mormonism racist?

[Katzpur]

the mod has already given you a warning. get back on point or swallow your pride and move on.

Uh... tomas, if that warning had been for Watchman alone, he would have received a PM. That's how it's done. It was directed at everybody involved. My guess is that it's only a matter of time before this thread is closed.

 

[Watchmen]

you are still avoiding the topic at hand while cluttering this thread with off topic spam. the mod has already given you a warning. get back on point or swallow your pride and move on.

I've received no warning.

I invite you to make a coherent - non-emotional - question. If you can accomplish this, I am more than happy to respond.

The choice is yours.

 

[Scott C.]

Why do you think He wanted them to do it, Sola'lor? On something so significant, don't you think we would be able to find something in the Standard Works, probably in the Doctrine and Covenants specifically? We have no record of any revelation whatsoever, and we know for sure that Joseph Smith had ordained Black men to the priesthood. Also, would you mind keeping the following scriptures in mind as you formulate your reply:

Katzpur, here's my take on this.

There are many scriptures that teach us that God loves his children and is no respector of persons, etc. You quoted several. When the ban was in place, certainly the prophets were aware of these scriptures, as were all of the church members who supported the ban. Since I believed the ban was correct and also believed in every scripture that you quoted, I concluded that God's will to impose the ban was not in contradiction of His scriptures. If a human being implemented this policy on his own, he would probably be guilty of violating the principles taught in the scriptures that you quoted. However, if God implements the restrictions for reasons only fully known to Him, then I must assume that the reason is not that he does not love all of his children and is not that he treats them unfairly.

There are all types of circumstances in life where God treats people differently. People are born into different walks of life and into many different circumstances. Men can hold the priesthood. Women cannot. Some people, with little faith in God, accuse Him of being unkind and arbitrary in the way he treats His children, because it doesn't seem even handed of fair. As a believer in the infinite goodness of God, I accept that everything He does is fair and based on righteousness. This does not prove that the ban was from God, but it shows that the scriptures that you quoted do not prove that the ban was incorrect.

Also, the Pearl of Great Price makes it clear that Pharoah belonged to a lineage that could not hold the priesthood. I'm not going to argue that there is any connection between that lineage and any known lineage or race today. I simply want to point out that there was a lineage in a day and time long ago, that was restricted from holding the priesthood. I offer this as a scriptural example of where God denied the priesthood and yet remained "no respector of persons".

I have a high degree of confidence in the prophets and apostles of this church. Great personal righteousness, humility, and spirituality is required for their callings. Without such, they would not be able to receive the witness necessary to qualify them as "special witnesses" of Christ to the world. Certainly these great men loved men of all races and wanted the best for them. Certainly, they were aware of the scriptures you quoted. Certainly, if the doctrine was false, they were reasonable enough to say "hey, nobody ever received a revelation on this subject, so why are we continuing the ban?" I just can't believe that they didn't think of every possible angle on the subject. And yet, for many years, many prophets and apostles, as a combined entity, continued to teach that this restriction was from God.

Even the letter from the First Presidency, which is now included as scripture, says that they were conscious of the promises made by prophets of God that at some time in God's eternal plan the priesthood would be given to everyone. This confirms that prophets were inspired to promise that one day the restriction would end. I find it really hard to believe that a prophet was sufficiently in tune with God to make a promise, that was referenced in the letter that is now scripture, and that was fulfilled in our day - and yet that prophet was not sufficiently in tune to realize that he was teaching a false doctrine - that God did not approve of Black men being ordained.

If the ban was not from God and if it was imposed because of bias, then I would have to conclude that the bias made it into the First Presidency letter. I don't think one can read the letter without concluding that the authors believed that the whole matter, the restriction and the new revelation, happened on God's timetable and according to His will.

The Word of Wisdom was mentioned in one of the posts in this thread. When the Word of Wisdom was given to Joseph Smith, the Lord specifically stated that the revelation was given "not by commandment or constraint". Joseph Smith and the Latter-day Saints did not treat this as a commandment. Yet today, it is accepted as a commandment, based on the teachings of modern prophets. There is no revelation that we can ideintify to show that this is a commandment. Yet, if Joseph were alive today, I'm certain he would accept the word of his predecessors and not ask "where is your revelation that amended my revelation?"

I assume that Joseph Smith did not understand the priesthood restriction, since he ordained some black men.

There are many other examples. The doctrine that abortion is a sin is hard to argue strictly from the scriptures. We have "thou shalt not kill, nor do anything like unto it". The brethren have consistenty used this verse to say that "like unto it" applies to abortion. I consider this to be doctrine. Yet, if I ignore the interpretation of the Apostles and stick only with what I read in scriptures, I might not be able to come to the same conclusion. There are Christians who interpret the Bible liberally and conservatively and come to all kinds of different conclusions as to what is sin and what is not. For me, the role of Apostles and Prophets is to correctly interpret scripture under the influence of the Spirit. Recorded revelation is not necessary for their interpretation to be correct of for it to be considered church doctrine.

My point is simply that I don't need a written revelation to believe that the Spirit of God wrought upon these men for decades and instructed them to do what they did.

If the leaders of the church were wrong and if they know that today, I would expect them to say so. And yet, I have never heard any statement to that affect. If there are any such statements, I would really like to read them. I know church leaders have said that previous leaders made bad speculations as to why the ban was in place - i.e., they tried to explain why God imposed the restriction, when we didn't know why God imposed the restriction. Yet, I have not read anything that states or even hints that the ban was incorrect in the first place.

I accept that I might be wrong. But, while I accept that my leaders are fallible, I also believe that on issues of great importance to the welfare of humanity and to the welfare of the church, that the combined voice of the First Presidency will be right. The issue of restricting priesthood for so long and to so many, strikes me as just about rising to that level of importance.

My good friend in my ward sees it the way you do. We've had a couple of friendly debates on the subject. One thing for certain, is that he, you, and I believe that the First Presidency did receive a direct, specific, and undeniable revelation from God that the restriction should now end. The letter from the First Presidency, which testifies of the revelation, is clear and inspiring. This revelation was one of the most exciting and great days in the church in my lifetime.

 

[Watchmen]

This blog probably raises more questions than answers, but I thought Elder McConkie's quote was interesting:

"Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world…."

Elder Holland also has some interesting comments at The Mormons . Interviews . Jeffrey Holland | PBS.

"Where were you when you heard that the ban was lifted on blacks in the priesthood?

I can remember exactly where I was. For us that's the "where we [were] when Kennedy was shot," this deep, deep, spiritual, emotional moment in the history of the church. I was a very young commissioner of education, still in my 30s, and I was coming over from my office in the church office building to the suite of General Authority offices for something or other. ... I walked into the office of the General Authority I was going to see, and he said, "Have you heard the news?" This was barely moments out of the temple meeting and the announcement where it was official. And I said: "What news? I haven't heard any news." And he said all worthy men -- regardless of race or status or circumstance -- all worthy men are to receive priesthood.

You're going to think all I do is cry, but this is in the same family as that missionary experience I described to you. I started to cry, and I was absolutely uncontrollable. I felt my way to a chair ... and I sort of slumped from the doorway into the chair and held my head, my face in my hands and sobbed. ...

There's no issue in all my life that I had prayed more regarding -- praying that it would change, praying that it would come in due time. I was willing to have the Lord speak, and I was loyal to the position and the brethren and the whole concept, but there was nothing about which I had anguished more or about which I had prayed more. And for that to be said in my lifetime, when I wasn't sure it would happen in my lifetime, ... it was one of the absolute happiest days of my life. ...

I've talked to many blacks and many whites as well about the lingering folklore [about why blacks couldn't have the priesthood]. These are faithful Mormons who are delighted about this revelation, and yet who feel something more should be said about the folklore and even possibly about the mysterious reasons for the ban itself, which was not a revelation; it was a practice. So if you could, briefly address the concerns Mormons have about this folklore and what should be done.

One clear-cut position is that the folklore must never be perpetuated. ... I have to concede to my earlier colleagues. ... They, I'm sure, in their own way, were doing the best they knew to give shape to [the policy], to give context for it, to give even history to it. All I can say is however well intended the explanations were, I think almost all of them were inadequate and/or wrong. ...

It probably would have been advantageous to say nothing, to say we just don't know, and, [as] with many religious matters, whatever was being done was done on the basis of faith at that time. But some explanations were given and had been given for a lot of years. ... At the very least, there should be no effort to perpetuate those efforts to explain why that doctrine existed. I think, to the extent that I know anything about it, as one of the newer and younger ones to come along, ... we simply do not know why that practice, that policy, that doctrine was in place.

What is the folklore, quite specifically?

Well, some of the folklore that you must be referring to are suggestions that there were decisions made in the pre-mortal councils where someone had not been as decisive in their loyalty to a Gospel plan or the procedures on earth or what was to unfold in mortality, and that therefore that opportunity and mortality was compromised. I really don't know a lot of the details of those, because fortunately I've been able to live in the period where we're not expressing or teaching them, but I think that's the one I grew up hearing the most, was that it was something to do with the pre-mortal councils. ... But I think that's the part that must never be taught until anybody knows a lot more than I know. ... We just don't know, in the historical context of the time, why it was practiced. ... That's my principal [concern], is that we don't perpetuate explanations about things we don't know. ...

We don't pretend that something wasn't taught or practice wasn't pursued for whatever reason. But I think we can be unequivocal and we can be declarative in our current literature, in books that we reproduce, in teachings that go forward, whatever, that from this time forward, from 1978 forward, we can make sure that nothing of that is declared. That may be where we still need to make sure that we're absolutely dutiful, that we put [a] careful eye of scrutiny on anything from earlier writings and teachings, just [to] make sure that that's not perpetuated in the present. That's the least, I think, of our current responsibilities on that topic. ..."

 

[Autodidact]

This blog probably raises more questions than answers, but I thought Elder McConkie's quote was interesting:

"Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world…."

Elder Holland also has some interesting comments at The Mormons . Interviews . Jeffrey Holland | PBS.

"Where were you when you heard that the ban was lifted on blacks in the priesthood?

I can remember exactly where I was. For us that's the "where we [were] when Kennedy was shot," this deep, deep, spiritual, emotional moment in the history of the church. I was a very young commissioner of education, still in my 30s, and I was coming over from my office in the church office building to the suite of General Authority offices for something or other. ... I walked into the office of the General Authority I was going to see, and he said, "Have you heard the news?" This was barely moments out of the temple meeting and the announcement where it was official. And I said: "What news? I haven't heard any news." And he said all worthy men -- regardless of race or status or circumstance -- all worthy men are to receive priesthood.

You're going to think all I do is cry, but this is in the same family as that missionary experience I described to you. I started to cry, and I was absolutely uncontrollable. I felt my way to a chair ... and I sort of slumped from the doorway into the chair and held my head, my face in my hands and sobbed. ...

There's no issue in all my life that I had prayed more regarding -- praying that it would change, praying that it would come in due time. I was willing to have the Lord speak, and I was loyal to the position and the brethren and the whole concept, but there was nothing about which I had anguished more or about which I had prayed more. And for that to be said in my lifetime, when I wasn't sure it would happen in my lifetime, ... it was one of the absolute happiest days of my life. ...

I've talked to many blacks and many whites as well about the lingering folklore [about why blacks couldn't have the priesthood]. These are faithful Mormons who are delighted about this revelation, and yet who feel something more should be said about the folklore and even possibly about the mysterious reasons for the ban itself, which was not a revelation; it was a practice. So if you could, briefly address the concerns Mormons have about this folklore and what should be done.

One clear-cut position is that the folklore must never be perpetuated. ... I have to concede to my earlier colleagues. ... They, I'm sure, in their own way, were doing the best they knew to give shape to [the policy], to give context for it, to give even history to it. All I can say is however well intended the explanations were, I think almost all of them were inadequate and/or wrong. ...

It probably would have been advantageous to say nothing, to say we just don't know, and, [as] with many religious matters, whatever was being done was done on the basis of faith at that time. But some explanations were given and had been given for a lot of years. ... At the very least, there should be no effort to perpetuate those efforts to explain why that doctrine existed. I think, to the extent that I know anything about it, as one of the newer and younger ones to come along, ... we simply do not know why that practice, that policy, that doctrine was in place.

What is the folklore, quite specifically?

Well, some of the folklore that you must be referring to are suggestions that there were decisions made in the pre-mortal councils where someone had not been as decisive in their loyalty to a Gospel plan or the procedures on earth or what was to unfold in mortality, and that therefore that opportunity and mortality was compromised. I really don't know a lot of the details of those, because fortunately I've been able to live in the period where we're not expressing or teaching them, but I think that's the one I grew up hearing the most, was that it was something to do with the pre-mortal councils. ... But I think that's the part that must never be taught until anybody knows a lot more than I know. ... We just don't know, in the historical context of the time, why it was practiced. ... That's my principal [concern], is that we don't perpetuate explanations about things we don't know. ...

We don't pretend that something wasn't taught or practice wasn't pursued for whatever reason. But I think we can be unequivocal and we can be declarative in our current literature, in books that we reproduce, in teachings that go forward, whatever, that from this time forward, from 1978 forward, we can make sure that nothing of that is declared. That may be where we still need to make sure that we're absolutely dutiful, that we put [a] careful eye of scrutiny on anything from earlier writings and teachings, just [to] make sure that that's not perpetuated in the present. That's the least, I think, of our current responsibilities on that topic. ..."

This raises an interesting point. Although the practice has been repudiated, the "folklore," that is, the general attitude behind it, has not. All of the church's many statements about descendants of Cain, less worthy, cursed with dark skin and flat nose, the horror of miscegnation, fought less valiantly in a prior existence, etc., remain. Only the priesthood ban has been revoked. So there is a movement to day to get the church to repudiate its racist teachings as well. This is a little trickier, as it's hard to imagine how to do this without acknowledging error, which creates other theological problems for the church. These are similar to the issues I'm trying to get Mormons to face here. If your church is fallible, it calls into question the general structure and foundation for your religous life grounded in and on that church.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

What makes absolutely no sense to me is this: if the priesthood ban was a misguided human-made policy, not revelation, then why did it take a so-called revelation to change it? Why didn't they just change it as soon as they realized it was wrong? I think the answer is because if they had simply allowed the policy to be lifted, it would be an admission of error; by fabricating a so-called revelation the Church leaders were able to appear like the good guys here to save the day, when in fact they were the ones standing in the way all along. It would be like if people cried, and thought about how pious and wonderful I am, because I received a "revelation" that I am going to stop keying your car. What a light to the world he is, that Spinkles.

No one answered my very simple, basic question: would it have been wrong, or disobedient to God, if the ban had been reversed without a so-called revelation? This gets to the heart of the problem with religion: you have a group of people who know it's a racist policy, who want to change it. Ordinarily the policy would be changed, but when constrained by the religious mindset the leaders say, wait, wait, wait for God's permission. Then when the *leaders* are satisfied they have God's permission, they permit the followers to do what they knew to be the right thing for a long time now. Then those same leaders, defenders and apologists for the Church have the audacity to lay the blame on God ("I don't know why God waited until 1978"....but the ban wasn't doctrine in the first place, you didn't need a revelation to change it) or on "human error" ("We were misguided, the revelation cleared up everything"....but you already knew it was wrong, long before the "revelation", it didn't clarify anything you didn't already know from the civil rights movement, etc.).

The real blame should lay on a collective inability to simply challenge or disobey racist policies and teachings, just based on independent thinking, with or without God's or the Church's permission......but this would be a blow to the Church's power and authority over its followers.

 

[Katzpur]

What makes absolutely no sense to me is this: if the priesthood ban was a misguided human-made policy, not revelation, then why did it take a so-called revelation to change it? Why didn't they just change it as soon as they realized it was wrong? I think the answer is because if they had simply allowed the policy to be lifted, it would be an admission of error; by fabricating a so-called revelation the Church leaders were able to appear like the good guys here to save the day, when in fact they were the ones standing in the way all along. It would be like if people cried, and thought about how pious and wonderful I am, because I received a "revelation" that I am going to stop keying your car. What a light to the world he is, that Spinkles.

I understand where you're coming from, and for a long time I wondered that myself. Of course you would see the revelation as a fabrication. As an atheist, you couldn't possibly see it as anything else. (It's good you're not a theist, in which case I might be inclined to respond more sarcastically. ) In almost every instance I can think of, modern-day revelation has come as the result of a request by men for divine guidance. I can't actually think of a single case where God just spoke to any of our prophets without having first been approached by that prophet in prayer. The text of the "Official Declaration" says that the growth of the Church throughout the world, "has inspired us with a desire to extend to every worthy member of the Church all of the privileges and blessings which the gospel affords." They truly wanted to lift the ban, to a degree none of the previous leadership had (at least not collectively). It states that the First Presidency had spent many hours in prayer and had "pleaded" with God for "divine guidance." You have to remember that the men through whom the ban was lifted were six or more generations removed from the men through whom it was established. They didn't know for sure why it had been put in place in the first place. They've admitted that. Even though there was no record of a revelation having ever been given denying the priesthood to Black men (and I personally don't believe there ever was one), there was simply no way for them to be sure that it hadn't been God's will in the first place. They couldn't talk to Brigham Young or to his immediate successors to see why they had instituted the policy they did. They'd never known a time when the policy hadn't existed, and regardless of what their predecessors had done, they wanted to do what was right in God's eyes. They asked Him for wisdom and He gave it to them.

No one answered my very simple, basic question: would it have been wrong, or disobedient to God, if the ban had been reversed without a so-called revelation?

That all depends on whether it had been God's will for the ban to exist in the first place. If it wasn't God's will and if they could have been 100% sure of that, they certainly could have reversed it without a revelation ("so-called" or otherwise ). If, on the other hand, there had been a revelation putting the ban in place and over the years and if it had just never been included in the canon and the record of it lost, it would have required authorization from God to reverse it. My feelings are that they were playing it safe. It couldn't possibly hurt to ask God, and even you would have to admit that, assuming for the sake of argument that there is a God who answers prayers, He would have told them to do the right thing and lift the ban. I don't think they were trying to save face, but to do what was right at the time. One way or the other, they were almost certain to be insulted at some point by people who would call them "good guys here to save the day." You talk about them being "the ones standing in the way all along." How can you accuse them of something that was done well over 100 years before they were born?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I understand where you're coming from, and for a long time I wondered that myself. Of course you would see the revelation as a fabrication. As an atheist, you couldn't possibly see it as anything else. (It's good you're not a theist, in which case I might be inclined to respond more sarcastically. ) In almost every instance I can think of, modern-day revelation has come as the result of a request by men for divine guidance. I can't actually think of a single case where God just spoke to any of our prophets without having first been approached by that prophet in prayer. The text of the "Official Declaration" says that the growth of the Church throughout the world, "has inspired us with a desire to extend to every worthy member of the Church all of the privileges and blessings which the gospel affords." They truly wanted to lift the ban, to a degree none of the previous leadership had (at least not collectively). It states that the First Presidency had spent many hours in prayer and had "pleaded" with God for "divine guidance." You have to remember that the men through whom the ban was lifted were six or more generations removed from the men through whom it was established. They didn't know for sure why it had been put in place in the first place. They've admitted that. Even though there was no record of a revelation having ever been given denying the priesthood to Black men (and I personally don't believe there ever was one), there was simply no way for them to be sure that it hadn't been God's will in the first place. They couldn't talk to Brigham Young or to his immediate successors to see why they had instituted the policy they did. They'd never known a time when the policy hadn't existed, and regardless of what their predecessors had done, they wanted to do what was right in God's eyes.

I want to emphasize this: I completely understand and acknowledge everything you've said here.

The difference is that in my opinion, this kind of mentality is a serious, serious error and a liability.

I consider the following to be almost self-evident:

• There is not, and never was, any mystery about why the Church banned blacks from the priesthood pre-1978. In a nutshell: they were kind of racist. Like most Americans.
• There is not, and never was (for those who duly considered it) a mystery about whether or not the policy was racist, or fair. Especially by 1978, long after Martin Luther King, the civil rights movement, and desegregation.
• There is not, and never was, any mystery about how to change the Church policy: just don't ban blacks from the priesthood anymore. Simple.

Now in any other situation--if we were talking about the policy of the Mayor's office, or the school principal -- generally these facts would mean a swift change in policy. A lot of problems in the world are very difficult to solve....disease, hunger, etc....but when a case is a clear-cut as this one, it is very easy to solve. You just stop doing the wrong thing you were doing. Good.

But now introduce the mentality of unquestioning devotion, which runs like this:
1) But the Church has always done it this way;
2) The Church sometimes does things due to supposed revelations; and
3) You have to obey supposed revelations, even when they are racist and make absolutely no sense.

This is a recipe for perpetuating injustices and mistakes, even long after they are recognized as such by everyone, even the very leaders of the Church. It's a mentality that says we are so incapable of thinking for ourselves, we actually need to wait for permission even to stop racial discrimination, we can't take any initiative at all on moral matters. This is a claim that is insulting to whatever integrity and intelligence we have as human beings, it is completely and utterly contrary to the principles of Martin Luther King, Jr. and the civil rights movement. That's a serious problem, i.m.o.

Now, it should be conceded the liabilities in this case are relatively mild; okay, so blacks were banned from the priesthood. That's not as bad as the Crusades or 9/11 or witch hunts. But it is rare to see racial discrimination that everyone agrees is wrong, where ending it would be an utterly trivial matter to end it, and yet people continue the discrimination, against their own better judgment, for utterly inane reasons.

That all depends on whether it had been God's will for the ban to exist in the first place. If it wasn't God's will and if they could have been 100% sure of that, they certainly could have reversed it without a revelation ("so-called" or otherwise ). If, on the other hand, there had been a revelation putting the ban in place and over the years and if it had just never been included in the canon and the record of it lost, it would have required authorization from God to reverse it.

How do you get authorization from God? Don't we know for a fact that it is possible to be mistaken even if you believe you received revelation from God? I asked this question of DeepShadow, he didn't answer.

My feelings are that they were playing it safe. It couldn't possibly hurt to ask God, and even you would have to admit that, assuming for the sake of argument that there is a God who answers prayers, He would have told them to do the right thing and lift the ban.

Yes it did hurt to ask God, as MLK said justice delayed is justice denied. He didn't live to see racial equality in the LDS Church, precisely because Mormons have let themselves be persuaded they need to wait for permission to end discrimination.

I don't think they were trying to save face, but to do what was right at the time. One way or the other, they were almost certain to be insulted at some point by people who would call them "good guys here to save the day." You talk about them being "the ones standing in the way all along." How can you accuse them of something that was done well over 100 years before they were born?

Because they continued the racist policy. They knew it was wrong and they could have changed it by writing a one-page declaration. When a black person goes into the temple (or whatever) to get the priesthood, just let him. So simple.

 

[Katzpur]

The difference is that in my opinion, this kind of mentality is a serious, serious error and a liability.

I consider the following to be almost self-evident:

• There is not, and never was, any mystery about why the Church banned blacks from the priesthood pre-1978. In a nutshell: they were kind of racist. Like most Americans.
• There is not, and never was (for those who duly considered it) a mystery about whether or not the policy was racist, or fair. Especially by 1978, long after Martin Luther King, the civil rights movement, and desegregation.

• I agree.

There is not, and never was, any mystery about how to change the Church policy: just don't ban blacks from the priesthood anymore. Simple.
Now in any other situation--if we were talking about the policy of the Mayor's office, or the school principal -- generally these facts would mean a swift change in policy. A lot of problems in the world are very difficult to solve....disease, hunger, etc....but when a case is a clear-cut as this one, it is very easy to solve. You just stop doing the wrong thing you were doing. Good.

It's not "simple." First, it doesn't work the same way in the prophet's office as it does in the mayors office, nor should it. It's a church, not a government. Granted, some churches do operate more or less like that -- take a vote over donuts and coffee and go with the majority rule. Secondly, we're really not talking civil rights and it's ridiculous to pretend that we are. There has never been an African American who was forced to be baptized into the Church. Those who joined during the years the ban was in place had a testimony that the Church was true. Why else would they have joined and remained practicing Latter-day Saints -- in spite of the fact that they could not hold the priesthod? Yes, they were denied certain rights, and it's unfortunate. I would go so far as to say it's tragic. But at the end of the day, it was their choice to remain in this "racist" church. Have you ever given that as much as thirty seconds thought? They could have left and found a church that was not racist. It's not even close to the same thing as being denied one's civil rights in a free country. Third, according to LDS doctrine -- today, in 1950, in 1930 when the Church was established -- the ban would never, ever have had any eternal significance. Regardless of the ban, every living human being has always had the promise of the same blessings in Heaven. And eternity is a whole lot longer than 80 or 90 years of mortality.

Women are not permitted to hold the priesthood in the LDS Church today. That means several million of us are being discriminated against every day of our lives -- by your reasoning. Why do you think we don't all just leave the Church? Why don't you start a "Mormonism sexist?" thread to tell us how the LDS Church should alter its policy of denying the priesthood to women? Quite frankly, it's really nobody's business how our Church is run. It's a religion. We're entitled to our beliefs and, racist or sexist or whatever else you want to say we are, what concern is it to you that a Black man prior to 1978 or that Katzpur in 2009 can't hold the priesthood? If I wanted to leave the Church, I would do so. If a Black man prior to 1978 had wanted to leave the Church, he could have done so. The reason I don't and the reason my hypothetical Black man prior to 1978 didn't is that we recognize the following: (1) human beings make mistakes and sometimes we are affected by other people's mistakes (2) God is ultimately in Church of this Church and if Brigham Young or anyone else acted contrary to God's will, God is perfectly capable of handling the discipline Himself, and (3) there are not always answers to every question we may have; things will ultimately work out.

Don't get me wrong. I hope I've made it clear enough by now that I do not believe the ban was authorized by God. I have also clearly stated that had the Church leadership in 1978 been absolutely convinced that the policy enacted some 125 years before was the result of human error, they could have corrected that mistake in the simple manner you have proposed. Evidently they felt they needed confirmation from God so they asked for it. Given everything I've said, could you tell me what business it is of yours to say how my church should be run and how it should go about establishing policies that affect only the lives of its members?

Yes it did hurt to ask God, as MLK said justice delayed is justice denied. He didn't live to see racial equality in the LDS Church, precisely because Mormons have let themselves be persuaded they need to wait for permission to end discrimination.

Well, with all due respect to Dr. King, the LDS Church's policy affect him in the slightest. It only affected the Black members of the Church who didn't have as much of the problem with the policy as you do.

Because they continued the racist policy.

Excuse me but I thought we were specifically talking about the people who stopped the racist policy.

When a black person goes into the temple (or whatever) to get the priesthood, just let him. So simple.

To a Latter-day Saint, that is absolutely laughable. You obviously have no clue whatsoever about what the priesthood even is. It's not something you decide you want to have so you attend a theological seminary or divinity college, get your degree and look for a job as a minister. It's entirely different. Let's say that the Church leadership today got to discussing whether or not women should hold the priesthood and came to the conclusion that the current policy was pretty sexist. So, they made an announcement that they'd reconsidered and had decided that effective immediately, woman could be ordained. Well guess what, in that scenario, I'd be willing to bet that fewer than 1% of all LDS women would take them up on their offer. You know why? Because being given the priesthood due to a decision based on anything other than a directive from God would be absolutely meaningless. In that situation, I could be ordained to the priesthood and it wouldn't pointless. The priesthood is the power and authority to act in God's name. It is given by God. Period.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Hi Katzpur,

I don't think I made my point very well. I agree with you and concede to you many of the things you've said, but it is beside the point (my intended point, that is).

I'm not worried too much about the ban against blacks in the LDS priesthood, for all the reasons you mentioned. It ended 30 years ago, it's none of my business, and so on.

The reason I'm talking about it is, first of all, because that's what this thread is about. It's not my business to tell you how to run your church, that's why I would never march into Salt Lake and issue demands, but certainly I'm free to share my opinion on an open forum.

Secondly.....and this is the core of the point I'm unsuccessfully trying to make.....is that there's an important lesson to be learned from the LDS history here. It's such an obvious lesson (to me) that it's actually difficult to articulate. Let me put it this way: what would it have taken, in terms of habits of mind and thought, for a devoted Saint to come to the conclusion that the policy was wrong and should be changed right away? Whatever that habit of mind is, I think we want to adopt it. Consider another (perhaps better) example: what habits of mind would it have taken for an American living in the 1940's to realize the Japanese internment camps were wrong, and to speak out against them instead of passively permitting them? (Or maybe just refusing to think too carefully about them?) Think of the enormous social, ideological, pressures....remember the 1940's was when patriotism was high, the Japs had bombed Pearl Harbor and were killing American youths every day. We take it for granted that the camps were wrong, but it is not trivial at all to consider how YOU would have figured that out at the time, and spoken out against it or prevented it if you worked in government, when virtually everyone else, especially smart, well-intentioned people who carefully considered the issue, reached the "wrong" conclusion.

So I think this is important, to figure out what mental tools we would need in order to think like that. Then we can try to change the harmful mass delusions and prejudices of the 21st century, whatever they are (they won't be obvious to us, of course). I.m.o., if we're going to truly reject something, like racism, we ought to consider it in its strongest and most persuasive forms. The LDS history with the ban on the priesthood is a great example of racism that was in a very strong and very persuasive form, just like the Jap internment camps during WWII.

So, getting around to my point....the mindset I am seeking is not captured at all, and therefore this important lesson is missed, when someone looks at the sordid history of the priesthood ban, and concludes that, see, God made it right in the end. If we're just patient enough, if we wait for revelation. Have faith that things are as they ought to be. Trust that though the Church may err sometimes, due to human error, it is ultimately guided by God. Rest assured.

That is one mindset a person might have and it might be useful in certain situations....but it is the opposite of the mindset I am looking for. The mindset you would need to overcome the situations I mentioned would be the mindset of the civil rights movement: WE will make it right, not in the end, but starting right now. If something is wrong, we ought to be IMPATIENT. Things will change if we STOP waiting. Things are NOT as they ought to be. Do NOT trust authority, authority has to prove its legitimacy and if it can't do that, it should be changed. Question everything.

We could consider this from the history of just about anything, but this thread is about the LDS racial history, and I hate to miss any opportunity to consider this "lesson" I'm proposing.

It's not "simple." First, it doesn't work the same way in the prophet's office as it does in the mayors office, nor should it. It's a church, not a government. Granted, some churches do operate more or less like that -- take a vote over donuts and coffee and go with the majority rule.

I don't understand, what is complicated about allowing people with black skin to go through the same rights and rituals, and afford them the same recognition and authority and treatment as everyone else? Surely it's more difficult to keep track of skin color, determine if their skin is sufficiently dark to be considered "black" and discriminate accordingly, than to stop doing that?

Secondly, we're really not talking civil rights and it's ridiculous to pretend that we are.

Agreed.

Women are not permitted to hold the priesthood in the LDS Church today. That means several million of us are being discriminated against every day of our lives -- by your reasoning.

True, though there are differences as regards my point (above).

If I wanted to leave the Church, I would do so. If a Black man prior to 1978 had wanted to leave the Church, he could have done so. The reason I don't and the reason my hypothetical Black man prior to 1978 didn't is that we recognize the following: (1) human beings make mistakes and sometimes we are affected by other people's mistakes (2) God is ultimately in Church of this Church and if Brigham Young or anyone else acted contrary to God's will, God is perfectly capable of handling the discipline Himself, and (3) there are not always answers to every question we may have; things will ultimately work out.

Good points. This illustrates the first mindset I described (above).

Well, with all due respect to Dr. King, the LDS Church's policy affect him in the slightest.

Incredibly, the converse is also true: that Dr. King didn't affect the LDS Church's policy in the slightest. I concede in this case, it's questionable how much "hurt" was done by reversing the ban in 1978, instead of earlier when everyone knew there was no good reason for the ban (right?), except the chance God might have some bizarre interest in skin pigmentation.

It only affected the Black members of the Church who didn't have as much of the problem with the policy as you do.

It's the lesson we derive from the history that I'm thinking about.

Excuse me but I thought we were specifically talking about the people who stopped the racist policy.

Yes they stopped the racist policy. They get credit for that. They could have stopped it, or at least spoken out strongly against it, for years and years, but they supported it (and by all means correct me in cases where I am wrong). I do hold that against them, they had the power and the moral obligation to treat everyone equally all along, whether they were willing/able to acknowledge it or not.

To a Latter-day Saint, that is absolutely laughable. You obviously have no clue whatsoever about what the priesthood even is. It's not something you decide you want to have so you attend a theological seminary or divinity college, get your degree and look for a job as a minister. It's entirely different. Let's say that the Church leadership today got to discussing whether or not women should hold the priesthood and came to the conclusion that the current policy was pretty sexist. So, they made an announcement that they'd reconsidered and had decided that effective immediately, woman could be ordained. Well guess what, in that scenario, I'd be willing to bet that fewer than 1% of all LDS women would take them up on their offer. You know why? Because being given the priesthood due to a decision based on anything other than a directive from God would be absolutely meaningless. In that situation, I could be ordained to the priesthood and it wouldn't pointless. The priesthood is the power and authority to act in God's name. It is given by God. Period.

So then it could never have been banned in the first place and this whole thread is about nothing. Come on Katzpur, according to Wiki:

From 1849 to 1978, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) had a policy against ordaining black men of African descent to the priesthood. Under the same policy, black men and women of African descent were prohibited from participating in the templeEndowment and sealings, ordinances that the church teaches are necessary for the highest degree of salvation. [emph. added]
​

So if you are in charge of the Church how do you end the policy? Just stop prohibiting them. Make an announcement, like a 500-word essay at most. When a hair salon lets in black customers they may have to get some new haircare products, but I can't imagine anything special has to be done to accomodate people with a skin of darkness in the temple endowment, sealings, and ordinances -- although I admit I don't know exactly what's involved. Nothing has to be done to allow blacks to participate, OTOH something special has to be done to prevent them from participating.

 

[Scott C.]

So then it could never have been banned in the first place and this whole thread is about nothing. Come on Katzpur, according to Wiki:

From 1849 to 1978, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) had a policy against ordaining black men of African descent to the priesthood. Under the same policy, black men and women of African descent were prohibited from participating in the templeEndowment and sealings, ordinances that the church teaches are necessary for the highest degree of salvation. [emph. added]
​

The Wiki quote is accurate (although I'm not sure where the exact year of 1849 came from) with one clarification. While the ban was in place, the teaching of the church was that Blacks could inherit the highest degree of salvation as well as anyone. There was a promise that they would one day - perhaps later in the future of the world - or perhaps in eternity - be ordained to the priesthood and receive the temple ordinances that are necessary for the highest salvation - all in time to enter into the highest salvation - without being delayed. This is an important point to me as an LDS. I was always taught that the priesthood ban was something that pertained to mortality and would have no impact in the resurrection and eternity.

I believe that the church leaders did not stop the practice without a revelation, because they believed the practice was of God, and therefore they had no authority to make a change without God's specific revelation.

There is one thing for certain, which you may find hard to believe - the church leaders did not "fabricate" a revelation to save face or to avoid problems. They sought and received honest to goodness revelation on the subject. These men do believe that they are prophets and that the church is led by revelation. As do I.
​

 

[Sola'lor]

Well I have yet to see that the ban was actually racist. What I mean is that I haven't seen anything that shows that the purpose of the ban was to be hateful towards those of a specific lineage.

 

[Katzpur]

So if you are in charge of the Church how do you end the policy? Just stop prohibiting them. Make an announcement, like a 500-word essay at most. When a hair salon lets in black customers they may have to get some new haircare products, but I can't imagine anything special has to be done to accomodate people with a skin of darkness in the temple endowment, sealings, and ordinances -- although I admit I don't know exactly what's involved.

You certainly don’t know what’s involved. You don’t just end the policy by making an announcement. Jeff, you don’t even believe in God. If you really want to understand – not believe, but understand – you will have to try not only to think the way a theist thinks but to recognize that to the Latter-day Saints, God is not only a reality, He actually does communicate in a very real way to human beings. If you can’t look at the issue from that perspective, you’re just never going to get it. I'm going to respond to your last post in greater detail, but before I do, I'd like to draw an analogy that might help.

Let’s say we have a small, private elementary school that was established by the man who is its principal. It’s his school. He makes all of the rules. That’s his right, and everyone – teachers and students alike – understands that. Because it’s a private school, every student attends it by choice. He has a perfect understanding of the educational system of his school because he designed it. He’s a good man and the people he employs trust him, as do the students who attend his school. Let’s say he started this school when he was a young man 25 years of age. He is the principal when it opens. Forty years later, he is still in charge. During that forty year period, he employs a string of five 6th-grade teachers, one after the other. Each one teaches in the school for only eight years before moving on.

As I said, the principal makes all the rules. He relays them to his staff and they, in turn make sure the students all understand them. One rule he makes is that all students are to go out to the playground for recess twice a day for fifteen minutes each time. During that time, they are all to play nicely together. The first of the five 6th-grade teachers he will ultimately employ dutifully explains the rule to her students, and they happily comply. For a time, everything goes along very well. One day, the teacher is studying the policy manual the principal has written up. She comes to a paragraph that she interprets as meaning that the principal really didn’t want the kids with red hair and freckles to be able to join in playing with the other kids at recess. She instructs them that from then on, those children are to be excluded. The children, assuming that she is merely passing on instructions given her by the principal, begin to exclude the kids with red hair and freckles. The kids with red hair and freckles feel pretty bad, but they too figure that the rule must have been changed by the principal.

Over the next four decades, the four other 6th grade teachers come and go. Each one inherits a new group of children and, aware of the policy forbidding the kids with red hair and freckles from joining into the activities at recess, continues to support it, as do the children. Finally, some thirty-three years after the first 6th grade teacher made the mistake of interpreting the policy manual incorrectly, the last of the five teachers finds the policy very troubling. She is also aware that, because there have recently been quite a number of red-headed, freckle-faced kids show an interet in attending the school, regardless of its recess policy. She decides that, regardless of how long the policy has been in place, maybe it’s time someone ought to actually approach the principal and ask him if it wouldn’t be okay to start allowing the kids to include the red-headed, freckle-faced kids at recess. She does. They sit down and have a long talk and the principal says, “By all means, tell the children that they are to exclude no one from their recess activities.” She passes this information along to the children, and is glad to see that most of the children are delighted by what she’s telling them. It’s something they’ve wanted to do for a very long time.

This time, the principal tells her to put his instructions in writing so that in the future there will never again be such a tragic misunderstanding. She does so and it is included in the policy manual.

 

[Katzpur]

The Wiki quote is accurate (although I'm not sure where the exact year of 1849 came from) with one clarification. While the ban was in place, the teaching of the church was that Blacks could inherit the highest degree of salvation as well as anyone. There was a promise that they would one day - perhaps later in the future of the world - or perhaps in eternity - be ordained to the priesthood and receive the temple ordinances that are necessary for the highest salvation - all in time to enter into the highest salvation - without being delayed. This is an important point to me as an LDS. I was always taught that the priesthood ban was something that pertained to mortality and would have no impact in the resurrection and eternity.​

Excellent point.


​

 

[Mr Spinkles]

The Wiki quote is accurate (although I'm not sure where the exact year of 1849 came from) with one clarification. While the ban was in place, the teaching of the church was that Blacks could inherit the highest degree of salvation as well as anyone. There was a promise that they would one day - perhaps later in the future of the world - or perhaps in eternity - be ordained to the priesthood and receive the temple ordinances that are necessary for the highest salvation - all in time to enter into the highest salvation - without being delayed. This is an important point to me as an LDS. I was always taught that the priesthood ban was something that pertained to mortality and would have no impact in the resurrection and eternity.

I think children should be taught that racist discrimination is wrong, first and foremost, instead of apologizing for racist discrimination by saying it will end someday.

I believe that the church leaders did not stop the practice without a revelation, because they believed the practice was of God, and therefore they had no authority to make a change without God's specific revelation.

I don't doubt that they truly believed that. The fact that they truly believed it is not incompatible with the fact that they knew it was terribly convenient. For example, colonial powers including Nazi Germany and Japan usually were convinced they were liberating oppressed peoples, spreading Christian civilization, or doing some other noble/self-sacrificing deed. They just happened to secure resources in the process.

There is one thing for certain, which you may find hard to believe - the church leaders did not "fabricate" a revelation to save face or to avoid problems. They sought and received honest to goodness revelation on the subject. These men do believe that they are prophets and that the church is led by revelation. As do I.

Let's agree to disagree on that one.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Well I have yet to see that the ban was actually racist. What I mean is that I haven't seen anything that shows that the purpose of the ban was to be hateful towards those of a specific lineage.

Then segregation was not racist. Neither was slavery. Much of the modern white-supremacy movement is not racist. The purpose of racism is almost NEVER "to be hateful". That's only true in the most extreme cases. In general there's usually some sophisticated, carefully defended justification for racism. If you read what white southern congressmen were saying in the 19th century, for example, they made a lot of arguments about why slavery should continue, for example that blacks are better off as slaves, and their arguments are not totally without merit. It's only with our outsider perspective that their racist and selfish motivations come into sharp relief, despite the southerners' eloquent and intricate justifications. It's BECAUSE the rationalizations for racism often seem so benign and persuasive that racism has been so common, and that is precisely why it's so evil and why we must reject it.

The priesthood ban against blacks was racist by definition. Was it the worst form racism can take? Definitely not. But all forms of institutionalized racism are wrong, period.

 

[Apex]

This entire debate is pointless when one party automatically dismisses everything the Church leadership says as inventions of their own imaginations while the other party honestly believes it to be revelation.

The only real, and honest, debate that can take place on this topic is between members of the same party.

 

[cardero]

This entire debate is pointless when one party automatically dismisses everything the Church leadership says as inventions of their own imaginations while the other party honestly believes it to be revelation.

The only real, and honest, debate that can take place on this topic is between members of the same party.

Do you mean people who believe in GOD and who are currently receiving revelation/inspiration?

 

[AlsoAnima]

-----

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Katzpur,

I don't think I'm having difficulty understanding this issue or your perspective. It is because I understand it that I reject it. I appreciate your analogy but we probably draw different lessons from it. I still don't see why the policy couldn't be changed, even in your analogy any teacher could have changed the policy at any time just by announcing it to the children. (And I really loathe the analogy for that reason, by the way.....the implication is that grown adults in the LDS Church are merely children, who don't know elementary right from wrong, they have to obey leaders.) The principal may not have liked it, the children may not have complied with it, but those are separate questions, it's not like the children would stand around in the playground, scratching their heads, wondering "How do I play with a BLACK kid?"

Suppose the Church leadership had an announcement repealing the ban without a supposed revelation. The official Church policy, and therefore official discrimination, would be over by definition. In practice I suppose it would mean performing the washing & annointing ritual and giving a temple garment (for example) to people regardless of skin color. Was there some invisible force-field emanating from black peoples' skin which physically prevented anyone from washing & annointing them and putting a garment on them? Come on. There's no obvious reason black skin makes the ritual more complicated and you haven't provided any reason at all, even with your analogy.

Btw, who's Jeff?