Was The Priesthood Ban A Mistake?

[BCSpace]

Do LDS Church leaders believe the ban was revelation?

Yes they do. Such is sprinkled all throughout LDS doctrine and even in the OD-2 as I pointed out (as well as linked to) above. What is not clear is when and who received it. But I think one has to be careful as to what revelation is. It doesn't have to be a vision such as Peter's "Rise, kill and eat" and published in scripture. It could be as simple as someone reading Abraham 1 and the Spirit guiding them to follow the verses.

[Libs]

Okay, thanks, BC.

I just don't understand how it could have been revelation from a prophet (for the whole church), if they don't even know when or where it happened.

[peacefulleeman]

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.

You didn't ask for a CFR, you attacked me for making a belief/opinion appear as if it was something true and factual when I didn't qualify it as an opinion or otherwise.

People make all kinds of judgments based on the available information and their own judgment.

When people say "The Church is True", do you say to them, "that is their opinion, they shouldn't say it like it's a fact"?

When people say "God Exists", do you say to them, "that is their opinion, they shouldn't say it like it's a fact"?

Likewise, when I say I believe the reason for the ban in God's eyes was because of the sins of the world toward the African, why do you then say "that is my opinion, and I shouldn't say it like it's a fact"? It's a fact "to me".... Why are you and others allowed to have your facts, but I can't?

If you actually want a CFR, then that's a different story, but not what you originally said.

But even then.... Tell me how easy it is to CFR the "Church is True" and "God exists"?

Further, you're asking me to CFR something that almost no one has even touched intellectually or scholarly.

Me, I'm a layman. I'm just giving my belief from experience with the subject. I don't know that I'll ever have the time or interest to collect all resources on the subject and then provide a reasoned argument in thesis form.

Anyway, I'm giving my opinion of the issue. I believe it's true, or at least part of the reason if not the full reason. I'm not God, can't know all, and he hasn't revealed all. But, "Revelation" from him to me has told me it is true. How can I PROVE a revelation to you?

Edited March 2, 2012 by peacefulleeman

[Jeff K.]

You didn't ask for a CFR, you attacked me for making a belief/opinion appear as if it was something true and factual when I didn't qualify it as an opinion or otherwise.

.

That pretty much opens one to a CFR

[Nemesis]

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.

You have been banned from the site before please stop creating sockpuppets to bypass your banning.

Nemesis

[Messenger]

Other. Most of the missionaries (now elderly) I have talked to said that they simply were not ready. Living conditions (tribal, economic & social) , simply made them not ready to hold the priesthood and honor it. However, one of those missionaries, who later became a mission president also says that when they finally held the priesthood, they honored it.

[Deborah]

We all have our personal reasons for why the ban was put in place, but it is all speculation. We can be judgmental about those in the past but we still don't know the whole story. The fact is that it was instituted in a time when not everything was written down. The fact is that many prophets and general authorities researched the reasons for the ban and prayed about it trying to determine if it should still be in place. The fact is that it wasn't until 1978 that through very earnest prayer and supplication that it was finally lifted. Coincidentally this was a time when many things were happening together, among which were the Africans who discovered the Book of Mormon and who were imploring the church to send missionaries to teach them further and the opening of the Brazilian temple which was complicated by the mixture of races in that area. We can argue about the ban and even the timing, after all we could have avoided all the protests and criticism of the sixties had it been lifted sooner. But the fact remains that it was not lifted until 1978 by revelation after earnest prayer and events which made it impossible in my mind for these blessings to be withheld any longer.

[maklelan]

Here's a good recent guest post from the Juvenile Instructor that discusses Elijah Abel and some early indications that Brigham Young may actually not have instituted the ban.

[Thinking]

If the priesthood ban was a mistake (as many believe), then why didn't the Lord correct the mistake before 1978?

[cinepro]

The fact is that many prophets and general authorities researched the reasons for the ban and prayed about it trying to determine if it should still be in place.

As far as I've heard, the first actual "research" into the issue was Lester Bush's article in the early 1970's, and this reportedly had a great effect on Church leader's openness to change on the issue.

Here's how Signature summarizes it:

During the 1960s many authors attempted historical studies of the origins of Mormon teachings on blacks. Most offered superficial analyses based largely on assumptions, with little primary research. The most extensive study came in 1969 in the form of an essay by Stephen Taggart which in unpublished form received “Honorable Mention” in the first annual Dialogue Prize for Social Literature. Drawing heavily on the recently published Missouri-period research of Warren Jennings and the conceptual framework originally set forth by Fawn Brodie, Taggart proposed more thoroughly than ever before the so-called “Missouri Thesis” of the origins of Church teachings and practices related to blacks.In response to oral presentations of this paper, Lester Bush submitted to Dialogue the results of his own research which raised serious questions about much of the traditional wisdom on Mormon teachings, including many of the assumptions which underlay Taggart’s analysis. Initially Dialogue intended to carry both essays as a roundtable, with Taggart being offered a chance to reply to the Bush critique. However, Taggart’s untimely death prevented this and his paper was withdrawn in favor of publication in book form. The Bush essay, which in essence undermined all previous historical explanations of the origins of church teachings, was then published as follows, a review essay of Taggart’s book version. This essay originally appeared in Dialogue 4 (Winter 1969).

So to say that Church leaders had actually done historical research on the origins of the ban may be overstating the case. Based on what the leaders had been saying for decades, it sounds more like a feedback loop where they were reinforcing the teachings of earlier leaders without much scrutiny, or just making it up as they went along.

Edited March 2, 2012 by cinepro

[LeSellers]

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?

You certainly take things to unwarranted extremes.

I have not, nor have I ever, denied there are advantages to holding the Priesthood and to Temple Blessings.

However, ultimately, holding the Priesthood or receiving one's Endowment has its most beneficial effect after the person has died. At that point there is no difference, not the most infinitesimal difference, between Peter or Joseph Smith and Ubanda, a x Australian whose Temple work, including Priesthood ordination was done on the last day of the Millennium.

Note for those unfamiliar with my notation.

Upper case Roman numerals (I,V, X,

etc

.) represent ordinals (1

st

, 5

th

, 10

th

,

etc

.), and, when there's no noun (

e.g

., I Amendment), they refer to the identified century. Lower case Roman numerals always mean centuries before Christ. In the case above, "a x Australian" means "a tenth century

BC

Australian

".)

Those who hold the Priesthood are slaves to God in the sense that we have covenanted to do more than merely obey Him, but to serve Him by serving others; first those in our stewardships (family, home teaching families, quorum, etc.), then in expanding spheres as geography and circumstance allow.

There is no personal advantage to holding the Priesthood: only those around us benefit from our burden. All the vainglory of men that some may attach to a Priesthood office is hollow–emptiness. A Priesthood holder cannot baptize himself, cannot give himself a blessings, cannot home teach his own family (technically, home teachers are assigned to the head of household, ordinarily the father), cannot perform for himself any Priesthood ordinance. Those who hold the Priesthood are not given a free pass on anything (see Doc&Cov 121:37: "when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man".)

I have asked, but have not seen a response: what good does a man derive for himself from holding the Priesthood?

It is true that, if we magnify our callings, exercise the Priesthood in righteousness, serve others according to our covenants, we will hear Father tell us, "Well done, thou good and faithful servant, enter into the joy of thy lord." But, again, that's not something any person who lives according to the law he has received, and who accepts the Gospel of Jesus Christ (whether in the spirit world or here in mortality), will not hear. It matters not a whit if that person was a Saint on earth, a woman, a black African, an honest atheist (perhaps less likely), or what. Just as the laborers in the heat of the day received their penny while those who labored one hour got the same reward, so we who have held the Priesthood of God will not get, and should not expect to receive anything more than others who do the best they know.

We get experience. Perhaps we learn humility (I hope so—I need it). We have, perhaps, a greater hope of having our families around us in the Kingdom. But none of that equals a reason to assume that holding the Priesthood is some mystical advantage that others will envy us for having had if they did not.

I have said, and will say again, God is not bound by the myopia of temporality. His vision is from a higher plane, and He cares little for the so-called advantages some may have in mortality nor for the lack others may have, even if they suffer physically by them. He chose for me my station on earth for reason He knows and I do not. He chose Ubanda's station for similarly unknown reasons. I believe His motivation in either case was to advance our individual progression back to Him. His work and glory are, as we read in Moses, "to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man." Not "of a man", but "man", all mankind. He is not capricious. He loves me no less, nor any more than He does Ubanda. My brother did not hold the Priesthood, could not read, had poor medical care, suffered from lack of nutrition and fell leaving him a life-long cripple: somehow, "all these things shall give [him] experience, and shall be for [his] good" just as my life situation will be a blessing to me.

In the end, God, my our Father, will work it out so each will have no reason to complain nor to envy others. I neither know nor pretend to understand how that will happen. But my firm knowledge is that it will happen and we will all rejoice in it.

Lehi

[cinepro]

Those who hold the Priesthood are slaves to God in the sense that we have covenanted to do more than merely obey Him, but to serve Him by serving others; first those in our stewardships (family, home teaching families, quorum, etc.), then in expanding spheres as geography and circumstance allow.

There is no personal advantage to holding the Priesthood: only those around us benefit from our burden. All the vainglory of men that some may attach to a Priesthood office is hollow–emptiness. A Priesthood holder cannot baptize himself, cannot give himself a blessings, cannot home teach his own family (technically, home teachers are assigned to the head of household, ordinarily the father), cannot perform for himself any Priesthood ordinance. Those who hold the Priesthood are not given a free pass on anything (see Doc&Cov 121:37: "when we undertake to cover our sins, or to gratify our pride, our vain ambition, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men, in any degree of unrighteousness, behold, the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man".)

I have asked, but have not seen a response: what good does a man derive for himself from holding the Priesthood?

It is true that, if we magnify our callings, exercise the Priesthood in righteousness, serve others according to our covenants, we will hear Father tell us, "Well done, thou good and faithful servant, enter into the joy of thy lord." But, again, that's not something any person who lives according to the law he has received, and who accepts the Gospel of Jesus Christ (whether in the spirit world or here in mortality), will not hear. It matters not a whit if that person was a Saint on earth, a woman, a black African, an honest atheist (perhaps less likely), or what. Just as the laborers in the heat of the day received their penny while those who labored one hour got the same reward, so we who have held the Priesthood of God will not get, and should not expect to receive anything more than others who do the best they know.

LeSellers, I have to imagine that this line of argument sounds really good in your head as you're typing it, but you've got to understand just how jaw-droppingly awful it really is.

You have to realize that during the ban, black members of the Church couldn't be married in the Temple. Black fathers couldn't baptize their own kids (while a non-black 16 year old in the ward could). Black fathers couldn't give their families priesthood blessings. A black 12-year-old couldn't pass the sacrament no matter how righteous and willing he was, while all the other non-black 12-year-old deacons could (even with dubious righteousness and willingness). The ban wasn't about some ephemeral concept of the eternities, it was a very real policy that seriously impacted the lives of black Church members.

If anybody from the Washington Posts calls you, please save the Church the trouble of issuing another press release and don't answer the phone.

Edited March 2, 2012 by cinepro

[Analytics]

The official answer is "we don't know."

But what form could the answer be? Some possible categories are:

1- God was punishing blacks for something they had done.

2- God was blessing blacks because they couldn't handle the responsibility.

3- God's reasons have more to do with whites than with blacks (e.g. God didn't want the church to offend the sensibilities of racist whites)

4- God had some other reason (an Abrahamic test?)

4- God doesn't have a reason at all--just being arbitrary

5- The policy wasn't from God, and God didn't clarify his opinion on the matter until 1978

6- Other

Every hypothetical explanation I can think of has negative implications about either the church, its leaders, or its God. Which makes me suspect that the reason why the Church seems content with the answer of "we don't know" is because they don't want to know.

[maklelan]

As far as I've heard, the first actual "research" into the issue was Lester Bush's article in the early 1970's, and this reportedly had a great effect on Church leader's openness to change on the issue.

Actually David O. McKay formed a committee to research the origins of the ban, and they came back having found no scriptural basis for it. McKay subsequently relaxed a number of the previous restrictions rising from the ban.

[LeSellers]

You have to realize that during the ban, black members of the Church couldn't be married in the Temple. Black fathers couldn't baptize their own kids (while a non-black 16 year old in the ward could). Black fathers couldn't give their families priesthood blessings. A black 12-year-old couldn't pass the sacrament no matter how righteous and willing he was, while all the other non-black 12-year-old deacons could (even with dubious righteousness and willingness). The ban wasn't about some ephemeral concept of the eternities, it was a very real policy that seriously impacted the lives of black Church members.

Gee, how helpful. It's not like I was raising a family in Italy when I heard this or anything. I mean, I'm really too young to have lived during the time you've so helpfully explained to me. How can I ever thank you enough?

How do yo know the "ban" was not "some ephemeral concept of the eternities". Do you think God is not more concerned about the eternities than about this temporary mortal test we are going through? Are you wiser than He is? Are you more moral than He is? Do you love His children more than He does?

How., exactly, did this "real policy" "seriously impact" the eternal lives of "black [sic] Church members"? Did they not have enough to eat? Could they not breathe or pay taxes? Could they not receive baptism and the Gift of the Holy Ghost? Was there any hindrance to their salvation, or even exaltation? If oyu have evidence of any of this, you know more than I do about it.

Your grossly overstated assertions about any 16 or 12 year old: it was not any 16 year old boy who could baptize a black Saint, but one the Bishop had chosen to receive the Priesthood and to perform that specific ordinance. If there's a problem with that, take it up with God, Who established His chain of authority and conferred keys of the Priesthood to men in specific callings.

If anybody from the Washington Posts calls you, please save the Church the trouble of issuing another press release and don't answer the phone.

I have never tried to speak on behalf of the Church. I do not plan on starting now.

I am not politically correct. I do not try to deny the power of God in running His own Church. Where I am ignorant, I acknowledge it. I don't give the first flyin' fig about what others think of me. If people want to take offense at what I say: have at it.

At least try to make a non-emotional response if you're going to object.

Lehi

[frankenstein]

The official answer is "we don't know."

But what form could the answer be? Some possible categories are:

1- God was punishing blacks for something they had done.

2- God was blessing blacks because they couldn't handle the responsibility.

3- God's reasons have more to do with whites than with blacks (e.g. God didn't want the church to offend the sensibilities of racist whites)

4- God had some other reason (an Abrahamic test?)

4- God doesn't have a reason at all--just being arbitrary

5- The policy wasn't from God, and God didn't clarify his opinion on the matter until 1978

6- Other

Every hypothetical explanation I can think of has negative implications about either the church, its leaders, or its God. Which makes me suspect that the reason why the Church seems content with the answer of "we don't know" is because they don't want to know.

Incorrect in part

The Official answer is "we do not know precisely why" not knowing precisely means something is known not knowing period means nothing is known.

[Nevo]

Here's a good recent guest post from the Juvenile Instructor that discusses Elijah Abel and some early indications that Brigham Young may actually not have instituted the ban.

Thanks for the link. I think Reeve makes some excellent points. He is right to point out that the priesthood ban had a long evolution, but I don't think there's much question that it began with Brigham Young (and Reeve doesn't dispute this).

As Lester Bush notes, the priesthood ban was "first suggested in 1847, explicitly articulated in 1849, and publicly espoused in 1852." After Brigham Young's death, "questions arose about Joseph Smith's views on blacks and the priesthood, triggered in part by the continued presence of Elijah Abel in the Salt Lake City community. Unanimity on the question of Smith's views was not completely achieved for almost three decades" (Lester Bush, "Writing 'Mormonism's Negro Doctrine: An Historical Overview' (1973): Context and Reflections, 1998," JMH 25, no. 1 [1999]: 231).

Although it was periodically questioned and debated by Church leaders well into the twentieth century, the ban was basically in place by the 1850s.

[Nathair/|\]

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?

Thank you, that was what I was trying to say, though I think priesthood ordination would have been an even bigger provocation than plural marriage.

[Analytics]

Incorrect in part

The Official answer is "we do not know precisely why" not knowing precisely means something is known not knowing period means nothing is known.

If you are right and something is known, they'd rather focus on the part that isn't known. Ironic.

If they don't know why at all, then technically, "we do not know precisely why" is a true statement.

[Analytics]

Thank you, that was what I was trying to say, though I think priesthood ordination would have been an even bigger provocation than plural marriage.

Interesting speculation. If God was compromising on his principles in order to keep persecution in check, things sure would be different now if God would have compromised the opposite way by having the Saints practice monogamy and not institutionalized racism.

[juliann]

How., exactly, did this "real policy" "seriously impact" the eternal lives of "black [sic] Church members"? Did they not have enough to eat? Could they not breathe or pay taxes? Could they not receive baptism and the Gift of the Holy Ghost? Was there any hindrance to their salvation, or even exaltation? If oyu have evidence of any of this, you know more than I do about it.

It is one thing to defend discrimination based on race, it is another to mock the victims. UnChristlike doesn't even begin to describe that.

[LeSellers]

It is one thing to defend discrimination based on race, it is another to mock the victims. UnChristlike doesn't even begin to describe that.

How, prithee, do you read mocking the victims into what I said?

Lehi

[cinepro]

Thank you, that was what I was trying to say, though I think priesthood ordination would have been an even bigger provocation than plural marriage.

I disagree. If the ban hadn't been started and perpetuated by Brigham Young and other LDS leaders, I would argue that having people of presumed African descent get the priesthood wouldn't cause any more trouble for the Church than having men from Mexican, Hawaiian, Japanese or other "minority" groups ordained.

Let's use Elijah Abel as a test case. Is there any record of any non-Mormon (or Mormon, for that matter) complaining about his ordination and service in the Priesthood? As far as I can tell, the only problems Elder Abel faced were because of the Priesthood Ban, not in spite of it.

That also raises the problem with any simple answer: if we can think of it and clearly summarize it with a few sentences, then surely God should be able to just as easily convey it to Church leaders and they could express it just as well. Ultimately, our ability to arrive at an understanding of the cause of the ban isn't based on our creativity, but on the Prophet's ability to get that information from God and tell us. Since Church leaders had 120+ years to think about it and in that time only officially expressed two or three explanations, I'm dubious of any "new" ideas that are created by Church members (and BYU Professors).

Edited March 2, 2012 by cinepro

[KevinG]

This bears repeating repetitively...

“The origins of priesthood availability are not entirely clear. Some explanations with respect to this matter were made in the absence of direct revelation and references to these explanations are sometimes cited in publications. These previous personal statements do not represent Church doctrine.”

"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."

...It seems to me the living prophets, seers and revelators are pretty clear on the subject. The past speculations were not doctrinal.

This brings up several other concepts like prophets are not infallible, the church is always going to be somewhat subject to the society it is a part of and "not be led astray" does not mean we won't err from time to time in the interim between now and our salvation in Christ. But by following the Prophets we will eventually right our course; line by line, precept by precept until we have the fullness of the Gospel and salvation for all of God's children.

[frankenstein]

what previous statement are personal opinions and what previous statement are Official Statement issued by the First Presidency of the particular time?