Was The Priesthood Ban A Mistake?

[thesometimesaint]

Buckeye:

Your wife can give a blessing. She just can not invoke the Priesthood to do it. My wife usually sits closest to the Deacon passing the Sacrament, and she passes it to me. .

Edited March 1, 2012 by thesometimesaint

[Rock_N_Roll]

I am a temple recommend holding, bishopric member and I voted #1.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I am a temple recommend holding, bishopric member and I voted #1.

I am not in the bishopric or is any stake calling. I only am a lowly Sunday School President. I vote for all of them because this poll is dumb.

[Saints Alive]

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.

Your taking the analogy to literally, My point is how do we know that God is revealing that women / blacks / gays etc. should be allowed the priesthood VS. God relenting to our requests.

[frankenstein]

The question which most closely represents the position of the Church. Those voting it was a mistake are no where near the position of the church. The church in no way suggested the ban was a mistake.

[Buckeye]

Buckeye:

Your wife can give a blessing. She just can not invoke the Priesthood to do it. My wife usually sits closest to the Deacon passing the Sacrament, and she passes it to me. .

I am very aware of the historical precedent for women's blessings. Mrs. Buckeye is also aware of that history, but is a little more conservative than I and would rather wait until formal approval from the church. Waiting for that approval is a sacrifice for me, but it is well worth it if I get to stay with Mrs. Buckeye. I don't like waiting, but I'll wait forever for her.

As to the sacrament, most Sunday's I'm away from our ward on various stake assignments and so Mrs. Buckeye takes charge of the tray for our family. Even when I'm there, the focus is never on who holds the tray, but how best to keep the kids from fighting over "the largest piece of bread".

[Buckeye]

Your taking the analogy to literally, My point is how do we know that God is revealing that women / blacks / gays etc. should be allowed the priesthood VS. God relenting to our requests.

The same way President Kimball came to his revelation - the spirit. Which, by the way, is the only thing I believe is infallible.

[thesometimesaint]

Our kids are grown, and left the nest. But I know what you mean.

[bcuzbcuz]

bcuzbcuz:

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

Don't want to get all paranoid on you but Why? and who is asking?

[Saints Alive]

The same way President Kimball came to his revelation - the spirit. Which, by the way, is the only thing I believe is infallible.

therein lies the problem, The spirit tells me that women will never hold the same priesthood as men (although i do believe they hold a certian priesthood which could be expounded upon more by the church) you seem to think the spirit is telling you something different. Some believe the spirit is telling them that homosexual relations should be sealed in the temple, that is not what the spirit is telling me. Who is right?

[Buckeye]

therein lies the problem, The spirit tells me that women will never hold the same priesthood as men (although i do believe they hold a certian priesthood which could be expounded upon more by the church) you seem to think the spirit is telling you something different. Some believe the spirit is telling them that homosexual relations should be sealed in the temple, that is not what the spirit is telling me. Who is right?

The answer is still the same - the spirit is right. Perhaps I or you or others are misreading it. Perhaps there are variances in our lives such that the answer would be different for us. I don't know. But it's the spirit I have confidence in. And I believe that over time, church leaders that seek the spirit will find unity in the correct decision, even though they may have to let go of some strongly held beliefs. That was true with the racial ban, in that many leaders sincerely believed the ban needed to be in effect until after all whites had an opportunity. They eventually let go of that belief.

[Emerson]

I'm active, believing, attend the temple, and hold a calling, and I voted #1.

Edited March 1, 2012 by Emerson

[cinepro]

BlueDreams:

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

That's what my "birther" friends say...

[Nathair/|\]

I don't think it makes any sense that Joseph or Brigham would have instituted the ban without discussing it with HF first. My best guess on the reason is that ordaining blacks would have provoked such violence from the rest of the country that the church couldn't have survived. But, of course, like every one else, I'm just guessing.

[Saints Alive]

I agree with your first premise but not necessarily the second one.

[BCSpace]

I'm active, believing, attend the temple, and hold a calling, and I voted #1.

I believe what the Church says about the ban, that it was Divinely appointed and that we don't know the reason why.

Edited March 1, 2012 by BCSpace

[cinepro]

I don't think it makes any sense that Joseph or Brigham would have instituted the ban without discussing it with HF first. My best guess on the reason is that ordaining blacks would have provoked such violence from the rest of the country that the church couldn't have survived. But, of course, like every one else, I'm just guessing.

The thing I can't get past is the total lack of any record of such a "discussion" happening.

In another thread, someone likened it to the unknown date for the restoration of the Melchezidek Priesthood. But even with the unknown date, we still have the very specific claim that the event happened, with Peter, James and John appearing on the banks of a river and ordaining them.

That is way, way more than what we have for the origin of the Priesthood Ban. Instead of a canonized record of God's feelings on the subject, it just kind of pops into existence in the mid-19th century.

We also should ask whether or not a revelation is needed to institute something that is in the scriptures (or that someone thinks is in the scriptures)? In other words, what if it was Brigham Young's understanding that the Old Testament, the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham all supported a priesthood ban? Wouldn't those scriptures be "revelation" enough to a Prophet?

I suspect that was the case. Brigham Young thought the scriptures were telling him that blacks shouldn't have the priesthood. So we have to figure out if he was right about that or not.

[Saints Alive]

The thing I can't get past is the total lack of any record of such a "discussion" happening.

In another thread, someone likened it to the unknown date for the restoration of the Melchezidek Priesthood. But even with the unknown date, we still have the very specific claim that the event happened, with Peter, James and John appearing on the banks of a river and ordaining them.

That is way, way more than what we have for the origin of the Priesthood Ban. Instead of a canonized record of God's feelings on the subject, it just kind of pops into existence in the mid-19th century.

We also should ask whether or not a revelation is needed to institute something that is in the scriptures (or that someone thinks is in the scriptures)? In other words, what if it was Brigham Young's understanding that the Old Testament, the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham all supported a priesthood ban? Wouldn't those scriptures be "revelation" enough to a Prophet?

I suspect that was the case. Brigham Young thought the scriptures were telling him that blacks shouldn't have the priesthood. So we have to figure out if he was right about that or not.

talk about a lesson in epistemology

[KevinG]

I believe what the Church says about the ban, that it was Divinely appointed and that we don't know the reason why.

The divinely appointed part was "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."

CFR that the ban itself was "divinely appointed". I'm not so sure it was ever as doctrinal as it was a practice.

[Jaybear]

I believe what the Church says about the ban, that it was Divinely appointed and that we don't know the reason why.

The most recent statement the LDS Church put out does say that it was Divinely inspired. It says: “It is not known precisely why, how, or when this restriction began but what is clear is that it ended decades ago.”

Seems to me that your assertion that it was divinely appointed is no more than mere speculation.

[altersteve]

The thing I can't get past is the total lack of any record of such a "discussion" happening.

In another thread, someone likened it to the unknown date for the restoration of the Melchezidek Priesthood. But even with the unknown date, we still have the very specific claim that the event happened, with Peter, James and John appearing on the banks of a river and ordaining them.

That is way, way more than what we have for the origin of the Priesthood Ban. Instead of a canonized record of God's feelings on the subject, it just kind of pops into existence in the mid-19th century.

We also should ask whether or not a revelation is needed to institute something that is in the scriptures (or that someone thinks is in the scriptures)? In other words, what if it was Brigham Young's understanding that the Old Testament, the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham all supported a priesthood ban? Wouldn't those scriptures be "revelation" enough to a Prophet?

I suspect that was the case. Brigham Young thought the scriptures were telling him that blacks shouldn't have the priesthood. So we have to figure out if he was right about that or not.

We should point out, though, that Brigham Young did prophesy that in the future blacks would have the privilege of everything that other Church members had the privilege of and more. So he knew the restriction wouldn't be permanent.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

The most recent statement the LDS Church put out does say that it was Divinely inspired. It says: “It is not known precisely why, how, or when this restriction began but what is clear is that it ended decades ago.”

Seems to me that your assertion that it was divinely appointed is no more than mere speculation.

You know this is almost comical. We really don't know why it was instituted. People have offered their opinion on it. If some one claims that "It was not appointed" the church has never claimed that either. So you are on just as baseless a claim as BC is to claim that it is.

I think this is a non issue. The point is that as of now and for over 30 years no one is/has been denied any blessing based on race/ linage.

Edited March 1, 2012 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[LeSellers]

The point is that as of now and for over 30 years no one is/has been denied any blessing based on race/ linage.

And, we should point out, no one was denied any blessing even before 1978. Some had to wait and accept the Temple ordinances later, but no one was ever denied all the blessings of the Gospel based on skin color, race, lineage, height, nose shape, ring finger-to middle finger length, or toe nail fungus.

God does not work with the same limitations we do: He knows the end from the beginning, and He sees our future just as we can see the past. The eternal perspective is one we do well to remember, even if we cannot comprehend it.

Lehi

[Jeff K.]

There are those who will place their hat in the ring and say "it must be this" or "it must be that", but there is nothing to support anyone's supposition one way or the other. Claims to the contrary are false, the only honest answer is "we don't know". After that everything else is equally apparent and equally reprehensible.

[Jaybear]

You know this is almost comical. We really don't know why it was instituted. People have offered their opinion on it. If some one claims that "It was not appointed" the church has never claimed that either. So you are on just as baseless a claim as BC is to claim that it is.

I think this is a non issue. The point is that as of now and for over 30 years no one is/has been denied any blessing based on race/ linage.

Baseless? Me.

Nah. My assertion that BC's claim that it was God who instituted the ban is speculative, is BASED on the fact that BC can't tell us:

1. What specifically God said that led to the ban;

2. When He said it.

3. Who He said it to.