was it worth it?

[_Gadianton]

The priesthood ban, was it worth it? If the ban stalls the church's progress politically, and diminishes its public perception, and therefore further stunts its growth, the I think the apologists have to ask themselves, was it worth it?

Considering the apologists maintain the ban was decreed by God and not a mistake, they are forced to justify a bar that affected only a small number of people in contrast to the numbers repulsed today beacause it was instituted. Was keeping those relatively few people out, for reasons no apologists can even guess at, when every single one of them would be welcomed today, worth the aftermath?

In fact, the apologists are also faced with the fact that Adam fell "that men might be", broke the law for the greater good, thus fulfilling the higher law. Nephi.killed Laban for the greater good, but yet, church members, with nothing to lose otherwise, refused to let their love for fellow man violate an obscure stipulate no one understood when it clearly was for the greater good. Therfore, the apologists are in an impossible position. They are forced to admit that they have comitted a grevious sin of ommission, akin to Nephi allowing the plates to be lost and a whole nation going to hell. The alternative is to claim the giving a person the priesthood with a different skin color would have been worse than genocide.

Both options paint the apologists as among the most racist people alive by Mormon theology. In order to escape this, their only option is to publically admit the Church was wrong, even if the doctrine is not understood well enough to be considered true or in error.

[_Buffalo]

It was important for the Lord to gather all the people up to 1978 who could enjoy, tolerate, or at least overlook racism, for some reason.

Truly the Lord works in mysterious ways.

[_DarkHelmet]

I'm sure most TBMs today privately wish the church never had an official priesthood ban. Racist practices and polices in line with the culture of that time are one thing, and are easily forgiven if the current organization progresses along with the rest of society. The church is unique in that they blame their racism on god, and claim they had no choice, and could only stop being racist when god told them to. I'm sure TBMs also wish the church never practiced polygamy. Because it is another embarrassment that the church blames on god. The explanation for both of these practices is as bad as the practice itself, and it keeps the issue alive.

[_Mercury]

Why do you hate Mormons, Gad? Don't you know that racism has been just folk doctrine?

[_bcspace]

The priesthood ban, was it worth it? If the ban stalls the church's progress politically, and diminishes its public perception, and therefore further stunts its growth, the I think the apologists have to ask themselves, was it worth it?

The official doctrine implies (at the least) it was Divinely appointed. Therefore, the doctrine also is that it was worth it. The question might be asked of some apologists if their incorrect explanation was worth it and of course the answer has to be no.

[_Gadianton]

The official doctrine implies (at the least) it was Divinely appointed. Therefore, the doctrine also is that it was worth it.

Not so. The official doctrine was to not eat the fruit, but that didn't imply that not eating the fruit, and therefore, mankind "never coming to be" would have been worth it; quite the opposite in fact. This is exactly where Mormon doctrine checkmates itself, as I explained in my post.

I have shown that even if the ban is/was doctrine, that adhering to it is/was a damnable offense.

I win again.

[_bcspace]

The official doctrine implies (at the least) it was Divinely appointed. Therefore, the doctrine also is that it was worth it.

Not so.

Quite so. even the OD 2 refers to the "long promised day" when the ban would be lifted. Who has to authority to make such a promise? God or God through his authorized servants. Hence, Divinely appointed.

God was always in control no matter how one spins the ban, correctly or left wing. Hence, Divinely appointed.

The doctrine on OD 2 also states that:

"From the dispensation of Adam until the dispensation of the fulness of times, there has been a group of people who have not been allowed to hold the priesthood of God. The scriptural basis for this policy is Abraham 1:21–27 . The full reason for the denial has been kept hidden by the Lord, and one is left to assume that He will make it known in His own due time"

http://institute.LDS.org/manuals/doctrine-and-covenants-institute-student-manual/dc-in-131-od2.asp

Here, I have marked two statements that also assure us the Ban was Divinely appointed according to official doctrine.

1) Scriptural basis. Obvious.
2) The full reason was kept hidden by the Lord. If the Lord knew the full reason and no man did, the the Lord instigated it and thus it was Divinely appointed.

The Church also states in another publication (Study Topics on it's web site):

Ever since biblical times, the Lord has designated through His prophets who could receive the priesthood and other blessings of the gospel. Among the tribes of Israel, for example, only men of the tribe of Levi were given the priesthood and allowed to officiate in certain ordinances. Likewise, during the Savior’s earthly ministry, gospel blessings were restricted to the Jews. Only after a revelation to the Apostle Peter were the gospel and priesthood extended to others (see Acts 10:1–33; 14:23; 15:6–8).

http://www.LDS.org/study/topics/priesthood-ordination-before-1978?lang=eng

The Lord is in control. He is the one who has designated throughout all time who gets the Priesthood and who doesn't.

Official Doctrine Q.E.D.

[_Gadianton]

The Lord was in full control in deciding what fruit could be eaten in the garden, BC. Not eating the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil was about as official doctrine as it could possibly get. Sure, the ban was official doctrine and divinely appointed, just like not eating the fruit from the tree of knowledge was official doctrine and divinely appointed. But Adam was expected to transgress the law because of the pragmatic value -- that men might be. Because of the disastrous political, image, and growth consequences of keeping the ban stipulation, the situation is one akin to Adam never eating the fruit or Nephi refusing to kill Laban because "thou shalt not kill" is official doctrine. As it would have been morally wrong for Nephi to allow Laban to live and a whole nation perishing in unbelief, or for Adam to prevent the whole human race from being born, it was wrong for the Church to obey this commandment for so long and thus ruin the chances of millions to find salvation today due to the image problems it has created for itself.

(the part you're not getting is that: official doctrine does not imply the doctrine is worth obeying -- at least in Mormonism)