Jul

9

Why did the Mormon Church before 1978 denied priesthood ordination to male members with Black African ancestry? There is an interesting small book by Marcus H. Martins, a Brazilian Mormon, who was the first full-time Mormon missionary (after the revelation that extended the priesthood to worthy men with Black African ancestry) and among the first to be ordained a bishop in 1987. He was also the first of his race to work as a religion professor in the Church’s universities – Brigham Young University – in Provo, Idaho and Hawaii.

In his book he mentions that as a researcher he probably read almost every official or semiofficial statement available to the public about the priesthood ban.

One of the main points of his book is that the priesthood ban is not part of the restored and eternal gospel as taught by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but it was only a temporary law.

The problem is not with the ban, but with the explanations that many tried to give for this ban. However, in 1969, under the presidency of David O. McKay the Church made an official statement declaring that the priesthood ban was established for,

“reasons which we believe are known to God, but which he has not made fully known to man.”

In other words, we do not know and the theories that have been used to explain it are men’s theories and may be wrong.

One interesting point, that should be remembered when critics attack the Mormon Church on this topic, is that contrary to the national trend of that era, early Mormons leaders did not establish segregated congregations, as did many other denominations that sometimes accuse Mormons of being racists. The only limitation was about the priesthood, but all other blessings were available from the beginning and no segregation was imposed in the Mormon Church.

However, why there was a priesthood ban until 1978? Marcus Martins has his own theory that looks very compelling and logical to me. Again, we need to remember that this is just a theory, the only certainty is that the Lord timetable is often a mystery.

Dr. Martins suggests that perhaps for a long time the priesthood ban was not an urgent enough matter, since leaders of the Mormon Church had more urgent priorities, such as defending against a hostile U.S. government, dealing with political adaptations to obtain statehood in Utah, avoiding financial banckrupcy, dealing with the turmoil of two world wars and the depression, and so on. Those were issues that involved the survival of all members of the Church, and not just a small group.

Only during President Spencer W. Kimball’s administration (1973-85) did the priesthood ban moved up in the scale of priorities and became an issue that affected the very identity of the Church.

I have two examples of situations very similar to this one that may help to put the priesthood ban in context.

First, in Act 10:15 we read that even Peter, the old apostle, needed a revelation from God to understand that the gospel had to be preached to the Gentiles and not only to those of Israel. Moreover, it was the same Jesus who had told previously to his apostles not to preach to the Gentiles. Was Jesus racist, or was he simply following His timetable?

Second, I can use the example of my country, Italy. Until 1963 Mormon missionaries were not sent to that country and only Italians living in other places of the world could become members. There wasn’t an official ban, but in practice, Italians living in Italy had even less opportunities than black American to enjoy the blessings of the gospel.

Black Americans at least were able to become members of the Church; but Italians, in practice, had a very little chance to become members. Why this racism against Italians? Was this because they lost the war against the U.S.? Was that because Italians were not prepared?

I think that again, it is just the Lord timetable, and we need to learn to accept it. We may try to explain, and we may create theories, but in many cases those theories will be wrong and will generate more prejudices and confusion.

Follow a great video about Priesthood to Mormon men of all races. This video is not directly related to Dr. Martins’ books but it is another great resource to understand better this topic.

  • Share/Save/Bookmark

Dec

26

On December 15 of this year Elder M. Russell Ballard of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormon Church) gave a speech at Brigham Young University-Hawaii’s graduation ceremony about the use of New Media to support the work of the Church.

I am really glad that Elder Ballard gave such a talk. I work for the More Good Foundation, and we are concerned abaout and committed to spread good information about the Church online. We want to make sure – using Elder Ballard’s words – that we “define the message of the Restoration rather than letting others define our beliefs.”

Elder Ballard explains,

Now all of you know that members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are reminded and encouraged continually to share the gospel with others. The Church is always looking for the most effective ways to declare our message.

For some unfortunate reason, until recently there was a prevalent feeling among members of the Church that we were not supposed to use the Internet to talk about our beliefs. The problem with this attitude is that if we do not define who we are and in what we believe, others will do it;  and they will do it without enough knowledge or even with malicious intent.

Elder Ballard’s talk is very welcomed, because it explains clearly why members need to be involved online. He draws an interesting parallel between the invention of the press and the Internet:

There are perhaps few inventions that have had a greater impact on the world than the printing press, invented by the inspired Johannes Gutenberg in 1436. The printing press enabled knowledge, including the Holy Bible, to be shared more widely than ever before. Ultimately, the common people had access to the truths of scripture, and the clergy no longer held the populace hostage to their interpretations.

He continues:

Today we have a modern equivalent of the printing press in the Internet and all that it means. The Internet allows everyone to be a publisher, to have their voice heard, and it is revolutionizing society. Before the Internet, there were great barriers to printing. It took money, power, or influence and a great amount of time to publish. But today, because of the emergence of what some call New Media, made possible by the Internet, many of those barriers have been removed.

This is really amazing. The Lord has found a way to spread the gospel to billions of people, bypassing the usual barriers created by the lack of money or power. We need to use this window of opportunity as fast as we can because there is always the possibility for new barriers to emerge, limiting the freedom allowed by the Internet.

In the meantime there are a few simple things that almost any member can do. For example, a blog:

A Church member living in the Midwest makes a concerted effort to share the gospel everyday, in person. He then writes a blog about his daily endeavors to share the teachings of the Book of Mormon and to give pass-along cards to all he meets.

Or we can share our conversion stories and other uplifting experiences:

Others have recorded and posted their testimonies of the Restoration, the teachings of the Book of Mormon, and other gospel subjects on popular video-sharing sites.

We (the More Good Foundation) have created a website where we invite people to share their stories at MormonTestimonies. We would like to have thousand of members sharing their stories online.

I am really grateful to Elder Ballard for his speech that explains the principles behind our need to use the Internet to do good or even. . .more good!

–

Link to the full article: Using New Media to Support the Work of the Church

 

 

 

 

 

  • Share/Save/Bookmark

Sep

7

Joseph Smith’s doctrinal restoration include many principles that were lost by the world for centuries. Probably the most important was about the nature of God. Joseph Smith proclaimed to have seen God the Father and the Son in his vision.

According to Joseph Smith, they were two distinct personages and not a confuse part of a trinity. Traditional Christians were offended by such a claim, since they thought it would diminish God.

Why did they react that way? Because traditional Christianity included in its beliefs the idea that God is an amorphous essence of some kind. This idea come from Greek philosophy and not from the scriptures.

Moreover, especially those who strictly believe in the Bible, seem to have forgotten what happened do Stephen when he claimed that he saw the Son of Man standing on the right hand of God (see Acts 7:56). Clearly Stephen did also see two personages, in the form of men, in his vision.

So, I ask, why do those who claim that nothing else but the Bible can teach us about God are ignoring such evidences (Stephen) and “adding” to the Bible (Greek philosophy)?

Do they really believe in the Bible?

  • Share/Save/Bookmark