Withholding the priesthood from blacks

[DanGB 7]

In a post from last week, the question of doctrine, and how it is determined was raised. The discrimination of the church against blacks has been discussed a lot but it raises an interesting question: "Was the withholding of the priesthood based on doctrine"? If so, what was the specific doctrine under the rules of our doctrine? If not, was it merely based upon someones "speculation"? Then, if so, who's speculation?

[ERayR 5,897]

In a post from last week, the question of doctrine, and how it is determined was raised. The discrimination of the church against blacks has been discussed a lot but it raises an interesting question: "Was the withholding of the priesthood based on doctrine"? If so, what was the specific doctrine under the rules of our doctrine? If not, was it merely based upon someones "speculation"? Then, if so, who's speculation?

Don't know and as far as I know neither does anyone else. Here is a little reading on the subject: http://fairlds.org/apol/ai080.html

[handys003 31]

Gee DGB everytime you post it's about Blacks and the PH.

Besides it ain't Blacks. It's Africans who were banned.

[Uncle Dale 212]

...

Besides it ain't Blacks. It's Africans who were banned.

Did that include Arab Africans from Lybia, Tunisia, etc.?

My wife taught some of them English and they were blacker

than coal -- but swore they were true descendants of

Shem and Abraham.

???

UD

[handys003 31]

I'm not sure. I'm sure the church withheld the PH if they were African-American or African- European in that sense from slavery day association. However they did not hold the PH from African/Asian Polynesians. Elder Delai in the photo below is Fijian. His great, great grandfather was one of the first Bishops in the church during Fiji's missionary days.

He's on my wifes right side. That's left side if you are the viewer.

[selek 195]

In a post from last week, the question of doctrine, and how it is determined was raised. The discrimination of the church against blacks has been discussed a lot but it raises an interesting question: "Was the withholding of the priesthood based on doctrine"? If so, what was the specific doctrine under the rules of our doctrine? If not, was it merely based upon someones "speculation"? Then, if so, who's speculation?

DanGB- I want to introduce you to this new and miraculous feature called a "Search" Box.

It is a means by which wandering souls such as yourself can look up any of the SEVEN THOUSAND THREADS ON THIS PARTICULAR DEAD HORSE OF A TOPIC without opening yet another meaningless thread for the purpose of cynical race-baiting, playing irrelevant "gotchas", or reinventing the damned wheel.

We've beaten this topic to death.

The priesthood ban was NOT doctrine.

We don't KNOW precisely where or how it originated- there's a lot of uninformed speculation, but precious few facts.

We KNOW that certain people who might've fallen under the Ban were given the Priesthood before it was implemented.

We KNOW that it was lifted by Revelation and commandment in 1978.

We KNOW that many of the rationalizations given for the ban were wrong, if not out-right racist and offensive.

We KNOW Mormons as a people were no more racist- and frequently LESS racist- than their contemporaries- and that Mormon policies toward and treatment towards African-Americans were often considered radically progressive.

There: you are now in possession of all of the relevant facts concerning the Priesthood Ban.

Thank you for your interest, and please do your OWN homework from now on.

[StuddleyG 13]

In a post from last week, the question of doctrine, and how it is determined was raised. The discrimination of the church against blacks has been discussed a lot but it raises an interesting question: "Was the withholding of the priesthood based on doctrine"? If so, what was the specific doctrine under the rules of our doctrine? If not, was it merely based upon someones "speculation"? Then, if so, who's speculation?

Today in the church, everything about the priesthood ban is summed up in three words: WE DON'T KNOW. In the earlier days, there were a whole bunch of crazy explanations about it being thrown around. But, the general authorities of the church made it quite clear that the ban could only be lifted with God's consent. So yes, it was doctine in that sense. All though I like to think of it more as a policy than a doctrine.

The best explanation that I've heard is that because of the way society was at the time, leaders of the church felt was best not give blacks the priesthood. And that God simply allowed this policy to exist until after the civil rights movement. That's just speculation though.

[selek 195]

So yes, it was doctine in that sense.

This is false. The Priesthood Ban was never doctrine. Even while it was in place, it was acknowledged to be a temporary thing.

Doctrine, by definition, is not temporary.

All though I like to think of it more as a policy than a doctrine.

Considering that those with the authority to speak on that matter have stated point blank that it was only policy, this is the correct interpretation.

Take care, Studdley, that you don't fall into DanGB's trap.

For once you "admit" that the Ban was "doctrine", he will move onto the "God is unchanging, therefore his doctrine doesn't change therefore the Mormon Church doesn't have doctrine therefore the Mormon Church is false" argument.

Racebaiting and "what is doctrine" games such as DanGB is playing are old-hat around here.

He's not asking in good faith, but to advance an agenda.

The best explanation that I've heard is that because of the way society was at the time, leaders of the church felt was best not give blacks the priesthood. And that God simply allowed this policy to exist until after the civil rights movement.

That's one explanation. Whether or not it's a GOOD one depends upon whether or not the Ban actually originated with God or with Man.

At this point, we don't know- but the evidence suggests the former rather than the latter.

That's just speculation though.

You got that right.

[StuddleyG 13]

This is false. The Priesthood Ban was never doctrine. Even while it was in place, it was acknowledged to be a temporary thing.

Doctrine, by definition, is not temporary.

I've never heard that definition of "doctrine" before. That makes sense. So in that case, the Word of Wisdom isn't doctrine either since it is only a law for our time.

[selek 195]

I've never heard that definition of "doctrine" before. That makes sense. So in that case, the Word of Wisdom isn't doctrine either since it is only a law for our time.

Correct- you might also consider that "doctrine" consists of eternal laws which apply to everyone.

For example, Christ's atonement and grace being the only means to reach Heaven (a/o exaltation).

It's doctrine because it applies to everyone and does not change.

It was ordained before the foundation of the Earth and will last through all eternity.

The Word of Wisdom, on the other hand, applies only to those who've covenanted to obey it.

The Word of Wisdoms wasn't implemented as a commandment but a suggestion- that changed after it was well-established.

The principles which underlie the Word of Wisdom, on the other hand- obedience, faith, and blessings received only through obedience, ARE doctrine, even if the way they are applied (the WoW) itself is not.

The Word of Wisdom is an expression of doctrinal principles- even if it is not doctrine itself.

[DanGB 7]

Gee DGB everytime you post it's about Blacks and the PH.

Besides it ain't Blacks. It's Africans who were banned.

Sorry handy,

The church down here in Austin doesn't seem to mind questions.

But it does pose some serious reflection about our racist past. If the ban was not based on doctrine, what was it based upon??? Purely speculation or distaste for the african American back then?

If it was not based upon doctrine, why did the leaders need to pray for a revelation until 1978 to overturn the ban?

These are, frankly, the types of questions I get from prospects and outsiders quite frequently! They seem to be excellent questions. How would the Church or members answer them???

[BCSpace 958]

Was the withholding of the priesthood based on doctrine"?

Yes. The ban was doctrine and still is doctrine. It happened officially and is not apologized for (nor should it be).

If so, what was the specific doctrine under the rules of our doctrine?

The rules of our doctrine are that what's published by the Church is doctrine. However, not only is the bans doctrine, it is also based in canon (Abraham 1).

[ACW 3]

DanGB- I want to introduce you to this new and miraculous feature called a "Search" Box.

It is a means by which wandering souls such as yourself can look up any of the SEVEN THOUSAND THREADS ON THIS PARTICULAR DEAD HORSE OF A TOPIC without opening yet another meaningless thread for the purpose of cynical race-baiting, playing irrelevant "gotchas", or reinventing the damned wheel.

We've beaten this topic to death.

The priesthood ban was NOT doctrine.

We don't KNOW precisely where or how it originated- there's a lot of uninformed speculation, but precious few facts.

We KNOW that certain people who might've fallen under the Ban were given the Priesthood before it was implemented.

We KNOW that it was lifted by Revelation and commandment in 1978.

We KNOW that many of the rationalizations given for the ban were wrong, if not out-right racist and offensive.

We KNOW Mormons as a people were no more racist- and frequently LESS racist- than their contemporaries- and that Mormon policies toward and treatment towards African-Americans were often considered radically progressive.

There: you are now in possession of all of the relevant facts concerning the Priesthood Ban.

Thank you for your interest, and please do your OWN homework from now on.

[DanGB 7]

Yes. The ban was doctrine and still is doctrine. It happened officially and is not apologized for (nor should it be).

When did it happen, if you really know and are not just speculating??

The rules of our doctrine are that what's published by the Church is doctrine. However, not only is the bans doctrine, it is also based in canon (Abraham 1).

What about Abraham 1 specifically provides the priesthood ban and where is the official church exlanation or support of your conclusion???

[handys003 31]

Yes. The ban was doctrine and still is doctrine. It happened officially and is not apologized for (nor should it be).

The rules of our doctrine are that what's published by the Church is doctrine. However, not only is the bans doctrine, it is also based in canon (Abraham 1).

So therefore by your assertion Elder Delai (black) cannot hold the PH? CFR Doctrine of PH ban today and in the past.

[DanGB 7]

The best explanation that I've heard is that because of the way society was at the time, leaders of the church felt was best not give blacks the priesthood. And that God simply allowed this policy to exist until after the civil rights movement. That's just speculation though.

So do you believe our doctrines are up for public debate and vote as we capitulaed to the Jewish community and agreed to ask for their permission to preform our sacred batisms? Seems like we are a church guided by public perception. Compromise to save face???

[ACW 3]

If it was not based upon doctrine, why did the leaders need to pray for a revelation until 1978 to overturn the ban?

From my studying this topic I read that the prayers to lift the ban started many, many years before the ban was lifted. The Church was growing all over the world...almost including Africa. There was a man who wrote letter to the First Presidency requesting the Church be organized in his country...sorry do not recall which country. Anyway this man took it upon himself to organize a branch unofficially. The Church did send him manuels just not the priesthood. This is documented somewhere...

These are, frankly, the types of questions I get from prospects and outsiders quite frequently! They seem to be excellent questions. How would the Church or members answer them???

Get these videos.

Blacks in the Scriptures

and

Nobody Knows: The Untold Story of Black Mormons

They are not put out by the Church...but still worth the effort.

[Kevin Christensen 4,657]

No discussion of the LDS priesthood practice can possibly be complete unless it recognizes the larger context. How Western culture used poor readings of the Bible to justify slavery. All of those arguments were imported into LDS thinking, and did NOT originate with the LDS.

http://byustudies.byu.edu/showTitle.aspx?title=7582

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

[jwhitlock 1,609]

No discussion of the LDS priesthood practice can possibly be complete unless it recognizes the larger context. How Western culture used poor readings of the Bible to justify slavery. All of those arguments were imported into LDS thinking, and did NOT originate with the LDS.

http://byustudies.by...aspx?title=7582

Kevin Christensen

Bethel Park, PA

Thanks, Kevin.

Unfortunately, the OP has already demonstrated a particular bias and agenda on this subject; it's not the first time he has posted in this manner. He's not looking for explanations, but for a stage.

[yesucan2 23]

Although, I share your feelings, I still think that the topic has brought up some interesting issues relative to the idea. The question was not if it was doctrine, but if it was based on doctrine.

Obviously it was based on doctrine, but what doctrine or doctrines was it based on?

Was it based on the doctrine of the pre-existence? Was it based on the doctrine of obedience? Did it have something to do with valiancy as some have proposed?

What do we learn because of it or what does it teach us?

For instance, could it be considered another witness of the love that God has for His children?

I think there are a lot of things we could consider relative this topic that one may utilize to stretch their minds if they are inclined.

It may even be useful as an indicator of our agendas. For someone looking for an excuse not to live the gospel, it could provide a convenient excuse.

Or....Since we know so little in an official way, is it something that should be left for our individual ponderings???

[thesometimesaint 4,961]

According to President McKay the ban was never doctrine but policy

[yesucan2 23]

According to President McKay the ban was never doctrine but policy

The question was not about whether it was doctrine. The question was whether it was based on doctrine.

Unless God is capricious, it was obviously based on doctrine whether known to us or not known to us.

[thesometimesaint 4,961]

yesucan2:

The direct doctrine is that the Lord can and does withhold the Priesthood from whatever group he wants. Further the Lord has yet to provide any explanation as to why he has withheld the Priesthood from any group. We are free to speculate, and unless proclaimed as incorrect by the Church it will continue to be just speculation.

[selek 195]

Although, I share your feelings, I still think that the topic has brought up some interesting issues relative to the idea. The question was not if it was doctrine, but if it was based on doctrine.

And yet none of these "interesting questions" can be answered authoritatively without knowing authoritatively from whence the doctrin arose.

Unless we know that God DID command the Ban (a matter of fierce and irrelevant debate), we cannot know why he ordered it.

We would be engaged in the very sort of useless speculation that is now proving so embarrasing to the Church- and which demagogues and fools harp on in thread after thread after thread.

Such speculation will resolve nothing. It is a pointless exercise and a waste of bandwidth that adds not one jot or tittle to anyone's salvation.

Obviously it was based on doctrine, but what doctrine or doctrines was it based on?

Was it based on the doctrine of the pre-existence?

Was it based on the doctrine of obedience?

Did it have something to do with valiancy as some have proposed?

As some have proposed- and as the Church has authoritatively rejected.

The Church has stated quite clearly that the idea that blacks were less valiant is BUNK.

I think there are a lot of things we could consider relative this topic that one may utilize to stretch their minds if they are inclined.

Such as?

Please- give us one lesson that can be taught authoritatively and substantively from this episode, that cannot be taught more effectively from other sources.

It may even be useful as an indicator of our agendas. For someone looking for an excuse not to live the gospel, it could provide a convenient excuse.

Just as those looking for an excuse to malign and tear down the Church have used it for decades.

Or....Since we know so little in an official way, is it something that should be left for our individual ponderings???

And again, the question is: How does mulling over this, and engaging in useless (and worse than useless) or ignorant speculation bring you any closer to Christ?

You must postulate and speculate that the Savior is actually a five-legged chicken with pink feathers who lives in a massive jelly donut orbiting the fifth moon of Jupiter- but what eternal verities does such idiotic speculation reveal?

The five-legged chicken with pink feathers is outlandish- but is it any less releant, or any more grounded in what we know than sitting around speculating about the Priesthood Ban would be?

The bottom line is We don't know why the Ban was implemented, or even when or how.

Sitting around tossing guesses into a vacuum would be nothing more than an exercise in fantasy, in gossip, and in speaking ill of the Lord's annointed.

The direct doctrine is that the Lord can and does withhold the Priesthood from whatever group he wants. Further the Lord has yet to provide any explanation as to why he has withheld the Priesthood from any group. We are free to speculate, and unless proclaimed as incorrect by the Church it will continue to be just speculation.

Hear hear!

[StuddleyG 13]

Although, I share your feelings, I still think that the topic has brought up some interesting issues relative to the idea. The question was not if it was doctrine, but if it was based on doctrine.

Obviously it was based on doctrine, but what doctrine or doctrines was it based on?

Was it based on the doctrine of the pre-existence? Was it based on the doctrine of obedience? Did it have something to do with valiancy as some have proposed?

What do we learn because of it or what does it teach us?

For instance, could it be considered another witness of the love that God has for His children?

I think there are a lot of things we could consider relative this topic that one may utilize to stretch their minds if they are inclined.

It may even be useful as an indicator of our agendas. For someone looking for an excuse not to live the gospel, it could provide a convenient excuse.

Or....Since we know so little in an official way, is it something that should be left for our individual ponderings???

Maybe it was based on the doctrine of agency or free will. God gave Isreal a king only because they begged for one. This was an example of God allowing Isreal agency. The the people in the early days in the church did not wish to give blacks the priesthood, because that's the way things were back then. God allows them to have their agancy by allowing the priesthood ban to exist. Just a thought.