Official LDS doctrine: Priesthood Ban Divinely Appointed

[_Darth J]

Prior to June 8, 1978, the Church viewed men of black African descent in precisely the same way they would have viewed white males of Finnish descent had the priesthood ban been centered in their lineage: as individuals partaking of that lineage through descent from the original progenitors of that lineage.

Using your implied logic here, all males under the age 21 who are not allowed to consume alcoholic beverages are not unique individuals but part of a collective in which all members share the same intrinsic attributes (all males under the are of 21 who can't legally drink are known and understood as human beings fundamentally by this shared collective identity).

I'm not aware of a bunch of internet apologists for state legislatures arguing that the minimum drinking age is not about age.

Your (attempted) sophistry here tries to conflate a central attribute shared among disparate, unique individuals with a collective perception of them as a mass, and no two concepts could be farther apart. There is, at least, no logical reason why black people cannot all be unique individuals and at the same time, share similar or identical attributes (such as dark skin, a certain hair texture, musculature, and so on), just as there is no reason to believe that white people cannot all be unique individuals and share any number of unifying traits.

The restriction on priesthood is, whatever else it is, nothing more than a specific, discreet aspect of the lineage through which most black Africans descended and has no relevance to their being unique individuals in any other sense.

A collective mentality toward black people (of both the non-Left and the Left) is a completely different creature. Race consciousness (like its close siblings on the Left (and the non-Left), class consciousness, gender consciousness, and ethnic consciousness) look at human beings, not as unique individuals, but as homogenous, lumpen masses all sharing similar underlying, innate characteristics as a collective. The collective moves, thinks, perceives, speaks, dresses, relates, votes, and in general behaves as a collective entity. Blacks, Jews, Asians, proletarians, white males, bourgeois middle class, homosexuals, "the rich," "the poor," etc., all are seen, understood, and related to only as members of the identity group to which they belong.

The restriction on priesthood was something, indeed, imposed upon black people because of their lineage, as a group. But this does not imply a collective perception of blacks anymore than restriction of piloting a space shuttle implies that all people restricted from so doing are seen in as faceless members of a mass and not as unique individuals.

One must be qualified to pilot a space shuttle. Those not so qualified are logically just as unique and just as much individuals as those who are chosen to do so. The fact that they share one defining characteristic in this narrow sense - not being qualified to pilot a space shuttle - in no sense removes any individuality or uniqueness from them in any other way.

If one is convinced, as I am, that the original ban, as well as its ultimate end, were both imposed and foreseen by the Lord, then the reason blacks were for so long unqualified in a lineal sense to receive the priesthood, while opaque at the moment (along with a number of other mysteries of the specific conditions of mortality for each of us), can be negotiated in humility and faith without rolling over and wagging our tales for Babylon and its heady pseudo-moralism known traditionally as "political correctness."

Uh huh.

Anyway, prior to June 1978, was every adult male who was not a Negro eligible to be ordained to the priesthood if he as an individual was worthy? ___Yes ____No

Prior to June 1978, was an adult male who was a Negro eligible to be ordained to the priesthood if he as an individual was worthy? ___Yes ____No

[_Darth J]

Race consciousness (like its close siblings on the Left (and the non-Left), class consciousness, gender consciousness, and ethnic consciousness) look at human beings, not as unique individuals, but as homogenous, lumpen masses all sharing similar underlying, innate characteristics as a collective. The collective moves, thinks, perceives, speaks, dresses, relates, votes, and in general behaves as a collective entity. Blacks, Jews, Asians, proletarians, white males, bourgeois middle class, homosexuals, "the rich," "the poor," etc., all are seen, understood, and related to only as members of the identity group to which they belong.

For example, instead of evaluating a person as an individual, denying an otherwise worthy adult Mormon ordination to the priesthood based on nothing other than being (a) a Negro or (b) a female.

[_Brackite]

Dear BCSpace,

Have you ever read the essay titled, "Neither White nor Black," by Lester Bush??
Here is Part of that essay:

There once was a time, albeit brief, when a “Negro problem” did not exist for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. During those early months in New York and Ohio no mention was even made of Church attitudes towards blacks. The gospel was for “all nations, kindreds, tongues and peoples,”1 and no exceptions were made. A Negro, “Black Pete,” was among the first converts in Ohio, and his story was prominently reported in the local press.2 W. W. Phelps opened a mission to Missouri in July 1831 and preached to “all the families of the earth,” specifically mentioning Negroes among his first audience.3 The following year another black, Elijah Abel, was baptized in Maryland.4

...

It is significant, I believe, that in spite of the many discussions of blacks and slavery that had been published by 1836, no reference had been made to the priesthood. Yet, while there was not a written policy on blacks and the priesthood, a precedent had been established. Shortly before publication of the articles on abolitionism, a Negro was ordained to the Melchizedek priesthood. It has been suggested, considerably after the fact, that this was a mistake which was quickly rectified. Such a claim is totally unfounded and was actually refuted by Joseph F. Smith shortly after being put forth.29 Elijah Abel was ordained an elder 3 March, 1836, and shortly thereafter received his patriarchal blessing from Joseph Smith, Sr.30 In June he was listed among the recently licensed elders31 and on 20 December, 1836, was ordained a seventy.32 Three years later, in June 1839, he was still active in the Nauvoo Seventies Quorum,33 and his seventy’s certificate was renewed in 1841, and again after his arrival in Salt Lake City.34 Moreover, Abel was known by Joseph Smith and reportedly lived for a time in the Prophet’s home.35

...

Though Brigham Young clearly rejected Joseph Smith’s manifest belief that the curse on Ham did not justify Negro slavery, possibly an even greater difference of opinion is reflected in the importance Young ascribed to the alleged connection with Cain. “The seed of Ham, which is [p.70]the seed of Cain descending through Ham, will, according to the curse put upon him, serve his brethren, and be a ‘servant of servants’ to his fellow creatures, until God removes the curse; and no power can hinder it”;83 or, “The Lord put a mark upon [Cain], which is the flat nose and the black skin. Trace mankind down to after the flood, and then another curse is pronounced upon the same race—that they should be the ‘servant of servants’; and they will, until that curse is removed; and the Abolitionists cannot help it, nor in the least alter that decree.”84

Brigham Young derived a second far-reaching implication from the genealogy of the Negro. Asked what “chance of redemption there was for the Africans,” Young answered that “the curse remained upon them because Cain cut off the lives of Abel…. The Lord had cursed Cain’s seed with blackness and prohibited them the Priesthood.” The Journal History account of this conversation, dated 13 February, 1849, is the earliest record of a Church decision to deny the priesthood to Negroes.85 At the time practical implications of the decision were limited. Though reliable information is very scanty, there appear to have been very few Negro Mormons in 1849. Only seven of the twenty thus far identified were men, and three of these were slaves; two of the four freemen had already been given the priesthood.86

Though Brigham Young reaffirmed his stand on priesthood denial to the Negro on many occasions, by far the most striking of the known statements of his position was included in an address to the territorial legislature, 16 January, 1852, recorded in Wilford Woodruff s journal of that date. In this gubernatorial address, Young appears to both confirm himself as the instigator of the priesthood policy, and to bear testimony to its inspired origin: “Any man having one drop of the seed of [Cain] … in him cannot hold the priesthood and if no other Prophet ever spake it before I will say it now in the name of Jesus Christ I know it is true and others know it.” This clearly is one of the most important statements in the entire history of this subject.

Link: http://signaturebookslibrary.org/?p=445

[_Droopy]

Asked what “chance of redemption there was for the Africans,” Young answered that “the curse remained upon them because Cain cut off the lives of Abel…. The Lord had cursed Cain’s seed with blackness and prohibited them the Priesthood.” The Journal History account of this conversation, dated 13 February, 1849, is the earliest record of a Church decision to deny the priesthood to Negroes.85 At the time practical implications of the decision were limited. Though reliable information is very scanty, there appear to have been very few Negro Mormons in 1849. Only seven of the twenty thus far identified were men, and three of these were slaves; two of the four freemen had already been given the priesthood.

What Brigham Young said to some unknown and unidentified interlocutor in an unidentified place and time, who asked him about redemption as regarding black people doesn't in any sense even approach a "record" of a "Church decision." Brigham Young's personal theological opinions were not doctrinal, nor were they tantamount to a "Church decision" regarding any policy or concept.

This is yet another nice example of why one should approach anything from Signature Books and the "New Order" Mormon intellectual set with saltshaker in hand.

[_Darth J]

Asked what “chance of redemption there was for the Africans,” Young answered that “the curse remained upon them because Cain cut off the lives of Abel…. The Lord had cursed Cain’s seed with blackness and prohibited them the Priesthood.” The Journal History account of this conversation, dated 13 February, 1849, is the earliest record of a Church decision to deny the priesthood to Negroes.85 At the time practical implications of the decision were limited. Though reliable information is very scanty, there appear to have been very few Negro Mormons in 1849. Only seven of the twenty thus far identified were men, and three of these were slaves; two of the four freemen had already been given the priesthood.

What Brigham Young said to some unknown and unidentified interlocutor in an unidentified place and time, who asked him about redemption as regarding black people doesn't in any sense even approach a "record" of a "Church decision." Brigham Young's personal theological opinions were not doctrinal, nor were they tantamount to a "Church decision" regarding any policy or concept.

This is yet another nice example of why one should approach anything from Signature Books and the "New Order" Mormon intellectual set with saltshaker in hand.

So Droopy, your position is that for something on the order of 130 years out of its 182 years---about 70% of its existence---the one true church, led by living prophets and apostles who are guided by continuing revelation, denied the priesthood to an entire ethnic group, and everyone just went along with it, and we don't know why or where the idea came from.

Do you feel that this is one of the stronger arguments in favor of the Church's truth claims?

[_Brackite]

What Brigham Young said to some unknown and unidentified interlocutor in an unidentified place and time, who asked him about redemption as regarding black people doesn't in any sense even approach a "record" of a "Church decision." Brigham Young's personal theological opinions were not doctrinal, nor were they tantamount to a "Church decision" regarding any policy or concept.

This is yet another nice example of why one should approach anything from Signature Books and the "New Order" Mormon intellectual set with saltshaker in hand.

Here are a Couple of Quotes By Brigham Young, From the Journal of Discourses:

We have this illustrated in the account of Cain and Abel. Cain conversed with his God every day, and knew all about the plan of creating this earth, for his father told him. But, for the want of humility, and through jealousy, and an anxiety to possess the kingdom, and to have the whole of it under his own control, and not allow any body else the right to say one word, what did he do? He killed his brother. The Lord put a mark on him; and there are some of his children in this room. When all the other children of Adam have had the privilege of receiving the Priesthood, and of coming into the kingdom of God, and of being redeemed from the four quarters of the earth, and have received their resurrection from the dead, then it will be time enough to remove the curse from Cain and his posterity. He deprived his brother of the privilege of pursuing his journey through life, and of extending his kingdom by multiplying upon the earth; and because he did this, he is the last to share the joys of the kingdom of God.

(Brigham Young; Journal of Discourses, Volume 2, Pages 142-143: 1854.)

You see some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable and low in their habits, wild, and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind. The first man that committed the odious crime of killing one of his brethren will be cursed the longest of any one of the children of Adam. Cain slew his brother. Cain might have been killed, and that would have put a termination to that line of human beings. This was not to be, and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin. Trace mankind down to after the flood, and then another curse is pronounced upon the same race-that they should be the "servant of servants;" and they will be, until that curse is removed; and the Abolitionists cannot help it, nor in the least alter that decree. How long is that race to endure the dreadful curse that is upon them? That curse will remain upon them, and they never can hold the Priesthood or share in it until all the other descendants of Adam have received the promises and enjoyed the blessings of the Priesthood and the keys thereof. Until the last ones of the residue of Adam's children are brought up to that favourable position, the children of Cain cannot receive the first ordinances of the Priesthood. They were the first that were cursed, and they will be the last from whom the curse will be removed. When the residue of the family of Adam come up and receive their blessings, then the curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will receive blessings in like proportion.

(Brigham Young; Journal of Discourses, Volume 7, Pages 290-291: 1859.)

[_bcspace]

Has the Church said the original ban was hokum?

I don't think this formality is needed to realize it was hokum.

But something like it is necessary to show that the Church has abandoned any doctrine on it.

[_Brackite]

Here is more from that essay, By Lester E. Bush:

Through three decades of discourses, Brigham Young never attributed the policy of priesthood denial to Joseph Smith, nor did he cite the Prophet’s translation of the book of Abraham in support of this doctrine. Neither, of course, had he invoked Joseph Smith on the slavery issue. Nor had any other Church leader cited the Prophet in defense of slavery or priesthood denial. It is perhaps not surprising then that shortly after the departure of President Young’s authoritative voice, questions arose as to what Joseph Smith had taught concerning the Negro.[p.76]

Link: http://signaturebookslibrary.org/?p=445




Here is what Richard L. Bushman wrote on Page 289 of his Book:

Joseph [Smith] never commented on the Abraham text or implied it denied priesthood to blacks.

(Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling: 2005.)

[Guest]

1) Are there any errors in "Mormon doctrine" as you understand it, any factual errors? If so, what?

There are some LDS doctrines I disagree with. I think they are minor. Global Flood seems to be the biggest one. Perhaps related to that would be the continents separating in the days of Peleg (another local event imho). There is an anti card playing Ensign article from the 1970's. etc.

2) Do you disbelieve any particular doctrine which you believe to be part of official Mormon doctrine? If so, which?

Same as above. Apologetically, it is always better to admit that such and such is LDS doctrine rather than to deny it's factual existence according to the Church imho.

3) Are there any openly contradictory teachings within Mormon doctrine as you have defined it? Can you identify any?

I have never defined LDS doctrine. I have merely repeated, practiced, and applied what the LDS Church has said. It's interesting how the Millet podcast actually ended up agreeing with the Church's position as I have presented. Ironic as Millet has sometimes been quoted against me though it is also ironic that anyone would do so as Millet is not the Church.

Off the top of my head, I can't think of any conflicting LDS doctrines. There are indeed some minor aberrations such as an LDS geologist (a Seventy I believe) stating that evolution contradicts the Second Law of Thermodynamics in a 1990's Ensign. Human sperm and egg can't progress into human children by that logic.

4) Does Mormon doctrine as you understand it ever change even to the point of overturning prior doctrinal components?

Change is allowed in LDS doctrine as such includes continuing revelation/inspiration. I think most such changes took place early in LDS history as new doctrine and scripture were being revealed. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any significant changes in doctrine after Joseph Smith or BY. Perhaps you could consider D&C 138 a change if it was more than just new. OD 1 and OD 2 are not changes.

I don't see any changes to the doctrines of the priesthood ban or plural marriage. We are merely in a different phase of each. Plural marriage is not currently authorized and we are in the "long promised day" with regard to the priesthood ban. Incidentally, the long promised day proves beyond doubt that official LDS doctrine is that the ban was Divinely appointed.

[_Droopy]

Prior to June 8, 1978, the Church viewed men of black African descent in precisely the same way they would have viewed white males of Finnish descent had the priesthood ban been centered in their lineage: as individuals partaking of that lineage through descent from the original progenitors of that lineage.

Using your implied logic here, all males under the age 21 who are not allowed to consume alcoholic beverages are not unique individuals but part of a collective in which all members share the same intrinsic attributes (all males under the are of 21 who can't legally drink are known and understood as human beings fundamentally by this shared collective identity).

I'm not aware of a bunch of internet apologists for state legislatures arguing that the minimum drinking age is not about age.

Your (attempted) sophistry here tries to conflate a central attribute shared among disparate, unique individuals with a collective perception of them as a mass, and no two concepts could be farther apart. There is, at least, no logical reason why black people cannot all be unique individuals and at the same time, share similar or identical attributes (such as dark skin, a certain hair texture, musculature, and so on), just as there is no reason to believe that white people cannot all be unique individuals and share any number of unifying traits.

The restriction on priesthood is, whatever else it is, nothing more than a specific, discreet aspect of the lineage through which most black Africans descended and has no relevance to their being unique individuals in any other sense.

A collective mentality toward black people (of both the non-Left and the Left) is a completely different creature. Race consciousness (like its close siblings on the Left (and the non-Left), class consciousness, gender consciousness, and ethnic consciousness) look at human beings, not as unique individuals, but as homogenous, lumpen masses all sharing similar underlying, innate characteristics as a collective. The collective moves, thinks, perceives, speaks, dresses, relates, votes, and in general behaves as a collective entity. Blacks, Jews, Asians, proletarians, white males, bourgeois middle class, homosexuals, "the rich," "the poor," etc., all are seen, understood, and related to only as members of the identity group to which they belong.

The restriction on priesthood was something, indeed, imposed upon black people because of their lineage, as a group. But this does not imply a collective perception of blacks anymore than restriction of piloting a space shuttle implies that all people restricted from so doing are seen in as faceless members of a mass and not as unique individuals.

One must be qualified to pilot a space shuttle. Those not so qualified are logically just as unique and just as much individuals as those who are chosen to do so. The fact that they share one defining characteristic in this narrow sense - not being qualified to pilot a space shuttle - in no sense removes any individuality or uniqueness from them in any other way.

If one is convinced, as I am, that the original ban, as well as its ultimate end, were both imposed and foreseen by the Lord, then the reason blacks were for so long unqualified in a lineal sense to receive the priesthood, while opaque at the moment (along with a number of other mysteries of the specific conditions of mortality for each of us), can be negotiated in humility and faith without rolling over and wagging our tales for Babylon and its heady pseudo-moralism known traditionally as "political correctness."

Uh huh.

Anyway, prior to June 1978, was every adult male who was not a Negro eligible to be ordained to the priesthood if he as an individual was worthy? ___Yes ____No

Prior to June 1978, was an adult male who was a Negro eligible to be ordained to the priesthood if he as an individual was worthy? ___Yes ____No

Uh huh...

Thanks for engaging me in a philosophically substantive, closely reasoned body of argument on this issue.

I'm now going back to ignoring you utterly, as there is no point in attempting debate with you on any subject, as you are not actually interested in that kind of debate.