Excellent Deseret News article on Race & the Priesthood essay

[Boanerges2]

Deseret News published an excellent article today on the Race and the Priesthood essay released a few months ago by the church. http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865604750/LDS-blacks-scholars-cheer-churchs-essay-on-priesthood.html

 

I have liked these essays, and appreciate this publicity given by Deseret News. I am often amazed at who doesn't know about these essays and how many don't know about them. I think they're important for us to know about, particularly because they take so much wind out of the sails of the antis.

[Just_A_Guy]

A couple of observations:

1)  The essay disavows the *explanations* for the ban, but not the ban itself.  I wonder whether DesNews is authorized to go further than that, as they do in this article by approvingly quoting Armand Mauss' incorrect allegation that the essay openly denies a revelatory basis for the ban?

2)  Records of private correspondence dating to 1848 suggest that Young had changed his mind on ordination of blacks (as of 1846, he had spoken approvingly of the ministry of Walker Lewis, a black elder in Massachusetts) by that date. But in 1847-48, Young was either on the trail, living in a hut in Winter Quarters, or else living in a shack in Salt Lake Valley.  Church records are hardly complete for this period--George D. Watt, who transcribed most of the sermons in the early volumes of the Journal of Discourses, was abroad on a mission from 1846 to 1850.  It's one thing to say that there's no record of a revelation giving rise to the priesthood ban.  It's quite another to say that no such revelation ever happened.  By 1852, Young was certainly comfortable invoking his prophetic status to defend the policy.

3)  President McKay's experience was much stronger than simply not getting permission to rescind the ban.  He was, per two or three different acquaintances, very emphatically told "no".  

4)  I've said it before and I'll argue it again:  If you think God would never authorize withholding of Gospel ordinances due to race, then logically you should be moving heaven and earth to get the Church to change its current policy of withholding temple ordinances from Jewish holocaust victims who aren't fortunate enough to have living progeny.

[The Folk Prophet]

4)  I've said it before and I'll argue it again:  If you think God would never authorize withholding of Gospel ordinances due to race, then logically you should be moving heaven and earth to get the Church to change its current policy of withholding temple ordinances from Jewish holocaust victims who aren't fortunate enough to have living progeny.

 

Not to mention that it is easily scripturally supportable that God has withheld ordinances due to race.

[Boanerges2]

Overstepped their bounds the Deseret News may have. Approved by the Firsy Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve the essay is - and it is the official stance of the church. Take away what you will, the essay is factual (along with those to which it is similar in that they have been researched and then apporved by the highest levels of church leadership and released over a period of about the last six months).

[The Folk Prophet]

Overstepped their bounds the Deseret News may have. 

 

Yeah they did.

[Just_A_Guy]

I don't disagree with you re the essay, Boanerges; only the DesNews' representation thereof.

[MarginOfError]

But wait!  I thought the Deseret News was God's newspaper!

[skippy740]

Same publication, same picture - different article:

 

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865604725/Mormon-history-group-honors-Darius-Gray.html

[mordorbund]

But wait!  I thought the Deseret News was God's newspaper!

 

It is. That's what the Tribune tells me anyway.

[skippy740]

Wasn't there an ad to subscribe to the Deseret News in an Ensign magazine a few months ago?

[Awakened]

I always wonder why the ban was even done though.

 

I don't want to know merely to satisfy my curiosity, I want to know because other people might ask me why the Church would deny the priesthood to blacks and then give it to them if the Church reay does have and has had the full truth. What do I say to that?

[The Folk Prophet]

I would share the church essay and leave it at that. Let others draw their own conclusions. Testimony and faith cannot be entirely supported by evidence, explanation and perfect alignment with current cultural understandings of right and wrong. I do not think it can be explained better than the church essay does, and trying to explain it further runs the risk of stepping beyond the bounds of truth into speculation. We do not know why the ban was instituted. Anything more is guesswork.

[Just_A_Guy]

I always wonder why the ban was even done though.

 

I don't want to know merely to satisfy my curiosity, I want to know because other people might ask me why the Church would deny the priesthood to blacks and then give it to them if the Church reay does have and has had the full truth. What do I say to that?

 

I'm inclined to agree with TFP.  I would note, though, that your interlocutors would seem to be approaching the issue with the assumption that the policy was contrary to the will of God.  I don't think that position can be so easily conceded, particularly in light of the fact that at least three different sources recorded President McKay's telling them that he had prayed for permission to rescind the ban and received, at various times, "no answer" (per Elder Marion Hanks), "not yet" (per Lola Timmons, a secretary in the Church Office Building), and/or "[paraphrasing, but only slightly] no, and don't bring the subject up again" (per Richard Jackson, an architect who also worked in the COB).

 

In the face of the Church's current position of studied agnosticism as to the reasons for the policy; I think the best one can really do in its defense is to point out that there does seem to be precedent for priesthood or other Gospel blessings being granted or denied to particular groups based on ethnicity, apparently with divine sanction--Levites in Mosaic times; Israelites in the very early New Testament times (including the entirety of Jesus' earthly ministry), and the modern ban on priesthood ordination for Jewish holocaust victims that I've already noted in this thread. 

 

Otherwise, it really boils down to a) whether you take statements like Woodruff's assurance about the Lord not permitting the prophet to lead the Church astray, and Pres. Uchtdorf's recent assurance that "God will not allow His Church to drift from its appointed course or fail to fulfill its divine destiny", at face value; and b ) whether you believe McKay was telling the truth to Messrs Hanks, Timmons, and Jackson.

[The Folk Prophet]

I'm inclined to agree with TFP.  I would note, though, that your interlocutors would seem to be approaching the issue with the assumption that the policy was contrary to the will of God.  I don't think that position can be so easily conceded, particularly in light of the fact that at least three different sources recorded President McKay's telling them that he had prayed for permission to rescind the ban and received, at various times, "no answer" (per Elder Marion Hanks), "not yet" (per Lola Timmons, a secretary in the Church Office Building), and/or "[paraphrasing, but only slightly] no, and don't bring the subject up again" (per Richard Jackson, an architect who also worked in the COB).

 

In the face of the Church's current position of studied agnosticism as to the reasons for the policy; I think the best one can really do in its defense is to point out that there does seem to be precedent for priesthood or other Gospel blessings being granted or denied to particular groups based on ethnicity, apparently with divine sanction--Levites in Mosaic times; Israelites in the very early New Testament times (including the entirety of Jesus' earthly ministry), and the modern ban on priesthood ordination for Jewish holocaust victims that I've already noted in this thread. 

 

Otherwise, it really boils down to a) whether you take statements like Woodruff's assurance about the Lord not permitting the prophet to lead the Church astray, and Pres. Uchtdorf's recent assurance that "God will not allow His Church to drift from its appointed course or fail to fulfill its divine destiny", at face value; and b ) whether you believe McKay was telling the truth to Messrs Hanks, Timmons, and Jackson.

 

We also have Abraham 1:26-27

 

 26 Pharaoh, being a righteous man, established his kingdom and judged his people wisely and justly all his days, seeking earnestly to imitate that order established by the fathers in the first generations, in the days of the first patriarchal reign, even in the reign of Adam, and also of Noah, his father, who blessed him with the blessings of the earth, and with the blessings of wisdom, but cursed him as pertaining to the Priesthood.

 

 27 Now, Pharaoh being of that lineage by which he could not have the right of Priesthood, notwithstanding the Pharaohs would fain claim it from Noah, through Ham, therefore my father was led away by their idolatry;

 

In the past these scriptures have been used specifically related to why the blacks didn't have the priesthood. That has been disavowed...meaning that we no longer accept the idea that black Africans are descendants from this Pharaoh (and/or Ham). That is backwards explanation and we have no evidence that there is any connection between the latter-day church priesthood bans and other bans mentioned in the scriptures. However, it cannot be denied, and should not be denied, that there are, as JAG has pointed out, scriptural examples of priesthood rights being tied to lineage.

 

We do not know why priesthood rights are tied to lineage sometimes. But we have concrete evidence that priesthood rights are, indeed, tied to lineage in past history.

 

What we can focus on is how wonderful it is that all such restrictions have been lifted and that every worthy male, regardless or lineage, may now have these rights. We live in the fullness of times. It's pretty cool.

[Leah]

A couple of observations:

1)  The essay disavows the *explanations* for the ban, but not the ban itself.  I wonder whether DesNews is authorized to go further than that, as they do in this article by approvingly quoting Armand Mauss' incorrect allegation that the essay openly denies a revelatory basis for the ban?

2)  Records of private correspondence dating to 1848 suggest that Young had changed his mind on ordination of blacks (as of 1846, he had spoken approvingly of the ministry of Walker Lewis, a black elder in Massachusetts) by that date. But in 1847-48, Young was either on the trail, living in a hut in Winter Quarters, or else living in a shack in Salt Lake Valley.  Church records are hardly complete for this period--George D. Watt, who transcribed most of the sermons in the early volumes of the Journal of Discourses, was abroad on a mission from 1846 to 1850.  It's one thing to say that there's no record of a revelation giving rise to the priesthood ban.  It's quite another to say that no such revelation ever happened.  By 1852, Young was certainly comfortable invoking his prophetic status to defend the policy.

3)  President McKay's experience was much stronger than simply not getting permission to rescind the ban.  He was, per two or three different acquaintances, very emphatically told "no".  

4)  I've said it before and I'll argue it again:  If you think God would never authorize withholding of Gospel ordinances due to race, then logically you should be moving heaven and earth to get the Church to change its current policy of withholding temple ordinances from Jewish holocaust victims who aren't fortunate enough to have living progeny.

Judaism isn't a race. Your argument doesn't work.

[Just_A_Guy]

Judaism isn't a race. Your argument doesn't work.

 

Judaism, of course, isn't a race.  But "Jewishness"?  I don't think it's that simple.

 

At any rate--race, ethnic group, descendants of a common ancestor . . . whatever.  Point is, there's a group, the members of that group are in no position to "opt in" or "opt out" of that group, and yet God's servants on earth have said that, except for rare exceptions, the entire group is excluded from priesthood ordination at this time.

[Bini]

I just read that Jews are considered a race. Granted, it didn't say Judaism is a race, but they are the same thing?

 

 

In the 1980s, the United States Supreme Court ruled that Jews are a race, at least for purpose of certain anti-discrimination laws.

[Bini]

I probably should add that when I looked it up, I first came across this site www.jewfaq.org/judaism.htm, where it was mentioned.

[MaggieM]

The truth is that this essay caused a faith crisis I am still trying to naviagate from. If the ban was due to the racism of the time (logical since it was America in the 1800s), why did it need a revelation to stop the ban? Why did so many of the leaders proclaimed that it was from God and that it was due to the curse of Cain?

[Suzie]

Hi everyone I was very busy with work and I am presently researching about the first LDS African American woman, very little information to work on but I am very excited about this research!

 

If the ban was due to the racism of the time (logical since it was America in the 1800s), why did it need a revelation to stop the ban?

 

The Church never openly admitted it was due to racism and the practice was in place for such a long time and started with no other than Brigham Young himself. I think it was quite scary for any Church leader or prophet to stop the practice suddenly without a revelation, risk themselves being in the wrong and risk Young and making him appear like a crazy old man or what is worse, a racist bigot.

 

 Can you imagine? “Dear brothers and sisters, for 126 years starting with Brigham Young our Prophets, Seers and Revelators withheld the blessings of the Priesthood to millions and millions of faithful Latter-Day Saints around the globe, it was very wrong, a mistake and we are sadly to admit it was due to racism, but we made it right in 1978.”

 

Something tells me that a lot of people will not want to read something like that.

[estradling75]

Hi everyone I was very busy with work and I am presently researching about the first LDS African American woman, very little information to work on but I am very excited about this research!

 

 

 

 

The Church never openly admitted it was due to racism and the practice was in place for such a long time and started with no other than Brigham Young himself. I think it was quite scary for any Church leader or prophet to stop the practice suddenly without a revelation, risk themselves being in the wrong and risk Young and making him appear like a crazy old man or what is worse, a racist bigot.

 

 Can you imagine? “Dear brothers and sisters, for 126 years starting with Brigham Young our Prophets, Seers and Revelators withheld the blessings of the Priesthood to millions and millions of faithful Latter-Day Saints around the globe, it was very wrong, a mistake and we are sadly to admit it was due to racism, but we made it right in 1978.”

 

Something tells me that a lot of people will not want to read something like that.

 

 

Something tells me I'd rather not hear the flip side possibility more.

 

"Hey Prophet this is Jesus Christ...  I put that ban in for a wise purpose in me...  Since you've taken it on yourself to overrule me and slander one of the men I called to lead you, all because you think your wisdom is better then mine...  Well so be it then.  You are on your own now...  Good luck with that."

 

Since the article is very clear about not knowing the reasons for the ban (that is all it is saying really)  Waiting for revelation seems to be the wise course... Especially since as JAG reported God didn't just say yes go ahead and remove it when he was asked before.   In my mind the moment God didn't allow it to be removed, he owned it (assuming he didn't from the beginning)