Church Specifically Disavows Priesthood Restriction Explanations

[canard78]

This LDS.org article shouts to me that ever since BY and until the ban was removed, we didn't have a prophet in the true sense of the word, or God did want the blacks denied the Priesthood. The article states not in these words, that it was a time of racial descrimation, that our early prophets were a product of their environment. If so wouldn't they have listened to God vs. the mortals and not banned the blacks, even if it was only BY, doesn't a prophet get revelation without having to always ask. Or does it have to go by a committee, because we apparently don't really trust one man with revelation, which is fine by me, but makes me feel that anyone can be a prophet. Trust issues are now cemented in for me. It's a dawn of a new age for the LDS, I do hope it's a good one, for my family, neighbors, friends and all members or members to come.

I agree Tacenda. It does pose this very question. If people are still hoping for the type of prophet they were taught about in primary they be waiting a while. It does not appear to work that way.

[Stone holm]

Spencer W. Kimball got unanimous support that the ban could/should be lifted before he asked the quorum to seek a revelation to lift it. Elder Packer said a single dissenting voice would have stopped Pres. Kimball from even taken the question to the prayer stage.

Up to that point there are several examples of indivoduals in the quorum not seeking/desiring a change. Read Edward Kimballs article (linked to from the church one, I've already quoted extensively from it in this thread). Also read the personal views of Elder Mark E. Petersen and Elder Delbert Stapley. Both of whom were not present for the deliberations nor prayer seeking a revelation and were only asked to endorse the change after the rest of the quorum told them they had already had a revelation. There's not even evidence they were asked to have their own personal revelation on it, just to endorse what everyone else had first desired and then had spiritual confirmation of.

Not only have I read it, our Ward sponsored a three or four session adult education class on it. It is clear that President Kimball did a lot of subtle lobbying with the Brethren to get to the unanimous stage. That included having BRM go out and research the subject in order to get him to change his mind. However, when asked why it happened when it did, Boyd K Packer said at a Priesthood leadership session I attended shortly afterwards in the FT Wayne, Ind. Stake, that they were specifically wrestling with how to sort out the Temple Recommends for the São Paulo Brazil Temple when the inspiration to lift the ban came. The recent news release only makes a passing reference to that problem.

[thesometimesaint]

If you're right then that raises all sorts of implications of its own. A prophet is supposed to educate us of the error of our prejudices and ignorance. Not compound them and make them easier to hold onto.

 

Does that mean that potentially the word of wisdom and tithing should be at our own discretion not by prescription; that gays should be allowed to marry; that women should have the priesthood; that sex before marriage is acceptable etc etc. We're just simply not ready to accept it.

 

All those things are possible, but I don't foresee any of them being accepted by the Church anytime soon.

[omni]

I foresee church dissidents and critics now being enabled to pull "the priesthood ban retraction" card with impunity for any issue that gives them acid reflux.

For my part, I believe the ban was inspired as was the lifting of the ban. The reason was to insure the growth and preservation of the Church during times of great upheaval until the time was right to integrate the Priesthood. My great-grand parents, grandparents, and parents were not ready, but I was. The timing was perfect.

This would suggest that the early members could accept polygamy, WoW, murderous mobs and difficult treks across the country, and membership of blacks in the church, but if it came to giving those same blacks the priesthood they would have revolted or rejected the teaching and the church wouldn't have survived. Don't you think if the early saints could believe in a prophet of God that translated ancient scripture, restored polygamy and the ancient church, that they could also believe in one who allowed blacks to have the priesthood? Edited December 14, 2013 by omni

[Stone holm]

All those things are possible, but I don't foresee any of them being accepted by the Church anytime soon.

I am not sure I totally agree with his original statement about the role of a Prophet, if that is correct then we have clearly had a bunch of misfires. The role is in my opinion much narrower than that.

[Stone holm]

This would suggest that the early members could accept polygamy, WoW, murderous mobs and difficult treks across the country, and membership of blacks in the church, but if it came to giving those same blacks the priesthood the would have revolted and the church wouldn't have survived. Don't you think if the early saints could believe in a prophet of God that translated ancient scripture, restored polygamy and the ancient church, that they could also believe in one who allowed blacks to have the priesthood?

Possibly, but the best explanation that has been suggested so far is that is exactly the problem. And by the way, the W of W actually supports that assertion since it was not initially considered a commandment and even the Prophets did not follow it as strictly as we do today.

[canard78]

Not only have I read it, our Ward sponsored a three or four session adult education class on it. It is clear that President Kimball did a lot of subtle lobbying with the Brethren to get to the unanimous stage. That included having BRM go out and research the subject in order to get him to change his mind. However, when asked why it happened when it did, Boyd K Packer said at a Priesthood leadership session I attended shortly afterwards in the FT Wayne, Ind. Stake, that they were specifically wrestling with how to sort out the Temple Recommends for the São Paulo Brazil Temple when the inspiration to lift the ban came. The recent news release only makes a passing reference to that problem.

 

I agree that Brazil meant the pain of the problem became greater than the pain of the solution.

 

Doesn't it bother you or anyone else that one sustained "prophet, seer and revelator" had to do "subtle lobbying" to convince 14 other sustained "prophets, seers and revelators" that they could make the change?

[thesometimesaint]

This LDS.org article shouts to me that ever since BY and until the ban was removed, we didn't have a prophet in the true sense of the word, or God did want the blacks denied the Priesthood. The article states not in these words, that it was a time of racial descrimation, that our early prophets were a product of their environment. If so wouldn't they have listened to God vs. the mortals and not banned the blacks, even if it was only BY, doesn't a prophet get revelation without having to always ask. Or does it have to go by a committee, because we apparently don't really trust one man with revelation, which is fine by me, but makes me feel that anyone can be a prophet. Trust issues are now cemented in for me. It's a dawn of a new age for the LDS, I do hope it's a good one, for my family, neighbors, friends and all members or members to come.

 

There has never been a prophet that could fit your idea of what a prophet does. God for his own reason(s) has refused to specify why any ban has existed. He could, for example, say that only those over 7 feet tall, and have green eyes can hold the Priesthood. I don't foresee that as happening, but it is totally at Gods' choosing. Was it racial discrimination that Jesus went only to the Jews. Is it racial discrimination today that women are declined the Priesthood? It well could be that God knew quite well that those earlier Saints wouldn't accept blacks as equal members of the Church. Actually God wants ALL of his children to be prophets over their own stewardship. IE;  I am to be the prophet for my family; my Bishop is to the prophet for his Ward; Stake President for his Stake; etc.; etc.; etc..

[thesometimesaint]

I am not sure I totally agree with his original statement about the role of a Prophet, if that is correct then we have clearly had a bunch of misfires. The role is in my opinion much narrower than that.

 

We do have Scripture that leaves it open. But as I said I don't foresee it happen anytime soon. Eternity is a very long time. So possibly, maybe, at some future date. But no I won't lose any sleep over it.

Edited December 14, 2013 by thesometimesaint

[BlueDreams]

This LDS.org article shouts to me that ever since BY and until the ban was removed, we didn't have a prophet in the true sense of the word, or God did want the blacks denied the Priesthood. The article states not in these words, that it was a time of racial descrimation, that our early prophets were a product of their environment. If so wouldn't they have listened to God vs. the mortals and not banned the blacks, even if it was only BY, doesn't a prophet get revelation without having to always ask. Or does it have to go by a committee, because we apparently don't really trust one man with revelation, which is fine by me, but makes me feel that anyone can be a prophet. Trust issues are now cemented in for me. It's a dawn of a new age for the LDS, I do hope it's a good one, for my family, neighbors, friends and all members or members to come.

 

....or you pick a working model for what a prophet is or isn't this reads as an oversimplified primary/world-influenced view of a prophet. The primary version for me of a prophet was decimated in one reading of Genesis with the story of Lot. Everybody stopped with him leaving the town and his wife turning into the pillar of salt. Easy, simply message to follow: do what God tells you, the end....Lot's the good guy in this, his wife's not. And then all the sudden you turn the page and Lot is so drunk that his daughters are able to take advantage of him to keep the old bloodline going. What type of guy talks with God and angels and have that be the ending of the story?? You think God could have at least given a heads up that this wasn't going to end well at the very least! I understand why there's the primary water-downed version, but I  would find it a shame if no one ever began changing their views about it as their relationship and understanding of God increased and altered as well.

 

I mentioned a bit of this in another thread so you can read the full version here. But in a nut shell if you work on a very basic understanding of a prophet to the point that they can't be products of the environment, where they can't make major mistakes in understanding or action, and where they're constantly really above and beyond the populace.....you're going to be disappointed. Not only in the current apostles and prophet. But in the other books of scripture as well (especially the OT, IMO). 

 

Also, yes, anybody can be prophets (just not with the same stewardship). See here or here. Part of the purpose of the church is to make us all open to prophecy and to become prophets/righteous stewards of our own lives. 

 

With luv,

BD

Edited December 14, 2013 by BlueDreams

[omni]

Possibly, but the best explanation that has been suggested so far is that is exactly the problem. And by the way, the W of W actually supports that assertion since it was not initially considered a commandment and even the Prophets did not follow it as strictly as we do today.

The WoW did take some time before it was fully accepted as commandment by the saints, but they still did so a full 50 years before the ban was lifted.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

I agree that Brazil meant the pain of the problem became greater than the pain of the solution.

Doesn't it bother you or anyone else that one sustained "prophet, seer and revelator" had to do "subtle lobbying" to convince 14 other sustained "prophets, seers and revelators" that they could make the change?

Yes.

[omni]

....or you pick a working model for what a prophet is or isn't this reads as an oversimplified primary/world-influenced view of a prophet. The primary version for me of a prophet was decimated in one reading of Genesis with the story of Lot. Everybody stopped with him leaving the town and his wife turning into the pillar of salt. Easy, simply message to follow: do what God tells you, the end....Lot's the good guy in this, his wife's not. And then all the sudden you turn the page and Lot is so drunk that his daughters are able to take advantage of him to keep the old bloodline going. What type of guy talks with God and angels and have that be the ending of the story?? You think God could have at least given a heads up that this wasn't going to end well at the very least! I understand why there's the primary water-downed version, but I  would find it a shame if no one ever began changing their views about it as their relationship and understanding of God increased and altered as well.

 

I mentioned a bit of this in another thread so you can read the full version here. But in a nut shell if you work on a very basic understanding of a prophet to the point that they can't be products of the environment, where they can't make major mistakes in understanding or action, and where they're constantly really above and beyond the populace.....you're going to be disappointed. Not only in the current apostles and prophet. But in the other books of scripture as well (especially the OT, IMO). 

 

Also, yes, anybody can be prophets (just not with the same stewardship). See here or here. Part of the purpose of the church is to make us all open to prophecy and to become prophets/righteous stewards of our own lives. 

 

With luv,

BD

Who's to blame for this simplified primary version of our prophets? Isn't this the version we are generally taught in church? I know in my experience it certainly has been. I think within the church it's kosher to teach of the occasional (ask your fellow ward members how many are familiar with the first half of the Lot story compared to the second half) mistakes made by prophets in our scriptures, but not so kosher to teach of the mistakes made by our modern prophets. We fear more of speaking ill of the Lord's anointed than we do of teaching even the greatest among us can falter and are in need of the atonement.

[Calm]

I mentioned a bit of this in another thread so you can read the full version here. But in a nut shell if you work on a very basic understanding of a prophet to the point that they can't be products of the environment, where they can't make major mistakes in understanding or action, and where they're constantly really above and beyond the populace.....you're going to be disappointed. Not only in the current apostles and prophet. But in the other books of scripture as well (especially the OT, IMO).

Also, yes, anybody can be prophets (just not with the same stewardship). See here or here. Part of the purpose of the church is to make us all open to prophecy and to become prophets/righteous stewards of our own lives.

With luv,

BD

another point to add to this mix...God gave the Israelites a chance to live by the higher law. They demonstrated they were not ready for it and it was not only withdrawn, they were required to wander for forty years so that the generation who had sinned in addition to their rejection had pretty much all died off before they were able to progress to the next stage of receiving and implementing greater light/revelation in how they were living their faith.

This may or may not fit into the ban, but it is evidence that God does not hand out revelation based on solely his own timetable, he allows those who must receive it to accept or reject it and moulds the Church accordingly, waiting for a later generation more open to receiving more of his word.

Edited December 14, 2013 by calmoriah

[Calm]

This would suggest that the early members could accept polygamy, WoW, murderous mobs and difficult treks across the country, and membership of blacks in the church, but if it came to giving those same blacks the priesthood they would have revolted or rejected the teaching and the church wouldn't have survived. Don't you think if the early saints could believe in a prophet of God that translated ancient scripture, restored polygamy and the ancient church, that they could also believe in one who allowed blacks to have the priesthood?

Didn't JS say something along the lines that even though the Saints had already accepted much, that there was more he wanted to teach them but if he did even the most stalwart at the time would have faltered and lost their faith...even that the Saints would rise up and try to kill Joseph? Paraphrase here...perhaps it will refresh someone's memory and they can find the exact quote and context.

If I am right, it definitely sounds like while there were many things the Saints accepted, even those they tried to obey but failed, there were still other revelations to be held back until they...or we...are ready. Aren't we taught that as a Church certain specific revelations will come when we already and not before and that it is just waiting on our willingness to accept the Word of God? (thinking specifically of the Sealed Portion).

[thesometimesaint]

Didn't JS say something along the lines that even though the Saints had already accepted much, that there was more he wanted to teach them but if he did even the most stalwart at the time would have faltered and lost their faith...even that the Saints would rise up and try to kill Joseph? Paraphrase here...perhaps it will refresh someone's memory and they can find the exact quote and context.

If I am right, it definitely sounds like while there were many things the Saints accepted, even those they tried to obey but failed, there were still other revelations to be held back until they...or we...are ready. Aren't we taught that as a Church certain specific revelations will come when we already and not before and that it is just waiting on our willingness to accept the Word of God? (thinking specifically of the Sealed Portion).

 

Yes JS said we would shatter like glass.

[DBMormon]

All those things are possible, but I don't foresee any of them being accepted by the Church anytime soon.

Whether accepted or not does not impact if they are true or not based on Canard's logic.

[Stone holm]

The WoW did take some time before it was fully accepted as commandment by the saints, but they still did so a full 50 years before the ban was lifted.

Racism was deeply engrained and ubiquitous in American society, took a lot less effort to accept something like the W of W as people all over America were advocating this or that diet or diet restriction... It was very commonplace compared to racial acceptance. America was still routinely lynching blacks down South well into the 20th century, and segregated schools both in the North and South persisted to mid century. Have you ever watched the biographical movie about Pistol Pete , the basketball star and the opposition his father ran into for trying to introduce black techniques?

[BlueDreams]

Who's to blame for this simplified primary version of our prophets? Isn't this the version we are generally taught in church? I know in my experience it certainly has been. I think within the church it's kosher to teach of the occasional (ask your fellow ward members how many are familiar with the first half of the Lot story compared to the second half) mistakes made by prophets in our scriptures, but not so kosher to teach of the mistakes made by our modern prophets. 

 

I prefer not to lay blame any one aspect or person in the faith system. If I had to take a shot I would label the thing both top-down, down-top, and influenced from outside the church as well in common depictions and expectations of what a true prophet is or isn't....that doesn't actually hold up. It's easier to point something above and beyond us and not within our own means of control as the problem.

 

Not to say the entire message would suddenly change just if you or I or someone else spoke differently...but within our wards, yes it can. I once joked that I had an odd ward, where things that are generally labeled "not discussed" here are. The reason? Our overall structure catered to the capacity for various ideas and thoughts to exist in one place, without it being labeled as threatening or wrong or whichever. I'm not talking about the basic structure, which was basically the same from every other ward....but the fundamental dynamics of the members there. Basically what was brought to the table by each member changed what was to be feasted on. That's shifted again a little because the ward is very transitory. 

 

As for Lot's story....I did once bring it up and a few looked at me and said "you didn't know that??" My experience isn't representative to everybody else's. Still, I think the primary tales have place....in primary. It was a beginning intro to theology...but you want that to grow and develop. It has for me. At points I get that at church, but more often than not church gives me the beginning tools and foundational focus to stay anchored in the basics. I don't have a problem with that being the purpose to the meetings. 

 

We fear more of speaking ill of the Lord's anointed than we do of teaching even the greatest among us can falter and are in need of the atonement.

 

Lastly, I think the message is there, but that the cultural application falters. Most messages that I hear about prophets somewhere will mention that they're not perfect....but we still assume they basically are in our heads. I have gotten the message plenty that they learn of God and his will in the same way open to all of us...that what sets them apart is their stewardship not the capacity to hear the voice of God. It's just not a "minor" stewardship  and one that is heavily respected in the faith...and there are particular capacities open to that because of it...one's that are often put on a pedastal by members. We do it to lesser degrees to Bishops, SP's, and GA's of all sorts. It's inaccurate, where I'm at in life recognizes that this message isn't specifically taught but inadvertently given by various people. And yet much of the other lesson, beyond the "primary level" per se, I've also gotten from the same avenues.

 

 

With luv,

BD

Edited December 14, 2013 by BlueDreams

[Stone holm]

I prefer not to lay blame any one aspect or person in the faith system. If I had to take a shot I would label the thing both top-down, down-top, and influenced from outside the church as well in common depictions and expectations of what a true prophet is or isn't....that doesn't actually hold up. It's easier to point something above and beyond us and not within our own means of control as the problem.

 

Not to say the entire message would suddenly change just if you or I or someone else spoke differently...but within our wards, yes it can. I once joked that I had an odd ward, where things that are generally labeled "not discussed" here are. The reason? Our overall structure catered to the capacity for various ideas and thoughts to exist in one place, without it being labeled as threatening or wrong or whichever. I'm not talking about the basic structure, which was basically the same from every other ward....but the fundamental dynamics of the members there. Basically what was brought to the table by each member changed what was to be feasted on. That's shifted again a little because the ward is very transitory. 

 

As for Lot's story....I did once bring it up and a few looked at me and said "you didn't know that??" My experience isn't representative to everybody else's. Still, I think the primary tales have place....in primary. It was a beginning intro to theology...but you want that to grow and develop. It has for me. At points I get that at church, but more often than not church gives me the beginning tools and foundational focus to stay anchored in the basics. I don't have a problem with that being the purpose to the meetings. 

 

Lastly, I think the message is there, but that the cultural application falters. Most messages that I hear about prophets somewhere will mention that they're not perfect....but we still assume they basically are in our heads. I have gotten the message plenty that they learn of God and his will in the same way open to all of us...that what sets them apart is their stewardship not the capacity to hear the voice of God. It's just not a "minor" stewardship  and one that is heavily respected in the faith...and there are particular capacities open to that because of it...one's that are often put on a pedastal by members. We do it to lesser degrees to Bishops, SP's, and GA's of all sorts. It's inaccurate, where I'm at in life recognizes that this message isn't specifically taught but inadvertently given by various people. And yet much of the other lesson, beyond the "primary level" per se, I've also gotten from the same avenues.

 

 

With luv,

BD

I think you have summed tip pretty well. When I brought up the recent release in HP Quorum, I was the only one who had heard about it. There is one Ward member who haunts this blog from time to time, but he is not a HP. I also suspect he is the only other Ward member to have heard of it. So the people who are on this site are very, very far from being normal members. I suspect most members don't really give a rip about such things and are very satisfied with the milk they receive, some of their ears pick up with interest if they get a few morsels of meat tossed out by rogues in Gospel Doctrine class, and some get very upset at even the aroma of meat.

[bcuzbcuz]

I agree that Brazil meant the pain of the problem became greater than the pain of the solution.

 

Doesn't it bother you or anyone else that one sustained "prophet, seer and revelator" had to do "subtle lobbying" to convince 14 other sustained "prophets, seers and revelators" that they could make the change?

Yes, it does.

[juliann]

I think you have summed tip pretty well. When I brought up the recent release in HP Quorum, I was the only one who had heard about it. There is one Ward member who haunts this blog from time to time, but he is not a HP. I also suspect he is the only other Ward member to have heard of it. So the people who are on this site are very, very far from being normal members. I suspect most members don't really give a rip about such things and are very satisfied with the milk they receive, some of their ears pick up with interest if they get a few morsels of meat tossed out by rogues in Gospel Doctrine class, and some get very upset at even the aroma of meat.

And some think they stand on higher ground than others. Just sayin' 

[Stone holm]

Yes, it does.

Yes, it does.

Not me. At one point in my spiritual journey it might have, but not anymore. One needs to realize that not only was racism ubiquitous. But Utah and Idaho, especially the latter had developed fairly well deserved reputations for attracting white supremacists to the area...not in the Church, but in the general population and given the widespread familiarity with ETB before he became President of linking the civil rights movement to Communism...they were sitting in an area which had a widespread acceptance of the ban. Pres Kimball had a major task on his hands to turn the ship around. He had chastised the Brethren in books previously because of the common use of racial slurs against blacks and Indians.

[mormonnewb]

Was it racial discrimination that Jesus went only to the Jews. Is it racial discrimination today that women are declined the Priesthood? .

No, it was not racial discrimination because being Jewish is NOT a racial distinction anymore than being Christian. A Jew is someone who takes on the Abrahamic covenants just as a Christian is someone who accepts the atonement of Christ. Race has nothing to do with it. In an effort to preserve the infallibility of the prophets, some have tried to paint Heavenly Father as the racist (someone who treats people differently solely on the basis of race). I see nothing in the OT or NT that supports that view of Heavenly Father.

But a prophet would never lead the church astray, right? Says who? The prophets? Can someone please point me to OT or NT scripture where either Heavenly Father or Christ make any such assurance? In fact, isn't that why Christ sent us the Holy Spirit upon His departure? He could have just ordained, say Peter, as the prophet and told us to heed to Peter's counsel. But, instead, He sent the Holy Spirit so that each of us could have an INDIVIDUAL witness of truth. Perhaps, it's because Christ knew that no man would have a heart free of prejudice, notwithstanding Heavenly Father's perfect love for ALL of His children.

[canard78]

Not me. At one point in my spiritual journey it might have, but not anymore. One needs to realize that not only was racism ubiquitous. But Utah and Idaho, especially the latter had developed fairly well deserved reputations for attracting white supremacists to the area...not in the Church, but in the general population and given the widespread familiarity with ETB before he became President of linking the civil rights movement to Communism...they were sitting in an area which had a widespread acceptance of the ban. Pres Kimball had a major task on his hands to turn the ship around. He had chastised the Brethren in books previously because of the common use of racial slurs against blacks and Indians.

You're not really helping the case for inspired leaders much. You're saying that the prejudices of the members of the quorum were so strong that a revelation wasn't possible? That they would not have been willing or able to hear God's will that a change was due?

That doesn't sound like a very effective model for inspired leadership.