The Priesthood Ban

[USU78]

intellectually savy world

[DanGB]

While not impressive, probably not too far off the canned responses to the black/priesthood answers I've seen offered.

That's why the Church needs to come clean via apology! There are no longer any acceptable excuses to the outside.

[Glenn101]

While not impressive, probably not too far off the canned responses to the black/priesthood answers I've seen offered.

That's why the Church needs to come clean via apology! There are no longer any acceptable excuses to the outside.

If you feel so strongly, why not request an en banc hearing with the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve? Then you can expound to them with impeccable logic the error of the Church's ways, including all of the past presidents/prophets up to Spencer W. Kimball.

I assume that you have had a revelation on the matter also.

By the way, it is really no business of the "outside" what the church's policies were and are.

Glenn

[USU78]

While not impressive, probably not too far off the canned responses to the black/priesthood answers I've seen offered.

That's why the Church needs to come clean via apology! There are no longer any acceptable excuses to the outside.

You're no dang fun, DGB. Here you say something so profoundly silly without a hint of irony, get guffaws out of me and probably a whole lot of others [intellectually savvy world indeed], then you spoil it.

Ed Wynn was right. Comedy is hard.

[DanGB]

You're no dang fun, DGB. Here you say something so profoundly silly without a hint of irony, get guffaws out of me and probably a whole lot of others [intellectually savvy world indeed], then you spoil it.

Ed Wynn was right. Comedy is hard.

Come now, I love a good comedy!! But like the ironc twists in subtle Shakespear,

this is a tradgety that could have been avoided by the Church long ago. Still can. But without finally acknowledging both the doctrinal and human error

of our practce, the Church will never shed it's ankle weight.

I would go through life making decisions on "what I know" as opposed to what someone attempts to convince me

on "what I don't know"! Just common sense to me!!!

[Brenda]

Number one may a reasonable explanation for why the Lord ALLOWED the ban to be put in place. However, I don't think anyone believes the original instigators of the ban did it for this reason and that's the problem with trying to use it to explain or excuse their actions.

Nope. I don't buy it. Why is it hard to accept that the Lord was your "instigator"? If it was enacted by BY or JS, they did it under the direction of God. THAT was their "excuse".

[ACW]

I have already gone on record that The Church, IMHO, needs to come out w an apology for this terrible stance by BY in light of absolutely no credbile scriptural support nor revelatory support. Perhaps outside of the predominantly "Anglo Utah", this issue has and will continue to be one of the "Achilles Heel" for real meaningful growth. The "we don't know" answer is just becoming more and more embarrassing to the intellectually savy world, particularly in light of all readily accessible historcal documents of our Church history.

We can contnue to take the "ostrich" approach for the feel good need in isolation. But we will never move forward in meaningful ways outside of the Wasatch Corrirdor. "We don't know" is now received as "we don't want to talk about that" for most new prospects, outside of Utah, partcularly our african American brothers and sisters we would want as members.

It's simply embarrassing!!!

Apparently you skimmed right past my post...#42

In the documentary called Nobody Knows: The Untold Story of Black Mormons Rev. Cecil Murray was interviewed and he said President Hinckley apologized to him for the church's role in slavery and racism in America.

An apology was given...just not in the grand way you would have preferred. "We don't know" is the best answer because it's the only answer, but you are right unfortunately this is a touchy topic for many members...except the black members. And read the speech by Bruce R. McConkie given Aug 78.

There are also black missionaries, Bishops and Stake Presidents.

[DanGB]

Nope. I don't buy it. Why is it hard to accept that the Lord was your "instigator"? If it was enacted by BY or JS, they did it under the direction of God. THAT was their "excuse".

Logic and provenence, Brenda!

Smith allows blacks to have the preisthood as a prophet of God. When was it revealed to BY to take it away? Most non-mbers know his historical chain of events!!! To continue to to play the "we don't knw" card is more and more embarrassing at this point!!

[Brenda]

Logic and provenence, Brenda!

Smith allows blacks to have the preisthood as a prophet of God. When was it revealed to BY to take it away? Most non-mbers know his historical chain of events!!! To continue to to play the "we don't knw" card is more and more embarrassing at this point!!

I'm not embarrassed at all. Any reason given by anyone here is just speculation. It just boils down to who is running this church, man or God? I choose the latter. Btw, what is provenence?

[DanGB]

I'm not embarrassed at all. Any reason given by anyone here is just speculation. It just boils down to who is running this church, man or God? I choose the latter. Btw, what is provenence?

With no disrespect, that is exactly the type of attitude that has alienated the Church to vrtually all African Americans. IE " God said you were not worthy"! No reason why our Church was in complete conflict with biblical scripture! No reason why our founding prophet saw blacks worthy of the priesthood and it suddenly changed without reason nor revelation!!

It's totally embarrassing to rationale and reasonable thinking Christians and time for an apology.

BTW, the proper spelling is "provenance". Does that help?

[Flyonthewall]

With no disrespect, that is exactly the type of attitude that has alienated the Church to vrtually all African Americans. IE " God said you were not worthy"! No reason why our Church was in complete conflict with biblical scripture! No reason why our founding prophet saw blacks worthy of the priesthood and it suddenly changed without reason nor revelation!!

It's totally embarrassing to rationale and reasonable thinking Christians and time for an apology.

BTW, the proper spelling is "provenance". Does that help?

Perhaps it is your view that blacks did not have the preisthood because they were "not worthy" is your stumbling block. I don't see it a matter of worthy-ness, but simply excluded. The bible does demonstrate excluding whole segments of society from holding the priesthood, simply because of their lineage. Yet no one is demanding the Jews apologize for that.

You say it changed without reason or revelation. I say reason has been given, by prophets and leaders of the church, but it is rejected outright because it does not line up with 21st century political correctness. Brigham Young implemented this ban, and as the prophet of God on earth, my stance is that it was by inspiration, if not revelation. The fact that it took up until 1978 to remove the ban, when so many other prophets inquired about it before, leads me to believe that it wasn't a "mistake" or BY's "racist tendencies", but there was a reason for it, even if it goes agains modern day thinking.

[thesometimesaint]

DanGB:

The Official answer is we don't know. As to my speculation; it very well could have been a test for Priesthood holders, in seeing how they would treat their fellow men.

[Darth J]

It's not nor has ever been doctrine..........

This is erroneous speculation that seems to get passed down. Valiance in the Pre-mortal existance has nothing to do with skin color.

Elder George F. Richards

Of the Council of the Twelve Apostles

Conference Reports, April 1939

Punishment of Those Not Valiant

The negro is an unfortunate man. He has been given a black skin.

But that is as nothing compared with that greater handicap that he is not permitted to receive the Priesthood and the ordinances of the temple, necessary to prepare men and women to enter into and enjoy a fulness of glory in the celestial kingdom.

What is the reason for this condition, we ask, and I find it to my satisfaction to think that as spirit children of our Eternal Father they were not valiant in the fight. We are told that Michael and his angels fought, and we understand that we stood with Christ our Lord, on the platform, "Father, thy will be done, and the glory be thine forever." I cannot conceive our Father consigning his children to a condition such as that of the negro race, if they had been valiant in the spirit world in that war in heaven. Neither could they have been a part of those who rebelled and were cast down, for the latter had not the privilege of tabernacling in the flesh. Somewhere along the line were these spirits, indifferent perhaps, and possibly neutral in the war. We have no definite knowledge concerning this. But I learn this lesson from it, brethren and sisters, and I believe we all should, that it does not pay in religious matters, matters that pertain to our eternal salvation, to be indifferent, neutral, or lukewarm. he Lord, through one of his servants, addressing the angel of the church of the Laodiceans, said:

I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot; I would thou were cold or hot.

So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spew thee out of my mouth.

To members of the Church I would ask, are any of us of that class today-lukewarm, indifferent and neutral-a lesson to be learned from the experiences of others who have gone before. I firmly believe that God had something to do with the recording of these events, and having them preserved and handed down to us from generation to generation, that we might read, and reading, profit thereby. We are under direct command of the Lord to search the scriptures, where these things are contained. We have been admonished in this conference so to do.

Elder Melvin J. Ballard

Of the Council of the Twelve Apostles

Conference Reports, April 1939

It is written in our own revelations that only those that can abide the celestial law can endure celestial glory. As we sow so shall we reap. We are reaping now, here on the earth. Blessed and fortunate are we, the sons of Joseph, the descendants of Israel, for we are reaping the consequence of our righteousness before ever we lived on this earth. Just as Brother George F. Richards has indicated that our poor benighted negro brethren are suffering the consequence of their sowing at some other time and place, so as certainly shall we hereafter reap what we are sowing here and now.

President George F. Richards

President of the Council of the Twelve Apostles

Conference Reports, October 1947

The Negro race have been forbidden the priesthood, and the higher temple blessings, presumably because of their not having been valiant while in the spirit. It does not pay to be anything but valiant.

Elder Melvin J. Ballard.

(President of Northwestern States Mission.)

Conference Reports, April 1915

My brethren and sisters, we are here reaping the reward of our, former labors, and we are going hereafter to reap the consequences of our lives and works here. We know, from the doctrines that we have received, that men and women have existed before coming into this life, for countless ages, and that we have been developing certain qualities, and the reason we are separated into great classes, as the Negro race and the other races on the earth, is not a matter of caprice. God did not take three beautiful children yesterday morning, and say to one, You go to the Negro woman, and to another one, You go to that Chinese mother, and to another, You go down to that beautiful Christian home. In my opinion, there were classes and races, and separation into different groups and conditions before we came to this world, and all are getting what they are entitled to receive here. But this is as far as we will travel together, for after this life, some will get a celestial glory, and some a terrestrial glory, and some a telestial, and we will no longer journey in a great class, or in a great company, made up of all classes. I believe that, while there will be classes in the spheres to which we will belong, we shall be grouped on separate planets. If we comply with all requirements we will be prepared to go into the highest places for further advancement, and that is celestial glory, and it is gained by obedience to celestial law. The celestial abode will be upon this redeemed earth, for God has declared that it will fulfill the purpose for which He has created it, and it will no longer need to have the light of the sun by day nor moon and stars by night, but will have power to emit its own light. It shall be the home of those who overcome, and who have kept the law, and who have measured up to all the requirements.

Re: "erroneous speculation"

Isn't an apostle or other General Authority speaking in general conference entitled to an automatic presumption that he is "speaking as a prophet"? If not, why should anyone ever listen to general conference?

What is the objective standard for determining whether "a prophet is speaking as a prophet"?

If apostles and other church leaders are teaching the philosophies of men mingled with scripture, doesn't that mean " they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof"?

Isn't religious leaders intermingling their personal interpretations with "truth" exactly the apostasy that made the restoration of the gospel necessary?

[frankenstein]

i do not understand how one can claim another was less valiant but allowed to stay and in the same breathe quote the "hot or cold" verse. as it seems you are either hot or cold, anything in between is spewed out.

[Storm Rider]

Re: "erroneous speculation"

Isn't an apostle or other General Authority speaking in general conference entitled to an automatic presumption that he is "speaking as a prophet"? If not, why should anyone ever listen to general conference?

What is the objective standard for determining whether "a prophet is speaking as a prophet"?

If apostles and other church leaders are teaching the philosophies of men mingled with scripture, doesn't that mean " they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof"?

Isn't religious leaders intermingling their personal interpretations with "truth" exactly the apostasy that made the restoration of the gospel necessary?

No. Any declaration of doctrine approved as such is added to the canon of the LDS Church. Everything outside of the scriptures that is not supported by them, is speculation. You may remember that the counsel given is that general authorities (apostles and prophets) speak the word of God when moved by the Holy Spirit.

You have a funny way of mixing up snippets of scripture to achieve your own end. Apostasy is always possbile by anyone; we are still mortal; the apostle Paul tells us this would affect the church. However, the LDS Church defeats apostasy by making doctrine difficult; it must be added to the canon. Why do anti-Mormons have difficulty with this? Do they know men that always speak as God directs i.e. 24 hours a day a direct mouth piece for God? Why is it that they enjoy taking snippets of statements to paste together to support something that is not doctrine? When David O. McKay stated the priesthood ban was never docrine, but was a policy what does that mean? This is tiresome.

[erichard]

DanGB:

The Official answer is we don't know. ....

Hi,

I would bet if Brigham Young could get a MADB account from the spirit world that he would sign in and disagree with you. Everything he said about it indicated "he knew" absolutely it was the correct thing to do.

But I do agree that more needed to be revealed about the matter. And I am sure Brigham would also agree.

When I read Wilford Woodruff's pioneer Journal when it came out I was surprised at the things that Wilford would say that are out of touch with our present age. For instance, he and all the General Authorities fully expected to be back in Jackson county by 1890 or at least by the turn of the century, and they expected the Second Coming not long after that. That is how they thought, and for whatever reason the Spirit never corrected them.

In my faith, based on the Word of the Lord given since 1961, the pure blacks are not even the seed of Adam. They were here when Adam and Eve came. There is no curse on the pure Negro people, but they do not need the Priesthood for the salvation God has prepared for them. There is a curse on the mixed seed, and the ban was instituted because of them. Any priesthood is denied them until the Seed of Able come to earth and receive the priesthood.

President Young did not understand the above, and taught that all Negroes were the seed of Ham, which is not at all correct. But nonetheless, the ban he instituted against any black being ordained in all cases was still correct.

It is embarrassing to see people like DanGB wanting so much to seek the approbation of the world on matters rather than seeking to live by correct principles even if the world mocks.

Richard

[DanGB]

Any declaration of doctrine approved as such is added to the canon of the LDS Church. Everything outside of the scriptures that is not supported by them' date=' is speculation.[/quote']

So was the denial of the preisthood to blacks doctrine or just speculation?

[Darth J]

No. Any declaration of doctrine approved as such is added to the canon of the LDS Church. Everything outside of the scriptures that is not supported by them, is speculation.

So the LDS Church is a sola sciptura church. I take it, then, that you are saying there is no particular reason to care what is said in general conference, since "everything outside of the scriptures that is not supported by them, is speculation."

Which specific scriptures conflict with the teaching that a spirit who was less valiant in the pre-mortal existence was born as a negro? A great many general authorities, including Joseph Fielding Smith, found that teaching to be entirely compatible with the scriptures. Can you share those contradicting scriptures with the rest of us?

You may remember that the counsel given is that general authorities (apostles and prophets) speak the word of God when moved by the Holy Spirit.

Are you referring to counsel such as this?

The prophet does not have to say

[DanGB]

It is embarrassing to see people like DanGB wanting so much to seek the approbation of the world on matters rather than seeking to live by correct principles even if the world mocks.

Richard,

Did you find it embarrassing to see the Church enter into an agreement to get permission to perform proxy baptisms on Jews rather than simply live by it's correct principles/doctrine?

[Lloyd Dobler]

I will tell you one good reason why the Church needs a reason for the ban on the priesthood. I guy that just moved out of my ward is black. He and his family converted 7 years ago. Has a few kids and even his mom joined like last year. She would always attend our gospel principles class. Great family. Really. He always made the most sincere comments in class. Beautiful teenage kids. So a couple months ago I hear that he has stopped going to church because of not only the priesthood ban (he knew the highlights of this and by highlights I mean the super general explanation for his missionaries) but also many of the other racist comments and stuff by leaders.

So this is a big deal in our ward and in his new ward and a group is sent over to try to talk to him and have them come back. Well a friend of his wound up saying some diparaging things to him about his church being racist because he is black and he can't see how a black person could tolerate being a member of the LDS church.. He disagreed and told the guy he was wrong. He then went online and that is when he really got pissed. He pulled his family from churhc. They are all on board and pissed.

Look, I know that sometimes on this board empathy for guys like this runs a little dry. The fact is this is real life. This is what members are going through who have a testimony in the church and then lose over stuff like this.

So yeah, when you are sitting accross from a formerly sincere believing black member who is pissed/embarrassed/disgusted and is looking you in the eye and asking you the why for all the racist statements, ban and history with the church................yeah, "I don't know" from the prophet does not cut it. And that is just an I don't know regarding the priesthood ban. What about the racist statements? For those there is not even an I don't know from our prophet. There is silence. I am telling you that apologetics just does not cut it in situations like these. What we needed was an explanation from our prophet by the spirit of revelation. A statement like this from our prophet would be truth and if delivered with sincerity (which we were) would at least have a chance of delivering the holy ghost to the guy. I don't know does not deliver anything.

Do I expect Monson to chase and try to explain every apologetic situation? Of course not. Would I expect a prophet of God to step up on something like this and provide a clear reason and explanation by the spirit of revelation? Yeah. Guys like this deserve it and I am telling you there are more situation like this than you may think. I think the priesthood ban and the accompanying cloud of racism should be hit by our prophet head on.

[thesometimesaint]

erichard:

I would love to have that conversation with BY.

I have no problem with peoples expectations, but then I'm not all that surprised when my, and their, expectations don't pan out as planned. Jonah got mad at God when Nineveh wasn't destroyed right before his eyes too. I still regard Jonah as a prophet of God.

[Lloyd Dobler]

While not impressive, probably not too far off the canned responses to the black/priesthood answers I've seen offered.

That's why the Church needs to come clean via apology! There are no longer any acceptable excuses to the outside.

This is really why the Church needs to give a reason or a reason/apology. There are tons of great reasons for people who already really believe in the Church. But for outsiders, prospective members or new members, I don't know is never going to cut it.

[DanGB]

I will tell you one good reason why the Church needs a reason for the ban on the priesthood. I guy that just moved out of my ward is black. He and his family converted 7 years ago. Has a few kids and even his mom joined like last year. She would always attend our gospel principles class. Great family. Really. He always made the most sincere comments in class. Beautiful teenage kids. So a couple months ago I hear that he has stopped going to church because of not only the priesthood ban (he knew the highlights of this and by highlights I mean the super general explanation for his missionaries) but also many of the other racist comments and stuff by leaders.

So this is a big deal in our ward and in his new ward and a group is sent over to try to talk to him and have them come back. Well a friend of his wound up saying some diparaging things to him about his church being racist because he is black and he can't see how a black person could tolerate being a member of the LDS church.. He disagreed and told the guy he was wrong. He then went online and that is when he really got pissed. He pulled his family from churhc. They are all on board and pissed.

Look, I know that sometimes on this board empathy for guys like this runs a little dry. The fact is this is real life. This is what members are going through who have a testimony in the church and then lose over stuff like this.

So yeah, when you are sitting accross from a formerly sincere believing black member who is pissed/embarrassed/disgusted and is looking you in the eye and asking you the why for all the racist statements, ban and history with the church................yeah, "I don't know" from the prophet does not cut it. And that is just an I don't know regarding the priesthood ban. What about the racist statements? For those there is not even an I don't know from our prophet. There is silence. I am telling you that apologetics just does not cut it in situations like these. What we needed was an explanation from our prophet by the spirit of revelation. A statement like this from our prophet would be truth and if delivered with sincerity (which we were) would at least have a chance of delivering the holy ghost to the guy. I don't know does not deliver anything.

Do I expect Monson to chase and try to explain every apologetic situation? Of course not. Would I expect a prophet of God to step up on something like this and provide a clear reason and explanation by the spirit of revelation? Yeah. Guys like this deserve it and I am telling you there are more situation like this than you may think. I think the priesthood ban and the accompanying cloud of racism should be hit by our prophet head on.

Excellent point and one that is more common than we want to admitt. We tend to gain comfort from the insulated way the Church has dealt w this issue over the past 50 yrs or so. Is it any wonder why BYU has the lowest percentage of black students than any other Div I school? Probably the same for our US Church!

There is just far too much documented evidence of our leaders racist past to keep playing the "we don't know" card any longer. And there is absolutely no evidence that our historic treatment of blacks as a church had anything to do with God.

An apology is overdue.

[Brenda]

The racism expressed by LDS leaders was the common thinking of their day. You've got to remember that these were mortal, imperfect men. I'd bet that if they could come back and speak to us, they WOULD apologize, for they would regret causing undue pain. Back then, their reasoning probably seemed very reasonable. Today it doesn't. I firmly believe that the ban was from God for whatever reason. There are some interesting theories for the reason, but we cannot say if they are correct or not, so we're best just not saying.

Pres. Monson owes no one an apology, for the statements were not his. Our past leaders all acted to the best of their understanding, and were consistent with the best of men of their day. If Abraham, or Moses, or Elijah lived in BY's day, or in the early 1900s, they'd probably make similar assumptions. The same goes for you and me. It's also important to remember that our current prophet leads the Church. The leaders of the past are exactly that -- leaders of the past. Much of their counsel is still invaluable to us today, but some of it is not needed or not pertinent. This is exactly why we have a living prophet, so that we aren't solely reliant on outdated counsel.

Any statement about Blacks being inferior does merit an apology, if the author were here to give it. But as far as the ban, the Church leadership cannot apologize for God, and that is what you may be asking them to do.

[Lloyd Dobler]

Pres. Monson owes no one an apology, for the statements were not his. Our past leaders all acted to the best of their understanding, and were consistent with the best of men of their day.

You are basically saying that the best men of their day were no better than racists. I bet there were plenty of better men that were not racists. If our past leaders are consistent with the best men of their day and act to the best of that level of understanding, then how does that make them any different than any other man of their day especially considering that plenty of men were not racicts? The fact is our leaders hold themselves out to their members and the world as prophets, seers and revelators and as such represent God. When it comes to the priesthood ban etc. That is precisly the reason why it bugs new members, prospective members and non members. You can't have it both ways. If you hold them to no higher standard than the prevailing wind and men of the day, then fine you are left with a poor excuse but at least an excuse for no apology. If you hold them anywhere close as prophets representing God and His Church, then Monson should apologize. This is not an issue of past prophets and GAs acting as men etc. This is an issue of prophets and GAs representing the Church acting as racists with their words and implementing and sustaining racist policies. Can you at least see where I am coming from?

IMO Monson can't apologize or say that the previous dudes were wrong. He needs to protect their mantle of authority from the past because doing so protects his mantle of authority and credibility now and in the future. The casualty is regular people who would greatly benefit from a little apology and revelation. Should not be too much to ask from a prophet unless of course he is just a man representing the way the men of his day behave. If you look at fellow men leading corporations of similar size or governments then I guess you can come up with tons of reasons why Monson should not apologize. Hell, Tony Heyward of BP apologized for the oil spill in the Gulf....his words "It never should have happened and I am deeply sorry that it did". Now why on earth can't Monson say something like that along with giving a suitable reason? We are talking about the one man on the planat that singularly and personally represents the Savior of the world. Tony Heyward represents a stupid oil company and he apologized. What does an apology show? Weakness? No. an apology from a prophet shows the fruits of the spirit and the best part of the Savior, love, meekness, gentleness.....If your concept of the Savior is anywhere close to mine, then an apology should not even be a big deal. It is rediculous we even need to have a thread like this when it comes to the Lord's Church. We should be way past this by now.