Church issues Race & Priesthood statement rejecting theories for past ban on Blacks in priesthood


prisonchaplain
 Share

Recommended Posts

The wiki-gods claim that Joseph F. Smith repudiated it in 1897.

Yes, he did but he was a counselor at the time and the statement was a private letter. There were a few leaders who also gave similar statements. However, the first official statement by the Church on the topic was done by Kimball in 1976 General Conference (according to my limited knowledge).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, he did but he was a counselor at the time and the statement was a private letter. There were a few leaders who also gave similar statements. However, the first official statement by the Church on the topic was done by Kimball in 1976 General Conference (according to my limited knowledge).

The wiki gods have failed me. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Another matter. We hope that you who teach in the various organizations, whether on the campuses or in our chapels, will always teach the orthodox truth. We warn you against the dissemination of doctrines which are not according to the scriptures and which are alleged to have been taught by some of the General Authorities of past generations. Such, for instance, is the Adam-God theory. We denounce that theory and hope that everyone will be cautioned against this and other kinds of false doctrine."

Our Own Liahona - general-conference

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But then you had people like Orson Pratt publicly denouncing the idea all along. I think it's safe to say that Young was trying to build towards a point where Adam-God would be official LDS doctrine; but I don't think he got there--partly because of a lack of consensus, and partly because Young himself (I think) never worked out the full theological implications of the idea and sometimes publicly contradicted notions that (one would think) are fundamental to Adam-God.

Interestingly, as I recall JFS was on record supporting Adam-God in his early years before renouncing it later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But then you had people like Orson Pratt publicly denouncing the idea all along. I think it's safe to say that Young was trying to build towards a point where Adam-God would be official LDS doctrine; but I don't think he got there--partly because of a lack of consensus, and partly because Young himself (I think) never worked out the full theological implications of the idea and sometimes publicly contradicted notions that (one would think) are fundamental to Adam-God.

Interestingly, as I recall JFS was on record supporting Adam-God in his early years before renouncing it later.

Okay, I'm dim today. Are we trying to say that Black Priesthood ban is the same as Adam-God theory in that the ban, like the Adam-God theory, was merely an idea by some Church leaders and not an actual revelation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm just responding to MOE and Suzie; I'll let them speak for themselves. My own position is that, at least from a will-of-God point of view, they were not equivalent--again, I think McKay's experience of requesting permission to remove the ban, having that permission denied him, and being pointedly told "quit asking about this" is that elephant in the room.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm just responding to MOE and Suzie; I'll let them speak for themselves. My own position is that, at least from a will-of-God point of view, they were not equivalent--again, I think McKay's experience of requesting permission to remove the ban, having that permission denied him, and being pointedly told "quit asking about this" is that elephant in the room.

My position is that policy choices the mortal implementation of the Kingdom of God have often been influenced by the cultural biases in place at the time. This includes everything from the priesthood ban, to the condemnation of contraception, to the pronouncement of women being ceremonially unclean during menstruation.

I believe the system for producing policy within the Church is designed specifically to prevent cultural whims from having the Church chase "every wind of doctrine." And I support having such a system in place. I also believe that the same system that prevents chasing "every wind of doctrine" makes the temporal implementation of the Church extremely resilient to change, even when it may mean changing a policy that was founded on the-cultural-biases and really do not align with eternal principles. And I believe, unlike JAG, that the Lord is willing to let us take a lot of time to work those issues out for ourselves (for instance, Hugh B. Brown may be the first apostle who opposed the ban, and he was instrumental in persuading David. O McKay, but they were the only two at the time, and it would take another the better part of 20 years for their influence to persuade the other apostles)

So do I believe that Church leaders interject their own beliefs in biases, perhaps even erroneous ones, into church policy and government? Absolutely, I do. Does it frustrate me? Without a doubt. But I've never doubted that they were men doing their best to guide a temporal implementation of eternal principles in lost and fallen world. I don't believe they do these things with any malicious intent. It's just how things are. And I'm honestly okay with that as long as we're willing to look back and do our best to take an honest and open evaluation of how things came to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Official source? It's a First Presidency letter from August 17th, 1949. There are many sources where they quote the letter but let me just mention two, one is FAIR and the other source is a classic book in Black LDS history called "Neither White nor Black" by Lester E. Bush and Armand L. Mauss. Both are not Anti-Mormon sources.

No, both are quasi-Mormon sites. With no actual or implied connection to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints other than that a member(s) owns the website.

I'm Mormon and I own a website too, so is anything I post on it official and 100% true and correct? do you know my source for anything I post? I may be copying another website, that copied from a different website , etc etc etc

If it really is an actual and an accurate First Presidency letter than someone should be able to show it from an official source.

Edited by mnn727
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I believe, unlike JAG, that the Lord is willing to let us take a lot of time to work those issues out for ourselves . . .

I also believe that, provided that the policy in question is not affirmatively harmful or, in the long run, countervailing the Lord's objectives for the Church. I'm just not convinced that that's what was happening with the priesthood ban; and even if it was, I think there are light years of difference between "society and/or the Church wasn't ready for it, so the Lord said 'no'" versus "Brigham Young, John Taylor, Lorenzo Snow, Joseph F. Smith, Heber J. Grant, George Albert Smith, David O. McKay, Joseph Fielding Smith, and Harold B. Lee were a bunch of racist ninnies who neither cared about, sought, or received the Lord's opinion on the matter and therefore led the Church in a direction contrary to His will".

The bottom line is that blacks were not given the priesthood because the Lord said "no"--certainly by the end of McKay's life in the 1960s, and very possibly--even probably--a good century earlier. Why He said "no", is one of those "philosophies of men" things that we're not supposed to be speculating about anymore. ;)

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, I'm dim today. Are we trying to say that Black Priesthood ban is the same as Adam-God theory in that the ban, like the Adam-God theory, was merely an idea by some Church leaders and not an actual revelation?

That is the theory of some, though I can't speak for participants on this thread. The corollary, that it was ugly racism and not divine will that continued the ban and that it required a mere shift in viewpoint to end it, not a revelation, has been pointedly denied by Church leaders and refuted by many, even on this thread. But as with many other matters, not everyone has ears to hear this, and many seem to care more about grinding their axes than humbly learning truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, both are quasi-Mormon sites. With no actual or implied connection to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints other than that a member(s) owns the website.

I'm Mormon and I own a website too, so is anything I post on it official and 100% true and correct? do you know my source for anything I post? I may be copying another website, that copied from a different website , etc etc etc

If it really is an actual and an accurate First Presidency letter than someone should be able to show it from an official source.

In my personal study and research on this topic, I never came across anyone who denied or put in doubt the First Presidency letter that was quoted here many times. I will check my archives to see if I might have a copy but I doubt it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its interesting to see peoples logic tree, as they seek to understand in their own minds the rational and justification for doctrine or policies. I personally do not subscribe to the camp that believes everything that comes from our church leaders is inspiration from God.

Questioning one policy, or one direction does not undermine the gospel, the faith or the church. Just because one thing is right, or true, does not necessarily make all things right and true, even if its from a book.

I am satisfied that in recent years, the church as an organization is actually doing more self assessing than in previous years, as no one can rest on their laurels and say with smug satisfaction that their interpretation of doctrine is the only one.

We can learn a lot from Pope Francis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JAG, if allegedly the Lord indeed denied McKay's request of removing the ban, how this equals to "The Lord instituted the ban"?

It doesn't. Rather, it means that the Lord continued the ban. If the Lord approved of the ban enough to continue it, it is hardly a difficult stretch to propose that the Lord instituted it.

As Church members, which position do we most reasonably accept as the default: That an item of Church policy is inspired by the Lord through his anointed servants, or that it's a screw-up caused by the blindness and wickedness of mortal men?

I realize that many are emotionally invested in this issue -- all the more reason to exercise caution and restraint in our interpretations. For those who maintain that it was nothing more than ugly racism that caused the ban: How eagerly would they embrace the theory that the Word of Wisdom or temple recommend interviews or the Relief Society or the youth program or the three-hour meeting block are likewise foolish institutions of wicked men and not reflections of the will of God?

The difference, of course, is that they like (or at least do not strenuously object to) those "policies" and "programs". But allowing one's personal prejudice to determine how or whether they embrace the Church's teachings is not appropriate. It is a frankly cynical approach to LDS membership; I don't think I could come up with a harsher criticism. Members would do well to determine whether they believe the Church's claims to truth and divine authority. If they do, they should learn to live by them rather than attempt to grab the reins; if they do not, they should very frankly examine their own motives in Church membership and participation, and dedicate themselves to discovering whether the Church really is more than a mere social club.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its interesting to see peoples logic tree, as they seek to understand in their own minds the rational and justification for doctrine or policies. I personally do not subscribe to the camp that believes everything that comes from our church leaders is inspiration from God.

Questioning one policy, or one direction does not undermine the gospel, the faith or the church. Just because one thing is right, or true, does not necessarily make all things right and true, even if its from a book.

I am satisfied that in recent years, the church as an organization is actually doing more self assessing than in previous years, as no one can rest on their laurels and say with smug satisfaction that their interpretation of doctrine is the only one.

We can learn a lot from Pope Francis.

What exactly about Pope Francis are we to learn? Because, I love Pope Francis but I don't see the connection...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just_A_Guy: The statement does point out the cultural milieu in which the ban arose; but what it does not say is precisely what our critics and the race-baiters most dearly want it to say (and what the media is falsely implying that it does say): that Brigham Young was wrong, and that the policy was not part of God's plan for the Church.

The statement says "Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form." The ban was based solely on race, so how could it not have been some form of racism? (Yes, there is the argument that the ban was based on being of African descent and not black skin, but that is mincing words.) If the ban was a form of racism and is unequivocally condemned, could it be that it was part of God's plan for the church? Or was Brigham wrong?

Just_A_Guy: Indeed, the document specifically points out that " After praying for guidance, President McKay did not feel impressed to lift the ban."...As for the policy itself: it remains unrepudiated. If anything, the inclusion of the tidbit re President McKay bolsters it.

Did President McKay say he felt impressed that the ban was of God? The statement says he "did not feel impressed to lift the ban." Maybe he received no impression at all. The paper "Spencer W. Kimball and the Revelation on Priesthood," written by Edward L. Kimball, sheds some light on this:

In 1954, President McKay is said to have appointed a special committee of the Twelve to study the issue. They concluded that the priesthood ban had no clear basis in scripture but that Church members were not prepared for change...President McKay sometimes said in private conversations that the restriction on priesthood was not a doctrine but was a policy and subject to change...He maintained the position that the long-established policy was inspired and that change would require divine intervention. President McKay desired and sought such revelation, but he did not receive it. He told Elder Marion D. Hanks that "he had pleaded and pleaded with the Lord but had not had the answer he sought." Leonard Arrington reported a statement by Elder Adam S. Bennion in 1954 that President McKay had prayed for change "without result and finally concluded the time was not yet ripe."

It sounds like he didn't get an answer at all, so "the inclusion of the tidbit re President McKay" does not bolster the policy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The statement says "Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form." The ban was based solely on race, so how could it not have been some form of racism? (Yes, there is the argument that the ban was based on being of African descent and not black skin, but that is mincing words.) If the ban was a form of racism and is unequivocally condemned, could it be that it was part of God's plan for the church? Or was Brigham wrong?

Did President McKay say he felt impressed that the ban was of God? The statement says he "did not feel impressed to lift the ban." Maybe he received no impression at all. The paper "Spencer W. Kimball and the Revelation on Priesthood," written by Edward L. Kimball, sheds some light on this:

It sounds like he didn't get an answer at all, so "the inclusion of the tidbit re President McKay" does not bolster the policy.

In fairness, the "lack of answer" can be interpreted as either "don't change it." or "That's for you to decide" or "Not yet." It's easy for all of us to say that the lack of answer was indicative of whatever we happen to agree with (and especially easy for us to judge history from our own perspectives). But being honest, there are a lot of ways that report can be interpreted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The connection is that Pope Francis has trashed the status quo and has stomped on a lot of accepted practices within the Catholic church and has achieved far more with far less, than most popes.

One persons cynic is another person fundamentalist, but as always, perspective needs to be maintained. I find it interesting that they same people who believe the church, its culture and teachings are infallible are forgetting that Jesus trashed the accepted temple practices of the day and honestly, in all my years of growing up in the church, I think a bit of change is not a bad thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The connection is that Pope Francis has trashed the status quo and has stomped on a lot of accepted practices within the Catholic church and has achieved far more with far less, than most popes.

One persons cynic is another person fundamentalist, but as always, perspective needs to be maintained. I find it interesting that they same people who believe the church, its culture and teachings are infallible are forgetting that Jesus trashed the accepted temple practices of the day and honestly, in all my years of growing up in the church, I think a bit of change is not a bad thing.

This is completely different than what we're discussing here. Pope Francis is stamping out practices that do not align with the will of God. What we're discussing here is whether the practice was the will of God in the first place. What would be synonymous for Pope Francis is if he would remove the ban on, say, married priests for example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just_A_Guy: I think the danger (and, frankly, the unspoken agenda for much of this brouhaha) is when we give way to the notion that "no, the prophet just led the Church astray--and if the old prophet led us wrong about this, then the current prophet is leading us wrong about whatever else I want him to be wrong about".
ElectofGod: This is exactly the issue here.

And this is the issue that should be addressed as MANY are losing Faith in God because of these things. I think this would be a beneficial discussion to many people that are struggling. There are SO many things that have changed.

Its nice to just state what you did. But it would do more for those struggling if we stated WHY we shouldn't give in to that notion that "so and so got this wrong, hence others could also be wrong".

I'm not sure if the prophet led the people astray by instituting the priesthood ban. It is clear, however, that the people were led astray by being taught theories that have now been disavowed.

The possibility that current prophets may lead us astray should not be the issue. The problem is people do not believe it’s possible. When someone falsely believes a prophet will never lead them astray, then there is great disappointment when they find it has actually happened. If someone actually does "give in to that notion that 'so and so got this wrong, hence others could also be wrong'," then they embrace reality and learn to rely more on the Spirit. They will not be as disappointed and disgruntled when they find a prophet, or a local leader, has been wrong about something. They will maintain the faith.

I know, I know, some may be thinking I am being blasphemous. Just think about it more. We have been taught that prophets are fallible, yet we don't seem to believe it, or we think they cannot commit any serious transgression or error. Noah got drunk and passed out naked in his tent; Moses killed an Egyptian and hid him in the sand, and he later smote a rock to bring out water (when he was commanded only to speak to the rock) and did not give God the glory; Abraham said Sarah was his sister and let Abimelech take her; Jacob demanded his older brother's birthright before he would feed him and lied to his father, telling him that he was actually Esau; David committed adultery and had Uriah killed, and later wrote some great scriptures (though I don't know if he was a prophet). God is very patient and merciful with his prophets.

I sustain the brethren as prophets. This does not mean I follow them blindly all the time. That is not asked of me.

But how can we know that this “truth” is different from any other? How can we trust this “truth”?

The invitation to trust the Lord does not relieve us from the responsibility to know for ourselves. This is more than an opportunity; it is an obligation—and it is one of the reasons we were sent to this earth.

Latter-day Saints are not asked to blindly accept everything they hear. We are encouraged to think and discover truth for ourselves. We are expected to ponder, to search, to evaluate, and thereby to come to a personal knowledge of the truth.

Brigham Young said: “I am … afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security. … Let every man and woman know, by the whispering of the Spirit of God to themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates.” -President Uchtdorf,

What Is Truth?

If a prophet makes a mistake - even a big one - the priesthood was still restored, families are still forever, and Jesus is still the Christ. The church is still true.

Edited by Timpman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

An interesting letter-exchange between Dr. Lowry Nelson and the First Presidency, in 1947 with regards to the Church position on Blacks. Please read carefully. The letters signed by the First Presidency talks about being "doctrinal" issues, now in 2013 we are saying otherwise.

http://mormonstories.org/other/Lowry_Nelson_1st_Presidency_Exchange.pdf

Edited by Suzie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In fairness, the "lack of answer" can be interpreted as either "don't change it." or "That's for you to decide" or "Not yet." It's easy for all of us to say that the lack of answer was indicative of whatever we happen to agree with (and especially easy for us to judge history from our own perspectives). But being honest, there are a lot of ways that report can be interpreted.

Yeah, it can be interpreted in different ways. I don't think it can be said that this information about Pres. McKay bolsters the ban, and it also doesn't condemn it. It's just some neutral information.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What Suzie pointed out is interesting. That black people were less valiant in the pre-existence, are the seed of Cain, cannot hold the priesthood and will not until everyone else has had a chance to have it, were absolutely taught as doctrine over and over again by various leaders.

Don't let this get you down! Our prophets are right 95% of the time. We should not expect them to be right 100% of the time. The Holy Ghost tells me the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is still the Lord's church, having the authority of the Priesthood. The Lord gave prophets a perfect blueprint to build the church, but mankind is not capable of building it perfectly.

I suppose the Church would be perfect only if it were run by perfect beings. God is perfect, and His doctrine is pure. But He works through us—His imperfect children—and imperfect people make mistakes. -Pres. Uchtdorf, Come Join With Us
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share