Was The Priesthood Ban A Mistake?

[Jaybear]

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.

Doesn't that depends on what question is asked?

What if the question was ... : What reasons have the LDS Church provided to explain the ban? What reasons for the ban were you taught? Or, why do you believe blacks were not allowed to hold the priesthood?

[jskains]

I want to comment that race has very limited roles in the LDS Gospel, but gender has a LOT of doctrinaly dependent roles throughout the Gospel. Gender is an issue of separate callings, with Men and Women forming two parts of a single bond. So comparing Racial bans on Priesthood and gender roles, including a male priesthood IMHO are apples and oranges.

JMS

[frankenstein]

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.

Your are every so slightly incorrect

The only honest answer is "we do not precisely know", it is a minor but very important distinction.

Also, did the Church renounce previous Official First Presidency statements? Or did the Church only renounce the personal opinions of others. It seems very unlikely that the current Prophet renounced the Official statements of past Prophets.

Edited March 1, 2012 by frankenstein

[juliann]

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.

It is unfortunate to see the priesthood or temple blessings diminished to maintain a position even the church has backed away from. I am sorry that you do not see any immediate benefit to blessings that we are unceasingly admonished to partake of. Given your dismissal of them, I am wondering why anyone cared if the ban was lifted. Why the fuss? Why all the joy if it didn't really matter?

[frankenstein]

It is unfortunate to see the priesthood or temple blessings diminished to maintain a position even the church has backed away from. I am sorry that you do not see any immediate benefit to blessings that we are unceasingly admonished to partake of. Given your dismissal of them, I am wondering why anyone cared if the ban was lifted. Why the fuss? Why all the joy if it didn't really matter?

Is lehi statement false? You know it is not false. His position in no more untenable than many apologetic responses to uncomfortable LDS Church history.

Edited March 1, 2012 by frankenstein

[Emerson]

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.

Right, because divinely sanctioned polygamy didn't cause any persecution.

[Damien the Leper]

I am also disheartened that so many active member lack the faith in our leaders to think it so.

I thought members were not to have faith in the arm of the flesh but faith in God? When did this doctrine change?

[KevinG]

Doesn't that depends on what question is asked?

What if the question was ... : What reasons have the LDS Church provided to explain the ban? What reasons for the ban were you taught? Or, why do you believe blacks were not allowed to hold the priesthood?

"Forget everything I have said, or what...Brigham Young...or whomsoever has said...that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world." McElder McConkie, August 1978

http://speeches.byu.edu/reader/reader.php?id=11017

[Verum]

Duplicate.

Edited March 2, 2012 by Verum

[Verum]

I think a more relevant questions would be....Was the priesthood ban practice sanctioned by God or was it invented by man?

If the answer to the above question is that it was from God, option 2 and 3 would suffice. Even if the ban seems wrong, racist, or discriminatory to us, the fact that it comes from God means it is justified. Since God must have his children's best interest at heart in the long run, one could trust that God is ultimately doing what he need to fulfill his purposes that will benefit all his children, and he does not have to explain the reasons why.

If the answer to the above question is that it was a man-made doctrine or practice, then number 1 is definitely appropriate.

[Saints Alive]

I thought members were not to have faith in the arm of the flesh but faith in God? When did this doctrine change?

"whether from me or the voice of my servants it is the same"

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 01 March 2012 - 03:20 PM, said:

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.

Your are every so slightly incorrect

The only honest answer is "we do not precisely know", it is a minor but very important distinction.

Also, did the Church renounce previous Official First Presidency statements? Or did the Church only renounce the personal opinions of others. It seems very unlikely that the current Prophet renounced the Official statements of past Prophets.

I would not venture "we do not precisely know" since there is an indication that we are positively aware of part of the answer, this is incorrect in my opinion,

[frankenstein]

Jeff k "we do not know precisely why" is the Official statement from the Church. I will admit I do not understand your response.

[Jeff K.]

Precise is a term I cannot use because I don't know.

[cinepro]

"Forget everything I have said, or what...Brigham Young...or whomsoever has said...that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world." McElder McConkie, August 1978

http://speeches.byu....er.php?id=11017

The "present revelation" doesn't deal with the theories for the ban, so none of those theories are contrary to said revelation, so Elder McConkie wasn't telling us to forget them. The only things that had been said that contradicted OD2 were the suppositions about the ban not being lifted until sometime after 1978. Those ideas were what we are supposed to forget.

[KevinG]

The "present revelation" doesn't deal with the theories for the ban, so none of those theories are contrary to said revelation, so Elder McConkie wasn't telling us to forget them. The only things that had been said that contradicted OD2 were the suppositions about the ban not being lifted until sometime after 1978. Those ideas were what we are supposed to forget.

Elder Oaks mentioned if we try to guess the why behind God's commandments we are more often than not wrong. (Someone can help me find the quote...)

[peacefulleeman]

The ban existed because "racism" still existed. The Priesthood is not to operate under such circumstances.

When racism ended on a mass scale for the Black African, then the ban ended.

God knew this, and thus HE ended the ban.

[Calm]

The ban existed because "racism" still existed. The Priesthood is not to operate under such circumstances.

CFR this is church doctrine...unless it is simply your speculation, which if so then please label it as such rather than stating it as fact.

[peacefulleeman]

Right, because divinely sanctioned polygamy didn't cause any persecution.

God's Will is not man's will. If the Church had early on promoted the ordination of the black man, we don't know what would have happened. Do you? Combine Plural Marriage with Priesthood Ordaination, whites and blacks mixing, etc. etc., and the Church could have been destroyed. It already almost was because of Polygamy. Even adding one little thing that the wicked "masses" didn't like could have tipped the scale.

Don't you think GOD didn't know all this?

[peacefulleeman]

CFR this is church doctrine...unless it is simply your speculation, which if so then please label it as such rather than stating it as fact.

Why the need to single me out for offense? We are all giving "opinions" here.

[Calm]

Why the need to single me out for offense? We are all giving "opinions" here.

You did not say it was an opinion, but stated it as if it were fact.

[peacefulleeman]

You did not say it was an opinion, but stated it as if it were fact.

I don't see anyone else qualifying every statement they make as either opinion or fact.

Please stop causing problems by personally attacking me. Thank you.

By the way, I do believe it is a "Truth". Thus, I do believe I'm perfectly allowed to give views in a manner of certainty that I believe are truth.

Not everything people say are "facts", things that have documented tangible details and analysis.

I exist, that is a fact, I don't exist that is a falsehood or an opinion. I believe certain things, that is also a fact, but also a truth.

Edited March 2, 2012 by peacefulleeman

[Calm]

I don't see anyone else qualifying every statement they make as either opinion or fact.

Please stop causing problems by personally attacking me. Thank you.

If I read someone else's speculations on this thread where it was presented as fact, it was earlier when I did not have the time to request a CFR. I have time now to request so I asked for one.

CFRs are not personally attacking anyone. It is simply a request to support what one claims.

I ask for CFRs when I want to know where someone got an idea from. I don't use CFRs to challenge the accuracy of claims.

Edited March 2, 2012 by calmoriah

[Libs]

If the church is saying that they do not know the whys of the ban, does that mean they are saying they don't even know whether or not it was revelation? I'm not really clear on that. Do LDS Church leaders believe the ban was revelation?

I voted #1.

[BCSpace]

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.

Kudos Lightbearer and a hearty +1.

The ban cannot possibly be racist because it's basis is not founded on ethnicity or skin color but on disobedience. My own opinion is that the vast majority of those LDS who believe it was racist and a mistake are merely steeped in the error of social "correctness" or influenced by a small core of apologists who are generally great defenders of the faith in other areas, but for whatever reason, were not as successful defending the Church's doctrine on this subject in their formative years as apologists as I and some others were. One of the critical mistakes that this core group has made is to forget what is and is not LDS doctrine and if they had stuck with that, would not be in such a bind.

We DO know the reason for the ban as you have stated and such reason IS official LDS doctrine, but we don't know the reason as to why it was this lineage that was selected and not others who also rejected in the same fashion (the origins of priesthood availability as stated in the Newsroom). I have speculated on another board that perhaps it was because it was the first (can't get much closer to the first than Cain or Ham). Or perhaps others, such as the Lamanites, because of their being of the chosen lineage (or their principal descendants) of Israel are not banned as long as they repent like everyone else. Of course my speculation is not doctrine.

I really like how you pointed out, Lightbeaer, in your post #19 of this thread, what is written in OD-2:

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.

This means it is an official LDS doctrinal fact that there was a time when NOT every faithful worthy man in the Church could receive the priesthood which was Divinely appointed. What else does "long-promised" mean? Who has the authority to promise such a thing other than God?

There is too much unwarranted hullabaloo over the Church's Newsroom statements. In no way did they contradict or change anything that has also been officially published before. If I were to believe the exultation's over these statements of those who think the ban was racist, I'd have expected doctrinal statements like this:

http://www.lds.org/study/topics/priesthood-ordination-before-1978?lang=eng

To have been removed or changed by now.