Was The Priesthood Ban A Mistake?

[frankenstein]

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

The end of the ban was divinely appointed, that much is clear from OD2, I think Daddyg mentioned this several posts ago.

[KevinG]

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

Please point out where it says the ban was divinely appointed? I only see where the lifting of the ban is divinely appointed. The former does not imply the latter.

June 8, 1978

To all general and local priesthood officers of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints throughout the world:

Dear Brethren:

As we have witnessed the expansion of the work of the Lord over the earth, we have been grateful that people of many nations have responded to the message of the restored gospel, and have joined the Church in ever-increasing numbers. This, in turn, has inspired us with a desire to extend to every worthy member of the Church all of the privileges and blessings which the gospel affords.

Aware of the promises made by the prophets and presidents of the Church who have preceded us that at some time, in God’s eternal plan, all of our brethren who are worthy may receive the priesthood, and witnessing the faithfulness of those from whom the priesthood has been withheld, we have pleaded long and earnestly in behalf of these, our faithful brethren, spending many hours in the Upper Room of the Temple supplicating the Lord for divine guidance.

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. Priesthood leaders are instructed to follow the policy of carefully interviewing all candidates for ordination to either the Aaronic or the Melchizedek Priesthood to insure that they meet the established standards for worthiness.

We declare with soberness that the Lord has now made known his will for the blessing of all his children throughout the earth who will hearken to the voice of his authorized servants, and prepare themselves to receive every blessing of the gospel.

Sincerely yours,

Spencer W. Kimball

N. Eldon Tanner

Marion G. Romney

The First Presidency

[BCSpace]

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.

It is doctrinal according to OD-2 for one. Here for another:

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

et. al.

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 seems to imply you might (deep down) believe it's doctrinal too. I tend to go that way myself. But notice such speculation that we weren't ready is merely the opposite of saying blacks weren't ready.

There is nothing in my stated belief that puts me in opposition to the brethren today or the doctrines of God.

That the ban is doctrinal, Divinely appointed, and not racist is the position of the bretheren today and as I have shown by reference.

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

I predict they will echo the position of the bretheren as I have done.

[KevinG]

Your mind reading skills are failing...

I do not believe the ban was doctrinal for several reasons - one of which is the absolute futility in trying to identify a true descendent of the original ban in the Old Testament.

If you are going to make a case for OD2 and living prophets belief that it was doctrinal by echoing their statements you have to do better than to link the OD2 and assert that it is the case.

Again - please point out the content of OD2 that implies the ban was doctrinal along with your expanation. I don't think you have made your case convincingly especially in light of recent official statements.

Showing by reference is trumped by direct quote.

“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.”

Edited March 2, 2012 by DaddyG

[BCSpace]

Please point out where it says the ban was divinely appointed? I only see where the lifting of the ban is divinely appointed.

Lightbearer did in post #19. Here it is again:

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.

http://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/od/2?lang=eng

Who besides God has the authority to designate this long promised day? In addition, the link I just gave in my previous also shows that the ban was Divinely appointed.

[KevinG]

Lightbearer did in post #19. Here it is again:

Who besides God has the authority to designate this long promised day? In addition, the link I just gave in my previous also shows that the ban was Divinely appointed.

That long promised day could be God banned certain lineages from the priesthood due to the sins of their fathers.

It could also mean that God didn't restore the priesthood fully to all men because we as Saints were not prepared properly to do so.

Believing the former is a bit like beliving we didn't have a Temple in Palmyra NY because we were cursed for having been protestants before the restoration.

Given current statements, my own prayers about the matter and personal discussions with the first black missionary in the church (who is a colleague and a professor) I am more inclined to believe the latter is the case.

Either way there is nothing explicit in OD2 that claims the ban was in place due to the will of God separate from our ability as a people to receive it.

[frankenstein]

Showing by reference is trumped by direct quote.

“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.”

Not entirely clear....a qualified stattement.

"SOME explanations"....another qualified statement, the statement is not "ALL explanations".

"These [some explanations] previouse personal" ....a double qualified statement.

Not every pre-1978 statement is being dismissed as personal opinion.

[BCSpace]

Btw DaddyG, even the first sentence in the portion of OD2 which you quoted contains additional acknowledgement that the ban was Divinely appointed. The promise of the promises of the prophets..... If such prophets were in error at the time, why make reference top them?

The bottom line is that if the Church is going to change it's position and say the doctrinal ban was racist and wrong, they are going to have to change OD2. I predict this will never happen.

[KevinG]

Not entirely clear....a qualified stattement.

"SOME explanations"....another qualified statement, the statement is not "ALL explanations".

"These [some explanations] previouse personal" ....a double qualified statement.

Not every pre-1978 statement is being dismissed as personal opinion.

And they are certainly not being portrayed as doctrine.

[KevinG]

Btw DaddyG, even the first sentence in the portion of OD2 which you quoted contains additional acknowledgement that the ban was Divinely appointed. The promise of the promises of the prophets..... If such prophets were in error at the time, why make reference top them?

The bottom line is that if the Church is going to change it's position and say the doctrinal ban was racist and wrong, they are going to have to change OD2. I predict this will never happen.

Quote the whole sentence and it means something much different than what you just said...

"Aware of the promises made by the prophets and presidents of the Church who have preceded us that at some time, in God’s eternal plan, all of our brethren who are worthy may receive the priesthood, and witnessing the faithfulness of those from whom the priesthood has been withheld, we have pleaded long and earnestly in behalf of these, our faithful brethren, spending many hours in the Upper Room of the Temple supplicating the Lord for divine guidance."

The essential question is did God withhold the priesthood due to the sins of their fathers or was it withheld my mans limited knowledge and then fulfilled by God when we were ready to accept it?

The answer is "we don't fully know" and that is very clear from the recent statements of the church.

It seems to me trying to justify the ban as divinely appointed when we don't know will be more of a stumbling block to those trying to find the fullness of the gospel than saying we are now in possesion of greater light and knowledge and moving on.

[BCSpace]

Who besides God has the authority to designate this long promised day? In addition, the link I just gave in my previous also shows that the ban was Divinely appointed.

That long promised day could be God banned certain lineages from the priesthood due to the sins of their fathers.

It could also mean that God didn't restore the priesthood fully to all men because we as Saints were not prepared properly to do so.

Either way you go, it's Divinely appointed. But all we have is the fact that it's Divinely appoint. We don't know why this particular lineage at this particular time etc.

Given current statements, my own prayers about the matter and personal discussions with the first black missionary in the church (who is a colleague and a professor) I am more inclined to believe the latter is the case.

I am intimately aquainted with the first black missionary from Kenya, we were companions long ago, and he understands it just as I do as well virtually everyone else I come into contact with non virtually who are members.

[Daniel Peterson]

We don't know the reason for the ban.

Perhaps it was a mistake. In that case, we don't know why the Lord permitted it to endure until 1978.

If it wasn't a mistake, we still don't know the reason for it.

[BCSpace]

Quote the whole sentence and it means something much different than what you just said...

"Aware of the promises made by the prophets and presidents of the Church who have preceded us that at some time, in God’s eternal plan, all of our brethren who are worthy may receive the priesthood, and witnessing the faithfulness of those from whom the priesthood has been withheld, we have pleaded long and earnestly in behalf of these, our faithful brethren, spending many hours in the Upper Room of the Temple supplicating the Lord for divine guidance."

Nothing changes. If they believed the ban wasn't Divinely appointed, then they would not have spent all those hours supplicating the Lord.

Edited March 2, 2012 by BCSpace

[Libs]

Perhaps it was a mistake. In that case, we don't know why the Lord permitted it to endure until 1978.

Okay, so it is, at least, possible that it was a mistake? That's what I was trying to figure out...

[KevinG]

Either way you go, it's Divinely appointed. But all we have is the fact that it's Divinely appoint. We don't know why this particular lineage at this particular time etc.

I am intimately aquainted with the first black missionary from Kenya, we were companions long ago, and he understands it just as I do as well virtually everyone else I come into contact with non virtually who are members.

The timing of the lifting of the ban was divinely appointed. The ban itself. "We don't know".

[BCSpace]

Perhaps it was a mistake. In that case, we don't know why the Lord permitted it to endure until 1978.

Okay, so it is, at least, possible that it was a mistake? That's what I was trying to figure out...

Anything is possible. But there are no indications it was a mistake and the Church is very careful to not imply such. The current official doctrine gives reasons and justifications for the ban, teaches that it was Divinely appointed, and is doctrine. It does not give certain ultimate reasons.

[BCSpace]

The timing of the lifting of the ban was divinely appointed. The ban itself. "We don't know".

There is no such statement. The current statement is:

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

There is nothing to preclude the OD2 or Topical Statements etc. teaching the ban's Divine appointment.

We have had enough. You are done in this thread.

Edited March 2, 2012 by Minos

[KevinG]

Keep repeating "the ban was divinely appointed"- that doesn't make it so. Find me an authoratative quote that says "the ban was divinely appointed".

Meanwhile repeat this a few times and see if you can accept it:

“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.”

Now the 64 million soul question:

Which plausible statement will bring more souls unto Christ through membership in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?

A) The priesthood ban was divinely appointed (with accompanying speculations about the lineage of Cain)

B) We don't know why the preisthood ban was started (with accompanying speculations about Mormons being human)

[Libs]

I choose "B".

Okay, so this ban really may not have been revelation?

That's good to know.

[cinepro]

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.

Are you referring to this quote?

Brigham Young said "when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the Holy Priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will then come up and possess the Priesthood, and receive all the blessings which we are now entitled to." quoted by the First Presidency, August 17, 1949.

Because I'm pretty sure the timeline on that makes it contradictory to OD2.

[Calm]

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

What discussions we have on record appear to be church leaders, including prophets, trying to find out if anyone else had the discussion that actually counted (the one with the Lord), so it would appear that no one even at the highest level was certain about it.

And we have the first rules of temple usage being extended to all or anticipated to:

Nondiscriminatory Rules Published for Governing the Temple in Kirtland

The rules provided for “old or young, rich or poor, male or female, bond or free, black or white, believer or unbeliever…” (History of the Church 2: 368-69)

People of Every Color Anticipated to Worship in the Nauvoo Temple

“If the work roll forth with the same rapidity it has heretofore done, we may soon expect to see flocking to this place, people from every land and from every nation, the polished European, the degraded Hottentot, and the shivering Laplander. Persons of all languages, and of every tongue, and of every color; who shall with us worship the Lord of Hosts in his holy temple, and offer up their orisons in his sanctuary.” (Times and Seasons, Vol. 1 No. 12 October, 1840. See also Latter-day Saints’ Millennial Star, Vol. 1, No. 9, January 1841 and in History of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Vol. 4)

And as far as what records were found to exist....they ended up with some not so credible memories reported that contradicted actual records of ordinations:

http://www.blacklds.org/quotes#smoot

Coltrin claims that Abel was dropped from the quorum of Seventy sometime before or during 1837 when Joseph Smith Jr. learned that Abel was Black. Apostle Joseph F. Smith successfully argues against this point on the grounds of Abel’s two additional certificates of ordination to the office of Seventy, one dated 1841 and the other from some time in the 1850s after Abel arrived in Salt Lake City. Coltrin’s memory is shown to be unreliable in at least two specifics: His claimed date (1834) for Joseph Smith’s announcing the alleged ban is impossible, since Coltrin himself ordained Abel a Seventy in 1836. Also, he incorrectly identifies which of the quorums of Seventy Abel was ordained to. Abel, on the other hand, claims that "the prophet Joseph told him he was entitled to the priesthood." President John Taylor, on the other hand, said that Abel’s ordination as a Seventy "was allowed to remain".

Edited March 3, 2012 by calmoriah

[frankenstein]

We don't know the reason for the ban.

Perhaps it was a mistake. In that case, we don't know why the Lord permitted it to endure until 1978.

If it wasn't a mistake, we still don't know the reason for it.

You are not stating the position of the church.

The Church stated the precise reason is not know. You are rewriting the Church statement with your personal statement.

If the ban wasn't a mistake then as stated by the Church the PRECISE reason is not known. (I have to use caps at the moment because I can not access the bold option)

The precise reason is not known and it is dishonest to use suggest anything contra to the Chief h position.

Daniel Peterson if the First Presidency and Apostles stated "not know precisely" why do you not present the Official position.

Frankenstein has left the building.

[Calm]

I choose "B". Okay, so this ban really may not have been revelation? That's good to know.

Libs, I think this page is very good at summarizing what we do and do not know:

http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_racial_issues/Blacks_and_the_priesthood/Origin_of_the_priesthood_ban

[Freedom]

I wonder why so many are so enthralled with this topic but give little attention to the genocides perpetrated by Joshua. The number of years in the past it occurred does not alter its significance. With no answers forthcoming, and so many greater problems with which to be concerned, why is this dead horse getting kicked about so frequently and so severely?

[KevinG]

I wonder why so many are so enthralled with this topic but give little attention to the genocides perpetrated by Joshua. The number of years in the past it occurred does not alter its significance. With no answers forthcoming, and so many greater problems with which to be concerned, why is this dead horse getting kicked about so frequently and so severely?

I'm pretty sure there are no living souls who witnessed the Joshuaid genocides. There is also a lack of current Huffington Post articles about BYU professors speculating about their cause.