Priesthood Ban was not Policy but Doctrine approved by the Q15

[Zakuska]

Quote

"The attitude of the Church with reference to the 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."

 First Presidency Letter of the First Presidency August 17, 1949

This was an official proclamation from the Quorum of the 12, claiming the Ban was not "policy" but a direct command from God and "official doctrine" of the church from its foundation.

Now let the spinning begin that this was never "official" doctrine of the Church.  Or they where just products of their time. Or they didn't have the right rose colored glasses on when they gave this proclamation to the world.

Lets discuss?  Thoughts?

Edited December 15, 2015 by Zakuska

[VideoGameJunkie]

I'm just glad I was born after the priesthood ban was lifted. 

[filovirus]

This is my own belief:

There is a core Doctrine of Christ. It can be found in 2 Nephi 31, 3 Nephi 11, 3 Nephi 27, and Hebrews 6. The core Doctrine is Eternal and will not change. It is this core Doctrine that all other points of Doctrine revolve, Christ being the center of it all. The points of the Doctrine can and do occationally change. For example, the Sabbath day was changed from Saturday to Sunday after Christ was resurrected. Our understanding of the priesthood ban changed as well. It doesn't bother me that our understanding of the points of the Doctrine change as we get further light and knowledge.

[Gray]

1 hour ago, Zakuska said:

 First Presidency Letter of the First Presidency August 17, 1949

This was an official proclamation from the Quorum of the 12, claiming the Ban was not "policy" but a direct command from God and "official doctrine" of the church from its foundation.

Now let the spinning begin that this was never "official" doctrine of the Church.  Or they where just products of their time. Or they didn't have the right rose colored glasses on when they gave this proclamation to the world.

Lets discuss?  Thoughts?

 

The assumption was at the time that it had come down through direct revelation. However no such revelation has been located. 

[stemelbow]

6 minutes ago, Gray said:

 

The assumption was at the time that it had come down through direct revelation. However no such revelation has been located. 

I think many to most in the Church still consider the ban to have been instituted by God.  Of course, you are correct, no recorded revelation has been located.  The undeniable part of this is that though the policy the explanation of why the policy was considered doctrine as well.  Interesting because today those explanations seen as that which was doctrine is disavowed.  That's obvious and undeniable, as far as I can tell.  it's not hard then to accept that the policy itself was probably in error. 

[Gray]

I think a pretty solid case can be made now that the idea that the ban was inspired is no longer a doctrinal idea. We're told that the doctrine is taught often, by many

 

Quote

True principles are taught frequently and by many. Our doctrine is not difficult to find.

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2012/10/trial-of-your-faith?lang=eng

 

 

[SmileyMcGee]

2 hours ago, Zakuska said:

 Now let the spinning begin that this was never "official" doctrine of the Church.  Or they where just products of their time. Or they didn't have the right rose colored glasses on when they gave this proclamation to the world.

Lets discuss?  Thoughts?

 Love that you ask for "discussion" and "thoughts" after labeling anything that would oppose your view as "spin." Excellent set up for a "discussion"

[guerreiro9]

2 hours ago, Zakuska said:

 

Lets discuss?  Thoughts?

I don't have a problem with it as doctrine or policy.

-guerreiro9

[rpn]

You'll recall that shortly Joseph F. Smith around the turn of the century had a group of apostles look at the policy,  who  acknowledged that Elijah Abel was ordained to the priesthood and didn't find any impediment doctrinally.     In 1949, Geo. Albert Smith was the prophet.  In the 1950's, when David O. McKay was president, he also commissioned an investigation and determined that there was no recorded revelation or discussion about how the ban happened.  He didn't feel to change it, but he did specifically limit the ban to Blacks of african origin.

I think the statements declaring it as doctrine were never intended to make it doctrine, but were assumption of doctrine.    Elder McKonkie said to ignore all those statements about the ban made earlier, because with new revelation, they learned they were wrong.

Edited December 15, 2015 by rpn

[Zakuska]

So who was wrong on their Doctrine.  The Apostles then or the Apostles now?

[BlueDreams]

Quote

 

This was an official proclamation from the Quorum of the 12, claiming the Ban was not "policy" but a direct command from God and "official doctrine" of the church from its foundation.

Now let the spinning begin that this was never "official" doctrine of the Church.  Or they where just products of their time. Or they didn't have the right rose colored glasses on when they gave this proclamation to the world.

Lets discuss?  Thoughts?

 

Basic thoughts: it wasn't official doctrine from the foundation of the church. That's certifiably wrong because we have significant evidence now that this wasn't always as it was. It was based on common and popularly growing assumptions of that time that took on a Mormon flair. The narrative was a gradual shift that became substantiated as immovable and all evidence to the contrary was all but forgotten by this time in an era without google and massive electronic data of previous church actions to remind them. They were basing it on what they had and what was told, which by then had taken a fairly rigid and set "doctrinal" response. To me, this just indicates how quickly things can be forgotten or made to fit a narrative we support.  We do this both small scale and large, socially.  

 

Back to baby watching...cousin needs a nap

Witn luv, 

BD

[why me]

3 hours ago, Zakuska said:

 First Presidency Letter of the First Presidency August 17, 1949

This was an official proclamation from the Quorum of the 12, claiming the Ban was not "policy" but a direct command from God and "official doctrine" of the church from its foundation.

Now let the spinning begin that this was never "official" doctrine of the Church.  Or they where just products of their time. Or they didn't have the right rose colored glasses on when they gave this proclamation to the world.

Lets discuss?  Thoughts?

I wouldn't be surprised if they thought that it was doctrine, especially back then. However, I do believe that the blacks and the priesthood was actively discussed by the leadership for many years and I do think that it was all up to debate among them. I tend to think that the GAs became aware that this may have been a policy and not doctrine as time moved on. And of course, it did take a revelation to remove the ban. And so, what to make of it all? Perhaps what was thought of as doctrine, turned out to be a policy.

[toon]

3 hours ago, Zakuska said:

 First Presidency Letter of the First Presidency August 17, 1949

This was an official proclamation from the Quorum of the 12, claiming the Ban was not "policy" but a direct command from God and "official doctrine" of the church from its foundation.

Now let the spinning begin that this was never "official" doctrine of the Church.  Or they where just products of their time. Or they didn't have the right rose colored glasses on when they gave this proclamation to the world.

Lets discuss?  Thoughts?

 

But they were wrong then.  They're not now.

[Cold Steel]

Though this is one of the most uncomfortable topics for latter-day saints to discuss, I believe the policy was more than just a simple misunderstanding. In the New Testament, Jesus was fairly clear that God's values and goals are quite different than our own. He did not come to right the social injustices of his day. He didn't come to free slaves, help nations throw off the yoke of Rome or teach the Jews the strength and advantages of diversity in the workplace. In fact, he seemed willing to accept many of the injustices to perpetrate the greater good, which was the furtherance of the gospel message.  

What does this have to do with the priesthood ban? Perhaps nothing, but it's possible that with as much prejudice as there was in the United States (and elsewhere), that the Lord simply allowed the policy to stand knowing that otherwise it might be a hindrance to those with ingrained prejudices. It's also possible there was a link to our premortal existence and that the priesthood was withheld for a reason. Perhaps it was voluntary. Who knows? It's pure speculation on my part. We do know that what we did in our first estate helped determine what we are here, in our second estate, and that what we do here affects greatly what we are to become. 

I do think it interesting that the Lord declined to reverse the policy during President McKay's administration, telling him not to trouble Him further on the matter and that it would be left "to another." In scripture and in Hebrew tradition, the number twelve is a priesthood number (just as the number seven pertains to completion). I find it interesting that President Spencer W. Kimball was the twelfth president of the church. Coincidence? Again, who knows? 

 

 

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

So God refuses to inform His Prophet that the Priesthood restriction is just a bunch of racist bull ... until enough Presidents have died that He can create a meaningless little bit of obscure numerology? 

If God is willing to stand idly by and "accept" social injustices, He's not much of a God.

If we learn anything from this letter, it's that authoritarianism is dead (good riddance) and we should scrutinize current teachings very carefully before accepting them. 

[Zakuska]

Joseph Smith Jr. said: “I do not doubt, but those who have been forward in raising their voices against the South, will cry out against me as being uncharitable, unfeeling, unkind—wholly unacquainted with the gospel of Christ. It is my privilege then to name certain passages from the Bible, and examine the teachings of the ancients upon the matter as the fact is uncontrovertible, that the first mention we have of slavery is found in the holy bible, pronounced by a man who was perfect in his generation, and walked with God. And so far from that prediction being averse to the mind of God, it remains as a lasting monument of the decree of Jehovah, to the shame and confusion of all who have cried out against the South, in consequence of their holding the sons of Ham in servitude! ‘And he said cursed be Canaan: a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren. And he said, Blessed be the Lord God of Shem: and Canaan shall be his servant.—God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem: and Canaan shall be his servant.’ (Gen. 9:25–27.) Trace the history of the world from this notable event down to this day, and you will find the fulfillment of this singular prophecy.” (Apr. 1836, in Latter-day Saint’s Messenger and Advocate, vol. 2, no. 7, edited by Oliver Cowdery [Kirtland, Ohio: Published by F. G. Williams & Co., Apr. 1836], p. 290; paragraphing omitted.)

[Zakuska]

The ban came from Joseph Smith Jr himself.

 

"President George Q. Cannon remarked that the Prophet taught this doctrine: That the seed of Cain could not receive the Priesthood nor act in any of the offices of the Priesthood until the seed of Abel should come forward and take precedence over Cain's offspring."

(Joseph Fielding Smith, The Way to Perfection [Salt Lake City: Genealogical Society of Utah, 1949], 110 - 111.)

 

The promise was given that this curse, or restriction, will be removed, when the time comes in some future sphere, when Abel will have posterity. This evidence is collected and published in The Way to Perfection, chapters 15 and 16.

(Joseph Fielding Smith, Answers to Gospel Questions, 5 vols. [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1957-1966], 2: 177.)

 

Kindly see chapters 15 and 16, in The Way to Perfection, for further light in relation to the reason why the Negro cannot receive the priesthood. In brief, it is as follows: Because of transgression in the first estate which deprives him in this second estate. Since Cain slew his brother Abel in order to obtain all the rights of priesthood to descend through his lineage, the Lord decreed that the children of Cain should not have the privilege of bearing the priesthood until Abel had posterity who could have the priesthood and that will have to be in the far distant future. When this is accomplished on some other world, then the restrictions will be removed from the children of Cain who have been true in this "second" estate.

(Joseph Fielding Smith, Answers to Gospel Questions, 5 vols. [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1957-1966], 2: 188.)

 

President Brigham Young, answering a question put to him by Elder Lorenzo D. Young in a meeting held December 25, 1869, in Salt Lake City, said that Joseph Smith had declared that the negroes were not neutral in heaven, for all the spirits took sides, but "the posterity of Cain are black because he (Cain) committed murder. He killed Abel and God set a mark upon his posterity. But the spirits are pure (i. e. innocent. See D. C. 93:38.) that enter their tabernacles and there will be a chance for the redemption of all the children of Adam, except the sons of perdition."-J. H., Dec. 25, 1869.

(Joseph Fielding Smith, The Way to Perfection [Salt Lake City: Genealogical Society of Utah, 1949], 105.)

 

President Woodruff, in his journal, records the words of President Young as follows:

The Lord said, I will not kill Cain, but I will put a mark upon him, and that mark will be seen upon the face of every negro upon the face of the earth; and it is the decree of God that that mark shall remain upon the seed of Cain until the seed of Abel shall be redeemed, and Cain shall not receive the Priesthood, until the time of that redemption. Any man having one drop of the seed of Cain in him cannot receive the Priesthood; but the day will come when all that race will be redeemed and possess all the blessings which we now have.-History of Wilford Woodruff, p. 351.

(Joseph Fielding Smith, The Way to Perfection [Salt Lake City: Genealogical Society of Utah, 1949], 106.)

Edited December 15, 2015 by Zakuska

[Bob Crockett]

I don't see why the debate over "policy" versus "doctrine."   It was an official church position, hard as steel.  As I have argued in the past, the Church stopped ordaining blacks and admitting them to their temples to try and get Southern State votes for the admission of Utah after the Missouri Compromise.  When that didn't work (or maybe it did, in the bitter end in the 1890s), the Brethren didn't feel any particular pressure to change things  until 60 years later, a very small time in the eternities.

[sunstoned]

7 hours ago, Gray said:

 

The assumption was at the time that it had come down through direct revelation. However no such revelation has been located. 

No revelation = speaking as a man.  The problem here is that these "men" require total and complete obedience to the point that they say it is a sin to criticize them. This basically sets up an environment of blind obedience.  Anything less that this, any kind of questioning of the leaders at all is not tolerated.  It also fosters an environment where the leaders receive no feedback on there decisions.  This is how something as racist and evil as the priesthood band could continue for over a hundred years.  Because any opposition to it was ignored or delt with through courts of love.

 

Edited December 16, 2015 by sunstoned

[consiglieri]

4 hours ago, Gray said:

I think a pretty solid case can be made now that the idea that the ban was inspired is no longer a doctrinal idea. We're told that the doctrine is taught often, by many

But the 1949 First Presidency letter declares it was most definitely a doctrine (and not a policy) then.

Is it possible for the priesthood ban to have been doctrine in 1949 but not doctrine today?

Can doctrines change?

That is the fundamental question.

Obviously, the evidence is that they can and do.

And this is a prime example of such.

[BlueDreams]

1 hour ago, Zakuska said:

The ban came from Joseph Smith Jr himself

...you do realize that a). None of your quotes prove this statement (the curse/mark was "common knowledge" per se at that time and not enough to activate the ban). B) there is a ton of historical evidence contradicting this assertion (think Elijah able). and c) all of these quotes were from after the ban was more concretized and the church narrative surrounding this became rigid.

 

With luv,

BD 

[Avatar4321]

6 hours ago, JeremyOrbe-Smith said:

So God refuses to inform His Prophet that the Priesthood restriction is just a bunch of racist bull ... until enough Presidents have died that He can create a meaningless little bit of obscure numerology? 

If God is willing to stand idly by and "accept" social injustices, He's not much of a God.

If we learn anything from this letter, it's that authoritarianism is dead (good riddance) and we should scrutinize current teachings very carefully before accepting them. 

Has it occurred to you that God isn't concerned with so called social justice but with actual justice? And that He isn't going to administer actual justice until the final judgment?

He has already suffered all pains imaginable for the sake of justice. What more can you ask for?

Maybe you should worry more about extending mercy to others. I'd much rather see more mercy then justice occurring right now.

[Avatar4321]

I don't why anyone who believes the bible could have a problem with a priesthood restriction when there have been far more restrictive bans in the past.

[JLHPROF]

6 hours ago, Zakuska said:

Joseph Smith Jr. said: “I do not doubt, but those who have been forward in raising their voices against the South, will cry out against me as being uncharitable, unfeeling, unkind—wholly unacquainted with the gospel of Christ. It is my privilege then to name certain passages from the Bible, and examine the teachings of the ancients upon the matter as the fact is uncontrovertible, that the first mention we have of slavery is found in the holy bible, pronounced by a man who was perfect in his generation, and walked with God. And so far from that prediction being averse to the mind of God, it remains as a lasting monument of the decree of Jehovah, to the shame and confusion of all who have cried out against the South, in consequence of their holding the sons of Ham in servitude! ‘And he said cursed be Canaan: a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren. And he said, Blessed be the Lord God of Shem: and Canaan shall be his servant.—God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem: and Canaan shall be his servant.’ (Gen. 9:25–27.) Trace the history of the world from this notable event down to this day, and you will find the fulfillment of this singular prophecy.” (Apr. 1836, in Latter-day Saint’s Messenger and Advocate, vol. 2, no. 7, edited by Oliver Cowdery [Kirtland, Ohio: Published by F. G. Williams & Co., Apr. 1836], p. 290; paragraphing omitted.)

 

6 hours ago, Zakuska said:

The ban came from Joseph Smith Jr himself.

 

"President George Q. Cannon remarked that the Prophet taught this doctrine: That the seed of Cain could not receive the Priesthood nor act in any of the offices of the Priesthood until the seed of Abel should come forward and take precedence over Cain's offspring."

(Joseph Fielding Smith, The Way to Perfection [Salt Lake City: Genealogical Society of Utah, 1949], 110 - 111.)

 

The promise was given that this curse, or restriction, will be removed, when the time comes in some future sphere, when Abel will have posterity. This evidence is collected and published in The Way to Perfection, chapters 15 and 16.

(Joseph Fielding Smith, Answers to Gospel Questions, 5 vols. [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1957-1966], 2: 177.)

 

Kindly see chapters 15 and 16, in The Way to Perfection, for further light in relation to the reason why the Negro cannot receive the priesthood. In brief, it is as follows: Because of transgression in the first estate which deprives him in this second estate. Since Cain slew his brother Abel in order to obtain all the rights of priesthood to descend through his lineage, the Lord decreed that the children of Cain should not have the privilege of bearing the priesthood until Abel had posterity who could have the priesthood and that will have to be in the far distant future. When this is accomplished on some other world, then the restrictions will be removed from the children of Cain who have been true in this "second" estate.

(Joseph Fielding Smith, Answers to Gospel Questions, 5 vols. [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1957-1966], 2: 188.)

 

President Brigham Young, answering a question put to him by Elder Lorenzo D. Young in a meeting held December 25, 1869, in Salt Lake City, said that Joseph Smith had declared that the negroes were not neutral in heaven, for all the spirits took sides, but "the posterity of Cain are black because he (Cain) committed murder. He killed Abel and God set a mark upon his posterity. But the spirits are pure (i. e. innocent. See D. C. 93:38.) that enter their tabernacles and there will be a chance for the redemption of all the children of Adam, except the sons of perdition."-J. H., Dec. 25, 1869.

(Joseph Fielding Smith, The Way to Perfection [Salt Lake City: Genealogical Society of Utah, 1949], 105.)

 

President Woodruff, in his journal, records the words of President Young as follows:

The Lord said, I will not kill Cain, but I will put a mark upon him, and that mark will be seen upon the face of every negro upon the face of the earth; and it is the decree of God that that mark shall remain upon the seed of Cain until the seed of Abel shall be redeemed, and Cain shall not receive the Priesthood, until the time of that redemption. Any man having one drop of the seed of Cain in him cannot receive the Priesthood; but the day will come when all that race will be redeemed and possess all the blessings which we now have.-History of Wilford Woodruff, p. 351.

(Joseph Fielding Smith, The Way to Perfection [Salt Lake City: Genealogical Society of Utah, 1949], 106.)

 

That's what I've always thought.  Blaming Brigham Young is just everyone's favorite practice.  The ban started with Joseph, whether by revelation or not.  And it ended by revelation.

[Cold Steel]

Yes, the critics see God's refusal to set things straight in the here and now as incompetence or evil. This is due, I suppose, to the fact that many are atheists and don't think there will be any other time if not right this second. Those who say He's not much of a God if He doesn't fix things according to their own sense of what is right and wrong, good and evil -- they wouldn't know good and evil were it not for God because He determines what is right and wrong, good and evil, and without Him it wouldn't matter! And He's made it pretty clear He doesn't care what we think of His job as God. He had told us that He operates on His own timetable and terms, and they don't necessarily conform to our agendas and thoughts on the subject. 

Eventually every knee shall bend and every tongue confess Christ as our Master and Savior. This indicates that we're the ones who will change our views regarding Him, not vice versa. 

 

Edited December 16, 2015 by Cold Steel