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

[Guest]

Two questions for you, EoG:

1. As you have stated that you aren't active in the church, how often do you go to the temple? and, part B, when was the last time you went?

2. Exactly what do you believe those verses explain?

Edited December 19, 2013 by Eowyn

[Just_A_Guy]

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.

Well . . . maybe. Brigham Young gave a sermon in the St. George temple in February of 1877. His secretary, L. John Nuttall, made notes of the sermon and put them in his journal; and the sermon itself is vintage Adam-God. Later historians somehow decided that Young's sermon was actually a synopsis of what the Lecture at the Veil was supposed to contain, but Nuttall's journal itself gives no indication of that (I actually went down to Special Collections at BYU a couple of years ago to verify this for myself).

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

Explains a lot.

Now, EoG, could you at least be candid and admit that your interpretation comes from an excommunicated individual who borrowed a lot of his theology from stuff that the forefathers of the FLDS movement published seventy years ago? And see this link--the analysis of claim #9 in particular--for a thorough debunking of that apostate's Nauvoo Temple hobby horse.

Edited December 19, 2013 by Just_A_Guy

[Timpman]

Vort, about a year and a half ago, I agreed with most of your posts here. I remember cheering you on in a thread. I have been going through a faith crisis and I am quite different now.

I see you as a defender of the faith, and I applaud that. I hope you are not offended by what I have to say about that. Sometimes your methods are less effective and may drive some people away from the church. I do not believe you would intentionaly do that. When you call someone's statement "nonsense" or "ridiculous," it does not win their affection and faith. Your statements regarding what "a faithful Latter-day Saint" should or should not think, say, or do are especially abrasive. For example, you wrote, "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." So if another member of church doesn't see it that way, then he or she isn't "a faithful Latter-day Saint"?

You would do well to ponder your use of black-and-white and if/then statements. I have seen several instances where you write something like "If you say this, then that must also apply." For example:

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

I acknowledge that you also wrote, "Or is there a third possibility I'm missing?" but there is still an issue.

The vibes I get from you are that a real, faithful Latter-day Saint wouldn't have any real doubts and that any doubters need to reprimanded. I couldn't be totally wrong, but I feel that some things you have written would not support many people in their doubts and trials. Rather, the doubts and trials would be exacerbated.

Yes, I can see that I am being abrasive toward you. Please know that I am being sincere and I want there to be a more welcoming spirit on this forum. Maybe we all follow the spirit of these words:

One might ask, “If the gospel is so wonderful, why would anyone leave?”

Sometimes we assume it is because they have been offended or lazy or sinful. Actually, it is not that simple. In fact, there is not just one reason that applies to the variety of situations.

Some of our dear members struggle for years with the question whether they should separate themselves from the Church...

Some struggle with unanswered questions about things that have been done or said in the past. We openly acknowledge that in nearly 200 years of Church history—along with an uninterrupted line of inspired, honorable, and divine events—there have been some things said and done that could cause people to question.

Sometimes questions arise because we simply don’t have all the information and we just need a bit more patience. When the entire truth is eventually known, things that didn’t make sense to us before will be resolved to our satisfaction.

Sometimes there is a difference of opinion as to what the “facts” really mean. A question that creates doubt in some can, after careful investigation, build faith in others.

And, to be perfectly frank, there have been times when members or leaders in the Church have simply made mistakes. There may have been things said or done that were not in harmony with our values, principles, or doctrine.

I suppose the Church would be perfect only if it were run by perfect beings. God is perfect, and His doctrine is pure. But He works through us—His imperfect children—and imperfect people make mistakes...

To those who have separated themselves from the Church, I say, my dear friends, there is yet a place for you here.

Come and add your talents, gifts, and energies to ours. We will all become better as a result.

Some might ask, “But what about my doubts?”

It’s natural to have questions—the acorn of honest inquiry has often sprouted and matured into a great oak of understanding. There are few members of the Church who, at one time or another, have not wrestled with serious or sensitive questions. One of the purposes of the Church is to nurture and cultivate the seed of faith—even in the sometimes sandy soil of doubt and uncertainty. Faith is to hope for things which are not seen but which are true.

Therefore, my dear brothers and sisters—my dear friends—please, first doubt your doubts before you doubt your faith. We must never allow doubt to hold us prisoner and keep us from the divine love, peace, and gifts that come through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ...

The Church is designed to nourish the imperfect, the struggling, and the exhausted. It is filled with people who desire with all their heart to keep the commandments, even if they haven’t mastered them yet...

None of us is quite as Christlike as we know we should be. But we earnestly desire to overcome our faults and the tendency to sin. With our heart and soul we yearn to become better with the help of the Atonement of Jesus Christ.

If these are your desires, then regardless of your circumstances, your personal history, or the strength of your testimony, there is room for you in this Church. Come, join with us!

[ElectofGod]

Now, EoG, could you at least be candid and admit that your interpretation comes from an excommunicated individual who borrowed a lot of his theology from stuff that the forefathers of the FLDS movement published seventy years ago? And see this link--the analysis of claim #9 in particular--for a thorough debunking of that apostate's Nauvoo Temple hobby horse.

Nope because its not true. This same logic i could say anything you agree with that he has said you also agree with an excommunicated person. Or if you agree with any Michael Quinn or any of the others have stated.

Good thing you cant substantiate any of your claims. You or I have never read PTHG.

Just looked at claim 9, still no mention of when the lord came to restore again the priesthood.

Its a simple answer.

Its a simple answer.

Show me when the Lord restored the fulness. Greg smith did not do that.

[Timpman]

And I just noticed a Senior Moderator has claimed my argument is "impugning McKay's integrity." Please, please try to understand stuff like that can drive people away from the church.

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?

I have more information now:

So I was wrong about this. More later.

[Just_A_Guy]

Nope because its not true. This same logic i could say anything you agree with that he has said you also agree with an excommunicated person. Or if you agree with any Michael Quinn or any of the others have stated.

Good thing you cant substantiate any of your claims. You or I have never read PTHG.

Oh, OK, EoG. You've never, ever defended Denver Snuffer in these forums. You've never publicly embraced his ideas.

Just looked at claim 9, still no mention of when the lord came to restore again the priesthood.

Its a simple answer.

Its a simple answer.

It is simple, indeed: the fulness was lost at the time of the Great Apostasy, and was restored by increments both before and after the revelation that is D&C 124.

Show me when the Lord restored the fulness. Greg smith did not do that.

The Saints did not lose the fulness due to any sloth or negligence regarding the Nauvoo temple--Smith's response to claim 9 demonstrates that given the scope of the project their zeal, effort, sacrifice, and--yes--timetable, surpassed even what was done in Kirtland.

As for what was "restored" either before or after the revelation--See the response to claim 7, same source.

Oh, by the way: I missed, earlier, your citation to D&C 124:50 and your implication that it referred to the Nauvoo temple. But I just followed up, and guess what? It's talking about the Jackson County temple and the mobbers who hindered the construction on that edifice.

I only see two options here, EoG. First, you blindly regurgitated someone else's argument. Or, second, you read the section, knew what verse 50 really applied to--but nevertheless, engaged in affirmative deception by citing it here in the manner that you did.

[Just_A_Guy]

And I just noticed a Senior Moderator has claimed my argument is "impugning McKay's integrity." Please, please try to understand stuff like that can drive people away from the church.

Timpman, that was a nice bit of sleuthing to come up with those quotes, so thanks for that.

I apologize if it came off as overly harsh; but honestly--I don't see what else labeling the accounts as "hearsay" accomplishes. The fact that McKay made the claims is not hearsay. If someone's simultaneously conceding that McKay made the claims but also denying that the claims were actually true (whether by labeling it "hearsay" or by some other means), then the disjunction between those arguments is naturally going to call McKay's integrity into question.

[mordorbund]

My thoughts from a different discussion earlier this week (with much overlapping) with Anaheim veteran missionaries (that's why Marvin Perkins comes up):

I know I'm coming late to the party, but I thought I'd add a little diversity by playing Young's advocate (with a proper nod in <other person>'s direction for starting down this path). The simple fact is that we don't know why the ban was ever in place. We don't know if it was a matter of revelation or policy (read the Kimball paper in the footnote and you'll see that a search was made and the origin was downgraded from revelation to uncertain). That's not to say there wasn't revelation along the way on the matter. The recent statement even calls out President McKay made it a matter of prayer (and the Kimball paper even specifies that the answer he got was "not yet"). That was in the 50's before the American civil rights movement hit full sway. Perkins makes it clear that he thinks the Lord's hands we're tied so long as Elder Lee was alive, but that presupposes that he would not have the same reaction that Elder McConkie experienced when the revelation was received (and his strong opinions were in print for all the world to see).

At most, regarding the ban itself, Church leaders could tentatively apologize for the origin (provided it was only policy (I can see no reason to apologize for revelation)), but not for sustaining the practice.

That then brings us to the justifications for the practice. Perkins is right here, there was a vacuum. It was uncomfortable and people wanted answers for "why" and "how long" (the article even points out that Brigham was aware the ban was temporary). So Brigham filled that void. Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce McConkie filled that void. Alvin Dyer filled that void. It's not unlike the WoW where the Lord has only revealed certain prohibitions for our "temporal salvation" because of "conspiring men". We have filled in the blanks ourselves with carcinogens, known cover-ups, tannic acid, and even (heaven help us) caffeine.

Then came the revelation. That same year, Elder McConkie said to CES what was essentially stated at the end of this new article: forget everything that was said on this subject before June 1978, as they didn't have the full picture. I consider this a good thing that the article has expanded the audience and repeated it afresh. And I hope I'm not stirring the pot too much (other's have already read between the lines, so I will too for a moment) when I point out that the term used here is "disavow", as opposed to when President Kimball "denounce"d the Adam-God theory in the 1976 conference and called it out as "false doctrine" (a term markedly absent here).

So now here we are, with the "how long" finally answered, but the "why" still remains an uncomfortable mystery. And so voices come in to fill the vacuum. I imagine that's where your additional questions are coming from. Perkins has pointed out some flaws in the old chestnuts (I find some of his rebuttals specious, but other's are valid). But rather than living with the void, others swoop in with their own pet theories, each of which come with their own flaws: Brigham was racist (as was everyone of his time), but not so racist as to insist the ban was permanent, nor racist enough to remove all the black priesthood holders (he did get rid of some); white people couldn't handle it (if the Church "unequivocally condemns" the racist notion that blacks couldn't or wouldn't handle it, how can it not unequivocally condemn the racist notion that a zion-building white folk couldn't or wouldn't handle it?); and so on.

The safe path here for those questioning is a firm "I don't know". The Church has disavowed the old theories without endorsing any of the new (tacitly, there's a bit of Brigham-as-a-product-of-his-time, but it also seems to have a bit of double-speak by limiting that influence). If that remains unsatisfactory, then you need to do what others have done, which is to study it out and include prayer. And if it helps, here are some theories that have been put out there (and I think you should even include the disavowed-but-not-denounced ones). Just recognize that whatever answer you settle upon is yours and not the Church's, which awaits further light and knowledge.

[Timpman]

Timpman, that was a nice bit of sleuthing to come up with those quotes, so thanks for that.

I apologize if it came off as overly harsh; but honestly--I don't see what else labeling the accounts as "hearsay" accomplishes. The fact that McKay made the claims is not hearsay. If someone's simultaneously conceding that McKay made the claims but also denying that the claims were actually true (whether by labeling it "hearsay" or by some other means), then the disjunction between those arguments is naturally going to call McKay's integrity into question.

No hard feelings. Before I found those pages of that book, I hadn't seen any solid source or context for those quotes.

[Suzie]

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).

Well, to be fair it is not firsthand information. I know, I know, as a Historian/Historiographer I also use first, second and even third hand accounts and to be completely honest, I do not have a reason to believe it did not take place at all, I am open to the possibility nevertheless, my position remains the same.

1. Did he indeed receive such answer?

2. If the Lord allegedly said “not yet” does it automatically mean he was indeed behind the placement of the ban or did he allow the continuation for another reason unknown to us?

3. If he was not the one who instituted the ban, did Brigham Young’s personal bigotry (full or in part) caused the prohibition of the rights to the Priesthood to thousands of members across the world for over 100 years?

JAG, I read your analogy but I believe you would agree with me that the Lord gave us free agency for a reason, some use it, others abuse it and he is not there every single time trying to stop us from hurting ourselves or others. Your whole analysis is based on Mc Kay receiving the answer as “not yet” or “stop asking me about it”. Is that a possibility? Absolutely. What about the contrary?

Could it have been that many leaders after Young’s death just automatically assumed he was right all along and did not dare to question the practice? You and I know that Young was an assertive man and he spoke with authority and power as most strong leaders do. Would anyone dare to question him? Well, I would say it depends. As we previously discussed, quite a few did not have a problem stating their disapproval with regards to the Adam-God theory but here we are talking about 19th century America mindset and their views about race.

A typical 19th century white American guy will not see "Whites" and "Blacks" as equal. Young as well as Pratt and others were not any different, even when they were prophets and leaders of the true Church of Christ. Smith seems to have been quite progressive for his era.

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).

No need to apologize at all. I did not feel you crossed any line, I enjoy discussing this topic with you. I like the point you are making and it makes a lot of sense. We are all seeing this from a different perspective based on our own personal history, knowledge, per-conceived notions or experience. I admit, I am passionate about this particular topic because well, I study about it, write about it and I have for many years. However, being passionate about it doesn’t make me emotionally attached to it. I am not African-American, I have no relatives who are African-Americans either, I just like to analyze it and the characters on this whole issue through a purely historical context minus the emotional charged judgment of whether or not Young was a fallen Prophet. This topic for me is like a puzzle and one of the biggest conundrums in Church history.

We have the founder of this Church giving the Priesthood to at least one Black member of the Church (Abel) who also got his washing and anointing at Kirtland and he is even ordained a Seventy. We know through research that a few people were questioning his right to the Priesthood because of Abel’s race.

Coltrin was one of them and said that Smith stated as early as 1834 that Blacks were not entitled to the Priesthood and yet was Smith himself who ordained Abel to the Priesthood. And on top of that it was Coltrin himself who ordained Abel a Seventy in 1836 and as you know there are several meetings held afterwards to discuss Abel, his race and his rights but his Priesthood remained intact.

However, from that point we see a change taking place with regards to the rights Abel held. Just three years later after those meetings, they restricted his missionary work out of the blue yet his Priesthood (so far) remained the same and then as you know, another Black man (Lewis) was ordained to the Priesthood by one of Smith’s brothers. We know these two men were LDS members in good standing, faithful and active.

But then just a little over 10 years (1847) of Abel’s ordination, Mc Cary comes to the picture and I believe he is the catalyst of the whole issue or at least in part. He believes he is a Prophet, seduces white LDS women into marrying him, makes his own wife witness him having sexual relations with these women, believes he is some sort of Indian spirit and I can go on and on and on. Why is Mc Cary the catalyst of the placement of the ban?

Simply, because it was during the same year (just a few months after when the issue still very much fresh and alive) when Young declared that Blacks are ineligible for certain temple ordinances. Do you truly believe this is pure coincidence? Honestly, I do not.

When Pratt found about what McCary was doing with the white sisters of the Church, he was the one that is quoted as asking (paraphrasing) “Why in the world would they (the women who were fooled by Mc Cary) follow someone who has no right to the Priesthood?

Now, that’s interesting because just before the McCary incident, Black men indeed held the Priesthood but the quote can gives us an idea that a few members as I mentioned earlier were already (by the time of Abel) questioning why a Black man was allowed to hold the Priesthood. The McCary affair seems to have been the perfect excuse (IMO) to put some pressure and end the lunacy with a ban in place.

In a period of two years, Young totally changes his mind with regards to whether or not it has to do with the “blood” (race), what happened during those two years that made Young changed his mind from "it has nothing to do with the blood" to it was because of the blood, remains a mystery to me.

At this point of time, Abel still holds the Priesthood even though there have been some failed attempts to discredit the ordination (and we have certificates to prove it!), he remains a faithful and active LDS member and even serves a third mission later in life.

Why was then he denied the right to receive his own endowments by Young himself? Again, this man held the Priesthood and he was a Seventy and served at least two missions for the Church at that moment, why was he denied the opportunity to enter the Temple and receive his own endowments when he fully qualified to enter? This is what I am talking about when I say I cannot fully state or believe that the Lord was indeed the one that instituted the placement of the ban.

Just after two years of Abel’s request being denied, Young dies and now we see the arise of someone (Joseph F. Smith) who seems to be (at that moment) someone that would defend Abel’s ordination a few times when Coltrin still claimed that when Smith learned that Abel was black he was dropped from the Quorum of the Seventy (for those who do not know, Abel was mulatto).

Joseph F. Smith had no problem of defending Abel’s ordination and showed the certificates that proved it. Even a decade after Abel’s death, they were still talking and wondering about Abel’s ordination and same Smith defended Abel’s right to hold the Priesthood. Abel’s son and grandson were ordained and I am sure quite a few people know they held the Priesthood as far as 1935.

And then the other mystery. What really happened during those 40 years that made Joseph F. Smith completely change his mind about it and declare that Joseph Smith Jr. did indeed established that Abel’s ordination was “null and void”? Even though he provided in the past the certificates of Abel’s ordination when Coltrin and others tried to discredit it! Bizarre!

Then we have Lewis’s son marrying a white woman and Young learning about it and how he felt about the whole affair and so on, all this happening around the same time the ban was placed but perhaps we can leave that for another post or time since I did not expect to make this post this long, thank you and others for reading all of this so far.

So sincerely forgive me for not simply accept or believe outright that the Lord was indeed the one that instituted the ban and that Mc Kay was told “not yet”. I think it is wonderful to walk by Faith but at the same time, it is also imperative that we can all study and analyze our own Church history in order to try to understand these men, gather facts, examine, dissect and reach some sort of explanation about how the ban was instituted and by whom. There are many unanswered questions and who placed the ban I believe, remains a mystery.

[Just_A_Guy]

Hi Suzie -

A couple of random responses to your excellent post:

JAG, I read your analogy but I believe you would agree with me that the Lord gave us free agency for a reason, some use it, others abuse it and he is not there every single time trying to stop us from hurting ourselves or others.

Sure; but McKay used his free agency to offer to stop the hurting--and the Lord failed to take him up on that offer. At some point--like the mother in the supermarket--an authority figure's failure to intervene in the face of an open invitation to do so, functions as a ratification of what has preceded and an assumption of responsibility for what follows.

And I can't help but come back to the Woodruff quote, and my earlier statement: the watchmen on the tower don't have to be perfect; but they aren't supposed to run around the vineyard wantonly chopping down olive trees, either.

Could it have been that many leaders after Young’s death just automatically assumed he was right all along and did not dare to question the practice? You and I know that Young was an assertive man and he spoke with authority and power as most strong leaders do. Would anyone dare to question him?

I don't think John Taylor or Orson Pratt were just prepared to assume Young was right about . . . pretty much anything, really. And Lorenzo Snow was asking as early as 1849 for permission to "turn the key to the African nation", or something to that effect (what he meant, specifically, remains vague--this citation is from Turner's biography of Young).

But then just a little over 10 years (1847) of Abel’s ordination, Mc Cary comes to the picture and I believe he is the catalyst of the whole issue or at least in part. He believes he is a Prophet, seduces white LDS women into marrying him, makes his own wife witness him having sexual relations with these women, believes he is some sort of Indian spirit and I can go on and on and on. Why is Mc Cary the catalyst of the placement of the ban?

Simply, because it was during the same year (just a few months after when the issue still very much fresh and alive) when Young declared that Blacks are ineligible for certain temple ordinances. Do you truly believe this is pure coincidence? Honestly, I do not.

Well, hang on. When McCary turns up in Winter Quarters in early 1848, he already has a white wife; and he's sensitive about it, and complains to Brigham Young in an open council meeting about his treatment by some of the Saints there; and that's when Young tells him "no, race and the priesthood isn't a problem, we have Walker Lewis in Lowell and he's awesome, etc". Concerns about miscegenation certainly grew, especially after Enoch Lewis' activities became known; but Young was apparently OK with McCary marrying one white woman and it seems odd indeed for McCary's marrying several white women to suddenly become a deal-killer for black men holding the priesthood.

If we're looking at the timeline, then I think it far more likely that Young's primary reason for finally buying into Pratt's reasoning was because McCary was making overtures towards setting himself up as a rival leader by early 1849 and Young, having had his fill of pretenders to Joseph's mantle by then, was looking for an easy way to dispatch McCary's claims before McCary could turn into another Sidney Rigdon or James Strang or Lyman Wight or George Miller. Wight and Miller were excommunicated in December 1848--right as the McCary situation was heating up--and as I understand it, orthodox LDS historians have significantly understated the number of people that some of these would-be prophets drew after them. The impression I get from Turner's biography is that Young was extremely worried about the spectre of the Church's breaking up and following various leaders or re-assimilating into American society while still on the trail. For example that concern was a major factor, even ten years later, in the Willie and Martin handcart companies' decision to move forward even though it was perilously late in the season.

We know that revelations are occasionally received as a response to outside circumstances that threaten the Church in varying degrees (e.g. OD-1). It's interesting to speculate about what would have happen if a significant number of blacks had received the Mormon priesthood and then followed McCary or some other pretender (could the Church have wound up with a formal schism over racial lines, as I understand happened to some Protestant congregations? As I recall, even the Church's recent article implicitly makes the point that LDS congregations were integrated--they had to be, since a lack of black priesthood holders made segregated congregations impractical). Given that Brigham Young was basically living out of either a wagon box or a sod hut during this period, and given that he unequivocally said that the ban was the will of the Almighty, and given my conclusion that a century later keeping the ban in place almost certainly was the will of the Almighty: I think it an enormous leap to affirmatively say that there was no revelation underlying the ban just because no immediate written record of such a revelation is currently available.*

Even so, I agree with you that Coltrin's and JFS' about-faces were frankly bizarre.

*By the way, how strong does a manifestation of something have to be before we call it a "revelation"? A gut feeling? A "burning in the bosom"? A mystical process where you start writing out thoughts that you think are not your own? A dream? A vision, but only of an angel or a past Church leader? A vision of Jesus or the Father Themselves? And is a revelation still a revelation if it is not recorded, or if the written record of the revelation is incomplete?

Edited December 19, 2013 by Just_A_Guy

[Suzie]

JAG, thank you for taking the time to read my long post and reply with some many good thoughts.

Sure; but McKay used his free agency to offer to stop the hurting--and the Lord failed to take him up on that offer. At some point--like the mother in the supermarket--an authority figure's failure to intervene in the face of an open invitation to do so, functions as a ratification of what has preceded and an assumption of responsibility for what follows.

Again, this all based on whether or not McKay received such prompting but if he did perhaps the Lord saw something we weren’t able to see before 1978. I do not know. He does indeed work in mysterious ways and sometimes strange ways. Yet, my point remains the same…allowing it for whatever unknown purpose, doesn’t equal He being the one who instituted the restriction in the first place.

I don't think John Taylor or Orson Pratt were just prepared to assume Young was right about . . . pretty much anything, really.

I agree, however let’s keep in mind that Taylor himself said a few things about Black people that would cause a mob to damage him permanently if he was living in 2013 and Pratt was one of the Apostles involved in restricting Abel’s missionary work so yes, even though these men were outspoken and did not have a problem in opposing Young, they also shared the typical 19th century view on African-Americans. Why would they disagree with Young?

When McCary turns up in Winter Quarters in early 1848, he already has a white wife; and he's sensitive about it, and complains to Brigham Young in an open council meeting about his treatment by some of the Saints there; and that's when Young tells him "no, race and the priesthood isn't a problem, we have Walker Lewis in Lowell and he's awesome, etc". Concerns about miscegenation certainly grew, especially after Enoch Lewis' activities became known; but Young was apparently OK with McCary marrying one white woman and it seems odd indeed for McCary's marrying several white women to suddenly become a deal-killer for black men holding the priesthood.

Well, remember that in that same council they were also trying to determine McCary's race. He identified himself as a Native American at first but we know he made it up to promote one of his many deceiving business. His mother was a Black slave and his father was a White man (slavemaster), but early accounts refer to him as the “lamanite prophet” or as a “mulatto” or “indian”, it was actually something that truly bothered McCary that he even made arrangements to have a doctor involved in that same council to help him to establish his ethnicity.

At that time, we know interracial marriages were frown upon but somehow tolerated apparently if they did not have any children. I would assume that since McCary’s ethnicity was in doubt, there was a higher level of tolerance towards him. He was definitely charming and a good looking guy I assume since the majority of his followers were white, young LDS women.

I see Young as someone who really, really tried to follow Smith’s example of compassion and view about Blacks but overtime, he seems to have changed his mindset or the pressure was too much to bear. In that same council, Young even helped McCary financially which proves to me that he really was trying to do what was right but when he finds out in that same year about Enoch’s marriage he just went biserk.

This reminds me of people who perhaps try to be nice with someone from a particular race or ethnicity (despite people advising them against) and the person in question end up using them or hurting them or doing something really bad or something they do not accept and suddenly, all that tolerance and acceptance is thrown out of the window in an instance and they are ready to label a whole race for the bad experience with a few.

If we're looking at the timeline, then I think it far more likely that Young's primary reason for finally buying into Pratt's reasoning was because McCary was making overtures towards setting himself up as a rival leader by early 1849 and Young, having had his fill of pretenders to Joseph's mantle by then, was looking for an easy way to dispatch McCary's claims before McCary could turn into another Sidney Rigdon or James Strang or Lyman Wight or George Miller. Wight and Miller were excommunicated in December 1848--right as the McCary situation was heating up--and as I understand it, orthodox LDS historians have significantly understated the number of people that some of these would-be prophets drew after them. The impression I get from Turner's biography is that Young was extremely worried about the spectre of the Church's breaking up and following various leaders or re-assimilating into American society while still on the trail.

Perhaps, but was McCary truly a threat? His followers were around 60 and most of them young ladies. After all the drama, the number dropped significantly. Not to mention he was a complete nut case. It is very hard to believe that he would have any followers at all or become a serious threat to the Church.

I think it an enormous leap to affirmatively say that there was no revelation underlying the ban just because no immediate written record of such a revelation is currently available.

…And is a revelation still a revelation if it is not recorded, or if the written record of the revelation is incomplete?

I want to believe that at some point in order to make the revelation binding to the whole Church it will be presented for voting and some sort of written record of it should exist.

Edited December 20, 2013 by Suzie

[Just_A_Guy]

Again, this all based on whether or not McKay received such prompting but if he did perhaps the Lord saw something we weren’t able to see before 1978. I do not know. He does indeed work in mysterious ways and sometimes strange ways. Yet, my point remains the same…allowing it for whatever unknown purpose, doesn’t equal He being the one who instituted the restriction in the first place.

The distinction strikes me as a little artificial. Bottom line is (if we accept McKay's associates), the answer to the question of "why the priesthood ban?", as of 1968 or so, was "because God said so". At that point, the fundamental line of reasoning for assuming Young acted without authorization--"because God would never do such a thing!!!"--completely evaporates; and all we're left with is what Young himself said about the matter. He said it was God's will. Woodruff said the Church would never be led astray by the prophet. Hinckley claimed in a recent news interview that the ban was "not a mistake". Uchtdorf's most recent conference address, while noting the fallibility of individuals, buttressed Woodruff vis a vis the Church.

I agree, however let’s keep in mind that Taylor himself said a few things about Black people that would cause a mob to damage him permanently if he was living in 2013 and Pratt was one of the Apostles involved in restricting Abel’s missionary work so yes, even though these men were outspoken and did not have a problem in opposing Young, they also shared the typical 19th century view on African-Americans. Why would they disagree with Young?

Sure; but there's a difference between being cowed by Young's presence, versus simply agreeing with him because one has independently reached the same conclusion. I don't think either Pratt or Taylor fall into the first category--and you still haven't accounted for Snow.

Well, remember that in that same council they were also trying to determine McCary's race. He identified himself as a Native American at first but we know he made it up to promote one of his many deceiving business. His mother was a Black slave and his father was a White man (slavemaster), but early accounts refer to him as the “lamanite prophet” or as a “mulatto” or “indian”, it was actually something that truly bothered McCary that he even made arrangements to have a doctor involved in that same council to help him to establish his ethnicity.

I think Young's mention of Walker Lewis puts to rest any notion that he took McCary's protestations of non-blackness seriously. It's not like, between 1848 and 1849, someone ran a DNA test and said "hey, guess what? McCary's got African ancestry after all!"

I see Young as someone who really, really tried to follow Smith’s example of compassion and view about Blacks but overtime, he seems to have changed his mindset or the pressure was too much to bear. In that same council, Young even helped McCary financially which proves to me that he really was trying to do what was right but when he finds out in that same year about Enoch’s marriage he just went biserk.

But McCary was already married to a white woman, suggesting it wasn't the marriage per se.

This reminds me of people who perhaps try to be nice with someone from a particular race or ethnicity (despite people advising them against) and the person in question end up using them or hurting them or doing something really bad or something they do not accept and suddenly, all that tolerance and acceptance is thrown out of the window in an instance and they are ready to label a whole race for the bad experience with a few.

Well, I agree with you insofar that the antics of a few chowderheads can cause the Church to react by imposing a policy that is to the detriment of a far larger group of entirely innocent people--the Church's current ban on doing temple work for Holocaust victims being an example. But I don't think it follows that the responsive Church policy is per se uninspired.

Perhaps, but was McCary truly a threat? His followers were around 60 and most of them young ladies. After all the drama, the number dropped significantly.

In hindsight: sure, it's easy to say that McCary was a paper tiger. But in December 1848 Young had just had to excommunicate a former Apostle and one of two General Bishops of the Church; and between Strang and the seeds of the RLDS Young had lost a good quarter of the Nauvoo church and probably a lot more of the Church membership in the greater midwest area.

And frankly--who's to say that Young's actions, or Pratt's teachings, weren't instrumental in neutralizing McCary's influence among potential converts?

Not to mention he was a complete nut case. It is very hard to believe that he would have any followers at all or become a serious threat to the Church.

There's a certain incongruity in claiming that McCary was very attractive and succeeded in gaining several dozen followers, and simultaneously arguing that he was a nut case who would never have attracted any followers at all.

I want to believe that at some point in order to make the revelation binding to the whole Church it will be presented for voting and some sort of written record of it should exist.

Ideally, yeah. But there are already people who argue that Young's reconstituting the First Presidency in Winter Quarters was a violation of common consent, and the nearest functioning Church printing press at the time was in Liverpool. The revelations that are going to get canonized are the ones that seem of major importance to the Church-at-large at the time they were received--and frankly, the priesthood policy just didn't seem to merit a lot of notice among the hoi polloi of the Church in 1848.

Edited December 20, 2013 by Just_A_Guy

[Suzie]

And Lorenzo Snow was asking as early as 1849 for permission to "turn the key to the African nation", or something to that effect (what he meant, specifically, remains vague--this citation is from Turner's biography of Young).

He just asked Young what was the chance of redemption for the African race and Young replied that the curse remained upon them because of Cain. The quotation is vague, we do not really know whether he was personally interested in having Black people being ordained to the Priesthood in 1849 or he was just asking that out of curiosity.

But McCary was already married to a white woman, suggesting it wasn't the marriage per se.

As I mentioned earlier, interracial marriages were somewhat tolerated but the idea of offspring as a result really bothered Young and that’s one of the first things he talks about when he learns of Enoch’s marriage.

There's a certain incongruity in claiming that McCary was very attractive and succeeded in gaining several dozen followers, and simultaneously arguing that he was a nut case who would never have attracted any followers at all.

I am just throwing the idea of him being good looking/charming as a possibility because there is nothing about that man that could possibly be attractive to me. Of course, history disagrees with me.

[Just_A_Guy]

He just asked Young what was the chance of redemption for the African race and Young replied that the curse remained upon them because of Cain. The quotation is vague, we do not really know whether he was personally interested in having Black people being ordained to the Priesthood in 1849 or he was just asking that out of curiosity.

I presume you're going off of Bringhurst's Dialogue article, which only relates Snow's question; but Turner's biography of Young includes the "unlock the door" phraseology and, I think, suggests more than an academic interest in the question.

As I mentioned earlier, interracial marriages were somewhat tolerated but the idea of offspring as a result really bothered Young and that’s one of the first things he talks about when he learns of Enoch’s marriage.

Oh, I don't deny that miscegenation concerns were an issue. But I continue to find it doubtful that that's what changed Young's mind. We know McCary was reputed as being black when Young met him in early 1847 (I'd earlier suggested 1848--apologies for the error), and we know that he had a white wife at that time. We know that Young, as a reluctant polygamist, had already struggled in a very personal way with the relationship between childbearing, sex, and marriage. Under the circumstances, the suggestions that Young initially didn't think McCary was "really" black--or that Young initially believed McCary's marriage was platonic--are beyond implausible.

I am just throwing the idea of him being good looking/charming as a possibility because there is nothing about that man that could possibly be attractive to me. Of course, history disagrees with me.

Indeed. But somehow he managed to raise sixty recruits--apparently people with no Mormon background--in Cincinnati, in less than a year (how many modern LDS missionaries do you know who could accomplish that?. And McCary seems to have been in a fair way to repeat the performance outside of Winter Quarters (all this, per Bringhurst). I think that, more than intermarriage with white women or some concern that those marriages might actually bear children, is what Young found intolerable.

And, food for thought: If imposition of the priesthood ban did head off a racial schism in the Church--whether one that might have been caused by McCary or by some other, later individual--

--would it have been worth it?

Edited December 20, 2013 by Just_A_Guy

[frederick]

Early in its history, Church leaders stopped conferring the priesthood on black males of African descent. Church records offer no clear insights into the origins of this practice.

This quote comes from the preface to OD2. The following quote is from an official statement made by the church.

Recently, the Church has also made the following statement on this subject:

“The origins of priesthood availability are not entirely clear. Some explanations with respect to this matter were made in the absence of direct revelation and references to these explanations are sometimes cited in publications. These previous personal statements do not represent Church doctrine.”

There has been considerable debate here regarding whether or not this band was instituted of God. The plain and simple fact is the church makes NO claims that there was any revelation or direction from God to institute the ban on priesthood.

What they do say clearly is that people who explained why there was a ban, Brigham Young and others, made statements in direct absence of revelation. In other words, even though BY spoke authoritatively, he was wrong. He led the saints astray in this instance. He spoke in absence of direct revelation and did not represent the actual doctrine of the church.

Since we believe in modern revelation, we can expect that if there was any such direction from God to keep the priesthood from blacks, they would say so plainly.

Interestingly, official sources remain unclear at best on the origins of this ban. Yet, they are very clear that the ban was not from God, statements in regards to the ban were made in the direct absence of any revelation, which means Brigham Young was wrong. The official statements are so clear as to preclude any other viewpoint on this matter.

The problem that arises from the recent official statements, is that we may never know when in the future a similar statement will be made by current church leaders regarding our time. Will some future leader of the church claim today's leaders have made statements in absence of direct revelation? I guess the whole idea that the prophet will never lead you astray is not as firm of a doctrine as we may think. In fact, I can find nothing in the scriptures that supports this doctrine, but there are plenty that say otherwise.

16 For the leaders of this people cause them to err; and they that are led of them are destroyed. (2 Nephi, Chapter 19)

53 Ought ye not to have done even as I commanded you, and—after ye had planted the vineyard, and built the hedge round about, and set watchmen upon the walls thereof—built the tower also, and set a watchman upon the tower, and watched for my vineyard, and not have fallen asleep, lest the enemy should come upon you?

54 And behold, the watchman upon the tower would have seen the enemy while he was yet afar off; and then ye could have made ready and kept the enemy from breaking down the hedge thereof, and saved my vineyard from the hands of the destroyer. (Doctrine and Covenants, Section 101)

I'm not saying these scriptures apply to us today, but I use them to illustrate that there is scriptural precedent that calls to question the idea that the prophet cannot lead you astray. Certainly the church feels Brigham Young led the saints astray in regards to blacks and the priesthood, or they would not have made such a clear statement in regards to such.

[Vort]

In other words, even though BY spoke authoritatively, he was wrong. He led the saints astray in this instance.

Brigham Young did not lead the Saints astray. Being wrong and stating opinions that are later overturned does not constitute leading people astray.

Interestingly, official sources remain unclear at best on the origins of this ban. Yet, they are very clear that the ban was not from God

This is what we call a "bald-faced lie". In my opinion, the moderators should not let this type of open, disparaging lie stand. But that's just my opinion, and I am not a moderator.

The problem that arises from the recent official statements, is that we may never know when in the future a similar statement will be made by current church leaders regarding our time. Will some future leader of the church claim today's leaders have made statements in absence of direct revelation?

You have done a masterful job of presenting the anti-Mormon viewpoint. Congratulations!

Edited December 20, 2013 by Vort

[NickN]

Growing up, I was taught that the former racial policy of the church was doctrine. After reading the church's essay (Race and the Priesthood), I started to wonder if that was ever the case. But I looked up the source of the teachings I had received, and it came straight from the former First Presidency!

"The First Presidency Statement on the Negro Question

August 17, 1949

The attitude of the Church with reference to 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? It comes in consequence of their fathers rejecting the power of the holy priesthood, and the law of God. They will go down to death. And when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the holy priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will then come up and possess the priesthood, and receive all the blessings which we now are entitled to."

President Wilford Woodruff made the following statement: "The day will come when all that race will be redeemed and possess all the blessings which we now have."

The position of the Church regarding the Negro may be understood when another doctrine of the Church is kept in mind, namely, that the conduct of spirits in the premortal existence has some determining effect upon the conditions and circumstances under which these spirits take on mortality and that while the details of this principle have not been made known, the mortality is a privilege that is given to those who maintain their first estate; and that the worth of the privilege is so great that spirits are willing to come to earth and take on bodies no matter what the handicap may be as to the kind of bodies they are to secure; and that among the handicaps, failure of the right to enjoy in mortality the blessings of the priesthood is a handicap which spirits are willing to assume in order that they might come to earth. Under this principle there is no injustice whatsoever involved in this deprivation as to the holding of the priesthood by the Negroes.

-The First Presidency:

George Albert Smith

J. Reuben Clarke

David O. McKay" (Emphasis added)

It strikes me that this official statement from the First Presidency seems to be in direct conflict with the recent official press release. So which do I believe? A past statement signed by a former First Presidency or an official press release, presumably approved by the current First Presidency? And how can current and past prophets be in conflict anyway, if both speak for God?

Furthermore, according to the new press release, the things I had been taught in my youth were actually just the prophet's own worldly views, disguised as revelation! Isn't this exactly what we are warned about in the temple: "The philosophies of men, mingled with scripture?" How could such a thing happen in a church led by God through living prophets?? I thought that God would never allow his prophets to lead us astray, but it appears that that is exactly what is happening here! Either we were lead astray in the past by prophets claiming the racial policy was doctrine, or we are being lead astray now by prophets claiming it wasn't!

The whole issue has opened up some old wounds with me, and its really made me start re-investigating my testimony of the church as a whole. So I'd really appreciate any insight you folks might have! I'm going to talk to my bishop about it, he seems to know a lot about church history, so maybe that'll help too.

[Suzie]

I presume you're going off of Bringhurst's Dialogue article, which only relates Snow's question; but Turner's biography of Young includes the "unlock the door" phraseology and, I think, suggests more than an academic interest in the question.

I thought both writers quote the "unlock the door" phrase? (or perhaps my memory fails me) And what exactly Snow mean by that? What is Turner's source for that quote? I find it vague (not trying to be difficult), do you have anything about Snow's reply if any?

Oh, I don't deny that miscegenation concerns were an issue. But I continue to find it doubtful that that's what changed Young's mind. We know McCary was reputed as being black when Young met him in early 1847 (I'd earlier suggested 1848--apologies for the error), and we know that he had a white wife at that time. We know that Young, as a reluctant polygamist, had already struggled in a very personal way with the relationship between childbearing, sex, and marriage. Under the circumstances, the suggestions that Young initially didn't think McCary was "really" black--or that Young initially believed McCary's marriage was platonic--are beyond implausible.

As I said before I believe McCary was the catalyst of the whole issue or at least played a big part on Young's decision and of course, Enoch Lewis as well. As you probably know, Enoch's wife was already pregnant when they got married. Is it coincidence that during the same year of the McCary incident, Young makes the first statement about Priesthood restriction even though when he was with McCary he specifically said it had nothing to do with the blood? Is it coincidence that just a month after McCary is excommunicated and expelled Pratt is quoted as saying Blacks do not have the right to hold the Priesthood? I do not think all these facts are coincidence, I think they all added up into this HUGE drama ball, add to that the pressure Young was receiving from other members when McCary was going around trying to kiss and sleep with their daughters. I find interesting that Abel, McCary and Enoch himself were all of mixed heritage and not purely African-Americans.

Aren't we safe in stating we do not know really who instituted the ban? The present day- Church had the opportunity to clearly state that it was instituted by God, however they stated:

“The origins of priesthood availability are not entirely clear. Some explanations with respect to this matter were made in the absence of direct revelation and references to these explanations are sometimes cited in publications. These previous personal statements do not represent Church doctrine.”

Not entirely clear?

The Church, as any other institution, try to carefully word each one of their statements specially with regards to this topic, I just wish they can be as clear as water, leaving no room for speculation and frankly state whether or not the Lord is the one who instituted the restriction but unfortunately, if they do so and the answer ends up being that it did not have a divine origin, it will open a whole can of worms that in the Internet and Social Media era will prove to be detrimental to the Church and cause a lot of people to leave.

I believe not everyone will truly understand the meaning of "Our leaders are imperfect and Prophet and all sometimes they DO mess up".

So we are left with research, speculation and half answers.

[Suzie]

Interestingly, official sources remain unclear at best on the origins of this ban. Yet, they are very clear that the ban was not from God, statements in regards to the ban were made in the direct absence of any revelation, which means Brigham Young was wrong. The official statements are so clear as to preclude any other viewpoint on this matter.

To be fair to the other side who believes the restriction has a divine origin, the present-day Church never stated that the ban was not from God. Remains unclear on the origin means "we are not sure where it comes from".

[Suzie]

NickN, I kindly invite you to the discussion we are having right now about the Priesthood restriction here:

http://www.lds.net/forums/church-news-events/56776-church-issues-race-priesthood-statement-rejecting-theories-past-ban-blacks-priesthood-14.html#post785732

It's 14 pages long, I suggest to read them all if you have the chance and of course, feel free to chime in.

*Edit: I think one of the moderators joined both discussions and moved the post I wrote in the other thread, here. Just explaining in case someone gets confused as to why I am linking to the same thread.

Edited December 20, 2013 by Suzie

[Just_A_Guy]

I thought both writers quote the "unlock the door" phrase? (or perhaps my memory fails me) And what exactly Snow mean by that? What is Turner's source for that quote? I find it vague (not trying to be difficult), do you have anything about Snow's reply if any?

Turner tends to do one footnote at the end of a paragraph that lumps all sources from the paragraph into the same note. As I recall from this morning (am away from my copy at the moment), Turner's same note includes two or three documents from Church archives and a cite to Bringhurst's and a couple of other essays. I'm not sure which one was the origin of the "unlock the door" phrase--but I'm pretty sure it was missing in Bringhurst.

Is it coincidence that during the same year of the McCary incident, Young makes the first statement about Priesthood restriction even though when he was with McCary he specifically said it had nothing to do with the blood? Is it coincidence that just a month after McCary is excommunicated and expelled Pratt is quoted as saying Blacks do not have the right to hold the Priesthood? I do not think all these facts are coincidence, I think they all added up into this HUGE drama ball, add to that the pressure Young was receiving from other members when McCary was going around trying to kiss and sleep with their daughters.

No, I don't think it's coincidence. I think it could well be McCary's general apostasy and raising up of the second fan club to himself in as many years--not his sexual behavior, specifically--that in conjunction with Wight's and Miller's recent excommunications, caused Young to re-evaluate the situation and (IMHO, at divine inspiration) come out with the policy. In early 1847 Young knew McCary was black. He knew McCary's wife was white. I don't think he was ever so naive as to believe that Mr. and Mrs. McCary's relationship was platonic, or that no children would ever issue from the marriage.

I find interesting that Abel, McCary and Enoch himself were all of mixed heritage and not purely African-Americans.

Can you flesh this out a little?

Aren't we safe in stating we do not know really who instituted the ban? The present day- Church had the opportunity to clearly state that it was instituted by God, however they stated: . . .

No, I don't think we're safe in stating that at all. You have random statements from Young himself. You have the First Presidency's 1949 statement, re-stated earlier in this thread. You have Gordon Hinckley being asked point blank by ABC News in 1997 whether the ban was wrong, and his direct response was "No I don't think it was wrong."

In one corner we have multiple, multiple Church leaders and official statements saying that the policy was divinely instituted. In the other corner we have . . . "the origins are not entirely clear and the rationales offered thus far are non-authoritative". It's not even a contest, IMHO.

The Church, as any other institution, try to carefully word each one of their statements specially with regards to this topic, I just wish they can be as clear as water, leaving no room for speculation and frankly state whether or not the Lord is the one who instituted the restriction but unfortunately, if they do so and the answer ends up being that it did not have a divine origin, it will open a whole can of worms that in the Internet and Social Media era will prove to be detrimental to the Church and cause a lot of people to leave.

I agree with you on this and would only suggest that the Church's directly reaffirming the ban's divine origins would trigger even more outrage amongst some wings of the membership, would kill our missionary effort, and might bring adverse legal consequences even in the good old US of A. Our PR department is clearly trying to have its cake and eat it, too; and it will be interesting to see how long they can keep this up. There was a reason we phased out the practice of "teaching-doctrine-by-wink-wink-nudge-nudge" at the time of the Second Manifesto.

I believe not everyone will truly understand the meaning of "Our leaders are imperfect and Prophet and all sometimes they DO mess up".

Well, and just for a counterpoint: I believe not everyone will truly understand the meaning of "God doesn't think the way we do".

Edited December 20, 2013 by Just_A_Guy

[Suzie]

I think it could well be McCary's general apostasy and raising up of the second fan club to himself in as many years--not his sexual behavior--specifically--that caused Young to re-evaluate the situation and (IMHO, at divine inspiration) come out with the policy. In early 1847 Young knew McCary was black. He knew McCary's wife was white. I don't think he was so naive as to believe that Mr. and Mrs. McCary's relationship was platonic, or that no children would ever issue from the marriage.

Let's keep in mind that Young never approved interracial marriages. He tolerated them for a while but as a typical 19th century man, he believed interracial marriages would cause the sterilization of mankind, hence when he found out about Enoch's marriage and newborn child with Matilda, he was very upset.

Can you flesh this out a little?

According to some sources, Walker Lewis's wife, Elizabeth Lovejoy was biracial making Enoch of a mixed heritage but I am aware that some other sources said both were black slaves.

Elijah Abel was also of mixed heritage (Octoroon).

McCary was also biracial (mom was black, father was her slavemaster).

I find it interesting because all these people were not purely African-American and yet a lot of controversy was surrounded with regards to the Priesthood.

Even though during the 19th century, the "one drop rule" was not made yet into law, it is clear that was very much alive and kicking. Just before the Priesthood restriction was lifted, the Church faced a similar challenge with questions arising from all over Brazil with regards to individual of mixed heritage and the Priesthood restriction.

[The Folk Prophet]

How does "...no clear insights into the origins of this practice" become,

...even though BY spoke authoritatively, he was wrong

?

Moreover, how does, "Some explanations with respect to this matter were made in the absence of direct revelation..." (emphasis mine) lead to the same conclusion and also become,

...they are very clear that the ban was not from God

...and that Brigham Young...

spoke in absence of direct revelation and did not represent the actual doctrine of the church.

?

You seem to be reading things into what wasn't said and then stating that it is "clear". You need to re-read the church statement with a little less bias. "Some" explanations -- not "all" explanations were made in absence of direct revelation. And it says nothing whatsoever about the ban itself vis-a-vis revelation.

[Vort]

To be fair to the other side who believes the restriction has a divine origin, the present-day Church never stated that the ban was not from God. Remains unclear on the origin means "we are not sure where it comes from".

This is not merely a matter of "being fair to the other side". I have no firm opinion on the origins of the Priesthood restrictions, yet it is obvious to me what the statement says and what it does not say -- and it certainly does not say that the Priesthood restriction was based on bigotry.

On the other hand, I have a very firm opinion on those who claim the Church's statement is tantamount to a confession of an origin of racism and bigotry: They are liars. Or, less probably, they are phenomenally stupid and/or incapable of reading plain English.