Race, God, and the LDS Church

[Ahimsa]

Other Presidents (“prophets, seers, and revealators”) spoke of it not as their plan, but God’s.

You’re privileging past Presidents over and above the present communication of the Spirit. There’s no justification for that presumption, given the aliveness of the Holy Spirit to speak even today.

Many Jews quoted the scriptures when criticizing Jesus, but why were they so focused on the past, when the present Divinity lived and breathed right in front of them? Christianity is a religion of Life, not a dead sola scriptura, right?

 

[scipio337]

You’re privileging past Presidents over and above the present communication of the Spirit. There’s no justification for that presumption, given the aliveness of the Holy Spirit to speak even today.

Many Jews quoted the scriptures when criticizing Jesus, but why were they so focused on the past, when the present Divinity lived and breathed right in front of them? Christianity is a religion of Life, not a dead sola scriptura, right?

The point being, the ban of blacks from the priesthood (and endowment, marriage, sealing to parents, 2nd anointment) was not a discipline of the LDS, but revealed doctrine. Not at all like the vow of celibacy for Latin Rite Catholic priests.

I don’t find the practice defensible by any stretch of the imagination, regardless of what any LDS member said.

 

[Ahimsa]

The point being, the ban of blacks from the Priesthood was not a discipline of the LDS, but revealed doctrine.

Presidents McKay and Kimball said otherwise:

Kimball spoke of the ban as a “policy”:

Although not refuting his belief that the policy came from the Lord, apostle Spencer W. Kimball acknowledged in 1963 that it could have been brought about through an error on man’s part. In 1963, he said, “The doctrine or policy has not varied in my memory. I know it could. I know the Lord could change his policy and release the ban and forgive the possible error which brought about the deprivation.”

McKay spoke similarly:

In 1954, Church President David O. McKay taught: "There is not now, and there never has been a doctrine in this church that the negroes are under a divine curse. There is no doctrine in the church of any kind pertaining to the negro. We believe that we have a scriptural precedent for withholding the priesthood from the negro. It is a practice, not a doctrine, and the practice someday will be changed. And that’s all there is to it.’

---

 

[scipio337]

Presidents McKay and Kimball said otherwise:

Those were teachings, and not revelation.

Your quotes also show Kimball making that statement when he was an apostle, not the president, and clearly supports my claim:

Although not refuting his belief that the policy came from the Lord…I know the Lord could change……

Regardless of you calling it “policy”, or “practice” It was LDS revelation. Like polygyny, “demanded from God”, and indefensible by any means.

The “It’s not my policy, it’s God’s” excuse rings hollow.

 

[MelanieAnne]

Presidents McKay and Kimball said otherwise:

Kimball spoke of the ban as a “policy”:

Although not refuting his belief that the policy came from the Lord, apostle Spencer W. Kimball acknowledged in 1963 that it could have been brought about through an error on man’s part. In 1963, he said, “The doctrine or policy has not varied in my memory. I know it could. I know the Lord could change his policy and release the ban and forgive the possible error which brought about the deprivation.”

McKay spoke similarly:

In 1954, Church President David O. McKay taught: "There is not now, and there never has been a doctrine in this church that the negroes are under a divine curse. There is no doctrine in the church of any kind pertaining to the negro. We believe that we have a scriptural precedent for withholding the priesthood from the negro. It is a practice, not a doctrine, and the practice someday will be changed. And that’s all there is to it.’

---

This is what is called “revisionist history”.

The fact of the matter is that, until the doctrine was repealed by Kimball, racism was doctrine in the LDS faith. It was taught as doctrine, it was asserted as doctrine, not as a personal opinion.

Racist descriptions of persons who are not white were in the Book of Mormon, already cited in this thread. Similarly, racist prohibitions against intermarriage, which may not be doctrine but are still racist, have been taught in LDS church buildings SINCE the time Kimball reversed the racist doctrine. I know this because I happened to go to church with a Mormon friend once upon a time where this subject came up. The “Gospel Doctrine” instructor stated that intermarriage was forbidden and cited the Book of Mormon in support of that statement.

The best that the Mormon faith can realistically claim is that a doctrine that was racist has been reversed.

This, in turn, raises an entirely new problem for Mormonism because it shows, at the very least, that the Mormon god is not eternal and immutable, but instead arbitrary and changeable. Which means the Mormon god is not the same as the God that Christians worship.

 

[CatholicGuyNY]

Presidents McKay and Kimball said otherwise:

Kimball spoke of the ban as a “policy”:

Although not refuting his belief that the policy came from the Lord, apostle Spencer W. Kimball acknowledged in 1963 that it could have been brought about through an error on man’s part. In 1963, he said, “The doctrine or policy has not varied in my memory. I know it could. I know the Lord could change his policy and release the ban and forgive the possible error which brought about the deprivation.”

McKay spoke similarly:

In 1954, Church President David O. McKay taught: "There is not now, and there never has been a doctrine in this church that the negroes are under a divine curse. There is no doctrine in the church of any kind pertaining to the negro. We believe that we have a scriptural precedent for withholding the priesthood from the negro. It is a practice, not a doctrine, and the practice someday will be changed. And that’s all there is to it.’

---

LOL and then we have the First Presidency statement that says it was not a policy, but a commandment from the Lord. So do tell us who is right.

 

[aquabatix]

If we have a problem with judges, politicians and government officials that flip flop their stance, should we with a “god”? I think so.

 

[CatholicGuyNY]

The First Presidency is not the primary source for LDS “doctrine”, no matter if such “doctrine” is thus claimed. Show me something from the BoM, D & C, or other such texts, if you will.

Firstly, LDS doctrine does not only come from the “Standard Works”. Also, the First Presidency is regarded as the ultimate power in the interpretation of doctrine.

 

[twopekinguys]

I don’t mean to be rude here, but if you really look at Ahimsa’s posts, you will see that you are chasing your tail.

Multiple attempts at deflection, along with ignoring information presented, then asking for it again.

Either they don’t understand, or they are enjoying the chase.

You decide.

 

[PaulDupre]

Lots of ideas can be “based” on the BoM (as well as on the Bible), without those ideas being fully understood. Is the priesthood ban actually stated in the BoM?

No, it is stated in the first chapter of The Book of Abraham and the seventh chapter of The Book of Moses in The Pearl of Great Price.

 

[Ahimsa]

No, it is stated in the first chapter of The Book of Abraham and the seventh chapter of The Book of Moses in The Pearl of Great Price.

I’m referring to the priesthood ban with regards to Africans. Is there an explicit African priesthood ban, as opposed to a “Cainite/Hamitic” ban? Connecting Africans to Cain/Ham is a subsequent interpretation of the text, an interpretation not explicit in the text itself (and, thus, analogous to the Confederate use of Ham/Canaan curse in order to justify enslaving Africans, even though Africans of West Africa are not explicitly connected to Ham in the Bible).

 

[SirThomasMore]

I’m referring to the priesthood ban with regards to Africans. Is there an explicit African priesthood ban, as opposed to a “Cainite/Hamitic” ban? Connecting Africans to Cain/Ham is a subsequent interpretation of the text, an interpretation not explicit in the text itself (and, thus, analogous to the Confederate use of Ham/Canaan curse in order to justify enslaving Africans, even though Africans of West Africa are not explicitly connected to Ham in the Bible).

another deflection. The Preisthood ban was doctrine. BY said it would NEVER change.

 

[Ahimsa]

Racist descriptions of persons who are not white were in the Book of Mormon, already cited in this thread. Similarly, racist prohibitions against intermarriage, which may not be doctrine but are still racist, have been taught in LDS church buildings SINCE the time Kimball reversed the racist doctrine.

It seems to me that in the BoM, it was not two different races that are talked about, but two different lineages in the same “race”, or “ethnicity”. Laman and Nephi were brothers, and within 500 years or so, they began to have different skin colors.

That doesn’t seem to be the creation of two different “races” (like “Black” and “White”). For instance, Africans and Europeans do not differ just by “color”. There are other differences as well. Thus, to say that somebody has “white” skin and another person (a close relative, in fact) has “black” skin, is not necessarily to say that they are of different “races”.

Secondly, I haven’t seen you quote anything from the BoM that talks about Africans being cursed (as symbolized by their skin color). Until you do that, I can always respond by saying the most Mormons have mis-interpreted their sacred scripture in ways that supported the contemporary American milieu regarding race relations, and not in ways that come from God Himself.

Whether Mormons believe in inter-racial marriage is, again, something that comes from a reading of the Laman and Nephi lineages, not from any Mormon scripture regarding Africans and Europeans.

 

[Ahimsa]

another deflection. The Preisthood ban was doctrine. BY said it would NEVER change.

OK, just show me where the Mormon scripture refers to Africans (either West Africans or ancestors of African-Americans) are specifically banned from the priesthood.

That’s all I ask.

 

[Ahimsa]

Firstly, LDS doctrine does not only come from the “Standard Works”. Also, the First Presidency is regarded as the ultimate power in the interpretation of doctrine.

Here’s what some Mormons say about LDS “doctrine”:

Virtually every religion has procedures for distinguishing the individual beliefs of its members from the official doctrines of the church, and so do the Latter-day Saints. In fact among the Mormons the procedure is remarkably similar to that of many Protestant denominations. An example of the procedure can be taken from the records of the Fiftieth Semiannual General Conference of the LDS church, 10 October 1880, when President George Q. Cannon addressed the conference:

I hold in my hand the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and also the book, The Pearl of Great Price, which books contain revelations of God. In Kirtland, the Doctrine and Covenants in its original form, as first printed, was submitted to the officers of the Church and the members of the Church to vote upon. As there have been additions made to it by the publishing of revelations which were not contained in the original edition, it has been deemed wise to submit these books with their contents to the conference, to see whether the conference will vote to accept the books and their contents as from God, and binding upon us as a people and as a Church. 3

Subsequent changes of content in the standard works of the Church have been presented similarly to the membership in general conference to receive a sustaining vote. It is that sustaining vote, by the individual members or by their representatives, that makes the changes officially binding upon the membership as the doctrine of the Church.​

 

[SirThomasMore]

OK, just show me where the Mormon scripture refers to Africans (either West Africans or ancestors of African-Americans) are specifically banned from the priesthood.

That’s all I ask.

Deflection. You have been shown enough quotes from the folks who make doctrine. There is no need to act ignorant on this or deflect anymore, Why.

So, stop deflecting. That’s all I ask

 

[Stephen168]

It has everything to do with it. Why would you accept what Young did, over what Smith did?

Why would someone have to choose?

 

[Ahimsa]

Deflection. You have been shown enough quotes from the folks who make doctrine. There is no need to act ignorant on this or deflect anymore, Why.

So, stop deflecting. That’s all I ask

I’ll take that to mean that you don’t have any quotes from Mormon scripture that specifically refers to West Africans (e.g., Yoruba) and the priesthood ban.

 

[PaulDupre]

I’ll take that to mean that you don’t have any quotes from Mormon scripture that specifically refers to West Africans (e.g., Yoruba) and the priesthood ban.

No, the Mormon scriptures do not mention West Africa. So what?

Is your point with all this West Africa stuff that, because the LDS scriptures do not specifically cite West Africans as the “blacks” that were barred from the priesthood, there was never an LDS doctrine barring blacks from the priesthood?

 

[Ahimsa]

No, the Mormon scriptures do not mention West Africa. So what?

Is your point with all this West Africa stuff that, because the LDS scriptures do not specifically cite West Africans as the “blacks” that were barred from the priesthood, there was never an LDS doctrine barring blacks from the priesthood?

No, my point is that many Mormons mis-understood a certain part of their scripture, similar to how Christian Confederate churches and slave-owners mis-understood the Ham/Canaan curse.