The beginning of the priesthood/temple ban

[rongo]

5 minutes ago, cinepro said:

And all this happens without God ever bothering to explain to the Church leaders or banned members why it was happening.  Instead, he allows false scriptures and theories to be taught repeatedly and officially for decades, perpetuating the worst forms of racism in an era when, entirely coincidentally, society was already tremendously racist against the very same people!

There is another option: he did explain why (pre-existence affects earth assignments and opportunities), but some modern people don't like this because it offends their sensibilities. 

[JLHPROF]

42 minutes ago, Gray said:

There's no doctrinal leg to stand on for establishing the ban's validity to begin with, though.

Well you don't believe God speaks directly either way.  So both the origin of the ban and the 1978 revelation ending it can both be attributed to man instead of God using your reasoning.

But for those who believe in literal revelation the 1978 revelation stating that the time had come to end the ban would imply that according to God prior to that time the ban was not supposed to end.

[Gray]

47 minutes ago, rongo said:

There is in the Pearl of Great Price. I know some want the Church to physically remove them out of the canon, but they are there, and they were there whenever the ban originated (whether one sees that in Joseph Smith's time or not until 1852). And it is undeniable that how these passages were interpreted (the plainest and least-subject to wresting) is in lock step with the rationales and doctrinal underpinning for the ban. 

I agree with your straightforward interpretation of the POGP (setting aside historicity issues), but that doesn't establish a ban in the modern dispensation. Especially given Joseph's ordinations of black men to the priesthood. And given Peter's revelation to expand the gospel to all the gentiles (Africans are gentiles too)

Edited May 14, 2018 by Gray

[Gray]

4 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Well you don't believe God speaks directly either way.  So both the origin of the ban and the 1978 revelation ending it can both be attributed to man instead of God using your reasoning.

But for those who believe in literal revelation the 1978 revelation stating that the time had come to end the ban would imply that according to God prior to that time the ban was not supposed to end.

Even under the assumption of literal, direct revelation, there is no evidence of a revelation initiating the priesthood ban.

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

If the ban was man made then the 1978 revelation was misunderstood by those who received it when they wrote:

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

He has heard our prayers, and by revelation has confirmed that the long-promised day has come when every faithful, worthy man in the Church may receive the holy priesthood"

The revelation was not considered a correction, but the fulfillment of prophecies, prophecies given by God to his prophets.  

It seems somewhat illogical that God would inspire his approved early prophets to predict the end of the ban and provide his current  prophet a revelation confirming the time to fulfill those prophecies had arrived if it were an error from the start.

A reasonable scenario.  The only problem is that Joseph Smith, Orson Pratt, and some other Brethren were not on board.  And this is a dynamic theme throughout Mormon and biblical history.  In addition, the extraordinary nature of the 1978 revelations (plural, beginning with Spencer Kimball alone) belies the suggestion that it was just misunderstood.  After all, we could say that just as well of the Book of Mormon witnesses, and of the  various biblical prophets.  We can always assert that they are merely mistaken or misunderstood.  Indeed, that is a favorite theme of those who demand a completely secular explanation for everything, because all this talk of revelation is really just hallucination or wishful thinking.  In fact, all such secular explanations are quite reasonable, and could be true.  The only way we can really know the difference between assertion and fact is a matter of individual faith.  We are not going to find forensic proof for any of that, and that is not the nature of faith.

Now, of course, if one is not familiar with Mormon and biblical history, it will seem like everything is always normative, that everything has always been characterized by sameness and lack of disjuncture:  That God always reacts immediately, and that if he doesn't that puts the lie to claims of authenticity.  No sense of perspective needed.

[rongo]

5 minutes ago, Gray said:

I agree with your straightforward interpretation of the POGP (setting aside historicity issues), but that doesn't establish a ban in the modern dispensation. Especially given Joseph's ordinations of black men to the priesthood. 

How may ordinations are we talking about? How many of them did Joseph Smith himself ordain? 

And did Joseph change his views? These are things that are not clearly established, with conflicting views and conflicting accepted evidence and testimony. 

[Gray]

12 minutes ago, rongo said:

How may ordinations are we talking about? How many of them did Joseph Smith himself ordain? 

And did Joseph change his views? These are things that are not clearly established, with conflicting views and conflicting accepted evidence and testimony. 

Given no good evidence that Joseph changed his views, or that anyone received a revelation initiating the ban, the null hypothesis should be there was no revelation.

Especially given the incoherence of the doctrine itself. If there was an autograph of Joseph Smith initiating it, that would be a black eye for him and for the church.

Edited May 14, 2018 by Gray

[rongo]

2 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

In addition, the extraordinary nature of the 1978 revelations (plural, beginning with Spencer Kimball alone)

How do you view President Kimball invoking promises from past prophets? 

[JLHPROF]

31 minutes ago, cinepro said:

That's a lot of conjecture.

It's entirely possible for God to extend a revelation to end a man-made mistake.

Except that's not what those who received the divine communication stated was the purpose.

There is zero doctrine stating that the ban was a mistake.  There are many members who feel that way, and many who bend over backwards to deny God had any part in it.

But those whom God instructed to end the ban (according to the only document we have relating to the revelation ending the ban) state that it came as a fulfillment of prophecies by those who implemented the ban.  There is no mention of it being a rebuke, a correction, or new understanding.  It is simply stated that the time had come.

I am sure there are those that want to believe God disapproved of the ban for over a century but the revelation ending it does not provide that evidence, nor is there any other evidence of divine disapproval during those 126 years.  Instead there are numerous revelations and blessings from God on the record to those upholding the ban.

[rongo]

3 minutes ago, Gray said:

Given no good evidence that Joseph changed his views, or that anyone received a revelation initiating the ban, the null hypothesis should be there was no revelation.

No good evidence purely as a matter of opinion. There is testimony purporting to be from eye and ear-witnesses, but people reject them out of hand because it doesn't fit their preferences.

I think it's telling how categorically and unreasonably these witnesses are rejected in order to say "no evidence," or, when pressed, "no good evidence."

ETA: separate aside: Why are some people's names italicized on the bottom of the page, and others not? This is a recent change, and there doesn't seem to be rhyme or reason to it. Different people are, at different times, italicized or not. 

Edited May 14, 2018 by rongo

[JLHPROF]

3 minutes ago, Gray said:

Given no good evidence that Joseph changed his views, or that anyone received a revelation initiating the ban, the null hypothesis should be there was no revelation.

I'll say it again.  Even if they were wrong in their interpretation, the revelatory document Joseph and Brigham would have taken that position from is what we call today the Pearl of Great Price.

Why would we expect them to record a separate revelation when they got the idea from extant scripture?  We can think they got it wrong, but the revelatory justification they would have used is easy to find.

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, CV75 said:

This is the direction I tend to take, that the Lord sensed it was expedient to let things continue for the sake of preserving the saints in the American West (other examples from the D&C of holding off a seemingly “better” option more aligned with Gospel ideals might be the work of translation, teaching certain things from the new revelations, the redemption of Zion, Joseph’s return to the saints). This “holding off” a quicker promulgation of positives is one of the themes I pick up from the parable in Jacob 5 (also from the new wine/new bottles). I do think the 19^th century remains the pivot point as that is where the trajectory began, just as with the migration of the saints west. That said, we can never tell how things might otherwise have gone better.

I also see the ban and how long it lasted as more a function of socially-imbedded group conscience than any individuals’ mistaken theology since the latter, unacceptable as it was, only arose from and was used to justify the former. Each generation has its irredeemable blind spots, no matter how enlightened they become about their forbearers’ faults.

Yes, and Realpolitik and expediency might be the Lord's way, or maybe not.  He might simply wait on his people to get right first as a function of their faith or lack of it.  At the same time, what was that in Sunday School (Mother's Day) about Israel crossing the Jordan and being commanded by God to kill everybody and every animal without mercy?  So much for our forbears.

5 hours ago, CV75 said:

I’m not sure I would characterize racists or the saints or their leaders upholding the ban in its day as people filled with rage and hate..........................

You are no doubt correct to suggest that Mormons were soft racists, since they weren't known for lynching Black people.  The ones I have met were against intermarriage (micegenation) even with brown-skinned people, but I never saw them froth at the mouth.  😎

[Gray]

9 minutes ago, rongo said:

No good evidence purely as a matter of opinion. There is testimony purporting to be from eye and ear-witnesses, but people reject them out of hand because it doesn't fit their preferences.

I think it's telling how categorically and unreasonably these witnesses are rejected in order to say "no evidence," or, when pressed, "no good evidence."

ETA: separate aside: Why are some people's names italicized on the bottom of the page, and others not? This is a recent change, and there doesn't seem to be rhyme or reason to it. Different people are, at different times, italicized or not. 

I think they're rejected on historical criteria. It's just not good evidence, and doesn't match the actual policy in the church at the time.

And of course given the top to bottom incoherence of the doctrine itself, if there was an autograph of Joseph Smith initiating it, that would be a black eye for him and for the church.

[Gray]

6 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I'll say it again.  Even if they were wrong in their interpretation, the revelatory document Joseph and Brigham would have taken that position from is what we call today the Pearl of Great Price.

Why would we expect them to record a separate revelation when they got the idea from extant scripture?  We can think they got it wrong, but the revelatory justification they would have used is easy to find. 

There are all kinds of revelations from that time period that have no application to modern Mormons. Or do you keep kosher?

If you're looking for a scriptural refutation of it, see Peter's revelation on the gentiles.

[JLHPROF]

18 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

In addition, the extraordinary nature of the 1978 revelations (plural, beginning with Spencer Kimball alone) belies the suggestion that it was just misunderstood. 

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. 

Edited May 14, 2018 by JLHPROF

[Robert F. Smith]

Just now, 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.

I see no evidence for that at all.  OD2 is not a revelation.  It  merely announces the nature of the message and is not itself the message, which is why it is termed an official declaration.  You are attributing content to the revelation which was not in the revelation.  Moreover, the statements of earlier leaders that the ban would be overturned at some future date were not necessarily prophecies, but only bland statements that the ban would only be overturned at the very end of time.  It would seem that 1978 was a bit too early.  How to explain that?  No one bothers to address that part of the problem.  Better to paper it over with a rewriting of expectations and to ignore the racism which violated Joseph's and Orson's more correct understanding.  Some good PR.

[JLHPROF]

3 minutes ago, Gray said:

There are all kinds of revelations from that time period that have no application to modern Mormons. Or do you keep kosher?

If you're looking for a scriptural refutation of it, see Peter's revelation on the gentiles.

Peter's revelation is often held up as an example similar to the 1978 revelation. The question is similar.  Prior to the revelations extending things to previously restricted groups, was there error in the restrictions and is there gospel evidence that shows it?

Peter being told to take the gospel to the gentiles doesn't show he was wrong limiting it to the Jews first.  And Spencer W. Kimball being told to extend priesthood to every race also doesn't show the Church was wrong for restricting it first.

[JLHPROF]

2 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I see no evidence for that at all.  OD2 is not a revelation.  It  merely announces the nature of the message and is not itself the message, which is why it is termed an official declaration.  You are attributing content to the revelation which was not in the revelation.

I agree that OD2 is not a revelation.  But it contains the only context and understanding of the revelation provided us by those that received it.

It is far more accurate to understand the revelation according to their words than to attribute facts not in evidence to the revelation such as calling it a course correction, fixing a mistake, or similar phrases.

People that such things are the ones attributing content not in the revelation.  There is nothing to label the ban a mistake.

[Robert F. Smith]

23 hours ago, rongo said:

How do you view President Kimball invoking promises from past prophets? 

As I state in my posts to the Prof, those are not revelation, but only explanatory PR used to accompany revelation.  No one wants to tell the harsh truth, which is that Brother Brigham was a racist.  He was also a prophet of God and a tremendously effective leader.  That does not make him immaculate.  I like the way his close friend Jedediah Grant put it:

Quote

Salt Lake City, Utah Territory
To the New York Herald
Dear Sir:
I can’t undertake to explain Brigham Young to your Atlantic citizens, or expect you to put him at his value. Your great men Eastward are to me like your ivory and pearl handled table knives...more shiny than the inside of my watch case; but with only edge enough to slice bread and cheese...and all alike by the dozen, one with another.

Brigham is the article that sells out West with us -- between a Roman cutlass and a beef butcher knife, the thing to cut up a deer or cut down an enemy every bit as well.

You, that judge men by the handle and the sheath, how can I make you know a good Blade? 
Jedediah M. Grant

We need to be more honest about such things.  We need to accurately describe our leaders, warts and all.

Edited May 15, 2018 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

1 minute ago, JLHPROF said:

I agree that OD2 is not a revelation.  But it contains the only context and understanding of the revelation provided us by those that received it.

It is far more accurate to understand the revelation according to their words than to attribute facts not in evidence to the revelation such as calling it a course correction, fixing a mistake, or similar phrases.

People that such things are the ones attributing content not in the revelation.  There is nothing to label the ban a mistake.

It is if we are willing to be frank and honest about the history and context.  An unwillingness to admit our shortcomings doesn't leave much room for repentance.

[JLHPROF]

2 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

It is if we are willing to be frank and honest about the history and context.  An unwillingness to admit our shortcomings doesn't leave much room for repentance.

I'm more concerned with doctrine and the word of God than how the ban is viewed by history etc 

There is no evidence God considered the ban a shortcoming.  Don't really care what society thinks.

Edited May 14, 2018 by JLHPROF

[cinepro]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

There is another option: he did explain why (pre-existence affects earth assignments and opportunities), but some modern people don't like this because it offends their sensibilities. 

Let's think about that.

If there were a group of spirits that were not supposed to get the Priesthood or Temple blessings while on Earth, then what happened in 1978?  You had a group who, in May of 1978, were not allowed to.  But then by July, they were.  So what was their deal?  Were they somewhere in between being fully cursed and fully uncursed?

Would that mean that there were people sent down who were meant to be fully cursed (i.e. never able to have Priesthood or Temple blessings their entire lives), and so the ban couldn't be lifted until all of them had died?  And all of this is unknown? 

So instead of God telling President McKay and President Kimball "Hey, there are specific people who can't have the Priesthood" and just telling them which ones they were, they just have to ask over and over until finally the time is right? 

This being the case, it would probably be possible to look at the death records of black members of the Church in the late 1970s and see who the last few fully cursed people were.

Truly, the gospel is wonderfully simple and simply wonderful.

 

[rongo]

Just now, cinepro said:

Let's think about that.If there were a group of spirits that were not supposed to get the Priesthood or Temple blessings while on Earth, then what happened in 1978?

Timing. I believe, and I believe it is borne out by Mormon doctrine, that we were assigned different eras, geographical locations, families, circumstances, races, opportunities, restrictions, etc. in the pre-existence. I believe that we all knew and accepted these as the best thing for our development, and with our pre-veil understanding. This necessitates that some people knowingly agreed to "miss the boat," timing-wise (which is what I think you're saying). So, what happened in 1978? The time for the lifting of the ban came. 

You had a group who, in May of 1978, were not allowed to.  But then by July, they were.  So what was their deal?  Were they somewhere in between being fully cursed and fully uncursed?

What was their deal? Their turn on earth came at that time straddling the ban era and no-ban era. By definition, some people had to live during the transitionary period.

Would that mean that there were people sent down who were meant to be fully cursed (i.e. never able to have Priesthood or Temple blessings their entire lives), and so the ban couldn't be lifted until all of them had died?  And all of this is unknown?

I think all of this (including the timing) are known to God, but not to us (that's mortality). But even people who were intended to be fully cursed for the duration of their life have access to the full blessings of the gospel, covenants, and atonement, through temple work and the work in the spirit world. That is one of the most impactful doctrines of the Church, and it affects much, much more than mere race or restrictions. It affects everything for the vast majority of people who have ever lived. Think about that, when the ban is put in that perspective. 

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

There is another option: he did explain why (pre-existence affects earth assignments and opportunities), but some modern people don't like this because it offends their sensibilities. 

We don't teach that at all today though, in regards to any kind of pre-existing condition, and the bible specifically teaches that physical ailments are not present at birth due to sin.  

I think that most people reject this because it's a very slippery slope where anything from being born in poverty, being born to abusive parents, being born with a disability, being born out of the church, and/or being born in a 3rd world country could be interpreted as caused by the person having sinned in the pre-mortal existence.

Also, like with Calvinism, I think it's interesting how the people who believe that God has marked the disobedient at birth are those who see themselves as unmarked.  It just seems a little too convenient. 

[JLHPROF]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

We don't teach that at all today though, in regards to any kind of pre-existing condition, and the bible specifically teaches that physical ailments are not present at birth due to sin.  

It's not about sin, it's about obedience to law D&C 130.  It is very strange that we would believe that our obedience to eternal laws her would impact our resurrection but our obedience there wouldn't impact our mortal birth.  After all, 1/3 parts actions there denied them a mortal birth at all.