Lifting the Ban on Blacks

[Uncertain]

How far down that list would "starting a new religion with a teenager be? Lists of what we think are probable are invariably turned over by the reality that God doesn't follow our lists.

Strong assertions perhaps but not strong objections.

I am not sure how you define "assertion" I have asserted nothing. I have however constructed a reasoned argument based on a straightforward definition of African descent backed up with appropriate references. What assertions have I made?

A single incidence of error? Perhaps. Two even? Certainly less likely. We aren't sure how often the prophets inquired. But let us assume several times, and in each lifetime. They they got it all wrong ALL those times? Or are you presuming they ask but once in a lifetime? Now that does seem nonsensical to me.

Yes I am well aware where you draw the line at prophetic infallibility I am less sure why I should accept your line. If we are throwing around accusations of assertions. Why should I accept your assertion that prophets just wouldn't make that many mistakes?

The preisthood ban, as you formulated it (ie couched it) cannot be made to work, but really any defense lawyer can couch things and make them "unworkable". As mentioned elsewhere, it also depends on how "African descent" is defined and what it entails. Was the ban a precise instrument that only affected a few? Was the ban akin to the fall of Jerusalem whence some righteous and unrighteous both fell to the sword? Does that negate God?

I am defining African descent as those who are descended from Africans seems like a reasonable definition to me how would you define African descent? Now I am curious who exactly do you think the priesthood ban applied to? If it does not apply to those with African ancestors who then was banned from holding the priesthood? I suppose you could try and define African descent as those who are only descended from Africans the problem of course is no such beast exists and under this definition no one should have been withheld the priesthood. So pray tell if African descent does not mean "descended from Africans" what does it mean and who should have been banned from holding the priesthood?

From what generation does "African descent" as defined begin? African as in Libyan? Roman? Earlier later? You make a broad brush statement to "couch" your position, but it may not be as broad, nor as narrow as we believe. The lynch pin is prophecy and prophets. Their continued ban reflects an imprimatur of Gods authorization, unless one rejects revelation as an ongoing tool of our church's leaders.

Well the ambiguity in how exactly to define what is "African" is certainly another very good reason to doubt the priesthood ban is God breathed. Luckily for the purposes of my argument it doesn't matter how African is defined each and every one of us is a mixture of every ancient lineage. African could be defined based on whatever region of the globe you wish and each and every one of use would have ancestors from that region (assuming they had descendants at all).

So I reject your specific characterization of the priesthood ban.

Again if African descent does not mean those with African ancestors what does it mean? If you reject my characterization what do you have to replace it with? Look if this is going to degenerate into arguing that African descent does not mean what it clearly says I want off this ride before it gets started .

You presume a belief in a vacuum with no outside influence. The priesthood ban is not such a thing. And I have not seen the overwhelming evidence as you have called it. I have seen a strong assertion, with the proviso that somehow ALL the prophets who inquired what must be SEVERAL times, got it wrong. Which I find reflective less of its accuracy and more on the question faith in a prophets revelatory power. Your assertion might have had more validity had we been in John Taylor's period (directly after what you presuppose is Brigham Young's error), but falls to deminimus after nearly a century and a score of prophets. It appears your position is less secure than you may wish to believe.

Yes I do understand the basis of your argument you have made it clear. You just don't believe prophets would make that many mistakes. I see no reason to accept your subjective opinion on what God will and will not allow prophets to do over anyone else's subjective opinion. In this thread alone LDS members are all over the place some are perfectly fine with the priesthood ban being man made and accept prophets with that degree of fallibility. Why should your view be taken as superior to theirs? Simply asserting over and over again prophets wouldn't error this much is not an argument simply a restatement of your position.

[Uncertain]

That first bit depends on two things:

1) What is meant by "African ancestry".

See my reply to Jeff K. I am defining African ancestry as those who have African ancestors seems straightforward enough to me do you have any reasonable alternatives?

2) Whether the discovery that all living humans have African ancestry is accurate and uses the same terminology as (1).

On the face of it, the idea that all humankind originated in Africa appears to contradict LDS theology that Adam originated in North America.

Certainly the dominate theory of human evolution does place us all coming out of Africa. However my argument does not depend on this we have African ancestors far sooner than that almost certainly within the last couple of thousand years every human being has an African ancestor.

[Jeff K.]

I am defining African descent as those who are descended from Africans seems like a reasonable definition to me how would you define African descent? Now I am curious who exactly do you think the priesthood ban applied to? If it does not apply to those with African ancestors who then was banned from holding the priesthood? I suppose you could try and define African descent as those who are only descended from Africans the problem of course is no such beast exists and under this definition no one should have been withheld the priesthood. So pray tell if African descent does not mean "descended from Africans" what does it mean and who should have been banned from holding the priesthood?

Defining it for when? At anytime in history? Regardless of the migrating groups? Regardless of anything else beyond having stepped upon the shores of Africa? That just doesn't wash historically. If you will Carthagenians would not have been considered African descent so much as Phoenician. There could be a great deal of difference between the historical views of Egyptians versus Nubians to the South, then there are the myriad migratory groups that made their way into Africa, including but not limited to the semetic hittites of Anatolia who conquered Egypt as Hyksos (foreign rulers) and were its rulers during the time of Joseph in Egypt, Egypt itslef had been split into two empires. So your point is not as strong as you "assert" now is it?

Would you call the Phoenicians of equal descent as say perhaps the West African nations of Mali or Ghana? The Hyksos perhaps? The more recent Afrikkaners? And yet you assert that it "must be so".

We also know from time to time the Lord has separated a people from their ancestry by making them the "promised people" and so from time to time, such separation (or in the opposite direction curses) can indeed occur. That also is something to consider when you make your assertions. The Lord may make a claim upon a people, any people when asserting the separateness of his people.

Two points that undermine the credibility of pointing to a people and stating based on reason alone "they are of African descent".

Jeff K., on 03 December 2009 - 03:10 PM, said:

How far down that list would "starting a new religion with a teenager be? Lists of what we think are probable are invariably turned over by the reality that God doesn't follow our lists.

Strong assertions perhaps but not strong objections.

I am not sure how you define "assertion" I have asserted nothing. I have however constructed a reasoned argument based on a straightforward definition of African descent backed up with appropriate references. What assertions have I made?

A strong objection has a point that is difficult to counter. A strong assertion is one in which you believe your point difficult to counter and use language that suggests as much is actually easily exposed as weak. Your position is the latter not the former.

Jeff K., on 03 December 2009 - 03:10 PM, said:

A single incidence of error? Perhaps. Two even? Certainly less likely. We aren't sure how often the prophets inquired. But let us assume several times, and in each lifetime. They they got it all wrong ALL those times? Or are you presuming they ask but once in a lifetime? Now that does seem nonsensical to me.

Yes I am well aware where you draw the line at prophetic infallibility I am less sure why I should accept your line. If we are throwing around accusations of assertions. Why should I accept your assertion that prophets just wouldn't make that many mistakes?

Well, you can claim the prophets who sought revlevance to overturning the ban were lying. Or you can say that time and again each and everyone, everytime they sought to overturn the ban, an innumerable number of times was not in tune with the spirit and therefore in error there. Or you could say that relevation was closed and therefore no longer used.

I am trying to understand which assertion you are making. Why should you accept it? Because your assertion is, on the face of it, unreasonable.

Jeff K., on 03 December 2009 - 03:10 PM, said:

You presume a belief in a vacuum with no outside influence. The priesthood ban is not such a thing. And I have not seen the overwhelming evidence as you have called it. I have seen a strong assertion, with the proviso that somehow ALL the prophets who inquired what must be SEVERAL times, got it wrong. Which I find reflective less of its accuracy and more on the question faith in a prophets revelatory power. Your assertion might have had more validity had we been in John Taylor's period (directly after what you presuppose is Brigham Young's error), but falls to deminimus after nearly a century and a score of prophets. It appears your position is less secure than you may wish to believe.

Yes I do understand the basis of your argument you have made it clear. You just don't believe prophets would make that many mistakes. I see no reason to accept your subjective opinion on what God will and will not allow prophets to do over anyone else's subjective opinion. In this thread alone LDS members are all over the place some are perfectly fine with the priesthood ban being man made and accept prophets with that degree of fallibility. Why should your view be taken as superior to theirs? Simply asserting over and over again prophets wouldn't error this much is not an argument simply a restatement of your position.

No you do not understand the basis of my position. It is not that I "just don't believe prophets would make that many mistakes. It is that I do not believe that many prophets, over so many years, and so many attempts of asking, would be denied a revelation ending the ban. Not quite as simplistic and subjective as your view, actually it is signifcantly more reasonable.

I do not simply assert over and over again a prophet or prophets in general don't err. That is a somewhat amateurish attempt by you to demean the position. I suggest you reread for clarity if you haven't still caught the gist of the position. I emboldened if for you to help.

Simply asserting over and over again prophets wouldn't error this much is not an argument simply a restatement of your position.

Hmmmm... talk about the pot calling the kettle "African descent".

[Uncertain]

Defining it for when? At anytime in history? Regardless of the migrating groups? Regardless of anything else beyond having stepped upon the shores of Africa? That just doesn't wash historically. If you will Carthagenians would not have been considered African descent so much as Phoenician. There could be a great deal of difference between the historical views of Egyptians versus Nubians to the South, then there are the myriad migratory groups that made their way into Africa, including but not limited to the semetic hittites of Anatolia who conquered Egypt as Hyksos (foreign rulers) and were its rulers during the time of Joseph in Egypt, Egypt itslef had been split into two empires. So your point is not as strong as you "assert" now is it?

Would you call the Phoenicians of equal descent as say perhaps the West African nations of Mali or Ghana? The Hyksos perhaps? The more recent Afrikkaners? And yet you assert that it "must be so".

We also know from time to time the Lord has separated a people from their ancestry by making them the "promised people" and so from time to time, such separation (or in the opposite direction curses) can indeed occur. That also is something to consider when you make your assertions. The Lord may make a claim upon a people, any people when asserting the separateness of his people.

Two points that undermine the credibility of pointing to a people and stating based on reason alone "they are of African descent".

Again define African however you wish each of us has ancestors in any ancient group you can name that still have descendants today. Therefore however you define African each and every one of us have African ancestors. Yes there have been many migrations into and out of Africa how is this at all relevant? In fact the more migrations the faster "African ancestry" (whatever that means) would have spread. In addition an inability to define what "African" means harms your position far more than mine. I mean if you truly can't define what African descent means how in the world can you justifiable ban someone for being "African".

A strong objection has a point that is difficult to counter. A strong assertion is one in which you believe your point difficult to counter and use language that suggests as much is actually easily exposed as weak. Your position is the latter not the former.

Well, you can claim the prophets who sought revlevance to overturning the ban were lying. Or you can say that time and again each and everyone, everytime they sought to overturn the ban, an innumerable number of times was not in tune with the spirit and therefore in error there. Or you could say that relevation was closed and therefore no longer used.

Sigh, I never stated neither have I implied church leaders are lying. I have no idea how you get this from my comments. Yes I think they made mistakes and have stated as such how in the world do you take this as me calling them liars is a mystery to me.

No you do not understand the basis of my position. It is not that I "just don't believe prophets would make that many mistakes. It is that I do not believe that many prophets, over so many years, and so many attempts of asking, would be denied a revelation ending the ban. Not quite as simplistic and subjective as your view, actually it is signifcantly more reasonable.

I fail to see how this is significantly different than my statement of your position.

I see you did not answer my question concerning who exactly is banned. How would you define African descent if African descent does not mean descended from Africans what does it mean? Who exactly was banned from holding the priesthood if the ban was not based on having African ancestors what was it based on? If you are using some idiosyncratic definition of "African" what definition are you using and how are you applying it?

In any case I think we are simply going round and round on this and I am not liking the tone of the discussion. I appreciate your perspective I will be interested in reading your reply but I will probably not respond have a good night.

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 03 December 2009 - 08:57 PM, said:

Defining it for when? At anytime in history? Regardless of the migrating groups? Regardless of anything else beyond having stepped upon the shores of Africa? That just doesn't wash historically. If you will Carthagenians would not have been considered African descent so much as Phoenician. There could be a great deal of difference between the historical views of Egyptians versus Nubians to the South, then there are the myriad migratory groups that made their way into Africa, including but not limited to the semetic hittites of Anatolia who conquered Egypt as Hyksos (foreign rulers) and were its rulers during the time of Joseph in Egypt, Egypt itslef had been split into two empires. So your point is not as strong as you "assert" now is it?

Would you call the Phoenicians of equal descent as say perhaps the West African nations of Mali or Ghana? The Hyksos perhaps? The more recent Afrikkaners? And yet you assert that it "must be so".

We also know from time to time the Lord has separated a people from their ancestry by making them the "promised people" and so from time to time, such separation (or in the opposite direction curses) can indeed occur. That also is something to consider when you make your assertions. The Lord may make a claim upon a people, any people when asserting the separateness of his people.

Two points that undermine the credibility of pointing to a people and stating based on reason alone "they are of African descent".

Again define African however you wish each of us has ancestors in any ancient group you can name that still have descendants today. Therefore however you define African each and every one of us have African ancestors. Yes there have been many migrations into and out of Africa how is this at all relevant? In fact the more migrations the faster "African ancestry" (whatever that means) would have spread. In addition an inability to define what "African" means harms your position far more than mine. I mean if you truly can't define what African descent means how in the world can you justifiable ban someone for being "African".

It is all relevant since you aren't even sure how to define African descent, which appears to be the basis of your assertion. I have shown that African descent may be more narrowly defined, not simply more "widely" designed as you seem to assert. Its definition could, quite clearly mean something different to the prophet who presented it, than it does to you, and that definition then would be defined by that prophet in the context of the day when it was put forth.

And you call that irrelavant?

That is neither reasonable or logical.

Jeff K., on 03 December 2009 - 08:57 PM, said:

No you do not understand the basis of my position. It is not that I "just don't believe prophets would make that many mistakes. It is that I do not believe that many prophets, over so many years, and so many attempts of asking, would be denied a revelation ending the ban. Not quite as simplistic and subjective as your view, actually it is signifcantly more reasonable.

I fail to see how this is significantly different than my statement of your position.

Because you choose not to see.

I see you did not answer my question concerning who exactly is banned. How would you define African descent if African descent does not mean descended from Africans what does it mean? Who exactly was banned from holding the priesthood if the ban was not based on having African ancestors what was it based on? If you are using some idiosyncratic definition of "African" what definition are you using and how are you applying it?

I have already answered that in this post.

In any case I think we are simply going round and round on this and I am not liking the tone of the discussion. I appreciate your perspective I will be interested in reading your reply but I will probably not respond have a good night.

You should not invite such tones by demeaning others as being extremist, when in fact I have pretty much shown your dogmatism in the matter. It is unreasonable.

[mormonstories]

You should listen to the podcast that I posted previously. It is all in there. Abel was classified black and also as a mulatto. But he was still given the priesthood. In fact, Abel was a seventy. It was orson hyde that began the ball rolling with the priesthood ban policy. It was never doctrine but a policy.

Here is the podcast:

http://www.staylds.com/?p=234

(John Dehlin here)

Here is a version that includes the PowerPoint visuals. It's much better.

To download the video: http://mormonstories.org/podcast/BlacksPriesthood.m4v

To watch from your browser: http://mormonstories.org/blacksandtheldspriesthood/

(NOTE: It takes a while to load.)

Here's the PowerPoint Presentation if you just want to view it.

http://mormonstories.org/presentations/BlacksandtheLDSPriesthood.ppt

Please let me know if I can help w/ anything else!

[paulpatter]

. . .

Well, you can claim the prophets who sought revlevance to overturning the ban were lying. Or you can say that time and again each and everyone, everytime they sought to overturn the ban, an innumerable number of times was not in tune with the spirit and therefore in error there. Or you could say that relevation was closed and therefore no longer used.

There is also this to consider: Based on their openly racist statements, Presidents John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, Joseph Fielding Smith, and Apostles Mark E. Petersen and George F. Richards didn't want the ban eliminated. Moreover, when the idea of eliminating it began to gain a modicum of momentum (thanks to the tireless work of Apostle Hugh B. Brown), President Harold B. Lee quashed it.

[Jason]

There is also this to consider: Based on their openly racist statements, Presidents John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, Joseph Fielding Smith, and Apostles Mark E. Petersen and George F. Richards didn't want the ban eliminated. Moreover, when the idea of eliminating it began to gain a modicum of momentum (thanks to the tireless work of Apostle Hugh B. Brown), President Harold B. Lee quashed it.

Problem: this assumes that cherry-picked statements removed from their context are an accurate depiction of someone's authentic feelings on the matter throughout their presidency/apostleship.

[consiglieri]

Problem: this assumes that cherry-picked statements removed from their context are an accurate depiction of someone's authentic feelings on the matter throughout their presidency/apostleship.

If you want to cherry-pick statements that show they had a different feeling on the issue at any time during their presidency/apostleship, you may do so.

I won't hold my breath . . .

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Jason]

If you want to cherry-pick statements that show they had a different feeling on the issue at any time during their presidency/apostleship, you may do so.

I won't hold my breath . . .

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Obviously I would not care to cherry-pick, since my post was critical of that particular rehetorical method.

[cinepro]

There is also this to consider: Based on their openly racist statements, Presidents John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, Joseph Fielding Smith, and Apostles Mark E. Petersen and George F. Richards didn't want the ban eliminated. Moreover, when the idea of eliminating it began to gain a modicum of momentum (thanks to the tireless work of Apostle Hugh B. Brown), President Harold B. Lee quashed it.

One of the men on this list was alive in 1978, but was unable to attend the meetings where the ban was discussed due to being on assignment out of the country.

Tender mercies.

[consiglieri]

Obviously I would not care to cherry-pick, since my post was critical of that particular rehetorical method.

But when you accuse somebody else of cherry-picking, do you not think it incumbent upon you to provide at least one counter example?

CFR!

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[cinepro]

But when you accuse somebody else of cherry-picking, do you not think it incumbent upon you to provide at least one counter example?

CFR!

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Exactly. "Cherry-picking" implies that someone cites specific, isolated quotes that support a point of view while ignoring a larger context or other quotes that would contradict their argument.

If you can't show that they did this (by providing examples of the ignored quotes or context), then it isn't "cherry picking"; it's just simply providing supporting citations for their argument.

[paulpatter]

Problem: this assumes that cherry-picked statements removed from their context are an accurate depiction of someone's authentic feelings on the matter throughout their presidency/apostleship.

Citing three Church presidents and two apostles (as well as the action of President Lee) hardly constitutes "cherry picking." As for my having removed their racist statements from their "context," be aware that 1) the context reinforces the racism (it makes for stomach-turning reading); and 2) perhaps you should follow consiglieri's suggestion and "cherry pick" (and post) some statements by the individuals I referenced in which they subsequently retracted their racist remarks at points "throughout their presidency/apostleship."

By all means, let's hear their "authentic feelings."

BTW, kudos to Bruce R. McConkie for admitting that what he wrote in Mormon Doctrine about the prohibition was null and void.

[cinepro]

BTW, kudos to Bruce R. McConkie for admitting that what he wrote in Mormon Doctrine about the prohibition was null and void.

Just to be clear, while it's great that BRM publicly admitted his error, we should remember that he only admitted he was wrong about the things he said that specifically contradicted OD2:

Forget everything I have said, or what...Brigham Young...or whomsoever has said...that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.

Bruce R. McConkie, "New Revelation on Priesthood," Priesthood (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1981), 126-137, esp. 126-127

(emphasis added)

If you read OD2, you'll see that it doesn't say anything about the Curse of Cain, or valiance in the pre-existance, so the only teachings of BRM and other leaders that were contrary to OD2 were those saying that blacks would never have the priesthood in this life (or that everyone else on the Earth would get it first).

[paulpatter]

Just to be clear, while it's great that BRM publicly admitted his error, we should remember that he only admitted he was wrong about the things he said that specifically contradicted OD2:

If you read OD2, you'll see that it doesn't say anything about the Curse of Cain, or valiance in the pre-existance, so the only teachings of BRM and other leaders that were contrary to OD2 were those saying that blacks would never have the priesthood in this life (or that everyone else on the Earth would get it first).

Thank you; excellent point.

[Pahoran]

Why do you think the Lord would give a revelation commanding an evil practice?

Since you of course realise that I don't think that, your "why" is of course moot.

As you intended.

This is why your argument fails entirely, as I am happy to explain to you.

I'm sorry, but your explanation fails. You'd better try again.

Making this argument equates the Priesthood ban with evil practices.

No. It does not.

It equates the revelation ending the Priesthood ban with other revelations that likewise changed existing states of affairs that were not established by revelation.

I mentioned the Ten Commandments only because they are likely to be familiar to people whose knowledge of doctrine is derived from hostile sources rather than from studying the Scriptures.

I could mention others, but they would require you to open some books that don't interest you very much.

Regards,

Pahoran

[cinepro]

It equates the revelation ending the Priesthood ban with other revelations that likewise changed existing states of affairs that were not established by revelation.

So, just to be clear, you're arguing that the Priesthood Ban wasn't established by revelation?

[Pahoran]

So, just to be clear, you're arguing that the Priesthood Ban wasn't established by revelation?

Hey, why ask me? Why don't you ask the "experts" over on the parasite board, where you have been jeering at my earlier post behind my back?

But since you did ask: the answer is no. I am commenting upon one thing, and one thing only: the fact that those who still, after more than thirty years, try to use the defunct Priesthood ban as a club with which to beat the Church, frequently attempt to attack the authenticity of the revelation ending it by appealing to the lack of any known revelation instituting it. I am simply pointing out that the two things are essentially unrelated, and no coherent argument can be made from one to the other.

I have taken no position on the origin of the ban. I have a theory, nothing more, which I may choose to share with people I trust.

Now, feel free to scurry back to the parasite board and misrepresent my position. You know you want to.

Regards,

Pahoran

[gtaggart]

Since you of course realise that I don't think that, your "why" is of course moot.

As you intended.

I'm sorry, but your explanation fails. You'd better try again.

No. It does not.

It equates the revelation ending the Priesthood ban with other revelations that likewise changed existing states of affairs that were not established by revelation.

I mentioned the Ten Commandments only because they are likely to be familiar to people whose knowledge of doctrine is derived from hostile sources rather than from studying the Scriptures.

I could mention others, but they would require you to open some books that don't interest you very much.

Regards,

Pahoran

You mean like the Gospel Doctrine manual?

[Pahoran]

You mean like the Gospel Doctrine manual?

ROFL! I almost snorted water all over my keyboard at that one!

But now that you mention it, I don't suppose he's especially interested in that particular book. Not when it comes to learning what it actually teaches, anyway.

How much better for him and his class if he were!

Regards,

Pahoran

[mfbukowski]

Just to be clear, while it's great that BRM publicly admitted his error, we should remember that he only admitted he was wrong about the things he said that specifically contradicted OD2:

If you read OD2, you'll see that it doesn't say anything about the Curse of Cain, or valiance in the pre-existance, so the only teachings of BRM and other leaders that were contrary to OD2 were those saying that blacks would never have the priesthood in this life (or that everyone else on the Earth would get it first).

Gosh, now you have totally confused me. On the other thread about death before the fall, you totally accepted everything BRM ever said about it. How terribly surprising!

[paulpatter]

Gosh, now you have totally confused me. On the other thread about death before the fall, you totally accepted everything BRM ever said about it. How terribly surprising!

Where did you get the notion that one must agree with everything another has spoken or written?

[consiglieri]

If you read OD2, you'll see that it doesn't say anything about the Curse of Cain, or valiance in the pre-existance, so the only teachings of BRM and other leaders that were contrary to OD2 were those saying that blacks would never have the priesthood in this life (or that everyone else on the Earth would get it first).

Astutely observed.

Which might explain some post-1978 BRM statements.

15-points to Gryffindor!

[consiglieri]

So, just to be clear, you're arguing that the Priesthood Ban wasn't established by revelation?

That's what I was thinking.

Although I am heartened to see him reenter the fray, I've got a feeling Pahoran and I just aren't going to see eye-to-eye on this one.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri