Church Specifically Disavows Priesthood Restriction Explanations

[CV75]

Seems to me that its only a problem if you have an over developed defensiveness when it comes to the Church,  you can still believe the Church is true in spite of the leadership from time to time.  Its only when you feel obligated to defend the leadership no matter what by-way they decide to travel down that it becomes problematic.

Interesting, since the identification of “the problem” I was addressing was what to do when one feels obligated to defend his own conclusions contrary to the leadership, no matter what. So there are at least two problems, seemingly rooted in one:

“…And there shall be no disputations among you, as there have hitherto been; neither shall there be disputations among you concerning the points of my doctrine, as there have hitherto been. For verily, verily I say unto you, he that hath the spirit of contention is not of me, but is of the devil, who is the father of contention, and he stirreth up the hearts of men to contend with anger, one with another. Behold, this is not my doctrine, to stir up the hearts of men with anger, one against another; but this is my doctrine, that such things should be done away.” (3 Nephi 11:28-30).

As long as the leadership isn't out to stir up the hearts of men with anger, there is no reason for dispute, and there is proably no reason to dispute anyway--the Lord makes the course corrections in His way and time, as Jacob 5 teaches.

[pogi]

Interesting, since the identification of “the problem” I was addressing was what to do when one feels obligated to defend his own conclusions contrary to the leadership, no matter what. So there are at least two problems, seemingly rooted in one:

“…And there shall be no disputations among you, as there have hitherto been; neither shall there be disputations among you concerning the points of my doctrine, as there have hitherto been. For verily, verily I say unto you, he that hath the spirit of contention is not of me, but is of the devil, who is the father of contention, and he stirreth up the hearts of men to contend with anger, one with another. Behold, this is not my doctrine, to stir up the hearts of men with anger, one against another; but this is my doctrine, that such things should be done away.” (3 Nephi 11:28-30).

 

Why do you suppose that questioning teachings must be done with anger and contention?  Somebody had to question these teachings for this new statement to come out.  Were the brethren wrong for disputing previous teachings?  Do we have to wait for the leaders to be dead before we can question them? 

 

As long as the leadership isn't out to stir up the hearts of men with anger, there is no reason for dispute, and there is proably no reason to dispute anyway--the Lord makes the course corrections in His way and time, as Jacob 5 teaches.

 

Sometimes the Lord's way is to influence the brethren from the roots up.

[rockpond]

Further to that, the new article says that the church condemns all forms of racism. The ban was a form of racism (a denial of rights based on race), so, by implication, is condemned. 

 

That is how I read the article.  It very clearly condemns racism past and present.  I'm not sure how you can rationalize an exclusion of the ban from that condemnation especially because they do not identify any inspiration/revelation behind it.  And, the concluding paragraph basically says that such a ban is not God's will (unless you can read that as it *was* his will but now it's not).

[CV75]

Why do you suppose that questioning teachings must be done with anger and contention?  Somebody had to question these teachings for this new statement to come out.  Were the brethren wrong for disputing previous teachings?  Do we have to wait for the leaders to be dead before we can question them?

 

Sometimes the Lord's way is to influence the brethren from the roots up.

I don't think that questioning teachings to elicit information and explanation must be done with anger and contention, but when it is, that is certainly a problem. Disputation and contention (heated argument, disagreement and debate with a sriving to compete and win) are not what the Lord wants, according to the scripture I've been posting. I'm sure LDS teachings have been both questioned and disputed from the start.

The Lord's way is for both members and leadership to work within the council system, and He can inspire anyone involved as long as they don't harbor the spirit of contention.

[thesometimesaint]

Further to that, the new article says that the church condemns all forms of racism. The ban was a form of racism (a denial of rights based on race), so, by implication, is condemned. 

 

NO ONE has any Right to the Priesthood. It is strictly a gift given by the Lord to whom he wants to give it to, when he wants to give it. Our feeble and sometimes wrongheaded efforts at explaining the ban are rightfully condemned and disavowed.

[cinepro]

NO ONE has any Right to the Priesthood. It is strictly a gift given by the Lord to whom he wants to give it to, when he wants to give it. Our feeble and sometimes wrongheaded efforts at explaining the ban are rightfully condemned and disavowed.

 

No one is saying that someone has the "right" to the priesthood.  We're just saying that if one righteous, faithful twelve year old boy is found worthy to have the priesthood, and his friend who is presumably equally faithful and righteous is denied the priesthood based solely on his race, then it's a racist policy.

 

I've said this before and I'll say it again.  The reason the "theories" explaining the ban were so popular is because without them, the ban makes absolutely no sense and it makes God look silly or stupid.  At least if it's based on an ancient curse, or some action in the pre-existence, we have something to go on that implies consistency and/or justice and/or wisdom.  We just have to have faith.

 

But take away those theories, and what are we left with?  We have to have faith in something that is patently unworkable and ineffective.

 

I don't believe the priesthood ban came from God not because of any sense of fairness or racial equality, but because a ban based on supposed genealogy wouldn't work after more than a few generations (if it even worked that long). If President Monson stood in conference and said God had told him that people with red hair and freckles, or bald people, or people with size 13 shoes, or people who are missing a limb,  couldn't have the priesthood or get their Temple blessings, we would laugh at the absurdity of it all.  We'd all be asking "Wait, what does that have to do with the Priesthood?  Why can't someone be married in the Temple just because they have red hair, or don't have two legs?"

 

But for some reason, we nodded our heads and had faith that somehow, God really didn't want people with dark skin and supposed African ancestry to have the priesthood, when it makes just as little sense.

 

And God just happened to want to implement this "priesthood ban" towards black people in the time and place and culture in which these same people would be facing extreme discrimination and persecution from the society at large.  If the ban wasn't related to this larger problem of discrimination, then it is perhaps the worst timing of anything ever, which is pretty odd to have happen to an omniscient being.

Edited December 10, 2013 by cinepro

[rockpond]

NO ONE has any Right to the Priesthood. It is strictly a gift given by the Lord to whom he wants to give it to, when he wants to give it. Our feeble and sometimes wrongheaded efforts at explaining the ban are rightfully condemned and disavowed.

 

Exactly.  It is up to God to decide who receives the priesthood and when.  Our attempts to restrict that gift gift based on a racially divided culture have been condemned by the church itself.

[Stone holm]

Exactly.  It is up to God to decide who receives the priesthood and when.  Our attempts to restrict that gift gift based on a racially divided culture have been condemned by the church itself.

 

Back during the ban, on some hometeaching assignments when the ban would come up,  my explanation was that the Priesthood was the Lord's and he could give or withold it from whomever He wanted, and if it wasn't the Lord's it wasn't worth having anyway.  Unfortunately, statements like that sometimes go astray with the people concluding that because of the ban the Priesthood must not be the Lord's, and the Priesthood was not the Lord's then the Church was not the Lord's either.  As a member of the local Stake 70 Quorum, there was a huge sigh of relief when the ban was lifted.

[CA Steve]

 

26 Pharaoh, being a righteous man, established his kingdom and judged his people wisely and justly all his days, seeking earnestly to imitate that ^aorder established by the fathers in the first generations, in the days of the first patriarchal reign, even in the reign of Adam, and also of Noah, his father, who blessed him with the ^bblessings of the earth, and with the blessings of wisdom, but cursed him as pertaining to the Priesthood.

 27 Now, Pharaoh being of that lineage by which he could not have the right of ^aPriesthood, notwithstanding the Pharaohs would fain ^bclaim it from Noah, through Ham, therefore my father was led away by their idolatry;

 

Doesn't the fact that the Book of Abraham specifically excludes an otherwise righteous man, Pharaoh, from the "right of the Priesthood" imply strongly that others have the right of Priesthood?

[thesometimesaint]

Exactly.  It is up to God to decide who receives the priesthood and when.  Our attempts to restrict that gift gift based on a racially divided culture have been condemned by the church itself.

 

The original ban on Priesthood listed in the Bible was anyone other than the first born son of a High Priest from the Tribe of Levi. I can only assume it was for whatever reason(s) God had. It is quite a stretch to say that that ban was racist by our modern day definition of race. Then Jesus put in place the ban on anyone not a Jew. It also would be quite a stretch that that ban was racist by our modern day definition of race. It had been long prophesied that the ban would someday be lifted. It was in 1978. I and virtually everyone in the Church welcomed the news. Also keep in mind that we still have a ban on women holding the Priesthood, but I don't foresee that ban being lifted anytime soon.

[thesometimesaint]

Doesn't the fact that the Book of Abraham specifically excludes an otherwise righteous man, Pharaoh, from the "right of the Priesthood" imply strongly that others have the right of Priesthood?

 

Lack of Priesthood is neither indicative of righteousness nor lack there of.

[CA Steve]

Lack of Priesthood is neither indicative of righteousness nor lack there of.

The term "right of the Preisthood' means that someone has those rights, otherwise the verse maks no sense.

[David T]

The original ban on Priesthood listed in the Bible was anyone other than the first born son of a High Priest from the Tribe of Levi. I can only assume it was for whatever reason(s) God had. It is quite a stretch to say that that ban was racist by our modern day definition of race. Then Jesus put in place the ban on anyone not a Jew. It also would be quite a stretch that that ban was racist by our modern day definition of race. It had been long prophesied that the ban would someday be lifted. It was in 1978. I and virtually everyone in the Church welcomed the news. Also keep in mind that we still have a ban on women holding the Priesthood, but I don't foresee that ban being lifted anytime soon.

 Levitical and Aaronid priests from the OT are of a completely different class and purpose than the modern ecclesiastical priesthood. The OT priests were temple assistants. They didn't call upon the power of heaven, they didn't give blessings or baptize. They set up the temple, cared for its devices, and performed ceremonial cleansing rituals on behalf of all of Israel, and the World. It wasn't the power of God they were viewed to hold. It wasn't seen as a qualification for exaltation or associated blessings. The comparrison between the modern notions of priesthood as wielders of God's Power and the OT notion of a perpetual servant class/tribe who appeased God with offerings, without having property or land of their own devoted is like comparing Apples and Elephants.

[Stone holm]

Interesting, since the identification of “the problem” I was addressing was what to do when one feels obligated to defend his own conclusions contrary to the leadership, no matter what. So there are at least two problems, seemingly rooted in one:

“…And there shall be no disputations among you, as there have hitherto been; neither shall there be disputations among you concerning the points of my doctrine, as there have hitherto been. For verily, verily I say unto you, he that hath the spirit of contention is not of me, but is of the devil, who is the father of contention, and he stirreth up the hearts of men to contend with anger, one with another. Behold, this is not my doctrine, to stir up the hearts of men with anger, one against another; but this is my doctrine, that such things should be done away.” (3 Nephi 11:28-30).

As long as the leadership isn't out to stir up the hearts of men with anger, there is no reason for dispute, and there is proably no reason to dispute anyway--the Lord makes the course corrections in His way and time, as Jacob 5 teaches.

 

Yep, great recipe for boredom, followed by stagnation, followed by fossilization....

[David T]

Doesn't the fact that the Book of Abraham specifically excludes an otherwise righteous man, Pharaoh, from the "right of the Priesthood" imply strongly that others have the right of Priesthood?

Of note, lots of assumptions regarding this story come from preconceived notions, and not closely reading the text. Also, right of priesthood in this context is very similar to what we would consider today as the 'Keys' of delegating the ordination to the Priesthood.See http://www.withoutend.org/adjusting-narrative-part-1cthe-priesthoods-abraham-pharaoh/

 

 

What is relevant is that Pharaoh’s line is traced though his mother – a Matriarchal line, which would have been understood to not have inherently transmitted the Birthright of Priesthood in the Patriarchal Order.

In other words, the lineage of the mothers would not have carried the right of Priesthood, which comes through the lineage of the fathers.

What is also interesting to note is that Pharaoh, who presumably was being raised in the land that his mother discovered and is named for, and geographically separate from his other Noachide cousins and uncles, is not said in the text to have claimed Patriarchal Priesthood authority for himself, but is understood to have been striving to ‘imitate’ it. Or perhaps, in other words, to reform his Mother’s way of leading things back to a way he would understand as being the ‘righteous’ way. After the pattern of the priesthood, but without the right to priesthood authority.

 

...

 

Pharaoh Prime appears geographically unable to have obtained it, and appears to have had parents cut off from the authoritative line for one reason or another. So he righteously imitates what he does know to the best of his ability.

Abraham, whose fathers had been cut off from the authoritative line because of Apostasy, actively seeks out ordination, is found worthy by Jehovah for his righteous desires, and is eventually put in contact with Melchizedek, Righteous King of Salem, from a branch off the Noachide Patriarchal line, to restore the right of Priesthood to Abraham’s branch of the tree.  (see Doctrine and Covenants 84:14, “Which Abraham received the priesthood from Melchizedek, who received it through the lineage of his fathers, even till Noah”)

 

This would place Abraham as a parallel to Melchizedek when he visits the Pharaoh of his day, with the opportunity to not only teach him the scriptural record, and to expound additional visionary doctrines, but to offer him the opportunity to accept and obtain, from an authoritative source, the Patriarchal Right of Priesthood.

 

Edited December 10, 2013 by David T

[rockpond]

The original ban on Priesthood listed in the Bible was anyone other than the first born son of a High Priest from the Tribe of Levi. I can only assume it was for whatever reason(s) God had. It is quite a stretch to say that that ban was racist by our modern day definition of race. Then Jesus put in place the ban on anyone not a Jew. It also would be quite a stretch that that ban was racist by our modern day definition of race. It had been long prophesied that the ban would someday be lifted. It was in 1978. I and virtually everyone in the Church welcomed the news. Also keep in mind that we still have a ban on women holding the Priesthood, but I don't foresee that ban being lifted anytime soon.

 

I can't speak to priesthood restrictions from Old or New Testament times.  What I know is that the latter day dispensation priesthood ban was racist.  Just by the very definition of the word (modern and otherwise).  Furthermore the church, in this latest statement, has called it racist.  And condemned it.  I've read the article and I don't know any other way around those facts.

 

I'm confused at how we have disavowed all of the teachings about the ban except for promises that it would one day be lifted.  And the promise by Brigham Young has been altered from a millennial restoration to "someday".  You have to do the mental gymnastics to accept the fact that the church has now said:  we don't know why there was a ban and we'd like to ignore everything we ever taught about the ban EXCEPT that some apostles said it would eventually end.

 

And yes, current priesthood restrictions are sexist.  Again, this is just applying the actual meanings of words.  Each of us have to ponder on our own rather that's a bad thing or not.

[CV75]

Yep, great recipe for boredom, followed by stagnation, followed by fossilization....

Sez you!

[canard78]

NO ONE has any Right to the Priesthood. It is strictly a gift given by the Lord to whom he wants to give it to, when he wants to give it. Our feeble and sometimes wrongheaded efforts at explaining the ban are rightfully condemned and disavowed.

 

I think you're hanging on a word for the sake of it when you know very well what I meant.

 

How about people being denied the opportunity to pray in sacrament meeting because of their race?

How about people (men and women) not welcome to do baptisms for the dead? An ordinance for which no priesthood is required and yet all blacks were barred from all temple ordinances.

 

The only thing that disqualified them was their race. Can you really say that's not a form of racism.

[canard78]

The original ban on Priesthood listed in the Bible was anyone other than the first born son of a High Priest from the Tribe of Levi. I can only assume it was for whatever reason(s) God had. It is quite a stretch to say that that ban was racist by our modern day definition of race. Then Jesus put in place the ban on anyone not a Jew. It also would be quite a stretch that that ban was racist by our modern day definition of race. It had been long prophesied that the ban would someday be lifted. It was in 1978. I and virtually everyone in the Church welcomed the news. Also keep in mind that we still have a ban on women holding the Priesthood, but I don't foresee that ban being lifted anytime soon.

 

Given you have a divine source for the tribe of Levi being the only ones having the priesthood, would you care to show where God mandated that black Africans should be denied it after 1852? Why was it fine from 1829 to 1852 (or possibly 1847) and fine after 1978? Where's the instruction from on high to deny the black africans the priesthood?

[thesometimesaint]

I think you're hanging on a word for the sake of it when you know very well what I meant.

 

How about people being denied the opportunity to pray in sacrament meeting because of their race?

How about people (men and women) not welcome to do baptisms for the dead? An ordinance for which no priesthood is required and yet all blacks were barred from all temple ordinances.

 

The only thing that disqualified them was their race. Can you really say that's not a form of racism.

 

There is no right to pray in any public forum in the Church. If you watch closely it is relatively few that ever get asked upon to offer the prayers in our Church meetings. Generally the further back you are in the Chapel the less likely you are to get called upon.

 

There is no right to any function of the Priesthood. I never said that racism hasn't/doesn't exist in some members  of the Church. It is lamentable, and those that practice it today are in much need of repentance. The simple fact remains that it is God that gets to choose. I don't believe God is a racist. But for his own purposes includes or excludes the Priesthood for some. My own opinion is that the ban wasn't a trial to the faithful black members of the Church, but to the prejudicial white ones.

[rockpond]

There is no right to pray in any public forum in the Church. If you watch closely it is relatively few that ever get asked upon to offer the prayers in our Church meetings. Generally the further back you are in the Chapel the less likely you are to get called upon.

 

There is no right to any function of the Priesthood. I never said that racism hasn't/doesn't exist in some members  of the Church. It is lamentable, and those that practice it today are in much need of repentance. The simple fact remains that it is God that gets to choose. I don't believe God is a racist. But for his own purposes includes or excludes the Priesthood for some. My own opinion is that the ban wasn't a trial to the faithful black members of the Church, but to the prejudicial white ones.

 

Are you asserting that God chose to not allow blacks to hold the priesthood from (circa) 1850 until 1978?  And if it was God that made that choice, where is the evidence?

 

p.s.  Our ward's Exec Secretary works very hard to make sure that every active member is on the Sacrament meeting prayer rotation.  (Just had to mention that since he could take an easier route to prayer invitations but he actually calls people on Saturday and keeps track of it in a spreadsheet.)

[Stone holm]

Are you asserting that God chose to not allow blacks to hold the priesthood from (circa) 1850 until 1978?  And if it was God that made that choice, where is the evidence?

 

p.s.  Our ward's Exec Secretary works very hard to make sure that every active member is on the Sacrament meeting prayer rotation.  (Just had to mention that since he could take an easier route to prayer invitations but he actually calls people on Saturday and keeps track of it in a spreadsheet.)

 

What other conclusion is there if none of the Prophets moved until 1978 to lift the ban?  Pres. McKay reputedly prayed about it and got no answer?

[bluebell]

What other conclusion is there if none of the Prophets moved until 1978 to lift the ban?  Pres. McKay reputedly prayed about it and got no answer?

 

The church relates that McKay did not feel he should lift the ban. Perhaps they related it in a weird way where the meaning is muddied, but that seems to be saying that he felt he got an answer, and that it was not to lift it.

[juliann]

Interesting, since the identification of “the problem” I was addressing was what to do when one feels obligated to defend his own conclusions contrary to the leadership, no matter what. So there are at least two problems, seemingly rooted in one:

“…And there shall be no disputations among you, as there have hitherto been; neither shall there be disputations among you concerning the points of my doctrine, as there have hitherto been. For verily, verily I say unto you, he that hath the spirit of contention is not of me, but is of the devil, who is the father of contention, and he stirreth up the hearts of men to contend with anger, one with another. Behold, this is not my doctrine, to stir up the hearts of men with anger, one against another; but this is my doctrine, that such things should be done away.” (3 Nephi 11:28-30).

As long as the leadership isn't out to stir up the hearts of men with anger, there is no reason for dispute, and there is proably no reason to dispute anyway--the Lord makes the course corrections in His way and time, as Jacob 5 teaches.

This also applies to those who attack those who ask questions or present different viewpoints that are "contrary to the leadership".  I don't know why you think this only applies to the other guy.  

[thesometimesaint]

Are you asserting that God chose to not allow blacks to hold the priesthood from (circa) 1850 until 1978?  And if it was God that made that choice, where is the evidence?

 

p.s.  Our ward's Exec Secretary works very hard to make sure that every active member is on the Sacrament meeting prayer rotation.  (Just had to mention that since he could take an easier route to prayer invitations but he actually calls people on Saturday and keeps track of it in a spreadsheet.)

 

Yes for whatever reason(s) God chose to do just that. We error when we impose our ideas as to the reason(s) God made that decision. The evidence is in the Bible. The first listed ban on Priesthood was that only the first born son of a High Priest from the tribe of Levi could hold the Priesthood. Later Jesus imposed a ban on anyone not a Jew from holding the Priesthood. Even today women are refused the Priesthood. I don't have any reason to believe God doesn't like the non first born son of High Priests from the tribe of Levi, non Jews, or women.

 

Good for him. My experience over many years, Exec Secretaries, in Branches and Wards across the country is different.