In response to an entry on http://aletheiaquest.blogspot.com/ titled "On Priesthood Authority in Mormonism" I have posted the following entry
A Long Overdue Shift in Blame
When Jesus was confronted by Pharisees on the issue of divorce as recorded in Matthew 19:3-11. He explained that from the beginning men and women were meant to be united not divided (which we currently use to support the ideals of marriage) , "Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate." (v.6). So the pharisees then began to ask Jesus why Moses commanded divorce in certain situations. (there is a parallel here to that of the priesthood issue). Christ's response is very telling, and he did not hold the prophet responsible as our critics do. I quote, "Jesus replied, "Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning." (v.8 NIV) He then strongly denounced divorce.
Here Jesus explained how a true prophet of God (Moses) commanded something against God's will... not because of his own biases or misconceptions, but rather because of the hardness of the people's hearts.
I know from their teachings and examples that the leaders of the LDS Church from the early years to the present have always been prayerful followers of the same God worshipped by all of Christianity, espousing the same teachings from the Bible and more. Prayerful, but not infallible. Leader after leader was confronted with the issue of blacks and the priesthood and I am confident they each took the issue to the Lord, just as one would expect any righteous leader to do. I am sure they did. Each received their answer and each were required to wait. The time was not yet. I submit that the blame for the blacks being kept from the priesthood is wrongly placed on the shoulders of the leaders of this church (just as divorce may be wrongly placed on Moses' shoulders). The Lord knows the hearts of all men, and I am confident that because of the hardness of the hearts of the membership of the LDS Church of that time that Lord knew the time was not yet. Our world was still embroiled in racist division and the time was just not yet, and so the Leaders were left to use scripture and logic to support the Lord's decision. Brigham Young and his predecessors confined the priesthood to a small homogenous group because of the hardness of the hearts of the early membership... unfortunately the hatred and division were two-sided and in many places still are. I imagine many of our black brothers and sisters were not yet ready either.
In short, the membership of the LDS Church and all who accepted the prevailing culture were primarily at fault, though the blame is only placed on the Leaders by critics of our faith.
Rising Above Cultural Norms... Since When?
In response to your statement "those outside the Church would naturally expect LDS general authorities to always have the discernment and moral fortitude to rise above the cultural norms (like racism) that are so inconsistent with Christian teaching." I must simply ask why Christ, Paul, and Peter, nor any of the other leaders of the early church (since Adam :)) denounced slavery, nor called an end to it, but rather told slaves to serve their masters well. How does this relate to such an unfair standard of requiring normal men to rise above cultural norms? Was Christ himself subject to a cultural norm (according to the precedence set forth), or were other issues at play? I would suggest the latter. (For the sake of reference: Eph. 6:5, Col 3:22, 1 Pet 2:18, 1 Tim 6:1, Titus 2:9, Matthew 10:24)
I would beware of confusing political correctness with God's standards of righteousness (lest we be caught promoting cultural ideals that are clearly inconsistent with God's such as homosexuality as of late). While in places they cross one another the ways of men are not one and the same with the ideals of God... and maybe in the eternal scheme of things we are really comparing apples with oranges. Most likely God dislikes slavery, but understands that in this world we are all slaves to something, so he teaches how to gain freedom by transcending the cultures of this world. In this way while chained in physical or temporal bondage we can at the same time be spiritually free.
2 comments:
Along with these thoughts, God will not force us to good. He gives to us when we are ready. It's possible that this was the case concerning the members of the church during the time of the Priesthood ban. There are many who fought for change in a sincere effort to bring about equality. However, it's debatable how many of these movements were done in the spirit of righteousness. Take Nat Turner for example. He certainly got everyones attention, but at what price and was it the right way? You cannot force people to change. You must teach them. Just maybe there is wisdom in God's timing.
I enjoyed the post. Let me add my two cents. An alternate theory as to why the black race could not hold the priesthood for a time.
We know that this was not the first time that priesthood was withheld from a group. In the O.T., for example, only the Levites were permitted to hold the priesthood. We must acknowledge, however, that the the zeitgeist of 20th century America was drastically different.
Here is my theory. God hates slavery. God hates all injustice (justice is one of his divine attributes). In the same spirit, God hated the racial inequality in 20th century America. BUT the pathway to equality was the civil disobedience of Gandhi and MLK. That creates a problem for the church. Civil disobedience involves knowingly breaking an unjust law and willfully submitting to the consequences, but the Church must support the laws of the land. What would have happened if black men, holding the priesthood and therefore being in positions of leadership and authority, became involved in the civil rights movement. Those good men would have had to choose between doing what was right (fighting for equality) and doing what was right (supporting the church's policy). Can you imagine the chaos that would have ensued if black Mormon leadership was actively engaged in MLK's movement? (Which most assuredly was a just movement.) It is a sure bet that church disciplinary measures would have had to be taken.
So, perhaps, the ban on the priesthood was a means of protecting black men from being stuck in that awful conundrum. Perhaps it was a protection.
I am not claiming that this is the definitive answer. The Lord has never revealed an answer. One thing I know for sure is that it did not have anything to do with any curse of Cain or pre-existent valiance, as had been proposed in the past. I am basing that on Elder McConkie's talk entitled "All Are Alike Unto God," (available from www.byu.edu in their archive of speeches), in which McConkie says that anything that has been said in the past regarding this issue was not accurate (he also says "even if it was I who said it.)
The curse of Cain theory was an explanation that actually pre-dates the church. It was used by Christian slave owners to justify their actions, and was a theory that was widely circulated at the time. It was imported into the church with some of he early converts.
Anyway, the final answer is that the church is true and is truly led by God through living prophets.
Post a Comment