"Priesthood Ban" in Gospel Doctrine - What Happens When a PhD Historian Teaches...

[cinepro]

So this happened in Gospel Doctrine today.  Needless to say it was a great lesson. 

The most interesting part was some older members of the ward who kept insisting that "they [the black people] weren't ready for it [the Priesthood]" or "the Church members just weren't ready for it."

The items on the far left read:

1879-1908: LDS leaders increasingly conservative stance on black priesthood and temple admission

1907: Joseph Fielding Smith, then assistant Church Historian, argued that the idea that black people were neutral in the War in Heaven as the source of their rejection from the priesthood was "merely the opinion of men."

1908: Joseph F. Smith solidified temple and priesthood restrictions.  He erased Elijah Abel as a black priesthood holder from LDS collective memory.

1949: First Presidency declared "always" in place.

David O. McKay pushed for reform, but convinced it would require a revelation.

Hugh B. Brown, President McKay's counselor, believed that because no revelation began the ban no revelation was needed to end it.

1963:  Apostle Spencer W. Kimball: "I know the Lord could change his policy and release the ban and forget the possible error which brought about deprivation."

Edited November 20, 2017 by cinepro

[bsjkki]

40 minutes ago, cinepro said:

So this happened in Gospel Doctrine today.  Needless to say it was a great lesson. 

The most interesting part was some older members of the ward who kept insisting that "they [the black people] weren't ready for it [the Priesthood]" or "the Church members just weren't ready for it."

The items on the far left read:

1879-1908: LDS leaders increasingly conservative stance on black priesthood and temple admission

1907: Joseph Fielding Smith, then assistant Church Historian, argued that the idea that black people were neutral in the War in Heaven as the source of their rejection from the priesthood was "merely the opinion of men."

1908: Joseph F. Smith solidified temple and priesthood restrictions.  He erased Elijah Abel as a black priesthood holder from LDS collective memory.

1949: First Presidency declared "always" in place.

David O. McKay pushed for reform, but convinced it would require a revelation.

Hugh B. Brown, President McKay's counselor, believed that because no revelation began the ban no revelation was needed to end it.

1963:  Apostle Spencer W. Kimball: "I know the Lord could change his policy and release the ban and forgit hte possible error which brought about deprivation."

So did they discuss the content in the essays?

[Bobbieaware]

5 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

So did they discuss the content in the essays?

So it looks like Hugh B Brown was mistaken. A revelation from heaven (an overwhelmingly powerful one at that) was indeed needed before the ban could be lifted.

Aware of the promises made by the prophets and presidents of the Church who have preceded us that at some time, in God’s eternal plan, all of our brethren who are worthy may receive the priesthood, and witnessing the faithfulness of those from whom the priesthood has been withheld, we have pleaded long and earnestly in behalf of these, our faithful brethren, spending many hours in the Upper Room of the Temple supplicating the Lord for divine guidance.

He has heard our prayers, and by revelation has confirmed that the long-promised day has come when every faithful, worthy man in the Church may receive the holy priesthood, with power to exercise its divine authority, and enjoy with his loved ones every blessing that flows therefrom, including the blessings of the temple. Accordingly, all worthy male members of the Church may be ordained to the priesthood without regard for race or color. Priesthood leaders are instructed to follow the policy of carefully interviewing all candidates for ordination to either the Aaronic or the Melchizedek Priesthood to insure that they meet the established standards for worthiness. (Official Declaration II)

[JLHPROF]

So much for sticking to the manual.  😁

That's some serious extracurricular materials.  Good for them.

[JulieM]

1 hour ago, Bobbieaware said:

So it looks like Hugh B Brown was mistaken. 

Yes, leaders were fallible back then just as they are today.  Which means our current leaders may be mistaken about policies and beliefs taught today too.

(And this lesson sounds awesome Cinepro!!)

[Atheist Mormon]

3 hours ago, cinepro said:

So this happened in Gospel Doctrine today.  Needless to say it was a great lesson. 

The most interesting part was some older members of the ward who kept insisting that "they [the black people] weren't ready for it [the Priesthood]" or "the Church members just weren't ready for it."

I can't help the ringing in my ear long after I finished listening Michael Quinn's lament with john Dehlin interview; "We lost a whole generation giving the misinformation".

[pogi]

2 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

So it looks like Hugh B Brown was mistaken. A revelation from heaven (an overwhelmingly powerful one at that) was indeed needed before the ban could be lifted.

Not necessarily.  I think that he was technically right that a revelation was not necessary, but it certainly was helpful to assure the brethren and membership.

[Calm]

"So it looks like Hugh B Brown was mistaken. A revelation from heaven (an overwhelmingly powerful one at that) was indeed needed before the ban could be lifted."

Needed because other apostles refused to accept it as a 'simple' policy change so Elder Brown was only mistaken about the level of resistance in the Quorum or needed because that is the way God wanted it done in the first place?

I think both stances are reasonable.

[Scott Lloyd]

Looks like a gospel hobbyist with an advanced degree. Ho-hum.

 

[Pete Ahlstrom]

12 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Looks like a gospel hobbyist with an advanced degree. Ho-hum.

 

Why does this bother you? Isn't innoculation the new wave? It seems to me that this is what church history should be about. Let's discover what really happened, who said what and what motivated them.

[Scott Lloyd]

23 minutes ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

Why does this bother you? Isn't innoculation the new wave? It seems to me that this is what church history should be about. Let's discover what really happened, who said what and what motivated them.

I'm not bothered by it.

I'm not impressed by it either.

 

[Hamba Tuhan]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I'm not impressed by it either.

I have a PhD in history, and I'm not impressed by it either.

[Pete Ahlstrom]

2 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I have a PhD in history, and I'm not impressed by it either.

What would impress you with respect to a lesson on the lifting of the priesthood ban? How should it be taught from your perspective?

[cacheman]

Did he provide a reference for the 1847 Brigham Young claim that skin color did not matter for priesthood ordination?  Maybe somebody else here knows and could share that.  Thanks!

 

[bluebell]

Seems like a good lesson (which always impresses me, seems weird not to be impressed by a good lesson at church), how did it go over with the people in the class?  Was he able to get the spirit there?

[Gray]

"Area man unimpressed with Ph.D. Sunday school teacher's lesson."

 

 

 

[Senator]

My kind of lesson!

I believe there are a lot of members hungry for depth.

[cinepro]

35 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Seems like a good lesson (which always impresses me, seems weird not to be impressed by a good lesson at church), how did it go over with the people in the class?  Was he* able to get the spirit there?

Ahem, she did a good job. 

As I said, the toughest aspect was that some of the older members of the ward who grew up during that era wanted to contribute the ways in which they had justified the ban, so they helpfully explained that "it was probably better for the blacks not to have the priesthood at the time" or "the Church members weren't ready for it" (the same reasoning we've heard here over the years.)

Luckily, a class member towards the end of the lesson read Elder Holland's quote where he said:

Quote

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. 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.

 

http://www.pbs.org/mormons/interviews/holland.html

 

 

[cinepro]

1 hour ago, cacheman said:

Did he provide a reference for the 1847 Brigham Young claim that skin color did not matter for priesthood ordination?  Maybe somebody else here knows and could share that.  Thanks!

 

She said most of her references were from this book:

 

Religion of a Different Color: Race and the Mormon Struggle for Whiteness

[ttribe]

8 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Looks like a gospel hobbyist with an advanced degree. Ho-hum.

 

 

7 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I'm not bothered by it.

I'm not impressed by it either.

 

 

4 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I have a PhD in history, and I'm not impressed by it either.

Then why say anything?  Obviously, some people were impressed and wanted to discuss it.  Was it your intent to simply rain on their parade?  Look "smarter"?  What, exactly?

[ALarson]

7 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I'm not impressed by it either.

What do you disagree with or believe that she got wrong?  Can you be more specific?

It seems members here blame those members who do not know true history and yet when a teacher makes an effort to teach more in depth, they are criticized.  

So please tell us what you are not impressed with regarding the lesson....

[nuclearfuels]

Awesome post and responses. Makes me wonder what will happen to this forum when we realize that we're living in the dispensation of the fullness of times when every gospel principle will be revealed/restored/practiced, etc. 

[Senator]

Was this the scheduled lesson topic?

[The Nehor]

5 minutes ago, nuclearfuels said:

Awesome post and responses. Makes me wonder what will happen to this forum when we realize that we're living in the dispensation of the fullness of times when every gospel principle will be revealed/restored/practiced, etc. 

When that happens presumably ressurrected beings will finally feel comfortable

logging on to this board.

[ALarson]

4 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I have a PhD in history, and I'm not impressed by it either.

Ok.  What did she get wrong?