Was the Priesthood-temple ban from man or God?

[Rivers]

I came away from the race and priesthood essay without an answer as to whether the ban was divine or man-made. It appears to me that this question has been left open.

[Bobbieaware]

1 hour ago, Rivers said:

I came away from the race and priesthood essay without an answer as to whether the ban was divine or man-made. It appears to me that this question has been left open.

The essay speaks approvingly of the 1978 revelation to end the ban. Since Official Declaration Two indicates a revelation from God was needed to end the priesthood ban, and since the leaders of the Church in 1978 most solemnly testified they did indeed receive a revelation to end the ban, the way I see it is there are 3 possibilities:

1) The leaders of the Churvh spoke the truth when they said God intervened and revealed to them the time had come to end the ban. Therefore the ban was of God.

2) The leaders of the Church lied when they said they received a revelation to end the ban. Therefore the ban was not of God.

3) The leaders of the Church were sincere but delusional when they said they received a revelation to end the ban. Therefore the ban was not of God).

Here is Official Declaration Two, with the portions most pertinent to this subject highlighted in bold...

Dear Brethren:

As we have witnessed the expansion of the work of the Lord over the earth, we have been grateful that people of many nations have responded to the message of the restored gospel, and have joined the Church in ever-increasing numbers. This, in turn, has inspired us with a desire to extend to every worthy member of the Church all of the privileges and blessings which the gospel affords.

Aware of the promises made by the prophets and presidents of the Church who have preceded us that at some time, in God’s eternal plan, all of our brethren who are worthy may receive the priesthood, and witnessing the faithfulness of those from whom the priesthood has been withheld, we have pleaded long and earnestly in behalf of these, our faithful brethren, spending many hours in the Upper Room of the Temple supplicating the Lord for divine guidance.

He has heard our prayers, AND BY REVELATION has confirmed that the long-promised day has come when every faithful, worthy man in the Church may receive the holy priesthood, with power to exercise its divine authority, and enjoy with his loved ones every blessing that flows therefrom, including the blessings of the temple. Accordingly, all worthy male members of the Church may be ordained to the priesthood without regard for race or color. Priesthood leaders are instructed to follow the policy of carefully interviewing all candidates for ordination to either the Aaronic or the Melchizedek Priesthood to insure that they meet the established standards for worthiness.

We declare with soberness that THE LORD HAD MADE KNOWN HIS WILL for the blessing of all his children throughout the earth who will hearken to the voice of his authorized servants, and prepare themselves to receive every blessing of the gospel.

 

 

Edited January 29, 2016 by Bobbieaware

[smac97]

I answered "I don't know" because . . . I don't know.  I lean towards "from man," tho.

Thanks,

-Smac

[VideoGameJunkie]

Which prophet or apostle started the ban?

[The Nehor]

No idea. While an interesting historical question I do not worry about it much.

1 minute ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

Which prophet or apostle started the ban?

Brigham Young but it may have come from Joseph Smith before that.

[VideoGameJunkie]

1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

No idea. While an interesting historical question I do not worry about it much.

Brigham Young but it may have come from Joseph Smith before that.

Ya that's why I asked instead of just saying Brigham Young, because maybe Joseph taught him that. Was the priesthood ban right should be the main question.

[The Nehor]

5 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

Ya that's why I asked instead of just saying Brigham Young, because maybe Joseph taught him that. Was the priesthood ban right should be the main question.

I think God allowed it until enough saints prayed to want it gone. We know President McKay wanted to end it, prayed, and got a "no". So it was allowed by God to continue no matter how it started.

[rongo]

I believe that the inception of the ban, and its lifting (in other words, the timetable) were God's will. I don't think the witness statements from people like Abraham Smoot and Zebedee Coltrin that the ban came from Joseph Smith himself can be as glibly dismissed as they are by members who don't want to believe that the ban came from Joseph Smith. For these members, the priesthood ban is our version of how the RLDS Church treated polygamy for many years (Joseph had nothing to do with it! It was all Brigham Young's fault!). 

I agree with the opening post that the essay on the ban leaves it wide open to believe whatever one wants about the ban's origins. It condemns explanations for the ban (lack of valiance in the pre-existence, etc.), but falls short of stating that the ban itself was a mistake of man. I'm very grateful for that. 

I wish that we had bold statements from the Brethren themselves on these big, weighty issues, instead of anonymous, plausible-deniability essays, but we're in a "PR savvy" era of extreme caution right now.

[BlueDreams]

I don't know. Similar to smac, I lean toward man-made (a fairly strongly lean that way), but at the end of the day, I don't know. I believe the policy and several beliefs that bolstered it and grew around it were because of racism. It's a racial atmosphere that the more I read about it, the more I'm aware that their time was literally a different culture. We still have pieces of its legacy today, but the way they saw people then would be considered largely foreign to us now (thankfully). I find the whole thing fascinating for both personal and abstract concerns and I see also some strong wisdom to how our leaders work now because it was a policy they were divided on then. And though I've built my own opinions, generally the answer is still: don't know. Officially, I think that's really the only answer we could give.

 

With luv,

BD 

 

[VideoGameJunkie]

24 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

I don't know. Similar to smac, I lean toward man-made (a fairly strongly lean that way), but at the end of the day, I don't know. I believe the policy and several beliefs that bolstered it and grew around it were because of racism. It's a racial atmosphere that the more I read about it, the more I'm aware that their time was literally a different culture. We still have pieces of its legacy today, but the way they saw people then would be considered largely foreign to us now (thankfully). I find the whole thing fascinating for both personal and abstract concerns and I see also some strong wisdom to how our leaders work now because it was a policy they were divided on then. And though I've built my own opinions, generally the answer is still: don't know. Officially, I think that's really the only answer we could give.

 

With luv,

BD 

 

And I'm sure 100 to 200 years from now people will say our culture was racist or bigoted.

[BlueDreams]

10 minutes ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

And I'm sure 100 to 200 years from now people will say our culture was racist or bigoted.

No, i say that a lot now. Why wait 100 years?

To be clear, When I say they were all racist i don't say that to throw everybody under a bus or to call them all terrible people. They weren't. But rather it's to acknowledge the system, beliefs, and culture they swam in daily. EVERYBODY, minus maybe two people, were to some degree racist by our definitition of the word: Lincoln, BY, JS, most abolitionists, etc. There was a definite stratification that privileged and assumed superiority in whiteness. Whiteness was a very tight bubble of people that would not include even all european nationalities. You could also be removed from said group based on practices considered barbaric or uncouth (think polygamy) or concerns of tainted blood mixture. They would "prove" this with "scientific" studies and phrenology reports on differing skull shapes as indicative of character and attributes. Being removed from whiteness meant that your rights and capacities in society were also in question.  It wasn't a light accusation, but a serious allegation that could  throw legitimacy toward their discrimination, loss of rights, and removal from socio-political influence. And this is before talking about slavery, civil war, tensions before the civil war and after, increased phobia about intermingling races, etc. Race and purity were extremely pertinent factors for your status in the U.S. This is why I believe racism played a heavy hand in the introduction of the ban.

 

With luv,

BD

[mfbukowski]

Ridiculous to speculate

God knows the answer and he is the only one.

Ask him, not us.

[VideoGameJunkie]

16 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Ridiculous to speculate

God knows the answer and he is the only one.

Ask him, not us.

I've asked. Got no answer.

[mfbukowski]

1 minute ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

I've asked. Got no answer.

Then don't worry about it.

It's not important to know.  It's water under the bridge and the answer is unknowable.

Get on with life.  It's irrelevant.  It's like asking why something exists rather than nothing.  The answer cannot change your life because it is unknowable.

[VideoGameJunkie]

2 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Then don't worry about it.

It's not important to know.  It's water under the bridge and the answer is unknowable.

Get on with life.  It's irrelevant.  It's like asking why something exists rather than nothing.  The answer cannot change your life because it is unknowable.

But I like knowing everything.

[Bobbieaware]

5 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Then don't worry about it.

It's not important to know.  It's water under the bridge and the answer is unknowable.

Get on with life.  It's irrelevant.  It's like asking why something exists rather than nothing.  The answer cannot change your life because it is unknowable.

I find it strange active members of the Church will believe the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twevlve are speaking by the power of revelation from God when they address the Church in General Conference, but when these same leaders come right out in the open and forthrightly testify they did indeed receive a revelation from God, suddenly doubt displaces faith. Why?

"According to first-person accounts, after much discussion among the members of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles on this matter, they engaged the Lord in prayer. According to the writing of one of those present, Bruce R. McConkie of the Twelve: "It was during this prayer that the revelation came. The Spirit of the Lord rested upon us all; we felt something akin to what happened on the day of Pentecost and at the Kirtland Temple. From the midst of eternity, the voice of God, conveyed by the power of the Spirit, spoke to his prophet. The message was that the time had now come to offer the fullness of the everlasting gospel, including celestial marriage, and the priesthood, and the blessings of the temple, to all men, without reference to race or color, solely on the basis of personal worthiness. And we all heard the same voice, received the same message, and became personal witnesses that the word received was the mind and will and voice of the Lord."

Gordon B. Hinckley, a participant in the meetings to reverse the ban, said, "Not one of us who was present on that occasion was ever quite the same after that. Nor has the Church been quite the same. All of us knew that the time had come for a change and that the decision had come from the heavens. The answer was clear. There was perfect unity among us in our experience and in our understanding."

Edited January 29, 2016 by Bobbieaware

[CV75]

I don't see any eternal ramifications in any of the choices. I do see eternal ramifications in the statement, "The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it" (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 121).

[stemelbow]

Though I don't know for sure, I feel it likely to be from man.  As likely, say, there is a God. 

[Zakuska]

8 hours ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

I've asked. Got no answer.

If James 1:5 is to believed, how is that even possible?

Edited January 29, 2016 by Zakuska

[rongo]

God doesn't answer us on our timetable, on demand (thank goodness for that, even though it's maddening to us at the time). Sometimes we have to wait for an answer and be patient.

That's how, Zakuska.

[Zakuska]

8 minutes ago, rongo said:

God doesn't answer us on our timetable, on demand (thank goodness for that, even though it's maddening to us at the time). Sometimes we have to wait for an answer and be patient.

That's how, Zakuska.

While I agree because of experience,  that doesn't quite fit the definitial of 'abradeth not'. Josephs answers usually came immediately. 

Edited January 29, 2016 by Zakuska

[smac97]

10 hours ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

Which prophet or apostle started the ban?

The ban apparently had its origins with Brigham Young: 

Quote

During the first two decades of the Church’s existence, a few black men were ordained to the priesthood. One of these men, Elijah Abel, also participated in temple ceremonies in Kirtland, Ohio, and was later baptized as proxy for deceased relatives in Nauvoo, Illinois. There is no reliable evidence that any black men were denied the priesthood during Joseph Smith’s lifetime. In a private Church council three years after Joseph Smith’s death, Brigham Young praised Q. Walker Lewis, a black man who had been ordained to the priesthood, saying, “We have one of the best Elders, an African.”4

In 1852, President Brigham Young publicly announced that men of black African descent could no longer be ordained to the priesthood, though thereafter blacks continued to join the Church through baptism and receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost. Following the death of Brigham Young, subsequent Church presidents restricted blacks from receiving the temple endowment or being married in the temple.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 29, 2016 by smac97

[thesometimesaint]

I don't know, but the Bible is full of such.

[RevTestament]

10 hours ago, rongo said:

I believe that the inception of the ban, and its lifting (in other words, the timetable) were God's will. I don't think the witness statements from people like Abraham Smoot and Zebedee Coltrin that the ban came from Joseph Smith himself can be as glibly dismissed as they are by members who don't want to believe that the ban came from Joseph Smith. For these members, the priesthood ban is our version of how the RLDS Church treated polygamy for many years (Joseph had nothing to do with it! It was all Brigham Young's fault!). 

CFR on those "statements." While you are at it - wasn't there at least one statement that Joseph Smith told missionaries that slaves could not be offered the priesthood, but could be baptized if their masters permitted, but that free blacks could receive the priesthood? You can CFR those as well, and that should make for a more informed discussion as to whether the total ban came from Joseph Smith or BY.

Quote

I agree with the opening post that the essay on the ban leaves it wide open to believe whatever one wants about the ban's origins. It condemns explanations for the ban (lack of valiance in the pre-existence, etc.), but falls short of stating that the ban itself was a mistake of man. I'm very grateful for that. 

I wish that we had bold statements from the Brethren themselves on these big, weighty issues, instead of anonymous, plausible-deniability essays, but we're in a "PR savvy" era of extreme caution right now.

You seem to be contradicting yourself. You say u r grateful the explanation doesn't address the weighty issue of whether the ban was from man, but then turn around and say "I wish that we had bold statements...." Personally, I'm not sure knowing the answer would help. But I am glad the brethren finally decided to ask the Lord.

[rpn]

The way we know this works is that man is supposed to work things out and then seek God about it.   I am persuaded that BY was concerned about how the church would survive both polygamy and interracial marriage.   He had learned about a mixed race member starting a new church in winter quarters where white women had to stay with him overnight for membership within a short time of learning that the son of the most prominent Mormon person of color in the NE had married a white woman in response to passage of a law permitting it.  No priesthood means no temple marriage which reduces the possibility of interracial marriage.  

IME Heavenly Father does not let listening leaders mess it up when it matters to His plan.  But He also doesn't step in a correct people unless it matters to His plan.   So I'm thinking that whether or not it was revelation or simply perceived confirmation of BY's decision, He was perfectly capable of making sure it stopped.   And that is what eventually happened.   When the first two prophets had it investigated and determined that there was no recorded revelation, but still allowed it to continue, Pres. Kimball persisted in seeking a change.