Was The Priesthood Ban A Mistake?

[cinepro]

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

Part of the problem is the Church's inability to clearly address the subject. Every statement is couched in euphemisms and allusions, leaving the reader to figure out what they're talking about. If the Church could actually address the matter with specificity, this thread would have been four posts long.

For example, suppose the Church released the following:

Recent articles published about the Church have renewed interest in the Priesthood Ban for men of African descent. Before 1978, these men were not allowed to receive the Priesthood in the Church, nor were they allowed to participate in Temple worship, including marriage ceremonies.

During that time, Church members and leaders, including Apostles and Prophets, expressed ideas on possible causes for this restriction. We now know that those teachings were in error. For example, some believed that the restriction was based on an ancient "curse", described in the Bible and other scriptures. This is not the case. Others taught that, based on our belief in a pre-mortal existence for our spirits, people of African decent had done something in their pre-mortal life that made them ineligible for the priesthood. This is also untrue.

To be clear, anyone who teaches either of these theories is in error, and not in harmony with the gospel or doctrines of the Church.

At this time, the Lord has not seen fit to reveal the reason or origin for the ban, so we ask Church members to please refrain from uninspired speculations. Regardless of the reason for the restriction, that policy brought with it great pain and sacrifice on the part of many of God's children. Since 1978, we have rejoiced as priesthood blessings have been extended to all people, and further speculation only serves to perpetuate the negative feelings of that time.

Signed,

The First Presidency and Quorum of Twelve

Edited March 2, 2012 by cinepro

[BCSpace]

For example, suppose the Church released the following:

They won't because some of those teachings remain doctrinal to this day.

So, currently 43% in the poll believe the ban is racist. Can it be said then that all other selections express the opinion that the ban is not racist? Some of you who voted for the last two please comment as to this.

[BCSpace]

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

Undefined. But going with the Church's standard for doctrine, those statements in works not published by the Church (such as BRM's Mormon Doctrine) fit that description. If statements made in works published by the Church are being disavowed then I think the Church will have to specify so the doctrine change becomes permanent. Nothing in the Church's Newroom statements goes against what the Church already publishes for doctrine. Also, prior to correlation, context becomes more important for obvious reasons.

[maklelan]

The $64 question: "Are you now or have you ever been of the opinion that the priesthood ban was racist?"

[Jeff K.]

The church doesn't have an inability to address the subject, they said "they don't know". It is the inability of some to make it worse than it is that seems to present a problem (at least for them).

[BCSpace]

This bears repeating repetitively...

What exactly do you think people are missing?

“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.

The problem then is specifying which statements are speculations and which are not. Those who acccept the Church's standard for doctrine will not have any trouble identifying these nor will they have any trouble modifying their position if the Church specifies which previously held doctrines are no longer doctrines.

I'm wondering then if you would mind referencing specific statements you think the Church is talking about. Also, is the following speculation in your opinion:

Priesthood Ordination before 1978

In June 1978, President Spencer W. Kimball received a revelation extending priesthood ordination to all worthy males of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Official Declaration 2). Before that time only worthy male members who were not of black African descent were ordained to the priesthood.

Additional Information

Ever since biblical times, the Lord has designated through His prophets who could receive the priesthood and other blessings of the gospel. Among the tribes of Israel, for example, only men of the tribe of Levi were given the priesthood and allowed to officiate in certain ordinances. Likewise, during the Savior’s earthly ministry, gospel blessings were restricted to the Jews. Only after a revelation to the Apostle Peter were the gospel and priesthood extended to others (see Acts 10:1–33; 14:23; 15:6– .

With the revelation to President Kimball in 1978, the priesthood is now available to all worthy male members regardless of race or ethnicity (see Official Declaration 2). Each candidate for ordination is interviewed by priesthood leaders to ensure that he understands and agrees to live by established principles of righteousness (see Doctrine and Covenants 84:33–44; 121:34–46).

http://www.lds.org/s...e-1978?lang=eng

[frankenstein]

The church doesn't have an inability to address the subject, they said "they don't know". It is the inability of some to make it worse than it is that seems to present a problem (at least for them).

Jeff, the Church did not say "we do not know". The Church clearly and specifically stated "we do not know precisely why". You and many others are misrepresenting the Church position.

The Official statement from the Church is "we do not know precisely why", anything more or less than the Official statement is contradictory to the Church. The LDS Church stance is that it does not know precisely why. Those who seek to defend the Church should at the very least present the correct and accurate statement of the Church.

[Jeff K.]

No we are not misrepresenting the position. But apparently come members of the church with their own peculiar ax to grind will never be satisfied with any answer other than abject humiliation. It is unfortunate that they will never be satisfied and they will continue to complain. The church doesn't know, since the position is black and white. If they stated they did know, then that is fine. Close is not the same as knowing.

[KevinG]

Not only can my next statement apply to priesthood restrictions it is a good rule of thumb for anyone wanting to eternally progress...

Everything we thought we knew and tried to explain prior to having further light and knowledge on the subject was speculation, incomplete information or just plain wrong. Living Saints are much safer following living Prophets than defending the speculations of dead ones.

[KevinG]

Jeff, the Church did not say "we do not know". The Church clearly and specifically stated "we do not know precisely why". You and many others are misrepresenting the Church position.

The Official statement from the Church is "we do not know precisely why", anything more or less than the Official statement is contradictory to the Church. The LDS Church stance is that it does not know precisely why. Those who seek to defend the Church should at the very least present the correct and accurate statement of the Church.

Use the whole sentence in context... "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."

I think if the brethern knew the amount of parsing this sentence was going through they would be doing a collective face/palm about now.

[BCSpace]

I think if the brethern knew the amount of parsing this sentence was going through they would be doing a collective face/palm about now.

I think they expect it and it's intentional. It's good PR. They're not going to deny existing doctrine and they're not going to specify any statements to further the controversy down that path. Instead, they are going to assuage the general questions of racism with the truism that LDS doctrine is not racist. They are merely presenting a certain face and have not changed any stance or position. It is the same with the issues of homosexuality and proxy baptism. Think about it. With the Romney candidacy, all eyes are on the Church. The public conversation about the Priesthood ban is being deflected as it should be. It is neither dishonest or cynical to do so considering all the erroneous notions surrounding these issues and the Church's inability to be present in all public discourse to represent itself.

That doesn't mean we can't discuss these issues in detail here.

Edited March 2, 2012 by BCSpace

[frankenstein]

No we are not misrepresenting the position. But apparently come members of the church with their own peculiar ax to grind will never be satisfied with any answer other than abject humiliation. It is unfortunate that they will never be satisfied and they will continue to complain. The church doesn't know, since the position is black and white. If they stated they did know, then that is fine. Close is not the same as knowing.

Jeff which statement most accurately represents the position of the Church:

1. It is not know why the restriction was in place.

2. It is not known precisely why the restriction was in place.

So either 1or 2.

Daddyg given that of the 15 brethern are several attorneys, I say PR statement was percisely written.

Not knowing and not knowing precisely convey two different standpoints.

It is inaccurate to claim the church position as "we do not know"

[Jeff K.]

Use the whole sentence in context... "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."

I think if the brethern knew the amount of parsing this sentence was going through they would be doing a collective face/palm about now.

Literally no one can predict the level of worrying of the bone that people will go through. Those who wish to intimate all kinds of things will say what they want and continue to believe their empty words will somehow vex the church. You can't stop the parsing, the leadership know that, so why worry about the little guys who have nothing better to do.

[Calm]

There is no personal advantage to holding the Priesthood

I think Abraham would differ with you.

Abr 1:2 And, finding there was greater happiness and peace and rest for me, I sought for the blessings of the fathers, and the right whereunto I should be ordained to administer the same; having been myself a follower of righteousness, desiring also to be one who possessed great knowledge, and to be a greater follower of righteousness, and to possess a greater knowledge, and to be a father of many nations, a prince of peace], and desiring to receive instructions, and to keep the commandments of God, I became a rightful heir, a High Priest, holding the right belonging to the fathers.

3 It was conferred upon me from the fathers; it came down from the fathers, from the beginning of time, yea, even from the beginning, or before the foundation of the earth, down to the present time, even the right of the firstborn, or the first man, who is Adam, or first father, through the fathers unto me.

4 I sought for mine appointment unto the Priesthood according to the appointment of God unto the fathers concerning the seed.

Edited March 2, 2012 by calmoriah

[zelder]

I hold a current temple recommend and a calling. I'm not totally convinced that the ban was entirely racist or that it was entirely a mistake made by imprefect prophets. However, I am leaning that direction. The church does admit that any explanation for the ban was and is out of line. Even explanations previously made by prophets seers and revelators. I think the priesthood ban weakens the credibility of modern prophetic leadership. They obviously don't always know what they are talking about. I do think the church is getting better though and is doing a decent job of correcting mistakes.

The salvation of the church is that it does correct it's mistakes. Unlike the church during Lehi's time or Jesus's time, modern prophets do listen to the world around them and do make corrections. In the past the church would degenerate to the point of wanting to kill outspoken critics.

Edited March 2, 2012 by zelder

[KevinG]

Daddyg given that of the 15 brethern are several attorneys, I say PR statement was percisely written.

It is not the precision of the writing of Prophets, Seer, Revelators and Lawyers that bothers me as much as the inprecision of the reading of it.

[frankenstein]

It is not the precision of the writing of Prophets, Seer, Revelators and Lawyers that bothers me as much as the inprecision of the reading of it.

what would you describe as the inprecision in reading it?

As I asked Jeff, I will ask of you which of the following most accurately represents the position of the Church:

1. It is not known precisely why, how or when this restriction began in the Church, but it has ended.

or

2.It is not known why, how or when this restriction began in the Church, but it has ended.

Which of the two most closely and accurately represents the position of the Church?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why is it so confoundingly difficult for people to accurately present the position of the Church? Why do so many here feel the need to rewrite the Church stance?

[Thinking]

Living Saints are much safer following living Prophets than defending the speculations of dead ones.

It seems that many faithful LDS are adopting the interpretation that the decision to not ordain faithful blacks to the priesthood was based on speculation and not revelation. This raises an important question in my mind. Surely there have been people who have rejected the LDS Church because of the priesthood ban. If the pristhood ban was a mistake based on incorrect speculation, will those who rejected the gospel because of it be held accountable?

[KevinG]

what would you describe as the inprecision in reading it?

As I asked Jeff, I will ask of you which of the following most accurately represents the position of the Church:

1. It is not known precisely why, how or when this restriction began in the Church, but it has ended.

or

2.It is not known why, how or when this restriction began in the Church, but it has ended.

Which of the two most closely and accurately represents the position of the Church?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why is it so confoundingly difficult for people to accurately present the position of the Church? Why do so many here feel the need to rewrite the Church stance?

I quoted the statement in full and in context including the word precisely. Now explain to me why the inclusion of the word precisely in that sentence justifies teaching that the ban was anything but incomplete knowledge on the part of the Saints prior to 1978?

[KevinG]

It seems that many faithful LDS are adopting the interpretation that the decision to not ordain faithful blacks to the priesthood was based on speculation and not revelation. This raises an important question in my mind. Surely there have been people who have rejected the LDS Church because of the priesthood ban. If the pristhood ban was a mistake based on incorrect speculation, will those who rejected the gospel because of it be held accountable?

I think not. We are judged according to what we know.

In my opinion- offensive interpretations that seek to justify our practices prior to fuller light and knowledge in 1978 and in opoosition to the spirit of the official declarations and statements of todays living Prophets, Seers and Revelators (and their Lawyer and PR employees who carry out their instructions) would place some condemnation upon the heads of those who offended.

[BCSpace]

We are judged according to what we know

And what do we know? We know the criteria for the ban was lineage. That is not speculation.

[KevinG]

It seems that many faithful LDS are adopting the interpretation that the decision to not ordain faithful blacks to the priesthood was based on speculation and not revelation. This raises an important question in my mind. Surely there have been people who have rejected the LDS Church because of the priesthood ban. If the pristhood ban was a mistake based on incorrect speculation, will those who rejected the gospel because of it be held accountable?

Food for thought... How many people who rejected the gospel due to interpreting the policies and positions of the LDS church as racist will now come flooding through the doors to be baptized now that we have clarified our policy on race and priesthood?

[frankenstein]

Now explain to me why the inclusion of the word precisely in that sentence justifies teaching that the ban was anything but incomplete knowledge on the part of the Saints prior to 1978?

Daniel Peterson

Jeff K

and in a limited sense Juliann (she reposted the "precisely why" but only stressed not know why)

All suggested that the position of the Church is "we do not know", Jeff K even went so far as to post that the only honest answer is "we do not know".

Daniel has not posted since, Jeff K stated that he could not use the word "precise", which suggests that Jeff K posting "we do not know" mean he is posting his own stance, yet not just a few posts ago Jeff k misstates the position of the Church.

So which is the honest, accurate, correct position of the Church "It is not know why" or "It is not know precisely why". My only commentary has been that people present the accurate position of the Church.

As for why the word "precise" is important, I have stated several times already why. Not having "precise" knowledge means some knowledge is there. Not knowing at all means no knowledge is there.

More importantly, the Church felt the word "precise" was important so why isn't the word "precise" important to those claiming to present the position of the Church?

And just to be clear, in my use of the word "precise" indicates a incomplete knowledge. Just as the LDS have an incomplete knowledge on other things i.e. polygamy, coffee and tea. For polygamy, coffee and tea we believe God commanded, we do not know precisely why God commanded polygamy much less why it was practiced in "secret". Nor do we know the precise reason why coffee and tea violate the word of wisdom - some claim tanic acid others claim caffiene, truth is God commanded it and we do not know precisely why God commanded.

For all the flack that "anti-mormons" get for not quoting accurately it is really surprising that members will not present the accurate position of the Church.

Edited March 2, 2012 by frankenstein

[KevinG]

And what do we know? We know the criteria for the ban was lineage. That is not speculation.

The speculation I'm discussing is not that the ban was based on lineage or that it existed and that it was church policy.

I'm referring to those who defend it as doctrinal. I can accept all sorts of justifications that are cultural, historical, due to lack of information or assumptions on the part of the Saints... I even think poor professor Bott may have been explaining possible justifications not promoting them when the reported quoted him... what I cannot believe is the parsing of the brethrens current statements to classify our past repudiated policy as doctrinal or God breathed in any way.

I truly do believe we as a people either were not ready or were not enlightened enough on the issue to receive greater light and knowledge prior to 1978. That isn't a condemnation or critique of the Saints all the way back to Brigham. Just an acknowledgement that they were human and subject to a lot of conditions and beliefs that prevented the priesthood from being extended to all men prior to 1978.

There is nothing in my stated belief that puts me in opposition to the brethren today or the doctrines of God. IN fact I celebrate our ability to grow and learn as individuals and as an organization. It is one of the beautiful things about the fullness of the Gospel.

(Now to wonder what my grandchildren will think of my primitive beliefs as they receive additional revelation?)

[BCSpace]

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.

You're welcome. Lightbearer pointed it out in the OD-2 which shows that the Church understands the ban to have been Divinely appointed.