Resources on the Priesthood Ban from Times and Seasons

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Everybody:

Times & Seasons has a fantastic little editorial on this issue, filled with some excellent links. It also contains a plug for the Juvenile Instructor (Matt Bowman's great site) which hosts an extremely valuable collection of resources on this issue. Go there now and read up!

Edited February 29, 2012 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[Ares]

I split this off the closed thread because it has some worthwhile links. Thank you Jeremy.

Please, please, please avoid remarks about each others faithfulness when discussing this topic.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Thanks for the split.

I apologize to the mods and any posters I might have offended if it was any of my remarks in particular that contributed to the closure for being too personal; I was trying to stick to the arguments and issues, but I have a personal stake in the topic, and could have done better to temper the passion and post more calmly.

At any rate, the links above are good! People are doing fantastic research these days, and the 'net makes it so easy to access all this stuff!

[David T]

I think this is relevant: from a couple weeks ago's Worldwide Training Broadcast, via President Uchtdorf the Magnificent:

"Brothers and sisters, as good as our previous experience may be, if we stop asking questions, stop thinking, stop pondering, we can thwart the revelations of the Spirit. Remember, it was the questions young Joseph asked that opened the door for the restoration of all things. We can block the growth and knowledge our Heavenly Father intends for us. How often has the Holy Spirit tried to tell us something we needed to know but couldn’t get past the massive iron gate of what we thought we already knew?"

Edited February 29, 2012 by nackhadlow

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Bumpity-bump! Everyone should be familiar with these sources. Let's get to work spreading the word, peeps!

[frankenstein]

Not to mention that this happened in a completely different time and circumstance. To make this analogy work at all there would have had to have been a curse placed on the non-Levites...as well as rules they couldn't even enter the temple during their lifetimes. This is such a stretched comparison it strains credulity which is the reason it so incredibly lame. I say that as someone who used this one upon a time.

Could you explain what you find lame?

Using the Official position of the LDS consider the following.

Black Investigator to LDS Missionary: I am very well versed in the Bible, and the idea that God would without from one people and not another is completely the teachings found in the Bible.

LDS Missionary: From your studies of the Bible do you recall that Christ was only sent to a particular people to preach? The preaching to the gentiles was left to others? Also do you recall that the Levites had the preisthood and no other Tribe of Israel did?

Black Investigator: The Levites having the preisthood and no one does not explain why the LDS would withhold the preisthood from Blacks.

LDS Missionary: Yes, you are absolutely correct, the Levites having the preisthood and none else does not explain or provide the reasons Blacks could not be ordained in the LDS Church. However, the preisthood being limited to the Levites establishes, Biblically, that at time God does limited one people and not another.

Black Investigator: Thank you for you thoughtful response, and while I do not agree Blacks being limited to the preisthood, I do now realize that the Bible does demostrate that God has limited one people and not another.

Juliann is the Levite example, which the LDS Church uses lame? I am not clear what you are referring too as lame?

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

LDS Church statement:

We do not know the precise reason why....

And there we have it. The church is not supporting the dogmatic God did it position.

We don't know the reason for the priesthood ban. We don't know it. Why can't we just leave it at that? Many of us evidently learned nothing from Elder McConkie's famous talk at BYU in August 1978. Surely we should learn something from poor Randy Bott's current experience.

We don't know the reason.

We don't know the reason.

We just don't know it.

The LDS Church statement has not been published for even 10hours and members are misquoting the Church.

"We do not know the precise reason why" is quite completly different statement than saying "We do not know why". Not knowing the precise reason means there is some reason known. "We do not know why" means nothing is known.

If we are to get past this event, we should atleast present the correct position of the LDS Church, that correct position is the LDS Church via its currrent leadership does not know precisely why.

[wenglund]

I don't have a link, but I have a dream, and that is to see an end to race-baiting of all sorts, particularly in politics and religion. Rather than beating each other over the head with self-righteous indignation (often selectively and manipulatively) because of imperfections and differences in opinion and approach, perhaps we may be better served to direct our attention and efforts instead towards significant issues facing us as a people TODAY, like disease, disasters, poverty, struggling economies, terrorism, etc. There is nothing like a meaningful shared cause, in the here-and-now, to unite us and diminish the import of our differences and imperfections, and make virtually irrelevant the color of our skin or matters supposedly related thereto.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

"There is nothing like a meaningful shared cause, in the here-and-now, to unite us and diminish the import of our differences and imperfections."

I can agree with that. But I also think that racism is itself something worth targeting specifically -- in some ways just as serious as the other issues you mentioned. Certainly more common where I live, along with poverty. Just this afternoon (before I had seen the unpleasantness in the other thread) I was talking with some partners for a project at our college here in Portland, and we finished a little early, sticking around to continue the conversation.

We're all history majors, and the conversation drifted to national origins. We started talking about the local history of migrations to the area, and my half-black partner told us about the Coon Chicken Inn, a restaurant with an enormous caricatured black man's face used as a doorway. This horrible thing used to exist just a short bus ride away from the part of town where I used to live myself, and it lasted until the late 1950's -- all her family was certainly familiar with it.

In other words, my dad could have eaten there as a toddler if he'd moved to Portland sooner. This is not something from the far-distant past that we can just forget as if it's not still a pernicious problem. Just a bit of a ways down south from me is Lake Oswego, which is to this day often referred to as "Lake No-Negro".

I grew up on an extremely racist island in Hawaii, and I find it's no better here on the mainland, though there are different targets. I'm half Native-American/Spanish, but I spend so much time reading indoors that I'm pretty pale, showing my mom's German/Irish/Scottish side -- my brother is much more brown, and my dad has actually been mistaken for both black and Indian. I've been spit in the face and punched and kicked and pushed into urinals for being "haole", which technically means "foreigner" but in practice refers almost exclusively to "white people" (despite the fact that I was born on the island.) When my brother was traveling in Spain during heightened terrorist alerts, he was pulled over by a guy with a gun because he "looked suspicious". I've heard people cuss out my dad for being a "lazy illegal immigrant", despite the fact that he's a college-educated legal resident alien who performed in the Pan-American games and taught himself English (and speaks it better than most natives).

I don't say this for pity, but just to illustrate that this is still an ongoing problem. I've frankly lived a blissfully sheltered life in comparison to some of the stuff I've seen and heard about. I joined the Church knowing full well about the racist speculations put forth by previous leaders, but I had hoped that with the Revelation on Priesthood, that stuff was a fading memory. To find that the same justifications are being used in 2012 is simply stomach-churning.

Edited March 1, 2012 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[ilyan]

One possibility most have never considered when discussing the issue of why blacks did not receive the priesthood until 1978 is this: Perhaps it was not because they had to wait, but because in the pre-mortal council they chose to wait. Perhaps blacks were among the most valiant in the pre-mortal war, and because of their valiant stand against Lucifer, they knew they would incur the brunt of his deceptions and wrath in the flesh, becoming Lucifer's highest priority targets during mortality. Perhaps they agreed to wait to gain the priesthood near the end of the last dispensation in order to prevent Lucifer from leveraging even more of his influence among them through priesthood misuse. Perhaps blacks were among the most faithful, patient, longsuffering, Christlike souls in the pre-mortal realm, knowing that the vast majority of them would only be able to receive the priesthood ordinances vicariously after waiting many centuries in the spirit world. Perhaps they are the noblest of souls, but we do not see it because we cannot remember anything prior to birth, and we only see and judge the outward traits of the flesh in mortal life. Certainly, we do not have the whole picture. But Jesus Christ does, and whatever he does is ultimately in the best interest of all who follow him, regardless of skin color. All things work together for good for all who love the Lord.

Now, there are those who will say I am racist because of other perspectives I have speculated upon in a thread that is now locked, titled An Unfortunate Attempt To Explain The Pre-1978 Restriction On Priesthood. I am not in the least degree racist. I love all people regardless of skin color or place of birth. I am merely speculating on this subject, and some speculation is simply not going to be popular. However, what I have just described in this post should surely turn the tables and squelch any cries of racism. Unless now the white folks want to shout racism and state that by suggesting blacks were more valiant in the pre-existence, I am implying that whites are second class in the eyes of God. Perhaps we are. I don't know. I think we are all equal in the eyes of our Heavenly Father. God is no respecter of persons. I do know we all have unimpeded access to the fullness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, so no one needs to squawk.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

It's still utterly unfounded speculation, ilyan. I wish you would please stop.

And not to be a self-appointed board-nanny, but I'm not sure this is the place to continue the argument from the other thread, which was closed with a pretty definitive statement.

Edited March 1, 2012 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[Jeff K.]

If you disagree it is a patronizingly racist argument. If you agree, you are an enlightened man of the ages. Wow.

There are a myriad of reason which may include caucasions not being ready, but if you deviate from the absolutist argument, well, we know that the people who claim they don't know are merely troglodytes of the lowest order.

I don't know, I will wait for greater light and knowledge.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

I edited out the phrase "patronizingly racist argument" before I saw your post, Jeff, because I didn't think it would help. I disagree with you, but it's old ground at this point and everyone knows where everyone stands.

Edited March 1, 2012 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[Calm]

And not to be a self-appointed board-nanny, but I'm not sure this is the place to continue the argument from the other thread, which was closed with a pretty definitive statement.

It's your thread, you get to decide how broad or narrow a topic you want according to the rules, last I checked.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Well, technically I didn't start this as a separate thread myself. *grin* But I'm not complaining -- every time it's bumped, those excellent resources are in the first post people see. Let the rest of the thread devolve as it may, I say.

[wenglund]

I have a bit of a different perspective. I came of age in the Seattle area at the height of the civil rights movement. I recall being frequently blamed, under the broad brush of "white people," for slavery and all the ills derived therefrom, and this even though my dad's family didn't migrate to the U.S. from Finland and Germany until the early 1900's, long after slavery was abolished. I recall the same broad brush was used to accuse me of racism, though I defied anyone to demonstrate it in the least. I was also considered a racist simply because of my membership in the Church, and I was around when various schools boycotted BYU sports. I also worked at the Seattle Center, where the race riots broke out (though I was off that day), and blacks went back into their neighborhood and began burning down their own homes.

Even still, I enthusiastically participated in school exchange programs where my virtually all-white high school in Bellevue exchanged assemblies with some of the all-black schools, and I was quite sensitive and attentive to the plight of blacks, and I went out of my way to befriend people of color and worked, in whatever ways I could, towards equality. I dedicated a year of my life working in the inner-city of Seattle teaching mostly people of color how to use computers and the Internet.

So, I have seen where things stood racially way back then, and how far things have come since that time.

Yet, even though we can talk of all the mixed raced children around us (something that was quite rare back in the day), and gratefully we can find people of color infused in nearly every walk of life and throughout every socio-economic strata, and even though a person of color has been elected president of the United States, etc. etc., I still continue to hear the same o'l accusations of racism and cries of woe, and I have to wonder where is the recognition and acknowledgment of the progress and all the good that has been done? What will it take for certain people to become okay with less than perfect and somewhat unfair situations, like the rest of us (we all have our tales of woe), and move past the victimology to empowerment? After 50 years or so since things started turning for the better, what will it take to finally put this issue into proper perspective so that our resources can be devoted to far more pressing issues?

I suppose we each have to decide that for ourselves.

For me, and for a variety of good reasons, I moved on a long time ago, and after 50 years I guess I have grow somewhat weary of the persistent whining and accusation, though I suppose I should be a little more tolerant of those who still feel inclined to flog the white man and the LDS Church.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited March 1, 2012 by wenglund

[selek1]

It's still utterly unfounded speculation, ilyan. I wish you would please stop.

And not to be a self-appointed board-nanny, but I'm not sure this is the place to continue the argument from the other thread, which was closed with a pretty definitive statement.

And...for the first time since this brouhaha was begun, Jeremy and I are in complete agreement.

Speculation, as a rule, is generally a waste of time.

Unfounded and uninformed speculation- absent any sort of anchor in demonstrable fact- is even more so.

Unfounded and uniformed speculation whose sole (or perhaps soul) purpose is to perpetuate ugly stereotypes and reopen wounds that are finally starting to heal is, in my opinion, disrespectul and destructive.

Please desist.

[Minos]

Now, there are those who will say I am racist because of other perspectives I have speculated upon in a thread that is now locked, titled An Unfortunate Attempt To Explain The Pre-1978 Restriction On Priesthood. I am not in the least degree racist. I love all people regardless of skin color or place of birth. I am merely speculating on this subject, and some speculation is simply not going to be popular. .

It is not popular with the mods so stop unnecessary speculation that other posters object to. It can result in removal from the thread.

[Saints Alive]

Am I to understand that speculation is no longer allowed on this forum?

*I don’t mean to sound flippant or anything just curious.

Edited March 1, 2012 by Saints Alive

[cinepro]

And...for the first time since this brouhaha was begun, Jeremy and I are in complete agreement.

Speculation, as a rule, is generally a waste of time.

Unfounded and uninformed speculation- absent any sort of anchor in demonstrable fact- is even more so.

Unfounded and uniformed speculation whose sole (or perhaps soul) purpose is to perpetuate ugly stereotypes and reopen wounds that are finally starting to heal is, in my opinion, disrespectul and destructive.

Please desist.

So you think Brigham Young was in error when he speculated that blacks shouldn't have the Priesthood?

[JDave]

So you think Brigham Young was in error when he speculated that blacks shouldn't have the Priesthood?

Why, are you speculating that Brigham Young speculated that blacks shouldn't have the Priesthood? Lacking documentation it is all speculation regarding the origin of the ban.

I believe the most recent statement of the Church says that we don't know the when or why the ban started. It also declared that any statements by anyone, church leaders or not, trying to explain the why are NOT church doctrine.

[Saints Alive]

Why, are you speculating that Brigham Young speculated that blacks shouldn't have the Priesthood? Lacking documentation it is all speculation regarding the origin of the ban.

I believe the most recent statement of the Church says that we don't know the when or why the ban started. It also declared that any statements by anyone, church leaders or not, trying to explain the why are NOT church doctrine.

BY did say some rather inflammatory things about those of African descent in the JofD

[Freedom]

Since we are all speculating, here is mine. We don't know why and assuming that past leaders were wrong, or that the ban was intended is all academic. Er, perhaps that was a statement of fact...

I can accept that the ban was sanctioned by God but that some of the controversial reasons were not. If racism is proof of a false religion then all religions are false which leaves a paradox. There can only be a God if he fits our paradigm. This creates an impossible standard.

[cinepro]

I believe the most recent statement of the Church says that we don't know the when or why the ban started. It also declared that any statements by anyone, church leaders or not, trying to explain the why are NOT church doctrine.

The Church seems to have adopted a two step plan for dealing with the Priesthood Ban:

1. Stop it in June of 1978

2. Repeatedly ask people to not think or talk about it. It's over!

I would suggest that in the coming months, the Church is going to learn it is either paying way too much for it's PR firm, or not nearly enough.

Edited March 1, 2012 by cinepro

[juliann]

It might be useful to see what the church specifically disavowed in the statement about Bott's comments in the yesterday news release. I have taken direct quotes that have been attributed to Bott from the Washington Post article.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/the-genesis-of-a-churchs-stand-on-race/2012/02/22/gIQAQZXyfR_story.html

The church's response to specific comments was:

The positions attributed to BYU professor Randy Bott in a recent Washington Post article absolutely do not represent the teachings and doctrines of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

• According to Mormon scriptures, the descendants of Cain, who killed his brother, Abel, “were black.”
  

• Bott points to the Mormon holy text the Book of Abraham as suggesting that all of the descendants of Ham and Egyptus were thus black and barred from the priesthood.
  

• Bott compares blacks with a young child prematurely asking for the keys to her father’s car, and explains that similarly until 1978, the Lord determined that blacks were not yet ready for the priesthood.
  

• “God has always been discriminatory” when it comes to whom he grants the authority of the priesthood, says Bott, the BYU theologian.
  

• Bott says that the denial of the priesthood to blacks on Earth — although not in the afterlife — protected them from the lowest rungs of hell reserved for people who abuse their priesthood powers.
  

So....using these rationales to uphold a ban is in conflict with the church.

1. Assigning black lineage ".....absolutely do not represent the teachings and doctrines of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."

2. Blacks were not ready ".....absolutely do not represent the teachings and doctrines of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."

3. God has always discriminated (i.e., the so-called Levite ban) ".....absolutely do not represent the teachings and doctrines of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."

4. Blacks needed to be protected for their own good ".....absolutely do not represent the teachings and doctrines of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."

[cinepro]

Bott says that the denial of the priesthood to blacks on Earth — although not in the afterlife — protected them from the lowest rungs of hell reserved for people who abuse their priesthood powers.

This one is new to me. Does anyone remember ever hearing this argument during the Priesthood ban (i.e. before 1978)? Or is this a new argument that was invented after the more traditional explanations fell out of favor?

Edited March 1, 2012 by cinepro