Attempt to reconcile the Priesthood ban

[cinepro]

14 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

The 1970s was the perfect time for the ban to be lifted. Any time before this would have resulted in huge divisions in the Church, perhaps even in the failure of the Restoration.

 

I disagree, and even if it was true, it's no reason to withhold the priesthood and Temple blessings from an entire race of people.  The gospel is meant to teach people how to be "good", and if it can't teach people not to denigrate an entire other race, then it deserves to fail.

Racism, like religion, is taught.  If we had a bunch of Church members who were racist to the point it would put the Church in danger to have black priesthood holders, then by the 1900s the blame for those racist beliefs should be put squarely on their parents and community, and considering the culture of Utah, the Church itself.  So when you say "But the Church members were racist!", I can only think "Yes, because the Church was teaching them to be racist!"

So it was a problem of the Church's making.  If LDS of the 19th century could accept polygamy, then I'm pretty sure they could accept Brigham Young teaching that black people are just as good as white people and that skin color is simply a physical adaptation and in no way is any indicator of a lesser or different intellect or spiritual state.

[BlueDreams]

20 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I see the topic has been raised a couple of times in recent threads.  Maybe we can approach it again. 

After June 1978 Bruce R McConkie said:

https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/bruce-r-mcconkie_alike-unto-god-2/

I've noticed a number of my fellow Church members dismiss the mistakes of the past as simple man-made mistakes.  I'd agree, they certainly were, particularly on this topic.  This topic speaks clearly to latter-day revelation.  What it means to receive revelation, and how we interpret that which is revealed, or that which is communicated to us about what was revealed.  Elder McConkie's statement above is one of the great admissions in all of Church history if you ask me.  The brethren who presumed to speak for God spoke presumptuously on this topic.  They put upon the people ideas and teachings, as if they came from modern day prophets, as if the presumptuous ideas came from God.  Indeed, the ideas presented as doctrine, official Church teaching, and revelation were later condemned by the Church--albeit anonymous authors of an essay that few in the Church seem to have read or know about.  "the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form."

The implications of this example in history have been huge for me.  in what other ways have mistakes like this been introduced?  We simply would never know.  many members, I've noticed don't seem to think there is hardly anything to note here.  To me clearly this example tells us that not only are our leaders sometimes mistaken, but that they will preach untruths as truths, from time to time.  We as members ought to be more careful about buying their lines hook, line and sinker.  They need it, to keep them from preaching awful doctrine as they did, and we need it, so we can expel evil from amongst us. 

 

It's the weekend so I got a minute  

First off I do agree that this issue is over simplified. I would add, by just about everybody. After all it's an issue that filled the bulk of a well written 300 page book. I do believe the essay over it is a really good summary....but it's a summary and even the people who read it can then take another leap and simplify or overlay their reasoning in the text. We're suckers for simplicty and  reduction of cause. And it's not exactly great. 

Likewise, I think you're concern and the concern I've seen extrapolated from the ban is oversimplified. For example, it assumes that there wasn't dissonance about what BY was stating. At least one of the apostles at the time vehemently disagreed with him. This wasn't a change that fully happened all at once or was accepted. In that way, this policy would have never been enacted in the first place if it had had the same expectation of unity among the quorum in implementing the policy as there was removing it. Some of the circumstances can't be reproduced in the way the church works now. It doesn't mean that we can't make our own unique mistakes....just that there's one avenue in which it's less likely to happen.  

Quote

 

One way, I've noticed that members try to seemingly get out of the implication of this whole mess, is by saying that leaders always knew the time would come when the rights of the priesthood would be given.  Elder McConkie says, "here are statements in our literature by the early Brethren which we have interpreted to mean that the Negroes would not receive the priesthood in mortality. I have said the same things, and people write me letters and say".

I think Elder McConkie has a better handle on it.

 

 

 

I don't know if i'd describe it as get out of this mess, per se

Quote

 

In the Race and the Priesthood essay, it says:

If you read the two speeches you will quickly learn that this quote from the essay, officially sanctioned by the church is misleading.  Nowhere do either speech say that--and yet it's put into quotation marks as if they both teach it.  There is a reference in one of the speeches that says,

 

 

 

It's not misleading, you must have not read or searched for it carefully enough. It's from the speech you linked to in this quote. Here's two paragraphs from it:

Quote

 

Now, then, in the Kingdom of God on the earth, a man who has the African blood in him cannot hold one jot nor tittle of Priesthood. Why? Because they are the true eternal principles the Lord Almighty has ordained, and who can help it? Men cannot, the angels cannot, and all the powers of earth and hell cannot take it off; but thus saith the Eternal I am, what I am, I take it off at my pleasure, and not one particle of power can that posterity of Cain have until the time comes that says he will have it taken away. That time will come when they will have the privilege of all we have the pr ivilege of and more. In the Kingdom of God on the earth the Africans cannot hold one particle of power in government. The subjects, the rightful servants of the residue of the children of Adam, and the residue of the children through the benign influence of the spirit of the Lord have the privilege of seeing to the posterity of Cain; inasmuch as it is the Lord's will they should receive the spirit of God by baptism, and that is the end of their privilege; and there is not power on earth to give them any more power.

   You talk of the dark skin. I never saw a white man on earth. I have seen persons whose hair came pretty nigh being white, but to talk about white skins, it is something entirely unknown, though some skins are fairer than others. Look at the black eye and the jet black hair we often see upon men and women who are called white; there is no such things as white folks. We are the children of Adam, who receive the blessings, and that is enough for us if we are not quite white.

 

 

 

I gave the full 2 paragraphs because much of the speech is all over the place in this. If one understands the time, you'd also know know that this was a fairly moderate view and in someway counter to what you'd expect from this era (such as saying he's never met a white man). Later in the speech you can tell that a big area of concern was one of governing....not just in the church but the state and national government.  Which is UT at that time was highly enmeshed.  Understanding the context, you could see how this was also a direct stance to reassert their claims to lead the territory and their peoples because of the chronic outside pushback and degradation of them (mormons) as a degenerate group because of large assumptions of race and ethnic mixing and polygamy (some of the ethnic groups now would be considered white....but not exactly then). To reassert their rights to governance would in essence mean asserting their racial purity while also asserting that as people stemming from the right european subsets, they had a right to govern themselves as they saw fit by the constitution....which would have included the allowance of things like polygamy. Which was also used to insist they were a degenerate sub-group based off solid scientific beliefs like "phrenology" or beliefs that one's genetic makeup could literally change by environmental/social factors. You also get a huge scattering of colloquial and feasibly anthropological beliefs endemic of the times about race and lineage that make absolutely no sense by our day. But is assumed as fact in BY's speech.      

 

Three things to discuss here:

Quote

 

1.  Revelation in the Church is not foolproof.  Evil teaching creeps into the Church just like it does anywhere else.  True?

 

I'm reminded of this passage from "Crucible of Doubt" where they talk about revelation being hindered by what type of questions we ask or the assumptions we hold. I don't know if I'd describe this as evil "creeping in" but what was already in there and among them. We are not immune, obviously, to the human condition.  

Quote

 

2.  The outside influence, and perhaps the within influence of lesser members, like Nelson Lowry, on this topic, were more inspired and closer to God then the official position of the Church.  This seems to happen from time to time.  Why?

3.  Evolution of thought, regarding the race issue, seemed to be primarily driven by a love for fellow people, in McKay's time, culminating, after a brief seeming attempt to ignore the issue again in the 70s, in reversal of policy by Pres. Kimball.  Personalities play a big roll in doctrine and policy.  It's less about God directing and more about Him letting personalities influence.

 

Well, to be fair, such influences were directly related to both its end and the ban's beginning. It happens because the Church isn't strictly hierarchical. It's influenced and reframed by each member and there can be a flow of thought and ideas coming from multiple sources. I don't believe in "lesser members"...and from what I've seen of the twelve, I doubt they do either. Even with BY's awful speech, you see pieces of this....where governing and leadership wasn't just him, but all under the ordination of the priesthood. This idea and the parameters have morphed in more than one way, but the basic idea remains the same. We all have rights and privileges to revelation. We all have stewardships of influence. We all can sustain those with larger stewardships. The word sustain is not the same as obey....though I do think that we at times re-write it as such. It means to strengthen and support. It can be a strength to share ones thoughts and feelings to our leaders. To add our voice, talents, and all that the Lord has given us to those around us. As well as to listen and assume that others may hold key pieces to truth and answers that we need. As the scripture put it, in the last day, even children would speak truth. 

We think of "evolution of thought" as often a good thing....but it's not. the ban in its later form wasn't as cemented as when BY first brought it into being. It evolved to include wide reaching restrictions and to assume a universal restorationist doctrine/policy (depending the era describing it) that it came to be seen as. Personalities....or more importantly people always play a big role as to the revelation received. Our perceptions and experiences can both be way to open us to further and deep wells of truth. It can also limit our growth and our capacity to receive answers to something we want to better understand. Just like any relationship that's healthy, we only grow as much as each person in the relationship is willing and ready to. 

 

I mentioned the issue was complicated and as I was reading Reeves book before bed last night, I noticed several influences that were important to laying the bulwark that led to so much inertia by McKay's time. Some of these I've mentioned but I thought I'd just bullet point them at the end to make it easier:

• Underlying assumptions inside the people largely going unchecked. This included the superiority or inferiority of peoples, the folk beliefs about the "seed of Cain" or "seed of ham" or whatever other seed they were talking about that day. What that meant for said people in their time. race mixing or the capacity to degenerate a race by race mixing, ideology, etc. 
•  External pressures to conform to the beliefs and practices of the non-mormon society of the day. When this was less pressing, the general acceptance of external society's and the intellectual/lay peoples assumptions about race, segregation, racial purity, etc.
• From the get-go (I mean even in JS's time....though not just JS) struggling to find balance between the racial stratification and beliefs about who could lead who, while welcoming all children of god into the covenants of the restoration. 
• taking one's negative feelings and sentiments as feelings that had greater meaning. There's this fun passage of Coltrin laying his hands to bestow the washing and annointings ceremony on Elijah Abel as never having such an "unpleasant feeling" in his life. He then interprets that as reason to never anoint another person with "Negro blood in him. Unless I was commanded by the Prophet to do so." Instead of examining his own prejudice, he used his unpleasant feelings as an indication that something outside himself was wrong with the experience itself. His feelings were seemingly validated by the further changes in policies that were cementing at the time. 
• Forgetfulness and poor record keeping. Some of this reminds me of passages that talk about the blindness of the people. With the assertion that blacks or anyone with black blood in them couldn't hold the priesthood, all information and experiences that went counter to this, such as Lewis and Abel just were forgotten. It helped that the black population of the church would have been a very small and often disadvantaged group (some, from before the 60's would have been slaves, for example....many with limited education and resources). It's easier to forget when the people directly effected are so minuscule. 
• Racism. Some of the decisions and experiences simply don't make sense without it.
• And lastly a lack in diversity of thought or not really listening to said voices when they came around (they were there from the get-go).
• Selective memory. Focusing on only one or two points and highlighting them to a point that they became rigid beliefs

 

I don't think we can somehow avoid ALL of this. Some of them conflict with others on the same list. I think there's plenty that we can learn fromt his time and should. One of the most important to me is that the restoration isn't done with JS....and wasn't meant to be. It happens as a group as wee try to move toward zion. It also happens as individuals as we receive truths line upon line and precept upon precept. Unfortunately the loss of truth and our own blindness also happens in a similar subtle fashion. Not all at once but piece-by-piece. Personally, I'm cautious about my beliefs, cautious with my feelings (both positive and negative ones), work to recognize and acknowledge what I don't know, and am willing to be wrong. That, I figure, is a start. 

 

With luv,

BD

Edited July 22, 2017 by BlueDreams

[USU78]

25 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

 

It's the weekend so I got a minute  

First off I do agree that this issue is over simplified. I would add, by just about everybody. After all it's an issue that filled the bulk of a well written 300 page book. I do believe the essay over it is a really good summary....but it's a summary and even the people who read it can then take another leap and simplify or overlay their reasoning in the text. We're suckers for simplicty and  reduction of cause. And it's not exactly great. 

Likewise, I think you're concern and the concern I've seen extrapolated from the ban is oversimplified. For example, it assumes that there wasn't dissonance about what BY was stating. At least one of the apostles at the time vehemently disagreed with him. This wasn't a change that fully happened all at once or was accepted. In that way, this policy would have never been enacted in the first place if it had had the same expectation of unity among the quorum in implementing the policy as there was removing it. Some of the circumstances can't be reproduced in the way the church works now. It doesn't mean that we can't make our own unique mistakes....just that there's one avenue in which it's less likely to happen.  

I don't know if i'd describe it as get out of this mess, per se

It's not misleading, you must have not read or searched for it carefully enough. It's from the speech you linked to in this quote. Here's two paragraphs from it:

I gave the full 2 paragraphs because much of the speech is all over the place in this. If one understands the time, you'd also know know that this was a fairly moderate view and in someway counter to what you'd expect from this era (such as saying he's never met a white man). Later in the speech you can tell that a big area of concern was one of governing....not just in the church but the state and national government.  Which is UT at that time was highly enmeshed.  Understanding the context, you could see how this was also a direct stance to reassert their claims to lead the territory and their peoples because of the chronic outside pushback and degradation of them (mormons) as a degenerate group because of large assumptions of race and ethnic mixing and polygamy (some of the ethnic groups now would be considered white....but not exactly then). To reassert their rights to governance would in essence mean asserting their racial purity while also asserting that as people stemming from the right european subsets, they had a right to govern themselves as they saw fit by the constitution....which would have included the allowance of things like polygamy. Which was also used to insist they were a degenerate sub-group based off solid scientific beliefs like "phrenology" or beliefs that one's genetic makeup could literally change by environmental/social factors. You also get a huge scattering of colloquial and feasibly anthropological beliefs endemic of the times about race and lineage that make absolutely no sense by our day. But is assumed as fact in BY's speech.      

 

Three things to discuss here:

I'm reminded of this passage from "Crucible of Doubt" where they talk about revelation being hindered by what type of questions we ask or the assumptions we hold. I don't know if I'd describe this as evil "creeping in" but what was already in there and among them. We are not immune, obviously, to the human condition.  

Well, to be fair, such influences were directly related to both its end and the ban's beginning. It happens because the Church isn't strictly hierarchical. It's influenced and reframed by each member and there can be a flow of thought and ideas coming from multiple sources. I don't believe in "lesser members"...and from what I've seen of the twelve, I doubt they do either. Even with BY's awful speech, you see pieces of this....where governing and leadership wasn't just him, but all under the ordination of the priesthood. This idea and the parameters have morphed in more than one way, but the basic idea remains the same. We all have rights and privileges to revelation. We all have stewardships of influence. We all can sustain those with larger stewardships. The word sustain is not the same as obey....though I do think that we at times re-write it as such. It means to strengthen and support. It can be a strength to share ones thoughts and feelings to our leaders. To add our voice, talents, and all that the Lord has given us to those around us. As well as to listen and assume that others may hold key pieces to truth and answers that we need. As the scripture put it, in the last day, even children would speak truth. 

We think of "evolution of thought" as often a good thing....but it's not. the ban in its later form wasn't as cemented as when BY first brought it into being. It evolved to include wide reaching restrictions and to assume a universal restorationist doctrine/policy (depending the era describing it) that it came to be seen as. Personalities....or more importantly people always play a big role as to the revelation received. Our perceptions and experiences can both be way to open us to further and deep wells of truth. It can also limit our growth and our capacity to receive answers to something we want to better understand. Just like any relationship that's healthy, we only grow as much as each person in the relationship is willing and ready to. 

 

I mentioned the issue was complicated and as I was reading Reeves book before bed last night, I noticed several influences that were important to laying the bulwark that led to so much inertia by McKay's time. Some of these I've mentioned but I thought I'd just bullet point them at the end to make it easier:

• Underlying assumptions inside the people largely going unchecked. This included the superiority or inferiority of peoples, the folk beliefs about the "seed of Cain" or "seed of ham" or whatever other seed they were talking about that day. What that meant for said people in their time. race mixing or the capacity to degenerate a race by race mixing, ideology, etc. 
•  External pressures to conform to the beliefs and practices of the non-mormon society of the day. When this was less pressing, the general acceptance of external society's and the intellectual/lay peoples assumptions about race, segregation, racial purity, etc.
• From the get-go (I mean even in JS's time....though not just JS) struggling to find balance between the racial stratification and beliefs about who could lead who, while welcoming all children of god into the covenants of the restoration. 
• taking one's negative feelings and sentiments as feelings that had greater meaning. There's this fun passage of Coltrin laying his hands to bestow the washing and annointings ceremony on Elijah Abel as never having such an "unpleasant feeling" in his life. He then interprets that as reason to never anoint another person with "Negro blood in him. Unless I was commanded by the Prophet to do so." Instead of examining his own prejudice, he used his unpleasant feelings as an indication that something outside himself was wrong with the experience itself. His feelings were seemingly validated by the further changes in policies that were cementing at the time. 
• Forgetfulness and poor record keeping. Some of this reminds me of passages that talk about the blindness of the people. With the assertion that blacks or anyone with black blood in them couldn't hold the priesthood, all information and experiences that went counter to this, such as Lewis and Abel just were forgotten. It helped that the black population of the church would have been a very small and often disadvantaged group (some, from before the 60's would have been slaves, for example....many with limited education and resources). It's easier to forget when the people directly effected are so minuscule. 
• Racism. Some of the decisions and experiences simply don't make sense without it.
• And lastly a lack in diversity of thought or not really listening to said voices when they came around (they were there from the get-go).
• Selective memory. Focusing on only one or two points and highlighting them to a point that they became rigid beliefs

 

I don't think we can somehow avoid ALL of this. Some of them conflict with others on the same list. I think there's plenty that we can learn fromt his time and should. One of the most important to me is that the restoration isn't done with JS....and wasn't meant to be. It happens as a group as wee try to move toward zion. It also happens as individuals as we receive truths line upon line and precept upon precept. Unfortunately the loss of truth and our own blindness also happens in a similar subtle fashion. Not all at once but piece-by-piece. Personally, I'm cautious about my beliefs, cautious with my feelings (both positive and negative ones), work to recognize and acknowledge what I don't know, and am willing to be wrong. That, I figure, is a start. 

 

With luv,

BD

Brava! That, imnsho, is quite the best offering you've offered up on this here board. Marvelous stuff.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

Survival because of the civli war?  Really?  Only half of the country thought that blacks were inferior and should be treated as chattel.  Why couldn't the saints supported that side of the civil war.  The side that actually won the war.  Why couldn't the revelation been dismissed in 1865?  By that time there was certainly no threat to the church.  

My complaint is that members want it both ways.  They want to say that the priesthood ban was one day going to be lifted.  And they want to say that the priesthood ban was not really a revelation but rather the prejudice opinion of Brigham Young.  It was the prejudice opinion of Brigham Young that also said that in the end, the ban would be lifted.  What is clear is that in 1978 none of the conditions of the lifting of the ban promised by Brigham Young had happened. 

I did not bring this up.  It was Scott that made the false statement that the lifting of the ban was promised.  He completely ignored  the way that ban would be lifted as outlined by the very person who imposed the ban.  Brigham Young.  

It is the whitewashing of history that I object to.

History is irrelevant to spirituality, and yes we can have it both ways. You should know that better than anyone, chosing a church is not unlike chosen a spouse.

It is all gut level, or that which is FELT deep within.

Are you moved by historical arguments against homosexuality? Do your innermost feelings trump the arguments? Get a clue what thus is about, and lose your Mormophobia .

[thesometimesaint]

16 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

And? 

The US Civil War was a result of the Missouri Compromise. Utah wasn't part that process.

[SteveO]

2 hours ago, cinepro said:

I disagree, and even if it was true, it's no reason to withhold the priesthood and Temple blessings from an entire race of people.  

For the 1300 or so years of Mosaic law, the vast majority of the human race was denied the blessings of the priesthood and the temple.  Even within the 12 tribes, it was restricted to the Levites.  The vast majority of the human race was denied the mortal ministry of the Savior.  How do you reconcile all that?

[USU78]

29 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

The US Civil War was a result of the Missouri Compromise. Utah wasn't part that process.

You cannot know that. You, as he, are speculating.

[thesometimesaint]

23 minutes ago, USU78 said:

You cannot know that. You, as he, are speculating.

Learn some history.

SEE http://ancestralfindings.com/the-missouri-compromise-what-was-it-and-how-did-it-contribute-to-the-civil-war/

[mfbukowski]

58 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

The US Civil War was a result of the Missouri Compromise. Utah wasn't part that process.

And North Korea has not yet nuked the US mainland but it is probably prudent to do something before hand to protect against that.

Or we could wait until the "what if" has actually happened.  Which is better?

Can you say with certainty what "would have happened" had Brigham not declared the ban?

Look- I am not agreeing with the ban by any means- I think it was a mistake.  But hindsight is always 20/20 and being an arm-chair quarterback is entirely different than being in the situation, pondering, and coming up with what you think is best at the time.

I am also not defending Brigham Young either.

For me it is a philosophical question about whether or not it was the best decision he could have made with the information he had taking into account his personal feelings and what he thought was right.   From that point of view, there is no way I can condemn the situation or his choice or say that he is somehow a "bad man" or even a "fallen prophet" for having made the decision as he did.

I am confident that he was doing the best he was capable of doing and indeed it might have been the right thing, considering we have no clue what might have been.

Edited July 22, 2017 by mfbukowski

[thesometimesaint]

Non sequitur.

Brother Brigham did do the best he could. He lead the Saints out of the US altogether.

[Bob Crockett]

19 hours ago, USU78 said:

I have long suspected it had something to do with slavery and the Church's difficult history with the Southern States during the antebellum years following the Utah War.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri_Compromise

If true, no clear record was ever kept, though you cannot fault the Church for failing to live up to their undertaking for the benefit of the Southern States.

Have you information that a record was kept somewhere?  Because if you do, that's pretty important.

This is Armand Mauss's view.  He's written extensively on the issue.  He and I served on the Claremont Mormon Studies program board and I've grilled him over this.

[Bob Crockett]

1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said:

The US Civil War was a result of the Missouri Compromise. Utah wasn't part that process.

In this speech by President Lincoln, http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/speech-on-the-repeal-of-the-missouri-compromise/, Utah was central to the Missouri Compromise issue.   The South wanted to let Utah in as a slave state (or neutral, to vote on the issue) and the North didn't.  And it is my conclusion Brigham Young had a better relationship with the South than the North, and given the timing of the priesthood ban, the ban was in connection with his efforts to get Utah admitted as a state.  

The abolition movement a very sore spot with the South.  The Southern Baptist Convention was created in 1845.   The SBC did not permit blacks to hold the priesthood.  It was evidently a litmus test for the south as to whether a church permitted black to hold the priesthood or not.  Between 1845 and 1852 the ban by Brigham Young started seeing its way into the Church, as Brigham Young thought that admission with the vote of the south was the only way he'd get Utah in.

There was an important reason to get admitted as a state.  It meant home rule.  Utah could pass legislation authorizing plural marriage instead of having to put up with federal authorities administering the state.  Some of these authorities were do-gooding evangelical ministers purporting to act as federal agents.  Brigham Young likely believed the ban was to be short-lived.  But, it didn't work, leading to the announcement of plural marriage in 1852.  The ban was never lifted during President Young's lifetime.

As I have said, it doesn't take a D&C-type revelation to run the Church.  When plural marriage was discontinued, for decades there was criticism within the church and by excommunicated fundamentalists that the manifesto does not contain the phrase "thus saith the Lord" as is evident in many sections of the D&C.  This particular argument was resurrected in connection with the recent ban on child baptisms in gay marriage households. But the Church operates mostly on unanimous decision after prayer -- where two or three or gathered I will be there, etc., and your actions will be ratified by the Spirit.

The reason it took so long to lift the ban is that some believed it was a revelation from God.  But when the research was completed, it was not necessarily the case, leading to a reversal.

Perhaps today it would seem offensive to think that President Young would play politics with the lives of his black members, and deny them a privilege others had.   Well, women don't have that privilege today.  The denial of the privilege to be a priest must not have been important at the time.

Edited July 22, 2017 by Bob Crockett

[katherine the great]

1 hour ago, SteveO said:

For the 1300 or so years of Mosaic law, the vast majority of the human race was denied the blessings of the priesthood and the temple.  Even within the 12 tribes, it was restricted to the Levites.  The vast majority of the human race was denied the mortal ministry of the Savior.  How do you reconcile all that?

It would be easier to reconcile if 11 of the tribes had the priesthood and only one did not.  Or if everyone in the human race qualified for the mortal ministry of the Savior except for one group (because of where their ancestors were born).

[Calm]

4 hours ago, california boy said:

Only half of the country thought that blacks were inferior and should be treated as chattel.  

Are you suggesting that majority of people in the Northern states saw blacks as equal?  The South were not the only states that had anti-miscegenation laws.

"By 1875 there were almost as many anti-miscegenation laws in force in northern states (Maine, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, and Ohio) as in southern ones—and most western states, including California, had such laws as well."

https://newrepublic.com/article/72808/the-race-against-race

Quote

Why couldn't the revelation been dismissed in 1865?  By that time there was certainly no threat to the church.  

So the federal attacks on the Church, including the Edmunds-Tucker Act (repealed in 1978 btw) that led to the imprisonment of many leaders and men to hard labour as well as jailing women iirc when they refused to testify against their husbands, took away women's right to vote, disincorporated the Church, and was seizing church property, were "no threat"?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmunds–Tucker_Act

Quote

It is the whitewashing of history that I object to.

Me too.

[katherine the great]

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

Are you suggesting that majority of people in the Northern states saw blacks as equal?  The South were not the only states that had anti-miscegenation laws.

"By 1875 there were almost as many anti-miscegenation laws in force in northern states (Maine, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, and Ohio) as in southern ones—and most western states, including California, had such laws as well."

This was my thought when I saw California boy's post--blacks were largely rejected as social equals among white society--south and north. However, northerners (and some southerners) in general did not support slavery or consider black individuals as "chattel". My dad is from New England and he was significantly more racist in his views than my California mom. It's interesting because he got along fine with people of all ancestries but as group, he didn't like "minorities". He's 85 years old and there are still remnants of those views in him.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

And North Korea has not yet nuked the US mainland but it is probably prudent to do something before hand to protect against that.

Or we could wait until the "what if" has actually happened.  Which is better?

Can you say with certainty what "would have happened" had Brigham not declared the ban?

Look- I am not agreeing with the ban by any means- I think it was a mistake.  But hindsight is always 20/20 and being an arm-chair quarterback is entirely different than being in the situation, pondering, and coming up with what you think is best at the time.

I am also not defending Brigham Young either.

For me it is a philosophical question about whether or not it was the best decision he could have made with the information he had taking into account his personal feelings and what he thought was right.   From that point of view, there is no way I can condemn the situation or his choice or say that he is somehow a "bad man" or even a "fallen prophet" for having made the decision as he did.

I am confident that he was doing the best he was capable of doing and indeed it might have been the right thing, considering we have no clue what might have been.

Elder Oaks’ talk about priesthood keys contains a thought that reminds me of your philosophical question.

“The divine nature of the limitations put upon the exercise of priesthood keys explains an essential contrast between decisions on matters of Church administration and decisions affecting the priesthood. The First Presidency and the Council of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve, who preside over the Church, are empowered to make many decisions affecting Church policies and procedures—matters such as the location of Church buildings and the ages for missionary service. But even though these presiding authorities hold and exercise all of the keys delegated to men in this dispensation, they are not free to alter the divinely decreed pattern that only men will hold offices in the priesthood.” https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2014/04/the-keys-and-authority-of-the-priesthood?lang=eng

While we do not know its origin, we can see that under the ban only men held the priesthood (per divine decree), but its conferral was denied to blacks (arguably per administrative policy decision in guiding and preserving the kingdom faced by the circumstances of the day).

Going against divine decree would be “evil” in an apostate sense, as countermanding God is virtually universally considered evil by those who worship a god. Denying conferral to black men would be “evil” in perhaps a social sense, depending on one’s perspective and conclusion considering all the factors you brought up in your philosophical question. It would have been less (if at all) evil for the culture of the day;perhaps more evil according to the cultural mores with which we assess the past (which are not at all shared across the globe).

[Calm]

"Denying conferral to black men would be “evil” in perhaps a social sense"

And if God had decreed all men worthy should receive the Priesthood, would withholding it from someone who was worthy for a reason not decreed by God be considered evil?

[stemelbow]

6 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

 

It's the weekend so I got a minute  

First off I do agree that this issue is over simplified. I would add, by just about everybody. After all it's an issue that filled the bulk of a well written 300 page book. I do believe the essay over it is a really good summary....but it's a summary and even the people who read it can then take another leap and simplify or overlay their reasoning in the text. We're suckers for simplicty and  reduction of cause. And it's not exactly great. 

Likewise, I think you're concern and the concern I've seen extrapolated from the ban is oversimplified.

It's a discussion board, to be clear.  It's meant to be simplified making room for further thoughts and discussion.  Thanks for discussing. 

6 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

 

For example, it assumes that there wasn't dissonance about what BY was stating.

Not really--there's no such assumption.  But I'd appreciate, for the sake of discussion the material you have in mind brought here for discussion. 

6 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

At least one of the apostles at the time vehemently disagreed with him. This wasn't a change that fully happened all at once or was accepted. In that way, this policy would have never been enacted in the first place if it had had the same expectation of unity among the quorum in implementing the policy as there was removing it. Some of the circumstances can't be reproduced in the way the church works now. It doesn't mean that we can't make our own unique mistakes....just that there's one avenue in which it's less likely to happen.  

I don't know if i'd describe it as get out of this mess, per se

It's not misleading, you must have not read or searched for it carefully enough. It's from the speech you linked to in this quote. Here's two paragraphs from it:

It remains misleading in my mind.  You're right I did a text search after I read the speeches and didn't catch it the first time and it failed to give me the results.  In the second speech it does say that black people will "all we have the privilege of and more".  Of course in the next sentence it says, "In the Kingdom of God on the earth the Africans cannot hold one particle of power in government."  In the kingdom or God, they won't have any power.  And continues, "The subjects, the rightful servants of the residue of the children of Adam, and the residue of the children through the benign influence of the spirit of the Lord have the privilege of seeing to the posterity of Cain; inasmuch as it is the Lord's will they should receive the spirit of God by baptism, and that is the end of their privilege; and there is not power on earth to give them any more power."  Meaning they will not receive privilege beyond baptism, and the spirit of God by baptism. 

The essay suggests, "At the same time, President Young said that at some future day, black Church members would “have [all] the privilege and more” enjoyed by other members.⁹ "  Seemingly suggesting that it will happen on earth.  BY's claim was it won't happen on this earth.  His other statements all suggest, as far as I've seen, that it will occur after all others receive the blessings.  Hope that helps clarify.  I'd say, yes, the essay was misleading on this point.  I don't see anything in these essays that suggest BY is saying the priesthood will be given at some time in mortality to those that are black, or of African descent. 

6 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

I gave the full 2 paragraphs because much of the speech is all over the place in this. If one understands the time, you'd also know know that this was a fairly moderate view and in someway counter to what you'd expect from this era (such as saying he's never met a white man). Later in the speech you can tell that a big area of concern was one of governing....not just in the church but the state and national government.  Which is UT at that time was highly enmeshed.  Understanding the context, you could see how this was also a direct stance to reassert their claims to lead the territory and their peoples because of the chronic outside pushback and degradation of them (mormons) as a degenerate group because of large assumptions of race and ethnic mixing and polygamy (some of the ethnic groups now would be considered white....but not exactly then). To reassert their rights to governance would in essence mean asserting their racial purity while also asserting that as people stemming from the right european subsets, they had a right to govern themselves as they saw fit by the constitution....which would have included the allowance of things like polygamy. Which was also used to insist they were a degenerate sub-group based off solid scientific beliefs like "phrenology" or beliefs that one's genetic makeup could literally change by environmental/social factors. You also get a huge scattering of colloquial and feasibly anthropological beliefs endemic of the times about race and lineage that make absolutely no sense by our day. But is assumed as fact in BY's speech.    

THat's all rather beside the point, it seems to me.  But I appreciate the comments. 

6 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

Three things to discuss here:

I'm reminded of this passage from "Crucible of Doubt" where they talk about revelation being hindered by what type of questions we ask or the assumptions we hold. I don't know if I'd describe this as evil "creeping in" but what was already in there and among them. We are not immune, obviously, to the human condition.  

Great.  Categorize how you wish. 

6 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

Well, to be fair, such influences were directly related to both its end and the ban's beginning.

Yes.  that's what I suggested. 

6 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

 

It happens because the Church isn't strictly hierarchical. It's influenced and reframed by each member and there can be a flow of thought and ideas coming from multiple sources. I don't believe in "lesser members"...and from what I've seen of the twelve, I doubt they do either. Even with BY's awful speech, you see pieces of this....where governing and leadership wasn't just him, but all under the ordination of the priesthood. This idea and the parameters have morphed in more than one way, but the basic idea remains the same. We all have rights and privileges to revelation. We all have stewardships of influence. We all can sustain those with larger stewardships. The word sustain is not the same as obey....though I do think that we at times re-write it as such. It means to strengthen and support. It can be a strength to share ones thoughts and feelings to our leaders. To add our voice, talents, and all that the Lord has given us to those around us. As well as to listen and assume that others may hold key pieces to truth and answers that we need. As the scripture put it, in the last day, even children would speak truth. 

And on top  of all of that revelation is in no way foolproof.  Thus, no matter how we slice it, it will always be that we are a little off on something.  We simply can't see well enough to not be. 

6 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

We think of "evolution of thought" as often a good thing....but it's not. the ban in its later form wasn't as cemented as when BY first brought it into being. It evolved to include wide reaching restrictions and to assume a universal restorationist doctrine/policy (depending the era describing it) that it came to be seen as. Personalities....or more importantly people always play a big role as to the revelation received. Our perceptions and experiences can both be way to open us to further and deep wells of truth. It can also limit our growth and our capacity to receive answers to something we want to better understand. Just like any relationship that's healthy, we only grow as much as each person in the relationship is willing and ready to. 

 

Good summary. 

6 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

I mentioned the issue was complicated and as I was reading Reeves book before bed last night, I noticed several influences that were important to laying the bulwark that led to so much inertia by McKay's time. Some of these I've mentioned but I thought I'd just bullet point them at the end to make it easier:

• Underlying assumptions inside the people largely going unchecked. This included the superiority or inferiority of peoples, the folk beliefs about the "seed of Cain" or "seed of ham" or whatever other seed they were talking about that day. What that meant for said people in their time. race mixing or the capacity to degenerate a race by race mixing, ideology, etc. 
•  External pressures to conform to the beliefs and practices of the non-mormon society of the day. When this was less pressing, the general acceptance of external society's and the intellectual/lay peoples assumptions about race, segregation, racial purity, etc.
• From the get-go (I mean even in JS's time....though not just JS) struggling to find balance between the racial stratification and beliefs about who could lead who, while welcoming all children of god into the covenants of the restoration. 
• taking one's negative feelings and sentiments as feelings that had greater meaning. There's this fun passage of Coltrin laying his hands to bestow the washing and annointings ceremony on Elijah Abel as never having such an "unpleasant feeling" in his life. He then interprets that as reason to never anoint another person with "Negro blood in him. Unless I was commanded by the Prophet to do so." Instead of examining his own prejudice, he used his unpleasant feelings as an indication that something outside himself was wrong with the experience itself. His feelings were seemingly validated by the further changes in policies that were cementing at the time. 
• Forgetfulness and poor record keeping. Some of this reminds me of passages that talk about the blindness of the people. With the assertion that blacks or anyone with black blood in them couldn't hold the priesthood, all information and experiences that went counter to this, such as Lewis and Abel just were forgotten. It helped that the black population of the church would have been a very small and often disadvantaged group (some, from before the 60's would have been slaves, for example....many with limited education and resources). It's easier to forget when the people directly effected are so minuscule. 
• Racism. Some of the decisions and experiences simply don't make sense without it.
• And lastly a lack in diversity of thought or not really listening to said voices when they came around (they were there from the get-go).
• Selective memory. Focusing on only one or two points and highlighting them to a point that they became rigid beliefs

 

I don't think we can somehow avoid ALL of this. Some of them conflict with others on the same list. I think there's plenty that we can learn fromt his time and should. One of the most important to me is that the restoration isn't done with JS....and wasn't meant to be. It happens as a group as wee try to move toward zion. It also happens as individuals as we receive truths line upon line and precept upon precept. Unfortunately the loss of truth and our own blindness also happens in a similar subtle fashion. Not all at once but piece-by-piece. Personally, I'm cautious about my beliefs, cautious with my feelings (both positive and negative ones), work to recognize and acknowledge what I don't know, and am willing to be wrong. That, I figure, is a start. 

 

With luv,

BD

Alrighty.  It really would be nice if those that are prophets did not speak presumptuously.  But they're human like us.  They like to speak dogmatically and confidently like anyone else.  They seem to assume revelation when ideas feel right or work for them.  I don't condemn them for any of that.  It should be expected, all things considered.  But what that means is, they've likely at different points and time, spoke presumptuously.  THey likely have mislead a bit, as they did before.  Again, not a terrible thing, in and of itself.  But what comes of it, might be. 

[stemelbow]

22 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Welcome to the real world, stemelbow.  All three of your points here are valid to a greater or lesser extent.  However, that does not make Lowry Nelson or Jerald Tanner prophets just because they opposed racism.  I also opposed racism then, but that did not make me a prophet.

Most of your summary on McConkie and McKay was on point and germane, although you forgot to note that McKay was not president of the Church in 1949, and was not the guy in charge.  Thus, you gave him a bad image as some sort of hypocrite.  You also failed to note Orson Pratt's strong opposition to the views of Brigham Young on race and priesthood.  Finally, you failed to note that Black men were ordained in Joseph's day, and that Joseph sought an end to slavery in America.  It is easy to adopt a monomaniacal version of what the Mormon Church has stood for, and to forget the actual history.

 

Thanks for the comments Robert.  McKay was in the First Presidency in 1949 when the First Presidency statement on race came out.  So at one point he was on board with the "doctrine".  Those years must have really been interesting years as they worked this all of this. 

I will add, there is tons I did not mention.  It is a very complicated matter of history that extended well over a century, and I made but a brief post.  But I'm happy this is a discussion board so all ideas and viewpoints can be shared.  Thanks for the addition.  We ought to keep all of that in mind, for sure. 

Thanks.

[cinepro]

4 hours ago, SteveO said:

For the 1300 or so years of Mosaic law, the vast majority of the human race was denied the blessings of the priesthood and the temple.  Even within the 12 tribes, it was restricted to the Levites.  The vast majority of the human race was denied the mortal ministry of the Savior.  How do you reconcile all that?

 

Imagine that your stake is having a youth conference activity that involves a three day lake trip (like we did back in the 1980s).  It will be three days at a stake member's cabin, with waterskiing, jet skiis, a pontoon boat, a rope swing, and evening camp fires.  They'll camp out on the property.  All the youth in the stake are looking forward to it.

But on the first day of the trip, a bunch of the kids get out of hand and almost burn the cabin down.  So the trip is cancelled and everyone comes home early.

The next year, the cabin still isn't fully up to par, so the trip is cancelled again.  But the cabin-owning ward member happens to be the Priest advisor, so he takes up the Priests from his ward up for a night.

Then the year after that, the Stake President announces that the trip will be scheduled again.  This time it will be four days, and there are even better activities planned. 

But the Stake President also announces that the 23 black youth in the stake can't go.  He just feels like it isn't right for them to go.  Now to be clear, it's not that he's racist. It's not a racist policy.  It's just that it would be best for them not to go, and he feels like it's an inspired decision, so please don't question it.

Some stake members don't have a problem with it.  They point out that the black youth probably wouldn't enjoy it anyway, and they aren't ready for a four-day trip like that (do they even swim?).  Others point out that it might be difficult for the white kids to have the black kids around, so for their sake this is probably for the best.  It's not that they're racist, mind you, it's just that this is how things are.  And some of the white stake members point out that some of the black youth and their families are fine with it; they trust the Stake President and won't put up a fight, so why should anyone else care?

When some of the stake members protest, the Stake President points out that none of the youth got to go the year before except for the Priests, and no one complained about it then.  And the year before that, everyone had to come home early.  So we should just be happy that so many more youth get to go to the lake this year.  And the Stake President assures everyone that the day will come when the black teenagers will be invited to go back to the cabin.  He also assures everyone that this has absolutely nothing to do with his car being stolen a few months ago by a man and woman who turned out to be black.

If that sounds odd to you, then that is the reason the Preisthood ban sounds odd to me.  If that sounds like a perfectly reasonable thing for the Stake President to do, then there's nothing I can do to explain why I see the Mosaic Law/ Levite analogies to be insultingly stupid and offensive when compared to the Priesthood Ban.

 

Edited July 22, 2017 by cinepro

[stemelbow]

21 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

The 1970s was the perfect time for the ban to be lifted. Any time before this would have resulted in huge divisions in the Church, perhaps even in the failure of the Restoration.

Maybe the leadership would have divided.  But, it'd be odd for God to wait because a few men at the top disagreed.  Of course it was less God and more about the people involved.  It simply couldn't work because of the people.  THat's not to say God would have preferred the ban never was though.  I'd think He most likely wished it never was. 

21 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

The question of ordination to the Priesthood (racial qualifications) was not an issue in Israel or America at any time before the Restoration, but it was an big issue for those living

in the center of the Restoration and establishment of the Church in the West. When the time was right and the people were ready, it happened.

Just my opinion.

Thanks for your opinion, even if you're clearly wrong.

[california boy]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

Are you suggesting that majority of people in the Northern states saw blacks as equal?  The South were not the only states that had anti-miscegenation laws.

"By 1875 there were almost as many anti-miscegenation laws in force in northern states (Maine, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, and Ohio) as in southern ones—and most western states, including California, had such laws as well."

https://newrepublic.com/article/72808/the-race-against-race

So the federal attacks on the Church, including the Edmunds-Tucker Act (repealed in 1978 btw) that led to the imprisonment of many leaders and men to hard labour as well as jailing women iirc when they refused to testify against their husbands, took away women's right to vote, disincorporated the Church, and was seizing church property, were "no threat"?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmunds–Tucker_Act

Me too.

You are probably right.  Maybe not half, but Utah would not have been alone if they had treated blacks more kindly and not discriminated against them. 

In any event, like I said, 

Quote

My complaint is that members want it both ways.  They want to say that the priesthood ban was one day going to be lifted.  And they want to say that the priesthood ban was not really a revelation but rather the prejudice opinion of Brigham Young.  It was the prejudice opinion of Brigham Young that also said that in the end, the ban would be lifted.  What is clear is that in 1978 none of the conditions of the lifting of the ban promised by Brigham Young had happened. 

 

[stemelbow]

7 minutes ago, cinepro said:

 

Imagine that your stake is having a youth conference activity that involves a three day lake trip (like we did back in the 1980s).  It will be three days at a stake member's cabin, with waterskiing, jet skiis, a pontoon boat, a rope swing, and evening camp fires.  All the youth in the ward are looking forward to it.

But on the first day of the trip, a bunch of the kids get out of hand and almost burn the cabin down.  So the trip is cancelled and everyone comes home early.

The next year, the cabin still isn't fully up to par, so the trip is cancelled again.  But the cabin-owning ward member happens to be the Priest advisor, so he takes up the Priests from his ward up for a night.

Then the year after that, the Stake President announces that the trip will be scheduled again.  This time it will be four days, and there are even better activities planned. 

But the Stake President also announces that the 23 black youth in the stake can't go.  He just feels like it isn't right for them to go.  Now to be clear, it's not that he's racist. It's not a racist policy.  It's just that it would be best for them not to go, and he feels like it's an inspired decision, so please don't question it.

When some of the stake members protest, the Stake President points out that none of the youth got to go the year before except for the Priests, and no one complained about it then.  So we should just be happy that so many more youth get to go to the lake this year.  And the Stake President assures everyone that the day will come when the black teenagers will be invited to go back to the cabin.  He also assures everyone that this has absolutely nothing to do with his car being stolen a few months ago by a man and woman who turned out to be black.

If that sounds odd to you, then that is the reason the Preisthood ban sounds odd to me.  If that sounds like a perfectly reasonable thing for the Stake President to do, then there's nothing I can do to explain why I see the Mosaic Law/ Levite analogies to be insultingly stupid and offensive when compared to the Priesthood Ban.

 

I couldn't help but be reminded.  About half way into my mission, most of the Polynesian missionaries in our mission were finished.  I had made friends with different missionaries depending where we were, and I started to realize the remaining were almost all white.  Then transfers came and I got a companion who happened to be the only remaining Polynesian missionary in our mission.  We became good friends.  But, sadly, I learned during our companionship, he was told by Mission Pres, that he was the only Polynesian left, because the Mission Pres requested no more Polynesians get sent to our mission.  THey had caused too much trouble, in the past, said the MP.  It put a chip on the shoulder of my companion as he committed to be the best missionary in the mission to prove the MP wrong.  He of course is one of the finest people I know. 

I honestly didn't realize a MP had such say in these matters, but apparently he did.  I also did not think my MP would be so blatantly racist. 

[why me]

This is a great interview about the presithood ban.

 

http://www.mormonstories.org/mormon-stories-026-blacks-and-the-lds-priesthood-an-interview-with-darius-gray-and-margaret-young/

Both Dariius and Margaret are active members of the lds church.

[SteveO]

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

 

Imagine that your stake is having a youth conference activity that involves a three day lake trip (like we did back in the 1980s).  It will be three days at a stake member's cabin, with waterskiing, jet skiis, a pontoon boat, a rope swing, and evening camp fires.  They'll camp out on the property.  All the youth in the stake are looking forward to it.

But on the first day of the trip, a bunch of the kids get out of hand and almost burn the cabin down.  So the trip is cancelled and everyone comes home early.

The next year, the cabin still isn't fully up to par, so the trip is cancelled again.  But the cabin-owning ward member happens to be the Priest advisor, so he takes up the Priests from his ward up for a night.

Then the year after that, the Stake President announces that the trip will be scheduled again.  This time it will be four days, and there are even better activities planned. 

But the Stake President also announces that the 23 black youth in the stake can't go.  He just feels like it isn't right for them to go.  Now to be clear, it's not that he's racist. It's not a racist policy.  It's just that it would be best for them not to go, and he feels like it's an inspired decision, so please don't question it.

Some stake members don't have a problem with it.  They point out that the black youth probably wouldn't enjoy it anyway, and they aren't ready for a four-day trip like that (do they even swim?).  Others point out that it might be difficult for the white kids to have the black kids around, so for their sake this is probably for the best.  It's not that they're racist, mind you, it's just that this is how things are.  And some of the white stake members point out that some of the black youth and their families are fine with it; they trust the Stake President and won't put up a fight, so why should anyone else care?

When some of the stake members protest, the Stake President points out that none of the youth got to go the year before except for the Priests, and no one complained about it then.  And the year before that, everyone had to come home early.  So we should just be happy that so many more youth get to go to the lake this year.  And the Stake President assures everyone that the day will come when the black teenagers will be invited to go back to the cabin.  He also assures everyone that this has absolutely nothing to do with his car being stolen a few months ago by a man and woman who turned out to be black.

If that sounds odd to you, then that is the reason the Preisthood ban sounds odd to me.  If that sounds like a perfectly reasonable thing for the Stake President to do, then there's nothing I can do to explain why I see the Mosaic Law/ Levite analogies to be insultingly stupid and offensive when compared to the Priesthood Ban.

 

The only thing odd is the analogy...just odd

Just to be clear, I asked you to reconcile your comment that there is "no reason to withhold the priesthood and Temple blessings from an entire race of people" given that it has been the very case in the past.  The Lord seems to have had His reasons to justify it--even if they are unknown to us.

Also to be clear, I'm not defending the ban, but I do think it partly stems from misunderstandings for why the Lord (rightly) had restrictions in the Biblical history.

Edited July 22, 2017 by SteveO