- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
In a 1988 interview Elder Oaks was asked about the priesthood restriction and how the sudden reversal seems to confuse some members. Elder Oaks said, “If you read the scriptures with this question in mind, “Why did the Lord Command this or why did the Lord command that?” you find that in less than one in a hundred commands was any reason given. It’s not the pattern of the Lord to give reasons. We can put reason to revelation. We can put reasons to commandments. When we do we atre on our own. Some people put reasons to the one we’re talking about here, and they turned out to be spectacularly wrong. There is a lesson in that. The lesson I’ve drawn is that I decided a long time ago that I had faith in the command and I had no faith in the reasons that had been suggested for it.”
When asked if the reasons he was talking about include reasons given by GA’s, Elder Oaks responded in part, “The reasons turn out to be man-made to a great extent.”
So here comes my question, it seems as a given in this interview that the priesthood restriction was given as a revelation, a command, a commandment…Do we hace evidence of this? The only revelation that I recall related to the priesthood restriction is the Official Declaration in the D&C that repealed it. I have enjoyed the discussion here about what constitues church doctine and the canon or standard works certainly appear to be the most sure answer; Where is the revelation or command restricting the priesthood?
If you’re talking about the priesthood ban and black men, the best explication was by Lester Bush in Dialogue back in the ? late 60s or early 70s. It was clear from his research that it was only a policy and not revelation. Priesthood was not withheld from dark-skinned African ethnics until the time of the following statements by Brigham Young: February 13, 1849: “What chance is there for the redemption of the Negro? The Lord had cursed Cain’s seed with blackness and prohibited them the Priesthood.”
1852 “Any man having one drop of the seed of [Cain] … in him cannot hold the Priesthood and if no other Prophet ever spoke it before I will say it now in the name of Jesus Christ I know it is true and others know it.”
However, Brigham Young also said regarding neutrality in heaven: “No, they were not, there were no neutral [spirits] in Heaven at the time of the rebellion, all took sides …. All spirits are pure that came from the presence of God.”
See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_people_and_The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints Speaking of never leading the church astray. The priesthood ban was not a commandment. This is a big interest of mine, so I have a lot of information. There are at least 7 known black members of the church that probably held the priesthood before and shortly after Joseph Smith died, and one of them served as Branch President in Boston.
** Black Pete
** Joseph T Ball (
Boston Branch president from October 1844 to March 1845– the largest LDS congregation outside of the Nauvoo area. He was ordained a High Priest by William Smith (the first African American HP) ** Elijah Abel
** Isaac Van Meter
** Walker Lewis – he helped found Massachusetts General Colored Association which was the first civil rights abolitionist group in the world.
** Enoch Lovejoy Lewis – son of Walker and ordained an elder as well.
* William McCary
I blogged about them previously at this link (and was nominated for a Niblet!!!):
http://www.mormonheretic.org/2009/03/09/early-black-mormons/ Brigham Young instituted the ban in 1852 to stop inter-racial marriage, and to appease slaveholding apostles. I did a long post on the Priesthood ban. See
http://www.mormonheretic.org/2008/09/14/was-priesthood-ban-inspired/ Finally, slavery was legalized in Utah for 3 reasons: (1) to appease slaveholding apostles, (2) to save the lives of Indian slaves, (3) to have a better chance of being admitted to the Union. (Going back to the Missouri Compromise, a slave state was added with a Free State. California and New Mexico had voted to be Free states, so Utah thought it’s chances of getting admitted would be better if they came in as a slave state.)
Brigham was no fan of slavery, but was a pragmatist, and strongly against inter-racial marriage. Quoting from my post
http://www.mormonheretic.org/2009/08/10/mormons-and-indians-in-the-great-plains/ Quote:Another problem was Indian slavery. As already indicated, a slave trade was conducted over the Old Spanish Trail that came through much of Utah since the early 1800s. Walker and his band raided weaker tribes, taking their children and sometimes their wives as prisoners and selling them to Mexicans. As early as November 1851, the Deseret News called attention to a party of twenty Mexicans in the San Pete Valley, trading for Indian children…..Jones related one graphic incident. Arrapine, Walker’s brother, insisted that because the Mormons had stopped the Mexicans from buying these children, the Mormons were obligated to purchase them. Jones wrote, “Several of us were present when he took one of the children by the heels and dashed his brains out on the hard ground, after which he threw the body toward us telling us we had no hearts or we would have saved its life.”
Incidents such as this led the Legislative Assembly of the Territory of Utah on 7 March 1852 to pass an act legalizing Indian slavery. The purpose was to induce Mormons to buy Indian children who otherwise would have been abandoned or killed.9 It provided that Indian children under the proper conditions could be legally bound over to suitable guardians for a term of indenture not exceeding twenty years. The master was required to send Indian children between the ages of seven and sixteen years to school for a period of three months each year and was answerable to the probate judge for the treatment of these apprentices. As a result of this act, many Mormon families took small Indian children into their homes to protect them from slavery or from being left destitute. John D. Lee, for example, wrote in his journal about a group of Indians who “brought me two more girls for which I gave them two horses. I named the girls Annette and Elnora.”
Negro slavery was also permitted in the territory, but the pioneers had passed no similar rules about the treatment of blacks, certainly [p.108] not the requirement that they be schooled. However, blacks were not permitted to be sold to others without their own consent.
Since there are Brigham Young quotes, I think I should share this quote where he initially claimed there was no priesthood ban. Quote:On Mar 26,1847, Brigham Young made a statement that he was aware of Walker Lewis, and aware that Walker held the priesthood. Young claimed on this date that there is no race-based ban. The statement is “its nothing to do with the blood, for of one blood has God made all flesh. We have to repent [and] regain what we [h]av[e] lost. We [h]av[e] one of the best Elders–an African in Lowell [i.e. Walker Lewis].” By December 1847, he’s completely changed his mind. Now he calls for Enoch and Matilda Lewis and their mixed-race child to be killed for breaking “the law of God.”
Connell O’Donovan, a history professor in California, believes this inter-racial marriage and problems with William McCary seducing white women into unauthorized polygamy was the impetus for the priesthood ban.
Roy- thanks for sharing the quote from Oaks, This is the topic that started me on my journey. It appears to me that Oaks is giving yet another interpretation for the ban, or at least he is backing Young, saying it was a commandment from God. McKay said that it was not prophecy but was just a policy of the church. Unfortunately, for the Church and African Americans the leadership in the Church acted as if the ban was prophecy and came up with all sorts of reasons for the ban. The two most common being the seed of Cain and fence sitters in heaven.
I like the fact that Oaks is saying the reasons are man made and he does not put any stock in them. However, in an attempt to make it all seem alright Oaks has muddied the water more. By saying the ban was from God but the reasons were from man Oaks is saying two past Prophets were wrong and now he is right.
At least McKay was saying none of it came from God, not a great position if you want the 14 fundamentals to be true, but an honest statement. I don’t see how Oaks can hold his position that the ban was from God but the reasons were made up? It must make him feel better but it also shows that the GA’s make crap up. If all the reasons the GA’s gave for the ban are man made then why should I listen to them?
After spending so much time looking at this and other issues, I find very little difference between ideas we label commandments, revelations, inspiration, policy, doctrine, and teachings. Yes. I believe there are cultural and semantic differences. Some ideas receive a formal stamp of approval while going through a canonization process. Most do not. There are very few things now that I would never expect to change. And I think we experience religion through our culture and our flaws. I am OK with people being wrong. I’m wrong too sometimes.
Brian Johnston wrote:There are very few things now that I would never expect to change. And I think we experience religion through our culture and our flaws. I am OK with people being wrong.
I’m wrong too sometimes.Yeah Brain, so am I. The problem is, unlike the church leadership in SLC, we ADMIT it. The church leadership does just the opposite. They not only won’t admit they (past prophets) have done wrong in the past, they preach things like the 14 Fs which claim they CAN DO NO WRONG in the future either.
Brian Johnston wrote:After spending so much time looking at this and other issues, I find very little difference between ideas we label commandments, revelations, inspiration, policy, doctrine, and teachings.
Exactly. So here is a question – is it a commandments, revelations, inspiration, policy, doctrine, or teachings that females are to only wear one pair of earrings?
I would argue that in the mormon world it is ALL OF THE ABOVE.
mormonheretic wrote:The priesthood ban was not a commandment.This is a big interest of mine, so I have a lot of information. There are at least 7 known black members of the church that probably held the priesthood before and shortly after Joseph Smith died, and one of them served as Branch President in Boston.
Brigham Young instituted the ban in 1852 to stop inter-racial marriage, and to appease slaveholding apostles.
GBSmith wrote:If you’re talking about the priesthood ban and black men, the best explication was by Lester Bush in Dialogue back in the ? late 60s or early 70s. It was clear from his research that
it was only a policy and not revelation.It might sound better to call it a policy instead of a commandment from an apologetic PR perspective but either way it is still a major embarrassment for the Church. Not only does it make previous Church leaders look like ignorant and prejudiced racists more than humble and enlightened servants of the Lord but it also shows their bumbling inability to get things right the first time and keep their story straight. Seriously, how well does their claimed revelation really work if it couldn’t help us avoid a scandal of this magnitude?
Similarly, I can’t find any canonized “revelation” that clearly elevates the WoW from a suggestion to a temple entrance requirement or one that clearly adds beer to the list of no-nos but how many bishops will ever accept this fact in TR interviews? Basically, if enough members believe something and expect others to conform to it then it might as well be God-given doctrine as far as they’re concerned regardless of whether it is an officially accepted “revelation” or not.
DevilsAdvocate wrote:Similarly, I can’t find any canonized “revelation” that clearly elevates the WoW from a suggestion to a temple entrance requirement or one that clearly adds beer to the list of no-nos but how many bishops will ever accept this fact in TR interviews?
Yep. So if I go in and tell the BP/SP that I want a TR, even though I drink beer, and explain that it IS NOT a commandment from god – only one guy’s personal opinion and interpretation and council to the the church during prohibition, and ask him to show me the commandment/doctrine that says otherwise – am I going to get a TR?
NO CHANCE.For all intent and purposes, Brian is right – there really is not much difference between “suggestions, council, commandments, revelation, policy.” As far as the local leaders are concerned, they are the same thing, in most cases.
cwald wrote:For all intent and purposes, Brian is right – there really is not much difference between “suggestions, council, commandments, revelation, policy.” As far as the local leaders are concerned, they are the same thing, in most cases.
I agree that there is very little distinction between policy and revelation. The easiest “common denominator” distinction would be inclusion in the standard works. The priesthood ban (what I am inclined to call a policy) does not appear to have been officially ratified.
Why would Elder Oaks see this policy as a commandment from God while all the justifications for it are just man made fluff. I think it is dangerous for the current leadership to admit that previous administrations made mistakes. And not just small mistakes, but mistakes that affected peoples lives greatly, mistakes that one would think God would either step in to correct or “remove the prophet from his post.” If this is to be accepted what would stop people from having similar doubts about the current administration.
IMO, Elder Oaks is attempting to say that the major directions and steps forward that the church has taken have been under the direction and prompting of JC who is at our head, even if we never fully understand WHY He lead us to do what we did.
GBSmith wrote:Speaking of never leading the church astray.
Elder Oaks seems to be confirming that the prophet will never lead the church astray but then follows by adding that even the prophet himself may not understand why a particular step is necessary for the church, and even that this same prophet may wrongly speculate about the reasons why.
To believe otherwise, that the entire policy was in error, is to cast the primary assumption that the prophet will never lead the church astray into doubt. What would happen if all members began to doubt this premise? Would the church implode? Would it go the route of the C of C? How many families would lose their center in the ensuing identity crisis? How many teens would might make foolish decisions in the wake of the new world of relativism?
I believe Elder Oaks believes as he does because he has to; to do otherwise would be nigh unthinkable.
Roy wrote:Why would Elder Oaks see this policy as a commandment from God while all the justifications for it are just man made fluff. I think it is dangerous for the current leadership to admit that previous administrations made mistakes. And not just small mistakes, but mistakes that affected peoples lives greatly, mistakes that one would think God would either step in to correct or “remove the prophet from his post.” If this is to be accepted what would stop people from having similar doubts about the current administration.
I think Oaks is in a pickle. I think the church is in a pickle. Will there be some casualties if he admits what is so glaringly obvious to many of us? Yeah. What I see, is a group of leaders who rather than coming clean and owning up to the past mistakes of the church, just continue to dig themselves into a bigger hole. Why? Is it really so important to have this belief that the prophets can do no wrong? This whole 14 Fs are really really bad news for the LDS. I don’t get it and I don’t know why the church is so insistent on following down this path.
They are going to lose members either way – at least if they own up to it, they could finally claim the high ground. As it is, this kind of approach looks so shady and dishonest, and it is giving our enemies a lot of valid criticism, as well as frustrating the h@ll out of a lot of NOMish type mormons.
I’m just glad to see the back of it. I regularly sit next to an African man and his wife in sacrament meeting. It’s not my concern in that it never affected me personally, but it’s also something I find really objectionable.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.