Withholding the priesthood from blacks

[Droopy]

Selek, the Priesthood ban's central premise has to do with linage and that linage's specific and unique barring from the higher priesthood, as elucidated in the Pearl of Great Price. Skin color (or, more broadly, race - a difficult concept to begin with) had nothing to do with it. Saying this is hardly "politically correct" in any sense. The politically correct position here is to blame the entire thing of LDS white racism and claim the ban was lifted due to cultural pressure.

There's no need to fight with me over this issue. I'm all for letting it die on the vine, as is the case with most "racial issues" of my generation, that have long outlived their toxic half lives.

[selek]

Selek, the Priesthood ban's central premise has to do with linage and that linage's specific and unique barring from the higher priesthood, as elucidated in the Pearl of Great Price. Skin color (or, more broadly, race - a difficult concept to begin with) had nothing to do with it. Saying this is hardly "politically correct" in any sense.

I agree-= but that's not the political correctness to which I was referring.

The politically correct position here is to blame the entire thing of LDS white racism and claim the ban was lifted due to cultural pressure.

And it is this bit of historical revisionism (for the sake of stroking one's own ego) that I was decrying.

There's no need to fight with me over this issue. I'm all for letting it die on the vine, as is the case with most "racial issues" of my generation, that have long outlived their toxic half lives.

I agree- but so long as fools, charlatans, and apostates insist upon using this vile and profane falshood to smear the Church, it is incumbent upon us to expose them for the dupes, tools, fools, and vipers that they really are.

[DanGB]

That's because it never was doctrine. It was policy, despite your earnest and fervent wishes to the contary.

Ok, point us to the policy statement initiating the ban after Joseph Smith allowed the priesthood to blacks!

And since when did the Church require revelation to overturn "policy"?? Why didn't we just issue a new policy statement?

I think you are just speculating at best here.

[Jaybear]

Selek, the Priesthood ban's central premise has to do with linage and that linage's specific and unique barring from the higher priesthood, as elucidated in the Pearl of Great Price. Skin color (or, more broadly, race - a difficult concept to begin with) had nothing to do with it.

The ban was by definition racist, as it applied to all those of African decent (ie the African race).

Skin color is not "more broadly, race." Dark skin is a typical, but not an essential or exclusive characteristic of the African race. That you allowed dark skinned members of other races to enter the temple, does not mean the ban was not racist.

BTW, since you claimed (and Selek agreed) that the ban "had to do with linage" whose lineage was banned, and why?

[DanGB]

Shall we "get over it"?

droopy,

When my African American friends down here in Texas ask me about the racial past of our Church, you'll forgive me if I don't dismiss their questions with your reply of "just get over it"!

This is the callous nature of some members I've had to avoid and overcome for years.

[selek]

Ok, point us to the policy statement initiating the ban after Joseph Smith allowed the priesthood to blacks!

As has been stated repeatedly, there is no precise statement of policy initiating the Ban. Nor is there any statement initiating the Ban as doctrine, either.

We do, however, have repeated statements from the First Presidency (who are in a position to know, don't you think?) that it was NOT doctrine. It was policy.

And since when did the Church require revelation to overturn "policy"?? Why didn't we just issue a new policy statement?

Apparently, because the policy was initiated by the Lord. Had it been initiated by men (and had it been wrong), then the Lord would have corrected it as soon as he was asked- if not sooner.

That the Lord did not do so indicates that the Ban was something more than Brigham Young "cutting out" some of the competition.

That the did not do so indicates that the Ban was something more just than "a bunch of patriarchal white crackers keeping the brothers down".

That it was something more, however, does not automagically mean it was doctrine. We have clear statements specifying that it was not.

I think you are just speculating at best here.

Which was, if you recall, the point I was making at the outset. You are casting aspersions on good men based solely upon your own ego and historical myopia. You are smearing and belittling the Lord's anointed based solely on empty speculation and a need to seem cosmopolitan and enlightened.

As I said before, until you can come up with substantive proof that the Church acted wrongly, then you're just throwing stones.

Until you can come up with substantive proof that the Ban was not of God, then you're just grandstanding and bearing false witness.

The difference between your speculation and mine is this: I don't need to prove the Church wtong to satisfy my position.

You have no such luxury.

[Lloyd Dobler]

droopy,

When my African American friends down here in Texas ask me about the racial past of our Church, you'll forgive me if I don't dismiss their questions with your reply of "just get over it"!

This is the callous nature of some members I've had to avoid and overcome for years.

Exactly. There is no getting over it because if the church wants to grow or connected with non members with half a brain and the internet, then it should actually be made quite clear by the church whether it was policy or revelation. The church should make it so clear, which they could do with a living prophet, so as to remove any doubt to the question. We should not even have to address this question but..........

[selek]

Exactly. There is no getting over it because if the church wants to grow or connected with non members with half a brain and the internet

As opposed to say "members without half a brain"? Frank and honest discussion of these issues- with those directly affected by them- isn't an issue, and your derisive caricature of members of this Church isn't helping your position.

Flogging this dead horse for polemical gain, on the other hand, is an issue, since it's done out of malice and divisiveness, rather than charity and love.

, then it should actually be made quite clear by the church whether it was policy or revelation.

Bull. The honest answer is "We don't know".

We should stick to the honest answer, rather than trying to sell something politically correct.

The church should make it so clear, which they could do with a living prophet, so as to remove any doubt to the question. We should not even have to address this question but..........

Thank you for your opinion. Now kindly deal with the facts.

Those are as follows:

• We don'tknow precisely how or why the Ban was implemented.
  
• We do know that it was overturned by Revelation in 1978.
  
• We do know that no one entitled to the Priesthood was ever denied it.
  
• We do know that no blessings the Lord wished a person to receive (and for which they are worthy) have been (or can be) denied to them.
  
• We do know that the Ban does not affect anyone living today (let alone considering joining the Church.
  
• We do know that the Church has clearly renounced the racist justifications and rationalizations offered- including the "Blacks were not valiant in the Preexistence" nonsense.
  

[StuddleyG]

• We do know that the Church has clearly renounced the racist justifications and rationalizations offered- including the "Blacks were not valiant in the Preexistence" nonsense.

Where can these renouncements be found? I know of BRM's statement. Was that an official church statement?

[Bikeemikey]

As opposed to say "members without half a brain"? Frank and honest discussion of these issues- with those directly affected by them- isn't an issue, and your derisive caricature of members of this Church isn't helping your position.

Flogging this dead horse for polemical gain, on the other hand, is an issue, since it's done out of malice and divisiveness, rather than charity and love.

Bull. The honest answer is "We don't know".

We should stick to the honest answer, rather than trying to sell something politically correct.

Thank you for your opinion. Now kindly deal with the facts.

Those are as follows:

• We don'tknow precisely how or why the Ban was implemented.
  
• We do know that it was overturned by Revelation in 1978.
  
• We do know that no one entitled to the Priesthood was ever denied it.
  
• We do know that no blessings the Lord wished a person to receive (and for which they are worthy) have been (or can be) denied to them.
  
• We do know that the Ban does not affect anyone living today (let alone considering joining the Church.
  
• We do know that the Church has clearly renounced the racist justifications and rationalizations offered- including the "Blacks were not valiant in the Preexistence" nonsense.
  

Selek,

Why are you so hostile? Perhaps this is a dead horse for you, doesn't mean others timetables for understanding and finding personal resolution on this issue ought to be belittled because they are asking questions you have personally put to rest.

I also think, having spent the last hour reading over this thread that you have no answers nor contribution to make on this topic at all. We don't know, move on is not a position of relevance on an apologetic site.

Our history as a church has moments of greatness, and then moments that, for us looking back, are not so great. It is a hard question to delve into. Answers may not be possible. But at least you could have the decency of getting out of the way of individuals who may not have reached your glorious and enlightened position on the issue.

If you really believe as you say then I would have thought I would have heard little from you during this discussion, rather you have dominated the entire thread.

[DanGB]

Apparently, because the policy was initiated by the Lord.

Selek,

This is called "revelation" if it was initiated by the Lord and not part of existing doctrine!!!!!!

There is absolutely no evidence of this anywhere in documented church records or the standard works.

And until you are called to speak for the Church, you have no rght to keep stating: "We" don't know. "You" may not know but I, and many other posters here "know" very well the ban was not initiated by Christ, our doctrines or revelation. So please, don't contnue to attempt to bind, speak, think or conclude for anyone other than yourself on Church issues where the Church has issued no formal explanation. It's a bit arrogant to say the very least.

[jwhitlock]

And until you are called to speak for the Church, you have no rght to keep stating: "We" don't know. "You" may not know but I, and many other posters here "know" very well the ban was not initiated by Christ, our doctrines or revelation. So please, don't contnue to attempt to bind, speak, think or conclude for anyone other than yourself on Church issues where the Church has issued no formal explanation. It's a bit arrogant to say the very least.

Absolutely incredible.

While condemning Selek for claiming to "speak for the Church" by telling us that we just don't know, you claim you "know" that God had nothing to do with the ban. Who's the one really attempting to speak for the Church? It's you.

The truth is, we don't know. As you have been repeatedly told, and as anyone willing to do a little research will find, the historical record is simply silent on a great deal of background for the ban.

Yet you seem to think that because we don't have a published revelation, that authorizes you to speak for the Church and say it had nothing to do with Christ - as if every revelation and piece of inspiration must be published or it never really occurred. Here's a hint for you - your rationalization on this is absolutely false. It's a bit arrogant to make the kind of claims you do, and to rationalize that since you have determined that "the ban was not initiated by Christ", you can then demand that the Church issue some kind of apology.

It ain't going to happen based on your weak rationalizations. It doesn't matter how convenient it seems to you to throw the Church under the bus on this, but until you get past the basic flaw in your logic about "we don't have a published revelation, so it wasn't a revelation", you're not going to have much of substance to add to this issue.

BTW, the understanding that we "just don't know" is quite mainstream, and is well understood by most people in the Church who take some time to study the matter.

[selek]

Selek,

Why are you so hostile?

Because of the inherent hostility in both the OP and the posts offered up in support of it.

This isn't DanGB's first time around the block on this issue. He's heard all this before, but his agenda is more important than facts or intellectual honesty.

Perhaps this is a dead horse for you, doesn't mean others timetables for understanding and finding personal resolution on this issue ought to be belittled because they are asking questions you have personally put to rest.

How many times must the Church be called "racist" by implication before it's put to rest?

How much endless (and useless) speculation is necessary?

How many times must we see the Church slandered without basis by those with an agenda before you realize enough is enough?

DanGB isn't here to learn. He's here to gring his axe.

Anyone who pretends otherwise isn't paying attention.

I also think, having spent the last hour reading over this thread that you have no answers nor contribution to make on this topic at all.

Thank you for your opinion. I personally consider exposing the biases and the falsehoods to be a worthwhile condition, but to each his own.

We don't know, move on is not a position of relevance on an apologetic site.

Except where it's true- and then it's the only acceptable position on an apologetics site.

Let's try an analogy:

Your wife has been accused (falsely) of adultery, and her reputation is being smeared all over town.

The folks doing this gossiping don't have a clue what they're talking about- but they're quite happy to speculate and to embellish the details out of their fervid and fertile imaginations.

How long, and how often, are you willing to deny the falsehoods?

You know that your wife is faithful and that the charges are false, and have put the issue to bed.

So does that mean that you have nothing further to contribute?

Does that mean that you stand idly by while the gossip and character assassination rage around you?

Do you sit silently while your wife is defamed and libelled on false charges by those who wish to see her brought to her knees?

Would you be silent while someone you loved was slandered and villified on charges you know to be false?

What DanGB and his ilk are doing to the Church and our leaders is no different.

They don't know what happened- but they're happy to manufacture the most hateful and vile speculation in order to keep flogging the issue. They don't KNOW what they're talking about but they're willing to slander and malign and gossip.

By assuming the worst about our leaders and our faith, and by repeating that speculation as though it were somehow factual, they are bearing false witness against the Lord's Church and against his annointed.

Their fascination with salacious gossip and vicious innuendo will not contribute one whit toward learning the truth- but it will do a lot to spread falsehoods in the meantime.

Our history as a church has moments of greatness, and then moments that, for us looking back, are not so great.

Agreed. But making up your own version of "what happened" and spreading it as somehow factual won't solve the problem.

You remember all that racist speculation about "blacks being not valiant" and all the rest? That was someone's made-up version of "what happened". That was someone's made-up version of why the Ban was in place.

Those rationalizations are an embarrassment and have been rightly renounced.

How then, are your rationalizations, or DanGB's any less an embarrassment? The ignorant (and bigoted) speculation won't contribute to real understanding of what really happened. It's all guesswork being made in a vacuum.

It is morally equivalent to the pre-78 guesswork by those trying to justify the Ban based on racist theory.

Ignorant and counter-factual speculation will serve only to enshrine falsehoods, to divide, and to propagandize.

It must be countered on that basis alone.

But at least you could have the decency of getting out of the way of individuals who may not have reached your glorious and enlightened position on the issue.

Just you should stand aside and allow the slandering of your wife on false charges?

If you really believe as you say then I would have thought I would have heard little from you during this discussion, rather you have dominated the entire thread.

If there was less falsehood and fewer bigoted agendas, I wouldn't be quite as busy, that's true.

As far as "dominating the thread", I'm here only to counter falsehood and propaganda. Please demonstrate where I've been wrong.

[selek]

Selek,

This is called "revelation" if it was initiated by the Lord and not part of existing doctrine!!!!!!

Have I denied that the Priesthood Ban came by revelation? No. I have simply repeated the Church's official statement- that "We don't know".

"We don't know" is the only factually accurate and morally (or logically) tenable position.

Everything else is pure (and useless) speculation.

I have not denied the possibility that the Ban came about by revelation, I've simply quoted one of our Prophets who stated bluntly that it was not doctrine.

There is absolutely no evidence of this anywhere in documented church records or the standard works.

This is an argument from silence. Lack of evidence does not mean evidence of lack.

The only honest position- which I've stated several times now- is that we don't know where or how it was implemented.

And until you are called to speak for the Church, you have no rght to keep stating: "We" don't know.

Yet that is the official position of the Church.

"You" may not know but I, and many other posters here "know" very well the ban was not initiated by Christ, our doctrines or revelation.

The Church's official spokesmen do not agree with you.

But I do thank you for the admission (against interest) that your original OP was not asked in good faith.

Your comment above is a clear, explicit admission that you are here to grind an axe rather than to learn.

That, BikeyMikey, is why I post here.

So please, don't contnue to attempt to bind, speak, think or conclude for anyone other than yourself on Church issues where the Church has issued no formal explanation.

And yet the Church's spokesmen- President Hinckley, President McConkie and others have made the Church's position plain. It is you who insist on going past their statements in pursuit of your own agenda.

It's a bit arrogant to say the very least.

Perhaps- but it is not so arrogant as presuming to judge- and condemn- the Church based solely upon the product of your own speculation and invention.

[DanGB]

Yet you seem to think that because we don't have a published revelation, that authorizes you to speak for the Church and say it had nothing to do with Christ - as if every revelation and piece of inspiration must be published or it never really occurred. Here's a hint for you - your rationalization on this is absolutely false. It's a bit arrogant to make the kind of claims you do, and to rationalize that since you have determined that "the ban was not initiated by Christ", you can then demand that the Church issue some kind of apology.

whitlock,

You may want to read before you speak or get all emotional. I speak for myself here, no one else. I made that quite clear. Maybe you and I differ on the basis of our conclusions. I base mine on what "is" there. You may base yours on what you "want, wish or hope" is there but is not. I know through church documents, our standard works, prayer and personal revelation that the ban had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with our Heavenly Father. I believe, like others here, the Church owes an apology for the racists positions of it's past leaders. I will forever stand by that conclusion. If you don't like that, either deal with it or get over it! But don't come here and insinuate that I am attempting to make conclusions for anyone but myself. It's assinine!

[DanGB]

The Church's official spokesmen do not agree with you.

CFR! Please, just once from you!!!!

[selek]

I, and many other posters here "know" very well the ban was not initiated by Christ

I speak for myself here, no one else. I made that quite clear.

So clear, in fact, that you cannot keep your story straight from one post to another.

Maybe you and I differ on the basis of our conclusions. I base mine on what "is" there. You may base yours on what you "want, wish or hope" is there but is not.

Really? So where then is the definitive statement that the Ban was not revelation?

That is your position. Where is the statement proving your position?

I know through church documents, our standard works, prayer and personal revelation that the ban had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with our Heavenly Father.

Call For References. Your claims contradict the official and public statements of the Church and it's leaders.

Back up your claim.

I believe, like others here, the Church owes an apology for the racists positions of it's past leaders.

And yet you cannot back up that claim.

Please- CFR. Demonstrate that the Priesthood Ban was not of God.

Demonstrate (rather than merely posturing) that the Ban was not authorized.

I will forever stand by that conclusion. If you don't like that, either deal with it or get over it!

But don't come here and insinuate that I am attempting to make conclusions for anyone but myself. It's assinine!

No- as pointed out above, you claimed to KNOW (both for yourself and many other posters) that the Ban was NOT of God.

Please enlighten us.

Share your wisdow- wisdom that seems to have evaded the best and brightest in the Church- including the Quorum of the Twelve and numerous First Presidencies.

Your all your ranting and raving, for all your desperate attempt to change the subject, the only intellectually honest and factually tenable position is the one issed by the Church (and repeated by myself and others).

That position is "We just don't know."

You're the one arguing absolutes.

It's up to you to prove them.

[DanGB]

Really? So where then is the definitive statement that the Ban was not revelation?

Selek,

As other posters seem to agree, I think you really are losing it here!

I simply cannot provide evidence for something that never happened. Just can't do it. Common sense usually tells us the obligation for evidence falls on those making a claim that something happened. The concept may not register with you but good luck anyway!!

Now where is that official spokesman statement??? Won't hold my breath!

[jwhitlock]

You may want to read before you speak or get all emotional.

Unlike you, of course. Your post was absolutely devoid of emotion.

Not.

I speak for myself here, no one else. I made that quite clear.

First falsehood. Shall I quote you? "You may not know but I, and many other posters here "know" very well the ban was not initiated by Christ, our doctrines or revelation."

So much for "speaking for yourself" - and quite clear that you consider yourself more "informed" than Church leaders.

Maybe you and I differ on the basis of our conclusions. I base mine on what "is" there.

Odd. I must have missed all the historical evidence you posted in support of your position. Odd also that your whole assumption is based on what you "don't" have - such as a published revelation, which was the main point of your post.

You may base yours on what you "want, wish or hope" is there but is not.

How ironic, given your dearth of evidence. Actually, hard evidence that is available is that a succession of prophets of the Lord did not lift the ban despite their personal desires to see it lifted. From my standpoint as a faithful member of the Church, who believes that we have prophets who receive ongoing guidance from the Lord, and given the visibility of the ban, this is strong evidence that the Lord allowed it to stay in place - despite how it came about - until 1978. From your rather flawed assumption that there was never any revelation on the subject, your position must be that all of those presidents of the Church were perpetuating something they knew to be false.

But of course, you "know" - as I quoted you above - better, don't you. Forgive me, but I'll stay with a more reliable source.

I know through church documents, our standard works, prayer and personal revelation that the ban had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with our Heavenly Fathe

r.

Things that for some reason you never get around to posting, do you. IIRC, you also seem to believe that the 1978 Revelation on Priesthood was not actually a revelation either, but simply a convenient policy change. Of course, feel free to correct me if I've wrongly remembered what you have posted previously on this subject. In the meantime, what I hear from you leads me to take your statement above with more than the proverbial grain of salt.

I believe, like others here, the Church owes an apology for the racists positions of it's past leaders.

Whoops - no longer speaking for yourself, I see. This statement is very enlightening, as it gives us more insight into your true agenda. As selek has noted, you don't seek to understand, but to condemn for your own ends. I'll reiterate again - your demands for an apology are simply a case of misplaced PC based on flawed assumptions and rationalizations.

I will forever stand by that conclusion.

A pity.

If you don't like that, either deal with it or get over it! But don't come here and insinuate that I am attempting to make conclusions for anyone but myself. It's assinine!

I not only don't like it, but have demonstrated that your position is demonstrably false.

I've also demonstrated that you're being disingenuous by claiming you're speaking for yourself only - something that's highly ironic given your condemnation of selek for "speaking for the Church".

And with what I believe is an intentional misspelling of an epithet, I will be pressing the report button.

[jwhitlock]

I simply cannot provide evidence for something that never happened.

My goodness! First you claim this: " I know through church documents, our standard works, prayer and personal revelation that the ban had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with our Heavenly Father."

And then you tell us you can't provide any evidence!

The fun never stops!

[AtticusFinch]

yes. It was doctrine. It was directly from God.

Aug 17, 1951 - First Presidency statement that church

[jwhitlock]

yes. It was doctrine. It was directly from God.

Aug 17, 1951 - First Presidency statement that church

[selek]

CFR! Please, just once from you!!!!

Happily.

I cite the Prophet Gordon B. Hinckley:

Gordon B. Hinckley in an interview:

Q: So in retrospect, was the Church wrong in that [not ordaining blacks]?

A [Pres. Hinckley]: No, I don't think it was wrong. It, things, various things happened in different periods. There's a reason for them.

Q: What was the reason for that?

A: I don't know what the reason was. But I know that we've rectified whatever may have appeared to be wrong at the time.[1]

Gordon B. Hinckley, the Prophet and President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, when asked the reason behind the Priesthood Ban replied, "I don't know."

Elder Jeffrey R. Holland said:

I think, to the extent that I know anything about it, as one of the newer and younger ones to come along, ... we simply do not know why that practice, that policy, that doctrine was in place.[3]

And in closing, let me quote another presumptuous bumpkin who presumed to speak for the Church, a fella named Dallin Oaks:

in speaking about all the speculation into the reasons behind the Ban, he said:the

...I'm referring to reasons given by general authorities and reasons elaborated upon [those reasons] by others. The whole set of reasons seemed to me to be unnecessary risk taking.

...Let's [not] make the mistake that's been made in the past, here and in other areas, trying to put reasons to revelation. The reasons turn out to be man-made to a great extent. The revelations are what we sustain as the will of the Lord and that's where safety lies.[2]

Regarding the speculation about the reasons behind the Ban, Jeffery Holland also said:

One clear-cut position is that the folklore must never be perpetuated. ... I have to concede to my earlier colleagues. ... They, I'm sure, in their own way, were doing the best they knew to give shape to [the policy], to give context for it, to give even history to it.

All I can say is however well intended the explanations were, I think almost all of them were inadequate and/or wrong. ...

It probably would have been advantageous to say nothing, to say we just don't know, and, [as] with many religious matters, whatever was being done was done on the basis of faith at that time. But some explanations were given and had been given for a lot of years.

... At the very least, there should be no effort to perpetuate those efforts to explain why that doctrine existed.

These men are all authorized spokesmen for the Church.

They are all anointed servants of the Lord called in stewardship fo teh Church and it's people.

Their position vis-a-vis teh origins of the Ban are "We don't know."

Their positions via a vis the speculation regarding those reasons is "Don't make the mistake that's been made in the past, here and in other areas, of trying to put reasons to revelation."

That should be good enough for any FAITHFUL Mormon, don't you think?

[selek]

Selek,

As other posters seem to agree, I think you really are losing it here!

Thank you for the blatant personal attack.

I will consider that an admission that you have nothing else.

I simply cannot provide evidence for something that never happened. Just can't do it. Common sense usually tells us the obligation for evidence falls on those making a claim that something happened.

Correct- yet you're the one insisting that the Ban was NOT of God.

You are the one staking out a definitive claim, and it is therefore incumbent upon you to support it.

Now where is that official spokesman statement??? Won't hold my breath!

I provided three quotes in my post above.

They more than answer your CFR.

Now answer mine.

[selek]

yes. It was doctrine. It was directly from God.

Aug 17, 1951 - First Presidency statement that church