Vanhin

And thank you Suzie for the lively debate. Sincerely, Vanhin

Too bad that you are seeing this only through one perspective. It's not about being dishonest and "save face" (I didn't not write that so please don't add words I haven't written neither assume "intent" when you really don't know) Well I certainly am not intentionally misrepresenting you. But you did say the following in post 157. You mean, the Church who (as any other institution) is very concern about it's image (after our past history) coming forward and saying NOW (after all the work they are doing with PR) to say it was a mistake or repudiate it? I'll just let the reader decide for themselves on that one then. Anyway, I don't think we will agree on this anytime soon. :) Let's save something for the next time this topic comes up. Regards, Vanhin

He is saying "The Lord will not allow the living prophet to lead the Church astray", and since so many of the prophets before him upheld the ban, that is good enough for him. That's the same thing I was saying. If so many prophets upheld the ban, then it must be the Lord's will, since the Lord could have revealed it as an error at any time, if that was the case. If they were true prophets that is... Regards, Vanhin

Adam-God was never doctrinal in the first place either, yet it was repudiated. That's what false doctrine is. If it was "doctrinal" then it doesn't get repudiated. So, my point continues to support my conclusion. The Church has never repudiated the ban as "false doctrine". I am naive then. :) What do you propose is going on? Do you really think that the living prophets and apostles are being dishonest to "save face" as you opined in an earlier post? Regards, Vanhin

It seems to me that President Kimball himself was open to the possibility of a "mistake or error" with regards to the ban. This is a wonderful quote. The things of God cannot be understood by the spirit of men. ...I have wished the Lord had given us a little more clarity in the matter. But for me, it is enough. The prophets for 133 years of the existence of the Church have maintained the position of the prophet of the Restoration that the Negro could not hold the priesthood nor have the temple ordinances which are preparatory for exaltation....The doctrine or policy has not varied in my memory. I know it could. I know the Lord could change his policy and forgive the possible error which brought about the deprivation. If the time comes, that he will do, I am sure. He is making the same point I was, that "The prophets for 133 years of the existence of the Church have maintained the position of the prophet of the Restoration that the Negro could not hold the priesthood nor have the temple ordinances which are preparatory for exaltation...", and he says that is "enough" for him. He says it is "his [the Lord's] policy", and that he wished the Lord have been more clear about it. He also identifies Joseph Smith as originator of the position, as the "prophet of the Restoration". If the Lord were to reveal to us that the policy was an "error" then I would accept that as fact. But He has not done so yet, even though He did reveal that the "long-promised day" had arrived according to His "eternal plan". Regards, Vanhin

I respectfully disagree. If a person accepts the OD-2 as scripture then they will have an indication that it was the God's will to lift the ban, it doesn't say He was behind the placement of the ban (that's the issue I am more interested in) so I am not sure what's your reasoning behind that statement, it doesn't make sense to me. Well the one sentence from my first paragraph that you skipped was part of the point I was making. This one -> "Otherwise, every day the ban was in effect would be the day the ban should have been lifted." In other words, if it wasn't God's will that there was a ban to begin with, then there would not be a "long-promised day" according to "God's eternal plan" when the ban should be lifted. The first day of the ban and every day thereafter would have been against God's will. But clearly there was a "long-promised day" according to "God's eternal plan", or OD-2 is not scripture. Agreed, taking also into consideration that there were a lot of external and social factors that probably "sped up" that "revelation" (such as the case with Polygamy as well). The other factors are irrelevant in light of OD-2. If the scripture is true, then it was the Lord's time for lifting the ban, according to His "eternal plan". I suppose we need to define what exactly means that the Prophet will never lead the Church astray. We always hear this statement but what does exactly entitles? I can think of a few teachings that Prophets have taught from the pulpit and a few that were repudiated by the modern Church. Are we saying that the Adam God theory, Blood Atonement, Calling and Election, etc and so many other teachings were the will of the Lord for the members at that time? That the Lord was speaking through the Prophet at that time? As an example, I am aware that the Adam-God theory was repudiated and was never considered doctrine because it was not put to vote by the membership neither considered by the Quorum of the Twelve therefore was never binding upon the membership (even though it was clearly taught) What is significant, is that the policy survived many generations of prophets and apostles, where as Adam-God, and blood atonement, were clearly not established policies, practices, or doctrines of the Church. Policies enacted and maintained by the Church, such as those found in the handbook of instructions, are the will of the Lord to the Saints, for any given time. I'm not sure why you lumped "Calling and Election" into that list. It is clearly an official doctrine of the Church, and is found in our scriptures (See Guide to the Scriptures: Calling and Election). But that's really a topic for another thread. Just wanted to point that out. I don't know. It's not even clear whether Brigham Young or Joseph Smith was the originator of the teachings that led to the ban. I'm sure you are aware of that, though it appears to be a foregone conclusion for you that it was Young. I'm not taking a stand on that issue one way or another because I don't know. Based on some of the reasons given in the past, it is possible that the brethren felt there was scriptural justification for the ban already. However, this enters the realm of speculation. Whatever the circumstance that led to the ban, we cannot escape the fact that the Lord allowed several generations of living prophets to maintain the ban, until the "long-promised day" in his "eternal plan". Because it was NEVER doctrinal. They taught it as such but it was never doctrinal, they made it binding upon black members yet wasn't doctrinal. Okay, let's take a look at this. You are saying that "the Church never repudiated the policy as false doctrine because it never was doctrinal". Does that mean then that if the policy was "doctrinal" the Church would/should repudiate it? Clearly that is nonsense. If it was indeed NOT doctrinal, or in other words "false doctrine", then the Church would have a reason to repudiate it as such. Since it was taught as doctrine, and the Church has not repudiated as such, then this point continues to support my conclusion. And some still call the former "policy" doctrine, commandment, or revelation, as I have pointed out. Calling something a "policy" does not make it any less the Lord's will, if indeed it was. Thank you for taking the time to read and reply to my post. :) Regards, Vanhin

Suzie, Sorry about the delay. Vanhin, thanks but I fail to see how these beliefs of yours prove that the Lord was behind the ban. Maybe you would like to break it down? (if you have time and energy, if you don't I completely understand). * The 1978 lifting of the ban was due to direct revelation to authorized servants of the Lord. - Official Declaration 2 (OD-2) is the word of the Lord unto all latter-day saints concerning the lifting of the ban. -- Wording in OD-2 says that the ban was to be lifted on the "long-promised day" according to "God's eternal plan". If one accepts the 1978 event as revelation, and OD-2 as scripture, then one would also accept the message contained in the scripture which indicates that the "long-promised day" of the lifting of the band was according to "God's eternal plan". That means, the ban was God's will. Otherwise, every day the ban was in effect would be the day the ban should have been lifted. At the very least, this proves that God allowed the plan to persist until that "long-promised day", and that the lifting of it was according to His will. If one accepts OD-2 as scripture that is. * The Lord will never permit the living prophet to lead the Church astray. - The Lord allowed the policy to persist in His Church, despite inquiries from several generations of true prophets and apostles. If one accepts it as true that "The Lord will never permit the living prophet to lead the Church astray", and if one accepts all the prophets from Joseph Smith to Spencer W. Kimball as true prophets of God, then one cannot conclude anything else concerning this matter except that it was part of God's plan. This ban on priesthood prevented not only men of African descent from receiving the priesthood, but also both men and women from receiving the ordinances of the temple for so many years. That would be "leading the Church astray" by each of the "living" prophets during the duration of the ban. If one believes that the Lord would not allow the prophet(s) to lead His Church astray, then one cannot conclude anything else, except that the ban was according His "eternal plan". * The Church has never repudiated the policy as false doctrine. This is a fact. Not only that, the former policy is still referred to as a commandment or a revelation, by current and past prophets and apostles since 1978, when the ban was lifted. There is no mention in any of the rhetoric, by leaders of the Church or by the official declaration that was canonized, that the policy itself was a mistake, therefore the question of the ban's authority is not really even a matter of debate. For those who accept the other points as true that is. However, the reasons concerning why God would require such a thing, is clearly debatable, and until the Lord reveals it to us, those reasons will remain necessarily speculative. Regards, Vanhin

It only proves it for someone who holds those points to be true. Obviously a non-believer would not accept any of those points. I will break it down but not right now. I'm trying to finish dinner for my relatively large family. :) So, stay tuned. Thank you for your consideration. Edit: A non-believer might accept the last point since it is a fact that the Church has not repudiated the policy, like they have other "false" doctrines. Regards, Vanhin

I mean specifically that the Lord was behind the ban, the duration of the ban, and the lifting of the ban. We just don't know the reason for the ban. If the ban was a "mistake", and not His will, then I don't believe it would have lasted very long at all, since I do not believe the Lord would allow the prophet(s) to lead the Church astray. If the ban was a mistake, then that would mean that Church was indeed led astray by the presidents of this Church. We are talking about the priesthood, and saving ordinances after all. Regards, Vanhin

No worries at all. Thanks for explaining. Sincerely, Vanhin

Duplicate post.

Yes, I am trying to show my reasoning for why I believe that not only was the lifting of the ban the will of the Lord, but the ban itself, and the duration of the ban was the Lord's will. This reasoning is based upon the following premises. * The 1978 lifting of the ban was due to direct revelation to authorized servants of the Lord. * Official Declaration 2 (OD-2) is the word of the Lord unto all latter-day saints concerning the lifting of the ban. * Wording in OD-2 says that the ban was to be lifted on the "long-promised day" according to "God's eternal plan". * The Lord will never permit the living prophet to lead the Church astray. * The Lord allowed the policy to persist in His Church, despite inquiries from several generations of true prophets and apostles. * The Church has never repudiated the policy as false doctrine. I argue that if all of those premises are true, then it must be true that both the ban and the lifting of the ban were the will of the Lord. I will add, that I believe each of those points to be true, hence my belief that the ban was the will of the Lord. Thanks for reading. Regards, Vanhin

I am puzzled as why some people make both mutually inclusive.Suzie, Now that is a misrepresentation of my position. It would indeed be a flimsy argument for me to make, but I didn't make that argument. Accepting the 1978 event as a revelation is merely a starting point for the rest of my reasoning. I said: I could explain my reasoning hypothetically as if we were both in agreement with the premise that the 1978 event was a revelation. Then you could show me where I have erred in my reasoning. Interested? Regards, Vanhin

Okay, you did state all that. I know. So you have not made up your mind. That's what I think is the difference between my way at looking at all the facts and yours. I didn't mean to insult you in saying that before. I already accept the 1978 event as revelation, and I accept Official Declaration 2, and the rest of the standard works as binding doctrine upon members of the Church. So, I work backwards from there, when looking at the facts, even the ugly ones that imply racism. Now, if you had said that you believed the 1978 event to be a revelation, then we would have a wealth of common ground to work with, and I believe my reasoning on why I believe the ban was the will of the Lord could gain some traction with you. Thanks for taking the time to answer my question even though you felt it was redundant. Sincerely, Vanhin

Hey Suzie, I understand. I'm not really asking about the origin of the ban, or about racism, or even about Brigham Young at this point. I was hoping we could slow it down a bit, and find some common ground. That's why at this point I am specifically asking about the 1978 lifting of the ban. You have indicated that you question whether it was revelation or not. I just want to be sure I understand you so I don't make incorrect assumptions with my other points. Do you believe that the ban was lifted in 1978 because of revelation? Regards, Vanhin

The possibility was always there, as expressed in my posts on this topic. I just lean strongly towards bigotry (just like Margaret and so many others in the bloggernacle). It would be very foolish in my opinion for me to consider just one reason knowing that all the facts have not been answered and there are so many "holes" (historically speaking). You are making a lot of erroneous assumptions here with regards to my views (not appreciated). I believe a person can be called of God and yet have their personal views, wrong and all (the quotes of past leaders with regards to this topic is overwhelming evidence) unless you think the Lord through his Prophet/s saw black people as a bunch of uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable, low in their habits, wild, and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of intelligence and commanded him/them to say so?. Forgive me, I don't mean to offend you in any way. My observation was based on what you said about the lifting of the ban. Since you said that there is only a "very small chance about the possibility of the Lord lifting the ban", then I believed my assumptions to be in harmony with your words. But let's just start there then before we go too much further. I think this is an important matter to clear up, since this is a huge component of my beliefs concerning the matter. The first person accounts of those in attendance, from the First Presidency to members of the Quorum of Twelve Apostles describe what happen as a revelation from God akin to the "day of Pentecost and at the Kirkland Temple". Bruce R. McConkie witnessed the following: "And we all heard the same voice, received the same message, and became personal witnesses that the word received was the mind and will and voice of the Lord." (Spencer W. Kimball et al., Priesthood (Salt Lake City, Utah: Deseret Book, 1981), pp. 127–128) The First Presidency then issued a statement in June announcing the revelation, which was sent out to all general and local priesthood officers of the Church. Later, during the September General Conference, the revelation was accepted by the body of the Church "as the word and will of the Lord". Then Official Declaration 2 (which includes the notice that was sent out) was added to our official canon of scripture, making the matter binding upon members of this Church. (See Approaching Mormon Doctrine - LDS Newsroom) If you think that there is only a "very small chance about the possibility of the Lord lifting the ban", in other words, you question whether the lifting was revelation or not, then I think you are still trying to figure out "whether the prophet and apostles of this Church are called of God". There's not a more clear cut example of how direct revelations are (or should be) received and put into effect than this. So, if you and I could just put all other parts of this discussion aside for a moment and settle this issue first, I think we can begin to understand each other better. Are you really on the fence still about whether the 1978 lifting of the ban was a result of revelation from God or not? Sincerely, Vanhin

Thanks I'll take a look at it. Vanhin

Then it seems like you ended the discussion right there and wish not to venture to other possibilities for the ban? I don't blame you, in my years as a member studying the topic most people I encountered didn't want to pursue other possibilities, maybe is an unconscious fear because exploring other possibilities may open a can of worms very few people are willing to dig in. I hope I didn't give the impression that there was a possibility that I could be convinced otherwise about this matter. Though, I'm not worried about cans of worms. I've opened all the cans already. I'm clearly okay with the leaders of the Church being imperfect, yet still men of God. I know Joseph Smith and Brigham Young were prophets of God in the only true Church upon the face of this earth, as well as their successors up to President Monson. If the ban was false doctrine, the Lord would have caused them to express that by now. The only things that have changed concerning the ban, from the days when it was in effect, are the following: 1) The ban was lifted. 2) Speculation on why the Lord banned the lineage has been repudiated. We simply do not know. The fact that apostles still refer to the former ban as a commandment or revelation is all the reason I need to feel the way I do about it. You know, I have thought a lot about this. I can give a very small chance about the possibility of the Lord lifting the ban (and I say this because I try to remain open minded to new ideas and information) however, I am giving an even less chance that the ban was imposed by the Lord. Right now, my studies and conclusions are leading to what we have been discussing as possible reasons. Well, I'm glad to know that you are beginning to allow the possibility to enter your mind. There's perhaps the difference between you and me. I'm not still trying to figure out whether the prophet and apostles of this Church are called of God, and beyond that, whether they are righteous/honest men. I already know they are. Those who were present when the revelation was received testified that it was a revelation from God, and so to me that means it was a revelation from God. You add to that the other points I have made, namely that the Church does not say that the ban was a "mistake", and that the Lord allowed His Church to maintain such a policy for so long, there's no question in my mind it was His will to begin with, whatever the circumstance were that started the ban, or the reasons behind it. It's no different than my view on the Book of Mormon. I already found out that it is the word of God, without the need of any tangible evidence to prove it. And it's no different than my testimony of the Prophet Joseph Smith, despite the very interesting historical "cans of worms" that I might run into during the course of time, whether it be 14 year old brides or seer stones. It won't make a difference to me and my God given knowledge that he is a true prophet. Similarly, I do not believe that the Lord would allow the prophets and apostles of His Church to lead us astray on such a serious matter for so long. Sincerely, Vanhin

Vanhin, are you suggesting the Lord chose Brigham Young and other leaders who were racist in their thinking for some sort of... purpose? The ban? Taking away the rights to the Priesthood to a certain group of people for 126 years? Or did you mean something completely different?Oh not really. I'm saying that I believe the priesthood ban was the Lord's will for all the reasons I have already explained, and that I'm not inclined to accept any other explanation if it means I would have to accept that it was not the Lord's will. So, if there are other factor's involved, then the Lord's will was accomplished by them or despite them. You said, "I can give the possibility of the Lord['s] involvement on the ban...". Do you mean that in addition to the alleged "racial motivations" it is possible that Lord was involved? Regards, Vanhin

We don't have much authoritative information about the exact details of the kingdoms, principalities, powers, and dominions the righteous will inherit. We still have a good bit to learn, even after the resurrection. There is much that is necessarily in the realm of speculation at this point in time. However, the scriptures do offer us a few morsels. The Lord said, for example, that the marriage covenant is given to mankind to "multiply and replenish the earth, according to my commandment, and to fulfil the promise which was given by my Father before the foundation of the world, and for their exaltation in the eternal worlds, that they may bear the souls of men; for herein is the work of my Father continued, that he may be glorified." (D&C 132:63), which is what I believe. Boyd K. Packer stated the following important point to remember. The Father is the one true God. This thing is certain: no one will ever ascend above Him; no one will ever replace Him. Nor will anything ever change the relationship that we, His literal offspring, have with Him. He is Elohim, the Father. He is God. Of Him there is only one. We revere our Father and our God; we worship Him. (Boyd K. Packer, "The Pattern of Our Parentage," Ensign (November 1984), 69.) Regards, Vanhin

Alrighty then. Thanks for the conversation. Sincerely, Vanhin

I agree with Dr T. Even our scriptures, and modern prophets and apostles agree that all things were created by and through Christ, including this earth, where He would ultimately complete the Atonement. And now, after the many testimonies which have been given of him, this is the testimony, last of all, which we give of him: That he lives! For we saw him, even on the right hand of God; and we heard the voice bearing record that he is the Only Begotten of the Father— That by him, and through him, and of him, the worlds are and were created, and the inhabitants thereof are begotten sons and daughters unto God. (D&C 76:22-24) And worlds without number have I created; and I also created them for mine own purpose; and by the Son I created them, which is mine Only Begotten. (Moses 1:33) Jesus Christ is the Lord of the Universe, as Elder Maxwell testified. Regards, Vanhin

I'll give the possibility that the Lord works in mysterious ways. In the Book of Mormon, the racial tension between the Lamanites and the Nephites were used by the Lord to bring about His purposes in more than one occasion. Joseph Smith's tendency to believe in the supernatural were useful in helping him have enough faith for miracles to happen. Though as he matured as a prophet, the superstition was replaced by truer understanding of revelation. Regards, Vanhin

What, the one that said that Harold B. Lee "protested vigorously over our having given a scholarship at the BYU to a negro student from Africa"? How does that establish that his stance was more about racism than the priesthood and marriage? Is it the word "negro"? Does that make it more racist than the first quote? I don't see any new information in that quote that establishes your point. Harold B. Lee was one of the prophets who had prayed about the lifting of the ban, having received a "not yet" answer according to the Church Historian. And also, President Lee said the following to the saints in 1972. We are having come into the Church now many people of various nationalities. We in the Church must remember that we have a history of persecution, discrimination against our civil rights, and our constitutional privileges being withheld from us. These who are members of the Church, regardless of their color, their national origin, are members of the church and kingdom of God. Some of them have told us that they are being shunned. There are snide remarks. We are withdrawing ourselves from them in some cases. Now we must extend the hand of fellowship to men everywhere, and to all who are truly converted and who wish to join the Church and partake of the many rewarding opportunities to be found therein. We ask the Church members to strive to emulate the example of our Lord and Master Jesus Christ, who gave us the new commandment that we should love one another. I wish we could remember that. (Harold B. Lee, Teachings of Harold B. Lee (Salt Lake City, Utah: Bookcraft, 1996), 384.) I think it is more plausible that Lee was more concerned about the implications of priesthood and interracial marriages at BYU, between blacks of African descent and other members, than merely racism. Though I do not doubt that he also was as strongly against interracial marriages as Kimball was, regardless of the priesthood issue. The reason why Lee was brought up to begin with, was as an example of the supposed racism that prevented the Church from lifting the ban earlier than 1978. However, President Kimball also felt the way Lee did about interracial marriages, yet it was during his tenure that the ban was lifted. That proves my point, that it was the Lord who allowed the ban to persist, and he wasn't necessarily waiting on racism to be completely eradicated from the Church to make His will known. Regards, Vanhin

You're not agreeing with me at all.You are right I don't agree with you. I agree with Dallin H. Oaks. I don't know whether it was his will or not. If the scriptures are our guide, then I wouldn't put it past him. However, slavery was not an institution or policy established and maintained by the Church in our dispensation, so it's hardly the same thing. Besides I don't think withholding the priesthood from certain peoples is even on par with slavery to begin with. It doesn't seem to me that withholding the priesthood from a certain lineage is even out of character for God. To demonstrate this point I'm going to quote FAIR because they present it well. I'm sure you have seen this already, but this is for anyone who hasn't yet. It is abundantly clear from the Bible and other scriptures that, in certain circumstances and for various reasons, God has given certain privileges and responsibilities to certain groups and withheld them (or allowed them to be withheld) from others. Examples of this include: * God made a special covenant with Abraham, and reaffirmed it with his descendants the Israelites, beginning with Moses. While conversion to the Israelite religion was possible, it was rare, and the Lord forbade Israel from intermarrying with the surrounding foreign nations. * Within the Israelite community itself, only the Levites were tasked with performing the ordinances of the tabernacle, and later the temple (Numbers 3:5-13; Numbers 8:5-26). With this privilege came certain sacrifices; for example, the Levites did not receive a land of inheritance when Israel took control of Canaan (Joshua 14:4). * During Jesus' mortal ministry, he instructed his disciples to only preach to the Jews (Matthew 10:5-6). It was only during the later apostolic ministry that Peter received a revelation authorizing the gospel to go to the Gentiles (Acts 10). The last two are especially instructive, in that there is no apparent reason why non-Levite Israelites in Old Testament times and Gentiles in early New Testament times could not receive the same privileges as others. Sometimes God operates on a timetable that he chooses not to explain. (Mormonism and racial issues/Blacks and the priesthood/Deny based on race - FAIRMormon) And we cannot forget that even though we do not know whether this applies to the priesthood ban in question or not, there was an actual lineage at some point that was denied a right to the priesthood. 26 Pharaoh, being a righteous man, established his kingdom and judged his people wisely and justly all his days, seeking earnestly to imitate that order established by the fathers in the first generations, in the days of the first patriarchal reign, even in the reign of Adam, and also of Noah, his father, who blessed him with the blessings of the earth, and with the blessings of wisdom, but cursed him as pertaining to the Priesthood. 27 Now, Pharaoh being of that lineage by which he could not have the right of Priesthood, notwithstanding the Pharaohs would fain claim it from Noah, through Ham, therefore my father was led away by their idolatry; (Abr. 1:26-27) So, whether it applies to the modern priesthood ban or not, as some have speculated, it appears that the scriptures confirm that God has banned an entire lineage from the priesthood before. Regards, Vanhin