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


prisonchaplain
 Share

Recommended Posts

That is a rather bold declaration, Just a Guy. Leaders make mistakes all the time and that does not mean that people who disagree are of less faith or are rebelling against God. If we were to use the same logic that you have used, we would have no need of continuing revelation, as the all servants of God are infallible by your reckoning. If I use your logic, everyone who is called of God cannot be wrong, which is everyone in the church. Perhaps I read your intent wrong, but that is my conclusion of what you wrote.

So often those who believe they are right, blind themselves to other possibilities. Leadership is no different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, the problem with Uchtdorf's most recent conference address in which he admitted fault by individual Church leaders, is that it also says the Church will never divert from its divinely appointed course--a statement that you and Frederick seem to claim is somehow being disavowed. If the 1949 statement is "all or nothing" and I can't use it to support my point of view, then why isn't the 2013 statement similarly "all or nothing" and unavailable to support your point of view? ;)

I was pointing out that the First Presidency statement in 1949 includes a quote by Brigham Young with regards to the "curse", a theory that the present modern Church just disavowed. The 1969 First Presidency letter to Church leaders also give an idea about what I am talking about:

...From the beginning of this dispensation, Joseph Smith and all succeeding presidents of the Church have taught that Negroes, while spirit children of a common Father, and the progeny of our earthly parents Adam and Eve, were not yet to receive the priesthood, for reasons which we believe are known to God, but which He has not made fully known to man."

When did Smith taught that? He was even the first Prophet to extend the Priesthood to Abel, a black man.

"Our living prophet, President David O. McKay, has said, "The seeming discrimination by the Church toward the Negro is not something which originated with man; but goes back into the beginning with God...."Revelation assures us that this plan antedates man's mortal existence, extending back to man's pre-existent state." President McKay has also said, "Sometime in God's eternal plan, the Negro will be given the right to hold the priesthood.""

What revelation? The one that stated that Blacks were less valiant in the pre-existence? The one the Church just disavowed?

If the 1949 statement is "all or nothing" and I can't use it to support my point of view, then why isn't the 2013 statement similarly "all or nothing" and unavailable to support your point of view?

I thought the statements of the modern day Church take precedence over other statements on the same issue by past leaders? ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is a rather bold declaration, Just a Guy.

Which declaration, precisely?

If we were to use the same logic that you have used, we would have no need of continuing revelation, as the all servants of God are infallible by your reckoning.

Your interpretation of my logic hinges on some logic of your own that I would question. You seem to assume that the primary role of a prophet or teacher is to correct the mistakes of previous prophets. I disagree--on this line of reasoning, by analogy, if a first-grade teacher does his job perfectly a kid can quit school.

I would assert that while correcting errors--even of previous prophets, sometimes--is an important function of a modern prophet; his primary role is to provide a mechanism whereby the Lord can provide continuing instructions that are tailored to our particular circumstances.

If I use your logic, everyone who is called of God cannot be wrong, which is everyone in the church. Perhaps I read your intent wrong, but that is my conclusion of what you wrote.

I think you're misreading. I am not saying that they are infallible individually. I am saying that, where the Church's course is concerned, they are collectively incapable of leading us astray (where "leading us astray" has some very particular implications, as discussed earlier in this thread). I am saying that Woodruff--and Young, and Smith, and JFS, and JFS-II, and Grant, and Lee, and Benson, who among others made substantially similar statements (let me know if you want me to provide the quotes)--were substantially correct.

So often those who believe they are right, blind themselves to other possibilities.

So often those who believe someone else is wrong, blind themselves to other possibilities. ;)

But I'd be interested to hear you--or anyone who sees the priesthood ban similarly--address my question: Even if we don't expect the Church's actions to reflect the Lord's will for the Church 100% of the time--shouldn't they have a better-than-average track record of getting it right? If the Lord wanted blacks to have the priesthood in 1848, and the Church and its leaders resisted His will for over a hundred years while other branches of Mormonism gave their versions of the priesthood to blacks immediately--then why aren't we all flocking to the CoC or the Bickertonites?

I was pointing out that the First Presidency statement in 1949 includes a quote by Brigham Young with regards to the "curse", a theory that the present modern Church just disavowed.

It doesn't matter. The two teachings are severable from each other, even though they appear in the same document. (I mean, as a Church we've pooh-poohed the Song of Solomon as inspired scripture. That doesn't mean we've concluded that husbands and wives shouldn't love each other.)

When did Smith taught that? He was even the first Prophet to extend the Priesthood to Abel, a black man.

He may not have. The authors may have been going off Coltrin's incorrect statements, or the allegations that Smith was responsible for limiting the priesthood of Abel and others in the late Nauvoo period. And we're back to the severability issue: is every First Presidency document that includes a misstatement of history, automatically suspect in every particular?

People who can't get comfortable parsing out the revelatory from the non-revelatory--the inspired from the uninspired--in a single document; are going to face a major crisis of faith when they come to know of the many, many edits made to the Doctrine and Covenants and become aware of the uncanonized portions of certain revelations like D&C 137.

What revelation? The one that stated that Blacks were less valiant in the pre-existence? The one the Church just disavowed?

Or the one McKay received when he prayed about giving blacks the priesthood and was told "no".

But I think you're misreading the 1969 letter. The letter (this one, I presume) affirms that the policy was part of Lord's plan dating back to the pre-existence--like, arguably, anything else that the Church does or anything else that happens on this earth. But it says nothing about blacks being less valiant in the pre-existence, which is the notion the Church has disavowed. By contrast the statement says that the practice is "for reasons which we believe are known to God, but which He has not made fully known to man". That has been the party line ever since.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

JAG, I appreciate your honesty and your ability and willingness to be patient with those in this discussion. But as you have seen, many are unwilling or unable to match your standards of both logic and honesty. I do not trust myself to participate any further in this discussion, especially since my pointed questions go unanswered. I am tired of "discussing" with people who, from my perspective, are openly dishonest and refuse to discuss things in an honest manner, which (for example) would include refuting specific items. So good luck and Godspeed. I may or may not follow this thread any more, but you have many admirers, myself among them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JAG, you ultra-conservative Mormon! :P I really appreciate the discussion. We disagree in a lot of other topics but we always remain courteous. How great is that? :)

Suzie, I'm sending out a great big "thank you" to you and Just_A_Guy for staying so cool and level-headed. Your civil discourse has really let the content shine through on your discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JAG, the point I was trying to make was to show that I do not think everything should be taken as it written on stone . As I quoted, a few First Presidency messages contained statements that the present day Church has now disavowed, we may not agree on that but to me is quite clear. Even Mc Conkie stated in the past that we should forget "everything everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or George Q. Cannon or whoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world."

Does it mean we should trash everything that has been said in the past about the topic? Of course not, but we should be aware that there are certain things written on them that do not match the views of the present day Church. To be honest my friend, I just wish there is a 2013 First Presidency statement stating clear as water that the ban was instituted by God or that it wasn't instituted by God and end the speculation.

The 1951 First Presidency statement cite a specific revelation "it is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of a direct commandment from the Lord", as I illustrated previously they rather quote a Brigham Young discourse on the curse of Cain which is not longer considered within the views of Mormonism.

However, you would agree with me that we come a long way from previous statements such as "Blacks will never receive the Priesthood in this mortal life" (paraphrasing) to the 1978 lifting of the ban. Heck, we come a long way from calling it doctrine to now call it a policy or a practice. So what do we really make of these statements? Are part revelation, part personal opinion, part doctrine, part policy?

Honestly JAG, I think we are doing the best with what we are given and that is, ambiguous statements left to personal interpretation. If the issue was clear as a glass, we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place.

As we previously discussed, statements with regards to Blacks have dramatically changed over the years and the theories regarding the ban as well. From "You see some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable and low in their habits, wild, and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence...." (Young) to “I remind you that no man who makes disparaging remarks concerning those of another race can consider himself a true disciple of Christ.” (Hinckley)From the seed of Cain, to fence-sitters in the pre-existence, less valiant in the pre-mortal life to the present renunciation of such statements in the present time. Whether we like it or not, we are affected tremendously by our culture and times.

The issue seems to be that when we now try to bring those cultural influences and thoughts into the Church and try to fit it dogmatically somehow and spread the word as doctrine or at least authoritative statements. I am sure you think the "left wing of the Church" (as you like to call them) is trying to do that with regards to Gay Marriage, women holding the Priesthood, etc. I think there is no major risk involved if people believe those things as long as they clearly state it is their personal opinion, nevertheless the issue with this particular topic comes from the fact that authoritative statements were said in the past by people in high ranking Church leadership positions, some things that the modern day Church is now clearly disavowing. That's why Uchtdorf's message in General Conference was such a breath of fresh air.

Another point I would like your thoughts on: If Mc Kay was right and indeed the only scriptural support for the ban was the interpretation of Abraham (1:26), what we made of this verse now? Is such interpretation of this verse now considered wrong? Was it ever doctrinal or was it just a personal interpretation? What ramifications does it have with regards to the 1978 revelation?

Edited by Suzie
I wish Uchtdorf had an easier last name to spell! :P
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Suzie, I'm sending out a great big "thank you" to you and Just_A_Guy for staying so cool and level-headed. Your civil discourse has really let the content shine through on your discussion.

Thank you. It is not hard really, no sense to get all upset or personal when discussing these sort of topics. Everyone is entitled to their views and once we really understand and accept that, I believe everything will remain civil and peaceful. I respect JAG a lot, he is knowledgeable about the topic and for this Mormon history junkie that's just plain cool. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JAG, the point I was trying to make was to show that I do not think everything should be taken as it written on stone.

Granted; and we agree on that.

To be honest my friend, I just wish there is a 2013 First Presidency statement stating clear as water that the ban was instituted by God or that it wasn't instituted by God and end the speculation.

Amen. But, on reflection, I wonder whether some in LDS leadership fear that the cure may be worse than the disease. To reaffirm the divine origins of the ban will clearly be a PR disaster; and given the loveliness that the gay rights lobby has in store for us we're gonna need all the friends we can keep. To renounce the ban as uninspired, while keeping Woodruff's assurance on the books, will make a lot of Mormon heads explode. To throw Woodruff under the bus as well, is going to make a lot of Mormons decide that there's nothing particularly special about either the "prophet", his teachings, or the institution he leads--certainly nothing worth inconveniencing themselves for, at any rate.

However, you would agree with me that we come a long way from previous statements such as "Blacks will never receive the Priesthood in this mortal life" (paraphrasing) . . .

I agree we've come a long way in the way we discuss the purported justifications (though I'm unaware of the paraphrase you offer--the closest I can think of is statements from Young to the effect that it wouldn't happen until the Millennium).

Are part revelation, part personal opinion, part doctrine, part policy?

I would say "yes". We all want nice, bright-line rules; but revelation--as I've been learning especially this past year--is messy business; and it doesn't get any cleaner just because the guy receiving the revelation bears the title of "prophet, seer and revelator".

Whether we like it or not, we are affected tremendously by our culture and times.

Indeed. And that pattern continues to the present day. It is very possible that egalitarianism borne of our democratic culture has skewed our view of God just as much as the racism of prior cultures warped previous generations' views of Him.

I am sure you think the "left wing of the Church" (as you like to call them) is trying to do that with regards to Gay Marriage, women holding the Priesthood, etc. I think there is no major risk involved if people believe those things as long as they clearly state it is their personal opinion, . . .

I'm actually less doctrinaire on women and the priesthood, except insofar as I hope whatever we're doing lines up with the mind and will of God--I think His answer is "no" for the moment, but I do think He can change His mind on the topic as circumstances evolve. But I strongly disagree with you re gay marriage. If a Church member says something that makes a person feel more comfortable breaking the law of chastity, the time will come when that church member feels a deep, deep regret for what they have done--in this life or the next the lawbreaker will, I believe, look at the enabling Church member, tears in his eyes, and say "you knew. Why didn't you warn me?"

. . . nevertheless the issue with this particular topic comes from the fact that authoritative statements were said in the past by people in high ranking Church leadership positions, some things that the modern day Church is now clearly disavowing. That's why Uchtdorf's message in General Conference was such a breath of fresh air.

Suzie, I've seen the bloggernacle reaction. I've seen the Facebook posts to the blacklds group--the "I'm not supposed to name names, but I am authorized to tell you that you can consider this a formal apology for the ban" bologna sauce. Heck, I've seen how some of your compatriots have tried to deploy the Uchtdorf quote in this very thread. To say that the Mormon Left (or "heterodox" Mormons, or whatever the politically correct term for them is) generally understands that Uchtdorf was repudiating only the explanations, not the policy itself, would be woefully incorrect.

Another point I would like your thoughts on: If Mc Kay was right and indeed the only scriptural support for the ban was the interpretation of Abraham (1:26), what we made of this verse now? Is such interpretation of this verse now considered wrong? Was it ever doctrinal or was it just a personal interpretation? What ramifications does it have with regards to the 1978 revelation?

Well, the text of Abraham 1:26-27 is what it is, and it says what it says. I think Abraham 1:27 clearly shows that priesthood is tied up with lineage, and certain lineages at certain points in history have been ineligible for priesthood. (The current CES Pearl of Great Price manual seems to take a similar view). Beyond that, I hesitate to go--partly because of what the Church has said about the unreliability of prior explanations, partly because the explanations themselves don't line up (is it the Curse of Cain or the Curse of Ham?), and partly because I'm not sure how secure the nexus is between those who Abraham called "black" and those who we, today, would call "black".

I view these repudiated folk doctrines re blacks and the priesthood, the same way I view the Adam-God theory. They don't make perfect sense. They are self-contradictory, and to some degree clash with what we think we know about the Gospel, the Plan of Salvation, and God Himself. They were repeated often enough, and by sufficiently authoritative individuals, that I think there may be something there--maybe something along the lines of Darius Gray's "not a curse, but a calling" theory. I do think it's unfortunate that in trying to get away from the more harmful interpretations, we're a lot slower to talk about ideas like lineage and patriarchal order and the pre-existence; which I think are very important concepts. But, faced with the current lack of light and knowledge, what option is there for us but to remain silent?

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But, on reflection, I wonder whether some in LDS leadership fear that the cure may be worse than the disease. To reaffirm the divine origins of the ban will clearly be a PR disaster; and given the loveliness that the gay rights lobby has in store for us we're gonna need all the friends we can keep. To renounce the ban as uninspired, while keeping Woodruff's assurance on the books, will make a lot of Mormon heads explode. To throw Woodruff under the bus as well, is going to make a lot of Mormons decide that there's nothing particularly special about either the "prophet", his teachings, or the institution he leads--certainly nothing worth inconveniencing themselves for, at any rate.

If that's the fear, how long can we keep the "we do don't know" response?

I agree we've come a long way in the way we discuss the purported justifications (though I'm unaware of the paraphrase you offer--the closest I can think of is statements from Young to the effect that it wouldn't happen until the Millennium).

McConkie stated in his famous speech called "All are like unto God": "There are statements in our literature by the early Brethren which we have interpreted to mean that the Negroes would not receive the priesthood in mortality. I have said the same things..."

I would say "yes". We all want nice, bright-line rules; but revelation--as I've been learning especially this past year--is messy business; and it doesn't get any cleaner just because the guy receiving the revelation bears the title of "prophet, seer and revelator".

I agree.

Suzie, I've seen the bloggernacle reaction. I've seen the Facebook posts to the blacklds group--the "I'm not supposed to name names, but I am authorized to tell you that you can consider this a formal apology for the ban" bologna sauce. Heck, I've seen how some of your compatriots have tried to deploy the Uchtdorf quote in this very thread. To say that the Mormon Left (or "heterodox" Mormons, or whatever the politically correct term for them is) generally understands that Uchtdorf was repudiating only the explanations, not the policy itself, would be woefully incorrect.

I didn't know I have "compatriots" :P. My point in mentioning Uchtdorf's message was certainly not to proclaim that he was making reference to the ban, but rather the fact that in almost 200 something years in Church history, mistakes have been committed by Church leaders and as he said there may have been things said or done that were not in harmony with our values, principles, or doctrine. I can live with that in the sense that I do understand that our leaders are men, good, well-intentioned men and in the case of Pratt, Lee, Young, and the rest products of their time and within the correct context, it shouldn't be surprising why they said the things they did which were common beliefs of their time.

All this may be obvious to you or me, but I met many members who still think Church leaders cannot commit mistakes when in leadership because they are supposed to be inspired men so in their zeal to be obedient they equal being inspired with being infallible.

I view these repudiated folk doctrines re blacks and the priesthood, the same way I view the Adam-God theory. They don't make perfect sense. They are self-contradictory, and to some degree clash with what we think we know about the Gospel, the Plan of Salvation, and God Himself. They were repeated often enough, and by sufficiently authoritative individuals, that I think there may be something there--maybe something along the lines of Darius Gray's "not a curse, but a calling" theory.

I love Darius and his work but in this particular case I think as we previously discussed, we are all just trying to explain something that just doesn't make sense to us, a human trait (the need to have answers for everything, right here and right now) and well if such theory of "not a curse, but a calling"(that according to him has been approved by the Brethren) makes sense for some I welcome it but I am not sure if I personally share it.

JAG, I really appreciate a lot you joining this discussion. It is great to know that there are members online as interested as me on this topic (I admit I am a little obsessed with Church history). I research and write a lot but I do not get involved in online discussions too much because there is only a handful of people interested in discussing this and other topics through a historical point of view. I'm grateful I can do this with you.

Edited by Suzie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If that's the fear, how long can we keep the "we do don't know" response?

If "we don't know" is the truth, it can and should remain the party-line indefinitely. It is safer than presuming things not said.

Personally, I think it much more valid an approach to speculate on what has been said rather than what hasn't been said, even if what has been said is from a century ago. We can reasonably accept that what has been said in disavowance (a word I may have just made up) of things said a century ago supersedes that by nature of continuing revelation (though I personally question the current statement by the church as "revelatory"...but that's a different point), but should not automatically imply further speculation about things that were not disavowed. The "liberal" Mormon p.o.v. seems to be that such speculation is just and valid because it's a natural conclusion to draw. Some wrong things were said about a subject, so it only stands to reason that all things said about said subject are of questionable repute. A logical fallacy.

The fact is, as best I understand it, past prophets and apostles have stated that the priesthood ban was revelation. This has not be repudiated. Therefore, I will continue to believe that was from God. If and when the current prophets and apostles state clearly that it was not, I will accept that. Until that time, I believe, very firmly, that it is a wiser choice to stubbornly give the benefit of the doubt to things said by prophets and apostles. This is a safe path in my mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Timpman: President Hinckley’s interview does not constitute anything official whatsoever, and all he said is "I don't think it was wrong." It has been decades since a real claim has been made that the ban was instituted by God.

This is a really interesting phenomenon in liberal Mormonism--the idea that any teaching that is not officially re-stated every decade or so, magically becomes no longer "true".

Some teachings are true regardless of how frequency they are stated, while others have been disavowed. If a teaching has been disavowed, doesn’t that mean it is no longer true, or never was? Anyway, I didn't say whether President Hinckley's comment was true or not - I said it's not official. It's "a single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion [that] often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church" (source).

The 1949 First Presidency statement may not have been written for us--but if its assertion that the policy was divinely inspired was true then, it's true now. Ditto for Young's claims that the impetus for the policy--whatever the reasoning behind it--came from God. Either Young was telling the truth as he understood it, or he wasn't.

Consider these quotes:

1849, Brigham Young: "The Lord had cursed Cain's seed with blackness and prohibited them the Priesthood."

1852, Brigham Young: "Any man having one drop of the seed of Cane ... in him cannot hold the Priesthood and if no other Prophet ever spoke it before I will say it now in the name of Jesus Christ I know it is true and others know it."

1854, Brigham Young: "When all the other children of Adam have had the privilege of receiving the Priesthood, and of coming into the kingdom of God, and of being redeemed from the four quarters of the earth, and have received their resurrection from the dead, then it will be time enough to remove the curse from Cain and his posterity."

1881, John Taylor: "And after the flood we are told that the curse that had been pronounced upon Cain was continued through Ham's wife, as he had married a wife of that seed. And why did it pass through the flood? Because it was necessary that the devil should have a representation upon the earth as well as God; and that man should be a free agent to act for himself, and that all men might have the opportunity of receiving or rejecting the truth..."

1935, Joseph Fielding Smith: "Not only was Cain called upon to suffer, but because of his wickedness he became the father of an inferior race. A curse was placed upon him and that curse has been continued through his lineage and must do so while time endures."

1949, First Presidency Letter: "The attitude of the Church with reference to the Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the Priesthood at the present time. The prophets of the Lord have made several statements as to the operation of the principle. President Brigham Young said: 'Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a skin of blackness?...'"

1963, Joseph Fielding Smith: "According to the doctrine of the church, the negro because of some condition of unfaithfulness in the spirit — or pre-existence, was not valiant and hence was not denied the mortal probation, but was denied the blessing of the priesthood."

Any assertion that the ban came from God was supported by those teachings. Now consider these quotes:

1954, David O. McKay: "There is not now, and there never has been a doctrine in this church that the negroes are under a divine curse. There is no doctrine in the church of any kind pertaining to the negro. We believe that we have a scriptural precedent for withholding the priesthood from the negro. It is a practice, not a doctrine, and the practice someday will be changed. And that's all there is to it."

1963, Spencer W. Kimball: "The doctrine or policy has not varied in my memory. I know it could. I know the Lord could change his policy and release the ban and forgive the possible error which brought about the deprivation."

2013: "Today, the Church 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; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else."

It was repeatedly taught that black people are the seed of Cain and were cursed with black skin. They were called an "inferior race." The 1949 First Presidency letter quoted Brigham Young regarding those "cursed with a skin of blackness." President McKay then said there had never been a doctrine "that the negroes are under a divine curse." It was also taught that they were not valiant in the pre-existence.

So, here’s a summary:

THEN: Black people are the seed of Cain and are cursed with blackness NOW: That theory is disavowed

THEN: Black people were not valiant in the pre-existence NOW: That theory is disavowed

THEN: Black people are of an inferior race NOW: That theory is disavowed

Things that were true then are not true now. Rather, they were never true or the current statement is wrong. Again, any assertion that the ban came from God was supported by theories that have been disavowed. Such an assertion is not necessarily true now. Even Brother Kimball admitted the "deprivation" was a "possible error."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Consider these quotes:

[...]

Again, any assertion that the ban came from God was supported by theories that have been disavowed. Such an assertion is not necessarily true now.

Nor is it necessarily false, yet many talk and act as though it is. That is a false thing to claim.

Consider the idea that children genetically inherit parents' characteristics. Then consider these arguments in favor of that idea:

  • It's obviously true. Frank is a blacksmith and so has big, strong shoulders, and look how big and strong his sons are.
  • Jennifer has a scar on her left ankle. Her daughter ALSO has a scar on her left ankle. That proves that parents pass their characteristics onto their children.
  • Joe is stark raving mad. So is his adopted son. That proves that children get their parents' tendencies.

Does the fact that each of these three arguments is bogus somehow imply that the underlying observation is also false? (Answer: No, it does not.)

You keep hounding us on the falsity of the reasons used to support the Priesthood ban. But we already grant that, as does the Church. We do not grant your illogical deduction that the defect of the supporting arguments implies that the underlying doctrine itself was also somehow defective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even Brother Kimball admitted the "deprivation" was a "possible error."

I would be the first to use this quote, as a matter of fact I used this quote a lot when writing or debating about Blacks and the Priesthood restriction however, I like to be fair.

Kimball was an Apostle at the time of the quotation and it wasn't any sort of official statement, so will it fall also into the category of "It's "a single statement made by a single leader on a single occasion [that] often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, but is not meant to be officially binding for the whole Church"? Yes I believe so, ambiguous statement? Absolutely, official? No.

I say ambiguous because even though he clearly opens the possibility of an "error" and believes the Lord would "forgive" the possible mistake that caused the deprivation, he also clearly stated "I know the Lord could change his policy and release the ban... clearly indicating he believed the ban was a policy instituted by the Lord.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've always pondered a reason the ban may not have been lifted earlier could be the membership. Seeing the rift the civil rights question ripped in America, could not the same thing have happened within our church had we not waited until the question was pretty much ingrained into our society?

I don't know. But I don't think that the Lord refusing to lift the ban necessarily means He approved or instituted it for that reason. I do sort of lean towards it being divinely instituted for a time only but I'm not heavily invested in the topic. It just doesn't really matter to me one way or the other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some teachings are true regardless of how frequency they are stated, while others have been disavowed. If a teaching has been disavowed, doesn’t that mean it is no longer true, or never was?

But what happens if/when the disavowal gets disavowed?

Anyway, I didn't say whether President Hinckley's comment was true or not - I said it's not official.

Similarly, not only is the claim that the priesthood ban was an error "unofficial"--it has never been made, either by Newsroom, Correlation, or any member of the 1st Presidency/Q of 12.

Any assertion that the ban came from God was supported by those teachings. Now consider these quotes:

The ban and justifications for the ban are severable, even if they are often defended side by side in the same document. Suzie and I discussed this already.

Now consider these quotes:
1954, David O. McKay: "There is not now, and there never has been a doctrine in this church that the negroes are under a divine curse. There is no doctrine in the church of any kind pertaining to the negro. We believe that we have a scriptural precedent for withholding the priesthood from the negro. It is a practice, not a doctrine, and the practice someday will be changed. And that's all there is to it."

Interestingly, when McKay said that, the ban was still in place--and he kept it in place in spite of his personal desire to remove it, due to--he alleged--a direct instruction from the Lord.

1963, Spencer W. Kimball: "The doctrine or policy has not varied in my memory. I know it could. I know the Lord could change his policy and release the ban and forgive the possible error which brought about the deprivation."

Ah-HAH! The private letter to his son that admits Kimball thought the policy was wrong all along . . . or did it?

Just a couple of days later Kimball picked up his pen again and wrote the following to that same son:

The conferring of priesthood, and declining to give the priesthood is not a matter of my choice nor of President McKay’s. It is the Lord’s program. (See Ed Kimball's BYU Studies article, Spencer W. Kimball and the Revelation on Priesthood, at page 28.)

Kimball was adamant--the ban came from the Lord. Therefore, per Kimball, any "error" precipitating the ban couldn't have been that of the Church's leadership. Maybe Kimball thought the Church-at-large had erred in adopting the widespread racism of the culture in which it found itself. Or maybe Kimball bought into the notion that those affected by the ban somehow "erred" in the pre-existence, or maybe he figured that it was indeed a reaction to some ancient "error" by Ham or Cain. Doesn't matter, really, since--as you're so fond of pointing out--those theories have been disavowed. But what's crystal clear is, Kimball did not think the Church leadership had erred.

Again, any assertion that the ban came from God was supported by theories that have been disavowed. Such an assertion is not necessarily true now.

The Song of Solomon has been dismissed as "uninspired". So I guess by the logic you've used, the assertion that a husband and wife should not love each other is "not necessarily true now", correct?

Even Brother Kimball admitted the "deprivation" was a "possible error."

I can see how, in the absence of context, that quote would throw you. But when we look at Kimball's life and teachings--and the conversation that the quote comes from--in totality rather than just engaging in quote-mining, it becomes clear: Kimball would have been just about the last person in the Church to suggest that the GAs had erred in instituting the priesthood ban.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nor is it necessarily false, yet many talk and act as though it is. That is a false thing to claim....

You keep hounding us on the falsity of the reasons used to support the Priesthood ban. But we already grant that, as does the Church. We do not grant your illogical deduction that the defect of the supporting arguments implies that the underlying doctrine itself was also somehow defective.

If I have stated that the ban was categorically not of God, then I apologize. My intention is only to share my beliefs. I don't mean to state them as facts.

I am sorry you label my deduction as illogical. It has been shown that the teachings used to support the ban have been disavowed. Teachings regarding other issues have been contradicted. The church no longer says anything to imply the ban was of God. I don't see how the phrase "After praying for guidance, President McKay did not feel impressed to lift the ban" alone implies that it was. If someone wants to focus more on a snippet from Gregory Prince's book, then that is their right.

I will not be surprised at all if the ban is someday explicitly denounced by the church. Look at the direction this issue has been going during the last 30 years. More and more, the church has been distancing itself from the priesthood ban. It doesn't seem illogical to me that it will continue in the same direction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I have stated that the ban was categorically not of God, then I apologize. My intention is only to share my beliefs. I don't mean to state them as facts.

Timpman, I have reviewed your contributions to this thread as well as my responses to those contributions. Two things have become clear:

1. I disagree quite starkly with your opinion on the matter, which I consider to be ill-founded. In particular, I have resented the implications of your opinion, many of which you have openly voiced.

2. In most cases, you have indeed stated your opinion as such. And in stating your views, you have been almost unfailingly polite, unlike me.

I am sorry, Timpman. However vehemently I may disagree with your opinion and its implications, that cannot justify the unpleasantness of my responses. You have been a gentleman throughout. Thank you.

Previously, you wrote this, which I took as a proclamation of fact rather than your viewpoint:

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?

My point, very badly made, was that if God instituted the ban, then by definition it's not racism (or if you insist that it is, then racism cannot be a bad thing, because God cannot do evil). I would argue with your last sentence by saying that if the ban was instituted by God, then it was not based on race at all, but on God's command. That God's command happened to be racially applied is of no moment.

Note that I am not explicitly arguing for a divine origin of the Priesthood ban. As I have already stated before, I have no firm opinion on that. Rather, I am arguing against the flawed logic that says that since the Church repudiates the faulty theories used in the past to explain the Priesthood ban, that somehow means that the Church is repudiating the previous existence of the ban itself. Nothing could be further from the truth.

I am sorry you label my deduction as illogical. It has been shown that the teachings used to support the ban have been disavowed. Teachings regarding other issues have been contradicted. The church no longer says anything to imply the ban was of God.

I do not understand this. We live almost 40 years after the Priesthood ban was removed, and in a society that is hypersensitive to matters of race. Assume for the moment that the Priesthood ban was indeed decreed by God through revelation to Brigham Young. Do you really expect that, closing in on half a century after the removal of the ban, the Church is going to keep publicly announcing, "Hey, by the way, that old Priesthood ban was indeed instituted of God"?

If so, why do you suppose the Church does not make twice-yearly announcements about how polygamy was instituted of God until the late 19th century? Or do you suppose that the Church leaders privately think plural marriage was all a big mistake and/or misunderstanding, too?

The Church has never repudiated plural marriage. But plural marriage does not apply to us today, so the Church does not teach it, except in a historical context. Given the bad feelings surrounding polygamy in our society, the Church simply doesn't mention it much at all. Beyond the bare fact of how you feel about the Priesthood ban, why do you think it is somehow a different thing? What evidence do you have besides a repudiation of false justifications?

Again, I apologize for the unkindness of my previous responses, and I grant your right to hold any opinions you wish. But I maintain that for a faithful Saint, believing that previous Church leaders were essentially in apostasy from truth and institutionalizing wickedness in the Church is a tremendously serious and grave thing. Teaching such an opinion is a violation of temple covenants, in my view, unless one has very strong evidence of such.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another point I would like your thoughts on: If Mc Kay was right and indeed the only scriptural support for the ban was the interpretation of Abraham (1:26), what we made of this verse now? Is such interpretation of this verse now considered wrong? Was it ever doctrinal or was it just a personal interpretation? What ramifications does it have with regards to the 1978 revelation?

I think we make of it that the Lord has, in times past, precluded certain familial lines from the priesthood. Righteous Pharaoh (as opposed to Abraham's murder-stabby Pharaoh) was of a lineage that banned him from the priesthood (I'm a little fuzzy on the particular offense - vs. 21 and 22 refer to a line through Ham's son Canaan, which would tie it Gen. 9 (although that curse isn't expressly priesthood related), but vs. 25 ties the line through Ham's daughter Egyptus), and subsequent pharaohs were also denied the priesthood. The scriptures don't teach when that ban was ever lifted.

I'm aware of the tradition that Ham married a descendant of Cain, but I have no idea where that idea came from, so the traditional idea that Ham is the progenitor of blacks is unscriptural (Abraham doesn't use the term black, JAG, that's Enoch describing Cain's progeny).

Another similar example to Pharaoh's ban is the Levitical restriction. For the most part, priesthood ordination and service was limited to descendants of Levi, with a further restriction that only descendants of Aaron serve as high priests. I say for the most part, because there's the obvious exception of prophets and kings having authority to dedicate temples and offer sacrifice. You could not hold the priesthood if you were born in the wrong family. Now take a moment to look over your patriarchal blessing. Ephraim? Manasseh? Judah? NotLevi? The restriction was not lifted until about 34 AD, about a millennium and a half later.

I think the Church can safely continue teaching that there have been other times when the priesthood was limited by lineage, and we are blessed to live in a time when there is no such ban or restriction based on family lines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some teachings are true regardless of how frequency they are stated, while others have been disavowed. If a teaching has been disavowed, doesn’t that mean it is no longer true, or never was?

So, here’s a summary:

THEN: Black people are the seed of Cain and are cursed with blackness NOW: That theory is disavowed

THEN: Black people were not valiant in the pre-existence NOW: That theory is disavowed

THEN: Black people are of an inferior race NOW: That theory is disavowed

Things that were true then are not true now. Rather, they were never true or the current statement is wrong. Again, any assertion that the ban came from God was supported by theories that have been disavowed. Such an assertion is not necessarily true now. Even Brother Kimball admitted the "deprivation" was a "possible error."

If a teaching has been disavowed, that simply means it is no longer a teaching of the Church - that doesn't change the validity of the teaching. (If a State disavows a rogue agent and his actions, it is not a statement that the actions are no longer favorable for the State, nor even that State wasn't about to send an agent to perform those exact actions). It could very well be true that some persons lived the premortal equivalent of a terrestrial existence and so merited entrance into God's kingdom but not any official authority. It's possible that Ham was cursed and it continued until 1978. It could be possible that Brigham was a product of his time and based the ban solely on prevailing notions or expediency. None of these are current Church teachings. Each one is disavowed. But any one of them may be true. What's more, some of the true statements can be read as having an expiration date.

2013: "Today, the Church 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; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else."

Of course this is absolutely true today. There is no priesthood ban. So let's assume one of the disavowed theories is actually true. Let's go with the ever-popular curse of Cain. When the ban was lifted the curse was lifted too. Black skin is not a sign of divine disfavor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is what the Church stated:

The positions attributed to BYU professor Randy Bott in a recent Washington Post article absolutely do not represent the teachings and doctrines of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. BYU faculty members do not speak for the Church. It is unfortunate that the Church was not given a chance to respond to what others said.

The Church’s position is clear—we believe all people are God’s children and are equal in His eyes and in the Church. We do not tolerate racism in any form.

For a time in the Church there was a restriction on the priesthood for male members of African descent. It is not known precisely why, how, or when this restriction began in the Church but what is clear is that it ended decades ago. Some have attempted to explain the reason for this restriction but these attempts should be viewed as speculation and opinion, not doctrine. The Church is not bound by speculation or opinions given with limited understanding.

We condemn racism, including any and all past racism by individuals both inside and outside the Church.

Church Statement Regarding 'Washington Post' Article on Race and the Church

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JAG, when the Church said:

"For a time in the Church there was a restriction on the priesthood for male members of African descent. It is not known precisely why, how, or when this restriction began".

Another very similar statement:

"During this time some black males were ordained to the priesthood. At some point the Church stopped ordaining male members of African descent, although there were a few exceptions. It is not known precisely why, how or when this restriction began in the Church, but it has ended".

Not trying to be technical, but if indeed the ban was instituted by God, why the use of the "why" in the sentence? Okay, we can argue and say it meant that we do not know "why' the Lord instituted the restriction but I find it difficult to understand that if the point is so clear why they did not use something like:

"At some point, the Lord commanded his Prophet to stop ordaining male members of African descent"

They clearly did it in the latest Polygamy statement when they stated that it was a Revelation given to Joseph Smith. The lack of a similar choice of words in this particular issue and in the latest statements is something to wonder about.

On top of it all, "We condemn racism,including any and all past racism by individuals both inside and outside the Church." is also another interesting point of discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mordorbund, I may be wrong; but I think the Church has explicitly said that those theories were wrong--not just nondoctrinal, but wrong. If memory serves, it was in an announcement that came out in the wake of BYU professor Randy Bott's comments last year.

I followed that with interest, and I don't recall anything specifically calling such ideas out as false. If they did so, I would like to see that. As far as I recall, the Church's response was to say that such ideas were merely the opinions of individuals, not LDS doctrine, and should not be interpreted as LDS doctrine.

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