The Priesthood Ban

[selek]

But, just to distinguish, is there a difference between:

1) God's policy

2) A policy of the COJCoLDS?

H.

Can you name one?

Just to be clear, it is my opinion that the Ban was of God based upon both historical precedent and upon the amount of effort it took before revelation was received overturning it.

That opinion, however, is far from demonstrable fact.

Hence, I can only go with the Church's official answer: "We don't know."

[LDSToronto]

Can you name one?

No, I can't name one, but that's why I asked, because you (Selek) has mentioned that the ban was a policy and not a doctrine, and I was confused by that.

Just to be clear, it is my opinion that the Ban was of God based upon both historical precedent and upon the amount of effort it took before revelation was received overturning it.

That opinion, however, is far from demonstrable fact.

Hence, I can only go with the Church's official answer: "We don't know."

I respect that opinion, even though I hold a different opinion based on different interpretations of doctrine and history. I wasn't trying to trap you, I was just trying to get to the bottom of what you thought.

H.

[Senator]

The "we don't know" response, simply renders viable either conclusion. It may, or may not have been ordained of God. I am simply left to render a "no faith" conclusion to this particular issue in the church's history, other than that the leadership was acting as they truly believed.

[Areabird]

...

As far as apologies go, there is no need.

No one now alive was harmed by the Ban.

No one has been deprived of blessings to which they were entitled.

There is no demonstrable harm extending from the Ban.

None.

...

I'm not sure how you come to the conclusion that no one has been harmed by the ban. Of course there are no records kept, but how many families have not joined the church because of the ban? If we truly believe that our version of the gospel is the only true gospel, then the ban has resulted in thousands upon thousands not joining the true church. I would say that is the worst harm there is. Eternal salvation...isn't that the whole purpose of life? Shouldn't we think that is a big deal?

[DanGB]

I'm not sure how you come to the conclusion that no one has been harmed by the ban. Of course there are no records kept, but how many families have not joined the church because of the ban? If we truly believe that our version of the gospel is the only true gospel, then the ban has resulted in thousands upon thousands not joining the true church. I would say that is the worst harm there is. Eternal salvation...isn't that the whole purpose of life? Shouldn't we think that is a big deal?

Yes, we should think this s a big deal. It's a huge deal. Some want to bury it in the past as f it never happened. But you hit the nail on the head of the real issue. We have, for all intents and purposes, no presence in our US Church from our African American brothers and sisiters. They knw more about this terrible part f our history than most members and can't believe the exlanations we still give on this history.

Again, that's why we as a Church need to apologize.

[selek]

I'm not sure how you come to the conclusion that no one has been harmed by the ban.

It was easy.

I engaged in this new fad called "rational thought". It's all the rage now among thinking people (though politicians and Hollywood glitterati seem to avoid it like the plague).

Of course, the fact that not one of the ark steadyiers has managed to actually DEMONSTRATE any harm was the deciding factor.

Of course there are no records kept, but how many families have not joined the church because of the ban?

None. Though a number may have used the Ban as an excuse not to do so.

If we truly believe that our version of the gospel is the only true gospel, then the ban has resulted in thousands upon thousands not joining the true church.

Call For References.

If the Gospel is true- and if their hearts were truly set upon Zion- then something as minor as the Ban would not have stopped them. It didn't stop faithful saints "of color" for generations before the Ban was lifted- so why would it stop the truly faithful after the Ban was lifted?

I would say that is the worst harm there is.

Yes- but that's a self-inflicted wound- shooting off their noses to spite their face.

The Church is not responsible for thier failure to embrace the Gospel- they are. They made that decision.

Eternal salvation...isn't that the whole purpose of life? Shouldn't we think that is a big deal?

And yet they- not the Church- were willing to sacrifice their eternal salvation for a little temporal moralizing and political correctness.

They allowed alleged racial prejudices to come between them and the Gospel. That was their decision, not the Church's.

There are millions of Saints (and billions of Christians) who have embraced the Gospel despite much harder and more immediate stumbling blocks.

Christians have been burned at the stake for their faith.

Crucified for their faith.

Torn asunder by wild animals for their faith.

Scourged for their faith.

Branded for their faith.

Tortured to death for their faith.

Shot for their faith.

Stoned to death for their faith.

Gassed to death for their faith.

Imprisoned for their faith.

Watched loved ones die for their faith.

Forced from their homes for their faith.

Endured forced marches through winter snows for thier faith.

Faithful Christians- with their hearts set upon Zion- have endured much, much more and much, much worse than the Ban.

The "victims" you are moralizing over haven't any more excuse than the drunkard who refuses to join because the Word of Wisdom forbids alcohol.

If they truly believed this Church was true. If they were truly open to the witness of the Holy Spirit and the power of the Gospel, then the Ban would not have stopped them- eternal salvation and the Celestial kingdom are worth the price paid.

The Ban might have been a convenient excuse and scapegoat- but it has never stopped a truly faithful servant of the Lord from accepting his Church.

[selek]

Yes, we should think this s a big deal.

Says the apostate bent on the destruction of the Church.

It's a huge deal.

Says the zealot and advocate flogging the issue.

Some want to bury it in the past as f it never happened.

Really? Who? Consider this a CFR.

But you hit the nail on the head of the real issue. We have, for all intents and purposes, no presence in our US Church from our African American brothers and sisiters.

CFR. Also please review the evidence in light of the fact that the Mormons have never had segregated congregations and have never banned or driven people from our chapels based on skin color. Our critics cannot make that claim.

They knw more about this terrible part f our history than most members

Call For References- and then demonstrate how you arrived at this knowledge.

Did you take a poll? Was it a scientific poll?

Is this more of the infamous apostate mind-reading?

Because quite frankly, you can't know how much most members know or what they think about the Ban- let alone most African-Americans.

You're flogging an agenda- and I'm willing to bet you can't back up your generalizations with facts.

I'll go one step further- if you can prove either of the aforementioned claims, I'll not only apologize for the Ban being racist on the Ex-Mormon, Recovery, and Mormon Discussion boards- I'll never post at these boards again.

So- put up or shut up.

and can't believe the exlanations we still give on this history.

What explanations?

It's already been demonstrated that the Church's authorized spokesmen have disavowed the pre-78 rationalizations.

Since then, the Church's position has been an unequivocal and unassailable "We don't know."

So what excuses are you talking about?

Again, that's why we as a Church need to apologize.

Nonsense.

[DanGB]

Mormons have never had segregated congregations and have never banned or driven people from our chapels based on skin color.

We just segregated our Temples based on skin color! Just a minor distinction in your eyes, I'm sure!!!

[selek]

We just segregated our Temples based on skin color! Just a minor distinction in your eyes, I'm sure!!!

Call For References.

First and foremost, our Temples are not "congregations" and second, skin color has NEVER been the determining factor on whether someone has been admitted or turned away.

Racebaiting aside, you can't back up your claim.

[DanGB]

Mormons have never had segregated congregations and have never banned or driven people from our chapels based on skin color.

We just segregated our Temples based on skin color! Just a minor distinction in your eyes, I'm sure!!!

[selek]

We just segregated our Temples based on skin color! Just a minor distinction in your eyes, I'm sure!!!

Repeating a lie doesn't make it any more true.

Answer the CFR.

[selek]

The "we don't know" response, simply renders viable either conclusion. It may, or may not have been ordained of God. I am simply left to render a "no faith" conclusion to this particular issue in the church's history, other than that the leadership was acting as they truly believed.

"No faith", huh? Chancellor Velorum will be greatly disappointed .

Are you sure you're not Canadian, Senator?

The "no faith" vote seems to be an artifact of a parliamentary system, IIRC.

All teasing aside, I respect this position, as it is derived from the available evidence.

[Areabird]

Call For References.

First and foremost, our Temples are not "congregations" and second, skin color has NEVER been the determining factor on whether someone has been admitted or turned away.

Racebaiting aside, you can't back up your claim.

If the ban was not based on skin color, and was based solely on lineage, then why did we turn away anyone who was black or even dark skinned (the pacific islanders) from the priesthood and the temples? Surely not every person of dark skin was a descendant of Cain. Why punish everyone with dark skin if only some were not allowed to have the priesthood?

[selek]

If the ban was not based on skin color, and was based solely on lineage, then why did we turn away anyone who was black or even dark skinned (the pacific islanders) from the priesthood and the temples? Surely not every person of dark skin was a descendant of Cain. Why punish everyone with dark skin if only some were not allowed to have the priesthood?

You're repeating anti-Mormon myths here, Areabird.

The Ban was no where near as universal as you are claiming.

Not everyone who was "dark-skinned" was denied the priesthood or access to the Temple.

And had the Ban NOT been lifted, I would have been denied the Priesthood, despite the fact that I look far more European than my actual ancestry would suggest.

[Areabird]

You're repeating anti-Mormon myths here, Areabird.

The Ban was no where near as universal as you are claiming.

Not everyone who was "dark-skinned" was denied the priesthood or access to the Temple.

And had the Ban NOT been lifted, I would have been denied the Priesthood, despite the fact that I look far more European than my actual ancestry would suggest.

Then what standards were used to determine if you fell under the ban or not?

[selek]

Then what standards were used to determine if you fell under the ban or not?

Lineage, place of origin, and spiritual discernment by those in authority.

[ACW]

I'm not sure how you come to the conclusion that no one has been harmed by the ban. Of course there are no records kept, but how many families have not joined the church because of the ban? If we truly believe that our version of the gospel is the only true gospel, then the ban has resulted in thousands upon thousands not joining the true church. I would say that is the worst harm there is. Eternal salvation...isn't that the whole purpose of life? Shouldn't we think that is a big deal?

Was there a seminar last weekend??? Love the hyperbole!

(Moderators....we need a "hot-air" emoticon)

[cinepro]

It's already been demonstrated that the Church's authorized spokesmen have disavowed the pre-78 rationalizations.

Since then, the Church's position has been an unequivocal and unassailable "We don't know."

Where has the Church's authorized spokesman disavowed pre-1978 "rationalizations"? Presumably, this would be done in a Church publication, right?

And where has the "Church" ever unequivocally and unassailably said "We don't know"?

[cinepro]

Call For References.

First and foremost, our Temples are not "congregations" and second, skin color has NEVER been the determining factor on whether someone has been admitted or turned away.

Racebaiting aside, you can't back up your claim.

Well, the wikipedia article on the subject does report these incidents (with references):

The exclusion from the priesthood was not the only discrimination practiced by church members. In the 1950s, the San Francisco mission office took legal action to prevent black families from moving into the church neighborhood.[44] In 1965, a black man living in Salt Lake City, Daily Oliver, described how - as a boy - he was excluded from an LDS-led boy scout troop because they did not want blacks in their building.[45] Mormon apostle Mark E. Petersen describes a black family that tried to join the LDS church: "[some white church members] went to the Branch President, and said that either the [black] family must leave, or they would all leave. The Branch President ruled that [the black family] could not come to church meetings. It broke their hearts."[46]

So, granting these three incidents, it might be more correct to say almost NEVER.

[Jason]

Well, the wikipedia article on the subject does report these incidents (with references):

So, granting these three incidents, it might be more correct to say almost NEVER.

I believe Selek was speaking of the temples, not our congregations. His claim stands, even if the incidents reported in (the obviously biased) wikipedia article actually happened.

[Jason]

The "we don't know" response, simply renders viable either conclusion. It may, or may not have been ordained of God. I am simply left to render a "no faith" conclusion to this particular issue in the church's history, other than that the leadership was acting as they truly believed.

I disagree. We can say that the ban was ordained of God while also saying we do not know why God chose to institute said ban, and this appears to be the Church's position on the subject.

[Senator]

I disagree. We can say that the ban was ordained of God while also saying we do not know why God chose to institute said ban, and this appears to be the Church's position on the subject.

Can you show me that distinction in the church's position?

My response was to Selek's assertion in terms of IF the ban was of God, not WHY.

[LDSToronto]

I believe Selek was speaking of the temples, not our congregations. His claim stands, even if the incidents reported in (the obviously biased) wikipedia article actually happened.

You need to read the article - it isn't biased.

BTW, interesting fact: This is still taught today, as found in the Aaronic Priesthood Manual #3:

[Jason]

You need to read the article - it isn't biased.

Yes it is. Frankly, there are no unbiased articles about the Church on the internet - especially in wikipedia - but there are pro-biased articles as well as anti-biased, sometimes in the same article.

BTW, interesting fact: This is still taught today, as found in the

What is taught today? That a marriage is easier if the two partners don't have to also worry about cross-cultural conflicts? That the Church recommends that people avoid putting unnecessary obstacles in the way of their marriages?

[Jason]

Can you show me that distinction in the church's position?

Apparently not with a single quote.

Most of the Church's statements on the issue emphasize that the revelation removing the ban was revelation, and say little on where it came from in the first place (which is fine - it is after all an issue that was resolved more than 30 years ago).

My impression of the Church's position - that the ban was ordained of God but that we don't know why - appears to be based on a multitude of sources forming a general impression rather than a specific quote.