It is alleged that the US government forced the LDS church to finally give ALL men in the LDS church the priesthood, when before 1978, blacks of African descent were not permitted to have the priesthood.
It is my understanding that, in order for it to be in violation of civil rights laws, it would have to be a paid position, a job. Our Priesthood is NOT a paid position, so no civil rights laws were violated, right?
2007-07-29 13:16:56 · 7 answers · asked by mormon_4_jesus 7 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
The thing is, we did not segregate blacks, nor did we forbid them membership. If they were upset about not being able to hold teh priesthood, why did some of them join the church anyway? See my point?
2007-07-29 13:39:01 · update #1
We're not moonies, and we believe that it was GOD who gives the priesthood, and therefore, God decides who gets it and who doesn't, and God never told us why blacks didn't get it until 1978.
2007-07-29 13:40:16 · update #2
M4J- I understand your confusion, wanting to understand the Anti thought. We all know that the Church didn't make this change due to pressure from Uncle Sam. The civil rights movement was in the 1960s..... Whatever pressure President Kimball felt was from male members who didn't know their herritage and wanted temple blessings (and hence needed the priesthood), and that was in the late 1970s-- 10 years later.
Unfortunately, most anti-Mormon literature and thought is regurgitated and recycled baloney.... But I agree- I'd like to know HOW they come to these conclusions.
Another good question would be--
HOW are equal rights laws to be applied in non-profit organizations... when all positions are volunteer?
2007-07-29 13:58:03 · answer #1 · answered by Yoda's Duck 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
No, you are not correct.
Under the 13th Amendment, Congress can legislate anything that is a "badge or incident of slavery" -- as interpreted by the Supreme Court, that allows laws that make any kind of racial discrimination illegal, even non-commercial.
That being said, since it's now a matter of conflict between a fundamental right (1st Amendment, free exercise of religion) and a fundamental protection (13th Amendment) -- Congress should have stayed out of it.
Note that I am accepting (without verifying) your premise that Congress did mandate the change. If so, then checking the Congressional record (thomas.loc.gov) would help you to understand what actually happened, and how they justified the law (assuming there was such a law passed).
2007-07-29 14:10:07 · answer #2 · answered by coragryph 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
No, and if it did they have been being violated for 70 years, considering that FDR. What it in fact did is take the prevailing FEDERAL rules and advised the State regulation enforcement to enforce them. The criminal immigrants/extraterrestrial beings could carry their "papers" with them in any respect situations, and maximum folk carry our identity on us. honestly in a worse case scenario you by some potential won't be able to teach you're right here legally to the police and that is composed of once you're put in conserving. then you definately could have a tribulation to teach you're legally right here.
2016-10-13 01:41:35 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Absolutely not. Civil rights laws apply to all instances of segregation, such as public schools, and the private sector (hiring practices, for example).
Welcome to the 21st century.
2007-07-29 13:28:03 · answer #4 · answered by buzzfeedbrenny 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
there was no goverment involvement. it was the result of revelation. churches are allowed to operate as they choose. the government has no say; hence the separation of church and state
2007-07-29 13:22:38 · answer #5 · answered by LatterDaySaint and loving it 6 · 4⤊ 1⤋
You mean Spencer Kimball's revelation was faked due to political pressure?
2007-07-29 13:23:23 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
The bigger question is why wouldn't you moonies allow blacks to be priests?
2007-07-29 13:22:10 · answer #7 · answered by rjrmpk 6 · 1⤊ 4⤋