Was The Priesthood Ban A Mistake?

[Sky]

Joanna Brooks from Religion Dispatches has a piece regarding this ongoing controversy...

[zerinus]

Was The Priesthood Ban A Mistake?

No.

[JDave]

The second option would probably be better written as simply "We don’t know the reasons for the ban."

[BCSpace]

Probably should have limited the vote to LDS only and differentiated between active and inactive. I think a public poll would have been fine too as people seem willing to put their money where their mouth is on this issue.

[Freedom]

The second option would probably be better written as simply "We don’t know the reasons for the ban."

I agree

[maklelan]

I think the ban was an ad hoc policy decision that became embedded in the culture to the degree that it became a de facto doctrine. I've never seen anyone establish a clear scriptural or revelatory foundation for the policy. The fact that it's how things were done by the leaders in the past seems to be its strongest and most common defense.

[why me]

We need to know the story of 'Black Pete' to understand the ban. Black Pete took it upon himself to practice his own version of polygamy with white women. He was excommunicated because he wasn't authorized to practice polygamy. I think that this experience with Black Pete sent shivers up Brigham and Orson's spine since if the far west frontier people would discover it, a mass lynching of mormons would have probably occurred. That being said, african americans were more than welcome to join the lds church and worship together with the others.

Edited March 1, 2012 by why me

[thesometimesaint]

A combination of two and three.

[Storm Rider]

I don't vote on these types of topics. I will state again that not one soul will be denied Exaltation because of it and if there was any degree of wrong perpetrated by leaders of the Church, they will pay for it and it is a personal problem between them and Jesus Christ. They will go through the same judgment that each of us will.

[jskains]

The interesting thing is that this isn't new stuff. People seem to be acting like this was some big dark secret revealed. There are so many aspects people forget when making these types of claims, like how Utah was one of the first to allow women to vote, or that while other Churches were actively segregating their congregations, Mormonism wasn't.

*Sigh* Are we gonna talk about every candidate's religion and ask how they treated blacks during the same time period?

[thesometimesaint]

See http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/race-church

[Buckeye]

I'm an active temple recommend holding member and local priesthood leader. I voted #1.

[robuchan]

I'd like to see the results of the poll for only faithful LDS. It's pretty obvious most non or ex LDS would call it racist.

[frankenstein]

The second option does not reflect the position of the LDS Church. The LDS church stated it did not know precisely why the ban was instituted.

Some here have denied the revelation ending the ban, in the revelation ending past prophets are referenced as speaking of a day when it would be lifted. With in hours of yesterdays statement other here were deliberately changing the church statement or rather deliberately misstating the Official position of the Church.

What do.we know about the ban?

The end of ban was know to past prophets. (See OD 2)

The Church does know precisely why the ban started.(See yesterdays statement, precisely why is different than unqualified why)

Any part of the ban that was based on racism the Church condemns.(see yesterdays statement)

So as we move forward let us not misrepresent the position of the Church. The Church did not state "we do not know" the Church stated "we do not know precisely why"; the qualifier was important to Church and so it should be important to those who claim to defend the Church. Once we are honest in our presentation of the Church position we can have honest discussions

Edited March 1, 2012 by frankenstein

[David T]

or that while other Churches were actively segregating their congregations, Mormonism wasn't.

Kind of hard to do when you don't allow black Bishops or Branch Presidents, or Elder's Quorum Presidents, or High Priest Group Leaders, or anyone who can prepare, bless, or pass the sacrament.

Edited March 1, 2012 by nackhadlow

[David T]

I'm active, believing faithful, Temple Recommend holding, stake leadership-position holding, who fully and completely believes OD2 was the announcement of an inspired Revelation. I voted #1.

Edited March 1, 2012 by nackhadlow

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

I'm an active, believing, Temple-recommend-holding Elder's Quorum teacher, and I voted for the first option.

[thesometimesaint]

As an active believing TR holding member I voted other.

[Lightbearer]

While I voted for number 2, I do not entirely agree with it. I think the reason was known (Abraham 1) one thing I am certain of and that is it was not "wrong" or "racist" and after 30 years I get tired of the Anti-Mormon BS about it. Of course the enemies of the church will never be satisfied with any answer. I advise members of the church to read the OD-2 prayerfully and with faith and God will speak to them. For your consideration read the revelation of God:

OFFICIAL DECLARATION—2

To Whom It May Concern:

1 On September 30, 1978, at the 148th Semiannual General Conference of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the following was presented by President N. Eldon Tanner, First Counselor in the First Presidency of the Church:

In early June of this year, the First Presidency announced that a revelation had been received by President Spencer W. Kimball extending priesthood and temple blessings to all worthy male members of the Church. President Kimball has asked that I advise the conference that after he had received this revelation, which came to him after extended meditation and prayer in the sacred rooms of the holy temple, he presented it to his counselors, who accepted it and approved it. It was then presented to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, who unanimously approved it, and was subsequently presented to all other General Authorities, who likewise approved it unanimously.

President Kimball has asked that I now read this letter:

June 8, 1978

To all general and local priesthood officers of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints throughout the world:

Dear Brethren:

As we have witnessed the expansion of the work of the Lord over the earth, we have been grateful that people of many nations have responded to the message of the restored gospel, and have joined the Church in ever-increasing numbers. This, in turn, has inspired us with a desire to extend to every worthy member of the Church all of the privileges and blessings which the gospel affords.

Aware of the promises made by the prophets and presidents of the Church who have preceded us that at some time, in God's eternal plan, all of our brethren who are worthy may receive the priesthood, and witnessing the faithfulness of those from whom the priesthood has been withheld, we have pleaded long and earnestly in behalf of these, our faithful brethren, spending many hours in the Upper Room of the Temple supplicating the Lord for divine guidance.

He has heard our prayers, and by revelation has confirmed that the long-promised day has come when every faithful, worthy man in the Church may receive the holy priesthood, with power to exercise its divine authority, and enjoy with his loved ones every blessing that flows therefrom, including the blessings of the temple. Accordingly, all worthy male members of the Church may be ordained to the priesthood without regard for race or color. Priesthood leaders are instructed to follow the policy of carefully interviewing all candidates for ordination to either the Aaronic or the Melchizedek Priesthood to insure that they meet the established standards for worthiness.

We declare with soberness that the Lord has now made known his will for the blessing of all his children throughout the earth who will hearken to the voice of his authorized servants, and prepare themselves to receive every blessing of the gospel.

Sincerely yours,

SPENCER W. KIMBALL

N. ELDON TANNER

MARION G. ROMNEY

The First Presidency

Recognizing Spencer W. Kimball as the prophet, seer, and revelator, and president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, it is proposed that we as a constituent assembly accept this revelation as the word and will of the Lord. All in favor please signify by raising your right hand. Any opposed by the same sign.

The vote to sustain the foregoing motion was unanimous in the affirmative.

Salt Lake City, Utah, September 30, 1978."

(Doctrine and Covenants | Official Declaration 2:Heading - 12)

This was not a mere policy change as some have declared, this was a revelation from God just as true as any other God has given. As stated above the reason for the "ban" is found here:

"Pharaoh, being a righteous man, established his kingdom and judged his people wisely and justly all his days, seeking earnestly to imitate that order established by the fathers in the first generations, in the days of the first patriarchal reign, even in the reign of Adam, and also of Noah, his father, who blessed him with the blessings of the earth, and with the blessings of wisdom, but cursed him as pertaining to the Priesthood. Now, Pharaoh being of that lineage by which he could not have the right of Priesthood, notwithstanding the Pharaohs would fain claim it from Noah, through Ham, therefore my father was led away by their idolatry;"

(Pearl of Great Price | Abraham 1:26 - 27)

This was the basis for the ban, it was a curse which God for His own reasons pronounced upon a specific lineage and who only He could remove which He did in the 1978 revelation. This revelation was welcome to most (if not all) members of the Church, it was a glorious day and those who would demean this revelation and refer to it as a policy shift for expedient reasons are so faithless that no answer would be satisfacory to them, therefore I say let them be dissatisfied and if they do not repent of their faithlessness they will be damned.

No preaching. No hellfire and damnation. You may leave the thread.

Edited March 1, 2012 by Minos

[Buckeye]

...

This was the basis for the ban, it was a curse which God for His own reasons pronounced upon a specific lineage and who only He could remove which He did in the 1978 revelation. This revelation was welcome to most (if not all) members of the Church, it was a glorious day and those who would demean this revelation and refer to it as a policy shift for expedient reasons are so faithless that no answer would be satisfacory to them, therefore I say let them be dissatisfied and if they do not repent of their faithlessness they will be damned.

Seriously, LB, have you not read the statement issued by the church yesterday? The rationale you claim "is the basis for the ban" has been officially rejected. There are many (and growing numbers of) members who hold OD2 as revelation, but reject any notion that the ban was inspired. I'm proud to be one of them and to teach my children the same.

[David T]

WaPo Article: "In his office, religion professor Randy Bott explains a possible theological underpinning of the ban. According to Mormon scriptures, the descendants of Cain, who killed 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 descendants of Ham and Egyptus were thus black and barred from the priesthood."

Key Idea expressed:

All the descendants of Ham and Egyptus were black and barred from the Priesthood

Lightbearer: "This [The Book of Abraham's restriction for Pharoah's lineage] was the basis for the ban"

CHURCH STATEMENT:"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."

IE, Lightbearer's positions do not represent the teachings and doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

The possibility of it not being inspired, however, is opened and allowed by the statement that " It is not known precisely why, how, or when this restriction began in the Church".

Edited March 1, 2012 by nackhadlow

[Saints Alive]

I am a temple recommend holding bishopric member and I don’t think that the ban was “racist, plain and simple” I am also disheartened that so many active member lack the faith in our leaders to think it so. I don’t pretend to know or even begin to understand all the circumstances that brought about the ban nor do I pretend to understand God’s mind so well as to understand his reasoning in every instance. I do have faith that Brigham Young was a Prophet as well as every other man in the first presidency and quorum of the twelve from the time of the ban until 1978. I also don’t think that God is so out of touch and his servants so uninspired as to allow a practice that is “racist, plain and simple” to remain a part of his church for so long.

[thesometimesaint]

"long time" is relative. !30 +/- is a long time to us. But 1800 years for the Restoration of the Priesthood is even longer.

[Saints Alive]

"long time" is relative. !30 +/- is a long time to us. But 1800 years for the Restoration of the Priesthood is even longer.

The difference is that we admit that there was an apostasy when the Priesthood was lost, are you suggesting that the church was in apostasy until 1978? And what about God never letting the Prophet lead the church astray?

[thesometimesaint]

nope.

What I am saying is that it is up to God to determine to whom and when the Priethood is given. Our mortal expectations don't have much bearing on it.

Ps. I don't know the reason for the ban. God hasn't told me, but I accept the Churchs' explanation that they don't either.

Edited March 1, 2012 by thesometimesaint