Church Specifically Disavows Priesthood Restriction Explanations

[Buckeye]

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. 

 

As to the tribe of Levi argument, it's important to note that the previous topical guide entry for the priesthood ban specifically referenced that argument as a justification.  Notably, the new statement removes the argument entirely.  I don't expect to see it presented again in any official sources. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

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.

 

 

Because the world isn't ready to receive some truth

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.

So you support the brethren on the one hand, but on the other hand you think they are wrong to disavow the racist justificaitons for the ban.

 

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

Nowhere in OD 2 is it implicitly stated the ban was divine. This is made more clear by the new introduction which states:

 

Church records offer no clear insights into the origins of this practice. Church leaders believed that a revelation from God was needed to alter this practice and prayerfully sought guidance.

What is amazing to me is that despite the fact that the church says it has no clear insight into the bans origins, you do. I am assuming you are relying on this statement in OD2? "Aware of the promises made by the prophets and presidents of the Church who have preceded us that at some time, in God’s eternal plan, all of our brethren who are worthy may receive the priesthood"

This could just as easily be read as God telling his prophets, eventually you guys will get it right and extend the priesthood to everyone. When did the revelation come? Only once the entire quorum in unity could support it. Only after they each spoke their minds and were completely open to the change.

A couple of interesting quotes from President Kimball:

Revelations will probably never come unless they are desired. I think few people receive revelations while lounging on the couch or while playing cards or while relaxing. I believe most revelations would come when a man is on his tip toes, reaching as high as he can for something which he knows he needs, and then there bursts upon him the answer to his problems

 

The quorum of the twelve and the first presidency had to desire it. Especially the prophet. My favorite though is this one:

I don’t know that I should be the one doing this, but if I don’t my successor won’t.

[Buckeye]

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.

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.

 

Don't just look at the new statement as a single point. Look at is a part of the trajectory. Where do you think things are going? Yes, there is not explicit rejection of the ban today. But the new statement sets the ground for that at future date. We're just waiting for the members to prepare their hearts.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

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

I chose my wording with that statement in mind

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:

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

Completely agree.

[jkwilliams]

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.

Very well said. You have said what I've tried to say much more clearly and succinctly than I could. Thank you.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Don't just look at the new statement as a single point. Look at is a part of the trajectory. Where do you think things are going? Yes, there is not explicit rejection of the ban today. But the new statement sets the ground for that at future date. We're just waiting for the members to prepare their hearts.

I think this is key. Starting in 1978 when Elder McConkie issued his "forget everything I said" statement. It is important to note this spoke only to the timing of the when the ban could be lifted. McConkie continued to support the racist explanations as long as he lived as shown by their inclusion in his revised Mormon Doctrine book.

Eventually we start distancing ourselves from the racists theories backing up the ban. We get the I don't know answer a lot. Despite not not knowing, the racist explanations continue to be taught at BYU, in Sunday School, in books at desseret book.

In 2006 we go further. In general conference we have President Hinckley stand up and ask the question "How can any man holding the Melchizedek Priesthood arrogantly assume that he is eligible for the priesthood whereas another who lives a righteous life but whose skin is of a different color is ineligible?"

On PBS Elder Holland says:

But I think that's the part that must never be taught until anybody knows a lot more than I know. ... We just don't know, in the historical context of the time, why it was practiced. ... That's my principal [concern], is that we don't perpetuate explanations about things we don't know. ...

We don't pretend that something wasn't taught or practice wasn't pursued for whatever reason. But I think we can be unequivocal and we can be declarative in our current literature, in books that we reproduce, in teachings that go forward, whatever, that from this time forward, from 1978 forward, we can make sure that nothing of that is declared. That may be where we still need to make sure that we're absolutely dutiful, that we put [a] careful eye of scrutiny on anything from earlier writings and teachings, just [to] make sure that that's not perpetuated in the present. That's the least, I think, of our current responsibilities on that topic

This statement was further than any previous statements. Previously, we just didn't know, now we need to stop teaching the racist theology.

It's important to note that nothing here disavows the old racist theology as false. Indeed in Elder Jensen's interview with PBS he notes:

A few years ago I did suggest that something be done, within the realms of my ability, to [address the folklore]. But nothing ensued from that, and one thing I've learned as part of my belief is that when I feel strongly about something, and I've expressed myself on it to the leaders of the church, I leave it then in their hands, when I'm aware that they know all the facts. If they don't happen to pick up on what I feel strongly about, then honestly I don't feel that strongly about it anymore. (Laughs.) That's happened to me here. I think it's an issue, but I think with every passing year it's less of one, and I don't know if the institution will ever do anything about that. That certainly isn't in my hands to say.

Just last year we had the Randy Bott episode where Brother Bott was disciplined for continuing to preach the folklore, but in it's official response (http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/racial-remarks-in-washington-post-article) still no repudiation of the folklore racist theology. It's important to note that in this news release and in the new scripture headings, the church for the first time states: "It is not known precisely why, how, or when this restriction began in the Church"

So like you said, it is very clear that the church is evolving in its position relative to the ban and this latest essay opens the door to calling it a mistake in the future.

Edited December 12, 2013 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Duncan]

I think this is key. Starting in 1978 when Elder McConkie issued his "forget everything I said" statement. It is important to note this spoke only to the timing of the when the ban could be lifted. McConkie continued to support the racist explanations as long as he lived as shown by their inclusion in his revised Mormon Doctrine book.

Eventually we start distancing ourselves from the racists theories backing up the ban. We get the I don't know answer a lot. Despite not not knowing, the racist explanations continue to be taught at BYU, in Sunday School, in books at desseret book.

In 2006 we go further. In general conference we have President Hinckley stand up and ask the question "How can any man holding the Melchizedek Priesthood arrogantly assume that he is eligible for the priesthood whereas another who lives a righteous life but whose skin is of a different color is ineligible?"

On PBS Elder Holland says:

This statement was further than any previous statements. Previously, we just didn't know, now we need to stop teaching the racist theology.

It's important to note that nothing here disavows the old racist theology as false. Indeed in Elder Jensen's interview with PBS he notes:

Just last year we had the Randy Bott episode where Brother Bott was disciplined for continuing to preach the folklore, but in it's official response (http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/racial-remarks-in-washington-post-article) still no repudiation of the folklore racist theology. It's important to note that in this news release and in the new scripture headings, the church for the first time states: "It is not known precisely why, how, or when this restriction began in the Church"

So like you said, it is very clear that the church is evolving in its position relative to the ban and this latest essay opens the door to calling it a mistake in the future.

 

 

just as an aside I am interested to know how Bro. Bott was disciplined, thank you!

[Buckeye]

just as an aside I am interested to know how Bro. Bott was disciplined, thank you!

 

My recollection is that he was publicly censured through the newsroom.  That's it.  He retired a year or two later, but that was already in the works because of his age. 

 

FWIW, I never had Brother Bott as a professor at BYU but wife did.  She loved him.  His classes were among the most popular in no small measure to the genuinly good man he is.  It very much hope that his long-term reputation is not confined to a few words he spoke to the Washington Post.  He was far from alone in his views. 

[thesometimesaint]

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?

 

The ban itself was not a mistake. The Lord gets to decide who, and when, gets to hold his Priesthood. The man-made rationales for the various bans has always been suspect, and finally declared wrong.

[Stone holm]

My recollection is that he was publicly censured through the newsroom.  That's it.  He retired a year or two later, but that was already in the works because of his age. 

 

FWIW, I never had Brother Bott as a professor at BYU but wife did.  She loved him.  His classes were among the most popular in no small measure to the genuinly good man he is.  It very much hope that his long-term reputation is not confined to a few words he spoke to the Washington Post.  He was far from alone in his views. 

 

Couldn't find the actual article, but from reading the articles which responded to the article, sounds like he accurately stated the prior position of the Church -- did he somehow fail to note that the Church radically changed its position in 1978?

[juliann]

The ban itself was not a mistake. The Lord gets to decide who, and when, gets to hold his Priesthood. The man-made rationales for the various bans has always been suspect, and finally declared wrong.

The problem with this is that you cannot produce any evidence whatsoever that "the Lord" did this.  Even the church is saying Brigham Young did it.  "n 1852, President Brigham Young publicly announced that men of black African descent could no longer be ordained to the priesthood. . ." and "The justifications for this restriction echoed the widespread ideas about racial inferiority. . ."

 

In other words, BY put the ban in place and the reasons given for it "echoed" prevalent attitudes of the time.   This would have been the time to say "The justification for this restriction was a revelation from God".  Note also:  " Nevertheless, given the long history of withholding the priesthood from men of black African descent, Church leaders believed that a revelation from God was needed to alter the policy. . ."   This would have been the time to say "given the long history of the revelation given to BY...God gave another revelation to alter the doctrine".

 

I agree that it has been written to allow those who cannot accept that church leaders could have upheld racism a way out by using commonly used words that define the ban as man made and racist rather than just denounce the ban itself.  But to ignore the meaning of words isn't the old proverb about describing different parts of the elephant,  it is demanding everyone call it a cow.

Edited December 12, 2013 by juliann

[SeekingUnderstanding]

just as an aside I am interested to know how Bro. Bott was disciplined, thank you!

 

 

My recollection is that he was publicly censured through the newsroom.  That's it.  He retired a year or two later, but that was already in the works because of his age. 

 

 

There was the newsroom article. There is this article from the daily universe. Bott also retired at the end of the semester in which he made the comments. The retirement was announced within a month of the controversy, though as Buckeye states, it may have already been in the works.

[Stone holm]

The problem with this is that you cannot produce any evidence whatsoever that "the Lord" did this.  Even the church is saying Brigham Young did it.  "n 1852, President Brigham Young publicly announced that men of black African descent could no longer be ordained to the priesthood. . ." and "The justifications for this restriction echoed the widespread ideas about racial inferiority. . ."

 

In other words, BY put the ban in place and the reasons given for it "echoed" prevalent attitudes of the time.   This would have been the time to say "The justification for this restriction was a revelation from God".  Note also:  " Nevertheless, given the long history of withholding the priesthood from men of black African descent, Church leaders believed that a revelation from God was needed to alter the policy. . ."   This would have been the time to say "given the long history of the revelation given to BY.....".

 

I agree that it has been written to allow those who cannot accept that church leaders could have upheld racism a way out by using commonly used words that define the ban as man made and racist rather than just denounce the ban itself.  But this isn't the old proverb about describing different parts of the elephant,  it is demanding everyone call it a cow.

 

Really?  I mean BY may have been the first to implement the ban -- but the racist explanations flowed in a pretty steady stream thereafter.  Not sure I agree with this new found tendency to throw BY under the bus.  Yes, Joseph Smith ordained some blacks -- would he have continued to do so had he not be martyred?  We don't know the answer to that.  There seems to be some evidence that he favored at least initially re-colonization just like Jefferson and Madison.  We now know that some of the "doctrine-like" statements of previous Apostles and Prophets made in justifying the ban have been renounced -- but unless we are willing to accept that the Church policy and I would say doctrine is in part culturally induced -- we really haven't cleaned up the mess yet.  The closest explanation that I can see is that the Lord knew his Saints were racists, and He waited until the social pressure against racism was sufficiently strong that they would treat their black brothers like brothers, He continued to condone the ban.  But spelling it out like that would be truly offensive to a lot of multi-generational Mormons, who do not like to think of their ancestors as racist -- so the Church went as far as it thought it could in spelling out the obvious without being offensive to pioneer family type Mormons.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Really?  I mean BY may have been the first to implement the ban -- but the racist explanations flowed in a pretty steady stream thereafter.  Not sure I agree with this new found tendency to throw BY under the bus.  Yes, Joseph Smith ordained some blacks -- would he have continued to do so had he not be martyred?  We don't know the answer to that.  There seems to be some evidence that he favored at least initially re-colonization just like Jefferson and Madison.  We now know that some of the "doctrine-like" statements of previous Apostles and Prophets made in justifying the ban have been renounced -- but unless we are willing to accept that the Church policy and I would say doctrine is in part culturally induced -- we really haven't cleaned up the mess yet.  The closest explanation that I can see is that the Lord knew his Saints were racists, and He waited until the social pressure against racism was sufficiently strong that they would treat their black brothers like brothers, He continued to condone the ban.  But spelling it out like that would be truly offensive to a lot of multi-generational Mormons, who do not like to think of their ancestors as racist -- so the Church went as far as it thought it could in spelling out the obvious without being offensive to pioneer family type Mormons.

The OP essay clearly lays out that Church policy and the racist doctrine was culturally induced. Why else spend 25% of the essay talking about the racial culture of 19th century America? As for ending the ban, President Kimball noted:

 

Revelations will probably never come unless they are desired. I think few people receive revelations while lounging on the couch or while playing cards or while relaxing. I believe most revelations would come when a man is on his tip toes, reaching as high as he can for something which he knows he needs, and then there bursts upon him the answer to his problems

 

The Lord waited until his annointed desired knowledge, stood on their tip toes and reached. If you read Edward Kimball's article about the ban, you will see that this is not an exaggeration  President Kimball worked for years to bring unity to the quorum and prepare themselves for this revelation.

Edited December 12, 2013 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Buckeye]

Couldn't find the actual article, but from reading the articles which responded to the article, sounds like he accurately stated the prior position of the Church -- did he somehow fail to note that the Church radically changed its position in 1978?

 

You'll have to judge for yourself.  Here are some sources, including the original WP article.  IMO, Bott did acurately set forth much of the pre-78 doctrine, but he also went further than I'd ever seen in defending the ban, evening claim it was a blessing from God for blacks to be denied the priesthood and temple worship.

 

Now that I read the WP again, I'm struck by Don Harwell's response.  Perhaps it is not coincidence that the Harwalls are prominently featured in many of the news articles this week that discuss the new church statement.  (e.g., http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=249846638; http://www2.4utah.com/content/news/top_stories/story/LDS-Church-issues-new-statement-on-blacks-and-the/dRUC6damYU-HWZe25DLgbg.cspx)

 

 

WashPo Article: http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-02-28/politics/35443157_1_george-romney-first-mormon-presidential-nominee-michigan-governor

 

...

 

The origins of the policy

The ground floor of the Joseph Smith building, which houses BYU’s religion department, showcases a likeness of the golden tablets from which Joseph Smith is said to have translated the Book of Mormon. Paintings upstairs depict the Lamanites, the tribe in Mormon scripture that bears dark skin as a sign of God’s curse.

In his office, religion professor Randy Bott explains a possible theological underpinning of the ban. According to Mormon scriptures, the descendants of Cain, who killed his brother, Abel, “were black.” One of Cain’s descendants was Egyptus, a woman Mormons believe was the namesake of Egypt. She married Ham, whose descendants were themselves cursed and, in the view of many Mormons, barred from the priesthood by his father, Noah. Bott points to the Mormon holy text the Book of Abraham as suggesting that all of the descendants of Ham and Egyptus were thus black and barred from the priesthood.

It’s not clear whether Joseph Smith, the religion’s founder, who ordained at least one black priest, supported the ban. But his successor, Brigham Young, enforced it enthusiastically as the word of God, supporting slavery in Utah and decreeing that the “mark” on Cain was “the flat nose and black skin.” Young subsequently urged immediate death to any participant in mixing of the races. As recently as 1949, church leaders suggested that the ban on blacks resulted from the consequences of the “conduct of spirits in the pre-mortal existence.” As a result, many Mormons believed that blacks were less valiant in the pre-Earth life, or fence sitters in the war between God and Satan. That view has fallen out of favor in recent decades.

“God has always been discriminatory” when it comes to whom he grants the authority of the priesthood, says Bott, the BYU theologian. He quotes Mormon scripture that states that the Lord gives to people “all that he seeth fit.” Bott compares blacks with a young child prematurely asking for the keys to her father’s car, and explains that similarly until 1978, the Lord determined that blacks were not yet ready for the priesthood.

“What is discrimination?” Bott asks. “I think that is keeping something from somebody that would be a benefit for them, right? But what if it wouldn’t have been a benefit to them?” Bott says that the denial of the priesthood to blacks on Earth — although not in the afterlife — protected them from the lowest rungs of hell reserved for people who abuse their priesthood powers. “You couldn’t fall off the top of the ladder, because you weren’t on the top of the ladder. So, in reality the blacks not having the priesthood was the greatest blessing God could give them.”

The current president of the Genesis Group, Don Harwell, considers such thinking vile. Driving to a local shooting range, he pulls over to find a bit of Mormon scripture on his iPhone.

“He denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free,” reads Harwell. “I have it right here.”

Harwell joined the church 30 years ago after his “womanizing” ended his marriage. As a young man, he considered Mormons “racists” for their ban on black priests, but in 1983 he met a women who was Mormon and underwent a profound spiritual conversion. That marriage eventually didn’t work out because “it was hard for white girls married to black guys” in those days, he says.

At the Magna Gun Club, he opens up his rifle case, which displays a business card identifying him as the Genesis Group president, and laments the lousy shooting conditions with his friends — overwhelmingly white, Mormon and regretful of their church’s past.

On the drive back to Salt Lake, Harwell makes it clear he does not appreciate any attempt to connect the historic plight of blacks in the church to Romney, whom he strongly supports.

“This is the only stuff they can come up with,” Harwell says, referring to Romney’s political enemies. While he gives credit to church leaders who agitated against the ban, he acquits rank-and-file members who remained quiet. “We have prophets, seers and revelators as our leaders, and we have to follow them,” Harwell says, emphasizing that Romney “had no control over what the church did.”

 

 

Newsroom Statement:  http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/racial-remarks-in-washington-post-article

BYU Daily Universe recap:  http://universe.byu.edu/2012/02/29/professor-didnt-follow-university-media-policy-when-speaking-with-washington-post/

[Stone holm]

The OP essay clearly lays out that Church policy and the racist doctrine was culturally induced. Why else spend 25% of the essay talking about the racial culture of 19th century America? As for ending the ban, President Kimball noted:

 

The Lord waited until his annointed desired knowledge, stood on their tip toes and reached. If you read Edward Kimball's article about the ban, you will see that this is not an exaggeration  President Kimball worked for years to bring unity to the quorum and prepare themselves for this revelation.

 

Did you think I disagree? I don't.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Did you think I disagree? I don't.

I see I misread you. Sorry.

[Stone holm]

 

 

You'll have to judge for yourself.  Here are some sources, including the original WP article.  IMO, Bott did acurately set forth much of the pre-78 doctrine, but he also went further than I'd ever seen in defending the ban, evening claim it was a blessing from God for blacks to be denied the priesthood and temple worship.

 

Now that I read the WP again, I'm struck by Don Harwell's response.  Perhaps it is not coincidence that the Harwalls are prominently featured in many of the news articles this week that discuss the new church statement.  (e.g., http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=249846638; http://www2.4utah.com/content/news/top_stories/story/LDS-Church-issues-new-statement-on-blacks-and-the/dRUC6damYU-HWZe25DLgbg.cspx)

 

 

WashPo Article: http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-02-28/politics/35443157_1_george-romney-first-mormon-presidential-nominee-michigan-governor

 

...

 

The origins of the policy

The ground floor of the Joseph Smith building, which houses BYU’s religion department, showcases a likeness of the golden tablets from which Joseph Smith is said to have translated the Book of Mormon. Paintings upstairs depict the Lamanites, the tribe in Mormon scripture that bears dark skin as a sign of God’s curse.

In his office, religion professor Randy Bott explains a possible theological underpinning of the ban. According to Mormon scriptures, the descendants of Cain, who killed his brother, Abel, “were black.” One of Cain’s descendants was Egyptus, a woman Mormons believe was the namesake of Egypt. She married Ham, whose descendants were themselves cursed and, in the view of many Mormons, barred from the priesthood by his father, Noah. Bott points to the Mormon holy text the Book of Abraham as suggesting that all of the descendants of Ham and Egyptus were thus black and barred from the priesthood.

It’s not clear whether Joseph Smith, the religion’s founder, who ordained at least one black priest, supported the ban. But his successor, Brigham Young, enforced it enthusiastically as the word of God, supporting slavery in Utah and decreeing that the “mark” on Cain was “the flat nose and black skin.” Young subsequently urged immediate death to any participant in mixing of the races. As recently as 1949, church leaders suggested that the ban on blacks resulted from the consequences of the “conduct of spirits in the pre-mortal existence.” As a result, many Mormons believed that blacks were less valiant in the pre-Earth life, or fence sitters in the war between God and Satan. That view has fallen out of favor in recent decades.

“God has always been discriminatory” when it comes to whom he grants the authority of the priesthood, says Bott, the BYU theologian. He quotes Mormon scripture that states that the Lord gives to people “all that he seeth fit.” Bott compares blacks with a young child prematurely asking for the keys to her father’s car, and explains that similarly until 1978, the Lord determined that blacks were not yet ready for the priesthood.

“What is discrimination?” Bott asks. “I think that is keeping something from somebody that would be a benefit for them, right? But what if it wouldn’t have been a benefit to them?” Bott says that the denial of the priesthood to blacks on Earth — although not in the afterlife — protected them from the lowest rungs of hell reserved for people who abuse their priesthood powers. “You couldn’t fall off the top of the ladder, because you weren’t on the top of the ladder. So, in reality the blacks not having the priesthood was the greatest blessing God could give them.”

The current president of the Genesis Group, Don Harwell, considers such thinking vile. Driving to a local shooting range, he pulls over to find a bit of Mormon scripture on his iPhone.

“He denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free,” reads Harwell. “I have it right here.”

Harwell joined the church 30 years ago after his “womanizing” ended his marriage. As a young man, he considered Mormons “racists” for their ban on black priests, but in 1983 he met a women who was Mormon and underwent a profound spiritual conversion. That marriage eventually didn’t work out because “it was hard for white girls married to black guys” in those days, he says.

At the Magna Gun Club, he opens up his rifle case, which displays a business card identifying him as the Genesis Group president, and laments the lousy shooting conditions with his friends — overwhelmingly white, Mormon and regretful of their church’s past.

On the drive back to Salt Lake, Harwell makes it clear he does not appreciate any attempt to connect the historic plight of blacks in the church to Romney, whom he strongly supports.

“This is the only stuff they can come up with,” Harwell says, referring to Romney’s political enemies. While he gives credit to church leaders who agitated against the ban, he acquits rank-and-file members who remained quiet. “We have prophets, seers and revelators as our leaders, and we have to follow them,” Harwell says, emphasizing that Romney “had no control over what the church did.”

 

 

Newsroom Statement:  http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/racial-remarks-in-washington-post-article

BYU Daily Universe recap:  http://universe.byu.edu/2012/02/29/professor-didnt-follow-university-media-policy-when-speaking-with-washington-post/

 

 

Well, guess his real problem was that he hadn't retired before the Church changed its positions.  I suspect its hard having been taught all your life one thing, and having researched and taught the same thing -- when suddenly the Church turned the ship around.  Still, its hard to imagine that a BYU Professor wouldn't have put in some disclaimers indicating that was what the doctrinal explanation used to be, but that it had changed.

 

Also, its interesting that when Mitt's father asked them to change the policy so it wouldn't blow up in his face they rejected the request, but they were quick to come to Mitt's aid.  Glad Bott managed to survive being run over by the bus.

[thesometimesaint]

The problem with this is that you cannot produce any evidence whatsoever that "the Lord" did this.  Even the church is saying Brigham Young did it.  "n 1852, President Brigham Young publicly announced that men of black African descent could no longer be ordained to the priesthood. . ." and "The justifications for this restriction echoed the widespread ideas about racial inferiority. . ."

 

In other words, BY put the ban in place and the reasons given for it "echoed" prevalent attitudes of the time.   This would have been the time to say "The justification for this restriction was a revelation from God".  Note also:  " Nevertheless, given the long history of withholding the priesthood from men of black African descent, Church leaders believed that a revelation from God was needed to alter the policy. . ."   This would have been the time to say "given the long history of the revelation given to BY...God gave another revelation to alter the doctrine".

 

I agree that it has been written to allow those who cannot accept that church leaders could have upheld racism a way out by using commonly used words that define the ban as man made and racist rather than just denounce the ban itself.  But to ignore the meaning of words isn't the old proverb about describing different parts of the elephant,  it is demanding everyone call it a cow.

 

We don't have any accepted reason(s) for any of the Priesthood bans that have occurred throughout history. I seriously doubt that it was because of racism that at one time only the first born son of High Priest in the tribe of Levi were given the Priesthood. Nor do I believe Jesus was being racist when he refused to give the Priesthood to non Jews. Nor do I believe the Church is being sexist(Let alone for some inherited quality) when to this day women are refused the Priesthood. 

 

That being said. Yes some statements by some members of the Church, including its leaders, were racist. That today we still have some members whom are racist, That  isn't going to go away any time soon. But they do have much need to repentance.

[Brian 2.0]

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. 

 

Let me preface this by saying that I think the ban was racist and a mistake.  The point I'm making is that the church has not said the ban was racist and a mistake (I wish they did, but they didn't).

 

I don't think thesometimesaint is dumb or can't read when he comes to this conclusion:

 

The ban itself was not a mistake. The Lord gets to decide who, and when, gets to hold his Priesthood. The man-made rationales for the various bans has always been suspect, and finally declared wrong.

 

The church could have REALLY EASILY made this statement be not in line with current church positions, but guess what, thesometimesaint is not in conflict with the statement.  Nor is his/her logic faulty or misguided.  

 

The reason sometimesaint can come to this conclusion is that the church did NOT state that the ban was racist.  It is not in the document.  You must conclude it is racist (a stance that the document also allows for but doesn't necessitate)

 

The church has unequivocally disavowed "racism", no one argues that.

 

The point of separation is determining if the ban was racist.  It inarguably involved racial discrimination, but as I was told plenty in another thread I started earlier this year talking about sexual discrimination which also covered racial discrimination... not all discrimination is wrong/unrighteous (that was said by a number of posters in that thread).

 

Sexism is always sexual discrimination, but is sexual discrimination always sexism?  Is it sexist to have boys and girls bathrooms?  You are discriminating based on sex.  Almost all would say NO, it's not sexist, and why?  Well... while it is technically sexual discrimination, it's not sexist because it's not placing the value of one sex above the other.

 

Racism is always racial discrimination, but is racial discrimination always racist?  Where you land on that question may determine where you land on the ban.  But there are plenty that don't think the admitted racial discrimination of the ban is racist, and therefore do not believe that the chruch has disavowed the ban.

 

Consider this comment I received in that old thread:

 

I remember back when I was younger, more liberal and more ignorant of the way's of God and the Lord's Church when I too thought Priesthood restrictions on Women or the African race were actually discrimination and racism.

I thank the Lord God I'm not that ignorant and spiritually lacking in discernment anymore.

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/60313-counterpoint-to-gender-discrimination-claims/?p=1209236026

 

This comment was penned before the current statement came out, and I don't know if willamsmith still believes this, but he definately CAN believe this and still be in line with the church's stance, because nothing in the current church statement goes against the above comment.

 

Whether or not the ban was "racist" or a "mistake" or "disavoed" is still up for debate.  This is the sad fact because the chruch's stance is not spelled out in regards to the ban itself.

 

I also think that those arguing that the church's current stance is that the ban had divine origin are also wrong.  The chruch isn't claiming that either. 

 

The article is great at disavowing racism and the racist theories and racist statements made in the past and it should be applauded for it, but in regards to the ban itself, the statement is lukewarm at best and doesn't sit well in my mouth.

Edited December 12, 2013 by Brian 2.0

[canard78]

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.

Where? I'm yet to see any evidence of divine origin at the time it was introduced. I know plenty on the leaders in the years after have supposed it was based on revelation but they also made a lot of assumptions that turned out to be unfounded. For example there were several prophets/apostles who believed that it was doctrine that Joseph Smith introduced.

Sometimes in the very same statement where they said it was doctrine they would say it was Joseph Smith's doing. So if they make at least one, now known to be, inaccurate assertion in the statement why should we accept the other things they assert in that same statement?

[DBMormon]

I bowed out of this thread several pages ago so maybe this has been covered - But if we can falsely believe that the theories behind the ban were Doctrine, teach it is Doctrine and have the First Presidency sign off that it is Doctrine (1947 letter to Dr. Lowery Nelson and 1949 1st Pres Letter)

And we have the First Presidency stating interracial marriage being Sin is Doctrine and saying the entire leadership believes and sustains this.

 

With that what guarantee do I have that they have it right on LGBT issues and Women and Priesthood?  Why if the above can change can't these issues?  If God allows people to be demeaned and belittled through racist views that are put forth as his views by his true and living Church, how do we know when the Church members can count on the Church to get it right? 

 

(Granted, I am little more frustrated and agitated this week for lots of reasons so yes my posts over the past few days reflect a little of that)  It just seems like we  often are playing behind the 8-ball.  We seem to always deal with these big issues long after the rest of the world has has overcome such issues.

I fear on issues like this it is not a simple be quiet and wait on God as unfortunately if we are wrong, and while we are wrong if we are, people get hurt, and many awful things happen that affect people deeply and it often results in abuse, isolation, depression, damage to family relationships, and sometimes worse.

 

Should the brethren rather then defend the current positions actually ask God for clarification or for insight if there can be a change on other issues that hurt and offend others in real ways? and I acknowledge that possibly they are doing this already

Edited December 13, 2013 by DBMormon

[Stone holm]

I bowed out of this thread several pages ago so maybe this has been covered - But if we can falsely believe that the theories behind the ban were Doctrine, teach it is Doctrine and have the First Presidency sign off that it is Doctrine (1947 letter to Dr. Lowery Nelson and 1949 1st Pres Letter)

And we have the First Presidency stating interracial marriage being Sin is Doctrine and saying the entire leadership believes and sustains this.

 

With that what guarantee do I have that they have it right on LGBT issues and Women and Priesthood?  Why if the above can change can't these issues?  If God allows people to be demeaned and belittled through racist views that are put forth as his views by his true and living Church, how do we know when the Church members can count on the Church to get it right? 

 

(Granted, I am little more frustrated and agitated this week for lots of reasons so yes my posts over the past few days reflect a little of that)  It just seems like we  often are playing behind the 8-ball.  We seem to always deal with these big issues long after the rest of the world has has overcome such issues.

I fear on issues like this it is not a simple be quiet and wait on God as unfortunately if we are wrong, and while we are wrong if we are, people get hurt, and many awful things happen that affect people deeply and it often results in abuse, isolation, depression, damage to family relationships, and sometimes worse.

 

Should the brethren rather then defend the current positions actually ask God for clarification or for insight if there can be a change on other issues that hurt and offend others in real ways? and I acknowledge that possibly they are doing this already

Well actually, yes the explanations were spin. But the reversal here was something that had been predicted. Just chalk it up to the millennium syndrome and move on.

[Brian 2.0]

With that what guarantee do I have that they have it right on LGBT issues and Women and Priesthood? Why if the above can change can't these issues? If God allows people to be demeaned and belittled through racist views that are put forth as his views by his true and living Church, how do we know when the Church members can count on the Church to get it right?

There is no guarantee. "Further light and knowledge" can always change things.

[foster]

The problem with this is that you cannot produce any evidence whatsoever that "the Lord" did this. 

 

I do not know if your post should be label deceitful or not, but something tells me you are aware of instances where the ban was labeled of Divine Origin.  On Fairmormon one can find and read the Divine Orgin of the Ban. In the paper by Edward Kimball one can find the Divine origin of the ban. What we do know is that in 1947, 1949, 1969, and unknown year(s) of statement(s) David O. McKay the ban is referred to as being of Gods will and direction. I am confident you know of these sources which speak of the Divine origin. What I am unsure about is why or how you would consciously deny they exist. (Incidently the Church also claimed Jospeh Smith did it, which again is a reference found on Fairmormon; but I am sure you know that.)