The Next Step? "We Don'T Know Why... But It Was Wrong"

[Cobalt-70]

No it's not, which is the problem. Not everything was written down and due to the turmoil of the times may have been lost if it was.

I can guarantee you that if there actually was a revelation instituting the ban, that somebody in the church hierarchy would have preserved a record of it and made sure it didn't get destroyed. When has evidence of any important revelation in church history ever been lost? Yet we know an awful lot about the reasoning behind the ban, based on what early LDS leaders said over the pulpit. And that reasoning isn't pretty, and has been repudiated. So what more do we need to declare that the policy was a mistake?

[BCSpace]

These and several others would have to be deleted before any apology could be made real because they are quite unapologetic.

The chruch could easily state the ban was wrong while not repudiating all past scriptural presidence (sons of Levi, etc). What's right at one time can be wrong in another as the chruch's current stance on polygamy shows. It is quite possible the chruch could say that the ban was wrong and an incorrect attempt at priesthood deliniation where past leaders based it off of actual true past restrictions in priesthood deliniation.

There is no need or precedent that a repudiation of the ban would HAVE to mean a repudiation of all the sources your quoted.

I have to disagree. The references I gave and in fact all the references are too intertwined with the modern ban. Such a separation as you suggest could be made, but that would involve change and deletion of currently published statements.

If #1 and the ban was inspried by God, then God used racial discrimination in his priesthood deliniation and temple ordinance access for Black members during the time of the ban. Period.

I don't agree with that either. Man might perceive racism on the surface, but ultimately if it was God authorized (and I believe it was, past and modern as is the current doctrine), it cannot possibily be racist as God is no respector of persons. God has shown no indication in the scripturtes or in the currently published doctrine that it was based on racism. The fact of the matter is that while we don't know the full reason (as stated in the D&C manual for OD 2), none of the existing published doctrines or even the traditional nondoctrinal speculations suggests racism as the basis for it.

Edited March 20, 2012 by BCSpace

[Buckeye]

Saints Alive:

I make that statement of my own personal review of the facts as I find them. I claim no revelation and no authority to speak for the church.

By stating the ban was wrong, I am also stating it was not from God. That reality does not undermine my testimony. I have made policy and doctrinal misstatements as a deacon quorum's president, missionary, hometeacher, and many other priesthood positions. I am comfortable that the Prophet can do so as well.

PS - to the mods - I really mean it that I am not trying to derail this thread. I understand that Brian 2.0 is looking for a discussion of the ramifications of possible church actions on this subject. I tried to provide my views as to the difficulty in sticking with the "we don't know" position. If the discussion veers off into prohibited areas, I'd request you simply knock me off the thread rather than penalize Brian 2.0.

PPS - to all - that means I'm not going to discuss any further why I think the ban is wrong. We've already had that discussion in other threads.

Edited March 20, 2012 by Buckeye

[Saints Alive]

That God did not command the policy is plain from the history books. Can someone come forward and produce evidence of a revelation directing the church to institute the ban? No, because no such revelation exists. If there is no revelation, then God didn't command it. It's that simple. The only revelation is the 1978 one that said the policy must be changed, and if that's not an indication that God wasn't happy with the policy, then I don't know what is.

Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. While there MAY or may not be any written record of a ban that does not mean that it did not come from god. Why must there be scripture or a written prophetic statement for something to be true? ( and I am not saying that the ban nessisarily was revelation)

[David T]

Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence

Of course it is. It's not proof of absence, but it certainly is evidence of it.

[Zeta-Flux]

That God did not command the policy is plain from the history books. Can someone come forward and produce evidence of a revelation directing the church to institute the ban? No, because no such revelation exists. If there is no revelation, then God didn't command it. It's that simple. The only revelation is the 1978 one that said the policy must be changed, and if that's not an indication that God wasn't happy with the policy, then I don't know what is.

Cobalt, there is evidence for such a revelation. Brigham Young received it.

You can dispute whether Brigham's revelation was true, and we can all agree that his revelation was not canonized. But, nevertheless, there *was* a historic claim to revelation on the ban,

[thesometimesaint]

buckeye:

I've seen the effects of discimination since the time I was old enough to know what it was. There was exactly one(1) black student in my HS in Huntsville Alabama in the mid 1960's. The rest were were bussed to another side of town to a far inferior school. The Priesthood Ban never did, and still doesn't appeal to me. I don't know the reason(s) for it. I assume that the Church is acting in good faith by saying that it doesn't know the reason(s) either. You can either accept that claim or reject it. It's no skin off my nose either way. I assume the Church was acting in good faith when the Ban was instituted probably by BY after the Saints left Nauvoo. I also have Scripture that lifts the Ban.

The Church has nothing to apologize for if the Ban was inspired by God, take it up with him. If this church is nothing more than a small minority religion based on the teachings of man. Then I see no reason why anyone would care what we believe. There are plenty of other religions, or non religions, out there for them to join and be happy.

Ps; I haven't decided who I'm going to support in the upcoming election. I don't like any of them. But will probably end up voting for the one I dislike the least.

Edited March 20, 2012 by thesometimesaint

[Cobalt-70]

Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. While there MAY or may not be any written record of a ban that does not mean that it did not come from god. Why must there be scripture or a written prophetic statement for something to be true? ( and I am not saying that the ban nessisarily was revelation)

A revelation is not needed for something to be true, but a revelation is needed for something to be instituted by God. "For the Lord YHWH does nothing, except he has revealed his counsel to his servants the prophets." Amos 3:7. In other words, if there is no revelation, God has "done nothing."

Also, it doesn't have to be a written revelation. The 1978 revelation was not a written revelation, but it was recorded and described. A revelation for which there is no record is, effectively, not a revelation at all. How can God expect anyone to follow a revelation for which there is no record?

Edited March 20, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[Saints Alive]

A revelation is not needed for something to be true, but a revelation is needed for something to be instituted by God. "For the Lord YHWH does nothing, except he has revealed his counsel to his servants the prophets." Amos 3:7. In other words, if there is no revelation, God has "done nothing."

Also, it doesn't have to be a written revelation. The 1978 revelation was not a written revelation, but it was recorded and described. A revelation for which there is no record is, effectively, not a revelation at all. How can God expect anyone to follow a revelation for which there is no record?

I agree with what youre saying but that does not mean that the revelation must have been written down or included in scripture.

[Log]

How can God expect anyone to follow a revelation for which there is no record?

God says to John, "Do this thing."

John says, "All requests must be made in writing."

God says to John, "Fine, write this down."

John says, "I'm sorry, I only follow written revelations, so no."

Edited March 20, 2012 by Log

[David T]

Cobalt, there is evidence for such a revelation. Brigham Young received it.

You can dispute whether Brigham's revelation was true, and we can all agree that his revelation was not canonized. But, nevertheless, there *was* a historic claim to revelation on the ban,

CFR. He claimed to be instituting it under his authority as President of the Church, even if no other Prophet had ever said or done so before. I don't recall any reference stating it was based on a revelation. Would you provide that quote where that is made clear?

This is the one I'm familiar with, "Any man having one drop of the seed of Cane in him Cannot hold the priesthood & if no other Prophet ever spake it Before I will say it now in the name of Jesus Christ. I know it is true & they know it. The Negro cannot hold one particle of Government But the day will Come when all the seed of Cane will be Redeemed & have all the Blessings we have now & a great deal more. But the seed of Abel will be ahead of the seed of Cane to all Eternity."

Edited March 20, 2012 by David T

[Buckeye]

...

I assume the Church was acting in good faith when the Ban was instituted probably by BY after the Saints left Nauvoo. I also have Scripture that lifts the Ban.

The Church has nothing to apologize for if the Ban was inspired by God, take it up with him. If this church is nothing more than a small minority religion based on the teachings of man. Then I see no reason why anyone would care what we believe. There are plenty of other religions, or non religions, out there for them join and be happy.

Ps; I haven't decided who I'm going to support in the upcoming election. I don't like any of them. But will probably end up voting for the one I dislike the least.

Thanks. I echo your feelings about BY and other leader's good faith. While I think the ban was racist, I do not think it was put in place with bad intentions. McConkie was right when he said that he and his predecessors were acting under lesser light and knowledge. In my view, we can apologize for past mistakes without condeming those who made the mistakes.

As for whether the ban was inspired, again, the biggest point I see is the recent press release. Unlike all prior official statements on the ban, this statement omits any notion that God was behind the ban. That is huge, huge, in my opinion. Such an omission cannot be an accident. It is part of a trend that, as this thread suggests, will eventually lead to the affirmative statement that the ban was not inspired. That's just my view, of course, but it's reasonable considering the church's recent change of position.

Finally, as to the election, I see things differently from most. For me, I like most of what I hear from all of the candidates (except Newt). I think most of them - particularly Romney - would make good leaders. But I prefer Obama. That said, I used to be really concerned that a Romney presidency would be a strong negative influence on the church. Recent developments, including the Bott affair, have led me to switch my view. I think more public light will be a blessing on the church.

[thesometimesaint]

buckeye:

The vast majority of members alive today had nothing to do with the Ban. I nearly didn't join in 1971 because of the Ban. I have been blessed because I decided to join inspite of my objections to the Ban. I rejoiced with my fellow members when it was lifted in 1978, and consider myself lucky to have been alive to see it happen.

I don't see it as a change in position. More as a reaffirmation of what BRM said in his apology. I certainly don't need or want any apology from the Church, but if individual members feel the need to apologize for what they personally did I can't stop them. Though I would suggest that after 30+ years it is time to simply move on.

[Buckeye]

I agree that most members alive today have nothing to do with ban, but that's also true of members in 1850, 1900, and 1950. We've all just followed our leader's direction.

I apologize if I've been unclear. I'm not really looking for an apology. I simply noted that we could survive an apology re the ban, just as we survived an apology re mountain meadows. All that I really want is an affirmation as to whether the ban was inspired or not. If the ban was not inspired, an apology would be order, but mostly for those who were directly affected (which is not me).

I would also like to move on, but I don't believe we can do so as a people under the policy of "we don't know." That vaccum leaves the door open for Professor Botts. It also causes harm to the youth of the church who have no idea about the history and so have no idea was "folklore" was rejected in the recent press release. Its like getting a term paper back from your teacher and in red-ink you read "you made some errors that I don't want to see again", but there is no specification as to what the errors were. If we don't specify exactly what teachings were wrong, those teachings will be taught again and they will be taught by well-meaning members who have no recourse but to speculate because no what will tell them the real reason.

[Log]

Simply put, an apology for following divine instructions is an admission that the instructions were not divine. That you want such a thing reveals what you think about the divinity of the instructions, and the divinity of the Church.

[Buckeye]

Simply put, an apology for following divine instructions is an admission that the instructions were not divine. That you want such a thing reveals what you think about the divinity of the instructions, and the divinity of the Church.

Well, see above re the apology.

As to "divinity", you are absolutely right. I don't see the church or any of its institutions as divine - at least at this moment. The Savior is divine. His revelations are divine. The spirit is divine. But the church is full of mean, vile, pathetic sinners, with myself at the forefront. Mistakes are made all the time and repentence is required. Apologies are a necessary part of repentence. The day may come when the church body is divine, but we are far from that. The process leading to divnity requires rejection of all false teaching - such as the doctrine of the curse of cain. Rejecting and apologizing for such mistakes is actually part of the process of becoming divine.

[Cobalt-70]

buckeye:

The vast majority of members alive today had nothing to do with the Ban. I nearly didn't join in 1971 because of the Ban. I have been blessed because I decided to join inspite of my objections to the Ban. I rejoiced with my fellow members when it was lifted in 1978, and consider myself lucky to have been alive to see it happen.

I don't see it as a change in position. More as a reaffirmation of what BRM said in his apology. I certainly don't need or want any apology from the Church, but if individual members feel the need to apologize for what they personally did I can't stop them. Though I would suggest that after 30+ years it is time to simply move on.

Things like this don't go away on their own. This is elementary politics. Even if it takes 100 years, there will still be calls for an apology. It took the state of Missouri 138 years to apologize for Mormon persecution, and it took Illinois 158 years. It took the Catholic church 350 years to apologize to Galileo, and 900 years to apologize for sacking Constantinople. I'm not sure that the LDS Church wants to endure 900 years of people calling for an apology.

[Log]

I don't see the church or any of its institutions as divine - at least at this moment...

Isn't it odd that I called it?

[Buckeye]

Isn't it odd that I called it?

No. Why would that be odd?

[Log]

No. Why would that be odd?

Many people feign offense when their viewpoints are accurately gauged from reading exactly one post.

[Buckeye]

Many people feign offense when their viewpoints are accurately gauged from reading exactly one post.

Well, sorry to disappoint.

And to be clear, what I agreed to was that the "instructions" (i.e, curse of cain, premortal valiancy, etc.) were not divine. I think I'm on pretty safe ground there considering that the First Presidency has also rejected those "instructions."

I also said the church itself is not divine, but that is not to say it's not divinely appointed. Deacon's Quorum Presidents are called by divine appointment, but they are far from divine. So too with gospel doctrine teachers, organists, and seminary teachers. Actually, I take that back as to seminary teachers. They are divine. But you get my point.

[Log]

Well, sorry to disappoint.

And to be clear, what I agreed to was that the "instructions" (i.e, curse of cain, premortal valiancy, etc.) were not divine. I think I'm on pretty safe ground there considering that the First Presidency has also rejected those "instructions."

You are, in fact, on sandy ground.

[Buckeye]

You are, in fact, on sandy ground.

Ok. But it feels pretty solid considering the First Presidency is standing next to me.

[Log]

Ok. But it feels pretty solid considering the First Presidency is standing next to me.

It is precisely because you either honestly do believe that in the face of what they actually said, or are falsely representing yourself to believe that in the face of what they actually said, that you are on sandy ground.

To wit: the First Presidency has nowhere said the Priesthood ban was not divinely instituted. You, on the other hand, appear to have, and appear to think the First Presidency has said that.

Edited March 20, 2012 by Log

[Buckeye]

No

To wit: the First Presidency has nowhere said the Priesthood ban was not divinely instituted. You, on the other hand, appear to have, and appear to think the First Presidency has said that.

No. What I said is that the First Presidency has rejected the prior "instructions" rationalizing the ban (curse of cain, etc) - which is true. I never said the First Presidency stated that the ban was not divinely instituted. They have not .... yet. Rather, they have taken a "we don't know" position. And in light of the fact that prior official statements said the ban was inspired, I find their present silence on the subject to be a very welcome progress.