Mormons, Mandela And The Race And Priesthood Statement

[K-2]

I just saw Gina Colvin's blog post here: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/kiwimormon/2013/12/mormons-mandela-and-the-race-and-priesthood-statement/#ixzz38OrLZHFj

I was wondering how members of this board would answer this question she asks - "Given that they were wrong and it has taken the Brethren this long to admit it, what do we accept now as doctrine that might be repudiated in a few years time?"

Edited July 24, 2014 by K-2

[Calm]

The question is probably more precisely put "what doctrines am I hoping will be repudiated".

[thesometimesaint]

As long as we believe our Articles of Faith we're good to go.

[K-2]

As long as we believe our Articles of Faith we're good to go.

...and the scriptures. I guess scriptures could potentially be reinterpreted or attributed to uninspired cultural influence though.

[thesometimesaint]

...and the scriptures. I guess scriptures could potentially be reinterpreted or attributed to uninspired cultural influence though.

 

Book of Mormon Title Page

 

...And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ.

[smac97]

I just saw Gina Colvin's blog post here: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/kiwimormon/2013/12/mormons-mandela-and-the-race-and-priesthood-statement/#ixzz38OrLZHFj

I was wondering how members of this board would answer this question she asks - "Given that they were wrong and it has taken the Brethren this long to admit it, what do we accept now as doctrine that might be repudiated in a few years time?"

 

I don't think the question is asked in good faith, so I will not address it.

 

Thanks,

 

-Smac

[Boanerges]

Word of Wisdom. Not the revelation itself, but the further definition and enforcement of it in later times. And that's all I'm going to say about it.

[K-2]

What do you mean, Boanerges? Vapor cigarettes or something?

[teddyaware]

I just saw Gina Colvin's blog post here: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/kiwimormon/2013/12/mormons-mandela-and-the-race-and-priesthood-statement/#ixzz38OrLZHFj

I was wondering how members of this board would answer this question she asks - "Given that they were wrong and it has taken the Brethren this long to admit it, what do we accept now as doctrine that might be repudiated in a few years time?"

I believe I discern deliberate underhandedness and obfuscation when some make statements like this one -- "given that they were wrong and it has taken the Brethren this long to admit it." If anyone reads the recent Church statement on the priesthood ban, the only actions the Church now disavows are the non-doctrinal speculations offered by some in an attempt to explain why there was a ban. The Church's disavowal is not focused on the priesthood ban itself. Claiming the brethren were wrong without clearly stipulating the Church's disavowals were aimed only at the priesthood ban's theorized justifications, and not at the ban itself, is chickanery pure and simple. The technique here is to repeat a big lie long enough in the hope that it will eventually become enshrined among non-critical thinkers as gospel truth, and this when the prevaricators known full well what's nonchalantly being asserted as truth is a lie.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

I believe I discern deliberate underhandedness and obfuscation when some make statements like this one -- "given that they were wrong and it has taken the Brethren this long to admit it." If anyone reads the recent Church statement on the priesthood ban, the only actions the Church now disavows are the non-doctrinal speculations offered by some in an attempt to explain why there was a ban. The Church's disavowal is not focused on the priesthood ban itself. Claiming the brethren were wrong without clearly stipulating the Church's disavowals were aimed only at the priesthood ban's theorized justifications, and not at the ban itself, is chickanery pure and simple. The technique here is to repeat a big lie long enough in the hope that it will eventually become enshrined among non-critical thinkers as gospel truth, and this when the prevaricators known full well what's nonchalantly being asserted as truth is a lie.

 

"I believe I discern deliberate underhandedness and obfuscation when some make statements like this one" -- "the only actions the Church now disavows are the non-doctrinal speculations offered by some in an attempt to explain why there was a ban."

 

To be clear the church has disavowed doctrinal explanations for the ban given under the signature of the first presidency. 

Edited July 24, 2014 by SeekingUnderstanding

[K-2]

From what I see, the statement just says that the Church disavows the past theories, not specifically ones given by the First Presidency. Am I missing something?

[teddyaware]

"I believe I discern deliberate underhandedness and obfuscation when some make statements like this one" -- "the only actions the Church now disavows are the non-doctrinal speculations offered by some in an attempt to explain why there was a ban."

 

To be clear the church has disavowed doctrinal explanations for the ban given under the signature of the first presidency.

I'm very interested to review those doctrinal explanations undersigned by the First Presidency. Please post the information here. Thanks in advance.

Edit: I already found the 1949 FP statement. I'll offer my opinion later in the day.

Edited July 24, 2014 by teddyaware

[BCSpace]

Here are two First Presidency statements as posted on FAIR:

 

http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_racial_issues/Blacks_and_the_priesthood/Statements

 

 

First Presidency statement (President George Albert Smith)

 

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.

The First Presidency

 

 

 

 

 

December 15, 1969

To General Authorities, Regional Representatives of the Twelve, Stake Presidents, Mission Presidents, and Bishops.

Dear Brethren:

In view of confusion that has arisen, it was decided at a meeting of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve to restate the position of the Church with regard to the Negro both in society and in the Church.

First, may we say that we know something of the sufferings of those who are discriminated against in a denial of their civil rights and Constitutional privileges. Our early history as a church is a tragic story of persecution and oppression. Our people repeatedly were denied the protection of the law. They were driven and plundered, robbed and murdered by mobs, who in many instances were aided and abetted by those sworn to uphold the law. We as a people have experienced the bitter fruits of civil discrimination and mob violence.

We believe that the Constitution of the United States was divinely inspired, that it was produced by “wise men” whom God raised up for this “very purpose,” and that the principles embodied in the Constitution are so fundamental and important that, if possible, they should be extended “for the rights and protection” of all mankind.

In revelations received by the first prophet of the Church in this dispensation, Joseph Smith (1805-1844), the Lord made it clear that it is “not right that any man should be in bondage one to another.” These words were spoken prior to the Civil War. From these and other revelations have sprung the Church’s deep and historic concern with man’s free agency and our commitment to the sacred principles of the Constitution.

It follows, therefore, that we believe the Negro, as well as those of other races, should have his full Constitutional privileges as a member of society, and we hope that members of the Church everywhere will do their part as citizens to see that these rights are held inviolate. Each citizen must have equal opportunities and protection under the law with reference to civil rights.

However, matters of faith, conscience, and theology are not within the purview of the civil law. The first amendment to the Constitution specifically provides that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

The position of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints affecting those of the Negro race who choose to join the Church falls wholly within the category of religion. It has no bearing upon matters of civil rights. In no case or degree does it deny to the Negro his full privileges as a citizen of the nation.

This position has no relevancy whatever to those who do not wish to [p.223] join the Church. Those individuals, we suppose, do not believe in the divine origin and nature of the church, nor that we have the priesthood of God. Therefore, if they feel we have no priesthood, they should have no concern with any aspect of our theology on priesthood so long as that theology does not deny any man his Constitutional privileges.

A word of explanation concerning the position of the Church.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints owes its origin, its existence, and its hope for the future to the principle of continuous revelation. “We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.”

From the beginning of this dispensation, Joseph Smith and all succeeding presidents of the Church have taught that Negroes, while spirit children of a common Father, and the progeny of our earthly parents Adam and Eve, were not yet to receive the priesthood, for reasons which we believe are known to God, but which He has not made fully known to man.

Our living prophet, President David O. McKay, has said, “The seeming discrimination by the Church toward the Negro is not something which originated with man; but goes back into the beginning with God….

“Revelation assures us that this plan antedates man’s mortal existence, extending back to man’s pre-existent state.”

President McKay has also said, “Sometime in God’s eternal plan, the Negro will be given the right to hold the priesthood.”

Until God reveals His will in this matter, to him whom we sustain as a prophet, we are bound by that same will. Priesthood, when it is conferred on any man comes as a blessing from God, not of men.

We feel nothing but love, compassion, and the deepest appreciation for the rich talents, endowments, and the earnest strivings of our Negro brothers and sisters. We are eager to share with men of all races the blessings of the Gospel. We have no racially-segregated congregations.

Were we the leaders of an enterprise created by ourselves and operated only according to our own earthly wisdom, it would be a simple thing to act according to popular will. But we believe that this work is directed by God and that the conferring of the priesthood must await His revelation. To do otherwise would be to deny the very premise on which the Church is established.

We recognize that those who do not accept the principle of modern revelation may oppose our point of view. We repeat that such would not wish for membership in the Church, and therefore the question of priesthood should hold no interest for them. Without prejudice they should grant us the privilege afforded under the Constitution to exercise our [p.224] chosen form of religion just as we must grant all others a similar privilege. They must recognize that the question of bestowing or withholding priesthood in the Church is a matter of religion and not a matter of Constitutional right.

We extend the hand of friendship to men everywhere and the hand of fellowship to all who wish to join the Church and partake of the many rewarding opportunities to be found therein.

We join with those throughout the world who pray that all of the blessings of the gospel of Jesus Christ may in due time of the Lord become available to men of faith everywhere. Until that time comes we must trust in God, in His wisdom and in His tender mercy.

Meanwhile we must strive harder to emulate His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, whose new commandment it was that we should love one another. In developing that love and concern for one another, while awaiting revelations yet to come, let us hope that with respect to these religious differences, we may gain reinforcement for understanding and appreciation for such differences. They challenge our common similarities, as children of one Father, to enlarge the out-reachings of our divine souls.

Faithfully your brethren,
The First Presidency

By Hugh B. Brown
N. Eldon Tanner

 

 

 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

I'm very interested to review those doctrinal explanations undersigned by the First Presidency. Please post the information here. Thanks in advance.

 

http://bycommonconsent.com/2004/04/21/a-statement-from-the-first-presidency/

 

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.

 

Similarly in a first presidency letter to Lowry Nelson:

Your position seems to lose sight of the revelations of the Lord touching the preexistence of our spirits, the rebellion in heaven, and the doctrines that our birth into this life and the advantages under which we may be born, have a relationship in the life heretofore.

 

From the priesthood essay:

Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects actions in a premortal life; 

[thatjimguy]

I don't think the question is asked in good faith, so I will not address it.

Thanks,

-Smac

I asked this question myself. I dont know the angle of the poster themself, but its a legit question.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

I asked this question myself. I dont know the angle of the poster themself, but its a legit question.

 

To me this is THE question. I would love to hear from the Q of 12 or FP on this issue. How do they reconcile the 1949 statement, the priesthood revelation and then the priesthood essay. How do we reconcile that with the mantra of "Follow the Prophet, He knows the way"?

[teddyaware]

To me this is THE question. I would love to hear from the Q of 12 or FP on this issue. How do they reconcile the 1949 statement, the priesthood revelation and then the priesthood essay. How do we reconcile that with the mantra of "Follow the Prophet, He knows the way"?

The answer, I believe, is to found in the definition of the word 'disavow.' The Church statement on the priesthood ban was crafted with great care, I'm sure. So when the word disavow was used, it was chosen over many other synonyms that more or less mean nearly the same thing.

From the Merriam Webster Dictionary:

disavow: to say that you are not responsible for (something) : to deny that you know about or are involved in (something)

synonyms for disavow,

1) reject: to refuse to believe, accept, or consider (something)

2) disaffirm: to refuse to confirm

3) repudiate: to refuse to accept or support (something) : to reject (something or someone) : to say or show that (something) is not true

4) refute: : to prove that (something) is not true : to say that (something) is not true

5) etc...

It's also worth noting that after an internet search I discovered the word disavow is generally understood to encompass varying degrees of intensity of meaning, from mild to very strong applications of the word. With this in mind, consider the following usages of the word disavow in a sentence.

1) Because the doctrine is not revealed in the Standard Works, I now personally disavow my former belief that God was once a man until the day the doctrine is specifically, clearly and unambiguously included in the scriptures. (mild disavowal)

2) (In a court of law) I disavow every statement I previously testified to in this case because I have since discovered nearly every ledger entry my accountant made was designed to hide the fact that he was embezzling money from my business. (very strong disavowal)

By the way, I'm quite sure there have been thousands of cases throughout history when someone who disavowed something was caused by new evidence to re-avow (to coin a word) the thing that was disavowed.

So one can disavow something because all the pertinent facts are not yet known; and one can disavow something because certain and compelling evidence (like DNA) demands he do so.

So to paraphrase one of my least favorite politicians, "It all depends on what the meaning of the disavow is."

 

Edited July 24, 2014 by teddyaware

[SeekingUnderstanding]

The answer, I believe, is to found in the definition of the word 'disavow.' The Church statement on the priesthood ban was crafted with great care. I'm sure. So when the word disavow was used, it was chosen over many other synonyms that more or less mean nearly the same thing.

From the Merriam Webster Dictionary:

disavow: to say that you are not responsible for (something) : to deny that you know about or are involved in (something)

synonyms for disavow,

1) reject: to refuse to believe, accept, or consider (something)

2) disaffirm: to refuse to confirm

3) repudiate: to refuse to accept or support (something) : to reject (something or someone) : to say or show that (something) is not true

4) refute: : to prove that (something) is not true : to say that (something) is not true

5) etc...

It's also worth noting that after an internet search I discovered the word disavow is generally understood to encompass varying degrees of intensity of meaning, from mild to very strong applications of the word. With this in mind, consider the following usages of the word disavow in a sentence.

1) Because the doctrine is not revealed in the Standard Works, I now personally disavow my former belief that God was once a man until the day the doctrine is specifically, clearly and unambiguously included in the scriptures. (mild disavowal)

2) (In a court of law) I disavow every statement I previously testified to in this case because I have since discovered nearly every ledger entry my accountant made was designed to hide the fact that he was embezzling money from my business. (very strong disavowal)

By the way, I'm quite sure there have been thousands of cases throughout history when someone who disavowed something was caused by new evidence to re-avow (to coin a word) the thing that was disavowed.

So one can disavow something because all the pertinent facts are not yet known; and one can disavow something because certain and compelling evidence (like DNA) demands he do so.

So to paraphrase on of my least favorite politicians, "It all depends on what the meaning of the disavow is."

 

I always appreciate hearing your take on things. It is interesting to me how the same statement can be read in so many different ways.

[thatjimguy]

To me this is THE question. I would love to hear from the Q of 12 or FP on this issue. How do they reconcile the 1949 statement, the priesthood revelation and then the priesthood essay. How do we reconcile that with the mantra of "Follow the Prophet, He knows the way"?

I would say eliminate the social idea or myth that they are perfect.(as much as it is professed that they are not) I heard (now this may be just mormon folklore) that when they were discussing this, the lifting of the ban, that some were for it and of course some were against it. So revelation does not come equally amongst all the bretheren.

Also, as much as it was split between the apostles, im sure it was split amongst the membership as well. So that would mean that even members may have certain revelations that escape leaders, but without authourity to change doctrine.

If we find our personal convictions and revelations on the other side of current doctrine. Faith that it will come out someday should put you at ease. Thats the positive part of the whole priesthood thing. The same goes for the acknowledgement of same sex attraction, which was not there before.

[thesometimesaint]

Official Statement —  29 February 2012

Race and the Church: All Are Alike Unto God

Salt Lake City — 

The gospel of Jesus Christ is for everyone. The Book of Mormon states, “black and white, bond and free, male and female; … all are alike unto God” (2 Nephi 26:33). This is the Church’s official teaching.

People of all races have always been welcomed and baptized into the Church since its beginning. In fact, by the end of his life in 1844 Joseph Smith, the founding prophet of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, opposed slavery. During this time some black males were ordained to the priesthood. At some point the Church stopped ordaining male members of African descent, although there were a few exceptions. It is not known precisely why, how or when this restriction began in the Church, but it has ended. Church leaders sought divine guidance regarding the issue and more than three decades ago extended the priesthood to all worthy male members. The Church immediately began ordaining members to priesthood offices wherever they attended throughout the world. (See also: Race and the Priesthood)

The Church unequivocally condemns racism, including any and all past racism by individuals both inside and outside the Church. In 2006, then Church president Gordon B. Hinckley declared that “no man who makes disparaging remarks concerning those of another race can consider himself a true disciple of Christ. Nor can he consider himself to be in harmony with the teachings of the Church. Let us all recognize that each of us is a son or daughter of our Father in Heaven, who loves all of His children.”

Recently, the Church has also made the following statement on this subject:

“The origins of priesthood availability are not entirely clear. Some explanations with respect to this matter were made in the absence of direct revelation and references to these explanations are sometimes cited in publications. These previous

personal statements do not represent Church doctrine.”

[cinepro]

I just saw Gina Colvin's blog post here: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/kiwimormon/2013/12/mormons-mandela-and-the-race-and-priesthood-statement/#ixzz38OrLZHFj

I was wondering how members of this board would answer this question she asks - "Given that they were wrong and it has taken the Brethren this long to admit it, what do we accept now as doctrine that might be repudiated in a few years time?"

 

Heck, I'd be surprised if anyone here could even answer the question "what do we accept now as doctrine?"

 

Because if people are disagreeing about the doctrinal status of the statements regarding the Priesthood ban,  I can't imagine a single thing that could change that we would agree is a "doctrine".   I can imagine lots of teachings, policies and folk-doctrines that will probably change or be disavowed, but that wasn't the question.

Edited July 24, 2014 by cinepro

[thesometimesaint]

I don't know about anyone else but I believe http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/race-church

[cinepro]

But to the point of the "doctrinal status" of the statements regarding the Priesthood Ban, the key phrase in the question is "what do we accept now as doctrine".  So the question is whether the LDS of the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s regarded the teachings about the ban as "doctrinal".  Whether LDS in 2014 do is irrelevant.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Heck, I'd be surprised if anyone here could even answer the question "what do we accept now as doctrine?"

 

I'm not so sure. Seems like most posters here have a really really good idea of "what do we accept now as doctrine." The problem comes when you start to try and compare people's lists. 

[thesometimesaint]

But to the point of the "doctrinal status" of the statements regarding the Priesthood Ban, the key phrase in the question is "what do we accept now as doctrine".  So the question is whether the LDS of the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s regarded the teachings about the ban as "doctrinal".  Whether LDS in 2014 do is irrelevant.

 

I long ago accepted the Ban as doctrinal. OTOH I've never accepted any explanation proffered as to why any of the Bans were put in place, except for one. It is God's Priesthood he can give to, or take it away, anytime from anyone of his choosing.