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


prisonchaplain
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hidden
Lots of excitement arises from the statement by the church denouncing past practices and teachings in its editorial on its website titled “Race and the Priesthood.” Lots of buzz on the Internet and in news outlets. The thesis of the editorial is that the church, which today is headquartered in a nation with a black president, has overcome racism, which was a sin, and now can denounce it (and past president's of the church) with passion, like others in modern society.

The LDS position is that the church leaders can never lead its members astray, except in the past - and then it can correct it - in the here and now. When corrected, the LDS church can then consign its past leaders to condemnation for their sins. Sort of ex post facto “we’re still not going to lead you astray” as long as you are living when we fix it... or something like that. It’s really hard to keep up with the “we’re not going to lead you astray” component of modern Mormonism with all the dramatic changes and strong denouncements of past errors and sins and mistakes by racist, sexist, polygamous church presidents. But, trust them, they’re somehow not going to lead you astray.

The minions in the faceless editorial composition unit (I envision them as little yellow chaps who are constantly engaged in slapstick shenanigans) need to move forward now to continue their fix of the LDS position. I’d like to point out for their revisionism some more editing now needed:

The new editorial explained: “According to one view, which had been promulgated in the United States from at least the 1730s, blacks descended from the same lineage as the biblical Cain, who slew his brother Abel. Those who accepted this view believed that God’s ‘curse’ on Cain was the mark of a dark skin.” This view was based on a verse in Genesis. But they can leave Genesis 4: 15 alone, because the “mark” put upon Cain is not defined there. It is only in LDS scripture the mark is clarified. It was blackness: “And Enoch also beheld the residue of the people which were the sons of Adam; and they were a mixture of all the seed of Adam save it was the seed of Cain, for the seed of Cain were black, and had not place among them.” (Moses 7: 22.) This uniquely LDS scripture clarifies what Genesis does not make clear. For the Christians “in the United States from at least 1730's” this idea of blacks descending from Cain was merely a theory. But for Latter-day Saints it was a matter of actual canonized scripture. So the purging of the LDS sins is only partial. They need to condemn Enoch as yet another past, false leader who subscribed to a now discredited view.

The editorial continues, describing “Black servitude was sometimes viewed as a second curse placed upon Noah’s grandson Canaan as a result of Ham’s indiscretion toward his father.” This is derived from the account in Genesis 9 where Noah curses Canaan with these words: “Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.” (Moses 7: 22.) These Biblical words have been used to justify slavery. This raises two issues: first, slavery, and second, a cursed lineage. These are two altogether different topics.

As to the first, slavery was practiced throughout the Old and New Testaments. Further, if you look at the specific curse of Noah’s, it did not relate to Ham. Nor to all of Ham’s descendants. Ham married Egyptus, a descendant of Cain. However, the curse of servitude Noah pronounced did not target Ham, nor Ham’s sons Cush, Mizraim, or Phut. (Gen. 10: 6.) The curse of servitude was only on his grandson Canaan, the youngest son of Ham. Examples of servitude in scripture are too numerous to list, but the Law of Moses adopted rules governing how to treat slaves because slavery was permitted. Even Christ presumed slavery, using slaves in His parables. Most telling of all, however, is the unique future LDS heaven which envisions servitude for the unworthy. (See, e.g., D&C 132: 16-17.) So there’s some work left to do for the editorialists in conforming LDS scripture to the newly enlightened position. We will need for them to condemn past leaders like Moses, Christ, Joseph Smith and the God of the future LDS heaven for their errant positions if they expect to make full recompense for LDS past errors.

On the second idea of a cursed lineage, there’s more work to be done with LDS scriptures as well. In Abraham we read of the “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: 27.) This makes it plain enough there was a “cursed lineage”– an idea which survives in LDS scripture despite the editorial.

The editorial continues: “Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse,” Stopping just there, we need to have the following language taken from the Book of Mormon: “And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.” (2 Ne. 5: 21. There’s also mention in 2 Ne. 26: 33 and 3 Ne. 2: 15) This was designed by God to prevent intermarriage (“that they might not be enticing unto my people”). In the LDS scriptures the word “enticing” is footnoted to the Topical Guide subject “Marriage, Temporal.”

Then there is the editorial remark denouncing “that mixed-race marriages are a sin.” This brushes up against the verse in 2 Ne. 5: 21 as well as Abraham’s commandment concerning his chosen son, Isaac. For that son and the chosen lineage Abraham commanded: “I will make thee swear by the Lord, the God of heaven, and the God of the earth, that thou shalt not take a wife unto my son of the daughters of the Canaanites, among whom I dwell.” (Gen. 24: 3.) Strong, even racist language from father Abraham. He refused intermarriage for his son. The editorialists announce that “Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form.” The word “unequivocally” means without any hesitation or limit. So we now have the editorialists speaking for the “Church leaders today” denouncing Abraham. It was a racist demand imposed by Abraham, while swearing by the God of heaven and earth, that his son must not marry a Canaanite.

I’m impressed with the LDS leader’s bold, historic, revolutionary break with their past, their scriptures and their future heaven as well. This is courage and drama on a scale seldom seen in religion. We are witnessing revolutionaries in the very act of overthrowing their past beliefs.

There’s a lot of the LDS past now denounced, unequivocally, by the “Church leaders today.” They’ve judged and dismissed God, Enoch, Abraham, Moses, Christ, Joseph Smith, along with past church presidents Brigham Young, John Taylor, Wilford Woodruff, Councilor J. Reuben Clark, and even President Spencer W. Kimball who made the change in 1978 (because he denounced interracial marriage).

I was excommunicated after being accused of among other things "denigrating every church president since Joseph Smith." I don't think the accusation was true. In fact, I merely quoted them or their diaries. But even if you accept the accusation against me, I managed to stop short of denigrating Enoch, Abraham, Moses, Christ and Joseph Smith along with "every church president since Joseph Smith." The "Church leaders today" have raised their game to a whole new level. I know when I've been outdone. I'm an underachiever by comparison. These "Church leaders today" will even take on God in their denigration of past leaders!

The trouble I see the LDS church editorial writers now making for the church is conflating racism (which everyone should recognize as bad) with priesthood. They ought to have stopped short of this overreaching effort to fix their public reputation. One (racism) is decidedly bad. The other (priesthood) is not at all related to racism. Racism which results in afflictions visited by one group upon another merely based upon their racial status is invidious. That should be something all mankind can overcome at some point.

But priesthood is something quite different. It is so narrowly distributed that even the lesser priesthood was limited to one tribe (Levi) and even then could not be given to a man with a withered limb, or some other physical defect. Higher priesthood was yet more restrictive, almost never given to anyone, in any age. It is extraordinarily limited in numbers. God controls that Himself, directly.

For mankind to complain about God's control over His own power is beyond arrogant. The LDS church asserts it has some control over God's priesthood (a position that is increasingly dubious with each act of rebellion against God, and usurping power and control over the conscience of its members). On the assumption the LDS' claim is true, then they are merely stewards. They have no right to tinker with something God alone controls.

Fortunately, the highest form of priesthood requires a visit from God, who alone confers it. Therefore, no policy change, or enlightened new political position, will ever have an effect on who receives such an ordination. When (if) it reappears on the earth, it will have only one purpose: To bring about Zion and enable God's promises to be fulfilled. It won't be for empowering priestcraft and enabling multi-billion dollar purchases of land and buildings by an elite group who fare sumptuously while the poor are left begging

This is a great moment - and another example of the LDS church’s “continuing revelation,” because it surely is revealing.

from the desk of Denver Snuffer: New, Improved Mormonism

Link to comment
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.

Nonsense. Of course it bolsters "the ban". Consider:

A prophet and president of the LDS Church who himself holds to the belief that the Priesthood ban is a policy rather than a doctrine (whatever that meant to him) goes before the Lord multiple times, asking for permission to change the policy, and received -- NO ANSWER. Not just once, but multiple times. Finally, in his position as president of the Church and senior apostle, this man makes the determination that the lack of answer is the Lord's answer, and that no action is to be taken at that time. Hence, the ban continues.

If you disbelieve the claims of the LDS Church, you may of course spin this however suits you. But if you believe the prophet leads based on the revelations of Jesus Christ, and if you know this particular prophet did not consider the ban to have been based on doctrine but merely an implementation policy, and you believe this same prophet prayed sincerely on multiple occasions for permission to change that policy, but never received the permission he sought -- to a faithful Latter-day Saint, of course that suggests that the Lord wanted "the ban" in place at that time, that he did not want it removed yet.

Extreme spiritual and religious gymnastics notwithstanding, this is the simple and obvious interpretation. It's possible that it is incorrect, but it's ridiculous to claim that it is not the natural inference from what preceded it.

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"?

What Vort said.

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?

Then the Church's ancient practice of not giving the priesthood to non-Levites, or the Church's modern practice of not allowing deceased Jews (absent living LDS descendants) to receive proxy baptism, temple ordinances, or priesthood, are also racist and wrong. Right?

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.

Two responses here.

First, if the priesthood ban caused difficulty for a particular group of God's children (which it did), and McKay had the authority over the Church to end the ban (which he did), and McKay was ready and willing to end the ban if the Lord authorized him to do so (which he was), then the implications of the Lord's failure to accept McKay's offer to end the ban--whether it be by a specific refusal or mere silence--are, I think, quite clear. I mean--if you're in a supermarket, and a kid's taking candy bars off the shelves and eating them, and Mom's standing by watching the whole thing play out--the obvious conclusion is that Mom doesn't mind.

Second, neither the Church's recent statement nor Kimball's treatment give all sources. David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism cites by name at least two associates of McKay's who each recalled McKay, on at least one occasion, telling them that he did receive an explicit answer--"not yet" by one account, "no, and quit asking me" by another.

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.

Well, let's look at the context of Woodruff's statement:

The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty. (Emphasis added.)

When Woodruff says the Church President won't lead the Church astray, he isn't saying that the Church President won't ever say anything that is wrong. He's saying that the Church President won't do anything that separates the Church from "the oracles of God" (revelation) or from "their duty" (lead them to actually do things that are contrary to the will of the Lord).

That's why I can swallow Young, et al being wrong re the justifications for the ban, but I still gag when it is suggested that the ban itself was a violation of God's will for the Church. The only way to present the priesthood ban as an instance of the Church going "astray" in light of Woodruff's statement, is by suggesting that either a) the ban did not separate Church members from revelation or b) that the Church had no underlying "duty" to extend the priesthood and temple ordinances to people of African descent. I would be very much surprised to see our progressive wing make either argument. Most of 'em don't want Woodruff reconciled--they want him gone.

(cites President Uchtdorf's most recent conference talk)

Mormon liberals were so busy high-fiving each other when they heard that, that they apparently missed the rest of President Uchtdorf's sermon:

As an Apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ and as one who has seen firsthand the councils and workings of this Church, I bear solemn witness that no decision of significance affecting this Church or its members is ever made without earnestly seeking the inspiration, guidance, and approbation of our Eternal Father. This is the Church of Jesus Christ. God will not allow His Church to drift from its appointed course or fail to fulfill its divine destiny.(Emphasis added)

Ergo, the priesthood ban was neither a diversion from the Church's appointed course nor a failure for it to fulfill its divine destiny.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

JAG, again if it means that the Lord allowed the ban to be in place for so long it doesn't automatically equates to the Lord instituting it. I really have a hard time accepting this reasoning or making this connection because it is not an automatic one.

We have no evidence or written revelation where we can state categorically that the Lord was indeed the one that instructed Brigham Young to put the ban in place as well as forbid Black LDS women from entering the Temple.

I can swallow and digest the fact that our Church leaders were and are imperfect. I can swallow the fact that past leaders were products of their time with views that (in the present time) are considered to be racist in nature. I do have a problem with people pointing out that those of us who do not think the Lord instituted the ban see past leaders as a bunch of evil, wicked men. It may well be the case for some who perhaps are more connected emotionally to the topic or those who have an axe to grind.

Having said that, for some of us this is only a historical discussion where we accept the fact that our Church leaders such as Brigham Young was dead wrong in a few things and we see a leader, yes even a Prophet of God who thought exactly like a typical 19th century man.

I do not have a problem in seeing the possibility of the Lord instituting the ban. However, the other side seems to have a problem in just consider the possibility that the Lord did not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have no evidence or written revelation where we can state categorically that the Lord was indeed the one that instructed Brigham Young to put the ban in place as well as forbid Black LDS women from entering the Temple.

Note that temple ordinances are inextricably linked with the Melchizedek Priesthood. If it were determined that men of black African descent should not hold the Priesthood, then it follows that those of black African descent, male and female, would not participate in the Melchizedek Priesthood ordinances of the temple, either.

In any case, there are a great many Church policies and procedures for which we have "no evidence or written revelation where we can state categorically that the Lord was indeed the one that instructed" it. One example is the temple liturgy. Another is the current implementation of full-time missionary work. That does not imply or even suggest that these things were not and are not inspired of God.

I do have a problem with people pointing out that those of us who do not think the Lord instituted the ban see past leaders as a bunch of evil, wicked men.

When you make the claim that masses of people were denied their rightful divine blessings because of the ignorance and and hard-heartedness of those who were in charge of administering God's kingdom -- is this not the very definition of wickedness?

But, like JAG, I have no real objection to the idea that the ban may originally have been instituted due to ignorance, superstition, and racism on the part of the world, the Church body, and even the leaders. I do have a very big problem with those who say, "Oh, well, you know, the ban was only put there because Brigham Young was a racist." This is bull crap. No worthy, faithful Saint should (or in my judgment, would) ever openly make such a statement. Talking about possibilities is one thing; casting one's inferences as "truth" is quite another.

I do not have a problem in seeing the possibility of the Lord instituting the ban. However, the other side seems to have a problem in just consider the possibility that the Lord did not.

Not so. At least, I have no such problem, nor anyone I have seen on this thread. My problem is not with considering the possibility, but with those who would restate that possibility as an historical fact, e.g. "The ban was a racist policy put in place by Brigham Young." That is nothing short of dishonest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JAG, again if it means that the Lord allowed the ban to be in place for so long it doesn't automatically equates to the Lord instituting it. I really have a hard time accepting this reasoning or making this connection because it is not an automatic one.

We have no evidence or written revelation where we can state categorically that the Lord was indeed the one that instructed Brigham Young to put the ban in place as well as forbid Black LDS women from entering the Temple.

But we do have evidence of a revelation where David O. McKay offered to change it and was told no--not "no answer", but "no" (see my previous post). And see also my analogy in my previous post about the mother and the kid in the supermarket--he's going through the shelves, munching on one candy bar after another, Mom's standing there watching the whole time. At some point he catches the town drunk watching him disapprovingly, then turns to Mom and says "hey, Mom, I sincerely thought you wanted me to be doing this, but I'll stop it if you tell me to" and Mom just turns her back and walks away--or actually says "no, you need to keep doing it". What's the kid--or a third-party observer--supposed to read into Mom's reaction under such circumstances?

That's what happened with McKay. And that, I think, makes Young more or less irrelevant--from McKay's administration onwards, the fundamental and undeniably correct answer to the question of "why couldn't blacks have the priesthood" is "because God said so". Whether God originated the policy or not--He ratified, approved of, and owned it via His response to President McKay.

I can swallow and digest the fact that our Church leaders were and are imperfect. I can swallow the fact that past leaders were products of their time with views that (in the present time) are considered to be racist in nature. I do have a problem with people pointing out that those of us who do not think the Lord instituted the ban see past leaders as a bunch of evil, wicked men. It may well be the case for some who perhaps are more connected emotionally to the topic or those who have an axe to grind.

I've tried to avoid personalizing this, at least where the participants to this particular thread are concerned; and I apologize if you feel I've crossed some kind of line in that regard. But I think that it's fair to point out the enormous overlap between the segment of Mormonism that believes the Church was wrong then, and the segment of Mormonism that believes the Church is wrong now about some issue or other. And I think you're a sufficiently savvy historiographer to understand that none of us are coming into this discussion bias-free. The evidence, as MOE points out, is somewhat ambiguous, which means we are each reading into McKay's experience what we want to read. And so on a personal--though probably not a public--level, it may be worth asking: Why do I want to read it in this manner? Why am I so attached to reaching this particular conclusion? I've tried to be pretty up front about my position throughout this discussion (see below).

However, the other side seems to have a problem in just consider the possibility that the Lord did not.

Indeed we do--for the reasons I've tried to outline in my previous post. It doesn't square with Woodruff's assurance or with the way the Church has presented itself from the Restoration onwards. What's the point of living prophets if they're going to lead you--not "let you return" of your own accord, mind you, but lead you--back to the degenerate and harmful practices of a ruined world? That's the argument of the antis, the exmos, and the Snufferites alike--and, IMHO, it's a valid point.

The watchmen on the towers are not supposed to burn the vineyard. That's not how it works. If I see them contributing to any sort of combustion process, then there are only two conclusions: That these watchmen can no longer to be trusted to do the bidding of the Lord of the vineyard, or that they are acting on the Lord of the vineyard's instructions to facilitate some sort of pruning or mulching process that I do not fully understand at present.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nonsense. Of course it bolsters "the ban"

....to a faithful Latter-day Saint, of course that suggests that the Lord wanted "the ban" in place at that time, that he did not want it removed yet.

Extreme spiritual and religious gymnastics notwithstanding, this is the simple and obvious interpretation. It's possible that it is incorrect, but it's ridiculous to claim that it is not the natural inference from what preceded it.

It is not known why President McKay didn't receive an answer. I think there are some assumptions in your conclusion.

To me, it is simple and obvious that a restriction based on race alone is a form of racism, and that "Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form"; therefore, they would be condemning the Lord if "the Lord wanted 'the ban' in place at that time."

I believe:

-It was mistake to ever implement the restriction

-God probably suffered his foolish children to have their way, as he sighed and shook his head

-The restriction could have been lifted at any time without revelation ("it is not meet that I should command in all things")

-In 1978, the brethren were finally of a mind and spirit to hear the Lord's will

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is not known why President McKay didn't receive an answer. I think there are some assumptions in your conclusion.

I think there are no assumptions. I believe I've laid it all out there pretty openly that this is an obvious interpretation, and it is for those who assign other interpretations to explain why theirs is superior.

To me, it is simple and obvious that a restriction based on race alone is a form of racism,

Why is this "simple and obvious" to you? Did God reveal it to you? Or is this simply your societal biases coming through?

Why do different races exist? Why is Person A born into one race and Person B into another? What was the exact (or even approximate) nature of our premortal existence/existences? What is the precise (or even approximate) influence of our premortal decisions and growth on our current state?

If you cannot answer these authoritatively -- and I will bet you $100 you cannot -- then how can you justify your "simple and obvious" belief above? The fact is, you haven't the slightest clue how the mind of God works in such matters or how historical factors in human history or even in our own eternal lives affect such matters. Your "simple and obvious" belief is pure conjecture on your part, and is neither simple nor obvious.

and that "Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form"; therefore, they would be condemning the Lord if "the Lord wanted 'the ban' in place at that time."

Is "racism" a sin? By definition, God cannot sin. Thus, if God placed the ban, then by definition it is not sinful.

By your logic, if God causes (or even allows) a baby to die, God is a murderous baby-killer. I disagree with that kind of logic.

I believe:

-It was mistake to ever implement the restriction

-God probably suffered his foolish children to have their way, as he sighed and shook his head

-The restriction could have been lifted at any time without revelation ("it is not meet that I should command in all things")

-In 1978, the brethren were finally of a mind and spirit to hear the Lord's will

You may believe whatever you wish. You may believe the moon is made of green cheese. But your beliefs have exactly zero effect on the nature of reality. Rather than setting out your beliefs as if they're somehow important, you would do better to seek the mind of God. And in any case, if you consider yourself a faithful Latter-day Saint, you would be well advised to avoid evil speaking of the Lord's anointed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe:

-It was mistake to ever implement the restriction

-God probably suffered his foolish children to have their way, as he sighed and shook his head

-The restriction could have been lifted at any time without revelation ("it is not meet that I should command in all things")

-In 1978, the brethren were finally of a mind and spirit to hear the Lord's will

I believe differently. "It is not meet that I should command in all things" is not applicable to something where God DID command the Prophet NOT to lift the ban. So, the only conclusion I can get out of your set of beliefs is that you don't believe Pres. McKay ever received a divine answer when he prayed about it, rather that he only received silence. So, is it that you didn't accept the evidence presented by Vort on the matter? What evidence do you need to show that McKay did receive a divine answer?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems as if some are assuming that those who we accept to speak on behalf of God, are as God.

39 We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion.

There is no evidence of anything, except someone's word and our respect for their position. No matter how some of us want to make the cookie crumble, it still doesn't change that it was a racist policy, regardless of interpretation or hypothetical grand design. I accept it and it doesn't diminish my respect for the gospel. I do however find it interesting that some who are irate about the subject are the ones posturing for some kind of alternative explanation as if to dissuade themselves from believing men, no matter their respected positions are capable of repugnance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No matter how some of us want to make the cookie crumble, it still doesn't change that it was a racist policy, regardless of interpretation or hypothetical grand design.

Hypothetically, if God instituted the policy, was it racist?

If not, then your statement is false; it was not "a racist policy, regardless of interpretation or hypothetical grand design."

If so, then (at least) one of two things must be the case:

  1. God is (or at least was) racist
  2. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with racism

Which of these are you claiming? Or is there a third possibility I'm missing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it interesting that those whom are willing to throw Brigham Young under the bus on this issue... Use his culturally inherited racism as the defining characteristic while ignoring another characteristic of Brigham Young that I think is much more telling.

Brigham Young was absolutely loyal to Joseph Smith as the oracle of God. He accepted Joseph Smith's words as the words of god and tried to change his thoughts and actions to be in harmony. So we would have to ask ourselves why such a loyalist who knew Joseph Smith gave priesthood to Blacks would after accepting it for a while would then suddenly flip on it?

For me racism is what people use when they don't really want to try to understand the man that sits at the center of this issue

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems as if some are assuming that those who we accept to speak on behalf of God, are as God.

There is no evidence of anything, except someone's word and our respect for their position. No matter how some of us want to make the cookie crumble, it still doesn't change that it was a racist policy, regardless of interpretation or hypothetical grand design.

Let me re-word that for you:

"No matter how some of us want to make the cookie crumble, it still doesn't change that it was a policy that conflicts with modern social mores, regardless of interpretation or hypothetical grand design."

To which I would reply: mais, oui. Isaiah 55:8-9, and all that.

I do however find it interesting that some who are irate about the subject are the ones posturing for some kind of alternative explanation as if to dissuade themselves from believing men, no matter their respected positions are capable of repugnance.

Hello, Pot; my name is Kettle. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then the Church's ancient practice of not giving the priesthood to non-Levites, or the Church's modern practice of not allowing deceased Jews (absent living LDS descendants) to receive proxy baptism, temple ordinances, or priesthood, are also racist and wrong. Right?

I don't know what to say about non-Levites and the priesthood. I'll think about that one. The issue with Jewish people is not racial at all - it has to do with survivors of the deceased objecting to the church performing ordinances for them.

I don't see how the information in the church's statement about President McKay lends any support for the ban, but I will let that one go. It's not an important point to me.

Well, let's look at the context of Woodruff's statement:
Originally Posted by Wilford Woodruff, cited in OD-1 supporting material

The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty. (Emphasis added.)

When Woodruff says the Church President won't lead the Church astray, he isn't saying that the Church President won't ever say anything that is wrong. He's saying that the Church President won't do anything that separates the Church from "the oracles of God" (revelation) or from "their duty" (lead them to actually do things that are contrary to the will of the Lord).

That's why I can swallow Young, et al being wrong re the justifications for the ban, but I still gag when it is suggested that the ban itself was a violation of God's will for the Church. The only way to present the priesthood ban as an instance of the Church going "astray" in light of Woodruff's statement, is by suggesting that either a) the ban did not separate Church members from revelation or b) that the Church had no underlying "duty" to extend the priesthood and temple ordinances to people of African descent. I would be very much surprised to see our progressive wing make either argument. Most of 'em don't want Woodruff reconciled--they want him gone.

Teaching members of the church that black people were less valiant in the pre-existence and are the seed of Cain was an action done “contrary to the will of the Lord.” Church members could still have had access to revelation, but I suppose they were led away from their duty regarding temple work.

It is a fact that church leaders at all levels presented their theories as doctrine over and over again. These theories have now been disavowed. Therefore, members of the church were led astray to some extent. At what point would the church really be off course? I don't know, but I do believe the church will not get to that point. A ship can stay on its appointed course even when there are problems within the ship - problems not in line with the captain's will. There can be problems within the church even as it moves along toward fulfilling its divine destiny.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The possibility that you are missing is that the decree has nothing to do with God or the gospel. Brigham Young was his own man, with his own take on faith and how to exercise said faith, just as we all are.

Its actually exhausting for all doctrinal faux pas or discussions to end on the basis of faith. Inevitably, depending on the social deftness of the person seeking the last word, they imply another's faith is not measuring up to theirs. Frankly, I don't care about the past as much, what I am concerned about is the the attempt to whitewash, or switch out our clear tinted spectacles for a pair of rose tinted ones.

I am all for the positives, the feel good stuff, the heart warming tales of those who have served before us, but on most days, I would prefer context as once I understand their struggles and their character, I better respect who they have become or what mistakes not to repeat. Excuse my continuing surprise that I what I was taught, is not as it appears.

Knowing that we are past racism in most cases within the bounds of the church, is comforting to me and learning that our leaders, are men of differing report, offers the hope that the hero worship we offer them, is but a distraction to accepting them as people who progressed. Perhaps its me, but I struggle to identify with a faultless man, or policy. Ah, don't be so quick to pounce on that one, as always, things are not as they appear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The issue with Jewish people is not racial at all - it has to do with survivors of the deceased objecting to the church performing ordinances for them.

Of course it's racial! It applies to people because of their race. And no, it was not the "survivors of the deceased" who objected--whole families were wiped out in the Holocaust, their genetic lines brought to a close. It was--frankly--a group of busybodies who happen to be members of the same race who raised a stink. The only difference between our past discrimination against blacks and our present discrimination against Jews is that we know the reason for the latter policy (well, and that we accept the reason because we are quite literally deaf to the pleadings of those most adversely affected by said policy).

I don't see how the information in the church's statement about President McKay lends any support for the ban, . . .

Re-read my supermarket analogy.

Teaching members of the church that black people were less valiant in the pre-existence and are the seed of Cain was an action done “contrary to the will of the Lord.”

You're really straining with that one.

Church members could still have had access to revelation, but I suppose they were led away from their duty regarding temple work.

Please note that I'm drawing a distinction between the policy and the explanations. You seem to be conflating the two.

It is a fact that church leaders at all levels presented their theories as doctrine over and over again. These theories have now been disavowed. Therefore, members of the church were led astray to some extent.

To what degree did the incorrect theories lead to action (aside from the promulgation of said theories)? You assume that the ban was instituted as a direct result of the dissemination of those theories. I believe the historical record shows that, to the contrary, the ban largely preceded the widespread acceptance of such ideas within the Church and even among the leadership.

A ship can stay on its appointed course even when there are problems within the ship - problems not in line with the captain's will. There can be problems within the church even as it moves along toward fulfilling its divine destiny.

The Church's "divine destiny" is teaching the Gospel and administering the ordinances thereof, to the end of the salvation and exaltation of the entire human family. The Church's allegedly unauthorized failure to fulfill that commission vis-à-vis an entire race would be a Very Big Deal. I don't think we do ourselves any favors by embracing soft racism in the present as part of an effort to distance ourselves from what we perceive to be the hard racism of the past.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vort:
Suzie:

I do have a problem with people pointing out that those of us who do not think the Lord instituted the ban see past leaders as a bunch of evil, wicked men.

When you make the claim that masses of people were denied their rightful divine blessings because of the ignorance and and hard-heartedness of those who were in charge of administering God's kingdom -- is this not the very definition of wickedness?

Yes, wickedness was being committed. I have committed wicked deeds. Noah, Moses, and other prophets committed acts of wickedness. This does not mean we label them as "wicked men." It is not for us to make that judgement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, wickedness was being committed. I have committed wicked deeds. Noah, Moses, and other prophets committed acts of wickedness. This does not mean we label them as "wicked men." It is not for us to make that judgement.

What is the difference between "a wicked man" and "a man who does wicked things"?

What did the Lord mean when he called Martin Harris "a wicked man"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vort:
Timpman:To me, it is simple and obvious that a restriction based on race alone is a form of racism,

Why is this "simple and obvious" to you? Did God reveal it to you? Or is this simply your societal biases coming through?

I think discriminating against a person based on race alone is a widely accepted definition of racism.

Vort:

Why do different races exist? Why is Person A born into one race and Person B into another? What was the exact (or even approximate) nature of our premortal existence/existences? What is the precise (or even approximate) influence of our premortal decisions and growth on our current state?

If you cannot answer these authoritatively -- and I will bet you $100 you cannot -- then how can you justify your "simple and obvious" belief above? The fact is, you haven't the slightest clue how the mind of God works in such matters or how historical factors in human history or even in our own eternal lives affect such matters. Your "simple and obvious" belief is pure conjecture on your part, and is neither simple nor obvious.

I cannot answers those questions authoritatively. I don't know why different races exist or how pre-mortal decisions affect each person. I am one who also "disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects actions in a premortal life..." I don't see why I would have to answer those questions to justify my statement. A restriction based on race alone is a form of racism. It really is quite simple.

Timpman: and that "Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form"; therefore, they would be condemning the Lord if "the Lord wanted 'the ban' in place at that time."
Vort: Is "racism" a sin? By definition, God cannot sin. Thus, if God placed the ban, then by definition it is not sinful.

By your logic, if God causes (or even allows) a baby to die, God is a murderous baby-killer. I disagree with that kind of logic.

Yes, I do believe racism is a sin, and "Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form." I do not believe God instituted the ban.
Vort: Rather than setting out your beliefs as if they're somehow important, you would do better to seek the mind of God. And in any case, if you consider yourself a faithful Latter-day Saint, you would be well advised to avoid evil speaking of the Lord's anointed.

Do you think I have not sought the mind of God? If so, why? When you state your opinions, are you speaking the mind of God? The recent statement issued by the church disavows certain past theories and condemns all racism in any form. Does acknowledging what has been said and done by prophets constitute evil speaking of the Lord's anointed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe differently. "It is not meet that I should command in all things" is not applicable to something where God DID command the Prophet NOT to lift the ban. So, the only conclusion I can get out of your set of beliefs is that you don't believe Pres. McKay ever received a divine answer when he prayed about it, rather that he only received silence. So, is it that you didn't accept the evidence presented by Vort on the matter? What evidence do you need to show that McKay did receive a divine answer?

It has not been established that "God DID command the Prophet NOT to lift the ban." The only information I have found indicates that:

-A secretary said President McKay reported receiving an answer “not yet”

-An architect in the church office building said President McKay reported receiving an answer “not to bring the subject up again”

So it's merely hearsay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just_A_Guy: Of course it's racial! It applies to people because of their race. And no, it was not the "survivors of the deceased" who objected--whole families were wiped out in the Holocaust, their genetic lines brought to a close....

Okay, race is involved, but this is not the same. I won't spend more time on this point.

Just_A_Guy:Re-read my supermarket analogy.

No offense, but I just didn't get much out of it.

Just_A_Guy:
Timpman: Teaching members of the church that black people were less valiant in the pre-existence and are the seed of Cain was an action done “contrary to the will of the Lord.”

You're really straining with that one.

Teaching is an action. Leaders taught that black people were less valiant in the pre-existence and are the seed of Cain. Those theories were specifically disavowed. Do you think those things were taught according to the will of the Lord?

Just_A_Guy: To what degree did the incorrect theories lead to action (aside from the promulgation of said theories)? You assume that the ban was instituted as a direct result of the dissemination of those theories. I believe the historical record shows that, to the contrary, the ban largely preceded the widespread acceptance of such ideas within the Church and even among the leadership.

The promulgation of those theories led people astray, if only by people accepting them. I have not made that assumption.

Just_A_Guy: The Church's "divine destiny" is teaching the Gospel and administering the ordinances thereof, to the end of the salvation and exaltation of the entire human family. The Church's allegedly unauthorized failure to fulfill that commission vis-à-vis an entire race would be a Very Big Deal.

I do think it's a big deal and I have been very saddened by it. It's a good thing temple ordinances can still be performed for all of those people and it's not too late to fulfill the commission :)

Edited by Timpman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, race is involved, but this is not the same.

Why? Because the subjects of this particular discriminatory policy are Jews, or because they're dead?

No offense, but I just didn't get much out of it.

Well, let's walk through it.

You're in a supermarket. You see a kid going opening up candy bars and eating them. His mom's standing there, watching. You tell him "hey, kid, what you're doing there is kind of messed up." The kid turns to his mother and says "hey, Mom, do you want me to stop?" She doesn't say anything. He goes back to what he was doing. Five minutes later he then says "hey, Mom, do you want me to stop?" No answer. Five more minutes: "Hey, Mom, this is the way I've always done things, but if you tell me to stop I'll stop". Mom finally says "no, I do not want you to stop. Please stop asking me this."

What conclusion will you, as an observer, draw about Mom's opinion of the kid's conduct?

Teaching is an action. Leaders taught that black people were less valiant in the pre-existence and are the seed of Cain. Those theories were specifically disavowed. Do you think those things were taught according to the will of the Lord?

The promulgation of those theories led people astray, if only by people accepting them.

I believe I've already agreed with you that the theories, having been disavowed, were most likely incorrect. But those specific theories did not lead the Saints either to fail to perform a particular duty or separate them from an "oracle of God". Incorrect notions, urban legends, etc. have been a part of Mormonism since its inception; the propagation of one more bit of "folklore" is not in and of itself a dealkiller. For Woodruff's quotation (or Uchtdorf's) to have any meaning at all, it obviously cannot apply to the mere repetition of teachings that are factually incorrect. But to say that it also doesn't apply to Church actions, is to render both statements completely meaningless.

I do think it's a big deal and I have been very saddened by it.

Indeed. And if it wasn't done at divine instruction, and God really did want blacks to hold the priesthood for the century and a half leading up to 1978, then I would be really curious as to why the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the one true church, the only church led by true apostolic authority--was pretty much the last church to get in line with God's will on this one.

"Nobody's perfect" doesn't cut it--we don't have to be perfect, but as a Church we'd better be a darned sight better than any other game in town. If not, then our raison d'etre is gone.

It has not been established that "God DID command the Prophet NOT to lift the ban." The only information I have found indicates that:

-A secretary said President McKay reported receiving an answer “not yet”

-An architect in the church office building said President McKay reported receiving an answer “not to bring the subject up again”

So it's merely hearsay.

You're misdefining hearsay, slightly. Hearsay is defined, legally, in part by the matter being asserted. So if I use the secretary/architect's statements as direct evidence that such a revelation in fact occurred--you're right, that's hearsay. But if I use the secretary/architect's statements as direct evidence that McKay claimed that such a revelation had in fact occurred--that's not hearsay; because the secretary/architect were direct witnesses to McKay's making such a claim.

You can write the fact of the revelation off as "hearsay", if you like. But you've still got to explain why McKay's running around telling people he's received such a revelation, if (as you claim) no such revelation has in fact occurred. So other than impugning McKay's integrity--what has your argument accomplished, exactly?

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly...sort of like the Adam-God theory. (it only took 20 years for the Church to publicly renounce that one)

But this is a problem.

ONLY

The adam-God theory was incorporated into the early endowment.

heard of the lecture at the veil?

In the st george temple from 1877 until it was removed in 1990. However it was not given usually to the participants except the early years.

Guess this part of history really did happen than?

this revelation was in the year 1841, joseph died in 1844. this is the nauvoo period to reference.

D&C 124: 28 For there is not a place found on earth that he may come to and restore again that which was lost unto you, or which he hath taken away, even the fulness of the priesthood.

50 And the iniquity and transgression of my holy laws and commandments I will visit upon the heads of those who hindered my work, unto the third and fourth generation, so long as they repent not, and hate me, saith the Lord God.

Explains a lot.

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