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

[Fifth Columnist]

Because he allows all men their agency, including the Prophets. It is canonized doctrine that God allowed Joseph to err with respect to the 116 pages. Why can't it be possible that he allowed subsequent leaders to err on the racial ban?

So in what sense is God leading the Church? I mean we are talking about his power and who it should be given to. I would think that this, of all things, would merit some kind of guidance from him to make sure his prophets didn't mess it up. If they can mess this up, then the sky's the limit for the ways they can mess up. Oh, and God is much more laissez faire in how he guides his Church than most people think.

[Buckeye]

I would say a web site like the Church's is almost constantly up to date, to within days or minutes. And anything published thereon, especially in that context, is the latest and greatest.

...

Seriously? You're arguing that everytime the church website refreshes it counts as a new pronouncement of doctrine? If that's true, then you must admit that the newsroom statement issued today is just as current because it also is constantly refreshed. So if there is a conflict, you can't rely on refreshing webpages, but rather on which statement was issued more recently.

Once again, this is today's statement: "It is not known precisely why, how, or when this restriction began in the Church"

... There is NOTHING any post 1978 prophet has said to gainsay or change what is quoted above.

You seem to be changing your view. Is the newsroom doctrine or not?

[ilyan]

I tried posting but it did not post, Here it is for a second attempt:

Perhaps we are only seeing this issue from an incomplete perspective. We do not know what Heavenly Father knows. The issue of blacks being denied the priesthood may have nothing to do with anything they did or did not do in mortality. Perhaps it has something to do with their roles or their choices in the pre-mortal conflict. We tend to assume that whenever someone is denied something for a time, that it is a result of some sin or misdeed on their part. But that is not always the case. The earth was cursed for Adam's sake, yet Adam made the correct choice when he ate the forbidden fruit. The curse placed on the earth as a result of Adam's choice was not to destroy Adam, but to allow him to grow spiritually. Is it possible that the fact that blacks were denied the priesthood was to protect them from the condemnation that would have come upon them if they had attempted to misuse it in their various cultural practices? They were not always denied the priesthood. They have it available to them now both among the living and the dead.

May it also have been a measure used by Heavenly Father to weed out those in his church who are prejudice against blacks? No one can rightfully claim to be a disciple of Christ and harbor prejudice against someone because of skin color. How many otherwise upstanding members took issue with church leaders over the matter in 1978 and beyond? How many will take issue when, later in our day, we are invited or instructed to begin living the law of consecration, or the law of polygamy? I would guess even more people will be weeded out when faced with applying a doctrine they have only heard about, but have not yet been required to apply in their personal lives. The church is still true, even when it requires you to adjust your mind to accept something that you don't agree with.

[Buckeye]

So in what sense is God leading the Church? I mean we are talking about his power and who it should be given to. I would think that this, of all things, would merit some kind of guidance from him to make sure his prophets didn't mess it up. If they can mess this up, then the sky's the limit for the ways they can mess up. Oh, and God is much more laissez faire in how he guides his Church than most people think.

That's a good question for all of us. I tend to think that God is leading the President of the Church in the same way he is leading the President of the Deacon's Quorum in my ward. When I was the DQ President, no angels were sent my way. I had the right to their companionship, and I had authority within my sphere, but if I wanted to know God's will I had to approach him. And I made lots of mistakes, including teaching false doctrine and creating mistaken policy, even though I sincerely was trying to do my best.

Same things hold true for my current priesthood responsibilities within the church, not to mention my position as a Father. I try my best with my children, but I still find (upon reflection) that I've taught them wrong things from time to time. Yet God has never intervened to stop those mistakes, even though my position as Father is of more importance and weight to my children's eternal welfare than President Monson's position as Prophet.

Edited to ask: So what are your thoughts?

Edited again to say: BTW, nice avatar.

Edited February 29, 2012 by Buckeye

[Mortal Man]

It is time to put the racism aside, Freedom. Seriously.

It's really easy to call someone a racist, isn't it? It takes no thought nor reason, only sanctimony and spite.

[sjdawg]

Wrong. Read the press release again. Mark it in your calendar. Today - Leap Day 2012 - the church officially dropped any reference to "divinely appointed". Wasn't it you who just today said the newsroom is LDS doctrine?

"It is not known precisely why, how, or when this restriction began in the Church but what is clear is that it ended decades ago. Some have attempted to explain the reason for this restriction but these attempts should be viewed as speculation and opinion, not doctrine. The Church is not bound by speculation or opinions given with limited understanding.

We condemn racism, including any and all past racism by individuals both inside and outside the Church."

I don't find any more comfort in knowing that the racial restrictrictions were not of God than I do in believing that the racial restrictions were of God. If it wasn't of God, I thought that God would not let a prophet lead his people astray? Maybe racial bigotry doesn't constitute leading people astray?

[juliann]

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/blogsfaithblog/53617297-180/church-bott-blacks-lds.html.csp

Before now, the most matter-of-fact renouncement came from LDS apostle Jeffrey R. Holland, who told filmmaker Helen Whitney in 2007 that the church was “unequivocal” in rejecting these notions and keeping them from being written or taught within the church.

“We don't pretend that something wasn't taught or practice wasn't pursued for whatever reason,” Holland said. “But I think we can be unequivocal and we can be declarative in our current literature, in books that we reproduce, in teachings that go forward, whatever, that from this time forward, from 1978 forward, we can make sure that nothing of that is declared.”

Yet there are still members declaring it no matter what the church says.

[juliann]

It's really easy to call someone a racist, isn't it? It takes no thought nor reason, only sanctimony and spite.

Yeah. Except I didn't but why let that stop a good derail. And I repeat, it is time to put racism aside.

[ilyan]

As far as I understand, Heavenly Father will never allow the prophet to lead the church astray. We, in our individual lives are allowed much greater room for error in our personal growth in the gospel. Those within our sphere of influence likely do not constitute the body of the church as a whole. The prophet is directly accountable to Jesus Christ and Heavenly Father for the entire population of the planet. He is held to a higher and stricter standard. It is true that a father's role with his own children supersedes the prophet's role with that father's children. The father is raising the children, not the prophet. But the father is not the spokesman for Jesus Christ to the entire church and to the entire population of the earth, unless the father is the prophet.

[sjdawg]

Before now, the most matter-of-fact renouncement came from LDS apostle Jeffrey R. Holland, who told filmmaker Helen Whitney in 2007 that the church was “unequivocal” in rejecting these notions and keeping them from being written or taught within the church.

“We don't pretend that something wasn't taught or practice wasn't pursued for whatever reason,” Holland said. “But I think we can be unequivocal and we can be declarative in our current literature, in books that we reproduce, in teachings that go forward, whatever, that from this time forward, from 1978 forward, we can make sure that nothing of that is declared.”

I guess that is one of the challenges of changing your teachings is that people don't forget what was originally taught. Things drilled into your head when young tend to stick with you.

[Buckeye]

I don't find any more comfort in knowing that the racial restrictrictions were not of God than I do in believing that the racial restrictions were of God. If it wasn't of God, I thought that God would not let a prophet lead his people astray? Maybe racial bigotry doesn't constitute leading people astray?

Therein is the $64,000 question.

First, do you believe that, unlike prophets in prior dispensations, ours cannot lead us astray? If so, why?

Second, if he can't, where on the spectrum does something become "leading astray"? On one end (small mistake): President Monson tells his counselors to meet in Room 1001 because its available, but it turns out the RS Presidency was already meeting there. One the other end (big mistake), President Monson tells the church to worship Baal. Where is the line?

[sjdawg]

As far as I understand, Heavenly Father will never allow the prophet to lead the church astray. .

And yet we went decades with a racial policy that the current church claims they don't know why or when it was initiated. I guess if the Prophet can't lead the church astray then the Priesthood ban must have been doctrinally sound.

Edited February 29, 2012 by sjdawg

[Buckeye]

As far as I understand, Heavenly Father will never allow the prophet to lead the church astray. We, in our individual lives are allowed much greater room for error in our personal growth in the gospel. Those within our sphere of influence likely do not constitute the body of the church as a whole. The prophet is directly accountable to Jesus Christ and Heavenly Father for the entire population of the planet. He is held to a higher and stricter standard. It is true that a father's role with his own children supersedes the prophet's role with that father's children. The father is raising the children, not the prophet. But the father is not the spokesman for Jesus Christ to the entire church and to the entire population of the earth, unless the father is the prophet.

And that's the disconnect. If a father's role supersedes the prophet's, how can Heavenly Father allow a father to make doctrinal and policy mistakes as to his children, but not allow the prophet to make doctrinal and policy mistakes as to the world?

[juliann]

Is it possible that the fact that blacks were denied the priesthood was to protect them from the condemnation that would have come upon them if they had attempted to misuse it in their various cultural practices?

I think we have to follow the official church statement on this very thing. That is what Bott said and the church responded with:

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.

They did not say he does not represent the teachings and doctrines except for this or that part of what he said. They rejected it all. I think we are now to the point where we do have to admit the church does not look kindly on those who are perpetuating any of what he said.

[sjdawg]

Therein is the $64,000 question.

First, do you believe that, unlike prophets in prior dispensations, ours cannot lead us astray? If so, why?

President Wilford Woodruff stated:

“I say to Israel, the Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as president of the Church to lead you astray. It is not in the program. It is not in the mind of God.” (The Discourses of Wilford Woodruff, pp. 212–13.)

President Marion G. Romney tells of this incident which happened to him:

“I remember years ago when I was a bishop I had President Heber J. Grant talk to our ward. After the meeting I drove him home … Standing by me, he put his arm over my shoulder and said: ‘My boy, you always keep your eye on the President of the Church and if he ever tells you to do anything, and it is wrong, and you do it, the Lord will bless you for it.’ Then with a twinkle in his eye, he said, ‘But you don’t need to worry. The Lord will never let his mouthpiece lead the people astray.’” (Conference Report, October 1960, p. 78.)

Edited February 29, 2012 by sjdawg

[Mortal Man]

The church today does not take a position on the precise reasons for the ban.

Only because it is completely cowed by the PC crowd. It is similarly paralyzed on the issues of polygamy, evolution, the "as man now is God once was" doctrine, changes to the Endowment, how Cumorah got located in New York etc. The incessant waffling, spinning, denying and feigned ignorance of church leaders causes the world to lose respect for Mormonism. The fact is that we know perfectly well how all these things came about. If the leaders would just man up and own the church's rich and colorful heritage then a great deal of criticism would melt away.

[juliann]

I guess that is one of the challenges of changing your teachings is that people don't forget what was originally taught. Things drilled into your head when young tend to stick with you.

Racism was drilled into everyone's head everywhere. You must be young yourself to not see how radicially things have changed from the pre-Civil Rights days.

[sjdawg]

Racism was drilled into everyone's head everywhere. You must be young yourself to not see how radicially things have changed from the pre-Civil Rights days.

In general I expect God's Church to be far ahead of the curve on some issues instead of lagging behind.

Edited February 29, 2012 by sjdawg

[ilyan]

Another thing to consider is the fact that we learn line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little. Heavenly Father takes into account cultural inertia. An entire people cannot be expected to immediately implement a paradigm shift. Perfect example: the Word of Wisdom. It was not initially given as a commandment, but as guidance. Early apostles in Joseph Smith's day were prone to smoking and chewing tobacco and spitting on the floors of meeting halls. They were not considered unworthy in the eyes of God. They had not yet received divine instruction on the matter. The wives began to complain about the mess. Joseph Smith inquired of the Lord regarding the matter and received the revelation that is now found in Doctrine and Covenants Section 89.

There were undoubtedly many cultural issues to be overcome, or at least brought to light, and much growth in the gospel basics before blacks could be given the priesthood without utter chaos resulting among themselves and the body of the church.

[sjdawg]

Another thing to consider is the fact that we learn line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little. Heavenly Father takes into account cultural inertia. An entire people cannot be expected to immediately implement a paradigm shift. Perfect example: the Word of Wisdom. It was not initially given as a commandment, but as guidance. Early apostles in Joseph Smith's day were prone to smoking and chewing tobacco and spitting on the floors of meeting halls. They were not considered unworthy in the eyes of God. They had not yet received divine instruction on the matter. The wives began to complain about the mess. Joseph Smith inquired of the Lord regarding the matter and received the revelation that is now found in Doctrine and Covenants Section 89.

There were undoubtedly many cultural issues to be overcome, or at least brought to light, and much growth in the gospel basics before blacks could be given the priesthood without utter chaos resulting among themselves and the body of the church.

I'm sorry. I don't buy it. If God were really concerned with cultural inertia he may have had early church leadership lay off the polygamy for a while.

[Buckeye]

Another thing to consider is the fact that we learn line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little. Heavenly Father takes into account cultural inertia. An entire people cannot be expected to immediately implement a paradigm shift. Perfect example: the Word of Wisdom. It was not initially given as a commandment, but as guidance. Early apostles in Joseph Smith's day were prone to smoking and chewing tobacco and spitting on the floors of meeting halls. They were not considered unworthy in the eyes of God. They had not yet received divine instruction on the matter. The wives began to complain about the mess. Joseph Smith inquired of the Lord regarding the matter and received the revelation that is now found in Doctrine and Covenants Section 89.

There were undoubtedly many cultural issues to be overcome, or at least brought to light, and much growth in the gospel basics before blacks could be given the priesthood without utter chaos resulting among themselves and the body of the church.

I agree with almost all you say. God is pretty patient with us and some changes take awhile. As you point out, there were "cultural issues to be overcome." I can deal with that. But dealing requires facing what those issues really were. The "cultural issue" was racism - both from the church leadership and the church membership. Not everyone, but too many.

Previously, the reasons provided included blaming the blacks - preexistence waffling, etc - or arguing the ban was for their benefit - see Brother Bott's ideas. Now the church has made clear those ideas are false. But the issue will never die until we face the truth. It was our fault. We were instructed to love our fellow men as ourselves and we did not.

[Fifth Columnist]

That's a good question for all of us. I tend to think that God is leading the President of the Church in the same way he is leading the President of the Deacon's Quorum in my ward. When I was the DQ President, no angels were sent my way. I had the right to their companionship, and I had authority within my sphere, but if I wanted to know God's will I had to approach him. And I made lots of mistakes, including teaching false doctrine and creating mistaken policy, even though I sincerely was trying to do my best.

Same things hold true for my current priesthood responsibilities within the church, not to mention my position as a Father. I try my best with my children, but I still find (upon reflection) that I've taught them wrong things from time to time. Yet God has never intervened to stop those mistakes, even though my position as Father is of more importance and weight to my children's eternal welfare than President Monson's position as Prophet.

Fair enough. I wish more members viewed it that way.

Edited to ask: So what are your thoughts?

Well, I doubt that God guides the Church in any meaningful way. From my perspective, it looks like the Church is guided by sincere men who think they are inspired by God, but likely aren't. Kind of like most other religious movements led by sincere religious believers who think they are inspired by God.

[divinenature]

I guess that is one of the challenges of changing your teachings is that people don't forget what was originally taught. Things drilled into your head when young tend to stick with you.

That is a big part of it. Another is that there is still racism in the scriptures which spills out into the manuals and support materials. Unless that is all rewritten or at least the manuals changed to say that the racism is in error these types of problems will continue.

We can see on this very thread that the racist thoughts are persisting because there are scriptures to backup discrimination. Unless the church actually puts in the manuals that those things are interpreted incorrectly, I'm not sure how this can ever totally go away.

The justifications that the racist discrimination must not be racist because it was from God..or that racial discrimination is actually good or beneficial just don't fly.

[Buckeye]

Fair enough. I wish more members viewed it that way.

Well, I doubt that God guides the Church in any meaningful way. From my perspective, it looks like the Church is guided by sincere men who think they are inspired by God, but likely aren't. Kind of like most other religious movements led by sincere religious believers who think they are inspired by God.

Thanks. From my personal experience within church leadership, I not only have a lower bar for other leaders (i.e., not infallible) , but I have a greater respect for them and a deeper belief that revelation and inspiration are available when sought. I'm also a big believer in the principle of common consent. That by and large, most all leaders want to do what is right and they get it right when they act in concert. That's why it's just a critical for the leaders to understand the will of the people as it is for them to understand the will of the Lord. The difficulties arise when the members are not consulted (e.g., issuing callings even though you've only spoken with the Lord and not the person) and in fixing wrongs once they are entrenched (such as the racial ban here). But I have great hope.

[cinepro]

As far as I understand, Heavenly Father will never allow the prophet to lead the church astray.

The "won't lead the Church astray" policy was implemented in 1890. Before then, the Prophet could lead the Church astray.