Resources on the Priesthood Ban from Times and Seasons

[Jeff K.]

Why give the speculation of one man equal validity of the church which states they don't know? I think he's wrong.

[juliann]

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?

I think it was always a last gasp sort of thing that has fallen out of favor because it is so blatantly disrespectful. It was the thing pulled out after listing all the other reasons to say I'm not a racist because I really care about those folks. This is still periodically pulled out about women, though. Must have been around the 60s, The Fascinating Woman era, that there was a popular book out espousing the idea that women could never be sons of perdition because they lacked the priesthood.

Jeff K: Why give the speculation of one man equal validity of the church which states they don't know? I think he's wrong.

The church gave his speculation "validity" by replying directly to him by name and very directly repudiating every bit of it. Do you not understand the significance of that?

No one should be calling themselves a faithful member if they ever hear any of this claptrap again without following the church's example and publicly denouncing it. I am really feeling sorry for this guy now. He is going to have to bear the shame that a lot of others who are still saying the same things should be sharing.

[JDave]

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

And I think all such inflammatory statements were just condemned by the church. So they aren't going as far as saying the Brigham Young made a mistake in implementing a ban, but they do condemn all the racist inflammatory statements made by BY and later church leaders.

[juliann]

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?

Right on cue, this was a recent comment that I would consider a cleaned up version of the same thing. I have used a variation of this before so I am not exempting myself from blame and shame. When the overriding need is to justify the denial of blessings or rights, those blessings and rights must ultimately be declared unimportant. At that point we have undermined the gospel, the church and anything associated with it.

And, we should point out, no one was denied any blessing even before 1978. Some had to wait and accept the Temple ordinances later, but no one was ever denied all the blessings of the Gospel based on skin color, race, lineage, height, nose shape, ring finger-to middle finger length, or toe nail fungus.

[JDave]

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 think it appears to be more of a four step plan, your two steps being first. Following those are:

3. Condemn all racism and racist explanatory statements by Church leaders.

4. Wait until a generation passes and then explain that the Priesthood ban was a policy originating from the cultural understanding of the early church era.

Granted #4 is more hopeful and introduces speculation on my part, both as to how the Church will act and regarding why the ban was instituted. I am satisfied for now with "We don't know", though I do think it is important to know why and would be happy if an explanation came forth.

I think I pretty much agree with you. But that just means we agree in our speculations, and it is important to note that they are speculation only.

It is interesting, however, that with the Church condemning all racist explanations as valid reasons for why the ban was instituted there isn't room for much speculation apart from "human error".

[Zeta-Flux]

juliann,

It might be useful to see what the church specifically disavowed in the statement about Bott's comments in the yesterday news release.

The church did not specifically disavow any statements. They said "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."

In particular, I'm confident that when Randy Bott took the position that the Book of Abraham is holy scripture (which was part of one of the positions he took in the article) that the church is not saying this doesn't represent a teaching or doctrine of the church. The Book of Abraham still is canonized.

Rather, the positions, as a whole, as represented in the article, do not represent our teachings. But to try and pick out each little statement and claim the church disavowed that statement is incorrect.

Edited March 2, 2012 by Zeta-Flux

[Zeta-Flux]

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?

I had never heard that one before. It sounds similar to the rationalization of why some children die young.

[Jeff K.]

The church gave his speculation "validity" by replying directly to him by name and very directly repudiating every bit of it. Do you not understand the significance of that?

No one should be calling themselves a faithful member if they ever hear any of this claptrap again without following the church's example and publicly denouncing it. I am really feeling sorry for this guy now. He is going to have to bear the shame that a lot of others who are still saying the same things should be sharing.

I wouldn't say that the church gave him validity so much as a needed dose of repudiation. One hopes that he humbles himself accordingly. There are some here who should receive the same.

[Jeff K.]

I think it was always a last gasp sort of thing that has fallen out of favor because it is so blatantly disrespectful. It was the thing pulled out after listing all the other reasons to say I'm not a racist because I really care about those folks. This is still periodically pulled out about women, though. Must have been around the 60s, The Fascinating Woman era, that there was a popular book out espousing the idea that women could never be sons of perdition because they lacked the priesthood.

Raises the interesting question as to whether or not it is authority or knowledge that gives us higher responsibility.

[LeSellers]

When the overriding need is to justify the denial of blessings or rights, those blessings and rights must ultimately be declared unimportant. At that point we have undermined the gospel, the church and anything associated with it.

And, we should point out, no one was denied any blessing even before 1978. Some had to wait and accept the Temple ordinances later, but no one was ever denied all the blessings of the Gospel based on skin color, race, lineage, height, nose shape, ring finger-to middle finger length, or toe nail fungus.

Was what I said incorrect in any detail?

Were all men and women offered exactly the same blessings in the Temple as anyone else, and on the same basis?

There was not even a field for entering the race of an individual whose record we extracted.

And I'd really like to see any evidence that "we have undermined the gospel, the church and anything associated with it." It may well be that people who are so wrapped up in themselves that their learning exceeds the wisdom of God would not want to join the Church, or whose identity is defined by their race more than their humanity could be offended by a seeming policy and doctrine they object to, but the humble are the Saints of God, not the self-righteous and the proud. These people would find some reason to be offended and object to the Gospel of Jesus Christ in any case. There's no pleasing them.

I do not recall anyone in Louisiana who refused help form either of the two churches who turned out in record numbers to clean up tree branches and distribute food. The two churches? the "Mormons" and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. This is true religion and undefiled: "To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.: People respond to that long before they worry about whether a man had to wait until after his death to get blessings that were only effective after death in any case.

To take offense when none is intended makes a man a fool. To take offense when intended makes him a bigger fool. Is there a place in the Church for fools? Yes, but we should be careful not to feed foolishness.

Lehi

[Bob Oliverio]

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.

I think we need to be just as honest and out spoken with one more "we don't know".

We don't know that the ban was from God.

To simply justify the Church's position in the past with "we don't know the reason" gives the false impression that it was commanded by God.  We simply don't know that it was.  We have no evidence and scriptures tel the Christian community that God would never exclude anyone for the reasons we fumble and struggle to explain this part of Church history.

[Jeff K.]

I agree, we don't know, and we don't know if the ban was from God or not. If we did not, the other "don't knows" wouldn't matter.

[Jeff K.]

I think we need to be just as honest and out spoken with one more "we don't know".

We don't know that the ban was from God.

To simply justify the Church's position in the past with "we don't know the reason" gives the false impression that it was commanded by God. We simply don't know that it was. We have no evidence and scriptures tel the Christian community that God would never exclude anyone for the reasons we fumble and struggle to explain this part of Church history.

Generally members who have stated "they don't know" have not, in any sense of the word implied that it was the Lords will and they don't know why it was placed. It has usually been held to "I don't know" if the Lord placed the ban or not. I think very few believe they know specifically that it was placed by the Lord, and the Lord's reasoning is unknown. Most, like myself, simply do not know why the ban was in place, which includes a query of whether or not the Lord mandated it. The church itself has stated as much.

[Jeff K.]

Though it is interesting that during an election year this is brought to the fore, whereas before it wasn't. Dupes anyone?

[BCSpace]

Times & Seasons has a fantastic little editorial on this issue, filled with some excellent links

Yes, it's good to see members of the Church, some only recently for some strange reason, accepting the Newsroom statements of the Church as official doctrine. Afterall, it is an official publication as required by the Church's defintiion of doctrine.

[BCSpace]

Though it is interesting that during an election year this is brought to the fore, whereas before it wasn't. Dupes anyone?

I think it's just barely being held back now. But if Romney does win the nomination, I think there's a good chance some reporter will find a way to bring it up in one of the main public debates.

[Jeff K.]

Yes,they will. You can expect it to be repeated

[why me]

I think that we need to separate members into two sections: those around before the lifting of the ban and those newbies who became members after the ban was lifted. I am of the former. I remember quite well the ban being discussed by members and I heard the various reasons that are now being deemed folklore by some. But I remember that members believed the various reasons they said and I don't remember the word speculation being used. Now maybe I am a little fuzzy about all this but I do think that members were speaking from what they thought were facts and not speculation before the ban was lifted when they attempted to explain it.

However, that being said, I do not remember any current general authority at that time openly saying why africans were banned from the priesthood. I remember no GA talks on the subject during general conference. However, what the members believed or said were not refuted by the lds church either or by other members hearing the opinions. Now of course, my mind is a little fuzzy about it all...but...I don't remember any arguments about it at all or disagreements with what the members said back in the day.

Edited March 4, 2012 by why me

[Calm]

It was certainly being discussed among my friends (including nonLDS) and family and the general response of LDS was 'we don't know why' especially toward the one size fits all claim of "less valiant" due to the fact we knew enough blacks to know that didn't make sense; I believe even my semi-racist grandparents didn't buy that one and everyone accepted the idea that any reason given was just a guess.

[BCSpace]

Now of course, my mind is a little fuzzy about it all...but...I don't remember any arguments about it at all or disagreements with what the members said back in the day.

I remember. The doctrine then is the same as the doctrine the Church publishes today. From the OD 2, PofGP manual, topical guide on the Church website, et. al.; the ban was Divinely appointed, it has existed from the time of Adam, it is not racist being based on lineage and came about via disobedience and not because of skin color, it is justified by other scriptural examples of preristhood selection, those banned would not ultimately be denied exaltation, we don't know the full reason why.

The doctrine on 2 Nephi 5:20-25 found here:

http://institute.lds...k-of-mormon.asp

..might provide some clues though that of course would be speculation since that curse (being cut off from the presence of the Lord) appears to be a little different. I would give the direct link, but this manual, unlike the others, must be downloaded.

Works like BRM's Mormon Doctrine were not doctrinal works then either (never being published by the Church) though it is true that many members considered it to be. I do remember some members understanding the it was not doctrine but thought that valiancy was a good explaination.

All in all, I'd say racism in the Church (members; the doctrine and teachings were never racist) then (just prior to 1978) was almost non existent just like it is now. The Church excoriates such as if it were when the needs of PR dictate it. The same has happened for other issues like homosexuality and including non members.

Edited March 16, 2012 by BCSpace

[David T]

" it is not racist being based on lineage"

BCSPACE, you keep repeating this as if it makes sense.

The ban wasn't based on those whose lineage could be traced to Cain, it was for those whose race could be traced to Black Africans, with the nonhistorical and nonscriptural assumptions that all Black Africans were cursed and descended from Cain and Ham.

There has never been a single person denied the Priesthood in 19th-20th Century who were denied the priesthood because someone was actively able to trace their family tree to the Biblical Ham son of Noah, or Cain son of Adam. Nobody. Period. CFR otherwise.

They were banned based on African Descent. Your "Lineage, not race, so not racist" argument continues to be invalid.

All it is helpful for is convincing a racist that they're not really racist, just lineagist, which, of course is, like, totally different.

Edited March 16, 2012 by nackhadlow

[Saints Alive]

Are you accusing BC of being racist?

[David T]

I am saying that the only practical use of his particular distinction between 'by race' and 'by lineage' in respects to the Black African Priesthood ban is to protect the feelings of those who are.

BCSPACE often makes a distinction between technical Church Doctrine, and Church Doctrine that he believes is actually true.

I don't know what he believes on this subject, but I stand by the statement that the only practical purpose served by that particular argument is to make people with racist beliefs feel better about themselves.

Edited March 16, 2012 by nackhadlow

[BCSpace]

The ban wasn't based on those whose lineage could be traced to Cain, it was for those whose race could be traced to Black Africans, with the nonhistorical and nonscriptural assumptions that all Black Africans were cursed and descended from Cain and Ham.

That is incorrect because the Church defends it thusly:

In June 1978, President Spencer W. Kimball received a revelation extending priesthood ordination to all worthy males of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Official Declaration 2). Before that time only worthy male members who were not of black African descent were ordained to the priesthood.

Additional Information

Ever since biblical times, the Lord has designated through His prophets who could receive the priesthood and other blessings of the gospel. Among the tribes of Israel, for example, only men of the tribe of Levi were given the priesthood and allowed to officiate in certain ordinances. Likewise, during the Savior’s earthly ministry, gospel blessings were restricted to the Jews. Only after a revelation to the Apostle Peter were the gospel and priesthood extended to others (see Acts 10:1–33; 14:23; 15:6–.

With the revelation to President Kimball in 1978, the priesthood is now available to all worthy male members regardless of race or ethnicity (see Official Declaration 2). Each candidate for ordination is interviewed by priesthood leaders to ensure that he understands and agrees to live by established principles of righteousness (see Doctrine and Covenants 84:33–44; 121:34–46).

http://www.lds.org/study/topics/priesthood-ordination-before-1978?lang=eng

In addition to being based on lineage, it is also based on disobedience (like the aforementioned Lamanite curse) as we know from other current doctrinal sources that the ban was from the time of Adam.

Now I would certainly agree with you that the modern application of the ban seems problematic, but that has nothing to do with the doctrinal basis (which we know) or the full reason (which we don't know).

[BCSpace]

BCSPACE often makes a distinction between technical Church Doctrine, and Church Doctrine that he believes is actually true.

I present official LDS doctrine the way the Church sees it. I do point out which doctrines I don't agree with which are few but include the Global Flood. My apologetic does not deny doctrine because I can't defend it.

I don't know what he believes on this subject,

I believe official Church doctrine on this subject.

but I stand by the statement that the only practical purpose served by that particular argument is to make people with racist beliefs feel better about themselves.

I disagree that LDS doctrine is (or was) racist. I'm pretty sure the Church feels the same way. There is no hint in doctrine or even that which is speculation that the ban came about because of someones skin color or even lineage.

Edited March 16, 2012 by BCSpace