Observant Mormons are urged to speak no ill of the Lord’s anointed, which is generally understood to be the leadership of the Church. Elder Dallin H. Oaks expanded on this in the February 1987 Ensign where he taught that Latter-day Saints should not criticize Church leaders, adding, “It does not matter that the criticism is true.” Elder Oaks repeated this sentiment in a 2007 PBS interview, saying that “it’s wrong to criticize leaders of the Church, even if the criticism is true.”
In order to avoid criticizing Church leaders, Mormons have historically engaged in a pattern of blaming anyone and everyone possible for actions of Church leaders except for the leaders themselves. 
A classic instance of this phenomenon is the Church’s ban on allowing black men to hold the Priesthood and its ban on allowing black men and women to enter the temple.
In spite of an important essay released by the LDS Church on Friday, December 6, 2013, this pattern continues.
The Curse of Cain
The first step was to blame an ancient miscreant named Cain for the problem. The argument ran that Cain committed a sin so grievous that all his posterity was cursed with a skin of blackness so as to mark his descendants as not worthy of the Priesthood. 
Largely ignored was the fact this argument seemed to run headlong into an Article of Faith that men will be punished for their own sins and not for Adam’s transgression. (If not punished for Adam’s transgression, why for Cain’s?)
Fence-Sitters in Heaven
The next step was to blame the black people themselves for the Priesthood ban. This was accomplished by creating from whole cloth the theory that blacks were denied the Priesthood and temple ordinances in this life due to their not being valiant in the pre-mortal war in heaven. This story blames the victims for the ban, and was apparently considered so significant that it was advanced without one scrap of revelation to support it. Perhaps this should not be surprising as the same could be said for the Priesthood ban itself. (It is heartening that the recent “Race and the Priesthood” essay explicitly disavows both teachings of the “Curse of Cain” and the “Pre-Mortal Fence Sitters”.)
Racist Culture is Responsible
Another tack appears to be taken in the Church’s new “Race and the Priesthood” essay; that of blaming all non-members of the Church for their role in creating a racist culture into which Church leaders were born and who imbibed with their mother’s milk the racist attitudes of the surrounding civilization. 
“The Church was established in 1830, during an era of great racial division in the United States. At the time, many people of African descent lived in slavery, and racial distinctions and prejudice were not just common but customary among white Americans. Those realities, though unfamiliar and disturbing today, influenced all aspects of people’s lives, including their religion.” Church leaders, it is thereby suggested, are not to be blamed for racist attitudes that were not of their own making and which they could not prevent absorbing from the non-member racist culture in which they were raised.
Church Members Weren’t Ready
A new argument that appears to be gaining currency is to blame the Church members themselves for the Priesthood ban. The members responsible must be distinguished from Church leaders so as to avoid speaking evil of the Lord’s anointed. This argument is recognizable by the language that the members of the Church “were not ready” for the Priesthood ban to be lifted until 1978. (An example of this argument was advanced in the second half of the recent Radio West broadcast linked to below.) Apparently the racist attitudes of LDS Church laity were so universally and firmly entrenched that allowing blacks the Priesthood any earlier would have resulted in mass disaffection and ultimate Church dissolution.
We Just Don’t Know
It has also become fashionable to respond to the query of why the LDS Church banned blacks from the Priesthood with a simple, “We just don’t know.” (An example of this can be found in Elder Jeffrey R. Hollands’ 2007 PBS interview.) 
But as observed by Marvin Perkins in a recent Radio West broadcast, saying “we don’t know” is equivalent to blaming God for the Priesthood ban. Saying “we don’t know” when we don’t know something is the appropriate response. But saying “we don’t know” while simultaneously averring the Church is led by direct and continuous revelation to Church leaders effectively shifts responsibility away from Church leaders and toward God.
This position was reflected as early as the 1969 First Presidency Statement on the subject, which states that “Negroes” are “not yet to receive the priesthood, for reasons which we believe are known to God, but which He has not made fully known to man. . . . Until God reveals His will in this matter, to him whom we sustain as a prophet, we are bound by that same will.”
It should be noted parenthetically that though the new essay correctly identifies Brigham Young as the Church leader who first publicly announced the Priesthood ban in 1852, the suggestion remains that it was done at God’s direction by the inclusion of the story that, “After praying for guidance, President McKay did not feel impressed to lift the ban.” If God wasn’t behind the ban, why didn’t He just tell His prophet when asked?
Who is Missing from the Blame Game?
Mormons appear to be so constitutionally averse to criticizing their leaders that they are willing to place responsibility for the Priesthood ban on anybody and everybody in the world (and out of the world in the case of God) rather than state the simple and obvious truth—that the Church leaders who instituted and perpetuated the Priesthood ban for over 125 years are the ones responsible for (…wait for it…) the institution and perpetuation of the Priesthood ban for over 125 years.
This reluctance to even discuss the historical facts relating to the ban, 
and when discussed to avoid laying responsibility for the Priesthood ban at the feet of Church leaders, may account for a number of interesting aspects of the Church’s new “Race and the Priesthood” essay.
Clues in the New Essay
Is this why the new essay was released on a Friday, the day of the week unanimously agreed upon by Democrats and Republicans alike as the optimum time to put forward damaging information?
Is this why the new essay was not broached in General Conference? Although we can see in retrospect that Elder Uchtdorf was likely preparing the soil for release of this new essay when he said last October, 
“And, to be perfectly frank, there have been times when members or leaders in the Church have simply made mistakes. There may have been things said or done that were not in harmony with our values, principles, and doctrine.”
Is this why the new essay was apparently not accompanied by a press release, or sent out to every bishop to be read over the pulpit in all congregations throughout the Church?
Is this why the new essay was not signed, and why nobody in current Church leadership is associated by name in any way with it?
Is this why the new essay is not displayed on the home page of the LDS Church website, but is instead buried three clicks deep? (First click from the home page is “Teachings”; second click is “Gospel Topics”; third click is “Race and the Priesthood.”)
The home page instead displays such presumably more important subjects as “Christmas Lights on Temple Square,” “Following the Christmas Devotional on Social Media,” and how to download “Christmas Wallpaper.” (LDS Church 
home page accessed 12/14/13.)
Is this why the essay buries in footnote 13 its one example of a Church leader writing that the belief was “quite general” among Mormons that “the Negro race has been cursed for taking a neutral position in that great contest”? Is this why this lone instance cites to personal correspondence by Joseph Fielding Smith (pointedly designated as “Apostle”) 
in which he mentions the “fence-sitting” teaching, but hastens to add it “is not the official position of the Church [and is] merely the opinion of men”? Is this why the one example comes from an obscure and unpublished piece of personal correspondence rather than more easily accessed and published sources such as Joseph Fielding Smith’s “The Way to Perfection,” “Doctrines of Salvation,”1 or “Answers to Gospel Questions”?2
One can only imagine the degree of document winnowing Church historians engaged in to find this one cited example from the 1907 personal correspondence of “Apostle Joseph Fielding Smith.” More germane and more accessible would be the 1949 First Presidency Statement in which the teaching that blacks are not allowed the Priesthood is described not as a policy but a doctrine: “It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the priesthood at the present time.”
In addition to inheriting the curse of Cain, misbehavior of blacks in premortality is put forth as a rationale for the ban in the 1949 First Presidency Statement: “[F]ailure of the right to enjoy in mortality the blessings of the priesthood is a handicap which spirits are willing to assume in order that they might come to earth. Under this principle there is no injustice whatsoever involved in this deprivation as to the holding of the priesthood by the Negroes.”
The new essay which seems to take pains to avoid labeling the Priesthood ban as doctrine contrasts with the 1949 First Presidency Statement declaring the Priesthood ban as not policy but “doctrine.” Not only is the 1949 First Presidency Statement not mentioned in the new essay, it also appears to be missing from the Church website. Additionally, the 1949 First Presidency Statement was signed by all three members of the First Presidency, highlighting the absence of any signatures appended to the new essay.
Is this why the new essay frames Brigham Young’s promise that one day blacks would be permitted the Priesthood as being fulfilled by Spencer Kimball’s 1978 revelation? 
Is it why the essay omits from Brigham Young’s prediction the condition that blacks would not receive the Priesthood until every white man to be born on earth would first have the opportunity? Or as Brigham Young put it (and as quoted in the 1949 First Presidency Statement), “And when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the holy priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will then come up and possess the priesthood, and receive all the blessings which we now are entitled to.”
And ultimately, is this why the new essay’s most glaring omission is that of an apology?
Implicit in an apology is the acknowledgement that something wrong was done by the Church. An acknowledgement that something wrong was done would be tantamount to criticizing Church leaders. Church leaders must not be criticized, “even if the criticism is true.”
Does the Church’s tenet that its leaders must under no circumstances be criticized lie behind the failure of the Church to issue an apology for the Priesthood ban?
Conclusion
My father taught me when I was a boy that it takes a big man to admit when he is wrong. President Monson mentioned last General Conference that the LDS Church now has over fifteen million members. That is pretty big. The question is whether it is big enough.
I have been a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for over 35-years, coincidentally having been baptized the same month the Church announced the lifting of the Priesthood ban. In that time, I have developed a great deal of respect for the leaders of the Church. That respect would not be diminished by a formal and public apology for the Priesthood ban, but only enhanced.
Why is an apology required? For the sake of black men and women, both in and out of the Church, who were told for over a century that they were second class citizens on earth as it was in heaven. For the sake of the white members of the Church, who were taught racial discrimination as part and parcel of their religious heritage. And last but not least, for the Church itself, which cannot stand approved before God until it has fully repented of this transgression against His children. As the Church itself teaches in its Gospel Principles Manual, “If we have sinned against another person, we should confess to the person we have injured.”
Nothing short of an apology will once and for all put the issue of the Priesthood ban to rest. Church leaders have seemed surprised that this ghost continues to haunt them. Lifting the ban in 1978 did not put the issue to rest, and neither have the 35-years that have intervened since. Disavowing the teachings behind the ban did not put the issue to rest. Saying “we don’t know” why the ban was instituted and perpetuated did not put the issue to rest. And neither will this new essay put the issue to rest; nor will a hundred such essays. As important a step as this new essay is, and as many Church historians as may have contributed to it, all that was ever needed was an apology. An apology is all that will ever be needed. And an apology is all that will ever suffice.
My sincere hope is that such an apology will be forthcoming, 
be accompanied by the signatures of the First Presidency, be announced in General Conference, be publicized by a press release, be sent to all bishops to be read over the pulpit, and be prominently featured on the home page of the Church website.
And lastly, that it not be another 35-years in the making.
_______________________________________________________
1 Joseph Fielding Smith’s objection to the teaching appears to have been restricted to the idea that pre-mortal blacks were “neutral,” as he later wrote, “There were no neutrals in the war in heaven. All took sides either with Christ or with Satan. Every man had his agency there, and men receive rewards here based upon their actions there, just as they will receive rewards hereafter for deeds done in the body. The Negro, evidently, is receiving the reward he merits.” Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, Vol.1, pages 66-67. In other words, Joseph Fielding Smith believed that blacks were prevented from receiving the Priesthood due to unspecified “transgressions” in the pre-mortal existence; his only quibble was with the idea that they had been “neutral.” It appears that footnote 13 in the new essay may have been manipulated in such a way as to convey a different impression to the casual reader. One cannot help noticing that three quotes are spliced together, and that Joseph Fielding Smith’s private correspondence is not widely available to other than Church historians for purposes of comparison, located as it is in the Church History Library.
2 “Kindly see chapters 15 and 16, in the Way to Perfection, for further light in relation to the reason why the Negro cannot receive the priesthood. In brief, it is as follows: Because of transgressions in the first estate which deprives him in this second estate. Since Cain slew his brother Abel in order to obtain all the rights of priesthood to descend through his lineage, the Lord decreed that the children of Cain should not have the privilege of bearing the priesthood until Abel had posterity who could have the priesthood and that will have to be in the far distant future. When this is accomplished on some other world, then the restrictions will be removed from the children of Cain who have been true in this ‘second’ estate.” Joseph Fielding Smith, Answers to Gospel Questions, Volume 2.
Corbin Volluz
Corbin Volluz lives in the beautiful foothills of the Cascade Mountains in western Washington state. He has been practicing law for 25-years with a focus on criminal defense and personal injury. Corbin joined the LDS Church in June of 1978, shortly after the lifting of the priesthood ban, and has been studying Mormonism ever since. He has been published in several venues, including the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies and BYU-Studies.
All posts by Corbin Volluz
Brilliant.
Thank you for the kind word, ScottH.
I am not certain everyone will agree with your assessment, however, . . .
I agree! Brilliant and needed.
Thank you, Brian. (I have been busy at work since many of these comments were made and want to take the opportunity to respond to as many as I can.)
****Regarding the recent LDS declaration disavowing its racist past, let me point you to a most intriguing piece. I read this article on “Rational Faith” written by Corbin Volluz. I never heard of this brother before, but if anyone knows him please have him contact me on Facebook. He simply killed this article. The best I’ve seen on the topic to date. Its well written, well documented, engaging and spot-on. I give it my highest endorsement and encourage all interested in this subject to read and share. This must go viral. Brother Corbin gets high marks for this thoughtful and well-crafted essay****
You kill Corbin! Thank you for this carefully written piece. Its absolutely stellar!
Darron Smith
I hugely appreciate your kind words, Darron. I am not on Facebook but my wife contacted you last night on her Facebook account on my behalf.
Earlier this morning, my daughter texted me, “Are you trying to start a war?”
I texted back, “No. I am trying to start a peace.”
Take care!
I certainly agree with you!
Thank you for your response, PJ!
I dealt with my issues concerning race in the church a long time ago. I was taught the various explanations for the priesthood ban. It was a source of pain for many years. I never believe any of those so-called explanations.
EteU Eli-Jah SpencerI knew from my personal relationship with the Savior that all those notions were false. I also never accepted that I would not get the priesthood. I knew from day one that I would get the priesthood. I was told as such in my patriarchal blessing. A patriarchal blessing was given to me. My Patriarchal Blessing said as such.
My biggest issue those days was how people treated me as result of those false notions. Many people were unkind, and many people were not. I personally have forgiven those people, and the false policies. I also understood that it was a policy-NOT a commandment.
My Patriarchal blessing told me that I was a pioneer of my race in the Gospel experience. My calling is to walk that lonely road, to prepare members of the church for a “mighty change” in the church community. I was told that I might not like the world I lived in, but that I would have the patience to overcome these things.
I was told that some day people will call me blessed because of the things that I was to teach them by word and example. I have made it my life’s work to obtain those blessings.
Those first few years were lonely. There were practically no people of African descent anywhere I went in my military years, and my first years as a professional dancer.
Because of who I was, I was afforded many opportunities to speak at churches wherever I went. I kept my speaking platform on three subjects: 1. that these ideas weren’t true 2. that the priesthood would be given to me in my lifetime. 3. I had a vision of thousands of people of African descent joining the church in this world and the Spirit world.
My patriarchal blessing blessed me that I would some day be called a “Savior on Mount Zion” through doing my family history work, that I would be an instrument of salvation to “literally hundreds and thousands of souls” by doing my genealogy work and providing “saving ordinances for my “kindred dead”
I found great comfort in doing my family history work. I knew that there were thousands of my relatives waiting for me to come along and save them and my responsibility was begin the work. I have to do a leap forward to today concerning my family history work.
It took 23 years to actually begin my family history work. I can say without boasting that at this point I have literally fulfilled that duty. I have provided thousands of names to the temple. I have generated tens of thousands of temple ordinances for my kindred dead.
I have opened a Family History Center in my local ward building, in Minneapolis, MN. This Family History has just been recognized as a Family History Center by the church in December 2013. Through those efforts I have assisted many people in their genealogy work and have helped supply innumerable names and ordinances generated for other people.
The Patriarchal blessing told me that I had a gift of communication. That I would be blessed that my voice would be clear and understandable and would bless many through my words, that I would be instrumental in preaching the word of the Lord.
I was advised to read “good books” and the scriptures so that I would be prepared to teach the Gospel.
Since that day, I have been an avid student of the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, the New Testament, and the Old Testament. As technology developed I eventually incorporated in my life church media, church news, and church publications.
I still have that habit today. I avidly follow church news and events. The scriptures were/are important because, no matter how bad things got-I could always find examples where others had it worst.
My love for the Book of Mormon grew. I was able to look beyond the racist statements about Native Americans. My father was an African/Native American from Cherokee, NC. The Book of Mormon impacted my Native American heritage and assured me that I would prevail.
The Book of Mormon is always a source of light in my life. No matter how many times I have read the Book of Mormon, I am always learning and expanding my gospel knowledge. There is always something to learn, be reminded of, or “likened” to a certain situation in my life.
I was 15 years old when Spencer W. Kimball made the announcement that “all worthy members” could be ordained to the Priesthood. I begin to live my life as if preparing to receive the Melchizedek Priesthood, because I was preparing.
At 18 years old, I joined the United States Air Force. It was the beginning of a life that was fraught with a determination to fulfill the promises given in my Patriarchal Blessing. I was ready to receive the priesthood and sought to be ordained to the Melchizedek Priesthood as soon as possible.
At that point there had not been more than 50 or so people of African Descent ordained to the Melchizedek. I joined that group thus fulfilling the promises made in my Patriarchal Blessing.
There is little doubt that I suffered greatly. Even more agonizing for me was the fact that my family turned against me when I chose to be baptized into the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. My father wouldn’t support my joining the church. I had to wait till I was 18. Some of those family relationships have not been healed to this day.
Through all of this my light and hope has been in the redemption of my suffering through the saving graces of my Lord and Savior of Jesus Christ.
A sincere apology will be a Balm of Gilead to a tortured soul. An apology will show the world that our leaders have the compassion and caring for it’s wounded members.
Many people will flock to the church. Many souls will return to the church. Our church will be one huge step closer to preparing our world for the return of the Savior.
EteU Eli-Jah Spencer
Minneapolis, Minnesota
December 16, 2013
Thank you so much for sharing your personal story with us, Brother Spencer. It sounds like your Patriarch was inspired. You are an example of patience and faith to me.
And I feel a special kinship to you, having been a dance major myself in college, though never good enough to go professional!
Warmest regards.
Eteu,
Your story is completely inspiring to me. I admire so much your devotion to the gospel when its policies and members devalued you. I absolutely agree with you that an apology would result in many souls returning to the church and people flocking to it. I think a few TBMs would balk at the idea that prophets can be wrong. But most of us would be invigorated by an apology acknowledging that wrong. I haven’t been marginalized like you have because of race, but I am marginalized as a woman who is considered ancillary to her husband by the church’s policies, doctrines and teachings by prophets. An apology for the black priesthood exclusion would give me hope that one day our prophets could see they are wrong in another area and females will be ordained. Again, you are an inspiration to me.
First and foremost, the apology is not about a presidents decision. the apology is for the suffering and the emotional trauma that was done. I see noone anywhere willing to acknowledge that people were hurt. If you weren’t in the church before 1978, you don’t have a leg to stand on. The apology is for those who were involved before 1978 and were abused. Can you understand that? I personally am tired of being angry. It hurts my soul too much. I repent of my anger and i choose now to lead the way for healing…. This is a journal entry from a few days ago:————————————————–
PERSONAL JOURNAL DEC. 20, 2013
Personal Journal
i have fought the battle-the war is over for me
EteU Spencer West Valley, UT …….. Minneapolis, MN…………………………………………
I dealt with my issues concerning race in the church a long time ago. I was taught the various explanations for the priesthood ban. It was a source of pain for many years. I never believe any of those so-called explanations.
I knew from my personal relationship with the Savior that all those notions were false. I also never accepted that I would not get the priesthood. I knew from day one that I would get the priesthood. I was told as such in my patriarchal blessing………………………………
My biggest issue those days was how people treated me as result of those false notions. Many people were unkind, and many people were not. I personally have forgiven those people, and the false policies. I also understood that it was a policy-NOT a commandment…………………………………
My Patriarchal blessing told me that I was a pioneer of my race in the Gospel experience. My calling is to walk that lonely road, to prepare members of the church for a “mighty change” in the church community. I was told that I might not like the world I lived in, but that I would have the patience to overcome these things………………………………….
I was told that some day people will call me blessed because of the things that I was to teach them by word and example. I have made it my life’s work to obtain those blessings…………………………………
Those first few years were lonely. There were practically no people of African descent anywhere I went in my military years, and my first years as a professional dancer.
Because of who I was, I was afforded many opportunities to speak at churches wherever I went. I kept my speaking platform on three subjects: 1. that these ideas weren’t true 2. that the priesthood would be given to me in my lifetime. 3. I had a vision of thousands of people of African descent joining the church in this world and the Spirit world……………………………..
My patriarchal blessing blessed me that I would some day be called a “Savior on Mount Zion” through doing my family history work, that I would be an instrument of salvation to “literally hundreds and thousands of souls” by doing my genealogy work and providing “saving ordinances for my “kindred dead”
I found great comfort in doing my family history work. I knew that there were thousands of my relatives waiting for me to come along and save them and my responsibility was begin the work. I have to do a leap forward to today concerning my family history work………………………………..
It took 25 years to complete my family history work.Of course, I didn’t settle with my basic four generations. I wanted to save as many as possible. I kept that vision of thousands of ancestors. I can say without boasting, that at this point, I have literally fulfilled that duty. I have provided thousands of names to the temple. I have generated tens of thousands of temple ordinances for my kindred dead………………………………….
The sheer volume of work I had done provided a means to open a Family History Center in my local ward building, in Minneapolis, MN. This Family History has just been recognized as a Family History Center by the church in December 2013. Through those efforts I have assisted many people in their genealogy work and have helped supply innumerable names and ordinances generated for other people.
The Patriarchal blessing told me that I had a gift of communication. That I would be blessed that my voice would be clear and understandable and would bless many through my words, that I would be instrumental in preaching the word of the Lord……………………………………………
I was advised to read “good books” and the scriptures so that I would be prepared to teach the Gospel…………………………………….
Since that day, I have been an avid student of the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, the New Testament, and the Old Testament. As technology developed I eventually incorporated in my life church media, church news, and church publications………………………………….
I still have that habit today. I avidly follow church news and events. The scriptures were/are important because, no matter how bad things got-I could always find examples where others had it worst…………………………………
My love for the Book of Mormon grew. I was able to look beyond the racist statements about Native Americans. My father was an African/Native American from Cherokee, NC. The Book of Mormon impacted my Native American heritage and assured me that I would prevail………………………………..
The Book of Mormon is always a source of light in my life. No matter how many times I have read the Book of Mormon, I am always learning and expanding my gospel knowledge. There is always something to learn, be reminded of, or “likened” to a certain situation in my life………………………………….
I was 15 years old when Spencer W. Kimball made the announcement that “all worthy members” could be ordained to the Priesthood. I begin to live my life as if preparing to receive the Melchizedek Priesthood, because I was preparing………………………………………….
At 18 years old, I joined the United States Air Force. It was the beginning of a life that was fraught with a determination to fulfill the promises given in my Patriarchal Blessing. I was ready to receive the priesthood and sought to be ordained to the Melchizedek Priesthood as soon as possible…………………………….
At that point there had not been more than 100 or so people of African Descent ordained to the Melchizedek Priesthood. I joined that group thus fulfilling the promises made in my Patriarchal Blessing……………………………….
There is little doubt that I suffered greatly, through the church and racism in general. Even more agonizing for me was the fact that my family turned against me when I chose to be baptized into the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. My father wouldn’t support my joining the church. I had to wait till I was 18. Some of those family relationships have not been healed to this day…………………………………
Through all of this my light and hope has been in the redemption of my suffering through the saving graces of my Lord and Savior of Jesus Christ. Not by a church leader or any person. The Balm of Gilead needed is the Holy Ghost. The Lord has the power to heal broken hearts, mend relationships and give those of us who truly suffered peace………………………………………………………………………………………………..
“If thou shouldst be cast into the pit, or the hands of murderers, and the sentence of death passed upon thee; if thou be cast into the deep; if the billowing surge conspire against thee; if fierce winds become thine enemy; if the heavens gather blackness, and all the elements combine to hedge up the way; and above all, if the very jaws of hell shall gape open their mouth wide after after thee, know thou, my son that all of these things shall give thee experience, and shall be for thy good.
The Son of Man hath descended below them all. Art thou greater than He?
Therefore hold on thy way, and the priesthood shall remain with the; for their bounds are set, they cannot pass. Thy days are known and thy years shall not be numbered less; therefore fear not what man can do, for God shall be with you forever and ever”
Doctrine and Covenants 122: 7-9 ………………………………………………………………
My goal is to help heal these (my wounds). To Err is Human-To Forgive is Divine! Every person involved in these years of systematic abuse will answer to Heavenly Father. The people who promoted such views carry that stain on their souls. I choose to stop fighting. I choose/and chose a long time ago to follow Jesus. Jesus would have me forgive. There is nothing I have gone through that touches what Jesus did for us by His atoning sacrifice. If you don’t understand this-then you don’t understand Jesus’ teachings…………………………………
I have written all I can write. I have talked all I can talk. My last words are: “I know with the faith I have in my Heavenly Father and His son, Jesus Christ that the church leaders are considering our plight. I know that the day will come that all people wounded by these policies will be apologized to. I recommend to all who hurt to go to a worthy bishop, or brother and get a blessing of healing and comfort. I feel deeply that this is what Heavenly Father will have me to say”……………………………………… Elder EteU Spencer Dec. 19,2013 Minneapolis, MN
Awesome article! It’s time to say “sorry.”
It is possible Church leadership is not aware how much an apology is wanted. Hopefully comments such as yours will help them understand.
Thanks!
What’s ironic about the “We just don’t know” is that we do know. Brigham Young states in the same lecture that is quoted by the Church that God wants everyone to have it, he just can’t..
“If the Lord could have his own way, he would have all the human family to enter into his church and kingdom, receive the Holy Priesthood and come into the celestial kingdom of our Father and God, by the power of their own choice”
So saying we just don’t know if flat out wrong.
That’s an interesting quote from Brigham Young there, Mike.
It is hard for me to tell from the context whether Brigham Young was including in “all the human family” that he wants to “receive the Holy Priesthood” either blacks or women.
I’m not sure if that is the point he was making, or if he was focusing more on “by the power of their own choice.”
Do you have a cite for this quote?
I would be interested in seeing it.
Thanks for your comments!
By this ye may know if a man repenteth of his sins—behold, he will confess them and forsake them.
-Doctrine and Covenants 58:43
Thank You! So sweet and so simple!
Zing!
Not to detract from this brilliant article, but with regards to this part:
A classic instance of this phenomenon is the Church’s ban on allowing black men to hold the Priesthood and its ban on allowing black men and women to enter the temple.
I think it relevant to note that both black men and black women were banned from the priesthood, and the ban for black women has not yet been lifted. (Let’s work on that.)
Exactly, Exponent! Thanks for the good work in that regard.
Indeed. The ban has not been lifted for any women and LGBT people still are not even allowed to marry one another in a civil ceremony, let alone the Temple. What this shows is that although the church did give the priesthood to black men, the root causes of the problem are not being addressed by the church and they are now directing their bigotry at other groups. Same bigotry, different form and no tolerance for criticism or feedback. Excellent article, though. Thank you for addressing the core issues.
Dup.
Nor the ban for white women, either!
Thanks for your comments, EIIA. They are not a detraction at all.
I think it worth noting that the new essay both begins and ends with a quote from 2 Nephi 26:33.
The last line of the essay is this: “[The Lord] denieth none that cometh unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; . . . all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile.”
When this Book of Mormon scripture is cited in an essay discussing the bestowal of the Priesthood on all worthy men, both “black and white,” what should we make of the inclusion of the categories “male and female” in the same passage?
This was not lost on those of us who have been advocating for women’s ordination, particularly when you consider that the passage from 2 Nephi cited in the Church’s statement had been edited. That “male and female” made the cut was heartening. See http://ordainwomen.org/faq/ and http://www.whatwomenknow.org/all_are_alike/faq.html
I agree. The recent article was a step, but not far enough. An explanation has now been given, but an apology is needed.
I feel certain that the committee that put together the new essay must have considered the inclusion of an apology, but that it was vetoed by those in authority.
The power and honesty of this essay brings a lump to my throat and tears to my eyes. AMEN!
Thank you so much, Boyd, for letting me know how it affected you. Hearing comments such as yours makes me feel that all the work that went into it was well worth the effort!
Excellent analysis of the essay.
Well said.
Your response deserves to be shared widely.
Thank you.
Steve
Thank you, Steve!
I hope everyone who reads it and has a Facebook page will feature it there, and also email it and share it with as many people as possible.
There were 1,000 views on this article two-hours after it was published yesterday afternoon, and 3,000 by 9:00 last night.
I don’t know where it is at since then, as the person reporting the figures to me had to go to bed.
This encapsulates so much of what has been in my heart and mind. Thank you, thank you.
Another irony is that I live in Illinois and I remember how much the Church appreciated the apology from my state for its past wrong-doings. There was even an article about it in Deseret News:
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/595052990/Illinois-offers-regrets-to-LDS.html?pg=all
— At the very least, isn’t it time to do onto our own people as others have kindly done onto us?
The fact of the matter is, without an apology, the process of healing among members of color will not begin. A lot of suffering has come from this so-called doctrine.
You are welcome, Monique, you are welcome!
You make a good point about the apology from Illinois for its treatment of the Saints.
I agree it is ironic that a state involved in persecuting the Mormons must now set an example for them in asking forgiveness.
Oh Corbin, this was fantastic. I wrote a blog post about this topic myself and read probably 10 others… but this is the winner. I love that you managed to lay it out as plainly as possible. It’s nearly irrefutable at this point.
Thank you, Lori! I admit being concerned with putting up another blog dealing with an issue that, even in the span of two short weeks, has already generated a lot of discussion on the web.
I was talking with Mike Barker last Sunday night about an unrelated matter, and I brought up to him some ideas related to the Priesthood ban. He liked them so much, he challenged me to put something together for posting on Rational Faiths in a matter of a few days.
I took him up on it, and this is the result. (Though I have to admit that even for the first hour after it was published yesterday at 2:00 p.m. Pacific Time, I was still going in and making corrections.)
Mr. Volluz, with all due respect: if there were actually institutionalized racism in the Church today — anything in its policies or attitudes that perpetuated discrimination or sought to hurt or hinder people of a certain color or cultural background — I would concede that it might be worth continuing to talk about. But this discussion is increasingly turning into a gripe session where race hustlers insist that if “your grandaddy hurt my grandaddy’s feelings” — or in your case, if “your grandaddy hurt someone else’s grandaddy’s feelings” — then it will never be enough to admit and correct the mistake. In the minds of many people, it seems serious reparations need to continue to be made into the foreseeable future. It’s not about righting a wrong or about seeking justice and equality for all. Racial issues are now cheapened by opportunism and channeling resentment over completely unrelated issues into them. I happen to think that is emotionally insecure. I believe Dr. Marin Luther King would be appalled at what many of his successors have turned his movement into.
Brett,
An apology is not the same as reparations. In fact, I’d wager that most people who feel the ban was in error are fairly confident that God will handle any reparations regardless of how the church conducts herself.
Cate, then why not let God handle it?
It’s a bit unclear to me what President Monson, Elder Packer and Elder Perry have to apologize for. Their only claim with regard to the priesthood ban is to have been among the Church leaders who REMOVED it. And you want to subject them to further humiliation for this? It is truly said that no good deed goes unpunished.
The remainder of the Twelve and First Presidency were called to their current positions in the post-ban era.
I kindly suggest that the reasons people are upset with the First Presidency today have nothing to do with racism. That’s just a hot issue that can be used as a pretext.
Bret,
I would say that an apology needs to come from the sitting church leadership for two reasons:
(1) The ban was institutional practice
(2) The leaders who instituted it and perpetuated it are not here to make the apology but their official successors are
This isn’t about President Monson. This is about the institution of the church and about men who “sit in Moses’ seat” and how they represent God and His church.
Where you and I clearly see things differently, is that I don’t view apologies as humiliating. Apologies are only humiliating if you labor under the delusion that you are perfect.
A simple apology offered on behalf of the church would be a graceful acknowledgement of inflicted wounds and, as Corbin wrote, would only elevate this First Presidency in my mind.
Well said!
All right. I will not disparage your opinion, and if you say a simple apology is all that is required for you personally to put this behind you, I’ll believe you.
However, in my opinion it is highly naive to think that tacking the words “I’m sorry” to the end of their essay would really put an end to the issue for most people. In my experience with Church critics, they tend to be a disingenuous bunch. Trumped up charges of racism and an overwrought cry for apology sound noble to the casual observer, but if they were to get what they are demanding on this issue, they would just dangle the carrot a little further out and demand something else. Mark my words.
For me, the statement the Church made recently is good enough, and if anyone still needs to hang on to this decades-old grudge, then it’s a self-inflicted demon they themselves will have to battle.
The problem is, Brett, that black members to this day continue to hear from well-meaning Mormons that their ancestors were not valiant in the pre-existence.
Too many Mormons feel up to this day that following the prophet requires them to embrace that kind of racism. It is their allegiance to the prophet that brings out the worst in too many Mormons when it comes to racism.
If Mormonism requires its adherents to follow the prophet and prophets declared racism in doctrinal terms, then many believing Mormons will only shed racism if the prophet repents of such statements. We can only excoriate racism from Mormonism if the First Presidency takes responsibility and apologizes publicly for misleading the Saints in that regard.
I appreciate your taking the time to read the article and to post your comments, Brett.
My question for you, though, is this:
“If a man has an extra-marital affair, is it enough for him to simply discontinue the affair, or is an apology to his wife also in order?”
You nailed it my friend. Honestly, with all the reading I’ve done on this subject before and after the essay this leaves very little wiggle room. You’ve captured all the arguments in a logical and academic approach. My question is, are they sorry? I would say they should be, especially to those who faithfully joined the church and wanted “full” membership, but where barred. Here’s the kicker folks, I’m sorry and I am sure most members would be, why not the religon that makes up all these people? Is it better to hide your past where you’ve done wrong, or make ammends and move on trying to be better. One thing I’ve noticed the church as an organization is not an example of how an individual should lead their life. This means never: face the tough facts about yourself, never admit to any wrong doing, never apologize, never repent, and hopefully people with forget or be to scared to say anything or you’ll kick them out of the cool kids club. Loved the article!
Thanks for your kind words and salient comments, RW. I can’t speak for what is in the heart of another, but I do believe the leaders of the Church are good people, and that they are genuinely sorry for the damage the Priesthood ban has caused.
It seems, though, that they are having a hard time obtaining unanimity that a formal apology will do more good than harm.
That is why I would like to assure them that, at least from my point of view, quite the reverse is true.
Why wait for an apology from the First Presidency? Why not start or contribute to a personal and/or group apology independent of the formal church hierarchy? I’m increasingly trying to think of ways to own my religion, as opposed to waiting and/or blaming. Just throwing it out there…
I whole-heartedly agree with Chad. We as members could do this independent of the church. A grass-roots movement toward healing hearts.
Hi, Dee!
I want everybody to know that Dee is my wife. When I took this article home for her to review last Monday evening, she told me there is something missing.
I asked her, “What?”
She said the article does a good job of talking about why there is no apology, but doesn’t talk about why an apology is necessary.
It is because of Dee that the penultimate two paragraphs in the article were added.
Dee also opened my eyes that evening to the fact that the Church’s teachings regarding race not only affected blacks, but also white Mormons who were taught by their leaders to be racist. And you will see that idea reflected in the article, too.
Good job, Dee!!!
I LOVE you!!!
While I agree there is merit in Church members reaching out to those offended by the Priesthood ban, and while I myself have frequently expressed contrition for it to others, I believe that the only people who can formally apologize on behalf of the Church itself are the duly recognized and constituted leaders of the Church.
Otherwise, it is like having the children of a criminal apologize for the acts of their father. It’s nice to know his kids have a conscience, but it’s really not the same thing at all.
While I suppose you’re right that only recognized leaders can formally apologize for the institution, I think that a mass (20,000? 200,000? 2 million?) of formal individual apologies could have at least as much significance and meaning. Especially if it were inspired, genuine, humble, and well-organized.
I don’t have a problem with you asking for a formal apology from the church leaders, but I hesitate because I don’t know enough of their experience, knowledge, and reasoning to know why things were handled like they were.
But I do know my experience. I know that the ban didn’t make sense to me. I know that while I was deeply troubled, I did little to question, I did little to learn, I did little to contribute to change. Many members like myself could have done more, I think, but we chose not to, for whatever reason. For that, perhaps we should be the first to apologize.
I view the leaders of the church as deeply flawed, and deeply influenced by their culture, much as I am. They are doing their best, I think, and I continue to believe that they are inspired. I think that, perhaps, we as members need to take a bit more of the burden, a bit more of the blame, and take more ownership.
Interesting ideas, Chad.
Although I have to admit my back bristles a little at the thought of millions of members having to “take a bit more of the burden” because of the burden that was placed upon members by Church leaders in the first place.
We may have to agree to disagree, Corbin. It seems to me that you view the church leaders as functioning within somewhat of a vacuum, with church members as innocent victims – leaders implement racist policies, and members have no choice but to accept and follow. My view of the world is much more complex and nuanced. I’m convinced that church leaders respond to and are influenced by members’ views and actions. Again, while over the years there have been a handful of members that have gone out of their way to question and research and pray and advocate (Lester Bush seems like a great example), the majority (it seems to me) did not. If that’s the case, then we as members should apologize as much as the leaders. This church is ours as much as it is theirs. We’re not passive recipients of policies and revelations (good or bad or in-between); the process, I’m convinced, is much more dynamic and organic.
Although I agree ‘the’ apology needs to come from the Church Presidency and Apostles; it would be a gesture toward those who have suffered if we members collectively showed our love to them by acknowledging this colossal wrong. Huge numbers doing this might be salve to those wounded. This would also set an example to our leaders, no different to children teaching their parents as they often do.
And I love the idea Chad puts forward of owning our own religion. This issue has woken me to the fact that I have been quite in awe of prophets and apostles while it appears they are (like Jonah) very human and maybe themselves in awe of their positions. They certainly seemed in awe of past prophets who did this wrong. Interestingly, when I first learned that blacks were meant to have had the Priesthood all along I felt a sense of relief, enlightenment and strength.
Excellent piece! Thank you!
I’ll share it!
Even if there is an apology, it’s gonna take a while for many members to let go of this. We have a hard time to forget the myths and “doctrines” of the past.
You are right, HJ. That is why I think that an apology needs to be taken directly to the members by being announced in General Conference.
Every measure should be taken to eradicate from our culture these myths and “doctrines” of the past.
While it is important that the new essay “disavows” these teachings, steps should be taken to make sure every member gets the memo.
Chad,
I agree on this!
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints may benefit from what the Catholic Church calls, “a purification of memory” (cf. International Theological Commission, “Memory and Reconciliation: The Church and the Faults of the Past” (1999) — http://bit.ly/1be7xNW).
Most excellent! Thank you!
Muchas gracias, Neal!
This is a huge aspect for me…..and why I keep seeing threads where people are claiming God must have been the reason for the ban. Members are still unsure how to understand this part…
“It should be noted parenthetically that though the new essay correctly identifies Brigham Young as the Church leader who first publicly announced the Priesthood ban in 1852, the suggestion remains that it was done at God’s direction by the inclusion of the story that, “After praying for guidance, President McKay did not feel impressed to lift the ban.” If God wasn’t behind the ban, why didn’t He just tell His prophet when asked?”
They did not disavow the entire ban….they disavowed the racist theories/justifications for the ban. This is a significant aspect that’s missing in this release. Did they omit it because the church actually does believe God was behind it and they knew that would bring a huge backlash? Did they omit specifically saying it was not God because that lays the responsibility clearly on the leaders?
I wish we had a clear answer.
I think you make a good point here, Alison.
A close reading of the new essay reveals that the Church is not disavowing the ban itself, but only the justifications for the ban.
I think disavowing the ban itself comes too near the mark of pointing the finger at Church leaders instead of God.
But if the choice comes down to either God is a racist, or Church leaders are racist, I know which side I come down on every time.
Exactly, Corbin. As my husband said when we kept encountering the “I don’t know why” argument, “I think God is better than that.”
It always struck me as a bit odd that fifteen men sustained as “prophets, seers and revelators” would say they “don’t know” why the church they head banned blacks from the Priesthood and the temple for over a hundred years . . .
This article raises some interesting points. The challenge of issuing an apology is thus: if the Church leaders were to issue an apology and say that previous leaders were wrong and that it wasn’t truly doctrinal (said ban) then doesn’t that set a precedence to call anything else they have declared as doctrinal into question? Especially controversial topics? Do they have to apologize to gays eventually as well and allow gay marriage in temples? And who knows that God didn’t put the ban in as a challenge for the church itself? Maybe it offers a unique challenge to black people that is necessary for them. That may sound crazy but Christ specifically neglected to teach the Gentiles and said after He left they would receive the Gospel. You’ve heard that argument before, I know. But it’s true nonetheless – no Gospel for the Gentiles until after Christ left.
Also, I have pointedly asked black LDS members about this topic and they said they don’t understand the ban and hope to know the reason behind it someday but they also were given their testimonies from God (according to them) in spite of the ban. You can say, well, then they are just “true believers” or they are “deceived.” But I’m not going to question their testimonies or spiritual experiences. Nor am I going to pretend to know why God does all that He does or the way He does it.
There are many instances throughout the Biblical history in which God does things that don’t make sense to me. Like when He commanded the Israelites to annihilate an entire people (the Amalekites). To me that’s crazy as well. But it happened and I believe God had his reasons that I don’t fully understand. God’s ways are not man’s.
Just my 2 cents.
While I agree that God’s ways are not man’s, I would at least like to think God’s ways are a bit higher.
Thanks for your comments, Topaz!
I’m not sure if I heard this quote from Darius Grey or Marvin Perkins, in fact, they may have been quoting someone else.
“It wasn’t until 1978 that the leaders of the church were worthy enough to have Blacks in the Priesthood.”
Personally I think the Lord let the entire church suffer through all its 100+ years of its own racist turmoil…and finally said, “Ok, are you listening now?”
You might be right about this, Tom.
I would like to think God is a little more involved with “the only true and living Church on the face of the whole earth,” though.
But maybe He was busy with other things.
Thanks for your comment!
Alison,
One thing is certain, the Church leaders have always claimed the ban came from God. Various explanations have evolved from them & their contemporaries of the time, but the source of the ban has always been consistently attributed to God Himself (at least from my reading).
I think the new essay hints at the racist culture in which Church leaders were raised as a possible culprit.
But you are no doubt right that Church leaders have largely claimed the ban came from God.
President David O. McKay started backing away from this in the 1950’s by beginning to refer to the ban not as a “doctrine” but as a “policy.”
This is made more interesting by the fact that, unless I am mistaken, David O. McKay was a counselor in the First Presidency under George Albert Smith when the 1949 First Presidency Statement was issued defining the ban not as a “policy” but as a “doctrine.”
In other words, David O. McKay signed it.
Apparently David O. McKay had a change of heart.
And I am grateful he did.
But he was President of the Church (though in failing health) when the 1969 First Presidency Statement was issued claiming a lack of knowledge regarding the basis for the ban, but still insisting on its divine origin.
The process of lifting the ban was far from a linear progression.
What a well written article. It sums up all that I feel about this issue. I can’t believe how naive some people are. It’s easy to make judgements when you are not the one scarred from this mess. Attending church, having sacrament and sitting in Sunday school with people (not all but a considerable amount) of people who see themselves as a superior being than you (despite what the scriptures or the gospel of Christ teach)
As a black person of African descent who grew up Mormon and still is, I will say this. I have always believed that the priesthood ban was a lie fueled by racism. Now some will choose to deny this fact. However it is a fact that this lie was perpetuated and taught on the pulpit, during Sunday school and during conferences. God had NOTHING to do with this institutionalised lie (false doctrine ). This had everything to do with the people who supposedly act in the name of God.
Being made to feel less than good enough, questioning your existence and treated as such certainly deserves an apology. A church that teaches repentance and restitution should be forefront in showing its own members & the world through example. And those who feel that others are over sensationalizing the issue by calling it racial are simply refusing the see the suffering of many of their brothers and sisters. You are choosing to turn a blind eye. We all part of one human family, we should all be striving to build one another and it starts by listening and putting yourself in the shoes of the next person.
When I read accounts like this, it reminds me of how upside down things can be presented in the Church. We love quoting the scriptures about persecution and considering the Church’s persecution from the outside in. But we are so slow to see that real persecution exists and existed from within. I believe Jesus sees that very clearly though. Maybe He sent us to this mess to be strong and cease tolerance for it. Thank you for sharing your experience. Peace be with you…
Thank you, Sandy, for so eloquently expressing the far reaching damage done by the Priesthood ban and associated teachings, and why an apology is not optional.
Thank you for speaking out, Sandy, and testifying the truth.
I agree completely! Thank you for sharing this, Corbin!
Also in saying, “That respect would not be diminished by a formal and public apology for the Priesthood ban, but only enhanced.” — I feel that the leaders of this church are not apologizing because they are afraid that the people will no longer look at them as inspired servants of God, but as mere human beings. I would rather listen to humble human beings than vain “servants of God.”
I think there is much to what you say, Emily.
Perhaps Richard Bushman captured some of this in a recent Salt Lake Tribune article where he was quoted as saying this new essay on “Race and the Priesthood” will cause members to fundamentally reorient how they view prophets.
in the Old Testament when the Israelites built the golden calf all of Israel but the Levites lost the blessings of the priesthood, because the Levites didn’t participate in that event. even when Israel got the priesthood back only the house of Israel was allowed to hold the priesthood, no gentiles held the priesthood or received the Gospel until after the atonement was performed. because of this circumstance the Jews had a very self-righteous view that anyone who wasn’t a “child of Abraham” was a lesser being, and this racism was strongly condemned by Christ. But just because the Jews had developed a self-righteous attitude doesn’t mean the processes that God put in place were wrong.
as far as blacks not having the priesthood, maybe it’s because of a situation similar to the Israelites, maybe its not. I don’t know, because we haven’t been told.
the early days of the church was a learning experience for everyone and many people made lots of mistakes, and it took many years for the church to function how God wants it to. I know that God is very particular about how His church is run and is demanding of His prophets. if the prophet doesn’t do what God expects, then God will remove him and replace him with someone that will listen.
living in a country where ideally new laws and changes come from the voice of the people, we have a perfect being at the head of this church, and He loves His children. He’s set up a system where those who have the keys to do so will implement changes that He wants to happen. right or wrong, if we start contention we are not on God’s side. we need to have faith that God is in control and hasn’t set us up for failure. if you have concerns write a letter, but try not to cut the prophets feet out from under him. God is intimately involved in His church wouldn’t let His prophet neglect His children.
That is an interesting argument, and one that I’ve heard before. My main problem with it is that the Bible “priesthood ban” doesn’t really parallel our own. Jehovah was consistent with keeping the priesthood within the house of Israel during OT times. However, in our own history, blacks were given the priesthood (and even leadership positions within the church) for over 20 years before Brigham Young changed things.
I appreciate your comments and respect your point of view, Matt.
You write in your last sentence: “God is intimately involved in His church wouldn’t let His prophet neglect His children.”
This view seems to run squarely into the historical fact that prophets did neglect God’s children for over 100 years.
You also write: “if the prophet doesn’t do what God expects, then God will remove him and replace him with someone that will listen.”
If God didn’t want the Priesthood ban in place, it seems we would have had a lot more (and quicker!) “removals” before we got to President Kimball.
And if God did want the Priesthood ban in place, why didn’t he tell his first prophet of the dispensation, Joseph Smith?
I am not “trying to cut the prophets’ feet out from under them,” but to help lift up their hands when they hang down.
Who says that God isnt behind the work that is putting forth the truths that we need to reconcile?
Id say the internet facilitating both this unfavorable information about the past as well as the consequent conversation is all part of Gods work.
And God suffers his children to do all sorts of stupid things. Like, the Holocaust. Doesn’t mean that he instituted it.
I loved this. I absolutely believe an apology is necessary. I do not say this to excuse them, and I don’t expect my apologetics to solve anyone’s or everyone’s issues with our lack of apology. But..
What if our current leaders really don’t know why the ban existed, or at least not unanimously? I’m sure there are many GAs that do know without a doubt that it was racism and racism only (ie, God is not to blame). I hope an apology is coming. But what if our leaders really aren’t our superiors spiritually and cannot be expected to have greater light and knowledge on every issue…at least not all at once?
I believe greater light and knowledge has already come from the “bottom up” and in time will come from the “top down”. I feel that the Race and the Priesthood essay was a big step to rejoice over.
As much as I agree that we need to become comfortable criticizing leaders as well as the “common” member, I think as “common” members we also need to change our perspective. We don’t tend to see our leaders as “common” members as well. I know that they have worldly power in the church because of how we have set them up for a light, but that isn’t going to change overnight and we need to learn to be at peace ourselves. I only say this to those who can’t sleep at night over this…in case I am not the only one.
In the Church, we are all commanded to serve one another. Our leaders serve us and we serve them. The “hierarchical” perspective we have on church leadership is man-made and false. Have confidence that by kindly ceasing to tolerate cruelty of any form, however well disguised it may be, that you are indeed moving this work along. Be patient with those in their infancy coming to realize this, even if that infant presides “over” you. It will get better. But it is slow. We are in it for the long haul, and I for one have such a deep appreciation for all of you who are willing to endure the good and the bad to get there.
Hope, thank you for a great perspective. In this experience we call life, God is still working to develop ALL of our souls, Apostles and Prophets included. We should not assume that the process of revelation is different for God’s appointed representatives than it is for us as individuals. Revelation is not always clear to us, and it requires time and work and even then sometimes no answer comes. David O. McKay’s personal papers reveal that he prayed for YEARS to try and get divine sanction to extend the priesthood to Africans and was frustrated over and over. I do not know if that was because he was a bad listener, though his personal papers would suggest otherwise, or if there was some other reason, but if I had known the man personally as many of the current Brethren did, I would not rush to doubt his sincerity and destroy his reputation posthumously as so many may wish they had done, particularly if I was a General Authority with the same struggle to understand and make sense of God’s silence to me.
The Church does not move forward with anything until there is unanimity among the brethren. In that light, this statement is a huge leap forward because it represents something all agreed on. We should quit judging others by a much harsher standard than we use to judge ourselves.
“We should quit judging others by a much harsher standard than we use to judge ourselves.”
Agreed, Daniel.
But I think we should also try to help others by pointing out a better way.
Well said, Hope! I appreciate your contribution.
I believe that in the life of every faithful and thoughtful Mormon will come a time when he or she asks, “Does the Church exist for the members, or the members for the Church?”
So much depends upon our answer to that question.
I dealt with my issues concerning race in the church a long time ago. I was taught the various explanations for the priesthood ban. It was a source of pain for many years. I never believe any of those so-called explanations.
EteU Eli-Jah SpencerI knew from my personal relationship with the Savior that all those notions were false. I also never accepted that I would not get the priesthood. I knew from day one that I would get the priesthood. I was told as such in my patriarchal blessing. A patriarchal blessing was given to me. My Patriarchal Blessing said as such.
My biggest issue those days was how people treated me as result of those false notions. Many people were unkind, and many people were not. I personally have forgiven those people, and the false policies. I also understood that it was a policy-NOT a commandment.
My Patriarchal blessing told me that I was a pioneer of my race in the Gospel experience. My calling is to walk that lonely road, to prepare members of the church for a “mighty change” in the church community. I was told that I might not like the world I lived in, but that I would have the patience to overcome these things.
I was told that some day people will call me blessed because of the things that I was to teach them by word and example. I have made it my life’s work to obtain those blessings.
Those first few years were lonely. There were practically no people of African descent anywhere I went in my military years, and my first years as a professional dancer.
Because of who I was, I was afforded many opportunities to speak at churches wherever I went. I kept my speaking platform on three subjects: 1. that these ideas weren’t true 2. that the priesthood would be given to me in my lifetime. 3. I had a vision of thousands of people of African descent joining the church in this world and the Spirit world.
My patriarchal blessing blessed me that I would some day be called a “Savior on Mount Zion” through doing my family history work, that I would be an instrument of salvation to “literally hundreds and thousands of souls” by doing my genealogy work and providing “saving ordinances for my “kindred dead”
I found great comfort in doing my family history work. I knew that there were thousands of my relatives waiting for me to come along and save them and my responsibility was begin the work. I have to do a leap forward to today concerning my family history work.
It took 23 years to actually begin my family history work. I can say without boasting that at this point I have literally fulfilled that duty. I have provided thousands of names to the temple. I have generated tens of thousands of temple ordinances for my kindred dead.
I have opened a Family History Center in my local ward building, in Minneapolis, MN. This Family History has just been recognized as a Family History Center by the church in December 2013. Through those efforts I have assisted many people in their genealogy work and have helped supply innumerable names and ordinances generated for other people.
The Patriarchal blessing told me that I had a gift of communication. That I would be blessed that my voice would be clear and understandable and would bless many through my words, that I would be instrumental in preaching the word of the Lord.
I was advised to read “good books” and the scriptures so that I would be prepared to teach the Gospel.
Since that day, I have been an avid student of the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, the New Testament, and the Old Testament. As technology developed I eventually incorporated in my life church media, church news, and church publications.
I still have that habit today. I avidly follow church news and events. The scriptures were/are important because, no matter how bad things got-I could always find examples where others had it worst.
My love for the Book of Mormon grew. I was able to look beyond the racist statements about Native Americans. My father was an African/Native American from Cherokee, NC. The Book of Mormon impacted my Native American heritage and assured me that I would prevail.
The Book of Mormon is always a source of light in my life. No matter how many times I have read the Book of Mormon, I am always learning and expanding my gospel knowledge. There is always something to learn, be reminded of, or “likened” to a certain situation in my life.
I was 15 years old when Spencer W. Kimball made the announcement that “all worthy members” could be ordained to the Priesthood. I begin to live my life as if preparing to receive the Melchizedek Priesthood, because I was preparing.
At 18 years old, I joined the United States Air Force. It was the beginning of a life that was fraught with a determination to fulfill the promises given in my Patriarchal Blessing. I was ready to receive the priesthood and sought to be ordained to the Melchizedek Priesthood as soon as possible.
At that point there had not been more than 50 or so people of African Descent ordained to the Melchizedek. I joined that group thus fulfilling the promises made in my Patriarchal Blessing.
There is little doubt that I suffered greatly. Even more agonizing for me was the fact that my family turned against me when I chose to be baptized into the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. My father wouldn’t support my joining the church. I had to wait till I was 18. Some of those family relationships have not been healed to this day.
Through all of this my light and hope has been in the redemption of my suffering through the saving graces of my Lord and Savior of Jesus Christ.
A sincere apology will be a Balm of Gilead to a tortured soul. An apology will show the world that our leaders have the compassion and caring for it’s wounded members.
Many people will flock to the church. Many souls will return to the church. Our church will be one huge step closer to preparing our world for the return of the Savior.
EteU Eli-Jah Spencer
Minneapolis, Minnesota
December 16, 2013
I believe that this was the meeting that followed up many private meetings with the President, and President Kimball, Where he was told that the church must change its policy concerning blacks, because of what was happening with the Civil Rights Movement of the blacks. If they did not, the government would be forced to seize all of the church’s assets. Similar to when when Senator Smoot was to be seated in the Senate, on the condition That the church would reissue a second manifesto on polygamy, because the church leaders, even the president of the church were still taking plural wives and not living up to the conditions set forth in the first Manifesto.The church is now trying to refame this to minimize the loss of church members,and tithing. Money always does the talking. I am sure there are documents that can be found under the Freedom of Information act, If one just know where to look. Jimmy Carter, 1977
Next »61 of 100« Prev
Associated Press
Jimmy Carter, 1977
While President Jimmy Carter did visit Utah during his time in the White House, he also invited Utahns to his home. This March 1977 photo shows Carter, right, meeting with President Spencer W. Kimball of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, as well as Rep. James Santiai, D-Nev. and Rep. Gunn McKay, D-Utah.
I have heard this theory before, Stephen, but have yet to encounter any documentation in support of it.
Keep trying with your FOIA request!
Thanks for your comments.
This essay is right on the mark. Nice work.
This is one of the best essays I’ve read on the subject. Thank you Corbin for the work you put into it!
Amazing article. Thank you, a million times thank you.
Thank you so very much, Brian, Andrew and Fatimah!!!
Brilliantly written OP. Well done. In case my below comments leave any doubt about where I am coming from, I also think the Church essay fell significantly short, I think that the ban was of human, racist origins and the ban couldn’t be lifted until certain of the 12 died and were replaced. Within the last 80 years or so, we have had a Q of 12 which will only operate by unanimity. Some stubborn racists blocked that unanimity.
A few contrarian thoughts:
1. When an apology is necessary, it is necessary, but when it isn’t coming from internal motivation, it isn’t real. Have you ever tried convincing a husband, wife, or child that their acknowledgement that mistakes were made wasn’t enough? Ever try to convince them of how deeply wrong they were, against their kicking and screaming efforts to deny? Even when you get the apology, something in the relationship suffers as a result. Ripping a baby from the womb before its chosen gestational time brings something that is less than fully developed and maybe not even viable. An apology that isn’t internally motivated is not viable.
2. Is our LDS narrative requiring confession based in the gospels? Christ dealt with lots of sinners. From which did he require a confession or even that the person give restitution or try to make it right? He did tell us to turn the other cheek, give more clothes if someone tries to steal some, walk the second mile if compelled to walk the first. He also gives lots of practical advice to avoid sinning–love, be humble, give privately to the poor, don’t hate, don’t lust, etc. But where did he ever require a sinner to confess, make it right, or do anything more than go forth and sin no more?
3. Regardless of whether an apology is necessary to repentance, I believe it is useful to healing, but only if it is sincere.
4. Can my apology for the sins of the previous generations of my family really atone for their sins? I doubt it, although I do believe that my acknowledgement of generational or institutional sins is useful in the long run because it helps to break the perpetuation of those sins in this and in future generations.
You have some good thoughts here, Haggoth, especially regarding the issue of the “sincerity” of the apology. An insincere apology is worthless, I agree. And if the Church finally gave an apology only because a sufficiently large number of its members agitated for it, it could lose something by default.
All of this is true. But I can’t believe that translates into my sitting quietly with my hands folded waiting for the Church–my Church–to finally do the right thing.
Surely it is not wrong to voice my belief that an apology should be forthcoming because such an apology would be meaningless.
Perhaps it would be even more meaningful because such an apology would then really be from the leaders of the Church speaking on behalf of the Church membership and not just for themselves.
I totally agree that you have done nothing wrong here in agitating for change.
I agree for the most part, that an apology for Mormon racism to those most affected by it, is long overdue, but what good is an apology when Mormon racism is alive and well, in the present and in the future as long as Mormon leaders lack the moral courage to correct Mormon scriptures, which are far more racist than any other scriptures?
The whole premise of the Book of Mormon (and Mormonism) is based upon 19th Century racist myths that Native Americans were really a cursed race of wandering Jews, who came to “The Promised Land” and degenerated into savages, so it’s ok with the God of Mormonism, to take their land and that Africans were cursed by God with the “Curse of Cain” thus making it perfectly ok with the God of Mormonism to enslave them?
Mormon scriptures are full of racism, still, to this day. Correcting that error in judgement, seems to me to be almost impossible without killing the goose that lays the golden eggs.
Until these racist notions are removed from every set of Mormon scriptures, an apology is meaningless and racism will remain alive and well in the Mormon church, passed down from one generation to the next, behind closed doors, like it was with my children. Trying to correct those racist 19th Century myths, was grounds for discipline when I was a Mormon, for the first 40 years of my life, up until 9-11-01, when it became clear to me there was no “Prophet” who could reveal God’s intentions on 9-11.
“…the Lord shall curse the land with much heat…and there was a blackness (2) came upon all the children of Canaan, that they were despised among all people.” (Moses 7:8)
“And Enoch also beheld …the sons of Adam; and they were a mixture of all the seed of Adam save it were the seed of Cain, for the seed of Cain were black, and had not a place among them.” (Moses 7:22)
“Now this king of Egypt was a descendant from the loins of Ham, and was a partaker of the blood of the Canaanites by birth. From this descent sprang all the Egyptians, and thus the blood of the Canaanites was preserved in the land. The land of Egypt being first discovered by a woman, who was the daughter of Ham, and the daughter of Egyptus, which in the Chaldean signifies Egypt, which signifies that which is forbidden. When this woman discovered the land it was under water, who afterward settled her sons in it; and thus, from Ham sprang that race which preserved the curse in the land…” (Pearl of Great Price, Abraham 1:21-24, 26c)
The Mormon Church’s racist doctrine of preexistence also finds its roots in The Pearl of Great Price:
“…he [God] said: These I will make my rulers; for he stood among those that were spirits, and he saw that they were good; and he said unto me: Abraham, thou art one of them; thou was chosen before thou wast born…And they who keep their first estate shall be added upon; and they who keep not their first estate shall not have glory in the same kingdom with those who keep their first estate…” (Abraham 3:23, 26)
“…after they had dwindled in unbelief they became a dark, and loathsome, and a filthy people, full of idleness and all manner of abominations.” (I Nephi 12:23)
“…Behold, they had hardened their hearts against him…wherefore, as they were white, and exceeding fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them. And thus saith the Lord God: I will cause that they shall be loathsome unto thy people, save they shall repent of their sins.” (2 Nephi 5:21-22)
“And the skins of the Lamanites(4) were dark…which was a curse upon them because of their transgression against their brethren…therefore they were cursed; and the Lord God set a mark upon them. And this was done that their seed might be distinguished from the seed of their brethren, that thereby the Lord God might preserve his people…” (Alma 3:6,8)
“And then shall they [Lamanites] rejoice…and their scales of darkness shall begin to fall from their eyes; and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a white and delightsome people” (2 Nephi 30:6, 1830, 1920, and 1977 editions)
An apology would help us because it would imply an admission of the brethren’s limitations, Happy Green. That would be a lot healthier for everyone involved.
Racism remains alive and well in the Mormon church, and will thrive as long as Mormon leaders lack the moral courage to remove the 19th Century racist myths that remain canonized in Mormon scriptures as the “Word of God”. Any ‘apology’ seems insincere as long as that fact remains.
And racism is alive and well in all mainstream Christian churches.
Why are there still “Black” and “White” mainstream Christian churches throughout the U.S.
The Westborough Baptist church never gets called out for their non Christian behavior, and the Appleby Baptist church in Texas openly teaches the Curse of Cain and practices blatant racism.
But no, only the “Mormons are racist” BS continues.
This is an important issue you raise, Happy Green.
I believe it is possible, however, to transcend racism even while retaining arguably racist statements in scripture. This is generally done by reinterpreting problematic passages in a way different from predecessors who found in them justification for racism.
The Book of Mormon is a mixed bag. It certainly contains the scriptures you mention. On the other hand, it also contains beautiful, equality-affirming passages like 2 Nephi 26:33 teaching that all are alike unto God, both black and white, bond and free, male and female.
While ostensibly written by the Nephites, perennial enemies to the Lamanites, the Book of Mormon nevertheless includes many glowing examples of Lamanites, at least one of which is advised that her faith exceeds that of the Nephites. And we mustn’t forget the stunning role reversal embodied in Samuel the Lamanite.
The Bible is also a mixed bag in this regard, though I expect to go into that a little more fully below.
Suffice it to say that many religious traditions have transcended inherently racist and sexist sections of their authoritative works by reinterpreting them without feeling the necessity of bodily removing them.
I think Mormons can do the same.
Corbin,
You said, “Suffice it to say that many religious traditions have transcended inherently racist and sexist sections of their authoritative works by reinterpreting them without feeling the necessity of bodily removing them.”
What specifically are you talking about? What religious traditions have inherently racist sections of their scriptures? None that I’m aware of.
Blacks Ridiculed again by the Mormon Church
By Lee B. Baker, Former Mormon High Priest and Bishop
18 November 2013
____________________________________________________________________________
For several years now, every Tuesday evening I have had the great privilege of hosting “Teaching The Truth”, an LDS focused broadcast to the Christian and Mormon listeners of Worship FM 101.7 in Monrovia, the capital City of Liberia, West Africa.
I have come to know several of the station managers and a number of the more frequent callers to this weekly program. Through their comments, questions and photographs, I have been genuinely moved to see the application of their unyielding faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.
Over the past few months the question of racist teachings in the Book of Mormon and from the past Leadership of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has been on the minds of the Black Liberian converts to Mormonism and the many African Christians who struggle to understand how such a Church can be growing in Africa.
I believe the answer is relatively simple; it has been the perfect merging of a sincere lack of knowledge on the part of the Black Mormon Converts and a disturbing lack of accountability on the part of the White Mormon Leaders. A near total lack of knowledge across Africa specific to the more explicitly racist teachings found within the current Mormon Scriptures, principally that of Black Skin and even less information concerning the racism and bigotry openly and officially taught by the early Leadership of the Mormon Church. These facts, combined with the current Church Leadership’s inability to clearly and specifically reject its own racist teachings both in print and from its past Senior Leadership (liberally using the terms Nigger, Darky, Sambo and Skin of Blackness ), has left the Black Race with only a short irresponsible and offensively juvenile Official Statement that claims the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints knows very little about its own race-based policy, which lasted for well over 100 years:
“It is not known precisely why, how or when this restriction began in the Church, but it has ended.” – Official Mormon Press Release concerning Race and the Church
Maintaining a detailed and comprehensive history of every aspect and teaching of the Church has been both one of the hallmarks and one of the downfalls of Mormon Church. Within the relatively young Church, authoritative documentation, however corrupt it may have been, has never been in short supply. Each of the Senior Leaders of the Mormon Church has had several official biographers as well as an army of Church approved historians to record all aspects of the History of the Church. In fact, one of my first of many “Callings” in the Mormon Church was that of a Ward (Congregational) Historian, long before I became a Mormon High Priest and Bishop.
The peculiar assertion that the Mormon Church itself does not know the details of its very own race-based policy of restricting the Blacks from holding the Priesthood is tremendously embarrassing for all Mormons and exceptionally degrading for anyone who actually believes it.
As a former local leader of the Mormon Church, I have repeatedly assured the African members of the Mormon Church that the documents and “Scriptures” I have read to them over the air are both Authorized and Official for the time period they are relevant to. I clearly state the current position of total acceptance of all Races by the Church, but I must highlight the fact that the Book of Mormon still carries it’s obviously racist message that dark skin was a curse from God. I have said many times on-air that like the Mormon Missionaries, I too believe that every African should have a copy of the Book of Mormon, if only to learn the truly racist teaching of the Mormons, directly from the Book of Mormon.
I have and will continue to teach the African Nations from the authentic Mormon Scriptures and the official Church History documents, which I had been provided by the Mormon Church to execute my responsibilities as a Mormon Bishop. The Official Records of the Mormon Church include many jokes and sermons given within the Official Semi-Annual General Conference of the Mormons, using freely the terms Nigger, Darky and Sambo. Additionally, these LDS Church documents record nearly 100 graphic sermons and lessons that clearly teach the principle, practice and policy that Black Skin was, is and will remain forever the Curse of Cain.
Only in the recent past has the “Complete History” of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints come to the attention of its own membership, much less to the under developed regions of the world. As this information is discovered, an ever increasing number of members of the Mormon Church have come into a personal crisis of faith, most notably Elder Hans Mattsson of Sweden, a General Authority of the Mormon Church who has gone public with his doubts and questions concerning the appalling treatment of the Black Race by the Mormon Church.
Not unique to Africa, has been the Mormon Church’s training of young Missionaries to strictly avoid any discussion of several of the more embarrassing, yet true, teachings of the 183 year old Church. Among the prohibited subjects to discuss have been, becoming a God, the practice of Polygamy and religious racial restrictions on the Black Race.
With the smooth talent of a skilled politician, the Mormon Church has ended its Official Racial Restrictions with the following hypocritical and deceitful, but technically accurate Statement:
“The origins of priesthood availability are not entirely clear. Some explanations with respect to this matter were made in the absence of direct revelation and references to these explanations are sometimes cited in publications. These previous personal statements do not represent Church doctrine.”
As a former Mormon Bishop and member of the Mormon Church for over 32 years, let me be of some help with the translation of this very carefully crafted, yet deceitful message. The two key and noteworthy phrases are: “in the absence of direct revelation” and “These previous personal statements do not represent Church doctrine.”
I will address the most obvious first, clearly the “previous statements” from the Church and its Leadership “do not” represent the Church doctrine today. The policy was reversed in 1978 and there is no question as to the current policy of today. The hypocritical deception is that between 1830 and 1978 those “statements” did, very much “DID” not “DO” represent past Official and Legitimate Mormon Church doctrine. Yet, I do give full credit to the clever Mormon authors and editors of today for their most skillful use of the English language.
And finally, the most revealing and enlightening statement from the Mormon Church is: “in the absence of direct revelation”. So then, it is incredibly true and accurate that without any mockery or sarcasm to state that; The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints had for nearly 140 years, restricted a significant portion of the human race, millions and millions from what they teach is God’s intended blessings of Eternal Marriage, Salvation and even Godhood, without knowing why they did it, all without “direct revelation”?
This Official Statement of religious shame and embarrassment comes from the Headquarters of a Church that claims to be guided in all things by “direct revelation”. How then, did such an exclusive doctrine based on prejudice, bigotry and racism become so widely accepted, so authoritative, so convincing and so commanding for so long, without any “direct revelation”?
As a former Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I give solemn testimony that what they have declared is true, in that, they were and are now racist and do not hide the History of the Mormon Church from its members or the public, this, their Official Statement on Race and their Official “Scriptures ” clearly demonstrates that fact.
I believe that the truly wicked teachings as well as the repulsive history of the Mormon Church concerning Polygamy, Polyandry-(sharing wives among the men), Blood Atonement, as well as restricting the Blacks from the Mormon Priesthood is available for those who have eyes to see and ears to hear.
It is my prayer that all Mormons and non-Mormons alike will come to know the true history of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I wish that every adult around the world could find the time to read the calculated racism and bigotry found within the Book of Mormon5. My hope is that all mankind could discover the contemporary Mormon Teachings, to see the deception they hold, and then… to read the True Word of God and follow the True Jesus Christ found only in the Bible.
Sincerely,
Lee B. Baker
Former Mormon High Priest and Bishop
Dear Lee,
Thank you for posting this. While it does contain several factual misstatements, for me to focus on them while overlooking the general message would be petty, I think.
I agree with you that the LDS Church has not been as up front in dealing with its racism as it should have been, and that it still has work to do in order to heal the wounds it has inflicted on the souls of God’s children.
Though I am not a Church leader, I am doing what I can to help with that process. My blog article is an attempted step in that direction.
Though it may take some time for an official apology to be forthcoming from Salt Lake City, I hope you will accept my sincere apology for the pain and suffering these policies and teachings have caused you and those dear to you.
I wish you only the best, and God’s blessings, in your ministry.
When will Jesus Christ issue a formal apology for excluding EVERYONE except Jews from joining His church while He was alive? Excluding everyone is much bigger racism than excluding just people with black skin. Did Jesus make a mistake by rolling out his gospel to only Jews first? Can you imagine a church today that only allowed circumcised men to join? You have to consider that perhaps there was some purpose in the rollout of the restored gospel not going everywhere to everyone at one time. I have no idea why, but I don’t know why Jesus excluded everyone except Jews either.
Thanks for your post, Gentile.
I do not claim to know everything, either.
But I do know that when the restored gospel was originally rolled out, black men were ordained to the Priesthood. The best evidence is that Joseph Smith ordained one himself. His name was Elijah Able (or “Ables”).
It was not until Brigham Young assumed the reins of leadership that this was reversed. And Brigham Young frequently accompanied his teachings in this regard with overtly racist statements and descriptions of black people.
I do not think it beyond the pale to expect Brigham Young’s successors in Church leadership to apologize for this.
Corbin, I add my thanks for a sincere and well written essay on an issue that has troubled many for a long time. I couldn’t agree more strongly that an apology from the Church is needed to further the healing process.
I’m a white man now living in Utah. I joined the church as a convert in 1984. I didn’t know about the priesthood ban until several months after I joined. It was disturbing to realize that the ban had been in effect only six years prior to my baptism!
Throughout the years I received, discussed, and (I am so ashamed to admit) perpetuated the explanations we all were provided by Church leadership regarding the reasoning behind the ban. These reasons are clear and documented. Cherry-picking “we don’t know” quotes will not change this.
A pointed example was a priesthood meeting I attended (late 90s?) with a black brother in attendance – a rare occurrence in my ward. The subject of the ban came up as the teacher discussed his mission to South Africa. Someone in attendance recited the “less valiant in the pre-existence” explanation. I, feeling extremely uncomfortable, sat there and said nothing. As usual. I was part of the problem.
My (weak) defense is that I did not wish to contradict established teachings. How many of us experienced this conflict? I wonder how this black brother felt about the implication that all us white guys maybe put a little more effort in during our pre-mortal existence.
I will always be sorry for my complicity in accepting and promulgating incorrect explanations for this disgraceful and hurtful “policy”. I’m happy the Church has made an attempt to explain, but an official apology should have already occurred.
Thanks for being so open about this, Curtis.
Though I can’t recall any specific instances, I am sure there have been times when I have also repeated the commonly accepted tropes regarding why it was that blacks could not hold the Priesthood until 1978. I would like to apologize for that.
I was repeating the racism I had been taught by those I accepted as my religious leaders. But I was still the one who taught it. And I must own it.
I do know that this went far beyond a black-and-white issue, though.
When I was on my mission in Japan, a good brother came up to me once and confided that he knew he was inferior to me in the pre-mortal existence because I was white and born in America, but that he was still going to try his best.
The ramifications of the Church’s teachings have been wide-spread.
I got it Corbin, call your church “The Church of Corbin Korihor Volluz”
Oh when we think we are learned and all your flattery words. There are god’s pattern’s to avoid being deceived, but there are also those of Satan.
I can only say. God will not be mocked.
Time for your medication, Clamster.
Nighty-night.
Beautifully written, you thoroughly covered the subject. I hope this makes its way into the right hands — without you getting punished for it.
I am sorry but I don’t believe that God needs to apologize for His dissensions. Just as in the Bible, only the Levites had the priesthood and then in the New Testament Christ came to teach the House of Israel only and not the Gentiles. We have no right to attack the prophets for following the revelations they receive from God. And then to hear that people believe women should have the priesthood and that same sex marriages should be preformed in the temple!!!! Has no one here studied the scriptures?? Does no one understand the Plan of Salvation or the Family a Proclamation to the World?? I just felt I needed to say something…to try and defend the truth here.
I mean apologize for His decisions…not dissensions..sorry
The truth is that “To be perfectly frank,” Uchtdorf said, “there have been times when members or leaders in the church have simply made mistakes. There may have been things said or done that were not in harmony with our values, principles or doctrine.”
Sounds like you would be more comfortable believing that God is a bigot who commanded that Blacks be sealed as servants, given as tithing/property and cursed for anothers transgressions than to believe that some leaders of the church (men) were racist and made bad decisions.
They were wrong and God suffered it because they were all he had to work with.
The Church doesn’t need to apologize for Brigham Young or anyone else being a bigot, but they do need to come clean about the church’s past and show some compassion if they hope to avoid religious abandonment by the masses.
Besides the issue of leadership fallibility, there is just a tremendous feeling of being deceived. Not by God, but by man. That is the apology that is needed.
Hi, Christy! Thanks for your comments!
The unstated assumption in your comment, “I am sorry but I don’t believe that God needs to apologize for His decisions,” is to conflate God with Church leaders.
God is not Church leaders.
Church leaders are not God.
I am not asking God to apologize for His decisions.
I am asking Church leaders to apologize as an institution for decisions made by the Church.
This seems reasonable to me.
Corbin, thanks for this important and beautifully written essay. It made me sad but it also gives me hope that we can begin to see this differently as a Church and eventually do the right thing, taking the responsibility for our own racism rather than laying the blame on God.
Thanks, Mike C!
Judging by the overwhelmingly positive response in this comment section, I think your hope is well on the way to becoming reality.
Merry Christmas!
How can the Church apologize for the priesthood ban without also apologizing for the racism and discriminations recorded in the Bible which the Church accepts as scripture? Brett is right that if critics succeed in getting an apology for the priesthood ban, “they would just dangle the carrot a little further out and demand something else. Mark my words.” An example would be pressing for today’s Church leaders sitting “in Moses’ seat” to apologize for Moses because Moses isn’t here to apologize in person for his racism, discrimination, and persecution of non-Israelites and idolaters among his own people and for denying the priesthood to all tribes of Israel except the Levites.
If today’s Church leaders apologize for the priesthood ban carried out by previous Church leaders, to be consistent and to mollify its critics on issues of racism and discrimination, they should also apologize for the following bans on the priesthood during Bible times. The Church should issue these apologies also because the church leaders during Bible times are not around now to make the apologies themselves. The Church should also issue these apologies because Church leaders have now and again quoted these scriptures, not to justify racism, but to teach eternal gospel truths.
(1) Non-Israelites were banned from marrying Israelites, from holding priesthood, and from the gospel itself during Old Testament times.
(2) Of the twelve tribes of Israel, only the tribe of Levi was allowed to hold the priesthood from the time of Moses to Jesus Christ.
(3) The gentiles and Samaritans were banned from the priesthood and the gospel itself during the time Christ lived on the earth. “These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter you not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matthew 10: 5, 6). Note that there is a distinction between Gentiles and Samaritans. The Samaritans were of mixed blood, part Israelite and part gentile.
(4) People of Canaan, along with other gentiles, were banned from the priesthood and the gospel itself until at least after Christ. “And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil. But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us. But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me. But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to cast it to dogs. And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters’ table. Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour” (Matthew 15:22-28, see also Mark 7.24-29). But was she allowed to be baptized into Christ’s church until after the revelation to Peter to start taking the gospel to the gentiles?
If God is the same today, yesterday, and forever, and if this is the Dispensation of the Fullness of Times, we should not be surprised if there were similar bans instituted for a time and later revoked in our day.
When Jesus used the dog analogy with the woman from Canaan, he was apparently quoting a racist slur common in that day. Some critics would say Christ should apologize for using that slur/analogy, especially since the woman from Canaan probably had a black skin. It is significant that the woman of Canaan did not ask Christ for an apology or reject him and become a dissident because of the analogy he used or because of the bans on her people or because he did not apologize.
Likewise many black people in our day should be greatly honored and respected for accepting the gospel despite the (temporary) bans on the priesthood and temple attendance. Thankfully those bans have now been lifted as were the other bans listed above “in the Lord’s own due time And thankfully the incorrect reasons for the bans have been disavowed. Although we have not written record, probably a lot of incorrect reasons for those other bans listed above also had to be disavowed after those bans were lifted. Some of those incorrect reasons in those Old and New Testament days were probably the same as the incorrect reasons for the priesthood ban in our day.
thank you so much for what you wrote!!!!
This argument presupposes that it was God who instituted the ban, which is something the LDS Church seems to be now implying was not the case.
If it wasn’t God that introduced this doctrine then the LDS Church was in error for creating a harmful practice and policy around it, and thus might wish to exercise some humility by apologizing for its past mistakes.
However, if you believe Brigham Young (or Joseph Smith) was inspired in instituting this ban then why wouldn’t you presume he was also inspired when they said that it could not be removed until the resurrection (as they stated emphatically several times).
But if Brigham was telling the divine truth then Spencer W. Kimball had no right to give Blacks the Priesthood, they still do not really have it, and you would be defending an LDS Church that is in apostasy. Either way it seems you have run out of legs to stand on!
You are right it is a messy issue no matter how you cut it, FD.
One of the nice things about apologizing as an institution is that Church leaders would not have to point fingers at any particular Church leader as the cause (as they sort of do in the new essay with Brigham Young).
An institution can simply apologize as an institution for harm caused by the institution.
It’s not that difficult, and would solve so many problems.
It would be a smart move for the Church.
But an apology should be given not because it is a smart move, but the right thing to do.
WhyNot asks:
“How can the Church apologize for the priesthood ban without also apologizing for the racism and discriminations recorded in the Bible which the Church accepts as scripture?”
I answer:
“How can I apologize for hitting my brother in the nose without apologizing for Cain killing Abel?”
EteU Spencer,
You are an inspiration to me brother. Thank you for your courage. You are welcome and loved, if not by all, by me.
Brother Risto
Midway, UT
Brother Risto
Thanks for so thoughtfully taking on this topic. You have done a real service to the church, its membership and leadership by laying the issues out so clearly and fairly–exactly what I would expect from a good person who is also a good attorney. Best wishes to you and your family in the fight for greater love and understanding for all people.
Thank you, Jared!
And a Merry Christmas to you and yours, as well!
EteU Spencer,
Thank you for you courage
Good job.
The majority of the article is spent detailing the historical background of past excuses but only gives 3 premises at the end to support the articles claim that “an apology is necessary.” Premise one and two are “for the sake” of blacks and whites. Which I’m not clear on what that actually means. What’s his definition of sake? And what good does having a good one do? Why is it important? Does he mean it as in “consideration for”? Without saying what this is for and what it will do its really saying nothing. The third premise is that Gods church needs to repent. He (God) is in charge of it, correct? So God needs to repent to…God? If God sinned then he really isn’t God. However, if he meant the actual leaders/people/someone else then that wouldn’t follow his earlier argument that later descendants can’t be cursed/responsible for a prior individuals sin (Adam/Cain) and that would also invalidate this premise.
Although there may be a point to be made, and I’m not absolving anyone or picking sides, the argument in the article doesn’t stand on its own. It needs to be reworked and focus on establishing the claim through valid premises.
thank you for saying something too!!!
Thank you for your comments, Mr. Nix.
I have trouble following your reasoning here, but it sounds as if you are questioning the legitimacy of an apology to anyone anywhere for anything.
The reason for an apology should be self-evident, I would think. If it is not to you, I am not sure how I can effectively go about making it clear. But I will give it a go.
It stems from basic human morality that when we injure or harm another person, we should feel bad about it; when we feel about it, we should tell them we feel bad about it.
That is essentially what an apology is. It means, “I feel bad about it.”
Does the Church feel bad about the Priesthood ban or not?
Once again, it is not about God saying He is sorry for something He did; it is about the LDS Church saying the LDS Church is sorry for something the LDS Church did.
You are confusing the two, as Christy did earlier.
I don’t know how to make it any plainer.
No, I am not questioning the legitimacy of “an apology to anyone anywhere for anything.” I’m saying that if you are going to ask today’s prophet (Pres. Monson) to apologize for the priesthood ban (which, by the way, he had nothing to do with), you should also ask the prophets of Bible times to apologize. You can ask for those apologies through prayers, open letters, blogs, etc. Or at least, to be consistent, you should say that if you had lived in the time of Moses, Samuel, Peter, or Paul, you would have written a similar article, pleading with those prophets (and even Christ himself) apologize for their racist sounding words and actions.
An apology by church leaders in our day would not be in order if the priesthood ban was not wrong after all. Possible reasons why the ban may not have been wrong include:
1. As objectionable and hurtful as the thought might be, the Church’s (temporary) priesthood ban policy may somehow have been in accordance with God’s will, the reasons for which we do not yet understand. “I know not (why), save the Lord commanded it” or dictated, directed, or approved it. And I will “wait upon the Lord” and “hold to the iron rod” until he reveals the real reason(s) behind that policy, even if it’s not until the next life.
2. We don’t know what they are, but the reason or reasons for this temporary ban policy might have been the same or similar reasons (a) why the priesthood was limited to only the tribe of Levi during Old Testament times, (b) why the priesthood and the gospel itself were temporarily limited only to the House of Israel during the time Christ lived on the earth, (c) why Christ was sent only to the “House of Israel” and not to the gentiles too, and/or (d) why the Lord waited so many centuries from the Great Apostasy until 1830 to restore his Church and its priesthood.
3. The policy may have been in accordance with God’s will for not one single reason but for a combination of reasons. Some reasons given in the past are wrong, as the Church has clearly said in its new race-priesthood website. Any one of a number of other reasons might not be sufficient by itself, but what about a combination of reasons operating at the same time? A combination of reasons could include these possibilities gathered from a variety of sources including people in Church classes and study groups who discussed the priesthood ban long before it was revoked through direct revelation from God.
(a) Perhaps, black African people in our day had been subjugated and enslaved for so long that, as a whole, they needed time to learn and heal in an atmosphere of freedom after slavery was abolished before being given priesthood responsibilities. Perhaps this is a reason why black people from the Pacific Islands and aborigines of Australia could always receive the priesthood—they had not been downtrodden, broken, and brutalized by slavery. The fact that Pacific Islanders and aborigines of Australia could always receive the priesthood and the ending of the story of the Canaanite woman in the Bible are further proof that having a black skin is not a curse. Black is beautiful. The dark skin of the Lamanites was probably due to intermarriage with native American oriental people whose ancestors crossed over the Bering Strait. What some people might call a curse is a blessing to other people. For example, one extremely handsome man said that his good looks were “a curse” to him.
(b) Perhaps, during their respective times, non-Levites of the Old Testament, gentiles. Canaanites, and Samaritans of the New Testament, and white people of our day, as a whole, were not ready to have other races or cultures receive the priesthood. In other words, perhaps, during their respective times, many in these groups would have rejected, rebelled, and fought against the church of God, even lynching, burning, destroying. At least they would refusal to accept or sustain non-Levite, gentile, Samaritan, Canaanite, or black African priesthood leaders. It has been said that the black people of African descent needed time to mature before they received the priesthood. It can be said that time to mature was even more important for white people. White people needed time to mature before black people of African descent received the priesthood and were given priesthood teaching and leadership responsibilities over white congregations.
(c) Since the gospel was to be taken to the whole world, that included the South which, at the time of the Restoration of the gospel, was extremely prejudiced against black people from Africa, treating them like beasts of burden. Two Mormon missionaries who tried to preach the gospel to people in the South were murdered. Perhaps the Lord chose (or let his prophet, Brigham Young choose) to compromise in order to convert a sufficient number of Southerners to accelerate the transition from systemic, blind prejudice to acceptance of black people. This compromise would have permitted black people be baptized and receive the gift of the Holy Ghost but not give them the priesthood until the time was right according to the Lord’s timetable, for reasons which possibly included (a) and (b).
(d) Perhaps during their respective times, the Lord needed some worthy non-Levite, gentile, Samaritan, Canaanite, and black people to sacrifice, to be an example, to show the world that it is possible to remain true and faithful to the teachings of Christ even if denied certain blessings (e.g. the priesthood) or other benefits for whatever reason. God has promised that those who sacrifice (including their loved ones to the third and fourth generation and more) will be rewarded a hundred fold and more.
Some might compare the pain black people suffered before the priesthood ban was lifted to birth pains a mother suffers before her baby is born. But the pain, the sacrifice is worth it in the end.
Note that none of the above possibilities include the abominable view that the reason why the priesthood was withheld from non-Levites, gentiles, Canaanites, or black Africans during their respective time periods was because they were unworthy, less valiant, neutral, or rebellious in the pre-mortal life.
We should be grateful we have the teachings and example of Jesus Christ and his true prophets, both ancient and modern, to guide us in making our choices, even though we may sometimes have to fall back on the scripture, “I know not except the Lord commanded…”
Nevertheless, whichever possibility or combination of possibilities is accepted, everyone should embrace people of all races with love, kindness, compassion, and understanding and try to eliminate racism wherever it is found and try to help make up for the disadvantages of those whose ancestors suffered under slavery and those who today suffer racist intolerance, prejudice, and persecution.
Thank you for your lengthy comments, Whynot.
I must say you show a distinct aptitude for blaming anyone and everyone other than Church leaders for the Priesthood ban.
Perhaps most offensive was this comment of yours: “It has been said that the black people of African descent needed time to mature before they received the priesthood.”
This sounds suspiciously like the comments by (former) BYU professor Randy Bott, when he likened not giving the Priesthood to black men as being like not giving the car keys to a teenager who didn’t know how to drive.
Are you aware the Church explicitly rejected that sentiment? And are you aware that Professor Bott is no longer teaching at BYU?
You follow up with this gem: “It can be said that time to mature was even more important for white people.”
So because white people had historically subjugated blacks in the United States, they needed time to “mature” out of their racist ways before treating them as equals?
That pretty much covers everybody, doesn’t it? I think you have proved my point–some Mormons are willing to blame anybody and everybody for the Priesthood ban except for those who instituted and perpetuated it for over 100 years: LDS Church leaders.
Why is so obvious a conclusion so difficult for you to accept?
CV: Thank you for your lengthy comments, Whynot. I must say you show a distinct aptitude for blaming anyone and everyone other than Church leaders for the Priesthood ban.
WN: More lengthy comments for consideration: Presented below is a more comprehensive list of possible reasons, both positive and negative, for the priesthood ban. It is up to each individual to choose which of the various possibilities seems most probable to them. You favor the negative–I favor the positive.
CV: Perhaps most offensive was this comment of yours: “It has been said that the black people of African descent needed time to mature before they received the priesthood.”
This sounds suspiciously like the comments by (former) BYU professor Randy Bott, when he likened not giving the Priesthood to black men as being like not giving the car keys to a teenager who didn’t know how to drive.
WN: A better comparison might have been: “Free the teenager from brutal, crushing slavery (or from the terrible legacies of slavery) so he can study and pass the driving tests; then give him the keys to the car.”
CV You follow up with this gem: “It can be said that time to mature was even more important for white people.” So because white people had historically subjugated blacks in the United States, they needed time to “mature” out of their racist ways before treating them as equals?
WN: What I meant to say was: “All should agree that it was extremely important for white people to repent of their cruel and vicious treatment of black people of African descent.”
CV: That pretty much covers everybody, doesn’t it? I think you have proved my point–some Mormons are willing to blame anybody and everybody for the Priesthood ban except for those who instituted and perpetuated it for over 100 years: LDS Church leaders. Why is so obvious a conclusion so difficult for you to accept?
WN: Because, among other reasons, if we say that the LDS Church leaders themselves were solely responsible for the Priesthood ban, we would have to lay similar blame on Bible prophets and Christ himself for the Priesthood bans and the gospel bans which they instituted and perpetuated for thousands of years. Again, those bans included: The gospel and the priesthood banned from non-Israelites at least from Moses to Jesus Christ’s resurrection. The priesthood ban against all tribes of Israel except the Levites. Christ banning his apostles from taking the gospel to the gentiles or the Samaritans until after his resurrection. Christ quoting the dog analogy with a Canaanite (dark skinned) woman. The gospel and the priesthood banned from the gentiles until the revelation to Peter which compared gentiles to unclean animals. The priesthood and the gospel taken (banned) from the earth from the death of Christ’s original apostles until the time of Joseph Smith. There were good reasons for these bans which will be given to us someday. Meanwhile, we give ancient prophets, Christ, and LDS Church leaders the benefit of the doubt and are content to put our trust in God that he has worked and is working to bring to pass the greatest good for the greatest number of people in the long run, with loving, careful attention to each race and each individual.
. Those of us who can’t wait for God to reveal the exact reasons (which doubtless have to do with doing the greatest good for the greatest number of p
WN: Now here is the comprehensive list including the negative and the positive possibilities:
LIST OF POSSIBLE POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE REASONS
FOR THE PRIESTHOOD BAN
Which one(s) is(are) most probable?
Possibility #1: The Church’s policy of withholding the priesthood from black people of African descent between the time of Joseph Smith and Pres. Kimball was blatant, inexcusable, full-blown racism for which Brigham Young is largely to blame.
Possibility #2: “These people were tribal… Tribes were inherently racist and protective of their tribe…. Early Mormons were tribal and sought to protect themselves from outside influences… As the world becomes smaller tribal societies and cultures assimilate and we see tribal values for what they were…. Protective means to protect the tribe AND today racist, sexist, homophobic or whatever. Regardless, somehow God is always made in the image of the tribe….and remade…” (D. L.)
Possibility #3: “The Mormon people are and have always been flawed. As people of faith, Mormons have done their best to understand the will of God, as that our history unfolds over time. Prophets hold tremendous responsibility in clarifying the terms of that unfolding, but prophets too are humans who dialogue with God through a veil of human flaws; as Paul said, they too “see through a glass darkly.” The history of the priesthood-temple ban is a reminder of the importance of reflectiveness, thoughtfulness, humility, and self-criticism as people of faith try to understand the will of God.” (J. B.)
Possibility #4: As objectionable and hurtful as the thought might be, the Church’s (temporary) priesthood ban policy may somehow have been in accordance with God’s will, the reasons for which we do not yet understand. “I know not (why), save the Lord commanded (or dictated or approved) it.” And I will “wait upon the Lord” and “hold to the iron rod” until he reveals the real reason(s) behind that policy, even if it’s not until the next life
Possibility #5: We don’t know what they are, but the reason or reasons for this temporary ban policy might have been the same or similar to reasons (a) why the priesthood was limited to only the tribe of Levi during Old Testament times, (b) why the priesthood and the gospel itself were temporarily limited only to the House of Israel during the time Christ lived on the earth, (c) why Christ was sent only to the “House of Israel” and not to the gentiles too, and (d) why the Lord waited so long over the centuries from the Great Apostasy until 1830 to restore his Church and its priesthood.
Possibility #6: The policy was in accordance with God’s will, that he dictated, directed, inspired, or allowed the priesthood ban for a combination of reasons. The Church has declared that several of the reasons given in the past are wrong, but what about a combination of reasons? A combination of reasons might include these possibilities:
(a) Perhaps some people preferred not to have the priesthood because they would be expected to magnify their callings in the priesthood while having other interests and demands on their time.
(b) Perhaps some thought they might even “exercise unrighteous dominion” if they received the priesthood because it is ”the nature and disposition of almost all men as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose…”
(c) Perhaps some believed there were blessings to be received if they were not given the priesthood analogous to blessings which come to those who are denied the blessings of sight, hearing, or mobility. For example, one man said he would never have produced the great books he had written if he had not been wheel-chair bound.
(d) Perhaps some believed the pain they would suffer because of not having the priesthood could be analogous to the pains a mother suffers before her baby is born. But the pain and sacrifice are worth it in the end, including, it is claimed, a stronger bond with the baby.
(e) Perhaps, during their respective times, gentiles of Bible times and black African people in our day had been subjugated and enslaved mentally, emotionally, and physically for so long that they needed time to learn and heal in an atmosphere of freedom before being given priesthood responsibilities. Perhaps this is a reason why black people from the Pacific Islands and aborigines of Australia could always receive the priesthood—they had not been downtrodden, broken, and brutalized by slavery. The fact that Pacific Islanders and aborigines of Australia could always receive the priesthood and the ending of the story of the Canaanite woman in the Bible are further proof that having a black skin is not a curse. Black is beautiful. The dark skin of the Lamanites was probably due to intermarriage with native American oriental people whose ancestors crossed over the Bering Strait. What some people might call a curse is a blessing to other people. For example, one extremely handsome man said that his good looks were “a curse” to him. He made this comment after he had been divorced several times.
(f) Perhaps, during their respective times, non-Levites of the Old Testament, gentiles. Canaanites, and Samaritans of the New Testament, and white people of our day, as a whole, were not ready to have other races or cultures receive the priesthood. In other words, perhaps, during their respective times, many in these groups would have rejected, rebelled, and fought against the church of God, even lynching, burning, destroying. At least they would refusal to accept or sustain non-Levite, gentile, Samaritan, Canaanite, or black African priesthood leaders. It has been said that the black people of African descent needed time to mature before they received the priesthood. It can be said that time to mature was even more important for white people. White people needed time to mature before black people of African descent received the priesthood and were given priesthood teaching and leadership responsibilities over white congregations.
(g) Since the gospel was to be taken to the whole world, that included the South which, at the time of the Restoration of the gospel, was extremely prejudiced against black people from Africa, treating them like beasts of burden. Two Mormon missionaries who tried to preach the gospel to people in the South were murdered. Perhaps the Lord chose (or let his prophet, Brigham Young choose) to compromise in order to convert a sufficient number of Southerners to accelerate the transition from systemic, blind prejudice to acceptance of black people. This compromise would have permitted black people be baptized and receive the gift of the Holy Ghost but not give them the priesthood until the time was right according to the Lord’s timetable.
(h) Perhaps during their respective times, the Lord needed some worthy non-Levite, gentile, Samaritan, Canaanite, and black people to sacrifice, to be an example, to show the world that it is possible to remain true and faithful to the teachings of Christ even if denied certain blessings (e.g. the priesthood) or other benefits for whatever reason. God has promised that those who sacrifice (including their loved ones to the third and fourth generation and more) will be rewarded a hundred fold and more.
Note that none of the above possibilities include the abominable view that the reason why the priesthood was withheld from non-Levites, gentiles, Canaanites, or black Africans during their respective time periods was because they were unworthy, less valiant, neutral, or rebellious in the pre-mortal life.
We should be grateful we have the teachings and example of Jesus Christ and his true prophets, both ancient and modern, to guide us in making our choices, including which one(s) above. Others will fall back on the scriptures: “I know not except the Lord commanded…” “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord.” “This is my work and my glory to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.”
Whichever choice they make, everyone should embrace people of all races with love, kindness, compassion, and understanding and try to eliminate racism wherever it is found and try to help make up for the disadvantages of those whose ancestors suffered under slavery and those who today suffer racist intolerance, prejudice, and persecution.
Well written article. However, and perhaps someone has already commented on this, it’s not the author’s stewardship to tell the leadership of the Church, in a public forum, how it should be administering the Church. Write a private letter. And let it go at that. Trust in the Lord for the right thing to be done. Trying to “steady the ark” is not something the Lord has traditionally rewarded with blessings.
RMARKB writes:
“[I}t’s not the author’s stewardship to tell the leadership of the Church, in a public forum, how it should be administering the Church.”
But is it not equally as true that it is not your stewardship to tell me what my stewardship is?
And why should it not be my stewardship to do so? Why should it not be the stewardship of any and all members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?
The name of the Church, though long and unwieldy, makes it clear that it is not just the Church of Jesus Christ, but also the Church of the Latter-day Saints (which was the official title for several years during the 1830’s).
In other words, His Church is my Church, too.
I see your comment as coming from the same position as that reflected in my blog article–that being that Church leaders are not to be criticized, even if the criticism is true.
You have taken that a step further, saying not only must Church leaders not be criticized, they also must not be told “how it should be administering the Church.”
By the way, I am not telling Church leaders how to run the Church.
I am just giving them some good advice.
Advice which they are free to accept or reject.
Is that also beyond my “stewardship”?
What about the blessings for the victims of Mormon racism, RMARKB? What about all the black folks who have had to be neighbors of Mormons and who were treated as less than human?
What about all the black Mormons who were told that they were less valiant in the preexistence?
What about all the white Mormons who believed that they had to embrace racism to follow the prophet?
It is high time that we speak out publicly because too many people have suffered from the mistakes of the brethren. It is time that they take responsibility.
Yes!
To RMARKB: Historically, God’s prophets have been outside the formal religious structures calling the leadership of those organized religions to repentance. Think Samuel the Lamanite. Think Lehi. Think Jesus Christ. Is this any different?
Great post. I think that you captured the thoughts of many a Mormon, as you can see from the amount of comments. You have my respect for your thoughts and ability to verbalize the tension that the Lds.org article causes some of the members.
My dad’s famous! Golly, I’m tearing up.
Thanks, Sweetie!
In reading your post the first thing that jumped out at me was you are doing exactly what you are condemning: making unfounded stories and rational for something you do not have the answer.
I haven’t read the comments so pardon me if this is repetitious.
Do we know why the priesthood wasn’t given to blacks? no.
Were there various reasons espoused? yep
Is it up to you to tell the Lord what He should do with His church to make you feel better about this situation? nope
Do you believe in revelation? doesn’t appear so
Do you believe Christ in leading His church? from your comments, I’d say nope
Having been in many callings where revelation was needed to fulfill the calling, I can testify that revelation is received by those called of God. I’ve witnessed it firsthand and been a party to it.
If David O. McKay says he inquired of the Lord regarding the lifting of the ban on the priesthood and he wasn’t given revelation to do it, I believe him. I don’t lay it at his feet as being a racist as you insinuate in your post.
I don’t blame any of the other prophets who received the same answer.
It’s great that the revelation was given to Pres. Kimball and that all worthy males can hold the priesthood.
I do not believe it was racist doctrine at all. Eternity is a long time and all worthy males will receive the priesthood if they desire to further themselves in the afterlife.
I find it arrogant of church members to demand this or that to satisfy their shortcomings regarding any doctrine or policy of the church. The philosophies of men have definitely infiltrated the hearts of men and women in the LDS church.
It’s interesting to see how many members lecture and counsel the Lord regarding His dealings with mankind and His church. Women demanding entrance to priesthood meeting, members demanding the church offer an apology as the only way to make it right, silly women trying to make a statement about wearing pants to church, etc.
As Bruce R. McConkie said, “Forget everything I have said, or what…Brigham Young…or whomsoever has said…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 don’t know the answer.
No apology is necessary.
Christ is in charge of His church.
Merry Christmas
Good to meet you, Scott. Christ taught us that we shall know the false prophets by their fruits.
Racism and discrimination are not good fruits. When you say that the Mormon prophets lacked inspiration and are not responsible then you are laying the blame on God.
God is not a racist. Your conclusions are much more sacrilegeous than those of any apostate, I am afraid. Therefore, it is healthier if we take responsibility for our actions as human beings instead of blaming God.
Merry Christmas to you and I wish you all the best, Scott!
Sorry my friend. It’s clear you aren’t LDS and you do not know the doctrines of the gospel. I’ll pass on engaging you in any discussion on this issue as it wouldn’t do any good.
Merry Christmas
I am LDS, Scott C, and I do know the doctrines of the gospel.
Including the doctrine of repentance.
Which applies to Church leadership as much as it applies to Church laity.
Including the part about asking forgiveness of those whom we have offended.
LOL. I am a return missionary, Scott, married in the temple, BYU and seminary graduate.
You cannot keep up, I am afraid, and are embarrassing yourself with uncivil remarks to compensate for your weak argument.
And yet you still don’t know the doctrines. You know nothing about the principle of revelation.
You’ve got nothing but your philosophy of man. You arrogantly call the Lord’s prophets and apostles racists.
You know nothing my uneducated LDS friend. You know nothing.
According to you have they made mistakes before? Can they make mistakes? If so what are those mistakes according to you?
THANK YOU SOOOOOOOO MUCH FOR WHAT YOU WROTE!!!!!! 🙂
THANK YOU TO SCOTTC!!
THANK YOU TO HELLMUT!!
Hi, ScottC! Thanks for your comments.
You wrote: “Is it up to you to tell the Lord what He should do with His church to make you feel better about this situation?”
The degree to which Mormons conflate God with Church leaders is troubling. I have pointed it out before, but it apparently bears repeating.
God is not Church leaders. Church leaders are not God.
I am not telling the Lord to do anything. I am suggesting that Church leaders apologize for the Priesthood ban.
Can you see the difference?
If not, I suggest you re-read Elder Uchtdorf’s General Conference address from last October, which is quoted in the article above:
“And, to be perfectly frank, there have been times when members or leaders in the Church have simply made mistakes. There may have been things said or done that were not in harmony with our values, principles, and doctrine.”
The Priesthood ban is one of those things Church leaders said and did that “were not in harmony with our values, principles, and doctrine.”
Church leaders “simply made mistakes.”
Those “mistakes” were racist.
People were harmed as a result.
An apology is in order.
Actually Corbin you don’t need to repeat anything as I’m not conflating anything as you insinuate. However, your condescension is noted. I do not know of anyone who is saying that God is church leaders.
What is readily apparent though is your complete lack of understanding of revelation and how God runs His church. You are completely stating that all prophets before Spencer Kimball were racist and were unable to receive revelation from God to say it was time to give the priesthood to all worthy males.
What’s even more incredible is you are not able to actually realize that is what you are saying. All prophets before Pres Kimball were racist according to you. They were also incapable of standing up to whatever or whoever to end the priesthood ban.
That’s a pretty arrogant and ignorant position to take. You might want to re-read Pres. Uchtdorf’s talk since he said nothing about the priesthood ban when making his statement.
It’s you who is making the leap he is talking about the priesthood ban. It’s you making the claim that the priesthood ban was false doctrine and all prophets prior to Pres Kimball were racists and incapable of receiving revelation to end the ban. It’s you who is making the statement that they made a mistake regarding the priesthood ban.
It’s you who is claiming people were harmed as a result and demanding an apology.
You have clearly worked yourself up into a frenzy about this issue. It is sad that you do not understand your demand for an apology is stating that the Lord doesn’t know what He is doing and was completely wrong until Pres Kimball announced the end of the priesthood ban. The Lord has shown himself to many, if not all Latter-day Prophets. Do you not think that He would have popped into the temple and told a prophet before Pres Kimball that they’ve been wrong and need to give the priesthood to everyone?
This is why your posts clearly show you do not have an understanding of how revelation is given and received.
It’s sad to see so many LDS folks be deceived about the doctrines of the gospel. And yes, you are counseling the Lord and His anointed no matter how much you deny it.
Merry Christmas
Funny how people presume to know what’s on God’s mind when they cannot justify their position any longer.
Anyone can invoke god to justify a prejudice. Jesus taught that we shall know the false prophets by their fruits. And racism is a pretty foul fruit, I am afraid.
so according to you, all the prophets and apostles up til Pres Kimball were racists. What a great position to take for someone who “claims” to be LDS.
People like Corbin and you post the way you do because you do not understand revelation. Those of us who have actual knowledge of revelation know and understand how it works.
Someone who has a firsthand knowledge of the power and principle of revelation would never post the comments you both do. Ever.
All I’m asking for is an apology, ScottC.
Judging from your histrionics, you would think I was asking for a pound of flesh taken from somewhere in the vicinity of President Monson’s heart.
Overreacting much?
Well Corbin you may have read it, but you didn’t take it in. The official stand of the church is “Church leaders believed that a revelation from God was needed to alter the policy, and they made ongoing efforts to understand what should be done. After praying for guidance, President McKay did not feel impressed to lift the ban.” Thus we as members aren’t shifting the blame towards God. He is saying that for some reason we don’t understand he instructed his servants to do things the way he wanted them. I’m sure when Abraham was asked to sacrifice Isaac he felt that was against what the lord stood for, but when he followed blindly he was blessed. Why should The Lord Apologize for doing what was in our best interests? If Pres. Monson apologized for the Church’s actions it would have to be in the name of the lord, since he is the Lord’s mouthpiece on the earth. I mean this in no condescending way, buy if you oppose what the church does then why are you still an active member? Hellmut was right by saying that by their fruits we shall know them, but if they are following God’s command then what does that say about them as prophet? They weren’t racists, and speaking ill of such great men called of God makes me sad. Please read my next post down and take it to heart. We love you Corbin and I say these things because I take the Lords challenge to testify of him unto the world quite literally, and I want you to see things as the Lord has helped me to see them. I was once confused about many of these confusing topics as well but with prayer and study the Lord reveals all! Best wishes and my God Bless.
Joseph Black
Who are you to demand an apology? Apology for what?
Should someone apologize because someone demands one to appease their issue with something they don’t agree with?
You have a belief that the priesthood ban was wrong. I don’t.
I don’t believe that every prophet up til Pres Kimball was a racist. you do.
I don’t believe that every prophet up til Pres Kimball didn’t ask for the priesthood to be shared with everyone. You do.
I believe in revelation from God to His prophet for His church. You don’t.
I’m sure the prophets seers and revelators make many mistakes in their lives. Not lifting the priesthood ban until Pres Kimball is not one of them.
What mistakes have they made according to you?
Were any of our leaders racist?
Paul,
I know of no mistake, doctrinally, that a prophet has made. I believe all doctrine throughout history has come from God. I believe Amos 3:7 and Doctrine and Covenants 1:37-38.
Have they made mistakes personally? Absolutely since there is only 1 person who was perfect.
Where have the prophets made mistakes to you?
Anytime the prophets taught the curse of Cain they were wrong, anytime the prophets taught that blacks were less worthy in the pre-existence they were wrong. The latest Church statement says these teachings were all wrong.
Paul, your answer.
“Apostle Joseph Fielding Smith, for example, wrote in 1907 that the belief was “quite general” among Mormons that “the Negro race has been cursed for taking a neutral position in that great contest.” Yet this belief, he admitted, “is not the official position of the Church, [and is] merely the opinion of men.” Joseph Fielding Smith to Alfred M. Nelson, Jan. 31, 1907, Church History Library, Salt Lake City.”
You fell for it hook, line and sinker, ScottC!
That was exactly the impression the Church essay was supposed to leave you with.
You obviously did not read the footnotes to my article.
You will see there that Joseph Fielding Smith taught as doctrine not that blacks were denied priesthood because of neutrality, but did teach they were denied priesthood because of some unspecified transgression during the war in heaven.
He taught it over and over again–in print–and I cited to them in my footnotes.
The “Race and the Priesthood” essay disavows this teaching.
Either Joseph Fielding Smith was wrong in teaching this or the current Church leadership is wrong in disavowing it.
Which will it be?
Well said Corbin…Well Said
Mike and Maryann
Thank you very much, the two of you!
And Merry Christmas!!!
Scottc you are completely correct!!! And he does not/ will not see it. Again thank you!!!!
Scottc you are completely correct!!! Church leaders should never apologize for anything at anytime or any place. Again thank you!!!!
Corbin,
Regardless of right and wrong I want to bring up one short story every primary child knows. Laman, Lemuel, and Nephi. Laman and Lemuel murmured, their father was a prophet of God, and they disagreed with how he was instructed to run things. Nephi said, “I will go and do.” In the end we are all judged by the content of our hearts. If you feel bad about this than go and apologize to anyone and everyone you feel needs apology. I’m not standing up for anyone or taking sides. Except the lord’s side. As stated before, if the lord felt that an apology was needed then he would instruct the Prophets, seers, and revelators, of the church to do so. It troubled me earlier to read when you wrote that whose to say that the church isn’t your stewardship. Well God said so, if he felt that you should have a say in what the church leaders do, then he would have called you into a position to do so. BUT HE DIDN’T!!! This means you should lift where you stand, no murmur, and if you have problems with who things are take it to God. But don’t try to sway us on here. How will you feel if in the afterlife you find that someone who was doubting the Gospel read this denied the faith because of it? I don’t even want to imagine that feeling. When the church leaders say anything the represent the church as a whole, thus representing God, D&C sums it up nicely, if the leaders came out and apologized now, it would be an apology from God. If you argue with that, you argue with D&C 1:38. If I were you I would take this article down immediately because I wouldn’t want to be seen in the Lord’s eyes as a murmurer. However I’m not you so all I can do is exhort you to pray and ask God how he feels about this subject and this article. And please know that I know for a fact that this is God’s church, he runs it and does it how he feels it should be done. Please know also that I mean no disrespect with this comment, but as a loving brother I want what is in your best interest. Thank you for your love for others which is apparent in your article, I can see that you just want things to be made right, but please don’t try to ruin the faith of others.
Best Wishes
Joseph Black
Dear Joseph,
Thank you for your comments. You sound like a really nice fellow so I am going to try not to be too hard on you. Both your posts above show me that you have trouble distinguishing between what God does and says and what Church leaders do and say.
Here is one quote from you: “Thus we as members aren’t shifting the blame towards God. He is saying that for some reason we don’t understand he instructed his servants to do things the way he wanted them.”
I don’t understand this. You first say you aren’t shifting blame toward God, and then you . . . shift the blame toward God.
You later say: “I’m not standing up for anyone or taking sides. Except the lord’s side.”
When you say you stand on the Lord’s side, I hear you saying that you stand on what you have been taught by Church leaders because you believe they are speaking for the Lord. In other words, you are standing on the side of Church leaders.
Whatever Church leaders say, you believe. Whatever they do, you support.
Because whatever they say or do is directed by God.
What then do we do with Elder Uchtdorf’s comment that Church leaders have made mistakes and done and said things that were not in harmony with our best principles?
Because this was said in General Conference by a member of the First Presidency, I expect you must believe this to be true.
If it is true, you cannot be correct that Church leaders always say only what God tells them to say, and only do what God tells them to do.
When Church leaders make mistakes, should they apologize?
That is the real question, I think.
How do you respond?
Corbin,
I pray and ask God on a regular basis to help fortify my faith that he has called the prophet, the first presidency and that all general authorities are under his direction and do what he asks. I stand by my quote that we don’t shift the blame to God. As a layer I expect you to understand that shift means to move from one to another, I’m not “shifting” the blame. Since the church statement says that the prophets prayed to remove the ban and that the lord instructed them not to I con confidently say that the blame should have never been on the leaders. There was no “blame” but it was the Lord’s will, thus we as members don’t “shift the blame,” but we credit the Lord for his infinite wisdom. Well The Lord says in D&C 1:38 (man I sure seem to have to return to this verse a lot) that the words from his prophets and the same as coming from his mouth. So yeah if it sounds like I’m on the leaders side, I am, but that’s because the speak for the lord, so let me ask “who’s on the lord side who?” Now is the time to show, right? You must be a worthy temple recommend holder to enter in the celestial kingdom if I’m not mistaken, and sustaining the leaders of the church is a requirement to enter the temple. So isn’t taking a side opposed to them making one not temple worthy?
Elder Utchdorf said that church leaders have make mistakes, he never said that the prophet made mistakes. If I’m not mistaken a sunday school president is considered a leader, thus he was apologizing for many people, but you put the assumption that general authority was put into that statement. This statement by the church said that it was instructed of God. I have a hard time believing that statement not to be directed by God. Sure general authorities can make mistakes but the Lord promised that no prophet would ever lead the church astray. If you have problems with this, I don’t think the issue is a matter of an apology but of your lack of testimony. I don’t want to be disrespectful in any way, but I think it funny that whenever I post on forums like these and I challenge someone to pray about the subject they always turn it down and try to baffle me with logic. In the book of mormon many anti-christs do the exact same thing. All I’m saying is that you pray and ask God about this. I have and that is why I blindly follow the words of the prophets, but is it really blind if the Lord told me to? You only touched two points of my remarks and I am really interested in what you have to say about the rest of what I have to say. You don’t deny the part about murmuring, nor the D&C Scripture. I testify to you in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ that the prophets and apostles are called by him. The little problem with the church you have will only lead to damnation, and once again I exhort you with love to inquire of the Lord, only he holds the answers to all things.
With love, best regards
Joseph
Joseph,
Do you honestly believe that Elder Uchtdorf’s last conference address was about Sunday School teachers making mistakes? If so, wow. Just wow.
I’m starting to wonder if you are legitimately commenting or if some wiseguy is writing amazing parody.
Cate
I am writing based on my beliefs. I in no way said that I thought that’s what Pres. Utchdorf was saying. All I’m saying is that he in no way made implications as to whether he was referring to prophets, seers, and revelators. You can’t say that that’s what he meant, because you don’t know that. I invite all to pray to find out the interpretations of what our leaders say. I’m not saying listen to me either, I’m saying listen to God. Find counsel through the Almighty.
Best Wishes
Joseph
In your mind can they make mistakes?
Joseph Black wrote: “Since the church statement says that the prophets prayed to remove the ban and that the lord instructed them not to I con confidently say that the blame should have never been on the leaders.”
Do you see any circularity in this reasoning, Joseph?
And you are correct. Logic can be quite baffling at times.
What baffles me is your suggestion that my asking Church leaders to apologize for the priesthood ban “will only lead to damnation.”
Who knew God was that thin skinned?
The circularity exists in your mind because you don’t believe that God called these men and instructs them with what to say. It is a testimony problem and no matter what we talk about you refuse to admit that you don’t use revelation to come to your conclusions.
Your problem isn’t with asking for the apology, it’s the lack of faith. I’m still waiting for the post that says. “When I prayed and fasted fervently, God revealed this unto me.” Or “after many hours of meditation of the word of God I felt prompted to say this” We can’t use logic to explain God, or what he commands his prophets to do. Thus we need to pray. I’m done as I can see that this isn’t going anywhere. I invite men everywhere to pray and find the truth from the Creator. Don’t listen to any of the reason on here from anyone be right or wrong. Pray and ask God.
If God is behind the Priesthood ban, and if God “instructs [the prophets] with what to say,” why can’t any of them just tell us why?
Does that strike you as even slightly peculiar?
Corbin,
Why can’t women hold the priesthood?
For the same reason that black men couldn’t.
So according to the doctrine of Corbin, women should have always been ordained to the priesthood. Got it.
I wonder why Christ didn’t ordain any women to the Quorum of the 12 in the Old World or New World.
Any scriptural support for your thoughts on ordaining women to the priesthood?
But based on your answer, I wonder why you belong, in membership, to the LDS church? You have left doctrinally but I bet your name is still on the records.
It’s so interesting to read comments like yours who claim the prophets are racists and discriminate currently against women.
I wonder why it is that you haven’t been called to the Q12 with all your wisdom and knowledge.
Corbin, I ask myself, what are you really trying to gain from this article? I really think it’s sick on how you are trying to portray yourself as someone speaking out for minorities when you don’t have the slightest clue of what we have been through. Sorry, but that’s how I feel. Are you really a member? maybe a wolf in sheep clothing, maybe a lawyer seeking fame and fortune, maybe someone seeking to write something new that none else has thought of, only you will know. We only start progressing when we are honest with ourself. I have decided not to judge you. To see others think you are doing something right, is just sad, really sad. I think Corbin you will be able to bounce back, but maybe not the others whom you have injected the venom. If someone is killed, their faith will get them to heaven, but if we kill someones faith and hope, that my friend is something else.
Growing up in the church as a minority I witness just about all the types of discrimination, but there is discrimination in all the churches and throughout the world. It boils down to one thing, PRIDE! I think pride is the curse of all lawyer. They can only think logic and leave the spiritual part of it aside. Pride will always block the eyes of our understanding.
Let me share a true story, I need to be careful to whom I share the perils. A brother went to the Lord in tears, asking and pleading why the priesthood was denied in past times. Part to his answer from the Lord was that all he needed to know was that the Book of Mormon was true. The man realized that if the Book of Mormon was true, then Joseph Smith was and is a true prophet of God, and if Joseph Smith was a prophet, then the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints is true, and if the Book of Mormon was not true then nothing was true. The Church of God, is a house of order and revelation. If, and just if the leaders needed the inspiration to give an official apology. The inspiration would never come from a member, but from the Lord to the prophet. Nothing will stop the work from progressing, not even contention like you wish to start. We love you Bro. Volluz, and don’t worry I won’t ask for a apology. -Johnny
Ah, the Return of the Clamster.
I am glad you said early in your comment, “I have decided not to judge you.”
If you were going to judge me, I might have expected you to say things like how “sick” my self-portrayal is, question whether I am really a member, accuse me of being a wolf in sheep’s clothing, allege I am only seeking “fame and fortune,” hint I am not honest with myself, blame me for killing the faith and hope of others, say the eyes of my understanding are blocked, and tell me I suffer from pride (and not just pride, but PRIDE!!)–and not just me, but all lawyers.
Lucky am I that you didn’t decide to judge me, Clamster.
Lucky indeed.
Joseph Black and others continue to argue that the racist policies were God’s commandments. That’s why there needs to be an apology.
Otherwise people like Joseph Black will continue to preach and believe that God wants us to discriminate other human beings. I am sorry to observe that their desire to follow the prophet brings out the worst in so many Mormons.
It is quite sad but can easily be remedied if the brethren finally took responsibility for their actions and apologized to the victims of their actions, which, sadly, include Joseph Black.
You make an important observation, Hellmut.
The failure of the “Race and the Priesthood Essay” to acknowledge the ban was a mistake, and to apologize for it, continues to give people such as Joseph Black and Clamster ample room to cling to their notions of prophetic infallibility.
And for the record, prophetic infallibility has NEVER been taught in the LDS Church. Quite the contrary. Have I mentioned Elder Uchtdorf’s most recent general conference address?
While it has been taught that “God will never allow the prophet to lead the Church astray,” this is not a revelation, and appears to have had its origin with Wilford Woodruff in order to buttress his declaration that the Church would no longer practice plural marriage.
This announcement did not go over well with the general Church membership and President Woodruff seems to have felt he needed to support its validity and his authority by means of a statement along these lines.
It has been quoted over and over again since then until it has attained a patina of revelation.
But we know this cannot be true.
How?
Because the Doctrine and Covenants provides the method for removal of the Church President by disciplinary council. (D&C 107:82-84)
Why would an actual revelation provide the means to remove the Church President from office if God was just going to take care of it by lightning bolt?
This is how traditions become doctrine in spite of scripture.
Who was discriminated against? What is your definition of discrimination?
Are women discriminated against since they don’t have the priesthood? There is no written anything that says they shouldn’t have it.
Why wait til 12 to give it to boys? Why not give it at birth? There is not written revelation to support the age of 12.
Let’s go even further. Why, isn’t it discrimination to only give it to members of the LDS church? The priesthood should be given to every person who walks on the earth!
Everyone should be allowed in the temple because they are alive!
Those who engage in homosexuality should be sealed in the temple!
I agree with you. Let’s not discriminate against anyone or anything since God does not want us to. Your point is so valid.
Scott, since we are mammals, there are obvious reasons why children should not be treated the same way as adults. That’s human nature.
As for gender, there is no reasonable cause to withhold the priesthood from women.
Your reference to children reveals your troubling propensity to clasp for straws to justify discrimination. All you invoke is the authority of your leaders. Authoritarianism has not served mankind well not is it good for Mormons and the LDS Church.
Hellmut: your comment makes me laugh yet sad because it shows how immature you are in your gospel knowledge and general thinking. We never stop being parents, no matter how old we get. Parents always continue to parent. There are so many examples of this in the scriptures but I’m sure they don’t mean much to you.
When adults make foolish choices, sure they need to be corrected. Homosexual behavior is one of those choices that should always be corrected.
It’s clear by your answers that you do not understand the doctrines, nor do you believe that the Lord runs His church through His chosen leaders.
There is no discrimination. If God wants women to be ordained to the priesthood He will when He chooses.
But can you tell us, doctrinally, why Christ never ordained a woman to His Q12? Does Christ discriminate in your opinion?
The Lord’s church isn’t one of confusion. You and Corbin preach confusion and moral relativism as doctrine.
what hasn’t served mankind is the philosophy of man, which you both cling to zealously. You both are apostates.
ScottC,
Your equating mature women in the LDS Church with “boys” and infants is duly noted, and not at all unexpected.
One of my favorite stories of courage is that of the eighteenth-century Quaker John Woolman, who went to Quaker meetings across all the colonies, witnessing to people, one by one, about the evils of slavery. He visited farm after farm for most of the two decades of his adult life and then traveled to England to continue his work there. Because of his efforts, by 1770, a century before the Civil War, not a single American Quaker owned a slave. Activists like Woolman possess courage in the face of threat, perseverance in the face of indifference, composure in the face of rage, equanimity in the face of hostility, integrity in the face of imprisonment, and, most importantly, love in the face of hate. We in our everyday existence can be inspired to do the same-and our lives will be better for it. For inevitably, when we truly love someone, we are driven at rimes to confront them. Stephen Post. PhD. Why Good things happen to good people (pag. 105).
Thank you for sharing that beautiful story which should be an example to us all.
Thank you, César! Such are the fruits of the holy ghost.
As a Member of the Church and a Gay Man. I know first hand the agony and I have respect for all Humble Men that ask to be forgiven. There are Many of us looking forward for an apology.
What is a “Gay Man”? What agony do you know first hand?
You are a son of God. You are a man. There is no such thing as a “gay man”. You are either a man who thinks about engaging in homosexuality or one who actually does engage in the behavior. Your behavior or thoughts of the behavior do not define or make the man.
We all have our cross to bear but I don’t know of anyone outside of those who engage in homosexuality that identify themselves by their behavior. Why do you do it?
That is a conversation that will go nowhere if you see being gay as a behavior, or choice.
You may see it as such, and any gay person does not see it that way, or feel that way. They feel it the same way you feel as being straight. It is just how they are, much like being straight is just how those people are. Identifying as gay helps represent, and should help foster that yes, fundamentally we are all the same as human beings, but in a certain area there is a difference. A descriptive word, like we use all the time for all manner things to promote understanding.
You also help illustrate the agony many gay people within the church have had to face. Being treated as if because of this aspect of who they are, that it is some sort of temporary affliction they just have to deal with and overcome, rather than receive acceptance and be heard, or their testimonies of it not being a choice or behavior being disregarded. They are treated as if a part of who they are is some fiction they created in their head. (like you state, “there is no such ting as a ‘gay man'”)
Have you ever had a discussion with “a man that thinks about homosexual behavior, or engages in it” and truly listened to their testimony of who they really are? Did you pray about it, and receive personal revelation that they were deceiving you? Or do you just go with what the church has said in the past? (even though that stance has been evolving, and changing. See the official stance now that being gay is not a choice or sin, but acting on it is)
My last statement could definitely tie into the debate at hand regarding the infallibility of the leaders, and not questioning them that has been discussed in the article, and the comments made here. Though it will be just as emotionally charged, and heated if not more so. (Obviously, as this is a very hot topic in these days.)
It is amazing that the sin of homosexuality is excused away by so many people in the LDS church. I have no idea if you are LDS or not.
Your post has many fallacies in it and that are oft repeated to assuage the sting of sin. Homosexuality is a man-made concoction on earth. There is no homosexuality in the pre-mortal life or eternity.
As you will take notice, homosexual behavior is still a sin. Always has been, always will be. There is nothing lovely, praiseworthy or of good report about homosexuality. It’s a stain on society and shows how far people will rationalize a behavior.
But based on your belief structure, anyone who behaves in a sinful manner is born that way. Liars? Thieves? Murderers? Adulterers? They are acting on their impulses and therefore must be born that way. So let’s just excuse away all sin because people are born that way, right?
If your answer is no, then what makes homosexuality the holy grail of excusing away sin claiming a man is born that way?
We are told that if a man looketh on a woman with lust in his heart he’s already committed adultery. But he’s expected not to act on his impulses.
sorry my friend, there is nothing special about someone claiming they are born with homosexual behavior tendencies. Absolutely nothing.
I’m still waiting for any LDS person to detail how embracing the sin of homosexuality is a gospel principle and how homosexuality will happen in the pre and post mortal lives. If it won’t be there then it shouldn’t be here.
Wheat and tares growing up together. It’s a sin. Always has been always will be. Nothing special about homosexual behavior. Yes, it is a behavior someone CHOOSES to engage in.
Like I said, this will go nowhere. Though my post contained no fallacies just because you decided to make some huge leaps and assumptions, and lump a lot of things together. You only further illustrate the struggle, and treatment of gay people by many church members with your hard line, absolutism. Your statements don’t leave a lot (if any) room for love or understanding.
Have you not read mormonsandgays.org ? This is a site produced by the Church. You probably need to read that and really study that out. Besides that we will have to agree to disagree – I see no value in talking to someone who is so certain of things and apparently sees only in black or white.
People do not choose their sexual orientation any more than they choose the color of their skin.
Think about it, ScottC.
Could you choose to be sexually attracted to men?
Dusty, you continue to make the simple yet obvious mistake that all homosexual supporters make: love has nothing to do with the behavior. Zero.
As a parent, I love all of my children. Yet when they do something incorrectly, I correct them. Do I love them less or do not understand them because I correct their behavior? Absolutely not.
Homosexuality isn’t special and needs to be corrected, not condoned. It is a sin.
You do believe homosexuality is a sin, right? The gospel of Jesus Christ is black and white. We all sin and are to repent of those sins through the Atonement of Christ. With His assistance we can overcome our sins.
Corbin, are liars, thieves, murderers, adulterers, pedophiles born that way?
If not, why not?
To equate skin color with a behavior is a very ignorant statement.
Let’s cut to the chase: Where in the gospel is homosexuality accepted?
Does homosexuality exist in the pre-mortal world?
Does homosexuality exist in the post-mortal world?
Will homosexuals be married and create their own worlds?
Is our Mother in Heaven really a man?
If you answer yes to any of the questions, you do not understand the doctrines.
Behavior is equal to skin color? ridiculous. You owe blacks an apology for equating them with homosexuality.
It’s ridiculous that you think it is a choice when the Church has even said it is not a choice.
ScottC,
Why on earth would you say “the gospel of Jesus Christ is black and white” in comments to a blog asking why no apology for the Priesthood ban?
And you owe homosexuals an apology for equating them with “liars, thieves, murderers, adulterers and pedophiles.”
Corbin, It’s scripture! You deny scripture?
What other parts of the gospel do you just toss aside for your convenience?
Thank you for making the point though that you are an apostate. I’ve been in so many councils where people like you lecture the Lord’s anointed.
You are clearly at odds with what Christ has clearly stated is a sin.
Jeez Scott he has sited many examples for you. You don’t address those examples at all you, just cave in to personal attacks. Weak. Comment on the subject at hand, your personal attacks have no merit here.
Corbin,
You said, “If God is behind the Priesthood ban, and if God ‘instructs [the prophets] with what to say,’ why can’t any of them just tell us why? Does that strike you as even slightly peculiar?”
No, because God did not tell us why the priesthood was banned from other groups of people on earth, e.g. from all tribes of Israel except the tribe of Levi and from all the gentiles during the time Christ lived on the earth. “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord” (Isaiah 55:8).
So many people are wishing that Corbin would apologize for asking the Church to apologize.
With that attitude, Whynot, anybody with gumption to invoke divine will can discriminate anyone else at will.
It is a poorly designed institution that you are proposing. Among other things, it violates the golden rule. Nobody likes to be discriminated. Therefore no one should discriminate.
When we imagine that God wants us to discriminate, that is probably only our own idea rather than God’s.
Hellmut, it is true that some people blame God for a variety of evils, claiming that God told them to commit those evils. However, God himself may dictate, direct, inspire, or allow certain temporary discriminations such as withholding the priesthood from non-Levites and withholding the priesthood and the gospel from the gentiles of Bible times.
The question is sometimes asked, “What would Jesus do?” One way to answer that question is to ask, “What DID Jesus do?” Since Jesus commanded his twelve apostles, “Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not,” (Matt. 10:5) we must consider the possibility that Jesus may also have commanded or directed the priesthood ban in this Dispensation of the Fullness of Times. To us, it is a distasteful possibility, but it is a possibility nonetheless. Why is it a possibility? Because God’s thoughts are not our thoughts, and our ways are not God’s ways (Isaiah 55:8).
And, knowing what is best for the greatest number of people in the long run, God sometimes asks (or asked in the pre-mortal life) certain people to sacrifice and postpone receiving certain blessings so that God’s “wise and glorious” purpose, his work and his glory, may be fulfilled to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.
If anyone uses these scriptural examples to excuse or justify discriminating against black people or people of any other race or culture, that person is breaking one of the Ten Commandments: “Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain,” and except they repent, they shall perish (Luke 13:3).
The only thing that matters is love, Whynot. Anything that stands in the way of love is not from God.
The Judeo-Christian tradition surely rests on a tribal basis, I agree with you on that, but those are the traditions of men.
It is not a straightforward matter to interprete the meaning of a 2000 year old document. Matthew never met Jesus. He wrote his gospel two generations after Christ lived. All he could provide us is hear say, I am afraid. As you know, Matthew also reports Christ’s praise of the Samaritan woman and the Roman captain. The totality of Matthew’s gospel casts doubt on your interpretation that Jesus excluded anyone from the priesthood (notice that the priesthood is not even mentioned in Matthew 10).
You are invoking divine inspiration. As long as I do not receive the same revelation, I cannot accept that claim. Our feelings are a bodily function and as such subject to the weakness of the flesh. Whether or not those feelings reflect God’s will remains uncertain.
As Joseph Smith pointed out repeatedly, what appears to be inspiration often turns out to be the opinion of a man. It is clear that the gospel is about love in the sense of the golden rule. And discrimination violates the golden rule. Therefore, I conclude that the priesthood exclusions were not part of the gospel.
Notice, that the latest statements of the LDS Church arrive at the same conclusion. The Church’s spokespeople say today, that the priesthood exclusion were not doctrine but the product of racism. You contradict that. I agree with it.
Helmut: The only thing that matters is love, Whynot. Anything that stands in the way of love is not from God.
WhyNot: Yes, and that means that if God directed or allowed the priesthood ban it was because of love. How it could possibly have happened out of love, we don’t understand, but we can be fairly certain it would have (or will have) resulted in the greatest good for the greatness number of people in the long run.
Helmut: The Judeo-Christian tradition surely rests on a tribal basis, I agree with you on that, but those are the traditions of men.
WhyNot: Correction. I don’t agree that the Christian tradition rests on a tribal basis. That was one of the three more negative possibilities I was including in a comprehensive list of positive and negative possibilities people can choose from. I favor the last positive possibility on the list. Rather than being based on a tribal basis, the true Christian tradition was based on doctrines, practices, and policies revealed by God to true prophets of God from Adam to the present and through the future…
Helmut: It is not a straightforward matter to interprete the meaning of a 2000 year old document. Matthew never met Jesus. He wrote his gospel two generations after Christ lived. All he could provide us is hear say, I am afraid
WhyNot: No, Matthew could also provide us information revealed to him by God as he was writing his book.
Helmut: As you know, Matthew also reports Christ’s praise of the Samaritan woman and the Roman captain.
WhyNot: Yes, and modern prophets also praise black people who volunteered or were asked in the pre-mortal life to postpone receiving the priesthood “until the time which is in my wisdom.” (This expression is found in D&C 11:26).
Helmut: The totality of Matthew’s gospel casts doubt on your interpretation that Jesus excluded anyone from the priesthood (notice that the priesthood is not even mentioned in Matthew 10).
WhyNot: Christ commanded his apostles not to go to the gentiles or the Samaritans. If they could go to those two groups of people, those groups could not receive the priesthood or the gospel itself at that time.
Helmut: You are invoking divine inspiration.
WhyNot: I’m invoking the strong possibility that the priesthood ban was in accordance wit divine inspiration just as the bans we read about in the Bible were in accordance with divine inspiration.
Helmut: As long as I do not receive the same revelation, I cannot accept that claim.
WhyNot: A thing can be true even if we do not receive the same revelation. This statement is true because there may be valid reasons why we don’t receive the same revelation. These valid reasons are in contrast to the one skeptics like to invoke, that the revelation in question was not of God.
Helmut: Our feelings are a bodily function and as such subject to the weakness of the flesh.
WhyNot: Yes, but feelings are also subject to the inspiration of the Holy Ghost.
Helmut: Whether or not those feelings reflect God’s will remains uncertain.
WhyNot: True, but we must not reject the possibility that those feelings, inspired by the Holy Ghost, do reflect God’s will, especially if there is scriptural precedence.
Helmut: As Joseph Smith pointed out repeatedly, what appears to be inspiration often turns out to be the opinion of a man.
WhyNot: Yes, so we need certain checks and balances to help us decide what is inspiration from the Holy Ghost and what is not. Those checks and balances include Biblical precedence, that which is defined as official, canonized Church doctrine or practice, that which is allowed and/or repeated often by the highest current leaders of the Church, etc.
Helmut: It is clear that the gospel is about love in the sense of the golden rule.
WhyNot: Love sometimes involves painful decisions and practices. For example, we subject our children to immunizations, we encourage our kids to go to school when they don’t want to go to school, we counsel them to hold off engaging in certain practices until the time is right (e.g. sexual relations).
Helmut: And discrimination violates the golden rule.
WhyNot: What man calls discrimination, God might call something else, such as asking certain people to sacrifice for a time. “Doing unto others as we would be done by” sometimes includes asking others to postpone receiving certain blessings until later. Example: asking older children to postpone graduate school so they can continue to work for the family to enable a younger sibling to serve a mission and/or get a bachelor’s degree..
Helmut: Therefore, I conclude that the priesthood exclusions were not part of the gospel.
WhyNot: That is a theoretical possibility. But it is also possible that withholding the priesthood and the gospel were part of the gospel in God’s wisdom, being able to see what is best in the long run.
Helmut: Notice, that the latest statements of the LDS Church arrive at the same conclusion. The Church’s spokespeople say today, that the priesthood exclusion were not doctrine but the product of racism. You contradict that. I agree with it.
WhyNot: The Church did not say that the priesthood exclusion was wrong. It only disavowed certain theories and speculations for that exclusion. I certainly agree with that disavowal, i.e that black people of African descent were neutral or less valiant in the pre-mortal life
Whynot wrote:
“So many people are wishing that Corbin would apologize for asking the Church to apologize.”
You have officially entered the realm of the absurd with this comment.
“So many?”
How many?
And why, exactly, should I care?
The Church shows no evidence of caring how many members “are wishing” that the Church would issue an apology.
“Many people” include people I and others have talked with and some of their friends and relatives and probably some who have been following this blog. You should care for the same reasons you want the Church to care about your asking it to apologize. The Church cares deeply about each of its members as it always has since Christ established his church on earth. Also people don’t always give outward evidence of inward feelings.
James 2:14
I appreciate you being willing to honestly assess the statement, and still maintain your faith. I do not understand why some are taking your criticism of it, and the way it was worded and released as an attack on faith or the leadership of the church. It is no lack of faith, or an apostate mindset to claim imperfect men may have made some imperfect decisions. In fact, it seems that is what the church headquarters article is trying to lightly highlight without implicating anybody as you stated.
In essence it says “Hey, this was wrong, and we definitely don’t have anything to do with this way of thinking today.” In incredibly simplified, and summarized terms of course it seems the essence of what you are saying is those responsible for leading the church, the heads of the organization should be the ones saying “Hey, this was wrong, and we definitely don’t have anything to do with this way of thinking today. We apologize for the harm that any of the statements, policies, or teachings made.” I always thought part of repentance was taking responsibility, and while none of the leadership today may be personally responsible for past policies or have personal need to repent for it, they are responsible for the organization. Seems a logical, and reasonable conclusion to assert that is where an apology should come from.
Sadly, I doubt my approval of your article will mean much of anything, and only fuel the fire for those that are speaking against it, as I am not of the faith. I respect it. I was raised in it. Served a mission, married in the temple, etc. So I at least understand it, but you also highlight one of the many things I could not reconcile in my own heart. The infallibility of the leadership, and to just follow and hinge on everything they say rather than seek personal guidance and revelation when something divisive would come up. Felt too much like a contest of doing what was right, and doing what was obedient. (There is obviously much more to it than that, but it is mostly personal stuff not suited for the discussion, nor is it faith promoting and I would rather understand it myself, and support people finding and maintaining their faith as they choose.)
Thanks for your comments, Dusty. I agree with you that the response from some seems a bit of an overreaction to the simple suggestion that the Church apologize for the Priesthood ban.
You wrote: “I do not understand why some are taking your criticism of it, and the way it was worded and released as an attack on faith or the leadership of the church.”
It appears that, whenever a person does not completely agree with everything done by Church leadership, and suggests that something done by the Church is in any way deficient, said person is automatically labeled an anti-Mormon and his words an “attack.”
I think this goes to show how deeply entrenched the LDS tenet is that Church leaders are not to be criticized, challenged or questioned in any way.
I am not convinced this is a good thing.
Most Mormons who subscribe to this way of thinking would not countenance it in any other organization or institution.
I think it is a very dangerous thing. My understanding is we are asked to serve the Lord, and our fellow man. Not enslave ourselves to them. When we have dominion over ourselves, we provide service willingly and encourage those higher in authority to be better (sometimes even question or criticize certain things), and this further increases the desire to continue to serve. When we cannot question those above us in the chain of authority, and are to obey without question then we are no longer servants, we are slaves.
Your cautions are well taken, Dusty.
The funny thing is that the LDS Church is of two-minds on the issue.
On the one hand, we have a religious culture that extols blind obedience to leaders as a virtue. (Think “Follow the Prophet, follow the prophet, follow the prophet, don’t go astray.”)
On the other hand, we have a long record of prophetic statements to the effect that Church leaders are not perfect and make mistakes, starting with Joseph Smith and going all the way up to the most recent statement by Dieter Uchtdorf at the last General Conference.
A common way of harmonizing these two strands of belief is to say that we have the right (nay, the responsibility) to pray about anything our Church leaders tell us to see if it is true.
The usually unspoken caveat to this is that if we get an answer at variance with what our Church leaders have said, the problem is with us and not the Church leader.
When I posed this recently in Gospel Doctrine class as a hypothetical, the immediate response was that a person who receives a different answer through prayer “needs to keep praying!”.
One can readily see that this attitude amounts to blind obedience disguised as individual agency.
Judging from some of the comments to my blog article, the LDS Church is going to have to be much more specific than the general statement from Elder Uchtdorf.
The LDS Church is going to have to name names and be explicit in saying which Church leaders have said what things that were in error.
I think this is the fundamental reason why an apology for the Priesthood ban is so essential . . . and so difficult to come by.
I appreciate your insight on this topic, and on other topics you have written I have recently read (as I am new to reading blogs on this site in my continuing quest for understanding, and even attempting to find faith of my own, which I admit I lack.)
You are a wiser, and more intelligent man than I, and I appreciate your discourse. So let me just say thank you.
You play the martyr really poorly.
You play the Pharisee really well, though.
Correction to my dialog with Helmut: WhyNot: Christ commanded his apostles not to go to the gentiles or the Samaritans. If they could NOT go to those two groups of people, those groups could not receive the priesthood or the gospel itself at that time.
Strange that the same Jesus who allegedly gave such a command regarding the Samaritans is perhaps best known for his parable of the Good Samaritan.
At least for Luke’s Jesus, the most despised members of Jewish society were esteemed more highly than the Jewish Church leaders.
I think you may be missing the forest for the trees here.
You may have missed my point. Jesus loved the Samaritan people as he loves all people. But, out of love (usually for the blessing of others whom he loves), he sometimes asks some people to sacrifice.
One type of sacrifice was to hold off receiving the gospel and the priesthood until the time was right in God’s wisdom—“…. until the time which is in my wisdom that you shall go forth” (D&C11:26). The right time in God’s wisdom was when he gave the revelation to the president of the Church (Peter) to start taking the gospel and its priesthood to the gentiles and Samaritans. The right time in God’s wisdom was when he gave the revelation to the president of the Church (Spencer W. Kimball) to resume giving the priesthood to all worthy males regardless of race or color.
When you combine the theological faith statement that God loves all people and that everything God does is therefore out of his love for all people, and mix it in with the historical fact of the Priesthood ban, you wind up concluding that God did not allow black men the Priesthood for over a hundred years out of his love for them.
This leads ineluctably to the kinds of statements made by (former) BYU Professor Randy Bott when he said God was doing black men a favor by not allowing them to have the Priesthood.
It would be like giving the car keys to a young kid who doesn’t know how to drive.
So you see, it was for their own good.
This kind of patriarchal paternalism didn’t go over well in the press and the Church publicly repudiated his statements.
And that was Randy Botts’ last semester teaching at BYU.
Corbin, you said on January 3: “When you combine the theological faith statement that God loves all people and that everything God does is therefore out of his love for all people, and mix it in with the historical fact of the Priesthood ban, you wind up concluding that God did not allow black men the Priesthood for over a hundred years out of his love for them.”
You should have revised the last part of that sentence to say: “…you wind up concluding that God did not allow black men the Priesthood for over a hundred years out of his love for them and/or for his love for his other children or for both. God would do this for some wise and glorious purpose we don’t yet understand but which, for sure, would help God in his work and glory to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of the greatest number of people in the long run with special love and support to each individual who ever lived on the earth.”
Here is a repeat of Possibility #6 from the comprehensive list of positive and negative possibilities pertaining to the priesthood ban:
Possibility #6: The policy was in accordance with God’s will, that he dictated, directed, inspired, or allowed the priesthood ban for a combination of reasons. The Church has declared that several of the reasons given in the past are wrong (e.g. blacks were neutral or less valiant in the pre-mortal life), but what about a combination of reasons? A combination of reasons might include these possibilities:
(a) Perhaps during their respective times, the Lord needed some worthy people to sacrifice, to teach by precept and example, to show the world that it is possible to remain true and faithful to the teachings of Christ even if denied certain blessings (e.g. the priesthood) or other benefits. God has promised that those who sacrifice (including their loved ones to the third and fourth generation and more) will be rewarded a hundred fold and more. Probably many of the non-Levite, gentile, Samaritan, Canaanite, and black people of African descent who did not receive the priesthood in this life had volunteered in the pre-mortal life to teach and be a good example to the others when they came to earth. Others might have said it didn’t matter to them; that all they wanted was to be with their friends or tentative family whenever and wherever they went. By the way, having various races of various colors would be part of God’s plan to beautify and give variety to the face of the earth. Other examples: different types and colors of animal and plant life.
(b) Perhaps some believed there would be compensating blessings to be received if they were not given the priesthood analogous to compensating blessings which come to those who are denied the blessings of sight, hearing, or mobility. For example, one man said he would never have produced the great books he had written if he had not been wheel-chair bound.
(c) Perhaps some believed the pain they would suffer because of not having the priesthood could be analogous to the pains a mother suffers before her baby is born. But the pain and the sacrifice are worth it in the end, including, it is claimed, a stronger bond with the baby.
(d) Perhaps some believed the pain they would suffer because of not receiving the priesthood could be analogous to some women remaining childless for years before giving birth to a baby. Reasons for this delay or denial can be theorized and speculated, but only God knows the real reason or reasons.
(e) Perhaps some believed the blessings of not receiving the priesthood for a time might be analogous to not being healed from sickness and accidents for a time.. Why are some people healed immediately, and others are required to wait for healing, some even until the next life? Again, reasons for these delays or denials can be theorized and speculated, but only God, in his wisdom, knows the real reason or reasons. Whatever the reason or reasons might be, the ultimate rewards for those who endured to the end and the rewards for their families will have been worth it, including rewards of a hundred fold (or greater) for the sacrifices they made.
(f) Perhaps some people preferred not to receive the priesthood because they were not confident they would want to magnify their callings in the priesthood, especially because of conflicting interests and demands on their time they would experience on earth.
(g) Perhaps some preferred not to receive the priesthood because they thought they might “exercise unrighteous dominion” if they received the priesthood because “…it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion” (D&C 121:39).
(h) Perhaps, during their respective times, gentiles of Bible times and black African people in our day had been subjugated and enslaved mentally, emotionally, and physically for so long that they needed time to learn and heal in an atmosphere of freedom before being given priesthood responsibilities. Perhaps this is a reason why black people from the Pacific Islands and aborigines of Australia could always receive the priesthood—they had not been downtrodden, broken, and brutalized by slavery. The fact that Pacific Islanders and aborigines of Australia could always receive the priesthood and the ending of the story of the Canaanite woman in the Bible are further proof that having a black skin is not a curse. Black is beautiful. The dark skin of the Lamanites was probably due to intermarriage with native American oriental people whose ancestors crossed over the Bering Strait. What some people might call a curse is a blessing to other people. For example, one extremely handsome man said that his good looks were “a curse” to him. He made this comment after he had been divorced several times.
(i) Since the gospel was to be taken to the whole world, that included the southern United States which, at the time of the Restoration of the gospel, was extremely prejudiced against black people from Africa, treating them like beasts of burden. Two Mormon missionaries who tried to preach the gospel to people in the South were murdered. Perhaps the Lord chose (or let his prophet, Brigham Young choose) to compromise in order to convert a sufficient number of Southerners to accelerate the transition from systemic, blind prejudice to acceptance of black people. This compromise would have permitted black people be baptized and receive the gift of the Holy Ghost but not give them the priesthood until the time was right according to the Lord’s timetable.
(j) Perhaps, during their respective times, non-Levites of the Old Testament, gentiles. Canaanites, and Samaritans of the New Testament, and white people of our day, as a whole, were not ready to have other races or cultures receive the priesthood. In other words, perhaps, during their respective times, many in these groups would have rejected, rebelled, and fought against the church of God, even lynching, burning, destroying. At least they would refuse to accept or sustain non-Levite, gentile, Samaritan, Canaanite, or black African priesthood leaders. Again, it is possible that, after coming out of the soul-destroying effects of slavery, black people needed time to heal and mature before they received the priesthood. Time to mature might have been even more important for white people who needed time to repent and mature before black people of African descent received the priesthood and were given priesthood teaching and leadership responsibilities over white congregations.
We should be grateful we have the teachings and example of Jesus Christ and his true prophets, both ancient and modern, to guide us in making our choices, including which one(s) above. For example, some will fall back on scriptures such as, “I know not, save the Lord commanded me” (Moses 5: 6). “For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord” (Isaiah 55:8).
Whatever choice is made, everyone should embrace people of all races with love, kindness, compassion, and understanding and try to eliminate racism wherever it is found and try to help make up for the disadvantages of those whose ancestors suffered under slavery and those who suffer racist intolerance, prejudice, and persecution.
Note: I didn’t repeat the whole list because of possibilities because of space and time constraints.
WhyNot,
You seek to correct something I posted on January 3rd.
You are not allowed to do this.
Because I disavow everything I said on the subject before January 4th.
Corbin – I see what you did there. It made me laugh out loud. Well done!
To hold a man down, you have to stay down with him.
If you want to lift yourself up, lift up someone else.
Booker T. Washington
We do have to apologize; the sooner, the better.
Congratulations, Scott C., to comparing pedophilia to homosexuality.
The difference should be obvious but you are blinded by your zealotry and bigotry. Your faith is bringing out the worst in you. It’s sad.
Homosexuality does not harm anyone any more than heterosexuality, Sott. If you consider the matter carefully, you will agree. Of course, you are welcome to remain blind. That is your problem. It is also an embarrassment to your church.
A huge embarrassment…
Do you believe this scripture Paul?
1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.
I do.
Do you believe Elder Bednar is called of God to His Quorum of the 12?
“The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has a single, undeviating standard of sexual morality: intimate relations are proper only between a man and a woman in the marriage relationship prescribed in God’s plan. Such relations are not merely a curiosity to be explored, an appetite to be satisfied, or a type of recreation or entertainment to be pursued selfishly. They are not a conquest to be achieved or simply an act to be performed. Rather, they are in mortality one of the ultimate expressions of our divine nature and potential and a way of strengthening emotional and spiritual bonds between husband and wife. We are agents blessed with moral agency and are defined by our divine heritage as children of God—and not by sexual behaviors, contemporary attitudes, or secular philosophies.”
I do.
You folks embarrass yourselves when you equate a behavior with the color of someone’s skin.
Standing with Christ on the issue of homosexuality is never embarrassing. Learn the doctrines.
My church? I thought you were a true-blue returned missionary married in the temple seminary graduate member of the LDS church Hellmut?
Both are behaviors my fellow LDS member (hahaha). Both are to be rejected and corrected.
Homosexuality is a sin, is it not?
Paul, Hellmut, Corbin: again, let’s cut to the chase….is Homosexuality a sin in your world?
Is adultery a sin?
Is lying a sin?
Is stealing a sin?
Is murdering a sin?
Simple questions. Let’s see how intellectually and doctrinally honest you are.
Homosexuality is not a sin, ScottC, any more than heterosexuality is a sin.
Now I have some questions for you:
Was it adultery when Joseph Smith married other men’s wives?
Was it lying when Joseph Smith denied publicly he was engaged in plural marriage at the same time he was practicing it privately?
Was it stealing when Nephi took Laban’s brass plates, his sword and his servant?
Was it murder when Nephi killed a drunk and unconscious Laban?
Now let’s see how intellectually and doctrinally honest you are, ScottC.
Corbin,
thank your for showing your true colors; an apostate of the LDS church.
Christ has stated that homosexuality is a sin. He’s stated it through His apostles and prophets. Yet, the great Corbin says that homosexuality is not a sin. Comical bro, comical.
Do you know that Joseph Smith committed adultery? I don’t.
Did he lie about polygamy? You judge him.
Take it up with God about Nephi since it was Him who commanded Nephi to take those actions.
Did someone look on Bathsheba with gazing eyes and then commit adultery with her? Yep.
“David’s wives and concubines were given unto him of me, by the hand of Nathan, my servant, and others of the prophets who had the keys of this power; and in none of these things did he sin against me save in the case of Uriah and his wife; and, therefore he hath fallen from his exaltation, and received his portion; and he shall not inherit them out of the world, for I gave them unto another, saith the Lord.”
I feel sorry for you and any family you might have. They are being purposefully lead astray from the Lord’s plan. Hopefully they will reject your teachings and stick with Christ and His church and the restored gospel.
Christ and His prophets and apostles have stated clearly that homosexuality IS a sin. Yet, you, Corbin. claim otherwise. Forgive me if I stick with Christ.
Love has absolutely everything to do with it.
http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-mormon-responds-to-human-rights-campaign-petition-same-sex-attraction
There. Church stance and doctrine statement. Is what you are trying to profess here in line with that? And though you choose not to answer any questions you are asked, and respond with such hard line antics, I will still answer the question you asked me. No, I do not think homosexuality is a sin, and no I am not a Mormon. I have been reinvestigating the church recently, and will likely continue to investigate it many times throughout my life as I search for truth. Some things about it feel right to me, and some things feel unquestionably wrong. I respect the church (and many others), but I it does sadden me to see that your zealotry has led you to such pride. Pride is what this topic truly exploits in this day and age with how unwilling people are to budge, even when the church itself continues to evolve.
Dusty,
I didn’t ask you any questions but thank you for your response.
Have you had a chance to read the following?
http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/interview-oaks-wickman-same-gender-attraction
Pretty straightforward. Homosexual behavior is a sin. The word isn’t a noun, it’s a verb.
If quoting Christ is pride to you, the I think you need to revisit your definition of pride.
And yes, everything I have stated is completely in line with the article you posted.
It saddens me to see so many people be duped by Lucifer regarding the sin of homosexuality. However, we are told that even the very elect will be deceived and that the wheat and the tares will be allowed to grow at the same time in the last days.
And we all know our leaders can never ever make mistakes or teach anything that is incorrect, like the curse if Cain.
Paul,
Not sure why you reject doctrine when it is inconvenient for your belief? The scriptures are full of “thou shalt not lay down with the same sex”. I guess every prophet that has been told that is wrong, right?
I guess when Christ has told His Latter-day prophets that homosexuality is a sin, they are wrong too, right?
I’m not sure how you folks come up with your moral relativism and how you decide which doctrine is true or false but you clearly do not believe that the Lord runs His church through His prophets and apostles.
Not sure why you even hang in the LDS church.
I notice that not one of you will answer how homosexuality fits in with the pre and post mortal worlds.
How does homosexuality fit in with the plan of salvation?
As I’ve said from the beginning, you folks need to learn the doctrines.
ScottC,
You have recently committed the sin of equivocation in your posts.
You write, “Christ has stated that homosexuality is a sin. He’s stated it through His apostles and prophets.”
And again, “I guess when Christ has told His Latter-day prophets that homosexuality is a sin, they are wrong too, right?
I have said this several times before in these comments, but you have yet to take it to heart.
CHURCH LEADERS ARE NOT GOD.
GOD IS NOT CHURCH LEADERS.
Please write this 100 times on the blackboard before leaving school.
Corbin,
and you’ve never received revelation.
Again, God speaks to His prophets who tell us. Oh wait, in your world He doesn’t tell His prophets anything. The Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price are not scripture, right? They do not contain the words of the Lord as given to His prophets and apostles, right?
Moroni didn’t appear to Joseph Smith right? Neither did God and Christ, right? Moses, Peter, james, John, John the Baptist, Elias, Elijah didn’t appear to Joseph Smith either, right? He made it all up.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is lead by a racist, mysoginist, discriminating prophet in Thomas Monson, right?
You make a classic strawman argument that falls flat on its face since no one is claiming what you are stating.
Since you and Paul and Hellmut all believe the prophets and apostles make mistakes, why don’t you actually list what commandments are correct. What is true in any of the scriptures?
How do you define your moral relativism?
Just remove your records and move on Corbin. Clearly nothing taught in the church is correct or true in your world.
Can humans make mistakes and still be good? It seems in your mind this can’t happen. Life is a little more complex than that. We have shown you examples and points to talk about, but all you do is resolve to personal attacks. Talking with you is impossible because all you know how to do is call people apostates. Try discussing the topics at hand not in personal attacks.
ScottC wrote:
“You make a classic strawman argument that falls flat on its face since no one is claiming what you are stating.”
An ironic statement from one who constructs an elaborate strawman argument, wouldn’t you agree?
Sort of like this part of your strawman:
“The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is lead by a racist, mysoginist, discriminating prophet in Thomas Monson, right?”
Nothing I have said could lead a reasonable person to believe this is my position.
But strawmen are so handy, aren’t they?
Scott, you do not speak for Christ. You cannot know for sure what Christ wants.
Your claims to the contrary are arrogant. A little deliberation would indeed be a sign of humility.
Dear Hellmut: for someone who claims to be a seminary-graduated-returned-missionary-BYU-LDS member, you just do not understand the doctrines.
Clearly you do not believe the scriptures to be the word of God. You do not believe the prophet and apostles to be the Lords chosen representatives on earth at this time.
You do not believe that one can learn truth through the Holy Ghost.
Everyone can know what Christ wants us to do; they just have to put in the effort to gain the knowledge.
I’ve never said I was a spokesperson for Christ. Interesting insinuation though but it comes from a lack of experience with the Holy Ghost and revelation.
The sons of Mosiah are great examples of what someone can do if they put in the effort.
2 Now these sons of Mosiah were with Alma at the time the angel first appeared unto him; therefore Alma did rejoice exceedingly to see his brethren; and what added more to his joy, they were still his brethren in the Lord; yea, and they had waxed strong in the knowledge of the truth; for they were men of a sound understanding and they had searched the scriptures diligently, that they might know the word of God.
3 But this is not all; they had given themselves to much prayer, and fasting; therefore they had the spirit of prophecy, and the spirit of revelation, and when they taught, they taught with power and authority of God.”
This is clearly foreign to you. It’s not to me. The question is why haven’t you followed the path that Christ has laid out for all to know the truth?
Why are you duped by the philosophies of men? Why do you call good evil and evil good?
The arrogance is that you think Christ is a racist and a discriminator. The arrogance is that you say homosexuality is not a sin. The arrogance is that you have put your opinion in front of God’s doctrine.
You don’t know the will and mind of God because you have never done it.
Scott, your stubborn defense of discrimination is not the fruit of true prophesy but the fruit of idolatry, insecurity, and arrogance. Your behavior is a foul fruit because it hurts our friends, neighbors, and children and that bears witness against the mortals you defend.
Jesus said that we shall know the false prophets by their fruits. Having to observe your idolatrous relationship to mortals that compells you to defend racism is rather sad.
But you are not ready to embrace the limitations of your tribe. So I wish you well and leave you in the hope that one day, you will recognize what you are doing to your neighbors.
Hellmut: I’m surprised you still have your name on the records of the LDS church. You’ve called every prophet and apostle a racist. You’ve called Christ a racist.
You’ve stated that homosexuality isn’t a sin.
My seminary-graduate-returned-missionary-BYUattneded-married-in-the-temple LDS member….do you know how silly you sound when your words contradict the words of Christ?
fruits of false prophets? Buy a mirror pal and wake up out of your apostate sleep.
Cheers.
See: “strawman argument”
Why do you encourage people to leave the church because what they feel or view does not line up perfectly with what you do? Are you some sort of reverse missionary, trying to teach your version of the gospel and then encourage others to remove their records because in your mind they are apostates? Would you encourage me to stay away from the church, and becoming a member that seeks truth?
I’ll be honest, the way you present things makes me not want to be a part of that version of the church. On the flip side, people like Corbin, Paul, Hellmut and others give me encouragement to keep investigating. Keep praying. Keep seeking. Your stance is that they seem to be lacking faith, or destroying faith yet for some, they are helping foster and build it. Bringing hope, and earnest discussion and disagreement that gets rid of the immense, and impossible to live up to pressure of having to be perfect, but still allowing for good and inspiration to exist. I thank them for that.
ScottC,
ScottC,
I suggest you back off slowly before the crater you have dug for yourself gets any deeper. You are close minded and full of pride.
Don’t mess with the Mariah.
yawn….
So you think it is a yawning crater you have dug for yourself, then?
No, he just has a chronic lack of brain activity that causes him to open his mouth wide and inhale deeply.
Also,
Strawman’s argument:
“a common type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent’s position.[3] To “attack a straw man” is to create the illusion of having denied a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet inequivalent proposition (the “straw man”), and to deny it, without ever having actually denied the original position”
No wonder Beren fell so hard for you.
One of the most profound statements of American theology:
“It was a close place. I took . . . up [the letter I’d written to Miss Watson telling her where Jim was], and held it in my hand. I was a-trembling, because I’d got to decide, forever, betwixt two things, and I knowed it. I studied a minute, sort of holding my breath, and then says to myself: ‘All right then, I’ll go to hell”—and tore it up. It was awful thoughts and awful words, but they was said. And I let them stay said; and never thought no more about reforming,’ Huck Finn.
I just read that 3 weeks ago – great quote!!
“You can’t pray a lie.”
Fantastic!! Great work! I totally agree with everything!
I have commented on this before, but I am beyond the expectations of the LDS Church to apologize to me, or take responsibility for the way I and my people were treated.
The church owes no apology to anyone who joined the church after June 1978.
Those of us who were in the church before 1978 are the ones who deserve the apology. We have learned to forgive-as it is the only Balm of Gilead to assuage the pain of the way we were treated. It seems to be the best way forward. There is no use expecting what will not be given.
Because it would be poor form to apologize for Divine revelation, that is God himself, that’s why.
I’d imagine that it would now be appropriate to focus attention on the Jewish Faith, who to this day does not hold a single Black member who will be eligible for priesthood status and thus to enter the Holy of Holies once their Temple is rebuilt. Why no national outrage over their obvious racism?
Not even Sammy Davis, Jr.?
Jon, you are saying that the edict against blacks was divine revelation? Have you read the document? Church leaders deny that it was revelation. Your comments are ignorant beyond compare. As far as the Jews go, the original Jews were black. Most from North Africa, Ethiopia, and the fertile crescent. The only issue about that is they moved a bunch of
European Jews into an area populated by African Jews and Palestinians. Please educate yourself before you make any more disparaging comments
Jon,
Jon, you are saying that the edict against blacks was divine revelation? Have you read the document the church released? Church leaders deny that it was revelation. Your comments are ignorant beyond compare. As far as the Jews go, the original Jews were black. Most from North Africa, Ethiopia, and the fertile crescent. The only issue about that is that after World War II it was agreed to moved a bunch of
European Jews into an area populated by African Jews and Palestinians. Please educate yourself before you make any more disparaging comments
So, let’s just gloss over the Church’s new policy on the children of same sex couples, the Church’s stance towards gays, the denial of the priesthood to women, and most of all: the overwhelmingly conservative cultural nuances of the church. I live in a rural part of the southwest in one of those old pioneer strongholds, and the culture here permeates a polite form of racism. I’ve experiences that in Utah, Idaho, and various small town wards and communities. We are in a much better position than during the 1970’s, but to brush these things off is a disservice to open minded mormons. The church needs to apologize for its mistakes that occurred within living memory, NOT in the 1800’s. We can sidestep polygamy and other issues more easily because they were in a different era, but this was within the lifetime of many members. HOLD YOUR LEADERS ACCOUNTABLE, and you will become a better christian yourself. Let me end this with a quote from Elder Oaks:
““Criticism is particularly objectionable when it is directed toward Church authorities, general or local. Jude condemns those who ‘speak evil of dignities.’ (Jude 1:8.) Evil speaking of the Lord’s anointed is in a class by itself. It is one thing to depreciate a person who exercises corporate power or even government power. It is quite another thing to criticize or depreciate a person for the performance of an office to which he or she has been called of God. It does not matter that the criticism is true.
Comment
Wow Corbin, you have still got it. I loved this essay.
Brian
contact me sometime
. . .
Corbin Volluz, thank for your honest, intelligent and thought provoking article. I also thoroughly enjoyed and learned from your thoughtful responses to the many commentators (wish I had more time so I could reply directly to ‘Brett’s’ dismissive comments, which I found somewhat short-sighted). I know that it all adds up to a significant sacrifice of your time and energy but please know that the efforts of people like you (and your dear wife) make a wonderfully positive difference for people like me.
For me, the underlying message, that comes with a warning about putting leaders on pedestals and never ‘really’ questioning (as in uninhibited/unrestricted honest questioning) is what is most concerning.
While some black African LDS members are at peace and content to move forward with things as they are, I believe the appropriate apology is really more for the health and good of the Church and its’ members than it is for blacks and the rest of the world.
WHY? Because leadership (for both leaders and members) is about setting the proper example. Hiding our mistakes through obfuscation or blame shifting or marginalizing the harm done with a ‘let’s just get over it, forget-about-it and move forward’ attitude does not change the reality that a lives affecting mistake (about 130-years worth) was made. In simple summary, the lessons taught in Sunday school about dealing humbly and honestly with such mistakes apply to us all.
I can appreciate the commendable efforts the current Church leaders have made to come clean and do believe that they really don’t know why the ban existed but by failing to make the needed apology, it’s painfully clear that all these efforts fall sadly short.
I’m limited for time so I’ll end this with a statement you wisely made in one of your comment replies [with my own words added], “The failure of the “Race and the Priesthood Essay” to [clearly] acknowledge the ban was a mistake, and to apologize for it, continues to give people (members and investigators) . . . ample room to cling to their notions of [the leaders] prophetic infallibility”.
Sorry Corbin, in my previous comment posting, in the last paragraph, I left out the word NOT.
I had copy-pasted your words to ‘Hellmet on on December 27, 2013 at 10:52 am
and it seems you had left out the word NOT as well.
Unless, I’m not seeing/reading things properly, which is possible 🙂
————————————
“The failure of the “Race and the Priesthood Essay” to [clearly] acknowledge the ban was a mistake, and NOT to apologize for it, continues to give people (members and investigators) . . . ample room to cling to their notions of [the leaders] prophetic infallibility”.