Priesthood Ban: Questions On Lineage

[LeSellers]

But, as President Woodruff reminds us, the Lord will not allow a man, even His prophet, to lead the Church astray. (Which leads me to believe that the Priesthood "ban" was not an error, however "racist" that may paint God as being: it's His Priesthood, after all.)

Lehi

[thesometimesaint]

Was God through Peter being racist when he banned Gentiles(Anyone not Jewish) from becoming Christians? Was it God or Peter that changed his mind?

[peacefulleeman]

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?

In the Pearl of Great Price and the Bible. Haven't looked, but maybe someone else provided the references already.

Those in the area according to the history and traditions, identified as "African".

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

Primarily by Genealogy and Patriarchal Blessing.

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

Don't know this one off hand. But, from what I recall he and others were "exceptions" similar to certain Gentiles being exceptions (were allowed to be converts) when Christ was on the earth and the Gospel was only to be given to the Jews.

[peacefulleeman]

haa haa! I just LOVE Weird Al's work. Makes me laugh so much. The only "rap" I can listen to also and think happy thoughts.

Donny Osmond, the man.

[peacefulleeman]

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.

That's simply not true. Pre-Brazil there were blacks given the priesthood and blacks not when genealogy and patriarchal blessing's were done.

The problem with Brazil and the issue period was that it wasn't always easy to determine lineage because the culture is so mixed.

[cinepro]

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.

When did he say that? (CFR)

[cinepro]

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.

I disagree. Anytime between the mid-19th century and June 7, 1978 would have been a more impeccably perfect time.

Edited February 22, 2012 by cinepro

[thesometimesaint]

cinepro.

Seeing that God took roughly 1800 years to restore the Priesthood at all 130+/- isn't much at all.

[cinepro]

cinepro.

Seeing that God took roughly 1800 years to restore the Priesthood at all 130+/- isn't much at all.

I agree. Which is another reason I don't think the ban came from God.

[thesometimesaint]

cinepro:

I don't know why God took as long as he did. However if we accept the Biblical account of what Jesus told the original Apostles.

It would seem that God is the racist. That throws a monkey wrench into anything other than I don't know.

[cinepro]

cinepro:

I don't know why God took as long as he did. However if we accept the Biblical account of what Jesus told the original Apostles.

It would seem that God is the racist. That throws a monkey wrench into anything other than I don't know.

I'm also curious what you would feel is "too much"? If 1800/130 is okay, what kind of ratio would it take for you to say "Too much!"

1800/300 (ban ends in 2150)

1800/900 (ban ends in 2750)

1800/1800 (ban ends in 3650)

Do any of these scanarios (or any other) cross the line for tolerability?

[peacefulleeman]

I agree. Which is another reason I don't think the ban came from God.

Did you ever consider that the "reason" the ban existed was primarily because of the Racism in the World, and that while the Church was restored, there still needed to be some refining done in the world itself in relation to the black African?

Thus, the ban was from God.

[peacefulleeman]

Did you ever consider that the "reason" the ban existed was primarily because of the Racism in the World, and that while the Church was restored, there still needed to be some refining done in the world itself in relation to the black African before the Priesthood could also be given to them?

Thus, the ban was from God.

[thesometimesaint]

cinepro:

From my limited mortal perspective of just under 61 years 130 years seems a whole lot less than 1800 years. To God the perspective is probably a bit different.

[cinepro]

Did you ever consider that the "reason" the ban existed was primarily because of the Racism in the World, and that while the Church was restored, there still needed to be some refining done in the world itself in relation to the black African?

Thus, the ban was from God.

Yes, I considered it and found the idea unconvincing.

The reason it doesn't work is that the priesthood isn't administered to "races", or populations, or groups of people. It is given to individual men based on their worthiness and willingness to serve and keep the commandments. So your theory would mean that when certain, worthy men came before God and expressed a desire to receive the priesthood and serve Him, God said "No, there is too much racism in the world towards people with african ancestry, and you have african ancestry, so you can't have the priesthood."

Such a policy works to perpetuate racism, not end it.

Suppose Brigham Young stood in conference in 1853 and said the following:

Racial strife still lifts its ugly head. I am advised that even right here among us there is some of this. I cannot understand how it can be.

I am told that racial slurs and denigrating remarks are sometimes heard among us. I remind you that no man who makes disparaging remarks concerning those of another race can consider himself a true disciple of Christ. Nor can he consider himself to be in harmony with the teachings of the Church of Christ. How can any man holding the Melchizedek Priesthood arrogantly assume that he is eligible for the priesthood whereas another who lives a righteous life but whose skin is of a different color is ineligible?

Do you believe he could have said that? Do you believe God could have inspired him to say that? What effect would this have had on the Church at that time? Considering these were the same people in the process of radically redfining their views on marriage to include polygamy, do you think they could have also adapted any unhealthy views on race at the same time?

I believe he could have said it, and that he should have. I'm dissappointed that he didn't. I recognize the cultural factors that kept him from saying it, but that doesn't mean I need to excuse them or theorize divine involvement.

Edited February 22, 2012 by cinepro

[Bikeemikey]

But, as President Woodruff reminds us, the Lord will not allow a man, even His prophet, to lead the Church astray. (Which leads me to believe that the Priesthood "ban" was not an error, however "racist" that may paint God as being: it's His Priesthood, after all.)

Lehi

Or it may demonstrate that it was an error that the lord did not think passed the threshold of leading the church astray. Given we do not have a definitive declaration on what it means to "lead the church astray" we don't know if this statement is equal to stating that prophets will not make any mistakes ever.

It may be more that God, in his own time frame, will not allow mistakes that are made to have an outcome that leads the church permanently away from the direction god wants it to go.

There is massive scope for acceptable errors, even errors of great substance to be made and still make this statement true.

Edited February 22, 2012 by Bikeemikey

[cinepro]

cinepro:

From my limited mortal perspective of just under 61 years 130 years seems a whole lot less than 1800 years. To God the perspective is probably a bit different.

What did it look like to those who wanted the priesthood between 1850 and 1978 and were told "no" based solely on who their ancestors were?

Edited February 22, 2012 by cinepro

[Bikeemikey]

That's simply not true. Pre-Brazil there were blacks given the priesthood and blacks not when genealogy and patriarchal blessing's were done.

The problem with Brazil and the issue period was that it wasn't always easy to determine lineage because the culture is so mixed.

I do not have the information at my finger tips but i believe that the involvement of patriarchs came either from the issue of priesthood eligibility from missionary efforts in South Africa, though it may have been Brazil.

That said, there was no mechanism in the Church to accurately verify lineage, indeed if there had been Brigham Young would never have made his declaration that even a drop of the blood of Cain would disqualify an otherwise worthy man from the Priesthood.

Given that they could not with any certainty verify lineage many times the decision would have had to default to race/skin color.

Indeed, based on the science around genealogy if there had been one person with the seed of Cain the whole human family would have at least a drop of blood from the seed of Cain. Assuming that God would want to inspire patriarchs to let verify eligibility for the priesthood based on the idea that God inspired prophets to restrict eligibility, we can surmise any patriarch truly inspired by God would have to inform all blessing recipients that they were not eligible.

However, it may be the case that as all priesthood holders would be holding the priesthood against the declaration of the prophet and the will of god the patriarchs may have been unable to receive such revelation. That said, Brigham Youngs statement itself would disqualify himself from priesthood eligibility thus he could not have been a true prophet speaking the will of God.

In fact, the only way we can claim the Brigham Young was a prophet eligible for the priesthood, is to admit that, in this instance, he made a mistake and was not speaking for God, even though he thought he was.

Edited February 22, 2012 by Bikeemikey

[Bob Oliverio]

What did it look like to those who wanted the priesthood between 1850 and 1978 and were told "no" based solely on who their ancestors were?

How would anyone in the Church know who the ancestors were for those denied the priesthood during that period!  I mean, really, let's be serious here.  The ONLY basis of denial was skin color for African Americans. No one in the church knew who their ancestors were or what their lineage was!  I think when we hide behind this "lineage excuse" we look even more foolish today.  And because the restriction of blacks was based solely on skin color - there's no way to get around the racist nature of the ban.  That's why we owe an apology IMHO.  And with all the apologizing we seem to be doing to make good with the Jewish community and others right now,  seems like a good time to make good with the African American community?

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.

I think the timing was convenient for all those reasons as well.  But I can't help to think the planned boycotts of BYU by NCAA schools and the anticipated legal challenges from the NAACP against the church over the Boy Scout issues also play a significant role in the timing.  I think it's only fair to say the same social pressures giving rise to our heartfelt apologies to the Jewish community and changes to our temple ordinances today were the same type of social pressures behind the 1978 lifting of the ban.

[Jeff K.]

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

That is something we may not know at this time. The possibility exists but we cannot know with a surety unless a prophet speaks of it in terms of revelation.

[dougtheavenger]

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.

Here is what Bruce R McConkie says."Members of this tribe will again in this final dispensation offer their traditional sacrifices to the Lord as part of the restoration of all things." This is from page 440 of Mormon Doctrine. McConkie cites D&C 13 and Teachings, pp. 172-173

I know McConkie's "Mormon Doctrine" is not official Mormon Doctrine, but until I hear from a better source, I will retain my present opinion on this.

Edited February 23, 2012 by dougtheavenger

[selek1]

How would anyone in the Church know who the ancestors were for those denied the priesthood during that period!

As was pointed out in several of the sources you hgave deliberately ignored, pedigrees and geneology were consulted as a primary means of determining lineage. Where that failed, prophetic means (primarily patriarchal blessings) were consulted.

I mean, really, let's be serious here.

Yes. Let's- by all means.

1) You have not acknowledged a single point, reference, or citation which contradicts your presumption of racism.

2) You have deliberately repeated inflammatory, insulting, and unfounded allegations of racism despite indisputable evidence from primary sources which unequivocably contradict your claims.

3) You have steadfastly refused to answer questions which explore your thinking or rationale.

The only logical conclusion at which a serious thinker can arrive is that you are not serious in this discussion.

You have your agenda and your conclusion and are neither interested in nor willing to consider any other possibilities which do not advance your agenda.

You have, on that basis alone, disqualified yourself from serious, thoughtful discussion on the matter.

The ONLY basis of denial was skin color for African Americans.

A deliberate and willful falsehood. Numerous examples have been cited showing that skin color was NOT the determinative factor.

No one in the church knew who their ancestors were or what their lineage was!

Both presentism and false.

I think when we hide behind this "lineage excuse" we look even more foolish today.

The operative words in this sentence are "I think"- but you have offered no indication that this is actually the case.

And because the restriction of blacks was based solely on skin color...

This assertion has been factually disproven. Your insistence on repeating it despite this is prima facie evidence that you are not interested in truth, fact, or honest discussion.

- there's no way to get around the racist nature of the ban. That's why we owe an apology IMHO.

An assertion not in evidence- but as has been repeatedly demonstrated, your opinion is not founded on good-faith analysis or reason.

And with all the apologizing we seem to be doing to make good with the Jewish community and others right now, seems like a good time to make good with the African American community?

This statement is one of false equvocation, and ironically, is also predicated upon, steeped in, and an exemplar of latent racism.

This post marks my fifth attempt to engage you in rational, reasoned discussion on this matter.

All four previous attempts were met with dogmatic, petulant repetition of unfounded mantras.

It is not a question of whether or not we agree.

It is about your steadfast denial and willful blindness to evidence which contradicts your assumptions.

It is about your deliberate, willful refusal to engage the factual evidence.

You have demonstrated that you are here only to proselyte for your agenda and position.

Adeiu.

Edited February 23, 2012 by selek1

[Avatar4321]

When did he say that? (CFR)

I misread the source, nevermind.

[Jehovah] continued to [Noah] the keys, the covenants, the power and the glory, with which he blessed Adam at the beginning; and the offering of sacrifice, which also shall be continued at the last time; for all the ordinances and duties that ever have been required by [p.211] the Priesthood, under the directions and commandments of the Almighty in any of the dispensations, shall all be had in the last dispensation, therefore all things had under the authority of the Priesthood at any former period, shall be had again, bringing to pass the restoration spoken of by the mouth of all the Holy Prophets; then shall the sons of Levi offer an acceptable offering to the Lord. 'And he shall sit as a refiner and purifier of silver: and he shall purify the sons of Levi, and purge them as gold and silver, that they may offer unto the Lord.' (See Malachi 3:3).

It will be necessary here to make a few observations on the doctrine set forth in the above quotation, and it is generally supposed that sacrifice was entirely done away when the Great Sacrifice [i.e., the sacrifice of the Lord Jesus] was offered up, and that there will be no necessity for the ordinance of sacrifice in future: but those who assert this are certainly not acquainted with the duties, privileges and authority of the priesthood, or with the Prophets . . . .

These sacrifices, as well as every ordinance belonging to the Priesthood, will, when the Temple of the Lord shall be built, and the sons of Levi be purified, be fully restored and attended to in all their powers, ramifications, and blessings. This ever did and ever will exist when the [p.212] powers of the Melchisedic Priesthood are sufficiently manifest; else how can the restitution of all things spoken of by the holy Prophets be brought to pass? It is not to be understood that the law of Moses will be established again with all its rites and variety of ceremonies; this has never been spoken of by the Prophets; but those things which existed prior to Moses' day, namely, sacrifice, will be continued. (History of the Church 4:211).

Edited February 23, 2012 by Avatar4321

[David T]

Here is what Bruce R McConkie says."Members of this tribe will again in this final dispensation offer their traditional sacrifices to the Lord as part of the restoration of all things." This is from page 440 of Mormon Doctrine. McConkie cites D&C 13 and Teachings, pp. 172-173

I know McConkie's "Mormon Doctrine" is not official Mormon Doctrine, but until I hear a better source, I will retain my present opinion on this.

Listen to what it says about the status of Sacrifice by Shedding of Blood in the Temple Endowment. I consider that a better source.

Edited February 23, 2012 by nackhadlow

[David T]

By the way, nobody can trace their lineage to Cain, period. Not now, not before, not ever.

Because most likely he was a mythologized construct in a polemic history. And then he gets somehow twisted up with Ham, who is another eponymous character in a just-so story to represent one third of the origins of the Table of Nations, and to explain the long-held animosity between his 'descendants' and the 'descendants' of Shem.

Notice it has only historically been the enemies of those nations who have taken it upon themselves to proclaim they knew the cursed ancestors where their geneology rooted out.

One might as constructively say that all modern Jews are cursed from the Priesthood because they're descended from Shylock. That wouldn't be absurd or racist at all, now would it?

Edited February 23, 2012 by nackhadlow