Church Specifically Disavows Priesthood Restriction Explanations

[BCSpace]

This is a straight forward article in which the church takes responsibility for the ban.

 

Does it say or imply the ban was not inspired?  While it does disavow the explanations and beliefs extant at the time, it also notes that BY said they could have the privilege at some future day and that the more modern prophets felt they needed to have a revelation to change the policy.

[BCSpace]

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

 

Notice that the Church doesn't disavow the actual ban or claim it was uninspired.  They noted BY's saying that one day they would receive all the privileges and also that the later prophets felt it would take an actual revelation to change the policy which they sought for and obtained.

Edited December 7, 2013 by BCSpace

[canard78]

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

 

There's a clear statement made by the church in a way that never has before. It's on the official church website, all in one place, listed under the topic where someone might go to look for it. Putting, for example, the 1852 date of BY's statement on the church website as well as McConkie's acknowledgement that he and other "spoke with a limited light" is also significant.

 

I agree that none of the content of the article was new to me because I'd read about it in "unofficial" sources. It's the official statement that makes this so powerful.

[canard78]

Does it say or imply the ban was not inspired?  While it does disavow the explanations and beliefs extant at the time, it also notes that BY said they could have the privilege at some future day and that the more modern prophets felt they needed to have a revelation to change the policy.

 

It doesn't say the ban was inspired. It also makes it clear that there was no restriction under Joseph Smith. It leaves room for those who conclude it was not inspired. I appreciated that.

[BCSpace]

Putting, for example, the 1852 date of BY's statement on the church website

 

I'm pretty sure I've seen that in older manuals and such, but I can't prove it at the moment.  At the very least, similar notions are already expressed (and for a long time) in current manuals such as the P.ofG.P. manual on Abraham 1:26-27.

 

as well as McConkie's acknowledgement that he and other "spoke with a limited light" is also significant

 

McConkie's immediate change to reflect the change in policy ("Forget everything that I have said") on the other hand has been linked to from lds.org for some time.

 

Imho, I think we're back to 'all in one place' as being the new thing in this case which I would agree is very handy.  I'm not getting any additional spiritual uplift from it though.  Could be my sinful nature...

 

 

But I'm not necessarily trying to correct or disagree with you in particular though it may look like it because I am responding to your post. I'm speaking directly to critics of the Church to whom I still say "Nothing has changed".

[BCSpace]

It also makes it clear that there was no restriction under Joseph Smith.

 

 

Which wouldn't matter if BY had been inspired.

 

It leaves room for those who conclude it was not inspired. I appreciated that.

 

I don't see any such room at all though I can see why some would think there is such room.  BY is prophetic in his belief that one day they would receive all the privileges and the Church takes pains to note that it took a revelation to change the policy when one would think such wouldn't be required if the policy weren't inspired.

[Brian 2.0]

I agree this is a well written response and it's in a good and easy place to read. But there isn't anything new here and the disavowal of theories was said pretty clearly in the Professor Bott aftermath.

But the article still doesn't answer the question that a lot of people have... Does the church today think the ban was wrong?

[AndyDnom]

so the guy says racists things, and the things he said are disavowed, but we should always trust that our current prophets words won't be disavowed?

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

I hope we expect stuff like this to happen from time to time; eternal progression kinda hinges on learning new things, with the implication that our current understanding will have to be revised with the addition of further light. First chapter of the D&C teaches point-blank: "Behold, I am God and have spoken it; these commandments are of me, and were given unto my servants in their weakness, after the manner of their language, that they might come to understanding. And inasmuch as they erred it might be made known; and inasmuch as they sought wisdom they might be instructed; and inasmuch as they sinned they might be chastened, that they might repent; and inasmuch as they were humble they might be made strong, and blessed from on high, and receive knowledge from time to time."

[canard78]

Which wouldn't matter if BY had been inspired.

 

 

I don't see any such room at all though I can see why some would think there is such room.  BY is prophetic in his belief that one day they would receive all the privileges and the Church takes pains to note that it took a revelation to change the policy when one would think such wouldn't be required if the policy weren't inspired.

 

Nothing in the article even hints at it being introduced by revelation. I see no evidence in this article or anywhere else that shows that BY introduced the ban by revelation. If you can provide that evidence you'll be the first.

 

The article states that:

 

During the first two decades of the Church’s existence, a few black men were ordained to the priesthood. One of these men, Elijah Abel, also participated in temple ceremonies in Kirtland, Ohio, and was later baptized as proxy for deceased relatives in Nauvoo, Illinois. There is no evidence that any black men were denied the priesthood during Joseph Smith’s lifetime.

In 1852, President Brigham Young publicly announced that men of black African descent could no longer be ordained to the priesthood, though thereafter blacks continued to join the Church through baptism and receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost. Following the death of Brigham Young, subsequent Church presidents restricted blacks from receiving the temple endowment or being married in the temple. Over time, Church leaders and members advanced many theories to explain the priesthood and temple restrictions. None of these explanations is accepted today as the official doctrine of the Church.

...

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, and they made ongoing efforts to understand what should be done. After praying for guidance, President McKay did not feel impressed to lift the ban.

...Soon after the revelation, Elder Bruce R. McConkie, an apostle, spoke of new “light and knowledge” that had erased previously “limited understanding.”

 

There is some very clever "wordsmithing" in those paragraphs.

- Brigham Young announced the ban (but offer no evidence of revelation)

- Theories advanced by leaders for the reasons (but not now supported)

- Leaders believed revelation was needed to alter the policy (but don't state that revelation was really needed to alter it)

- Pres McKay "did not feel impressed" to end the ban (not that it was not God's will to keep the ban in place)

- Leaders of the past perpetuated things based on a "limited understanding"

 

Now would you like to share some actual quotes from that article that require a belief that the ban was introduced by revelation?

How about finding evidence anywhere that require a belief that it was introduced through revelation?

 

It seems clear to me that rather than seeking revelation on the matter the leaders were making unfounded assumptions. There's an important phrase in the letter exchange between the 1947 First Presidency and Dr Nelson:

 

“From the days of the Prophet Joseph even until now, it has been the doctrine of the Church, never questioned by any of the Church leaders, that the Negroes are not entitled to the full blessings of the Gospel.”

 

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

 

Baseless assumptions about the origin of the ban and a stance of "never question it."

[BCSpace]

- Brigham Young announced the ban (but offer no evidence of revelation)

- Theories advanced by leaders for the reasons (but not now supported)

- Leaders believed revelation was needed to alter the policy (but don't state that revelation was really needed to alter it)

- Pres McKay "did not feel impressed" to end the ban (not that it was not God's will to keep the ban in place)

- Leaders of the past perpetuated things based on a "limited understanding"

 

Now would you like to share some actual quotes from that article that require a belief that the ban was introduced by revelation?

 

 

 

Sure.  I paraphrased or directly quoted from it on post #139 of this thread:

 

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/62336-challenging-the-first-presidency/page-7

 

 

 

 

[canard78]

Sure.  I paraphrased or directly quoted from it on post #139 of this thread:

 

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/62336-challenging-the-first-presidency/page-7

 

And as I've said, all of those are statements after the ban was introduced. Show me where there is evidence that it was God's will that the ban be introduced in the first place.

 

You'll not manage it. The 5 points you keep quoting and requoting are simply speculation on your part. Your making a leap of an assumption which is falling very short.

[BCSpace]

And as I've said, all of those are statements after the ban was introduced. Show me where there is evidence that it was God's will that the ban be introduced in the first place.

 

 

Like I said in the other thread, I only claimed by implication too strong to go any other way. And while I haven't convinced you, I'm quite certain I've proven the case well enough.

[canard78]

Like I said in the other thread, I only claimed by implication too strong to go any other way. And while I haven't convinced you, I'm quite certain I've proven the case well enough.

 

You haven't even come close. If you have any actual evidence you'd like to share, feel free to come back to me.

[BCSpace]

so the guy says racists things, and the things he said are disavowed, but we should always trust that our current prophets words won't be disavowed?

 

What comments were made that you think were racist and also doctrines of the Church?  Perhaps there were some, perhaps not.  Even in the explanations and beliefs that the Church has disavowed, I can't think of one of them that says skin color causes black people to be inferior or cursed or whatever the opinion was.

[canard78]

What comments were made that you think were racist and also doctrines of the Church?  Perhaps there were some, perhaps not.  Even in the explanations and beliefs that the Church has disavowed, I can't think of one of them that says skin color causes black people to be inferior or cursed or whatever the opinion was.

 

If ever mental gymnastics make it to the Olympics we might see you with a gold medal.

 

Are you intentionally reverse engineering that statement? It seems really carefully worded to sound like one thing and technically say another.

 

How about this one: 

 

"Now says the grand father I will not destroy the seed of Michael and his wife; and Cain I will not kill you, nor suffer any one to kill you, but I will put a mark upon you. What is that mark? You will see it on the countenance of every African you ever did see upon the face of the earth, or ever will see. Now I tell you what I know; when the mark was put upon Cain, Abel's children was in all probability young; the Lord told Cain that he should not receive the blessings of the priesthood nor his seed, until the last of the posterity of Able had received the priesthood, until the redemption of the earth"

 

 

You also keep on saying that the ban must be inspired because BY prophesied that black members would eventually get the priesthood. Has the last posterity of Able received the priesthood? Has the earth been redeemed? I'm not sure whether BY's so-called prophesy turned out the way he suggested it would.

[BCSpace]

Like I said in the other thread, I only claimed by implication too strong to go any other way. And while I haven't convinced you, I'm quite certain I've proven the case well enough.

 

You haven't even come close. If you have any actual evidence you'd like to share, feel free to come back to me.

 

I've certainly done my part.  All you've done is deny the evidences I've presented instead of addressing them and saying why you think they don't count. Your prerogative certainly, but quite unconvincing.  In Graham's hierarchy of Disagreement, you are at the point of Contradiction.  A counter argument or even a refutation like mine would be preferable.

[BCSpace]

What comments were made that you think were racist and also doctrines of the Church?  Perhaps there were some, perhaps not.  Even in the explanations and beliefs that the Church has disavowed, I can't think of one of them that says skin color causes black people to be inferior or cursed or whatever the opinion was.

 

If ever mental gymnastics make it to the Olympics we might see you with a gold medal.

 

Are you intentionally reverse engineering that statement? It seems really carefully worded to sound like one thing and technically say another.

 

 

 

When you get to the point of an actual counter argument instead of mere contradiction, let me know.

 

How about this one:

 

The conditions I imposed included doctrine of the Church.  Is BY's address to the legislature a doctrine of the Church?

 

 

You also keep on saying that the ban must be inspired because BY prophesied that black members would eventually get the priesthood.

 

The Church recognized this prophesy by tying it into the 1978 revelation by stating:

 

Church leaders pondered promises made by prophets such as Brigham Young that black members would one day receive priesthood and temple blessings. In June 1978, after “spending many hours in the Upper Room of the [salt Lake] Temple supplicating the Lord for divine guidance,” Church President "Church leaders pondered that black members would one day receive priesthood and temple blessings. In June 1978, after “spending many hours in the Upper Room of the [salt Lake] Temple supplicating the Lord for divine guidance,” Church President Spencer W. Kimball, his counselors in the First Presidency, and members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles received a revelation."

[AndyDnom]

what makes brigham young a prophet? he doesn't seem to have said anything that holds up. its all been walked back. journal of discourses, blood atonement, adam god, polygamy, racism, mountain meadows, quakers on the moon. What did this guy ever say that is still believed by members?

 

Shouldn't a prophet with a direct pipeline as god's one true messanger have something timeless and useful to say?

[BCSpace]

what makes brigham young a prophet? he doesn't seem to have said anything that holds up. its all been walked back. journal of discourses, blood atonement, adam god, polygamy, racism, mountain meadows, quakers on the moon. What did this guy ever say that is still believed by members?

 

Nothing's been walked back that I know of.  The JoD, for example, was never a doctrinal work of the Church.

 

Shouldn't a prophet with a direct pipeline as god's one true messanger have something timeless and useful to say?

 

Do you believe a prophet's mouth is to be controlled by God 24/7 or do they have agency and opinions of their own and express them from time to time?

[Tacenda]

what makes brigham young a prophet? he doesn't seem to have said anything that holds up. its all been walked back. journal of discourses, blood atonement, adam god, polygamy, racism, mountain meadows, quakers on the moon. What did this guy ever say that is still believed by members?

Shouldn't a prophet with a direct pipeline as god's one true messanger have something timeless and useful to say?

Well according to the non LDS Christians and the bible, that would make him a false prophet. If their prophecies don't come true or are true. Edited December 7, 2013 by Tacenda

[Storm Rider]

BC, I think are just very hesitant to call it wrong and I appreciate such a position. For me it is almost impossible to maintain any position that it was inspired. There is no evidence for such a position; it simply was instituted by my favorite prophet and those that followed supported it. 

[daz2]

If the Church's position is still that the ban was directed or revealed by God, or was God's will, why does the statement not say it directly? The FP and 12 were not afraid to say that it was directed by God in 1949 and 1969. Why are they afraid to say so now? All that being said, I think the ban is in the same category as the ban on women praying in Sacrament meeting from the 1960s until the 1970s, or the disparity in treating men and women married to unendowed spouses before ETB (when such men could be endowed, but women could not): a well meaning policy interpretation that was culturally based or affected, but not reflective of an eternal principle or directed explicitly by God.

[daz2]

But even if the practice was revealed by God, all of the explanations that were proferred by Church leaders--such as the statements in 1949 and 1969 have been explicitly disavowed. What does that do to the implicit notion of infallibility in the 14 points of following the prophet? Don't get me wrong. I support those points as a general matter--but I do not accept them as absolute. I think the prophets and apostles (including those in Hebrew Bible, New Testament and BofM times) are almost always right in their teachings--but I do not believe they were or are infallible.

[foster]

 

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

 

 

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

 

 

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

 

Altersteve, I beleive you are correct that the Church condemns racism.  But a reading of Juliann's post, she is suggesting, that the ban was racist and the Church was racist until 1978.  The latest pronouncement does not state that restriction was racist and I have not read that the Church has condemned the ban.