Edward Kimball Article on 1978 Revelation

[Just_A_Guy]

Originally Posted by Suzie

Margaret Young over Bycommonconsent wrote the third part of :

An Exception Being Made in His Case?Or, You Might Be A Racist If?Part 3 By Common Consent, a Mormon Blog

Good information for those (like me) interested in the topic. You can also check parts 1 and 2.

Some good info; but I think Sister Young misrepresents the intent of at least some of those who deploy the Levite argument. The point isn't that we know of some divine plan to "give the priesthood out to ever-widening circles". The point is that, contra the 21st century social dogma, God has discriminated in the past. Thus, His having done so again in the recent past--or even doing so in the present or the future--cannot be ruled out, and He is under no obligation to explain His purposes to us. Once you get to that point, you either give Brigham Young and the other LDS leadership the benefit of the doubt due to their (presumed) role as the legitimate successors of Joseph Smith and equal in authority to him; or you don't.

None of the arguments Young cites from Scott Gordon address this core issue; and indeed some of them--and it pains me to say it, since they ultimately come from FAIR--are disingenuous and amount to little better than hair-splitting. To wit:

While the Levites held the priesthood, do we have any scriptures that claim the other tribes of Israel were “cursed” and couldn’t have the priesthood? If we don’t, the situations are not parallel.

But the Levite argument doesn't call for a "curse" to non-Levites; it just says that other people couldn't have the priesthood. And yes, the story of Ezra and the Temple of Zerubabbel shows that the Levite "policy" was proscriptive as well as prescriptive in nature.

While the lesser priesthood was given by linage, Joseph Smith specifically changed the JST bible to say that the Melchizedek priesthood was without father or mother, or in other words it had no lineage. So how do we exclude based on lineage?

The "without father or mother" verbiage was already in the Bible, but it referred to Melchizedek himself. Smith changed the phrase to refer to the order of priesthood that bore Melchizedek's name. That passage of the Epistle to the Hebrews has nothing to do with excluding a lineal component to the priesthood; it just shows that the power of the priesthood is eternal. This blatant stripping of scriptural and historical context is the kind of thing we usually see coming out of professional anti-Mormons, and I'm extremely disappointed to see FAIR stoop to that level.

The Levite explanation has the priesthood first going to the Levites, then to everyone else except blacks, then finally to the blacks. Imagine you are picking teams for a school sporting event.

Again, this misrepresents what most who make the Levite claim (well, me, anyways) are actually saying. And second, it boils down to an argument that God's thoughts and ways must mirror our thoughts and ways. Apparently, the Plan of Salvation was designed to teach God to act more like us, and not vice-versa.

So this puts us in the position of promoting a belief without any scriptural or prophetic basis. We are making it up. Making up doctrine is never a good idea.

Considering that the alternative Gordon and Young would have us embrace seems to be the re-invention of God Himself in our own image, and understanding that (while I can't speak for these two) the Mormon left generally intends to make this discussion a surrogate war over the legitimization of same-sex relationships in the Church--I'll take my chances, thank you.

[Suzie]

Originally Posted by Just_A_Guy

The point is that, contra the 21st century social dogma, God has discriminated in the past. Thus, His having done so again in the recent past--or even doing so in the present or the future--cannot be ruled out, and He is under no obligation to explain His purposes to us

Even though I may agree with that assertion to a certain extent, I think Margaret Young, Darius Gray and a few others feel the way they do after much research and study. As we discussed in the other thread "Issues with Brigham Young", the timing of the ban is very interesting, the facts surrounding the ban are also very interesting as well as Young's reaction and position. Just like the idea of God placing the ban shouldn't be ruled out for some, personal bigotry and 19th century racism shouldn't be ruled out either.

We have Zebedee Coltrin's "memory loss", William McCary's polygamous marriages (in the same year of the alleged incident, Young announced that blacks are ineligible for certain temple ordinances), his assertion that it has nothing to do with the blood (but changing his position two years later) there is enough information to establish different scenarios and the idea of God placing this ban doesn't seem likely (IMO) specially when you are dealing with the mindset of the 19th century. Were Church leaders any different in their view about Blacks? Most of them were not.

We also have Joseph F. Smith defending Elijah Abel right to the priesthood (even after Brother Abel was dead). He defended Abel's priesthood for 29 years! But then totally reversed his position without really explaining how or why he reversed it. He just mentioned that Joseph Smith Jr. established that Abel's ordination was "null and void", the same statement he refuted for almost 30 years!

Do I agree with Margaret Young in a lot of her statements? Yes, I do. I am not totally convinced about several things she says but I definitely can say in my personal opinion based on my study of this topic that I do not believe God was involved in the placement of the ban.

[Just_A_Guy]

Originally Posted by Suzie

As we discussed in the other thread "Issues with Brigham Young", the timing of the ban is very interesting, the facts surrounding the ban are also very interesting as well as Young's reaction and position. . . . and the idea of God placing this ban doesn't seem likely (IMO) specially when you are dealing with the mindset of the 19th century.

Sure; but we don't throw out the Word of Wisdom just because the "facts surrounding" that policy involved Emma Smith complaining about cleaning tobacco juice off the floor. Emma's (and possibly Joseph's) personal prejudice against the use of tobacco doesn't automatically make the WoW suspect, does it?

Similarly, I haven't seen a massive movement of Church members denouncing the no-temple-work-for-Holocaust-victims policyas "man-made" or of less than divine origin, merely because it was promulgated under intense pressure from our Jewish friends. Nor do substantial factions within the Church seem to be particularly upset about our abandonment of polygamy even though OD-2, too, was adopted under immense external pressure that actually threatened the Church's very existence.

If the correlation between a Church policy and popular prejudice inherently removes the possibility of divine origin for that policy, then one could argue (as most critics of Mormonism in fact do) that OD-2 is just as suspect as the ban itself ever was.

. . . when you are dealing with the mindset of the 19th century. Were Church leaders any different in their view about Blacks? Most of them were not.

As you point out, at some point Brigham Young and Joseph F. Smith seem to have been. Then they changed their minds. Did a new prejudice get planted into their minds later in life that hadn't been there before, leading both men to completely disregard the will of the Lord as they had previously understood it? Or did some kind of change in circumstance lead the Lord to instruct the leadership (through revelation/inspiration, however you choose to define the process) that a policy change was in order?

In this case, we do have Brigham Young specifically invoking his prophetic authority at one point and saying in the name of Jesus Christ that yes, this policy came from the Lord. We have at least two sources saying that David O. McKay specifically requested permission to lift the ban, and that that permission was denied. We have anonymous stories (via former Church Historian Leonard Arrington) that Harold B. Lee made a similar request, with the same results. Under the weight of that evidence, I have a real problem blithely saying that the Lord had no hand in the policy.

[skippy740]

I have not read this thread. I have however, read the article. Thank you for sharing it. Inexplicably fantastic! I have forwarded the link to the Black LDS facebook page and the AAOP group I am a part of.

[mikbone]

Originally Posted by Just_A_Guy

In this case, we do have Brigham Young specifically invoking his prophetic authority at one point and saying in the name of Jesus Christ that yes, this policy came from the Lord. We have at least two sources saying that David O. McKay specifically requested permission to lift the ban, and that that permission was denied. We have anonymous stories (via former Church Historian Leonard Arrington) that Harold B. Lee made a similar request, with the same results. Under the weight of that evidence, I have a real problem blithely saying that the Lord had no hand in the policy.

"Our speculations as to the reason(s) (for the priesthood ban) have been essentially worthless, and sometimes harmful," Daniel C. Peterson wrote. "God has not seen fit to explain why he commanded or at least permitted the denial of priesthood to blacks.

"We certainly don't know that God withheld the priesthood from blacks in order to protect them, or because they weren't 'ready' for it, or because it 'benefited' them to be denied access to the temple or opportunities to serve missions, and the like," he continued. "We just don't know. And if we ever learn the reason, that knowledge will come through the Lord's chosen prophets and apostles, not through BYU professors like me."

Peterson's position is in line with statements made by Elder Jeffrey R. Holland of the LDS Church's Quorum of the Twelve in a March 2006 interview with Helen Whitney of PBS. During the interview, Elder Holland referred to speculations — including those by early church leaders — about the reasons why blacks could not hold the LDS priesthood for a period of time as "folklore" that "must never be perpetuated."

"All I can say is, however well-intentioned the explanations were, I think almost all of them were inadequate and/or wrong," Elder Holland said. "It 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 ... We simply don't know why that practice, that policy, that doctrine was in place."

Recently, the Church has also made the following statement on this subject: "The origins of priesthood availability are not entirely clear. Some explanations with respect to this matter were made in the absence of direct revelation and references to these explanations are sometimes cited in publications. These previous personal statements do not represent Church doctrine."

Deseret News, LDS Church condemns past racism 'inside and outside the church', Feb 29, 2012

[dahlia]

Much of the info in the article was familiar to me. I think that any black person who wants to join the Church has to know this history ('cause goodness knows, you will be confronted with it) and would do well to read all s/he can about it.

I recently finished reading 'The Development of LDS Temple Worship, 1846-2000: A Documentary History,' by
Devery S. Anderson. Most of the book is excerpts from primary sources such as letters and memos. Despite knowing that things have changed in the church, it was very disheartening to read that white parents were encouraged not to adopt black children and that interracial people were denied entrance to the temple.

Revelation or not, you can't tell me that lifting the ban was not a response to the changing times. This is mentioned in the article, but I don't believe it goes far enough. I don't fault the authorities for seeing the writing on the wall and lifting the ban. I'm just hesitant to say that this was all due to revelation. The Church was becoming increasingly active in parts of the world with black or mixed populations. People are not going to convert in large numbers to a religion that denigrates their humanity. And you can say the Church is true all you want, but if you are denying me the priesthood because of lineage, color, or whatever, I'm going to say you're not as true as you think you are.

If the church wanted to grow, it had to be accepting of all it sought to convert. I am fine with that. I am not so fine with the idea that in 1978 it just dawned on HF that it was time to give blacks the priesthood and to let the authorities know about it. This was a worldly issue, and worldly men decided that they were going to continue discrimination against blacks, and they did, until it was no longer expedient to do so. Kinda like the US government.

I just started reading 'The Teachings Of Presidents Of The Church - Brigham Young.' There's actually a lot that Young said that I find quite compelling, but I am waiting to see if the Church has whitewashed : ) his beliefs on race, includes them, or don't mention them at all.

[Traveler]

Originally Posted by dahlia

...

Revelation or not, you can't tell me that lifting the ban was not a response to the changing times. This is mentioned in the article, but I don't believe it goes far enough. I don't fault the authorities for seeing the writing on the wall and lifting the ban. I'm just hesitant to say that this was all due to revelation. The Church was becoming increasingly active in parts of the world with black or mixed populations. People are not going to convert in large numbers to a religion that denigrates their humanity. And you can say the Church is true all you want, but if you are denying me the priesthood because of lineage, color, or whatever, I'm going to say you're not as true as you think you are.

...

I am going to tell you exactly what you said not to. I am going to tell you that the change did come from G-d and was not generated - even in part by men. In fact - I believe this idea (that the change is actually from G-d) is of up most importance and necessary for all "Mormons" (LDS). There are several reasons - and here is just a couple:

1. If is was not from G-d - then how important is the change really?
2. If the change came about because of "changing" times then if times should change again we should change to suit such whims? I do not think so.

I believe we cheapen the importance of the change by not believing G-d brought it about. I believe we can make excuses for not fully accepting it if we in any way think it was because "men" thinking it a good idea at the time.

The change in blessings not just for blacks for for all, not just good because I believe it to be good - it is good because it is a commandment from G-d himself.

I am personally grateful that G-d left no question in this manner that it was his will and by his command that there was a change that must be 100 % completely accepted by every individual that calls themselves LDS or "Mormon".

The Traveler

[MarginOfError]

Originally Posted by Traveler

I am going to tell you exactly what you said not to. I am going to tell you that the change did come from G-d and was not generated - even in part by men. In fact - I believe this idea (that the change is actually from G-d) is of up most importance and necessary for all "Mormons" (LDS). There are several reasons - and here is just a couple:

1. If is was not from G-d - then how important is the change really?
2. If the change came about because of "changing" times then if times should change again we should change to suit such whims? I do not think so.

I believe we cheapen the importance of the change by not believing G-d brought it about. I believe we can make excuses for not fully accepting it if we in any way think it was because "men" thinking it a good idea at the time.

The change in blessings not just for blacks for for all, not just good because I believe it to be good - it is good because it is a commandment from G-d himself.

I am personally grateful that G-d left no question in this manner that it was his will and by his command that there was a change that must be 100 % completely accepted by every individual that calls themselves LDS or "Mormon".

The Traveler

I also believe the change was from God--and I believe he would have been elated if it had come about a few thousand years earlier.

[Just_A_Guy]

Originally Posted by mikbone

"Our speculations as to the reason(s) (for the priesthood ban) have been essentially worthless, and sometimes harmful," Daniel C. Peterson wrote. "God has not seen fit to explain why he commanded or at least permitted the denial of priesthood to blacks.

"We certainly don't know that God withheld the priesthood from blacks in order to protect them, or because they weren't 'ready' for it, or because it 'benefited' them to be denied access to the temple or opportunities to serve missions, and the like," he continued. "We just don't know. And if we ever learn the reason, that knowledge will come through the Lord's chosen prophets and apostles, not through BYU professors like me."

Peterson's position is in line with statements made by Elder Jeffrey R. Holland of the LDS Church's Quorum of the Twelve in a March 2006 interview with Helen Whitney of PBS. During the interview, Elder Holland referred to speculations — including those by early church leaders — about the reasons why blacks could not hold the LDS priesthood for a period of time as "folklore" that "must never be perpetuated."

"All I can say is, however well-intentioned the explanations were, I think almost all of them were inadequate and/or wrong," Elder Holland said. "It 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 ... We simply don't know why that practice, that policy, that doctrine was in place."

Recently, the Church has also made the following statement on this subject: "The origins of priesthood availability are not entirely clear. Some explanations with respect to this matter were made in the absence of direct revelation and references to these explanations are sometimes cited in publications. These previous personal statements do not represent Church doctrine."

Deseret News, LDS Church condemns past racism 'inside and outside the church', Feb 29, 2012

Mikbone, I am well aware of Peterson's opinion and of Elder Holand's counsel and have made a conscious effort to abide by at least the latter during my participation in this thread. If I have failed in my attempt, please feel free to point it out and I will be happy to retract any undue speculation I have offered. So far as I am aware, the closest I have come to "speculating" is to point out a) that there is a very good chance that the policy was divinely approved, if not divinely instigated; and b) that there is scriptural/historical precedent for God's having discriminated.

Is it verbotten speculation merely to suggest that the Church leaders might actually have acted in accordance with that God who appointed them?

[annewandering]

Originally Posted by dahlia

Much of the info in the article was familiar to me. I think that any black person who wants to join the Church has to know this history ('cause goodness knows, you will be confronted with it) and would do well to read all s/he can about it.

I recently finished reading 'The Development of LDS Temple Worship, 1846-2000: A Documentary History,' by
Devery S. Anderson. Most of the book is excerpts from primary sources such as letters and memos. Despite knowing that things have changed in the church, it was very disheartening to read that white parents were encouraged not to adopt black children and that interracial people were denied entrance to the temple.

Revelation or not, you can't tell me that lifting the ban was not a response to the changing times. This is mentioned in the article, but I don't believe it goes far enough. I don't fault the authorities for seeing the writing on the wall and lifting the ban. I'm just hesitant to say that this was all due to revelation. The Church was becoming increasingly active in parts of the world with black or mixed populations. People are not going to convert in large numbers to a religion that denigrates their humanity. And you can say the Church is true all you want, but if you are denying me the priesthood because of lineage, color, or whatever, I'm going to say you're not as true as you think you are.

If the church wanted to grow, it had to be accepting of all it sought to convert. I am fine with that. I am not so fine with the idea that in 1978 it just dawned on HF that it was time to give blacks the priesthood and to let the authorities know about it. This was a worldly issue, and worldly men decided that they were going to continue discrimination against blacks, and they did, until it was no longer expedient to do so. Kinda like the US government.

I just started reading 'The Teachings Of Presidents Of The Church - Brigham Young.' There's actually a lot that Young said that I find quite compelling, but I am waiting to see if the Church has whitewashed : ) his beliefs on race, includes them, or don't mention them at all.

The article the OP cites refutes the idea that the prophets didnt care or just went along with the ban til it became so unpopular a stance. Many of the prophets had prayed for it to end or to know if it should continue. It was never changed by popular will unless it was possibly that people had gotten to the stage that it would be accepted, which is just speculation.
We have always been a church that believed in revelation but we often forget that part of the way doctrine becomes doctrine is that we ACCEPT it as doctrine. If we say we can not or will not live by that doctrine we are free to do that. Of course we have to accept the consequences as well.