40 Years: Commemorating the 1978 Priesthood and Temple Revelation

[Suzie]

Right, but you know as well as I that when people hear “error”, they latch onto a particular type of error:  To wit, that Young got it wrong; that he led the Church into a course of action that was contrary to whatever God was instructing him to do.

The thing is, Kimball--both before and after the letter in question—attributed the policy to divine mandate.  So the potential “error” he sees as perhaps requiring forgiveness is not necessarily Young’s misuse of his authority; but the errors of individuals and societies that necessitated God’s implementing the ban as a response. 

Before I reply, can you please expand on this in detail?  Most (if not all) the interpretations I have read about Kimball's quote were about the possibility that the ban might have been instituted by error (for me, the quote is clear even within the context of the letter) and not the "the errors of individuals and societies that necessitated God’s implementing the ban as a response." so I am very curious to know more about your interpretation about this particular point.

Sure; but “influencing the decision” is the million-dollar phrase here. 

I don’t think most of the folks citing “cultural factors” really want us to conclude that the Lord inspired Young to adopt a policy that, while not ideal, was necessitated so that the Church could effectively navigate the treacherous cultural/sociopolitical waters in which it found itself. 

No, of course not. For me (and many others) the essay hints that during an era of great racial division, distinctions and clear prejudice, one cannot discard the influence these aspects had on people’s lives, including their religion (as the essay states). From a historical point of view, as we discussed it is not clear who instituted the ban.
 

No, the Lord’s continuing the ban does not automatically mean He started it. But the fact that He continued it does eviscerate the argument of progressive Mormons who cite, e.g., 2 Ne 26:33, to argue that the ban must have been spurious ab initio because God would never, ever, under any circumstances ever do such a thing. 

I can't argue with scripture or the fact that Smith made available the Priesthood to black members during his lifetime, or his position about slavery, or his approach to Jane Manning-James and I could go on. Besides the quote we know about Young talking about Walker Lewis, most of the things he stated were denigrating towards blacks.  And yes, we both know it was a common perception of the era (he wasn't the only one) but I'm trying to illustrate how his views on race (IMO) might have influenced his religion and yes, perhaps even his practices. Am I saying he instituted the ban due to his prejudice? I am not certain but it is clear that his views on the "curse of Cain" and miscegenation were unwavering and believed it had dire consequences beyond this mortal life. He was serious.

Having said that, I would like to know your thoughts about Abel's restriction to go to the Temple even though he had the Priesthood and it was never removed from him (since we have a copy of the certificates).

Joseph F. Smith many years after defending Abel's ordination a few times (after Abel's death) stated that Smith said Abel's ordination was "null and void" but we have no evidence of that.

This is like a worthy member of the Church holding a Temple Recommend at the present time and your leaders telling you that you are not worthy to enter the Temple anymore.

What are your thoughts on this?

Well, first off:  Stapley, Stapley, Stapley.

What about Stapley?

The work can’t be done today, because race relations are so fraught and there’s so much that just can’t even be suggested—and especially in an academic setting.  But in four or five decades, someone’s going to publish a broad, searching, fearless, and relatively impartial analysis of whether the priesthood/temple ban turned out to be more of a help or a hindrance to the Church’s overall progress during the first century of its existence.  And I think the reaction to that analysis will be very interesting indeed.

I have mixed feelings about this. For one side, I appreciate the effort the Church has been making (with the essays) but the ambiguity of some of the statements are creating even more questions,  particularly within the LDS black community. Not sure how long the argument "we don't know the origins of the practice"  can hold water because even though we agree that we don't know for certain who instituted the ban, we do know the origins of the practice but those theories have been now disavowed by the Church. 

[zil]

Is it really that hard to believe that the Lord, knowing the powerful prejudices which existed in that day and which would continue to exist for decades to come, could have told the prophet either (a) "institute the ban" or (b) "yes, you can institute the ban you propose"?  We're talking about the same Lord who:

• Gave Moses a lesser law because the people rejected a higher law
• Then waited centuries to bring back the higher law
• Whose apostles gave instructions about the slaves and masters of their day rather than making absolute statements condemning the practice of their day
• Waited centuries to restore the gospel

And I'm sure we could find more examples where the Lord's actions appear to be limited / delayed due to the weakness of the mortals he had to work with.  I can easily believe (1) the Lord initiated it, (2) the Lord allowed the prophet to initiate it, and/or (3) a mortal initiated it without the Lord's approval (though this is actually the hardest for me to believe, but if it's true, the Lord didn't deem it urgent enough or problematic enough to immediately stop and correct it - offensive and difficult as that may seem to modern minds, the only other logical conclusion would be that the Lord isn't actually in charge of the Church, and that is unthinkable).

Frankly, I think when mortals insist on picking at this over, and over, and over in hopes of finding new facts or truth that have eluded us for decades, that it's equivalent to picking at scabs or sutures - that is, it keeps the wound open for no reason (it is my opinion that the Lord isn't going to give us the facts or truth on this any time soon, but that he expects everyone to let it go, receive peace from him, and await faithfully his timing).

Finally, I am reminded of Joseph Smith's saying: “a religion that does not require the sacrifice of all things never has the power sufficient to produce the faith necessary unto life and salvation.”  Surely pride, resentment, and even curiosity are subsets of "all things".  Can we not be content with leaving the past in the past and loving one another as God loves us, without regard for any mortal attribute?

[Fether]

1 hour ago, zil said:

I'm sure we could find more examples 

I always point to the story of Cornelius and Peter. Gospel couldn’t even go to the majority of the world until Perer’s Vision. But no one is pointing to the early church being racist. ONLY Jews could have the gospel. Asians, Natice Americans, blacks, Europeans, Hispanics, Polynesians, Brazilians, Russians, and Australians were all barred from even joining the gospel. Heck... Brigham Young is a an SJW compared to Peter James and John and the rest of the early church.

[Midwest LDS]

1 hour ago, zil said:

Is it really that hard to believe that the Lord, knowing the powerful prejudices which existed in that day and which would continue to exist for decades to come, could have told the prophet either (a) "institute the ban" or (b) "yes, you can institute the ban you propose"?  We're talking about the same Lord who:

• Gave Moses a lesser law because the people rejected a higher law
• Then waited centuries to bring back the higher law
• Whose apostles gave instructions about the slaves and masters of their day rather than making absolute statements condemning the practice of their day
• Waited centuries to restore the gospel

And I'm sure we could find more examples where the Lord's actions appear to be limited / delayed due to the weakness of the mortals he had to work with.  I can easily believe (1) the Lord initiated it, (2) the Lord allowed the prophet to initiate it, and/or (3) a mortal initiated it without the Lord's approval (though this is actually the hardest for me to believe, but if it's true, the Lord didn't deem it urgent enough or problematic enough to immediately stop and correct it - offensive and difficult as that may seem to modern minds, the only other logical conclusion would be that the Lord isn't actually in charge of the Church, and that is unthinkable).

Frankly, I think when mortals insist on picking at this over, and over, and over in hopes of finding new facts or truth that have eluded us for decades, that it's equivalent to picking at scabs or sutures - that is, it keeps the wound open for no reason (it is my opinion that the Lord isn't going to give us the facts or truth on this any time soon, but that he expects everyone to let it go, receive peace from him, and await faithfully his timing).

Finally, I am reminded of Joseph Smith's saying: “a religion that does not require the sacrifice of all things never has the power sufficient to produce the faith necessary unto life and salvation.”  Surely pride, resentment, and even curiosity are subsets of "all things".  Can we not be content with leaving the past in the past and loving one another as God loves us, without regard for any mortal attribute?

I agree 100% @zil. I can think of numerous times (too many to count) where the Lord acted in a way that doesn't seem fair from a mortal perspective in addition to the ones you mentioned.

1. God commanding Joshua to kill all the inhabitants of the Land of Canaan

2. God restricting the Aaronic priesthood to only worthy Levites, excluding the rest of the children of Israel.

3. The Savior himself refering to a Canaanite woman who came to him for help as a dog compared to the Children of Israel in Matthew 15:21-28.

4. Millions, if not billions, of his children born in times and places where his gospel is unknown and would never be known to them in their lifetimes.

There are many other examples I could give, but I think it illustrates an important point in regards to the priesthood ban. I think it's perfectly ok to study this from a historical perspective and an interest in history, but when people are allowing this to trouble their faith, I think it becomes counterproductive. As with the examples I presented above, there are always things the Lord does or has done that may seem troublesome when viewed through a mortal lens because as it says in Isaiah 55:8-9 "his thoughts are not our thoughts". I think rather than focusing on parts of the Gospel that trouble us, we follow Elder Uchtdorf's advice to "doubt our doubts before we doubt our faith". At the end of the day, gaining a testimony of Jesus Christ, his prophets and apostles, and the scriptures is what will settle concerns about church practices. At least that's the way I look at it☺.

[askandanswer]

Let me see if I understand this correctly. After an almost universal priesthood ban lasting from the death of the last apostle until the restoration in 1829, instead of rejoicing at the end of that ban that lasted for almost 1,500 years, and rejoicing about the restoration of the Priesthood for most people, some people are complaining/questioning that that restoration was only mostly universal for worthy males, and that one group of people had to wait an extra 150 years?

[JohnsonJones]

7 hours ago, Midwest LDS said:

I agree 100% @zil. I can think of numerous times (too many to count) where the Lord acted in a way that doesn't seem fair from a mortal perspective in addition to the ones you mentioned.

1. God commanding Joshua to kill all the inhabitants of the Land of Canaan

2. God restricting the Aaronic priesthood to only worthy Levites, excluding the rest of the children of Israel.

3. The Savior himself refering to a Canaanite woman who came to him for help as a dog compared to the Children of Israel in Matthew 15:21-28.

4. Millions, if not billions, of his children born in times and places where his gospel is unknown and would never be known to them in their lifetimes.

There are many other examples I could give, but I think it illustrates an important point in regards to the priesthood ban. I think it's perfectly ok to study this from a historical perspective and an interest in history, but when people are allowing this to trouble their faith, I think it becomes counterproductive. As with the examples I presented above, there are always things the Lord does or has done that may seem troublesome when viewed through a mortal lens because as it says in Isaiah 55:8-9 "his thoughts are not our thoughts". I think rather than focusing on parts of the Gospel that trouble us, we follow Elder Uchtdorf's advice to "doubt our doubts before we doubt our faith". At the end of the day, gaining a testimony of Jesus Christ, his prophets and apostles, and the scriptures is what will settle concerns about church practices. At least that's the way I look at it☺.

In the Bible it can be pointed out that there are MANY things that were done and even okayed (and had laws about them) by the House of Israel that we would find morally and ethically wrong in our society today.

I think one way to look at why this is, is because the Lord's ways are not our ways, and the Lord's thoughts are not our thoughts.  We are so influenced by our western society that many of us automatically assume that which is the morals of our western culture is good and that which does not agree with it is bad.  This can create difficulty in understanding why the Lord would command thing such as Joshua killing all the inhabitants of the Land of Canaan (or Saul learning about obedience because he didn't slay outright every living thing). 

There are many who cannot believe in the Bible, especially the Old Testament because of things like what you listed above.

Even the New Testament has things which we find offensive to our Western Societal Narrative.

I do not have all the answers and I don't necessarily have the answers to those who find these difficulties.  I think that acknowledging that these difficulties or problems people have exist is a good step.  Their problems about the differences between what we see in the Bible and the morality we find out society today is not going to automatically change, but seeing that they have these differences can help try to see the best path towards helping them find a way that they might believe in the Lord, even if they have a hard time accepting the Bible or all of what is said in the Bible itself (or at least how many interpret the Bible.).

That does not mean Western morality over rides or over rules the Lord and his commandments or his all powerful ability, but it may give one a starting point to try to reconciliate their feelings and Christianity.

Obviously, our religion is on a smaller scale, but those who have a testimony granted of the Spirit might have the advantage.  IF they have a solid testimony of the gospel, when they find challenging items which seem to go directly counter to their morals in the gospel, they strive to continue even when they may not understand exactly why themselves.

We see this with Abrahm who eventually became Abraham and with his wife.  We see this with Issac who faithfully followed his father, even to the mount of sacrifice.  We find this with David at times with his conflict with Saul.  We find this with Peter in his early days spent in the company of the Lord.  We find this with Joseph Smith as a young man who had seen an angel and told to visit a hill, even if he did not understand why he was to go.

I think this plays into Faith, which is a very important aspect of the gospel and one of the first principles that we try to follow.

However, I've gotten very OT with this, but it is an interesting thing when discussing differences in our culture, beliefs, customs, and morality between who and what we are today and what was that of the past.  It gets even more interesting when trying to adjust those principles and morality of the past in our current day civilization whether it is Christian, Muslim, or other ancient religions that we try to incorporate our faith in today.

Sometimes the variances in belief, morality, and faith are not so long ago as is with the case of the Priesthood and ordination among the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Slavery among Southern U.S Christians a century or two ago, or Buddhist practices in China and Asia a couple centuries ago.

[estradling75]

As much as people would like to pretend this was all on Brigham Young and wish the Church would do more then Disvow the teachings and condemn the racism that some members tried justify using these teachings...  That is not going to happen because we have related canonized scriptural revelations from Joseph Smith.

Let look at Moses 7:

22 And Enoch also beheld the residue of the people which were the sons of Adam; and they were a mixture of all the seed of Adam save it was the seed of Cain, for the seed of Cain were black, and had not place among them.

Modern sensibilities might call that racist.. But said segregation by skin color also happened by skin color in the Book of Mormon (see Nephites and Lamanites).  And this verse is canonized scripture from the hand of Joseph Smith.

Now in the stories of Cain there are no scriptures of him being cursed with a skin change.  His curse is clearly spelled out as the ground being cursed, much like Adam was but worse.  Adam's curse was that he would have to work to make the ground yield to him (ie by the sweat of his brow).  Cain's curse was that the ground would not yield to him.  Period.  There was also a mark given him, but the mark was designed to be protective not a curse.  We do not know what the mark was and most modern leaders thoughts on the matter generally fall into the disavowed teachings category.

So why were the descendants of Cain black?  This fact is clearly indicated by scriptures given by Joseph Smith (barring those who really want to wrest the plain meaning given the scriptures give)?  And the answer is... we do not know.  However there is another scripture of interest if we talk about people getting black skin that is Moses 7:7-8

7 And the Lord said unto me: Prophesy; and I prophesied, saying: Behold the people of Canaan, which are numerous, shall go forth in battle array against the people of Shum, and shall slay them that they shall utterly be destroyed; and the people of Canaan shall divide themselves in the land, and the land shall be barren and unfruitful, and none other people shall dwell there but the people of Canaan;

8 For behold, the Lord shall curse the land with much heat, and the barrenness thereof shall go forth forever; and there was a blackness came upon all the children of Canaan, that they were despised among all people.

So there is a group from Canaan that goes to war and destroyed the people of Shum.  The Lord again curses the land... this time with much heat.  Which causes the skin change and being despised.  Also note that these two verses come before the declaration in verse 22 about the skin color of Cain's descendants.  Thus here we are given a reason.

Now I did not find (maybe I missed it) a direct declaration that the seed of Cain were the people of Canaan.  But look at the overlap in the names, the description of blackness and how others responded.  Either we have two distinct groups that are a lot alike or we have one group being described.   Based on the data we have Occam's razor points to one group.  But that is only valid until we get more data.

So we have the Cain's seed being black and a strong suggestive link to them being the Canaanites... But so far nothing about Priesthood... So lets tackle that next.  The first indication we have of a linage based priesthood restriction, (based on scriptural Chronology) is Abraham 1:21-27  those are quite a few verses so I will link and summarize. https://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/abr/1?lang=eng

Ham married Egyptus (which name means forbidden).  They had a daughter who discovered Egypt, and her Son was the First Pharaoh.  (Genesis 9 also notes that Ham had a Son named Canaan) This Pharaoh was a Canaanite by blood (see verse 21).  So it seems that Ham married a Canaanite.  Now this first Pharaoh by the scriptural account was a righteous man.  He Tried to set up his kingdom after the manner of righteousness but he was cursed from holding the Priesthood (see verse 26).  The verse makes it sound like Noah cursed him or caused it but it does not explain why.  The closest we get to Noah cursing any one is in Genesis 9:21-26 which is a very weird little event.  Modern church leaders have tackled this but they all run into the more recent Disavowal.  Thus we have a priesthood restriction on the Canaanites who are black, by the time of Pharaoh.  Although it is not clear exactly why it was given.  Was it because of Cain?  Was it because of the war with the Shum?  Was it because Noah got drunk?  Was it something else?  We do not know.

So there we have a scriptural foundation for a priesthood restriction given (and accepted by the church)in Revelations from God to Joseph Smith.  But he did not implement it.  Which is a real oddity.  Brigham Young did and the scripture we accept support such an action.  Which also explains why the later church leaders felt a revelation was needed to lift the ban.

As for racism these scriptures and revelations might be used to justify... well that is not uncommon either but it is condemned.   Remember the Lord comment to those that thought that being Abraham's seed made them better? Remember the words of Jacob to those Nephites that thought they were better because they were not Lamanities?  Note that in a world ripe for destruction (right before the Flood) Eqyptus was counted among the righteous.  And her grandson the First Pharaoh is explicitly called out as being righteous... Yeah so the color of a person's skin (or other linage) has no real meaning when it comes to God and following him in righteousness. Try say you are better because of how you were born (or how someone is worse because of how they were born) is repeatably condemned.  In the scriptures and by the church.

But do not confuse people attempt justify their racism with the teachings and being condemned by the prophets, with the condemnation by the prophets of the teaching themselves.  They are not the same thing  

 

 

Edited October 26, 2018 by estradling75

[Vort]

On 10/21/2018 at 6:16 AM, Suzie said:

Not sure how long the argument "we don't know the origins of the practice"  can hold water because even though we agree that we don't know for certain who instituted the ban, we do know the origins of the practice but those theories have been now disavowed by the Church. 

This is simply false. Why otherwise intelligent and presumably honest people keep putting this canard forward, I cannot understand.

WE DO NOT KNOW THE ORIGINS OF THE PRACTICE. Why is this so hard to accept, even (especially) for a historian? The disavowed theories were not (necessarily) the reason that the practice was implemented. For one obvious example, perhaps the reason was that God said to Brigham Young, "Don't allow this any more," and Brigham went in search of explanations (in the form of the now-disavowed theories) for why the Lord would tell him to do that.

In any case, the statement that "we know the origins of the practice" is manifestly untrue. I challenge Suzie or anyone else who maintains this false opinion to demonstrate how we "know" any such thing. Show the historically supported statement of Brigham Young unambiguously saying or writing, "I instituted this policy because of this here [now disavowed] theory."