Race and the Priesthood... Again.

Recently, the LDS Church issued a statement on Race and the Priesthood that has arched a lot of eyebrows.  Even faithful members were caught a bit off-guard by the announcement, which has succeeded in inspiring doubt in some, and quiet pondering and confusion among others.  I thought it might be helpful to offer some perspective here for the wannabe "Ark Steadiers" out there who might now be wavering.

First of all, let's review what the statement does, and doesn't actually say.

What the announce did NOT say was the Brigham Young was a racist.  It also did not say why the Priesthood ban was put in place.

What it DOES say is that the issue was complex, and revolved around common cultural practices of the day and the role that racial integration was playing in Utah's bid to achieve Statehood, particularly regarding Southerners who had migrated to Utah... with their slaves.  It also DOES specify that the ban was not the result of theories revolving around "racial inferiority."

That being said, it would be wonderful to have Brigham Young here to fully explain his reasons, but I propose that the reasons might be congruent with what I've always thought was the case, but which, although abundantly attested to in scripture, has never been articulated as "the" reason for the ban.

The answer, I believe, can be found in the declaration by the Lord that He is "the same yesterday, today, and forever." (1 Ne 10:18, Mormon 9:9)   This, at least to me, denotes consistency in doctrine as a divine trait.  To me, this seems to be one such example.

Throughout history, the Lord has withheld certain blessings pertaining to the Priesthood among certain groups of people.  An excellent example is found in the fact that Levites were not permitted to practice their priestly duties while the Israelites were in captivity during the Exile.  Was this racist?  One has to wonder whether those who currently seek to "Steady the Ark" with political correctness would accuse the Lord (or His prophets, most likely) of being "racists" had they lived during ancient times. Was the ban on the Levites due to the "cultural racial attitudes and norms" during that time?  No.  The Lord directed it through His living prophet.  Does the fact that we don't fully understand the reasons for it diminish from the divine nature of that ban, or the reasons God may have had for it?  No.

My thoughts are (and always have been) that the priesthood can only be exercised by those who are not in captivity... either to governments and civil powers, or to sin and cultural apostasy.  It is no surprise to me therefore that the priesthood be withheld from a people who suffered in physical, then cultural and societal, bondage until the 1960's at least... and it is also no surprise that the Lord then released the ban when supplicated by His prophets a short time later... in perfect consistency with His past actions.

The Gentiles in the New Testament world were denied the ministrations of Christ and the Apostles completely.  They were not to receive the gospel until after Christ had ascended.  The ban on the gospel going to the Gentiles was so ingrained in the Apostles paradigm that nothing short of divine revelation could convince Peter otherwise.  The New Testament is silent on the reasons for this, other than the rather cryptic statement that "I am sent but until the lost sheep of the House of Israel." (Matt 15:24)  Of course, this might prompt some rather "tender" questions, if we were to approach this with the same attitude as the "Ark Steadiers" wish to approach the recent article on race and Priesthood;  Was Christ a racist?  Was the ancient Christian Church racist?  Peter, on having this glorious experience seemed genuinely surprised when he exclaimed "Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:" (Acts 10:34)   Apparently, this had not been their previous paradigm.

But wait a minute... wasn't this known before the gospel was withheld from the Gentiles?  What about during the Savior's ministry?  Wasn't God "no respecter of persons" then, too?  The surprise in Peter's reply seems to indicate that it was not. 

In fact, the entire racial "norm" among the Israelites was that they were the "chosen people" of the Lord, to the exclusion of others... which sounds remarkably like the racial attitude that permeated the 19th and much of the 20th centuries regarding whites v. blacks, which some Southern Protestant churches still seem to grapple with in 2013.

From this experience, which is most instructive regarding this issue, we learn that the following:

1)  The Savior Himself "discriminated" against the Gentiles, and refused to minister to them as a people, and forbade His disciples from going among them, with very little explanation.
2)  The ban was lifted after He ascended.
3)  The then-prophet, Peter, did not realize that the restriction was no longer in place, and sought to continue the Savior's prohibition.
4)  Direct revelation was needed to help Peter understand that the ban was no longer the Lord's wish.

One could legitimately ask, "Why did Christ allow Peter to lead the Church astray?  What about all those Gentiles who were denied salvation, who died before that ban was lifted?"

Fortunately, we know that the blessings of the gospel are eternal, and no earthly ban can withhold those blessings to them.  They will ultimately receive them in the Lord's due time.  The same principle holds true for all who died without hearing the gospel in general.  Could one not legitimately accuse God of being a "racist" for not providing means to far-flung nations and races to hear and accept or reject the gospel in this life? Or could there be a divine "method to the madness" that God has not seen fit to reveal to us yet?

It is worthy of noting that the separation between the Jews and Gentiles had been long-standing and deeply ingrained.  The Gentiles, to the Jews, were "unclean," specially in NT times when most Gentiles were pagans.  It was only when the gospel started being preached "among all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people" that the issue arose, much like in modern times with issues in Brazil.

And, like Peter, it has taken a direct revelation from God to reverse it.  And this is not, by the way, an indictment against the Prophets of God in any way... they were loyal and obedient to what they understood at the time. But just like in the Old World, God has made it abundantly clear that He moves according to His timetable.. not ours.

One could rightfully ask, "What about God loving all of His children and making salvation available to all"?   The reality is that we simply do not know the answer to that... only that, just as in the Bible, He has his purposes for what He does, which we may or may not understand at the time.  The difference between faithful Saints, and the wannabe "Ark Steadiers," I believe, is that to the Saints, absence of understanding of something the Lord does or does not do, does not automatically equate to "that's wrong," or "that couldn't have been inspired" or "the prophet/church has been led astray." 

Did Brigham Young lead the Saints astray because of this ban, the reasons for which we still don't know?  I believe the answer to that is a resounding "No."  Does the Church today embrace doctrines or practices that are in variance with what the Prophet Joseph or the Lord himself revealed in the Restoration?  No.  Do the Saints maintain the keys of the Priesthood?  Yes. 

I believe that the Lord raises up those who have the necessary skills that He needs to lead His Church at specific points in time.  While Brigham Young definitely had some "interesting" ideas, he was also a world-class leader and civic and business manager, which the Saints desperately needed at the time.  His accomplishments are too many to be adequately enumerated.  He truly accomplished the impossible, with nothing.  He has rightfully been remembered as one of the greatest of the prophets of the Restoration behind Joseph Smith. 

Did he make mistakes?  Of course.  We don't believe in Prophetic Infallibility.  I can't recall ever hearing a General Conference address where we were taught that prophets are infallible.  Only that the Lord will not permit them to "lead the saints astray."  And I do not believe that this has occurred, in Brigham Young's case, or in any other LDS leader.  Especially when we STILL do not know the real reason why the Priesthood Ban was extended.

“I think there is one thing which we should have exceedingly clear in our minds. Neither the President of the Church, nor the First Presidency, nor the united voice of the First Presidency and the Twelve will ever lead the Saints astray or send forth counsel to the world that is contrary to the mind and will of the Lord” (in Conference Report, Apr. 1972, 99; or Ensign, July 1972, 88).

Jesus Christ still stands at the head of this Church, today as in times past. Our doctrines are intact.  The priesthood and its' glorious keys are intact.  The great and eternal truths that we cherish and embrace as part of the Restoration are still intact.  And most importantly, the salvation and exaltation of all of the black Saints from the Restoration until the present is assured, regardless of the color of their skin.  And always has. 

It should be no surprise to the faithful that in the end times, a "winnowing" will occur, which will separate the wheat from the chaff within the Church itself.  Perhaps we are just beginning to feel the shaking of threshing machine.