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

[blackstrap]

How can it be said that we don't know when the ban was initiated? We don't know when the Melchizedek priesthood was given to Joseph either. We know when the Aaronic was given.We know that it( the ban) was definitely in effect during BY's tenure and up to and including part of SWK's administration. Is it that we are unsure about Joseph Smith's position? As for why it happened,there is no answer to 'why ' that will not immediately generate another 'why'.

Edited March 1, 2012 by blackstrap

[Freedom]

The churches position is that we do not know why. There are those who wish to answer this by saying it was racism. Why is that? I am still waiting for someone to explain the restrictions put in place by the savior and the genocides in the time of Joshua.

[Xander]

If it was "racist" the current church condemns it.

And that's easy to do since Bott is just a Church employee who can easily be dragged under the bus.

Now let's see them condemn the racist remarks from Brigham Young, Joseph F. Smith, Spencer W. Kimball, etc.

Seriously, if Bott had made these remarks at any given fireside, there'd be nary a complaint. Are we really supposed to believe no one caught onto his beliefs until NOW? Good grief, he is a former Bishop and Mission President and currently works as a professional educator for the Church on matters of history and doctrine. So how did this politically incorrect racist slip through the cracks unnoticed? Well, he didn't. His 2008 blog entry proves this.

But he exposed traditional Mormon sentiment that is embarrassing to the Church when known to others outside the fold, and so he is to be punished for being honest. And of course, the apologists are going to circle the wagons while pretending there is nothing, absolutely nothing in his LDS upbringing that could have been used to develop such beliefs.

Come on. This poor guy is a product of decades of Mormon upbringing; his beliefs were not created in a vacuum. I've been reading numerous threads here and elsewhere (particularly on Facebook) and it is clear that many Mormons are scratching their heads wondering why his remarks are so vilified as racism when LDS leaders have said far, far worse. I mean is calling the priesthood restriction a "blessing" and reasoning how it could be so, really any worse than calling it a "curse" and the result of a less than valiant preexistence? When Spencer Kimball stands up in conference and explains to the world that Indians were becoming lighter in skin tone because they were becoming more righteous, how is this not racist just the same? Racism is the belief that one race is in some way superior to another.

I was 17 when i first heard about this and the Mormon family across the street explained that it was a curse and that this is how God wanted it. They had plenty of authoritative statements to back it up too, but this was during the late 80's when the apologetic notion of "official doctrine" was in its infancy. That the black race was a rowdy lot during the preexistence. The Mormon mother also told me that the Jews were punished during Nazi Germany because of their murder and rejection of Christ. I remember telling this to a number of people at Church and only a few rolled their eyes. The others nodded in the affirmative.

Edited March 1, 2012 by Xander

[mbh26]

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?

If it's anything like it was on my mission, the answer would be to avoid the question and not talk about it. I think that was good counsel given the racial environment we live in.

If you can work your way up the ladder from lowly missionary into leadership, then you simply answer the question by taking the offensive. Reply with, "Who asked that question." Then find the perpetrator and bring them in for a stern interview and consider disciplinary action.

[Xander]

The churches position is that we do not know why. There are those who wish to answer this by saying it was racism. Why is that? I am still waiting for someone to explain the restrictions put in place by the savior and the genocides in the time of Joshua.

Exactly. And since we "do not know why", how can people claim to know Bott is absolutely wrong? His explanation is one of the more charitable explanations I've heard. Blessing sure sounds better than curse. It is kinda like how some GA's have reasoned that the women do not have the priesthood because they are already so spiritual that the men need the priesthood just to be equal to them. Or how others in the Church (I forget the LDS leader who said this) argued that those born with mental retardation or Downs Syndrome are those who were so special in the preexistence, that they'd get a pass in this life.

Edited March 1, 2012 by Xander

[Zeta-Flux]

Xander,

As I said, I don't think Br. Bott wanted to perpetuate racism.

[ilyan]

Polygamy was a different issue. The church was new and was being slaughtered faster than it could grow. Polygamy allowed more children to be born and raised in the gospel and made family units more self reliant, which was key to survival in those days. Also, it was a test of the faith of the members. And only about 15 percent of the membership actually practiced polygamy. Sooner or later, our faith is tried in all things, be it health problems, financial problems, or unpleasant doctrines. The difficult doctrines only seem unpleasant until we obey them long enough to gain a testimony of their correctness. The faith of die-hard polygamists was also tried in 1890 when Brigham Young declared Polygamy was no longer allowed. Later, he explained exactly what would have happened if the church had continued practicing polygamy against the laws of the land.

Perhaps blacks were not valiant in the pre-mortal war. Perhaps they initially sided with Lucifer, but were only barely persuaded at the last minute to follow Jesus Christ, fearing the imminent prospect of forever losing their right to be born. Culturally, blacks are and have been the least self reliant and the most prone to seek entitlements from state and federal governments. What percentage of America's population on welfare are blacks? I don't know, but I'm guessing the majority of welfare recipients are black. It's not racist, it's demographics. Most blacks vote liberal. Liberalism promotes socialism and dependency on government entitlements at taxpayer expense. It's not racism, it's politics.

Look at the behavior of every African government toward its own people. Blacks oppressing blacks. Most crimes against blacks are committed by blacks. Imagine that cultural mentality being given priesthood authority prematurely, just to be politically correct and placate someone's fear of being labeled a racist. Imagine prematurely handing the authority of God to a culture prone to the despotic exercise of even the authority of man. Call me a racist. I'm not one, but I am taking a big risk by speculating on this matter in a public forum.

Bottom line: Jesus Christ is the head of the Church, and he has his reasons for the timing of blacks getting the priesthood in 1978. I don't know the reasons behind it. I enjoy speculating, but at the end of the day, I will align myself with the words of the prophets, even if I do not agree with them or understand them.

[Scott Lloyd]

The churches position is that we do not know why. There are those who wish to answer this by saying it was racism. Why is that? I am still waiting for someone to explain the restrictions put in place by the savior and the genocides in the time of Joshua.

I spoke with someone today who is in a position to know. He said the official Church position, that we don't know the reason for the pre-1978 restriction, is not a tacit admission that it was due to racism. "We don't know why" means exactly that. There was/were reason(s); we just don't know what they were.

[Xander]

Polygamy was a different issue. The church was new and was being slaughtered faster than it could grow

This is such nonsense. I can't believe people still use this as a lame justification for polygamy.

Culturally, blacks are and have been the least self reliant and the most prone to seek entitlements from state and federal governments. What percentage of America's population on welfare are blacks? I don't know, but I'm guessing the majority of welfare recipients are black. It's not racist, it's demographics. Most blacks vote liberal. Liberalism promotes socialism and dependency on government entitlements at taxpayer expense. It's not racism, it's politics

If this appeared in a newspaper the Mormons here would be denouncing you left and right. And yes, what you just said is downright racist because you do not understand why blacks suffer more as a race in this country. You just go along with the correlation/causation fallacy because that corresponds to the usual Right Wing bigotry. You're an embarrassment to Mormonism.

[Daniel Peterson]

Polygamy was a different issue. The church was new and was being slaughtered faster than it could grow. Polygamy allowed more children to be born and raised in the gospel and made family units more self reliant, which was key to survival in those days. Also, it was a test of the faith of the members.

I don't know the reason for nineteenth century plural marriage. I believe that the Lord commanded it, and that's enough for me.

The faith of die-hard polygamists was also tried in 1890 when Brigham Young declared Polygamy was no longer allowed. Later, he explained exactly what would have happened if the church had continued practicing polygamy against the laws of the land.

You mean Wilford Woodruff, of course.

Perhaps blacks were not valiant in the pre-mortal war. Perhaps they initially sided with Lucifer, but were only barely persuaded at the last minute to follow Jesus Christ, fearing the imminent prospect of forever losing their right to be born.

Perhaps. Perhaps not.

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.

Culturally, blacks are and have been the least self reliant and the most prone to seek entitlements from state and federal governments. What percentage of America's population on welfare are blacks? I don't know, but I'm guessing the majority of welfare recipients are black. It's not racist, it's demographics. Most blacks vote liberal. Liberalism promotes socialism and dependency on government entitlements at taxpayer expense. It's not racism, it's politics.

Oh my.

Oh my.

Look at the behavior of every African government toward its own people. Blacks oppressing blacks. Most crimes against blacks are committed by blacks. Imagine that cultural mentality being given priesthood authority prematurely, just to be politically correct and placate someone's fear of being labeled a racist. Imagine prematurely handing the authority of God to a culture prone to the despotic exercise of even the authority of man. Call me a racist. I'm not one, but I am taking a big risk by speculating on this matter in a public forum.

And there's nothing to be gained by doing it.

But considerable damage to be done.

We don't know the reason.

We don't know the reason.

We just don't know it.

Bottom line: Jesus Christ is the head of the Church, and he has his reasons for the timing of blacks getting the priesthood in 1978. I don't know the reasons behind it. I enjoy speculating, but at the end of the day, I will align myself with the words of the prophets, even if I do not agree with them or understand them.

That's a good bottom line. As for the rest . . .

[ilyan]

The public declaration that the prophet would never be allowed to lead the church astray may not have been issued until Brigham Young's time, but it was made clear even to Joseph Smith that he would not be allowed to lead people astray. He lost the ability to translate for a while, after the incident with the 116 pages of manuscript that were lost by Martin Harris because Joseph Smith had pestered Heavenly Father to the point where Heavenly Father felt it wise to simply let Joseph Smith him find out for himself that no means no, and face the consequences. Joseph Smith was warned that any use of the gold plates for purposes other than what he had been instructed to do with them would result in his swift destruction, and the Lord would place another in his stead. And that was even before the church was officially organized. At no time did Joseph Smith or any other prophet lead the Church astray. Anyone who believes otherwise is flirting with apostasy.

[ilyan]

Regarding my earlier post about polygamy, I stand corrected. Wilford Woodruff is the one who explained what would have happened if polygamy had continued against the laws of the land. Excellent catch. Thanks.

[ilyan]

I came in late on this. What happened to Randy Bott? Who is Randy Bott? Where can I find the famous talk by Bruce R. McConkie given at BYU in 1978?

[Tepui]

FAIRLDS "This is Black History month." And how does FAIR celebrate it? Do they mention anything positive? No.

Please don't be racist by talking about the Curse of Cain- and if you don't know what it is, we'll explain to you all about it!" "And remember, our early leaders of the church were racists!"

Black History Month is celebrated with negative reinforcements.

brilliant. Talk about "feeling your way" into the Great and Spacious Building.

[wenglund]

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 can appreciate that you have an above average intolerance for certain points of view, if not also a flare for the overly-dramatic. May I express my condolences for the heavy burden you have evidently been caused to bear because of the supposed politically-incorrect sentiment of your fellow Saints. If only we all could emulate your uncommon sensitivities and elevated thinking.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[volgadon]

Call me a racist. I'm not one, but I am taking a big risk by speculating on this matter in a public forum.

I recently watched Guca, a movie about a Gypsy trumpet-player who falls in love witha Serbian girl. Her family bitterly opposes the relationship. Her dad, champion trumpeter, is nicknamed Satchmo as he is a Louis Armstrong fanatic. After many disparaging remarks towards Gypsies, one of Satchmo's friends wonders if he'll let his daughter marry the Gypsy if he wins the trumpet championship. As the chances of that are ridiculously slim, the Serbian agrees. "I'm not a racist, after all, Satchmo was black."

[wenglund]

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?

Are your entirely incapable of seeing the shared principle? No kidding?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Zeta-Flux]

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.

Daniel, I think your question is a sincere one, and so I want to answer it. We can't leave it at that because it is confusing. Our scriptures say that slavery is a bad thing, that black and white are equal in the sight of God, etc..., etc..., etc..., and yet the priesthood ban seems to contravene these basic truths. We also believe in a God which can reveal truth, and so we expect that our leaders can ask God, and we want them to ask.

But besides all of that, even though the current church does not officially know the reason for the ban, at the time of Brigham Young the reasons were quite clear. Brigham Young, in his position as prophet, claiming inspiration and revelation, and proclaiming it in the name of Jesus Christ, pronounced the ban publicly. Nothing said from the church since has refuted his claimed revelation. Rather, they have retreated from it without directly contradicting (or upholding) it. This too is confusing.

Now, to be fair, our leaders are not the only ones who can ask God for an answer to these questions. We can each personally seek for personal revelation on the matter (and keep it to ourselves). I have sought it, and have not received an answer. I, like the current church, do not know the reasons for the ban. Some here publicly pronounce it was obviously not of God. Others defend Brigham and pronounce that it was a true revelation. As for me, I simply do not know and would like to know.

However, what I do know is that it was not a racist policy. I do think it was tied to our scriptural precedent of "right of priesthood". I would love to learn more about what the scriptures mean when they say "right of priesthood" and why certain lineages are denied it.

[wenglund]

And that's easy to do [delete smug drive-by sneer]

Kevin,

Could you please take a moments pause from removing the supposed mote from LDS eyes, and remind us of your strident views on Islam, particularly the one's that got you booted off the FAIR web site?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[jskains]

I am a man of possibilities. As long as there are alternatives for questions, I think they need to be examined.

I think God knew the people he was working with would have a hard time with blacks and the priesthood, so he allowed the ban until the people matured. All the blessings were backfilled, and in the end, everyone gets the eternal reward the same.

People look at this in too human of a way instead of an enteral way. Baptisms, Marriage, etc. all for the dead are designed to backfill the problems of people being in particular situations at a particular time.

I think this is a mole-hill that has been made into Mount Rushmore.

[volgadon]

Look at the behavior of every African government toward its own people. Blacks oppressing blacks

This naturally is a matter of race rather than the powerful and power-hungry oppressing those who aren't, right?

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

I've never been more ashamed to be a Latter-Day Saint than I have been during the past two days, seeing the absolutely horrifying, racist things people have been trying (unsuccessfully, in every single case) to defend.

We need to be better than this. That the situation prompting this thread even happened is appalling, let alone some of the rationalizations on display here.

Edited March 1, 2012 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[Cushan Rishathaim]

Polygamy was a different issue. The church was new and was being slaughtered faster than it could grow. Polygamy allowed more children to be born and raised in the gospel and made family units more self reliant, which was key to survival in those days. Also, it was a test of the faith of the members. And only about 15 percent of the membership actually practiced polygamy. Sooner or later, our faith is tried in all things, be it health problems, financial problems, or unpleasant doctrines. The difficult doctrines only seem unpleasant until we obey them long enough to gain a testimony of their correctness. The faith of die-hard polygamists was also tried in 1890 when Brigham Young declared Polygamy was no longer allowed. Later, he explained exactly what would have happened if the church had continued practicing polygamy against the laws of the land.

Perhaps blacks were not valiant in the pre-mortal war. Perhaps they initially sided with Lucifer, but were only barely persuaded at the last minute to follow Jesus Christ, fearing the imminent prospect of forever losing their right to be born. Culturally, blacks are and have been the least self reliant and the most prone to seek entitlements from state and federal governments. What percentage of America's population on welfare are blacks? I don't know, but I'm guessing the majority of welfare recipients are black. It's not racist, it's demographics. Most blacks vote liberal. Liberalism promotes socialism and dependency on government entitlements at taxpayer expense. It's not racism, it's politics.

Look at the behavior of every African government toward its own people. Blacks oppressing blacks. Most crimes against blacks are committed by blacks. Imagine that cultural mentality being given priesthood authority prematurely, just to be politically correct and placate someone's fear of being labeled a racist. Imagine prematurely handing the authority of God to a culture prone to the despotic exercise of even the authority of man. Call me a racist. I'm not one, but I am taking a big risk by speculating on this matter in a public forum.

Bottom line: Jesus Christ is the head of the Church, and he has his reasons for the timing of blacks getting the priesthood in 1978. I don't know the reasons behind it. I enjoy speculating, but at the end of the day, I will align myself with the words of the prophets, even if I do not agree with them or understand them.

You're a racist, and I find your "political" views on "blacks" deeply offensive. You should read your Church's official statement on this issue before you present this type of hate speech.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

I'm out of rep points, Rishathaim, but yeah, +1.

[Zeta-Flux]

I've never been more ashamed to be a Latter-Day Saint than I have been during the past two days, seeing the absolutely horrifying, racist things people have been trying (unsuccessfully, in every single case) to defend.

I admit, this thread is 8 pages long so I might have missed something. Just give me one example of such behavior.