Church Specifically Disavows Priesthood Restriction Explanations

[juliann]

If it is so, then it is much more likely that those who are born into horrible situations are those who were magnificent in the preexistence, since God does not give us more than we can bear.  Easier lives would be given to those who are weaker spiritually, emotionally, etc.

But if we are here to learn things and advance, why would the weak ones not be the ones to get this final chance at shaping up?   But I do like turning around the common assumption that those who are in the church, especially the rich and famous ones,  got the most blessings or are the Lord's favs.

 

This is a philosophical problem more than a theological one I think because it leads us back to the nature of God.  But without doing propositions and thinking too hard, the only way I can reconcile it is that we somehow gave consent to the horrors in some general way for the sake of justice, but I cannot reconcile God deciding that some folks are more special and so should get special goodies like choosing to come down as a billionaire.  How would that even work if a million spirits wanted the same gig at the same time and place?

[rockpond]

God doesn't make sock puppets. It is entirely possible for BY to have been wrong on the reason(s) for the ban and still be inspired to put the ban in place.

 

Interesting theory.  Possible.  But the church article we're discussing doesn't identify any inspiration behind the ban.

[rockpond]

But I think that because BY put the ban into effect, it was important to show that even he didn't think it was forever.  There are other statements from leaders saying that blacks would eventually receive all.   My memory might be wrong,  but I believe BY and JFS were the only ones to set restrictions.  JFS was the worst, he said they would be servants in heaven. 

 

BY didn't think it was forever but he did think that it was until the millenium which is not how it was presented in the article.  And not how it was, ultimately, resolved.

[thesometimesaint]

Interesting theory.  Possible.  But the church article we're discussing doesn't identify any inspiration behind the ban.

 

It would be nice, but so far God has declined the opportunity. That being said it is on my to do list when I meet God.

[BlueDreams]

  But without doing propositions and thinking too hard, the only way I can reconcile it is that we somehow gave consent to the horrors in some general way for the sake of justice, but I cannot reconcile God deciding that some folks are more special and so should get special goodies like choosing to come down as a billionaire.  How would that even work if a million spirits wanted the same gig at the same time and place?

 

My first thought was sending them to a place with severe hyperinflation...that'll teach em..but I'm probably on something today.

 

In truth I see either view as incorrect. I don't think that god would sporadically place us on this earth. I do believe in a custom-tailored plan for each of us to have the potential to learn. But the idea that we can tell whether we were more righteous/valiant/etc in the pre-existence by our worldly status or capacity, seems equally ridiculous. After all, all of us have divine potential. Ergo whatever is given to us, good, bad, and inbetween....can be turned to something exalting by teaching us more of God. Whatever it is that creates this.

 

Thus I can feel very strongly that the Lord knew where I'd land family-wise, mess and all, and that it's where I needed to be....without necessarily assuming that my place can somehow extrapolate whether I was extra-special or tolerably naughty on the other side. God's not santa after all

 

With luv,

BD 

Edited December 7, 2013 by BlueDreams

[BCSpace]

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.

 

That is correct.  The latest statement in question and other modern statements as well, including GBH's statement, address only some explanations that were given.  To my knowledge, there has never been a past doctrinal/official statement even during the time of the ban that makes the ban the result of skin color.  Lineage is often mentioned though.  I can see why some react to the ban itself as if it were racist, but technically it wasn't.  Since the Church has disavowed those explanations for the ban that were ostensibly racist then the ban itself becomes even more devoid of racism if such were possible.  I think it's presentism on our part to see the ban as racist especially given that the prophets in the time of the ban believed the same relevant doctrines and scriptures we do such as 2 Nephi 26:33.

[canard78]

Yes the Church condemned the "theories" offered by other. Just as I would expect the Church to "condemn" the "tanic acid theory" for the Word Of Wisdom, or the "lack of men theory" for polygamy.

I do not see where the Church condemned the prior First Presidency statements on the matter.

They do by implication.

In 1947 the first presidency Dr Nelson stated that inter-racial marriage was "repugnant." It also alluded to blacks being cursed due to status in the pre-mortal existence. Both views have been "disavowed."

[rockpond]

How do you figure?  Considering 2 Nephi 26:33, did the ban include the notion that blacks were ever not loved by God, or that God did not consider them along with everyone else to be all alike, or that never at any time would they receive the full blessings?

 

I think we are forgetting that the past prophets were operating under pretty much the same doctrines and scriptures we are today including 2 Nephi 26:33.  I'm quite certain they didn't ignore that or other relevant verses.

 

 

If the ban was inspired, how is that a bad thing?  A difficult thing perhaps, but not bad.

 

 

The Church seems to think so.

 

Yes, the ban forced the church to NOT treat everyone alike.

 

How do you figure that they didn't ignore 2 Ne 26:33 in implementing the ban?

 

The ban was a "bad thing".  We kept children of God out of the temple for reasons that we either cannot identify or are disavowing.  How is that not bad?

 

And yes, the church (as presented in this article) seems to think that OD2 was in some way a fulfillment of BY's prophecy.  I think I said as much.  But I also think that presenting it that way ignores the millenial restoration of those blessings that he taught (as I referenced).

[canard78]

I know that I'm jumping in late here but I think this was a great statement for the church to publish. I especially appreciate the final paragraph that provides a scriptural backing for the idea that the ban was not the will of God.

The disappointing aspect, for me, was that they still make it sound as if Brigham Young was prophesying something along the lines of the 1978 revelation. That wasn't really what he taught. He taught more of a millennial restoration of those blessings to black members.

The disavowal of all past explanations is great to read and have published but I wish we could just say, without reservation, that it was a mistake and we're grateful that the prophet corrected it through revelation. Instead, couching it as a fulfillment of some "prophecy" of BY still attempts to lend credibility to the ban (IMO) made worse by the fact that OD2 wasn't really a fulfillment of BY's promise/prophecy.

1854

"When all the other children of Adam have had the privilege of receiving the Priesthood, and of coming into the kingdom of God, and of being redeemed from the four quarters of the earth, and have received their resurrection from the dead, then it will be time enough to remove the curse from Cain and his posterity".

1859

"How long is that race to endure the dreadful curse that is upon them? That curse will remain upon them, and they never can hold the Priesthood or share in it until all the other descendants of Adam have received the promises and enjoyed the blessings of the Priesthood and the keys thereof. Until the last ones of the residue of Adam's children are brought up to that favourable position, the children of Cain cannot receive the first ordinances of the Priesthood. They were the first that were cursed, and they will be the last from whom the curse will be removed".

Very well illustrated. BY was wrong to introduce the ban, wrong on the justifications for introducing it and wrong on his statement of the length of time they'd need to wait to get the full fellowship. Not solely of the priesthood, but of the endowment, the temple sealing and the opportunity do the work for their own ancestors.

Some of the service opportunities and oaths/covenants that the church hold in the highest esteem were denied to people based on the pigment in their skin.

[canard78]

That is correct. The latest statement in question and other modern statements as well, including GBH's statement, address only some explanations that were given. To my knowledge, there has never been a past doctrinal/official statement even during the time of the ban that makes the ban the result of skin color. Lineage is often mentioned though. I can see why some react to the ban itself as if it were racist, but technically it wasn't. Since the Church has disavowed those explanations for the ban that were ostensibly racist then the ban itself becomes even more devoid of racism if such were possible. I think it's presentism on our part to see the ban as racist especially given that the prophets in the time of the ban believed the same relevant doctrines and scriptures we do such as 2 Nephi 26:33.

Lineage? The reason for the ban was about lineage?

CFR. You keep spouting nonsense with nothing to back it up. Show me a statement from the last 10 years where the church says the ban was about lineage.

You can't use any of the older quotes. They've all just been disavowed!

[rockpond]

That is correct.  The latest statement in question and other modern statements as well, including GBH's statement, address only some explanations that were given.  To my knowledge, there has never been a past doctrinal/official statement even during the time of the ban that makes the ban the result of skin color.  Lineage is often mentioned though.  I can see why some react to the ban itself as if it were racist, but technically it wasn't.  Since the Church has disavowed those explanations for the ban that were ostensibly racist then the ban itself becomes even more devoid of racism if such were possible.  I think it's presentism on our part to see the ban as racist especially given that the prophets in the time of the ban believed the same relevant doctrines and scriptures we do such as 2 Nephi 26:33.

 

The ban was racist.  There is no getting around that except to ignore accepted definitions of words.  The priesthood/temple ban was based on those of African descent.  That is a race.

 

From the article:  "Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form."

 

Since our past actions (the ban) were racist by definition, the church leaders have unequivocally condemned the ban via the statement I quoted above.  Those are their words.  You can argue that it's not what they meant (not sure why you would), but it is what they have said & published.

[Stone holm]

They do by implication.

In 1947 the first presidency Dr Nelson stated that inter-racial marriage was "repugnant." It also alluded to blacks being cursed due to status in the pre-mortal existence. Both views have been "disavowed."

The article that accompanied the lifting of the ban, said the Church still discouraged interracial marriage, is this the first statement by the Church disavowing that stance or have there been others?

[rodheadlee]

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?

Have you actually read the Journal of Discourses of Brigham Young? As compiled by Widstoe.

[canard78]

The ban was racist. There is no getting around that except to ignore accepted definitions of words. The priesthood/temple ban was based on those of African descent. That is a race.

From the article: "Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form."

Since our past actions (the ban) were racist by definition, the church leaders have unequivocally condemned the ban via the statement I quoted above. Those are their words. You can argue that it's not what they meant (not sure why you would), but it is what they have said & published.

That's a very, very good point. Racism is any form of segregation or denial of privileges based on the persons race. It's a pretty simple word. It doesn't mean hatred or persecution (though they may both be the consequences of racism), it's simply the belief that one race is different and therefore denied rights or opportunities.

I'm not sure if they realise it, but they have, effectively, condemned the ban.

[canard78]

Delete duplicate

Edited December 7, 2013 by canard78

[thesometimesaint]

Lineage? The reason for the ban was about lineage?

CFR. You keep spouting nonsense with nothing to back it up. Show me a statement from the last 10 years where the church says the ban was about lineage.

You can't use any of the older quotes. They've all just been disavowed!

We don't know the reason(s) for the ban. So any proposed reason(s) is just speculation on our part. My personal speculation is that the ban was a trial for the whites. To see for themselves just how they treated their black brothers and sisters. Those black Saints who were faithful to the Gospel have received or will receive every blessing that every other faithful Saint received or will receive regardless of holding the Priesthood in this life.

Edited December 7, 2013 by thesometimesaint

[bluebell]

We don't know the reason(s) for the ban. So any proposed reason(s) is just speculation on our part. My personal speculation is that the ban was a trial for the whites. To see for themselves just how they treated their black brothers and sisters. Those black Saints who were faithful to the Gospel have received or will receive every blessing that every other faithful Saint received or will receive regardless of holding the Priesthood in this life.

 

If you mean trial as in test, then that could be.

 

If you mean trial as in hardship, then it seems clear that it was much more a trial for the black members than for the white ones.

[Calm]

After all, all of us have divine potential. Ergo whatever is given to us, good, bad, and inbetween....can be turned to something exalting by teaching us more of God. Whatever it is that creates this.

 

Thus I can feel very strongly that the Lord knew where I'd land family-wise, mess and all, and that it's where I needed to be....without necessarily assuming that my place can somehow extrapolate whether I was extra-special or tolerably naughty on the other side.

 

I agree....though I am not sure about always "needing" to be there, I am sure about always being able to make it work to fulfill all our 'goals' we needed to accomplish while in mortality, the rest being able to be filled in the Spirit World where we continue our learning, especially putting it all together.

[BCSpace]

That is correct.  The latest statement in question and other modern statements as well, including GBH's statement, address only some explanations that were given.  To my knowledge, there has never been a past doctrinal/official statement even during the time of the ban that makes the ban the result of skin color.  Lineage is often mentioned though.  I can see why some react to the ban itself as if it were racist, but technically it wasn't.  Since the Church has disavowed those explanations for the ban that were ostensibly racist then the ban itself becomes even more devoid of racism if such were possible.  I think it's presentism on our part to see the ban as racist especially given that the prophets in the time of the ban believed the same relevant doctrines and scriptures we do such as 2 Nephi 26:33.

 

The ban was racist.  There is no getting around that except to ignore accepted definitions of words.  The priesthood/temple ban was based on those of African descent.  That is a race.

 

 

 

Are there any doctrinal/official statements even during the time of the ban that makes the ban the result of skin color? if not, the ban is not racist.

 

 

From the article:  "Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form."

 

As do I.

 

Since our past actions (the ban) were racist by definition,

 

 

Did the Church, or even some of these disavowed explanations ever teach, for example, that 2 Nephi 26:33 didn't apply to blacks?  Are you claiming those past prophets did not agree with 2 Nephi 26:33?

 

the church leaders have unequivocally condemned the ban via the statement I quoted above.

 

 

The only condemnation extant is against some explanations and beliefs surrounding the ban as I have illustrated.  If I am in error, please provide the specific quote and reference that shows my error.

 

Those are their words.  You can argue that it's not what they meant (not sure why you would), but it is what they have said & published.

 

I agree with all officially published material on this issue.

Edited December 7, 2013 by BCSpace

[rockpond]

After all, all of us have divine potential. Ergo whatever is given to us, good, bad, and inbetween....can be turned to something exalting by teaching us more of God. Whatever it is that creates this.

 

Thus I can feel very strongly that the Lord knew where I'd land family-wise, mess and all, and that it's where I needed to be....without necessarily assuming that my place can somehow extrapolate whether I was extra-special or tolerably naughty on the other side. God's not santa after all

 

With luv,

BD 

 

I agree with Cal.  This is beautifully stated by BD.

[BlueDreams]

That is correct.  The latest statement in question and other modern statements as well, including GBH's statement, address only some explanations that were given.  To my knowledge, there has never been a past doctrinal/official statement even during the time of the ban that makes the ban the result of skin color.  Lineage is often mentioned though.  I can see why some react to the ban itself as if it were racist, but technically it wasn't.  Since the Church has disavowed those explanations for the ban that were ostensibly racist then the ban itself becomes even more devoid of racism if such were possible.  I think it's presentism on our part to see the ban as racist especially given that the prophets in the time of the ban believed the same relevant doctrines and scriptures we do such as 2 Nephi 26:33.

 

 

Lineage....no. The "lineage" was based on racist views about lineage that was founded on 18th century thoughts that had gained heavy acceptance in the culture of that time entirely. A colonialist-theological hybrid that viewed black people as all the same.... without any of the actual say or recognition of how black folk actually viewed themselves because the definitions of race and lineage were, again, defined by outsiders, colonists, and eurocentric thought on a good day. It was an oversimplification and falsifying of the history of and entire continent. This is where that "lineage" came from. It is just as false an idea as all of the other false theories that sprung up and surrounded the Ban.

 

And though I've rarely, if ever called the Ban straight up racist. It's not exactly a huge leap to say so. The ideas and cultural context surrounding it were racist. The concepts that sprung from its inception were racist. The proposed reasoning and concerns around it, as mentioned in the article, were racist (particularly black slavery). Call it presentism all you'd like. But it is what it is. I don't blame them for it, I accept the great amount of good brought forth in spite the common alement that we all suffer from: mortality. But there's no need to create an exceptional definition for the church compared to every other event and thought happening around them. They were, largely, racist.

 

 

And as for 2 Nephi 26:33....yes they believed it, then found plenty of ways to state: "yes, but not really." Just as the early church after Christ struggled with accepting gentile converts, so it is with this. The lineage explanation and every other explanation places any with a traceable drop of black African ancestry into another category of human being. One that, even without the plethora of explanations for the ban, fell to not being able to receive the fullest blessings and capacities in God's kingdom. One race was below another/all others in giving stewardship and capacities  not due to actual character but color and/or pedigree of race. There was a spiritual hierarchy based solely on racial pedigree defined by U.S. standards on race. The sensibilities about it were the same: a means to maintain separation and distinction, a belief that something morally distinctive existed simply based on color/pedigree and that this was enough justification by itself to deny the greatest of blessings God has to offer on earth to entire swaths of people. 

 

There is no technicality in there: the people, actions, beliefs about race, etc were racist leading up to and then further defined and utilized afterwards in a very classic definition of what is racist. It takes no finagling to see that the policy in the middle of this would be as well. In fact, IMO it takes far more technicalities to insist that it wasn't.

 

 

 

With luv,

BD

Edited December 7, 2013 by BlueDreams

[rockpond]

Are there any doctrinal/official statements even during the time of the ban that makes the ban the result of skin color? if not, the ban is not racist.

 

 

As do I.

 

 

Did the Church, or even some of these disavowed explainations ever teach, for example, that 2 Nephi 26:33 didn't apply to blacks?

 

 

The only condemnation extant is against some explanations and beliefs surrounding the ban as I have illustrated.  If I am in error, please provide the specific quote and reference that shows my error.

 

 

I agree with all officially published material on this issue.

 

The ban is racist because it is based on African descent.  That is a race.

 

Whether or not church leaders publicly taught that 2 Ne 26:33 didn't apply to blacks (I don't think they ever taught such a thing) does not change the fact that their actions did not live up to what is taught in that verse.  As a church, we were not treating all alike.

 

I quoted a statement from the article that unequivocally condemns all racism past and present.  Since the ban was by definition racist, they have condemned the ban.

 

Honestly, I think their intent was to condemn all of the beliefs and explanations surrounding the ban (which for me is an odd form of mental gymnastics to try to isolate the ban from all of the teachings around it).  Intent aside, their written words do actually condemn the ban itself

[BCSpace]

Lineage....no. The "lineage" was based on racist views about lineage that was founded on 18th century thoughts that had gained heavy acceptance in the culture of that time entirely.

 

All we have to know here is that basing something on lineage is not racism whether the explanation is wrong or not.

[BCSpace]

I quoted a statement from the article that unequivocally condemns all racism past and present.

 

But you quoted no statement that says the ban itself was racist.

[rockpond]

All we have to know here is that basing something on lineage is not racism whether the explanation is wrong or not.

 

How do you define that?  How do upi limit race to only skin color?  "African descent" is race.  Full stop.  Therefore, a ban defined by African descent is a racist ban. Simple English.