Comments about ‘Beyond Ordinary: Faith, truth and priesthood restriction’

Return to article »

Published: Friday, March 9 2012 5:00 a.m. MST

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Cats
Somewhere in Time, UT

Wow! What a great aricle! What a man of faith! He's spot on!

hc1951
Bend, OR

Thanm you :-)

BonnieA
SPRINGVILLE, UT

Wow. This was the most beautiful article I've ever seen written on this subject. Thank you, from the bottom of my heart for writing it. As a colorless Mormon (with a colorful spirit!) this issue was the single greatest hindrance for my faith, 30 years ago as a teen. I knew I had no right to be outraged (being colorless), and I felt like I couldn't say anything without offending everyone, including God. I've struggled for all that time, trying to understand God and building my faith, waiting to understand this. Just one week before the Post article came out, I finally had the confidence to question God about this and to stand my ground and not be intimidated by my own humble station before him, and I found my peace with it, just as described in this article. Sometimes, I think, God allows a situation to broil, measuring our willingness to push him in our advocacy of others. Why would he visit Abraham and tell him of his plans at Sodom, if not also to let Abraham see what it feels like to advocate? The tests are myriad. I love the image of Israel's slavery. Profound to apply to us.

roswell
Saint George, UT

Keith,
Once again your thoughts and comments are right on. This issue is not the only one that is not clearly answered by history or facts, and consequently we are left to determine how we will respond. There are good reasons to respond with faith, as there are numerous witnesses, both general (to all people) and personal that this work is of God. I choose also to respond with faith. Unfortunately, there are many that are unable or unwilling to see with an eye of faith, believing that some absolute fact or document must provide confirmation before they will believe. If they only understood that even science demands acceptance of some principles on faith. Thanks again

JM
Lehi, UT

Great article, my Black LDS family members have always felt more welcome among LDS than others. I've taught my children that the language in the Book of Mormon and PofGP are symbolic ("skins of blackness" and "blackness came upon" (how so if Cain already Black in our terms?), Abraham married Egyptian, all non-Shemetic people restricted back then etc). Israelites were dark skinned people Lamanites and Nephites were probably one color (see FAIR lds)and were one race (so can't be racist towards each other) etc.
Also, without being negative about others, I've tried to explain that the LDS Church has always been among the most progressive. Racism issues, genocide, etc among mainstream Christians, the gay community, atheists, liberals, etc have been, and are still, much worse than among Mormons.

sharrona
layton, UT

Faith, truth and priesthood restriction,A perfect example involves the restricted earthly ministry of Jesus Christ. The New Testament clearly shows that Jesus taught his disciples that while he was on the earth both he and they were to go "but unto the lost sheep of the House of Israel[Mt 15:34]." Yet Christ never explained why his Father gave him that limitation or why he passed it on to his disciples.
Paul explains the prophecy Isaiah 49:6, we now turn to the Gentiles. For this is what the Lord has commanded us: ÂÂI have made you a light for the Gentiles, that you may bring salvation to the ends of the earth( Acts) 13:47. Jesus is the light to Gentiles.

Bobster
Boise, ID

I have enjoyed following this topic in the news and appreciate Brother Hamilton's insight and perspective. When I was a teenager in Utah (pre-1978 Revelation) I recall attending a fireside where an African American member of the church talked about his conversion to the Church. I do not recall his name or much about what he said. I will never forget his incredible faith and love for the restored gospel of Jesus Christ. He had found the same peace that Brother Hamilton wrote about.

scootd28*
SALT LAKE CITY, UT

Outstanding article! As with polygamy somehow this was the Lord's will. I don't know how, but I know so much that is true- by extension this is also true. The love that I feel as a member of the Lord's Kingdom overshadows everything and confirms the truth of the gospel. Besides, I always figure that I still need to learn to love my neighbor. Then, when I've done that, I'll worry about those other things.

Thinkman
Provo, UT

So we don't know how or why or whom started the ban to giving blacks the priesthood yet we know for a certainty that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon from gold plates that are no longer on the earth?

Oh and we know for certainty that the LDS church is the one true church of God on the earth yet something so sacred and important as the power of God (priesthood) was held from blacks for some unknown reason?

With the LDS church claiming to be inspired, why did it take till 1978, (a full decade after the Civil Rights Act and over 100 years after the Emancipation Proclamation) to give blacks and all worthy males the priesthood?

These are the questions I got on my mission 20 years ago when asked by JWs, Baptists, Catholics and even non-Christians.

Bill in Nebraska
Maryville, MO

Thinkman: You again refuse to see that the article tells us this. Answer why did Christ withold the priesthood from all of the house of Israel. Why just the Levites? Didn't he discriminate then? From what I have been able to gather Moses and Aaron were never told why. That is germane to this debate whether others want to believe it or not. The Lord picks who will hold HIS priesthood. Again as the article stated, it proves that the orders comes from the Lord not man. Either as a member you believe the Lord is in charge or you believe it not. Either Joseph Smith was a prophet or he is fraud. There is no well Joseph was but Brigham isn't. All of those chosen from Joseph down to President Monson are either Prophets or they are not. Those are the questions and members telling the Quorum of the Twelve and the First Presidency what they need to do is really saying they no more than the man chosen by the Lord to be the leader of the LDS Church and that isn't so.

manaen
Buena Park, CA

Good thoughts that skirt the damage last week's Bottulisms caused the work of those of us trying to use the restored gospel to solve societal problems. I'm involved with a couple of groups in LA working against gang violence. I've used the restored gospel in our work as I've found opportunities. Frequently, I'm the only not-black person in our meetings.

I was challenged after Darron Smith's article in "Deadspin" last year but was able to answer it was written by a fired BYU professor. But, what am I to say about Bott's ignorance-spreading? The effect of the Church's denounciation of his comments the next day is diluted severely by the fact that he's been retained so long in the classroom -- and remains there. If Darron Smith should have been let go for his writings, and I agree that he should have been, how is Bott still working on campus? How do I explain this discrepancy? In the absence of answers to these questions, my ability to refer to our restored gospel is curtailed greatly and this results in the loss of the better, enduring solutions that it creates.

Could we have recognition of this kind of damage?

manaen
Buena Park, CA

@Bill in Nebraska, "Again as the article stated, it proves that the orders comes from the Lord not man."

Both of the Church's statements last week declared that we do not know why, when, or how the priesthood restriction came to be. Your affirmative claim that it came from the Lord conflicts with the Church's twice-declared position.

sharrona
layton, UT

RE: Bill n Nebraska, Again as the article stated, it proves that the orders comes from the Lord not man. Either as a member you believe the Lord is in charge or you believe it not. Either Joseph Smith was a prophet or he is fraud.
Joseph Fielding Smith, The doctrine did not originate with President Brigham Young but was taught by the Prophet Joseph Smith¦we all it is due to his teaching that the negro today is barred from the Priesthood. The Way to perfection, pp 110-111

manaen
Buena Park, CA

@Sharrona, you omitted that Joseph Fielding Smith revealed in the next paragraph that his source was a comment in 1895 by George Q. Cannon, 51 years after the Prophet's death.

There is no known primary source from Joseph Smith teaching the priesthood restriction.

BTW, Joseph Fielding Smith said "Way to Perfection" and his other books are personal writing, not an official statement of Church doctrine. He wrote,

"The Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price, including the Articles of Faith, have been received by the vote of the Church in general conference assembled as the standard works of the Church. On this platform we stand. The Church is not responsible for the remarks made by any elder or for the numerous books that have been written. The authors of the words or books must be responsible for their own utterances. [...] If I should say something which is contrary to that which is written and approved by the Church generally, no one is under obligation to accept it." (Doctrines of Salvation, Vol. I, pp. 322, 323)

Bill in Nebraska
Maryville, MO

Mannen: Actually it doesn't conflict with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints leaders statements. You need to really read what is said. They only state that the reason for the ban, when it was received and etc is not known. However, they all will state that the revelation received by President Kimball came from the Lord. They also state that before the revelation that all of President Kimballs predeceessors all requested answers to the ban and none was given. So yes, if the revelaion came in 1978 as stated by revelation, then it was by revelation that the Lord determined the ban. Why that is so no one currently alive knows why. To try to speculate upon it is wrong for anyone and is strickly opinion, not doctrine. If it wasn't of the Lord, it would have been removed much sooner than it was as it would have been revealed much earlier.

Don't put words into their mouths as you are doing.

sharrona
layton, UT

@Manaen, you omitted that Joseph Fielding Smith revealed in the next paragraph that his source was a comment in 1895 by George Q. Cannon( the premier Mormon Apostle was reliable), 51 years after the Prophet's death.
There is no known primary source from Joseph Smith teaching the priesthood restriction, Check JS on national equalization History of the Church, Volume 5, pages 218-219 and The book of Abraham.

(Genesis 7:10 JST), And there was a blackness came upon all the children of Cainan, that they were despised among all people. And (Genesis 7:22 JST) ,..all the seed of Adam save it were the seed of Cain; for the seed of Cain were black and had not a place among them.

Truthseeker
SLO, CA

Re:Bill in Nebraska

What is your source for the claim that ALL Prophets before Pres. Kimball asked about the ban?

The claim that it was God's design the ban wasn't lifted earlier is merely conjecture on your part. Maybe he didn't want the ban, in line with Joseph Smith's practice, but allowed man to exercise agency.

wstebar
Atlanta, Fayetteville, GA

Well said.

hc1951
Bend, OR

What if (FYI this is ME, Sis. H., speaking) the only way Father can help us understand our own strength is to put a burden on us that is so heavy we can only carry it with His help? Now THAT is a method I am personally acquainted with!

manaen
Buena Park, CA

@Bill in Nebraska, "Actually it doesn't conflict with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints leaders statements. You need to really read what is said. They only state that the reason for the ban, when it was received and etc is not known."

As I really read last week's statement from the Church, I find it says,

"It is not known precisely why, HOW [like your claim that it was by revelation] or when this restriction began"
and
"THE ORIGINS [like your claim that it was by revelation] OF PRIESTHOOD AVAILABILITY ARE NOT ENTIRELY CLEAR. Some explanations with respect to this matter were made in the absence of direct revelation and references to these explanations are sometimes cited in publications. These previous personal statements do not represent Church doctrine. (Emphasis added)

If how the restriction began is not precisely known and the origins of its availability are not entirely clear, how is your precise, entirely-clear statement that it was by revelation not in conflict with the Church's position?

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments