Apology for the Priesthood Ban / "March of Dimes Syndrome" / "Mission Creep" / "Spencer's Law"

[Peacefully]

9 minutes ago, Dario_M said:

Why only STRAIGHT white males actually? 

My initial thought was that it is mainly straight, white, males who have never had the experience of not being allowed to hold the priesthood. I should add “worthy” to that description. Would having it taken away for a season give them more empathy when having conversations about those who have been banned in the past or present? 

Edited July 11, 2024 by Peacefully

[Dario_M]

6 minutes ago, Peacefully said:

My initial thought was that it is mainly straight, white, males who have never had the experience of not being allowed to hold the priesthood. I should add “worthy” to that description. Would having it taken away for a season give them more empathy when having conversations about those who have been banned in the past or present? 

And what about gay males then. Or males with more color? 

[ZealouslyStriving]

21 minutes ago, Peacefully said:

Do you think there would be any pushback? It seems easy enough to say things will happen in the Lord’s time until the shoe is on the other foot. I know it is really one of those unknowable things but I’m on a business trip with time on my hands and it was just something that crossed my mind. 

Couldn't say- but personally it wouldn't bother me. The Lord is going to sort it all out in the end. The ancient Israelites had to take their sacrifices to the Temple and Temple Priests even when those same Priests were out of order. 

[Peacefully]

9 minutes ago, Dario_M said:

And what about gay males then. Or males with more color? 

They would be exempt from the ban. 

[Peacefully]

11 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Couldn't say- but personally it wouldn't bother me. The Lord is going to sort it all out in the end. The ancient Israelites had to take their sacrifices to the Temple and Temple Priests even when those same Priests were out of order. 

I appreciate your consistency. 

[Dario_M]

5 minutes ago, Peacefully said:

They would be exempt from the ban. 

I don't understand. But never mind. 

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Couldn't say- but personally it wouldn't bother me. The Lord is going to sort it all out in the end. The ancient Israelites had to take their sacrifices to the Temple and Temple Priests even when those same Priests were out of order. 

So nothing matters?

Weird mix of Mormonism and Stoicism going on here.

[Peacefully]

6 hours ago, The Nehor said:

So nothing matters?

Weird mix of Mormonism and Stoicism going on here.

That is an interesting take. It matters a lot until it doesn’t.

[ZealouslyStriving]

6 hours ago, The Nehor said:

So nothing matters?

Weird mix of Mormonism and Stoicism going on here.

It is called faith.

It is believing that an all-loving, all-wise, all-merciful, all-powerful God has got this- even if I don't understand how at the moment.

It is having an eternal perspective, not a limited myopic perspective- knowing that this life isn't the end.

It is saying "They will be done"- not insisting that everything must be done according to what I desire or what I think is the correct way.

[gopher]

21 hours ago, MrShorty said:

@gopher I don't think there is necessarily new information, but those who are studying the existing information (like Dr. Paul Reeves) are not finding any evidence for a revelation. In explaining his position that the ban had no divine origins, Reeves has noted that there is no claim to revelation for implementing the ban that does not lean on disavowed racist theories of racial origins and meanings. I don't think there is anything new that clearly points to "not revelation," but there is also a clear lack of evidence for any revelation not based on disavowed racial theories. In that absence, more and more LDS are choosing to reject any kind of divine origins for the priesthood and temple ban.

If you haven't seen it, the B H Roberts foundation has published recent survey data that suggest that LDS are split over this issue: https://timesandseasons.org/index.php/2024/05/how-do-members-explain-the-priesthood-and-temple-ban/

I think you're right about the main problem with the priesthood and temple ban. The lack of clear, unambiguous revelation pointing us to a clear divine origin for the ban, it becomes easy to erode our trust in our prophets', apostles', and our own ability to discern the mind and will of God. For a church that claims to be built on the rock of revelation with a foundation of prophets and apostles, anything that casts doubt on our ability to receive revelation erodes trust in any claims we make based on revelation.

Thanks, I think you've identified the problem.  Instead of trusting in prophets of God, people are instead looking to scholars and surveys to tell them the mind of God.  If President Nelson comes out and says there was no divine origin for the ban, I would expect most members would believe him.  But until then, it's safe to make up our own speculation.  Personally, since I don't believe God and His prophets are racist, I think the ban was needed until there were enough non-racist white people inside and outside the church for black members to fully participate in all capacities.  A few weeks ago I attended our stake leadership meeting where I noticed black members in attendance who had served or were currently serving as mission presidents, stake presidents, bishops, EQ presidents, RS presidents, stake leaders, temple workers, returned missionaries, etc.  (Obviously I'm not in Utah)  I'm not sure that would have been possible in the earlier days of the church.  At least not without a lot of turmoil.  It's interesting that it's the white members that seem to struggle today more with the ban that was lifted almost 50 years ago than the black members who serve faithfully in the church.  I won't speculate on why.

There is a lack of clear, unambiguous revelation for many things in the church.  Fortunately, it's up to us to decide if we allow that to erode our trust in the prophets who are tasked to declare the will of God.  From scriptures, we know that sometimes even the prophets don't know the reasons for some instructions that come from God.  And the God of the scriptures wouldn't allow all the prophets from President Young until President Kimball to disobey His command to lift the priesthood ban so we can have confidence that the timing for the removal was approved by Him.  I realize this only applies to those who have testimonies of modern day prophets.

[gopher]

11 hours ago, Peacefully said:

It would be interesting if the prophet received a revelation that rescinded the priesthood for all straight, white, males for a season. 

Why?  There's still a ban today on a very large group of members from receiving the priesthood and holding priesthood offices.  There used to be lots of discussion about it a few years ago.

[telnetd]

On 6/18/2024 at 1:29 PM, bluebell said:

If it was wrong and it hurt people (and continues to cause harm) then an apology makes sense.

Having the church make an apology would be an admission the ban was not from God.

"It is true that the negro race is barred from holding the Priesthood, and this 
has always been the case. The Prophet Joseph Smith taught this doctrine, and it 
was made known to him, although we know of no such statement in any revelation 
in the Doctrine and Covenants, Book of Mormon, or the Bible".

Joseph Fielding Smith, The Negro and the Priesthood, Improvement Era, April 1924.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, telnetd said:

Having the church make an apology would be an admission the ban was not from God.

"It is true that the negro race is barred from holding the Priesthood, and this 
has always been the case. The Prophet Joseph Smith taught this doctrine, and it 
was made known to him, although we know of no such statement in any revelation 
in the Doctrine and Covenants, Book of Mormon, or the Bible".

Joseph Fielding Smith, The Negro and the Priesthood, Improvement Era, April 1924.

I think the reason that we haven't heard an apology is because they don't want to imply the ban wasn't from God and they believe apologizing would do so.  But, since there is no revelation saying where the ban comes from admitting it was a mistake, if it was and in my opinion, isn't any kind of dealbreaker.

As for the quote, JS ordained black men to the priesthood himself, so that quote from JFS is a confusing.  We have no evidence that JS ever taught that doctrine about the "negro race".  It would nice to know JFS's source for that statement. 

I struggle with JFS a bit because he was sometimes comfortable teaching his opinion or beliefs as doctrinal fact.  It's important to note that when he made this statement above, he was not the prophet and president of the church.  That didn't happen until 1970.

 

[Teancum]

2 hours ago, gopher said:

Personally, since I don't believe God and His prophets are racist, I think the ban was needed until there were enough non-racist white people inside and outside the church for black members to fully participate in all capacities.

Well I think your assumption that the LDS leaders were not racist is certainly not correct at all.  Granted, they were products of their time but based on many things they said about the ban and black people, they certainly came across as racist.  If God did not institute the ban  then it was racism that was behind it.   As there needing the be more non racist people inside and outside that church so the ban was needed till then, I don't agree at all.  Were the abolitionist and other pro equal rights persons ahead of God's prophets?  Seems like it?  Plus according the the history of plural marriage God sent an angel and threatened Joseph with death if he did  not implement it.  Polygamy was certainly outside the scope of an acceptable practice in 19th century America.  But the church leaders seemed quite able to roll it out, and became quite enthusiastic about it. So the same could have happened for the priesthood ban.  The cultural acceptance argument is  weak.

[JVW]

@gopher https://mit.irr.org/brigham-young-we-must-believe-in-slavery-23-january-1852

[Calm]

4 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

It is called faith.

It is believing that an all-loving, all-wise, all-merciful, all-powerful God has got this- even if I don't understand how at the moment.

It is having an eternal perspective, not a limited myopic perspective- knowing that this life isn't the end.

It is saying "They will be done"- not insisting that everything must be done according to what I desire or what I think is the correct way.

Quote

The Lord is going to sort it all out in the end. 

It is one way of responding to the above belief and faith in an all merciful, all wise, all powerful God.  There are others who believe the same and see that faith as a call to act to change things so they align more with the Will of God as they believe it to be.

Edited July 11, 2024 by Calm

[ZealouslyStriving]

12 minutes ago, Calm said:

It is one way of responding to the above belief and faith in an all merciful, all wise, all powerful God.  There are others who believe the same and see that faith as a call to act to change things so they align more with the Will of God as they believe it to be.

To me trying to get God to do things the way you think they should be done and on your schedule is not faith- it is arrogance.

There are things I would change if I had my druthers- but I don't posses those keys and it's not my job to steady the ark- that's God's job.

When one has the keys, he or she can make the changes, like Pres. Nelson has done during his presidency.

My advice: keep your head down, serve in the House of the Lord, and keep your Temple covenants. Activism may work in the kingdoms of man, but it doesn't in God's Kingdom.

[Calm]

Just now, ZealouslyStriving said:

To me trying to get God to do things the way you think they should be done and on your schedule is not faith- it is arrogance.

You are assuming those who are acting as they believe God’s Will are acting in the way they think they should be done and on their schedule.  Cannot God inspire faithful individuals to act according to his Will and not theirs?

[ZealouslyStriving]

9 minutes ago, Calm said:

You are assuming those who are acting as they believe God’s Will are acting in the way they think they should be done and on their schedule.  Cannot God inspire faithful individuals to act according to his Will and not theirs?

I don't know how I can speak this more clearly.

If the Lord hasn't inspired His keyholder to make the changes someone wants or believes is the will if God, it is not their job to agitate, protest, campaign, etc... for the changes one wants. That is attempting to steady the ark.

And I say that to both sides- liberal and conservative Saints.

[Peacefully]

4 hours ago, gopher said:

Why?  There's still a ban today on a very large group of members from receiving the priesthood and holding priesthood offices.  There used to be lots of discussion about it a few years ago.

This just started as kind of a shoe on the other foot question, but it got me pondering, what would our church do in such a case? How would it change leadership and the landscape of our church?
 

I just thought of another intriguing ( to me) question. What if there was a sudden revelation that women could be ordained. How would we handle that? How long would it take women to start moving their way up in leadership roles formerly only held by men? What would be the response of members in the US? Around the world? I think it would be a paradigm shift that would take years before it smoothed out and became the norm, but maybe I’m underestimating our members. 

[Calm]

nvm

Edited July 11, 2024 by Calm

[ZealouslyStriving]

7 minutes ago, Peacefully said:

This just started as kind of a shoe on the other foot question, but it got me pondering, what would our church do in such a case? How would it change leadership and the landscape of our church?
 

I just thought of another intriguing ( to me) question. What if there was a sudden revelation that women could be ordained. How would we handle that? How long would it take women to start moving their way up in leadership roles formerly only held by men? What would be the response of members in the US? Around the world? I think it would be a paradigm shift that would take years before it smoothed out and became the norm, but maybe I’m underestimating our members. 

I would look at what happened to the other Restoration church that did that, shrug my shoulders, pray for the Saints, keep my head down, worship in the House of the Lord, and keep my covenants which I made there.

This whole dispensation is concentrated on Temple work, we can't let anything distract us from that. That's the whole reason OD1 was given.

Edited July 11, 2024 by ZealouslyStriving

[Peacefully]

Just now, ZealouslyStriving said:

I would look at what happened to the other Restoration church that did that, shrug my shoulders, pray for the Saints, keep my head down, worship in the House of the Lord, and keep my covenants which I made there.

This whole dispensation is concentrated on Temple work, we can't let anything distract us from that.

I definitely think there would be varied responses to such a revelation. Thank you for humoring me and answering my musings. 

[Calm]

56 minutes ago, Peacefully said:

think it would be a paradigm shift that would take years before it smoothed out and became the norm, but maybe I’m underestimating our members.

We do have much larger numbers of women than minorities and women are already holding leadership position in the ward so a few years ahead  in terms of development of when Blacks became part of the leadership pool, so the pool to draw from would be much larger to begin with, so we would see larger numbers in GA positions sooner even if the time it takes for the first to get there is the same, but I think you could look at how long it takes to get Black General Authorities to the same percentage of Black members as being when it becomes the “norm”.  Same with women.  Also “norm” would be when women were the same age as the men by the time they were in higher leadership positions, though a few years delay might be inherent as asking a woman to be a RS Pres or other entry level feeder calling (meaning a typical early calling held for those destined to be called to authority positions and eventual general authority positions) due to motherhood of young children (pregnancies and breast feedings are not something that can be shared and it’s not healthy to have callings that cause self neglect or too much stress trying to fit in with the needs of those unique demands).

Edited July 11, 2024 by Calm

[LoudmouthMormon]

22 hours ago, The Nehor said:

One would think God would instead remove the Priesthood Ban really early instead to try the faith of racists instead of trying the faith of those opposed to racism.

Why would one think that?  God certainly didn't lift a finger to alter the perceptions of the ancient civilizations of Rome and Egypt where slavery and servitude were prevalent, or in medieval Africa where societies like the Mali Empire had slaves, or Europe's not-really-race-based slavery resulting from the conflicts between Christians and Muslims during the Crusades and the Reconquista.  Or with God's chosen OT people and all the stuff they believed about slaves and ownership. 

Not to mention how God did nothing to try the faith of His male children in their thoughts and treatment of His female children until like the 1970's.

One would think that He'd change his tactics with 18-19th century Americans, would one?  Why would one think that?

Edited July 11, 2024 by LoudmouthMormon