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

[CV75]

9 hours ago, MrShorty said:

Perhaps. I find there's a tension between "do it yourself religion" where you develop your own relationship with God and determine what is right and wrong based on your private relationship with Deity and "being in communion" with a church/congregation/community where you try to blend your own sense of right and wrong with a community's sense of right and wrong. Perhaps it is one of those "contraries" that helps us understand truth as we try to "prove the contrary," but I think God wants both -- a private, personal relationship with each of us that has no middlemen, and a relationship of some kind with a community whose leaders represent some kind of middlemen. I sometimes think these kind of questions are at least somewhat about trying to figure out how God wants me to balance a private relationship with Him and a relationship with a community that also claims to have a group relationship with Him.

Absolutely -- there is the internal religion (how we manage ourselves) and the external religion (how we manage or relate to the Church and community as we perceive it). Both entail formal and informal covenant relationships. Back to @mfbukowski's posts, whatever we say about the Church is what we are saying about our perception of and experience with the Church as a product of our mental states and as a flavor of our personality and paradigm. 

I am beginning an exercise with 3 Nephi (the Lord's visit to the Nephites) to understand better how He relates to individuals (by extension, me) and how He relates to the group. The ordinances in 3 Nephi show the transactions and interactions that are part of formal covenant relationships, but there are many indicators of informal relationships in there too. I'm thinking the informal relationships are what we are and shared universally among all people, and the more specific formal relationships create the fulness or perfection He wants to give us, individually and collectively. We'll see where this exercise takes me!

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, telnetd said:

It doesn't matter what position a person holds when he speaks something. What matters
is if its true or false.

When someone claims to speak for God, then what they say would seem to matter a bit more than what your neighbor down the street says, but in the end we all have access to God and we need to learn to hear His words, wherever they are found, and to be able to tell the difference between truth and error.

[GoCeltics]

23 hours ago, bluebell said:

The disavowal (which was very much needed) does make a person wonder, if none of the theories put forth for the reason for the ban were true, then what would have been the reason for the ban?

If Black people are not cursed, and Black people were not unrighteous in the preexistence, and Black people are not inferior in any way to white people, then why were white people allowed temple blessings (and the men to hold and exercise the priesthood) while Black people (and men) were not?

We can't answer that definitively, but in my opinion it's another interesting tool at our disposal to use to gauge the likelihood of the ban being based on revelation from God.  Clearly the existence of the theories (which the church has confirmed came from the men themselves), and that they were taught over the pulpit as doctrine, are proof that many (probably most depending on the era) leaders and members were racist, including some prophets and apostles.

It's hard to argue that their racism was the cause of the theories for the ban, but not the ban itself.  

You’ve mentioned theories multiple times.

Are there historical writings suggesting that the ban was grounded in a theory? Additionally, why is a revelation from God necessary to supersede a theory?

Edited July 13, 2024 by GoCeltics

[GoCeltics]

On 7/11/2024 at 11:49 AM, bluebell said:

As for the quote, JS ordained black men to the priesthood himself,

A few notable names of Black members who were ordained to the priesthood before the ban was put in place are Elijah Abel, Q. Walker Lewis, and William McCary. The year often associated with the formalization of the ban is 1852, during Brigham Young’s presidency.

[smac97]

6 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Quote

God is certainly not racist, but some past leaders of the Church clearly held racist views and/or endorsed racist sentiments.  Even setting aside presentism, I think we need to acknowledge that.  All of us, including past prophets and apostles, have flaws, even serious ones.

In its essay on Race and the Priesthood, the Church expressly "disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else."  

Which throws everything into a tizzy when thinking that the prophets know more than your average member. 

I don't see it that way.  I think they "know more" as to the matters for which they are "special witnesses."  See, e.g., here:

Quote

Religious Educator (RE): Elder Bednar, what does it mean to you to be a special witness of the name of Christ in all the world?` (see D&C 107:23)

Elder Bednar: The role of an Apostle today is the same as it was anciently (see Acts 1:22; 4:33). Our commission is to go into all the world and proclaim “Jesus Christ, and him crucified” (see Mark 16:15, 1 Corinthians 2:2). An Apostle is a missionary and a special witness of the name of Christ. The “name of Christ” refers to the totality of the Savior’s mission, death, and resurrection—His authority, His doctrine, and His unique qualifications as the Son of God to be our Redeemer and our Savior. As special witnesses of the name of Christ, we bear testimony of the reality, divinity, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, His infinite and eternal Atonement, and His gospel.

Also here:

Quote

What Are “Special Witnesses”?

The role of a special witness is, essentially, to testify to the world of Jesus Christ. This is different from a regular witness of Christ, as we are typically only called upon to testify locally.

The term “special witness” comes from D&C 107:23:

“The twelve traveling councilors are called to be the Twelve Apostles, or special witness of the name of Christ in all the world—thus differing from other officers in the church in the duties of their calling.”

The Twelve (and the First Presidency) are called to testify of Christ — His divinity, His mission, and His gospel — to the entire world. Obviously this comes into play at general conference, which is broadcast throughout the world, but it also applies to the dozens of trips they make every year to various countries.

Talking about the role of a special witness, David A. Bednar said:

“There are endowments of spiritual power that attend the office of the apostleship. So when one is ordained to the office of apostle in the priesthood, and then set apart as a member of the Quorum of the Twelve and receives the keys of the kingdom — the rights to direct the work for the priesthood in all the world — there are spiritual powers that attend that.

But that also applies to a twelve-year-old boy who’s called to be the president of the Deacon’s Quorum. Now he has a smaller field in which to work — a quorum — but the principle is the same. Our field is the entire world; for that twelve-year-old boy, it might be six or seven or eight young men in that Deacon’s Quorum.”

Primarily, then, the role of a special witness has to do with testifying and to whom the general authorities preach.

This does not mean that all apostles are freed from their flaws, blinkered views, etc.  For example, consider the dispute between Peter and Paul referenced in Galatians 2:11–12.  Per this article, the disagreement was over an important issue:

Quote

“When Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision” (Galatians 2:11–12). So wrote the Apostle Paul to the Galatian Saints. This passage is a difficult one. Just as ancient Saints were not comfortable with the public tension between Christianity’s most prominent leaders, neither are modern Saints today.
...
Frankly, there is no simple explanation for Galatians 2:11–12 because the incident is complicated by many issues, three of which we will try to address in this paper. First, Jesus’ command to the Apostles on the Mount of Olives to “be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth” (Acts 1:8) exposed deep-seated tensions between Jews and Gentiles, especially with respect to Israel’s status as God’s covenant people and the place of the law of Moses in the church as it began to expand its missionary work among the Gentiles. The early church struggled to envision a church that proselyted both Jews and Gentiles: how would the law of Moses function in such a church, and how would it impact Israel’s calling as God’s chosen people?

(Emphasis added.)

The dispute between Peter and Paul was apparently about tensions between "inside" (Jews) and "outside" groups (Gentiles).  Might it be fair to say, then, that just as "{t}he early church struggled to envision a church that proselyted both Jews and Gentiles," some (many? most?) early Latter-day Saints "struggled to envision" the Church as involving presumptively "inside" (that is, white) people and "outside" people (blacks/slaves)?  

The article continues:

Quote

Second, the issue in Galatians 2:11–12 is further complicated because we only have access to one side of the story. The New Testament does not include Peter’s perspective, only Paul’s. It might be helpful, for example, if we had more information about questions such as the following: Why had Peter come to Antioch? What was the nature of the gathering? What was Peter thinking as “he withdrew and separated himself”? If we had Peter’s side of the story, we might be able to gain a more balanced perspective of the event. Without his perspective we can only postulate possibilities.

Again, there may be a parallel here.  We do not really have a good grasp of the dispute between Peter and Paul ("we only have access to one side of the story").  The issue of the priesthood ban is also "further complicated" in that we only have access to limited knowledge/information as to the origins of the ban.

More from the article:

Quote

The purpose of this paper, therefore, is to provide some context for Galatians 2 that may help modern readers better understand the relationship between Peter and Paul and why the issues were so important to them. In doing so we will first briefly overview the historical interaction between Jews and Gentiles to understand the early church’s reluctance to widen the scope of its missionary activities. Then we will discuss the Antioch incident in its larger Galatian context, which includes two other meetings between the two Apostles: Paul’s first visit to Jerusalem after his conversion (see Galatians 1:16–19) and the Jerusalem Council (see Galatians 2:1–10; Acts 15:1–11). While it is impossible, without further information, to come to a definitive and comfortable answer to explain the tension in Antioch, I will argue that the incident took place sometime after the Jerusalem Council (see Galatians 2:1–10; Acts 15:1–11) but before the apostolic decree described in Acts 15:12–21. Therefore, while the issue of circumcision for Gentiles had been decided by the Jerusalem Council, the issue of table fellowship, which is at the heart of the Antioch incident, had not been settled by the church. Therefore, I will argue that what we see in Galatians 2:11–14 is evidence of a theological debate between Peter and Paul that had not yet been decided by the church leadership.

(Emphasis added.)

"Table fellowship" was an important issue for Jews of the period:

Quote

Two watershed events heightened Israel’s sense of isolation from the other nations: the Exile (ca. 597–538 BC) and the Maccabean Revolt (ca. 167–160 BC). 
...
The second watershed event was the Maccabean Revolt. Alexander the Great had invaded Palestine militarily and culturally, and of his successors attempted to unify the Seleucid kingdom under the banner of the worship of Zeus. This highlighted the tension between the desire to be a peculiar people and the yearning for acceptance among the other nations. The Maccabean Revolt championed religious independence, but it did not advocate cultural independence.[7] It did, however, force the Jews to identify what were the core elements that gave them their cultural and religious identity and enabled them to be a peculiar nation: worship at the temple, circumcision as the sign of the covenant, keeping the Sabbath day holy, and table fellowship.[8] The last of these, table fellowship, included not only the dietary restrictions outlined in Leviticus 11, but by the intertestamental period they were expanded to include elements of ritual purity.[9] As we will see, two of these elements, circumcision and table fellowship, will be issues central to the interactions between Peter and Paul. Table fellowship, in particular, created a wall of isolation for some Jews from Gentiles, particularly those living in the diaspora. In a blessing reportedly given by Abraham to his son Jacob recorded in the Book of Jubilees, we read, “Separate yourself from the gentiles, and do not eat with them, and do not perform deeds like theirs. And do not become associates of theirs. Because their deeds are defiled, and all of their ways are contaminated, and despicable, and abominable” (22.16). Similarly, in the Letter of Aristeas, we read that Moses “surrounded us with unbroken palisades and iron walls to prevent our mixing with any of the other peoples in any matter. . . . So, to prevent our being perverted by contact with others or by mixing with bad influences, he hedged us in on all sides with strict observances connected with meat and drink and touch and hearing and sight, after the manner of the Law” (139, 142). Thus it is not surprising that Cicero, as an outsider, notes that in Rome the Jews stick together as a large, close-knit group (Flaccus 28.66).
...
Acts is silent on the reaction of the Jerusalem church to the conversion of the eunuch. However, they react heatedly to the news of Peter’s dealings with Cornelius: “And when Peter was come up to Jerusalem, they that were of the circumcision contended with him, saying, thou wentest in to men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them” (Acts 11:2–3). This reaction of the Jerusalem church focuses on two of the four elements that, as we have seen, were identified as the key essentials in Jewish cultural and religious identity. Circumcision and table fellowship are also the two issues that are at the very heart of the tension between Peter and Paul in Antioch and evoked important questions for the early church.  For example, not only did the early leaders and members struggle to envision a church that included both Jews and Gentiles, they also struggled with the questions of the doctrinal and practical implications of Gentiles becoming part of the seed of Abraham. The command on the Mount of Olives and in Peter’s vision to include Gentiles in the missionary work did not give specific instructions for how it was to be carried out. Paul’s missionary work “to bear [Christ’s] name before the Gentiles” (Acts 9:15) brought the issue to a head, and Antioch became the test case for two competing approaches.
...
At the heart of the tension between Peter and Paul on this occasion was the issue of table fellowship. It seems clear that initially Peter had no reservations about eating with Gentiles, and the imperfect tense of the verb “did eat” (Greek sunēsthien) suggests that his actions were not a once-off event but had taken place over a period of time. Such an understanding corresponds with Peter’s experience with Cornelius in Acts 10 and the general statement that he gave at the Jerusalem Council, “Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke [i.e., the law of Moses] upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they” (Acts 15:10–11). Paul does not tell us what the men from James said or did that caused Peter to withdraw, but it seems certain that they disapproved of his eating with Gentiles, just as the Jerusalem church had when they heard that he had done likewise with Cornelius and his household (see Galatians 2:12; Acts 11:1–3).

(Emphases added.)

The Saints of the "Primitive Church" originated from essentially a single "cultural and religious" source: the Jewish people of Judea.  Thereafter, though, some difficulties arose in complying with the Lord's command in Acts 1:8 to take the Gospel to "outside" groups (Gentiles).  Prevailing views at the time called for Jews to separate themselves from these others, hence the "tension" reflected in the incident at Antioch.

The early Latter-day Saints were drawn from overwhelmingly culturally homogenous stock.  Their "cultural and religious" identity was derived almost entirely from, white Protestant Americans and converts from northern Europe.  Unfortunately, America at the time had an "other" group, namely, people from Africa, most of whom were enslaved.  Prevailing views at the time "othered" people with black skin, hence there were various instances of "tension" in the Church.  The issue of slavery was always there, with Joseph holding generally enlightened - though not perfect - views (his views on abolition were largely commendable).  Some Saints, though, were slaveowners, and some (many?) likely held views toward blacks that were steeped in racialist assumptions of the day.  Then there was the tumult following Joseph's murder and the subsequent trek west, which included the incident at Winter Quarters involving William McCary, as well as Brigham Young's reaction to William Appleby.

Peter and Paul, and perhaps others in the Primitive Church, had difficulties regarding expanding the original cultural/ethnic "inside" group to include the "outside" groups.

Perhaps we could say that the early Latter-day Saints, including leaders like Brigham Young had difficulties expanding the original cultural/ethnic "inside" group to include "outside" groups.

I'll have to give this some further thought.  The foregoing is mostly me thinking out loud and considering, for the first time, parallels between the priesthood ban and Galatians 2:11-12.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited July 13, 2024 by smac97

[ZealouslyStriving]

31 minutes ago, GoCeltics said:

A few notable names of Black members who were ordained to the priesthood before the ban was put in place are Elijah Abel, Q. Walker Lewis, and William McCary. The year often associated with the formalization of the ban is 1852, during Brigham Young’s presidency.

The unrandomness of scriptural numbers has been impressed upon me lately. So I figured I would minus the year the Church founded 1830 from the year many new things where introduced officially(ish)- plural marriage, Adam-God, Priesthood prohibition- 1852 and see if the symbolic meaning of the difference would speak to what was going on.

22 is interesting. It is simultaneously seen as being associated with disorganization, chaos, and the evil Israelite kings- and also with light and order in creation.

Using these interpretations of the number 22:

* RLDS people could say the year Brigham introduced those things it brought disorganization and chaos to the Church by an evil "king".

* Fundamentalists people could say the year Brigham introduced those things it completed the creation of the foundation of the Church and was the year that light most brightly shined in the Church.

https://christianpure.com/learn/biblical-meaning-of-number-22/

🤷

Edited July 13, 2024 by ZealouslyStriving

[Calm]

2 hours ago, 3DOP said:

Calm, thank you for prompting me into making these meditations about my faith. It is so easy to forget. This exercise has made me happy this Saturday morning!  As a Catholic, I have been taught that the love of God and His grace finds its way in to every human situation. We are all in the same human family and may we recognize in each member the good and true wherever it is found, especially in the hope that more and more separated souls will glorify God praising Him for making us one with each other, as Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost are One with the Father and with His children.  

That was beautiful, thank you for posting it.   Echoes my own beliefs and feelings so much. 

Edited July 13, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

I'm thinking the informal relationships are what we are and shared universally among all people, and the more specific formal relationships create the fulness or perfection He wants to give us, individually and collectively. We'll see where this exercise takes me!

I like this a lot. 

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, GoCeltics said:

A few notable names of Black members who were ordained to the priesthood before the ban was put in place are Elijah Abel, Q. Walker Lewis, and William McCary. The year often associated with the formalization of the ban is 1852, during Brigham Young’s presidency.

Exactly. To say that black men were never ordained and that Joseph Smith taught the ban doesn’t work with the data. 

[ZealouslyStriving]

12 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Exactly. To say that black men were never ordained and that Joseph Smith taught the ban doesn’t work with the data. 

https://bhroberts.org/records/RTW7tb-0AFW3e/caleb_a_shreeve_sr_writes_letter_to_first_presidency_stating_that_joseph_smith_withdrew_the_priesthood_from_elijah_able?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR3AwJJuTH-yo3rmGK3T-DFjXPRtOEc3bnt4M2L8HnZPz8lF_KuKdzJNtT0_aem_vr5VnLCLdG3bkTt5fh6BPw

 

[Calm]

55 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

https://bhroberts.org/records/RTW7tb-0AFW3e/caleb_a_shreeve_sr_writes_letter_to_first_presidency_stating_that_joseph_smith_withdrew_the_priesthood_from_elijah_able?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR3AwJJuTH-yo3rmGK3T-DFjXPRtOEc3bnt4M2L8HnZPz8lF_KuKdzJNtT0_aem_vr5VnLCLdG3bkTt5fh6BPw

 

That doesn’t make sense given that Elijah operated with the priesthood after Joseph died.  And Walker T. Lewis was ordained not long before Joseph died.  William McCary was baptized and ordained after Joseph died.  And iirc, he is on record as a Seventy and not just attending the meeting.

Edited July 13, 2024 by Calm

[ZealouslyStriving]

15 minutes ago, Calm said:

That doesn’t make sense given that Elijah operated with the priesthood after Joseph died.  And Walker T. Lewis was ordained not long before Joseph died.  William McCary was baptized and ordained after Joseph died.

I'm not advocating, just putting the info. out there. To me it's an interesting correspondence because it was a personal letter and affidavit. The man wasn't trying to draw attention to himself or make a public display. To me this shows he at the least really believes what he is writing and isn't just inventing stories because he is racist and doesn't want blacks ordained. In fact, he says when the revelation comes to extend the Priesthood he doesn't have an issue with it- which happened 8 years later.

Edited July 13, 2024 by ZealouslyStriving

[Calm]

18 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

I'm not advocating, just putting the info. out there. To me it's an interesting correspondence because it was a personal letter and affidavit. The man wasn't trying to draw attention to himself or make a public display. To me this shows he at the least really believes what he is writing and isn't just inventing stories because he is racist and doesn't want blacks ordained. In fact, he says when the revelation comes to extend the Priesthood he doesn't have an issue with it- which happened 8 years later.

Yes, my guess is the error is at the father’s level, where he is relating the story of Elijah to his children.  Whether intentionally lying, passing on a story he heard from someone else but placing himself at the center, misremembering (though given the details I find that hard to believe…but maybe Elijah came to him upset about something else and when older the two things got confused) or something else it is contrary to documented contemporary history in the Nauvoo period.

I should go pull out my Russell Stevenson book as I know he deals with the criticism elsewhere, so it’s probably in there as well, but too lazy today.

Edited July 13, 2024 by Calm

[ZealouslyStriving]

13 minutes ago, Calm said:

I should go pull out my Russell Stevenson book as I know he deals with the criticism elsewhere, so it’s probably in there as well, but too lazy today.

It Saturday.... A day to chillaaaxxx 😎

[bluebell]

3 hours ago, GoCeltics said:

You’ve mentioned theories multiple times.

Are there historical writings suggesting that the ban was grounded in a theory? Additionally, why is a revelation from God necessary to supersede a theory?

I used the word theories because that's how the church describes them.  

And I don't think it is.

[telnetd]

22 hours ago, bluebell said:

and to be able to tell the difference between truth and error.

Are you able to tell the difference between truth from error whether Joseph Fielding 
Smith was president or not when he made that statement in "The Negro and the 
Priesthood"?

[bluebell]

6 minutes ago, telnetd said:

Are you able to tell the difference between truth from error whether Joseph Fielding 
Smith was president or not when he made that statement in "The Negro and the 
Priesthood"?

I wasn't alive during that time (and was 2 when the priesthood ban was ended), so I've spent zero effort trying.

[telnetd]

10 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I wasn't alive during that time (and was 2 when the priesthood ban was ended), so I've spent zero effort trying.

Maybe you can use the same method to determine truth from error regarding what JFS 
said with how you determine truth from error when hearing teachings from LDS Elders 
and Presidents on other matters while you have been living.

[bluebell]

4 minutes ago, telnetd said:

Maybe you can use the same method to determine truth from error regarding what JFS 
said with how you determine truth from error when hearing teachings from LDS Elders 
and Presidents on other matters while you have been living.

I haven't even read the whole of what he said and have no plans to, since the church has already stated the theories behind the ban were racist.

But we still have plenty of opportunities to decide truth from error on lots of subjects in our day and age.  LGTBQ+ issues is a pretty obvious one but just one of many.  We should study, pray, have faith in Christ, repent, and keep doing that and we'll know God's will well enough to stay on the path that leads us back to Him (even if that path looks a little different for some of us).

[gopher]

On 7/12/2024 at 11:18 AM, smac97 said:

God is certainly not racist, but some past leaders of the Church clearly held racist views and/or endorsed racist sentiments.  Even setting aside presentism, I think we need to acknowledge that.  All of us, including past prophets and apostles, have flaws, even serious ones.

In its essay on Race and the Priesthood, the Church expressly "disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else."  

Thanks,

-Smac

I was clear that I'm only referring to prophets.  I'm not defending other leaders.  Are you confident enough to claim that all the modern prophets until President Kimball were racists?  Do you believe God, who isn't racist, allowed those prophets to disobey Him and implement the priesthood ban for over 120 years?  None were swallowed by a whale/fish like Jonah who chose to disobey God.  Do you believe prophets could have been wrong or had mistaken ideas about race without us labeling them as racists?  Being called a racist today is a very serious charge.  I choose to tread very lightly when it comes to calling prophets of God disparaging names.   One day won't have to rely on scholars and surveys, but we will be able to ask these prophets directly why they implemented or allowed the ban.  It's my opinion that we will be satisfied with their responses.   But I realize that is a result of faith, not any special information that only I possess.

[gopher]

On 7/12/2024 at 12:46 PM, Calm said:

Have you researched this issue?  If so, how much?  I ask because I am wondering about the context of your statements, such as prophets weren’t racist and I am wondering why you are so certain of this given some of the things they said….and then there is the example of Jonah in the Bible who had strong prejudice against the Ninevehites similar to racism it seems to me.

Yes.  It's my opinion that calling prophets racist is wrong and we shouldn't do it.  I'm not claiming prophets are without flaws, but God refines them as they repent and grow in their responsibilities as His messengers.   Jonah is a good example of how God doesn't allow His prophets to be racist.  In the end, Jonah repented and changed his attitude towards the people of Nineveh after God taught him that he was wrong.  If the priesthood ban was a result of racist prophets, why didn't God teach them they were wrong as He did with Jonah?

It's also my opinion that prophets aren't atheists.

[smac97]

10 minutes ago, gopher said:

 

Quote

 

Quote

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. 

God is certainly not racist, but some past leaders of the Church clearly held racist views and/or endorsed racist sentiments.  Even setting aside presentism, I think we need to acknowledge that.  All of us, including past prophets and apostles, have flaws, even serious ones.

In its essay on Race and the Priesthood, the Church expressly "disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else."  

 

 

I was clear that I'm only referring to prophets.  I'm not defending other leaders. 

I assume by "prophets" you are referring to those who hold the office of "Presiding High Priest," is that correct?

10 minutes ago, gopher said:

Are you confident enough to claim that all the modern prophets until President Kimball were racists? 

No.  I did not say that.  Rather, I said that "some past leaders of the Church clearly held racist views and/or endorsed racist sentiments."

I believe the Presiding High Priests have been, in their character, overwhelmingly good and decent men.  But that does not preclude them from having and exhibiting flaws.

10 minutes ago, gopher said:

Do you believe God, who isn't racist, allowed those prophets to disobey Him and implement the priesthood ban for over 120 years? 

We don't know the origins of the ban. 

Our record-keeping church lacks evidence in its records of it having revelatory origins. The implementation of the ban occurred during turbulent and uncertain times.

We have instances during Joseph's tenure of black men being ordained to the Priesthood (Elijah Abel, Q. Walker Lewis, Peter Kerr (?)).

The historical record (particularly pertaining to Pres. McKay and Pres. Kimball) indicate, to me, that whatever the origins of the ban, the revelation ending it came to us on the Lord's timeline.

10 minutes ago, gopher said:

None were swallowed by a whale/fish like Jonah who chose to disobey God. 

I'm not sure what you mean here.  

10 minutes ago, gopher said:

Do you believe prophets could have been wrong or had mistaken ideas about race without us labeling them as racists? 

Yes.  Not everything that is labeled "racist" these days is, in fact, racist.  Its pejorative/polemical usage sometimes outstrips its clinical, straightforward one.

10 minutes ago, gopher said:

Being called a racist today is a very serious charge. 

I agree.  The term is sometimes weaponized and used indiscriminately, which is quite unfortunate.

Whether the label is appropriately utilized in this or that context must be determined on individual terms.  That the phenomenon of racism exists, and that it existed to some extend in the early Church, and that these sentiments continued for quite some time, is fairly clear from the historical record.  

10 minutes ago, gopher said:

I choose to tread very lightly when it comes to calling prophets of God disparaging names.

So do I.  

10 minutes ago, gopher said:

One day won't have to rely on scholars and surveys, but we will be able to ask these prophets directly why they implemented or allowed the ban. 

I feel that Brigham Young implemented the ban, and his successors perpetuated it out of deference, under the belief that it arose via revelatory instruction.  Pres. McKay seems to have given the matter a lot of thought and attention and effort.

10 minutes ago, gopher said:

It's my opinion that we will be satisfied with their responses.   

Probably so.  Their responses may include some of the sentiments Elder McConkie verbalized here:

Quote

We have read these passages and their associated passages for many years. We have seen what the words say and have said to ourselves, “Yes, it says that, but we must read out of it the taking of the gospel and the blessings of the temple to the Negro people, because they are denied certain things.” There are statements in our literature by the early Brethren which we have interpreted to mean that the Negroes would not receive the priesthood in mortality. I have said the same things, and people write me letters and say, “You said such and such, and how is it now that we do such and such?” And all I can say to that is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.

We get our truth and our light line upon line and precept upon precept. We have now had added a new flood of intelligence and light on this particular subject, and it erases all the darkness and all the views and all the thoughts of the past. They don’t matter any more.

It doesn’t make a particle of difference what anybody ever said about the Negro matter before the first day of June of this year, 1978. It is a new day and a new arrangement, and the Lord has now given the revelation that sheds light out into the world on this subject. As to any slivers of light or any particles of darkness of the past, we forget about them. We now do what meridian Israel did when the Lord said the gospel should go to the Gentiles. We forget all the statements that limited the gospel to the house of Israel, and we start going to the Gentiles.

Thanks,

-Smac

[MrShorty]

In this two part Scripture Central podcast featuring Scott Woodward and Stephen Jones, Woodward observes that the prophetic infallibility is the biggest myth in the church and that the priesthood and temple ban is the most difficult question about the church (in his opinion). He notes to begin part 2 of the interview that the big problem with trying to defend the prophets when it comes to the priesthood and temple ban is that you must necessarily push the racism onto God. @gopher noted the way that this issue can engender mistrust towards prophets. I think I've said before in this group, pushing the origin of the priesthood and temple ban onto God Himself may preserve trust in prophets, but it may also engender mistrust in God. I don't know what to do about this conundrum.

However, as @gopher notes, the big question then is why did God not intervene in those decades? As I've already said, I think this is the same question that figures into all of the other "problem of evil" scenarios -- why does God not intervene to prevent evil? I don't know. The problem of evil is one of those intractable problems without a good answer.

https://scripturecentral.org/shows/lets-get-real-with-stephen-jones/episodes/lets-get-real-episode-0004-can-prophets-make-mistakes-candid-conversation-scott-woodward

Another resource that may be of interest. It has been briefly mentioned, but Matthew Harris has written a history of events leading up to the '78 revelation. In this interview with Kurt Manwaring, they focus on the process that led to that revelation. There could be some interesting things that come out of this about how revelation (especially progressive revelations that lead to change in the church) comes about: https://www.fromthedesk.org/1978-priesthood-revelation-second-class-saints/

Edited July 15, 2024 by MrShorty

[Rain]

4 hours ago, MrShorty said:

In this two part Scripture Central podcast featuring Scott Woodward and Stephen Jones, Woodward observes that the prophetic infallibility is the biggest myth in the church and that the priesthood and temple ban is the most difficult question about the church (in his opinion). He notes to begin part 2 of the interview that the big problem with trying to defend the prophets when it comes to the priesthood and temple ban is that you must necessarily push the racism onto God. @gopher noted the way that this issue can engender mistrust towards prophets. I think I've said before in this group, pushing the origin of the priesthood and temple ban onto God Himself may preserve trust in prophets, but it may also engender mistrust in God. I don't know what to do about this conundrum.

However, as @gopher notes, the big question then is why did God not intervene in those decades? As I've already said, I think this is the same question that figures into all of the other "problem of evil" scenarios -- why does God not intervene to prevent evil? I don't know. The problem of evil is one of those intractable problems without a good answer.

Yes, the temple and priesthood ban was bad (and I'm in no way trying to make it a light thing), but it pales, in my mind, in comparison to serial killers torturing and killing, women being raped daily just trying to get needed water and church leaders sexually abusing children.  If God isn't stopping those why would he stop some church leaders from being racist?

4 hours ago, MrShorty said:

https://scripturecentral.org/shows/lets-get-real-with-stephen-jones/episodes/lets-get-real-episode-0004-can-prophets-make-mistakes-candid-conversation-scott-woodward

Another resource that may be of interest. It has been briefly mentioned, but Matthew Harris has written a history of events leading up to the '78 revelation. In this interview with Kurt Manwaring, they focus on the process that led to that revelation. There could be some interesting things that come out of this about how revelation (especially progressive revelations that lead to change in the church) comes about: https://www.fromthedesk.org/1978-priesthood-revelation-second-class-saints/

 

Edited July 16, 2024 by Rain

[CV75]

55 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

In this two part Scripture Central podcast featuring Scott Woodward and Stephen Jones, Woodward observes that the prophetic infallibility is the biggest myth in the church and that the priesthood and temple ban is the most difficult question about the church (in his opinion). He notes to begin part 2 of the interview that the big problem with trying to defend the prophets when it comes to the priesthood and temple ban is that you must necessarily push the racism onto God. @gopher noted the way that this issue can engender mistrust towards prophets. I think I've said before in this group, pushing the origin of the priesthood and temple ban onto God Himself may preserve trust in prophets, but it may also engender mistrust in God. I don't know what to do about this conundrum.

However, as @gopher notes, the big question then is why did God not intervene in those decades? As I've already said, I think this is the same question that figures into all of the other "problem of evil" scenarios -- why does God not intervene to prevent evil? I don't know. The problem of evil is one of those intractable problems without a good answer.

https://scripturecentral.org/shows/lets-get-real-with-stephen-jones/episodes/lets-get-real-episode-0004-can-prophets-make-mistakes-candid-conversation-scott-woodward

Another resource that may be of interest. It has been briefly mentioned, but Matthew Harris has written a history of events leading up to the '78 revelation. In this interview with Kurt Manwaring, they focus on the process that led to that revelation. There could be some interesting things that come out of this about how revelation (especially progressive revelations that lead to change in the church) comes about: https://www.fromthedesk.org/1978-priesthood-revelation-second-class-saints/

RE: the problem of evil: The way i see it, as we become more and more familiar with examples of greater and greater evil, we become more and more familiar with the infinite and eternal reach of the atoning work and power of Jesus Christ. God lets good and evil people live and act freely by virtue of agency, and also let His Ruler (Jesus from Abraham 3) atone by virtue of agency so that all things lost to "good" people can be restored to them. As a result, anyone “good enough” to come to earth will be resurrected, and anyone “good enough” to repent will be given a corresponding degree of immortal glory, no matter how “evil” they may have become in this probationary world.

This solves the "problem of evil" for me because of my paradigm, which others may not share. It also solves the problem of fallibility for me, for the same reason.

Edited July 16, 2024 by CV75