Attempt to reconcile the Priesthood ban

[Robert F. Smith]

47 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

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. 

.....................................................

Correct.  God does not dictate, he works with the Church members as he finds them.  He provides promptings and inspiration to free agents, and they do what they think is right.  Just like the Jews, Mormons have their shortcomings and God cannot and will not force compliance.  He can condemn and curse his people, he can persecute and exile them, but he cannot force them to repent.  Especially if they think that all is well in Zion and that no changes are necessary.  A chosen people who are not humble and who will not listen are chosen still, but their blessings are in abeyance.  A people who have concocted one false story after another to account for their own evil inclinations are probably not ready to see the light, and that may take generations.

One recalls how God condemned Israel to wander 40 years in the Wilderness before they were allowed to enter the Promised Land.  That was a deliberate punishment for evil.

[Robert F. Smith]

20 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

......................................

Mormon mongrels.  Hahaha.  Practitioners of one of the "twin relics of barbarism": polygamy.

[Duncan]

52 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

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. 

Did you serve in Hong Kong in the early mid 1980's? my BIL did and he said that some California mission had this sudden need for Chinese speakers and his MP sent all the missionaries he hated there and they were left with a relatively trouble maker free mission

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

"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?

In a societal sense, I think it would depend on the societal standpoint from which I'm judging.

As I said, I consider going against divine decree would be “evil” in the apostate sense of countermanding God. In any of the LDS units specifically, I think it would be an apostate action in light of OD2 (or any similar hypothetical prophetic revelation in any of the other dispensations).

[cinepro]

2 hours ago, SteveO said:

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.

First of all, why are you trying to use "Biblical" history as analogies to the Priesthood Ban when the much more applicable scriptural support would be the direct and obvious teachings about a specific lineage not getting the Priesthood because of a curse?

Quote

21 Now this king of Egypt was a descendant from the loins of Ham, and was a partaker of the blood of the Canaanites by birth. 

24 When this woman discovered the land it was under water, who afterward settled her sons in it; and thus, from Ham, sprang that race which preserved the curse in the land.

 

25 Now the first government of Egypt was established by Pharaoh, the eldest son of Egyptus, the daughter of Ham, and it was after the manner of the government of Ham, which was patriarchal. 

26 Pharaoh, being a righteous man, established his kingdom and judged his people wisely and justly all his days, seeking earnestly to imitate that order established by the fathers in the first generations, in the days of the first patriarchal reign, even in the reign of Adam, and also of Noah, his father, who blessed him with the blessings of the earth, and with the blessings of wisdom, but cursed him as pertaining to the Priesthood. 

27 Now, Pharaoh being of that lineage by which he could not have the right of Priesthood, notwithstanding the Pharaohs would fain claim it from Noah, through Ham, therefore my father was led away by their idolatry; 

28 But I shall endeavor, hereafter, to delineate the chronology running back from myself to the beginning of the creation, for the records have come into my hands, which I hold unto this present time.

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/abr/1.11

(Emphasis added)

You don't need some sort of vague analogy between the Mosaic Law or the Levites or Chirst going to the Jews first.  Here is something in the scriptures that isn't an analogy because it is describing exactly what you are talking about.  Why isn't this the first thing that comes to mind when we talk about the scriptures and the Priesthood Ban?

 

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 traits, and only a fool would think they indicate something about a person's worthiness to receive the priesthood or go to the Temple.  The Priesthood Ban based on black physical characteristics and presumed heritage only seems to make sense because of the severe racism on which it is based. 

It doesn't make more sense to restrict people with presumed African ancestry based on their dark skin and other features.  And in fact, those would be the worst arbitrary traits to choose.   I think we need to figure out why it seems to make more sense to so many people. 

For example, suppose we lived in a world where "little people" were severely persecuted.  They were mocked, made fun of, discriminated against, occasionally murdered without justice, forced to live as second class citizens etc.

Then suppose President Monson stood in Conference and said "It has been made known to me that God doesn't want little people to have the Priesthood or go to the Temple.  He loves them, and we should treat them well, and this has absolutely nothing to do with the persecution society heaps on them.  It is just coincidental that God has also chosen this as the one trait that indicates unworthiness for the Priesthood."

Some might look at that as totally making sense.  Others might think it calls into question President Monson's mental health.  But wouldn't you look at it and think "Really God, of all the options that's the one that you choose as an indicator?"

 

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

Edited July 23, 2017 by cinepro

[Glenn101]

For some reason many LDS and former wish to lay the priesthood ban at Brigham Young's feet, pointing out the dearth of documentation concerning anything Joseph Smith might have said about it. That lack of documentation is not surprising since we have records of only about fifty-four of more than two hundred and fifty that Joseph's was known to have made. These are notes and not verbatim reports.. And more importantly the private instruction sessions that Joseph had with the twelve.

It is evident that the ban was known about from prior to 1847 and probably before 1845 from remarks made by Elders Parley P. Pratt in April of 1847 and Orson Hyde in a speech in Nauvoo in April of 1945. I do not see how anyone can affirmatively lay the origin of that policy at Brigham Young's feet. There is no doubt that he did start stringently enforcing the policy,  but declared that he was not its author nor did he lay the matter at Joseph's feet.

The only thing that we do know at this point that the ban was removed by the 1978 revelation.

There are slo those who keep reminding us that our leaders are fallible. This is hardly a matter of dispute, but then we must also look into our own fallibility.

I am not going to debate whether the ban was from God or not. We have Brigham Youngs words and the revelation that made them moot.

Glenn

[cinepro]

20 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

It is evident that the ban was known about from prior to 1847 and probably before 1845 from remarks made by Elders Parley P. Pratt in April of 1847 and Orson Hyde in a speech in Nauvoo in April of 1945.

 

What were those remarks?

Edited July 23, 2017 by cinepro

[BlueDreams]

4 hours ago, stemelbow said:

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

THere is a difference between simplified and oversimplified....which is what I said. Obviously, things are going to be simplified or summarized. I did so myself in the post you're quoting. But that's not what I see often happening when race or the priesthood ban are being discussed. It is often oversimplified to one or two points that bolster the perspective of whoever's writing up their discussion point. To me that's oversimplified. 

Quote

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. 

I'm confused as to what you mean by "the material you have in mind brought her for discussion." I'm not sure if you're talking about what  I view as underlying assumptions when people (or in this specific post I'd quoted from you) state generalized remarks like "the brethren" or "they" as one thinking block. Or if you mean where I was getting my material from. In which case, I think I made that pretty clear from my other posts just a few before that one that it was from Paul Reeve's book, and the link you gave. Or if it's something else all together.  

Quote

 

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. 

 

I can see how it can be read as misleading. I don't personally think that it is. It's indicating that there was still room for a change to occur by God and His "will and pleasure." The revelation to remove the ban fits that qualification and it would be the more important point that the church needs to indicate there is room or precedence for such. The rest falls under disavowed teachings and assumptions and also fits in the category the the McConkie quote about forgetting because the spoke with an imperfect knowledge.  

Quote

 

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

Great.  Categorize how you wish. 

Yes.  that's what I suggested. 

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. 

 

Sure. I mean I'm more a glass half full sort of gal, so I'd say that with each turn we grow and expand in knowledge from knowledge we already had with minor course adjustments along the way. But that's probably semantics. For me, when something is not true, it get's stuck and growth is at the very least stunted. It may take a while to feel the effects, but sooner or later it does. I'm personally not looking for a "foolproof" method, just a course that leads to growth. 

Good summary. 

Quote

 

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. 

 

I don't read them as being presumptuous. Even when they misspoke or got things wrong or assumed a belief that turned out to be untrue or faulty or misled. For me, that reads too much into their minds and motives in a way that I simply don't have access to. And for many, though the results were not as we'd like and often led to more constriction till sometime around McKay. The way they were trying to go about it, wasn't necessarily wrong. I see deliberation, trying to collect evidence, and learn from firsthand sources of their day. Many just got it wrong. 

 

With luv,

BD

[BlueDreams]

4 hours ago, california boy said:

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, 

"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. "

Yeah, this feels WAY oversimplified. In many ways wasn't bad for their era for race relations. They weren't the best by any means. But the "best" would have felt and probably had a similar percentage of the population as the ALF and/or vegan PETA members today. They were generally seen as too extreme.  From what I've read and if I were to extrapolate the analogy to vegetarianism. The North would have been like the concious meat eaters who try to limit their intake a few times a week or maybe once a day... with pockets of vegetarians and the rare vegans scattered within it. The south would have been similar to people that feel like limiting your meat is like having one meal where if you don't have meat it isn't a meal. Utahns were the sort who acknowledge the value of meat, limited it to some extent, but were not as strident. They also had a few of the carnivores running about as well as a couple of the vegetarians.

Beyond that, I think your main complaint, still feels more like a hodgepodge of reasonings. When I read members on this thread alone you get a variety of responses and outlooks on this. Most showing some degree of ambiguity about what this means or signifies. I also think that the context or details between point a and c. For example, I do believe that there was precedence for the ban to be lifted one day, in their mistaken constructs. But I still generally believe that it was a policy bred of a bunch of errors, prejudice, and misconceptions. It doesn't mean that I think the ban is somehow both revelation and error. Just that I believe that it was a point of "doctrine" or policy that was meant to be temporary from the beginning. Even if temporary was assumed to be nigh unto or after the millennium.   

 

With luv,

BD

[Glenn101]

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

What were those remarks?

Pratt referred to William McCary as "this black man who has got the blood of Ham in him which linege was cursed as regards the priesthood". This quote was from the General Church Minutes of 15 April of 1847. It appears in Reeves' book but in Reeves' opinion it Pratt was striking out on his own.

Orson Hyde in a speech in April of 1845 concerning Sydney Rigdon had this to say about the Negro: 'Canaan, the son of Ham, received the curse, for Noah wished to place the curse as remote from himself as possible. He therefore placed it upon his Grandson instead of his son. Now, it would seem cruel to force pure celestial spirits into the world through the lineage of Canaan that had been cursed. This would be ill appropriate, putting the precious and the vile together. But those spirits in heaven that rather lent an influence to the devil, thinking he had a little the best right to govern, but did not take a very active part any way were required to come into the world and take bodies in the accursed lineage of Canaan; and hence the negro or African Race,  Now, therefore, all those who are halting concerning who has the right to govern had better look at the fate of their brethren that have gone before them, and take warning in time lest they learn obedience by the things which they suffer. "Choose ye this day whom you will serve." '

Although Hyde does not mention the priesthood, it would seem evident that he is referring to the Book of Abraham bit and the Genesis account of Noah and Ham after the flood.

Maybe I should amend my original statement about it being evident that the ban originated before such and such a time and say that the extant historical documentation certainly could be interpreted that way and at the very least makes the origins more ambiguous.

As to whether it was from God or man, I will not debate that nor even offer my opinion.

Glenn

Edited July 23, 2017 by Glenn101
An amendment

[SteveO]

4 hours ago, cinepro said:

First of all, why are you trying to use "Biblical" history as analogies to the Priesthood Ban when the much more applicable scriptural support would be the direct and obvious teachings about a specific lineage not getting the Priesthood because of a curse?

You don't need some sort of vague analogy between the Mosaic Law or the Levites or Chirst going to the Jews first.  Here is something in the scriptures that isn't an analogy because it is describing exactly what you are talking about.  Why isn't this the first thing that comes to mind when we talk about the scriptures and the Priesthood Ban?

 

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 traits, and only a fool would think they indicate something about a person's worthiness to receive the priesthood or go to the Temple.  The Priesthood Ban based on black physical characteristics and presumed heritage only seems to make sense because of the severe racism on which it is based. 

It doesn't make more sense to restrict people with presumed African ancestry based on their dark skin and other features.  And in fact, those would be the worst arbitrary traits to choose.   I think we need to figure out why it seems to make more sense to so many people. 

For example, suppose we lived in a world where "little people" were severely persecuted.  They were mocked, made fun of, discriminated against, occasionally murdered without justice, forced to live as second class citizens etc.

Then suppose President Monson stood in Conference and said "It has been made known to me that God doesn't want little people to have the Priesthood or go to the Temple.  He loves them, and we should treat them well, and this has absolutely nothing to do with the persecution society heaps on them.  It is just coincidental that God has also chosen this as the one trait that indicates unworthiness for the Priesthood."

Some might look at that as totally making sense.  Others might think it calls into question President Monson's mental health.  But wouldn't you look at it and think "Really God, of all the options that's the one that you choose as an indicator?"

 

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

Ok.  I understand that there are scriptural curses and all that.  I get why people could look at that and see the fingerprints of man's prejudice all over it.

I don't see Israel's status as "God's chosen" at the cost of denigration to all other races and tribes.  On the contrary, giving the priesthood and law to the Jews only elevated them in responsibility and high expectations.  Later apostasy would lead to the arrogance of the Jews believing they were better than others.

I would say that Mormons have that tendency too--not as severe, but some do mistake our status as a "peculiar people" to equate as "better than other people".  I would say that mentality was far more prevalent in Brigham Young's day than it is today.

Maybe that pharisaical mentality was what influenced the ban.  

What you're saying is right, I agree with it, but I think the "cursing" is stemming more from man's misunderstanding of the nature of being "peculiar".  I think when you add in the House of Israel as being the Lord's chosen, their special recognition as a people, and Brigham Young and others being products of their time and participating in the restoration...and you have a racist ban.

I hope that is clear, I worked 14 hours today and I'm not proofreading anything anymore.

[Bernard Gui]

9 hours ago, stemelbow said:

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

Which, of course, is a matter of opinion. Having lived through that time, I'll stick to mine. I think the Lord knows what He is doing when it comes to the management of His Priesthood.

[Bernard Gui]

On 7/22/2017 at 8:00 AM, 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.  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.

Here's how I see it. The Priesthood and endowment have only been other on earth in very limited times and circumstances. Only during our dispensation were they to be made available to all the world. In the economy of God, during the early years of the Restoration the Priesthood and temple blessings were withheld for a relatively short time in a relatively small area for a purpose. Growth in numbers and influence would make an orderly elimination of racism possible.  In the end, they were always intended be available to all.

While I see your points, I believe the issues of racism are far more deeply imbedded in the human heart than you allow. It cost hundreds of thousands of lives to eliminate the practice of slavery just in the US, but that did not end the underlying problems of racism. Millions of lives were lost in Europe in the struggle to end racism there. And then followed decades of struggle before we created a generation that was willing and able to deal forcefully with the persistent issues of racism in America. My contemporaries were ready and eager for it to happen in the general culture and in the Church in the 60s and 70s.

This struggle persists today, but it was a much more serious issue when it started to come to a head in the middle of the 20th Century. To lay it all at the feet of the Church today is myopic and unfair, in my opinion. I think my generation (the vaunted Great Generation ) was raised in part in order to deal with racism in the Church in the midst of a more general societal change. We were ready. Previous generations were not.

Evidence of this is that the lifting of the Ban did not result in schisms or mass defections. In fact, I don't know anyone who left the Church because of it. I don't believe that could have happened even 20 years previously. When it happened the Church was in a great position to immediately maximize missionary efforts in the countries of Africa and Latin America. I see this as an orderly process to resolve a volatile problem that won't completely go away until the Savior comes again.

A similar process brought the Word of Wisdom to the status it has today. Of course it is not comparable with racism in seriousness, but the principal was the same. There came a time when leaders gave up trying to enforce it on an unwilling older generation (including some long-time leaders), and instead decided to focus the effort on the next generation.

Edited July 23, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[BlueDreams]

10 hours ago, Glenn101 said:

Pratt referred to William McCary as "this black man who has got the blood of Ham in him which linege was cursed as regards the priesthood". This quote was from the General Church Minutes of 15 April of 1847. It appears in Reeves' book but in Reeves' opinion it Pratt was striking out on his own.

Orson Hyde in a speech in April of 1845 concerning Sydney Rigdon had this to say about the Negro: 'Canaan, the son of Ham, received the curse, for Noah wished to place the curse as remote from himself as possible. He therefore placed it upon his Grandson instead of his son. Now, it would seem cruel to force pure celestial spirits into the world through the lineage of Canaan that had been cursed. This would be ill appropriate, putting the precious and the vile together. But those spirits in heaven that rather lent an influence to the devil, thinking he had a little the best right to govern, but did not take a very active part any way were required to come into the world and take bodies in the accursed lineage of Canaan; and hence the negro or African Race,  Now, therefore, all those who are halting concerning who has the right to govern had better look at the fate of their brethren that have gone before them, and take warning in time lest they learn obedience by the things which they suffer. "Choose ye this day whom you will serve." '

Although Hyde does not mention the priesthood, it would seem evident that he is referring to the Book of Abraham bit and the Genesis account of Noah and Ham after the flood.

Maybe I should amend my original statement about it being evident that the ban originated before such and such a time and say that the extant historical documentation certainly could be interpreted that way and at the very least makes the origins more ambiguous.

As to whether it was from God or man, I will not debate that nor even offer my opinion.

Glenn

I would not say that the several of the premises that BY used for the ban necessarily originated from BY.  But I would say the ban itself was universally implemented and codified by BY. Without BY in the role he played we would not have the ban as it was. Or at least there's a solid chance that we wouldn't.

I think that the quotes you have given show opinions but not policy/church action. For example with Pratt, the reason gives the opinion he does of Pratt's statement is because just prior to Pratt's words, the 8 other apostles had a meeting about McCrary that included BY where all of them agreed and stated more egalitarian views on race. This included using Lewis as an example of one "of the best Elders, an African in Lowell" to bolster his previous claim that McCrary should not worry about his bloodline and what was dominate (McCrary was hyper-focused on if he was seen as indian or black by the other saints) because "for of one blood God made all Flesh." BY also disagreed that the reason McCrary was a "common brother" as opposed to a leader had anything to do with his skin tone/race which was met with universal agreement among the other brethren involved. Pratt's statement basically runs counter to the majority of his quorum. But that they were hearing out McCrary (who IMHO sounded like he probably had some sort of mental disorder since his actions and thought processes described were nigh crazy) and Pratt with at least no strong documented pushback highlights to me that there was no universal perspective of that era and a permissiveness to a diverse range of thought and behaviors before there was a policy stated/implemented.

Likewise Hyde's statement comes before several statements from JS that somewhat contradict his. Where JS described a relatively progressive view (for his time): that blacks were disadvantaged, not from an inherited/racial trait and that they should be placed in an equal standing with whites, though that they shouldn't intermix with whites. When Smith and many others talked about the curse at this time, it wasn't pertaining to the priesthood. It was pertaining to the practice of slavery, its abolition, and the social issues surround these factors including leadership and governing in the US. It was later that the ideas and inclusion of priesthood, temple, etc were enveloped into ideas of inherited differences.

And again, these would not have been codified without BY. Which is why, IMO, the Ban itself may not have existed without BY. For example, if the Apostle Orson Pratt had been prophet instead, there is no way that the ban would have happened....at least at that time. If Parley Pratt was prophet, of course, we may still have had a codified ban, based on his views. But either way it's still BY's actions that began codifying the priesthood ban and started the continued narrowing of blessing to blacks, people with black ancestry of some sort, and the reduction in diverse ideas about Blacks, the priesthood, and their position in the church.  He was not the sole originator of all ideas surrounding the ban, but he was definitely the catalyst that led to the priesthood ban.

  

With luv,

BD

[stemelbow]

11 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

THere is a difference between simplified and oversimplified....which is what I said. Obviously, things are going to be simplified or summarized. I did so myself in the post you're quoting. But that's not what I see often happening when race or the priesthood ban are being discussed. It is often oversimplified to one or two points that bolster the perspective of whoever's writing up their discussion point. To me that's oversimplified. 

Okily dokily

Quote

I'm confused as to what you mean by "the material you have in mind brought her for discussion." I'm not sure if you're talking about what  I view as underlying assumptions when people (or in this specific post I'd quoted from you) state generalized remarks like "the brethren" or "they" as one thinking block. Or if you mean where I was getting my material from. In which case, I think I made that pretty clear from my other posts just a few before that one that it was from Paul Reeve's book, and the link you gave. Or if it's something else all together.  

Well no big deal. Robert, I believe mentioned disagreement from orson, I think.  Maybe that's what you had in mind.

Quote

 

I can see how it can be read as misleading. I don't personally think that it is. It's indicating that there was still room for a change to occur by God and His "will and pleasure." The revelation to remove the ban fits that qualification and it would be the more important point that the church needs to indicate there is room or precedence for such. The rest falls under disavowed teachings and assumptions and also fits in the category the the McConkie quote about forgetting because the spoke with an imperfect knowledge.

Im not really seeing the room you speak of in by's words.  He seems to leave  no room at all for a change in this life or mortality. But to each her own I suppose.

Quote

 

Sure. I mean I'm more a glass half full sort of gal, so I'd say that with each turn we grow and expand in knowledge from knowledge we already had with minor course adjustments along the way. But that's probably semantics. For me, when something is not true, it get's stuck and growth is at the very least stunted. It may take a while to feel the effects, but sooner or later it does. I'm personally not looking for a "foolproof" method, just a course that leads to growth. 

Aren't we all?  

Quote

Good summary. 

I don't read them as being presumptuous. Even when they misspoke or got things wrong or assumed a belief that turned out to be untrue or faulty or misled.

Well that that is what presumptuous means.  But whatever word we choose, I guess.  

Quote

For me, that reads too much into their minds and motives in a way that I simply don't have access to. And for many, though the results were not as we'd like and often led to more constriction till sometime around McKay. The way they were trying to go about it, wasn't necessarily wrong. I see deliberation, trying to collect evidence, and learn from firsthand sources of their day. Many just got it wrong. 

 

With luv,

BD

K.  Thanks for the input.  

Edited July 23, 2017 by stemelbow

[stemelbow]

6 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Which, of course, is a matter of opinion. Having lived through that time, I'll stick to mine. I think the Lord knows what He is doing when it comes to the management of His Priesthood.

I guess that's the easy route to take.  Have fun

[BlueDreams]

55 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Okily dokily

Well no big deal. Robert, I believe mentioned disagreement from orson, I think.  Maybe that's what you had in mind. Among others and even the same people showed an evolution of thought that became more conservative or progressive depending. At least, if I'm following you're train of thought. 

Im not really seeing the room you speak of in by's words.  He seems to leave  no room at all for a change in this life or mortality. But to each her own I suppose.

Aren't we all?  Ehh....not always and not from the way I've seen people frame arguments. The part I responded to seemed a little more on the glass half empty side of describing things. 

Well that that is what presumptuous means.  But whatever word we choose, I guess.  

K.  Thanks for the input.  

Just an FYI . Pressumptuous does not mean what i said. It's definition is this: "(of a person or their behavior) failing to observe the limits of what is permitted or appropriate" with synonyms including words like arrogant, overconfident, audacious, cocky, etc. 

 

With luv,

BD

[Bernard Gui]

15 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I guess that's the easy route to take.  Have fun

Well that's unfair. Consider this.

I grew up in the late 40s, the 50s, and early 60s in a small, progressive, highly-educated city, perhaps the highest educated city in the world. Three cultures came together there....European, Hispanic, and Native American. There was only a tiny Black presence and a small group of Mormons. Friendships crossed all boundaries. My first "girlfriend" was Native American. 1963 our student body president was the only Black student in the school. My senior class president was Hispanic. However, my sister's inter-ethnic marriage in 1950 was not viewed with great favor by either side.

Yet in 1963 and 1964 I performed in a popular and long-standing community cultural event....The Minstrel Show sponsored by the Knights of Columbus. Prominent people in the city including educators, political leaders, and highly educated scientists participated in this event on a yearly basis. Most people reading this would not know what this is. It was a variety show in which people, including some dressed in blackface, performed skits, comedy routines, musical numbers, and dances featuring such stock characters as Mr. Interlocutor, Brother Tambo, Brother Bones. The banter between those characters was in Negro dialect and was derogatory and demeaning. Popular entertainment at that time still included such stereotyped Negro characters as Quarrel, Amos and Andy, Rochester, Buckwheat, and Stymie. 

Within just a few years all this changed. The easy route is to sit back and condemn all those people because "they should have known better."

Edited July 24, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[JLHPROF]

3 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

I would not say that the several of the premises that BY used for the ban necessarily originated from BY.  But I would say the ban itself was universally implemented and codified by BY. Without BY in the role he played we would not have the ban as it was. Or at least there's a solid chance that we wouldn't.

Yes and no.

I agree 100% and think this is how history went down.  But I also think Brigham believed 10)% that he was doing exactly what he was commissioned to do:  Formalize, institutionalize, and systematize the principles and doctrines he got from Joseph.  I don't believe Brigham was out there implementing policies and practices based on principles he came up with.

Had Joseph lived to 80 it is entirely possible that everything from the Temple ordinances, to plural marriage, to Adam-God, to Blood Atonement, to the Law of Adoption, to United Order, to the Priesthood ban may all have been instituted in virtually the same manner.    Brigham attributed almost every last thing he did to what he learned from Joseph.
At least that's my opinion having studied the doctrinal progression of the 19th century.  Laying these things as Brigham's creativity just doesn't ring true.  Not without making him into the biggest liar ever in the Church.

Sometimes Brigham got it right, sometimes he didn't.  But he was probably the most dedicated and determined follower that Joseph ever had.  It was Joseph's vision of God's kingdom Brigham tried to implement, not his own.
 

[Guest]

I was born in the segregated South, in 1957. For the early part of my life, living in Atlanta, went to segregated schools. At the age of eight we moved North of the city to a county that did not have the money for segregated High Schools. But by the time I got to High School it did not matter, segregated schools had ended in Georgia. Having said that, I never understood it, never felt like it was Christian. Even in Church growing up it was the same thing, our Church did not allow Black people to attend. When a man showed up one day, new to the area, he was told by two Deacons that he had to leave, they were very polite, and gave him the address to a nearby Black Church. My mother however was very upset about it and we left services early that Sunday. 

I point these things out, because this is not just a "Mormon" issue, it was very common in many other Churches in the South and all other States that were in once "slave owning" States. Having lived in Atlanta where I played with Black friends, attended all four years of High School, with a number of friends, and served side by side with even more friends in the Army. I fear that had I found the Church which professed to be the "Restored Church" prior to the ban being lifted, I might have never joined. I rejoice that I was given my first Book of Mormon just five months after the "ban" had ended. 

I still live outside of Atlanta, although I served in Law Enforcement for 23 years there before retiring. I am also grateful that I found the Church while serving in (what was then) West Germany, least family and friends seek to crush my new found Faith. When I think of the Priesthood Ban, I think of the wonderful missed opportunities to bring so many into the fold. Now, (other than today, as I have been sick a few days) I attend Church with many Africian American members and friends, each Sunday, and it is a wonderful thing.

I have wondered and been worried about this issue for many years, until I realized that Prophets and Apostles are just men, simply flawed men, as all men are. But God has always called flawed men and women to His service, because there are no other kind of men and women. This is why he called upon His Son, to be our Savior, because he needed one without flaw. Much of all scripture is filled with the flaws of everyone whom he has ever called, from Adam to Thomas S. Monson. But as the Apostle Paul said, that "in this life we see through a glass darkly". I believe, I truly believe that one day we will see all things in a perfect light, until then we do the best that we are able. We live on in Faith, we hope on in prayer, and we live until the day when, Dr Martin Luther King Jr, is no longer correct, that "11:00 on Sunday is (no longer) the most segregated hour of the week". 

. 

[cinepro]

8 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Evidence of this is that the lifting of the Ban did not result in schisms or mass defections. In fact, I don't know anyone who left the Church because of it. I don't believe that could have happened even 20 years previously. When it happened the Church was in a great position to immediately maximize missionary efforts in the countries of Africa and Latin America. I see this as an orderly process to resolve a volatile problem that won't completely go away until the Savior comes again.

 

Unfortunately, I think polygamy proves that idea wrong.

Polygamy shows that God and the Church were perfectly willing to implement a wildly unpopular and socially polarizing policy and stick to it in the face of defections and persecution.  It shows that some members would leave, but the Church would press on, and that many (most?) members would swallow their disgust and press forward in faith.  That even in the face of derision and incredulity from the world, the Church would stand strong and proudly carry the banner, all the while insisting it was promoting a more ideal social system.  Until it didn't.

If God had felt as strongly about not discriminating towards blacks as he did about polygamy, you can imagine the forceful and clear teachings from LDS Prophets and Apostles for decades, insisting to the Church members and the world that the black skin meant nothing for a persons' worthiness or character or standing before God, and they should be treated absolutely equally in every way.  There's no way to know if that would have been more shocking than telling people they need to practice polygamy, but the idea that God was supporting such a policy out of concern for the tender racist feelings of the Church members is a little weird.

The only reason it would have been a problem in the 1930s and 1940s is because the ban had been implemented in the first place.  If God had been willing to intervene and let Brigham know he was wrong about his interpretation of the scriptures about Cain's curse and there was never a ban, then there wouldn't have been any difficulty.  Church members would have grown up with the idea that "all are alike unto God", not "all are alike unto God*."

Edited July 23, 2017 by cinepro

[thesometimesaint]

Maybe if God had told Moses that more than just the first born sons of the tribe of Levi could hold the Priesthood we wouldn't have had the last 3000+ years plus of human history.

Edited July 23, 2017 by thesometimesaint

[Glenn101]

3 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

And again, these would not have been codified without BY. Which is why, IMO, the Ban itself may not have existed without BY. For example, if the Apostle Orson Pratt had been prophet instead, there is no way that the ban would have happened....at least at that time. If Parley Pratt was prophet, of course, we may still have had a codified ban, based on his views. But either way it's still BY's actions that began codifying the priesthood ban and started the continued narrowing of blessing to blacks, people with black ancestry of some sort, and the reduction in diverse ideas about Blacks, the priesthood, and their position in the church.  He was not the sole originator of all ideas surrounding the ban, but he was definitely the catalyst that led to the priesthood ban.

  

With luv,

BD

I do not disagree with that. My main point is that I believe that it impossible for us to pinpoint an origination date or person with the current set of documents that we have, i.e. to "reconcile the priesthood ban." In a way, it was reconciled with the 1978 revelation lifting those restrictions. Since I have not received any revelations myself on the matter, maybe I should just bow out.

Glenn

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

Unfortunately, I think polygamy proves that idea wrong.

Polygamy shows that God and the Church were perfectly willing to implement a wildly unpopular and socially polarizing policy and stick to it in the face of defections and persecution.  It shows that some members would leave, but the Church would press on, and that many (most?) members would swallow their disgust and press forward in faith.  That even in the face of derision and incredulity from the world, the Church would stand strong and proudly carry the banner, all the while insisting it was promoting a more ideal social system.  Until it didn't.

If God had felt as strongly about not discriminating towards blacks as he did about polygamy, you can imagine the forceful and clear teachings from LDS Prophets and Apostles for decades, insisting to the Church members and the world that the black skin meant nothing for a persons' worthiness or character or standing before God, and they should be treated absolutely equally in every way.  There's no way to know if that would have been more shocking than telling people they need to practice polygamy, but the idea that God was supporting such a policy out of concern for the tender racist feelings of the Church members is a little weird.

The only reason it would have been a problem in the 1930s and 1940s is because the ban had been implemented in the first place.  If God had been willing to intervene and let Brigham know he was wrong about his interpretation of the scriptures about Cain's curse and there was never a ban, then there wouldn't have been any difficulty.  Church members would have grown up with the idea that "all are alike unto God", not "all are alike unto God*."

I see things differently than you. Perhaps we are both wrong. Polygamy had a different but important  purpose. In my opinion it was commanded as described by Jacob "to raise up seed", and it did that rapidly and effectively, but that's another discussion. In both cases they went away after their purposes were served. 

Edited July 23, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[BlueDreams]

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Yes and no.

I agree 100% and think this is how history went down.  But I also think Brigham believed 10)% that he was doing exactly what he was commissioned to do:  Formalize, institutionalize, and systematize the principles and doctrines he got from Joseph.  I don't believe Brigham was out there implementing policies and practices based on principles he came up with.

Had Joseph lived to 80 it is entirely possible that everything from the Temple ordinances, to plural marriage, to Adam-God, to Blood Atonement, to the Law of Adoption, to United Order, to the Priesthood ban may all have been instituted in virtually the same manner.    Brigham attributed almost every last thing he did to what he learned from Joseph.
At least that's my opinion having studied the doctrinal progression of the 19th century.  Laying these things as Brigham's creativity just doesn't ring true.  Not without making him into the biggest liar ever in the Church.

Sometimes Brigham got it right, sometimes he didn't.  But he was probably the most dedicated and determined follower that Joseph ever had.  It was Joseph's vision of God's kingdom Brigham tried to implement, not his own.

I don't doubt the BY saw what he was doing and saying as congruent. So did several others post BY who further codified and expanded the effect of the ban into a universal construct. But BY's belief that that's what JS would have done or believed doesn't make it true. The evidence we do have do not show a picture where JS would have implemented a ban if he'd lived till 80. Because he hadn't and many of his personal views were more likely to lean more moderately progressive and were continuing in that direction. It doesn't make BY or any other leader a liar. JS did talk in the common assertions that most Americans of that time asssumed (descendants of Ham/Cain). But this didnt effect his assumption that black people could receive both temple ordinances and the priesthood. And for a while it didn't effect BY's. I think it was largely what happens with our memory as time passes. We rearrange the information to fit our current state. Not on purpose. Our memories are shoddy and that's what most were relying on to format this policy. You see this especially with Able over the years. Where he had legitimate documentation proving his ordination. Yet others had differing and negative information insisting that it was made null and void (it wasn't). Then it was rearranged as an exceptional early church error to make the rule when "further revelation" came. Then they went back to the null and void justification when he died. And then it was simply forgotten. This wasn't active repression, it's just the easy flow and loss of information when we've become convinced about an experience and all other information around us runs counter to it. 

 

I dont have beliefs or opinions about the other things you referenced. But on this one, BY may have firmly believed that this was what JS would have gotten to. But that doesn't make it so. And what I do see just doesn't give much credence to it. 

 

With luv,

BD