Church Specifically Disavows Priesthood Restriction Explanations

[juliann]

 

There are some here who passionately decry the treatment of the native Americans by the European settlers, yet the Book of Mormon makes it clear that for some unknown reason the "wrath of God was upon them" as a race, and that's why the were "driven" before the face of those Gentiles who had escaped from European captivity. And although what I'm about to say is extremely politically incorrect, did it ever dawn upon you that perhaps, for some as yet unknown reason, similar to the divine wrath that was upon the Lamanites, the wrath of God was also upon the Africans who were brought to the New World against their will, but that great blessings would follow when the Lord's wrath was finally turned away? 

 

Forgoing your assumption that native Americans have anything to do with the Book of Mormon, what you are suggesting makes God responsible for evil.

[juliann]

This announcement weakens the LDS claim to divine revelation IMO. If the priesthood ban was a mistake, then multiple prophets were in error. Why would the Lord allow for such an error to linger for so long?

It doesn't weaken it as much as make us be more selective of what we assign to "revelation"...as well as what it really is.  There will have to be some rethinking of our desire to make prophets fax machines for God.  I think it will ultimately be a good thing. 

[jkwilliams]

I am confused on why that even matters.

 

It doesn't matter to me, but Thinking said the statement was an admission that the ban was a mistake. I don't see that in there. Do you?

[Brian 2.0]

This announcement weakens the LDS claim to divine revelation IMO. If the priesthood ban was a mistake, then multiple prophets were in error. Why would the Lord allow for such an error to linger for so long?

 

That's a very good question, and one I think the Church doesn't want being asked, which is why the statement doesn't go so far as to call it a mistake.  I agree with jk below...

 

As far as I can see, there's nothing in the statement about the ban being a mistake. That's why the rationalizations from members will keep coming, and the issue is unlikely to be put to bed.

 

If the Church wanted the issue to die then they need to take this another step further.  It's good they disavowed all the racist theories, but the roots of this problem are still there and new leaves will keep popping up from them.

Edited December 11, 2013 by Brian 2.0

[Brian 2.0]

I am confused on why that even matters.

 

I guess it matters to people that want to know if God withheld his Priesthood from blacks for all those years, or if a man made a policy that withheld God's Priesthood from blacks all those years. 

[jkwilliams]

That's a very good question, and one I think the Church doesn't want being asked, which is why the statement doesn't go so far as to call it a mistake.  I agree with jk below...

 

 

If the Church wanted the issue to die then they need to take this another step further.  It's good they disavowed all the racist theories, but the roots of this problem are still there and new leaves will keep popping up from them.

 

That's how I see it, too.

[foster]

The wording of OD2 is not revelation. It's a statement to say they've had a revelation to end the ban. 

 

I've just read through it and the only thing I can see in is that prophets promised the day would come when the ban was overturned. Many of these would be the same prophets that gave erroneous reasons for the origins of the ban, so why does that point towards the ban being from God.

 

If this really the best you can do?

 

I asked for some evidence of divine origin and the best you have is a prepared statement 126 years after the ban was officially announced?

 

 

You come across as rather arrogant with your continued calls for Divine Origin. My concern is are you really interested, and can you "handle" the ban having been a Doctrine...my concern is you can not.  There are several references to the Divine orgin, you have even posted to one which contains two references.

[Brian 2.0]

You come across as rather arrogant with your continued calls for Divine Origin. My concern is are you really interested, and can you "handle" the ban having been a Doctrine...my concern is you can not.  There are several references to the Divine orgin, you have even posted to one which contains two references.

 

While divine origin is in debate here, does everyone agree in a divine end?  

 

If the ban did NOT have divine origin, why would there be any wait on the Divine end?  Why wouldn't God tell the first prophet that asked about it to life the ban?

[teddyaware]

Forgoing your assumption that native Americans have anything to do with the Book of Mormon, what you are suggesting makes God responsible for evil.

God is not responsible for evil, but some misinformed folks might think He is responsible because He allows evil to exist.

[teddyaware]

The wording of OD2 is not revelation. It's a statement to say they've had a revelation to end the ban. 

 

I've just read through it and the only thing I can see in is that prophets promised the day would come when the ban was overturned. Many of these would be the same prophets that gave erroneous reasons for the origins of the ban, so why does that point towards the ban being from God.

 

If this really the best you can do?

 

I asked for some evidence of divine origin and the best you have is a prepared statement 126 years after the ban was officially announced?

Unless the leaders of the Church in 1978 were being dishonest (I don't believe they were), the testimony of the revelation from God to revoke the ban, as recorded in Official Declaration 2, should be enough evidence that the ban had a divine origin, at least for those who believe the latter-day prophets are inspired and truthful -- the Declaration makes this crystal clear. Enjoy your continued second guessing of the Lord's anointed.

[Glenn101]

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.

 

 

I don't know all of the sometimesaint's declarations, but I have not maintained that the ban was God's doctrine, especially in this thread. What I have said is that Brigham Young specifically said that it was. It was not over the pulpit, but in a speech to the Utah legislature in 1852. I do not have a link to it currently at hand, but it was in that speech that he declared that only God could remove it, which was exactly what happened.

 

It was also in that speech that Brigham confirmed a policy about priesthood holders losing their priesthood authority if they married one of the seed of Cain. That is the best CFR I can give you right now.

 

Based upon all of the evidence, it would seem that we would need further revelation from the Lord to repudiate what Brigham said about the ban being from the Lord. That has been my stance for as long as I can remember.

 

Glenn

[teddyaware]

No it does not state that. It doesn't say it doesn't have the information to avow the past theories. It says "disavow." Disavow in plain english means: To disclaim knowledge of, responsibility for, or association with. The church no longer wants to be associated with those statements any more. How could they make this more clear?

 

In the 2000 word essay on the priesthood ban, the article spends a full 25% describing the racial culture of America as a backdrop to the ban. How many words did you see in their on linage? Why didn't the church mention Abraham? Why didn't the church mention the tribe of Levi? Why didn't the church mention the fact that Jesus only ministered to the Jews? Could it be that as shown on this thread, these facts were irrelevant? Or perhaps as you say the church "fears the judgment of the world in our politically correct age."

 

Please compare the priesthood ban article to the plural marriage article. Though the article is much shorter (only 600 words) it makes sure to give relevant biblical presidents. Also note that in contrast to Brigham Young "publicly announcing the ban" the much shorter plural marriage article makes sure to mention that "God revealed the doctrine of plural marriage to Joseph Smith in 1831." This is despite the fact that we don't have any documentation for this revelation.

 

So my last question to all those that are defending the ban as divine, and those that keep citing irrelevant biblical precedent:

Why did the church in an article <1/3 the size of the priesthood article mention polygamy's divine origins, and its biblical precedents, but fail to do so in the case of the priesthood ban (in a much more thorough article)? Why did they instead talk about (for 500 words no less - almost the length of the entire plural marriage article) the racial culture that the ban was born in?

Because the world isn't ready to receive some truth

No it does not state that. It doesn't say it doesn't have the information to avow the past theories. It says "disavow." Disavow in plain english means: To disclaim knowledge of, responsibility for, or association with. The church no longer wants to be associated with those statements any more. How could they make this more clear?

 

In the 2000 word essay on the priesthood ban, the article spends a full 25% describing the racial culture of America as a backdrop to the ban. How many words did you see in their on linage? Why didn't the church mention Abraham? Why didn't the church mention the tribe of Levi? Why didn't the church mention the fact that Jesus only ministered to the Jews? Could it be that as shown on this thread, these facts were irrelevant? Or perhaps as you say the church "fears the judgment of the world in our politically correct age."

 

Please compare the priesthood ban article to the plural marriage article. Though the article is much shorter (only 600 words) it makes sure to give relevant biblical presidents. Also note that in contrast to Brigham Young "publicly announcing the ban" the much shorter plural marriage article makes sure to mention that "God revealed the doctrine of plural marriage to Joseph Smith in 1831." This is despite the fact that we don't have any documentation for this revelation.

 

So my last question to all those that are defending the ban as divine, and those that keep citing irrelevant biblical precedent:

Why did the church in an article <1/3 the size of the priesthood article mention polygamy's divine origins, and its biblical precedents, but fail to do so in the case of the priesthood ban (in a much more thorough article)? Why did they instead talk about (for 500 words no less - almost the length of the entire plural marriage article) the racial culture that the ban was born in?

I'm sure there have been many instances throughout history when people disavowed certain positions on various matters that they later had to admit were true positions when irrefutable evidence came to the fore. I believe that evidence will come forward, either here of in the world to come.

As for your other point, I will stand by Official Declaration 2 which is part of the standard works of the Church. Until the day comes that Official Declaration 2 is repudiated and eliminated from the standard works, and those who wrote it discredited, I will stand by it. And since when is the length of a manuscript evidence of greater weight of veracity

[teddyaware]

So the systematic splitting up of families, raping of women, forced servitude, regular beatings were all blessings in disguise? Glad I don't believe in your God. My God and my church "unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form."

In case you didn't notice, God has a great ability to make celestial lemonade out of lemons. Was the terrifying and painful destruction of the antediluvian families who died in the flood a blessing in disguise? Moses 7 says it was. Was Alma's suffering the unspeakable pains of a damned soul in hell for three days and nights a blessing in disguise? Alma said it was. Is the exquisite suffering of the wicked spirits in hell (those who have not committed the unpardonable sin) a blessing in disguise? D&C 76 says it is. Was the brutal and unspeakable suffering endured by those in the Willie and Martin handcart companies a blessing in disguise? They said it was. Does God teach us that even the most horrific suffering can be a blessing in disguise? Read what he has to say on the subject for yourself:

5 If thou art called to pass through tribulation; if thou art in perils among false brethren; if thou art in perils among robbers; if thou art in perils by land or by sea;

6 If thou art accused with all manner of false accusations; if thine enemies fall upon thee; if they tear thee from the society of thy father and mother and brethren and sisters; and if with a drawn sword thine enemies tear thee from the bosom of thy wife, and of thine offspring, and thine elder son, although but six years of age, shall cling to thy garments, and shall say, My father, my father, why can’t youstay with us? O, my father, what are the men going to do with you? and if then he shall be thrust from thee by the sword, and thou be dragged to prison, and thine enemies prowl around thee like wolves for the blood of the lamb;

7 And if thou shouldst be cast into the pit, or into the hands of murderers, and the sentence of death passed upon thee; if thou be cast into the deep; if the billowing surge conspire against thee; if fierce winds become thine enemy; if the heavens gather blackness, and all the elements combine to hedge up the way; and above all, if the very jaws of hell shall gape open the mouth wide after thee, know thou, my son, that all these things shall give thee experience, and shall be for thy good.

8 The Son of Man hath descended below them all. Art thou greater than he?" D&C 122

I appreciate your passion, but it's best to think things out critically before writing.

Edited December 12, 2013 by teddyaware

[Duncan]

I've read far worse, and far better by those same men. So it really is a mixed bag. Were there racists in the Church, including leadership? No doubt about it. Are there racist today in the Church? Yes there are. They have a serious need to repentance.

 

BTW Here is something JS Jr. also said about the Negro. Elder Hyde inquired about the situation of the negro. I replied, they came into the world slaves mentally and physically. Change their situation with the whites, and they would be like them. They have souls, and are subjects of salvation. Go into Cincinnati or any city, and find an educated negro, who rides in his carriage, and you will see a man who has risen by the powers of his own mind to his exalted state of respectability. The slaves in Washington are more refined than many in high places, and the black boys will take the shine off many of those they brush and wait on.

 

 

This is the thing that gets me. People who say the Church is racist are forgetting their own history. Hate groups still exist all over the world, sadly. Racial tension is ever present. Slavery is an old institution and North Americans are no saints in that regard. American President Woodrow Wilson was no saint for the African Americans and Canadian Prime Minister W.L. Mackenzie King wasn't too fond of Jews. Everything I have ever read of Pres. George Albert Smith says he wasn't a racist, racist men aren't concerned with the situation of the American native situation so much so appointing then Elder Spencer W. Kimball to head up a mission to them.

 

I wish we can hasten the work so that as it says in Isaiah 11:6-9

 

6: The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.

7: And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.

8: And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice’ den.

9: They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea.

Edited December 12, 2013 by Duncan

[Duncan]

That's how I see it, too.

 

 

I think the roots of the problem have little if anything to do with what the Church says or doesn't say it's that racism is alive and well and all over the world and continues to prosper which is too bad. A message of Love thy neighbour is still a good one. I for one am super glad the Church came out this the other day but even with that there is a whole world out there with so many more problems and no country or Church has a great track record when it comes to racism-and that's just one issue.

Edited December 12, 2013 by Duncan

[mfbukowski]

I have two kids who served missions in the deep south- one in S. Carolina and the other in Mississippi.

 

Both have said that LDS chapels are more integrated- today- than many other churches.  Some denominations will have a black congregation and then another congregation which is white, all within the same denomination, within a mile or two of each other.

 

I am not saying that is the policy of the denomination necessarily, but a preference of the individual members of the denomination in most cases.  But the bottom line is that many of the churches are not integrated even today.

 

So in these cases, we appear to be far ahead of many of these groups in the south.

[Thinking]

As far as I can see, there's nothing in the statement about the ban being a mistake.

 

Here is the quote from the article.

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.

 

While it's true that the word mistake is not used, let's take a look at the definitions of the word disavow.

 

1: to deny knowledge of, connection with, or responsibility for

Obviously the Church did not have this definition in mind.

 

2: to deny support for someone or something

How can the Church deny support for these theories and have the ban not be a mistake?

 

3: to refuse to acknowledge or accept

If the LDS Church refuses to acknowledge or accept these theories, then they were mistakes. Note the last quoted sentence. "Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form." How can past racism be condemned and not be a mistake? The ban was racist. That can't be argued because men were denied ordination based only on race.

 

4: to declare not to be true

If these theories are not true, then those who advanced them were mistaken.

[BCSpace]

If these theories are not true, then those who advanced them were mistaken.

 

But that doesn't speak to what seems to be your implicit disagreement with jkwilliams' statement:

 

As far as I can see, there's nothing in the statement about the ban being a mistake.

 

What's really ironic though is the title of this thread:

 

"Church Specifically Disavows Priesthood Restriction Explanations"

 

Which has even DavidT treading carefully and tacitly acknowledging what the statement is actually about.

Edited December 12, 2013 by BCSpace

[Brian 2.0]

While it's true that the word mistake is not used, let's take a look at the definitions of the word disavow.

The definition isn't the issue. It's the fact that they are disavowing the THEORIES not the ban. Why wouldn't they include "the ban" in that sentence if the are truly disavowing it?

The ban was racist. That can't be argued because men were denied ordination based only on race.

It obviously can be argued as witnessed by the length of this thread. "Racist" means believing one race is superior to another. The theories were definitely racist and they have been disavowed. But some still argue that the ban was not in place because blacks were "inferior" but it was just that God was not extending them the Priesthood. So the ban isn't racist by definition and it hasn't been disavowed.

If they wanted to disavow the ban, why didn't they include the ban in the sentence. Two extra words and it's clear as day as to their stance on the ban. But those two word are not included. And that omission is no mistake.

Edited December 12, 2013 by Brian 2.0

[SeekingUnderstanding]

The definition isn't the issue. It's the fact that they are disavowing the THEORIES not the ban. Why wouldn't they include "the ban" in that sentence if the are truly disavowing it?

It obviously can be argued as witnessed by the length of this thread. "Racist" means believing one race is superior to another. The theories were definitely racist and they have been disavowed. But some still argue that the ban was not in place because blacks were "inferior" but it was just that God was not extending them the Priesthood. So the ban isn't racist by definition and it hasn't been disavowed.

If they wanted to disavow the ban, why didn't they include the ban in the sentence. Two extra words and it's clear as day as to their stance on the ban. But those two word are not included. And that omission is no mistake.

To me its pretty obvious they wanted to sit on the fence on this.  They make no explicit references to the ban being a mistake, but also avoid mentioning any divine revelation instituting the ban. This ties in nicely with what they said in the new introduction to OD 2:

Early in its history, Church leaders stopped conferring the priesthood on black males of African descent. Church records offer no clear insights into the origins of this practice.

In other words they don't know. Those who are insisting the ban has divine origins and parallels in the bible are not in harmony with the current stance of the brethren as indicated by these recently released statements.

[juliann]

God is not responsible for evil, but some misinformed folks might think He is responsible because He allows evil to exist.

Nice try but that is not what you set up.  You make God responsible for evil by saying his "wrath" upon entire countries results in children starving to death or forced to kill,  indescribably brutality, and all around misery...which is good for them.  Even though even the D&C plainly says that those who are lacking in material things do not have equal access to spiritual things.  If it is such a great and needed lesson for an infant, why aren't you moving to a destitute African village to learn these wonderful lessons?  Better yet, send your daughters!

[Buckeye]

To me its pretty obvious they wanted to sit on the fence on this. They make no explicit references to the ban being a mistake, but also avoid mentioning any divine revelation instituting the ban. This ties in nicely with what they said in the new introduction to OD 2:

 

In other words they don't know. Those who are insisting the ban has divine origins and parallels in the bible are not in harmony with the current stance of the brethren as indicated by these recently released statements.

 

I hope you realize the irony of stating that our church leaders are "sitting on the fence" on this issue.

 

I believe that as time goes on we will continue to debate whether the ban itself was inspired. As you point out, the new statement does not explicity state the ban was not inspired; and it certainly does not contain an apology for the ban as some have called for. What the new statement does is (i) it delegitimizes the prior rationales given by prophets seers and revelator, and (ii) it sets a new framework for discussing the ban in the context of american racism. In my view, this means that members will fall into two groups: (i) those who previously believed the now-rejected teachings will largely hold to the "we don't know" rationale and try to put this unpleasant issue on the shelf, and (ii) those who never accepted the teachings, including those who never were taught them, will largely gravitate to the belief that the ban was due to man's racism.

 

Yes, the new statement does not explicitly say the ban was uninspired, but it certainly makes it acceptable for members to believe that. As time goes on, I predict that a strong majority of members will come around to believing that the ban was due to racism. I believe this because:

1. noted scholars are already saying as much (Bushman, Blair-Young, etc.),
2. the church will denounce anyone who tries to justify the ban by blaming its victims (e.g., Professor Bott),
3. the church is not denoucing those who are say the ban is due to racism (news media, church scholars, etc.)
4. racism is the only reasonable view other than "we don't know" and people prefer to have knowledge over silence, and
5. those with the "we don't know" belief, both members and leaders, will die off.

At some point in the future (IMO 2-5 years), the majority of members will believe that the ban was due to racism and then we will see an apology from church leaders. Though its frustrating, most all of the revelation and progress in the modern-day church seems to be confirmation of a truth we have, as a body, already come to accept. Past are the days where leaders tread new ground (which I regret). It will be no different on this issue. Once the members are ok with the reality of leaders making a mistake on this, we will see an apology and the issue will finally die away. Sometimes repentence is a very slow process.

 

EDIT: the more I think about it, it is a huge deal that the church is not challenging all the media reports that describe the new statement as saying that the ban is due to racism. Compare that silence with the church's quick response to Senator Reid about gay marriage views in the church. If, in fact, the church did not intend for the new statement to be read as repudiating the ban itself, I would expect the newsroom to have said that by now. Otherwise they are negligent in allowing a false reading to gain traction.

Edited December 12, 2013 by Buckeye

[juliann]

The definition isn't the issue. It's the fact that they are disavowing the THEORIES not the ban. Why wouldn't they include "the ban" in that sentence if the are truly disavowing it?

It obviously can be argued as witnessed by the length of this thread. "Racist" means believing one race is superior to another. The theories were definitely racist and they have been disavowed. But some still argue that the ban was not in place because blacks were "inferior" but it was just that God was not extending them the Priesthood. So the ban isn't racist by definition and it hasn't been disavowed.

If they wanted to disavow the ban, why didn't they include the ban in the sentence. Two extra words and it's clear as day as to their stance on the ban. But those two word are not included. And that omission is no mistake.

Racist means excluding people for no other reason than race.  There is no getting around that.  We cannot redefine the word or what it means.  By saying they disavow racism they disavow this:

  

1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.

2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

 

Did we say they were different in character with the pre-existence stuff.  Yup.   Does God putting a curse on an entire race make them inferior.  Uh huh.   Did we discriminate based on race.  Oh, yes.  Does all of that equal racism by any known definition?  Most certainly.  And without a reason for the ban, and they have left us none aside from it being a racist environment, there can be no defense of it beyond that environment because it does relegate it to mere discrimination.   We are left with poor analogies such as the ancient priesthood by tribe...but that now works against efforts to uphold a ban because it gave a clear reason for excluding others. 

 

So this really is an argument over the validity of dictionaries. 

Edited December 12, 2013 by juliann

[rockpond]

Yes. And it was through that racially divided culture that the racist theories came forth for the ban. And the article then disavows the theories.

If the church wanted to disavow the ban... they would have disavowed the ban. It would have taken just a few words.

Instead they rely on this carefully worded article that allows people to play connect-the-dots if they want to say the ban was wrong, while also giving the rest the ability to believe the ban was inspired and just the racist theories are disavowed.

I believe that they tries to carefully word the article such that some could read it and still believe in some type of divine origin for the ban. But by condemning all past racism, they have condemned the ban as well.

[jkwilliams]

Here is the quote from the article.

 

While it's true that the word mistake is not used, let's take a look at the definitions of the word disavow.

 

Obviously the Church did not have this definition in mind.

 

How can the Church deny support for these theories and have the ban not be a mistake?

There's the rub. IMO, the statement tries to walk a fine line between acknowledging that the rationales espoused in the past were wrong and not admitting that the ban itself was a mistake or wrong or however you want to put it.

 

If the LDS Church refuses to acknowledge or accept these theories, then they were mistakes. Note the last quoted sentence. "Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form." How can past racism be condemned and not be a mistake? The ban was racist. That can't be argued because men were denied ordination based only on race.

 

If these theories are not true, then those who advanced them were mistaken.

According to the statement, the theories were mistaken, but apparently not the ban itself. And I've heard at least one Mormon claim that the ban was not racist, so the statement covers all the bases without acknowledging error on the part of the church as an institution.