Priesthood Ban: Questions On Lineage

[Jeff K.]

Are you kidding? My dad said he used to raise Cain.

[dougtheavenger]

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?

Why would anyone want the priesthood? It consists entirely of obligation to serve others. So, the claim of being wronged by not having the priesthood is suspect. Those who were not eligible for the priesthood can not be held accountable for not taking it on any more than infants can be held accountable for not being baptized. Most people who make an issue of the priesthood restriction would under no circumstances accept the responsibilities entailed in being ordained.

[Calm]

Why would anyone want the priesthood? It consists entirely of obligation to serve others.

Doug, do you have it? If so do you plan to let others name, confirm and baptise your children?

Abraham seems to have thought it was pretty important to have for himself.

Edited February 23, 2012 by calmoriah

[cinepro]

Why would anyone want the priesthood? It consists entirely of obligation to serve others. So, the claim of being wronged by not having the priesthood is suspect.

Wow. I guess I've totally been misunderstanding the Oath and Covenant of the Priesthood all these years.

Elder Faust too...

The only way a man can make the maximum progress towards eternal life, for which mortality is designed, is to obtain and magnify the Melchizedek Priesthood. … It is of utmost importance that we keep clearly in mind what the magnifying of our callings in the priesthood requires of us. …

....................................

As part of the oath and covenant of the priesthood, the Lord makes several promises to His faithful sons “which he cannot break.” First, the priesthood holders “are sanctified by the Spirit unto the renewing of their bodies.” I think President Hinckley is a great example of this. He has been renewed in body, mind, and spirit in a most remarkable manner. Second, “they become the sons of Moses and of Aaron and the seed of Abraham.” Third, they become “the elect of God.” As His agents, they carry forth this holy work in our time on the earth. Fourth, “all they who receive this priesthood receive [the Lord].” Fifth, those who receive the Lord’s servants receive Him. Sixth, those who receive the Savior receive God the Father. Seventh, they also receive the Father’s kingdom. Eighth, they also shall be given all that the Father hath. Those who receive all that the Father hath can receive nothing more.

....................................

To be empowered to “bear this ministry and Priesthood unto all nations,” a man must receive the Melchizedek Priesthood with its blessings. Then through faithfulness he becomes an heir to the fulness of eternal life. For as Paul said, “And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.”

Yeah, why would anyone feel like they were missing out if they were being denied that.

Edited February 23, 2012 by cinepro

[dougtheavenger]

Doug, do you have it? If so do you plan to let others name, confirm and baptise your children?

Abraham seems to have thought it was pretty important to have for himself.

Of course I have the priesthood and of course I have baptized and blessed my children. The point is that the priesthood is all about obligation. It is not a corridor to power.

[dougtheavenger]

"The only way a man can make the maximum progress towards eternal life, for which mortality is designed, is to obtain and magnify the Melchizedek Priesthood. … It is of utmost importance that we keep clearly in mind what the magnifying of our callings in the priesthood requires of us. …

....................................

As part of the oath and covenant of the priesthood, the Lord makes several promises to His faithful sons “which he cannot break.” First, the priesthood holders “are sanctified by the Spirit unto the renewing of their bodies.” I think President Hinckley is a great example of this. He has been renewed in body, mind, and spirit in a most remarkable manner. Second, “they become the sons of Moses and of Aaron and the seed of Abraham.” Third, they become “the elect of God.” As His agents, they carry forth this holy work in our time on the earth. Fourth, “all they who receive this priesthood receive [the Lord].” Fifth, those who receive the Lord’s servants receive Him. Sixth, those who receive the Savior receive God the Father. Seventh, they also receive the Father’s kingdom. Eighth, they also shall be given all that the Father hath. Those who receive all that the Father hath can receive nothing more.

....................................

To be empowered to “bear this ministry and Priesthood unto all nations,” a man must receive the Melchizedek Priesthood with its blessings. Then through faithfulness he becomes an heir to the fulness of eternal life. For as Paul said, “And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.”

Children who die before the age of 8 "shall be given all that the Father hath". So will anyone who does not receive the priesthood through no fault of their own but would have accepted the responsibilities of the priesthood if called upon to do so. Your argument is like saying Jesus wanted to bleed at every pore and wanted to be crucified. That was not the case. Willingness to accept a burden is not the same as wanting the burden and the priesthood is a burden.

[KevinG]

I suspect most faithful Latter-day Saints don't really see the Priesthood and Temple sealings as a burden. Maybe the Scout Master and Bishop or the Stake Executive Secretary... but for the most part it is seen as a blessing.

[Bob Oliverio]

Going back to my original questions - What was the lineage of Elijah Able that allowed the Prophet Smith to discern his  worthiness and  provide the priesthood to him.  When did this discernment change, and why, that prevented other blacks from receiving such ordinance?

As a newcomer to the church, i just wanted to find if there ANY OFFICIAL statement on what Ables lineage was that allowed him the priesthood that was denied others of black skin or African American descent.

[KevinG]

Going back to my original questions - What was the lineage of Elijah Able that allowed the Prophet Smith to discern his worthiness and provide the priesthood to him. When did this discernment change, and why, that prevented other blacks from receiving such ordinance?

As a newcomer to the church, i just wanted to find if there ANY OFFICIAL statement on what Ables lineage was that allowed him the priesthood that was denied others of black skin or African American descent.

I think that is the rub with this whole topic. Despite the protests of those who want to justify it, ordination of blacks was not an unusual thing prior to the Saints being evicted from Nauvoo. I have seen cultural, practical, political and social reasons for not ordaining blacks (usually justifications coming from protestant traditions) but no one has ever shown me a scriptural or sustained doctrine that justifies the withholding of the priesthood. The phrase long awaited day in the official declaration does not imply the practice was ever doctrinal.

[BCSpace]

Yet the notion is also found in Christian scripture which predates American slavery by several thousand years. It is more logical and rational to say that justification for modern slavery is an erroneous and sinful outgrowth of true doctrine than the other way around.

It's only present in Christian scripture if you read it in there. I personally don't see it. There were major reasons to justify discrimination back in the day...it was their entire culture, belief, and in many ways the base of their economy and governing structures. A sense of God sanctioned discrimination or some form of spiritual superiority were quite usefull

The "notion" I'm talking about is not slavery or racial discrimination. I'm refering to blessings/bans based on lineage such as the Levites being the only ones to hold the priesthood in those days. This is what the Church refers to in it's doctrine and it's the reason why the modern priesthood ban cannot possibiliy be racist by any definition because the ban did not come about because of someone's skin color.

Edited February 27, 2012 by BCSpace

[Bikeemikey]

The "notion" I'm talking about is not slavery or racial discrimination. I'm refering to blessings/bans based on lineage such as the Levites being the only ones to hold the priesthood in those days. This is what the Church refers to in it's doctrine and it's the reason why the modern priesthood ban cannot possibiliy be racist by any definition because the ban did not come about because of someone's skin color.

This is all part of the reason many members of the church feel an apology would make sense - because the ideas you expressed above sound like total rubbish and have no scriptural or theological ground - that is unless you really really go totally out of your way to read it into the scriptures.

[Zeta-Flux]

This is all part of the reason many members of the church feel an apology would make sense - because the ideas you expressed above sound like total rubbish and have no scriptural or theological ground - that is unless you really really go totally out of your way to read it into the scriptures.

I disagree. I think it is not only quite easy to read such things into the scriptures, our previous apostles and prophets did so regularly before 1978. To test this, look in books published by the church, or by a church leader, or talks given by them. before 1978, and see if they used scriptures to back up their assertions.

I should note that one aspect that BCSpace is talking about is blessings/bans on lineages. This is a current doctrine of the church. The Book of Mormon is chalk full of blessings and curses on lineages. The next question is whether there have even been blessings/curses on lineages with respect to the priesthood. I think there is strong evidence that our scriptures support the idea that some lineages are different than others with respect to the priesthood. Whether this ties into the priesthood ban is, again, another question.

Edited February 27, 2012 by Zeta-Flux

[Avatar4321]

Of course I have the priesthood and of course I have baptized and blessed my children. The point is that the priesthood is all about obligation. It is not a corridor to power.

I guess that depends on how you define power. Because the Priesthood is all about power if you qualify for the power.

[Bob Oliverio]

This is all part of the reason many members of the church feel an apology would make sense - because the ideas you expressed above sound like total rubbish and have no scriptural or theological ground - that is unless you really really go totally out of your way to read it into the scriptures.

I would agree whole heartily.  The Church is so vulnerable to a national an international audience that is coming upon them.  

I'm a big fan of Romney.  I think in, an albeit limited and weak field of conservatives, he is the best choice.

But when he wins the GOP primary, the liberal blogs and PACS will have a field day with the priesthood ban on blacks. It's coming folks, and the feel-good self rationalizations we come to see on this board will no more be used for support that toothpicks in a tornado.  There are no intelligent explanations, in a public forum, that will be provided by Church leaders nor that will ever be statements with accountability that the Church will ever stand behind.!!!!    

An apology will be the only rational and reasonable way around this issue in public.  I just think it would make more sense to do it earlier than later.

[CMZ]

Maybe an apology could be issued but the thing with apologies is that they tend to go ignored. They could issue a new Proclamation stating, "Sorry about the racism some of our past leaders may have had or are perceived to have had and/or maybe really had," and a year later or less somebody would still be having a cow about them derned racist Mormons. I base this belief partly on the fact that is how human and anti-Mormon nature is and partly because Elder McConkie already said, "We were living on the best light and knowledge we had at the time and now we have more knowledge so now we operate on the better knowledge we have," yet people still talk about Mormons being racist.

I also had John Lund as an Institute teacher for a while and he had written a book pre-1978 about how the blacks would not be able to receive the Priesthood in the life. When the 1978 revelation (and it was a revelation) came he instantly and willingly changed his mind without any hesitation. He even good-naturedly laughed at himself for having written a book that was made obsolete only a few years later.

Having seen in another thread that there were people who claimed that the 1978 revelation was not joyfully received I felt strongly compelled to reactivate my membership at this board and affirmatively and profoundly declare otherwise. I simply cannot stay silent on this and I wish I had a trumpet to tell everyone what I am about to say. I was alive at the time and I do remember it well. I was coming up on 9 years old and heard about it in June 1978. When October came we gathered as a family around our old clunky TV to watch General Conference as was our tradition and my dad made very sure we were all around at the time that he thought would be the moment when the announcement was officially made to the Church and presented to the general Church membership for a sustaining vote. When President Tanner got up to the pulpit I remember my dad saying, "Everyone listen! Listen! I think this is when he's going to announce that the priesthood ban has been lifted." We were all excited about it and nobody was deflated by it.

Years later after my father passed away I found his journal from that time and read his excited recounting of the event. What I remember is what he wrote in June about how he first heard about it from one of my older sisters telling him the news. He said at first he didn't believe because it was engrained in everyone's mind that the ban was so strict but that he hoped it was true because he knew of so many faithful black members who were eagerly awaiting the full blessings of the Gospel. I couldn't do justice to his words here. They were profound and to me scriptural. I shared them with a couple other spiritually sensitive family members who were also deeply touched by it.

Even before 1978 my dad would talk about how he had been at a priesthood meeting (a stake one maybe?) where a brother spoke and said that the Blacks would not receive the Priesthood but after he finished speaking and sat down the stake patriarch got up to correct him and said something to the effect that it might be sooner than this brother thought.

I do understand that there were some vagaries that existed in Joseph Smith's and Brigham Young's time; one was largely for it while the other one was mostly against it but even that doesn't explain all the complexities. I think after their time Brigham Young's sentiments came to be seen as established policy and it went for almost a century like that. Whatever the case may be in that regard we did have future Presidents of the Church who earnestly prayed to be able to lift the ban (however the ban got started) and felt clear answers from the Lord that they were unable to at that time. So whatever we think about whether it was "doctrine" or just "policy" we can't ignore that some prophets were getting "no" answers when they personally wanted to be getting "yes" answers. Harold B. Lee was apparently pretty hard-line about it. I suppose he thought he was doing a good job by being an ultra-conservative on the point. Russell M. Nelson has said that if he wondered if the revelation could have only come to President Kimball and not to President Lee but that he (Elder Nelson) then received his own revelation stating that if President Lee had lived until 1978 that he would've been the one to receive the same revelation making known the mind and will of the Lord.

If you think the ban was racist I do realize that is the default thing to believe; it makes you appear gallant and non-racist and progressive. Far be it from to take that away from you. I do know full well that strains of racism have probably infected the minds of some church leaders in the past. I don't deny that. But clinging to "white guilt" forever is not the answer. The ban was not racist and if you don't understand that then withhold judgment until you can understand the issue better. Remember that the Lord God doeth nothing save it be for the benefit of the children of men. Try to see things through that lens. Realize that the Lord works on a different timetable and that his thoughts are not our thoughts and that we berate him for not thinking exactly like us. If you still don't understand the issue then read Elder Sitati's conference talk. I think few people realize he was speaking as a black man with a profound knowledge of the Gospel and of the Lord's timing in how the gospel is presented to the nations of the earth. If you still don't understand it then pray for understanding and strive to see this matter as it relates to other principles of the gospel. If you extricate this one principle from everything else it is easy to see it as, "The blacks were denied the Priesthood so that is obviously racism." But when you understand all the gospel better you will see God's profound love for each of his children and his watchcare over broad groups of his children. I also coincidentally found this thread one day after visiting a ward I don't normally go to and hearing a returned missionary couple speak about their amazing mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Just hearing them and their reports of how eagerly the gospel is accepted there (I believe they said a GA told them theirs was the highest baptizing mission in the Church and that they also had the highest retention rate [93%] in the entire Church) also gave me some impetus to post here again after quite some time away.

[CMZ]

The Book of Mormon is chalk full of blessings and curses on lineages.

"Chock" full

[CMZ]

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.

I'm not a super big fan of the idea of, "The blacks couldn't receive the priesthood because the whites weren't ready for them to have it yet." That's like a bishop interviewing a boy who just turned 12 to receive the Aaronic Priesthood and saying, "Let me talk to your enemies first and see what they think about you receiving the priesthood now. If they say they aren't ready yet then I'm afraid we're going to have to go along with their preference."

Edited February 27, 2012 by CMZ

[Deborah]

CMZ, I also remember that time clearly. I also believed that it might not be in my lifetime but I hoped it would be sooner having known a wonderful black family in a former ward. I honestly believe whatever the reasons for the ban, and they were not racist but something we don't quite understand, God could no longer withhold the blessings because of the proven faith of those few who bore testimony of the church and the BOM even with such a restriction. How many of us would have that kind of faith and humility.

[Darth_Bill]

If it was lineage, then there has to be definition of which lineage and clear linkage to the banned lineage. Was that ever done? My son is black and I would like something definite to talk to him about.

[Zeta-Flux]

If it was lineage, then there has to be definition of which lineage and clear linkage to the banned lineage. Was that ever done? My son is black and I would like something definite to talk to him about.

The policy changed at certain points. For example, at one point they clarified that it was only people of African descent, and not black people from (say) islands.

[cinepro]

Remember that the Lord God doeth nothing save it be for the benefit of the children of men. Try to see things through that lens.

But that is working from the assumption that the ban came from God.

What if we instead ask if the ban actually did come from God, and a factor in answering that question is to ask whether or not the ban really was "for the benefit of the children of men?"

If we are open to the idea that the ban might not have come from God, then instead of looking for reasons that it might have been good, we can instead look at the good and bad (and nonsensical) parts of it and judge it by the whole of its parts.

To me, the priesthood ban is like a rotted piece of wood, and trying to explain how it could have been "from God" is like trying to make the rotted piece of wood look good by painting it with thick blue paint. Sure, the coat of paint might make it look like it's solid, but even the slightest investigation reveals its fragility and unsoundness. Any way I look at it, once I start asking questions that go beyond the shallowest explanations, it falls to pieces as nonsensical, impractical, unfair, and unscriptural. It goes against the most basic principles of the gospel. And I suspect that other Church leaders, President Kimball foremost among them, had come to the same realization and that prompted their openness to change.

Edited February 27, 2012 by cinepro

[CMZ]

But that is working from the assumption that the ban came from God.

What if we instead ask if the ban actually did come from God, and a factor in answering that question is to ask whether or not the ban really was "for the benefit of the children of men?"

If we are open to the idea that the ban might not have come from God, then instead of looking for reasons that it might have been good, we can instead look at the good and bad (and nonsensical) parts of it and judge it by the whole of its parts.

To me, the priesthood ban is like a rotted piece of wood, and trying to explain how it could have been "from God" is like trying to make the rotted piece of wood look good by painting it with thick blue paint. Sure, the coat of paint might make it look like it's solid, but even the slightest investigation reveals its fragility and unsoundness. Any way I look at it, once I start asking questions that go beyond the shallowest explanations, it falls to pieces as nonsensical, impractical, unfair, and unscriptural. It goes against the most basic principles of the gospel. And I suspect that other Church leaders, President Kimball foremost among them, had come to the same realization and that prompted their openness to change.

I can only do so much to abate your personal lack of understanding. The hints are all over for those willing to see them.

[CMZ]

I honestly believe whatever the reasons for the ban, and they were not racist but something we don't quite understand, God could no longer withhold the blessings because of the proven faith of those few who bore testimony of the church and the BOM even with such a restriction.

Yes. In a nutshell, yes.

[cinepro]

I can only do so much to abate your personal lack of understanding. The hints are all over for those willing to see them.

You'll forgive me, but I've always been extremely dubious of hints that people can see only if they are "willing" to see them.

That might be how God works, but it's also how self delusion works, and I think God is smarter than to pick a method of communication that closely mirrors self-delusion.

Especially when the arguments against the divine origin theory for the Priesthood ban aren't "hints". They're clear and obvious to everyone. Believer and unbeliever alike.

Edited February 28, 2012 by cinepro

[katherine the great]

The policy changed at certain points. For example, at one point they clarified that it was only people of African descent, and not black people from (say) islands.

Which really sounds a little absurd now in light of the fact that DNA shows that all human beings on the planet are of African descent. Some of us just need to stretch a little further back in history to find it.