Was The Priesthood Ban A Mistake?

[Loran Blood]

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.

If it hadn't been, and this was known with any degree of certainty, this would have been a part of the Newsroom statement. The apologies all around would have also already been forthcoming.

[Loran Blood]

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.

Who has defended racial discrimination? Who has mocked its victims. Who is being un-Christ-like?

Here is the crux of the matter: there is no inherent moral self-congratulation available to one for the pious delivery of indignant words of moral condemnation derived from the contemporary academic/media world of "correct" attitudes regarding racial/historical issues attending the Church or the surrounding world, simply because it feels emotionally and ideologially "correct" to do so, and makes one stand out as a "maverick" among other Church members, like Le Sellers, who take a much more intellectually balanced and nuanced view.

I think what Le Sellers was simply trying to point out was that LDS doctrine always taught that blacks would eventually receive all the promises and blessings of exaltation regardless of their limitations on the reception of the priesthood in mortality, if they otherwise lived righteously, just as is the case with anybody else, irrespective of the availability of the gospel during their earth life.

Edited March 4, 2012 by Loran Blood

[Loran Blood]

Who besides God has the authority to designate this long promised day I

The editors of Dialogue?

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 03 March 2012 - 08:49 AM, said:

How important is it?

Most anti Mormons aren't sincere in "wanting to know", if they were being honest, they would state clearly that their desire for knowledge isn't about "truth" but about tactics, a desire to seek a weapon that they assail the church with. They really don't care about the reason, truth is not an issue for them. The psuedo umbrage and fake anguish is their mask as they look for another avenue of attack.

And you base this on what evidence?

The truth perhaps? When it rains, wetness occurs, when the sun shines, there tends to be dryness. Do anti Mormons want truth? No. Truth is irrelevant to their desires. This is repeatedly made manifest by their insincerity on almost any issue.

[Libs]

Do anti Mormons want truth? No. Truth is irrelevant to their desires. This is repeatedly made manifest by their insincerity on almost any issue.

That's a pretty broad brush.

[Jeff K.]

It is broad and accurate. There are many who disagree with the church, but they aren't anti Mormons. They agree to disagree on a number of issues.

[Analytics]

What would these 19th century protestants do if they discovered 'Black Pete' marrying several white women and living with them in a polygamous relationship?

Just to be sure I understand what you are talking about, the person whom you refer to as "Black Pete" is William McCary, a black man baptized by Orson Hyde in October 1846, and then excommunicated a year later for practicing polygamy, right?

I would guess that there were a few non-Mormons who would have been so upset by this that they would have murdered. But it seems to me that the people most likely to commit murder because of this were the brothers and fathers of McCary's polygamist wives, without regard to whether or not they were or weren't Mormon.

I find this line of argument beyond offensive and absurd; it sounds like you are implying that the Mormon Church institutionalized racism into the principles and ordinances of the gospel because if they didn’t, the non-Mormons would murder them.

With a true church like that, who needs a false one?

Edited March 4, 2012 by Analytics

[thesometimesaint]

Analytics:

Non Sequitur.

[why me]

The church stated yesterday "It is not known precisely why, how or when this restriction began in the Church, but it has ended." This suggests no documented revelation from God for the ban. Otherwise they would at least know how or when. If you have information to the contrary post it here. But logically you seem to be stuck. If there is revelation, then the statement is wrong. If the statement is right, there is no recorded revelation, and the church denied a group of people access to saving ordinances with no justification for thinking it was God's will.

It is in the podcast that I have linked to. Black Pete took it upon himself to begin to practice polygamy with several white women. This caused concern for BY and Orson Hyde. Black Pete was excommunicated for his offense and restrictions toward blacks began from that incident. I do believe that if word would have gotten out that a polygamous mormon black man was being married to several white women in the mormon community, outrage would have followed from the mobs.

I don't think that a revelation would have been needed..at least not how we think a revelation is given. However, there is no question that all heck would have broken out if word had gotten out among the frontier that in the mormon community black men had several white wives. Would the church have survived the persecution?

[why me]

Just to be sure I understand what you are talking about, the person whom you refer to as "Black Pete" is William McCary, a black man baptized by Orson Hyde in October 1846, and then excommunicated a year later for practicing polygamy, right?

I would guess that there were a few non-Mormons who would have been so upset by this that they would have murdered. But it seems to me that the people most likely to commit murder because of this were the brothers and fathers of McCary's polygamist wives, without regard to whether or not they were or weren't Mormon.

I find this line of argument beyond offensive and absurd; it sounds like you are implying that the Mormon Church institutionalized racism into the principles and ordinances of the gospel because if they didn’t, the non-Mormons would murder them.

With a true church like that, who needs a false one?

You need to listen to the podcast. I can see why BY could see a problem coming down the line if Black men were in polygamous relationships with white women. The nonmormons would have a fit. I also don't think that Brigham Young thought the ban racist at that time. Nor did many other members. The other question that needs to be answered is: why was america such a racist country when in its constitution equality is the defining concept? America was not ready for intermarriage and it certainly wasn't ready for black men having several white wives. Do you think that the lds church would have survived in the 1850's if such polygamous relationships were occurring?

[why me]

it would be interesting to see if the persecution that the church experienced had any impact on the ban and what did polygamy have to do with the ban. I think that there is a connection between past persecution, the experience of Black Pete and polygamy in general.

When it came to polygamy, I don't think that church leaders considered what would have happened if black male members took it upon themselves to marry several white women. I think that church leaders counted on members being called to polygamy and obeying the counsel. When William took it upon himself to marry several white women a problem developed that the leadership did not consider. Now whether they took this problem to the lord or acted alone with the ban, we will never know. But certainly, William created a problem that no one considered. And certain restrictions began when William did what he did. And I would venture to guess that if word would have gotten out about William and his white wives, the nonmembers would have reacted violently against the mormons.

Edited March 4, 2012 by why me

[why me]

I also don't think that America was ready for black men and black women being sealed for eternity to white men and white women. America wasn't ready for any kind of intermarriage in general. What is interesting is that church policy about the ban changed when america was ready for the change. It was becoming more racial tolerant and by 1978, there was a shift in tolerance toward mixed marriages in general. When I was a boy and I am from the east coast, inter-racial marriages were frowned upon across the board from both white america and from black america. Not only were inter-racial marriages frowned upon but marriages of people from differing religions too. Catholics married catholics and protestants married protestants. America was not a very tolerant country for most of its history.

Do not bring unsupported and undocumented racially charged speculation to this board.

[Calm]

And certain restrictions began when William did what he did.

And yet this could easily have been addressed by laws against interracial marriages that were already in place. It makes no sense to exclude temple ordinances and marriages between blacks---in fact this should have been encouraged as a positive if interracial marriages didn't qualify--simply to prevent interracial marriage of all forms.

[california boy]

I am first going to say that I have not read through this thread. Quite frankly it is a debate that does not interest me. And I would like to explain why.

Today is the first time I looked at the poll results and I have to say I am quite shocked at the results. The last question I thought would be leading is the first question. The one I expected to lead is the last one. Does the Mormon church have a living prophet or not? If the church does, then what else matters? Do the majority of the members not feel that this is the church of Christ and He is not just the head of it but He leads it through his prophets? Is God as active in leading the church today as He was during the time of Joseph Smith or are the heavens once more closed? If BY made up this policy on his own accord, wouldn't God appear to him to correct the problem immediately? For heavens sakes, angels appeared to Joseph Smith to instruct him on much less important issues than who should and who should not hold the priesthood. This issue comes down to the very core of truth. Is the prophet a prophet of God or is the church lead by a consensus of men. If a poll was put up to the members on this board with these two questions, what would you answer.

1. The church is lead by Christ. He actively runs His church by revelation through His mouthpiece the current prophet.

2. The heavens are once again closed and wise men just get together to set policy for the church.

How would you vote? How is that different than the results of this poll?

If you believe that the church is now on autopilot and Christ has lost interest in it, then wouldn't you have to say that since the time of Joseph Smith, the thoughts and policies of men have crept into the church including this issue? If this issue crept in, then what other issues are just one man's opinion or a group of men's opinions. What other teachings of the prophets have nothing to do with what God wants us to do? And how are we to know which teachings are from God and which ones are just opinions of who happens to be chosen by men to run the church?

I am sorry. Banning blacks from the priesthood is either from God and He sets out the teachings of the church or policies come from man and God is no longer involved. If this principle was wrong from the beginning, and not what God wanted in His church, why did it take until 1978 for Him to get around to correcting a policy made by a man. It kinda says there is not a lot of communication going on between God and His church if you believe that.

Some who know my posts may be surprised at my strong words about the church. But let me say this. I am not currently a member of the church because I believe it is false. I am not a member of the church because I believe it is true and I am gay. I have chosen to not live a celibate life alone for the promised reward of being married to a woman for eternity in the next life. It is a promise I don't desire and I choose not to want. Please don't comment on my reasons for leaving the church in this thread. I am not trying to derail the thread, I am only explaining why I I can believe in the church but not be a member.

[thesometimesaint]

california boy:

I would vote for; We are lead by God through mortal men, and mortal men no matter how wise and good they are often make mistakes.

That being said. I will not be judged by God by what other men believed. But I will be judged by God for what I did with what I bellieve.

[california boy]

california boy:

I would vote for; We are lead by God through mortal men, and mortal men no matter how wise and good they are often make mistakes.

That being said. I will not be judged by God by what other men believed. But I will be judged by God for what I did with what I believe.

So on issues as important as who can hold the priesthood, how does God guide His church? Is He an active participant or is He leaving such important issues up to mortal men. And if He is leaving those kind of decisions up to mortal men, what kinds of things does God say anything about? And if He is leaving such an important doctrine/policy to mortal men, then what other beliefs have been instituted by imperfect mortal men? Are you abandoning the idea of direct revelation altogether in the Mormon church? And if you are, how is the Mormon church any different than say the Catholic church, also run by wise mortal men that make mistakes.

[Loran Blood]

etr

Edited March 4, 2012 by Loran Blood

[thesometimesaint]

california boy:

I'm fine with direct revelation. What I'm not fine with is the presumption that I or anyone else, is perfect in understaning that revelation. That I or anyone else is perfect in recording that revelation. That I or anyone else is perfect at implimenting that revelation. Was Peter perfect when he declined to preach the Gospel to nonJews? Was he perfect afterwards? Were the ancients perfect when they limited the Priesthood to just those whom were the eldest son of a Priest in the Tribe of Levi?

The diference is that we claim to have the authority to make binding in Heaven those revelations, and I believe that this Church does have that authority. While I do believe the good and wise Catholics and their leadership does not.

[why me]

And yet this could easily have been addressed by laws against interracial marriages that were already in place. It makes no sense to exclude temple ordinances and marriages between blacks---in fact this should have been encouraged as a positive if interracial marriages didn't qualify--simply to prevent interracial marriage of all forms.

Perhaps you are right. But I think that what happened with William set the tone. It was such a shock that measures were taken to attempt to prevent it from happening again. I don't think that the decision was based on racism. Rather expediency. What is unfortunate about it all is the speculation about why it was put in place. I think that Bruce R. McConkie did some damage with his book mormon doctrine. I believe that the ban is mentioned in that book in the 1966 edition.

[Jeff K.]

For some, divine revelation exists only when it agrees with them. For others it exists because it is revelation. I recall McConkie showing us an example of the same.

[Teancum]

Personally I think the ban was an error. Nobody can find any evidence as to why it started, whether there was a revelation, etc. It seems to me likely that it has its basis in the view of Brigham Young which we would view as racist today. Though I am willing to cut him some slack as much of his view was a result of being a product of his time. Still it seems it was a mistake that was perpetuated by the leadership. The dropping of the ban was resisted by many strong apostles and I think in the 50s, when Pres. McKay may have dropped the ban it did not happent due to some strong apostles who seemed to hold racist view. I am happy it is long past.

[why me]

Personally I think the ban was an error. Nobody can find any evidence as to why it started, whether there was a revelation, etc. It seems to me likely that it has its basis in the view of Brigham Young which we would view as racist today.

It would be interesting to see just what Brigham thought of JS and his idea that blacks could hold the priesthood. I haven't seen any racism out of his mouth when JS was alive and well. Nor do I see him in disagreement with JS about the policy. And if true, the question would be why?

I think that an event triggered BY's decision and the question would be: Did this event constitute a change in policy and if so, did heavenly father have a hand in the change? And what would have happened if the change did not occur?

Edited March 6, 2012 by why me

[cinepro]

The dropping of the ban was resisted by many strong apostles and I think in the 50s, when Pres. McKay may have dropped the ban it did not happent due to some strong apostles who seemed to hold racist view. I am happy it is long past.

It may or may not be relevant to note that when the final discussions were being made among the apostles in 1978 about ending the priesthood ban, two apostles were absent. Elder Mark E. Peterson was in Brazil, and Elder Delbert Stapley was in the hospital. Whether or not this is important, we'll never know, but both men had expressed views in their lifetimes that may have added a different perspective to the discussions.

They were, however, informed about the decision after the fact and sustained it.

Edited March 6, 2012 by cinepro

[Jeff K.]

So did Mconkie, who was there. It seems you supposition is irrelevant. Kind of a man on the grassy knoll theory. Consider for a moment where Peterson was.

Edited March 6, 2012 by Jeff K.

[cinepro]

So did Mconkie, who was there. It seems you supposition is irrelevant. Kind of a man on the grassy knoll theory. Consider for a moment where Peterson was.

I am open to the possibility that it may not have been relevant and that if Elders Petersen and Stapley had been involved in the discussions things might have turned out exactly the same. I just think it's an interesting factor that is often neglected.

Edited March 6, 2012 by cinepro