Folklore Vs. Doctrine

[sjdawg]

Much has been made of the recent Washington Post article on Blacks in the LDS Church. I don't want to discuss that specific doctrine but simply what I view as a moving target when attempting to define what exactly is Mormon Doctrine. Does Doctrine Change? When do you consider the words of Church leadership to be doctrine and when is it policy or opinion? I know the question has been asked before but I have never gotten an answer that made sense to me.

Consider these two statements.

From 29 February 2012

The Church’s position is clear—we believe all people are God’s children and are equal in His eyes and in the Church. We do not tolerate racism in any form.

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

From 17 August 1949

It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the priesthood at the present time. The prophets of the Lord have made several statements as to the operation of the principle. President Brigham Young said: "Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a skin of blackness? It comes in consequence of their fathers rejecting the power of the holy priesthood, and the law of God. They will go down to death. And 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 now are entitled to."

It is obvious that the two statements contradict each other on why the priesthood restrictions were in place. It is also obvious that the Priesthood restriction was not considered opinion or policy but doctrine. Is one of the statements incorrect or a fabrication of anti-mormons? If not I have an even harder time than I thought in determining doctrine from folklore. According to the most recent statement you can't even consider something doctrine when it is called direct commandment from the Lord. (I didn't see an official letter from the 1st Presidency on the 1949 quote so I leave open the possibility that the site I pulled it from had it wrong. There was a link to a signature books website but that link no longer worked)

.

Edited March 5, 2012 by sjdawg

[sjdawg]

duplicate...sorry

Edited March 5, 2012 by sjdawg

[mfbukowski]

I think the plain fact is that the interpretation of what we believe changes according to the times.

Blake Ostler was right, in a sense we have no doctrine, only "orthopraxis".

Yes the policy in my opinion was incorrect and there was no good justification for it. We cannot rationalize it away. It was a mistake and we corrected it. We can either wring our hands or leave the church over it or get on with our lives and accept that it was a mistake which has been corrected.

We each have to decide for ourselves if will affect our testimony or not.

Next question.

[BCSpace]

It is obvious that the two statements contradict each other on why the priesthood restrictions were in place.

I don't think one can say they contradict. In the 2012 statement, which is a known official statement, the Church did not specify which statements other than by saying "speculation" and "opinion". Currently, the only way to identify those are isolated statements which are not published by the Church and non official publications.

However, in answer to your question, "Does doctrine change?" the answer is yes. In addition, I don't know much about this 1949 "statement" either. But what we do know is that the Church does not know the reason for the ban (then and now) but it does know and continues to specify doctrinally some of the operative principles which have nothing to do with race; those being disobedience and lineage in combination.

[frankenstein]

How do the two statements contradict?

The 2012 refers specifically to "some explanations", not all explanations. The 1949 statement is not a personal opinion, it is a Official statement from the First Presidency. FAIR has a posted the full text of the 49 and 69 letters.

The 2012 statement is that it is not known precisely, the 1949 claims the restriction is of God but also indicates that the reason is known to God. Thus the two statements agree as both put forth the position that it is not known precisely

We know that coffee and tea violate the word of wisdom, we do not know precisely why.

Edited March 5, 2012 by frankenstein

[sjdawg]

I don't think one can say they contradict. In the 2012 statement, which is a known official statement, the Church did not specify which statements other than by saying "speculation" and "opinion". Currently, the only way to identify those are isolated statements which are not published by the Church and non official publications.

However, in answer to your question, "Does doctrine change?" the answer is yes. In addition, I don't know much about this 1949 "statement" either. But what we do know is that the Church does not know the reason for the ban (then and now) but it does know and continues to specify doctrinally some of the operative principles which have nothing to do with race; those being disobedience and lineage in combination.

I don't know. If the 1949 statement attributed to the first presidency is correct the "Church" at that time pretty clearly says the reason for the ban is a direct commandment from the Lord. I'm not going to argue that too aggressively as I haven't seen the statement first hand but it does raise some questions in my mind about the truthfullness of the most reason statement saying they don't know precisely why the ban was instituted.

[sjdawg]

How do the two statements contradict?

The 2012 refers specifically to "some explanations", not all explanations. The 1949 statement is not a personal opinion, it is a Official statement from the First Presidency. FAIR has a posted the full text of the 49 and 69 letters.

The 2012 statement is that it is not known precisely, the 1949 claims the restriction is of God but also indicates that the reason is known to God. Thus the two statements agree as both put forth the position that it is not known precisely

We know that coffee and tea violate the word of wisdom, we do not know precisely why.

Actually I suppose I can buy that explanation. I might argue that the Church is being overly PR concious and not really forthcoming in their most recent statement but I can understand that.

[Duncan]

my uniformed take is that the '49 statement was going on what the leaders then knew and so we build on that and can and should over time get new light and I don't know if the recent statement was a revelation or even the '49 one was a revelation but we just build up on the past and so we don't pit one statement against another. I have a doozy of a Canadian story complete with a document to show you, i'll pm you!

[Duncan]

How do the two statements contradict?

The 2012 refers specifically to "some explanations", not all explanations. The 1949 statement is not a personal opinion, it is a Official statement from the First Presidency. FAIR has a posted the full text of the 49 and 69 letters.

The 2012 statement is that it is not known precisely, the 1949 claims the restriction is of God but also indicates that the reason is known to God. Thus the two statements agree as both put forth the position that it is not known precisely

We know that coffee and tea violate the word of wisdom, we do not know precisely why.

that makes better sense then my post!, look at you brainiac!

Edited March 5, 2012 by Duncan

[Buzzard]

I suspect this thread will shortly be locked, so just my .02: On just about any topic, not just limited to the OP, folklore is a lot more fun and interesting than doctrine.

[BCSpace]

We know that coffee and tea violate the word of wisdom, we do not know precisely why.

Exactly.

[Xander]

I think the plain fact is that the interpretation of what we believe changes according to the times.

Blake Ostler was right, in a sense we have no doctrine, only "orthopraxis".

Yes the policy in my opinion was incorrect and there was no good justification for it. We cannot rationalize it away. It was a mistake and we corrected it. We can either wring our hands or leave the church over it or get on with our lives and accept that it was a mistake which has been corrected.

We each have to decide for ourselves if will affect our testimony or not.

Next question.

But it wasn't a mistake that was corrected and the church never said it was. The contradiction is where the church recently said we do not know why the doctrine was taught. That isnt what the church had said in 1949.

And the policy was official doctrine. Period.

Edited March 6, 2012 by Xander

[Xander]

And this is NEVER referred to as a mistake by anyone except the apologists. A decade ago Hinckley was asked on this 60 minutes if it was a "mistake" and he said no. This is just another situation of "God wanted it that way but changed his mind." Just like polygamy

[mfbukowski]

But it wasn't a mistake that was corrected and the church never said it was. The contradiction is where the church recently said we do not know why the doctrine was taught. That isnt what the church had said in 1949.

And the policy was official doctrine. Period.

I think the plain fact is that the interpretation of what we believe changes according to the times.

Blake Ostler was right, in a sense we have no doctrine, only "orthopraxis".

Yes the policy in my opinion was incorrect and there was no good justification for it. We cannot rationalize it away. It was a mistake and we corrected it. We can either wring our hands or leave the church over it or get on with our lives and accept that it was a mistake which has been corrected.

We each have to decide for ourselves if will affect our testimony or not.

Next question.

In other words, I already answered you, or in still other words, your comment was irrelevant.

[BCSpace]

The contradiction is where the church recently said we do not know why the doctrine was taught. That isnt what the church had said in 1949.

Incorrect. We don't know, for example, why lineage, or why for how long or when.

And the policy was official doctrine. Period.

This is correct. The official doctrine of the LDS Church on the Priesthood ban has is that it's been official doctrine for all dispensations of time:

From the dispensation of Adam until the dispensation of the fulness of times, there has been a group of people who have not been allowed to hold the priesthood of God. The scriptural basis for this policy is Abraham 1:21–27 . The full reason for the denial has been kept hidden by the Lord, and one is left to assume that He will make it known in His own due time.

http://institute.lds...-in-131-od2.asp

[mfbukowski]

Yep, there it is in black and white, so to speak. So I guess if you could have proven you were a descendant of the Pharaohs would not have qualified. But of course that's been lifted, so it's hard to see how it applies to "all dispensations" since we are in a dispensation now.

Edited March 6, 2012 by mfbukowski

[BCSpace]

so it's hard to see how it applies to "all dispensations" since we are in a dispensation now.

Well, beside the doctrine saying so, it was the case in this dispensation until 1978; you know, that little thing about the long promised day and so forth.....

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– 8.

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

Edited March 6, 2012 by BCSpace

[Storm Rider]

And this is NEVER referred to as a mistake by anyone except the apologists. A decade ago Hinckley was asked on this 60 minutes if it was a "mistake" and he said no. This is just another situation of "God wanted it that way but changed his mind." Just like polygamy

or the law of Moses, or circumcision, or the Sabbath Day, or sacrifices, or Jewsih temples...do you want me to go on. Is it your opinion that God can't make up his mind? Or is it ignorance that you think it only changes in the LDS Church? Go ahead, let's talk about how God started out doing one thing and then did another throughout history. Does it mean God changes or something else. When ignorance speaks, silence should rule until ignorance stops speaking and learns to study and come to a position of knowledge before talking again.

[Xander]

mfbukowski

In other words, I already answered you, or in still other words, your comment was irrelevant.

Uh, no. I refuted your silly assertion using your own LDS leaders as proof. It really says something when the critics are the ones relying on official statements while the apologists are having to rely on everyone else (i.e. Mauss, Bush, Ostler). Again, you called the ban a mistake that "we corrected" (as if you had some part in it) but the Church has never, ever said such a thing. The Church has never considered it a mistake. That is just something you made up.

bcspace,

Incorrect. We don't know, for example, why lineage, or why for how long or when.

Of course not, but how does this change the fact that the Church taught for more than a century that the ban was in place for the following reasons:

1) It was the Law of God.

2) It was the doctrine and position of the Church based on another doctrine about how actions in the preexistence affect our mortal lives.

The statement by the First Presidency wasn't just "personal statements." It was an official declaration claiming to speak for the Church. For more than a century the Church has understood why the ban was in place. That reason is because God wanted it that way. Now, why God wanted it that way is another question entirely, but it can be easily shown that the church's doctrine on that question has been answered as well. The answer is that God felt the need to punish them for their actions in the preexistence.

Contrast this to the Church's recent statement that implies that they never had any earthly idea why the ban was in place, which has led people like Lester Bush and others to question whether or not it was ever considered a revealed doctrine.

The official doctrine of the LDS Church on the Priesthood ban has is that it's been official doctrine for all dispensations of time:

RIght. And I'm glad you highlighted the "full reason" portion of that statement becvause it suggests exactly what I've been saying. The reason has been revealed, just not in its entirety. This still contradicts what the Church recently said in their press release. Or at the very least, it contradicts the meaning so many anti-Bott apologists have chosen to take from it. We know enough about the reason to know it came from God, according to official Church statements and teachings.

Stormrider, apparently you missed the entire point of my post. You seem to think I'm some kind of Evangelical and so you can score points with these "gotcha" arguments regarding God's history of changing his mind. Yes, I know how you think along these lines. The Law of Moses was fulfilled, therefore God can send an angel to threaten Joseph Smith with death if he doesn't implement polygamy for a few decades before he changes his mind about it. Whatever you need to rationalize in order to maintain belief, I understand.

But the point of the post was that the recent Church release does nothing to refute Bott's "speculation." Everyone attacking Bott falsely presumes they have the Church on their side, but there is no evidence that the Church supports any of these attacks, nor is there any evidence the Church considers his views "racist." For years apologists have held Bott's position regarding the priesthood ban and the scriptural basis for it, and they also argued that it isn't racism at all because the ban was based on lineage, not race (a bad argument since the Church has in practice always used race as the litmus test). So for the Church to suddenly denounce racism tells us absolutely nothing because it doesn't explain what it means by racism.

[Xander]

August 17, 1949

The attitude of the Church with reference to Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the priesthood at the present time. The prophets of the Lord have made several statements as to the operation of the principle. President Brigham Young said: "Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a skin of blackness? it comes in consequence of their fathers rejecting the power of the holy priesthood, and the Law of God. They will go down to death. And 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 now are entitled to."

President Wilford Woodruff made the following statement: "The day will come when all that race will be redeemed and possess all the blessings which we now have."

The position of the Church regarding the Negro may be understood when another doctrine of the Church is kept in mind, namely, that the conduct of spirits in the premortal existence has some determining effect upon the conditions and circumstances under which these spirits take on mortality and that while the details of this principle have not been made known, the mortality is a privilege that is given to those who maintain their first estate; and that the worth of the privilege of is so great that spirits are willing to come to earth and take on bodies no matter what the handicap may be as to the kind of bodies they are to secure; and that among the handicaps, failure of the right to enjoy in mortality the blessings of the priesthood is a handicap which spirits are willing to assume in order that they might come to earth. Under this principle there is no injustice whatsoever involved in this deprivation as to the holding of the priesthood by the Negroes.

The First Presidency

December 15, 1969

To General Authorities, Regional Representatives of the Twelve, Stake Presidents, Mission Presidents, and Bishops

Dear Brethren:

In view of the confusion that has arisen, it was decided at a meeting of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve to restate the position of the Church with regard to the Negro both in society and in the Church.

First, may we say that we know something of the sufferings of those who are discriminated against in a denial of their civil rights and Constitutional privileges. Our early history as a Church is a tragic story of persecution and oppression. Our people repeatedly were denied the protection of the law. They were driven and plundered, robbed and murdered by mobs, who were in many instances aided and abetted by those sworn to uphold the law. We as a people have experienced the bitter fruits of civil discrimination and mob violence.

We believe that the Constitution of the United States was divinely inspired, that it produced by "wise men" whom God raised up for this "very purpose," and that the principles embodied in the Constitution are so fundamental and important that, if possible, they should be extended "for the rights and protection" of all mankind.

In revelations received by the first prophet of the Church in this dispensation, Joseph Smith made it clear that it is "not right that any man should be in bondage one to another." These words were spoken prior to the civil war.

From these and other revelations have sprung the Church's deep and historic concern with man's free agency and our commitment to the sacred principles of the Constitution.

It follows, therefore, that we believe the Negro, as well as those of other races, should have his constitutional privileges as a member of society, and we hope members of the Church everywhere will do their part as citizens to see that these rights are held inviolate. Each citizen must have equal opportunities and protection under the law with reference to civil rights.

However, matters of faith, conscience, and theology are not within the purview of the civil law. The first amendment to the Constitution specifically provides that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

The position of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints affecting those of the Negro race who choose to join the Church falls wholly within the category of religion. It has no bearing upon matters of civil rights. In no case or degree does it deny to the Negro his full privileges as a citizen of the nation.

This position has no relevancy whatever to those who do not wish to join the Church. Those individuals, we suppose, do not believe in the divine origin and nature of the Church, nor that we have the priesthood of God. Therefore, if they feel we have no priesthood, they should have no concern with any aspect of our theology on priesthood so long as that theology does not deny any man his constitutional privileges.

A word of explanation concerning the position of the Church:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints owes its origin, its existence, and its hope for the future to the principle of continuous revelation. "We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the kingdom of God."

From the beginning of this dispensation, Joseph Smith and all succeeding Presidents of the Church have taught that Negroes, while spirit children of a common Father, and the progeny of our earthly parents Adam and Eve, were not yet to receive the priesthood, for reasons which we believe are known to God, but which he has not made fully known to man.

Our living prophet, President David O. McKay, has said, "The seeming discrimination by the Church toward the Negro is not something which originated with man; but goes back into the beginning with God ....

"Revelation assures us that this plan antedates man's mortal existence, extending back to man's preexistent state. President McKay has also said,

"Sometime in God's eternal plan, the Negro will be given the right to hold the priesthood."

Until God reveals his will in this matter, to him whom we sustain as a prophet, we are bound by that same will. Priesthood, when conferred on any man comes as a blessing from God, not of men.

We feel nothing but love, compassion, and the deepest appreciation for the rich talents, endowments, and the earnest strivings of our Negro brothers and sisters. We are eager to share with men of all races the blessings of the gospel. We have no racially segregated congregations.

Were we the leaders of an enterprise created by ourselves and operated only according to our own earthly wisdom, it would be a simple thing to act according to popular will. But we believe that this work is directed by God and that the conferring of the priesthood must await his revelation. To do otherwise would be to deny the very premise on which the Church is established.

We recognize that those who do not accept the principle of modern revelation may oppose our point of view. We repeat that such would not wish for membership in the Church, and therefore the question of priesthood should hold no interest for them. Without prejudice they should grant us the privilege afforded under the Constitution to exercise our chosen form of religion, just as we must grant all others a similar privilege. They must recognize that the question of bestowing or withholding priesthood in the Church is a matter of religion and not a matter of constitutional right.

We extend the hand of friendship to men everywhere and the hand of fellowship to all who wish to join the Church and partake of the many rewarding opportunities to be found therein.

We join with those throughout the world who pray that all of the blessings of the gospel of Jesus Christ may in the due time of the Lord become available to men of faith everywhere. Until that time comes we must trust in God, in his wisdom, and in his tender mercy.

Meanwhile we must strive harder to emulate his Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, whose new commandment it was that we should love one another. In developing that love and concern for one another, while awaiting revelations yet to come, let us hope that with respect to these religious differences, we may gain reinforcement for understanding and appreciation for such differences. They challenge our common similarities, as children of one Father, to enlarge the outreachings of our divine souls.

Faithfully your brethren,

THE FIRST PRESIDENCY

Edited March 6, 2012 by Xander

[thesometimesaint]

The origin of the priesthood ban

From Fairmormon:

The origin of the priesthood ban is one of the most difficult questions to answer. Its origins are not clear, and this affected both how members and leaders have seen the ban, and the steps necessary to rescind it. The Church has never provided an official reason for the ban.

Members have generally taken one of three perspectives:

1. the ban was based on revelation to Joseph Smith, and was continued by his successors until President Kimball
   
2. the ban did not originate with Joseph Smith, but was implemented by Brigham Young by revelation
   
3. the ban began as a series of administrative policy decisions, rather than a revealed doctrine, and drew partly upon ideas regarding race common in mid-19th century America. The passage of time gave greater authority to this policy than intended.
   

The difficulty in deciding between these options arises because:

a) there is no contemporary account of a revelation underlying the ban; but

b) many early members nevertheless believed that there had been such a revelation; and

c) priesthood ordination of African blacks was a rare event, which became even more rare with time.

The history behind the practice in the modern Church of withholding the priesthood based on race is described well by Lester Bush in a 1984 book.^[1] A good timeline can be found at FAIR's BlackLDS site: FAIR link.

Joseph Smith's Administration (1830-1844)

As Mormons settled into Missouri, some of their viewpoints about slavery (DC 101:79,DC 87:4) did not mesh well with those of the older settlers. The 1831 Nat Turner Rebellion left many southerners nervous as church leaders later recognized: "All who are acquainted with the situation of slave States, know that the life of every white is in constant danger, and to insinuate any thing which could possibly be interpreted by a slave, that it was not just to hold human beings in bondage, would be jeopardizing the life of every white inhabitant in the country.^[2]" Unfortunately, this recognition came after mobs persecuted the Missouri saints and destroyed their press in part because of W. W. Phelps's editorials supporting abolition.^[3]

Under these precarious conditions, early missionaries were instructed to not teach or baptize slaves without their master's wishes (see DC 134:12). Late, perhaps unreliable, recollections suggest that Joseph Smith received inspiration that blacks should not be ordained while contemplating the situation in the South.^[4] These accounts must be weighed against records of free blacks receiving the priesthood such as Black Pete (1831 OH), Elijah Abel (1835 OH), Joseph T. Ball (1837 MA), Isaac van Meter (<1837 ME), and Walker and Enoch Lewis (Fall 1843-Nov. 1844 MA). Since Ohio had a law discouraging Blacks from migrating there, this put a damper on early proselyting efforts which were largely based on the principle of the gathering.^[5] Parley Pratt wrote in 1839 that the Church had less than a dozen Black members.^[6]

Those who hold that the ban had a revelatory basis see the early ordinations as events which occurred prior to the revelation or without knowledge of it, while those who see the ban as more of a social/cultural phenomenon point to these ordinations as an example of the "pragmatic grounds" upon which decisions about black ordination were made.

Outsiders do not seem to have regarded members of the Church in the 1830s as sharing typical American ideas about race. In 1835, a skeptical account of their doctrines and beliefs noted: As the promulgators of this extraordinary legend maintain the natural equality of mankind, without excepting the native Indians or the African race, there is little reason to be surprised at the cruel persecution by which they have suffered, and still less at the continued accession of converts among those who sympathize with the wrongs of others or seek an asylum for their own. The preachers and believers of the following doctrines were not likely to remain, unmolested, in the State of Missouri. “The Lord God hath commanded that men should not murder; that they should not lie; that they should not steal, &c. He inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness: and he denieth none that come unto him; black and white—bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile.” Again: “Behold! the Lamanites, your brethren, whom ye hate, because of their filthiness and the cursings which hath come upon their skins, are more righteous than you; for they have not forgotten the commandment of the Lord, which was given unto our father, &c. Wherefore the Lord God will not destroy them; but will be merciful to them; and one day they shall become [58] a blessed people.” “O my brethren, I fear, that, unless ye shall repent of your sins, that their skins shall be whiter than yours, when ye shall be brought with them before the throne of God*. Wherefore a commandment I give unto you, which is the word of God, that ye revile no more against them because of the darkness of their skins,” &c. “The king saith unto him, yea! if the Lord saith unto us, go! we will go down unto our brethren, and we will be their slaves, until we repair unto them the many murders and sins, which we have committed against them. But Ammon saith unto him, it is against the law of our brethren, which was established by my father, that there should any slaves among them. Therefore let us go down and rely upon the mercies of our brethren.”^[7]

Early Brigham Young's Administration (1844-1852)

The start of Brigham Young's administration saw a continuation of Joseph Smith's policies. William McCary was baptized and ordained at Winter Quarters in October 1846. The following March, Brigham acknowledged the validity of the ordination of Walker Lewis that likely occurred during Joseph's tenure, "we [have] one of the best Elders an African in Lowell [,MA] -- a barber." ^[8] The priesthood ban then became more comprehensive to include not only slaves and free blacks in the South, but all persons deemed to have inherited the curse of Cain through Ham. Three pivotal events in this development were the apostasy of William McCary, the interracial marriage of Walker Lewis's son, and the passing of slavery legislation in Utah Territory.

McCary approached Brigham Young with complaints that racial discrimination was a motive behind other Mormon leaders questioning his strange teachings. President Young satisfied McCary that ideally race should not be the issue. Praising Walker Lewis as an example, Young suggested "Its nothing to do with the blood for [from] one blood has God made all flesh" and later added "we don't care about the color." ^[9] Shortly thereafter McCary was excommunicated for apostasy. In April, Brigham Young departed with the vanguard pioneer company for the Rocky Mountains only to return around December to face additional race-based problems.

In April, Elder Parley P. Pratt had warned of the Saints about following schisms led by those like James Strang and William McCary. Significantly he referred to William McCary as "this black man who has got the blood of Ham in him which linege was cursed as regards the priesthood" ^[10]. McCary had married a Stake President's white daughter and advocated polygamy before his excommunication and afterward he began drawing away Mormon women to be sealed to him in a carnal manner.

Also awaiting Brigham was William Appleby, the president over eastern branches of the Church. He had encountered the Lewises and suspected William Smith had acted improperly by ordaining a black elder. He was also alarmed that Enoch Lewis had married a white wife and had a child. Brigham responded to this news in a manner that is, by modern sensitivities, quite disturbing. He was adamantly against racial amalgamation (see Brigham Young on race mixing for more context). While allowing that interracial couples should not be denied baptism, he introduced a ban on temple service for them and/or their offspring.

However, Brigham Young did not present a specific revelation on priesthood or temple restrictions he imposed. A definitive statement wasn't made by him until 1852 in a legislative, rather than ecclesiastical forum. Governor Young declared "any man having one drop of the seed of [Cain] ... in him cannot hold the priesthood and if no other Prophet ever spake it before I will say it now in the name of Jesus Christ I know it is true and others know it." ^[11] Like the Missouri period, the Saints were externally pressured to adopt racial policies as a political compromise. At the time, this was deemed to be the best pathway to statehood.

Those who believe the ban had a revelatory basis point to these pivotal events as examples of a prophet learning "line upon line," with revelation being implemented more rigorously. Those who see the influence of cultural factors and institutional practice behind the ban consider this evidence that the ban was based on Brigham's cultural and scriptural assumptions, and point out that such beliefs were common among most Christians in Antebellum America.^[12]

Later views

• In 1879, John Taylor conducted an investigation and concluded the policy had started under Joseph Smith, rather than Brigham Young, despite receiving mixed information.^[13]
  
• As part of this investigation Zebedee Coltrin recalled that Joseph Smith said in 1834 that "the Spirit of the Lord saith the Negro had no right nor cannot hold the Priesthood." However, this claim is suspect given Coltrin's errors on the circumstances of Elijah Abel's ordination, participation in Kirtland temple ordinances, and retention in the Seventies quorum all under the supervision of Joseph Smith.^[14]
  
• President George Q. Cannon in 1895 asserted that some of Young's teachings about miscegenation and the seed of Cain had first been taught by Joseph Smith.^[15]
  
• Nearly forty years after the ban started, B.H. Roberts was the first to argue, based on the Book of Abraham, that the curse of Cain had continued to modern blacks through the lineage of Ham.^[16]
  
• Joseph Fielding Smith opined that blacks may have been less valiant in the pre-mortal conflict between God and Satan (however, he rejected that they may have been neutral in the war in heaven).^[17]
  
• David O. McKay believed that the ban was "not doctrine but...policy," as reported by Sterling McMurrin,^[18] his son Llewelyn McKay,^[19] and Elder Paul H. Dunn.^[20] President McKay told Elder Marion D. Hanks that "he had pleaded and pleaded with the Lord, but had not had the answer he sought."^[21]
  
• The "Missouri policy theory" attributing the ban to Joseph Smith arising from condition in Missouri was first popularized in 1970 by author Stephen Taggert,^[22] and President Hugh B. Brown reportedly embraced it.^[23] Other authors found this theory wanting.^[24]
  
• Harold B. Lee was inclined to reconfirm the ban,^[25] though Church Historian Leonard Arrington
  

...asserts that President Lee, shortly before his death, sought the Lord's will on the question of blacks and the priesthood during'three days and nights [of] fasting in the upper room of the temple,...but the only answer he received was "not yet." Arrington relied on an unidentified person close to President Lee, but President Lee's son-in-law and biographer found no record of such an incident and thought it doubtful.^[26]

Following Joseph Fielding Smith's death, President Lee did say, "For those who don't believe in modern revelation there is no adequate explanation. Those who do understand revelation stand by and wait until the Lord speaks...It's only a matter of time before the black achieves full status in the Church. We must believe in the justice of God. The black will achieve full status, we're just waiting for that time."^[27]

President Kimball

• President Kimball began his administration by holding a press conference. When asked about the ban, he said:
  

[i have given it] "a great deal of thought, a great deal of prayer. The day might come when they would be given the priesthood, but that day has not come yet. Should the day come it will be a matter of revelation. Before changing any important policy, it has to be through a revelation from the Lord."^[28]

• He had previously written to his son:
  

"...I have wished the Lord had given us a little more clarity in the matter. But for me, it is enough...I know the Lord could change His policy and release the ban and forgive the possible error (?) which brought about the deprivation. If the time comes, that He will do, I am sure."^[29]

• In 1976, he mentioned
  

"his concern for giving the priesthood to all men, and said that he had been praying about it for fifteen years without an answer...but I am going to keep praying about it."^[30]

[Analytics]

So on the one hand, we have a Latter-day Saint Prophet, unequivocally stating in an official letter signed by the First Presidency, that the ban was a “direct command of the Lord.”

On the other hand, we have FAIR saying the origin of the ban is not clear.

Do those two opinions contradict each other? If so, which one is folklore and which one is doctrine?

[Scott Lloyd]

So on the one hand, we have a Latter-day Saint Prophet, unequivocally stating in an official letter signed by the First Presidency, that the ban was a “direct command of the Lord.”

On the other hand, we have FAIR saying the origin of the ban is not clear.

Do those two opinions contradict each other? If so, which one is folklore and which one is doctrine?

My understanding is that they are not contradictory, that the Church's position is that the restriction remained in place in accordance with the mind of God, even though the origin is not clear and the reasons are unknown.

Ergo, saying the restriction was due solely to racism on the part of past Church leaders is just as speculative -- and wrong -- as claiming a scriptural justification for it or claiming a rationale that God has not revealed.

Edited March 6, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[frankenstein]

The origin of the priesthood ban

From fairmormon

The Church has never provided an official reason for the ban.

Except in 1940s and again in 1969.

Edited March 6, 2012 by frankenstein

[BCSpace]

The origin of the priesthood ban

From Fairmormon:

I don't know if you quoted all of it or what other pages there might be, but it should be noted that, while it does some good work, "Fairmormon" is not the Church:

Disclaimer: FAIR is not owned, controlled by or affiliated with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. All research and opinions provided on this site are the sole responsibility of FAIR, and may represent the opinion of individual authors. While we strive to provide accurate, well documented information consistent with teachings of LDS leaders, material posted on this site should not be interpreted as official statements of LDS doctrine, belief or practice.

...and what you quoted from them does not appear to include some of the actual official doctrine of the LDS Church as published on it's web sites and manuals and to which I made reference in posts #15 and #17 which shows that the doctrine is that the Lord has always been in control of who can receive the Priesthood and that we don't know the specifics as to why certain groups were not allowed.

Edited March 6, 2012 by BCSpace