Opinion Piece by Ty Mansfield: Managing "Tension" between Doctrines and Impact

[Calm]

20 minutes ago, juliann said:

The book title I can never remember off the top of my head makes it pretty clear...Mormons were labeled as "black" in political cartoons and commentary before they went west.

This by Paul Reeve?

Religion of a Different Color: Race and the Mormon Struggle for Whiteness, (Oxford, 2015) 

Edited October 24, 2021 by Calm

[The Nehor]

23 minutes ago, juliann said:

Nope. It is not the same. And I am not making a statement about gays and the church. I'm only saying it's not even close as a comparison.

Are you arguing against the comparison I made or the one that was imputed to me?

[rongo]

Was the 1949 signed First Presidency letter authoritative at the time?   Is it possible for things that are authoritative at the time to be found later to have been "wrong," or worse? And what does that say about the security and confidence anyone can have about anything?

"The attitude of the Church with reference to the Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the Priesthood at the present time. The prophets of the Lord have made several statements as to the operation of the principle . . . The position of the Church regarding the Negro may be understood when another doctrine of the Church is kept in mind, namely, that the conduct of spirits in the premortal existence has some determining effect upon the conditions and circumstances under which these spirits take on mortality and that while the details of this principle have not been made known, the mortality is a privilege that is given to those who maintain their first estate; and that the worth of the privilege is so great that spirits are willing to come to earth and take on bodies no matter what the handicap may be as to the kind of bodies they are to secure; and that among the handicaps, failure of the right to enjoy in mortality the blessings of the priesthood is a handicap which spirits are willing to assume in order that they might come to earth. Under this principle there is no injustice whatsoever involved in this deprivation as to the holding of the priesthood by the Negroes."

---

I know that "disavowing" past statements is in vogue in certain quarters in the Church --- spurred on by the Paul Reeve essay in the Gospel Topics Essay library. This is because they hope that this axe can be taken to many other trees in earnest: homosexuality, women ordination, etc. Significantly, OD2 didn't disavow anything; it announced a revelation that the long promised day, which prophets had spoken of, had come. 

I find it interesting that the people who most vociferously demand a written revelation in Church Archives for the ban simply wave away a signed First Presidency letter that declares it was "direct commandment from the Lord" and refuse to deal with the implications of waving away something like that. And, they refuse to deal with the implications of waving away other things in the future for the changes they want to see. Imagine if something today were to come out in a signed First Presidency statement stating that something "is not a matter of . . . policy, but of direct commandment from the Lord." The Brethren are too careful about going out on limbs like that now, but if they did, what would people think of a statement like this simply being waved away decades down the road because society changed? 

[Calm]

16 minutes ago, rongo said:

And, they refuse to deal with the implications of waving away other things in the future for the changes they want to see

Can you clarify what you mean by this because I am aware of many who discuss what it means to believe leaders are fallible and the implications of that when it comes to declaring what are commandments (basic response is usually the only way to confirm general revelation is through personal revelation…there is no other way to “prove” to anyone a church leader or anyone else is speaking for God).

[webbles]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I am not sure that the priesthood ban was initially said to be going away. ‘Until Abel gets posterity’ is a lot like saying ‘when pigs fly’. Also it is not really initially. At least we don’t know it is. We still haven’t pinned down a conclusive exact beginning to the Ban or the reasoning at the time or any terms in which it would end.

 

The best source we have for the ban is from Brigham Young.  And he almost always gave it an ending.  Others of his time period also gave it an ending.  Most, if not all, of the end periods were in the far future but there was an end.  So, I do think we can conclusively say that the ban always had an ending.  Too many witnesses to that fact.

[Kevin Christensen]

On 10/22/2021 at 11:22 AM, SeekingUnderstanding said:

This is not true. Brigham Young claimed revelatory provenance for the ban. And there are way more scriptures justifying the ban than there are justifying discrimination against LGBTQ people. The Book of Mormon establishes that God uses skin color as a mark of a curse. The iBook of Abraham establishes the doctrine that certain lineages are banned from the priesthood. The Book of Moses establishes that the descendants of Cain were cursed with a black skin and that Adam’s other descendants did not intermarry with them. The intermarriage theme is further supported by the Book of Mormon narrative where Lamanites skin color s was designed to not be enticing for the Nephites. 
 

Further there is statement after statement in talk after talk by general authorities expounding on this doctrine. The idea that the ban lacked a scriptural basis is revisionist history at its finest. 

It is important to stop and and consider N. R. Hanson's observation that "All data are theory-laden," as well as Jesus's recommendation that criticism should start with examining the beams on our own eye, which includes the presence of how our ideology colors our perception.  "Then shall ye see clearly," Jesus says.  

 

On the historical context for what Brigham and most other Americans in other faiths in the 19th Century saw as a revelatory provance for treatment of blacks, see Stirling Adams here:

https://byustudies.byu.edu/article/the-curse-of-ham-race-and-slavery-in-early-judaism-christianity-and-islam-noahs-curse-the-biblical-justification-of-american-slavery/

As Stirling reports in his opening paragraph, “After Noah awakes from his drunkenness, he curses—not Ham, and not himself—but Ham’s son Canaan by pronouncing: “Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he
be unto his brethren” (see Genesis 9:20–27). There is no reference to dark skin, to any skin color, or to Africa, and Noah does not say the curse applies to Canaan’s descendants. Yet this story, as it was amplified and changed in extrabiblical interpretations, became the ideological corner­stone used to justify the slavery of black Africans thousands of years afterwards.”   It's obvious that the LDS inherited such thinking, and that it contributed the priesthood ban.  The same language and ideas reappear in LDS usage, but with anomalies. For instance, it is of interest that Pharoh in the Book of Abraham is far from being a servant but is “A righteous man, established his kingdom and judged his people wisely ad justly all his days, seeking earnestly to imitate that order established by the fathers…” (Abr. 1:26).

Nibley has carefully explained that the priesthood problem for Pharoh in the Book of Abraham has nothing to do with race or africa or lineage or Ham or Cain but rather in claiming a patriarchal priesthood through a matrilineal line. See Nibley, Abraham in Egypt, CWHN, 528.   And again, Adams' essay accounts for the cultural background assumptions, the pre-existing misreadings that led to LDS misreadings.

Two important points from Stirling Adams.  The language and arguments that LDS people used to justify the priesthood ban were not original to LDS, but were a cultural inheritance, and involved misinterpretation of the Bible.

Your claim that "The Book of Mormon establishes that God uses skin color as a mark of a curse" has been disputed at length and in detail.  

Part of removing the beams from our own eyes involves not only checking for the 19th century preconception but also in embracing Nephi's blunt statement that we cannot understand the things of the Jews like unto them, save we are taught after the manner of the things of the Jew.  (See 2 Nephi 25:1-5).  And we ought to remember that Jesus said that his own disciples on some topics, "supposed they understood" and did not ask, and recieved no instruction on certain topics.  See 3 Nephi 15:18, 22-23).   Hugh Nibley long ago point out that "skin of blackness" is equivalent to an Ancient Near Eastern expression that references lifestyle.  (See his Teachings of the Book of Mormon lectures when the curse comes up.)  I recently realized the significance that Nephi is the only Book of Mormon author to use that phrase (it appears only once in all of LDS scripture), and he is the only one with that cultural background.

And see and ponder Ethan Sproat, "Skins as Garments in the Book of Mormon" here:

https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/jbms/vol24/iss1/7/

I discussed his essay in connection with common 19th Century preconceptions here, showing a a broad range of Book of Mormon prophets use language about the symbolism of clean and filthy garments in exactly the same contexts as the far fewer comments about skins.

https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/table-rules-a-response-to-americanist-approaches-to-the-book-of-mormon/

David Belnap’s essay on the topic of the overall Book of Mormon “anti-discrimination message” enlightening.

https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/the-inclusive-anti-discrimination-message-of-the-book-of-mormon/ 

Also see Adam Stokes’ recent essay on The People of Canaan’ in the Book of Moses.

https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/the-people-of-canaan-a-new-reading-of-moses-7/ 

And consider the implications of an informal comment from non-LDS Enoch scholar for our reading of the passage in our Enoch account:

“7:22 is also very important: it says that “the seed of Cain were black.” It is interesting that in the Animal Apocalypse from 1 Enoch which depicts all human history in the esoteric zoomorphic code the Cainites are depicted as the black bulls, while the Sethites are portrayed as the white animals." 

It has to do with covenant and lifestyle.  Not skin color.

And as far as "revisionist" history goes, the interpretations that you pass along were revised away from the Ancient Understanding, and should be revised, if we want to see clearly, rather than circulate grievance in service of particular agendas.  Pure knowledge greatly enlarges the soul, without hypocrisy and without guile.  Impure knowledge, propaganda, has the opposite effect.  Contraction of the soul...

FWIW,

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[SeekingUnderstanding]

54 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

And as far as "revisionist" history goes, the interpretations that you pass along were revised away from the Ancient Understanding, and should be revised,

Revise away. Just admit you are revising. To say there is no revelatory or scriptural basis for the ban (Smac’s words that I was responding to, not yours) when the leaders that implemented the ban cited both scriptures and revelation is dishonest. 
 

This is especially so when someone is attempting to maintain that there is a revelatory and scriptural basis for the church’s stance against same sex marriage. 

Edited October 25, 2021 by SeekingUnderstanding

[smac97]

On 10/23/2021 at 7:21 PM, rongo said:

Was the 1949 signed First Presidency letter authoritative at the time?   

Well, I'm not sure.  The letter in question was private, not a public statement presented to the body of the Church (see here).  

On 10/23/2021 at 7:21 PM, rongo said:

Is it possible for things that are authoritative at the time to be found later to have been "wrong," or worse?

I suppose that depends on what you mean by "authoritative."  But I think the short answer is "yes."

On 10/23/2021 at 7:21 PM, rongo said:

And what does that say about the security and confidence anyone can have about anything?

I think this sort of absolutist, black-or-white, all-or-nothing attitude is unfortunate.  It exposes an implicit expectation/requirement of prophetic infallibility.  Either the Brethren are correct in everything, or they are correct in nothing.  Either we must have 100% "security and confidence" about everything they say and do, or we cannot have any "security and confidence" about - as you put it - "anything" they so and do.

I just don't think that's a reasonable or healthy perspective.  Moses made all sorts of mistakes, but he was still a prophet.  Jonah made mistakes.  Paul.  Peter.  Joseph Smith.  To point to these flaws and mistakes as negating the entirety of their prophetic callings is, I think, unworkable.  We are called upon to sustain prophets and apostles not because they are perfect, but precisely because they are not.

On 10/23/2021 at 7:21 PM, rongo said:

"The attitude of the Church with reference to the Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the Priesthood at the present time. The prophets of the Lord have made several statements as to the operation of the principle . . . The position of the Church regarding the Negro may be understood when another doctrine of the Church is kept in mind, namely, that the conduct of spirits in the premortal existence has some determining effect upon the conditions and circumstances under which these spirits take on mortality and that while the details of this principle have not been made known, the mortality is a privilege that is given to those who maintain their first estate; and that the worth of the privilege is so great that spirits are willing to come to earth and take on bodies no matter what the handicap may be as to the kind of bodies they are to secure; and that among the handicaps, failure of the right to enjoy in mortality the blessings of the priesthood is a handicap which spirits are willing to assume in order that they might come to earth. Under this principle there is no injustice whatsoever involved in this deprivation as to the holding of the priesthood by the Negroes."

---

I know that "disavowing" past statements is in vogue in certain quarters in the Church --- spurred on by the Paul Reeve essay in the Gospel Topics Essay library.

I think this attitude is also unfortunate.  Reflective of today's "cancel culture," perhaps.  

On 10/23/2021 at 7:21 PM, rongo said:

This is because they hope that this axe can be taken to many other trees in earnest: homosexuality, women ordination, etc. Significantly, OD2 didn't disavow anything; it announced a revelation that the long promised day, which prophets had spoken of, had come. 

I find it interesting that the people who most vociferously demand a written revelation in Church Archives for the ban simply wave away a signed First Presidency letter that declares it was "direct commandment from the Lord" and refuse to deal with the implications of waving away something like that.

I'm not sure it's being waved away.  See, e.g., here and here.

On 10/23/2021 at 7:21 PM, rongo said:

And, they refuse to deal with the implications of waving away other things in the future for the changes they want to see.

Could you point to instances of people "waving away" these things?

On 10/23/2021 at 7:21 PM, rongo said:

Imagine if something today were to come out in a signed First Presidency statement stating that something "is not a matter of . . . policy, but of direct commandment from the Lord."

We need not imagine very much.  Wouldn't The Family Proclamation in 1995 count?  Or what about The Living Christ in 2000?

I'm reminded here of Elder Andersen's trenchant remarks in 2012:

Quote

A few question their faith when they find a statement made by a Church leader decades ago that seems incongruent with our doctrine. There is an important principle that governs the doctrine of the Church. The doctrine is taught by all 15 members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. It is not hidden in an obscure paragraph of one talk. True principles are taught frequently and by many. Our doctrine is not difficult to find.

The leaders of the Church are honest but imperfect men. Remember the words of Moroni: “Condemn me not because of mine imperfection, neither my father … ; but rather give thanks unto God that he hath made manifest unto you our imperfections, that ye may learn to be more wise than we have been” (Ether 12:6)

Also consider these 2018 remarks by Paul Reeve:

Quote

Although Brigham Young’s two speeches to the Utah Territorial Legislature in 1852 mark the first recorded articulations of a priesthood restriction by a Mormon prophet-president, it is a mistake to solely attribute the ban to seemingly inherent racism in Brigham Young. His own views evolved between 1847, when he first dealt with racial matters at Winter Quarters, and 1852, when he first publicly articulated a rationale for a priesthood restriction.

In 1847, in an interview with William (Warner) McCary, a black Mormon who married Lucy Stanton, a white Mormon, Brigham Young expressed an open position on race. McCary complained to Brigham Young regarding the way he was sometimes treated among the Saints and suggested that his skin color was a factor: “I am not a president or a leader of the people,” McCary lamented, but merely a “common brother,” a fact that he said was true “because I am a little shade darker.”

In response, Brigham Young asserted that “we don’t care about color.” He went on to suggest that color did not matter in priesthood ordination: “We have to repent and regain what we have lost,” Brigham Young insisted, “we have one of the best Elders, an African in Lowell—a barber,” he reported. Brigham Young here referred to Q. Walker Lewis, a barber, abolitionist, and leader in the black community in Lowell, Massachusetts. Apostle William Smith, younger brother to Hyrum and Joseph Smith, had ordained Lewis an elder in 1843 or 1844.

By December of 1847, however, Brigham Young’s perspective had changed. 

The entire article is worth a read.

On 10/23/2021 at 7:21 PM, rongo said:

The Brethren are too careful about going out on limbs like that now, but if they did, what would people think of a statement like this simply being waved away decades down the road because society changed? 

I think it could be a test of faith for some.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

48 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Revise away. Just admit you are revising. To say there is no revelatory or scriptural basis for the ban (Smac’s words that I was responding to, not yours) when the leaders that implemented the ban cited both scriptures and revelation is dishonest. 

With respect, I disagree.  I have been speaking about revelatory provenance being absent.  I maintain that this is so.  AFAIK, we lack any such thing in the historical archives of the Church.

To be sure, there were post hoc explanations and rationalizations given.  I don't dispute that.

48 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

This is especially so when someone is attempting to maintain that there is a revelatory and scriptural basis for the church’s stance against same sex marriage. 

Apples and oranges, I think.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

With respect, I disagree.  I have been speaking about revelatory provenance being absent.  I maintain that this is so.  AFAIK, we lack any such thing in the historical archives of the Church.

To be sure, there were post hoc explanations and rationalizations given.  I don't dispute that.

Brigham Young invoked his apostolic and prophetic mantel and declared the word of the Lord. It doesn’t get much more clear than that. With respect the revelatory provenance here is much more clear than say the revelation ending the practice of polygamy.
 

And it’s at least as clear as the revelation ending the ban. In neither case (starting the ban and ending the ban) do we have the dictated text from the Lord, we only have the word of the Lords servants telling us His will. 
 

The idea of post hoc rationalizations is also nonsense. Brigham Young was very clear about the why of the ban and it’s revealed status. 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Brigham Young invoked his apostolic and prophetic mantel and declared the word of the Lord. It doesn’t get much more clear than that. With respect the revelatory provenance here is much more clear than say the revelation ending the practice of polygamy.
 

And it’s at least as clear as the revelation ending the ban. In neither case (starting the ban and ending the ban) do we have the dictated text from the Lord, we only have the word of the Lords servants telling us His will. 
 

The idea of post hoc rationalizations is also nonsense. Brigham Young was very clear about the why of the ban and it’s revealed status. 

Can you provide the source where Brigham Young was told by the Lord to implement the ban? From what I've read of his various addresses on the subject, the practice of denying the priesthood to Blacks seems to have been in accordance to deeply-held beliefs at the time and not the result of a particular revelation.

As for marriage, the particular latter-day revelation confirming that it is only to be between men and women (and not same sex couples) would be D&C 132.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

6 minutes ago, CV75 said:

As for marriage, the particular latter-day revelation confirming that it is only to be between men and women (and not same sex couples) would be D&C 132

Which verse says not same sex couples?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

6 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Can you provide the source where Brigham Young was told by the Lord to implement the ban?

Only that Brigham Young declared (invoking his apostolic and prophetic mantle) that it was revealed to him. Can you tell me when the Melchizedek priesthood was restored? Like the date? 

[Stormin' Mormon]

Quote

"There is an important principle that governs the doctrine of the Church. The doctrine is taught by all 15 members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. It is not hidden in an obscure paragraph of one talk."

One down, fourteen to go.

Show me contemporary sources where this was publicly taught as a revelation to the church by Heber C. Kimball, Willard Richards, Orson Hyde, Parley P. Pratt, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, George A. Smith, Orson Pratt, Amassa M. Lyman, Ezra T. Benson, Charles C. Rich, Lorenzo Snow, Erastus Snow, and Franklin D. Richards, and then we can continue this line of inquiry. 

Edited October 25, 2021 by Stormin' Mormon

[california boy]

10 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Can you provide the source where Brigham Young was told by the Lord to implement the ban? From what I've read of his various addresses on the subject, the practice of denying the priesthood to Blacks seems to have been in accordance to deeply-held beliefs at the time and not the result of a particular revelation.

As for marriage, the particular latter-day revelation confirming that it is only to be between men and women (and not same sex couples) would be D&C 132.

Isn't this position even more damning to the Church than saying that God instituted it??  If the Church and you believe that the ban on blacks holding the priesthood was just made up and lasted for 150 years, what does THAT say about how racist the Church was?  It means that every prophet since Brigham Young to Spencer W. Kimball was a racist and just perpetuated the discrimination.  .

Frankly, I find that disturbing.  

[california boy]

7 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

One down, fourteen to go.

Show me contemporary sources where this was publicly taught as a revelation to the church by Heber C. Kimball, Willard Richards, Orson Hyde, Parley P. Pratt, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, George A. Smith, Orson Pratt, Amassa M. Lyman, Ezra T. Benson, Charles C. Rich, Lorenzo Snow, Erastus Snow, and Franklin D. Richards, and then we can continue this line of inquiry. 

So all that you mentioned didn't believe this doctrine came from God by revelation and were just racists that wanted to continue the practice?  Because what was taught by all of the men you named is that blacks weren't allowed to have saving ordinances and the blessing of the priesthood in their lives simply because they were born black.  

Edited October 25, 2021 by california boy

[SeekingUnderstanding]

25 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

One down, fourteen to go.

Show me contemporary sources where this was publicly taught as a revelation to the church by Heber C. Kimball, Willard Richards, Orson Hyde, Parley P. Pratt, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, George A. Smith, Orson Pratt, Amassa M. Lyman, Ezra T. Benson, Charles C. Rich, Lorenzo Snow, Erastus Snow, and Franklin D. Richards, and then we can continue this line of inquiry. 

This idea is a relatively modern one.  Can you point to the origin’s of the idea that a prophet doesn’t speak for the Lord when he invokes his prophetic mantle? When was the first time it was stated that it required 15 men to declare the will of the Lord?

[smac97]

56 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Brigham Young invoked his apostolic and prophetic mantel and declared the word of the Lord.

But he did not seem to claim, AFAICS, that he had received a revelation about it, nor did he present any such revelation to the body of the Church for a ratifying vote, and no record of a revelation on this subject has been located.

Here is a transcript said to the territorial legislature in 1852.  

From FAIR:

Quote

Question: What do we know about the origin of the priesthood ban on Church members of African descent?

The Church has never provided an official reason for the ban

The origin of the priesthood ban is one of the most difficult questions to answer. Its origins are not clear, and this affected both how members and leaders have seen the ban, and the steps necessary to rescind it. The Church has never provided an official reason for the ban, although a number of Church leaders offered theories as to the reason for its existence. The Church currently provides the following background information regarding the initiation of the ban in its Gospel Topics essay "Race and the Priesthood":

In 1852, President Brigham Young publicly announced that men of black African descent could no longer be ordained to the priesthood, though thereafter blacks continued to join the Church through baptism and receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost. Following the death of Brigham Young, subsequent Church presidents restricted blacks from receiving the temple endowment or being married in the temple. Over time, Church leaders and members advanced many theories to explain the priesthood and temple restrictions. None of these explanations is accepted today as the official doctrine of the Church. ^[3]

Given that none of these theories regarding the reason for the ban is accepted today, Church members have generally taken one of three perspectives:

• Some members assume that the ban was based on revelation to Joseph Smith, and was continued by his successors until President Kimball. However, Joseph Smith did ordain several men of African descent to the priesthood.
• Some believe that the ban did not originate with Joseph Smith, but was implemented by Brigham Young. The evidence supports the idea that Brigham Young implemented it, but there is no record of an actual revelation having been received regarding it.
• Some believe that the ban began as a series of administrative policy decisions, rather than a revealed doctrine, and drew partly upon ideas regarding race common in mid-19th century America. The passage of time gave greater authority to this policy than intended.

The difficulty in deciding between these options arises because:

• there is no contemporary account of a revelation underlying the ban; but
• many early members nevertheless believed that there had been such a revelation; and
• priesthood ordination of African blacks was a rare event, which became even more rare with time.

The history behind the practice in the modern Church of withholding the priesthood based on race is described well by Lester Bush in a 1984 book.^[4] A good timeline can be found at FairMormon's BlackLDS site: FairMormon link.

Many leaders have indicated that the Church does not know why the ban was in place

• Gordon B. Hinckley in an interview:

Q: So in retrospect, was the Church wrong in that [not ordaining blacks]?

A [Pres. Hinckley]: No, I don't think it was wrong. It, things, various things happened in different periods. There's a reason for them.

Q: What was the reason for that?

A: I don't know what the reason was. But I know that we've rectified whatever may have appeared to be wrong at the time.^[5]

• Elder Dallin H. Oaks:

If you read the scriptures with this question in mind, 'Why did the Lord command this or why did he command that,' you find that in less than one in a hundred commands was any reason given. It's not the pattern of the Lord to give reasons. We can put reasons to commandments. When we do, we're on our own. Some people put reasons to [the ban] and they turned out to be spectacularly wrong. There is a lesson in that.... The lesson I've drawn from that, I decided a long time ago that I had faith in the command and I had no faith in the reasons that had been suggested for it.

...I'm referring to reasons given by general authorities and reasons elaborated upon [those reasons] by others. The whole set of reasons seemed to me to be unnecessary risk taking.

...Let's [not] make the mistake that's been made in the past, here and in other areas, trying to put reasons to revelation. The reasons turn out to be man-made to a great extent. The revelations are what we sustain as the will of the Lord and that's where safety lies.^[6]

• Elder Jeffrey R. Holland:

One clear-cut position is that the folklore must never be perpetuated. ... I have to concede to my earlier colleagues. ... They, I'm sure, in their own way, were doing the best they knew to give shape to [the policy], to give context for it, to give even history to it. All I can say is however well intended the explanations were, I think almost all of them were inadequate and/or wrong. ...

It probably would have been advantageous to say nothing, to say we just don't know, and, [as] with many religious matters, whatever was being done was done on the basis of faith at that time. But some explanations were given and had been given for a lot of years. ... At the very least, there should be no effort to perpetuate those efforts to explain why that doctrine existed. I think, to the extent that I know anything about it, as one of the newer and younger ones to come along, ... we simply do not know why that practice, that policy, that doctrine was in place.^[7]

• Elder Alexander B. Morrison:

We do not know.^[8]

As between A) your hostile and tendentious inferences and B) the text of BY's 1852 remarks and the informed conclusions reached and summarized above that "we do not know," I'll go with the latter.

56 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

It doesn’t get much more clear than that.

Yes, it does.  "Behold, there shall be a record kept among you..." (D&C 21:1.)

The 19th-century Church was far from perfect in maintaining its records.  I'm okay with that.  They had a lot of on their plate.  

56 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

With respect the revelatory provenance here is much more clear than say the revelation ending the practice of polygamy.

Strange, then, that you can't point to anything characterized as a "revelation" as to the origins of the priesthood ban.

56 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

And it’s at least as clear as the revelation ending the ban.

Well, no.  OD-2 is right there in black and white.  And it was presented to the governing quorums of the Church and voted on, then presented to the body of the Church and voted on.

56 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

In neither case (starting the ban and ending the ban) do we have the dictated text from the Lord, we only have the word of the Lords servants telling us His will.

Again, you can't point to anything characterized as a "revelation" as to the origins of the priesthood ban.

56 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

The idea of post hoc rationalizations is also nonsense.

I think that's way off base.  Virtually everything we discuss about the priesthood ban is nothing but "post hoc rationalizations."

56 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Brigham Young was very clear about the why of the ban and it’s revealed status. 

Well, not quite.  As Ron Esplin noted back in 1979: 

Quote

No matter who taught of priesthood denial to the Blacks, or when, the question of inspired (or human) origin remains.  Ultimately, of course, that is a question of faith, not history.  But since historians have suggested, in the absence of any claimed revelation on the matter, that it might well be a historically determined policy, it is relevant to examine Brigham Young's own comments.  The best evidence is a speech he gave before the Utah Territorial Legislature in February of 1852.  Lester Bush, the most careful student so far of the question of priesthood and the Blacks, concluded from a partial report of the 1852 address that, while "one hesitates to attribute theological significance to a legislative address, were this account to be unequivocally authenticated it would present a substantial challenge to thefaithful Mormon who does not accept an inspired origin for Church priesthood policy."

See also this blunt, but overall somewhat fairminded, conclusion:

Quote

Brigham Young thought slavery was a divine institution. He said: “Ham will continue to be servant of servants, as the Lord decreed, until the curse is removed. Will the present struggle free the slave? No; but they are now wasting away the black race by thousands…. “Treat the slaves kindly and let them live, for Ham must be the servant of servants until the curse is removed. Can you destroy the decrees of the Almighty? You cannot. Yet our Christian brethren think that they are going to overthrow the sentence of the Almighty upon the seed of Ham. They cannot do that, though they may kill them by thousands and tens of thousands.”  (Millennial Star, Vol. 25, page 787; also published in Journal of Discourses, Vol. 10, page 250)

In these addresses, one can see the racist background that Brigham Young had through the belief that was commonly held by many Protestant denominations in early American history. Mormons were just as racist as everyone else. “Much of the conventional ‘explanation’ for the priesthood restriction was simply borrowed from the racist heritage of nine-teenth-century Europe and America, especially from the justifications for slavery used in the ante-bellum South”, said Armand Mauss, LDS emeritus professor of sociology at Washington State University. (This Is My Doctrine, pg 389) So in regards to the church’s statement, “It is not known precisely why, how, or when this restriction began inthe Church…”, I would argue that we know exactly where it started. I do think Gordon B. Hinkley’s approach to the subject with Mike Wallace in a 60 Minutes interview was much more forthcoming: “Because the leaders of the church at that time interpreted that doctrine that way.” If you want to get specific, you could go on to say that as the leader of the church, Brigham Young simply let his beliefs, his bias, and his racism carry over to Mormonism.

Thanks,

-Smac

[MrShorty]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think this sort of absolutist, black-or-white, all-or-nothing attitude is unfortunate.  It exposes an implicit expectation/requirement of prophetic infallibility.  Either the Brethren are correct in everything, or they are correct in nothing.  Either we must have 100% "security and confidence" about everything they say and do, or we cannot have any "security and confidence" about - as you put it - "anything" they so and do.

I just don't think that's a reasonable or healthy perspective.  Moses made all sorts of mistakes, but he was still a prophet.  Jonah made mistakes.  Paul.  Peter.  Joseph Smith.  To point to these flaws and mistakes as negating the entirety of their prophetic callings is, I think, unworkable.  We are called upon to sustain prophets and apostles not because they are perfect, but precisely because they are not.

I agree wholeheartedly with that we want to avoid all-or-nothing thinking on this. However, I am also sympathetic to @rongo's observation that, once we set and accept the precedent that prophets can and do make doctrinal mistakes, we find ourselves on a slippery slope that easily slides down to "nothing they say is true." IMO, the real problem we have as a community and in the broader Church is that we have not adequately talked about how to keep our footing on that slippery slope.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

17 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Again, you can't point to anything characterized as a "revelation" as to the origins of the priesthood ban.

So a prophet invoking his apostolic and prophet mantle declaring the word of the Lord doesn’t count as a “revelation”. Okay. So where is the “revelation” presented to the church and voted on by the members that states same sex relationships are inherently sinful? 
 

19 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Virtually everything we discuss about the priesthood ban is nothing but "post hoc rationalizations."

And I have no doubt that future apologists will be talking about how “post hoc rationalizations” were given as to why gay people couldn’t marry each other and we don’t really know where that policy got it’s start. 

[MrShorty]

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

But he did not seem to claim, AFAICS, that he had received a revelation about it, nor did he present any such revelation to the body of the Church for a ratifying vote, and no record of a revelation on this subject has been located.

 

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

Can you provide the source where Brigham Young was told by the Lord to implement the ban?

I'm going to agree with @california boy on this. If there was no revelation establishing the priesthood and temple ban and we then perpetuated that practice for more than a century is worse than some of the other alternatives.

Perhaps as a thoroughly caucasian, cis-hetero male, I have not real stewardship to even speak into this space. I can only look to those like Brother Martins ( @smac97 linked to earlier) with respect that they can somehow see through and past these issues. But I don't see anything that helps me understand how to keep my own footing in the face of the same issues.

Bringing this to Br. Mansfield's piece that started this. I agree with him that it is sometimes difficult, but incredibly important, to balance love and truth. I notice that Mansfield simply assumed that the proscription against same sex marriage is true (to be fair, he never expressed an intent to justify the proscription). With that assumption, I thought he wrote a very nice piece. However, I would argue that one of the most unloving things we can do is perpetuate as true a practice that is not true. IMO, we need to more closely examine that assumption, and the prophetic claims that undergird that assumption, until we are certain it is TRUE.

[Scott Lloyd]

6 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

And I have no doubt that future apologists will be talking about how “post hoc rationalizations” were given as to why gay people couldn’t marry each other and we don’t really know where that policy got it’s start. 

If so, they will be “apologists” for the antagonistic view, as the Church is not going to change the doctrine of the Lord in that regard. 

[smac97]

31 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

This idea is a relatively modern one.  

No, it is not.  Joseph Smith was not an autocrat.  The councils of the Church are in the doctrines of the Church.

31 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Can you point to the origin’s of the idea that a prophet doesn’t speak for the Lord when he invokes his prophetic mantle?

There are mechanisms in place for the Presiding High Priest to do his job.  Autocracy-by-invoking-prophetic-mantle doesn't really work.

31 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

When was the first time it was stated that it required 15 men to declare the will of the Lord?

The councils of the Church, the First Presidency, the Quorum of the Twelve, etc.  These are not just window dressing.

Thanks,

-Smac

[SeekingUnderstanding]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If so, they will be “apologists” for the antagonistic view, as the Church is not going to change the doctrine of the Lord in that regard. 

I have heard that before: “The attitude of the Church with reference to the Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord” - Yesteryear’s  disavowed First Presidency letter to someone who said the priesthood ban should be removed.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

he councils of the Church, the First Presidency, the Quorum of the Twelve, etc.  These are not just window dressing.

Certainly. And every single one of them from the time of Brigham Young to the time of Spencer W Kimball supported and upheld the priesthood ban.