Which explanation for the Priesthood Ban makes the most sense?

[David T]

My current personal thought is that the ban was assumed from a combination of BY's cultural understanding of the scripture, with the addition of his understanding of the Abraham 1. This wasn't seriously questioned, but accepted as official policy for a few generations. By the time of David O. McKay's presidency, it began to be questioned seriously for the first time, and because of an undocumented uncertainty to the origin of the ban, it was established that only a revelation of the Lord would allow it to be removed, seeing as they didn't want to change a policy (or potential doctrine) based only on lack of understanding, and societal pressure.

As the process began, there began to be several very public calls for the Church to reverse its position. Now, a reversal would appear to the world as a specific result of public pressure. Time passed, More research began to be done concerning the origins of the ban. As a fuller understanding and studying out of the issues were presented (such as the groundbreaking Mormonism's Negro Doctrine) and studied by leadership, conclusions were made, and specific prayers were made, seeking to confirm the conclusions of said study. With the work and effort having been done, a Revelation was given in accordance with D&C 9. Now it was time.

[Jason]

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

I make the claim often because the polls on this forum almost always attempt to reduce complex issues to a simple yes/no answer (or one of just a few very simple answers) that really can't adequately address the topic; and because poll participation is skewed towards those interested in a particular topic and really can't give you an overview of how the forum as a whole feels.

[mapman]

I am not totally sure what the reason for the ban was, but I do know that the banning of blacks of african descent from having the priesthood has no basis in scripture. The scriptures nowhere imply that blacks have anything to do with Cain.

[ttribe]

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.

Wait...seriously? It was President Kimball who got it wrong?

[Brenda]

I am not totally sure what the reason for the ban was, but I do know that the banning of blacks of african descent from having the priesthood has no basis in scripture. The scriptures nowhere imply that blacks have anything to do with Cain.

A living prophet trumps the scriptures, according to Ezra T. Benson. If the ban was due to cultural prejudices of the time, then it wouldn't be in scripture, except for maybe the D&C. And I'm not talking about prejudices w/in the Church, but rather societal prejudices that were already heavily weighed against the Church.

[cinepro]

I make the claim often because the polls on this forum almost always attempt to reduce complex issues to a simple yes/no answer (or one of just a few very simple answers) that really can't adequately address the topic; and because poll participation is skewed towards those interested in a particular topic and really can't give you an overview of how the forum as a whole feels.

Just to be clear, this poll is only for those people who believe the Priesthood ban had a "divine origin".

Also, the third option is the "other" option.

If the wording of the poll questions is insufficiently precise, I would hope to find people selecting #3 and elaborating their thoughts in a post.

But given the clarity of past LDS leaders' teachings on the subject, I think the first two poll options are clear enough for anyone who still subscribes to those theories.

[Storm Rider]

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.

Brenda, I disagree. A prophet is not a prophet 24 hours a day. BY said many things that were not accurate or wherein he himself conflicted himself, the Adam-God theory being one. The rest of the prophets who followed his lead pose a different issue for me; did they ask God if it was true? I don't know, but I believe each of them as leaders of the Church will have to pay for their error.

After studying this in some depth, it pains me that the practice ever began. I believe that it demonstrates the prophets are just men, called of God, but still men and open to error. Their independent thoughts do not condemn them of not being a prophet, but it confirms they are men. In the ternal realms this policy will mean nothing, BUT it caused an unknowable degree of pain to each Black member that was prevented from entering the temple to make covenants with God, of being sealed to their spouse, and in doing work for their ancestors.

Hugh B. Brown's biography by his son, "An Abundant Life" made it clear to me that even in the 1960s the Church actively discussed lifting the ban and supported it, but for one or two apostles who refused it. I believe they will pay for their position because they did not ask or listen to the guidance of the Spirit. In other words, I don't believe this policy was ever inspired or directed by Heavenly Father. Leaders have a high standard and they may suffer because of failing that standard.

Knowing this does not affect my testimony of Brigham Young as a prophet or the fact that this is the restored Gospel. However, I will say that I do not take every word from a prophet's mouth as the world of God. I will always listen and I will let the Spirit guide. As Elder McConkie encouraged, doctrine will be found in the standard works. If it is not supported there, it is not doctrine.

[ttribe]

Brenda, I disagree. A prophet is not a prophet 24 hours a day. BY said many things that were not accurate or wherein he himself conflicted himself, the Adam-God theory being one. The rest of the prophets who followed his lead pose a different issue for me; did they ask God if it was true? I don't know, but I believe each of them as leaders of the Church will have to pay for their error.

After studying this in some depth, it pains me that the practice ever began. I believe that it demonstrates the prophets are just men, called of God, but still men and open to error. Their independent thoughts do not condemn them of not being a prophet, but it confirms they are men. In the ternal realms this policy will mean nothing, BUT it caused an unknowable degree of pain to each Black member that was prevented from entering the temple to make covenants with God, of being sealed to their spouse, and in doing work for their ancestors.

Hugh B. Brown's biography by his son, "An Abundant Life" made it clear to me that even in the 1960s the Church actively discussed lifting the ban and supported it, but for one or two apostles who refused it. I believe they will pay for their position because they did not ask or listen to the guidance of the Spirit. In other words, I don't believe this policy was ever inspired or directed by Heavenly Father. Leaders have a high standard and they may suffer because of failing that standard.

Knowing this does not affect my testimony of Brigham Young as a prophet or the fact that this is the restored Gospel. However, I will say that I do not take every word from a prophet's mouth as the world of God. I will always listen and I will let the Spirit guide. As Elder McConkie encouraged, doctrine will be found in the standard works. If it is not supported there, it is not doctrine.

I'm with Storm Rider on this one.

[ttribe]

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.

Couldn't disagree more with this conclusion.

[Hamba Tuhan]

I'm with Storm Rider on this one.

I'm not, but I'm also OK if I'm wrong and you and SR are right.

[ttribe]

I'm not, but I'm also OK if I'm wrong and you and SR are right.

I'd say that's pretty reasonable.

[erichard]

Wait...seriously? It was President Kimball who got it wrong?

You didn't get the memo?

Richard

[cinepro]

You didn't get the memo?

Richard

I would point out that while we don't have a record of anyone other than Brigham Young instituting the ban, there is ample evidence for all the apostles who were in the country and not in a hospital in 1978 feeling and confirming the inspiration behind OD2.

[yesucan2]

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:

That's another interesting aspect I had not considered. I was on the board of directors of a company once, and one of the concerns we had was how to keep the growth under control.

[Hamba Tuhan]

That's another interesting aspect I had not considered. I was on the board of directors of a company once, and one of the concerns we had was how to keep the growth under control.

And Jacob 5 talks specifically about not only controlling growth in terms of actual numbers but about doing it with some kind of sequence in mind ('begin at the last that they may be first, and that the first may be last').

Thirty-two years post OD2, and the Church still is struggling with controlling growth in Africa, with unofficial and non-affiliated congregations still in existence and with limits on baptisms still enforced in several nations/missions. At the same time, it appears to me (currently from a distance, though I've seen this upclose in both Boston and Chicago) that African-American converts are the current lifeblood of the Church in the US, guaranteeing the flow of sap from the roots to the branches the same way British converts did during the latter half of the nineteenth century.

One of my housemates is from Africa. He found and embraced the Restored Gospel when he was 17, and he is adamantly convinced that the Lord has a careful plan for the sequential growth of His Kingdom. I personally think the scriptures support this view.

[David T]

I would point out that while we don't have a record of anyone other than Brigham Young instituting the ban, there is ample evidence for all the apostles who were in the country and not in a hospital in 1978 feeling and confirming the inspiration behind OD2.

Not just Apostles. My first Mission President was Kevin Pinegar, the son of Rex D. Pinegar, of the presidency of the 70. My Mission President told us of his father's recounting the experiences he and others had in the Temple confirming without any shadow of a doubt that this came from the Lord.

[ttribe]

You didn't get the memo?

Richard

Actually, I was hoping for an explanation from you for your statement.

[ACW]

There are 2 videos that are excellent and informative. Blacks in the Scriptures is wonderful and is from 2 black members perspectives, Darius Gray and Marvin Perkins. It is a series of 4 lectures. You may or may not agree totally with them but it does cover the ban and other misunderstandings both in and out of the Church.

Nobody Knows is the other. It is a documentary that start with Joseph Smith to today. It covers the struggles that black converts had before 1978 and the progress since. It's very informative and very good.

[StuddleyG]

I feel that the most logical explanation for the priesthood ban is the most obvious one: RACISM. People were racist back then. Even the great Abraham Lincoln didn't think blacks and whites were equal.

I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything.

Abraham Lincoln

http://quotes.libert...coln.Quote.C318

Of cousre God isn't racist. The scripures are perfectly clear that the God accepts all people. But human beings in the 19th century were. The the leaders of the church at the time felt that blacks shouldn't have authority in the church. Because that's the way society was back in those days. My guess is that God simply allowed this policy to remain until the whites could finally get their act together. That's my opinion on the subject anyways.

[Jason]

I feel that the most logical explanation for the priesthood ban is the most obvious one: RACISM. People were racist back then.

Presentism.

Of cousre God isn't racist. The scripures are perfectly clear that the God accepts all people.

Yet He restricted the priesthood to a single tribe in a small people during the Old Testament, and restricted the preaching of the gospel to a single people until Peter's revelation.

[Brenda]

Brenda, I disagree. A prophet is not a prophet 24 hours a day. BY said many things that were not accurate or wherein he himself conflicted himself, the Adam-God theory being one. The rest of the prophets who followed his lead pose a different issue for me; did they ask God if it was true? I don't know, but I believe each of them as leaders of the Church will have to pay for their error.

After studying this in some depth, it pains me that the practice ever began. I believe that it demonstrates the prophets are just men, called of God, but still men and open to error. Their independent thoughts do not condemn them of not being a prophet, but it confirms they are men. In the ternal realms this policy will mean nothing, BUT it caused an unknowable degree of pain to each Black member that was prevented from entering the temple to make covenants with God, of being sealed to their spouse, and in doing work for their ancestors.

Hugh B. Brown's biography by his son, "An Abundant Life" made it clear to me that even in the 1960s the Church actively discussed lifting the ban and supported it, but for one or two apostles who refused it. I believe they will pay for their position because they did not ask or listen to the guidance of the Spirit. In other words, I don't believe this policy was ever inspired or directed by Heavenly Father. Leaders have a high standard and they may suffer because of failing that standard.

Knowing this does not affect my testimony of Brigham Young as a prophet or the fact that this is the restored Gospel. However, I will say that I do not take every word from a prophet's mouth as the world of God. I will always listen and I will let the Spirit guide. As Elder McConkie encouraged, doctrine will be found in the standard works. If it is not supported there, it is not doctrine.

Of course a prophet can make plenty of statements of his own opinion. But I seriously believe that Christ literally runs this church. The ban was put in place under His direction and lifted under His direction as well when the time was right. I can't believe that Christ would allow a mistake of this size to happen. I was close friends with a LDS black man in the early 70s. He was fully prepared to live his life w/o the blessings of the temple because of his humble faith in the gospel and his prophet. Temple ordinances are essential to our exaltation, and to not allow an entire race entrance into the CK because of a man's mistake, would be IMO a huge perpetuation of false doctrine and puts man in charge of this religion, rather than Christ. It also sheds some doubt on everything we receive through the prophet.

The Church is run via the counsel method. Facts are gathered and a matter is discussed by the presidency or the quorum, then prayer and sometimes fasting, and a decision is made. Yet still no action is taken until that decision is confirmed by the Spirit.

Sometimes it's difficult to see the logic in some of the directives. But we haven't sat in those counsel meetings, nor experienced the Spirit's guidance in those specific matters. We are entitled to receive spiritual guidance for our own lives, and for our stewardships. But as for the leadership of this Church, God works through His prophet. Our spiritual guidance tells us to follow that prophet as if he were God, for he is God's mouthpiece.

Elder Abraham Woodruff of the 12 Apostles said in GC in 1901, "The man who stands at the head of this people enjoys the revelations of the mind and will of God, and it is our duty to heed his counsel. The past history of our people proves to every reasonable man that God has been with us; and although at times perhaps the people have been unable to see the wisdom of God manifested through His mouthpiece; yet by patience and obedience they have finally seen the course taken by the leader of the Church, vindicated by our Eternal Father."

[StuddleyG]

Yet He restricted the priesthood to a single tribe in a small people during the Old Testament, and restricted the preaching of the gospel to a single people until Peter's revelation.

There's a difference between selecting a specific tribe for a responsibility and excluding a specific race from something. The selection of the Levites for the priesthood is recorded in the Bible. We have no knowledge, as far as I'm aware, of the origin of the priesthood ban.

[Jason]

There's a difference between selecting a specific tribe for a responsibility and excluding a specific race from something.

And that difference is?

Isn't chosing one tribe the same as excluding all the others?

Isn't chosing one people (the Jews) over another the same as excluding all the other peoples (the Gentiles)?

The selection of the Levites for the priesthood is recorded in the Bible. We have no knowledge, as far as I'm aware, of the origin of the priesthood ban.

Yet we do have Jesus himself saying he was sent only to the Jews - not even the Samaritans, who practiced a form of Judaism, were to be preached the gospel. Until Peter changed that after Jesus' death.

[StuddleyG]

And that difference is?

Isn't chosing one tribe the same as excluding all the others?

The difference is that the Levites did not believe to be superior race of people. The fact that the same race of people who are being subjected to slavery are the ones being excluded from the priesthood is a bit fishy.

[Calm]

Actually, I was hoping for an explanation from you for your statement.

erichard belongs, IIRC, to one of the RLDS sects. He often refers to the Second Book of Commandments for example and uses one of those revelations to justify the continuation of the ban, IIRC, again. You can read his opinions by doing a search on his name and "ban" or "priesthood". He's been heavily criticized for his position in the past so he may not want to get into it in more detail than he has. erichard, please correct me if I am wrong and sorry that I misspoke your position if I have.