the righteous. The dark skin, according to the Book of Mormon, was designed by God to make them not attractive and not "delightsome" to the fairer people (Nephites, Shemites, Japhethites etc). LDS modern canon therefore makes explicit what protestants and catholics implied from the Bible. The Books of Moses and Abraham clearly state that the seed of Cain were black, that this included the children of Ham, and that they could not hold the priesthood, though they would have feign claimed it. No podcast, you tube show, fireside, gospel essay, or even modern day prophetic statement can disavow that. At the end of the day, you are stuck with the canon of scripture against which to guage what is true, whether it be a statement by a modern apostle or an essay (drafted with the involvement of some progressive mormon historians) on the church website.
Look up randy Kay on RUclips to confirm if what you say is true
@@photostreet2711 you tube cannot disavow the plain and clear words in modern correct scripture. The Word trumps progressive interpretations.
It is not logical to say that when God gives a revelation to a prophet that God is interfering with man's free agency. Peter was told by way of commandment to change by taking the gospel to the gentiles And just as easily, IF, if it would have been God's will he could have very easily told any one of our prophets to give the priesthood to our black brothers ~ that was God's decision not the prophets and only God knows why.
And why would this restriction need to be of high priority in the first two decades? It was revealed in 1835 in Abraham 1, and like the Word of Wisdom, wasn't implemented until later. Like a lot of Joseph Smith's revelations, many wouldn't become common or known and understood immediately.
It's a good sign that the Church and it's members didn't initially look at blacks as inferior like the South. It's a good sign they ordained blacks early on without question. But even Reeve is missing or confusing Cain with Canaan (Abraham 1). It doesn't matter if Young was somewhat racist and said wrong things about the restriction, it matters what Abraham and Noah meant about the "curse of Canaan" and why it showed up again in 1835 and why Joseph Smith acknowledged Canaan's connection to Subsaharan Africa. A revelation would be needed to undo Noah's pronunciation that had been canonized since the beginning and reiterated by Abraham, and then Young (despite prior black ordinations and even Young's own articulation of the restriction). Bushman rightly said the restriction was not rooted in ideas of inferiority or slavery, only priesthood. Many of the details highlighted in this interview about some of the ideas held by some of the early saints are unfortunate, but that was not Noah or Abraham's intention. Just like in the Book of Mormon "skin of blackness" has nothing to do with melanin or inferiority, but garments, covenants, and obedience to God.
Excellent work!
I have found a number of observations directly from joseph smith and what he thought about the black race, he had a high regard for them, In general however, Brigham Young hated them with a passion.
It is.
My understanding that joseph smith had personally given the priesthood to 450 black men.
Not only that comma but even when they were preparing to leave and come to utah, Brigham young was abandoning black members of the church. He didn't like them when joseph smith and himself Argued that he didn't think that they were worth a damn. He only kept it up because many of the members of the church knew joseph smith's feelings on it. Is there a violation of scriptural reference that is far newer than the book of Abraham?Implies that the pharaohs of egypt were sons of cain, and they were not.
It wasn't until Kush.Push the original veronic families out of Egypt.That any black man sat on the throne of egypt. Is the entire Is narrative was false.
In the understanding of eternal progression, how does one repent with no longer having the body in which one had formerly sinned? Progression from glory to glory is understandable but repentance seems to require the body, thus the call for such in preparing for the Kingdom.
Good too see this false doctrine has been done away with
I would also like to point out.Atement that brigham young himself stated. Is the once stated that god chose joseph smith. He also stated that joseph smith chose him. He actually acknowledged that he was not a prophet of god when he stated that joseph smith chose him to be a prophet because joshua smith did not have that of type of authority.
Looking back I think brigham was right. Liberal minded people tend to judge people from the past from perspectives of today, but that's wrong. There certainly is a difference in the races today as in 1850, the way certain groups behave etc. Instead of throwing past leaders under the bus and calling them bigots, the safest path is to try to learn something from what they said. I don't know how people can say 'oh he was racist' and still believe in this gospel?
God's standards do not change based on popular culture. Jesus Christ message was unambiguous- slavery is evil!
I am heartbroken to hear about the animosity the early leadership in the church had to those with different colored skin.
But like with other horrible events in history, we need to study it and learn from it, to be better.
Good stuff!
So awesome to see you here
Learned so much! Thanks
Thank you for these wonderful, helpful videos! ❤️
I was lead to believe that black people were not given the same rights nationally. Although Joseph had black friends it was due to the laws of the land, that the priesthood was not permitted for black people?
My hot take: The Lord is more interested in allowing us as individuals and even us as a group of covenant-making people to learn from our mistakes than He is in making sure we make right choices (as Paul said, "the plan" is dependent on agency. Agency for prophets and for you and me). Early church leaders were racist at times. It was and is wrong, and God never condoned or inspired racism. We can recognize now with absolutely no uncertainty that race has no bearing on worthiness, worth, or eternal and divine potential. Thank you for the open conversations! This is great stuff.
I appreciate your view that it was a mistake. It was also a mistake by those leaders to claim that they were just doing the will of God too then, right? Mistakes are human, but human leaders can do a lot more damage when their followers think they are speaking for God. At least you viewing it as a mistake is leaps and bounds ahead of calling it "God's timing". I appreciate that. I would like to hear the top leadership call it a mistake - but they haven't yet. Elder Oaks is on record very recently saying we just don't know why God withheld the priesthood. Top leadership calls the reasons put forward for the ban mistakes, but the ban itself was God's will - according to them. Have you heard differently?
And slavery took place when Jesus Christ walked the 🌎 Earth, but he didn't interfere with it. He let the agency of man's choice's take place!
So you personally knew the early church members, to say they we're racist?
Exactly. Israel has always been used by God to help others in both learning from mistakes and in being a light. The atonement was made so that all our bad could be used to learn to do good.
@@leem3299 i would agree that it may have been a mistake to claim they were doing God’s will because they did NOT follow the order of the priesthood keys for the ban as outlined. The brethren are to come to the UNITY of the decisions made. There was NOT unity among the 14 apostles then living and so it was NOT of God. God however allowed it to happen so that we could learn from this mistake and not make it again, like he did with Israel when they sinned.
Prophets are only people and this was a major mistake. Thank goodness for our Savior.
It's improvement that people can talk about this in a public place these days, and not face discipline from church leaders. Not too long ago people were excommunicated when they were public about this history. Improvement is helpful.
Who was ever excommunicated for talking about the priesthood ban?
@@christopherrandallnicholson I don't know what year this was, but look up "LDS Scoutmaster Byron Marchant excommunicated for criticizing priesthood ban on blacks." This is not the only instance. High church leaders push excommunication less now, but I think that has more to do with bad publicly than becoming more tolerant. Information control has become harder thank goodness. But as I celebrate that fact, I'm also concerned that those who enjoy their church experience have a way of staying in. This video is the best effort I've seen of a church promoting group facing facts head on, and illustrating a way to stay in the faith. Maybe some blind faith/obedience in the prophets has to fall by when wayside, but that's not a bad thing. And if de-emphasizing prophets means more emphasis on the life and teachings of Jesus - then everyone wins (Everyone that is who doesn't mind having less power and prestige themselves).
Examples? Sources?
@@Mcmj-ot4dt I don't know what year this was, but look up "LDS Scoutmaster Byron Marchant excommunicated for criticizing priesthood ban on blacks." This is not the only instance, nor the most recent one. If you're into searching you'll find more. High church leaders push excommunication less now, but I think that has more to do with bad publicly than becoming more tolerant. Information control has become harder thank goodness. But as I celebrate that fact, I'm also concerned that those who enjoy their church experience have a way of staying in. My church experience was not healthy - but some people say their experience is healthy and I trust them. This video is the best effort I've seen of a church promoting group facing facts, and illustrating a way to stay in the faith. Go Saints Unscripted. Maybe some blind faith/obedience in the prophets has to fall by when wayside, but that's not a bad thing. And if de-emphasizing prophets means more emphasis on the life and teachings of Jesus - then everyone wins (Everyone that is who doesn't mind having less power and prestige themselves).
@@leem3299 According to the article in the Salt Lake Tribune, he was not excommunicated for talking about the ban, but for organizing a protest during General Conference. Disrupting General Conference, no matter the issue, is sufficient reason. You are misrepresenting how the Church has responded in the past.
Is it true that David O McKay never knew of the priesthood ban until he was an apostle? And he sought to end it in the 60s, after he became the prophet, but was told by God - not yet.
No church has a perfect history, because people on earth aren't perfect! People are just people and that includes prophet's in Biblical time's as well! None of them we're perfect, so if you believe in the Bible no matter what religion you are, none of these men could walk on water! I personally feel like our Heavenly Father, knows when his children are ready for certain things, and he was being a Father with the restrictions! This has absolutely nothing to do with Heavenly Father, not Loving them! God truly loves all of us, and that's evident to me! He created all of us! 💜🙏🏻🙏🏽🙏🏿👍🏻
But shouldn't the LDS Church be held to a higher standard since they claim to have the fullness of the gospel restored and living prophets? Shouldn't the LDS Church be *ahead* of the curve on racial issues for these same reasons? I have a hard time buying into the "all churches/people" makes mistakes because I feel like it just brushes the issue under the rug.
Do you think this openness will eventually be extended to LGBTQIA+ people?
So are you saying banning people with dark skin was a significant imperfection of church leaders? Or are you saying it was really totally fine what they did, because they were just following God's timing? You seemed to say both things.
@@ieatfriedpikmin The law's are something every church has to follow, and they had implemented law's back then against interracial marriage!
It was an incredible different time and place then, living in our time we think 🤔 this is a very obvious problem, but back then they didn't have so much media, along with so many different points of view! You had the little town you were in and a handful of people you knew, and that was it!
I'm a member of the church because I have a very strong testimony of the church and it's teachings and, for me I have been to many churches in other parts of the world 🌎 and I have never felt the spirit in any other church.
He could of based his opinion on following the law's at that time! We will never know his thought process on why he felt the way he did at that time!
The church has always taught people of color the gospel from the very beginning, polinisian island's , because all people we're created by God!
It was a great hardship to leave your family, and be a missionary so far away! But the people we're more important to them! And I don't make excuses for there behavior we just don't know the entire story not knowing Brigham!
Every church has flaws, along with every person!
We have many brothers and sisters 🙏🏻🙏🏽🙏🏿 of color that have chosen to be members of the church, so there feeling God's love and the spirit!
@@ieatfriedpikmin Or does the Lord use us like Israel to teach us how we must create Zion?
Incredible
This is the first explanation of why and how it happened that I have ever heard.
THIS IS A THING OF THE PAST. I'M SURE APOLOGIES WERE MADE, SO THIS SHOULD BE WATER UNDER THE BRIDGE. AND NOT TO BE MENTIONED AGAIN. EVERY WORTHY MALE MEMBERS HAS BEEN GIVEN THE PRIESTHOOD, NO MATTER OF COLOR OR RACE. IT SHOULD BE LEFT ALONE.
It was wonderful to get the historical context for the decisions made to withhold the priesthood from our black brothers. And it's a good reminder that prophets are people, too. I'm sorry for the suffering those decisions have made in people's lives over many, many years.
We are --- though some can swim against the tide --- products of cultural waters we swim in.
Race itself is a social construct designed to justify the evil of enslaving another human being. There is more genetic variation in groups of bonobo monkies that reside a mere dozens of miles from each other than in any two human beings on Earth.
We are all literally children of the same God.
I know I'm late to this party. Sorry. That said, I've been pondering and praying on this and other aspects propulgated and promoted by Brigham and subsequent leaders. @saintsunscripted, I appreciate y'all taking on such challenging topics and being genuinely vulnerable. That said, I'm sorry, but it's an over simplification to say, "...prophets are human just like you and me." The reality is they have a higher degree of expectation because they have a significantly broader impact of influence. To dismiss these (and other) abhorrent statements and actions FROM THE PULPIT (literal or in written declaration) as accidents on the one hand, then to support that "The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray..." is at least faulty logic and at worst disingenuous. Yes, it's a problem. For clearly, Brigham and later Joseph F. Smith both "led [the members] astray" in a manner that is so deplorable that it has impacted millions of souls directly (those of color) and indirectly (those not of color who support the misguided teachings, if only in an effort to strive in being obedient to what they believe to be true prophets/teachings).
Add to this other important "mistakes" Brigham made (and arguable falsified) and there are some serious issues to sort through with the Lord in how it impacts us today.
Orson Pratt! Hats off to him!
The only thing I'm gonna say is this: "when the Prophet speaks the debate is over" and God's Kingdom is a Kingdom of order. The Prophet is a mouth piece for the Lord when he acts as a Prophet. The ban is hard to accept and to understand. It is not for me to say Brigham or Joseph F. Smith were wrong in implementing it. We can not pick and choose when to follow a Prophet. Samuel commanded Saul to kill everyone in an entire city. That's even those too young to actually be wicked. I don't completely understand that command either. But I will say this some of my best friends are African American Priesthood holders! I'm grateful the ban was lifted! I truly believe President Kimball and President Young were both Prophets of God and there is no need to doubt the Prophetic calling of either.
Esto destruye la idea doctrinal q hace cantar a los niños Sigue al Profeta, de verdad desde que murió JS algo muy serio sucedió, sin embargo la la Restauración sigue, solo q deberíamos esperar un nuevo proceso con Profetas verdaderos... De lo contrario estaríamos afirmando q la Iglesia Católica tiene la sucesión apostólica... Y ahora sí examinamos cómo fue la sucesión entre la Iglesia de José Smith y la de Brigham.Young, ya me dio literalmente pavor....
Excellent presentation! This is very honest, well researched and therefore helpful.
As you Joseph smith ordered a number of black men to the priesthood.. there is no scripture saying the black people are not allowed the priesthood.. it was just a false doctrine made up by man..
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 do current leaders need to repent of? I don't think there is alive today a single apostle who was an apostle pre-1978. They never endorsed the ban at all. And there have been apostles of our day that have said the ban was wrong. I can't think of any present leaders that have ever supported the ban at all. Can you give direct examples?
@@DannyAGray as I said, the leaders past and present will work out thier own salvation. The issue is the church as an institution has a need to repent. It isn't alive or a person, but to set things right it should follow the same path. A simple apology sign by the first presidency would be a good start. Again, it isn't for sins belonging to members of the First Presidency, but for the church as an institution.
Perhaps an analogy might help? If Microsoft had a company policy that was ruled illegal - caused damage to an individual (discrimination, etc.) - Microsoft would be liable. It wouldn't matter to the victim if individual employees were fired, or if they apologized, or say that Microsoft doesn't do that anymore, etc - particularly if Microsoft kept all of those corrective actions private. Microsoft, the company, is held liable for its actions because it was an illegal Company policy. Being liable, the courts would decide how Microsoft could repair the harm done to the victim caused by corporate policy. Similarly, the church is spiritually liable for all of denied baptisms, ordinations, endowments, etc. Imagine how many people and generations it affected over the 100 years while the ban was in place. An official apology is just the start ...
@@cyclingcotton3569 I actually disagree. This is the Lord's church and He presides over it. For the current church leaders to apologize would be to apologize for whatever reason the Lord Himself had for the ban persisting; and I personally don't think that it's their place to apologize for Him. Whether we like the history of the ban or not, God has His reasons. I see this as the case since the Lord clearly gave a sign when he was ready for the ban to be lifted. I think it is enough that the witnesses of the ban had such a strong testimony and conviction of what happened in the room that day. In essence, the Lord said, "it's time to be done and move forward." many of the apostles at the time, including some of the more stringent ones, did directly apologize for the things they personally said and believed. I think that would and should be enough.
@@cyclingcotton3569 except that Microsoft isn't run by Jesus Christ. The church is. Even if the ban were a man-made idea, Christ allowed the ban to be in effect for that 100+ years, and the church leaders followed His direction and changed it when they were told it was time. You're asking for a public apology from the people for the direction of their leader who is Christ. That's not their right to do. All they can do is change what they have said, apologize on the light on knowledge they have gained (many if not most of them did) and move forward. I think the Lord owes no such apology, and the ban is being corrected and negated by vicarious temple work.
Fantastic discussion. So glad that the true history of things is being openly discussed.
Need to be careful to not judge history using eyes of today.
I think the official essay on the matter is quite sufficient. The church might have been slightly behind the times but it mostly reflected contemporary thought along with statements that are now clearly outdated. While I agree that we need to see leaders as fallible persons, I think Saints Unscripted goes a little too far in applying it to the character, teachings and leadership of past prophets to the point of destabilizing foundational beliefs. Trying to reconcile past decisions with current knowledge is a flawed exercise. Right or wrong does not change but context is a significant factor.
Adam B .The Church is (slightly!! ) behind the times even now over other matters of discrimination. As Paul Reeve pointed out and isolated Brigham Young "demanded instant death to couples of mixed race who were lawfully and legally married" . This is much more extreme and hateful than the contemporary punishment for a Black man who rapes a white woman , the man is punished by death. Here Brigham Young desires to punish a white woman and a black man with instant death for been lawfully married.
The Church today is punishing same sex couples for been lawfully married by excluding them from lds Church membership?
“0h Woman where is thy shame?
I'm so grateful you guys addressed this. The Church not allowing Black people to have the priesthood and temple blessings is one of the things that has challenged my faith in our Church leaders so (besides my testimony of the Book of Mormon) this was extremely helpful! Thank you!!!
Could it be that God allows and/or calls for things like this and polygamy to keep at bay the insincere and to test the faith of his people. What better way to hide the sacred than in the dirt, like a gem. Or even our testimonies in spite of our unworthiness. Prophets acknowledge their own wickedness to Gods righteousness. Yet he entrusts to them sacred matters.
Great video. I really wish the Church would come out and say that the priesthood ban was not divinely ordained. I wish they would state that black people are not descendents of Ham. It really surprises me that this has never been articulated, even when books like Mormon Doctrine were still being sold well into the 21st century saying that they were.
I am not sure I understand the connection between the two.
wow
Very well done! Thank you!!
Hopefully in Part 2, the good professor will engage with the multiple accounts claiming that David O. McKay asked God for permission to rescind the ban and was expressly told “no”. The primary basis for arguing that the ban was *not* imposed at divine direction in the 19th century seems to be “God would never be OK with the Church doing that . . .”; but the evidence (from 1954-ish, at least) seems to be that “on at least occasion, He was absolutely OK with it”.
The record is thus messier than even Reeve has hitherto presented it; and I rather wonder whether theological progressives are as comfortable with inconvenient “messiness” as they expect theological conservatives to be.
"Expressly" told no? Site your sources, maybe I'll beleive you.
@@Mcmj-ot4dt Certainly. “David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism” by Gregory Prince and William Robert Wright, pp 103-104, citing specifically Lola Timmons and Richard Jackson for the proposition that McKay prayed and was told “no” (and additionally citing Mildred McKay and Marion Hanks as stating that McKay had told them he was praying for a new revelation to give Blacks the priesthood and hadn’t received one at that time).
@@ahgue6915 You’ll have to refer me to the statement in question. (Ezra Benson was publicly suspicious of the civil rights act movement, but I don’t believe McKay ever publicly expressed such sentiments). Mormonism has generally had a pretty dim view of civil disobedience since the early 20th century; and while McKay had private concerns about the Civil Rights Act because of concerns about government overreach generally he was apparently careful to avoid taking a particularized stand and indeed released a statement in 1963 calling for “full civil equality”. See Prince & Wright, 66-72. McKay’s record of church service shows him whittling away at the ban wherever he thought he could-declaring it inapplicable to South Pacific Islanders and Australian aborigines, reversing the “standard of proof” regarding African ancestry so that it worked in favor of rather than against priesthood applicants, and appointing committees to research the origins of the ban and determine the degree to which it could be reversed short of revelation. There is no reason to believe McKay was any more ideologically entrenched in a segregationist position than was Spencer Kimball, who ultimately reversed the policy.
@@ahgue6915 The talk was entitled “Unity of Purpose Important to Accomplishment of God’s Work”; it discusses a variety of ways to build ecclesiastical, theological, and spiritual unity within the church and the American nation. It is well over 80 paragraphs long, only three (3) of those paragraphs talk about civil disobedience, and NONE of those directly and explicitly refer to civil rights activists (remember, the Vietnam War was happening at the same). If more people on all sides of the political aisle had taken President McKay’s statements to heart, later American horrors like the Kent State shootings, the Weather Underground bombings, and the Patty Hearst kidnapping might not have happened; and a lot of good people might still be alive and enjoying their golden years right now.
Your characterization of McKay’s 1967 sermon cannot reasonably be construed as the “statement against black rights activists such as MLK” that you represented it as being; and your attempt to pigeonhole and demonize McKay flies in the face of the approach Reeve himself takes to history in this video. Your post is, in fact, staggeringly disingenuous.
To paraphrase a wise internet post I once saw: “Your reply was too dishonest so I’m not gonna bother”-at least, not any more than I already have. :-)
@@ahgue6915 Now you’re just cherry-picking. The sixties were one of the most tumultuous decades in American history with controversies and protests and violence over a wide range of domestic and foreign policy issues; in that milieu, it’s remarkable how you insist that a talk given in October of 1967 must be referring to non-violent incidents in 1963 or 1965, rather than any other non-violent protest of the 1960s on topics such as war, sexual freedoms, and/or gender issues. And that’s not even considering the incidents of actual violence that were endemic to “long hot summer” of 1967 and throughout the 60s (including vandalism, arsons, assaults, threats, and even a bombing on Temple Square itself).
It’s a patent exercise in grasping at straws, to try to pass off a banal 1967 sermon that makes a passing reference to civil disobedience, as some sort of evidence that McKay (who, everyone who knew him agreed, wanted the ban to go away) was so choked with racist bile that he lied about getting a revelation from God Himself.
Whatever video you put out will not undo the racist doctrines - not opinions and sermons, but doctrines even found in the BoK itself - that the LDS church and its prophets espoused.
Maybe you should watch the video instead of being automatically prepared to reject it.
Is it just coincidental that this came out during the Winter Olympics, because the mental gymnastics done by Latter-Day Saints to justify the priesthood ban is just incredible!
Oh, I see. A pack of whites, for no reason, just decided to go out and create a racist persuasion.
I didn't hear any justification in the video, just condemnations.
Can you point out where the justifications were in this video? I didn't catch any justifications.
@@DannyAGray Well I guess you didn’t watch the video then?
@@KIisaacson oh I watched it: it just seems you don't know what you're talking about. 😃
Literally how hard is it to say 'black people'. Stop saying blacks.
As far as I understand, the term "Blacks" or "whites" isn't racist. It's just shorthand for the phrase, "black people," or "white people." The word "people" is implied. From what I've seen, there's no historical issue with the word having an "s" at the end, and it is still widely used today by both traditional and progressive sources to add literary variety.
How much of a difference does it really make, and at what point does such clarification become a burden? If I say "blacks" am I not still talking about black people? And why would one assume that by saying "blacks" instead of "black people" would be robbing them of their personhood? Isn't that just the other person's own personal biases imprinting onto the speaker?
I think the guest was a tad unfair toward Brigham Young. Yes, he was a “racist,” but so was the rest of the entire world.
Let’s beware of “presentism,” which is the tendency to judge attitudes in the past by today’s standards. In Brigham Young’s day, even the best people in the world who showed love toward black people and opposed slavery still erroneously believed that blacks were inherently different. Back then it was possible to be a good person and a “racist” at the same time. Today it’s not, but it was in those days. That’s hard to understand if we fail to see that people 200 years ago were the product of their time and the misconceptions that were “common knowledge” in their day. We should forgive them of their ignorance even while we condemn the ignorant policies.
Why denounce the possibility that Cain was the first black man so vigorously? You seemed to imply that everybody who believes the mark put on Cain was him being the first black man also believes in racism. A person can' believe Cain was the first black man and have true charity for black people without mental gymnastics or having cognative disonance. Believing the mark (there was a mark) was darker skin doesn't mean one also believes in any discrimination now!
0:45
Yes we do trap humans in their worst moments when they are the prophet of God! Supposedly speaking for God this is madness!
Let's see a program about this but with American Indians.
Why, there was never a priesthood restriction involving Native Americans, BY ordained the first NAtive Bishop in the 1850s.
Jonah was a bigot and still a prophet so there's historical precedent.
I see things very differently than the comments section. I'm watching three people who reek of social justice presentism pull cringe faces and sit in judgement of the Lord's anointed as if their modern sensibilities equate to superior wisdom. No one with the authority to do so has given a concrete reason for the Priesthood ban and its continuation until 1978. That means any ideas on the matter are just mere mortal speculation. We should all be very careful about counseling the Lord; His way are not our ways. Or in the case of this video, attempting to position oneself as an authority over a Prophet. If anyone takes umbrage with the Priesthood ban I suggest stowing it until the next life when you can stand before Him, wag your finger, and tell Him how problematic His choice of Prophet was and to do better.
I think that you bring up an interesting point. However, you cannot downplay the effect that this issue has on the faith of many members. It's hard to realize that this actually happened and we as mortals are trying to reconcile with it. I agree with you in the fact that God is the one in charge. We can't tell him what to do. If I come before the bar of God and he tells me I'm wrong, I'd gladly accept my faults. And I believe that most of this comment section is the same.
I fully believe that Brigham Young was a prophet of God who was chosen to lead the saints during his time. But when a man is given a calling even by the Lord, this man is not made infallible.
I don't know where I stand on the issue, but I really appreciate your thoughts and insight. Please leave a little bit of room for struggling members to grow their faith. The answer to the whole 1978 issue at the moment is "we don't know." And until the next life, we will not know why this all happened. But I have a feeling that when that time comes, we will find ourselves all in agreeance. Take care, I wish you well.
Please stop using “Blacks…” We are a people. Using the terms “Blacks” is racist and belittling in and of itself. “Black people” or “Black Men” and the Priesthood is how it should be spoken about and written.
Would the term “people with dark skin tone” be better? I long for the day when skin is treated the same as hair and eye color
"Black people" would be better since the priesthood ban also affected women. "People of black African descent" would be a little more accurate since technically white people with any measurable degree of black African ancestry weren't supposed to have the priesthood either (though of course they did because that was impossible to enforce all the time).
I second this
@@christopherrandallnicholson women don’t need the priesthood. They are priestesses, not priests. Therefore it would be the priestesshood for them. Not priesthood. I believe that there is yet possibly priestesshood power yet to be restored.
@@rachelczumaya2806 In any case - I meant that women of black African descent were affected because they couldn't receive temple ordinances or serve missions either. That fact often gets overlooked.
It most definitely wasn’t Joseph Smith. It was Brigham Young, Joseph Smith gave Elijah able to priesthood he was African American
It's far more basic and irrefutable that either these men are literal prophets speaking God's Will ("whether by My voice or the voice of My servants, it is the same.")...or they're not. If they are, then God is the racist flip-flopper. And if they aren't...well, then this Church isn't led by God through prophets as it claims to be and is just as man-made and fallible as any other.
It maybe more basic and irrefutable in your eyes, but just as stated in the video, you're saying that these leaders either lead by anarchy or by a puppet-master. God doesn't direct every last action for every little thing. People make mistakes all the time. Lucky for us, God has a plan in His gospel where these mistakes can be rectified. His work allows for vicarious ordinance work where those mistakenly denied the priesthood will still have those rights extended to them in the temple.
@@DannyAGray ... Did you really mean to put out there what you just wrote? In your mind, determining the Church's doctrine of who is worthy and who is not to receive the "Priesthood of God" as well as who can and who cannot receive Temple Ordinances requisite to one's Eternal Exaltation... all this is, in your eyes, nothing more than pesky "little things" God doesn't direct "every last action" regarding?
What could possibly be MORE important than an entire RACE being barred from the "blessings of the Priesthood" and the Temple for themselves and their families generation after generation... due to ONE racist "Prophet" that set that doctrine for "Jesus' Church" (gee... I thought Jesus did that THROUGH His Prophets! My bad!) thus preventing Blacks from being admitted into the Priesthood and Temple Ordinances for over a century? That's a whole lot of either willful ignorance and denial... or outright "privileged" racial insensitivity goin' on there.
I swear... the brainwashing it must take to have otherwise rational Human beings arrive at such glaring illogic puts most cults to shame!
@@FatherVampire except for what I just said: that while those folks were denied those blessings temporarily in this life, the Lord's work in the temple allows for the blessings and ordinances to be taken care of as if they were never denied at all. Yes, the ban was racist as far as I can tell...but I don't see much value in dwelling on it when, one, it's far in the past and, two, the work can be done to make up for those who were denied. I also don't see much value in you yourself being so angry about what I said. I'm interested in the whole picture; not this sliver of nonsense that most members never agreed with anyway.
@@DannyAGray ... As you no longer attempt to claim such a foundational doctrinal issue is a "little thing," you hopefully see my point that were Jesus truly running this Church, He would have ensured CORRECT doctrine was "revealed," and that ALL worthy men were treated equally in His Church... being, as He is, no "respecter of persons."
Nevertheless, as this did NOT occur (and this is but one of numerous examples), then how can this Church claim to be personally led by God through "Prophets" who consistently get it wrong from God on such foundational doctrinal matters (e.g., polygamy, Blood Atonement, Temple Endowment [that keeps changing every decade or so in its "eternal" covenants, signs and tokens], even the nature of God, Himself!). None of these issues are "little things" ... and in fact constitute exactly the "whole picture" the Gospel claims to possess a "Wholeness" of no other religion can.
And were you truly interested in the "whole picture," you'd not continue to ignore that big picture by so disingenuously claiming the Priesthood and its day-to-day importance and "blessings" in Mormon lives and that of their families is actually of so little significance in mortality that it's no biggie if an entire race never got to exercise any of it in life... so long as they get it in the next (?!). Here's a thought: Why don't you go get your Priesthood removed... and see whether your life and the lives of your family are unaffected by its absence here in mortality... as you have, yet again, so flippantly claimed. Go ahead! Have it removed and see how long you feel comfortable living like that with everyone knowing you don't have it. Then THINK how Blacks felt living EXACTLY like this their entire lives... generation after generation... with no other option available to them if they wished to remain Mormon.
Your callousness mirrors that of some Whites I've heard who attempt to excuse away the indignities suffered under slavery by observing from their "ivory towers" how it was no big deal for Blacks... 'cuz in the next life they're free, too! 😳😡
@@FatherVampire my understanding is that, while the presentation in the temple endowment ceremony has changed, the actual endowment keys have not. Polygamy, for whatever purpose it had, was done and then done away with. Like it or not, it did serve a purpose, at the very least to help the young and starting church gather in the members within the priesthood bonds of marriage and bring children to the world. I'm sure you're disgusted by the notion of it, and to that I really don't care. It's in the past and it isn't hurting you now. Let it go. The Blood Atonement had its purpose and is no longer used and hasn't been sued for some time. Again, let it go. There's no reason to care about it now. Also to my understanding, the nature of God has never changed in any significant way. I could be wrong, but really all I care about is my present understanding of the nature of God. If it has changed, I challenge you to think about any time you yourself didn't fully understand something and learned about it more clearly over time and had to refine your testimony of it.
Now onto your challenge that I should have my priesthood removed so I can sympathize with those of the past: for me, that's a challenge not only accepted but accomplished! In 2019 I was excommunicated from the church for having extramarital affairs. Presently, I have no priesthood and no access to the temple. I do have the priesthood in my home, having 2 sons in the Aaronic priesthood, but I myself do not hold the priesthood. Last year I was rebaptized as a member, but I still have to wait sometime before I can be a priesthood holder again. During all this time, I've had one son baptized and confirmed a member of the church that I couldn't participate in, 2 sons advancing in the priesthood, a grandson that I could not bless, multiple times I couldn't give healing blessings, missed opportunities to join my wife in the temple, and I wasn't able to be present as my brother-in-law went through the temple, and he and his family (wife and 2 daughters) were sealed. Believe me when I tell you that I understand how brutal it feels. But I'd like to teach you a lesson I've learned from that list I provided: all of my sadness in not participating is simply a sadness of MY lack of participation. My son was still baptized by the power of the priesthood, my other sons still righteously ordained; People still received healing blessings, my wife still went to the temple with family and friends, getting temple work moving forward, my brother-in-law was still endowed and his family sealed regardless of my lack of participation. The priesthood and the Lord's work still moved forward. And while I'm saddened that I was not involved through priesthood power, I was nonetheless as present as I could be at each event; and, God-willing I am found worthy to eventually hold the priesthood again in this life or the next, I will be happy to do what I can to stay a worthy and righteous holder of HIS priesthood, NOT mine.
The "relationship with Sally Hemmings" has been debunked.
@Saints Unscripted do you think this kind of openness will eventually be extended to LGBTQIA+ people in the future?
There is a difference in this subject from the priesthood ban where they aren’t exactly comparable. The openness should already be there toward LGTBQ+ persons, member or not, living the law of chastity or not. God determines our salvation, not ourselves or others. And if in our heart of hearts we are following the Holy Spirit in our unique circumstances, doing our best to repent etc for all our faults, then we are on the covenant path even if we don’t reach the end of it in this life. Being on the covenant path even if it isn’t perfect is all that is required for salvation. Because what we don’t quite master here we still can master (even if more slowly) in the next life.
ALL are love and to be treated with love regardless of how they identify or whether or not they struggle to understand or live certain difficult commandments. My heart goes out to the LGTBQ+ community because I was a single adult for many years and refraining from sex outside of marriage is really hard. It was difficult to not masturbate, it was difficult to know how to navigate difficulties with sex. But I had an experience that I will never forget where I wrestled with that demon and cast it out and was never tempted again. I’m married now and see sex in a different light than before. I am glad I kept trying to live it even with all my struggles.
We’re all just trying to figure out how to give light to the world. The way we look at sexuality is vital in progressing the light. Now I understand the power of bridling one’s passions. Love comes in when we bridle indulgence in the name of love.
My heart goes out to those who want a temple marriage and yet struggle to know if they can get one due to their attraction. But God knows their heart and situation. All our losses will be made up to all of us who choose to be faithful. ❤️🙏🏽
@@rachelczumaya2806 I just sincerely hope and pray that the membership is as open in every Ward just as you are. I'm investigating right now, but am in the situation I described.
@@johnmacbride9720 I LOVE YOU! I pray that the members of the church will come to love you too. It is hard to be a light to others when they lack understanding and kindness, but that was the lot of Jesus too. Much of the issue is that the doctrine of the 3 kingdoms of glory is not well understood. It gets misinterpreted all the time. God loves you and wants you. He is with you in all your struggle and gets it, even if others don’t. ❤️🙏🏽
@@rachelczumaya2806 one thing I appreciate about the LDS theology is one of progressive revelation; that is, in the final dispensation and re establishment of Christ's church on the Earth, the lineage of the priesthood and the prophethood have been left with us, the saints of the latter days. I'm eagerly awaiting the church to embrace this.
@@johnmacbride9720 God bless you ❤️🙏🏽
Excellent. For once we can say it. b
Bringham Young was a racist. Now if Black Lives Matter would step in and remove statues of him and change the college name we could all move on from the racism the church covered up for so long. Kudos for not suppressing the truth!
Mormons need to get saved!!!
We're all working on it as much as you are.
@@DannyAGray can’t work on it brother that’s the thing. Faith comes from God, salvation is a gift and so is the work laid out before us once we are saved. There is no work that we can do to bribe god to let us into heaven…plus It’s disrespectful to think that we are doing the same things is an insult an insult to the Savior because your Jesus is not my Jesus.
@@DannyAGray Jesus came and gave complete and perfect revelation no need for “prophets” anymore for us Christian’s. When we want to hear from God we go to His word, when we want answers we don’t pray like you guys pray to see if the false Book of Mormon is true. We go to the truth which is the Bible.
@@bryankeithr16 Can you explain to me how our Jesuses are different? I tend to believe that Jesus came to earth, taught many great things, healed the sick and afflicted, was baptized by John, called followers, was crucified and died and rose on the third day. My Jesus taught to love God first and to love my neighbor as myself, and that those are the two great commandments. Really, I think that sums up the bulk of *my* Jesus. Is *your* Jesus different than that one?
@@bryankeithr16 I maybe wrong, but doesn't the Bible say that God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow? I think we can break down some time there. If we call the time before Christ came to earth as "yesterday," and then we call Christ's earthly ministry as "today" both those times had prophets. And what about "tomorrow" being after Christ's earthly life? Also, what does the 2000 year old bible say about modern problems and how to deal with them? Ancient people had prophets AND scripture; why would people today be limited to just the one?