The Priesthood Ban Is Still Official Doctrine Of The Lds Church

[zerinus]

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.

If it didn't claim the authority, there is no valid ground for accepting the doctrine either. As for allowing the choice of capital punishment by firing squad, the theological justification for that comes from a literal reading of Genesis 9:5-6; Numbers 35:33. It had nothing to do with blood-atonement. Blood-atonement is based on a very different doctrine.

[inquiringmind]

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.

Did the Church ever actually teach the doctrine of individual blood atonement?

And what is the current position?

[DonBradley]

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 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.

BCS,

Based on your thread title I expected to see an official statement from the contemporary church saying something like, "Prior to 1978, God instructed that men of black African descent not be ordained to the priesthood." Instead I see an admission that before 1978 men of such descent weren't ordained to the priesthood, with background information about the priesthood having previously been restricted to certain groups. In other words, I don't see anything that says "God said so" regarding the priesthood ban policy. What am I missing? In what sense does this statement on the church's PR pages indicate that the Church still has a "doctrine" that the no-priesthood-for-black-Africans policy was a divine commandment?

Don

[zerinus]

Did the Church ever actually teach the doctrine of individual blood atonement?

And what is the current position?

Brigham Young taught it as far as I know; but it was never adopted nor practised by the Church at large, neither then nor now.

[David T]

If it didn't claim the authority, there is no valid ground for accepting the doctrine either.

What? That doesn't make any sense. Jews today believe much of the penalties in the Torah are correct, but they don't believe they have a right or legal authority to kill people who violate them. The Nation of Israel itself isn't a Theocracy as it stands.

Blood Atonement taught that certain sins, such as Murder, required the literal physical shedding of one's blood to be fully forgiven. My understanding is that The Church at the time did not authorize the shedding of that blood by its lay-members, but advocated the selection of Firing Squad (as opposed to hanging, etc) for Murderers sentenced to execution, and those who felt they needed to be blood-atoned.

As for allowing the choice of capital punishment by firing squad, the theological justification for that comes from a literal reading of Genesis 9:5-6; Numbers 35:33. It had nothing to do with blood-atonement. Blood-atonement is based on a very different doctrine.

Actually, those scriptures were used as proof-texts and illustrations of the doctrine behind Blood Atonement.

Edited February 17, 2012 by nackhadlow

[selek1]

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

Read the piece your fellow traveller cited.

I have neither the time nor the inclination to spoon feed you what you can readily acquire for yourself.

As a new member I've heard this tired excuse before.

Interesting juxtaposition of phrases. "New member" and "tired excuse".

One would think the two mutually exclusive.

And when the two questions above are asked, that excuse seems to crumble.

The operative word, of course, is "seems".

And yet God's ways are not your ways. Neither God nor the Church owe you (nor anyone else) any explanations for how the Church is run.

I find it interesting how eager "new members" are to judge those who came before them (based solely on their own "enlightenment".

I find it interesting how those eager those who have never borne the yoke are to judge and condemn those who've done the work.

Apologize to whom? For what?

I challenge you to name three people who have been wronged by the policy.

I challenge you to name the theological and scriptural grounds upon which those people were wronged.

Until you can do either of those things, you have no right or ground upon which to condemn the Church.

The three most dangerous phrases in the Navy are:

A Seaman Recruit saying, "I learned this in boot camp...."

A Petty Officer saying, "Trust me, sir..."

An ensign saying, "Based on my experience...

Your opinion is flawed on all three grounds.

You have borne neither the responsibility for the stewardship, nor walked any length in the shoes of these good men- but you're ready to condemn them "based on your experience".

You come here claiming to be a new member, but your every post is critical of the Church- from the issue of the Priesthood Ban to the policy on outsiders at Temple weddings. You claim to be a faithful member, but your posting offers us nothing more than "Trust me..."

You post a series of dogmatic and ill-informed attacks on anyone who disagrees with Meldrum, but have consistently failed to demonstrate an understanding of the reasons why people might hold a different view. This is no different that the boot seaman's, "I learned this in boot camp..."

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.

With all due respect, we as a Church and as members have no need to defend this issue. The Ban was what it was, and we have no need to kowtow nor grovel to satisfy the wounded pride or sensibilities of Babylon.

We neither owe apologies nor need offer explanations to anyone.

If Romney is the republican nominee - this will be an issue by democratic PACS and embarrassing for the Church.

If Romney is the nominee, this issue will be exploited by dishonest polemicists no matter what statement we make or refuse to make.

Any one who suggests differently is either a fool or a Fifth Columnist.

I see no need to compromise my integrity in the hopes that the inhabitants of the Great and Spacious building will "go easy" on us.

Of course, I prefer stout integrity to appeasement any day of the week.

This issue needs to be put behind us with a formal apology out of the Church, IMHO respectfully.

This issue WAS put behind us more than 30 years ago.

And yet the polemicists, race-baiters, and rabble-rousers can't seem to let it go.

You are doing the rabble rousing and will exit the thread.

[cdowis]

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.

Me thinks that you do not know the difference between doctrine and the practice of a doctrine. For example, is it "doctrine" that a young boy must wait until he is 12 years old to receive the priesthood, or is that a practice.

Is paying tithing a doctrine, compared to the United Order, or are these how we practice the Law of Consecration.

[orion88]

Based on your thread title I expected to see an official statement from the contemporary church saying something like, "Prior to 1978, God instructed that men of black African descent not be ordained to the priesthood." Instead I see an admission that before 1978 men of such descent weren't ordained to the priesthood, with background information about the priesthood having previously been restricted to certain groups. In other words, I don't see anything that says "God said so" regarding the priesthood ban policy. What am I missing? In what sense does this statement on the church's PR pages indicate that the Church still has a "doctrine" that the no-priesthood-for-black-Africans policy was a divine commandment?

Don

See "The Way to Perfection", pages 101-111. I have scanned the pages and included

them as part of the album regarding chapter 4 of Doctrines of Salvation. It will explain

how the ban originated.

[KevinG]

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?

I have no doubt that there were and are bigoted people who claim to be Saints who received the joyous news in 1978 with sadness and disbelief. That was not the overall reaction of the Church or its leaders.

Find out what the Prophet and Apostles felt about it. My own friends who were pre 1978 LDS rejoiced. President Hinkley reports tears of Joy. Mitt Romneys father - who marched for civil rights in Detroit was estatic (couldn't find the interview quickly but it is out there).

http://www.blacklds.org/priesthood

I am a personal friend of a pioneering black missionary and many Southern blacks who lived through being Saints without the priesthood. To a person they have told me it is time for the church members to stop beating themselves up and move on. That part of our history has been set right.

While the ban was an official practice (I hesitate to elevate it to doctrinal status) you should ask was the restriction there because of blacks, beacuse of God or because we simply weren't in a position or mature enough as a people to have the 1978 revelation a century earlier.

Edited February 17, 2012 by DaddyG

[zerinus]

What? That doesn't make any sense. Jews today believe much of the penalties in the Torah are correct, but they don't believe they have a right or legal authority to kill people who violate them. The Nation of Israel itself isn't a Theocracy as it stands.

Blood Atonement taught that certain sins, such as Murder, required the literal physical shedding of one's blood to be fully forgiven. My understanding is that The Church at the time did not authorize the shedding of that blood by its lay-members, but advocated the selection of Firing Squad (as opposed to hanging, etc) for Murderers sentenced to execution, and those who felt they needed to be blood-atoned.

Actually, those scriptures were used as proof-texts and illustrations of the doctrine behind Blood Atonement.

Blood-atonement has never been the official teaching or policy practice of the Church.

[altersteve]

Blood-atonement has never been the official teaching or policy practice of the Church.

Would it be a big deal to you if it was? I don't really see why it matters.

Edited February 17, 2012 by altersteve

[dougtheavenger]

Actually, you can't find anything in official Mormon Doctrine that says blacks can not hold the priesthood. In 1900 and 1935 respectively the son and grandson of Elijah Able were ordained to the priesthood. Likewise, the Old Testament does not say explicitely that a non-Levite can not under any circumstances hold the priesthood even in the day that it was largely restricted to Levites. Your link merely relates history, not doctrine pertaining to lineage and the priesthood.

[dougtheavenger]

sorry .... dupe

Edited February 17, 2012 by dougtheavenger

[dougtheavenger]

sorry this was an accidental dupe

Edited February 17, 2012 by dougtheavenger

[zerinus]

Would it be a big deal to you if it was? I don't really see why it matters.

It either is or it isn't. Whether it would be a big or small deal is not the issue.

[Zeta-Flux]

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.

As I said, the written expression of the revelation does not say that the Lord ratified their conclusion (if that was indeed their conclusion). It only says that, according to previous prophecy, the ban was lifted.

[Scott Lloyd]

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?

The Internet didn't exist back then, and I'm not in a position right now to do hard-copy research. But the hearsay you report is the most absurd, asinine thing I've ever heard. I was at BYU then, and the memory of that day is still vivid in my mind. The news went instantly around the world, and there was almost universal elation among the Latter-day Saints worldwide. Nothing in my lifetime has brought more collective joy to the Church. I heard later there were a few sorry souls who were disgruntled, but they were not even enough to be on the radar.

I was working for the Daily Universe at the time, and we put out an "extra" edition that day. I still have a copy. Huge banner headlines declared "Blacks Get Priesthood."

[mbh26]

that the Ban was about lineage rather than race.

What's the difference? I know nepotism is still more socially acceptable than racism, but to me they both stem from the same evoultionary pyschology hard wired into all living things.

[Bikeemikey]

See "The Way to Perfection", pages 101-111. I have scanned the pages and included

them as part of the album regarding chapter 4 of Doctrines of Salvation. It will explain

how the ban originated.

The ideas and thoughts expressed on this topic in the pages you linked to are among the best examples of the terribly poor state of LDS scholarship and quality publications at this time. It is an embarrassing reminder of our own historical ignorance as a church community. There is no evidence or support for the "ideas" of the time regarding the reasons for the limited access of the blacks to the priesthood. The content of the arguments postulated are utterly indefensible and not even internally congruent with the scriptures and history they are drawing on.

[Flyonthewall]

Other prophets before Spencer W. Kimball went before the Lord about the very same thing, they were told "no" or "not yet". If it was a mistake, the Lord had plenty of opportunity to correct it previously.

If it was not instituted by the Lord, but by the Lord's annointed, then the Lord still saw fit to let it stay in place...and was not against the Lord's plan.

The ban was lifted in the Lord's own time, not man's.

[cdowis]

Blood atonement is basically the principle underlying the death penalty. Is that a "big deal"? Is that a fundamental concept in the church?

[zerinus]

Blood atonement is basically the principle underlying the death penalty.

It is not. They are two different things.

Is that a "big deal"? Is that a fundamental concept in the church?

The Bible condones death penalty for certain crimes.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

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.

Comments since then suggest otherwise. BTW, some black people were ordained in JS's day and remained so in BY's day.

[The Nehor]

Everyone I have talked to about it rejoiced at the news. Many were troubled by the ban and couldn't understand it. The only exception I know of is from an older friend who was on his mission at the time with a companion from the deep South. His response after that Conference was to go home and bang his head against the wall crying, "I can't believe they gave the n*******s the priesthood." Obviously the racists in the Church were dealt a blow. My friend was fine with it and kinda hoped his companion would leave the mission in disgust (he wasn't a very good missionary in addition to being a racist). Oh well.........

[Bikeemikey]

There were obviously mixed responses from the general church. Members of the church who were also racist, and felt the traditional rational behind the blacks not getting the priesthood justified position, were obviously up set. A very very very small number of people are reported to have left the church. I know of one person who left their mission in protest. I do not know if they left the church as well.

There was obviously a group of people who were very happy with the news as well.

I would say that there is probably an even larger group who found out more slowly, perhaps on the Sunday the change was announced in church, and thought to themselves, "Now the blacks can have the priesthood", then promptly went on with the process of work and family and all that other good stuff.

Mike