Church Specifically Disavows Priesthood Restriction Explanations

[Stone holm]

The church relates that McKay did not feel he should lift the ban. Perhaps they related it in a weird way where the meaning is muddied, but that seems to be saying that he felt he got an answer, and that it was not to lift it.

 

I don't think it is unreasonable to assume that if Pres. McKay did not feel he should lift the ban, and he has prayed about it, then he must have felt it was the will of the Lord.  Otherwise, we get onto extremely thin ice of suggesting that a Prophet was resisting the will of the Lord.  With the other Prophets, I suppose we can just brush it off that they never bothered to pray about it before firing off their culture based opinions.

[rockpond]

What other conclusion is there if none of the Prophets moved until 1978 to lift the ban?  Pres. McKay reputedly prayed about it and got no answer?

 

If Brigham Young, an amazingly great man, succumbed to the racial prejudices of the time, other prophets could have also.

 

Have you ever prayed and not received an answer?  I have.  Also, my understanding is that there was still division among the 12 which could account for lack of a revelation.

[rockpond]

Yes for whatever reason(s) God chose to do just that. We error when we impose our ideas as to the reason(s) God made that decision. The evidence is in the Bible. The first listed ban on Priesthood was that only the first born son of a High Priest from the tribe of Levi could hold the Priesthood. Later Jesus imposed a ban on anyone not a Jew from holding the Priesthood. Even today women are refused the Priesthood. I don't have any reason to believe God doesn't like the non first born son of High Priests from the tribe of Levi, non Jews, or women.

 

Good for him. My experience over many years, Exec Secretaries, in Branches and Wards across the country is different.

 

I am not imposing my ideas on God.  I'm just saying that I don't see any evidence of his involvement.  And this latest article published on the church website doesn't provide any evidence either, rather, it suggests that it would not have been His will based on what is written in the final paragraph along with the official disavowal and condemnation of the ban.

 

The Bible does not provide any support for the priesthood/temple ban in this dispensation.  Further, all attempts to use the Bible as evidence have been official disavowed.

[rockpond]

I don't think it is unreasonable to assume that if Pres. McKay did not feel he should lift the ban, and he has prayed about it, then he must have felt it was the will of the Lord.  Otherwise, we get onto extremely thin ice of suggesting that a Prophet was resisting the will of the Lord.  With the other Prophets, I suppose we can just brush it off that they never bothered to pray about it before firing off their culture based opinions.

 

I don't think he was intentionally resisting the will of the Lord.  I think there are a lot of factors at play... my understanding is that his counselor, HBL, was opposed (reference:  Greg Prince's bio of Pres McKay).

[thesometimesaint]

I am not imposing my ideas on God.  I'm just saying that I don't see any evidence of his involvement.  And this latest article published on the church website doesn't provide any evidence either, rather, it suggests that it would not have been His will based on what is written in the final paragraph along with the official disavowal and condemnation of the ban.

 

The Bible does not provide any support for the priesthood/temple ban in this dispensation.  Further, all attempts to use the Bible as evidence have been official disavowed.

 

I didn't say your ideas. I said when we impose them. Note the "we". I didn't agree with the claimed reasons for the ban when I joined in 1971. I still don't agree with those claimed reason(s). It appears to me that I am finally am in the agreement with the Church. We just don't know, and that any claimed reason is false.

 

I never said the Bible gives any claim to the reason(s) behind the obvious bans. Just that such bans did exist. BTW There is still the ban on woman holding the Priesthood in our dispensation. I would be the last person on earth, or Heaven, to claim it was because of some inherited defect in women.

Edited December 10, 2013 by thesometimesaint

[bluebell]

I don't think it is unreasonable to assume that if Pres. McKay did not feel he should lift the ban, and he has prayed about it, then he must have felt it was the will of the Lord.  Otherwise, we get onto extremely thin ice of suggesting that a Prophet was resisting the will of the Lord.  With the other Prophets, I suppose we can just brush it off that they never bothered to pray about it before firing off their culture based opinions.

 

I agree.

 

If McKay felt that God wanted him to lift the ban, but he chose not to (for whatever reason-other people resisted it or whatever) then that would be a HUGE HUGE deal.

[bluebell]

If Brigham Young, an amazingly great man, succumbed to the racial prejudices of the time, other prophets could have also.

 

Have you ever prayed and not received an answer?  I have.  Also, my understanding is that there was still division among the 12 which could account for lack of a revelation.

 

The problem with this line of reasoning is that the church is claiming that McKay did receive an answer.

[Stone holm]

I don't think he was intentionally resisting the will of the Lord.  I think there are a lot of factors at play... my understanding is that his counselor, HBL, was opposed (reference:  Greg Prince's bio of Pres McKay).

So you believe a prophet would back off because apostolic politics?

[Brian 2.0]

I can't speak to priesthood restrictions from Old or New Testament times. What I know is that the latter day dispensation priesthood ban was racist. Just by the very definition of the word (modern and otherwise). Furthermore the church, in this latest statement, has called it racist. And condemned it. I've read the article and I don't know any other way around those facts.

I'm confused at how we have disavowed all of the teachings about the ban except for promises that it would one day be lifted. And the promise by Brigham Young has been altered from a millennial restoration to "someday". You have to do the mental gymnastics to accept the fact that the church has now said: we don't know why there was a ban and we'd like to ignore everything we ever taught about the ban EXCEPT that some apostles said it would eventually end.

And yes, current priesthood restrictions are sexist. Again, this is just applying the actual meanings of words. Each of us have to ponder on our own rather that's a bad thing or not.

Did this statement call the ban racist? I don't think it did.

You seem pretty sure that this statement has disavowed the ban, but I don't see it that way. I wish it did, but it doesn't. In order to have it your way you need to start with the assumption that the ban was "racist".

There are plenty if people out there that say IF the ban was from God then it is not racist, because God isn't racist. (I don't like this logic but plenty use it).

The statement doesn't go as far as you are presenting it.

[Calm]

 If you watch closely it is relatively few that ever get asked upon to offer the prayers in our Church meetings. 

Your ward is very different from ours.  From what I've seen, they keep track of who has been asked and go through all the members.

Edited December 10, 2013 by calmoriah

[thesometimesaint]

Your ward is very different from ours.  From what I've seen, they keep track of who has been asked and go through all the members.

 

I actually prefer it your way. But my personal experience doesn't help the cause.

[Calm]

Perhaps you could suggest to your bishop or the executive secretary keeping track for the purpose of giving more people the opportunity.

[rockpond]

So you believe a prophet would back off because apostolic politics?

 

I don't know but I think it's possible.  They are mortal.  They make mistakes.  And if the ban was put in place due to cultural pressure it does not seem a stretch to think that it remained in place as a result of apostolic pressure.

[rockpond]

Did this statement call the ban racist? I don't think it did.

You seem pretty sure that this statement has disavowed the ban, but I don't see it that way. I wish it did, but it doesn't. In order to have it your way you need to start with the assumption that the ban was "racist".

There are plenty if people out there that say IF the ban was from God then it is not racist, because God isn't racist. (I don't like this logic but plenty use it).

The statement doesn't go as far as you are presenting it.

 

The ban was racist no matter who instituted it.  It was a ban based on race.  That makes it racist.  Doesn't necessarily mean it was wrong, but it was racist by definition.  There is no way around that.

 

Once you accept that the ban was racist, then the text from this article clearly condemns the ban.  I'm not sure if that's what they really meant to do, but it IS what the text says.

[teddyaware]

I didn't say your ideas. I said when we impose them. Note the "we". I didn't agree with the claimed reasons for the ban when I joined in 1971. I still don't agree with those claimed reason(s). It appears to me that I am finally am in the agreement with the Church. We just don't know, and that any claimed reason is false.

 

I never said the Bible gives any claim to the reason(s) behind the obvious bans. Just that such bans did exist. BTW There is still the ban on woman holding the Priesthood in our dispensation. I would be the last person on earth, or Heaven, to claim it was because of some inherited defect in women.

I don't necessarily believe the recent statement by the Church on the priesthood ban indicates the

previously stated possible reasons for the ban are false. The statement is simply saying there isn't

information available to avow for the truthfulness and accuracy of the previous stated

possible explanations.

One of the things that I find remarkable when examining this subject is how many of those who opine on the matter so rarely look to scripture to inform their opinions. If a given individual is a believing

and knowledgeable Latter-day Saint, there should be no question but that they should acknowledge there is scriptural precedent for God withholding priesthood ordination to some based on lineage, as the

following verses from the Book of Abraham clearly and unambiguously indicate:

"26 Pharaoh, being a righteous man, established his kingdom and judged his people wisely and justly all

his days, seeking earnestly to imitate that order established by the fathers in the first generations, in the days of the first patriarchal reign, even in the reign of Adam, and also of Noah, his father,

who blessed him with the blessings of the earth, and with the blessings of wisdom, but cursed him as

pertaining to the Priesthood.

27 Now, Pharaoh being of that lineage by which he could not have the right of Priesthood,

notwithstanding the Pharaohs would fain claim it from Noah, through Ham, therefore my father was led

away by their idolatry;" (Abraham 1)

Now there is the precedent. Yet there are some who carry on as if this was some sort of new-fangled

idea, made up out of whole cloth by President Brigham Young. If God withheld the blessing

of holding the priesthood to some of His children in the past, based on lineage, why is it so difficult

to believe a priesthood ban could be imposed by that same God in our day? Especially

in the dispensation of the fullness of times when all things would be restored.

The only answer I can come up with is that some fear the judgment of the world in our politically

correct age. They morbidly fear the unpleasant possibility that the intellectual luminaries of this

fallen world's version of a high priesthood, even those who occupy the large and spacious building,

are going to mock and point accusing fingers at them for believing such "superstitious nonsense" is

even remotely possible in the post modern age. Perhaps it's semi-acceptable to believe the "primitive

troglodytes" of Abraham's day could believe in a priesthood ban based on lineage, but

heaven forbid, don't dare entertain the absurd notion that a similar priesthood ban

could be enforced in our own day! After all, what will the people think? Isaiah warned the Lord's people in his day not to worry about what the unbelievers think about them

and their unpopular doctrines:

"7 ¶Hearken unto me, ye that know righteousness, the people in whose heart is my law;

fear ye not the reproach of men, neither be ye afraid of their revilings.

8 For the moth shall eat them up like a garment, and the worm shall eat them like wool:but my righteousness shall be for ever, and my salvation from generation to generation.

I can't help but wonder if there were people in Abraham's day who also decried the "absurdity" of a group

of people being banned from holding priesthood based on their lineage. After all, what could be more

unfair, unjust and backward than to believe God could command such a thing? I'm being serious.

Considering human nature is a constant, it seems logical to believe there were those in Abraham's day

who claimed there was no good reason for Pharoh's lineage to be deprived the blessing of holding

the priesthood. After all -- they likely reasoned -- the Patriarchs made the whole thing up; and

anyway, everybody knows they were just a bunch of old fuddy duddies. And it seems likely there were

those who succumbed to the sophistry of such reasoning because they feared the condemnation of that

ages' secular high priests of the intelligentsia.

Moving on to something perhaps more absurd, I also can't help but wonder if in the eternities there

will be those who claim it's outrageous, unjust and unfair that they only have bodies quickened by a

telestial degree of glory, while there are elite others who have glorious bodies that shine more

brilliantly than the sun at noonday?. Think this is stupid? How about the egalitarian concepts that

precipitated the war in heaven?

Edited December 11, 2013 by teddyaware

[Brian 2.0]

The ban was racist no matter who instituted it.  It was a ban based on race.  That makes it racist.  Doesn't necessarily mean it was wrong, but it was racist by definition.  There is no way around that.

The word "racist" is most often defined as the belief that one race is superior to another. Plenty have said that the ban does/did not mean that blacks were inferior, but simply that they were not extended the priesthood. So without the feeling of superiority between the races they deem the ban as NOT racist.

 

Once you accept that the ban was racist, then the text from this article clearly condemns the ban.  I'm not sure if that's what they really meant to do, but it IS what the text says.

Ant those that don't think the ban as racist see the article as condemning the racist theories and statements, but that ban itself is not being disavowed.

[Glenn101]

It disavows things that were considered doctrine in the past. 

 

In 1947 the First Presidency stated that it was God's doctrine that racial inter-marriage was 

 

https://archive.org/stream/LowryNelson1stPresidencyExchange/Lowry_Nelson_1st_Presidency_Exchange#page/n5/mode/1up

(Emphasis added)

 

Did they try to lead Dr Nelson astray in teaching him it was repugnant?

 

Further to that, the new article says that the church condemns all forms of racism. The ban was a form of racism (a denial of rights based on race), so, by implication, is condemned. 

 

I don't think that it goes that far. Remember that the doctrine of the church or the policy of the church at the time was that anyone normally priesthood eligible who married a black person lost their eligibility to exercise priethood authority. That was true up until the lifting of the ban in 1978.

The church still discouraged interracial marriages, not just between blacks and whites, but between most races. That had nothing to do with racism as such, but because of the great stress placed upon such marriages by the cultural differences normally inherent in such unions.

 

Reread thesometimesaints posts on lineage based priesthood bans. He has made my point there and I need not repeat them. However, this thread really emphasizes the point I made that nothing has really changed. The same debate is still ongoing. We will not know, probably until the mellenium the details of this.

 

Glenn

[Stone holm]

The ban was racist no matter who instituted it.  It was a ban based on race.  That makes it racist.  Doesn't necessarily mean it was wrong, but it was racist by definition.  There is no way around that.

 

Once you accept that the ban was racist, then the text from this article clearly condemns the ban.  I'm not sure if that's what they really meant to do, but it IS what the text says.

I suspect at this point only the brain dead would argue it wasn't, but the question is whether The Lord for some reason was willing for the racism to continue, and if we believe this is the true Church, then we inevitable reach the conclusion, yes He was otherwise...we reach the conclusion that we had false prophets in our midst. All the Church has really said here is that all the theological explanation spun over the years were false. So for some reason, The Lord felt it was appropriate to allow His Church to be known as a racist organization. Just as today, He is allowing it to be known as a sexist organization. Someday our great great grandchildren will be speculating as to why the Church was allowed to be sexist for so long and will be debating whether certain portions of the Proclamation on the Family were inspired or merely cultural based.

[teddyaware]

I suspect at this point only the brain dead would argue it wasn't, but the question is whether The Lord for some reason was willing for the racism to continue, and if we believe this is the true Church, then we inevitable reach the conclusion, yes He was otherwise...we reach the conclusion that we had false prophets in our midst. All the Church has really said here is that all the theological explanation spun over the years were false. So for some reason, The Lord felt it was appropriate to allow His Church to be known as a racist organization. Just as today, He is allowing it to be known as a sexist organization. Someday our great great grandchildren will be speculating as to why the Church was allowed to be sexist for so long and will be debating whether certain portions of the Proclamation on the Family were inspired or merely cultural based.

Do you believe it was racist when anciently pharaoh's lineage was deprived the blessings of holding the

priesthood? If not, why not? And what specifically do you think makes the priesthood banning that existed in Abraham's day different from the modern priesthood ban? Also, what will you say to the Lord if one day you discover He was the one who initiated the modern priesthood ban?

Edited December 11, 2013 by teddyaware

[Stone holm]

Do you believe it was racist when anciently pharaoh's lineage was deprived the blessings of holding thepriesthood? If not, why not? And what specifically do you think makes the priesthood banning that existed in Abraham's day different from the modern priesthood ban? Also, what will you say to the Lord if one day you discover He was the one who initiated the modern priesthood ban?

Absolutely it was racist, absolutely it was racist back then and it was racist when instituted modernly. The OT was riddled with genocide as well. Why did The Lord have these policies, have no idea. But for some reason it was apparently needful.

[David T]

Do you believe it was racist when anciently pharaoh's lineage was deprived the blessings of holding thepriesthood? If not, why not? And what specifically do you think makes the priesthood banning that existed in Abraham's day different from the modern priesthood ban? Also, what will you say to the Lord if one day you discover He was the one who initiated the modern priesthood ban?

Please note another way of reading the content of that story, as I posted earlier in this thread: http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/62349-church-specifically-disavows-priesthood-restriction-explanations/?p=1209324627

[canard78]

I don't think that it goes that far. Remember that the doctrine of the church or the policy of the church at the time was that anyone normally priesthood eligible who married a black person lost their eligibility to exercise priethood authority. That was true up until the lifting of the ban in 1978.

The church still discouraged interracial marriages, not just between blacks and whites, but between most races. That had nothing to do with racism as such, but because of the great stress placed upon such marriages by the cultural differences normally inherent in such unions.

 

Reread thesometimesaints posts on lineage based priesthood bans. He has made my point there and I need not repeat them. However, this thread really emphasizes the point I made that nothing has really changed. The same debate is still ongoing. We will not know, probably until the mellenium the details of this.

 

Glenn

 

Are you saying that if a white man married a black woman he lost his priesthood eligibility? References please, that's news to me. What if an inter-racial couple were converted? Would the white man be baptised but denied the priesthood?

 

We will not know the details until the millenium? Why not? Have we lost the ability to get revelation? I can remember as a teenager in Seminary being taught a beautifully simple principle: 

 

Amos 3:7 Surely the Lord GOD will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets

 

 

It wasn't complicated. But in this case it's odd that people who try to support the ban as Gods will have the following two problems:

 

- There's no evidence that the ban was introduced as God's will, but lots of evidence it was introduced based on racial prejudice.

- There were reasons given in the past, by "his servants the prophets," for the reasons for the ban that have now been disavowed and condemned as not God's will but no reasons have been given to replace it.

 

These two points means the ban does not qualify for the Amos model of revelation, I see very little reason to think the ban ever was revealed doctrine.

 

I'm amazed at how easily some people can simply ignore this. Like water of a duck's back. You and thesometimesaint keep claiming it was God's doctrine to ban the blacks from 1852 to 1978. Show me some evidence! Show me a single statement where a prophet says "God has told me to introduce this ban" or "God has told me to continue this ban." The closest we have to that is the article saying "After praying for guidance, President McKay did not feel impressed to lift the ban." That's carefully worded and also excludes the positions of other apostles (such as Elder Lee) who opposed changing the policy even though a majority of the quorum, at one point, were willing to do so without a revelation.

 

Here's an few extracts from the Edward Kimball article:

Although Brigham Young originally indicated that blacks would receive the priesthood only after all others had had a chance to receive it, later prophets changed from “last of all” to “sometime.” President McKay answered a reporter, “Not in my lifetime.”

...

In 1954, President McKay is said to have appointed a special committee of the Twelve to study the issue. They concluded that the priesthood ban had no clear basis in scripture but that Church members were not prepared for change.

...

(President Hugh B.) Brown also reportedly urged the Twelve to make an administrative decision to change the priesthood policy but was thwarted... The policy change was thwarted primarily because of Harold B. Lee’s strong opposition. President Brown’s grandson says that when Elder Lee was away President Brown had persuaded the Twelve to his point of view. But Elder Lee, on his return, obtained reconsideration of and withdrawal from such agreement.

...

President McKay sometimes said in private conversations that the restriction on priesthood was not a doctrine but was a policy and subject to change. Although one might assume that this “policy rather than doctrine” distinction would make change easy, President McKay himself apparently meant only that the rule or practice was not established by direct revelation. He did not mean that change could come by the simple administrative decision of Church leaders. He maintained the position that the long-established policy was inspired and that change would require divine intervention. President McKay desired and sought such 

revelation, but he did not receive it. He told Elder Marion D. Hanks that “he had pleaded and pleaded with the Lord but had not had the answer he sought.” Leonard Arrington reported a statement by Elder Adam S.  Bennion in 1954 that President McKay had prayed for change “without result and finally concluded the time was not yet ripe.”

 

(Emphasis added)

https://byustudies.byu.edu/PDFLibrary/47.2KimballSpencerb0a083df-b26b-430b-9ce2-3efec584dcd9.pdf

[teddyaware]

Absolutely it was racist, absolutely it was racist back then and it was racist when instituted modernly. The OT was riddled with genocide as well. Why did The Lord have these policies, have no idea. But for some reason it was apparently needful.

So do you think God is a racist of sorts? And if you do, how would you attempt to reconcile His racism with being a God of perfect love? Also, if God commanded His ancient earthly leaders to withhold the priesthood from pharaoh's line, why would said leaders be considered racists for simply following orders? Finally, under these divinely ordained circumstances, would you say the only way for the Church leaders to avoid being labeled as racists is for them to disobey God's commandment to withhold the priesthood from some?

[Stone holm]

So do you think God is a racist of sorts? And if you do, how would you attempt to reconcile His racism with being a God of perfect love? Also, if God commanded His ancient earthly leaders to withhold the priesthood from pharaoh's line, why would said leaders be considered racists for simply following orders? Finally, under these divinely ordained circumstances, would you say the only way for the Church leaders to avoid being labeled as racists is for them to disobey God's commandment to withhold the priesthood from some?

Apparently, there was a need for the racism. There are some pretty harsh things in the OT. Do you believe that every firstborn in Egypt including the mere babes were evil? How about Jobs family? We have no clue what The Lord needed to have happen in order to make the world turn out like He needs it to make it turn out. What is bad, is when we start ascribing reasons like the idea that a certain race or tribe is inferior to ourselves. That may have had zero credibility, it may have been for some reason altogether different. Why for example did he make the African generally more athletic and musical, why were the European Jews blessed with so many geniuses, why isolate the Ameridians with the resultant lack of immunities, why allow a lunatic to take eugenics to such extremes, why wipe out all but eight members of the human race? We have no real clue, but I suspect there was in fact some cosmic plan, we have to believe that or we wind up questioning God. I have a feeling that there will be people who reject the gospel in these days because of the goodness of their hearts, and those people will wind up being blessed for that rejection in the end.

[Brian 2.0]

Absolutely it was racist, absolutely it was racist back then and it was racist when instituted modernly. The OT was riddled with genocide as well. Why did The Lord have these policies, have no idea. But for some reason it was apparently needful.

Or The Lord didn't have these policies or commands to genocide and the prophets and writers of the scripture (sometimes writing in severe retroscept) were just applying their own thoughts and prejudices to it and misjudging where their "revelations" were coming from in those instances.