Why No Apology For the Priesthood Ban

[marc]

I have so many books and articles to read. I'll get to this one later, but I think it's worth posting. We'll see, anyway.

http://rationalfaiths.com/apology-priesthood-ban/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Cookies]

That was a good read. The extent (or so it seems) that the church takes to cover up their flaws is astounding! There really are many theories attempting to justify why blacks didn't get the priesthood. Blaming it on everyone (even God) but our leaders. It definitely seems like the majority of the LDS are only willing to believe the things that paint our leaders in the best possible light. It's understandable, because when your realize that our leaders are just frail men trying their best, it will either make you or break you.

I particularly liked the comment section where people were trying to hash things out. I have heard this excuse several times in my own family, but never (until recently) heard the rebuttal for it. The rebuttal makes sense...for now.

When will Jesus Christ issue a formal apology for excluding EVERYONE except Jews from joining His church while He was alive? Excluding everyone is much bigger racism than excluding just people with black skin. Did Jesus make a mistake by rolling out his gospel to only Jews first? Can you imagine a church today that only allowed circumcised men to join? You have to consider that perhaps there was some purpose in the rollout of the restored gospel not going everywhere to everyone at one time. I have no idea why, but I don’t know why Jesus excluded everyone except Jews either.

Corbin Volluz
Corbin Volluz / December 19, 2013

Thanks for your post, Gentile.

I do not claim to know everything, either.

But I do know that when the restored gospel was originally rolled out, black men were ordained to the Priesthood. The best evidence is that Joseph Smith ordained one himself. His name was Elijah Able (or “Ables”).

It was not until Brigham Young assumed the reins of leadership that this was reversed. And Brigham Young frequently accompanied his teachings in this regard with overtly racist statements and descriptions of black people.

I do not think it beyond the pale to expect Brigham Young’s successors in Church leadership to apologize for this.

[Simon]

How can we plant a new, pure plant, if we dont first cast out the poisened earth? I dont get it why it is so difficult to say sorry, and to admit things have gone wrong in the past. How can we experience the cure without beginning at the roouts of the cause. This cant be a sure foundation to build on.

I wished they were that honest, I am sure as with Snuffers writings, it will not cause people to leave the church at all, if they seek for truth

[Jeremy]

If I apologize I feel as though I am admitting fault. And by admitting fault I am acknowledging that I can lead people astray if they choose to follow.

If I don't want to admit fault, I don't apologize.

[TheLion]

This is one of the subjects I introduced during discussions with a former bishop that I have befriended. He is a sincere and gentle man but he stumbles on explaining the churches history in this area. The last thing he told me is that blacks weren't ready yet, if I remember correctly, to have the priesthood and once they were ready God gave the direction. I really hope I am not remembering what he said incorrectly, as I was approaching him from another angle and was more focused on my words. Which of course is unfortunate, as it didn't allow me to fully digest his words.

My comment to him was that the church seems, like most other churches, to tail behind society. When society makes a push for something the churches end up following. This was one of the examples I brought up with him, marriage, and some others were brought up as well. I'll save the rest of my points because it'll shift the direction of the conversation for anyone that would engage in it.

His explanation did resonate with me, nor have any of the other ones I have heard. JS set the standard and it was changed. If JS was/is who believe believe he is why are his standards for the church, given to him by God, being changed by successors? This isn't an indictment on JS, more of an indictment on who has followed. Including those that changed it back, for reasons truly other than revelation from God. Repeatedly.

Further, since some are quick to jump to anti labels, this is not anti talk nor endorsing anti talk...it's a legitimate question. I have a hard time imagining God changing his mind so often about so many things. Of course the good 'ol "we weren't ready" answer can be tossed out there, which maybe a valid answer but when changes come from outside churches first doesn't quite align properly for me. The obvious answer to me, doesn't mean it's right, is that man is/has twisted Gods word to meet earthly reasons. Which calls to attention, if that is the case, so many people we have cherished were not quite as righteous as we are led to believe. Therefore, instead of cherry picking scripture that only flatters our viewpoint (or the viewpoint of leaders) we should be looking at the body of the work as a whole better. If we do this we might see some earthly leaders for what they are, human and with sin and prone to err just as we all are, and be more open to Gods word and not mistakenly follow fellow humans diving into grey areas for earthly reasons.

I think many people would say they only follow scripture and not fellow men, I'm not so sure about that.

[Dedward]

If the church doesn't word things very carefully people will figure out that prophets have and can lead us astray. They will begin to realize the stupidity of the doctrine of infallibility. Over the past 150+ years the church has been painting itself into a corner. I feel sorrow for the things they are going to have to deal with as more and more learn how badly they have been deceived and lied to by, in many cases well intentioned but misguided mortal leaders.

[log]

The fun part is, the ban could very well have been from God - whether any particular justification put forward was or not.

[Lilli]

If the church doesn't word things very carefully people will figure out that prophets have and can lead us astray. They will begin to realize the stupidity of the doctrine of infallibility. Over the past 150+ years the church has been painting itself into a corner. I feel sorrow for the things they are going to have to deal with as more and more learn how badly they have been deceived and lied to by, in many cases well intentioned but misguided mortal leaders.

Amen.

[log]

To follow up my last post, Nibley said this.

The hardest thing in the world for men to learn is "this one lesson—that the rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven" (D&C 121:35-36). They are God's alone to give and take away, and no one will dispute his right to do as he pleases with his own. So now the whole issue boils down to asking whether it is really God and not man who has ordered this thing. Members and nonmembers alike who up until now have laughed at the thought of asking such a question are suddenly exercised by it. And so it gives me great pleasure to be in a position to answer the question with an unequivocal affirmative: it is indeed the Lord's doing. How do I know it? By revelation—which I am in no position to bestow upon others; this goes only for myself. And that makes the "Negro Question" as unreal as the "Mormon Question" which kept the nation in an uproar for many years. Left to myself, the last thing in the world I would do would be to advocate polygamy or impose any limitations whatever on the Negro—and I have often heard the brethren express themselves to the same effect. When the Lord told Joseph Smith that he couldn't always tell his friends from his enemies or the wicked from the righteous, what was left for him to do? "Therefore I say unto you, hold your peace until I shall see fit to make all things known unto the world concerning the matter" (D&C 10:37). Granted that this puts us, as it put the prophet, in an uncomfortable and even dangerous position, still it provides the best possible test for our faith, our hope, and above all our charity.

So, it makes sense for the Church to not issue an apology. However, what the Church has said does carry some interesting implications, as Snuffer pointed out.

[Valiance]

The fun part is, the ban could very well have been from God - whether any particular justification put forward was or not.

Why would God ban an entire race of people from holding something as important as his priesthood simply because of the color of their skin? I thought the Lord looked upon the individual heart? But what do I know. As good as a leader as Brigham Young was and especially leading the Saints west, I'm sure he has had to answer to the Lord for withholding the priesthood from blacks as well as his indulgence and teachings in the practice of polygamy.

[log]

The fun part is, the ban could very well have been from God - whether any particular justification put forward was or not.

Why would God ban an entire race of people simply because of the color of their skin? I thought the Lord looked upon the individual heart? But what do I know.

Why would he ban the whole planet except one tribe of Israelites?

Isaiah 55
8 ¶For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord.

9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

10 For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater:

11 So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.

[Lilli]

This is one of the subjects I introduced during discussions with a former bishop that I have befriended. He is a sincere and gentle man but he stumbles on explaining the churches history in this area. The last thing he told me is that blacks weren't ready yet, if I remember correctly, to have the priesthood and once they were ready God gave the direction. I really hope I am not remembering what he said incorrectly, as I was approaching him from another angle and was more focused on my words. Which of course is unfortunate, as it didn't allow me to fully digest his words.

My comment to him was that the church seems, like most other churches, to tail behind society. When society makes a push for something the churches end up following. This was one of the examples I brought up with him, marriage, and some others were brought up as well. I'll save the rest of my points because it'll shift the direction of the conversation for anyone that would engage in it.

His explanation did resonate with me, nor have any of the other ones I have heard. JS set the standard and it was changed. If JS was/is who believe believe he is why are his standards for the church, given to him by God, being changed by successors? This isn't an indictment on JS, more of an indictment on who has followed. Including those that changed it back, for reasons truly other than revelation from God. Repeatedly.

Further, since some are quick to jump to anti labels, this is not anti talk nor endorsing anti talk...it's a legitimate question. I have a hard time imagining God changing his mind so often about so many things. Of course the good 'ol "we weren't ready" answer can be tossed out there, which maybe a valid answer but when changes come from outside churches first doesn't quite align properly for me. The obvious answer to me, doesn't mean it's right, is that man is/has twisted Gods word to meet earthly reasons. Which calls to attention, if that is the case, so many people we have cherished were not quite as righteous as we are led to believe. Therefore, instead of cherry picking scripture that only flatters our viewpoint (or the viewpoint of leaders) we should be looking at the body of the work as a whole better. If we do this we might see some earthly leaders for what they are, human and with sin and prone to err just as we all are, and be more open to Gods word and not mistakenly follow fellow humans diving into grey areas for earthly reasons.

I think many people would say they only follow scripture and not fellow men, I'm not so sure about that.

I agree.

God and his laws, commandments & standards for Exaltation are the same yesterday, today and forever, with all people in all ages of time.

Mormon 9:10
10 And now, if ye have imagined up unto yourselves a god who doth vary, and in whom there is shadow of changing, then have ye imagined up unto yourselves a god who is not a God of miracles.

Doctrine and Covenants 3:2
2 For God doth not walk in crooked paths, neither doth he turn to the right hand nor to the left, neither doth he vary from that which he hath said, therefore his paths are straight, and his course is one eternal round.

And why is the following quote not the thinking of the Church still, instead of leaders who don't want to be questioned or doubted?:

Apostle Orson Pratt said:
“. . . convince us of our errors of doctrine, if we have any, by reason, by logical arguments, or by the word of God, and we will be ever grateful for the information, and you will ever have the pleasing reflection that you have been instruments in the hands of God of redeeming your fellow beings from the darkness which you may see enveloping their minds.”
(Orson Pratt, “The Seer”, pp. 15-16)

[Simon]

If the church doesn't word things very carefully people will figure out that prophets have and can lead us astray. They will begin to realize the stupidity of the doctrine of infallibility. Over the past 150+ years the church has been painting itself into a corner. I feel sorrow for the things they are going to have to deal with as more and more learn how badly they have been deceived and lied to by, in many cases well intentioned but misguided mortal leaders.

Amen.

Which is why the general confrence talks are being read, not that the spirit prompts to say something unplanned (0:

[Simon]

If we do this we might see some earthly leaders for what they are, human and with sin and prone to err just as we all are, and be more open to Gods word and not mistakenly follow fellow humans diving into grey areas for earthly reasons.

I think many people would say they only follow scripture and not fellow men, I'm not so sure about that.

Once the church as a whole were willing to admit that there are weaknesses and flaws, the Lord could make these weaknesses to our strengths. But if we continue to deny our weaknesses, and if we continue to depend on our leaders because they are "perfect", these weaknesses will remain such.

It would be healthy to all admit that we cant do all this on our own, for we are far from perfection.

[keep the faith]

The fun part is, the ban could very well have been from God - whether any particular justification put forward was or not.

Why would God ban an entire race of people simply because of the color of their skin? I thought the Lord looked upon the individual heart? But what do I know.

Why would he ban the whole planet except one tribe of Israelites?

Isaiah 55
8 ¶For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord.

9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

10 For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater:

11 So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.

Such a great point Log. I love the Isaiah verse. The Lord revealed to Joseph that He can command and revoke as it seemeth HIM good. He goes on to say that the revelations He chooses to give through his servants will be answered upon the heads of the rebellious. I take that proclamation very seriously. Will I become a sheep or a goat? Much depends upon my attitudes toward whether or not I allow The Lord the right and privilege to command and revoke as it seemeth HIM good. That is why a person can not live on borrowed light. To many tests will wash them away into a sea of confusion and rebellion if they rely on mans wisdom and not rely on the Spirits confirming voice. "Their wisdom is foolishness and it profiteth them not."