Priesthood Ban was not Policy but Doctrine approved by the Q15

[Robert F. Smith]

42 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

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.

The problem is, of course, that Joseph Smith nowhere ever made such a statement.  Moreover, he ordained African Americans himself.  It would be one thing had he instituted the ban, but he did not.  Indeed, he demanded the freeing of the slaves held in America -- it was part of his Presidential Platform for his 1844 campaign.  Everything about Joseph bespeaks his complete lack of racism, which was an attitude held by many other Americans in those days (including Orson Pratt, and my own ancestors).  Unfortunately some Mormons were racist, and those feelings became dominant after the death of Joseph.  That was when the ban began, and not before.

[sunstoned]

8 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. 

I don't think god stood idly by.  I feel he inspired people toward change.  The Quakers and others who risked their lives help slaves escape through the underground railroad, the brave abolitionists who spoke out risking all, Abraham Lincoln and many, many others worked and fought for equality, were (IMO) inspired to of god to do so.  I really wish our church would have been part of this.  

[Gray]

14 hours ago, consiglieri said:

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.

Yes, it was doctrine then. But it's not now. Doctrine is always evolving. When things stop evolving, they usually die out. 

[stemelbow]

This certainly adds complexity to my beliefs.  How could God have let it happen?  It seems like God let's a lot happen. It's as if a person who grew up during slavery won't have racist feelings held against them when it comes to judgment.  I guess we're so weak we often can't be trusted.  We're so weak even when we behave badly we're often graciously blessed for something good we might have done or thought or said.  Then I realize in my own life I can see that as true.  I'm so weak I often have bad ideas mixed with good.  I often, even if I'm trying to help another, have some other bad thought or feeling coursing through me simultaneously.  I can try my best to be there for others but I find myself often there for me even moreso than for another.  It makes me realize I probably have some really screwy view about others or reality, perhaps even screwy like the priesthood ban, and not realize it. 

 

I really question some of this though.  Are we really supposed to be growing and getting better?  I very often feel worse as my life continues.  I may be getting a better understanding of things but my weakness still creeps in and causes me to think an do stupid things, most often veiled behind the notion that I'm doing something good.  Oh, the world.  I can pray and pray and pray and think I'm somehow aligned with God but then do something really stupid right afterward.  And I ask, why didn't God tell me I was thinking stupidly and was about to do something stupid?  I've been trying to work with Him.  He just lets it happen.  Maybe, at times, He gets a chuckle at it.  Then I do more stupid. 

[Gray]

14 hours ago, sunstoned said:

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.

 

Obviously I disagree with the notion of blind obedience. Obedience is only instrumentally good, not intrinsically good. 

[BlueDreams]

7 hours ago, sunstoned said:

I don't think god stood idly by.  I feel he inspired people toward change.  The Quakers and others who risked their lives help slaves escape through the underground railroad, the brave abolitionists who spoke out risking all, Abraham Lincoln and many, many others worked and fought for equality, were (IMO) inspired to of god to do so.  I really wish our church would have been part of this.  

It would have been nice. But I honestly don't think the saints were in a position that they could have helped....and not simply because of their views. Many of which formed or decided because of unique social pressures that religious groups like the quakers weren't facing. Their position in U.S. society was precarious at best and they were struggling to find social tolerance for their religion. For the abolitionists who were among our numbers (and there were some), they were too far west and too geographically isolated to do anything of substance anyways. And though I do believe groups like the quakers were probably inspired....the vast majority did not have a view of equality that would develop in the 20th century. Lincoln wanted to ship them back to Africa to have a proper racial order of separation. The quakers in the 1830's, like JS, had signed a declaration against immediate abolitionism (preferring a gradual, more natural ending) and discouraged their patrons from doing likewise. The quote Zakuska had in red came around this time that the soft abolitionism was being encouraged because immediate abolitionism was being met elsewhere in the north with violent reactions in the north. The saints at that time, had already faced severe violence in part due to their abolitionist views (however moderate), size, and rampant fears and were expelled from Missouri. The statements context was against immediate abolitionism which was seen by most people who would like to see an end to slavery in time as dangerous and radical. If JS lived, they hadn't been expellled again and landed in a desert and removed from the social climate that could maintain moderate abolitionism, etc it may have been a different story. But that's not the history we got. 

 

With luv,

BD    

[Kevin Christensen]

The real issue, of course, is how and why can I have faith in the absence of absolute certainty?  After all, what is the point of faith that doesn't provide absolute intellectual and moral certainty?  Don't I need absolute intellectual and moral certainty in order to be able to demonstrate hope and charity?  Or for that matter, with my absolute intellectual and moral certainty, do I need bother with such fuzzy concepts as hope and charity?

Why should I "sustain" (and don't look up the definition to see what that word really means) anyone in the church unless all members throughout history behave and speak in ways that I, from the omniscient third person vantage point that grants me perfect judgement, can personally approve and endorse?  Why bind myself by covenant to such a community?  Sure my covenants are not with the community, but with God.  But don't appearances matter?  We get mocked on TV, newspapers, and the internet.  That makes the walk to the tree of life very uncomfortable, under the glare and shame of the pointing and mocking, let alone the mists of darkness.  In associating myself with the LDS community, do I not then take upon myself not just inconvenient covenants, but the shame of any unfortunate statement or act by any member?   Why not stand apart, free and independent, doing as I see fit rather than letting myself be tainted by association, and the ever present insinuation of blind obedience?

And why should not all of these discussions deliberately ignore such petty details as the formal definition of what is and what is not doctrine provided by Jesus?  After all, why should members of his church consider anything he said to be binding, let alone important?  Sure Jesus expressly declares that going beyond his definition is building on sand, but does not our use of other definitions permit us to exploit the inherent instability of such sandy foundations and to then enjoy our self-justifying rhetoric?

And why shouldn't we hold prophets and apostles to a higher standard than that provided in D&C 1?  Sure Jesus expressly declares that "inasmuch as they erred, if shall be made manifest," and that revelation comes not all at times, but over time, in relation to both inquiry, and expedience.  But aren't higher standards of judgment, higher expectations than declared in D&C 1, proof of moral and intellectual superiority?  Sure, in recovery groups, expectations are defined as premeditated resentments.  And Kuhn says that "anomaly emerges against a background of expectation," but such analysis and awareness distracts from the poses.

And why bother contextualizing the any statements, whether from Brigham Young or from 1949, against the longstanding Western Intellectual tradition of associating Ham's and Noah's curse with slavery?  Sure, it is a severely flawed reading, dating not to the original story but to the much later need to rationalize the slave trade.  If we portray the racist teaching as a distinctly Mormon doctrine and invention, rather than as an inheritance from larger Western Culture, that blindered focus provides leverage and place to stand in relation to Mormonism that permits us, as Archimedes says of levers and fulcrums, the means to move Mormonism where ever we want. 

Sure Joseph Smith says that God adapts himself to our capacity to understand, but shouldn't it be the other way around?  Shouldn't we adopt a God like understanding from the start, (which means, obviously, modern understanding), and not bother with the need to change or worse, to tolerate change or the need to change or the possibility of future changes?  Would not stasis and absolute unchanging perfection be cleaner and more beautiful than the messy, time-consuming processes of life?  Should we not be diamonds in God's crown, rather than plants in his garden?

So, why not criticize the church for not being either Perfect or Ideal (when it never claims to be either), rather than engage in the much messier process of asking testing the issue of whether the restoration was/is something Real?

Just wondering.

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

 

Edited December 16, 2015 by Kevin Christensen
typo, and wording

[cinepro]

14 hours ago, Avatar4321 said:

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.

Sorry, but no one in their right mind uses the Biblical customs, laws and policies as a yardstick for contemporary morality. 

But to answer your question specifically, the reason Bible believers have a problem with the Priesthood restriction is because the way the priesthood restriction was implemented, enforced, and rescinded is totally nonsensical, so we either have to ascribe such a silly* policy to God, or fallible Church leaders.

The reason it is silly is simple: once we discard the theories regarding ancient curses or unvaliancy in the pre-existence, then we are left with the only remaining option: God chose to withhold Priesthood blessings from a certain group of people for some reason, but he chose a group of people that at the same time was coincidentally enduring great persecution and discrimination in the country in which His church was based!  He could have chosen any other arbitrary genetic trait:

"No one with red hair can have the priesthood or temple blessings."

"No one with detached earlobes can have the priesthood or temple blessings."

"No one who is left-handed can have the priesthood or temple blessings."

"Women with small breasts and balding men may not receive the priesthood or temple blessings."

"No one who naturally clasps their hands with the left thumb over right can have the priesthood or temple blessings." (Put your hands together, fingers intertwined, and see which thumb is on top.  If it's the left one, then no priesthood for you!)

Do any of these make sense to you?  Probably not.  They're all arbitrary genetic traits, and only a fool would think they indicate something about a person's worthiness to receive the priesthood or go to the Temple.

But the real question is whether or not it makes more sense to restrict people with presumed African ancestry based on their dark skin and other features.  I don't think so, and I think we need to figure out why it seems to make more sense to so many people.

 

 

*Hopefully not too light of a word in light of the serious consequences of the policy.

Edited December 16, 2015 by cinepro

[omni]

I love the idea that the Saints could accept new scripture, modern prophets who communed with Jehovah, deification, WoW, polygamy, and being chased from state to state for their beliefs, but they somehow wouldn't have been able to accept blacks getting the priesthood (and temple admittance) and therefore God instituted or allowed the ban to remain in place.  

 

 

[rongo]

I think that it's undeniable that the priesthood ban was taught by Church leaders as doctrine, nut simply a policy, in the past. I think that critics have a valid point when they point out that waving it away as "just a policy, not doctrine" or "a product of the times" is problematic --- and that LDS members should be able to explain why and how we can trust that current policies and doctrines won't be waved away in the future.

For myself, I believe that the ban itself and its timing (both the inception and its lifting) were God's will. I don't allow myself to get drawn out into the weeds defending the statements from the past that the Gospel Topics essay refers to when it states: " Church leaders and members advanced many theories to explain the priesthood and temple restrictions. None of these explanations is accepted today as the official doctrine of the Church."

That is, I believe that the ban itself and its timing were God's will, without getting into the reasons why (which remain unrevealed, at least as far as "official doctrine of the Church"). I think it's important to distinguish between the ban itself and past explanations, and I also think that this is why the essays do not condemn or repudiate the ban itself, only the explanations. 

I would like to see things like the Gospel Topics essays be published under the names of the Q15, not anonymously on LDS.org. 

[Avatar4321]

6 hours ago, cinepro said:

Sorry, but no one in their right mind uses the Biblical customs, laws and policies as a yardstick for contemporary morality. 

But to answer your question specifically, the reason Bible believers have a problem with the Priesthood restriction is because the way the priesthood restriction was implemented, enforced, and rescinded is totally nonsensical, so we either have to ascribe such a silly* policy to God, or fallible Church leaders.

The reason it is silly is simple: once we discard the theories regarding ancient curses or unvaliancy in the pre-existence, then we are left with the only remaining option: God chose to withhold Priesthood blessings from a certain group of people for some reason, but he chose a group of people that at the same time was coincidentally enduring great persecution and discrimination in the country in which His church was based!  He could have chosen any other arbitrary genetic trait:

"No one with red hair can have the priesthood or temple blessings."

"No one with detached earlobes can have the priesthood or temple blessings."

"No one who is left-handed can have the priesthood or temple blessings."

"Women with small breasts and balding men may not receive the priesthood or temple blessings."

"No one who naturally clasps their hands with the left thumb over right can have the priesthood or temple blessings." (Put your hands together, fingers intertwined, and see which thumb is on top.  If it's the left one, then no priesthood for you!)

Do any of these make sense to you?  Probably not.  They're all arbitrary genetic traits, and only a fool would think they indicate something about a person's worthiness to receive the priesthood or go to the Temple.

But the real question is whether or not it makes more sense to restrict people with presumed African ancestry based on their dark skin and other features.  I don't think so, and I think we need to figure out why it seems to make more sense to so many people.

 

 

*Hopefully not too light of a word in light of the serious consequences of the policy.

I'm aware people ignore the bible. They shouldn't. We would be much better off if we learned from it

[carbon dioxide]

On 12/15/2015 at 3:52 PM, 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. 

The priesthood however is not a social justice issue.  Nobody is entitled to the priesthood.  God gives it to whomever he wants.  If God does not want certain people have it, that is just the way it is.  We can choose to submit the the will of the Lord in how he chooses to run the affairs of the Church or complain.  We can complain but there may come consequences as a result.  The kingdom of God is not a democracy but a monarchy run by a King. 

[Zakuska]

1 hour ago, carbon dioxide said:

The priesthood however is not a social justice issue.  Nobody is entitled to the priesthood.  God gives it to whomever he wants.  If God does not want certain people have it, that is just the way it is.  We can choose to submit the the will of the Lord in how he chooses to run the affairs of the Church or complain.  We can complain but there may come consequences as a result.  The kingdom of God is not a democracy but a monarchy run by a King. 

That must be why Joseph Smith was trying to set up a "Theodemocracy", huh?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodemocracy

Edited December 17, 2015 by Zakuska

[california boy]

On December 15, 2015 at 3:52 PM, Bob Crockett said:

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.

This is a pretty appaling belief.  You are basically saying that the church leaders were willing to trade eternal blessings of blacks for a political favor.  Yikes.

[Gray]

9 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

The priesthood however is not a social justice issue.  Nobody is entitled to the priesthood.  God gives it to whomever he wants.  If God does not want certain people have it, that is just the way it is.  We can choose to submit the the will of the Lord in how he chooses to run the affairs of the Church or complain.  We can complain but there may come consequences as a result.  The kingdom of God is not a democracy but a monarchy run by a King. 

The church no longer teaches that God was behind the priesthood ban.

[rongo]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

The church no longer teaches that God was behind the priesthood ban.

It also doesn't teach that He wasn't behind it, either. The Church is officially silent, either way. What the essay did was repudiate past explanations as to why.

It's a policy of silence. Where, other than in the anonymous essay, does the Church even address the priesthood ban, period? The few places where it is mentioned (in "modern times" --- i.e., post 1978) focus solely on the jubilation of the revelation. The Church doesn't touch explanations as to why with a ten-foot pole.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

57 minutes ago, rongo said:

It also doesn't teach that He wasn't behind it, either. The Church is officially silent, either way. What the essay did was repudiate past explanations as to why.

It's a policy of silence. Where, other than in the anonymous essay, does the Church even address the priesthood ban, period? The few places where it is mentioned (in "modern times" --- i.e., post 1978) focus solely on the jubilation of the revelation. The Church doesn't touch explanations as to why with a ten-foot pole.

Well there is this from the heading to OD 2 which basically echo's what the essay said:  Early in its history, Church leaders stopped conferring the priesthood on black males of African descent. Church records offer no clear insights into the origins of this practice. Church leaders believed that a revelation from God was needed to alter this practice and prayerfully sought guidance. The revelation came to Church President Spencer W. Kimball and was affirmed to other Church leaders in the Salt Lake Temple on June 1, 1978. The revelation removed all restrictions with regard to race that once applied to the priesthood.

[rongo]

Exactly. The Church's carefully-worded treatments of the ban are careful not to say that God was not behind it. Church commentary on it remains carefully, clinically, "just the facts" (" The revelation removed all restrictions with regard to race that once applied to the priesthood") without getting pulled out into the weeds of why.

[cinepro]

17 hours ago, omni said:

I love the idea that the Saints could accept new scripture, modern prophets who communed with Jehovah, deification, WoW, polygamy, and being chased from state to state for their beliefs, but they somehow wouldn't have been able to accept blacks getting the priesthood (and temple admittance) and therefore God instituted or allowed the ban to remain in place.  

 

 

No kidding.  According to Church history, the Saints were willing to follow their leaders into polygamy even though it violated their base morals, had to be kept secret from the world until the Church had moved to the deserted west, and adhered to it against great persecution until it nearly brought the Church to destruction.  While at the same time, they were fine with Mexicans, Japanese, Chinese, Russians and anyone else getting the Priesthood and Temple blessings.

But allowing the few black members of the Church to have the priesthood just would have been too much? 

Edited December 17, 2015 by cinepro

[Buckeye]

On 12/15/2015 at 6:52 PM, Bob Crockett said:

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.

I'm trying to convince my wife and bishop about the "60-year rule" but they're not convinced. I'm all like, "c'mon, I can suspend the laws of chasity and tithing for 60 years. It's a very small time in the eternities." But they don't agree. Do you have any advice that would help convince them that a 60-year delay is just not that big a deal?

 

[Buckeye]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

It also doesn't teach that He wasn't behind it, either. The Church is officially silent, either way. What the essay did was repudiate past explanations as to why.

It's a policy of silence. Where, other than in the anonymous essay, does the Church even address the priesthood ban, period? The few places where it is mentioned (in "modern times" --- i.e., post 1978) focus solely on the jubilation of the revelation. The Church doesn't touch explanations as to why with a ten-foot pole.

The direction of the church action is more telling the the current church position. Previously the church did have a reason and that reason came from God. Now the church does not have a reason and no longer claims that God was involved. Instead, the essay portrays the development as a function of the time and place where the church existed. So while we're not there yet, it's clear to me that the direction will eventually take us to the church confirming that God was not involved and the policy was just the creation of man. By that time, the vast majority of members will have already come to that conclusion on their own. As is unfortunately the case in our times, the church's teachings tend to follow the changes in members' views rather than lead them. But at least the members are (slowly) changing their views on this subject. Thanks be to the "world" which is the primary factor moving church members forward.

[consiglieri]

On ‎12‎/‎16‎/‎2015 at 9:24 PM, Avatar4321 said:

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.

This might be a good idea to point out that competing narratives exist in the Old Testament as to who could have the priesthood.

The primary narrative, and the one Mormons have focused on, is that of the tribe of Levi, who reportedly sided with Moses at the golden calf debacle, and under his command slew a bunch of the non-Levite Israelite debauchers.

For this act of loyalty, they were blessed with the priesthood which would be restricted to that line.

Scholars believe this is an etiological story written back into the text to justify the Levite priesthood which became established much later.

But it fails to explain the numerous Old Testament characters who officiated in priesthood ordinances who were not Levites.

Including David who was, of course, from Judah.

These stories appear to be remnants of a time when the priesthood was not restricted exclusively to Levites.

 

[Bob Crockett]

23 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

I'm trying to convince my wife and bishop about the "60-year rule" but they're not convinced. I'm all like, "c'mon, I can suspend the laws of chasity and tithing for 60 years. It's a very small time in the eternities." But they don't agree. Do you have any advice that would help convince them that a 60-year delay is just not that big a deal?

 

Yes.   Don't make sarcastic references to suspending the law of chastity.   Open your heart to the possibility that maybe the Brethren are right in their approach and you're incorrect.  Read your Bible.  Don't go onto Mormon-themed boards as an anonymous critic of the Church.

You asked for my advice.  I wouldn't even ask myself for advice.  It may be wrong and I may not want to follow it.

Edited December 17, 2015 by Bob Crockett

[rongo]

8 minutes ago, Buckeye said:

 So while we're not there yet, it's clear to me that the direction will eventually take us to the church confirming that God was not involved and the policy was just the creation of man. 

If things end up transpiring that way, it will sap a lot of energy and enthusiasm from many members. Pronouncements of Church leaders will all be taken with a grain of salt, because they would all be subject to change in the future. 

My counter-vision for how this will play out is that the Church will remain very cautious and non-committal about the reasons behind the ban. At this point, this all ended 37 years ago, and counting. I think this will actually come to be less and less an issue in the coming years, not more. That is, the potential for social change to drive a perceived need to give a mea culpa on this issue will weaken over time. 

[Gray]

2 hours ago, rongo said:

It also doesn't teach that He wasn't behind it, either. The Church is officially silent, either way. What the essay did was repudiate past explanations as to why.

It's a policy of silence. Where, other than in the anonymous essay, does the Church even address the priesthood ban, period? The few places where it is mentioned (in "modern times" --- i.e., post 1978) focus solely on the jubilation of the revelation. The Church doesn't touch explanations as to why with a ten-foot pole.

Yes, officially silent, except that they also repudiated all racism, past and present. Those who have ears to hear, let them hear.