Church Specifically Disavows Priesthood Restriction Explanations

[Stone holm]

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.

 

You want to translate that into English?

[Sevenbak]

I guess we now know why Mitt Romney pulled over and cried.

[Duncan]

Correlation isn't causation.

 

 

I tend to agree but I think that this is a reaction of sorts to the whole Randy Bott situation and so discussing it, drafting it up and puting it online and stuff takes time so possibly the Mandela passing was just a coincidence or something?

[rockpond]

This is an official statement signed by the First Presidency.

BCSpace, you stated earlier:

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?

I guess so. That 1949 letter has now been disavowed.

[cinepro]

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.

 

If President Hinckley stood and asked "How can any man arrogantly assume that a person must be baptized by proper Priesthood authority to enter the Celestial Kingdom?", wouldn't your answer likewise be "Because that's the doctrine"?

 

So why isn't your answer to his question about the Priesthood being denied to blacks "Because sometimes God commands it"?

[Danzo]

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.

 

 

And that is the problem.

 

Why would one be ashamed just because the perpetrators of an injustice happen to have the same color of skin?

 

We are responsible for our own sins and not the sins of people who share certain physical characteristics with us. (just because they share them)

[Brian 2.0]

I don't think you will get them to assume now what prophets past knew and didn't know. What revelation they received and what opinions that pushed forward.

I think this article shows the church doing exactly just that.

What is the difference between disavowing a theory or supposed racial statement and disavowing the ban?

Isn't this very article from the church drawing a line in the sand and saying that the theories put forth for the ban by prophets and apostles are opinions and not revelations? And that they are wrong?

How can they do that? How can they assume now what those prophets in the past knew and didn't know? How can they assume what theories were opinions and what were revelations?

Edited December 8, 2013 by Brian 2.0

[DBMormon]

BCSpace - Do you actually believe that the Brethren (top 15 men) of today are sure this was not based on racism?

 

                -  If you do not believe they are certain (after reading Elder Holland's quote that I sent) why are you so certain when they do not claim certainity?

 

               -  If you feel they are not certain and yet you still presume to be certain, how do you reconcile that?

[DBMormon]

I think this article shows the church doing exactly just that!

What is the difference between disavowing a theory or supposed racial statement and disavowing the ban?

Isn't this very article from the church drawing a line in the sand and saying that the theories put forth for the ban by prophets and apostles are opinions and not revelations? And that they are wrong?

How can they do that? How can they assume now what those prophets in the past knew and didn't know? How can they assume what theories were opinions and what were revelations?

 

 

Perhaps the revelation in 78' entailed an understanding that the reasons were invalid but did not address the ban itself as from or not from GOD.

 

In other words they may have come face to face with the fact that our reasoning for why the ban occurred could was faulty but perhaps the revelation did not address the rightness or wrongness of the ban itself.  Without that important piece of information you run the risk of being wrong if you decide to address the correctness of the ban itself.  They have gone as far as they can.  That said, I am personally comfortable with the Church Leaders having been racist (some absolutely were) and the Church still being true;  and I am comfortable with the institution having a racist and wrong policy for a time (acknowledging that this hurt and offended 100's of thousands, perhaps millions who were aware) and the Church still be true.

[Brian 2.0]

Perhaps the revelation in 78' entailed an understanding that the reasons were invalid but did not address the ban itself as from or not from GOD.

In other words they may have come face to face with the fact that our reasoning for why the ban occurred could was faulty but perhaps the revelation did not address the rightness or wrongness of the ban itself. Without that important piece of information you run the risk of being wrong if you decide to address the correctness of the ban itself. They have gone as far as they can. That said, I am personally comfortable with the Church Leaders having been racist (some absolutely were) and the Church still being true; and I am comfortable with the institution having a racist and wrong policy for a time (acknowledging that this hurt and offended 100's of thousands, perhaps millions who were aware) and the Church still be true.

I totally agree with your last sentiments and this article is sooo close to that. I just wish it went there. Even if it was "we don't know why it was put in place, but for our perspective in looking at the history of policy we do not feel that it was instituted by revelation. We think it's implementation was wrong as it goes against scripture that all are alike unto God. We are sorry for the pain the policy has caused and are thankful it I was repealed in 1978." Edited December 8, 2013 by Brian 2.0

[CV75]

This, in its specifics, detail, and candor,  is brand new, and huge:

 

https://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng

 

 

The whole longform article is amazing, placing the restriction in a cultural and historical context, and not defending anywhere the idea that it represented God's will at any point. No more justifications with comparisons of OT restriction of Priesthood to Levites. This is huge.

 

Share this far and wide.

Cool! "Since that day in 1978, the Church has looked to the future, as membership among Africans, African Americans and others of African descent has continued to grow rapidly." I've been thinking about this is relation to Jacob 5:21-23, in the sense that the exclusion can be looked at as a poor spot of ground, and yet the Lord works with it to bring forth much fruit.

[foster]

Brian 2.0, what would it say about the Church, if the Church were to adopt your position? How would you address that the one and only true Church operated on a false doctrine and acting counter to the Commands and edicts of God (all are equal) for nearly the majority of its existence?

[Rivers]

Great article. It's great because we can now refer questioning people to an official church source rather than FAIR. I look forward to more of theses types of articles on LDS.org.

This article seems like an extended version of the new OD2 heading. I get the impression that the church simply doesn't know whether there was an inspired origin for the ban or not.

[pogi]

I get the impression that the church simply doesn't know whether there was an inspired origin for the ban or not.

 

I get that impression too.  It makes one wonder how much of what we do is blind obedience.  I am not saying that the ban wasn't inspired of the Lord, but if the brethren are not sure - this should teach us all an important lesson to not just accept what the brethren say on blind faith, but to pray and seek for assurance from the Lord in faith and humility.

 

It makes one wonder however, what good would it  do if you found out it was not a doctrine.  What could you do about it?  No doubt, you would be viewed as a nay sayer who does not sustain his leaders.

 

“In all humility I must say that God has not inspired me to feel good about the Church’s practices regarding Negroes.... when my wife and I went to San Francisco Ward’s bishop to renew our temple recommends, he told us that anyone who could not accept the Church’s stand on Negroes as a divine doctrine was not supporting the General Authorities and could not go to the temple. Later, in an interview with the stake president we were told the same thing: if you express doubts about the divinity of this ‘doctrine’ you cannot go to the temple.”

 

- Grant Syphers, LDS scholar, Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Winter 1967, p. 6

[thesometimesaint]

I tend to agree but I think that this is a reaction of sorts to the whole Randy Bott situation and so discussing it, drafting it up and puting it online and stuff takes time so possibly the Mandela passing was just a coincidence or something?

 

The world has known about Mandela's pending death for months now. He was 95 for heavens sake. But I don't see our publication as a result of his incipient death either. The piece itself is just a complication of articles already published by the Church. Good to have, but nothing really new.

[thesometimesaint]

 

I get that impression too.  It makes one wonder how much of what we do is blind obedience.  I am not saying that the ban wasn't inspired of the Lord, but if the brethren are not sure - this should teach us all an important lesson to not just accept what the brethren say on blind faith, but to pray and seek for assurance from the Lord in faith and humility.

 

It makes one wonder however, what good would it  do if you found out it was not a doctrine.  What could you do about it?  No doubt, you would be viewed as a nay sayer who does not sustain his leaders.

 

“In all humility I must say that God has not inspired me to feel good about the Church’s practices regarding Negroes.... when my wife and I went to San Francisco Ward’s bishop to renew our temple recommends, he told us that anyone who could not accept the Church’s stand on Negroes as a divine doctrine was not supporting the General Authorities and could not go to the temple. Later, in an interview with the stake president we were told the same thing: if you express doubts about the divinity of this ‘doctrine’ you cannot go to the temple.”

 

- Grant Syphers, LDS scholar, Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Winter 1967, p. 6

 

 

I can only go by my experience. My views on the Ban were well known by my Bishop and Stake President I still went through the Temple in 1971.

[CV75]

 

I get that impression too.  It makes one wonder how much of what we do is blind obedience.  I am not saying that the ban wasn't inspired of the Lord, but if the brethren are not sure - this should teach us all an important lesson to not just accept what the brethren say on blind faith, but to pray and seek for assurance from the Lord in faith and humility.

 

It makes one wonder however, what good would it  do if you found out it was not a doctrine.  What could you do about it?  No doubt, you would be viewed as a nay sayer who does not sustain his leaders.

 

“In all humility I must say that God has not inspired me to feel good about the Church’s practices regarding Negroes.... when my wife and I went to San Francisco Ward’s bishop to renew our temple recommends, he told us that anyone who could not accept the Church’s stand on Negroes as a divine doctrine was not supporting the General Authorities and could not go to the temple. Later, in an interview with the stake president we were told the same thing: if you express doubts about the divinity of this ‘doctrine’ you cannot go to the temple.”

 

- Grant Syphers, LDS scholar, Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Winter 1967, p. 6

 

"Since that day in 1978, the Church has looked to the future, as membership among Africans, African Americans and others of African descent has continued to grow rapidly." Dredging up individuals’ take on the matter as they lived it in the past (whether for or against) seems to promote an air of enmity that keeps folks from staying in the present and looking to the future. Learning from the past is a different matter (and one lesson from the past is definitely to stay in the present and look to the future).

 

I don’t think the lesson in this case is to wonder what else is wrong, especially at the expense of pursuing understanding of all else that is right. The lesson “to not just accept what the brethren say on blind faith, but to pray and seek for assurance from the Lord in faith and humility” has been promoted from the start in the Church, so that lesson is already with us.

 

I think the thing to do with resulting disagreements over doctrine, above all, is to use sufficient faith and humility to understand and promote everything else in the system that is right. No disagreement should be so severe that it instigates enmity and contention among the flock. I think if we make enough right in our own life and relationships, coming across as naysayers or undermining our leaders wouldn’t be an issue.

[Tacenda]

Reading these posts here and on other threads, make me realize the importance of a relationship with Christ more than ever.  Not leaning too much on the statements from men.  Our church is man made like all others, yes we believe in revelation, but men receive it and may get it wrong.  Go by our own revelation and God-given intuitions.  No wonder our bible is filled with violence, too many thought they were revealed a revelation with authority, when they didn't.  So many scriptures are really just journal keeping of someone's twisted form of a thought they thought came from God.  Read the red letter bible for this, Jesus' words.  All religions are manmade period.  It's left up to us to take what we get and ponder and pray about it, not accept blindly.  MMM occurred from misguided leaders.  Too many horrors come from false revelation.  If it feels wrong, it probably is.  We need to get it back to a relationship with Christ, no matter how EV that sounds.          

[thesometimesaint]

Reading these posts here and on other threads, make me realize the importance of a relationship with Christ more than ever.  Not leaning too much on the statements from men.  Our church is man made like all others, yes we believe in revelation, but men receive it and may get it wrong.  Go by our own revelation and God-given intuitions.  No wonder our bible is filled with violence, too many thought they were revealed a revelation with authority, when they didn't.  So many scriptures are really just journal keeping of someone's twisted form of a thought they thought came from God.  Read the red letter bible for this, Jesus' words.  All religions are manmade period.  It's left up to us to take what we get and ponder and pray about it, not accept blindly.  MMM occurred from misguided leaders.  Too many horrors come from false revelation.  If it feels wrong, it probably is.  We need to get it back to a relationship with Christ, no matter how EV that sounds.          

 

The Scriptures are also replete with men not listening to God, even if they were good men. I never left my relationship with God even if I sometimes need to repent for my screw-ups.

[rockpond]

Brian 2.0, what would it say about the Church, if the Church were to adopt your position? How would you address that the one and only true Church operated on a false doctrine and acting counter to the Commands and edicts of God (all are equal) for nearly the majority of its existence?

 

This wasn't directed at me but I'd like to give my answer...

 

The church is led by divinely inspired men who, nevertheless, retain their agency.  They are mortal and fallible.  Mistakes were made and are likely still being made.  And they are being corrected.  The restoration continues.

[pogi]

 

I don’t think the lesson in this case is to wonder what else is wrong

 

 

That wasn't my point.  I never insinuated that.

 

The lesson “to not just accept what the brethren say on blind faith, but to pray and seek for assurance from the Lord in faith and humility” has been promoted from the start in the Church, so that lesson is already with us.

 

Exactly.  I am simply wondering how well we are doing as a church at doing this.  All of these false teachings from the authorities that tried to explain the ban would not have been spread like wild-fire had we been practicing the above council and lesson.

 

 

I think the thing to do with resulting disagreements over doctrine, above all, is to use sufficient faith and humility to understand and promote everything else in the system that is right. 

 

In other words, close your eyes to what is wrong and only look at what is right.  

 

No disagreement should be so severe that it instigates enmity and contention among the flock. I think if we make enough right in our own life and relationships, coming across as naysayers or undermining our leaders wouldn’t be an issue.

 

So, we should just let the fire spread?    What about the enmity and contention that was created from the false teaching in the first place?  Wouldn't your approach of silence make us accomplices in the spread of hurtful teachings and beliefs that create "enmity and contention among the flock"?

[thesometimesaint]

Motes and beams.

[Tacenda]

The Scriptures are also replete with men not listening to God, even if they were good men. I never left my relationship with God even if I sometimes need to repent for my screw-ups.

True, not the sentence on screw ups, we all do. But the scriptures of men not listening, thanks, I forgot about that. And I'm one to talk about the relationship thing.

[pogi]

Motes and beams.

 

You fundamentally misunderstand my purpose.  I do not think that we should go about looking for problems in the church and start a loud opposition to any problems that we find.  Indeed, such a trouble-seeker would not be in-tune to know if a teaching was true or not.  

 

We are however asked to pray about doctrines and teachings that come from the authorities and not just blindly accept whatever is taught. 

 

You prove my point in that one cannot raise a concern about a teaching without being viewed as a mote-seeker.  Do you too find it appropriate to simply let hurtful teachings spread?

 

What is one to do in the pursuit of truth (not fault-finding) and stumbles upon a false teaching that is causing much hurt?

Edited December 8, 2013 by pogi

[canard78]

Brian 2.0, what would it say about the Church, if the Church were to adopt your position? How would you address that the one and only true Church operated on a false doctrine and acting counter to the Commands and edicts of God (all are equal) for nearly the majority of its existence?

We're not members of "the one and only true church." We've never claimed to be.

What we do claim is the "only true and living church with which The Lord is well-pleased." This said in the context of a section that reminds the church and its leaders of their human limitations.

None of the prophets are exempt from "seeing through a glass darkly."