Why were Mormons happy that blacks were given the priesthood?

[drumdude]

A certain well known apologist recently defended the exclusion of women and blacks from the priesthood:

As I’ve noted here before, I can think of no real reason not to ordain women — except for the simple and (to me, entirely sufficient) reason that the Lord has not authorized us to do so. Women are typically just as intelligent and just as competent — if not more so, in many regards — as men commonly are, and at least as committed, on average, to the Lord and the Gospel.

But nobody has a “right” to receive the priesthood. Not women, not men.

Being the right to act in the name of God in certain particular regards, the priesthood is God’s to confer or to withhold.

He goes on:

A commenter on my blog insisted, some years back, that it’s unjust to restrict priesthood to males. If, however, there is no “right” to priesthood ordination, that argument seems to lose much of its force. It’s also not unjust that, so far as I know, Warren Buffet hasn’t included me in his will. It’s not unjust that my wife receives far more invitations to lunch than I do.

He then recounts the joy that the so-called prophets felt when the restriction was lifted.

Those in attendance said that as he began his earnest prayer, they suddenly realized that it was not Kimball’s prayer, but the Lord speaking through him. A revelation was being declared. Kimball himself realized that the words were not his but the Lord’s. During that prayer some of the Twelve—at least two who have said so publicly—were transported into a celestial atmosphere, saw a divine presence and the figures of former presidents of the church . . . smiling to indicate their approval and sanction. Others acknowleged the voice of the Lord coming, as with the prophet Elijah, ‘through the still, small voice.’ The voice of the Spirit followed their earnest search for wisdom and understanding.

At the end of the heavenly manifestation, Kimball, weeping for joy, confronted the [other members of the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve], many of them also sobbing, and asked if they sustained this heavenly instruction. Embracing, all nodded vigorously and jubilantly their sanction. There had been a startling and commanding revelation from God—an ineffable experience.

Two of the apostles present described the experience as a ‘day of Pentecost’ similar to the one in the Kirtland Temple on April 6, 1836, the day of its dedication. They saw a heavenly personage and heard heavenly music. To the temple-clothed members, the gathering, incredible and without compare, was the greatest singular event of their lives. Those I talked with wept as they spoke of it. All were certain they had witnessed a revelation from God.

Importantly, note that Mormon God here is actually doing the work of removing the ban. Even if the ban was instituted by flawed prophets, Mormon God waited until 1978 to lift it.

The joy seems to betray a lack of confidence in God’s will. If God commanded the restriction, then surely the restriction was good. And when the restriction was lifted, that was also good. In other words, there was no reason to be joyful because both the ban and the lifting of the ban were equally good.

OR: Mormon God was actually doing an injustice with his institution of the ban. There is a higher moral law which Mormon God had decided to break, and the prophets felt joy because the Mormon God had finally discovered common decency and somehow become less racist. That is definitely cause for feelings of joy.

So which is it? Was Mormon God’s ban moral and good? Or was Mormon God evil and capricious in its treatment of blacks until it had a change of heart in 1978?

[Everybody Wang Chung]

Nothing says “infinite wisdom” like holding an entire race’s salvation hostage until public opinion, tax status, and college football finally force a divine revelation.

[I Have Questions]

The priesthood ban for black men, and temple ban for black women, is a thorny problem for apologists. Every time they try and grasp it, they end up hurting themselves. This latest effort by Peterson highlights the problem - to defend it ends up with you looking like wanting your cake and eating it too.

If you promote the narrative that the repealing of the racist bans was prompted by God, you then have to explain why it took Him 100 years to get around to it. You have to explain why he waited until the rest of society had led the way on equal rights before doing so. You have to explain why God is a follower, not a leader, when it comes to societal progress.

But not only that. You have to explain why God allowed it in the first place. Because if God didn’t allow it, then you are left in the inescapable position of having to acknowledge that a Mormon Prophet CAN lead the church astray. And for 100 years.

The whole sorry episode has no good, faith promoting answers when you consider the whole context of the ban, rather than just focusing on the end of it, as if doing so waves away the rest of it. Hey look WW2 is over so no need to look at what happened during it…sort of thing.

It’s worth noting that there are still no black Apostles.

When the Church finally gets around to appointing a black Apostle (it’s now nearly 50 years since the ban was overturned) leaders and members will claim it as a great day and shows that God listens and that it proves the Church is true. They will not apologise to their black members that it has taken such a ridiculously long time.

[drumdude]

It’s worth noting that there are still no black Apostles.

There is a common theory amongst believing Mormons that polygamy was never fully rescinded, that it will eventually return as the rightful interpretation of Celestial Marriage. That the world forced them into a temporary change.

I wonder if the leaders are afraid to have a black Apostle, or God forbid a black Prophet and President- lest they run afoul of a similar rightful interpretation of race and the priesthood.

[Gadianton]

It's interesting he'd throw God under the bus like that. "It's not me! It's God, he's the one that's racist, what do you expect me to do about it?

[I Have Questions]

It’s worth noting that there are still no black Apostles.

There is a common theory amongst believing Mormons that polygamy was never fully rescinded, that it will eventually return as the rightful interpretation of Celestial Marriage. That the world forced them into a temporary change.

I wonder if the leaders are afraid to have a black Apostle, or God forbid a black Prophet and President- lest they run afoul of a similar rightful interpretation of race and the priesthood.

There used to be a serving Bishop who posted on the earlier iteration of this board. His view was that the ban on black people was doctrinal and that the reversal and subsequent explanations were just spin doctoring by the church to cater for public attention. He still maintained that black people shouldn’t have the priesthood or be in the temple. I wonder where he is now, and I wonder how many current Apostles may think similarly.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

My parents were not happy with the change. I think they just held to their racial identity despite the change from SLC.

[Philo Sofee]

There is a common theory amongst believing Mormons that polygamy was never fully rescinded, that it will eventually return as the rightful interpretation of Celestial Marriage. That the world forced them into a temporary change.

I wonder if the leaders are afraid to have a black Apostle, or God forbid a black Prophet and President- lest they run afoul of a similar rightful interpretation of race and the priesthood.

There used to be a serving Bishop who posted on the earlier iteration of this board. His view was that the ban on black people was doctrinal and that the reversal and subsequent explanations were just spin doctoring by the church to cater for public attention. He still maintained that black people shouldn’t have the priesthood or be in the temple. I wonder where he is now, and I wonder how many current Apostles may think similarly.

I think that was Black MoClips wasn't it?