Church Specifically Disavows Priesthood Restriction Explanations

[David T]

This, in its specifics, detail, and candor,  is brand new, and huge:

 

https://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng

 

"Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form."

 

 

The whole longform article is amazing, placing the restriction in a cultural and historical context, and not defending anywhere the idea that it represented God's will at any point. No more justifications with comparisons of OT restriction of Priesthood to Levites. This is huge.

 

Share this far and wide.

Edited December 7, 2013 by David T

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form.

 

Today is a good day.

 

These two threads have been merged.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Beat me by minutes, dude.  
 

I'm especially pleased with the references attached: Noah's Curse, Ed Kimball's paper, etc. 

[theplains]

The whole longform article is amazing, placing the restriction in a cultural and historical context, and not defending anywhere the idea that it represented God's will at any point. No more justifications with comparisons of OT restriction of Priesthood to Levites. This is huge.

 

Share this far and wide.

 

The article mentioned, "Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the

past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects actions in

a premortal life".   Read "The Way to Perfection" by former President Joseph Fielding

Smith. The idea of 'theories' will soon disappear.

 

Regards,

Jim

[David T]

Read the footnotes of the article, Jim. JFS is called out.

Apostle Joseph Fielding Smith, for example, wrote in 1907 that the belief was “quite general” among Mormons that “the Negro race has been cursed for taking a neutral position in that great contest.” Yet this belief, he admitted, “is not the official position of the Church, [and is] merely the opinion of men.” Joseph Fielding Smith to Alfred M. Nelson, Jan. 31, 1907, Church History Library, Salt Lake City.

Edited December 7, 2013 by David T

[juliann]

 

Wow, a lot of detail....and this "Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form."  They did not exempt the church.  Awesome.

[Five Solas]

Seems like this opens the door to an apology, perhaps along the lines of the Southern Baptist Convention--

 

...

Be it further RESOLVED, That we apologize to all African-Americans for condoning and/or perpetuating individual and systemic racism in our lifetime; and we genuinely repent of racism of which we have been guilty, whether consciously (Psalm 19:13) or unconsciously (Leviticus 4:27); and

Be it further RESOLVED, That we ask forgiveness from our African-American brothers and sisters, acknowledging that our own healing is at stake

...

 

Personally, I'm skeptical, but I've been surprised before.  The LDS Church continues to evolve. 

 

--Erik

 

[Robert F. Smith]

Since this extraordinarily frank piece had all the earmarks of it, I was not surprised to read at the close of the footnotes, "The Church acknowledges the contribution of historians and scholars to the historical context set forth in this article, whose contribution is used with their permission."

 

Thanks Jeremy.  A good day, indeed.

[Robert F. Smith]

The article mentioned, "Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the

past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects actions in

a premortal life".   Read "The Way to Perfection" by former President Joseph Fielding

Smith. The idea of 'theories' will soon disappear.

 

Regards,

Jim

Yes, and the piece conforms to the private conclusions reached by Pres McKay, although his prayers could not elicit the revelation that Pres Kimball was able to receive.  Perhaps the Church members were simply not yet ready in McKay's time.  After all, as the article points out, the law against intermarriage in Utah was only done away in 1963.

Edited December 7, 2013 by Robert F. Smith

[katherine the great]

About time...

[foster]

 

Wow, a lot of detail....and this "Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form."  They did not exempt the church.  Awesome.

 

What do you mean by "Church"?  I am not sure the Leadership of the Church shares your enthusiasm in condemning the Church and its Leaders from BY to 1978. Something to think is that we all are the "children of them". (Matt. 23)  

Edited December 7, 2013 by foster

[Storm Rider]

Yes, and the piece conforms to the private conclusions reached by Pres McKay, although his prayers could not elicit the revelation that Pres Kimball was able to receive.  Perhaps the Church members were simply not yet ready in McKay's time.  After all, as the article points out, the law against intermarriage in Utah was only done away in 1963.

 

I am uncomfortable with this concept of the membership not being ready. For me, the prophet should lead in righteousness and truth and forget about the potential consequences. For me the leadership for generations chose to follow something that was not the will of God, but was the will of man. President McKay should have taken a few the brethren out to the wood shed for a long talk and either brought them in line or removed them. Hugh B. Brown was removed for exactly supporting such courageous moves; it should have been the other way around.  

 

I am speaking a little too bluntly, but I tire of excusing the actions of leaders that should be condemned. They either lacked courage or sacrificed a people in exchange for maintaining unity among the Twelve. There is no excuse; it simply was and is history. 

 

Other than that, it is Saturday and it is a great day.

[bluebell]

This, in its specifics, detail, and candor, is brand new, and huge:

https://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng

The whole longform article is amazing, placing the restriction in a cultural and historical context, and not defending anywhere the idea that it represented God's will at any point. No more justifications with comparisons of OT restriction of Priesthood to Levites. This is huge.

Share this far and wide.

I love it!

Though the article does seem to take care in being silent on where the ban actually came from. They lay a foundation that could be interpreted to mean the ban was purely cultural, but they seem careful to never actually say that specifically.

I wonder if that will ever change.

Edited December 7, 2013 by bluebell

[bluebell]

I am uncomfortable with this concept of the membership not being ready. For me, the prophet should lead in righteousness and truth and forget about the potential consequences. For me the leadership for generations chose to follow something that was not the will of God, but was the will of man. President McKay should have taken a few the brethren out to the wood shed for a long talk and either brought them in line or removed them. Hugh B. Brown was removed for exactly supporting such courageous moves; it should have been the other way around.

I am speaking a little too bluntly, but I tire of excusing the actions of leaders that should be condemned. They either lacked courage or sacrificed a people in exchange for maintaining unity among the Twelve. There is no excuse; it simply was and is history.

Other than that, it is Saturday and it is a great day.

The article says that Pres McKay prayed about whether or not to lift the ban, and felt God said it wasn't time.

Do you believe he was mistaken?

[David T]

The article says that Pres McKay prayed about whether or not to lift the ban, and felt God said it wasn't time.

Do you believe he was mistaken?

 

Actually, it doesn't say that. It says "After praying for guidance, President McKay did not feel impressed to lift the ban." - there is a substantial difference in sating that "he did not feel impressed to lift the ban", and a statement saying God gave a proactive declaration that he shouldn't. I think the wording in the article was chosen very carefully in this regard.

Edited December 7, 2013 by David T

[Storm Rider]

The article says that Pres McKay prayed about whether or not to lift the ban, and felt God said it wasn't time.

Do you believe he was mistaken?

 

Bluebell, I think President McKay was being diplomatic rather than fully informing all concerned. As I recall they went so far as to vote on this issue and unanimity was not achieved - was it two of the Twelve that did not support changing the policy. 

 

The concept of revelation is bedrock to our faith. Each time the Brethren have created policy, rather than leading by revelation, they have taken the actions of men.  My worthless opinion is that this is wrong and always leads to problems.  If God does not speak then hold your tongue on an issue.  When he speaks then declare the revelation and add it to the Doctrine & Covenants as such.

 

Each time a policy is created the Church takes one step away from Christ and moves toward a church of mankind. It is meaningless how effective or ineffective a policy is; it is the action of man rather than God.

 

All policy leads to problems of one kind or another. Whether it is the policy of how a prophet is called, the priesthood, Word of Wisdom, temple ordinances (wording), etc. all were taken without any accompanying revelation to support the decision. Man is capable of much good in and of themselves, but none of us, prophets and apostles included, should ever develop policy that affects the salvation of humanity without having the direct intervention of the God of our salvation. Again, if it is not by the direction of God let each of us have the good sense to keep our mouths closed. Patience is not a bad thing and I hope to heaven that the price each of these leaders will pay is not so harsh; they are each worthy of mercy and forgiveness.

 

I am not demeaning our leaders or at least that is not my intent, but I have not come to this position lightly or easily. I strive to know our Savior and his will in order to serve him. I will respect the mantle, but I will not follow blindly the words of man. I will wait upon the witness of the Holy Spirit for all truth. These things are not true today and were not true yesterday or tomorrow. The Church has need of repentance and this is a first worthy step to regaining our own integrity as The Church of Jesus Christ. It always boggles my mind when I hear that name; it is his Church and he must always be our head and source for all things. 

[bluebell]

Actually, it doesn't say that. It says "After praying for guidance, President McKay did not feel impressed to lift the ban." - there is a substantial difference in sating that "he did not feel impressed to lift the ban", and a statement saying God gave a proactive declaration that he shouldn't. I think the wording in the article was chosen very carefully in this regard.

Yes, I should have said that McKay believed that God did not want him to lift the ban.

The question remains the same though, does that mean that McKay was wrong in what he felt God was telling him?

[daz2]

I do not believe the Prophet has a pipeline to God, a fax machine, or email. I believe that as GBH said revelation comes through promptings and whispering and feelings that are sometimes difficult to discern. I also agree with the principle in the D&C that to be of God, the decisions of the FP and 12 must be unanimous. Each member of the FP and 12 is a prophet. Basically God is saying is that all 15 must believe, through inspiration or revelation or however the individual discerns God's will, that a decision or teaching is correct, before it can be given God's imprimatur. This serves as a check and balance. It is not enough if just one leader (even the president) receives a prompting or revelation for a major decision, action, policy or doctrine. If it is truly of God, then God will provide that assurance to all 15. True, Joseph Smith did not abide this principle, and instituted plural marriage without getting full approval and confirmation from the FP or 12 that this was God's will. He just expected them to follow him. I wonder what would have happened if Joseph had followed the principle in the D&C, and waited until the other prophets seers and revelators had received confirming revelations. Perhaps plural marriage would have started at a later date. Perhaps it would not have started at all. Would that have been such a terrible thing?

[daz2]

We do not have a first hand report of DOM stating that God told him not to lift the ban. It is a second or third hand report by a nongeneral authority of an informal off the cuff very brief conversation with him. Did DOM really approach God in serious prayer about this? Did he really want to end the ban? Did he really think God originated the ban?

[canard78]

Hallelujah.

There could have been a little more detail around misconceptions that it was a revealed doctrine from Joseph Smith, but can understand why they chose not to. I feel no desire to nitpick.

I'm encouraged by this piece. I'm sure the piece must have been in the pipeline for a while but it's publication, within 48 hours of Mandela's death, is timely.

Apartheid means "apart hood" or segregation based on race. In celebrating a man who fought racial prejudices of a far more vicious kind I also celebrate our church acknowledging the unreasonable influence that America's segregation and unfounded rascist attitudes had on LDS members and leaders. Attitudes which I freely admit were born and perpetuated in Europe.

The church is like a great ocean liner. It can't do rapid u-turns like a speedboat. Too many people would be tipped over the edge. It changes by small degrees. This article represents one more degree of change in a long history of small degrees. I look forward to further degrees of change.

[BlueDreams]

This is great. I was actually shown this earlier this evening at a xmas party. (It's a specific small course that does a civil rights tour among other things....so I swear it made more sense than hot cocoa and a random perusal of lds.org).

 

I honestly can't think of one thing I would want differently. 

 

With luv,

BD

[BCSpace]

No more justifications with comparisons of OT restriction of Priesthood to Levites.

 

This particular assessment is incorrect as the statement is regarding skin color and justifications for black servitude etc. not lineage. Consider the following comparative official doctrine of the Church in the current curriculum:

 

Abraham 1:24–27. The Pharaoh and the Priesthood

At times in the past, the power and authority to act in the name of the Lord was bestowed upon only a few worthy males and withheld from all others. In the days of Moses’ leadership of the children of Israel, for example, only the tribe of Levi had the privilege to hold the priesthood (see Numbers 8:5–26). Our day is the “long-promised day … when every faithful, worthy man in the Church may receive the holy priesthood.” On 8 June 1978, the First Presidency announced:

 

etc.

 

http://www.lds.org/manual/the-pearl-of-great-price-student-manual/the-book-of-abraham?lang=eng

 

 

Notice the comparison of the 1978 revelation with an "OT" restriction.  Now perhaps you might dislike this type of comparison, but unless the Church removes it and several other similar statements, it stands as something being taught as the doctrine in the Church.

 

And no, by making this statement I am NOT advocating a "curse of Cain" doctrine for black skin or inferiority etc.  Never have.  I am simply pointing out the realities of official doctrine that you may have to deal with.

[altersteve]

What do you mean by "Church"?  I am not sure the Leadership of the Church shares your enthusiasm in condemning the Church and its Leaders from BY to 1978. Something to think is that we all are the "children of them". (Matt. 23)  

I'm sure the Church doesn't condemn Brigham Young or any other Church leader, but they would most certainly condemn any racist actions or statements made by ANYONE, member of the Church or not.

[sunstoned]

This is a straight forward article in which the church takes responsibility for the ban.  It states clearly what the official position on race and interracial marriages and debunks the myths taught by past leadership for the justification of the ban.

 

This is a huge step in the right direction.

[BCSpace]

The church is like a great ocean liner. It can't do rapid u-turns like a speedboat. Too many people would be tipped over the edge. It changes by small degrees. This article represents one more degree of change in a long history of small degrees. I look forward to further degrees of change.

 

IMHO, I don't think anything has changed on this issue in a very long time; decades.  The statement is welcome because it brings together much of what has already been known and/or stated elsewhere or acknowledged by the Church. It's really too bad some think this is anything new because it shows the doctrine is not being taught or taught well enough.  Perhaps it's because things come around every four years and we forget.  Perhaps it's because it's an uncomfortable issue for many and they don't know there are other official sources besides what they bring to Church.