The purpose of Blacks and the Priesthood ban

[K-dog]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

There are many Mormons, like Tex, who would argue that the *church* has never been *racist*.

So your belief is not a consensus belief.

But is that relevant. The context of this question is the political debates and Mitt Romney's bid for presidency...does it matter if he is a member of a group that used to be racist? I would venture a guess that all of the candidates are. Some of the candidates are from a political party that, basically, protected slavery.

[BYU71]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

There are many Mormons, like Tex, who would argue that the *church* has never been *racist*.

So your belief is not a consensus belief.

Could you define racism for me so I can decide if the church has ever been racist.

I would like to know if I have ever been by the way. Perhaps your definition would help me to know if I should feel guilty and go through a repentence process.

I first will admit that I wasn't outraged that there weren't any black people on TV commercials in the 50's. Since I wasn't outraged was I an elementary school racist kid.

[BYU71]

Originally Posted by K-dog

But is that relevant. The context of this question is the political debates and Mitt Romney's bid for presidency...does it matter if he is a member of a group that used to be racist? I would venture a guess that all of the candidates are. Some of the candidates are from a political party that, basically, protected slavery.

Good point. Why isn't Senator Bird (Byrd) being drummed out of the Senate by those who appear to be upset with Mitt.

[K-dog]

Originally Posted by BYU71

Good point. Why isn't Senator Bird (Byrd) being drummed out of the Senate by those who appear to be upset with Mitt.

The whole thing is like asking Hillary Clinton why she is willing to be a member of the political party that promoted slavery in the south. It is stupid.

[SoCalCoug]

Originally Posted by Tex

Draw whatever conclusion about the church's racism that you want ... my primary contention has always been that the ban did not exist sans God.

Your primary problem is that you cannot except a God that would do such thing which, in your mind, would make him a racist.

You do agree with the following, though, right?:

1. The ban on blacks receiving the priesthood was a policy, and not doctrine.
2. The delay (until 1978) in changing the policy was due to apostles not being ready to accept the change.

Is it really a stretch to conclude that, assuming, arguendo, God told DOM that the time was not yet right for the change, it was primarily because the church leaders at the time were not ready to accept it, as opposed to some doctrinal reason that only God knows about?

I don't know what's so wrong about this interpretation: The ban on blacks receiving the priesthood arose out of the racial prejudices of the early church leaders (particularly Brigham Young). It was allowed to be perpetuated for two main reasons: (1) Continued racist beliefs among church leaders; and (2) there weren't many blacks in the Rocky Mountain area, much less any who were being proselytized, and therefore it just wasn't a priority issue to address.

By the mid-20th century, the origins of the practice were so murky, and it had continued for so long, that it was firmly entrenched in the orthodoxy of the church. Because of this, DOM and SWK (the two prophets who seemed to have the strongest feelings against the policy) reasonably felt that the affirmation of God would be needed to support the change, particularly among church leaders who had prejudicial leanings against blacks. SWK in particular decided (whether he was inspired in this decision or not is really not important, IMHO) that the policy was wrong, and he spent a great deal of time trying to build a consensus among the Quorum of the 12. DOM either did not try extremely hard, or he was simply unsuccessful in attempting to do so. Notably, the most fervent of the leaders opposing the change had died by 1978.

Whether God told DOM or not that the time was not right is really beside the point, because there is substantial evidence that based on the opinions we know of by the leaders at the time, there was not a consensus in support of the change - I agree that in that climate, the time was not right. That the change was delayed until such time as the consensus was achieved is significant.

The evidence points to the dissent among the leaders in whether the ban should be lifted being the determinative factor in whether the time was right to end the ban.

What evidence is there to contradict this conclusion?

[Indy Coug]

What evidence do we have that God limits himself to not revealing things until everyone is already set to agree to it?

I'm glad the Pharisees were on board first. And the early Jewish Christian converts with the whole circumcision/Gentile proselyting thing. And the Israelite campers out in the Sinai. Same thing with Joseph Smith and the polygamy thing.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

What evidence do we have that God limits himself to not revealing things until everyone is already set to agree to it?

I'm glad the Pharisees were on board first. And the early Jewish Christian converts with the whole circumcision/Gentile proselyting thing. And the Israelite campers out in the Sinai. Same thing with Joseph Smith and the polygamy thing.

Indy, I have noticed that you like to repeat the story about the angel with the flaming sword commanding Joseph to secretly take extra wives. Doesn't that story sounds a little... ummmm... "convenient" to you? That's either the truth or a pretty colorful attempt to get Emma (and other women) on board. Either way, it doesn't appear that Emma bought it.

[Archaea]

Here's a problem as I see it.

Let's go back to tribal time periods. It probably was essential that an Alpha male made certain he had lots of offspring and having many wives ensured that and potentially wealth.

Now, spring forward, Joseph envisages a return to ancient prophethood and reclaims it. It's not hard to get a guy to sleep with additional women, but it's not the easiest thing for a woman, especially in the frigid 19th Century, to allow her man to go after other women.

The flaming sword story doesn't sell well with me, but if somebody feared themselves a prophet and loved that prophet that woman might buy it.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

You do agree with the following, though, right?:

1. The ban on blacks receiving the priesthood was a policy, and not doctrine.
2. The delay (until 1978) in changing the policy was due to apostles not being ready to accept the change.

1. If there was a doctrine behind the policy, it appears to have been unrevealed to those who persisted it. If BRM is to believed, all doctrinal explanations (including his) for its existence were incorrect.

2. Not sure how you get to this one. The line I highlighted in the SWK manual is extremely vague. I think there was probably a complex set of variables the Lord was working with for lifting the restriction. I suppose I am naive enough to believe that if God wanted his pre-1978 Quorum to get in line earlier, he could've marshalled it.

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

I don't know what's so wrong about this interpretation: The ban on blacks receiving the priesthood arose out of the racial prejudices of the early church leaders (particularly Brigham Young). It was allowed to be perpetuated for two main reasons: (1) Continued racist beliefs among church leaders; and (2) there weren't many blacks in the Rocky Mountain area, much less any who were being proselytized, and therefore it just wasn't a priority issue to address.

By the mid-20th century, the origins of the practice were so murky, and it had continued for so long, that it was firmly entrenched in the orthodoxy of the church. Because of this, DOM and SWK (the two prophets who seemed to have the strongest feelings against the policy) reasonably felt that the affirmation of God would be needed to support the change, particularly among church leaders who had prejudicial leanings against blacks. SWK in particular decided (whether he was inspired in this decision or not is really not important, IMHO) that the policy was wrong, and he spent a great deal of time trying to build a consensus among the Quorum of the 12. DOM either did not try extremely hard, or he was simply unsuccessful in attempting to do so. Notably, the most fervent of the leaders opposing the change had died by 1978.

Whether God told DOM or not that the time was not right is really beside the point, because there is substantial evidence that based on the opinions we know of by the leaders at the time, there was not a consensus in support of the change - I agree that in that climate, the time was not right. That the change was delayed until such time as the consensus was achieved is significant.

The evidence points to the dissent among the leaders in whether the ban should be lifted being the determinative factor in whether the time was right to end the ban.

What evidence is there to contradict this conclusion?

I think those are critical points to the discussion. I'm open to many possibilities about the origins and existence of the priesthood restriction, provided they don't factor God out of it.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Indy, I have noticed that you like to repeat the story about the angel with the flaming sword commanding Joseph to secretly take extra wives. Doesn't that story sounds a little... ummmm... "convenient" to you? That's either the truth or a pretty colorful attempt to get Emma (and other women) on board. Either way, it doesn't appear that Emma bought it.

Back to my point, is God limited to revealing new commandments only if the people are first fully prepared to embrace them?