Ultimately it seems there is not enough information to make a conclusive answer and the "we don't know" answer is the only honest one at this point. But where's the fun in not trying? Was this a misguided policy or a direct commandment of the Lord? This recent statement by the Church and the quote by Elder Holland seem to indicate that it was both. The pre-mortal explanations for the ban have been rejected. So this leaves us left to decide whether the priesthood ban itself was instituted by direct commandment of the Lord. This is where things aren't so clear cut to me. My arguments in favor of it being a direct commandment: Scripturally the gospel was initially taught to the Jews first, and then the Gentiles second. And according to Jesus salvation was of the Jews. So from this precedent it would be plausible for God to go through a similar unfolding fashion in our dispensation. We also have multiple statements from different early First Presidencies advocating a temporary ban as a direct commandment. I can accept this explanation and defend it forever. My arguments in favor of it being a misguided policy: Where in modern scriptures do we have a revelation stating that Priesthood was to be temporarily delayed for Africans in our dispensation? Joseph Smith, the very person who produced the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham, and everything those books purportedly say about race and priesthood, still bestowed Priesthood power upon African men. Those who use the Book of Abraham to justify the Priesthood ban would have to also state that Joseph did not understand his own scriptures. And is the Book of Abraham the "direct commandment" that early First Presidencies relied upon for the ban? If so then the ban possibly was just a misguided policy. The Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants both repeatedly talk about the fullness of the gospel going to every nation, kindred, tongue, and people. The Priesthood ban was not congruent with those prophecies. If the ban was a misguided policy then the question becomes, to what degree was it misguided? Was it misguided to the point that the church was led astray? My answer is no, because Priesthood is a privilege not a right. The keyholders of the church are the decision makers as to how Priesthood is distributed. In ancient times keyholders limited it to certain lineages. Doing so again in our dispensation is certainly within their jurisdiction. For example, is the church being led astray today because priesthood is not being distributed to women? At worst the temporary ban on Priesthood caused a setback in missionary work.
