An Intelligent Woman’s Take on the Priesthood Ban
My last post inspired a slight thread that I want to continue, sort of, here. My very attractive wife and I were talking about the Priesthood ban. I was very impressed with some of her ideas and thought I’d share some of them here (I’ll have her edit the post so as to not misrepresent her).
Was the Priesthood ban God’s will? Was there a good reason that it was allowed to occur and was perpetuated for over a hundred years?
Her opinion is that yes, there was a very good reason for the ban, but it had nothing to do with any kind of unworthiness, premortal or genealogical, on the part of anyone with African heritage. On a side note, from what I’ve seen of members of the church in Africa, they put someone like me from Utah to shame when it comes to faithfulness and enthusiasm.
The reason she sees for the ban is that had it not occurred, and had African Americans (or African Europeans, etc.) been given all of the same blessings, privileges, callings, and responsibilities as other members of the church during the period of the Civil War and through the Civil Rights movement, there is a strong possibility that opposition to the church, not only from without but certainly from within, would have been too much for the survival of the church. America had to be ready, and church members had to be ready, to receive the blessings that attended the extension of these blessings to all people.
God sometimes allows our intolerance and/or our prejudice to assist in furthering His purposes. For example, the marking of the Lamanites with dark skin seems to have had everything to do with the prejudice of the Nephites that the Lord knew they would have. He did not want them to mingle their seed with the seed of the Lamanites if that would result in a loss of the blessings of the gospel. So He, knowing that darker skin would be abhorrent to the Nephites, caused the darker skin of the Lamanites. The curse of the Lamanites had everything to do with spiritual separation from God, and not the color of their skin. This is made clear when the Lamanite converts who were taught by the sons of Mosiah, and who Mormon called the most righteous group of people in the history of his people, did not experience a lightening of their skin color upon conversion, but they did break the centuries-old curse of living without the spirit of God. Apparently, the Nephites at the time were mature enough to see past skin color and respect and love the Lamanites for who they really were: their brothers and sisters. (Btw, the Nephites’ disgust at the color of the Lamanites’ skin is described using irony that only Jacob, of all the BoM authors, could muster in Jacob 3.)
If there was a worthiness issue that was a part of the ban, it was on the part of the non-black members of the church who, for so long, held the belief that they were in some way superior to others of God’s children because of their skin color. The Lord knows what He’s doing; I have absolute confidence in that. He knew when the world would be ready to receive the marvelous blessings of extending the covenants of the temple to all who would receive them, and He knew that no one would be denied the blessings in eternity.
Though the Lord allowed members of the church to have their prejudices, He was not the author of those prejudices, and certainly we can be confident that He does not condone such intolerance. There was a price that the church paid for the ban: imagine what blessings were forfeited by not perpetuating the standard that began with Joseph Smith. What black leaders might there have been in the church, and what kind of influence might they have had for good? We cannot know, but we can be very glad that we live in the post-1978 era.
So He, knowing that darker skin would be abhorrent to the Nephites, caused the darker skin of the Lamanites.
In my experience being turned off or offended by someone’s skin color is a learned behavior not a natural one. For example, Clark, of the famous Lewis and Clark, took his slave, York, along with him on their westward expedition. When the Indians saw York (the only black man they’d ever seen) they thought he was super human. It was a plus for them.
Similarly, my son’s have Indian (the country) and Black friends. Though they have noticed that their skin is different they have never been repulsed by it. I can’t believe that the Nephites would have abhorred the Lamanites simply because of their skin color.
If there was a worthiness issue that was a part of the ban, it was on the part of the non-black members of the church who, for so long, held the belief that they were in some way superior to others of God’s children because of their skin color.
I whole heartedly agree. Though I don’t necessarily agree with your wife’s explanation (as beautiful as she may be:). It is probably the most rational spin a faithful member can place on the situation and a much better explanation than the others put forward in the past. However, it still just offers an excuse for why the ban occurred and I just don’t think that is right. It was wrong, leaders were racist, society was racist, it was not God’s will that blacks be denied the priesthood it was man’s will.
Jay
June 20, 2008 at 3:00 pm
Actually, that’s my point. It wasn’t God’s will, but man’s, and the church lost out on incredible blessings. While no black man will eternally suffer for the prejudice of the leaders of the LDS church, those leaders and the Church will pay the utmost farthing, if you will. It’s not an excuse, because there’s no excusing it. I think the Lord didn’t stop it because He has a longer view. Black men will ultimately take their place in the Lord’s kingdom. The Church might not have survived or had some of the leaders it DID have if the ban had not been there. So, Brigham Young was prejudice. Heavens, no GOOD person could ever have a prejudice! No SPIRITUAL person could lack understanding! Oh, wait. Every human being on this planet harbors intolerance and prejudice about something. It doesn’t mean they can’t be called of God, or further His kingdom. Unless we learn to be tolerant, to a degree, of each other’s intolerances, we can never be at peace, think about that carefully.
Jessica
June 20, 2008 at 5:16 pm
Welcome to the bloggernacle Jess (I love you)!
holdinator
June 20, 2008 at 6:16 pm
This explanation has been offered before, I even found myself thinking this way at one time. I only have rational reasons as to why I disagree, but here they are. The Lord did not seem too concerned with how well his message would be recieved by the people of Enochs day, this is a pervasive example through the scriptures. At least part of the concerns the Missourians had against the Church during that horrific period was the published position of Mormons as abolitionists. Given that stance I don’t know that ordaining black members to the Priesthood could have added any more embers to the fire. They did in that early period ordain at least one or two black members to the Priesthood. The ban did not even take shape until the early Utah period, and at the time they where so isolated that I don’t think that there would have been as strong of social or political pressures as during the Ohio/Missouri/Illinois periods (again periods where no ban existed). At the same time the ban did take shape, they also began to publicly practice polygamy which was probably more of a social taboo since traditional marriage was the norm for both the north and south. This is a bit tangental, but I often hear people (usually in a sunday school setting) explain that after intense study of the OT they try and see that the God of the NT (sweet, meek, mericiful, loving) in the actions of the God of the OT (Wrath, vengeful, strict, demanding). Barring anything which would reinstitute the Law of Moses, I think we should also try and the God of the OT in the NT, or at least or perspectives. Point being, I don’t deny mercy, but he was clear that mercy cannot rob justice, and I just don’t see our Father in Heaven allowing even a Prophet to hijack the system and disrupt his work and his glory.
Erick
June 20, 2008 at 6:25 pm
The good and the bad of a blog is that anyone can become a writer, skilled or not. The good, many view points are heard rather than just journalists. The bad, people like me submit comments that start at one point, and end totally on another. I like that this blog allows us to exchange thoughts and idea’s on these important topics, even if I sometimes exchange the wrong idea. You said you wanted bread, I’m sorry I thought I hear stone, I swear.
Erick
June 20, 2008 at 6:42 pm
Sorry for overdoing it with the comments, but here is a positive thought – just a matter of perspective. As Church members who address this issue, we invest a great deal in either apologising for the Churches former position of trying to make up for it as though the Church was the worst political offender regarding racism ever. The dichotomy is that (just speculating) Black Americans in Missouri probably had no greater advocate and local cause for hope than the settling Mormons. While I am not ignorant to the fact that there were some Mormon slave owners, by and large the institutional position was ablotionist, though perhaps not integrationist as well. Joseph Smith in particular had this reputation. The dichotomy occurs where the early saints had in most recorded circumstances a decent reputation with black community members, the attitude changed with the Civil Rights movement when they were singled out for exclusion of certain Church “blessings”. So, if we must call it racism – then it should at least be acknowledged as a different breed of racism pervading our Country, and a much lighter caliber.
Erick
June 20, 2008 at 7:17 pm
Actually, Eric, I really liked your thoughts. It got me to thinking about the early NT church, and the bias or prejudice of early Christianity in not preaching to anyone but Jews. During the time of Christ there was certainly a ban on it. Christ even turned away, at least initially, non-Jews who asked Him for help. Was Christ prejudice, or had the time not arrived? Once there was a foundation established, the Church was able to spread to everyone, to the blessing of the Church. It’s not that comparable, because everyone except Jews were excluded, not just one group like blacks. But anyway.
As to your argument against why ordaining blacks couldn’t have been much more to the detriment of the church than abolition and polygamy, I just wonder if statehood would have been possible if there were black leaders in the church at that point, and what kind of implications it would have for the civil war. I honestly have no idea if it would have made any difference at all, but it does make me curious.
Jessica
June 22, 2008 at 10:53 am
It’s always hard to determine what certain social outcomes would have been had some of the variables been different, it’s really not testable. Utah really wasn’t much of a participant of the civil war, I think because they were not a state at the time therefore had not political impact on the issues, and geographically was too far removed from the rest of the Nation. That was part of BY intent, to be far removed from their oppressors, and found the nation of zion if they must. They never did found an independent nation, but rather became a State after I believe a ten year process which culminated in the late 1890’s. What would have the implications if there had been no Priesthood ban? The Civil War was old news (by about 30 years), slavery was abolished, yet prejudice and racism were on high octane. While it is probably safe to assume there may have been a stronger “black” presence in the Church, would that have been reflected in the leadership? If so, in enough magnitude to dissuade the congress from allowing Utah to become a State? I wouldn’t be suprised to learn that it would the extremes at either end of the spectrum.
Erick
June 23, 2008 at 3:50 pm
I think the “God had to do it this way becaus eotherwise the Church would have been destroyed” argument is kind of lame. This is God we’re talking about, the God of the Old Testament who is mighty to save. In the Bible he’s pretty quick to do some pretty mighty miracles to preserve his people.
I think Mormons make this argument as a way to justify or explain things that otherwise don’t make sense, but I think it essentially amounts to selling God short in order to preserve your own cognitive equilibrium. People are more willing to nerf the Supreme Being than they are to admit that they haven’t got everything figured out, that the scriptures might not be as reliable as we wish they were, that prophets make gross errors, and that the picture that’s usually painted of “The Gospel” is just more likely false and misleading.
Kullervo
July 9, 2008 at 3:35 pm
I, for one, will freely admit that I don’t have everything figured out. If there is a reason to be understood about the ban, though, this one makes more sense than any other I’ve ever heard. But that’s a big “IF.”
holdinator
July 10, 2008 at 1:23 am
I know that I am one who has already expressed an inability to understand this issue, particularly how God could allow a prophet to do this. I am often compelled that in the intercessory prayer Jesus taught the disciples that life Eternal was to know God, and Jesus. This is a much greater task than any of us realize, and perhaps the greatest purpose to our mortal existence.
Regarding the race issue, there was an occassion in the ministry of Jesus where his he and his disciples came across a group of “believers” who were not numbered among the general followers of Jesus. Yet, in his name they were casting out devils and performing all manner of miracles. Upon seeing this, some of the disciples, no doubt troubled by the unorthodoxy displayed here, proposed that they remedy this conduct by calling down fire from heaven to consume them as the priests of Baal. Naturally Jesus was able to resist giving in to their urges, but also refrained from calling down fire to consume his would be apostles. Jesus clearly didn’t tolerate the apostles approach, so I don’t know that this is a great corralary, but I think we are all trying to get to that higher understanding of God’s ways. Sometimes that entails struggling with some baser philosophies. Just a thought.
Erick
July 14, 2008 at 8:10 pm
That’s a great insight, Erick. It seems to me that the benefit Jesus had was that he did know the Father, His will, and was completely in tune with it, so much so that he was one with his Father. Jesus’ capacity for compassion and understanding the human condition is unmatched in all of history. I wish I possessed the same understanding, and, as you alluded to, that is what I am striving for–to be one with Jesus and with his Father.
holdinator
July 14, 2008 at 10:37 pm