Was The Priesthood Ban A Mistake?

[Saints Alive]

We are on the same page then

[bcuzbcuz]

Both my wife and I were active, temple recommend carrying, faithful members when my wife left the church because she could no longer hide the conflict within herself nor accept this injustice to continue without opposition. That was in 1977. I left the church shortly thereafter. We did not return when the church suddenly changed its policy in 1978. I voted #1

[thesometimesaint]

Saints Alive.

I didn't know we were ever not.

Edited March 1, 2012 by thesometimesaint

[thesometimesaint]

bcuzbcuz:

Does that mean you are no longer a Christian of any type?

[jskains]

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.

That is just a cheap shot. If they really wanted, they could have white priesthood leaders run black congregations. Whatever the case, the end result was we did not have special facilities for blacks, which many Churches did. And I want someone to bring that up once in a while. There is a lot of hypocracy out there.

[Lightbearer]

Okay there is no "preciese reason" for the ban as stated here:

"For a time in the Church there was a restriction on the priesthood for male members of African descent. 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."

I would also include the false idea of early church racism as speculation or opinion as well! Talk about making a man an offender for a word! I still stand by my statement that OD-2 is a revelation just as inspired as any other God has given. As well as the Pearl of Great Price is also revelation. Nowhere in that document (OD-2) does it condemn the "policy" of denial of Priesthood to anyone as a wrong that was made right. I am offended at some that try to paint my position as one that is in opposition to the church. It is also rather interesting that those who love to condemn apostles for their "opinions" are so quick to jump on a press release by the church as offical binding doctrine and yet must dishonor great men because their "opinions" do not line up with their own opinions. Oh and by the way, I am a temple recommend holder, yet I do not claim the great honor of being a bishop or stake leader... I am just a simple Elder, and a primary teacher at that. The thing I love about teaching in primary is their pure faith... they have yet to have their minds polluted by the philosophies of men or the cynical questionings of critics. I suppose my voice counts for nothing since I am not a scholar or a great leader in the church, I can just say that I went on my mission in 1979 and was glad that the first converts I had were black and that the "ban" was not an issue for those faithful loving Saints. Those who accuse the Church of racism are not in harmony with the Church by the very offical statement they use to condemn me. I do not believe that was the reason, I suppose we must wait for the Lord to declare His reasons, as if He has to justify himself. For me I will take the OD-2 at it's word and accept it without reservation no matter what the "official reason" by denying the priesthood to blacks until 1978. I believe it is the word of the Lord and is binding on the church.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

What I don't understand is why we feel the need to defend or justify everything a past leader has ever said or risk being thought to lack faith.

Brigham Young was a great, great man. Better than I will probably ever be. But despite the fact that he was a brilliant, forward-thinking visionary, he was also a man of his time, as are all Prophets. He said some things that were simply wrong. Prophets are not infallible; they learn line upon line, precept upon precept like we all do. They have a larger stewardship to minister over than most members, but their calling is still part of the same structure as the most humble Ward Clerk. They operate with an understanding which is limited by the light available in the world at that time, and speak for the Church when they proclaim the Articles of Faith which state that many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom are yet to be revealed. That's the glory of continuing revelation: our eternal progression is never forced to be stagnant if we seek wisdom and are willing to change.

It doesn't mean that the Church slipped into apostasy, or that God is no longer leading us. It just means that as a consequence of our flaws and free agency, not everything we do as a Church here in this mortal probation is going to be ratified from on high. The OD (which is not, in fact, the written transcription of the actual revelation, but rather a canonized record of the declaration that the revelation had been received) is the only authoritative statement we need to show that God did not approve of the ban.

Edited March 1, 2012 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[David T]

Those who accuse the Church of racism are not in harmony with the Church by the very offical statement they use to condemn me.

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

Edited March 1, 2012 by nackhadlow

[David T]

The OD (which is not, in fact, the written transcription of the actual revelation, but rather a canonized record of the declaration that the revelation had been had) is the only authoritative statement we need to show that God did not approve of the ban.

OD2 is a canonized Newsroom Statement

[thesometimesaint]

lightbear:

I too accept OD2 as revelation. However I didn't/don't accept much of the speculation associated by the ban; ALA Bruce R. McConkie. Apparantly the Church agrees.

[BlueDreams]

Active and happily mormon. Voted number 1 and 4. though I think the institution was racist and wrong, I think it's continuation was anything but simple. Plus I believe in parts of 2+3...but where I don't agree I really disagree with, so I voted number 4 as well.

Lightbearer:

Those who accuse the Church of racism are not in harmony with the Church by the very offical statement they use to condemn me.

Why? The church in the end is the body of believers. It seems no less wrong than me stating that the people of Israel were wrong to have a king, even though the prophet would often pick them. The church isn't perfect, because its members aren't perfected. They weren't perfected then and we're still not perfected now. We change and we've shed beliefs and practices that were wrong. And will continue to do so untill we have become a zion-like people.

And I don't condemn you, I just think you're wrong. Even if we are to assume that this was the absolute reasoning for the ban, it's holey. There's not enough connection between the egyptians and the rest of africa to infer direct lineage. Egyptians, as a whole, are far more related to those in the middle east than they are to those on the ivory coast. Their relationship to west africa is about as close to theirs to europe. You must start with the assumption that african are from the decent of cain for it to work.

Also I think people are putting down their religious credentials simply because it was being inferred that many who would vote 1 would have to be non-members or members in not-so-good standing. But most are quite active lds, I think. It's a false dichotomy to assume that either you believe every action and belief opined by a prophet is the word of God or you must be condemning or oppose past leadership and do not have as strong a faith.

I think BY was a good, honest man of God. I think he was a prophet that helped to establish the church and do what was right. I think he had a number of false ideas when it comes to race (among other things) and that he was still a man of his times. Many of his beliefs (as well as other apostles/prophets/members of the time) were racist.

With luv,

BD

Edited March 1, 2012 by BlueDreams

[thesometimesaint]

BlueDreams:

We're all out of Africa. Probably somewhere around what is modern day Kenya.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Another nice post over at Juvenile Instructor.

[Saints Alive]

Jeremy:

Surely you do see a paradox? How could the church be lead by so many inspired men for such a period of time and not only not correct the practice as a whole but not have a single one of them speak out against it? Where was the modern day Abinadi?

If we allow the possibility that God allowed this iniquity in his church, for whatever reason, how can we not now ask ourselves what modern iniquity are we supporting? Should women be allowed the Priesthood? Should practicing Gays be allowed full fellowship? Or even the opportunity of a temple marriage?

[BlueDreams]

BlueDreams:

We're all out of Africa. Probably somewhere around what is modern day Kenya.

Yep....so the theory goes. The genetic theory also states that those that traveled up east africa to population the egypt, middle east and beyon had branched off from those going west early on. African also has the greatest genetic diversity. It those things that I'm indication that egyptians aren't that closely related to west africans...and its unlikely that they populated all of africa.

With luv,

BD

[David T]

Surely you do see a paradox? How could the church be lead by so many inspired men for such a period of time and not only not correct the practice as a whole but not have a single one of them speak out against it? Where was the modern day Abinadi?

Notice that Abinadi was not part of the Church Hierarchy. In fact, he called the priesthood leaders to repentance, and pointed out their wrong interpretations of scripture and history. Most prophets in the Old Testament weren't in the hierarchy either. I think Lester Bush, a faithful Priesthood holder, served, in 1973, very much in the Abinadi role in this regard, with the publication of the study Mormonisms Negro Doctrine, which was said to have been studied by President Kimball as part of his pondering and studying process of the history of the ban.

Edited March 1, 2012 by nackhadlow

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

How can we not now ask ourselves what modern iniquity are we supporting?

It is actually our duty, as thinking beings, to make sure that we are not supporting iniquities, regardless of who propounds them.

As the Prophet Brigham Young said:

"What a pity it would be, if we were led by one man to utter destruction! Are you afraid of this? I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken the influence they could give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman know, themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not. This has been my exhortation continually." (JD 9:150)

This is not an empty gesture, in which we merely approve of whatever is said without independent confirmation.

"I do not wish any Latter-day Saint in this world, nor in heaven, to be satisfied with anything I do, unless the Spirit of the Lord Jesus Christ, the spirit of revelation, makes them satisfied [...] Suppose that the people were heedless, that they manifested no concern with regard to the things of the kingdom of God, but threw the whole burden upon the leaders of the people, saying, 'If the brethren who take charge of matters are satisfied, we are,' this is not pleasing in the sight of the Lord." -- Brigham Young (JD 3:45)

Should women be allowed the Priesthood?

Yes!

[Saints Alive]

In response to "should women hold the priesthood"

Yes!

then could it not also be the case that with the call to end the ban, give women the priesthood, of allow full rights to gay members that we are acting as the Israelites and demanding a king?

Edited March 1, 2012 by Saints Alive

[Buckeye]

Jeremy:

Surely you do see a paradox? How could the church be lead by so many inspired men for such a period of time and not only not correct the practice as a whole but not have a single one of them speak out against it? Where was the modern day Abinadi?

If we allow the possibility that God allowed this iniquity in his church, for whatever reason, how can we not now ask ourselves what modern iniquity are we supporting? Should women be allowed the Priesthood? Should practicing Gays be allowed full fellowship? Or even the opportunity of a temple marriage?

I see the issues, but it's not a paradox for me. I do not hold the first presidency up to a level of inerrancy any more than I would hold up my bishopric or deacon quorum's presidency. And there were many, many who spoke up about the the wrongness of the ban. For example, Hugh B. Brown spoke up during the 1950s as counselor to David O McKay. But his was only one voice. The prophet decided to not act until all the leadership could be brought into agreement. I think that was likely a wise move, but it still does not justifiy the racist actions of those who continued to hold out.

As to modern issues, of course we need to question and openly discuss them. I for one am very desirous for my wife to join with me in priesthood blessings, for my daughter to pass the sacrament when she is of age, and for my mother to give me a mother's blessing. I can't understand why so many are opposed to such blessings, except that they are holding on to old "folklore" explanations such as "well, women give birth and men don't, so only men should have the priesthood." I just don't get it. I am very hopeful that we'll see a change in policy with women just as we saw with blacks, but I don't expect it to happen in a manner different from the 1978 revelation. In other words, God will not come to us with the change. We must discuss our desires with our leaders, who then must discuss whether the policy is scriptural-based and what good comes from denying women equal inclusion in the priesthood ordinances. I know from personal experience that there is a difference between being allowed to administer vs. simply being administered to.

As to homosexuals, they already are allowed full fellowship. The central issues are why they have same-sex attraction, whether that is really wrong, and how best to include them. I'm open to all possibilities.

[Buckeye]

In response to "should women hold the priesthood"

then could it not also be the case that with the call to end the ban, give women the priesthood, of allow full rights to gay members that we are acting as the Israelites and demanding a king?

No, these examples are the exact opposition of asking for a king. The reason israel wanted a king was so that their responsibility, agency, and sins could be placed on their leader's shoulders rather than taking personal responsibility. Giving women the priesthood, for example, does the precise opposite. It grants them more freedom and agency to act in righteousness.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

You deserve many rep points for that second-to-last post, Buckeye, but I am unfortunately bereft of them at the moment.

+1!

Edited March 1, 2012 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[David T]

Prophets in the past acting in accordance with the will of God tended to defend and stand up for and speak on behalf of the oppressed - not add or advocate more levels of oppression.

Edited March 1, 2012 by nackhadlow

[Jeff K.]

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.

That is an interesting aspect.

[Buckeye]

You deserve many rep points for that second-to-last post, Buckeye, but I am unfortunately bereft of them at the moment.

+1!

Thank you, though honestly I don't know what rep points are. Are we giving posters grades now?

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Press the little green arrow at the bottom right-hand corner of each post, yo. They're essentially meaningless (unless there's a way you can redeem them for prizes that I don't know about) but it's kinda satisfying to be able to signal one's approval of a well-phrased bit of wisdom.