What Is It About White Men?

[JLHPROF]

But don't you find it curious that for the last two thousand years, NONE of these bans affected white men?  Of course, I guess it could be argued that ALL mankind experienced the ban during the time between the Great Apostacy and the Restoration.  But can you think of a time when white men didn't hold the priesthood and others did?  

 

I can think of a time when the priesthood was limited to only one lineage (and so can you).

 

When the only priesthood available was the Aaronic Priesthood only the tribe of Levi were eligible to hold it.  That meant that during the decline of the Mosaic dispensation (from Moses, who held the Melchezidek priesthood, from his death until the time of Christ) the only priesthood available was Aaronic and all races, black, white, and any other race were banned from what priesthood was available unless they descended through Levi/Aaron.

 

Priesthood is:

1. Authority to act in God's name given to those whom He would have acting in his name at a given time.

2. Foreordained in the pre-existence (see Alma 13 & numerous GA quotes).

[mercyngrace]

Agreed and please accept my apologies.  To attribute a single mindset to one group of people is by definition racist.  I've tried to reword my original post to make that clear, but I still think the issue needs to be addressed because the "God likes us best" mindset seems to be something unique to SOME white men (obviously, not YOU).

I'm not a white MAN but lump me in with Anijen where the PH ban is concerned.

 

Also, I don't think the problem is WHITE men but just men with power per D&C 121. 

[stemelbow]

The reason is probably due to nothing more than this:

 

 We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion.

[Anijen]

And I think you vastly underestimate how unworkable a lack of a ban would have become in pre-Civil Rights Era America. The Klan would not have been happy, to say the least, with a church in which blacks at any time could be given authority over whites. Even race-based wards would not have been safe, because of stake callings. Or, the Church could have had a policy, official or otherwise, that blacks just wouldn't be given leadership callings. Which also would have been a problem.

When we get to the other side and see the grand course of human history, I suspect that we will learn that the Ban was the most efficient way of teaching whites that they were being stupid.

You are correct I underestimate a lot of things. Although I disagreed with the absolute "all white men" I do believe I fall into the stupid category and a few times I have climbed out of that category only to realize I fall back in at times...

[Avatar4321]

The priesthood isn't given to us to exercise authority over others. It's given to us to serve others. To have the Priesthood after the Order of the Son of God is to have a responsibility to serve.

 

And it's His Priesthood. If God wants to say only men with red hair can serve in the priesthood, it's His right to choose who serves Him in that capacity. It's not an honor we take upon ourselves. If you believe that when the priesthood has been conferred upon you that you have any authority over another man, then amen to that priesthood.

 

The priesthood that is given to us is given to us so that we bless others with it, not ourselves.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

And I think you vastly underestimate how unworkable a lack of a ban would have become in pre-Civil Rights Era America. The Klan would not have been happy, to say the least, with a church in which blacks at any time could be given authority over whites. Even race-based wards would not have been safe, because of stake callings. Or, the Church could have had a policy, official or otherwise, that blacks just wouldn't be given leadership callings. Which also would have been a problem.

When we get to the other side and see the grand course of human history, I suspect that we will learn that the Ban was the most efficient way of teaching whites that they were being stupid.

 

I don't buy that...

The Church of Jesus Christ (Rigdon/Bickerton)- a Book of Mormon believing church- had a black Apostle and a black Seventy in the early 1900's, openly opposed the Klan when the Klan was forming, and disciplined an Elder for teaching against full intergration of blacks into their church- all decades before the Civil Rights Movement.

Edited March 25, 2014 by BookofMormonLuvr

[stemelbow]

The priesthood isn't given to us to exercise authority over others. It's given to us to serve others.

 

True.  Sadly it's such a temptation for us mortal men to see it as a way to exercise authority over others, and to feel privileged.  And sadly, still, no doubt many a Mormon men have felt privileged and have exercised unrighteous dominion. 

 

Peace.

[stemelbow]

I don't buy that...

The Church of Jesus Christ (Rigdon/Bickerton)- a Book of Mormon believing church- had a black Apostle and a black Seventy in the early 1900's, openly opposed the Klan when the Klan was forming, and disciplined an Elder for teaching against full intergration of blacks into their church- all decades before the Civil Rights Movement.

 

I too don't buy it.  Not at all.  Without the ban in place we would be much more than we are, I would say. 

[thesometimesaint]

Needless to say the Klan has never been big in Utah or among the Saints in general.

http://www.uen.org/utah_history_encyclopedia/k/KU_KLUX_KLAN.html

 

Maybe, But that isn't how it played out. Fortunately we're two generation out from the lifting of the ban, and as my generation dies out it will becomes more and more a silly belief of a long dead generation.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

This is a sincere question. What is it about SOME white men that makes them so comfortable with the idea of being privileged by God to exercise authority over others? Even 35+ years after the end of the priesthood ban, according to a poll taken on this board, the majority of posters believe that HF instituted the priesthood ban, thus, intentionally placing all black saints under the priesthood authority of their white brothers.

Fortunately, our Church has moved beyond a race-based hegemony (at least, officially), but our patriarchy is alive and well. For most men in the church, it is not even curious that HF rests more ecclesiastical authority in a typical 12 yo BOY than in the most devout woman in the church.

 

[in light of further reflection and comments from posters, I want to modify my position SLIGHTLY as follows:

 

Now, I know that some of you will see this question as being racist and sexist, and I admit that it is.  It assumes that this phenomenon is unique to white men, when it probably would affect ANY group that had established economic/political/social dominance for centuries.  It's entirely likely that a group of left-handed, lesbian, albino Eskimos would began to feel that they were the "chosen people" had if they established dominance over a sustained period of time.   However, since white male hegemony is the current paradigm, I'll continue the rest of this post using the term "white men" as shorthand to denote the current dominant group.]

 

So while this mindset isn't likely one that you share, why is it that so many white men are so comfortable with a concept of God that ALWAYS privileges them?   And why are some of them offended by the idea that others might not accept that God likes them best?  Why do they assume that others should be comfortable with a subjugation that they NEVER experience for themselves?

Don't they at least find it coincidental that "God's will" is ALWAYS for some other group to be content under their righteous dominion? Is it at least POSSIBLE that God finds women and blacks as delightful as He finds white men? If so, then why don't they find it strange that HF is so reluctant to extend the power of the priesthood to anyone but white men, and only after years of agitation and turmoil (inside and outside of the Church)?

[Note to mods: This board is filled with generalized comments about how "gays" are attempting to "push their agenda" and how "women" are trying to "demand the priesthood from the Brethren." Is not acceptable to question why "white men" (who just currently happen to be the dominant group) seem to share a common mindset? If not, then perhaps I have the answer I seek.]

You seem to be painting with a broad brush.

[Coreyb]

But don't you find it curious that for the last two thousand years, NONE of these bans affected white men?  Of course, I guess it could be argued that ALL mankind experienced the ban during the time between the Great Apostacy and the Restoration.  But can you think of a time when white men didn't hold the priesthood and others did?  I can't.  So what is it about white men that makes them indispensable to carrying forward of the Gospel, while others are purely optional in God's plans?

yes, anytime prior to Peters vision to spread the gospel to the gentiles. Remember, the Israelites were Semitic, not "white" 

[Coreyb]

Excellent points.  You make me think that I was too quick to assign the "chosen people" syndrome to white males.  It applies to any dominant group.  In fact, I once heard a history of the Mongols in which it was pointed out that after decades of dominating their Chinese neighbors, they began to feel that the Chinese were a lesser form of being, and certainly not worth the care and concern of a "full" human being (i.e., a Mongol).

 

However, that still begs the question, given the repeated pattern of human beings falling prey to the "chosen people" syndrome, why are we so quick to assume that God shares our prejudices, particularly in light of our history of getting things wrong?  For instance, setting aside the issue of whether God instituted the priesthood restriction, the Church's recent statement states that the none of the justifications for the ban are accepted as valid doctrine today.  It even goes further to state that these justifications came from widespread racism:

 

"The justifications for this restriction echoed the widespread ideas about racial inferiority that had been used to argue for the legalization of black “servitude” in the Territory of Utah."

 

https://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood

 

Given this history, why is it so unreasonable to assume that perhaps "the justifications for the restriction [on female ordination] echoes widespread ideas about gender inferiority"?

Wasn't there a poll saying that 58% of Mormon men are open to women holding the priesthood, and only 10% of Mormon women felt the same way? The reason for some may be in seeing women as inferior, but I think that group is very small. The problem is, ordination for women would shake up our theology quite a bit. In our scriptures priesthood theology is always centered around men. People may say "there were prophetesses in the Bible", and yes there were, but a prophet isn't necessarily a priest and a priest isn't a prophet. There just isn't scriptural precedent for female priesthood holders yet. That's what keeps people like me from joining the ordain women movement. I would be very open to a new revelation explaining it and allowing priesthood to be given to women, but it would have a heck of a lot of explaining to do. When the priesthood ban for black men was lifted, the revelation was preceded by a study to find a scriptural precedent for the ban. It was not found, and neither was found a revelation instituting the ban. When they found that God had not spoken on this subject (contrary to what everyone had thought) they felt confident in asking the Lord if they could do away with it. There were some apostles who felt it could be done away with without a revelation but simply a policy change. I believe it could have been, but I didn't live back then. Perhaps a revelation was needed to help convince people it was Gods will who otherwise would have had serious questions about such a big change. Fortunately or Unfortunately, there are many scriptures pointing towards a male priesthood. Even among those that Christ personally called to the ministry, they are all men. Now I am sure there are plenty who have no problem painting Christ as a misogynist, but I do. I also take our revelations seriously. Let me say again, I have no problem with women being ordained to the priesthood, I just would want a revelation about it so that I could understand. If the policy was simply changed by a vote I would have serious questions whether or not it was from God.

 

Ps. My girlfriend is far more opposed to the ordain women movement than I am, and she considers herself to be a feminist. Go figure

[mfbukowski]

I would disregard any poll taken on the board as not demonstrating anything of substance.  Look at the numbers of those who take it compared to those who are members and even just guessing the number of active posters or lurkers.

 

I myself have a principle that I do not participate in the polls because they are self-selecting and unscientific and will yield no meaningful statistical data.  I know of a few others who have made the same sort of statement.

Agreed. Plus the fact that the questions are so poorly written that they are usually virtually meaningless.

[mfbukowski]

mormonewb

Can't quote your post 15 on this device, but I mostly agree with your points.

We all need to understand that all revelations are filtered through very human brains which are filled with human emotions, needs and prejudices. We need to get over that. It is what it is. Human beings are human.

I am looking forward to a good substantive thread of yours about anything other than racism.

[Gray]

Word on the street is they can't jump. Not sure if that's true, just thought I'd put that out there.

[Gray]

This is a sincere question. What is it about SOME white men that makes them so comfortable with the idea of being privileged by God to exercise authority over others? Even 35+ years after the end of the priesthood ban, according to a poll taken on this board, the majority of posters believe that HF instituted the priesthood ban, thus, intentionally placing all black saints under the priesthood authority of their white brothers.

Fortunately, our Church has moved beyond a race-based hegemony (at least, officially), but our patriarchy is alive and well. For most men in the church, it is not even curious that HF rests more ecclesiastical authority in a typical 12 yo BOY than in the most devout woman in the church.

 

[in light of further reflection and comments from posters, I want to modify my position SLIGHTLY as follows:

 

Now, I know that some of you will see this question as being racist and sexist, and I admit that it is.  It assumes that this phenomenon is unique to white men, when it probably would affect ANY group that had established economic/political/social dominance for centuries.  It's entirely likely that a group of left-handed, lesbian, albino Eskimos would began to feel that they were the "chosen people" had if they established dominance over a sustained period of time.   However, since white male hegemony is the current paradigm, I'll continue the rest of this post using the term "white men" as shorthand to denote the current dominant group.]

 

So while this mindset isn't likely one that you share, why is it that so many white men are so comfortable with a concept of God that ALWAYS privileges them?   And why are some of them offended by the idea that others might not accept that God likes them best?  Why do they assume that others should be comfortable with a subjugation that they NEVER experience for themselves?

Don't they at least find it coincidental that "God's will" is ALWAYS for some other group to be content under their righteous dominion? Is it at least POSSIBLE that God finds women and blacks as delightful as He finds white men? If so, then why don't they find it strange that HF is so reluctant to extend the power of the priesthood to anyone but white men, and only after years of agitation and turmoil (inside and outside of the Church)?

[Note to mods: This board is filled with generalized comments about how "gays" are attempting to "push their agenda" and how "women" are trying to "demand the priesthood from the Brethren." Is not acceptable to question why "white men" (who just currently happen to be the dominant group) seem to share a common mindset? If not, then perhaps I have the answer I seek.]

 

 

“You can safely assume you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do.”  ― Anne Lamott

[Gray]

God for whatever his reason(s) has instituted numerous Priesthood bans over time. Unfortunately he has not told us his reason(s), and more unfortunately some have speculated as to why the ban. Further all such speculations have been dismissed by the Church.. I've never agreed with the ban for our African black members, and was delighted when it was lifted. Along with every Church member that I know of.

 

People certainly have instituted various bans over time. I'd be very cautious attributing any bans based on race or gender to God. 

[mormonnewb]

Wasn't there a poll saying that 58% of Mormon men are open to women holding the priesthood, and only 10% of Mormon women felt the same way? The reason for some may be in seeing women as inferior, but I think that group is very small. The problem is, ordination for women would shake up our theology quite a bit. In our scriptures priesthood theology is always centered around men. People may say "there were prophetesses in the Bible", and yes there were, but a prophet isn't necessarily a priest and a priest isn't a prophet. There just isn't scriptural precedent for female priesthood holders yet. That's what keeps people like me from joining the ordain women movement. I would be very open to a new revelation explaining it and allowing priesthood to be given to women, but it would have a heck of a lot of explaining to do. When the priesthood ban for black men was lifted, the revelation was preceded by a study to find a scriptural precedent for the ban. It was not found, and neither was found a revelation instituting the ban. When they found that God had not spoken on this subject (contrary to what everyone had thought) they felt confident in asking the Lord if they could do away with it. There were some apostles who felt it could be done away with without a revelation but simply a policy change. I believe it could have been, but I didn't live back then. Perhaps a revelation was needed to help convince people it was Gods will who otherwise would have had serious questions about such a big change. Fortunately or Unfortunately, there are many scriptures pointing towards a male priesthood. Even among those that Christ personally called to the ministry, they are all men. Now I am sure there are plenty who have no problem painting Christ as a misogynist, but I do. I also take our revelations seriously. Let me say again, I have no problem with women being ordained to the priesthood, I just would want a revelation about it so that I could understand. If the policy was simply changed by a vote I would have serious questions whether or not it was from God.

 

Ps. My girlfriend is far more opposed to the ordain women movement than I am, and she considers herself to be a feminist. Go figure

I think I've also seen the poll where LDS men seem to be more in favor of ordaining women than the women themselves. Although I don't think that we were THAT much in favor of it. The results from a 2013 Pew report show that 13% of the men favor ordination while only 8% of the women do. Interestingly, the poll shows that only 5% of LDS men and women with a "high commitment" to the Church, while 27% of the "slackers" favor it. Given that the vast majority of the Brethren would probably qualify as "high commitment Mormons," (hehe) ordination certainly does not seem around the corner.

fact-tank/2013/10/08/big-majority-of-mormons-oppose-women-in-priesthood-including-women/

As for Christ being a misogynist, I would be equally troubled if there was more evidence to support such a conclusion. His selection of 12 male disciples is a fairly small selection size. Are we sure that He didnt have any women among the 70? Also, do we have any of His teachings that ban women from the priesthood?

Because at a glance, it seems that Paul might be the BY of the woman ban. We know that at least a few women had SOME ecclesiastical authority in judges in Israel. Women were not made rabbis until the 20th century, and then only in the more "liberal" Jewish movements.

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/femalerabbi.html

However, as not all "worthy Jewish males" serve as rabbi, the comparison isn't quite figs to figs. And it certainly appears that the strongest NT prohibitions against the ordination of women stem from the Pauline epistles.

Is it possible that Paul's revelations were colored by his views of "male supremacy" and that we have carried them forward into our understanding of the priesthood? Or perhaps as some have suggested with the priesthood ban, restricting ordination to men had its place within a past historical context. If so, then is OW really so wrong to be asking the Brethren to re-evaluate our doctrine in a world where the odds on favorite to be the next "leader of the free world" is a woman?

And perhaps, I am jumping through intellectual hoops to get to the result that I want (equal participation with my sisters), but why wouldn't we ALL want that?

[mormonnewb]

mormonewbCan't quote your post 15 on this device, but I mostly agree with your points.We all need to understand that all revelations are filtered through very human brains which are filled with human emotions, needs and prejudices. We need to get over that. It is what it is. Human beings are human.I am looking forward to a good substantive thread of yours about anything other than racism.

This thread was NOT about race. It was about OW. I simply used the prior ban as context to demonstrate how there seems to be a continual struggle to extend the priesthood to new groups that is constantly opposed by the dominant group. I simply didn't know how to make my point without bringing up past instances of priesthood bans.

[pogi]

is OW really so wrong to be asking the Brethren to re-evaluate our doctrine in a world where the odds on favorite to be the next "leader of the free world" is a woman?

And perhaps, I am jumping through intellectual hoops to get to the result that I want (equal participation with my sisters), but why wouldn't we ALL want that?

 

I don't think OW is wrong to be asking the brethren to re-evaluate, I just don't like their tactics.  I would be much more willing to support OW if they didn't demand equal priesthood privileges, saying things like "nothing less will suffice."  That is like forcing the hand of God.  The brethren obviously feel that this would not be a simple policy change that they could implement independent of God's will.   No, this type of change would require a revelation.  OW don't seem to get that.  I would support encouraging the brethren to re-evaluate and to seek a confirming revelation on the matter with the attitude of accepting the mind and will of the Lord, but OW don't seem to want to accept anything other than their own agenda.  It doesn't seem to occur to them that this might indeed be the will of the Lord for His own purposes.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

This thread was NOT about race. It was about OW. I simply used the prior ban as context to demonstrate how there seems to be a continual struggle to extend the priesthood to new groups that is constantly opposed by the dominant group. I simply didn't know how to make my point without bringing up past instances of priesthood bans.

 

I am starting to see that with all your misgivings about the LDS Church that you have in such a short amount of time of being a member- you are probably going to end up more comfortable in the Community of Christ.

Good luck on your journey.

[pogi]

I am starting to see that with all your misgivings about the LDS Church that you have in such a short amount of time of being a member- you are probably going to end up more comfortable in the Community of Christ.

Good luck on your journey.

 

Is that any way to make a brother feel welcome?

I wouldn't interpret them as misgivings about the church.  He has valid questions in trying to understand why things are the way they are in the priesthood.  We have not received legitimate explanations historically about priesthood bans, so there is a justifiable reason to wonder about women and the priesthood.  No harm in wondering and asking.

Edited March 25, 2014 by pogi

[BookofMormonLuvr]

I wouldn't interpret them as misgivings about the church.  He has valid questions in trying to understand why things are the way they are in the priesthood.  We have not received legitimate explanations historically about priesthood bans, so there is a justifiable reason to wonder about women and the priesthood.  No harm in wondering and asking.

 

With what I have seen of his topics and posts, if he is already this concerned, he will, before to long, likely become dissatisfied with the church not changing. or not changing fast enough to suit his views. If he toughs it out, good for him- I would rather see him LDS than CofC.

[mormonnewb]

I don't think OW is wrong to be asking the brethren to re-evaluate, I just don't like their tactics.  I would be much more willing to support OW if they didn't demand equal priesthood privileges, saying things like "nothing less will suffice."  That is like forcing the hand of God.  The brethren obviously feel that this would not be a simple policy change that they could implement independent of God's will.   No, this type of change would require a revelation.  OW don't seem to get that.  I would support encouraging the brethren to re-evaluate and to seek a confirming revelation on the matter with the attitude of accepting the mind and will of the Lord, but OW don't seem to want to accept anything other than their own agenda.  It doesn't seem to occur to them that this might indeed be the will of the Lord for His own purposes.

 

I agree that it isn't really fair to tell the Brethren, "Go ask HF about women's ordination and don't come back until He tells you to grant it!"

 

My suspicion (without any evidence to support it ... what else is new?) is that OW would settle for less than ordination, but is making a strong opening "bid" in an effort to try to persuade the Brethren to pray about it in earnest.  

[thesometimesaint]

People certainly have instituted various bans over time. I'd be very cautious attributing any bans based on race or gender to God. 

 

Christ, whom LDS  have as part of the Godhead, during his mortal ministry went only to the Jews, and had no women Apostles.