Priesthood Ban: Questions On Lineage

[Zeta-Flux]

Cal,

I'll try to be more specific. You claimed that Elijah Abel was denied participation in some of the ordinances of the Nauvoo temple in the 1840's. I called for a reference to this claim. Your reference does not provide any evidence of this claim (nor do your most recent links) He apparently did participate in baptisms for the dead.

So, again, I'd like to see some evidence that the reason he didn't participate in the higher ordinacnes (if that is the case) before 1850, is that he was denied, rather than some other reason.

Edited February 20, 2012 by Zeta-Flux

[katherine the great]

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

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.

Where did the idea that Africans are the descendants of Cain come from?

[cinepro]

Where did the idea that Africans are the descendants of Cain come from?

And more importantly, what if every member of the church descended from Cain?

Edited February 20, 2012 by cinepro

[Pahoran]

And more importantly, what if every member of the church descended from Cain?

What if?

That's not "more importantly" at all, it's merely a distraction.

The relevant question is not "what if," but where the idea came from. The origin of ideas is important; the "what if" game is a trivial one that anyone can play.

The answer is that it was a Protestant notion.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Deborah]

Where did the idea that Africans are the descendants of Cain come from?

As I recall this was a general belief among all the churches at the time. They read about the curse of Cain and somehow extrapolated that to the black skin being that curse though many scholars refute that as being the curse. The curse spoken of in Abraham was on the Canaanites who were not necessarily descendants of Cain and why the Canaanites were cursed we don't know though it may have had something to do with their idolatry. We know that the Pharoah referred to by Abraham was righteous but nevertheless of that lineage that could not have the Priesthood.

I think the original reasons given for the Ban were misguided though there may have been legitimate reasons we don't know about. Certainly if there was a lineage in Abraham's day that could not have the Priesthood there is no reason why that could not have applied at a later time. For all I know it was part of the restoration of all things that there would be a people who could not have the Priesthood until certain conditions were met, but it never had anything to do with the righteousness of the people.

[Calm]

Cal,

I'll try to be more specific. You claimed that Elijah Abel was denied participation in some of the ordinances of the Nauvoo temple in the 1840's. I called for a reference to this claim. Your reference does not provide any evidence of this claim (nor do your most recent links) He apparently did participate in baptisms for the dead.

So, again, I'd like to see some evidence that the reason he didn't participate in the higher ordinacnes (if that is the case) before 1850, is that he was denied, rather than some other reason.

I'm sorry I can't provide that info at the moment. My memory says I got it from the books written by Darius Gray and Margaret Young about the experiences of blacks in the early church, Standing on the Promises.****** Can't get to the library to check right now.

add-on: I may be mixed up with the Salt Lake Temple. I remember something along the lines of it saying that Elijah was disappointed when told he could not enter the very building he had helped build to receive his own endowments. It appears he worked on the SL temple as well as the Nauvoo.

http://www.blacklds.org/abel

******I generally hate historical novels, these books are the one exception to the rule. They provide excellent documentation and I highly recommend them.

Edited February 21, 2012 by calmoriah

[Calm]

We know that the Pharoah referred to by Abraham was righteous but nevertheless of that lineage that could not have the Priesthood.

Which could have been simply because his connection came to the patriarchal line of Noah came through his mother, not because of his 'blood'.

[Bob Oliverio]

The relevant question is not "what if," but where the idea came from. The origin of ideas is important; the "what if" game is a trivial one that anyone can play.

No disrespect intended, but asking "what if" is no less relevant than the arguments that use "we just don't know".

To speculate on things we "don't know" and then come to a rationalization that fits our emotional needs is no different than asking "what if" - I think it's just the opposite side of the same coin.

But when I read through this thread, it convinces me even stronger that we, as a Church, owe an apology to the African American community with the benefit of hindsight and lack of doctrinal support/explanation and lack of revelation support to claim our actions were those directed by the Heavenly Farther.  We can rationalize all we want and come up with interpretations to justify this history.  But it seems, for all intents and purposes, the best the Church can offer is "we don't know why".  

And again, what can possibly be the downside of doing what's right? We modify our temple ordinances  for goodwill toward the Jewish community and the greater goodwill of Church perception to the public.  Apologizing for what is obviously perceived,  and perhaps rightfully so, as an unfortunate racist practice in our past should take the same high road for goodwill purposes.  I believe our Heavenly Father would want us to do the right thing - no matter how much time has past.

[selek1]

No disrespect intended, but asking "what if" is no less relevant than the arguments that use "we just don't know".

Incorrect.

"We don't know" is an admission of fact. We don't know.

"What if" is mere speculation- and opens the door (as has been amply demonstrated in this and other threads) to a train load of educated- and non-educated- guesswork and flights of fancy.

with the benefit of hindsight and lack of doctrinal support/explanation and lack of revelation support to claim our actions were those directed by the Heavenly Farther.

Neither do we have have sufficient evidence to claim that our actions WERE NOT directed by Heavenly Father.

We can rationalize all we want and come up with interpretations to justify this history. But it seems, for all intents and purposes, the best the Church can offer is "we don't know why".

"We don't know" is the only honest answer.

And again, what can possibly be the downside of doing what's right?

You are begging the question.

We don't know that offering an apology IS "the right thing".

We modify our temple ordinances for goodwill toward the Jewish community and the greater goodwill of Church perception to the public.

False. We have not modified our temple ordinances "for goodwill toward the Jewish community", nor for the approval of anyone else.

We have clarified and qualified the process by which names are submitted for temple work. That is an order of magnitude separate from the Temple rites themselves.

And yet look at how much "goodwill" that concession has bought us....

Mormons are still vilified in the press and smeared in "educated" circles- despite the fact that we have done precisely what we promised to do.

Why then, would an apology for the Priesthood Ban, be any different?

Can you imagine a Leftist icon like Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton lessening his attacks on Romney because we "apologized"?

Or would the "apology" be seen as a sign of weakness and as a talking point to try and twist Romney's arm into denouncing his faith?

History has amply demonstrated that the latter case is far more likely.

Those who loathe and despise us for what we are will continue to do so- no matter how many "concessions" we make to their ignorance and prejudice.

Apologizing for what is obviously perceived, and perhaps rightfully so, as an unfortunate racist practice in our past should take the same high road for goodwill purposes.

Really? The apology and concessions to "the Jews" doesn't seem to have made any difference.

Clarifying our doctrines and emphasizing our similarities to other Christians hasn't slowed the juggernaut of stupidity, bigotry, and condescension in Babylon.

What makes you think an apology for the Priesthood Ban would be any different?

I believe our Heavenly Father would want us to do the right thing - no matter how much time has past.

When you demonstrate conclusively that the Ban WAS wrong and that the Lord wants us to apologize, I'll be first in line.

Until then- I don't owe you or anyone else an apology for the Priesthood Ban.

But when I read through this thread, it convinces me even stronger that we, as a Church, owe an apology to the African American community...

Aside from the issues listed above, I have a real problem with this- if only on the grounds of personal accountability.

No one now alive was a perpetrator of the alleged injustice.

No one now alive (or frankly, dead for that matter) has been denied anything to which they were entitled.

So why should we apologize to people we have not wronged for something that: 1) has not been demonstrated to have been wrong, and 2) with which we had nothing to do?

Just to be clear: I, my maternal grandfather, and all of the men in that family line would have fallen under the Ban.

I now (by the grace and condescension of the Lord) hold the Priesthood.

Do you (as a Mormon convert) owe me an apology?

If so- why?

If not- then why does the Church (in your opinon)?

Edited February 21, 2012 by selek1

[Zeta-Flux]

Where did the idea that Africans are the descendants of Cain come from?

Ultimately, who knows? But what we do know is that Brigham Young taught it, claiming authority as a prophet, and proclaiming it in the name of Jesus Christ. Our church has never formally rejected this statement and others of its kind. The closest thing is when Elder McConkie said to ignore everything that was ever said on the subject. I can do so with respect to his own statements, for he implicitly said he was wrong, but it is another to ignore what others said.

[LeSellers]

Our church has never formally rejected this statement and others of its kind. The closest thing is when Elder McConkie said to ignore everything that was ever said on the subject.

Elder M^cConkie's issue was not about the "ban", per se, but about when it would be lifted. He (and many others) felt it would not happen until the Millennium. Obviously, it came earlier than expected. Thus, we are not to try to force fit his (and their) erroneous statements into the reality of events, nor, even more destructively, assume that President Kimball was in error and apostatize.

There were, I suppose, some who had a Gospel Hobby Horse based on the Priesthood "ban". He addressed them. Some probably listened, others, I'm sure, did not. It would not have mattered to this latter group if Christ Himself had appeared in General Conference that October and personally announced His decision: they'd still have fallen away.

There was a quote, poorly remembered, where one of the Brethren told us that, when Heber J. Grant died, many Saints spiritually died with him; that when George Albert Smith died, many spiritually died with him. No doubt it didn't take the death of Spencer W. Kimball for some to die spiritually—it happened in June, 1978. But that says much more about them, individually, and their testimonies of Jesus Christ than it does about Heber J. Grant, George Albert Smith or Spencer W. Kimball and their prophetic callings.

Lehi

[cinepro]

The closest thing is when Elder McConkie said to ignore everything that was ever said on the subject. I can do so with respect to his own statements, for he implicitly said he was wrong, but it is another to ignore what others said.

Just to be clear, McConkie didn't say to "ignore everything that was ever said on the subject." He said:

There are statements in our literature by the early Brethren that we have interpreted to mean that the Negroes would not receive the priesthood in mortality. I have said the same things, and people write me letters and say, "You said such and such, and how is it now that we do such and such?" All I can say is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or George Q. Cannon or whoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.

It doesn't make a particle of difference what anybody ever said about the Negro matter before the first day of June 1978. It is a new day and a new arrangement, and the Lord has now given the revelation that sheds light out into the world on this subject. As to any slivers of light or any particles of darkness of the past, we forget about them. We now do what meridian Israel did when the Lord said the gospel should go to the Gentiles. We forget all the statements that limited the gospel to the house of Israel, and we start going to the Gentiles.

(Horne, Dennis B. (2000). Bruce R. McConkie: Highlights From His Life & Teachings. Eborn Books

A very important part of that statement is the qualifier that we are supposed to forget what was said "in days past that is contrary to the present revelation." So our forgetfulness would apply to statements about the timeframe for the ending of the priesthood ban.

Since the 1978 revelation doesn't address the causes of the ban or its origin, none of those past teachings contradict it, and thus McConkie wasn't making a blanket statement that would apply to them.

Edited February 21, 2012 by cinepro

[Zeta-Flux]

LeSellers and cinepro,

I don't have any issues with what Elder McConkie said. Rather, I have issues with how some interpret his sayings. For instance, they read

It doesn't make a particle of difference what anybody ever said about the Negro matter before the first day of June 1978.

and then find fault with those who still have questions about what was said before the first day of June 1978. Sorry that I seemed to conflate what Elder McConkie said with how some interpret it.

[cinepro]

I don't have any issues with what Elder McConkie said. Rather, I have issues with how some interpret his sayings. For instance, they read and then find fault with those who still have questions about what was said before the first day of June 1978. Sorry that I seemed to conflate what Elder McConkie said with how some interpret it.

I honestly can't imagine the stress that McConkie must have gone through on the whole matter. As someone who was so respected for their authority and knowledge on doctrinal matters, it must have been very humbling to have to publicly say "I was wrong". It was a very admirable thing to do.

[Jeff K.]

It is an indicator of McConkie's abiltiy to humble himself when found in the wrong. He had a strong personality and a strong will, but he knew when to correct his view or in the least augment it with direction from the prophet.

[Zeta-Flux]

I agree. Now I'd just like to know if Brigham Young was wrong to say what he said, or if he was right.

[Bob Oliverio]

You are begging the question.

We don't know that offering an apology IS "the right thing".

I was actually just asking "what is the downside". Not whether it was right or wrong.

Those who loathe and despise us for what we are will continue to do so- no matter how many "concessions" we make to their ignorance and prejudice.

Respectfully, I think we need to get beyond this type of persecution complex and go with our strengths.  The persecution complex will just keep us isolated and insulated from the greater Christian social community.

No one now alive was a perpetrator of the alleged injustice.

And no African Americans, nor any blacks worldwide for that matter, who were subject to the ban, were perpetrators or participants in whatever caused the injustice in the determination of their lack of worthiness! Why is the "quid-pro-quo"  so hard to see for members today?  It's exactly my point.  The arguments we hide behind are the same and exact reasons supporting the need for an apology today. Mainly - ignorance.

I've been asked, what was the lineage issue of African Americans for 130 years, that led to their unworthiness AND  HOW WAS IT DETERMINED?

We as a Church have no answer today, nor did we have an answer when the ban was in effect.  That's why we should do the right thing.

[Avatar4321]

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.

What then do you believe is the Justification for Christ taking the Gospel not to the Gentiles, but only to the House of Israel?

[Avatar4321]

I would also point out that Joseph Smith stated in no uncertain terms that there is no reason to believe that animal sacrifices will be restored.

[selek1]

I was actually just asking "what is the downside". Not whether it was right or wrong.

As I said, you were begging the question.

Your precise statement was:

And again, what can possibly be the downside of doing what's right?

That assumes- without evidence- that an apology IS the "right thing to do".

Neither you nor anyone else here has demonstrated the grounds upon which an apology is either required or appropriate.

Nor have you answered my questions.

To repeat:

I, my maternal grandfather, and all of the men in that family line would have fallen under the Ban.

I now (by the grace and condescension of the Lord) hold the Priesthood.

Do you (as a Mormon convert) owe me an apology?

If so- why?

If not- then why does the Church owe me one?

Respectfully, I think we need to get beyond this type of persecution complex and go with our strengths.

The alleged "persecution complex" is an anti-Mormon talking point and a rhetorical sleight of hand.

It is an attempt to (dishonestly) dismiss very real criticisms and uncomfortable truths.

This is identical to the use of the word "racist" to dismiss and avoid any criticism of the current Administration.

In this instance, it is also a false dichotomy.

The notion that "going with our strengths" requires us to bow to political correctness is both intellectually dishonest and deeply flawed from a logical standpoint.

Mormons go forward in strength everyday- including when we confront ridiculous notion that we owe anyone an apology for the Priesthood Ban.

And no African Americans, nor any blacks worldwide for that matter, who were subject to the ban, were perpetrators or participants in whatever caused the injustice in the determination of their lack of worthiness!

Actually- you've yet to demonstrate that there was an injustice perpetrated.

That's the fundamental flaw you've been desperately trying to gloss over.

You have yet to demonstrate that anyone was denied a Priesthood to which they were entitled.

Until you can do that, you're simply whistling past the graveyard.

Why is the "quid-pro-quo" so hard to see for members today? It's exactly my point. The arguments we hide behind are the same and exact reasons supporting the need for an apology today. Mainly - ignorance.

The only ignorance on display here is your own.

All of your posturing has been made in attempt to hide the fact that you don't know that an injustice was perpetrated.

You assume that one was. You predicate your arguments and trumpet your indignation on that basis- but you haven't demonstrated it and can't.

I've been asked, what was the lineage issue of African Americans for 130 years, that led to their unworthiness AND HOW WAS IT DETERMINED?

This assumes that unworthiness was the issue.

The Church has admitted that personal worthiness was NOT the issue.

Lineage was.

Good and honorable men were denied the Priesthood despite their personal worthiness.

But neither you nor anyone else has been able to demonstrate that this was wrong.

We as a Church have no answer today, nor did we have an answer when the ban was in effect. That's why we should do the right thing.

Once again, you are assuming that an apology IS the right thing to do.

That has yet to be demonstrated.

So...can you demonstrate the alleged wrong from fact, or will you just repeat the same tired, trite arguments from silence you've offered thus far?

Edited February 22, 2012 by selek1

[selek1]

We, by the doctrine of the time, held their worthiness in question for actions of those in the past.

This is a falsehood- and an inflammatory one, at that.

And the more you repeat it, the more I am convinced that it is deliberately false and inflammatory.

Not a single doctrinal source cited in this thread or the other questioned the worthiness of Black members.

The question was about the privilege of holding the Priesthood.

President Hinckley himself stated:

"But for many years during the history of the Church, the priesthood was withheld from many worthy men because of their lineage. Then, in June of 1978, a remarkable and wonderful thing occurred. The president of the Church, the prophet of the Lord at the time, Spencer W. Kimball, announced a revelation under which every worthy man could, under proper circumstances, receive the eternal priesthood with authority to act in the name of God." (Emphasis mine).

If you review all of the arguments made in these threads, you will not find a single faithful Latter-day Saint arguing that worthiness was the issue.

We will (and have been) the first to point out that unworthiness disqualifies all candidates- whether black or white, green or polka-dot.

It's ironic that while you continue to demand proof and insist that the Ban was about race, you steadfastly ignore the repeated statements from the Church leaders indicating the contrary.

You've been offered at least a half-dozen citations in both threads that the Ban was about lineage and yet continually bleat about the "lack of proof".

If you will not believe the words of the Prophets and leaders who made those decisions at their word, how then shall we convince you?

If you are steadfast and immovable in your determination to ignore everything that does not support your presuppositions, then what proof can we possibly offer?

-----------------------------------------

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

We know no such thing.

The "absense of proof" is NOT "proof of absence". The fact that we cannot lay hands upon such a revelation DOES NOT prove that such a revelation DID NOT take place.

Such arguments are the province of demagogues, rather than honest men.

You have had several citations offered indicating that lineage has been a qualifier (and conversely, a disqualifier) for Priesthood privilege since Biblical times.

There have been several statements offered showing that Brigham Young and others beleved (as did most of Christendom) that African Americans were descendents of the lineage of Cain.

You have also been offered repeated citations and statements indicating that "blacks" not of that lineage were indeed offered the full blessing of Priesthood privelege.

And no African Americans, nor any blacks worldwide for that matter, who were subject to the ban, were perpetrators or participants in whatever caused the injustice...

(I omitted the "worthiness" jeremiad from the quote above. As an inflammatory buzzword, it adds nothing to the discussion but overwrought hysteria and hyperbole. It has added not one fact nor one rational argument to the discourse.)

Even more ironically, your statement that no "no African Americans, nor any blacks worldwide for that matter, who were subject to the ban, were perpetrators or participants in whatever caused the injustice" applies equally well to the Church and its leaders.

Whether the Ban was just or injust, no one in current Church leadership or membership were perpetrators or participants in the Ban.

That generation is long dead and buried, as are most of the generation who oversaw the lifting of the Ban.

Which renders your insistence on an apology rather silly.

Neither those who imposed the Ban (for good or ill) nor those who proclaimed its ending are in any position to offer either explanation nor expiation.

I've been asked, what was the lineage issue of African Americans for 130 years, that led to their unworthiness AND HOW WAS IT DETERMINED?

This was asked and answered in the other thread.

It has been answered in this thread, as well.

The "worthiness" charge is no more valid for its hypnotic repetition. The question has always been one of privilege, for which there remains ample Biblical precedent.

We as a Church have no answer today, nor did we have an answer when the ban was in effect.

This mantra has become no more true for its obsessive repetition.

We do have an answer. It has been provided to you multiple times.

"We do not know the reasons for the Ban."

It existed.

It has now (through the mercy and condescension of the Lord) been lifted.

To say anything else is to engage in fruitless speculation or (worse) foolish usurpation.

Edited February 22, 2012 by selek1

[Bikeemikey]

Let's say it was lineage. The practical application of this early on in the church (pre-brazil) was one of akin color/race.

While the intention may have been to limit through lineage the actual implementation was a limiting of access in virtue of race.

I personally think this is fine if revealed by the lord. I just don't think it was ever actually revelation.

Lets assume that God would not give a revelation to Brigham young that would effectively deprive the whole human family from the priesthood.

If BY was acting as a prophet when he announced that "a drop of the blood of Cain would deny a person the priesthood" (paraphrasing) then based on current research he was saying no one can have the priesthood.

Again I don't have a problem with this if it was the lords will.

However, I think we can all assume god did not want to limit everyone from the priesthood.

The practical absurdity of the claim by BY (if his claim was true no one should have had the priesthood) suggests it was not revelation. Or are we going to assume that God was not aware of the fact that if anyone alive today is a descendant of Cain (with even one drop) then everyone alive today is a descendant from Cain. Or are we going to cling do hard to BY prophetic announcement that we are going to pretend that his statement is proof that the science is wrong?

So if BY revelation is evidence of the lords mandate the church should apologize for giving anyone the priesthood as god had asked that no one have it. And then apologize to the black community for selectivity excluding them (by interpretive error ) when all people were meant to be excluded.

If BY revelation is revelation then we have major problems!! If it's not then we have an obvious justification in the guise of theological and religious mandate from God, that warrants an apology, or at least acknowledgement.

(null)

Edited February 22, 2012 by Bikeemikey

[Deborah]

One thing I have observed in reading the scriptures, particularly the OT, the Lord gives his prophets the authority to seal and bind on earth as in heaven. He doesn't seem to interfere with this much until it becomes an issue for future generations and then a future prophet may go to the Lord with the request to change what has been as time and circumstances have changed. The practice of circumcision is an example of this. Many non-Jewish people were joining the ancient church. Peter saw that these people were filled with the Holy Ghost and allowed them to be baptized without circumcision. Thus the practice which was a covenant under the Law of Moses was changed. Note that it wasn't changed until it became an issue and then it was through the inspiration and leadership of a Prophet that it was changed. Oughtn't the same principle apply to the Priesthood?

The timing of the lifting of the ban was impeccable. We had the people in Africa imploring the church to send missionaries and the temple about to open in Brazil. There was no more perfect time for a prophet to implore the Lord to open up the Priesthood to all people. And so it was done.

[Bikeemikey]

One thing I have observed in reading the scriptures, particularly the OT, the Lord gives his prophets the authority to seal and bind on earth as in heaven. He doesn't seem to interfere with this much until it becomes an issue for future generations and then a future prophet may go to the Lord with the request to change what has been as time and circumstances have changed. The practice of circumcision is an example of this. Many non-Jewish people were joining the ancient church. Peter saw that these people were filled with the Holy Ghost and allowed them to be baptized without circumcision. Thus the practice which was a covenant under the Law of Moses was changed. Note that it wasn't changed until it became an issue and then it was through the inspiration and leadership of a Prophet that it was changed. Oughtn't the same principle apply to the Priesthood?

The timing of the lifting of the ban was impeccable. We had the people in Africa imploring the church to send missionaries and the temple about to open in Brazil. There was no more perfect time for a prophet to implore the Lord to open up the Priesthood to all people. And so it was done.

If what you sat is true, why implore the lord. If you can bind as a prophet then just make the change and the lord will bind it?

This line of thinking leads to the idea that prophets can never be wrong.

[Deborah]

If what you sat is true, why implore the lord. If you can bind as a prophet then just make the change and the lord will bind it?

This line of thinking leads to the idea that prophets can never be wrong.

Well, because a prophet wants to do what is right he's not going to do what he doesn't feel the Lord wants him to do and will seek guidance first. If anything this should point out that prophets can be wrong but the Lord gives them authority and lets them use it.