Race, God, and the LDS Church

[CatholicGuyNY]

Correct. I believe you’re catching on.

True, but it was also taught that the priesthood ban would one day end. So, why complain that the ban ended?

The issue is more about it being a direct commandment from the Lord. Dianaiad and other Mormons attempt to say that it was a “policy” (which is in contradiction to the First Presidency statement), or that the church was “off the rails” and God decided to correct it in 1978. Dianaiad also brought up racial issues in USA Catholicism as a comparison. The issue then is that we have never claimed that God told us to restrict blacks from the Catholic priesthood. The LDS First Presidency on the other hand stated that God gave a direct commandment to restrict blacks from their priesthood.

As Soren stated, there is a difference between how modern Mormons view the priesthood ban, and how the early Mormons did, even to relatively recent times with the First Presidency statement, with the authoritative weight that First Presidency statements carry.

 

[soren1]

True, but it was also taught that the priesthood ban would one day end. So, why complain that the ban ended?

The time at which the priesthood ban would end was specified as occurring after the Second Coming and after all worthy white males had received the priesthood. The sentences immediately following the section of the 1949 Declaration I quoted above read as follows:

*The prophets of the Lord have made several statements as to the operation of the principle. President Brigham Young said, ‘Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a skin of blackness? It comes in consequence of their father’s rejecting the power of the Holy Priesthood, and the law of God.’ They will go down to death. 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 receive all the blessings we are entitled to.’ President Wilford Woodruff made the following statement: ‘The day will come when all that race will be redeemed and possess all the blessings which we now have.’ *

The incompatibility of this teaching results in a formal contradiction between the 1978 Declaration and previous LDS doctrine, declared as revealed by the First Presidency. This is actually the only point of contradiction between the the 1978 revelation and previous Mormon teaching - a line item veto on one detail of the Church’s teaching. In my view, this is one of only two doctrines ever changed in LDS history. Everything else is still on the books - not a real change for the better except superficially.

 

[Ahimsa]

If you read the Great Commission in a vacuum, apart from the rest of the New Testament, your argument would hold good. But I made a point of mentioning how the same theme functions in Paul. The Great Commission was, in its time, a radical little statement, a concise expression of the total challenge Christianity to the worldview of Jewish ethnocentrism. “Teach all nations” cannot, therefore, be interpreted in a minimalistic sense. The point Jesus is making is that all nations are to be taught, because no distinctions among the nations exist any longer. This underlying rationale is part of the Great Commission’s basic meaning. If we do not see this implication, then we are simply not reading it theologically, or even historically.

So you’re saying that the priesthood should therefore be extended to all nations, as part of the Great Commission. That’s a reasonable inference of the Great Commission. And I would posit that Joseph Smith fully agreed with that, allowing African ordinations as he did, and encouraging Blacks to join his movement.

 

[aquabatix]

So you agree that LDS are not sola scriptura, but you insist on the priesthood ban being proven from scripture? Do you even see how contradictory that is? This is why the conversation with you keeps going in circles.

 

[Ahimsa]

The issue then is that we have never claimed that God told us to restrict blacks from the Catholic priesthood. The LDS First Presidency on the other hand stated that God gave a direct commandment to restrict blacks from their priesthood.

How the LDS understand such First Presidency statements has changed over time; they no longer see such statements as definitive. So, for the LDS, such statements are not as central as they once were. The LDS see this change as part of the continuing revelation. OK, that’s a reasonable stance to make, and its theologically defensible.

A more appropriate comparison would be with the Southern Baptists. The Catholic Church has always been much more “international”, than the Southern Baptists, and thus has been multicultural from the beginning, unlike the Southern Baptists. Southern Baptists, in the antebellum 19th century supported slavery, whereas J. Smith, from what I understand, was an abolitionist at heart.

 

[soren1]

So you’re saying that the priesthood should therefore be extended to all nations, as part of the Great Commission. That’s a reasonable inference of the Great Commission. And I would posit that Joseph Smith fully agreed with that, allowing African ordinations as he did, and encouraging Blacks to join his movement.

This response misses the point of my argument. I am saying that it doesn’t matter if Joseph Smith agreed with the priesthood ban or not. The fact that later Apostles unanimously accepted the priesthood ban, if it were not in fact revealed, undermines the conditions whereby Apostolic authority could have been worthily passed on from Smith to the present day. If you are correct, it only shows that the LDS Church has apostatized from Joseph Smith.

 

[Ahimsa]

The time at which the priesthood ban would end was specified as occurring after the Second Coming and after all worthy white males had received the priesthood.

Well, to be fair, I think you have to acknowledge that some teachings have more weight than others. In Catholicism, some ideas are dogmas, and some ideas should be given religious assent. Exactly when the priesthood ban would be ended can easily be seen as a teaching of less import – it’s not exactly a “salvation” issue.

 

[Ahimsa]

So you agree that LDS are not sola scriptura, but you insist on the priesthood ban being proven from scripture?

I don’t insist that the APB be proven from scripture. My first point was to simply state that the APB is not explicit in scripture. That seems clear to everyone now.

My second point is that the LDS idea of “doctrine” is one that argues that what counts as “doctrine” is itself a product of continuing revelation via the Spirit, so that if the LDS now claim that the APB was “incorrect”, an “opinion”, or whatnot, then – from a continuing revelation perspective – they are perfectly within their theological rights in doing so.

 

[CatholicGuyNY]

How the LDS understand such First Presidency statements has changed over time; they no longer see such statements as definitive. So, for the LDS, such statements are not as central as they once were. The LDS see this change as part of the continuing revelation. OK, that’s a reasonable stance to make, and its theologically defensible.

A more appropriate comparison would be with the Southern Baptists. The Catholic Church has always been much more “international”, than the Southern Baptists, and thus has been multicultural from the beginning, unlike the Southern Baptists. Southern Baptists, in the antebellum 19th century supported slavery, whereas J. Smith, from what I understand, was an abolitionist at heart.

The issue really is then whether the First Presidency was correct when they said that the ban was due to a commandment from the Lord. Were they right or wrong? My post that you replied to said that Catholicism has never claimed that God banned blacks from the priesthood, but that Mormonism has said that it was due to a direct commandment from the Lord that blacks are banned from the priesthood.

By saying that they “no longer see such statements as definitive”, are you allowing the First Presidency to be incorrect about a “direct commandment from the Lord”?

Modern Mormons claim that the priesthood ban was a policy, and as we see from Dianaiad, an instance of the church going “off the rails”. This is in contradiction to the First Presidency statement. Who is more authoritative?

 

[Stephen168]

Of course, you’re assuming you know who wrote these texts. Even if we assume Smith et al. wrote them, Africans were ordained during Smith’s reign, so to say that Smith et al. interpreted the scriptures in terms of an APB lacks sufficient evidence and support.

LDS scriptures are 19th century documents that do not exist outside the LDS Movement. The source of LDS scripture is the LDS Movement. ‘At al’ included Brigham Young, John Taylor, and Wilford Woodruff. There was a ban and they knew what their scriptures meant as they wrote them. I don’t think it matters what the source of the racist revelation was but to suggest the leaders didn’t understand their own scriptures they wrote is silly.

 

[Ahimsa]

This response misses the point of my argument. I am saying that it doesn’t matter if Joseph Smith agreed with the priesthood ban or not. The fact that later Apostles unanimously accepted the priesthood ban, if it were not in fact revealed, undermines the conditions whereby Apostolic authority could have been worthily passed on from Smith to the present day. If you are correct, it only shows that the LDS Church has apostatized from Joseph Smith.

Apostasy is a strong word, implying total or predominant repudiation of the faith. I wouldn’t apply apostasy to what happened here.

Apostolic authority, one could argue, is not vitiated due to the acceptance of the APB after the death of Smith. Acceptance of the APB is an unfortunate, regrettable fact, but to say that it means the cessation of Apostolic authority seems to be a statement that goes a bit far.

If what you are saying is true, then it seems that you would also agree that any Christian church that justified enslaving West Africans, or expressed any degree of ethnic-based restrictions, could no longer effectively baptize people.

 

[CatholicGuyNY]

I don’t insist that the APB be proven from scripture. My first point was to simply state that the APB is not explicit in scripture. That seems clear to everyone now.

My second point is that the LDS idea of “doctrine” is one that argues that what counts as “doctrine” is itself a product of continuing revelation via the Spirit, so that if the LDS now claim that the APB was “incorrect”, an “opinion”, or whatnot, then – from a continuing revelation perspective – they are perfectly within their theological rights in doing so.

So a direct commandment from the Lord can be “incorrect” or an “opinion”?

Please remember that the First Presidency is the highest priesthood body within the LDS church, and all three members are sustained as prophets, seers, and revelators. If they issue an official First Presidency statement, saying that the priesthood ban is due to a direct commandment from the Lord, how can you turn around decades later and say that the priesthood ban was actually policy, incorrect, etc.

 

[MelanieAnne]

The issue really is then whether the First Presidency was correct when they said that the ban was due to a commandment from the Lord. Were they right or wrong? My post that you replied to said that Catholicism has never claimed that God banned blacks from the priesthood, but that Mormonism has said that it was due to a direct commandment from the Lord that blacks are banned from the priesthood.

By saying that they “no longer see such statements as definitive”, are you allowing the First Presidency to be incorrect about a “direct commandment from the Lord”?

Modern Mormons claim that the priesthood ban was a policy, and as we see from Dianaiad, an instance of the church going “off the rails”. This is in contradiction to the First Presidency statement. Who is more authoritative?

Between Mormons posting on this forum and the First Presidency, I submit that the First Presidency would claim to be more authoritative.

 

[Ahimsa]

The issue really is then whether the First Presidency was correct when they said that the ban was due to a commandment from the Lord. Were they right or wrong?..Who is more authoritative?

From the LDS perspective, the Holy Spirit speaks today, in the present. So, past statements that contradict present statements are less authoritative.

 

[Ahimsa]

LDS scriptures are 19th century documents that do not exist outside the LDS Movement. The source of LDS scripture is the LDS Movement. ‘At al’ included Brigham Young, John Taylor, and Wilford Woodruff. There was a ban and they knew what their scriptures meant as they wrote them. I don’t think it matters what the source of the racist revelation was but to suggest the leaders didn’t understand their own scriptures they wrote is silly.

Well, exactly who wrote the texts is up for debate. But you still have to explain the ordination of Africans during Smith’s lifetime, if you claim that Smith supported the priesthood ban.

 

[Stephen168]

I don’t insist that the APB be proven from scripture. My first point was to simply state that the APB is not explicit in scripture. That seems clear to everyone now.

My second point is that the LDS idea of “doctrine” is one that argues that what counts as “doctrine” is itself a product of continuing revelation via the Spirit, so that if the LDS now claim that the APB was “incorrect”, an “opinion”, or whatnot, then – from a continuing revelation perspective – they are perfectly within their theological rights in doing so.

And then we go back to the beginning

SirThomasMore provided Mormon Prophets making claims that the Mormon God taught racism. The Prophets said, several times, that racism was one of God’s teachings.

Later, other Prophets came and said that this claim, that God taught racism, was wrong. But why should we believe the later Prophets over the earlier Prophets? How do we know the later Prophets were right? Did God change his mind? Of course not, that would be ridiculous. So why are we believing one Prophet over another?

 

[Stephen168]

Well, exactly who wrote the texts is up for debate. But you still have to explain the ordination of Africans during Smith’s lifetime, if you claim that Smith supported the priesthood ban.

I never said that

 

[Ahimsa]

If they issue an official First Presidency statement, saying that the priesthood ban is due to a direct commandment from the Lord, how can you turn around decades later and say that the priesthood ban was actually policy, incorrect, etc.

Embedded within the priesthood ban, was the prediction that it would one day be ended. You might notice that no one in the LDS hierarchy, to my knowledge, has said explicitly that the ban was “wrong”. What was revealed was that the ban no longer was in effect.

Now, various LDS members may conclude that the ban was “wrong” and so forth, and that’s certainly a valid perspective, I would argue.

 

[CatholicGuyNY]

Apostasy is a strong word, implying total or predominant repudiation of the faith. I wouldn’t apply apostasy to what happened here.

Apostolic authority, one could argue, is not vitiated due to the acceptance of the APB after the death of Smith. Acceptance of the APB is an unfortunate, regrettable fact, but to say that it means the cessation of Apostolic authority seems to be a statement that goes a bit far.

What Soren is talking about is the LDS belief that worthiness is necessary for the exercising of priesthood authority, as well as the passing along of that authority, as we see in their use of “worthiness issues” in Christian history as evidence of a Great Apostasy. Mormons also point to an alleged corruption of doctrine as evidence of the Great Apostasy.

So, you have claimed that Smith had the “original” teaching, which allowed for the ordination of males of any race, including those of African descent. That was then changed by later prophets. If these prophets then sustained this belief as a direct commandment from the Lord when it was not, when the original teaching of allowing blacks to be ordained as Smith did was lost, this is evidence of an Apostasy, if their definition(s) is to be consistent.

If what you are saying is true, then it seems that you would also agree that any Christian church that justified enslaving West Africans, or expressed any degree of ethnic-based restrictions, could no longer effectively baptize people.

What? His statement is based on Mormon understanding of the Great Apostasy, applied to Mormonism itself, and does not reflect how Catholics view such matters.

 

[Ahimsa]

I never said that

OK, I stand corrected.