|
|
| (112 intermediate revisions by 12 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| {{RacePortal}}
| | #REDIRECT[[Origin_of_the_priesthood_ban]] |
| {{Summary}}
| |
| ==Criticism==
| |
|
| |
|
| *Critics argue that God would not allow His church to ever deny blessings or privileges based on race.
| | <!-- PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE --> |
| *They are critical of the Church waiting until 1978 to lift the ban on ordaining black members to the priesthood.
| | [[Category:Mormonism and racial issues]] |
| *They [[Quote_mining%2C_selective_quotation%2C_and_distortion | mine quotes]] made by Latter-day Saint leaders prior to 1978 to portray the church as racist in its doctrines.
| | [[Category:Blacks and the priesthood]] |
| *They cite passages from LDS scripture that Latter-day Saints used to provide a rationale for the priesthood ban.
| | [[Category:Official declaration No. 2]] |
| *They question the revelatory process that brought about the policy shift, portraying it as a response to social pressure or government threats to remove the church's tax-free status.
| |
|
| |
|
| ==Response==
| | [[fi:Mormonismi ja rotuasiat/Mustat ja pappeus]] |
| | | [[de:Schwarze und das Priestertum]] |
| It is important to understand the history behind the priesthood ban to evaluate whether these criticisms have any merit and to contextualize the quotes with which LDS members are often confronted.
| | [[es:Las cuestiones raciales y el Mormonismo/Los negros y el sacerdocio]] |
| | | [[pt:Mormonismo e Assuntos Raciais/Negros e do sacerdócio]] |
| This is complex and sensitive issue, and definitive answers as to why God allowed the ban to happen await further revelation. There are some things we do not know, and we rely on faith that God will one day give us the answers to the questions of our mortal existence.
| |
| | |
| '''Please consult the sub-page which treats the issue(s) which interest you:'''
| |
| | |
| * Would God ever deny privileges based on race? {{wikilink|url=Blacks_and_the_priesthood:Deny based on race?}}
| |
| * What was the origin of the priesthood ban? {{wikilink|url=Blacks_and_the_priesthood:Origin of the priesthood ban?}}
| |
| | |
| | |
| ===Understanding pre-1978 statements===
| |
| | |
| Critics frequently parade justifications for the ban by by past General Authorities that are considered racist by today's standards. While these have not been officially renounced, there is no obligation for current members to accept such sentiments as the "word of the Lord." Bruce R. McConkie expressed it this way:
| |
|
| |
| :There are statements in our literature by the early brethren which we have interpreted to mean that the Negroes would not receive the priesthood in mortality. I have said the same things.... All I can say to that is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world. We get our truth and our light line upon line and precept upon precept. We have now had added a new flood of intelligence and light on this particular subject, and it erases all the darkness, and all the views and all the thoughts of the past. They don't matter any more. It doesn't make a particle of difference what anybody ever said about the Negro matter before the first day of June of this year [1978]. It is a new day and a new arrangement, and the Lord has now given the revelation that sheds light out into the world on this subject. As to any slivers of light or any particles of darkness of the past, we forget about them. We now do what meridian Israel did when the Lord said the gospel should go to the gentiles. We forget all the statements that limited the gospel to the house of Israel, and we start going to the gentiles. {{ref|brm1}}
| |
| | |
| While Elder McConkie likely was limiting his remarks to mistakes made by past leaders in regards to the timing of the lifting of the ban, application of his insights can arguably be extended to a ''forgetting'' of all harmful "folk doctrines" about which post-1978 correlated church materials are either silent or have effectively corrected.
| |
| | |
| Elder Dallin H. Oaks pointed out that some leaders and members had ill-advisedly sought to provide scriptural justifications for the ban:
| |
| | |
| :...It's not the pattern of the Lord to give reasons. We can put reasons to commandments. When we do we're on our own. Some people put reasons to [the ban] and they turned out to be spectacularly wrong. There is a lesson in that.... The lesson I've drawn from 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.
| |
| | |
| :...I'm referring to reasons given by general authorities and reasons elaborated upon [those reasons] by others. The whole set of reasons seemed to me to be unnecessary risk taking.
| |
| | |
| :...Let's [not] make the mistake that's been made in the past, here and in other areas, trying to put reasons to revelation. The reasons turn out to be man-made to a great extent. The revelations are what we sustain as the will of the Lord and that's where safety lies.{{ref|oaks1}}
| |
| | |
| Past leaders are not alive to apologize for statements that unwittingly contributed to difficulties for the faithful and stumbling blocks for those who might have otherwise have been more attracted to the overall goodness of Christ's gospel. Presumably they would join in with another voice from the dust to plead for us to have charity towards them ({{s||Ether|12|35-36}}) despite their imperfections and rather than condemning, "give thanks unto God...that ye may learn to be more wise than we have been ({{s||Mormon|9|31}})." Recent remarks by the current prophet, President Hinckley, demonstrate that a higher standard is now expected of members of the LDS church:
| |
| | |
| :Racial strife still lifts its ugly head. I am advised that even right here among us there is some of this. I cannot understand how it can be. It seemed to me that we all rejoiced in the 1978 revelation given President Kimball. I was there in the temple at the time that that happened. There was no doubt in my mind or in the minds of my associates that what was revealed was the mind and the will of the Lord.
| |
| | |
| :Now I am told that racial slurs and denigrating remarks are sometimes heard among us. I remind you that no man who makes disparaging remarks concerning those of another race can consider himself a true disciple of Christ. Nor can he consider himself to be in harmony with the teachings of the Church of Christ. How can any man holding the Melchizedek Priesthood arrogantly assume that he is eligible for the priesthood whereas another who lives a righteous life but whose skin is of a different color is ineligible?
| |
| | |
| :Throughout my service as a member of the First Presidency, I have recognized and spoken a number of times on the diversity we see in our society. It is all about us, and we must make an effort to accommodate that diversity.
| |
| | |
| :Let us all recognize that each of us is a son or daughter of our Father in Heaven, who loves all of His children.
| |
| | |
| :Brethren, there is no basis for racial hatred among the priesthood of this Church. If any within the sound of my voice is inclined to indulge in this, then let him go before the Lord and ask for forgiveness and be no more involved in such.{{ref|hinckley1}}
| |
| | |
| ===LDS scriptures revisited===
| |
| | |
| Some contend that even though the doctrinal impact of pre-1978 statements have been greatly diminished, the LDS scriptures still retain the passages which were used for proof-texts for the ban and hence cannot be easily dismissed. A parallel can be drawn between Protestant denominations that have historically reversed their scriptural interpretations supporting slavery and a modified LDS understanding of their own scriptures that relate to the priesthood ban. Through more careful scripture reading and attention to scientific studies, many Protestants have come to differ with previous interpretations of Bible passages. A similar rethinking of passages unique to the LDS scriptures, such as {{s||Abraham|1|26-27}}, can be made if one starts by discarding erroneous preconceptions. Sociologist Armand Mauss critiqued former interpretations in a recent address:
| |
| | |
| :[W]e see that the Book of Abraham says nothing about lineages set aside in the pre-existence, but only about distinguished individuals. The Book of Abraham is the only place, furthermore, that any scriptures speak of the priesthood being withheld from any lineage, but even then it is only the specific lineage of the pharaohs of Egypt, and there is no explanation as to why that lineage could not have the priesthood, or whether the proscription was temporary or permanent, or which other lineages, if any, especially in the modern world, would be covered by that proscription. At the same time, the passages in Genesis and Moses, for their part, do not refer to any priesthood proscription, and no color change occurs in either Cain or Ham, or even in Ham's son Canaan, who, for some unexplained reason, was the one actually cursed! There is no description of the mark on Cain, except that the mark was supposed to protect him from vengeance. It's true that in the seventh chapter of Moses, we learn that descendants of Cain became black, but not until the time of Enoch, six generations after Cain, and even then only in a vision of Enoch about an unspecified future time. There is no explanation for this blackness; it is not even clear that we are to take it literally.{{ref|mauss1}}
| |
| | |
| Although critics frequently cite some Book of Mormon passages as being racist, it does not appear to have been used in a justification for the ban. They often cite Book of Mormon passages like {{s|2|Nephi|5|21-25}} and {{s||Alma|3|6-10}} while ignoring the more representative {{s|2|Nephi|26|33}}.
| |
| | |
| Richard L. Bushman, LDS author of the recent biography of Joseph Smith, writes:
| |
| | |
| :...[T]he fact that [the Lamanites] are Israel, the chosen of God, adds a level of complexity to the Book of Mormon that simple racism does not explain. Incongruously, the book champions the Indians' place in world history, assigning them to a more glorious future than modern American whites.... Lamanite degradation is not ingrained in their natures, ineluctably bonded to their dark skins. Their wickedness is wholly cultural and frequently reversed. During one period, "they began to be a very industrious people; yea, and they were friendly with the Nephites; therefore, they did open a correspondence with them, and the curse of God did no more follow them." ({{s||Alma|23|18}}) In the end, the Lamanites triumph. The white Nephites perish, and the dark Lamanites remain. {{ref|bushman1}} | |
| | |
| One faithful black member, Marcus Martins—also chair of the department of religious education at BYU-Hawaii—has said:
| |
| | |
| :The [priesthood] ban itself was not racist, but, unfortunately, it gave cover to people who were.{{ref|martins1}}
| |
| | |
| ===Lifting the ban===
| |
| | |
| ====Notes on the revelatory process====
| |
| | |
| Revelation is a process which generally follows a model in which "man inquires and then God inspires." In other words, mortals must generally seek guidance ''before'' they receive inspiration. God will generally not provide answers to questions which have yet to be asked.
| |
| | |
| Furthermore, if we are unable to receive and implement an answer regarding a given issue, due to personal limitations or circumstances which would prevent obedience, God will generally refrain from communicating with us about it. This is not due to any limitation or lack of desire on his part, but due to mortal limitations.
| |
| | |
| God rarely—if ever—uses his prophets as "teletype machines" who mindlessly transmit God's will word for word—he requires his prophets to inquire ''with some thought as to potential answers'' ({{s||DC|9|7-9}}). After they seek confirmation, the Lord can gently correct or confirm. A striking Biblical example of this principle comes from King David: He announced to Nathan, the prophet, that he wished to build a temple. Nathan thought this a grand idea, and replied "Go, do all that is in thine heart; for the LORD is with thee." However, despite Nathan's sincere belief that God concurred with David's plan, he later received a revelation which contravened his initial enthusiasm. (See {{s|2|Samuel|7|2-17}}.) God corrected his prophet and enhanced his imperfect understanding of the divine will.
| |
| | |
| Viewing revelation as a process often requiring patient preparation helps us understand why the priesthood ban wasn't lifted sooner. Lester Bush points out "three principle factors," while allowing for others, that created obstacles: "...the authority of decades of vigorous and unwavering First Presidency endorsement of the policy; a preconceived and highly literalistic reading of several verses in the Pearl of Great Price; and an ambient culture which was indifferent to, if not supportive of, Mormon attitudes toward blacks."{{ref|bush4}}
| |
| | |
| ====Social and cultural obstacles====
| |
| | |
| Sometimes critics from other Christian faiths excuse beliefs and behaviors in their denominations' pasts, while suggesting a much higher standard should have been met by a community led by revelation. This criticism seems to ignore dynamics manifest in Biblical times in which inspired leaders such as Moses and Paul accepted slavery as part of the cultural norm and even promoted regulations for it ({{s||Exodus|21|20-27}}; {{s||Leviticus|25|44-46}}; {{s||Deuteronomy|23|15-16}}; {{s||Ephesians|6|5-9}}; {{s||Philemon|1|8-12}}; {{s|1|Timothy|6|1}}; {{s||Titus|2|9}}). While what these leaders faced is not perfectly parallel to those in modern times, these prophets did not receive more socially progressive revelation than modern readers would have expected.{{ref|cathenc1}} It is clear that sometimes less than ideal practices where permitted and upheld because of the "hardness of [Moses's followers'] hearts [{{s||Mark|10|5}}]."
| |
| | |
| Biblical history is replete with examples of the difficulty of gaining widespread conformity even after a paradigm-shifting revelation has been received. The New Testament apostles debated over how best to transition from preaching the Gospel only to the Jews to accommodating Gentile converts ([http://scriptures.lds.org/en/acts/15 Acts 15]). Despite numerous miraculous manifestations to motivate them, the Israelites had to wander 40 years {{s||Deuteronomy|8|2}} to weed out idolatrous beliefs keeping them from inheriting a promised land. Mormon history also has its examples of this type, including the length of time it took the general membership to come into full compliance with the [[Word of Wisdom]] and the [[Polygamy after the Manifesto|Manifesto]]. If a revelation ending the priesthood ban had been received earlier, the Saints might not have accepted it. (Elder Marion D. Hanks is reported to have said "For me it was never that blacks [were unqualified but that] the rest of us had to be brought to a condition of spiritual maturity...to meet the moment of change with grace and goodness.{{ref|swkcd1}}")
| |
| | |
| ====Circumstances that led to the 1978 revelation====
| |
| | |
| In 1954, after visiting the struggling South African mission, David O. McKay began to consider lifting the ban. In a conversation with Sterling McMurrin, he said, "It is a practice, not a doctrine, and the practice will some day be changed."{{ref|prince1}} This was a departure from a 1949 First Presidency statement defending the ban as doctrinal, indicating a shift in his opinion. Leonard Arrington reported that President McKay formed a special committee of the Twelve that "concluded there was no sound scriptural basis for the policy but that church membership was not prepared for its reversal."{{ref|arrington1}} However, David O. McKay felt that only a revelation could end the ban. Sometime between 1968 and his death in 1970 he confided his prayerful attempts to church architect, Richard Jackson, "I’ve inquired of the Lord repeatedly. The last time I did it was late last night. I was told, with no discussion, not to bring the subject up with the Lord again; that the time will come, but it will not be my time, and to leave the subject alone."{{ref|prince2}}.
| |
| | |
| As McKay's health declined, his counselor, Hugh B. Brown, attempted to lift the ban as an administrative decision. However, it became even clearer that a century of precedent was difficult to reverse without a revelation, especially when some members and leaders—echoing George Q. Cannon—felt there might be a revelatory basis for the policy. As the church expanded its missionary outreach and temple building programs, leaders continued to run into problems of black ancestry preventing the building of local leadership in certain areas, most notably Brazil. The prayerful attempts to obtain the will of God intensified. Finally in June 1978, a revelation that "every faithful, worthy man in the Church may receive the holy priesthood" was received and later canonized as [http://scriptures.lds.org/od/2 Official Declaration 2].
| |
| | |
| ====Social pressure?====
| |
| | |
| Critics try to raise doubts about the authenticity of the 1978 revelation by claiming that it was dictated by social or governmental pressure. However social pressure was on the decline after the Civil Rights movement and coordinated protests at BYU athletic events ceased in 1971. The allegation that the LDS church's tax-free status was threatened was addressed by a church spokesman:
| |
| | |
| :We state categorically that the federal government made no such threat in 1978 or at any other time. The decision to extend the blessings of the priesthood to all worthy males had nothing to do with federal tax policy or any other secular law. In the absence of proof, we conclude that Ms. Erickson [a critic] is seriously mistaken.{{ref|olsen1}}
| |
| | |
| Jan Shipps, a Methodist scholar and celebrated scholar of Mormon history and culture, considers it factual that "this revelation came in the context of worldwide evangelism rather than domestic politics or American social and cultural circumstances." She wrote:
| |
| | |
| :A revelation in Mormondom rarely comes as a bolt from the blue; the process involves asking questions and getting answers. The occasion of questioning has to be considered, and it must be recalled that while questions about priesthood and the black man may have been asked, an answer was not forthcoming in the ‘60s when the church was under pressure about the matter from without, nor in the early ‘70s when liberal Latter-day Saints agitated the issue from within. The inspiration which led President Kimball and his counselors to spend many hours in the Upper Room of the Temple pleading long and earnestly for divine guidance did not stem from a messy situation with blacks picketing the church’s annual conference in Salt Lake City, but was "the expansion of the work of the Lord over the earth." {{ref|shipps1}}
| |
| | |
| ===Repudiated ideas===
| |
| | |
| Although there is much we do not know about the ban, some past ideas have been rejected by the current leaders of the Church. These include:
| |
| | |
| ''Insert examples of quotes disclaiming past 'folk' ideas'' {{nw}}
| |
| | |
| ==Conclusion==
| |
| | |
| Sometimes God withholds certain blessings from certain people without explaining why he does this. Sometimes this is a willful decision on his part expressed via direct revelation to his prophet. At other times, God allows his prophets to act as they feel best. In the case of the priesthood ban, we do not know which of these scenarios is applicable. What we ''do'' know, however, is that the ban was lifted by revelation in God's due time.
| |
| | |
| Past church leaders should be viewed as products of their times, no more racist than most of their American and Christian peers. A proper understanding of the process of revelation creates a more realistic expectations of the Latter-day Saint prophet.
| |
| | |
| Previous statements and scriptural interpretations that are no longer in harmony with current revelation should be discarded. We learn "line upon line, precept upon precept," and when modern revelation has shed new light, old assumptions made in the dark can be done away with.
| |
| | |
| ==Endnotes==
| |
| #{{note|bush1}}Lester E. Bush, Jr. and Armand L. Mauss, eds., ''Neither White nor Black'' (Midvale, UT: Signature, 1984).{{link|url=http://www.signaturebookslibrary.org/neither/neithertitle.htm}}
| |
| #{{note|bush2}}''Neither White nor Black'', 69–71.
| |
| #{{note|bush3}}''Neither White nor Black'', 78–80.
| |
| #{{note|smith1}}For a history of such ideas in American Christian thought generally, see H. Shelton Smith, ''In His Image, But...: Racism in Southern Religion, 1780–1910'' (Durham, North Carolina: Duke University Press, 1972), 131. ISBN 082230273X
| |
| #{{note|roberts1}}B.H. Roberts, "To the Youth of Israel," ''The Contributor'' 6 (May 1885): 296–97.
| |
| #{{note|jfs1}}{{DoS1|vol=1|start=65}}
| |
| #{{note|brm1}}Bruce R. McConkie, "All Are Alike unto God," an address to a Book of Mormon Symposium for Seminary and Institute teachers, Brigham Young University, 18 August 1978.{{link|url=http://speeches.byu.edu/reader/reader.php?id=11017}}
| |
| #{{note|oaks1}}Dallin H. Oaks, Interview with Associated Press, in ''Daily Herald,'' Provo, Utah, 5 June 1988.
| |
| #{{note|hinckley1}} {{Ensign | author=Gordon B. Hinckley | article=The Need for Greater Kindness|date=May 2006|start=58|end=61 }}
| |
| #{{note|mauss1}}Armand L. Mauss, "The LDS Church and the Race Issue: A Study in Misplaced Apologetics", FAIR Conference 2003 {{fairlink|url=http://www.blacklds.org/mormon/mauss.html}}, {{fairlink|url=http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/conf/2003MauA.html #2}}
| |
| #{{note|bushman1}}{{RSR1|start=99}}
| |
| #{{note|martins1}}Marcus Martins, "A Black Man in Zion: Reflections on Race in the Restored Gospel" (2006 FAIR Conference presentation).
| |
| #{{note|bush4}}''Neither White nor Black'', 209–10.
| |
| #{{note|cathenc1}}For a pre-Civil-Rights-movement Catholic perspective on this issue see the entry on "Philemon" in ''The Catholic Encyclopedia'' (1913).{{link|url=http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11797b.htm}} and "Moral Aspect of Divine Law" {{link|url=http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09071a.htm}}
| |
| #{{note|swkcd1}}{{LYS-CD1|start=203}}
| |
| #{{note|prince1}}{{RMM|start=79|end=80}}
| |
| #{{note|arrington1}}Leonard J. Arrington, ''Adventures of a Church Historian'' (Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press 1998), 183.
| |
| #{{note|prince2}}''David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism,'' 104.
| |
| #{{note|olsen1}}Bruce L. Olsen, cited in ''Salt Lake Tribune'' on 5 April 2001.
| |
| #{{note|shipps1}}Jan Shipps, "The Mormons: Looking Forward and Outward" ''Christian Century'' (Aug. 16-23, 1978), 761–766 {{link|url=http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=1808}}
| |
| | |
| ==Further reading==
| |
| | |
| ===FAIR wiki articles===
| |
| | |
| {{BlacksPriesthoodWiki}}
| |
| | |
| ===FAIR web site===
| |
| | |
| {{BlacksPriesthoodFAIR}}
| |
| | |
| ===External links===
| |
| | |
| {{BlacksPriesthoodLinks}}
| |
| | |
| ===Printed material===
| |
| | |
| {{BlacksPriesthoodPrint}}
| |
