Racism and the Atonement of Jesus Christ

[Anonymous]

Old-Timer wrote:

I’m going to post this also in the thread about church each week, but one of the very faithful brethren in my new ward mentioned in his testimony today (last week was Stake Conference) that as he has studied Church History he has had to learn to accept that all of us, including even our prophets, have weakness, make mistakes, hold on to incorrect beliefs and will be accountable for the things we say and do that hurt others – but that the GOSPEL the prophets teach (and he emphasized the word “Gospel”) is of God and that the Atonement is powerful enough to save ALL who have sinned and come short of the glory of God. He mentioned how thankful he has been for the chance to study Church History and come to this profound realization.

I thought that was a wonderful way of saying it, especially since I am positive it was influenced heavily by Prof. Bott’s Washington Post interview.

powerful stuff ray. good quote.

[Anonymous]

There is a current post on By Common Consent about one of the justifications for the Priesthood ban (the “curse of Ham” nonsense) by Margaret Blair Young. It is an excellent look at that justification, and I just wrote a VERY long comment in the thread – in response to someone who kept insisting that there were multiple bans throughout history and, therefore, we can’t know for sure the modern ban wasn’t the will of God and just one more example of the way He works. I want to share it here, just so everyone can read it and see what you think:

Quote:

JohnB, just for the sake of answering your question fully, I will proceed as if you are 100% correct that there were times when the Priesthood was restricted by divine command by lineage and address your concern with that assumption in mind. Understand, that’s not my own belief, but let’s proceed as if it is correct:

1) EVERY instance in our canonized scripture of such a restriction, if it existed, occurred prior to the ministry of Jesus Christ. Look it up: Every reference is from before he ministered among the Jews. That is critical to understand as the foundation of the discussion. (So, if I posit that there were “bans” based on lineage or race prior to the modern one, I have to admit that they appear to have stopped with Jesus’ ministry – according to our scriptural canon.)

2) There are NO recorded revelations justifying the modern Priesthood ban. ALL of them used the Old Testament time period justifications that were common within “apostate” Christianity at the time. (Have you ever thought about that aspect of the discussion – that the justifications were borrowed from denominations that we classified as “apostate” at the time? It’s instructive, I think.)

2) Jesus’ statement in Matthew 15:24 about being sent only to the lost sheep of the House of Israel says absolutely nothing about the Priesthood. It refers only to his ministry – his preaching and healing and blessing. The woman in question wasn’t asking for the Priesthood; she was asking that He perform a miracle on behalf of her daughter. Thus, that passage is completely irrelevant to the modern ban.

3) The last message Jesus gave his disciples in Matthew before his ascension is recorded in Matthew 28:19-20, which reads (emphasis mine): “Go ye therefore, and teach ALL nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:Teaching them to observe ALL things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.”

Notice, they were commanded to teach and baptize ALL nations (which doesn’t address a Priesthood ban, since even under the modern ban, black people could be taught and baptized), but notice that once ALL were baptized they, without exception, were to “observe ALL things whatsoever I have commanded you”. Iow, there is NO restriction of ANY kind on what ANYONE who was baptized was required to observe – and black members at that time couldn’t have followed that commandment without the Priesthood. Thus, by default (not reading into the passage what isn’t there), there was no Priesthood ban in the early Christian Church.

4) Nephi passed along the idea of a curse in his writings, but the Book of Mormon also has NO mention of it after the visitation of Jesus in 2 Nephi. It ended, if there was one, with the ministry of Jesus among them. Furthermore, Nephi undercuts the idea that the curse he mentioned was skin- or lineage-related when he said in 2 Nephi 26:33 (again, emphasis mine):

“For none of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he doeth that which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and he inviteth them ALL to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth NONE that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and ALL are ALIKE unto God, both Jew AND Gentile.”

Nephi says in that verse, explicitly, that black and white are “alike unto God” – and that God invites ALL to “come unto him and partake of his goodness”. People who are partaking of the same goodness and who are alike unto God eliminates, obviously and unequivocally, the idea that one group held the Priesthood and could attend the temple while the other group didn’t and couldn’t. The ban makes NO sense whatsoever when read according to that verse – and it was written before Christ’s ministry. If that verse is interpreted literally, and if there actually was a race-based Priesthood ban at some point in history, it had ended by around 600 BC – or, if read to coincide with the ministry of Jesus, it ended at that time, at the very latest.

5) The issue with the Gentiles in the early Christian Church wasn’t about Priesthood or the temple in any way. (At least, there is NO mention whatsoever of the Priesthood in any passage dealing with the issue.) It’s a non-starter with regard to the ban.

6) Joseph Smith ordained multiple black men to the Priesthood, so it’s patently absurd to argue that he believed a ban was necessary – regardless of how he felt about any other bans that might have existed.

Conclusion:

Based on our actual scriptural canon, even if some bans actually did occur in the Old Testament times, there is NO evidence that any continued after the ministry of Jesus Christ – in either the Bible or the Book of Mormon. In fact, there are multiple sources that imply or state explicitly that a ban from that point onward was not the will of God – that ALL people everywhere now were considered “alike unto him”.

So, if even our modern prophets and apostles say the former justifications were incorrect (“spectacularly wrong”, in one quote) – and if even they say they don’t know exactly why the ban was implemented (with which I can’t argue strongly, since I think it’s obvious but am willing to admit that I can’t see 100% into Pres. Young’s mind and know with total certainty why he did what he did) – and if they are saying forcefully that we should not perpetuate the former justifications – and if even they now have said that the Church condemns ALL racism of any kind, including that of our own LDS members, past and present – and if ALL the written evidence since the time of Jesus’ mortal ministry points to the incorrectness of a Priesthood ban (especially based on one drop of blood from a long-ago ancestor – who, btw, is a common ancestor to ALL of us, if the “one drop” standard is used) — how can someone possibly argue that the modern Priesthood ban was justifiable based on the beliefs of those who lived and recorded their beliefs before Jesus was born and set the new standard, even if previous bans existed and were justifiable back then?

[Anonymous]

Good post, Ray.

Old-Timer wrote:

how can someone possibly argue that the modern Priesthood ban was justifiable

I don’t see any way other than if a person is holding on to narrow beliefs that whatever a prophet speaks is what God told him to say, therefore there must be a good reason for it because previous prophets upheld the policy. It is the same reason it took so long for it to get corrected, which is sad.

But if we have faith in the Atonement, and we become more informed as a people, hopefully the church progresses because people are able to say in testimony meeting:

Quote:

as he has studied Church History he has had to learn to accept that all of us, including even our prophets, have weakness, make mistakes, hold on to incorrect beliefs and will be accountable for the things we say and do that hurt others – but that the GOSPEL the prophets teach (and he emphasized the word “Gospel”) is of God and that the Atonement is powerful enough to save ALL who have sinned and come short of the glory of God. He mentioned how thankful he has been for the chance to study Church History and come to this profound realization.

[Anonymous]

I think this whole racism thing is a bit overblown. Correct me if I’m wrong but, the Jews limit priesthood to the tribe of Judah….Aaron’s descendents. I don’t see anyone calling them racists. In fact, one might be labled “anti-semetic” if he called them out on it. Perhaps it’s just not PC.

I guess it’s….

No priesthood due to ethnicity/family origins……OK

No priesthood due to skin color……Bad.

Just sayin….

[Anonymous]

As I do often after a comment from Bruce (and he knows it’s cool), I just want to point out that Bruce is a fundementalist Mormon who still believes in polygamy and other things instituted in the early chuch history. Thus, his view on the ban is not a surprise. PLEASE, everyone, understand that and don’t get too harsh in your responses to his comment.

Bruce, my own response would be to go back and read the LONG comment I posted to see why I think the case you cited and the modern ban are apples and oranges. It is the heart of that comment – that I don’t think we can use things that were done before Jesus’ ministry to justify the ban in our own moder times.

[Anonymous]

Bruce in Montana wrote:

Correct me if I’m wrong but, the Jews limit priesthood to the tribe of Judah….Aaron’s descendents.

aaron is correct, judah is wrong. tribe of levi, levitical priesthood, with a special caste for the descendents of aaron, the aaronid (not aaronic) priesthood, or koheinim. If you meet a jew named Cohen today, it’s like 85% probability that he is a literal descendent of Aaron.

[Anonymous]

I see little similarity in the way “priesthood” is viewed in the context of Judaism as compared to the LDS view. In the former (I am guessing a bit here) it is viewed as a ceremonial duty for a segment of the population, whereas in the latter is it a rite of passage, and absolutely necessary for progression.

[Anonymous]

To add a bit more to doug’s point, there’s a HUGE conceptual difference between giving one small percentage of a “multi-tribal” population the right to perform rituals and giving everyone in a “multi-racial” population that right except one specific group. In very real terms, it’s the exact opposite of the ancient Levitical structure.

[Anonymous]

Racism is quite ugly, but I think we can be a little more forgiving of those in the older generation that hold some of those views, and LOT more forgiving of historical figures that did. For example, if you believed the world was flat at a time when everyone believed the world was flat, does that make you stupid? I don’t think it really says much about your intelligence either way. I was reading “The God Delusion” by Richard Dawkins, and I can’t even remember why he brought this up, but he found a quote from Abraham Lincoln where he said in no uncertain terms that black people were inferior to white people. Does that scar the way I think about him? No, I think it is crazy to judge historical figures based on the standards of today’s society. Most of us grew up in a time when racism was condemned. Today it really says nothing about our character if we are not racist; we are just conforming to a societal standard. By contrast, when someone like Abraham Lincoln chose to be LESS racist than society in his time, it took a great deal of moral courage.

[Anonymous]

Abraham Lincoln never claimed (as far as I know) to be a prophet. Maybe it’s unfair, but I am therefore more willing to overlook his mistakes than I would those same mistakes committed by someone who does claim to converse directly with God. To those who posit that, for instance, the policy to allow the priesthood to all males was not changed sooner because God was worried that it might have made too many in the church membership uncomfortable, I would quote:

Quote:

“I come not to bring peace, but to bring a sword”

[Anonymous]

I believe God threw his hands in the air and said, essentially:

Quote:

“Fine. Joseph was crystal clear concerning my will, and you changed it without me telling you otherwise. You did this on your own, so I’m out of here until you come begging me as a (mostly) united whole. When that happens – when you’ve come to understand how wrong you’ve been and are ready as a group to accept my original will as taught and practiced by Joseph, at that point I’ll free you from the bondage in which you’ve placed yourselves.”

I think there is ample scriptural support for that view.

[Author]

Posts