Was The Priesthood Ban A Mistake?

[K-2]

I don't think it was a mistake. I voted for "other."

[KevinG]

Asking questions like "was it a mistake" is oversimplifying a complex series of historical events.

I think the church as an institution and the people in it matured over time. They did the best they knew with the information they had at the time and as they were ready to receive it they were given more light and knowledge.

We don't spend a lot of time hashing over Lincoln's advocacy of a separate nation for blacks or debate if the civil war was a good idea. We don't claim Joseph Smith a poor prophet for not revealing the secrets of the internal combustion engine. Why should we beat ourselves up over saying "we don't know precisely why but now we know what God commands us today."

P.S. before the inevitable snap response... If you don't think the invention of the internal combustion engine was as important as other great social leaps you must drive a Chevy Volt.

Edited March 7, 2012 by KevinG

[Freedom]

Personally I think the ban was an error. Nobody can find any evidence as to why it started, whether there was a revelation, etc.

The problem with this argument is that the same can be said of women not holding the priesthood. Prophets, we are told, receive revelation daily but none of it is published so there is no requirement for us to have a copy of the direction given concerning this practice. This is why I can only say we don't know.

[Saints Alive]

I'm going to say the unpopular thing...

All we know is that the origins of the ban are not known. Until the First Presidency says that the ban was wrong and racist (not just the speculation surrounding it, that is all they have clarified thus far) I will continue to do the only thing a faithful Latter-Day Saint can do and assume that the ban was in fact from God or Atleast condoned by Him. Drop the issue and await further revelation, if needed.

[David T]

I will continue to do the only thing a faithful Latter-Day Saint can do and assume that the ban was in fact from God

So those of us who don't believe the Ban was from God are not faithful Latter-day Saints in your eyes? Is that really the judgment call you're making?

[Saints Alive]

So those of us who don't believe the Ban was from God are not faithful Latter-day Saints in your eyes? Is that really the judgment call you're making?

nope, I can only judge for myself and I dont feel comfortable condemning something that was at the very least condoned if not ordained by God.

[JDave]

So do you retract your statement then?

the only thing a faithful Latter-Day Saint can do [is] assume that the ban was in fact from God or At least condoned by Him.

[Saints Alive]

Nope

Do not judge other posters' faithfulness. You are leaving the thread.

[David T]

To clarify, because your opinion is that since 'the only thing a faithful Latter-Day Saint can do [is] assume that the ban was in fact from God or At least condoned by Him.', in your opinion, it is also not possible for those who instead believe that God did not instruct his leaders to discriminate against African Blacks, but rather just permitted it or allowed it to occur without condoning or liking it to be Faithful Latter-day Saints.

Is this not an accurate expression of your views? If not, please make very clear what is not accurate. Because to affirm the first and to deny the second appears to be a contradiction.

Edited March 16, 2012 by nackhadlow

[DH]

Yes, it was a mistake.

[DarkScythe]

the ban itself, is not racist or wrong but there were a lot of people that were racist and wrong.

[cinepro]

the ban itself, is not racist or wrong but there were a lot of people that were racist and wrong.

I know we've gone round and round with this, but I still can't read this and see how it makes any kind of sense. I know it is probably comforting to some people to be able to say or read that and it makes sense in their brains, but the way I understand the Priesthood Ban and the English language, it just doesn't make any sense to say the ban wasn't "racist".

I can understand saying it wasn't wrong, but to say that it was based on something other than "race" just doesn't make sense, even if you parse "race" in to "lineage".

Edited March 16, 2012 by cinepro

[Mehrdad]

Lets not forget Matt 20:16 "The first shall be last and the last shall be first...." I believe that the Lord loves us all equally, the Priesthood ban was lifted at the appropriate time, to hail in the prophecy in Matthew.

[Calm]

This might interest some people:

http://bycommonconsent.com/2012/03/17/an-exception-being-made-in-his-caseor-you-might-be-a-racist-ifpart-3/

[Libs]

That was good, Calmoriah. Thanks for sharing.

[Jeff K.]

A very good, very nuanced post.

[Zeta-Flux]

I found the post interesting, but in my opinion it didn't address some of the stronger critiques available. Also, while not full of racism like (the way) Br. Bott's ideas (were presented), it was still plainly trying to use personal theories to try and understand an unclear past.

[Brian 2.0]

the ban itself, is not racist or wrong but there were a lot of people that were racist and wrong.

I agree with Cinepro's disagreement with this.

DarkScythe, what you need to define in this statement is what you think "racist" means to make sense of your statement. Also... the original poll may need to do this becuase I think we have people defining "racist" differently

Some people read "racist" and see "hate/look down on/think less of black people" and say "no, it wasn't racist. Nor am I racist"

Some people read "racist" and see "using racial discrimination" and say, "yes, it was racist."

If the first statment was restated as this, would it change anyone's vote? "The ban was racial descrimination, pure and simple."

Would ANYONE like to refute that the ban was Racial Descrimination? Anyone?

If no one would like to refute that the Ban was racial descrimination, then the agrument becomes "Can racial descrimination ever be right, or it is always wrong to racially descriminate?"

That's the real question we're talking about here.

[Jeff K.]

Isn't any ban discriminatory?

We don't know what the basis for the ban is, so the argument seeking a "refutation" for one position or another is fallacious since you cannot refute what you do not surely know. It is the knowledge of why something occurs that allows us to refute or accept, not the speculation when it isn't known.

Your logic then attending to the question can some sort of discrimination ever be right? The answer is that sometimes it was considered so, even by Christ. The Samaritans come to mind.

[Zeta-Flux]

If no one would like to refute that the Ban was racial descrimination, then the agrument becomes "Can racial descrimination ever be right, or it is always wrong to racially descriminate?"

That's the real question we're talking about here.

No. We cannot talk about that issue on this board. We can only give our opinion about whether or not we think the ban was of God or not. Trying to justify racial discrimination is viewed as race-baiting, and is a punishable offense.

[Brian 2.0]

No. We cannot talk about that issue on this board. We can only give our opinion about whether or not we think the ban was of God or not. Trying to justify racial discrimination is viewed as race-baiting, and is a punishable offense.

I'm truly not tryin to race-bait... honesty... nor do I want to have anyone try to justify racial discrimination...

But the question is simple.

Is the ban racial discrimination? I woiuld say yes, I don't know how anyone could say no. Please challenge this if you believe otherwise.

Then the only question we are allowed to talk about is whether or not this racial discrimination policy came from God. I would also say no. Please challenge this if you believe otherwise.

My questions, and answers, in case I'm not being clear.

Q1: Is "the ban" racial discrimination? A: Yes

Q2: If you answered Yes to Q1, did this racial discriminaton ban come from God? A: No.

Edited March 19, 2012 by Brian 2.0

[thesometimesaint]

Brian 2.0:

Yes it was racial discrimination. However that answer in and of itself adds nothing to the discussion. The WHY'S, WHEREFORE'S, and JUSTIFICATIONS for that discimination are needed to flesh out the discussion. Part of the problem is that Race is a difficult issue to pin down, and was/is often conflated with nationality. In the Gospel sense we are all alike we are all children of the same God. He values no person above that of an other. Equally we do know that he sets the rules for whom has the Priesthood and when. That in times past certain families, tribes, sects, had had exclusive powers of the Priesthood. We don't know the WHY'S, and WHEREFORE, and that the JUSTIFICATIONS had turned out to be just wild haired Speculations.

I know of exactly ONE member who wasn't thrilled with the OD2, out of all the members that I know. Its been 30 years + now since OD2. It is past time to move on.

[Brian 2.0]

If you answer Q2 with "we don't know" then you are saying you believe in God that COULD use racial discrimination, even if only for certain periods of time. If you didn't believe in a God that uses racial discrimination ever, then then there is no reason to say "we don't know" because it obviously didn't come from God.

[thesometimesaint]

Brian 2:

We have Scripture, namely the bible, that has discrimination in it as directed by God. If we believe the Bible to be true, and the Saints do, do we have the authority to apologize for God?

Edited March 19, 2012 by thesometimesaint

[Brian 2.0]

Brian 2.0:

Yes it was racial discrimination. However that answer in and of itself adds nothing to the discussion. The WHY'S, WHEREFORE'S, and JUSTIFICATIONS for that discimination are needed to flesh out the discussion. Part of the problem is that Race is a difficult issue to pin down, and was/is often conflated with nationality. In the Gospel sense we are all alike we are all children of the same God. He values no person above that of an other. Equally we do know that he sets the rules for whom has the Priesthood and when. That in times past certain families, tribes, sects, had had exclusive powers of the Priesthood. We don't know the WHY'S, and WHEREFORE, and that the JUSTIFICATIONS had turned out to be just wild haired Speculations.

I agree with what you are saying, but believing in this God is believing in a God that practices discrimination (racial, tribal, sexual). And for some, the REASONS don't matter, becauase there is NEVER a reason to them that makes it okay. There is not an option where a WHY, WHEREFOR, or JUSTIFCATION that can make it okay.

So for a lot of people, the thought that the ban came from God, REGARDLESS OF THE REASONS, is unacceptable, because the God they want to believe in would never use racial descrimination.

EDITED FOR TYPOS

Edited March 19, 2012 by Brian 2.0