Basic and Necessary Knowledge about the Priesthood Ban

[Calm]

Some of us were bugging Russell to compile his blog info into one article of the essential documentation currently known surrounding the origins of the Priesthood ban.  Stuff that any informed discussion needs to include to avoid making false statements and drawing faulty conclusions...not that these will stop everyone from doing this nor does it force conclusions, but there is stuff out there intelligent and well meaning people are sharing that is wrong.  The details are left out below, just want to show what it includes.  It is a short read, so well worth your time even if all you do is read stuff others say so you can better evaluate how well they know or incorporate known facts into their interpretation.

https://mormonhistoryguy.com/2018/05/26/origins-priesthood-temple-restrictions/

Quote

This title is misleading. Some folks have asked for something quick and easy they can share as we approach the 40th-anniversary of peoples of African descent receiving full access to all the offices and rituals necessary for salvation in Mormonism. Quick and dirty. So, this post will not offer any kind of Grand Explanation About the Priesthood Ban. It will not seek to resolve any concerns (which I rarely do anyway; any resolved concerns I chalk up to factors other than me), present new ideas, or critique the standard hackery that often passes as informed commentary.  Thus, it will omit some details. I wrote a 400+ page book on this, and others have written much, much more. Some of you will be “surprised” (often, a nice passive-aggressive dig) that I left out this or that document.  There will be a lot of good information that gets left out, but this post is about what I deem to be the absolute must-know data.

Theologize as you wish.

The Must-Knows:
1. Be able to explain when, how, and the circumstances in which Brigham Young switched from supporting black ordination to opposing it....

How/Circumstances: Increasing talk of “black”-“white” intermarriage in Mormon community. Two were formative:...

2. Be able to offer the three major public justifications for the temple/priesthood restriction offered pre-70s (e.g. Cain, Ham, pre-mortality).
Three schools of Mormon scriptural exegesis defined discourse about the origins of African peoples...

3. Be able to discuss how the ban was enforced. The priesthood/temple restriction was not merely a convention of the United States; it was enforced with genealogical rigor in regions that LDS leadership felt were more likely to have influence from black Africa...

 

 

Edited May 27, 2018 by Calm

[skippy740]

 

[Calm]

Excellent series of podcasts (disclaimer, I have seen in person presentations, not watched them online as I don't do podcasts but figure they are consistent with what I saw)

[Calm]

This is a good summary of the history and discussion of that history, but still better to go to original documents (linked to in the blog linked to in th e opening post):

http://signaturebookslibrary.org/neither-white-nor-black-06/

Edited June 2, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

https://mormonhistoryguy.com/2018/05/28/nineteenth-century-western-churches-racial-integration/

Quote

Let’s say it together: Time is not a causative agent. The year 1857 played no role in human history. The year itself did not play any role in fomenting the sectional divides that led to the Civil War, to Johnston’s Army invading the Territory of Utah, or in determining that Dred Scott (a former black slave) had no “standing to sue” for his freedom, as he was considered a non-citizen in the state of his enslavement. 1857, in itself, did nothing to stir up the sepoy rebellion or to enable William Howard Russell to expose the corruption behind the Crimean War (a war involves profiteering, misinformation, and deceit? What.). Time is a theater, at most.  Humans make decisions in this theater (often behind the fog of memory), and we later humans do what we can to make sense of why they did what they did. Was the priesthood/temple restriction a “product of the times”? Not really. It developed not from time but from power structures and processes: from a collective determination that one group of people were better stewards of influence and government (both ecclesiastical and political) than another group.

Let’s say another thing together: Mormon racism is as much about America as it is about Mormonism. The “product of the times” argument can be reduced to: “Mormons were about like any other Americans; what do you expect?” It’s not an absurd claim to make (though it’s pretty thin gruel for apologia, if you ask me).  When Joseph Smith used this or that scriptural reference to explain African origins, they would have shocked exactly no one; the pre-mortal stuff struck readers as a little more bizarre–but more because of its perceived pagan connections and cosmology than for its claims about race. “Those dimwits,” the more secular-minded critics had said, “blacks aren’t intellectual inferior because they were less valiant in the pre-existence; they’re inferior because of their natural constitutions! Look at the size of their skull.”

So if’ we’re going to use it to mitigate the sting of Mormon racism, we should at a bare minimum be able to show that other Westerners were, in fact, doing the same kind of thing–that there were no leaders promoting ethnic integration or black clergy. Race relations existed along a spectrum in American society: ranging from rank exclusion of black people to visibly-noticeable integration...

 

[CV75]

29 minutes ago, Calm said:

https://mormonhistoryguy.com/2018/05/28/nineteenth-century-western-churches-racial-integration/

 

I would say that whatever prophets do is the product of their dispensation, not their times. The scope of the dispensation and the prophetic callings pertaining to it are defined by God. So there are limits to what can be accomplished within a given dispensation, and even though faithful individuals may exceed the Lord’s expectations like the brother of Jared did, their light cannot be shared until a later dispensation as determined by God (as we see in Ether 3:21). Those who meet but do not exceed the Lord’s or subsequent dispensations’ expectations are not accountable, and those who do exceed expectations often find themselves waiting, submitting to the Lord.

I think the dispensation is the theater for both the work of the prophets and for the light for humankind in general within the times within which they work. There is a time element involved vis-a-vis the Lord’s timing for dispensing light into the world—sometimes through the prophets (new revelation) and sometimes in general through any of His children called to come forth in a given part of a given dispensation (the various cognitive, agricultural, industrial, atomic, digital, etc. revolutions). For this reason I think some our doctrine is a must-know as well (but that might be theologizing!).

[theplains]

On 5/27/2018 at 3:40 PM, skippy740 said:

Regarding your video link

I found the last 5 minutes of part 3 (Blacks in the Scriptures: Equality and Priesthood) interesting.  It basically
said the ban was a practice, and not a doctrine or revelation of God.  If the LDS Church made a mistake, there
is no need to say 'sorry'. We only spoke with a limited set of understanding.

Marvin Perkins says, "Let's eat what's on the plate now and then if we have a desire for more then that may be an
appropriate question".  He basically echos McConkie's earlier statement that [paraphrasing] we should forget
everything said before if we are corrected in the future. The closing statement by the white gentleman in the
audience brushes away any need for an apology by the church.

Some would argue that if it really wasn't a revelation of God to ban the priesthood, then you wouldn't need a
revelation to reverse it.

People who join the LDS Church need to become comfortable with the Book of Mormon teachings of dark skin
and the curse from God (2 Nephi 5:21-23, Alma 3:6-7).

Thanks,
Jim

[Meerkat]

6 hours ago, Calm said:

Let’s say another thing together: Mormon racism is as much about America as it is about Mormonism. The “product of the times” argument can be reduced to: “Mormons were about like any other Americans; what do you expect?” It’s not an absurd claim to make (though it’s pretty thin gruel for apologia, if you ask me).  When Joseph Smith used this or that scriptural reference to explain African origins, they would have shocked exactly no one; the pre-mortal stuff struck readers as a little more bizarre–but more because of its perceived pagan connections and cosmology than for its claims about race. 

I agree with much of the above statement.  I don't recall it specifically in the Mormon History Guy's piece, but the sentiments were certainly implied there.  His comments about early Church leaders while probably true, are sad.  We are currently experiencing a sad time in our history as we struggle to learn how to talk with each other in and out of the Church whether about politics, social issues or religion.  Part of this experience is allowing others to hold to their own opinions, while we hold to our own, and the deeply personal experiences that testify the Gospel is true and joy filled, despite the mistakes of men.  We may also acknowledge this is a hard position for those outside the Church to accept.

I do have a question that seems to fit here.  The Mormon idea is that we will be judged according to our works, acting with faith in Christ.  Do hereditary afflictions such as addictions or physical attributes or medical conditions mitigate for the general Christian idea of original sin being passed down through our DNA, and the need for unmerited Grace to overcome that sin?  And is there support for that idea (Grace overcoming original sin) in this subject if we believed that a group of people up to 1978 were actually denied Priesthood blessings based on the actions of Cain or Ham?   I'm not sure the question is clear, or how one would frame an answer.  If it doesn't make sense, please disregard.  Thanks!  I'll try to give further thought to it tomorrow.

[Calm]

I do believe heritage, whether physical or social, makes a huge difference in how we express our individuality (in terms of how we conform and differentiate ourselves from others), in what we feel capable and comfortable in doing in mortality.

For example, my parents translated health into appearance way too much and set up our family to have body issues.  A sister was anorexic in college, she was also in total disbelief that my daughter doesn't know how much she weighs since we make getting on the scales as part of our daily ritual.  She thought I was stunning when she saw me in my first trimester of pregnancy when I was rather gaunt due to morning sickness.  My mom currently makes a big deal about how great my husband looks because he has lost at least 25 lbs even though he is much more subdued at this time due to dealing with depression due to some chronic pain and other issues.  Granted, she has dementia and she may be fearful that one of the rocks of her existence is wobbling so she ignores negative signs when it comes to him, but it is shocking to me how she gushed about it as if weight is the prime indicator of mental and emotional health when she definitely intellectually knows better (her dementia has not progressed that much).

I recognized that emotional negative heritage that has me dealing with a number of fears in my life and forced myself to bite my tongue whenever I had any concerns about my daughter's weight (because weight gain is not a good thing with diabetes as well as it does indicate likely poorer nutrition and sedentary lifestyle) to ensure that I would not pass on at least that one obsession and I have been very successful.  My daughter may have other hangups about her body due to chronic health issues, but she is very comfortable about and happy with her appearance and could care less about what others think.

Another example is how different societies view personal responsibility based on how their governments have treated them.  Relationships can also be greatly affected when governments work to break down trust and dependency on each other to lead to greater dependency and therefore ability to control by government (this can be done in both 'liberal' and 'conservative' ideologies, imo).  My sister-in-law, back when Russia first opened up, described Russians she met as in many ways much like abused children and that it would take multiple generations for them to move out of the mindset their society had created in so many of them.  From what I saw, she was right in general...and it might take longer than she anticipated because the corruption, strong criminal element in positions of power impedes developing trust and accountability imo.  

I do believe we will carry attitudes and learned behaviour into the next life, but we have eternity and the Atonement to come to a recognition of where our false beliefs and dysfunctional behaviours came from and on top of that (because just because you recognize the cause of a behaviour does not mean you can change it, especially if it is based on a gut emotional belief picked up in early childhood) I believe God will provide us with the tools to change even the most entrenched addictive attitudes that keep us in chains in many ways in mortality.

We have, imo, a long time postdeath learning all the things we need to know about exaltation according to Joseph Smith, we even have many more covenants to make before our endowments will be complete.  Surely then we will also have a long time to dump the habits that impede us from learning and receiving God's blessings.  Our work will not be done in this life, God will continue to purify and sanctify us in the next.

Therefore while I sorrow for those burdened with the many heavier curses our parents and cultures and our genetics may put upon us, it does not lead me to fear that such will cripple us eternally.  That doesn't mean we should put off striving to control our "natural man" in this life just because we will be healed if we accept God's grace more fully in the next, there are numerous reasons to nurture growth in the here and now...if only to avoid adding unnecessary curses to our descendants since they are going to be getting plenty already from from us.

We also must not forget we have a magnificent eternal heritage that is currently being masked by mortal limitations.  The benefits of that eternal heritage once restored to us will certainly contribute to being able to heal what we bring along from our mortal lives.

Edited May 29, 2018 by Calm

[Meerkat]

8 hours ago, Calm said:

We also must not forget we have a magnificent eternal heritage that is currently being masked by mortal limitations.  The benefits of that eternal heritage once restored to us will certainly contribute to being able to heal what we bring along from our mortal lives.

Thanks for your response.  I'm all in on the idea that Salvation has a significant behavior based component.  Brad Wilcox's idea of Grace resonates with me. Reading the Mormon History Guy's article got me thinking about my Baptist Friend's idea of Grace having merit also due to, as you say, negative heritage or sins handed down from prior generations. Your last paragraph, quoted here, seems to support that idea as well.  I need to think about how this pertains to the priesthood ban.  The ban got me think8ng about this.

Edited May 29, 2018 by Meerkat

[stemelbow]

On ‎5‎/‎27‎/‎2018 at 1:16 PM, Calm said:

Some of us were bugging Russell to compile his blog info into one article of the essential documentation currently known surrounding the origins of the Priesthood ban.  Stuff that any informed discussion needs to include to avoid making false statements and drawing faulty conclusions...not that these will stop everyone from doing this nor does it force conclusions, but there is stuff out there intelligent and well meaning people are sharing that is wrong.  The details are left out below, just want to show what it includes.  It is a short read, so well worth your time even if all you do is read stuff others say so you can better evaluate how well they know or incorporate known facts into their interpretation.

https://mormonhistoryguy.com/2018/05/26/origins-priesthood-temple-restrictions/

 

 

So with that said is he concluding that the ban does not have origin in, nor was it implemented by revelation?

[Kenngo1969]

https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V08N01_13.pdf

https://dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Dialogue_V35N01_157.pdf

[changed]

10 hours ago, Calm said:

I do believe heritage, whether physical or social, makes a huge difference in how we express our individuality (in terms of how we conform and differentiate ourselves from others), in what we feel capable and comfortable in doing in mortality.

 

ex 20: 5 .... I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

Ex 34:7 ...7 ...visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children’s children, unto the third and to the fourth generation.

Num 14:18, Deut 5:9, Job 21:19 etc. etc.  the blessings and cursing that follow family lines does feel racist and unfair... how does anyone justify - not the church - but G-d himself doing this kind of stuff?

[CV75]

1 hour ago, changed said:

 

ex 20: 5 .... I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

Ex 34:7 ...7 ...visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children’s children, unto the third and to the fourth generation.

Num 14:18, Deut 5:9, Job 21:19 etc. etc.  the blessings and cursing that follow family lines does feel racist and unfair... how does anyone justify - not the church - but G-d himself doing this kind of stuff?

Unfortunately, our wickedness can deny opportunities and attendant blessings to the generations that follow us, blessings that could have been compounding sooner. I think this is the kind of punishment most of these verses refer to. I view the Lord placing a curse upon a family line is justified by protecting the larger nation, much like the killing of Laban. Of course, when it comes to the Bible, I consider the injunction, “as long as it is translated correctly.” But overall, I have seen how future generations have been blessed by the better choices of their forebears, even going as far back as Adam, Abraham and Noah for example. I cannot justify the ban in these terms because it cannot be traced to any such wickedness or curse.

[Calm]

4 hours ago, stemelbow said:

So with that said is he concluding that the ban does not have origin in, nor was it implemented by revelation?

Feel free to read his other blogs on the subject to find out.

I try not to speak for people on this as they can hold very nuanced views and there are others who react negatively for pretty much any position one holds, whether it was revelation, manmade, mistake, inspired, or a mix.

[stemelbow]

26 minutes ago, Calm said:

Feel free to read his other blogs on the subject to find out.

I try not to speak for people on this as they can hold very nuanced views and there are others who react negatively for pretty much any position one holds, whether it was revelation, manmade, mistake, inspired, or a mix.

I just found his wording of point 1 interesting in light of the Church's claims of revelation.  Either Brigham was inspired to make the change or just did it as an administrator, I guess.  The way he wrote it out sounds like he'd agree with me in saying it was an administrator's decision, as he tried to figure out a way forward on an issue.  Of course it seems most agree that instead of a way forward it was a way backward.  I wonder if Brigham, after contemplating murdering these people, decided to murder and then decided not to implement the ban if everything would have worked out the same. 

Quote

According to the minutes available, Brigham Young waffled between suggesting the death penalty for Lewis and Webster and expressing tolerance for their union and family. He likely concluded that his solution–priesthood and temple denial–as a preferable approach to prevent the perceived necessity for the standard approach: death by lynching. 

 

[Kenngo1969]

34 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I just found his wording of point 1 interesting in light of the Church's claims of revelation.  Either Brigham was inspired to make the change or just did it as an administrator, I guess.  The way he wrote it out sounds like he'd agree with me in saying it was an administrator's decision, as he tried to figure out a way forward on an issue.  Of course it seems most agree that instead of a way forward it was a way backward.  I wonder if Brigham, after contemplating murdering these people, decided to murder and then decided not to implement the ban if everything would have worked out the same. 

 

That's a rather presentist viewpoint, I think.

[CV75]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

Feel free to read his other blogs on the subject to find out.

I try not to speak for people on this as they can hold very nuanced views and there are others who react negatively for pretty much any position one holds, whether it was revelation, manmade, mistake, inspired, or a mix.

How dare you say that!!!

...PS or none of the above

Edited May 30, 2018 by CV75

[Kenngo1969]

My vote is that it was a revelatory, inspired, manmade mistake. 😂

Edited May 30, 2018 by Kenngo1969

[CV75]

As far as what the public is being told by NPR:

https://www.npr.org/2018/05/31/615911082/mormon-church-celebration-of-40-years-of-black-priesthood-brings-up-painful-past

[juliann]

There has been a lot of online activity doing what Russell is doing, locking down the narrative by challenging and discarding the folk lore and excuses. 

On 5/28/2018 at 5:16 PM, theplains said:

 

People who join the LDS Church need to become comfortable with the Book of Mormon teachings of dark skin
and the curse from God (2 Nephi 5:21-23, Alma 3:6-7).

 

I presume you mean comfortable with the fact that dark skin isn't a curse. I think people would be better served to become comfortable with how dark/skin/black is used in the Bible without anyone making unfounded assumptions they are talking about people actually turning black.

[theplains]

1 hour ago, juliann said:

I think people would be better served to become comfortable with how dark/skin/black is used in the Bible without anyone making unfounded assumptions they are talking about people actually turning black.

According to chapter 8 of the Religion 121-122 Book of Mormon Student Manual

What was the mark or sign set upon the Lamanites?

It is also explained in verse 21 that so “they might
not be enticing unto my people [the Nephites] the
Lord did cause a skin of blackness to come upon
them [the Lamanites].” It would appear that this was
done to limit the spreading of more wickedness.
Later Alma suggested this same motive when he
explained that “the skins of the Lamanites were
dark . . . that thereby the Lord God might preserve
his people, that they might not mix and believe
in incorrect traditions” (Alma 3:6, 8). Throughout
scripture we find warnings of the Lord not to marry
unbelievers (see Deuteronomy 7:2–3; 2 Corinthians
6:14); the result of doing so was often that the
righteous were turned away from the Lord (see
Deuteronomy 7:4; 1 Kings 11:4; D&C 74:5).
Some people have mistakenly thought that the
dark skin placed upon the Lamanites was the
curse. President Joseph Fielding Smith (1876–1972)
explained that the dark skin was not the curse:

“The dark skin was placed upon the Lamanites so
that they could be distinguished from the Nephites
and to keep the two peoples from mixing. The dark
skin was the sign of the curse [not the curse itself ].
The curse was the withdrawal of the Spirit of the
Lord. . . .

“The dark skin of those who have come into the
Church is no longer to be considered a sign of the
curse. . . . These converts are delightsome and have
the Spirit of the Lord” (Answers to Gospel Questions,
comp. Joseph Fielding Smith Jr., 5 vols. [1957–66],
3:122–23).

If the dark skin was the sign of the curse and the curse was the withdrawal of the Spirit of the Lord from
a Lamanite, what skin color means the Spirit of the Lord has come back to a converted Lamanite?

Thanks,
Jim