The beginning of the priesthood/temple ban

[CMZ]

On 5/14/2018 at 6:04 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

So Gordon B. Hinckley was misinformed to say that "I remind you that no man who makes disparaging remarks concerning those of another race can consider himself a true disciple of Christ. Nor can he consider himself to be in harmony with the teachings of the Church of Christ."

And the LDS Church website falsely declares that "The Church unequivocally condemns racism, including any and all past racism by individuals both inside and outside the Church." 

 So Joseph Smith must have been wrong to say that "Nothing can reclaim the human mind from its ignorance, bigotry, superstition &c but those grand and sublime principles of equal rights and universal freedom to all men."

Joseph was mistaken to say:

And (according to you) the current LDS Gospel Topics Essay on "Race and the Priesthood" is wrong to say that "There is no evidence that any black men were denied the priesthood during Joseph Smith’s lifetime."

There is simply nothing about the ban which is in keeping with the Gospel, except of course that you offer your non-factual and irrational disagreement.

I wasn't speaking about the offhand opinion of the hoi polloi, but rather of factual history.

Keep studying so you can understand the situation better. When people force it to just be a matter of, "Was it racist or not?" then they will miss other doctrinal points that help the situation to be understood better.

[CV75]

23 hours ago, phaedrus ut said:

The First Presidency should issue a pronouncement, Proclamation of the Family style, signed by the First Presidency that explicitly says the ban was wrong from the beginning...

But there is no basis to say the ban itself was either right or wrong. I think it is fair to say, “we do not know” because we have no better knowledge on that specific point than the past prophets had a grasp of a future cultural context, through no fault of their own. That was their dispensation with things they had accountability for and in which the Lord guided them, and things they could not be accountable for and which the Lord left them to their own devices*; this dispensation is ours.

* This is how the brother of Jared saw the finger of the Lord. We hold that up today as a great positive, but do you wonder what might have happened had he shared it in his day, and why the Lord told him not to (Ether 3:21)?

Edited May 17, 2018 by CV75

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, CMZ said:

Keep studying so you can understand the situation better. When people force it to just be a matter of, "Was it racist or not?" then they will miss other doctrinal points that help the situation to be understood better.

I was being sarcastic.

[juliann]

57 minutes ago, CV75 said:

But there is no basis to say the ban itself was either right or wrong. I think it is fair to say, “we do not know” because we have no better knowledge on that specific point than the past prophets had a grasp of a future cultural context, through no fault of their own. 

We don't have to judge the ban by its makers. We can judge it by its fruits and through the enlightenment we have today. If defies reason and all that we believe today to insist that it was "right."

[CV75]

38 minutes ago, juliann said:

We don't have to judge the ban by its makers. We can judge it by its fruits and through the enlightenment we have today. If defies reason and all that we believe today to insist that it was "right."

I'm not judging the ban by its makers (nor am I judging its makers). I'm not saying it was "right" (or "wrong"). By the enlightenment (meaning revelation) we have today,  and the reasoning (meaning our culture today) we certainly would not implement or support it, nor do I. I would be happy to discuss any questions you may have about my suggestions if they are not clear.

[Bernard Gui]

On 5/10/2018 at 3:41 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

Hogwash.  Pres David O. McKay could find no such revelation at all, and he had his associates looking for such a revelation for years. Your claim about the BofA and Moses is completely false.  However, you are correct to say that "The official ban as policy in the Church started under Brigham."  Every competent historian knows that.  Additionally, polygamy began under Joseph -- as every competent historian knows (and as the RLDS Church and its History Commissioner Richard Howard formally admitted).  There is no moral equivalence of racist denial of priesthood to Africans with the practice of polygamy -- which was an ancient biblical practice of the Patriarchs and of Israelite kings, and declared by Martin Luther to be biblical.  We need to admit these facts up front, even if it makes some of us squirm.  Orson Pratt loudly opposed Brother Brigham's new racist policy, just as he opposed the Adam-God nonsense.  Today it is Orson Pratt whose theology is the official theology of the LDS Church.

Is there any scriptural evidence that the Levitical, Aaronic, Melchizedek or Patriarchal priesthoods were conferred on anyone other than descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob before the Restoration?

Edited May 17, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[CMZ]

4 hours ago, juliann said:

It defies reason

Hmm...

 

Quote

Isaiah 55

8 ¶ For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord.

9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

 

 

Edited May 18, 2018 by CMZ

[Robert F. Smith]

9 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Is there any scriptural evidence that the Levitical, Aaronic, Melchizedek or Patriarchal priesthoods were conferred on anyone other than descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob before the Restoration?

I don't know what Scriptural evidence there would be for anyone born outside biblical times.  However, just looking at the Bible, we have Jethro (Moses' father-in-law) holding the rank of priest (kohen), even though he is not an Israelite.  Same for Potiphar, Egyptian father in law of Joseph -- a pagan kohen. However, at least Jethro might be a descendant of Abraham, as all Arabs consider themselves his descendants..  Then too, all Roman Catholic priests consider themselves bearers of the Melchizedek Priesthood, having first received the diaconate as Levitical priests.  This would apply also in Eastern Orthodoxy, Coptic & Ethiopic Christianity, as well as the Anglican Church.  If Melchizedek himself could hold the authentic priesthood of God, then who knows how widespread it was?

[Rajah Manchou]

10 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Is there any scriptural evidence that the Levitical, Aaronic, Melchizedek or Patriarchal priesthoods were conferred on anyone other than descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob before the Restoration?

Jethro was called kohen, but as Margaret Barker has pointed out, he was called a komer priest in the Syriac Old Testament. Like Barker, I feel the distinction is important:

"It is possible that a komer had significance that later editors sought to obscure, and the indications are that this was an association with Melchizedek. The Syriac Old Testament chose kumra to describe Melchizedek, not kohen, which may preserve a memory of the distinction between the two types of priest in earlier times." (source)

There's also speculation that Lehi and his party would have used the word komer for priests, and that the word Cumorah comes from this distinction:

"A more plausible etymology for Cumorah is Hebrew kəmôrāh, “priesthood,” an abstract noun based on the word kômer, “priest.” ... Kōmer/kômer and kəmôrāh may be compared in both form and meaning with the Hebrew nouns kôhēn, “priest,” and kəhunnāh, “priesthood...Since Lehi’s party did not include descendants of Levi, they probably used kômer wherever the Book of Mormon speaks of priests.” (source)

Relevant to this thread, the word komer is related to the word burn, and comes with an association of darkness or blackness. Could it be that this "mark" was a way of distinguishing between the lineages of two types of priesthood, and the editors of the Bible (and Book of Mormon) decided it was a curse?

Edited May 18, 2018 by Rajah Manchou

[JLHPROF]

On 5/14/2018 at 1:36 PM, JLHPROF said:

Exactly my point.

Assuming as a believer that Pres. Kimball et al received these revelations and understood them then they were told in 1978 the time had come to fulfill the prophecies of the earlier leaders and to end the ban.  That is what OD2 states.

Except that clearly implies that prior to that the time hadn't come, the early prophets received inspiration on the issue sufficient to make the prophecies, they had God's approval despite upholding the ban, and the ban was part God's eternal plan.

Kind of makes the "man made" arguments null.  If we accept the 1978 revelation as described then we have to allow that the ban was also part of the plan. 

The Church appears to be doubling down on their explanation of the meaning of the 1978 revelation in the new June Ensign

(https://www.lds.org/ensign/2018/06/commemorating-the-1978-revelation/the-long-promised-day?lang=eng).

One interesting statement reads:

"The revelation was about more than just ordination to the priesthood. Men, women, and children were blessed by access to all priesthood ordinances, including the blessings of the temple."

[CV75]

20 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

On 5/14/2018 at 3:36 PM, JLHPROF said:

Exactly my point.

Assuming as a believer that Pres. Kimball et al received these revelations and understood them then they were told in 1978 the time had come to fulfill the prophecies of the earlier leaders and to end the ban.  That is what OD2 states.

Except that clearly implies that prior to that the time hadn't come, the early prophets received inspiration on the issue sufficient to make the prophecies, they had God's approval despite upholding the ban, and the ban was part God's eternal plan.

Kind of makes the "man made" arguments null.  If we accept the 1978 revelation as described then we have to allow that the ban was also part of the plan. 

The Church appears to be doubling down on their explanation of the meaning of the 1978 revelation in the new June Ensign

(https://www.lds.org/ensign/2018/06/commemorating-the-1978-revelation/the-long-promised-day?lang=eng).

One interesting statement reads:

"The revelation was about more than just ordination to the priesthood. Men, women, and children were blessed by access to all priesthood ordinances, including the blessings of the temple."

I wouldn’t say it clearly implies that, or only that. Otherwise phrased, it could be: “Except that clearly implies that prior to that the time hadn't come, the early prophets acted on the light they possessed within the sphere God had placed them sufficient to make the prophecies, they were not accountable in upholding the ban, and the ban was non-essential to God's eternal plan as evidenced by its retraction in 1978.

[CMZ]

1 hour ago, JLHPROF said:

"The revelation was about more than just ordination to the priesthood. Men, women, and children were blessed by access to all priesthood ordinances, including the blessings of the temple."

This was always true of the 1978 revelation but rarely mentioned.

[CMZ]

44 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I wouldn’t say it clearly implies that, or only that. Otherwise phrased, it could be: “Except that clearly implies that prior to that the time hadn't come, the early prophets acted on the light they possessed within the sphere God had placed them sufficient to make the prophecies, they were not accountable in upholding the ban, and the ban was non-essential to God's eternal plan as evidenced by its retraction in 1978.

 

The fact that it got retracted in no way proves that it was always non-essential. There was a timing aspect involved.

[CV75]

31 minutes ago, CMZ said:

The fact that it got retracted in no way proves that it was always non-essential. There was a timing aspect involved.

Agreed, "non-essetial" is the wrong term. The fact that it got retracted only proves that it was not "eternal". The timing aspect seems to be part of the roll-out of the dispensation, a time came when it was essential (I used"'expedient" in earlier posts) to stop the ban. So I'd say a better phrase is "formerly irrelevant but about to become disadvantageous."

Edited May 18, 2018 by CV75

[Bernard Gui]

9 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I don't know what Scriptural evidence there would be for anyone born outside biblical times.  However, just looking at the Bible, we have Jethro (Moses' father-in-law) holding the rank of priest (kohen), even though he is not an Israelite.  Same for Potiphar, Egyptian father in law of Joseph -- a pagan kohen. However, at least Jethro might be a descendant of Abraham, as all Arabs consider themselves his descendants..  Then too, all Roman Catholic priests consider themselves bearers of the Melchizedek Priesthood, having first received the diaconate as Levitical priests.  This would apply also in Eastern Orthodoxy, Coptic & Ethiopic Christianity, as well as the Anglican Church.  If Melchizedek himself could hold the authentic priesthood of God, then who knows how widespread it was?

Abraham received the priesthood from Melchizedek who received it through his family line to Noah. He said, 

Quote

I became a rightful heir, a High Priest, holding the right belonging to the fathers.

It was conferred upon me from the fathers; it came down from the fathers, from the beginning of time, yea, even from the beginning, or before the foundation of the earth, down to the present time, even the right of the firstborn, or the first man, who is Adam, or first father, through the fathers unto me.

I sought for mine appointment unto the Priesthood according to the appointment of God unto the fathers concerning the seed.

You noted

Quote

Pres David O. McKay could find no such revelation at all, and he had his associates looking for such a revelation for years.

My question is has there been any time before the Restoration that the various true priesthoods (the Most High God, Noah, Melchizedek, Abraham, Levitical, Aaronic, patriarchal, etc., - not the various apostate priesthoods) were conferred on the general population based on worthiness (not on lineage), as we do today? Is it accurate to say that there have always been restrictions placed on who would receive them? Did President McKay speak about this?

Edited May 18, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[rongo]

1 minute ago, Bernard Gui said:

My question is has there been any time before the Restoration that the various true priesthoods (the Most High God, Noah, Melchizedek, Abraham, Levitical, Aaronic, patriarchal, etc., - not the various apostate priesthoods) were conferred on the general population based on worthiness (not on lineage), as we do today? Is it accurate to say that there have always been restrictions placed on who would receive them?

That's it exactly. This universal priesthood is a hallmark of the dispensation of the fullness of times, and a sign that we're getting closer, I think (in perspective with the scope of human history).

[ttribe]

5 minutes ago, rongo said:

That's it exactly. This universal priesthood is a hallmark of the dispensation of the fullness of times, and a sign that we're getting closer, I think (in perspective with the scope of human history).

Well, then, you must love the evangelical approach to the Priesthood.  The "priesthood of the believer" is even more universal...

[rongo]

4 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Well, then, you must love the evangelical approach to the Priesthood.  The "priesthood of the believer" is even more universal...

No, I limit it to baptized males.  

I think Bernard made a good point that priesthood has been limited in *every* era other than the last 40 years. That is, it has never been widely available to all men, really ever. I think that is one reason to see 1978 as not just expediency, but also an important piece in the restoration puzzle. 

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Abraham received the priesthood from Melchizedek who received it through his family line to Noah. ................

My question is has there been any time before the Restoration that the various true priesthoods (the Most High God, Noah, Melchizedek, Abraham, Levitical, Aaronic, patriarchal, etc., - not the various apostate priesthoods) were conferred on the general population based on worthiness (not on lineage), as we do today? Is it accurate to say that there have always been restrictions placed on who would receive them? Did President McKay speak about this?

I mentioned several instances in which non-Israelites held the authentic priesthood of God, as with Jethro, Moses' father in law, so it is obvious that there have been instances.  As for the apostate priesthoods which you mention, they admit by their very existence as apostate versions of the priesthood of God that the real thing must exist somewhere.  In addition, we know that the lineal priesthood of Aaron among the Jews must be authentic, since it is mentioned repeatedly in the D&C as authentic.  Moreover, this would certainly be fully operative at the end time when the Jews build their temple in Jerusalem and the tribe of Levi offers an offering in righteousness.  There is a lot more going on in the world than we are aware of in our little corner of the world.  It is probably a good idea not to be too ethnocentric.

[JLHPROF]

3 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Abraham received the priesthood from Melchizedek who received it through his family line to Noah. He said, 

"It was conferred upon me from the fathers; it came down from the fathers, from the beginning of time, yea, even from the beginning, or before the foundation of the earth, down to the present time, even the right of the firstborn, or the first man, who is Adam, or first father, through the fathers unto me."

Joseph Smith - "He [Adam] is the father of the human family, and presides over the spirits of all men, and all that have had the keys must stand before him in this grand council. This may take place before some of us leave this stage of action. The Son of Man stands before him, and there is given him glory and dominion. Adam delivers up his stewardship to Christ, that which was delivered to him as holding the keys of the universe, but retains his standing as head of the human family."

Christ receives his inheritance  (the Church of the Firstborn, kings and queens, such as Abraham ) from Adam.  Adam heads the Church of the Firstborn now, and will bestow all he has on Christ making Christ king of kings.

Edited May 18, 2018 by JLHPROF

[CV75]

3 hours ago, rongo said:

No, I limit it to baptized males.  

I think Bernard made a good point that priesthood has been limited in *every* era other than the last 40 years. That is, it has never been widely available to all men, really ever. I think that is one reason to see 1978 as not just expediency, but also an important piece in the restoration puzzle. 

This is an important distinction: the priesthood not being widely available due to transportation, communication and culture, etc. versus not being selectively available through divine edict, with the cultural aspect addressed by policy and the divine edict commanded by revelation. The first set of circumstances (transportation, communication and culture, etc.) led to the Great Apostasy, but the Restoration is all about revelation, with improvements in the first set of circumstances often explained by LDS leaders as being facilitated by more light coming into the world:

“We are blessed to live, learn, and serve in this most remarkable dispensation. An important aspect of the fulness that is available to us in this special season is a miraculous progression of innovations and inventions that have enabled and accelerated the work of salvation: from trains to telegraphs to radios to automobiles to airplanes to telephones to transistors to televisions to computers to satellite transmissions to the Internet—and to an almost endless list of technologies and tools that bless our lives. All of these advancements are part of the Lord hastening His work in the latter days.” https://www.lds.org/prophets-and-apostles/unto-all-the-world/to-sweep-the-earth-as-with-a-flood?lang=eng

Your use of “expediency” caught my attention since I’ve used it in a few of my posts. I think the Lord’s recognition and follow-through on His sense of expediency is an important piece in the restoration puzzle and hastening His work.

[stemelbow]

On 5/16/2018 at 2:06 PM, CV75 said:

I think you are misreading a few things from the essay, as none of them acknowledge the ban as a form of racism, only that it was explained in racist terms which are now disavowed, along with the condemnation of racism in any form. The ban could have been implemented and eventually lifted even if more acceptable explanations had been given.

I’m guessing there are more than a few members, like you, who will insist that the ban was not racist.  The problem is doing so absolutely does damage to the English language.  we simple can’t carry much creibility saying things like that.  Even if an acceptable explanation was given the ban would still be racism.  Granted I’m thinking the leaders just really hope this goes away without dealing with it.  All the best

[CV75]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I’m guessing there are more than a few members, like you, who will insist that the ban was not racist.  The problem is doing so absolutely does damage to the English language.  we simple can’t carry much creibility saying things like that.  Even if an acceptable explanation was given the ban would still be racism.  Granted I’m thinking the leaders just really hope this goes away without dealing with it.  All the best

All the best men can come to various conclusions. I am not insisting the ban was not racist; I'm insisting that we don't know, and have no way, yet anyway, of telling. I suggested a reasonable, doctrinally-based, non-racist / no-fault means by which it could have come about and what it was, as a 4th alternative to the positions typically expressed (that man, God or the devil founded it, with man and the devil typified as manifesting/venting their racist attitudes or man suffering from ignorance at best, and God having some higher, intentional role for it). If you don't understand it, I would be happy to answer your questions (no strawmen, please).

The theories supporting the ban have proven to be doctrinally incorrect. Past racism is condemned but cannot be punished retroactively, and its only proven connection that I can see with the ban is how some individuals may have perceived and leveraged the ban with racist attitudes, with or without an appeal to faulty doctrine. The Restoration rolls out in stages and in this case we are further ahead than we were in 1852, but that is no reason to pretend that we are justified in retroactively condemning the ban and vicariously punish the past Church (and the modern Church up to the point such long-delayed/awaited action is taken) by apologizing or whatever it is the offended might be looking for.

Edited May 19, 2018 by CV75

[Bernard Gui]

5 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Joseph Smith - "He [Adam] is the father of the human family, and presides over the spirits of all men, and all that have had the keys must stand before him in this grand council. This may take place before some of us leave this stage of action. The Son of Man stands before him, and there is given him glory and dominion. Adam delivers up his stewardship to Christ, that which was delivered to him as holding the keys of the universe, but retains his standing as head of the human family."

Christ receives his inheritance  (the Church of the Firstborn, kings and queens, such as Abraham ) from Adam.  Adam heads the Church of the Firstborn now, and will bestow all he has on Christ making Christ king of kings.

Yes. How does this apply to my question.....were there’s restrictions on who is given the priesthoods before the Restoration?

[Bernard Gui]

8 hours ago, ttribe said:

Well, then, you must love the evangelical approach to the Priesthood.  The "priesthood of the believer" is even more universal...

The two aren’t even in the same ballpark.