Was The Priesthood Ban A Mistake?

[Daniel Peterson]

You are not stating the position of the church.

The Church stated the precise reason is not know. You are rewriting the Church statement with your personal statement.

If the ban wasn't a mistake then as stated by the Church the PRECISE reason is not known. (I have to use caps at the moment because I can not access the bold option)

The precise reason is not known and it is dishonest to use suggest anything contra to the Chief h position.

Daniel Peterson if the First Presidency and Apostles stated "not know precisely" why do you not present the Official position.

Frankenstein has left the building.

I'm afraid that I don't understand the distinction that you're trying to make, and don't see how I'm disagreeing with the Church's position. It was my intent to state my own position, but, as it happens, my position appears to be the same as the Church's position. (And, for whatever it may be worth, others seem to think so, as well: I didn't even notice it until today, but yesterday's Deseret News expressly says that my position is the same as Elder Holland's -- which doesn't surprise me even a teensy weensy little bit, but, it seems, just might irritate you.)

It appears, though, that you're not going to be explaining yourself anytime soon on this matter.

.

Edited March 3, 2012 by Daniel Peterson

[Jeff K.]

Hah, I thought it was me.....

[Libs]

Libs, I think this page is very good at summarizing what we do and do not know:

http://en.fairmormon..._priesthood_ban

Thanks, Calmoriah. That was pretty interesting. I can see why all the confusion around this issue.

[Xander]

We don't know the reason for the ban.

Perhaps it was a mistake. In that case, we don't know why the Lord permitted it to endure until 1978.

If it wasn't a mistake, we still don't know the reason for it.

Hinckley said it wasn't a mistake. Logic dictates that if it wasn't a mistake, then it was right. If it was right, then it came from God.

According to Brigham Young, racist doctrine about Negroes is the "Law of God" and the Priesthood ban was of "divine institution." That hardly strikes me as indicative of someone who doesn't believe he knows why the ban is instituted. But the Church would never say this in today's race-conscious society, especially with one of their own running for President. Political correctness must prevail over truth. Can you tell me why I should reject Brigham Young's doctrine on this, and accept some PR press release - written by God knows who - about how the Church rejects racism? The 1949 proclamation on the subject was equally clear that this doctrine was really a doctrine.

It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the priesthood at the present time."

The Church now claims it doesn't know why the ban took place, but all this proves is that it is the Church (not Bott) contradicting the Church. No wonder Bruce R/ McConkie told Mormons to just ignore everything that was said on the matter before 1978. The Church has not called this a mistake for the same reasons most billion dollar corporations often concede court battles, pay outrageous fines for wrongdoing, but never officially admit having done anything wrong. To admit a mistake would open up a whole new can of problematic worms for the Church. Such as why would God's Church be making mistakes like this while creating an institution of racism that prospers for more than a century? It was clearly taught as coming from God, so if the Church can make a mistake about this, then everything else it says coming from God could be wrong too. It all depends how the Church wants to change with the times, and it seems clear to me that society is shaping future LDS "revelations" more than anything else.

The Church is dancing around this problem well, allowing the folks in the PR dept take the lead. Hardly something one would expect from God's true Church. To most of us on the outside, the Church's reactions are precisely as one would expect from a corporation. It was careful not to specifically condemn Bott's remarks. All it did was just denounce "racism" which it never defined, and said Bott's opinion wasn't official doctrine.

[Analytics]

...we don't know why...we still don't know...

The big question I'd love to hear answered is whether or not the church and its members want to know. To illustrate, imagine the following scene:

The Prophet is praying and asks God, "please explain to me precisely why blacks couldn’t get the priesthood.”

God appears and says, “I’ll answer your question in precise detail so that you know the whole truth on this important issue. But I’ll only answer it on the condition that you publish the whole answer in the D&C, where the whole world can scrutinize the truth of the matter. Knowing that you’ll have to publish the answer, do you still want to know?”

The Prophet contemplates all of the forms that the truth could take, and replies, “Never mind. I quite prefer not knowing.”

Edited March 3, 2012 by Analytics

[Saints Alive]

Just to make sure I am on the same page as everyone else (and especially the Mods), The Official position is that we don’t know “precisely how,why, when, what, etc. and that any and all speculation is false but the ban may or may not have been from God.

That sure seems like a lot of words to not really say anything.

[Storm Rider]

Just to make sure I am on the same page as everyone else (and especially the Mods), The Official position is that we don’t know “precisely how,why, when, what, etc. and that any and all speculation is false but the ban may or may not have been from God.

That sure seems like a lot of words to not really say anything.

I think an official position is much simpler. The ban existed and does not exist any longer since 1978. The Church would never contemplate whether it was right or wrong; it just was without any value judgment.

[Saints Alive]

So it's a little like asking if the US was justified in using the A-Bomb in WWII, and then being told "yes we used the A-Bomb, but havent used it since"

[Jeff K.]

How important is it?

Most anti Mormons aren't sincere in "wanting to know", if they were being honest, they would state clearly that their desire for knowledge isn't about "truth" but about tactics, a desire to seek a weapon that they assail the church with. They really don't care about the reason, truth is not an issue for them. The psuedo umbrage and fake anguish is their mask as they look for another avenue of attack.

[Deborah]

So it's a little like asking if the US was justified in using the A-Bomb in WWII, and then being told "yes we used the A-Bomb, but havent used it since"

Well the A-bomb was used because it shortened the war that would likely not have ended from many more years. But having seen the power and devastation we would never want to do it again.

The Priesthood ban can't really be compared to that. It existed, it lasted many years and when it was finally lifted the church as a whole rejoiced. Many reasons for that rejoicing aside from the joy for those they knew who were affected, but also it meant they wouldn't have to try to find excuses for the ban. Of course like the racism of the past, there are certain people who won't let the issue die so they perpetuate a controversy which should no longer be. We can't speak to why the ban lasted so long or what the thinking of the past was, especially in light of the issue of presentism. We can speculate based on statements made, which in themselves were speculation, but it is ridiculous to ask the church today to apologize for something that is no longer done and for which the reasons are still unrevealed or at least not understood in the narrow vision of the present. God hasn't always revealed everything to man and even when he revealed it to his prophets they didn't always reveal it to others. Joseph Smith knew many things he couldn't tell the people because their traditions and narrow vision would not allow them to understand.

The Ban itself may have been instituted out of misunderstanding or confusing the verses in Abraham with the traditions of the day. But having been put in place by a prophet of God it couldn't just be done away with a simple administrative decision. People forget the authority and power God gives his prophets. I think it speaks to the faith of the black saints that they were so patient with something no one could fully explain. I think we should all rejoice that God saw fit to finally answer another prophet's prayers at a time when the world was indeed changing and which would allow the church to move forward in nations which would have had limited access to the fullness of the blessings offered.

[Saints Alive]

Well the A-bomb was used because it shortened the war that would likely not have ended from many more years. But having seen the power and devastation we would never want to do it again.

I won't have any of your unfounded speculation about US doctrine!

[why me]

Okay, so it is, at least, possible that it was a mistake? That's what I was trying to figure out...

I don't know if it were a mistake. We will never know just what would have happened if no ban was in place. I do know that Black Pete took it upon himself to marry several white women without authorization. Brigham Young and Orson Hyde had a heart attack over it. The implications of such news getting out among the gentiles would have cause worry to most. And the reaction of the gentiles would have been swift and harsh. And I am sure that bloodshed would follow

It was this incident that prompted the ban eventually. How do you think that the nonmormon frontier crowd would have reacted when they discover that in the mormon faith a black man can be married to several white women for time and all eternity?

[why me]

I have posted this podcast several times on these boards but it seems that no one is listening because the same questions keep coming up about the ban. These two members handle it quite well and get to the root of the matter.

Listen to the audio presentation:

http://mormonstories.org/mormon-stories-026-blacks-and-the-lds-priesthood-an-interview-with-darius-gray-and-margaret-young/

[Stormy Waters]

From the church statement.

During this time some black males were ordained to the priesthood. At some point the Church stopped ordaining male members of African descent, although there were a few exceptions. It is not known precisely why, how or when this restriction began in the Church

If there is no revelation from God that can be pointed to as justification for the ban, then there is no reason to believe it was God's will.

[Stormy Waters]

If the church cannot point to any revelation that says the ban was God's will, then what reason do they have to think that God wanted it? If they practiced the ban for 100 years without any revelation from God, then shame on them. They should admit the ban was a mistake and apologize.

[Analytics]

How important is it?

Most anti Mormons aren't sincere in "wanting to know", if they were being honest, they would state clearly that their desire for knowledge isn't about "truth" but about tactics, a desire to seek a weapon that they assail the church with. They really don't care about the reason, truth is not an issue for them....

Most anti-Mormons know the truth; ninteenth-century Protestants came up with false religious ideas to justify their racism. Some of their false, racist religious ideas were then adapted, expounded, and institutionalized by the leaders of the LDS Church.

In an effort to save face, the Church won’t take a stand and declare that these justifications were false--only that they aren’t official doctrine. This allows the false doctrines to fester and prevents the church from moving on.

[why me]

If the church cannot point to any revelation that says the ban was God's will, then what reason do they have to think that God wanted it? If they practiced the ban for 100 years without any revelation from God, then shame on them. They should admit the ban was a mistake and apologize.

Have you listened to the podcast?

[why me]

Most anti-Mormons know the truth; ninteenth-century Protestants came up with false religious ideas to justify their racism. Some of their false, racist religious ideas were then adapted, expounded, and institutionalized by the leaders of the LDS Church.

In an effort to save face, the Church won’t take a stand and declare that these justifications were false--only that they aren’t official doctrine. This allows the false doctrines to fester and prevents the church from moving on.

What would these 19th century protestants do if they discovered 'Black Pete' marrying several white women and living with them in a polygamous relationship?

[Rinaldo]

How important is it?

Most anti Mormons aren't sincere in "wanting to know", if they were being honest, they would state clearly that their desire for knowledge isn't about "truth" but about tactics, a desire to seek a weapon that they assail the church with. They really don't care about the reason, truth is not an issue for them. The psuedo umbrage and fake anguish is their mask as they look for another avenue of attack.

And you base this on what evidence?

[Stormy Waters]

Have you listened to the podcast?

The church stated yesterday "It is not known precisely why, how or when this restriction began in the Church, but it has ended." This suggests no documented revelation from God for the ban. Otherwise they would at least know how or when. If you have information to the contrary post it here. But logically you seem to be stuck. If there is revelation, then the statement is wrong. If the statement is right, there is no recorded revelation, and the church denied a group of people access to saving ordinances with no justification for thinking it was God's will.

[Deborah]

If the statement is right, there is no recorded revelation, and the church denied a group of people access to saving ordinances with no justification for thinking it was God's will.

The problem is that lack of documentation isn't lack of revelation. The problem further is that even though several prophets prayed about the issue they could not get an affirmation from the Lord that it should be removed. So regardless of the origin the removal was a revelatory process. You can speculate all you want but that also means judging those in the past without the whole story.

[Stormy Waters]

The problem is that lack of documentation isn't lack of revelation. The problem further is that even though several prophets prayed about the issue they could not get an affirmation from the Lord that it should be removed. So regardless of the origin the removal was a revelatory process. You can speculate all you want but that also means judging those in the past without the whole story.

Lack of documentation means we don't have a way to know if God revealed it. It means that those further down the line didn't have a way to know if it was God's will. It means that they were denied the priesthood simply out of tradition. Not revelation.

[cinepro]

The problem is that lack of documentation isn't lack of revelation. The problem further is that even though several prophets prayed about the issue they could not get an affirmation from the Lord that it should be removed. So regardless of the origin the removal was a revelatory process. You can speculate all you want but that also means judging those in the past without the whole story.

It might not be lack of Revelation per se, but there is a process by which such things are brought before the Church. If it's not recorded and brought before the Church, it's no better than a tree falling in the forest with no one around.

The fact that it was rescinded by revelation also can't speak to the nature of its implementation, because it's possible for God to inspire someone to stop doing something that He didn't command them to start.

Edited March 3, 2012 by cinepro

[selek1]

And you base this on what evidence?

Repeated observation of explicit behavior.

[Loran Blood]

It is unfortunate to see the priesthood or temple blessings diminished to maintain a position even the church has backed away from. I am sorry that you do not see any immediate benefit to blessings that we are unceasingly admonished to partake of. Given your dismissal of them, I am wondering why anyone cared if the ban was lifted. Why the fuss? Why all the joy if it didn't really matter?

The Church has not "backed away" from anything except the ban itself, and the Church never backed away from it - The Lord annulled it through direct revelation to his appointed servants in 1978. The extreme resistance to the accepted workings of priesthood authority and the legitimacy of the Brethren as representative of Jesus Christ for the Church in our day is fascinating to see in play on this issue, and I am and remain convinced that, it is, yet again, a manifestation of a generational sanctimoniousness relative to the subject of race, and black people in particular, that has so poisoned discourse and clear, critical reasoning on racial matters that even clear expressions of Church teaching in this area are met with pugnacious calls for "apologies" for the ban and for the Church to "admit it was wrong" and "get it out of the way" similar to calls for reparations and similar initiatives from the surrounding culture of Babylon.

Let's take a look at a couple key portions of what the Church has now officially and clearly stated, and then compare and contrast it to the stated, and sometimes stated with airs of brazen certitude, views of some others here, including some well known within the apologetic movement, regarding the matter:

People of all races have always been welcomed and baptized into the Church since its beginning. In fact, by the end of his life in 1844 Joseph Smith, the founding prophet of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, opposed slavery. During this time some black males were ordained to the priesthood. At some point the Church stopped ordaining male members of African descent, although there were a few exceptions. It is not known precisely why, how or when this restriction began in the Church,

In other words, shrill claims that the ban was clearly and unambiguously racist, and that this represents something that is now actually known about the ban as a matter of historical evidence or fact, and that the Church is in a position in which it needs to "apologize" for this aspect of its history and teaching, is in direct contradiction to the official position and teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints.

The origins of priesthood availability are not entirely clear.

Translation: the ban, as to its degree of inspiration and its psychological, doctrinal, or other motives, is not known. Therefore, "believing" LDS who do not believe and accept the official teachings and council of the Brethren, at this juncture, are in disharmony with the Brethren and are not conducting themselves as "believing" Latter day Saints, at this point.