Recent Poll Re: Assessment of Priesthood Ban

[smac97]

From the Tribune: Revelation or racism? How members view the past priesthood/temple ban.

Quote

As we approach next month’s 46th anniversary of the 1978 end of the priesthood/temple ban against Black members, let’s look at how Latter-day Saints view that now-discarded policy.

Do they, for instance, see that nearly 130-year-long prohibition as rooted in revelation or racism?

For the answer, we turn to researchers Stephen Cranney and Josh Coates, whose survey results — reported in a recent Times and Seasons blog post — discovered an evenly split membership on the question:

• 36% either agree or strongly agree that the priesthood and temple restriction was uninspired, and implemented and maintained primarily by racism.

• 34% either disagree or strongly disagree with that statement.

• 30% couldn’t or wouldn’t say.

For the record, the church’s official 2013 essay on the priesthood/temple ban was silent on that issue.

I count myself in the first cohort.  I don't think we have much evidence in the way to suggest that the ban had revelatory provenance.

Quote

Historian W. Paul Reeve, a first-rate Latter-day Saint scholar on the topic and the author of “Let’s Talk About Race and Priesthood,” has flatly stated that he doesn’t believe the prohibition was of “divine origin” but rather came into practice under Brigham Young, noting that Black men were ordained under church founder Joseph Smith.

That seems like a reasonable conclusion based on the extant evidence.

Quote

President Russell Nelson and other church leaders have labored to move the faith and its followers beyond any racism, delivering major addresses against it and cementing an ongoing partnership with the NAACP, the nation’s oldest civil rights organization.

I am very happy to see this.

Thoughts?  Do you think Reeve's assessment is accurate?  Or do Latter-day Saints have a factual/evidentiary/doctrinal basis for concluding that the ban was "revelatory"?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

I think Reeve is right.  The more recent evidence all seems to line up with no revelation.

[Devobah]

This is something that I've given quite a bit of thought to. I don't have too many citations for anything, but I will do my best to show my thinking and meditation on the matter.

First, I look at it in this way: people, including prophets and apostles, have always had a troubling time listening to God's voice and commandments on many different things. We see it in the space between the end of Christ's ministry and The Great Commission, and Peter's vision on taking the gospel to the Gentiles. (Granted that was at most a decade? Maybe someone can check me on that. Definitely not over 100 years) Jonah just didn't want to go to Ninevah. Even Abraham struggled with the potential sacrifice of Isaac. Learning to listen to the Lord takes a lot of discipline, and is something that not a lot of people do well in this lifetime. Perhaps my willingness to listen to other's opinions and such is why I struggled with a lot of things. 

Secondly, there is basis in the bible for withholding the priesthood (not necessarily the blessings) from certain people. The Levite priesthood was only to be given to those of the bloodline of Aaron. If we wanted to delve into the insane pit that is "the priesthood of all believers" there is some interesting note about that as well.

Where the priesthood ban begins most definitely is with Brigham's term as prophet. The closest thing we have to an explanation is a letter saying that it is a matter of doctrine. There's never given a clear reason for that, but it does seem to stem from a protestant upbringing. And it didn't stop (although it definitely slowed) the process of black members of the church. 

Some good timelines and resources I have found are:

http://www.blacklatterdaysaints.org/

https://mormonr.org/qnas/LAIKTb/black_saints_and_the_priesthood_1895_1978

https://mormonr.org/qnas/BT5Sk/black_saints_and_the_priesthood_brigham_young_early_utah_era

https://mormonr.org/qnas/AqRt9/black_saints_and_the_priesthood_joseph_smith_era

(This is just a few. There's definitely more, but I do have classes to teach 😁)

As for me personally? I can't say I can say it was divinely inspired to begin, but I definitely think that it was divinely inspired to end.

[MrShorty]

I took notice of this a week or so ago when T&S first posted it. I found it interesting that the data show a pretty even split among respondents. One-third saying the ban was not from God, one-third saying it was, and one-third non-committal.

The thing I find missing (not necessarily to the fault of the researchers) is how these results are trending with time. It seems to me that the "disagrees" are shrinking, but I have no data to back that up. Paul Reeves is mentioned, who is one of the more prominent members who has come out publicly saying that it was never of divine origin. His "testimony" is part of why I have the courage to vote "agree," and I would wonder how much Paul Reeve's work on this topic has influenced members choices here. Maybe more "disagreed" before Reeve's books came out.

The big question will be if the church will ever officially vote "agree" on this, or if the official church publications (like the GT essay) will always be non-committal. I expect that, as Elder Cook (I believe) said in a Face to Face event when asked about polygamy, the church wants to leave the past in the past and look forward to the future. I think it's hard to completely ignore the past, because what happened in the past has implications for what is happening today and will happen tomorrow.

For now, I mostly find it interesting how evenly split the survey data are on this question. Some methodology might be helpful so we can talk about how well (or not) these data would extrapolate to the church as a whole.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I think Reeve is right.  The more recent evidence all seems to line up with no revelation.

I think we as Latter-day Saints need to become more comfortable with the idea that the Restored Gospel was not given to its earliest members and leaders in a completed and "turnkey" form.  I commented on this back in 2018:

Quote

{W}e need to cut the early members of the Church some slack.  A lot of slack, actually.  It's not like the Lord gave them books entitled "How to Establish the Kingdom of God in Ten Easy Steps," or "Apostleship for Dummies," or "Everything You Want to Know About Revelation (But Are Afraid to Ask)."

The early leaders of the Church were functioning in their leadership capacities with little or no "institutional knowledge" regarding the ins and outs of church governance.  So when Brigham Young became an apostle, and then the Presiding High Priest, he had very little in the way of training from more experienced general authorities to teach him how to run the LDS Church.  And he had very little in the way of formal education (which, in the 19th century, would have been fairly limited anyway).  The same goes for his predecessor, Joseph Smith, his contemporaries, and his successors.

And the Church was in tremendous turmoil and under much hardship for many years (persecutions in Nauvoo, the initial trek west, the ongoing flow of immigrants in the ensuing years, the settlement of the west, the creation of towns, the feeding and provisioning of thousands of newly-minted and -arrived church members, international missionary work, building the Salt Lake Temple, Johnston's Army, Mountain Meadows, polygamy, and on and on and on).

I am deeply impressed at the accomplishments of the early leaders of the Church.  Their experiences, their successes, and their failures, have been helpful to the subsequent generations of leaders and members of the Church.  One of the benefits which are now accruing to today's leaders is the ability to look back and see what was done by past leaders, including perhaps some occasional tendency to publicly conflate personal opinion with scriptural/revelatory precepts.  I think today's leaders are much better about differentiating between the two, and focusing on the latter to the exclusion of the former when making public, formal remarks in their capacities as General Authorities.  These men and women had to deal with many more life-and-death issues, moral conundrums, matters of civil governance, and so on, than we do.  It's easy for us to sit in front of our computers and presume to dole out judgments against people we've never met, who faced situations we've never seen, and dealt with challenges we've never endured.

"For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged; and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again."  (3 Nephi 14:2)

For me, I have been curious about this portion of the First Presidency's 1949 statement (emphasis added) :

Quote

The attitude of the Church with reference to 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. President Brigham Young said: "Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a skin of blackness? It comes in consequence of their fathers rejecting the power of the holy priesthood, and the law of God. They will go down to death. And when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the holy priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will then come up and possess the priesthood, and receive all the blessings which we now are entitled to."

President Wilford Woodruff made the following statement: "The day will come when all that race will be redeemed and possess all the blessings which we now have."

A few thoughts:

1. Per this website, a church historian has stated:

Quote

We can confirm that the following text was used by the First Presidency in responses to inquiries about the priesthood restriction for several years beginning in 1949. The text was never issued publicly but, rather, was used as standard language in private correspondence.

I think there is some difference between "private correspondence" and public statements.

2. Edward L. Kimball has also commented on the 1949 statement here:

Quote

In 1949, George Albert Smith’s administration began sending out a consistent statement in response to inquiries. It followed the pattern set in earlier private correspondence by the First Presidency and by David O. McKay, who had been a counselor in the First Presidency since 1934: “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 . . . are not entitled to the priesthood at the present time,”²⁰ based on “some eternal law with which man is yet unfamiliar” and by which men’s place and condition of birth and rights to priesthood must be explained; accordingly, “the conduct of spirits in the premortal existence has some determining effect upon the conditions and circumstances under which these spirits take on mortality.”²¹ The statement went beyond the evidence both in claiming a “direct commandment” from the Lord and in saying that the doctrine came “from the days of [the Church’s] organization.”

This seems like a fair assessment.

3. Bro. Kimball has also provided this valuable note (same link) :

Quote

In 1954, President McKay is said to have appointed a special committee of the Twelve to study the issue. They concluded that the priesthood ban had no clear basis in scripture but that Church members were not prepared for change.²⁵
...
25. Leonard J. Arrington, Adventures of a Church Historian (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1998), 183, based on Arrington hearing a 1954 talk by Adam S. Bennion, a member of the committee. The Bennion Papers collected First Presidency minutes and letters relating to the priesthood policy, apparently as part of that review of the subject. The Kimball Papers include such a collection, not identified as to source. Compare Bush, “History of My Research,” 26; and Lester E. Bush, “Writing ‘Mormonism’s Negro Doctrine: An Historical Overview’ (1973): Context and Reflections, 1998,” Journal of Mormon History 25 (Spring 1999): 245. G. Homer Durham, son-in-law of Apostle John A. Widtsoe, had mentioned such an investigating committee to Nicholas Udall, although Udall’s memory is that the committee convened during the George Albert Smith administration. Nicholas Udall, interview by author, July 6, 2001.

Ours is a record-keeping church.  I find it noteworthy that we are still, in 2024, unable to articulate any particular revelatory origin for the ban, or point to contemporary and competent evidence in the records and history of the Church regarding the ban's supposed revelatory origins.

4. Doctrine & Covenants Central has compiled an excellent timeline relating to the ban:

Quote

Introduction: The history surrounding the priesthood and temple restriction on those of African descent in the Church is perhaps best understood in three phases: Phase 1: Priesthood and Temples Available to All (1830-1852), Phase 2: Priesthood and Temple Ban in Effect (1852-1978), and Phase 3: Priesthood and Temples Available to All Again (1978-Present). Additionally, it is vital in seeking an accurate understanding of history—particularly this history—that statements and actions of individuals are understood in their proper contexts, otherwise misunderstanding is certain.

Apparently they have only created a timeline for "Phase 1."  Hopefully more will follow.

5. FAIR's summary is apt: 

Quote

Summary: 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.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 16, 2024 by smac97

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

From the Tribune: Revelation or racism? How members view the past priesthood/temple ban.

I count myself in the first cohort.  I don't think we have much evidence in the way to suggest that the ban had revelatory provenance.

That seems like a reasonable conclusion based on the extant evidence.

I am very happy to see this.

Thoughts?  Do you think Reeve's assessment is accurate?  Or do Latter-day Saints have a factual/evidentiary/doctrinal basis for concluding that the ban was "revelatory"?

Thanks,

-Smac

I think it was all made up by men.  But your position disagrees with LDS Prophets and Apostles through the years.  This Wikipedia item sums it up well:

Divinity of ban, Doctrine vs. Policy[edit]

 

Quote

 

See also: 1978 Revelation on Priesthood

Church leaders taught for decades that the priesthood ordination and temple ordinance ban was commanded by God. Brigham Young taught it was a "true eternal principle the Lord Almighty has ordained."^[6]: 37 In 1949, the First Presidency (under George Albert Smith) officially stated that it was "not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord".^{[31]: 222–223 [73][32]: 221} A second First Presidency statement (this time under McKay) in 1969 reemphasized that this "seeming discrimination by the Church towards the Negro is not something which originated with man; but goes back into the beginning with God".^{[74][31]: 223 [32]: 222} As president of the church, Kimball also emphasized in a 1973 press conference that the ban was "not my policy or the Church's policy. It is the policy of the Lord who has established it."^[75] On the topic of doctrine and policy for the race ban lifting the apostle Dallin H. Oaks stated in 1988, "I don't know that it's possible to distinguish between policy and doctrine in a church that believes in continuing revelation and sustains its leader as a prophet. ... I'm not sure I could justify the difference in doctrine and policy in the fact that before 1978 a person could not hold the priesthood and after 1978 they could hold the priesthood."^[76]

When it was announced in the 1978 that the ban was reversed, Kimball wrote a letter saying that the Lord revealed "that the long-promised day has come". This was later canonized in LDS scripture as Official Declaration 2.^[77] McConkie said that the voice of God had said "that the time had now come", and that the entire First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve heard the same voice, and knew that the ancient curse had been lifted.^[6]: 117 In 1995, Black church member A. David Jackson asked church leaders to issue a declaration repudiating that the ban was a direct commandment from the Lord. At first, the church refused.^[65]

In 2012, the church changed the preface to Official Declaration 2 to include these sentences regarding the priesthood ban: "Church records offer no clear insights into the origins of this practice. Church leaders believed that a revelation from God was needed to alter this practice".^[78]: 273 However, it did not specifically say what parts of the ban came from God and which did not.^[79]: 380 In 2013, the church published an essay which said that the ban had its roots more in racism than revelation.^[72][71] A 2016 landmark survey^[80] of 1,156 self-identified Latter-day Saints found that almost two-thirds of surveyed members reported believing the pre-1978 temple and priesthood ban was "God's will".^[81][82]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_people_and_temple_and_priesthood_policies_in_the_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints#:~:text=In 1949%2C the First Presidency,a matter of church policy.

 

 

 

Either way this is a huge problem for you.  You think it was a mistake. Prophets said it was not a mistake was under the direction of God.  And we even have the 1949 First Presidency statement that says as much. And that is a pretty official statement. FP statement carry authoritive weight do they not?   So are you right and it was all a mistake and were they wrong?  And if they were wrong it seems problematic that God didn't reveal to them the error of their ways and allowed a gross injustice to be perpetrated on those of African descent.  This all certainly screams that prophets and apostles really have no greater, and sometimes even less, insight on things that are correct and moral then the rest of us.

[Calm]

28 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

One-third saying the ban was not from God, one-third saying it was, and one-third non-committal.

The

Anyone else flash to the war in heaven split camps? 😄

[CV75]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

From the Tribune: Revelation or racism? How members view the past priesthood/temple ban.

I count myself in the first cohort.  I don't think we have much evidence in the way to suggest that the ban had revelatory provenance.

That seems like a reasonable conclusion based on the extant evidence.

I am very happy to see this.

Thoughts?  Do you think Reeve's assessment is accurate?  Or do Latter-day Saints have a factual/evidentiary/doctrinal basis for concluding that the ban was "revelatory"?

Thanks,

-Smac

Did W. Paul Reeve use the term "conclusion?" It seems he was stating his belief as justified by well-documented and accurate facts. I have not seen anyone conclude or state they believe the ban was "revelatory" on equally well-documented and accurate facts.

I think the length of time between the ban's placement and its rescission is far less, and the immediate and long-term success of its recission within the Church community much faster and greater than what we see in the rest of the world, which still struggles abysmally with successful acceptance and implementation of racial and ancestral equality. This shows greater "divine origin" than what we see occurring in secular social developments throughout human history.

I see things like the ban on a par with the Lord allowing prophets before the brother of Jared to not display the same level of faith and knowledge that he did. Human fallibility is dwarfed by divine potential, which is why we (humanity at large) have the restored keys on earth, to access the effects of God's grace to a greater extent than in any other dispensation.

Edited May 16, 2024 by CV75

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I think Reeve is right.  The more recent evidence all seems to line up with no revelation.

Yet the apostles and prophets from Brigham Young to Spencer Kimball all disagree with you. And with Reeve.

[Teancum]

38 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

I took notice of this a week or so ago when T&S first posted it. I found it interesting that the data show a pretty even split among respondents. One-third saying the ban was not from God, one-third saying it was, and one-third non-committal.

The thing I find missing (not necessarily to the fault of the researchers) is how these results are trending with time. It seems to me that the "disagrees" are shrinking, but I have no data to back that up. Paul Reeves is mentioned, who is one of the more prominent members who has come out publicly saying that it was never of divine origin. His "testimony" is part of why I have the courage to vote "agree," and I would wonder how much Paul Reeve's work on this topic has influenced members choices here. Maybe more "disagreed" before Reeve's books came out.

The big question will be if the church will ever officially vote "agree" on this, or if the official church publications (like the GT essay) will always be non-committal. I expect that, as Elder Cook (I believe) said in a Face to Face event when asked about polygamy, the church wants to leave the past in the past and look forward to the future. I think it's hard to completely ignore the past, because what happened in the past has implications for what is happening today and will happen tomorrow.

For now, I mostly find it interesting how evenly split the survey data are on this question. Some methodology might be helpful so we can talk about how well (or not) these data would extrapolate to the church as a whole.

Historically my take on this was:

From childhood to maybe mid 30 to late 30s-this was direction from God.

From late 30s to around 52-it was started by Brigham Young and was an error and his successors allowed it to continue mistakenly thinking it was of God.

52 to now-it is all man made. But the leaders of the church who claim to be directed by God certainly believed it was from God and to argue that they did not and that it was all a mistake so we can just forget about what they say is gaslighting on steroids and is a significant piece of evidence that the LDS leader are no more led by God in anything they do then any other human.  In other words, they most certainly are not prophets or apostles in the was most people understand those words.

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Yet the apostles and prophets from Brigham Young to Spencer Kimball all disagree with you. And with Reeve.

Not according to some documentation. 

We don’t have Brigham on record saying the Ban itself was a revelation, just that certain ideas were revelation, interpretations of scripture. 

We still had questioning about the ban during John Taylor’s administration iirc and there was still debate up till 1905 iirc. After that it seems most accepted it was revelation except Pres McKay who saw it as policy according to his bio. Not sure about Pres Kimball.  
 

I will pull up references later if necessary. Trying to cook something at the moment. Getting distracted too easily. 

Edited May 16, 2024 by Calm

[Teancum]

Just now, Calm said:

Not according to some documentation. 

CFR please.

Just now, Calm said:

We don’t have Brigham on record saying the Ban itself was a revelation, just that certain ideas were revelation, interpretations of scripture. 

We still had questioning about the ban during John Taylor’s administration iirc and there was still debate up till 1905 iirc. After that it seems most accepted it was revelation except Pres McKay who saw it as policy according to his bio. Not sure about Pres Kimball.  

Did you read the WIKI post I shared?  I can dig up more quotes on this. It seems crystal clear to me that the LDS leaders all viewed it from God and felt they needed a revelation to reverse it. I am surprised you would argue otherwise.

[Teancum]

44 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think we as Latter-day Saints need to become more comfortable with the idea that the Restored Gospel was not given to its earliest members and leaders in a completed and "turnkey" form.  I commented on this back in 2018:

Of course. This is another more recent innovation that simply allows apologist to sweep away problematic issues like the topic of this thread. 

[Calm]

1 minute ago, Teancum said:

CFR please.

Did you read the WIKI post I shared?  I can dig up more quotes on this. It seems crystal clear to me that the LDS leaders all viewed it from God and felt they needed a revelation to reverse it. I am surprised you would argue otherwise.

I agree about the needing a revelation to reverse it. 

Why would leaders continue to have meetings debating the ban if they definitely believed it was revelation? 

Edited May 16, 2024 by Calm

[CV75]

39 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

I took notice of this a week or so ago when T&S first posted it. I found it interesting that the data show a pretty even split among respondents. One-third saying the ban was not from God, one-third saying it was, and one-third non-committal.

The thing I find missing (not necessarily to the fault of the researchers) is how these results are trending with time. It seems to me that the "disagrees" are shrinking, but I have no data to back that up. Paul Reeves is mentioned, who is one of the more prominent members who has come out publicly saying that it was never of divine origin. His "testimony" is part of why I have the courage to vote "agree," and I would wonder how much Paul Reeve's work on this topic has influenced members choices here. Maybe more "disagreed" before Reeve's books came out.

The big question will be if the church will ever officially vote "agree" on this, or if the official church publications (like the GT essay) will always be non-committal. I expect that, as Elder Cook (I believe) said in a Face to Face event when asked about polygamy, the church wants to leave the past in the past and look forward to the future. I think it's hard to completely ignore the past, because what happened in the past has implications for what is happening today and will happen tomorrow.

For now, I mostly find it interesting how evenly split the survey data are on this question. Some methodology might be helpful so we can talk about how well (or not) these data would extrapolate to the church as a whole.

Interesting -- the even split might be reflected among the revelatory councils of the Church as well. No matter, they've been 100% unified on the rescission since 1978.

If we polled the prophets in the brother of Jared's day, we would probably also find a multiple split in understanding of the timing and circumstances of the Lord's flesh and blood. Even the brother of Jared, for a moment, misinterpreted what he saw in vision as not the future (or that things are present with the Lord). And then he wasn't allowed to share the right answer with his peers and followers!

[Teancum]

47 minutes ago, smac97 said:

In 1954, President McKay is said to have appointed a special committee of the Twelve to study the issue. They concluded that the priesthood ban had no clear basis in scripture but that Church members were not prepared for change.²⁵

I always found this line of thought intriguing.  The members were not prepared for the change?  Not in the 1950s or 1960s?  But it was quite fine to shove polygamy down their throats and that is now coined as an Abrahamic test. Culturally plural marriage was far outside the norm and an abomination to the culture Joseph introduced it to. And allegedly it was so important that an angel with a flaming sword was sent to force Joseph to do it. Brigham said he preferred death over taking another wife at least initially.  Clearly he later enthusiastically embraced it.  So this was something that members were not ready to accept yet it was forced upon them.  Yet the lifting the priesthood ban was to much for them at the time of President McKay.  I am not buying this not one whit. 

[Teancum]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

I agree about the needing a revelation to reverse it. 

Why would leaders continue to have meetings debating the ban if they definitely believed it was revelation? 

I have no idea.  Why would they need a revelation if they thought it was not from God and a mistake? It could have been a simple policy adjustment.  So can you not satisfy my CFR?

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Quote

In 1954, President McKay is said to have appointed a special committee of the Twelve to study the issue. They concluded that the priesthood ban had no clear basis in scripture but that Church members were not prepared for change.²⁵

I always found this line of thought intriguing.  The members were not prepared for the change?  Not in the 1950s or 1960s?  But it was quite fine to shove polygamy down their throats and that is now coined as an Abrahamic test. Culturally plural marriage was far outside the norm and an abomination to the culture Joseph introduced it to. And allegedly it was so important that an angel with a flaming sword was sent to force Joseph to do it. Brigham said he preferred death over taking another wife at least initially.  Clearly he later enthusiastically embraced it.  So this was something that members were not ready to accept yet it was forced upon them.  Yet the lifting the priesthood ban was to much for them at the time of President McKay.  I am not buying this not one whit. 

Okay.

Here's another interesting bit:

Quote

I also wonder if the Brethren have been "shut down" by the Lord as, apparently, was Pres. McKay on the issue of blacks and the priesthood:

Quote

But the most remarkable account came from Richard Jackson, an architect who served in the Church Building Department from 1968 to McKay's death in 1970:

Quote

I remember one day that President McKay came into the office.  We could see that he was very much distressed.  He said, "I've had it!  I'm not going to do it again!"  Somebody said, "What?" He said, "Well, I'm badgered constantly about giving the priesthood to the Negro.  I've inquired of the Lord repeatedly.  The last time I did it was late last night.  I was told, with no discussion, not to bring the subject up with the Lord again; that the time will come, but it will not be my time, and to leave the subject alone."

This uncharacteristic outburst in the presence of an astonished church architect highlights the contrast between two strands in McKay's thought that are, by today's standard, inseparably joined: civil rights for blacks and priesthood ordination for black men.  The blurring, combined with McKay's own reticence, means that this difference has not been understood until now.

The Lord let the Hebrews stew in Egyptian slavery for generations.  Conversely, the Lord was, it seems, occasionally relatively prompt and specific in responding to inquiries Joseph Smith.  Consider the preface to D&C 6:
...
D&C 11:
...
D&C 12:
...
And more.  I'm sure there is both rhyme and reason to the Lord's timing, but I think we are generally not situated to discern such things.  It's our job to ask and wait.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

15 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Quote

I think we as Latter-day Saints need to become more comfortable with the idea that the Restored Gospel was not given to its earliest members and leaders in a completed and "turnkey" form.  I commented on this back in 2018:

Of course. This is another more recent innovation that simply allows apologist to sweep away problematic issues like the topic of this thread. 

If the Church is what it claims to be, then my comments seem pretty plausible.  I am not denying or ignoring or "sweep{ing} away problematic issues like the topic of this thread" (you will note that I started this thread).  I am, instead, trying to use reasoned analysis, evidence, logic, and so on to address and contextualize these issues.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Teancum]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

Okay.

Here's another interesting bit:

Thanks,

-Smac

My opinion on David O McKay and the priesthood ban, based on the book David O McKay and the Rise or Modern Mormonism, is that he actually wanted to lift the ban and one point.  And Hugh B Brown most certainly did.  But it seems to me they were undermined by powerful apostles, primarily Harold B Lee and Joseph Fielding Smith.

Again, if a revelation was required to lift the ban then it seems to me the church leaders believed the ban was from God even though they could not seem to pin down exactly some document or revelation indicating as such.

[Teancum]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

If the Church is what it claims to be, then my comments seem pretty plausible.  I am not denying or ignoring or "sweep{ing} away problematic issues like the topic of this thread" (you will note that I started this thread).  I am, instead, trying to use reasoned analysis, evidence, logic, and so on to address and contextualize these issues.

Thanks,

-Smac

Fair enough. And I am trying to do the same to explain my position and why I find this one of the more problematic items and fairly fatal the the truth claims of the church. At least as far as it being led by prophets that God directs.

[smac97]

30 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Did W. Paul Reeve use the term "conclusion?"

Apparently not.

30 minutes ago, CV75 said:

It seems he was stating his belief as justified by well-documented and accurate facts.

That sounds like "a reasoned deduction or inference," that is, a "conclusion."

30 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I have not seen anyone conclude or state they believe the ban was "revelatory" on equally well-documented and accurate facts.

Same here.  I think justifications for the ban being revelatory are more circuitous, extrapolated, conjectural etc.

30 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I think the length of time between the ban's placement and its rescission is far less, and the immediate and long-term success of its recission within the Church community much faster and greater than what we see in the rest of the world, which still struggles abysmally with successful acceptance and implementation of racial and ancestral equality. This shows greater "divine origin" than what we see occurring in secular social developments throughout human history.

I see things like the ban on a par with the Lord allowing prophets before the brother of Jared to not display the same level of faith and knowledge that he did. Human fallibility is dwarfed by divine potential, which is why we (humanity at large) have the restored keys on earth, to access the effects of God's grace to a greater extent than in any other dispensation.

Good points.

I think the Latter-day Saints had to overcome the engrained societal prejudices which were in place throughout most of the United States.  I also think that a big part of how and why the Latter-day Saints are able to overcome such things is the Church's missionary program.  Prejudice is a sin of ignorance.  It is difficult for a young Latter-day Saint to go to some other social milieu, often involving substantial differences in culture, language, skin color, etc., and serve the people there fore a substantial period of time, and then return home with previously-held prejudices, whether latent or patent, still intact.

It is possible, though.  There was a young man with whom I served in Taiwan.  I liked him a lot, but he struggled quite a bit with both the language and culture.  Although we missionaries sometimes cracked jokes and such about the local culture, it was an "all in good fun," even affectionate teasing, kind of way.  This elder, though, sometimes made comments that were a bit too barbed.  After a few months, he was transferred to another mission.

Thanks,

-Smac

[CV75]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Apparently not.

That sounds like "a reasoned deduction or inference," that is, a "conclusion."

Same here.  I think justifications for the ban being revelatory are more circuitous, extrapolated, conjectural etc.

Good points.

I think the Latter-day Saints had to overcome the engrained societal prejudices which were in place throughout most of the United States.  I also think that a big part of how and why the Latter-day Saints are able to overcome such things is the Church's missionary program.  Prejudice is a sin of ignorance.  It is difficult for a young Latter-day Saint to go to some other social milieu, often involving substantial differences in culture, language, skin color, etc., and serve the people there fore a substantial period of time, and then return home with previously-held prejudices, whether latent or patent, still intact.

It is possible, though.  There was a young man with whom I served in Taiwan.  I liked him a lot, but he struggled quite a bit with both the language and culture.  Although we missionaries sometimes cracked jokes and such about the local culture, it was an "all in good fun," even affectionate teasing, kind of way.  This elder, though, sometimes made comments that were a bit too barbed.  After a few months, he was transferred to another mission.

Thanks,

-Smac

Well, even in 2008-10 our son reported some missionaries explaining to him that black skin is not a curse was just to appease the public -- and that was concerning the Hispanic and not Black population! These missionaries happened to be from Utah, explaining to him how things really work, an Elder from "the mission field."

I didn't see "conclusion" used in the link. The article and the quote you copied uses "believe." I haven't played the audio (is it used there?).

The distinction I see is that beliefs are less dependent on "well-documented and accurate facts" (as I put it) than are conclusions. I think it is good that he expresses himself in terms of belief; it comes across as less adamant (which can breathe hostility and contention into points of doctrine) and suggests formal/official Church statements as authoritative.

 

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

I think it was all made up by men.  But your position disagrees with LDS Prophets and Apostles through the years. 

Kinda.

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

This Wikipedia item sums it up well:

Divinity of ban, Doctrine vs. Policy[edit]

Quote

See also: 1978 Revelation on Priesthood

Church leaders taught for decades that the priesthood ordination and temple ordinance ban was commanded by God. Brigham Young taught it was a "true eternal principle the Lord Almighty has ordained."^[6]: 37 

And yet, we apparently have nothing in the archives of the Church regarding its revelatory provenance.

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Quote

In 1949, the First Presidency (under George Albert Smith) officially stated that it was "not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord".^{[31]: 222–223 [73][32]: 221} 

As I noted previously:

Quote

Per this website, a church historian has stated:

We can confirm that the following text was used by the First Presidency in responses to inquiries about the priesthood restriction for several years beginning in 1949. The text was never issued publicly but, rather, was used as standard language in private correspondence.

I think there is some difference between "private correspondence" and public statements.

This next one is more interesting:

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Quote

A second First Presidency statement (this time under McKay) in 1969 reemphasized that this "seeming discrimination by the Church towards the Negro is not something which originated with man; but goes back into the beginning with God".^{[74][31]: 223 [32]: 222} 

And yet, we apparently have nothing in the archives of the Church regarding its revelatory provenance.

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Quote

As president of the church, Kimball also emphasized in a 1973 press conference that the ban was "not my policy or the Church's policy. It is the policy of the Lord who has established it."^[75] 

And yet, we apparently have nothing in the archives of the Church regarding its revelatory provenance.

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Quote

In 2012, the church changed the preface to Official Declaration 2 to include these sentences regarding the priesthood ban: "Church records offer no clear insights into the origins of this practice. Church leaders believed that a revelation from God was needed to alter this practice".^[78]: 273 

"Church records offer no clear insights into the origins..."

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Either way this is a huge problem for you. 

It is?  How do you know that?

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

You think it was a mistake.

I think the priesthood ban lacks revelatory provenance.  

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Prophets said it was not a mistake was under the direction of God. 

And yet, we apparently have nothing in the archives of the Church regarding its revelatory provenance.

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

And we even have the 1949 First Presidency statement that says as much.

A statement that was "private correspondence."  That is not doctrines are established.

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

And that is a pretty official statement. FP statement carry authoritive weight do they not?   

"FP statement" meaning private correspondence?  As an evidentiary basis for revelatory provenance?  Not really.

OD-2 carries authoritative weight.  So too does the Church's "Race and the Priesthood" essay.

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

So are you right and it was all a mistake and were they wrong?

The ban appears to lack known or established revelatory provenance.  

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

And if they were wrong it seems problematic that God didn't reveal to them the error of their ways and allowed a gross injustice to be perpetrated on those of African descent. 

The successors to Brigham Young did not originate the ban, they inherited it.  I think Edward Kimball's essay makes some astute points about this:

Quote

The Church in which Spencer W. Kimball grew up in the early twentieth century accepted without question that “colored” or “Negro” members of the Church could not receive the priesthood. 
...
Church policy related only to priesthood, not to personal worth, but many Latter-day Saints shared with other Americans the general social prejudice that relegated blacks to secondary status. A study by Armand Mauss concluded that Mormons were prejudiced, but not more than other religious Americans. “Mormons . . . were no more likely to give anti-Negro responses than were the Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Lutherans . . . or Baptists,” although their belief system could provide an easy rationalization for prejudice.¹

African-Americans in small numbers had been members of the Church from its days in Nauvoo. At least two black men, Walker Lewis, an elder, and Elijah Abel, a seventy, were ordained to the priesthood during Joseph Smith’s lifetime.² Lewis was ordained by Apostle William Smith, brother of the Prophet, in 1843 or 1844 in Lowell, Massachusetts, and continued his involvement in the Church until at least 1852, when he returned to Lowell after a visit to Utah. Elijah Abel continued his activity in the Church in Utah, even though ordination of other blacks ceased.³ By Spencer’s day, Church members who were aware of Abel generally believed his ordination did not accurately reflect true doctrine but was either a mistake, an exception, or the result of Joseph Smith’s still imperfect understanding. It was not thought impossible that a black man could be ordained, just that it was improper.⁴ Thus, when such ordination errors came to light, the men would be asked to suspend use of their priesthood.

By the twentieth century, the origin of the restriction had receded far enough into the past that it carried the sanctity of long-established tradition. Most Mormons felt satisfied that it had a scriptural basis, even though the cited passages were at best ambiguous. Spencer knew that the restriction did not come from explicit scriptures but rather from interpretations by various Church leaders. The reasoning, as often constructed, ran this way: If (as attributed to Joseph Smith and Brigham Young) God disapproved of blacks holding the priesthood, and if (in God’s justice) individuals are accountable only for their own shortcomings, the withholding of priesthood from blacks who have lived worthily in mortality must reflect some kind of failure on their part before they were born.⁵

See also here (under the heading "Origins of the Policy") :

Quote

During the Nauvoo years, Joseph Smith announced his opposition to slavery and proposed emancipation by government purchase. This position did not necessarily repudiate the concept of a cursed lineage, but it did repudiate slavery as a justified consequence of lineage. He apparently held the widespread view of his time that blacks as a race had been degraded by slavery, but he also asserted that they could as individuals rise above others if given opportunity.¹² Thirty-five years later, Zebedee Coltrin and Abraham O. Smoot implied that Joseph Smith originated the priesthood restriction,¹³ but it is clear that from 1836 on, Elijah Abel, a black man, served as an elder and then a seventy in Nauvoo, with Joseph’s full knowledge.

The first known direct statement by a Church President that blacks were denied the priesthood came from Brigham Young in February 1849 when he said of “the Africans”: “The curse remained upon them because Cain cut off the lives of Abel. . . . The Lord had cursed Cain’s seed with blackness and prohibited them the Priesthood.”¹⁴ In 1852, Wilford Woodruff reported that Brigham Young, speaking to the Utah territorial legislature, took personal responsibility for articulating the restriction: “Any man having one drop of the seed of Cane [sic] in him Cannot hold the priesthood & if no other Prophet ever spake it Before I will say it now in the name of Jesus Christ. I know it is true & they know it.”¹⁵

Thus Brigham Young consistently attributed priesthood denial to a man’s ancestry, not to color, appearance, or premortal delinquency, and he held that any Negroid ancestry, however remote, tainted and disqualified a man for priesthood.

By the early twentieth century, when Spencer Kimball came to adulthood, members widely accepted that Joseph Smith originated the restriction (even though there was no substantial evidence to that effect). Many concluded, therefore, that it was the will of God, not a policy subject to human change; that it was explained by conduct during the premortal existence; that it applied to those with the slightest degree of African ancestry; that blacks would be eligible to receive priesthood after everyone else had had a chance—presumably at the end of time; and that any ordination of a black man by mistake would result in denying him use of that priesthood.¹⁶

I assume you don't dispute any of this.

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

This all certainly screams that prophets and apostles really have no greater, and sometimes even less, insight on things that are correct and moral then the rest of us.

Your reasoning seems to be that either the Brethren are inspired in everything they do and say, or else they "have no greater, and sometimes even less, insight on things that are correct and moral then the rest of us."

Respectfully, I reject this reasoning as a false dichotomy. 

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

14 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Well, even in 2008-10 our son reported some missionaries explaining to him that black skin is not a curse was just to appease the public -- and that was concerning the Hispanic and not Black population! These missionaries happened to be from Utah, explaining to him how things really work, an Elder from "the mission field."

Alas, vestiges of past errors can persist amongst us.  All the more reason to continue to listen to prophets and apostles, and to privilege their counsel over multiple hearsay statements from 'some missionaries ... from Utah ... explaining [] how things really work."

14 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I didn't see "conclusion" used in the link. The article and the quote you copied uses "believe." I haven't played the audio (is it used there?).

Dunno.  I didn't listen to all of it.

14 minutes ago, CV75 said:

The distinction I see is that beliefs are less dependent on "well-documented and accurate facts" (as I put it) than are conclusions. I think it is good that he expresses himself in terms of belief; it comes across as less adamant (which can breathe hostility and contention into points of doctrine) and suggests formal/official Church statements as authoritative.

I think there can be plenty of overlap between a thought I hold as a matter of opinion/belief and a thought I hold as a "conclusion."

Thanks,

-Smac