The Priesthood Ban Is Still Official Doctrine Of The Lds Church

[BCSpace]

1. Go to lds.org

2. Click Menu.

3. Select Study by Topic.

4. Select the letter 'P'

5. Select "Priesthood Ordination before 1978"

You'll come to here:

http://www.lds.org/s...e-1978?lang=eng

In June 1978, President Spencer W. Kimball received a revelation extending priesthood ordination to all worthy males of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Official Declaration 2). Before that time only worthy male members who were not of black African descent were ordained to the priesthood.

Additional Information

Ever since biblical times, the Lord has designated through His prophets who could receive the priesthood and other blessings of the gospel. Among the tribes of Israel, for example, only men of the tribe of Levi were given the priesthood and allowed to officiate in certain ordinances. Likewise, during the Savior’s earthly ministry, gospel blessings were restricted to the Jews. Only after a revelation to the Apostle Peter were the gospel and priesthood extended to others (see Acts 10:1–33; 14:23; 15:6– .

With the revelation to President Kimball in 1978, the priesthood is now available to all worthy male members regardless of race or ethnicity (see Official Declaration 2). Each candidate for ordination is interviewed by priesthood leaders to ensure that he understands and agrees to live by established principles of righteousness (see Doctrine and Covenants 84:33–44; 121:34–46).

Notice that the Church does not apologize for it. It doesn't even imply that it was wrong. But rather, it gives examples of the same in other times in order to show that there is Divine precedent for the restriction of blessings based on lineage.

I have no problem with any of that. I know the doctrine is not racist nor was it ever. I am not racist, nor do I harbor any racist tendencies. I know that many critics of the Church do their level best to portray it as racism and even some members of the Church believe it is racism and was wrong.

But the fact remains that the ban is still currently official doctrine of the LDS Church. We are merely in the "resolved phase" of it for which we have much to rejoice according to GBH in the article referenced by the Study Topic.

Edited February 16, 2012 by BCSpace

[Scott Lloyd]

1. Go to lds.org

2. Click Menu.

3. Select Study by Topic.

4. Select the letter 'P'

5. Select "Priesthood Ordination before 1978"

You'll come to here:

http://www.lds.org/s...e-1978?lang=eng

Notice that the Church does not apologize for it. It doesn't even imply that it was wrong. But rather, it gives examples of the same in other times in order to show that there is Divine precedent.

I have no problem with any of that. I know the doctrine is not racist nor was it ever. I am not racist, nor do I harbor any racist tendencies. I know that many critics of the Church do their level best to portray it as racism and even some members of the Church believe it is racism and was wrong.

But the fact remains that the ban is still currently official doctrine of the LDS Church. We are merely in the "resolved phase" of it for which we have much to rejoice according to GBH is the article referenced by the Study Topic.

I rejoiced along with millions of people when the 1978 revelation was announced. But I have never accepted the notion that the pre-1978 policy was anything other than the mind and will of God as revealed to prophets.

[cinepro]

I have no problem with any of that. I know the doctrine is not racist nor was it ever. I am not racist, nor do I harbor any racist tendencies. I know that many critics of the Church do their level best to portray it as racism and even some members of the Church believe it is racism and was wrong.

If the doctrine wasn't "racist", then what was it?

In other words, please describe it to me without using race as the sole determining factor.

Edited February 16, 2012 by cinepro

[thesometimesaint]

cinepro:

All humans are of the same race in LDS Theology.

[JDave]

cinepro:

All humans are of the same race in LDS Theology.

But that isn't how lds.org uses the term 'race', nor how Official Declaration 2 uses the term 'race'.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Of course the ban was racist. It was the definition of racist. It was restricted by the understanding of race at the time.

It was wrong, period. We need to stop trying to excuse it, and just accept that the Church has made mistakes in the past. It can still be true even if it's not perfect.

(Remember the old saw: Catholics say their Popes are infallible, but none of them really believe it - Mormons say their Prophets are fallible, but none of them really believe it.)

As usual, I point to Ed Kimball's BYU Studies paper on his father's Revelation on the Priesthood, and urge anyone who hasn't read it to do so. The history becomes much clearer.

[Jeff K.]

I don't know and the answer isn't forthcoming given what I know. So the discussion is pretty much moot beyond the answer "I don't know".

[DH]

I rejoiced along with millions of people when the 1978 revelation was announced. But I have never accepted the notion that the pre-1978 policy was anything other than the mind and will of God as revealed to prophets.

Problem with that is there was never a revelation (that I know of) saying it was God's will that blacks could not hold the priesthood. No, it was just a decision somebody (BY?) made along the line, not backed up by an actual revelation.

[thesometimesaint]

JDave:

It is how other Scriptures define race.

[orion88]

I rejoiced along with millions of people when the 1978 revelation was announced.

Would you share some newspaper articles and/or references in the Ensign magazines that

show all this rejoicing you talk about? From what I have heard (and this is entirely based

on hearsay) the announcement came off as if someone important had died - with sadness

and disbelief.

I can understand your experience but I'm wondering if there was anything in the news to

capture this supposed moment of joy?

[Bob Oliverio]

I have to disagree with you there. We are to change the church into Zion...and that requires a lot of change. We do that by seeking after good things and desiring righteousness. That, incidently, was the reason the ban was rescinded because there has been no evidence that it was instituted by God and every indication it was not.

I have to whole heartily agree with this statement.  This is an area I really wish the Church would come out and admit it was a mistake of men and apologize for the past treatment.

And if you read today's explainations by the GA's, notice how careful they are not to imply that the ban was a mistake or that the GA's and prophets of that time were in error

This is, with all due respect a rather silly defense.  Of course they wouldn't say that - it would have destroyed membership in those years.  But Ms Juliann is correct, there is no evidence to support the withdrawal of the priesthood from blacks was ever a revelation or direction of God.  And Church doctrine/scriptures surely don't support the withdrawal.

This is one issue where it makes complete sense for the Church to apologize and get rid of this image.  Is it any wonder why we have less than 1 percent African American membership in our US Church today?  An apology would be such a blessing for our members and do such great things for our image.

[altersteve]

I don't really take a position on this subject. I'm not really sure if God commanded it, but Brigham Young did prophecy that the day would come when blacks would be able to hold the priesthood again.

It's a complex issue that I kind of struggle with.

[selek1]

As usual, I point to Ed Kimball's BYU Studies paper on his father's Revelation on the Priesthood, and urge anyone who hasn't read it to do so. The history becomes much clearer.

Perhaps if you'd troubled to read your source for content rather than confirmation, you'd have noticed that Kimball himself admits (three times in the first ten pages) that the Ban was about lineage rather than race.

This qualification is also echoed in his sourced footnotes, notably by Mauss.

Edited February 17, 2012 by selek1

[Kenngo1969]

Would you share some newspaper articles and/or references in the Ensign magazines that

show all this rejoicing you talk about? From what I have heard (and this is entirely based

on hearsay) the announcement came off as if someone important had died - with sadness

and disbelief. ...

Yeah, we were all just crushed; I'm still trying to get over it, myself!

[Verum]

The church definitely stands by the position that the priesthood ban on the blacks occurred because of scriptural precedent and a lack of divine revelation that would overturn it instead of acknowledging the possibility that they were wrong or that church leaders were possibly blinded by their own racial prejudices.

I definitely believe they were wrong, and I wish they would just acknowledge it. . There are clear evidences that their own racial prejudices often got tied up into dictating church policy even beyond the black priesthood ban. Many of us are familiar with the examples where the church had a policy banning blacks from attending the temple, or having interracial marriage, etc. It's obvious from history that Joseph Smith felt differently about priesthood and race then Brigham Young did when most of this all started. If some of the church leaders were just victims of their time, it is still a mistake if the Lord was trying to work with them but was unable to because they were unable to overcome those character flaws. The church could still acknowledge fault but at the same time provide understanding around the complexity of the issue and why these policies lingered for so long.

I think it would be wonderful to see the church be a living example of the principle of repentance, and acknowledging fault here would be a good start.

Edited February 17, 2012 by Verum

[zelder]

I have to whole heartily agree with this statement. This is an area I really wish the Church would come out and admit it was a mistake of men and apologize for the past treatment.

This is, with all due respect a rather silly defense. Of course they wouldn't say that - it would have destroyed membership in those years. But Ms Juliann is correct, there is no evidence to support the withdrawal of the priesthood from blacks was ever a revelation or direction of God. And Church doctrine/scriptures surely don't support the withdrawal.

This is one issue where it makes complete sense for the Church to apologize and get rid of this image. Is it any wonder why we have less than 1 percent African American membership in our US Church today? An apology would be such a blessing for our members and do such great things for our image.

I think an apology might hurt membership today. I used to not have a problem with blood atonement. I rationalized it as simply capital punishment, which I don't have a problem with. However, since I came the realization that the church has publicaly repudiated blood atonemnt, my faith in prophets and apostles has diminished significantly. I still believe the church is true but not perfect and I'm now just a little rebellious. If they admitted that the priesthood ban was a mistake then I'm afraid there would be millions of active mormons with significantly diminished faith in church leadership (I don't think they want that). I now think the church has been wrong about a lot of things and I wonder what they might be wrong about today. I'm feeling angry about somethings i was taught as a youth. The only thing keeping me in the church at this point are some really powerfull experiences I've had studying scriptures and trying to obey God's commandments as taught in the scriptures. If I had never strongly felt the hand of god in my life through the church I'd be gone right now. Despite my testimony, I no longer feel the stong need to always follow the prophet like I used think I needed to. If more mormons felt like me I wonder how well the church could hold together.

[Bob Oliverio]

Perhaps if you'd troubled to read your source for content rather than confirmation, you'd have noticed that Kimball himself admits (three times in the first ten pages) that the Ban was about lineage rather than race.

What was the banned lineage and how was it determined?  What was the lineage of Elijah Able?

As a new member I've heard this tired excuse before.  And when the two questions above are asked, that excuse seems to crumble.  With all due respect, we as a Church and members can no longer defend this issue.  We need to apologize and put this behind us.  If Romney is the republican nominee - this will be an issue by democratic PACS and embarrassing for the Church.  This issue needs to be put behind us with a formal apology out of the Church, IMHO respectfully.

[Kenngo1969]

The church definitely stands by the position that the priesthood ban on the blacks occurred because of scriptural precedent and a lack of divine revelation that would overturn it instead of acknowledging the possibility that they were wrong or that church leaders were possibly blinded by their own racial prejudices.

I definitely believe they were wrong, and I wish they would just acknowledge it.

I don't think Church leaders would have any problem acknowledging that you believe they were wrong.

[David T]

Perhaps if you'd troubled to read your source for content rather than confirmation, you'd have noticed that Kimball himself admits (three times in the first ten pages) that the Ban was about lineage rather than race.

This qualification is also echoed in his sourced footnotes, notably by Mauss.

Umm... the word 'race' comes from a word meaning 'root', or 'lineage'. In Spanish, for example, the words for 'Race' and 'Root' are still the same ('raiz').

It's the same thing. Race doesn't mean color. It means one's roots, or lineage. Color can be a marker of one's racial heritage (IE, their lineage), but it isn't race in and of itself.

If one says the ban is about race, that is literally saying that it is about lineage. If one says it's about lineage, you're using a synonym for race.

Spencer Kimball, and even Bruce McConkie, found no scriptural or historical reason for the ban. The revelation came because President Kimball brought this conclusion to the Lord. That conclusion was ratified.

We don't have to say, 'we don't know'. Read that paper. The facts are powerfully clear there, and thoroughly documented. The only reason individuals don't know if if they haven't studied or researched, probably because they didn't know the material was available. Fortunately, the material is available. If you want to be able to stop saying 'I don't know', then read the history. Problem solved.

Edited February 17, 2012 by nackhadlow

[zerinus]

I think an apology might hurt membership today. I used to not have a problem with blood atonement. I rationalized it as simply capital punishment, which I don't have a problem with. However, since I came the realization that the church has publicaly repudiated blood atonemnt, my faith in prophets and apostles has diminished significantly. I still believe the church is true but not perfect and I'm now just a little rebellious. If they admitted that the priesthood ban was a mistake then I'm afraid there would be millions of active mormons with significantly diminished faith in church leadership (I don't think they want that). I now think the church has been wrong about a lot of things and I wonder what they might be wrong about today. I'm feeling angry about somethings i was taught as a youth. The only thing keeping me in the church at this point are some really powerfull experiences I've had studying scriptures and trying to obey God's commandments as taught in the scriptures. If I had never strongly felt the hand of god in my life through the church I'd be gone right now. Despite my testimony, I no longer feel the stong need to always follow the prophet like I used think I needed to. If more mormons felt like me I wonder how well the church could hold together.

The theological justification for the ban probably came from Abraham 1:26; but I believe that it also had the sanction of the Lord at that time, otherwise it could not have been made an official Church policy. As for things like blood-atonement or Adam-God theory, they were never adopted as official Church doctrine or policy.

[David T]

As for things like blood-atonement or Adam-God theory, they were never adopted as official Church doctrine or policy.

Of course they were. There was no such thing as correlation then, or the concept of 'official Church doctrine or policy'. That's a late twentieth-century concept. It was the teaching of the Presidency of the Church, and echoed in its approved literature (and in the case of Adam-God, explicitly taught in the Temple).

This argument of BY-era stuff not being 'official' at that time doesn't hold any water.

Edited February 17, 2012 by nackhadlow

[Zeta-Flux]

Spencer Kimball, and even Bruce McConkie, found no scriptural or historical reason for the ban. The revelation came because President Kimball brought this conclusion to the Lord. That conclusion was ratified.

If that were the case, the revelation would say that. It does not.

[zerinus]

Of course they were. There was no such thing as correlation then, or the concept of 'official Church doctrine or policy'. That's a late twentieth-century concept. It was the teaching of the Presidency of the Church, and echoed in its approved literature (and in the case of Adam-God, explicitly taught in the Temple).

This argument of BY-era stuff not being 'official' at that time doesn't hold any water.

I don't know that anyone was ever "blood-atoned;" and Adam-God theory was not accepted by all the leadership of the Church. Orson Pratt was very outspoken in his opposition to it; and other General Authorities, though less vocal out of respect for Brigham's position, did not really accepted it either.

[David T]

I don't know that anyone was ever "blood-atoned;" and Adam-God theory was not accepted by all the leadership of the Church. Orson Pratt was very outspoken in his opposition to it; and other General Authorities, though less vocal out of respect for Brigham's position, did not really accepted it either.

The Church never claimed authority to 'blood atone', but did teach the principle behind it. Hence, the choice for individuals to choose death by firing squad (by the Government) in Utah.

[David T]

If that were the case, the revelation would say that. It does not.

If you're referring to OD2, that isn't the written expression of the revelation. We have the announcement/Press Release (Declaration) that a Revelation occurred, and the announcement of the practical policy change: the ban was to be immediately ended.

Elsewhere, we have detailed descriptions of the questions asked and process President Kimball was going through, as well as the conclusions being reached. Please see the paper for the documentation.

Edited February 17, 2012 by nackhadlow