Lifting the Ban on Blacks

[Uncertain]

I don't see the ban as a mistake, otherwise, when asked it would have been rectified.

It is something those attempting to paint a "nuanced" picture fail to take into account.

Hi Jeff K,

There is little doubt restricting the priesthood from those with an African lineage is a mistake. This would restrict the priesthood from every living human being including BY and JS. I suppose a person could argue the initial ban was a mistake but the continuing of the ban was divine God for whatever reason did not want to upset the institutional inertia of the church. Personally I find this approach to be exceedingly weak. God allowing the ban to continue still does not solve the issue that every living human has African ancestors it means there were many many members of the church i.e.(all of them) that were technically not allowed to hold the priesthood but did anyways. It also punishes those members with the most well known family tree. Given that it is a fact everyone has an African ancestor those with the most well researched family tree will be the ones most likely to discover they are descended from an "African lineage" and hence should not hold the priesthood. When in reality every person alive is not eligible to hold the priesthood. The ban just does not make any sense sure the fact it was allowed to continue might be some evidence it was God breathed but hardly sufficient evidence. Maybe those leaders who prayed about the ban were also mistaken when they thought God told them it should be continued.

Uncertain

[Brenda]

Hi Brenda,

Personally I think this is an interesting means to get at how Prophetic fallibility is viewed by LDS members. I think most LDS members would readily admit Prophets are not perfect and they can make mistakes. But most would probably argue Prophetic mistakes are not "serious". That is a prophet may be wrong concerning a global flood but not wrong about the necessity of baptism or the divinity of Christ. In other words there are some mistakes that would just be to damaging such that God will not allow this to happen. With regards to the Priesthood ban some LDS seem to fall on the side of the ban being man made is just to serious of a mistake for God to allow to happen. While others are fine with this degree of Prophetic fallibility. It seems to me where to draw the line concerning how "serious" a mistake God will allow to happen is entirely subjective some will allow Prophets to make seemingly large mistakes i.e.(priesthood ban) while others just cannot believe God would allow Prophets to make such an error. Personally I don't believe the ban being man made necessarily invalidates LDS prophetic leadership. But I do understand nailing down exactly what degree of mistakes God will allow a prophet to make is fuzzy and not well defined and this line will be drawn at different points by different people.

All the Best,

Uncertain

Yes, I've noticed that fuzzy line. I choose to draw the line where it gives BY full credit for being an inspired prophet, and exactly the man that God wanted to do the job at that time. I also believe that BY, by today's standards, could be called a racist. Meaning, we ALL could have been racist then. It was the way people were taught to believe. Yes, God does work with imperfect people.

I do not believe that God would allow a mistake of that magnitude, linger for that long, in a Church He is leading. I don't believe it. I don't believe SWK believed it either. Nor any of the prophets in between.

And regarding this matter, I do not believe the Church today, has anything to apologize for.

[Uncertain]

Yes, I've noticed that fuzzy line. I choose to draw the line where it gives BY full credit for being an inspired prophet, and exactly the man that God wanted to do the job at that time. I also believe that BY, by today's standards, could be called a racist. Meaning, we ALL could have been racist then. It was the way people were taught to believe. Yes, God does work with imperfect people.

I do not believe that God would allow a mistake of that magnitude, linger for that long, in a Church He is leading. I don't believe it. I don't believe SWK believed it either. Nor any of the prophets in between.

And regarding this matter, I do not believe the Church today, has anything to apologize for.

Hi Brenda,

I of course strongly disagree for reasons I already discussed. To me the evidence that a ban on the basis of African ancestry is man made is overwhelming. But if everyone agreed all the time this world would be a very boring place . In any case I am certainly not arguing my subjective line prophets will not cross is any better than your subjective line prophets will not cross . I think we can both agree what position is taken on this issue has no bearing on eternal heavenly rewards.

[Jeff K.]

Hi Jeff K,

There is little doubt restricting the priesthood from those with an African lineage is a mistake. This would restrict the priesthood from every living human being including BY and JS. I suppose a person could argue the initial ban was a mistake but the continuing of the ban was divine God for whatever reason did not want to upset the institutional inertia of the church. Personally I find this approach to be exceedingly weak. God allowing the ban to continue still does not solve the issue that every living human has African ancestors it means there were many many members of the church i.e.(all of them) that were technically not allowed to hold the priesthood but did anyways. It also punishes those members with the most well known family tree. Given that it is a fact everyone has an African ancestor those with the most well researched family tree will be the ones most likely to discover they are descended from an "African lineage" and hence should not hold the priesthood. When in reality every person alive is not eligible to hold the priesthood. The ban just does not make any sense sure the fact it was allowed to continue might be some evidence it was God breathed but hardly sufficient evidence. Maybe those leaders who prayed about the ban were also mistaken when they thought God told them it should be continued.

Uncertain

Actually I think there is a great deal of doubt that it is a mistake. Nor do I buy the perpetual motion machine theory that all must therefore be conscripted as being banned rather than a specific group.

Your presumption as to why the priesthood ban came about is not really relavant unless of course you don't believe that the apostles and prophets carry out such wide reaching acts of denial (priesthood ordinances) without the sanction of God. A very difficult charge to make (unless you are a non member or someone who is a member, but without much faith in the idea of revelation, or that our prophets of today receive revelation).

You want the ban to "make sense". Well it wasn't until much later that many commandments "made sense" and in some cases hundreds of years passed before the "sense" became clear to we wise mortals. One might consider some of the mosaic laws in leviticus to be indicative of such, or the Word of Wisdom on a less timely basis.

So your desire for something the Lord commanded to "make sense" is something you can take up with the Lord "God why aren't you making sense to me...." "Get to it" or whatever manner you choose to judge God by.

[Brenda]

Actually I think there is a great deal of doubt that it is a mistake. Nor do I buy the perpetual motion machine theory that all must therefore be conscripted as being banned rather than a specific group.

You want the ban to "make sense". Well it wasn't until much later that many commandments "made sense" and in some cases hundreds of years passed before the "sense" became clear to we wise mortals. One might consider some of the mosaic laws in leviticus to be indicative of such, or the Word of Wisdom on a less timely basis.

So your desire for something the Lord commanded to "make sense" is something you can take up with the Lord "God why aren't you making sense to me...." "Get to it" or whatever manner you choose to judge God by.

I like this.

[ttribe]

Your presumption as to why the priesthood ban came about is not really relavant unless of course you don't believe that the apostles and prophets carry out such wide reaching acts of denial (priesthood ordinances) without the sanction of God. A very difficult charge to make (unless you are a non member or someone who is a member, but without much faith in the idea of revelation, or that our prophets of today receive revelation).

I strenuously object to this characterization.

[cinepro]

But if the Church said we need to all wear green on Tuesdays....in a loving way, that would be a weird mistake.

How about white on Sundays?

[cinepro]

I strenuously object to this characterization.

Yeah, I was wondering how that was going to go over when I read that...

[consiglieri]

I strenuously object to this characterization.

Objection overruled.

You obviously fall into one of these two categories, and I abjure you to publicly proclaim in which fulsome camp you have bivouacked.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Uncertain]

Actually I think there is a great deal of doubt that it is a mistake. Nor do I buy the perpetual motion machine theory that all must therefore be conscripted as being banned rather than a specific group.

Hi Jeff K,

Well if the group defined as those who can't hold the priesthood is those individuals with an African lineage than yes every living human would be disqualified did you read my references?

Your presumption as to why the priesthood ban came about is not really relavant unless of course you don't believe that the apostles and prophets carry out such wide reaching acts of denial (priesthood ordinances) without the sanction of God. A very difficult charge to make (unless you are a non member or someone who is a member, but without much faith in the idea of revelation, or that our prophets of today receive revelation).

You want the ban to "make sense". Well it wasn't until much later that many commandments "made sense" and in some cases hundreds of years passed before the "sense" became clear to we wise mortals. One might consider some of the mosaic laws in leviticus to be indicative of such, or the Word of Wisdom on a less timely basis.

So your desire for something the Lord commanded to "make sense" is something you can take up with the Lord "God why aren't you making sense to me...." "Get to it" or whatever manner you choose to judge God by.

If something is purported to be God breathed but there is overwhelming evidence it makes little sense then I view this as good evidence it is not God breathed after all. This is not necessarily demanding God "make sense" this is questioning those who tell me a certain nonsensical proposition is God breathed. In other words I am not doubting God I am doubting those who tell me a given nonsensical proposition is from God. I fail to see why there should be such stubbornness on this issue LDS do not believe in or require prophetic infallibility.

[thesometimesaint]

Uncertain:

The Lord can give or refuse to extend His Priesthood to whomever for whatever reason He wants.

[Jeff K.]

Objection overruled.

You obviously fall into one of these two categories, and I abjure you to publicly proclaim in which fulsome camp you have bivouacked.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Rather than cackle from the rooftops, people are free of course to add additional classifications. I was writing on the fly and there might be more. But I believe there is little wiggle room, except for those who wish to diminish the idea of prophecy.

Go back to your cackling consig, hopefully you will read the Doctrine and Covenants some before you attempt to teach this Sunday too. It may mean less to you then the more exciting speculation you like to toss out, but most will tell you it is more important. I think even you will be forced to agree with that.

Or not.

[Uncertain]

Uncertain:

The Lord can give or refuse to extend His Priesthood to whomever for whatever reason He wants.

No doubt God can certainly do whatever he wants. I am not sure I am getting my point across. If BY claims God said a group of people for example those with African ancestry can't hold the priesthood. But it is later discovered every living human has African ancestry including BY thus excluding BY himself from holding the priesthood. Stating BY was wrong about who can and can't hold the priesthood is not questioning the ability of God to do whatever he wants it is questioning whether BY accurately portrayed Gods opinion. In other words I am not questioning God I am questioning BY they are not the same person .

[Jeff K.]

If something is purported to be God breathed but there is overwhelming evidence it makes little sense then I view this as good evidence it is not God breathed after all.

You have waited years to have a child, God blesses you with a child, and God later tells you to kill the child. Must not be of God? Good thing you aren't Abraham.

This is not necessarily demanding God "make sense" this is questioning those who tell me a certain nonsensical proposition is God breathed.

Poor sophistry. You want a commandment to make sense. It was a commandment. You in effect want God to "make sense".

I am not doubting God I am doubting those who tell me a given nonsensical proposition is from God.

In other words, Abraham was a false prophet?

Had no explanation been given then, or a later explanation given, would it have made Abrahams act false or true, because based on our limited understanding and reasoning, at the time, it was not known why we would be asked to do something so utterly nonsensical.

I fail to see why there should be such stubbornness on this issue LDS do not believe in or require prophetic infallibility.

Then you fail to see.

[cinepro]

No doubt God can certainly do whatever he wants. I am not sure I am getting my point across. If BY claims God said a group of people for example those with African ancestry can't hold the priesthood. But it is later discovered every living human has African ancestry including BY thus excluding BY himself from holding the priesthood. Stating BY was wrong about who can and can't hold the priesthood is not questioning the ability of God to do whatever he wants it is questioning whether BY accurately portrayed Gods opinion. In other words I am not questioning God I am questioning BY they are not the same person .

The importance of that fact cannot be overstated.

If all men of African descent (with no divine limitation on the "depth of descent") were ineligible for the priesthood, then Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery were ineligible for the Priesthood, and the restoration is null and void. At the very least, the restoration of the priesthoods could not have occurred until June of 1978.

[thesometimesaint]

Uncertain:

Such is the imperfection of man. We've had them from the beginning. Originally the Priesthood was limited to first born male sons of the sons of Levi. Peter wanted members of the Church to be Jewish first. Until he was told differently. Women still don't hold the Priesthood. Maybe that will change one day. But I have no way of knowing if/when that will occur.

[cinepro]

You have waited years to have a child, God blesses you with a child, and God later tells you to kill the child. Must not be of God? Good thing you aren't Abraham.

Why? What would have happened it Abraham had said "No, thanks anyway, but unless you can give me some sort of reason, I won't kill my son. Because I don't believe in "blind obedience" and all that"?

[emeliza]

How about white on Sundays?

So far it is only white shirts for men in leadership or involved in the Sacrament and it is for symbolism. I am not required (as a female) to wear white to Church on Sundays. The only place we wear all white is when getting baptized or in the temple. I guess I also gave a bit of an over generalization. The Church could tell us to all wear green on Tuesdays to symbolize....what have you.

[Uncertain]

You have waited years to have a child, God blesses you with a child, and God later tells you to kill the child. Must not be of God? Good thing you aren't Abraham.

Poor sophistry. You want a commandment to make sense. It was a commandment. You in effect want God to "make sense".

In other words, Abraham was a false prophet?

Had no explanation been given then, or a later explanation given, would it have made Abrahams act false or true, because based on our limited understanding and reasoning, at the time, it was not known why we would be asked to do something so utterly nonsensical.

Then you fail to see.

Well if God talked to me directly like he did Abraham. I would be far more inclined to believe a seemingly nonsensical ban on those with African ancestry. Since I have not yet had the please and since I am well aware men make mistakes I am far more inclined to believe BY simply made a mistake it happens he was human. It appears to me you will not budge no matter what evidence is supplied. I do respect your iron clad faith it reminds me of those who refuse to accept anything less than a global flood. I find such a position unnecessary but I do have a certain respect to such a "go down fighting" attitude although I personally find it to be poor apologetics. I mean sure it is always possible God really was the author of such a seemingly nonsensical ban and he is engaging in some kind of test of faith sans Abraham but I doubt it . In any case it is unlikely we are going to come to an agreement on this issue.

[emeliza]

Why? What would have happened it Abraham had said "No, thanks anyway, but unless you can give me some sort of reason, I won't kill my son. Because I don't believe in "blind obedience" and all that"?

I would guess that if it had happened that way, the story wouldn't be in the Old Testament and Abraham probably wouldn't be a much smaller character if there at all....or maybe he would have been stuck by lightening.

[ttribe]

Objection overruled.

You obviously fall into one of these two categories, and I abjure you to publicly proclaim in which fulsome camp you have bivouacked.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

I don't accept arbitrary categorizations of people based on one person's biases and opinions.

[cinepro]

So far it is only white shirts for men in leadership or involved in the Sacrament and it is for symbolism. I am not required (as a female) to wear white to Church on Sundays. The only place we wear all white is when getting baptized or in the temple. I guess I also gave a bit of an over generalization. The Church could tell us to all wear green on Tuesdays to symbolize....what have you.

Yes, that makes much more sense.

[mfbukowski]

Hi All,

This topic was recently discussed in this thread:

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/topic/46161-has-or-did-the-restriction-on-blacks-holding-the-priesthood%E2%80%A6/page__st__300

In my opinion whether or not the priesthood ban on the basis of African lineage is man made is a settled question the ban was clearly man made.

Here is what I posted on the other thread.

I believe the evidence for the priesthood ban on the basis of African lineage being man made is very strong to the point of being overwhelming. Such concepts are greatly weakened if not falsified outright by population genetics. For example as you go back in time you reach a point where if someone has any living descendants they are the ancestors of everyone currently living. Estimates place this point within historical times i.e.(2,158 B.C. - 5,353 B.C.) ref( Rohde D, Olson S, Chang J (2004) Modeling the recent common ancestry of all living humans. Nature 431:562

[why me]

I know I'm a little late to this party, but just received an invitation via email to join so here I am.

We don't have to speculate. The scriptures are very clear. There is only one place in all of scripture where the Lord says that a certain group of people cannot have rights to the priesthood. That's in D&C 121:21. And here He was speaking of those who persecuted the Saints, driving and murdering them. But in Section 124 He even says even they can repent and come unto Him to receive the blessings. So as Joseph Smith needed to get instruction on how to set up the Lord's church, it would make sense that if the Lord wanted to be a respecter of persons, He would have given Joseph the command not to give Blacks the priesthood. But He did just the opposite. At least 12 times the Lord commanded the prophet to give priesthood to all men. See D&C 36:4-5, 7, 63:57 And so he did. There were several Blacks who held the priesthood. Elijah Able, Walker Lewis, William McCary, Black Pete, Joseph T. Ball et.

Also, there's no record of any revelation, inspiration or anything like it to restrict priesthood from Blacks. And if there were, wouldn't it make sense that so many of the incorrect teachings from leaders would have been created?

You are correct. I think that you have a good perspective on it which also comes directly from the John Dehlin podcast and the Blacks in the Scripture DVD. Members need to realize that the ban was a policy and not doctrine. And it was a policy started by Orson Hyde and Brigham Young, unfortunately. It is a black mark in lds history but it certainly was a learning experience. It would have been wonderful if the lds leaders were always perfect and progressive in this matter. But...it was not the case. That being said, it doesn't mean that the lds church is not true. We all need to learn and grow in our understanding. And Brigham and Orson were no different. Joseph himself grew in understanding and became a better person for it and he became very progressive toward African Americans.

[why me]

So far it is only white shirts for men in leadership or involved in the Sacrament and it is for symbolism. I am not required (as a female) to wear white to Church on Sundays.

A male does not need to wear a white shirt to pass the sacrament. I believe that this is folklore and not fact. But it is only my opinion.