Priesthood Ban: Questions On Lineage

[GingerRed]

For my fellow members who still contend that the priesthood ban was about lineage, and not race, can I respectfully and formally ask these questions:

Where is the doctrine that identifies a priesthood ban on lineage and what lineage was banned?

How was this lineage determined by those making the decision to exclude male individuals from the priesthood?

What was the lineage of Elijah Able that allowed him the priesthood?

I have not heard what Elijah's lineage was....but I heard that the ban only applied to African lineage. Black men from Haiti, Jamaica, Barbados, Caribbean, India, Southeast Asia, etc were exempt. The ban did not apply to them. Unless of course they had any Afro mix in them, then the ban did apply. This is how it was explained to me anyway.

So critics who say we banned ALL black men, was never true.

I am also baffled by the way people still bring this 30+ yr old event that was eventually made right. What's the point?? Its over, been over a loonnnggg time! Crazy! I joined the church in Dec of 78...I barely remember the day this was announced but I recall being happy about it and thought it was cool.

Why is no one asking the black people what THEY think?? THEY were the ones directly affected! If our church is so 'racist' and 'bigoted' like some people think....then WHY are there so many black people IN it??? If that label is true, then there wouldn't be a single black person in the church at ALL! Ever!

Go ask Gladys Knight....Elder Helvecio Martins...Burgess Owens...Thurl Bailey...LeRoy Eldridge Clever ( former Black Panther) ...Joseph W.B. Johnson of Ghana....Alex Boye...the list goes on!

Why doesn't this so called ' Mormon racism' bother THEM? Someone please explain to me why all these prominent members of the church are in it if it is SO racist?

Red

[BCSpace]

For my fellow members who still contend that the priesthood ban was about lineage, and not race, can I respectfully and formally ask these questions:

Considering the official doctrine here:

http://www.lds.org/study/topics/priesthood-ordination-before-1978?lang=eng

What do you think the Church's position is? Lineage or race?

[dougtheavenger]

Considering the official doctrine here:

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

What do you think the Church's position is? Lineage or race?

lineage

[katherine the great]

Sorry, I don't buy the idea of some future animal sacrifice schtick. It comes from Joseph musing on what was meant practically by the Restoration of All Things, the nature of priesthood, and an assumption that all things ever done by priesthood action need to come back at some point. The strong teaching that the death of Christ ended for all time sacrifice by shedding of blood makes this concept silly.

Animal Sacrifice is an outdated, old-world, pre-modern act of worship. It's done. There is no longer any significance for anyone in such an action in the context of this Church. It's not something anyone needs to be looking forward to.

Thank you, I agree.

[katherine the great]

I have not heard what Elijah's lineage was....but I heard that the ban only applied to African lineage. Black men from Haiti, Jamaica, Barbados, Caribbean, India, Southeast Asia, etc were exempt. The ban did not apply to them. Unless of course they had any Afro mix in them, then the ban did apply. This is how it was explained to me anyway.

Huh? "Black" men from the islands ARE of African descent.

[Bikeemikey]

The churches position ought not be lineage or race: both expose the church to direct evidence that shows on either of these grounds the church was inconsistent in giving people the priesthood. Also the scriptural evidence does not support either of these position as - see bruce r.'s about face on the scriptural evidence.

If it is about anything it should be about explicit revelation - it does not appear to be about that either.

For these reasons a lot of people feel that it was about a historical policy founded on the social mindset of the time - the policy begat justification - that justification become theological reasoning - that reasoning over time became doctrine for the general church.

Isn't it a scary thought that a policy could produce doctrine - rather than doctrine produce policy?

Of course it is, that's why so many people are unwilling to engage the issue.

(null)

[David T]

Isn't it a scary thought that a policy could produce doctrine - rather than doctrine produce policy?

That actually has happened a lot. See historical studies on the development and standardization of LDS liturgy/ordinances, especially in pretty much anything written by J. Stapley.

[Bikeemikey]

I am sure it does - hopefully more people will become aware of this. Could change the way people think about things a little.

(null)

[Bob Oliverio]

The churches position ought not be lineage or race: both expose the church to direct evidence that shows on either of these grounds the church was inconsistent in giving people the priesthood. Also the scriptural evidence does not support either of these position as - see bruce r.'s about face on the scriptural evidence.

If it is about anything it should be about explicit revelation - it does not appear to be about that either.

For these reasons a lot of people feel that it was about a historical policy founded on the social mindset of the time - the policy begat justification - that justification become theological reasoning - that reasoning over time became doctrine for the general church.

Isn't it a scary thought that a policy could produce doctrine - rather than doctrine produce polic

Of course it is, that's why so many people are unwilling to engage the issue.

(null)

A very good comment.  There really is no defensible position for the Church.  

That's why I believe an apology is very much in order.  Until then, it just seems this  will be a ball and chain on the Church's future.

[Deborah]

That's why I believe an apology is very much in order.

I have never understood why people in the present should apologize for something done in the past and especially for reasons we don't fully understand. The Ban was lifted, most people rejoiced and it simply isn't an issue now except for those who love to hang on to the past as a means of continuing and promoting conflict.

[Bikeemikey]

You apologize in recognition of general weaknesses or mistakes from the collective past.

I don't know of apologizing makes sense for this or not - I don't think it could hurt.

(null)

[Deborah]

You apologize in recognition of general weaknesses or mistakes from the collective past.

Why? The context of the past is not the same as the present and to apologize for something in a different context seems to be patronizing. How could it even be sincere? In something like the Priesthood ban we would first have to acknowledge that every past prophet up to Pres. Kimball was either not in tune or received wrong information because many prophets prior to Pres. Kimball prayed about this very issue. To admit the ban was a weakness or mistake is disingenuous since the church has already admitted we don't know the reasons for it. We have acknowledged that some of the reasons given in the past were not correct and were the speculation of men and not revelation.

[Pahoran]

Considering the official doctrine here:

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

What do you think the Church's position is? Lineage or race?

It is obvious to me that you merely posted that in order to bang your silly drum about "official doctrine" being "every word that is published by the Church."

That notion is false. It is also pharisaical to the Nth degree.

You have linked to no "offical doctrine." You have linked to a web page, the author of which is unknown.

Whether it accurately reflects the official doctrine of the Church is a different question entirely; but the fact remains that it is not a source of "official doctrine," and nor can it be.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Bob Oliverio]

I have never understood why people in the present should apologize for something done in the past and especially for reasons we don't fully understand.

And yet we, as a church, did the very same thing to African Americans for over 100 years.  We, by the doctrine of the time, held their worthiness in question for actions of those in the past.  And we couldn't even explain why!  We now know it was never from revelation nor scripture because we still can't defend nor explain it today.

With all due respect - thanks ranks pretty high for reasons to do the Christian thing and formally apologize in my opinion.  What is the downside of doing so?

I can't help but remember when a group representing the state of Illinois and/or town of Nauvoo gave a formal apology for the past actions taken against Joseph Smith.  I think Church media made a pretty big deal of it as some kind of vindication or at least acknowledgement of forgiveness in clearing the record.  Apologizing for the past treatment of blacks in our Church should be given the same level of respect and acknowledgement.

[Calm]

We now know it was never from revelation nor scripture because we still can't defend nor explain it today.

I'm not sure you can claim this. Not from scripture, certainly since scripture is what we have in a written form that we can consult as a faith community. The problem is with revelation. Not only are all revelations not made public, I think it is safe to conclude that not all are written down. We have the example of Sec 132 which is in dispute as a valid revelation with some of the Restoration sects who claim it was written by BY rather than JS. In the history we know, JS didn't write it or have it written until quite some time after the revelation had been received. The revelation was likely received in 1831 and officially presented to the Church in 1852, it is reported to have been first recorded in 1843 but I don't know if that copy is still extant or not.

What this is all leading up to is if Joseph hadn't told someone the text of the revelation prior to his death, this revelation would have had little documentation and nothing primary yet it would not have meant that the revelation never occurred or was false.

My personal belief is that the stories of a revelation of a ban are contradictory enough to call its very existence into question. I think it was much more likely that if there was any revelation bearing on the topic, it was much more limited and specific, possibly to an individual even or barring only slaves from the Priesthood, but freedman allowed full access. But like many things that are not precisely defined in writing, overtime it was expanded to cover any problematic situation as it was viewed an 'easy out'..."there's been a revelation on it, don't have to worry about it any more' or used as a power play or intimidation..."how can you say yes when there's been a revelation telling you no!"

My view is that there was likely a 'seed' revelation or even more likely a simple inspired instruction by the prophet to some missionaries (rather than formal revelation) that was very limited in its scope and only meant to deal with a specific situation (perhaps along the lines of 'on your mission, do not give the priesthood to the slaves in this particular town as it will result in their deaths') and not meant to be applied to all members or all situations. It was therefore likely known only to a small group who had among them some members who wanted to protect their way of life and defend themselves from what they feared and felt threatened by and didn't want to deal with and these few then spread the idea of a revelation limiting priesthood to blacks, but expanded it for their own benefit to all places and people. Thus no consistent evidence of its existence, just a few contradictory reports popping up when politically useful.

Anyway, pure speculation, but it explains to me some of the reactions of the prophets and leaders later on that were so certain....the problem being that certainty came from asking the wrong question of God (should have asked not if there had been a revelation that contained a ban, but if it applied to them kind of thing) if they choose to question it as it seems was done quite a few times by at least looking for documentation to justify it (showing some concern whether or not it was the right thing to do). Once they started asking not about the ban itself, but about when it was going to be stopped, they began to get different answers (in Pres. McKay's case "not yet" I believe, in Pres. Kimball's "do it now").

Since it is pure speculation, the only purpose it serves besides entertaining my brain is that it demonstrates there is a range of 'what might have happens' and I don't think any apology that is based on one of those being the actual case when we don't know for sure would be very satisfying in the first place and could do some damage in the second even if one ignored the fact that it would be lying for the leaders to apologize for the ban "because of fill in the blank" when they don't know the actual reason.

The only statement of value I can see is saying something along the lines of "we as church leaders regret the pain and resentment that the confusion over the ban has caused in the past and is causing now and we are doing our best to resolve these issues, but we also recognize that only truth will have any longlasting positive effect and so we must wait upon the Lord to give us further enlightenment on the subject. Until then what we can do is express our gratitude and thanksgiving that the ban---no matter the cause---has been lifted and to strive to root out any trace of misunderstanding of what it means to be God's children and how we should treat each other that has sprung up as weeds among the teachings and actions of our people"....but this has been said already in my opinion and if it hasn't worked then as a cureall, why would it work any better now. We just need to keep repeating it and hope that it sinks in just as all calls to repentance seem to need much repetition before actual progress is made....at least until God does inspire our leaders to give us more detail on this subject, though I personally think this is going to happen in the next life when we get to review our histories.

Edited February 19, 2012 by calmoriah

[Zeta-Flux]

calmoriah,

It was Brigham Young who, acting as a prophet, proclaimed the ban. He says at the time, even if nobody has said it before he Brigham said it then.

[Calm]

calmoriah,

It was Brigham Young who, acting as a prophet, proclaimed the ban. He says at the time, even if nobody has said it before he Brigham said it then.

But does he state it was a revelation and if so did he give the text or just the context of the revelation as we have it for the revelations given in the D&C? And didn't others say later on that the ban came from Joseph Smith even if it was made official by BY?

[Zeta-Flux]

Here is a partial quote (you can find the full text many places):

Any man having one drop of the seed of [Cain] ... in him cannot hold the Priesthood and if no other Prophet ever spoke it before I will say it now in the name of Jesus Christ I know it is true and others know it.

Brigham, calling on his prophetic mantle, declared the ban. It doesn't matter if there were a private revelation where the Lord revealed something to Brigham. In this sermon, using his prophetic authority alone and no scriptural authority or authority of previous prophets, he makes his declaration.

It is true that others said Joseph made the ban. Almost all of these sources can be questioned on this point, either as misremembering, making things up (i.e. acting out of animosity towards Africans), or misunderstanding Joseph's teachings about not messing with slaves.

[Calm]

This was in 1852 in Utah. Can you explain what justification was used to exclude blacks from using the Nauvoo temple for their own endowments as was anticipated in 1840?

If the Ban was officially established in 1852 by BY as you state, then why did Smoot and Coltrin feel the need to try and push it back to JS in 1879?

Edited February 19, 2012 by calmoriah

[Calm]

In this sermon, using his prophetic authority alone and no scriptural authority or authority of previous prophets, he makes his declaration.

And there is doubt by a later prophet....

President Lorenzo Snow Expresses Doubts On the Issue

On August 18, President Lorenzo Snow states that he isn’t sure whether the existing explanations for the ban had been personal opinions or actual revelations. This is recorded in the minutes of the Council of the Twelve.

http://www.blacklds.org/history

[LeSellers]

This was in 1852 in Utah. Can you explain what justification was used to exclude blacks from using the Nauvoo temple for their own endowments as was anticipated in 1840?

The same chronology applied to Plural Marriage.

Lehi

Edited February 20, 2012 by LeSellers

[Zeta-Flux]

This was in 1852 in Utah. Can you explain what justification was used to exclude blacks from using the Nauvoo temple for their own endowments as was anticipated in 1840?

I'd like a reference for what you are talking about.

If the Ban was officially established in 1852 by BY as you state, then why did Smoot and Coltrin feel the need to try and push it back to JS in 1879?

There are many theories about this. Nothing definitive.

[Calm]

http://www.blacklds.org/history

“If the work roll forth with the same rapidity it has heretofore done, we may soon expect to see flocking to this place, people from every land and from every nation, the polished European, the degraded Hottentot, and the shivering Laplander. Persons of all languages, and of every tongue, and of every color; who shall with us worship the Lord of Hosts in his holy temple, and offer up their orisons in his sanctuary.” (Times and Seasons, Vol. 1 No. 12 October, 1840. See also Latter-day Saints’ Millennial Star, Vol. 1, No. 9, January 1841 and in History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Vol. 4)

[Zeta-Flux]

http://www.blacklds.org/history

I don't see anywhere there anyone being denied temple blessings.

[Calm]

You are not framing your comments fully enough so I am not sure to what you are responding.

From the quote:

Persons of all languages, and of every tongue, and of every color; who shall with us worship the Lord of Hosts in his holy temple, and offer up their orisons in his sanctuary.

Elijah Abel and other black LDS worked on the Nauvoo temple with an expectation that they would be receiving all the ordinances within them. While we have records of EA participating in baptisms for the dead, he never received his own endowment though there were many, many (nonblack) there at the same time who did (including as a side note several of my ancestors.)

If the ban was introduced in 1852 by BY as you claim above, why weren't endowments for black lds taken out prior to this time?

Baptisms for the Dead began to be performed in 1840. Elijah Abel performed in these ordinances. He had received his washings and anointings in the Kirtland Temple. Temple endowments began in 1842 and when the temple was sufficiently finished, endowments were switched to the temple. "Between December 1845 and February 1846, nearly 6,000 Latter-day Saints received their endowments in this house of the Lord before moving west. The temple was dedicated in the spring of 1846." Elijah Abel had worked on the temple with the understanding he would receive his endowments within. Since the ban that you point to as official came into being 6 years later and he didn't arrive in Utah until 1853, why wasn't he given the opportunity?

http://josephsmith.n...0001f5e340aRCRD

http://signaturebookslibrary.org/?p=16646

Sometime between 1842 and 1870 where we have the first record I believe of his request for his endowments being turned down, it was decided not to endow black members, not even ones who already held the priesthood. If the 1852 ban is what set this into policy, then why hadn't any endowments for blacks occurred prior to that time among the several who were worthy and who had been promised them by Joseph Smith such as Jane Manning James?

Possible data for narrowing down shift:

In March 1847, Brigham Young referenced a possible priesthood restriction and apparently dismissed it with these words: “ts nothing to do with the blood, for of one blood has God made all flesh…, we av [sic] one of the best Elders[,] an African[,] in Lowell, [Massachusetts].

http://bycommonconsent.com/2011/07/22/all-god%E2%80%99s-critters-some-thoughts-on-the-priesthood-restriction-and-differing-opinions/ Edited February 20, 2012 by calmoriah