An Unfortunate Attempt To Explain The Pre-1978 Restriction On Priesthood

[Daniel Peterson]

Late last night -- or early this morning -- I posted a hasty little item on the firestorm surrounding a BYU professor's alleged remarks to the Washington Post:

http://dcpsicetnon.blogspot.com/

I say "alleged" because it seems that he's now explaining that his remarks were taken out of context.

I allowed for that possibility in my blog entry. As I said there, I've had enough experience with media interviews to know that the final article often -- routinely? -- distorts or misrepresents what one has said. In this particular case, the professor's claim may or may not be true; I wasn't there, and have no way of finding out. But I can say from abundant personal experience that it's entirely plausible.

Specifically, I've sometimes found remarks that I made about Subject A transformed in the published version of my interview into remarks about Subject B, something entirely separate. This is, apparently, what this unfortunate BYU professor alleges to have occurred in his case.

[frankenstein]

Are his remarks any more unfortunate than FAIR referring to documented statements by LDS leadership about the ban as "folk lore".

[David T]

DCP, Bott's blog has the very same ideas being presented. In full context. The article accurately expressed what he has at least taught.

Edited February 29, 2012 by nackhadlow

[Daniel Peterson]

Well, I don't know the man, and am not invested in defending him.

However, several people who do know him tell me that he's a good and kind person, so I'm hoping for some charity here.

I'm not particularly enthused about a public crucifixion for him -- no more than I would have been about a public humiliation for my parents, now departed, both of whom occasionally made comments about race that caused me to cringe, but both of whom were extraordinarily kind and gentle people.

If the professor manifested actual malice, I would feel differently.

I think I can credibly ask for charity since I'm already on record as clearly condemning the sentiments expressed in the published version of his interview with the Washington Post.

[David T]

I believe firmly that good, kind, otherwise godly and extremely helpful people can have some very harmful and flat out wrong views that do real damage. This is my position with Brigham Young, Joseph Fielding Smith, Bruce McConkie, et al.

Edited February 29, 2012 by nackhadlow

[cinepro]

However, several people who do know him tell me that he's a good and kind person, so I'm hoping for some charity here.

I think that's what has people so upset. In the context of the Priesthood Ban and LDS ideas towards it, the ideas presented by Brother Bott in the article are neither "bad" nor "unkind."

It's like the "one true church" principle. It's not "nice", but it's what we believe, so we try to teach it in a way that doesn't upset people. But we still teach it.

If Bott really said those things (and believes them), his great mistake was not realizing how they would sound to the general public and not crafting a more palatable version for public consumption.

And frankly, I don't buy the "out of context" explanation because the ideas are presented pretty clearly, and in a way that only an LDS would explain it. There is no "context" that makes the "fall off a ladder" explanation more sensical, or any less disturbing. It is what it is.

For those who don't know what he said, here it is:

The ground floor of the Joseph Smith building, which houses BYU’s religion department, showcases a likeness of the golden tablets from which Joseph Smith is said to have translated the Book of Mormon. Paintings upstairs depict the Lamanites, the tribe in Mormon scripture that bears dark skin as a sign of God’s curse.

In his office, religion professor Randy Bott explains a possible theological underpinning of the ban. According to Mormon scriptures, the descendants of Cain, who slew his brother Abel, “were black.” One of Cain’s descendants was Egyptus, a woman Mormons believe was the namesake of Egypt. She married Ham, whose descendants were themselves cursed and, in the view of many Mormons, barred from the priesthood by his father, Noah. Bott points to the Mormon holy text, the Book of Abraham, as suggesting that all of the descendents of Ham and Egyptus were thus black and barred from the priesthood.

It’s not clear whether Joseph Smith, the religion’s founder, who ordained at least one black priest, supported the ban. But his successor, Brigham Young, enforced it enthusiastically as the word of God, supporting slavery in Utah and decreeing that the “mark” on Cain was “the flat nose and black skin.” Young subsequently urged immediate death to any participant in mixing of the races. As recently as 1949, church leaders suggested the ban on blacks resulted from the consequences of the “conduct of spirits in the pre-mortal existence.” As a result, many Mormons believed that blacks were less valiant in the pre-earth life, or fence sitters in the war between God and Satan. That view has fallen out of favor in recent decades.

“God has always been discriminatory” when it comes to whom he grants the authority of the priesthood, argues Bott, the BYU theologian. He quotes Mormon scripture which argues that the Lord gives to people “all that he seeth fit.” Bott compares blacks to 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.

“What is discrimination?” Bott asks. “I think that is keeping something from somebody that would be a benefit for them, right? But what if it wouldn’t have been a benefit to them?” Bott argues that the denial of the priesthood to blacks on earth — though not in the afterlife — protected them from the lowest rungs of hell reserved for people who abuse their priesthood powers. “You couldn’t fall off the top of the ladder because you weren’t on the top of the ladder. So, in reality the blacks not having the priesthood was the greatest blessing God could give them.”

Edited February 29, 2012 by cinepro

[David T]

What bothers me more is that there are good faithful Mormons here who will read that and go, "What's wrong with what he said? Isn't that what we believe?"

[oats]

I think he should have just left it at God has always been discriminatory with the priesthood with a few simple examples from the Bible if pressed. Why he, or anybody else, would somewhat authoritatively try to push their own concluded reason - especially in an environment where people are just waiting to make an offender for a word - is beyond me.

If it were a discussion group and people were exploring possible reasons then this could easily fall on a list of possible reasons. But in an attempt to explain, rather than simply explore without fear of repercussion, this is totally out of place.

[David T]

If the official Church response (which word has it is going to be in the WaPo) uses the Levitical Priesthood as justification again, like they do on lds.org, I'm gonna puke.

I love how fairlds.org puts it:

Myth #3: The best example to explain blacks not having the priesthood comes from the Levites. The Levites were able to hold the priesthood, while others were not. This shows how God restricts people of certain lineages from receiving the priesthood just like he did with blacks.

While it may be true that Levites could hold the priesthood while others could not, it has little to do with this issue. The ancient practice where only one group is able to exercise the priesthood and work in the temple has little in common with modern times when everyone is able to hold the priesthood except for one group. Repeating this claim as an explanation doesn’t provide adequate support for the argument, and the claim completely falls apart when we recognize that Joseph Smith, Parley P. Pratt, William Smith, and Orson Hyde all ordained blacks to the priesthood in the 1830s and 1840s. The explanation is not helpful and can be hurtful.

[frankenstein]

What bothers me more is that there are good faithful Mormons here who will read that and go, "What's wrong with what he said? Isn't that what we believe?"

Can your articulate what is wrong with what he said.

[BCSpace]

What bothers me more is that there are good faithful Mormons here who will read that and go, "What's wrong with what he said? Isn't that what we believe?"

I'm not saying I agree with Bott, but the real question that should be asked here is how should it be explained seeing as how the Church considers the ban to be Divinely inspired?

[Buckeye]

DCP, I will echo your call for charity towards Brother Bott (I'm not sure whether to call him "Brother", or "Doctor", or "Professor". I'll use "Brother" because it seems the most charitable and eternal. It's also what Joseph preferred). I'm sure he means well and feels very badly about the uproar.

That said, the real issue is not Brother Bott. It is the church's position of "we don't know". Members seem to want an answer. Perhaps this stems from our following Joseph, who was not content with ignorance of which church was true. Perhaps it is from our belief in a faith with continual revelation. Whatever the reason, while some of us may accept "we don't know" for the present time, most do not. We speculate. And the speculation ends up badly.

Brother Bott is just such an example. He wanted to know why. So he reasoned it out; found an answer that fit with his views. In this regard he is no different from Brigham Young, Bruce R. McConkie, or Mark E. Peterson. He's also no different from countless gospel doctrine instructors. All these members are honestly seeking the truth. They are sincere. And they often cause great harm. We must not only be charitable, but realize the harm being done. Until the church comes out and difinitively states what the answer is, this speculation (and accompanying embarassment) will only continue.

[BCSpace]

Specifically, I've sometimes found remarks that I made about Subject A transformed in the published version of my interview into remarks about Subject B, something entirely separate. This is, apparently, what this unfortunate BYU professor alleges to have occurred in his case

I think there probably is something being taken out of context in his remark though perhaps not what he's claiming. It has to do with the word "discrimination" which has been hijacked into a bogey word. Humans rightly discriminate all the time, such as between right and wrong and in having discriminating tastes etc. But just because he uses this politically incorrect word doesn't mean he's advocating racial discrimination.

[Freedom]

Valid or not, it is clear that the ban on the priesthood continued for many decades without the lord stepping in to change it. If we assume that the ban was not inspired and counter to doctrine then we must also assume the same thing for the ban on women receiving the priesthood. I see a double standard here. It appears that we are more concerned about the African American male then women of all nationalities. If a proclamation is given declaring that all women must receive the priesthood, will we then be preaching that the past ban was based on ingrained sexism? Not all revelation is published, so to assume that there was no revelation on the matter is based on ignorance. The prophet receives, by his own admission, revelation on a daily basis. So, for this post, I have the following hypothesis as a few possible reasons why the ban was allowed to continue, if not required by God (I do not reject patent racism as a reason, but I am of the opinion that we just don’t know):

1) Ingrained bigotry among the white members would have caused a schism in the church and it may not have survived.

2) The Africa Americans were, due to circumstances largely outside of their control, uneducated and poorly conditioned. Had they been embraced and allowed to join in great numbers, the church would have suffered from the challenges it had at the start: too many uneducated and socially backward people causing too many problems. I do not want to suggest that the African Americans were or are socially backward but, coming from a culture of slavery and oppression, it would have been a lot of baggage to overcome for a church that was already struggling to gain a foot hold. So I am not making a comparison with the uncouth nature of the early members with the nature of the African Americans other than to say that the latter did have some challenges that the Church was not equipped to address.

3) Had the blacks been fully incorporated into the church, it is possible that their numbers would have outstripped those of European descent. I hate to think of how history would have played out if the army was not just coming to deal with the mormon problem in Utah, but if the mormon problem was 75% blacks. There would have been genocide. If fact, they would have been slaughtered before they even made it to the mountains. I cannot see the 19^th century American government allowing a mass exodus of blacks to create their own society in the mountains.

4) The church in African is already growing faster than the Church can handle. There are baptism quotas limiting the number of people who can join. Three years ago ( I think) the policy was that a man had to be a member for at least 1 year before he could be called to be a Bishop, and 3 years to be a stake president. The church, it could be argued, did not have the resources, infrastructure and administrative expertise to deal with this growth until correlation came about in the mid 1970s. What about Central America? They are a chosen people and were, rightfully so, to be the first focus of the restoration but we need to remember that even before heading to Mexico, missionaries first went to Europe to convert educated and sophisticated members because they were not finding them America.

So, my hypothesis is not that the blacks were not ready for the church or that the brethren were too bigoted to accept them, but that the church was not ready for them yet.

I apologize for anyone of African descent if anything I have posted is offensive. I reject the notion that the blacks are inferior to any other people on the earth and I highly doubt they were cursed from Cain, however I do recognize that a culture, race or any other group of people can be set back by circumstances. I see it with the natives in Canada who are isolated on reserves and now have the highest suicide and substance abuse rates in the country. A victim by any other color would be so handicapped. In simple terms, the Lord had to strengthen the core and bide His time until he could take his temple blessings to all his children. I foresee and look forward to a time in the not too distant future when the benches behind the pulpit at general conference will be filled with Hispanic, black and south Asian saints.

[cdowis]

If the official Church response (which word has it is going to be in the WaPo) uses the Levitical Priesthood as justification again, like they do on lds.org, I'm gonna puke.

I love how fairlds.org puts it:

The guy who wrote this in FAIR is wrong. It is not a myth but a fact. It is also a fact that Christ deliberately avoided teaching the Gentiles for a time. It is a fact that most races were not allowed to hold the priesthood, were not allowed to marry the Israelites.

So, puke away, but that is historical fact. "The first shall be last and the last will be first", clearly shows that there is an order to the nations receiving the fullness of the Gospel and their responsibility. That is also a fact. In this case, the last have now received the blessings of the priesthood and the Lord is expanding the zone of inclusion.

Edited February 29, 2012 by cdowis

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

If we assume that the ban was not inspired and counter to doctrine then we must also assume the same thing for the ban on women receiving the priesthood.

Yes! Exactly! An excellent point!

[David T]

The guy who wrote this in FAIR is wrong. It is not a myth but a fact. It is also a fact that Christ deliberately avoided teaching the Gentiles. It is a fact that most races were not allowed to hold the priesthood, were not allowed to marry the Israelites.

So, puke away, but that is historical fact.

So, nobody but one family in a small isolated area where nobody outside a small Palestinian plot of land even knows about the religion gets to work in the Temple is the same to you as everybody except one family-who-we-really-can't-trace-but-we-think-they're-related-because-we-think-black-skin-is-a-sign-of-a-curse can? Really? Seriously?

[BCSpace]

I love how fairlds.org puts it:

Is fairlds.org the Church? It think it likely you already know that the Church's official responses includes the Levitical Priesthood as precedent seeing as how there have been several recent threads on the subject.

http://www.lds.org/s...e-1978?lang=eng

[cdowis]

One final comment, the church has asked members to coordinate any media interviews with the Public Affairs office. The particular individual decided to ignore that counsel and present his personal ideas as the position of the church.

The church is paying the price for his arrogance.

[David T]

The guy who wrote this in FAIR is wrong. It is not a myth but a fact. It is also a fact that Christ deliberately avoided teaching the Gentiles for a time. It is a fact that most races were not allowed to hold the priesthood, were not allowed to marry the Israelites.

So, puke away, but that is historical fact. "The first shall be last and the last will be first", clearly shows that there is an order to the nations receiving the fullness of the Gospel and their responsibility. That is also a fact. In this case, the last have now received the blessings of the priesthood and we can expect to see them soon as "first" as the church is taught in Africa and temples are built there.

Please point out where Christ and Peter's instruction to bring the gospel to all nations and peoples included the caveat, "Except black African people. They're cursed. They're not allowed to be part of a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a peculiar people."

Even if you believe there was a Cain who was cursed with black skin, and his family mixed with Ham's family, and then they kept this awful curse going, then what possible reason can you justify for it being continued beyond the Christian era?

Edited February 29, 2012 by nackhadlow

[David T]

Is fairlds.org the Church? It think it likely you already know that the Church's official responses includes the Levitical Priesthood as precedent seeing as how there have been several recent threads on the subject.

http://www.lds.org/s...e-1978?lang=eng

Clearly I know that, because in the same post you quoted me from, I said, " again, like they do on lds.org,".

And yes. That makes me want to puke as well. It's completely indefensible in any reasonable way.

Edited February 29, 2012 by nackhadlow

[Buckeye]

Can your articulate what is wrong with what he said.

I can't believe I have to explain this, but since we're being charitable ...

The thrust of Brother Bott's view is that priesthood bans (whether racial, sexist, age-related, whatever) are really a blessing to those who are banned because outer darkness requires that one first have priesthood authority - and then of course they must deny the Holy Ghost. By keeping people from the priesthood in this life, we prevent the possibility of their eternal suffering. But since people were so insistent that blacks be allowed the option for outer darkness, God relented and gave them that possibility in 1978.

Not surprising, Brother Bott fails to offer any scriptural support for this view. Perhaps that's because it is essentially the same view Lucifer put forth in the pre-existence. I know that sounds brash, but hear me out. A fundamental, unbreakable principle of the gospel is agency. We are here to be tested and tried. To risk everything, not merely slip through mortality unscathed. Whatever the reason for the priesthood ban, it surely cannot be that God wanted to deny anyone their agency. Under that same logic, it would be foolish for me to ordain my 12-year old son. In fact, I probably should have shot him dead before he turned 8, thereby ensuring his eternal salvation.

The idea that denying someone agency is for their own good is 100% total bunk. We all rejected that view in our first estate. We better continue to reject it here in the second estate as well.

[frankenstein]

Myth #3: The best example to explain blacks not having the priesthood comes from the Levites. The Levites were able to hold the priesthood, while others were not. This shows how God restricts people of certain lineages from receiving the priesthood just like he did with blacks.

While it may be true that Levites could hold the priesthood while others could not, it has little to do with this issue. The ancient practice where only one group is able to exercise the priesthood and work in the temple has little in common with modern times when everyone is able to hold the priesthood except for one group. Repeating this claim as an explanation doesn’t provide adequate support for the argument, and the claim completely falls apart when we recognize that Joseph Smith, Parley P. Pratt, William Smith, and Orson Hyde all ordained blacks to the priesthood in the 1830s and 1840s. The explanation is not helpful and can be hurtful.

Is fairlds.org the Church? It think it likely you already know that the Church's official responses includes the Levitical Priesthood as precedent seeing as how there have been several recent threads on the subject.

http://www.lds.org/s...e-1978?lang=eng

Bcspace, your post quoted herein is fantastic! So not only is FAIR not the LDS Church spokes person, FAIR is presenting information that is in direct oppostion to Church Doctrine. Thanks for pointing this out.

Using the Levites is a perfect example of God granting things to one people and not to another; to deny such, as FAIR has done, is to deny the scriptures and LDS Doctrine.

[BCSpace]

Clearly I know that, because in the same post you quoted me from, I said, " again, like they do on lds.org,".

Yes, but you seem to differentiate between official doctrine and what's published on lds.org. There is no such differentiation.

[David T]

Yes, but you seem to differentiate between official doctrine and what's published on lds.org. There is no such differentiation.

No, I don't. What I differnetial between is official doctrine that is true, and official doctrine that is not true. This is a case of official doctrine being wrong, false, harmful, and stupid.

Please explain what is factually wrong with what is presented in that FAIR quote without using, "It contradicts official doctrine".

Edited February 29, 2012 by nackhadlow