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


prisonchaplain
 Share

Recommended Posts

So the stance of the Church, in my view, is to not outright state such errors, but rather imply them gently as was the case with this latest lds.org article.

The problem with your theory is that the Church implied no such thing, gently or otherwise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps not, yet nonetheless that is how I see it =)

The article's linking the policy with the social context can be read in two different ways:

1) That the social context influenced the policy; or that

2) That the Church's policy on blacks (including the priesthood ban, but also including integrated congregations, openness to baptism, deep discomfort with slavery, etc), while troubling to our culture, was actually not very egregious and in some ways very advanced considering the social context.

Theological liberals will prefer the first reading; theological conservatives, the second.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some interesting discussion here, just thought I'd throw in my 2 cents:

Personally (and I thought this before this latest statement on race issues appearing on lds.org) I believed (and still do) that the Priesthood ban on negros was similar to Peter incorrectly thinking that the Gospel was only for non-Gentiles. This was a prevailing social custom at the time of Peter, yet the Lord told him it was not so. And Peter was an apostle of the Lord!

Brigham Young, though a prophet of God, likewise was not incapable of error. Very simply, I believe that he did act in error in withholding the Priesthood from negroes. The fact that Joseph Smith ordained some african americans to the priesthood is very telling. I think it is silly to think that then following Joseph's death, all of a sudden God would proclaim that african americans are not to receive the priesthood =)

In short, for myself I see this as a mistake by a Church leader. It doesn't mean he wasn't a prophet of God, but it does mean he made a mistake, as many other prophets and apostles have done before him.

The dilemma from a PR standpoint is that the Church will find it hard to outright say a past prophet made such an error - those of tender faith may find it difficult to accept, and thus lose faith in the Church. So the stance of the Church, in my view, is to not outright state such errors, but rather imply them gently as was the case with this latest lds.org article.

Your Peter comparison fails in that, as you point out, the Lord told him it was not so. If Brigham Young was in error, your comparison implies that either the Lord didn't bother to tell Brigham that it was not so, or that Brigham chose to ignore it. In the Peter example, the Lord did not allow a hundred of years of error to proceed against His will. Wouldn't we expect the same, reasonably, from the Brigham Young situation, if it was indeed in error?

And the fact that Joseph ordained African Americans is not so telling as you imply. You presume things into it that are not self-evident. We believe in continuing revelation and that policies and practices can change according to the times and needs of the church. The whole "if Joseph didn't say or believe it then it can't be true for the modern church" pov is not congruent with these things. They did all sorts of things in the early church that have been changed over time. The implication of this being indicative of error is highly problematic in numerous ways.

I can't say I understand this politically correct, I-know-better-than-a-prophet sort of thinking that seems to be pervading the church.

Edited by church
typo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hidden
Your Peter comparison fails in that, as you point out, the Lord told him it was not so. If Brigham Young was in error, your comparison implies that either the Lord didn't bother to tell Brigham that it was not so, or that Brigham chose to ignore it. In the Peter example, the Lord did not allow a hundred of years of error to proceed against His will. Wouldn't we expect the same, reasonably, from the Brigham Young situation, if it was indeed in error?

And the fact that Joseph ordained African Americans is not so telling as you imply. You presume things into it that are not self-evident. We believe in continuing revelation and that policies and practices can change according to the times and needs of the church. The whole "if Joseph didn't say or believe it then it can't be true for the modern church" pov is not congruent with these things. They did all sorts of things in the early church that have been changed over time. The implication of this being indicative of error is highly problematic in numerous ways.

I can't say I understand this politically correct, I-know-better-than-a-prophet sort of thinking that seems to be pervading the church.

Yes, you make some good points. Of course I may be incorrect in my thoughts, this is not something I know in the absolute, but nonetheless to me it (the priesthood ban, then retraction) seems quite strange. Likewise in my view many of the things Brigham Young said were quite bizarre and extreme, including among others temple ceremony punishments, blood atonement, possibly polygamy etc. Ultimately I try to go by the Spirit and seek out that which brings peace and joy (fruits of the Spirit) - to me several of the things Brigham Young said are not conducive with that. Though he was a prophet of our Church nonetheless I don't by default agree with all he said or did (nor would I agree in all matters by default with any leader simply due to his position/calling). I strive to seek the guidance of the Spirit in things and then follow that, even if it leads me to believe a church leader was in error in certain regards/issues.

Link to comment
  • 2 weeks later...

This is a prophet in 2013 saying that a prophet in 1850 was wrong. How can I trust the prophet in 2013? Maybe it was Brigham Young that was right, and the current one is just swaying with popular opinion, or his own opinion.

I joined the church in 1992, when I was taught that blacks are a cursed race, that has the blood of Cain, and the curse of Ham's son. In the late 70's the Lord through inspiration to Kimball allowed this cursed race to receive the priesthood. Why didn' t he clarify that the curse was completely made up by a racist?

I was also taught that homosexuals are not born that way.

I am going to stick with what I was taught.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

Ultimately it seems there is not enough information to make a conclusive answer and the "we don't know" answer is the only honest one at this point.  But where's the fun in not trying?

 

Was this a misguided policy or a direct commandment of the Lord?  This recent statement by the Church and the quote by Elder Holland seem to indicate that it was both.  The pre-mortal explanations for the ban have been rejected. So this leaves us left to decide whether the priesthood ban itself was instituted by direct commandment of the Lord. This is where things aren't so clear cut to me.

 

My arguments in favor of it being a direct commandment:

 

Scripturally the gospel was initially taught to the Jews first, and then the Gentiles second.  And according to Jesus salvation was of the Jews. So from this precedent it would be plausible for God to go through a similar unfolding fashion in our dispensation. We also have multiple statements from different early First Presidencies advocating a temporary ban as a direct commandment. I can accept this explanation and defend it forever.

 

My arguments in favor of it being a misguided policy:

 

Where in modern scriptures do we have a revelation stating that Priesthood was to be temporarily delayed for Africans in our dispensation?  Joseph Smith, the very person who produced the Book of Mormon and the Book of Abraham, and everything those books purportedly say about race and priesthood, still bestowed Priesthood power upon African men. Those who use the Book of Abraham to justify the Priesthood ban would have to also state that Joseph did not understand his own scriptures. And is the Book of Abraham the "direct commandment" that early First Presidencies relied upon for the ban? If so then the ban possibly was just a misguided policy. The Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants both repeatedly talk about the fullness of the gospel going to every nation, kindred, tongue, and people. The Priesthood ban was not congruent with those prophecies.

 

If the ban was a misguided policy then the question becomes, to what degree was it misguided?  Was it misguided to the point that the church was led astray?  My answer is no, because Priesthood is a privilege not a right. The keyholders of the church are the decision makers as to how Priesthood is distributed. In ancient times keyholders limited it to certain lineages.  Doing so again in our dispensation is certainly within their jurisdiction. For example, is the church being led astray today because priesthood is not being distributed to women? At worst the temporary ban on Priesthood caused a setback in missionary work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share