Priesthood Ban: Questions On Lineage

[cinepro]

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.

So I can believe the Priesthood ban came from God, but I should also believe that all living people, including LDS, were descended from Africans and therefore were ineligible for the Priesthood and Temple blessings until 1978?

My head 'splode!

[CMZ]

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.

Are you sure everything about the gospel is plain and easy to understand?

The words of Isaiah are not plain unto you, nevertheless they are plain unto all those that are filled with the spirit of prophecy. 2 Nephi 2:25

[CMZ]

1 And Jesus answered and spake unto them again by parables, and said,

2 The kingdom of heaven is like unto a certain king, which ^amade a ^bmarriage for his son,

3 And sent forth his servants to call them that were bidden to the wedding: and ^athey would not come.

4 Again, he sent forth other servants, saying, Tell them which are bidden, Behold, I have prepared my dinner: my oxen and my fatlings are killed, and all things are ready: come unto the marriage.

5 But they made light of it, and went their ways, one to his farm, another to his merchandise:

6 And the remnant took his servants, and entreated them spitefully, and slew them.

7 But when the king heard thereof, he was wroth: and he sent forth his armies, and destroyed those murderers, and burned up their city.

8 Then saith he to his servants, The wedding is ready, but they which were bidden were not worthy.

9 Go ye therefore into the highways, and as many as ye shall find, bid to the marriage.

10 So those servants went out into the highways, and ^agathered together all as many as they found, both bad and good: and the wedding was furnished with guests.

Edited February 28, 2012 by CMZ

[CMZ]

The love of our Father in Heaven has been evident as the way has been opened for all living and dead of every nation, now and in the future, to receive exaltation in His presence, according to the exercise of their agency. The standard is the same, and the blessing is the same for all. God has reaffirmed that He is no respecter of persons.

The gospel has gone forth on the earth in a pattern that ensures that God’s purposes to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man are fulfilled.

Elder Joseph W. Sitati (from Kenya) http://www.lds.org/g...to-all?lang=eng (best to read the whole talk; hint hint)

Edited February 28, 2012 by CMZ

[Zeta-Flux]

katherine,

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.

Not really, as the ban was on a specific lineage from Africa, and the common ancestors of which you speak left there long before then. [if you are going to argue against something, at least argue against what it really says.]

[i should add that it appears that there are some people in the Bible, such as some of Joseph's children, who had Egyptian heritage. In my mind, that would be a valid argument.]

Edited February 28, 2012 by Zeta-Flux

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Are you sure everything about the gospel is plain and easy to understand?

Pretty much.

"Yea, and the voice of the Lord, by the mouth of angels, doth declare it unto all nations; yea, doth declare it, that they may have glad tidings of great joy; yea, and he doth sound these glad tidings among all his people, yea, even to them that are scattered abroad upon the face of the earth; wherefore they have come unto us. And they are made known unto us in plain terms, that we may understand, that we cannot err." -- Alma 13:22

"And then shall ye know that I have seen Jesus, and that he hath talked with me face to face, and that he told me in plain humility, even as a man telleth another in mine own language, concerning these things." -- Ether 12:39

"Neither will the Lord God suffer that the Gentiles shall forever remain in that awful state of blindness, which thou beholdest they are in, because of the plain and most precious parts of the gospel of the Lamb which have been kept back." -- 1 Nephi 13:32

"And there was also written upon them a new writing, which was plain to be read, which did give us understanding concerning the ways of the Lord." -- 1 Nephi 16:29

"For none of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he doeth that which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile." -- 2 Nephi 26:33

"And now I, Nephi, cannot say more; the Spirit stoppeth mine utterance, and I am left to mourn because of the unbelief, and the wickedness, and the ignorance, and the stiffneckedness of men; for they will not search knowledge, nor understand great knowledge, when it is given unto them in plainness, even as plain as word can be." -- 2 Nephi 32:7

So can we please cut the mystical holier-than-thou nonsense about "hints" that the Ban was somehow righteous? Even if "lineage" didn't mean the exact same thing as race in this context, how is that any better?

It. Was. Wrong.

Ed Kimball's BYU Studies paper on his father, President Spencer W. Kimball's Revelation on the Priesthood.

See also: Noah's Curse: The Biblical Justification of American Slavery

Edited February 28, 2012 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[CMZ]

Jeremy, just keep going through all the scriptures. You've made a good start, but you're not done yet. And the ones you've quoted mention "plain" or "plainness" but none of them say that every single principle of the gospel is easy to understand right at first. Just because 2 Nephi 32 says that people didn't understand things that were plain or just because the Liahona had plain writing on it does not mean that everything stated by the Lord or by his authorized servants is "plain." You're going to have a very hard time holding up that idea. There's many scriptures and other statements that say otherwise.

After teaching the multitude the parable of the four kinds of soil, Jesus admonished them, “Who hath ears to hear, let him hear” (Matthew 13:9). This statement signaled to His listeners that what the Savior had just said was more than just a nice story. The disciples later came to Him and asked, “Why speakest thou unto them [the multitude] in parables?” (Matthew 13:10). The Savior’s answer is at first puzzling. He explained that He taught that way because the multitude refused to see and hear spiritual truths. Elder Bruce R. McConkie pointed out the significance of the Savior’s use of parables:

“Our Lord used parables on frequent occasions during his ministry to teach gospel truths. His purpose, however, in telling these short stories was not to present the truths of his gospel in plainness so that all his hearers would understand. Rather it was so to phrase and hide the doctrine involved that only the spiritually literate would understand it, while those whose understandings were darkened would remain in darkness. (Matt. 13:10–17; [JST], Matt. 21:34.) It is never proper to teach any person more than his spiritual capacity qualifies him to assimilate.” (Mormon Doctrine, p. 553.) http://www.lds.org/manual/old-testament-student-manual-genesis-2-samuel/enrichment-section-c?lang=eng

[CMZ]

Jeremy, just keep going through all the scriptures. You've made a good start, but you're not done yet. And the ones you've quoted mention "plain" or "plainness" but none of them say that every single principle of the gospel is easy to understand right at first. Just because 2 Nephi 32 says that people didn't understand things that were plain or just because the Liahona had plain writing on it does not mean that everything stated by the Lord or by his authorized servants is "plain." You're going to have a very hard time holding up that idea. There's many scriptures and other statements that say otherwise.

After teaching the multitude the parable of the four kinds of soil, Jesus admonished them, “Who hath ears to hear, let him hear” (Matthew 13:9). This statement signaled to His listeners that what the Savior had just said was more than just a nice story. The disciples later came to Him and asked, “Why speakest thou unto them [the multitude] in parables?” (Matthew 13:10). The Savior’s answer is at first puzzling. He explained that He taught that way because the multitude refused to see and hear spiritual truths. Elder Bruce R. McConkie pointed out the significance of the Savior’s use of parables:

“Our Lord used parables on frequent occasions during his ministry to teach gospel truths. His purpose, however, in telling these short stories was not to present the truths of his gospel in plainness so that all his hearers would understand. Rather it was so to phrase and hide the doctrine involved that only the spiritually literate would understand it, while those whose understandings were darkened would remain in darkness. (Matt. 13:10–17; [JST], Matt. 21:34.) It is never proper to teach any person more than his spiritual capacity qualifies him to assimilate.” (Mormon Doctrine, p. 553.) http://www.lds.org/m...tion-c?lang=eng

I might add that is also unmerciful to teach somebody more than they are ready to receive.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Yeah, I find that interpretation by McConkie about "hiding" truth so some people would "remain in darkness" to be pretty much baloney.

Christ is the Light.

[CMZ]

The Prophet Joseph Smith said: “The multitude … received not His saying … because they were not willing to see with their eyes, and hear with their ears; not because they could not, and were not privileged to see and hear, but because their hearts were full of iniquity and abominations. … The very reason why the multitude … did not receive an explanation upon His parables, was because of unbelief” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, sel. Joseph Fielding Smith [1976], 96–97).

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

So, erm, why can't the obvious wrongness of the Priesthood Ban be one of the things that some people are not willing to see with their eyes or hear with their ears, because their hearts are full of iniquity and abominations? Why do so few people take the time to read Ed Kimball's paper, which lays out step-by-step the entire historical process involved? Why do so many seek to mingle the philosophies of men with scripture, and try to come up with (quite insulting) speculative explanations for why the Ban was right? Do they suffer from unbelief, specifically of the very first chapter of the D&C which states that inasmuch as Church authorities err, they may be corrected if they seek wisdom?

[CMZ]

Yeah, I find that interpretation by McConkie about "hiding" truth so some people would "remain in darkness" to be pretty much baloney.

Christ is the Light.

LOL I was tempted to add, "Oh, but that's McConkie so it doesn't count." Anyways forget McConkie (although you would still have to explain why Christ spoke in parables). Let's just stick with the scriptures. And let's start with your idea of Christ being the Light:

Behold, I am Jesus Christ, the ^aSon of God. I am the same that came unto mine ^bown, and mine own received me not. I am the ^clight which shineth in ^ddarkness, and the darkness comprehendeth it not. D&C 6:21

2 ^aGreat is his wisdom, ^bmarvelous are his ways, and the extent of his doings none can find out. D&C 76:2

And to them will I reveal all mysteries, yea, all the hidden mysteries of my kingdom from days of old, and for ages to come, will I make known unto them the good pleasure of my will concerning all things pertaining to my kingdom. D&C 76:7

(Wait, why are there mysteries at all if everything's so plain?)

Behold, he bringeth to pass the resurrection of the dead. But behold, my son, the resurrection is not yet. Now, I unfold unto you a mystery; nevertheless, there are many mysteries which are kept, that no one knoweth them save God himself. Alma 40:3

In other words, a mystery can be unfolded (implying a progressive state, rather than instant understanding) and that there are still mysteries only God knows.

Our minds being now enlightened, we began to have the ^ascriptures laid open to our understandings, and the ^btrue meaning and intention of their more ^cmysterious passages revealed unto us in a manner which we never could attain to previously, nor ever before had thought of. JS-H 1:74.

(Wait, why are there "more mysterious passages" if everything's so plain?)

http://www.lds.org/scriptures/tg/mysteries-of-godliness.t1?lang=eng&letter=m

[CMZ]

Why do so few people take the time to read Ed Kimball's paper, which lays out step-by-step the entire historical process involved?

I read it a couple years ago. I have his whole big unedited "Lengthen Your Stride" book. It was great stuff. It was however not the full explanation. Did Ed say he thought Church leaders should apologize? That's one bit I don't remember.

[CMZ]

Do they suffer from unbelief, specifically of the very first chapter of the D&C which states that inasmuch as Church authorities err, they may be corrected if they seek wisdom?

Yes, that concept comes into play if they actually erred. The fact that an authority can seek wisdom to correct an error doesn't mean everything they do is an error. And many Presidents of the Church did pray to seek wisdom on the matter and received a "no" answer to lifting the ban at the time (however vague the beginnings of the "ban" may have been) that went against their own personal feelings. In cases like that I hardly think it was an instance of a church authority erring. Unless their "error" was being non-racist (now I'm tying my mind up in knots).

Edited February 28, 2012 by CMZ

[Storm Rider]

For me this topic about history is just that; it is history. If it was wrong, then those men will be held accountable in the eternities. If it was right, then the blessings for those that had to wait will be all the greater. Regardless, the fact that it existed will not hinder one soul from entering the Celestial Kingdom.

If there is an idealist out there that thinks life is fair, pull your head out. Life is not fair and never has been fair. It is what we do about that unfairness that is important.

[CMZ]

"Regardless, the fact that it existed will not hinder one soul from entering the Celestial Kingdom."

Yes.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Of course life isn't fair. But I refuse to worship a God who isn't.

Why are there still mysteries? Maybe because people treat stuff like the Priesthood Ban as some great unexplainable mystery which was really For The Good despite all the evidence to the contrary?

"Behold, here is the agency of man, and here is the condemnation of man; because that which was from the beginning is plainly manifest unto them, and they receive not the light." -- D&C 93:31

Christ didn't teach in parables to obscure the truth, He used the common vernacular to speak the language that everyday people would understand. As was correctly noted, He is the revealer of mysteries; yet some still sin by taking "away light and truth, through disobedience, from the children of men, and because of the tradition of their fathers." -- D&C 93:39

I'll concede that there are still mysteries, but I won't concede that it's anyone's fault but our own. "I want your prayers and faith, the instruction of Almighty God, and the gift of the Holy Ghost, that I may set forth things that are true and easily comprehended. [...] When we know how to come to Him, He begins to unfold the Heavens to us and tell us all about it." -- Joseph Smith, King Follett Discourse

But no, no, what am I thinking, you're right, clearly it's impossible for racism to have played a part in the Ban. It's all part of God's Plan, we just need to take the hint and open our minds. The Lord works in "mysterious ways", despite the fact that that phrase is not actually found in the Bible.

[LeSellers]

Christ didn't teach in parables to obscure the truth,

Not so. He said He used parables precisely so some people would not understand.

9 And he said unto them, He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.

10 And when he was alone, they that were about him with the twelve asked of him the parable. 11 And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables: 12 That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.

13 And he said unto them, Know ye not this parable? and how then will ye know all parables?

Even the Apostles didn't get it, and this is one of the easiest of all of the parables He used to illustrate the Gospel and hide it at the same time.

He used the common vernacular to speak the language that everyday people would understand.

That was not the purpose of a parable, even for those who were ready to understand it. The purpose was so they would remember it.

As was correctly noted, He is the revealer of mysteries; yet some still sin by taking "away light and truth, through disobedience, from the children of men, and because of the tradition of their fathers." -- D&C 93:39

Christ brings light and truth, but He does not impose them on any one.

In fact, it is better for some people that they do not understand because the will not be held accountable for their neglect of the law they are breaking. God, in His love for His children, only defines "sin" as willful rebellion against His commandments. If one does not know the commandment, he is not guilty of sin, even though he may still suffer the physical or temporal consequences of the breach. (The Word of Wisdom is one well known example).

Lehi

Edited February 28, 2012 by LeSellers

[Jeff K.]

Of course life isn't fair. But I refuse to worship a God who isn't.

Very ego centric don't you think? After all is your view of fair accurate? Do you know what occurred before, what is occurring now, and what will occur in the future? If you do not fill these criteria with knowledge and wisdom, then how can you honestly judge what is fair and what isn't?

Christ didn't teach in parables to obscure the truth, He used the common vernacular to speak the language that everyday people would understand. As was correctly noted, He is the revealer of mysteries; yet some still sin by taking "away light and truth, through disobedience, from the children of men, and because of the tradition of their fathers." -- D&C 93:39

Let those with ears hear..... apparently it was to obscure the truth to some.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Clearly we read the scriptures differently. I find it pretty bizarre to view Christ being deliberately opaque. I read Him as calling people to come understand, line upon line, precept upon precept, but recognizing that some won't no matter how clearly He tries to reach them. If they are incapable of understanding the story, what good does it do anyone to remember it?

I find condescending sentiments such as "it is better for some people that they do not understand because they will not be held accountable for their neglect of the law they are breaking" to be shockingly against the Gospel, in which we are specifically commissioned to bring further light and truth to people. Being held accountable for our progression is something we fought to have the right to in the premortal existence. That's the entire point of our time of probation. How can we say it's "better" for "some people" (who, specifically?) that they don't take part in the fundamental purpose of the Plan?

At any rate, we're getting sidetracked onto a tangent here.

Let's bring it back to the fundamental question: if there is no legitimate scriptural or Prophetic justification for the Priesthood Ban (and if one reads the aforementioned paper instead of blithely and blatantly ignoring it -- despite the fact that it answers every single justification for the Ban which has surfaced with monotonously clockwork regularity in this thread -- it is exceedingly clear that there isn't) then why do we insist on concocting retroactive excuses for it?

Yes, it's "egocentric" of me to try to judge what is fair or not by my finite corruptible mortal mind using what information I currently have. That's all I can do.

(Evidently it's not egocentric to judge me to be egocentric, despite the extreme paucity of information available to y'all about me, but hey. I think Christ taught a parable about motes and beams once, but I can't quite remember it, so obviously I wasn't one of those with eyes to see or ears to hear through the deliberate obfuscation.)

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

I think cinepro expressed it quite well on the last page, so QFT:

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.

[LeSellers]

I find it pretty bizarre to view Christ being deliberately opaque.

Then how do you interpret Mark 4:9~13 (and Luke 8:9~10)?

He says, explicitly and clearly (no parables here), that some people are given the understanding of the parables, and others are not.

Most teachers, especially Oriental teachers, have used some form of parable in their instruction, but none so exclusively as Jesus at one period of his ministry. During part of the Galilean ministry the record states that “without a parable spake he not unto them”. From our Lord’s words we learn the reason for this method. It was to veil the meaning. The parable conveys to the hearer religious truth exactly in proportion to his faith and intelligence; to the dull and uninspired it is a mere story, “seeing they see not,” while to the instructed and spiritual it reveals the mysteries or secrets of the kingdom of heaven. Thus it is that the parable exhibits the condition of all true knowledge. Only he who seeks finds.

The Bible Dictionary is not a doctrinal source, but it is reasonable grounds on which to base an opinion, as I have done (as well as on a host of other, similar, statements). At a bare minimum, it demonstrates that I am not alone in viewing it thus.

Lehi

Edited February 28, 2012 by LeSellers

[katherine the great]

katherine,

Not really, as the ban was on a specific lineage from Africa, and the common ancestors of which you speak left there long before then. [if you are going to argue against something, at least argue against what it really says.]

Well, let's get specific then. What specific genetic lineage from Africa was banned? Cain? Canaan? (neither of whom were African.) Is this lineage passed only from father to son or does it apply to all descendants of this cursed person? My knowledge of genetics is making it difficult for me to make sense of any blanket reference to "African lineage" as it seems to be being applied here. The only thing that makes sense to me is that European Americans tend to lump all black African people together as if they are some homogenous group. Nothing could be further from the truth. There is more variation in African DNA than any other group of people on earth, and the truth is that we all trace our ancestry back to Africa.

[Jeff K.]

Clearly we read the scriptures differently. I find it pretty bizarre to view Christ being deliberately opaque. I read Him as calling people to come understand, line upon line, precept upon precept, but recognizing that some won't no matter how clearly He tries to reach them. If they are incapable of understanding the story, what good does it do anyone to remember it?

I find condescending sentiments such as "it is better for some people that they do not understand because they will not be held accountable for their neglect of the law they are breaking" to be shockingly against the Gospel, in which we are specifically commissioned to bring further light and truth to people. Being held accountable for our progression is something we fought to have the right to in the premortal existence. That's the entire point of our time of probation. How can we say it's "better" for "some people" (who, specifically?) that they don't take part in the fundamental purpose of the Plan?

At any rate, we're getting sidetracked onto a tangent here.

Let's bring it back to the fundamental question: if there is no legitimate scriptural or Prophetic justification for the Priesthood Ban (and if one reads the aforementioned paper instead of blithely and blatantly ignoring it -- despite the fact that it answers every single justification for the Ban which has surfaced with monotonously clockwork regularity in this thread -- it is exceedingly clear that there isn't) then why do we insist on concocting retroactive excuses for it?

Yes, it's "egocentric" of me to try to judge what is fair or not by my finite corruptible mortal mind using what information I currently have. That's all I can do.

(Evidently it's not egocentric to judge me to be egocentric, despite the extreme paucity of information available to y'all about me, but hey. I think Christ taught a parable about motes and beams once, but I can't quite remember it, so obviously I wasn't one of those with eyes to see or ears to hear through the deliberate obfuscation.)

I try to look at the scriptures in context of what was written, including times when Christ told his followers and those he helped specifically not to discuss what occurred. One cannot assume it to be bizarre if it occurs rather frequently. I would suggest you review some of the scriptures. Since Christ never went shockingly against the Gospel, one is forced to ask if perhaps your interpretation is in error. Which begs the question of such confidence in your own ego centric view (which would end learning beyond what you wish to learn).

It can be egocentric to judge you as being egocentric or I am more open and prone to believe I can be in error, however that does not mean I cannot view an action as being an egocentric action, like saying the sun is shining. Some things are obvious judgements.

I personally choose not to judge God as being fair or unfair, I do not think God is cruel when bad things happen to good people, while I may not be able to explain what has occurred, part of faith implies understanding at some point God's fairness and love will manifest itself regardless of how I view the present circumstances. It believe it is egregious to view and judge God in such a way since it presumes the finite can judge the infinite, that ignorance can trump wisdom, and a special love for all of us brought on by the atonement, can be minimized by our own limited knowledge of love.

Since we do not know the reasoning behind the priesthood ban, we cannot know if it is accurate to say one way or another, my caveat is that if it is of God then by virtue of the source it must be fair, just and wise. I simply do not know of the source and I have not received revelation telling me either, so I cannot tell.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

I see the parables in Mark and Luke to be simplified versions of teachings which the Apostles were given in full. Milk before meat; the Apostles, traveling with Christ, had more time and experience for Christ to go into depth with. There is a "secret teaching", especially in the 40-day literature, etc., but that's a separate issue.

Regardless, we're still getting off the subject, which is related to this utterly unfounded misconception:

"Since we do not know the reasoning behind the priesthood ban ..."

We do know! I've been jumping around in every thread this comes up in, yelling as loud as I can, and yet this objection still crops up, and the reason it crops up is because people don't read Ed Kimball's paper. If you want to know the reasoning, read the paper! Spencer W. Kimball and the Revelation on the Priesthood, by his son, Ed Kimball, for BYU Studies

(And as far as telling me to review the scriptures, can we knock it off? I read them every day. If I come to a different conclusion that some, it's not for lack of "review".)

I personally choose not to judge God as being fair or unfair,

This is, in fact, a judgment.

I do not think God is cruel when bad things happen to good people,

Which is a judgment you have made of His character, based on your limited understanding of how He works.

God's fairness and love will manifest itself regardless of how I view the present circumstances.

Assuming that your finite judgment of God's "fairness and love" is accurate.

It believe it is egregious to view and judge God in such a way since it presumes the finite can judge the infinite,

Which implies a preexisting personal judgment based on incomplete finite understanding that the finite cannot judge the infinite.

Since we do not know the reasoning behind the priesthood ban,

In your judgment.

we cannot know if it is accurate to say one way or another,

In your judgment.

my caveat is that if it is of God then by virtue of the source it must be fair, just and wise.

Which is a conclusion you have reached based on your personal finite judgment of the infinite.

Edited February 28, 2012 by JeremyOrbe-Smith