The Priesthood Ban Is Still Official Doctrine Of The Lds Church

[Deborah]

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

show all this rejoicing you talk about?

I'm not sure why you would expect newpaper articles to reflect the joy of the members of the church. As I recall the articles were of the nature that the Mormons are finally letting blacks have the Priesthood. I was a member at that time, had previously lived in the south and knew a very fine black family in our ward. I rejoiced for them and that the Lord had finally opened up the Priesthood to all worthy men. I didn't know anyone at the time who didn't also rejoice that this had taken place. The church had previously face so much criticism due to this policy and no one was going to complain that it had finally changed.

On the other hand there is an apostate group that is growing in numbers that not only says the ban was lifted without authority but that the church is in apostasy because of this as well as the rescinding of polygamy. They want us to remain in the 19th century. I am glad that the Lord's Anointed see fit to move us forward.

[KevinG]

I am glad that the Lord's Anointed see fit to move us forward.

I find that when I explain the nature of continuing revelation and the church as a learning institution that matures over time most people think that is a good thing.

It is usually apostates and critics that like to dredge up our past practices or even examples of Mormons who broke covenants to try to condemn the modern church and its faithful members.

[Grundelwalken]

There are clear evidences that their own racial prejudices often got tied up into dictating church policy even beyond the black priesthood ban.

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.

There are clear evidences that some folks personal doctrinal prejudices often get tied up into dictating to the church things they have no authority to dictate. I think it would be wonderful to see members who have questions become a living example of the principle of personal repentance and revelation by acknowledging they have no idea why these things occurred instead of seeking to impose on the Brethren some task that they have not right to impose. Just my $.02. MW

[zelder]

I find that when I explain the nature of continuing revelation and the church as a learning institution that matures over time most people think that is a good thing.

Like most, I agree that that's a good thing.

It is usually apostates and critics that like to dredge up our past practices or even examples of Mormons who broke covenants to try to condemn the modern church and its faithful members.

The problem here that that the church has pounded us with the idea that we have to follow the prophet. Follow the prophet, follow the prophet, follow the prophet. The prophet will never lead us astray. I suppose they are just trying to hold a church together but it's a little bit difficult on one's faith when you realize that prophets do lead us astray. They are not perfect and they do teach things that are not true.

I wonder if the modern church has made a mistake in projecting the idea of perfection for the church. I think a lot of mormons have the idea that the prophet is a human mircorphone through which God speaks.

[Deborah]

The problem here that that the church has pounded us with the idea that we have to follow the prophet.

And how has following the prophet led us astray from following Christ or fulfilling our covenants? If there is error it doesn't fall on those who follow but on those who make such decisions.

[Buckeye]

...

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.

Add my voice to those who think it is obvious the ban was racist. The ban was premised solely on skin color. Lineage cannot be the answer since no one can trace their lineage to Cain (or Laman for that matter). The ban became untenable when the Church entered areas, significantly Brazil, where skin color and race were highly ambiguous.

This is not to say that, by definition, the ban was wrong (though I think it was; see below). But it was clearly premised on race and so was racist. In the same vein, the current church policy discriminates by gender and so is, by definition, sexist. It also discreminates by age and so is, by definition, ageist.

The problem with claiming the racial ban was doctrine is that there is no scriptural basis for it. In contrast, the levirate and jewish restrictions referenced in the online statement do stem from cannonized old testament scripture.

The racial ban also lacks any justification [iMO, so does the current gender ban, but not the current age-based ban]. All that current church leaders say is "we don't know why." But that's not an answer. It's an admission of ignorance. It will not fly in today's world or in today's church. My God expects me to reason with him. I expect the same in return.

More importantly, the "we don't know" position runs directly counter to everything the church is currently trying to do with the media - i.e., we are going to define ourselves and tell our own story rather than let others do it for us. If we as a church will not stand up and confront what really happened, then others will do it for us and they will not be nearly as charitable or accurate as we would be. To this end, I highly recommend these timely articles on Keepapitchinin:

http://www.keepapitchinin.org/2012/02/14/guest-post-mitt-romney-blackness-and-the-book-of-mormon-part-i/

http://www.keepapitchinin.org/2012/02/16/guest-post-mitt-romney-blackness-and-brigham-young-part-ii/

IMO, if done honestly and sincerely, it will not cause mortal harm to the church to admit that our previous leaders had racist views. Nephi was racist. So was Peter. Why should it be any harder to admit that Brigham was too? I've come to this view and my testimony is stronger, not weaker for it. I am still proud to wear (and dress my kids in) shirts that say "Brigham Young University."

Our history does have some racism, but much less than nearly all other faiths. We actually have a better story than most. So why do we keep taking it on the chin? Let's lose the battle and win the war.

[zelder]

And how has following the prophet led us astray from following Christ or fulfilling our covenants? If there is error it doesn't fall on those who follow but on those who make such decisions.

That's been part of my rationalization as well. I'm also aware that there has never been any formal declaration of perfection about anything. J Smith claimed that the Book of Mormon is the most correct book, not perfect. Furthermore, the Book of Mormon has a disclamer stating that if there are mistakes, they are the mistakes of men. I'm telling myself that any mistakes made my prophets or the church are not God's fault. However, my willingness to do anything and believe everything has been damaged.

[KevinG]

The problem here that that the church has pounded us with the idea that we have to follow the prophet. Follow the prophet, follow the prophet, follow the prophet. The prophet will never lead us astray.

In primary class yes. However as we grow older we read the D&C which teaches us that although our leaders are imperfect and make mistakes it is our duty to make the Lords house a house of order. In addition to being able to receive personal confirmation on the matters of prophecy we are also safe in following leaders becuase any sins will be on their heads and the Lord will set our course right if we are in error.

I am a convert and understand these important lessons taught in our covenants and illustrated by Zions Camp, the New York financial disasters, Hauns Mill, the Martin handcart company, etc... I do not empathise too much with those whose criticism of the church dependon a primary lesson comprehension of our doctrines and practices.

[stemelbow]

The ban remains a big black spot on the Church in my opinion. If the ban never was the Church would be twice the size it is now, even with polygamy. Without polygamy the church would be four times the size it is.

To be clear, my view is the church made a mistake regarding the ban and that its most likely the case that when the ban was rescinded it was done because Kimball drew a conclusion that it was not doctrine, went to Heavenly Father on the matter, and it was revealed/confirmed the ban had no doctrinal or revelatory basis. I doubt the ban was rescinded otherwise. I highly doubt the revelation was clearly a "its now time to rescind the ban that I had the Church implement" type of thing from God. If that were the case then we'd probably have the revelation in print. We don't. It makes me think revelation was more of a "you've poured your heart and soul into this and it is true, you are right--the ban had no basis".

If my hunch is correct, its a shame the Church can't just admit it now. I can agree that doing so could very well hurt the faith of many people and that is probably why the Church simply doesn't do so. I maintain that its more important to be forthright and honest. Even Hinckley's tiney little concession that "its how they interpreted the doctrine" was a positive step in my view.

[zelder]

In primary class yes. However as we grow older we read the D&C which teaches us that although our leaders are imperfect and make mistakes it is our duty to make the Lords house a house of order. In addition to being able to receive personal confirmation on the matters of prophecy we are also safe in following leaders becuase any sins will be on their heads and the Lord will set our course right if we are in error.

I am a convert and understand these important lessons taught in our covenants and illustrated by Zions Camp, the New York financial disasters, Hauns Mill, the Martin handcart company, etc... I do not empathise too much with those whose criticism of the church dependon a primary lesson comprehension of our doctrines and practices.

Good for you. I wonder if God condemed any members of the Martin Handcart Company for waiting to cross later? I doubt it.

[Deborah]

The ban was premised solely on skin color.

Actually not, as black aborigines were not included in the ban.

[David T]

Take this into consideration, concerning what was specifically authorized, by President Hinckley, to be taught by Darius Gray, president of the Genesis Group, an Official Church Auxilliary:

In 1998, before the exchanges with President Hinckley occurred, Darius received what felt like a flood of knowledge and revelation on the subject of race and the priesthood restriction. He wrote up as much as he could, but did not share it for two years. He waited, praying about how he should proceed. In 2000, he found The Doctrine and Covenants Student Manual (copyright 1981), which talked about personal revelation and indicated that "every person properly appointed and sustained to act in an official capacity in the Church is entitled to the spirit of revelation to guide a particular organization or group over which he presides" (McConkie 187).

Since Darius was then the president of the Genesis Group, a Church unit to support those of African lineage, he felt that he was acting within those parameters. But he was still careful. Finally, he read instructions in a CES manual suggesting that if anyone believes he/she has received an important revelation which should be shared with the entire Church, they should submit it to those in authority. This kind of correlation is intended to keep self-proclaimed prophets from starting new churches, preaching ideas contrary to true doctrine on the authority of "revelation," or justifying things not accepted in the orthodox LDS Church (polygamy being the most obvious example).

Darius submitted "Not a Curse but a Calling" to President Hinckley for approval, and asked if he could teach it.

I was in the room with others of the Genesis leadership when Elder Cecil Samuelson entered. Standing before all of us, he said, "President Gray, you submitted an article and asked permission to teach it. That permission has been granted." We in the Genesis leadership were the witnesses.

This did not make Darius's inspiration "new scripture" in any way—and he used a disclaimer whenever he taught the document we referred to as NACBAC: "What I am about to share should not be considered scripture, inasmuch as it is not found in any of the standard works of the Church. It is, however, consistent with the scriptures, and permission has been granted by the Brethren for me to teach it." Nor did he share it capriciously. He held it in reserve and taught it only when he felt that the Spirit was right.

Edited February 17, 2012 by nackhadlow

[Loran Blood]

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.

Isn't "neo-orthodoxy" wonderful? It allows so much space for everything from free floating theological speculation, to poltically correct moral self congratulation, to holding moral/social court over the those in times of old at whom we look down our modern, politically correct noses as in thrall to some "ism" or "ist" we have concocted to justify our enlightened state of deontological transcendence while feeling, as Jeremy does here, that no factual or evidential argument need be made at all justifying his core assertions.

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.

Who cares? Not that this paper may not have its good points, but bc was using official church sources as his referene for his understanding of the doctrine involved. You point to an obscure LDS intellectual espousing his own opinions.

Need I say more?

[Verum]

There are clear evidences that some folks personal doctrinal prejudices often get tied up into dictating to the church things they have no authority to dictate.

I actually agree with the first part of this statement that members have their own prejudices in how they interpret doctrines, although; I disagree with the second part as I think I have full authority to provide my opinion on what I think happened in regards to how this doctrine came about and what could be done to make it better.

I think it would be wonderful to see members who have questions become a living example of the principle of personal repentance and revelation by acknowledging they have no idea why these things occurred instead of seeking to impose on the Brethren some task that they have not right to impose. Just my $.02. MW

I don’t need to acknowledge that I have no idea why these things occurred because I feel I have a good understanding why, it just doesn’t fit well within the standard church narrative. The problem here is that if someone doesn’t have a good answer for the reasoning or origin of certain doctrines or policies that fit within the church narrative, they conclude that the answers are unknown, and any contrary explanation that doesn’t fit within the church narrative is thrown out as a viable possibility. In this specific example, the explanation that it not compatible with the church’s narrative seems much more clear in my mind than the one within the standard church narrative. Could I be wrong? Absolutely. But is my explanation just as viable as any given the evidence? I think so… and I think it merits discussion instead of just responding with a defensive attack on one’s character. And if it’s possible that church leaders were historically flawed in their implementation of this doctrine, then wouldn’t repentance be appropriate? Wouldn’t acknowledgment of fault and infallibility in this regard be a wonderful example of humility and integrity? Isn’t the same expected out of us when we error?

[Loran Blood]

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.

But, according to the church, it wasn't a mistake at all. No doubt some of the explanations and attempts at making sense of it were misbegotton, to one degree or another, but the limitation itself appears to stand as legitimate as to its divine origin, and as the church itself points out, has a plethora of scriptural precedent among a number of other peoples other than blacks.

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.

"Ms?" OK, you see, this is the territory we are in. Well, all well and good, I won't belabor this little tidbit, but will, staying with the subject, point out that Juliann's position here is purly one of agrument from ignorance, as she can provide, herself, no evidence that the original limitation was not, indeed, divinely inspired ("There is no evidence that..." as opposed to "Here is the evidence that the ban was not inspired.") The church itself, as bc has pointed out, appears to hold that the ban itself has clear precedent as one of many similar limitations to priesthood throughout time.

And Church doctrine/scriptures surely don't support the withdrawal.

Yes they do, as a matter of precedent and pattern as to the dealings of the Lord with his children throghout history.

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?

No, the church is not going to bow and genuflect before the golden calf of PC, nor is it going to worry about which identity groups are not as widely represented in its pews on Sunday. American blacks also do and do not do certain other things in vastly disproportionate numbers, such as vote for a certian political party at rates only seen in places like Saddam Hussien's Iraq. There are reasons for this, as well as for why many white evangelicals worry about things like Mitt Romney's loayalty to the constitution as a Mormon, that have nothing to do with rational thought or clear udnerstanding of the real issues.

removed from thread/inflammatory

[David T]

Who cares? Not that this paper may not have its good points, but bc was using official church sources as his referene for his understanding of the doctrine involved. You point to an obscure LDS intellectual espousing his own opinions.

Need I say more?

President Kimball's son? A highly respected historian who was actually physically present in the life of his Father during much of the events in question, and conversed with him on the subject? Who fills the paper with pages and pages of documented sources historical journal entries, minutes notes, and other footnotes?

Is that what you feel you can shrug off because, not having really read it, you feel it's already wrong because it appears to challenge an understanding of an event where you really want to believe that God at one point really did chose to curse Africans? No matter what the evidence shows?

Or am I misreading you?

Edited February 17, 2012 by nackhadlow

[KevinG]

Good for you. I wonder if God condemed any members of the Martin Handcart Company for waiting to cross later? I doubt it.

He certainly did not condemn those who did cross to early. The people condemning the Saints for following human prophets are in error here, not those faithful who do their best to balance personal revelation, inspired but human leaders and common sense.

[KevinG]

"...Let's [not] make the mistake that's been made in the past, here and in other areas, trying to put reasons to revelation. The reasons turn out to be man-made to a great extent. The revelations are what we sustain as the will of the Lord and that's where safety lies.^"

^{Guess who said that?}

[Buckeye]

Actually not, as black aborigines were not included in the ban.

Interesting. I didn't know that.

[Loran Blood]

President Kimball's son? A highly respected historian who was actually physically present in the life of his Father during much of the events in question, and conversed with him on the subject? Who fills the paper with pages and pages of documented sources historical journal entries, minutes notes, and other footnotes?

I've never heard of him (although I probably did, decades ago when reading some biographical material on Kimball) and for me, out here in non-Utah territory, he's obscure (unlike say, Royal Skousen, or Daniel Peterson).

Question: what is President Kimball's son's mantel of authority or calling that allows him to contradict and call into question the church's official position on the matter?

[KevinG]

Interesting. I didn't know that.

It got really interesting in Brazil where Patriarchs were asked to determine lineage through revelation leading to some dark skinned people holding the priesthood and some light skinned people being restricted from holding the priesthood.

[KevinG]

"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. ..."

Guess who said that?

[KevinG]

"Brethren, there is no basis for racial hatred among the priesthood of this Church. If any within the sound of my voice is inclined to indulge in this, then let him go before the Lord and ask for forgiveness and be no more involved in such.^"

^{Guess who said that?}

[KevinG]

Prophets and Apostles all... http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_racial_issues/Blacks_and_the_priesthood/Repudiated_ideas

[Uncertain]

Hi All,

Periodically this topic comes up and I post the same thing. In my view the ban on holidng the priesthood based on lineage was clearly and obviously incorrect.

It is a virtual certainty that if Cain was a real person and he has any descendants alive today that every person living including all LDS are descended from Cain. This would also be the case in the days of Brigham Young.

Basing blessings/cursings on the basis of heredity is extremely problematic this includes such ideas as the "curse of Cain" or "curse of Ham". Such concepts are greatly weakened if not falsified outright by population genetics. For example as you go back in time you reach a point where if someone has any living descendants they are the ancestors of everyone currently living. Estimates place this point within historical times i.e.(2,158 B.C. - 5,353 B.C.) ref( Rohde D, Olson S, Chang J (2004) Modeling the recent common ancestry of all living humans. Nature 431:562, 566 ). If Cain had any living descendants in the days of Brigham Young (BY) then there is a high probablity every living person in the days of BY was descended from Cain including BY. And if indeed the "descendants of Cain" were not eligible to hold the priesthood then no living person was so eligible including BY.

Exactly the same sort of arguments can be wielded against the "curse of the Canaanites" or the "curse of Ham". Population genetics tells us a given lineage either grows very fast in which case within a relatively small number of generations a substantial fraction of the earths population is cursed/blessed followed shortly thereafter by everyone living. Or a given lineage dies out completely in which case no one is cursed/blessed and whats the point?

Here is some user friendly articles discussing some of these concepts:

http://www.theatlant...02/05/olson.htm

http://humphrysfamil...ter.simulations

http://www.slate.com/id/2138060/

The above idea is what FAIR/FARMs uses to defend the idea all or most Native Americans are in fact literal descendants of Lehi. If Lehi lived thousands of years ago and he has any living descendants it is very likely all native americans would be descended from Lehi based on the above population genetics findings. This of course is a double edged sword since the same concept completely destroys the idea of a priesthood ban based on lineage.

Here are some excepts from Jeff Lindsey/FAIR discussing this concept.

Jeff Lindsey ("Does DNA evidence refute the Book of Mormon"?)

"The implications of Chang's work and Rohde et al.'s work for Native Americans are clear: assuming the Book of Mormon to be true, then even if Lehi's group represented a tiny drop in a vast bucket of genetic matter in the Western hemisphere of their day, it is nevertheless very likely that the vast majority of Native Americans are genuine descendants of Lehi and his son, Laman, in spite of the details of pure paternal or maternal lines."

(emphasis in the orginal)

http://www.jefflinds...AQ/DNA.shtml#we

FAIR:

"Non LDS-writer Steve Olson (an expert in population genetics) wrote: If anyone living today is descended from Jesus, so are most of us on the planet. That absurd-sounding statement is an inevitable consequence of the strange and marvelous workings of human ancestry...Say you go back 120 generations, to about the year 1000 B.C. According to the results presented in our Nature paper, your ancestors then included everyone in the world who has descendants living today... If Jesus had children (a big if, of course) and if those children had children so that Jesus' lineage survived, then Jesus is today the ancestor of almost everyone living on Earth. True, Jesus lived two rather than three millenniums ago, but a person's descendants spread quickly from well-connected parts of the world like the Middle East...In addition to Jesus...we're also all descended from Julius Caesar, from Nefertiti, from Confucius...and from any other historical figure who left behind lines of descendants and lived earlier than a few thousand years ago. Genetic tests can't prove this, partly because current tests look at just a small fraction of our DNA. But if we're descended from someone, we have at least a chance—even if it's a very small chance—of having their DNA in our cells...People may like to think that they're descended from some ancient group while other people are not. But human ancestry doesn't work that way, since we all share the same ancestors just a few millenniums ago"

(Bold added by me clearly Brigham Young and company were not aware of this little tidbit )

http://en.fairmormon...endants_of_Lehi

The above findings are also one of the primary reasons I don't believe in the concept of special privileges or curses being reserved for certain lineages like you see described in scripture i.e.(Abraham 1:26-27 among other examples). There is no such thing as the "lost ten tribes". Simply look in the mirror if the ten tribes have any descendants currently living today it is very likely the majority of people now alive are members of the "ten tribes". The ten tribes aren't lost they are you, your neighbors and virtually everyone else you meet. Similarly it is virtually certain Brigham Young had black africans among his ancestors and as such he would not have been eligible to hold the priesthood. If indeed God did not want this lineage to hold the priesthood.

All the Best,

Uncertain

Edited February 17, 2012 by Uncertain