jane elizabeth manning james "eternal servant"

[David T]

Because there was no error and you can't admit something was wrong when at the time it wasn't.

I wouldn't say that. At the very least, there were many hurtful and harmful made-up explanations for the Priesthood ban, passing judgement on the pre-mortal acts (or lack thereof) of all Africans born before 1978. Those explanations have been refuted, most recently by Elder Holland.

One clear-cut position is that the folklore must never be perpetuated. ... I have to concede to my earlier colleagues. ... They, I'm sure, in their own way, were doing the best they knew to give shape to [the policy], to give context for it, to give even history to it. All I can say is however well intended the explanations were, I think almost all of them were inadequate and/or wrong. ...

It probably would have been advantageous to say nothing, to say we just don't know, and, [as] with many religious matters, whatever was being done was done on the basis of faith at that time. But some explanations were given and had been given for a lot of years. ... At the very least, there should be no effort to perpetuate those efforts to explain why that doctrine existed.

We don't pretend that something wasn't taught or practice wasn't pursued for whatever reason. But I think we can be unequivocal and we can be declarative in our current literature, in books that we reproduce, in teachings that go forward, whatever, that from this time forward, from 1978 forward, we can make sure that nothing of that is declared. That may be where we still need to make sure that we're absolutely dutiful, that we put [a] careful eye of scrutiny on anything from earlier writings and teachings, just [to] make sure that that's not perpetuated in the present.

At most, and this is where my belief is, I do think there is substantial evidence that the Priesthood ban itself was initiated not as revelation, but as an error based on cultural tradition and mis-application of scripture.

[Deborah]

I wouldn't say that. At the very least, there were many hurtful and harmful made-up explanations for the Priesthood ban, passing judgement on the pre-mortal acts (or lack thereof) of all Africans born before 1978.

That is true, but it is interesting that even blacks at the time accepted those explanations to some degree, which shows how oppressed they were. I think it is more a condemnation of the times than specific statements made in that time. I'm glad that modern leaders have clarified this and no longer speak of "less valiant" etc. However, given that no explanation was forthcoming from God, men have a tendency to try to reason why something is the way it is. We do the same thing with creation or anything else we don't understand.

At most, and this is where my belief is, I do think there is substantial evidence that the Priesthood ban itself was initiated not as revelation, but as an error based on cultural tradition and mis-application of scripture.

And I disagree with this if only because every prophet since the ban upheld it and it was only by revelation that it was removed.

[David T]

And I disagree with this if only because every prophet since the ban upheld it and it was only by revelation that it was removed.

I invite you to read the paper I linked, written by President Kimball's son, and published in BYU studies. There were prophets - such as David O. McKay - who only upheld it because they did not know the source of it, and did not want to stop something that may have been revelation without a revelation to reverse it (in other words, a revelation would be sought to determine whether the policy itself was revelation or not). President Kimball and other GAs came to the conclusion that there was no scriptural or modern revelatory mandate for the ban. This was the conclusion following serious study,prayer, and pondering that President Kimball brought to the Lord, and had confirmed by a powerful revelation unable to be denied by all who were present. The paper is informative, completely sourced and referenced, and highly uplifting. It is essential reading for an understanding of the process of the history and context leading up to the reception of OD-2.

[Robert F. Smith]

Slavery, just like polygamy, was an accepted biblical practice and can be practiced if specifically authorized. Since this sealing was done under the supervision of President Woodruff and the First Presidency it might be better seen as a restoration of an biblical practice.

Phaedrus

That was the approach taken by white southern churches before, during, and after the Civil War., and which they enforced by dressing in white sheets and burning crosses on front lawns, and by lynching black people. These are the same people who today claim that the Bible proves Mormonism false. Is that the pot calling the kettle black?

It is far more likely that the egalitarian view of Joseph Smith himself (he ordained black men, and vociferously advocated the freeing of the slaves in America) was merely readopted in 1978.

[phaedrus ut]

That was the approach taken by white southern churches before, during, and after the Civil War., and which they enforced by dressing in white sheets and burning crosses on front lawns, and by lynching black people. These are the same people who today claim that the Bible proves Mormonism false. Is that the pot calling the kettle black?

It is far more likely that the egalitarian view of Joseph Smith himself (he ordained black men, and vociferously advocated the freeing of the slaves in America) was merely readopted in 1978.

Are you saying that President Woodruff and the First Presidency are equivalent to the Klan for doing this?

Phaedrus

[CQUIRK]

Are you saying that President Woodruff and the First Presidency are equivalent to the Klan for doing this?

Phaedrus

I think he means the opposite, since racism in the LDS Church back then was quite moderate when compared to the southern, and even northern churches that supported the Klan and white supremacy.

One must remember how society and intellect was back then. Even the LDS flock was not immune to such worldly ills.

[Robert F. Smith]

Are you saying that President Woodruff and the First Presidency are equivalent to the Klan for doing this?

Phaedrus

No, of course not. I specified the "white southern churches," all of which falsely claimed to be followers of Christ (Southern Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, etc.) but which were filled with night-riding klansmen who murdered with reckless abandon, and who used the Bible to prove the inferiority of black people and to justify making them slaves. Those cowardly white folk who thought that was wrong just stood around and let it happen. And they called themselves "Christians."

The Mormons had no KKK, but it did take them awhile (as a people) to realize that racism is just plain wrong -- even in a mild form. The late Eugene England had a theory that the 1978 revelation could not come until the Mormon people were worthy of it.