#55810 When did it begin?

[vorpal blade]

The doctrine regarding the limitations on who can hold the priesthood was revealed millennia ago. It was never merely a policy; it is a revealed doctrine. It certainly did not evolve from racism, unless you call God a racist, and I certainly do not. We are blessed that in our day and age God saw fit to end His ancient restriction and now all worthy men can hold the priesthood.

[TheAnswerIs42]

I heard a teacher say once that we weren't waiting until the Lord was ready: the Lord was waiting until we were ready. I always liked that idea.

[bismark]

Ok, what I first said was mean, and the new bismark is not mean.

But really, do you have anything to back up that statement Vorpal Blade? History is not on your side with this one.

[Damasta]

The doctrine regarding the limitations on who can hold the priesthood was revealed millennia ago. It was never merely a policy; it is a revealed doctrine. It certainly did not evolve from racism, unless you call God a racist, and I certainly do not. We are blessed that in our day and age God saw fit to end His ancient restriction and now all worthy men can hold the priesthood.

I'm certainly not closed to the idea (after all, the Lord denied the Priesthood to the Gentiles until after the Resurrection—Acts 10), but could you cite the revelation where the Priesthood was denied to sub-Saharan Africans and their descendants? And if your citation is Gen. 4:15/Moses 5:40, can you provide unequivocal evidence that the mark was the mélange of Negroid characteristics? Because other candidates have been hirsuteness (Spencer W. Kimball, The Miracle of Forgiveness, p.127–128), the Hebrew Letter waw (in a kabalistic text called the Zohar), or a mark on the forehead (various sources).

[vorpal blade]

I was 31 years old when the revelation came out in 1978. I remember it well. I also remember what the prophets had been teaching, and still teach. I know what they were teaching. Would it do any good if I dug out some scriptures and statements by the prophets? I doubt it. I think it would only generate animosity. I just thought that on this topic I simply needed to bear witness to what I know to be true.

Damasta, it was never about facial features or skin color. It was about ancestry.

[bismark]

What the prophets said was wrong; look no further than McConkie's admission for evidence of that.

Why would anyone feel the need to bear testimony, or more importantly, feel the need to have faith in something that is completely unrelated to the core of the Gospel? There is no salvation is having faith in temporary (1852-1978) policies.

[C is for]

Now, what happened to nice!bismark?

What I think vorpal is trying to say here (forgive me, vorpal, if I speak out of turn) is that the Lord has always had limitations on who may hold his priesthood, from the beginning (those scriptures Damasta mentioned illustrate that point). It may or may not be true that such restrictions are the same reason that blacks were denied the priesthood (as bismark pointed out in his comment back in '07, that was a policy of the latter-day church after Joseph Smith's day and not a revealed doctrine for these times). But that is vorpal's understanding, and I don't see that his comments are bearing testimony at all. He's just telling us (i.e., bearing witness) what he knows.

I like what Ms. 42 said about the policy being repealed when the Church was ready.

[Marduk]

Simply put, it takes doctrinal confirmation from a latter-day source to confirm that a doctrinal practice from a different dispensation is still in force. This never happened in latter days, merely, a practice stemming from what was doctrine in a previous dispensation was effected. In modern day, this practice was abolished by Joseph Smith, but reinstated by Brigham Young. And Vorpal, no one is arguing that there were never restrictions on who could hold the priesthood, only that specifically in reference to those of African descent in this last dispensation, the restriction was never by modern revelation.

[vorpal blade]

What the prophets said was wrong; look no further than McConkie's admission for evidence of that.

Why would anyone feel the need to bear testimony, or more importantly, feel the need to have faith in something that is completely unrelated to the core of the Gospel? There is no salvation is having faith in temporary (1852-1978) policies.

When you say "McConkie's admission" do you mean this statment by Bruce R. McConkie that you previously referenced?

There are statements in our literature by the early brethren which we have interpreted to mean that the Negroes would not receive the priesthood in mortality. I have said the same things...Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.

I don't see this as a blanket admission that "what the prophets said was wrong" in everything they said about Negroes holding the priesthood. Some of the early brethren thought that the Negroes would not receive the priesthood in mortality. In this they were clearly giving their own opinion, or speculating. Elder McConkie himself made a similar mistake. They were wrong, because Negroes may now receive the priesthood while they are still alive. But there is no admission that the restriction of the priesthood was not a divinely revealed doctrine, applicable to our day and age. The only thing wrong said, according to McConkie, was the speculation that the Negroes would not receive the priesthood in mortality. That is the only thing contrary to the 1978 revelation.

Some brethren have also made the mistake of speculating on the reasons the Lord had for His restriction. The reasons have not been revealed.

I believe that accusations that the brethren were racists, as Queen Alice did, and with their fallible human feelings lead the Church down the wrong path for at least 125 years, is serious heresy. I believe it shows a shocking lack of sustaining our leaders as prophets. I realize that none of us is infallible, and we all make mistakes, but if you think that an error this large, over such a long period of time is the way it was then you are in a condition of near apostasy. I don't think you know what it was like to live in the 50's and 60's before the revelation was given. It was hard and we all wanted this restriction to go away, but we knew it was the Lord's will at that time. It was a trial of our faith.

Faith that we are led by prophets is an essential part of the gospel. It wasn't a temporary policy as you say, but had existed for thousands of years. There is no salvation in rationalizing away any doctrine that we choose to believe is man-made, simply because we don't like it.

I have spoken bluntly to make myself perfectly clear.

[vorpal blade]

Now, what happened to nice!bismark?

What I think vorpal is trying to say here (forgive me, vorpal, if I speak out of turn) is that the Lord has always had limitations on who may hold his priesthood, from the beginning (those scriptures Damasta mentioned illustrate that point). It may or may not be true that such restrictions are the same reason that blacks were denied the priesthood (as bismark pointed out in his comment back in '07, that was a policy of the latter-day church after Joseph Smith's day and not a revealed doctrine for these times). But that is vorpal's understanding, and I don't see that his comments are bearing testimony at all. He's just telling us (i.e., bearing witness) what he knows.

I like what Ms. 42 said about the policy being repealed when the Church was ready.

I don't believe it was just a policy. I believe it was the revealed pattern that had always existed. There was a time when the doctrine was apparently not clear, and negroes were given the priesthood in error.

Actually, I am bearing testimony of what I consider an essential gospel principle of following the prophets, and having faith that they will not lead us astray. To believe that the Lord would allow the brethren to mistakenly deny the priesthood to negroes for prophet after prophet is heresy.

If we say the doctrine would be in force until the Lord thought the time was right to remove the restriction I would agree.

[vorpal blade]

Now, what happened to nice!bismark?

What I think vorpal is trying to say here (forgive me, vorpal, if I speak out of turn) is that the Lord has always had limitations on who may hold his priesthood, from the beginning (those scriptures Damasta mentioned illustrate that point). It may or may not be true that such restrictions are the same reason that blacks were denied the priesthood (as bismark pointed out in his comment back in '07, that was a policy of the latter-day church after Joseph Smith's day and not a revealed doctrine for these times). But that is vorpal's understanding, and I don't see that his comments are bearing testimony at all. He's just telling us (i.e., bearing witness) what he knows.

I like what Ms. 42 said about the policy being repealed when the Church was ready.

I don't believe it was just a policy. I believe it was the revealed pattern that had always existed. There was a time when the doctrine was apparently not clear, and negroes were given the priesthood in error.

Actually, I am bearing testimony of what I consider an essential gospel principle of following the prophets, and having faith that they will not lead us astray. To believe that the Lord would allow the brethren to mistakenly deny the priesthood to negroes for prophet after prophet is heresy.

If we say the doctrine would be in force until the Lord thought the time was right to remove the restriction I would agree.

[vorpal blade]

Simply put, it takes doctrinal confirmation from a latter-day source to confirm that a doctrinal practice from a different dispensation is still in force. This never happened in latter days, merely, a practice stemming from what was doctrine in a previous dispensation was effected. In modern day, this practice was abolished by Joseph Smith, but reinstated by Brigham Young. And Vorpal, no one is arguing that there were never restrictions on who could hold the priesthood, only that specifically in reference to those of African descent in this last dispensation, the restriction was never by modern revelation.

I would say that a doctrinal practice is always in force unless the Lord specifically reveals that it is no longer in force. There is no evidence that Joseph Smith "abolished" the "practice." The Lord has always revealed line upon line. A prophet doesn't "abolish" a doctrine simply because he is not aware of the doctrine.

Not all revelations are found in the scriptures. Had the doctrine been abolished I would think that would be a reason for a new revelation needing to be recorded. For the Lord to merely remind a prophet of a doctrine already in the scriptures wouldn't necessarily call for new scripture to be written.

[bismark]

I don't see this as a blanket admission that "what the prophets said was wrong" in everything they said about Negroes holding the priesthood. Some of the early brethren thought that the Negroes would not receive the priesthood in mortality. In this they were clearly giving their own opinion, or speculating. Elder McConkie himself made a similar mistake. They were wrong, because Negroes may now receive the priesthood while they are still alive. But there is no admission that the restriction of the priesthood was not a divinely revealed doctrine, applicable to our day and age. The only thing wrong said, according to McConkie, was the speculation that the Negroes would not receive the priesthood in mortality. That is the only thing contrary to the 1978 revelation.

Some brethren have also made the mistake of speculating on the reasons the Lord had for His restriction. The reasons have not been revealed.

If they were wrong about the length and the reasons behind the ban, how hard is it to conclude that they were also wrong about the origin of the ban?

I believe that accusations that the brethren were racists, as Queen Alice did, and with their fallible human feelings lead the Church down the wrong path for at least 125 years, is serious heresy.

I believe it shows a shocking lack of sustaining our leaders as prophets. I realize that none of us is infallible, and we all make mistakes, but if you think that an error this large, over such a long period of time is the way it was then you are in a condition of near apostasy.

(emphasis mine)

These are rather big words to be throwing around Vorpal Blade. I've laid out my evidence for why I believe the practice is of man, and yet here I am still an active Latter-day Saint. Knowing that the prophets have made mistakes and acted like imperfect men (Ever heard of Jonah?) has nothing to do with one's ability to have faith in the Gospel. Prophets are a conduit for bringing us the Gospel, but they are not the firm foundation we must be building on.

I have spoken bluntly to make myself perfectly clear.

You have made it perfectly clear that your understanding of doctrine, LDS history, and prophetic fallibility is quite different from mine. I would rather not have to bring up further sticky LDS historical topics just to prove my side further lest I once again be labeled a heretic in the Church of Vorpal.

[Damasta]

Damasta, it was never about facial features or skin color. It was about ancestry.

Okay. So do you have any evidence (Scriptural or otherwise) that sub-Saharan Africans are all descended from Cain?

Considering this it looks like we all could be descendants of Cain...

[oliviaik]

I definitely do not believe that the basis for denying blacks the priesthood was doctrinal, as I still do not believe that denying women the priesthood is doctrinal. One can be a faithful member of the Church while still disagreeing with certain parts of it. That is where personal revelation comes in. Unfortunately, even prophets can make mistakes and it is our responsibility to go to the Lord and ask about the things we are taught. Of course, disagreeing with something and disobeying it are two different things. Just because the Lord does not confirm the truth of something to me, or even if he tells me that something is actually untrue, that does not always mean that he is giving me permission to go against it.

That must have sound pretty heretic to you, vorpal blade. Sorry.

[Damasta]

May I ask you a question, oliviaik? Let me preface by saying that though I disagree with you, I'm not trying to mock, belittle, or dismiss your beliefs. Nor am I trying to be argumentative.

So, based on your hope that someday women will receive the priesthood, I think I'm correct in assuming that you believe that Heavenly Mother currently holds the priesthood. So, given that, why hasn't she ever presented like the Father and Son have? For example, why didn't she join them in appearing to Joseph in the First Vision? You can't claim that she was there and that Joseph just omitted it—he was very committed to telling things exactly as they were (JS—H 1:24–25).

Allow me to suggest an alternative to "women will someday receive the priesthood". You don't have to accept it, necessarily, but hopefully you'll see that it may be a valid alternative. I don't believe that men and women having different biological and spiritual roles makes them inevitably unequal or implies that one is inherently better than the other. And I don't believe that equality or justice will be achieved only when men can do everything that women do and women can do everything that men do. I believe that the differences are important (The Family: A Proclamation to the World, paragraph 3) and that only together can men and women be equal or perfect (1 Cor. 11:11; D&C 131:2–4). I suggest that 21st century feminism is flawed in some aspects and will eventually have to be abandoned in favor of eternal truths (and the same can be said for any and all mortal philosophies). I suggest that women will never receive the priesthood by the laying on of hands, but it won't matter because they'll have full access to it because they're married to a man who holds it. I suggest that in such an arrangement that men and women will be perfectly equal, despite their different roles, and that we'll accept and understand that and be satisfied.

[Marduk]

Well, certainly the priesthood will still exist in the eternities, but not in the form we know it temporally. There certainly will be many changes as it transitions into a priesthood capable of far different things. We must always remember not to get too attached to temporal structures of the church (even the church in the form it is today will not exist). The most important perspective to hold on to is that whatever structure or form certain concepts take, they will always be good for us at any given time.

[oliviaik]

I do not know why Heavenly Mother has not been more involved in the visions/daily affairs of mankind. The fact of the matter is that we really don't know much about her at all, which I feel is a shame. Perhaps she is more involved with other worlds or peoples. Perhaps she does not wish to be involved in the day to day happenings of mankind at all. Perhaps Heavenly Father and Mother felt that the early Church was not ready to embrace the concept of an involved Heavenly Mother and decided to wait until a later time to reveal more about her. After all, our Church seemed pretty radical to people with just the idea of Heavenly Father and Jesus being separate beings of flesh and blood. Imagine how people would have felt if it also stressed the even more "radical" idea of an involved Heavenly Mother. The Church may never have gained enough members to really establish itself. I do not know. However, I do feel that she is every bit as powerful as Heavenly Father and I do not believe she is just sitting around making spirit babies all the time (I know you did not suggest this, but I have heard it before). I honestly do not buy into the different but equal argument. It reeks of the separate but equal argument used to keep blacks and whites separated before the civil rights movement. I believe people are truly equal when they both get to choose for themselves what their roles will be. The difference in roles is not what is unequal--it's being told what your role is without getting a choice in the matter.

[krebscout]

So...what about childbearing? That's a big role that men cannot choose and women cannot unchoose.

[Marduk]

Hrmm, I was with you quite a bit until that last post. Let's back up a bit here. We know that key to our existence is agency. For agency to truly exist, among other things, it needs to have specific commandments with specific consequences. For example, we know that essential to God's plan are children, both temporally and eternally. When one has children, specific responsibilities become incumbent. We may stop and say, "wait a minute. I don't want to provide for my children, or teach them correct principles, or allow them to gradually make their own decisions. I want to decide what is best for my children, and what my role should be regarding them." This statement, while exaggerated for didactic purposes, may on its face seem equitable. But we know that disobeying those direct commandments from God leads only downward.
Carry this analogy to the present question. Without defined gender roles, agency is limited. Certainly it seems more equitable to say, "let me choose what I want my role to be." But as Lehi teaches us, when we say there is no law, there can be no consequence, and hence no agency.
Lastly, it would be intrasigent of us to suggest that with our very limited perspective of the nature of heaven, we could say the nature of any particular aspect of it. Better far is to leave our analysis to strictly temporal structures. As to that, I would agree with the conjecture that gender roles, both within the church and the world at large, still have tendencies to gender disparity (although I would argue these are more in the minds of people, than policies or procedures.). Anyway, got more thoughts on this, but gotta go for the moment.