Church Specifically Disavows Priesthood Restriction Explanations

[rockpond]

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

 

As I've said, the ban was racist because it was based on the race of the individual (African descent).  You are trying to separate the two words:  lineage & race as if they are mutually exclusive but they are not.

[David T]

From the new heading to OD2:

The revelation came to Church President Spencer W. Kimball and was affirmed to other Church leaders in the Salt Lake Temple on June 1, 1978. The revelation removed all restrictions with regard to race that once applied to the priesthood.

[BCSpace]

The revelation came to Church President Spencer W. Kimball and was affirmed to other Church leaders in the Salt Lake Temple on June 1, 1978. The revelation removed all restrictions with regard to race that once applied to the priesthood.

 

Indeed.  Race was an identifying factor in the application of the ban.

[CA Steve]

As I've said, the ban was racist because it was based on the race of the individual (African descent).  You are trying to separate the two words:  lineage & race as if they are mutually exclusive but they are not.

What does the DNA of Cain look like?

[BlueDreams]

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

 

No, you also have to know whether the definition actually fits. Lineage would have been that the people of igbo and yoruba lines can't have the priesthood and then give all of the various reasons surrounding it. I might call it wrong, but it's not racist. Instead they chose everyone in Africa....all of black african decsent, and painted that as a "lineage" (it's not a line, but several that outside conquering whites decided were all one lump rather than diverse peoples). It's simply a re-definition of race to fit into the linear and simplistic viewpoint of people found in the 19th century U.S. In this case, lieange is racism...because the lineage as used is defined as an entire race of people and the social proscribed view of race developing that all people with any black descent were also black. 

 

With luv,

BD

[BCSpace]

As I've said, the ban was racist because it was based on the race of the individual (African descent).  You are trying to separate the two words:  lineage & race as if they are mutually exclusive but they are not.

 

While both involve heredity, indeed they are different concepts.  Race is determine by something visible or apparent in behavior.  For example, a person might have white skin and straight hair but nothing to outwardly determine that he has some black Africans in his lineage.  The ban did not come about, from any explanation that I know of disavowed or not, because of something visible (like skin color) or otherwise apparent (culture).  Hence the ban was not racist.

Edited December 7, 2013 by BCSpace

[Senator]

Without offering any analysis or proof texting, the simple impression that I received from the article was that a wrong was righted. The wrong being racism(in the church and its host culture at large).

[canard78]

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.

 

Seriously? You believe that race is solely defined by the colour of your skin?

 

Race is a classification system used to categorize humans into large and distinct populations or groups by anatomical, cultural, ethnic, genetic, geographical, historical, linguistic, religious, and/or social affiliation.

 

 

Black Africans (Negroes) were banned from having the priesthood. They are a race. The policy was racist.

[canard78]

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

 

Do you understand English? Or do you just make your own definition for words as you go along?

[cinepro]

What a great article.  My only hope it that it will be made easier to find on the Church website.  There doesn't appear to be a link to it from the main page or the newsroom sections of the site.  And of course a direct link from the online D&C OD2 would be good.  

 

I rarely go totally off-manual for my EQ lessons, but I think my lesson next week will cover this new article for at least a few minutes.  It would be great to have Church members made aware of this updated article through an announcement in Sacrament meetings all over the world.  

 

It would also have been helpful to have it available when the priesthood/temple ban was discussed in Sunday School a few weeks ago.

[canard78]

I

 

What a great article.  My only hope it that it will be made easier to find on the Church website.  There doesn't appear to be a link to it from the main page or the newsroom sections of the site.  And of course a direct link from the online D&C OD2 would be good.  

 

I rarely go totally off-manual for my EQ lessons, but I think my lesson next week will cover this new article for at least a few minutes.  It would be great to have Church members made aware of this updated article through an announcement in Sacrament meetings all over the world.  

 

It would also have been helpful to have it available when the priesthood/temple ban was discussed in Sunday School a few weeks ago.

 

There's always 2017

[rockpond]

While both involve heredity, indeed they are different concepts. Race is determine by something visible or apparent in behavior. For example, a person might have white skin and straight hair but nothing to outwardly determine that he has some black Africans in his lineage. The ban did not come about, from any explanation that I know of disavowed or not, because of something visible (like skin color) or otherwise apparent (culture). Hence the ban was not racist.

CFR that race is defined solely by a visible characteristic or apparent behavior?

OD2 acknowledges that the ban was based on race and you seemingly agreed when you replied "indeed".

The ban was racist.

[rockpond]

What does the DNA of Cain look like?

 

We don't know and the ban wasn't based on the DNA of Cain.

[foster]

 So "The church condemns all racism past and present...except what we did wasn't racism, oh, wait... why are we saying anything at all, nevermind."     Yes, by any definition of racism the doctrine that the church put into place and upheld was racist.  It is an ugly word, we don't like it, but we can't insert "except for Mormons" in everyone's dictionaries.   Perhaps you do not recall Pres. Hinckley's shockingly worded statement that anyone who thought that someone was not eligible for the priesthood because of race was arrogant.  He also did not include a footnote saying "except all of us prophets....". 

 

 

The article from the Church refers to African lineage, do you equate that with race?  The statement from President Hinckley was giving in 2006 and concerned the current state of affairs in the Church that President Hinckley was concerned about. It is a stretch to take President Hinckleys statement and apply it individuals long past. There is plenty of room in the Mormon Cafeteria for you condemn the pre-1978 Church and the Prophets prior to the ban being reversed, that is you choice. There is plenty of room in the cafeteria for me to disagree.

 

And yes, there is plenty of room for the LDS hold firm that what is wrong in one instance is not wrong in another instance. When the Church condemns itself and the prior Prophets are being racist, I am sure you will then be in a position to make such a judgment. At the moment, you nor I have the authority (though you have the audacity) to label the Church as racist and its prior Prophets.

[foster]

presentism is abound in this discussion.

[canard78]

CFR that race is defined solely by a visible characteristic or apparent behavior? OD2 acknowledges that the ban was based on race and you seemingly agreed when you replied "indeed". The ban was racist.

 

Good luck. BC Space seems to delight in ignoring CFRs or answers them with meaningless references.

[rockpond]

The article from the Church refers to African lineage, do you equate that with race?  The statement from President Hinckley was giving in 2006 and concerned the current state of affairs in the Church that President Hinckley was concerned about. It is a stretch to take President Hinckleys statement and apply it individuals long past. There is plenty of room in the Mormon Cafeteria for you condemn the pre-1978 Church and the Prophets prior to the ban being reversed, that is you choice. There is plenty of room in the cafeteria for me to disagree.

 

And yes, there is plenty of room for the LDS hold firm that what is wrong in one instance is not wrong in another instance. When the Church condemns itself and the prior Prophets are being racist, I am sure you will then be in a position to make such a judgment. At the moment, you nor I have the authority (though you have the audacity) to label the Church as racist and its prior Prophets.

 

Our own canon calls the priesthood/temple ban racist.  From OD2:

 

"The revelation removed all restrictions with regard to race that once applied to the priesthood."

 

and

 

"Accordingly, all worthy male members of the Church may be ordained to the priesthood without regard for race or color."

 

I'm not calling any individual a racist.  But the ban itself was racist.  President Hinckley's statement from 2006 has been reinforced and cited in this 2013 article published by the church.  The church has, from its own website, condemned racism which by definition includes the priesthood/temple ban.

[rockpond]

presentism is abound in this discussion.

 

How so?

[cinepro]

The statement from President Hinckley was giving in 2006 and concerned the current state of affairs in the Church that President Hinckley was concerned about. It is a stretch to take President Hinckleys statement and apply it individuals long past. There is plenty of room in the Mormon Cafeteria for you condemn the pre-1978 Church and the Prophets prior to the ban being reversed, that is you choice. There is plenty of room in the cafeteria for me to disagree.

 

Actually, President Hinckley's statement has to also apply to past (pre-1978) Church leaders, otherwise the answer to his question would be this:

 

Hinckley: 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?

 

Racist LDS: Because sometimes God commands that it be so.

 

 

The situation he mentions in his question was Church policy until 1978, so if it was okay before 1978, he would need to say "How can any man holding the Melchizedek Priesthood, after 1978, 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?"

 

Otherwise, it's just as bad to assume it in 1960 as it is in 2006.  Don't let what you want him to have said blur your understanding of what he actually did (or didn't) say.

[Stone holm]

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

I agree, except, I believe the concept of lineage towards the end was invoked to try and limit the extent of the ban. Why it was thought appropriate to limit it in this manner is quite beyond me. I remember being vaguely uncomfortable with the notion that certain blacks the missionaries taught and certain ones they didn't. Even the missionaries appeared a bit confused at times.

[foster]

 

 

Don't let what you want him to have said blur your understanding of what he actually did (or didn't) say.

 

yes, one should not take a statement given in the context of the current and immediate concerns of the Prophet and apply that statement to situations the Prophet was not addressing.

[rockpond]

I'm curious... 

 

There seem to be those on this thread who are very opposed to referring to the ban as racist.  And there are also people on this thread who seem opposed to assertions that the church has now publicly condemned the priesthood/temple ban.

 

I'm wondering why?  Why is it important to you to make sure it isn't labeled as racist?  And why it's important to NOT condemn the ban?

 

Is it possible for us to pull back from the debate over whether it "is or isn't" and try to understand one another's feelings behind our comments?  Or have I gone off the deep end?

[omni]

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.

 

 

 

 

This is an official statement signed by the First Presidency.

 

 

August 17, 1949

 The attitude of the Church with reference to Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the priesthood at the present time. The prophets of the Lord have made several statements as to the operation of the principle. President Brigham Young said: "Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a skin of blackness? It comes in consequence of their fathers rejecting the power of the holy priesthood, and the law of God. They will go down to death. And when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the holy priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will then come up and possess the priesthood, and receive all the blessings which we now are entitled to."

President Wilford Woodruff made the following statement: "The day will come when all that race will be redeemed and possess all the blessings which we now have."

The position of the Church regarding the Negro may be understood when another doctrine of the Church is kept in mind, namely, that the conduct of spirits in the premortal existence has some determining effect upon the conditions and circumstances under which these spirits take on mortality and that while the details of this principle have not been made known, the mortality is a privilege that is given to those who maintain their first estate; and that the worth of the privilege is so great that spirits are willing to come to earth and take on bodies no matter what the handicap may be as to the kind of bodies they are to secure; and that among the handicaps, failure of the right to enjoy in mortality the blessings of the priesthood is a handicap which spirits are willing to assume in order that they might come to earth. Under this principle there is no injustice whatsoever involved in this deprivation as to the holding of the priesthood by the Negroes.

 

 

 

 

BCSpace, you stated earlier:

 

 

1) Whatever the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints officially publishes without a disclaimer (the Bible Dictionary is an example of such a disclaimer) stating otherwise and of latest date (recognizing ongoing inspiration/revelation) is the official doctrine of the Church whether we personally believe it or not.  This is shown in several official statements (a link in my siggy for one) and current publications of the Church (Teaching, No Greater Call and others).

 

 

This can't simply be dismissed as "the prophet was speaking as a man" or some off-the-cuff remark, this is an official signed statement from the First Presidency.   So if you accept the current official doctrine that premortal conduct had no bearing on the priesthood ban, was the First Presidency teaching false doctrine in the 1949 statement?  

[omni]

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

 

I'm still trying to figure out why it's okay for us to believe that a priesthood ban based on lineage is good, but a ban based on race is bad?  

Edited December 8, 2013 by omni

[Tacenda]

Right now 48 hrs. has a special on Nelson Mandela. Makes me ashamed of my race for ever treating the blacks the way they did.