Which explanation for the Priesthood Ban makes the most sense?

[USU78]

Where's the "I ain't got a dang clue" button?

[thews]

By the way, this is a stupid poll.

You make this claim often. WHy do you think questions are "stupid"?

[BCSpace]

The ancient ancestor theory doesn't work based on population genetics. Namely, the intermingling of peoples would cause such a curse to quickly spread throughout the entire world (with the exception of totally isolated tribes). Thousands of years later, the "blood" of the cursed race would run through the veins of just about everyone alive.

It's the only "theory" (actually it's doctrine) that fits the extant scriptures on the subject. What you're referring to is the implementation of it which was simply the best attempt possible under the circumstances and not a very good one. The bottom line is that since the basis for the ban was lineage and the curse associated with it was not skin color, the ban was in no way racist.

[erichard]

...

The ancient ancestor theory doesn't work based on population genetics. Namely, the intermingling of peoples would cause such a curse to quickly spread throughout the entire world (with the exception of totally isolated tribes). Thousands of years later, the "blood" of the cursed race would run through the veins of just about everyone alive.

...

Hi Cinepro,

I remain totally unconvinced of what you say above.

People did not move around in the past like we do today. It was not uncommon for a person to live his whole life and not go 50 miles from his birthplace. People, in general, did not understand and did not marry into other races and religions. There may have been a fair amount of "wild oats" by soldiers and others, but the offspring were usually not accepted and had a hard time marrying.

Furthermore, I believe that the Spirit made sure that some remained pure Israelites, even after Israel fell as a people.

I remain totally convinced that the ban was from God and that it was a capitulation by the Gentile church leaders to seek to remove it. In other words, I believe President Kimball was deceived, and he led the Lord's church into error. I know people call this racist, but it is not mean spirited. It is in harmony with the doctrines of Mormon Eternalism.

If the Hellenist God creates us at birth "out of nothing", then Mormonism is false anyway.

If the Mormon God prepares a spirit and then a mortal body for an eternal, uncreated intelligence, then our race and lineage in this world is based on our eternal past, and it is believable that there is a lineage that is restricted from holding the Priesthood.

Now, Pharaoh being of that lineage by which he could not have the right of Priesthood, notwithstanding the Pharaohs would fain claim it from Noah, through Ham, therefore my father was led away by their idolatry; --Abraham 1:27

Richard

By the way, out of interest I got New York Doll from Netflix and watched it. So now I know the story, AND the rest of the story.

[Hamba Tuhan]

I don't find Jacob 5 absurd at all.

[ACW]

Would the priesthood ban make any less sense if it were enacted only against people with freckles? Or people with detached earlobes?

Didn't Moses and other prophets see all of earthlife from beginning to end? If so, then, surely God knew way ahead of time what was going to happen in this country, ie slavery, the restoration, civil war, the 60's, civil rights, etc., everything positive and negative. I believe JS was right in allowing all worthy males to hold the priesthood....Maybe BY was given a vision of things to come, hence the ban.

What I don't like is the erroneous explanations and speculations that keep circulating...

[AKS]

erichard's irrational rant notwithstanding, I believe the only two logical options are cinepros number 3 or William James opinion. I think James most probably has it right.

[Obiwan]

I do believe it is not so much the African Americans; it is more to do with some of the mormons were not ready to accept blacks into the priesthood. I don't believe that God will make a commandant or change unless we are ready for it. And I do also believe that God deals with each generation with their own needs.

Not exactly.... It wasn't the "mormons", if it was we would have segregated etc. Most mormons were in fact "tolerant" with only patches of ethno-centrism usually, not usually total racism. It was the "world" that wasn't ready for it, and it likely would have caused issues for the Church.

[hagoth7]

So I'm curious, in the absence of any authoritative (and still valid) doctrine on the subject, which of the two explanation do people think is the most logical and least problematic from a logistical perspective?

For the moment, I believe the flaw is with mankind's difficulty in being inclusive (a preference to be divisive).

And for either, please explain how Joseph Smith's ordination of Elijah Abel fits into the theory.

Sure. Joseph didn't mind risking his life advocating for the rights of all people.

Or is there another theory for the divine origin that makes more sense (other than "I have faith that God commanded it, we just don't know why...")?

Yes. Otherwise, it would likely have split the church in two.

(That's what it did to American Adventism - which essentially exists as two parallel churches under a single umbrella. One of color. One not.)

And it caused a somewhat different divide among Baptists (from which the Southern Baptist faction emerged - as a party unwilling to abide anti-slavery Baptists).

Same for Methodists - where southern Methodits split from northerners over the issue of slavery.

The issue, as divisive and heated as it once was, would have brought persecution down on the head of the church from bigots on the left and on the right.

So it would have likely become a polarizing issue. From forces inside the church...and out.

People are imperfect. Period. And they weren't ready for inclusion generations ago.

Instead, by being patient, there is a unified church today.

Context:

1850's US troops march on Utah

1860's Civil War sparked, in part, by rancor over the issue of slavery

As recently as a few decades ago, caucasians told me they didn't think that certain races belonged in the church...and two people of color told me they had left the church long ago due to such bigotry. (I was stunned that a saint could even harbor such bigotry - but both of them came were raised in the south - and I don't pretend to fully understand the context that harbors such divisions.)

I think that with the help of the freedom marches, and the like, mankind has finally grown up sufficiently to allow such inclusion (both within the church and out).

So do I believe that the 1978 change was brought about, in part, through the civil rights movement? Yes. But I do so in a way that acknowledges respect for the post-Joseph leaders who thereby kept a people intact...until that people, and sociey at large, had matured sufficiently to acknowledge and sustain the rights of others.

[hagoth7]

This whole issue reminds me of Joseph's statement that if he revealed all that he knew, even those closest to him would seek his life.

Apparently, being a prophet also means knowing when not to speak.

So based on American history (including the history of religion in America), and based on human nature, I think those who have criticized pre-1978 leaders for waiting so long were shortsighted, and were perhaps looking for yet another opportunity to be divisive.

[hagoth7]

Whether or not God "created" racial distinctions, why would race be any more meaningful than eye color or left-handedness when determining differences between people?

The NT makes it clear that ethnicity was a non-issue.

And the BoM makes it clear that peace came when such isms and ites were done away with.

(Or that when the isms and ites were done away with...it allowed for generations of peace.)

We've finally entered an era where the majority of America feels more inclusive.

[elguanteloko]

...Where is the option of "vulgar racism" in there? That would have gotten my vote.

Oh, I guess that is not absurd so you did not include it, right?

[wenglund]

The explanation that I vote for, which wasn't listed in the poll, is: it really ought not matter, and is long past being relevant. We all are better served by focusing instead on what is pertinent to the here and now and issues that will actually further us in meeting the shared goal of becoming like Christ.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Spurven Ten Sing]

The explanation that I vote for, which wasn't listed in the poll, is: it really ought not matter, and is long past being relevant. We all are better served by focusing instead on what is pertinent to the here and now and issues that will actually further us in meeting the shared goal of becoming like Christ.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

That is not an explanation, it is an appeal to not engage the issue. Is that healthy?

[ERayR]

The explanation that I vote for, which wasn't listed in the poll, is: it really ought not matter, and is long past being relevant. We all are better served by focusing instead on what is pertinent to the here and now and issues that will actually further us in meeting the shared goal of becoming like Christ.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Well put. We, as a society, have this unhealthy need to heap the errors and misdeeds of our forbearers upon ourselves. I have no control over what my ancestors did or did not do. I will not accept thir guilt as my own.

[wenglund]

That is not an explanation, it is an appeal to not engage the issue. Is that healthy?

It explains the lack of pertinence of the issue. So, yes, that is healthy as well as wise. It is about looking forward rather than back in our personal journeys, and considering what will improve our lives rather than what tends to counter-productively distract us from that end.

But, to each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Well put. We, as a society, have this unhealthy need to heap the errors and misdeeds of our forbearers upon ourselves. I have no control over what my ancestors did or did not do. I will not accept thir guilt as my own.

I will go one step further and state that I am not prepared to assume that there was misdeeds or cause for guilt on the part of my forebearers. That is a matter between them and God, and for God to judge. It really is none of my business or anyone elses, nor is it to anyone's advantage to burden themselce unnecessarily with such usurped responsibility--though some people certainly seem compelled to keep meddelsomely making it their business long after the matter has lost relevance. The phrases "mind your own business" and "get over it" and "get on with your life" seem appropose, though each of ua are free to choose otherwise.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[thesometimesaint]

Agreed.

[BCSpace]

I will go one step further and state that I am not prepared to assume that there was misdeeds or cause for guilt on the part of my forebearers.

If there were, I'd think such would have been admitted. To date, the only things that have been admitted are the non doctrinal mistakes peple made trying to explain the ban such as valiance in the pre-mortal life. In other words, the Church has nothing to apologize for. That means, imho, that the GAs recognize that those who came before simply tried to live the scriptures in which the lineage of Cain of was banned from the priesthood and they tried to implement it the best they knew how until God saw fit to reveal a lifting of the ban. This also implies that no matter how imperfectly the ban was implemented, God saw fit to keep it around for a wise purpose which we can only speculate on.

[Hamba Tuhan]

This also implies that no matter how imperfectly the ban was implemented, God saw fit to keep it around for a wise purpose which we can only speculate on.

At the very least, it seems to have assisted in limiting Church growth (even until now, one could argue) in a way prophesied by Zenos and repeated in the fifth chapter of Jacob:

62 Wherefore, let us go to and labor with our might this last time, for behold the end draweth nigh, and this is for the last time that I shall prune my vineyard.

63 Graft in the branches; begin at the last that they may be first, and that the first may be last, and dig about the trees, both old and young, the first and the last; and the last and the first, that all may be nourished once again for the last time.

64 Wherefore, dig about them, and prune them, and dung them once more, for the last time, for the end draweth nigh. And if it be so that these last grafts shall grow, and bring forth the natural fruit, then shall ye prepare the way for them, that they may grow.

65 And as they begin to grow ye shall clear away the branches which bring forth bitter fruit, according to the strength of the good and the size thereof; and ye shall not clear away the bad thereof all at once, lest the roots thereof should be too strong for the graft, and the graft thereof shall perish, and I lose the trees of my vineyard.

66 For it grieveth me that I should lose the trees of my vineyard; wherefore ye shall clear away the bad according as the good shall grow, that the root and the top may be equal in strength, until the good shall overcome the bad, and the bad be hewn down and cast into the fire, that they cumber not the ground of my vineyard; and thus will I sweep away the bad out of my vineyard.

[notHagoth7]

...

[Brenda]

To say either JS or BY enacted the ban of his own accord and not under the direction of God, not only discredits him as God's spokesperson, it also discredits John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, Lorenzo Snow, Joseph F. Smith, Heber J. Grant, Geo. A. Smith, David O. McKay, Joseph Fielding Smith, and Harold B. Lee.

[hagoth7]

To say either JS or BY enacted the ban of his own accord...

? who has said that.

[Brenda]

? who has said that.

All evidence seems to point out that the ban came from the personal opinions of Brigham Young and his contemporaries of a like mind, not from Joseph Smith and not from God.

A much more plausible explanation is that the ban was not devine at all. JS had it right and BY's racial prejudices caused BY to get it wrong. Continuing racial prejudice, combined with irrational fear of the consequences of declaring BY to be in error, combined to perpetuate the ban until it was removed in 1978. Even then, Spencer W. Kimball did it very creatively, avoiding any admission that the ban was wrong.

[semlogo]

A link to inquiries is not evidence.

Read the linked paper, "Neither Black Nor White"