We have yet another pronouncement concerning the church's past ban on priesthood for blacks. This is the most recent church statement:
"The Church unequivocally condemns racism, including any and all past racism by individuals both inside and outside the Church. In 2006, then Church president Gordon B. Hinckley declared that 'no man who makes disparaging remarks concerning those of another race can consider himself a true disciple of Christ. Nor can he consider himself to be in harmony with the teachings of the Church. Let us all recognize that each of us is a son or daughter of our Father in Heaven, who loves all of His children.' Recently, the Church has also made the following statement on this subject: 'The origins of priesthood availability are not entirely clear. Some explanations with respect to this matter were made in the absence of direct revelation and references to these explanations are sometimes cited in publications. These previous personal statements do not represent Church doctrine.'"
If this is altogether accepted as a carefully considered, inspired and accurate statement of the truth, it raises some interesting questions about the church today and in the past:
President Hinckley's statement, reiterated again today, is that "no man who makes disparaging remarks concerning those of another race can consider himself a true disciple of Christ." If this is correct, how are we to now regard Brigham Young?
["In the preisthood I will tell you what it will do. Where the children of God to mingle there seed with the seed of Cain it would not only bring the curse of being deprived of the power of the preisthood upon themselves but they entail it upon their children after them, and they cannot get rid of it. If a man in an ungaurded moment should commit such a transgression, if he would walk up and say cut off my head, and kill man woman and child it would do a great deal towards atoneing for the sin. .. It is a great blessing to the seed of Adam to have the seed of Cain for servants. ...Let this Church which is called the kingdom of God on the earth; we will sommons the first presidency, the twelve, the high counsel, the Bishoprick, and all the elders of Isreal, suppose we summons them to apear here, and here declare that it is right to mingle our seed, with the black race of Cain, that they shall come in with with us and be pertakers with us of all the blessings God has given to us. On that very day, and hour we should do so, the priesthood is taken from this Church and kingdom and God leaves us to our fate. The moment we consent to mingle with the seed of Cain the Church must go to desstruction..." (Address to the Legislature by LDS Church President and Territorial Governor Brigham Young, Feb. 5, 1852, spellings not corrected.)]
John Taylor?
["Why is it, in fact, that we should have a devil? Why did not the Lord kill him long ago? . . . He needed the devil and great many of those who do his bidding just to keep . . . our dependence upon God, . . . When he destroyed the inhabitants of the antediluvian world, he suffered a descendant of Cain to come through the flood in order that he [the devil] might be properly represented upon the earth (Journal of Discourses, vol. 23, Oct. 29. 1882, p. 336)].
Many others, even President J. Reuben Clark who objected to pictures in the Deseret News showing black and white children mingling together, made disparaging remarks. What of them? Are we now to regard them as not true disciples of Christ? If so, then what does that do for the church's status? Did the church pass through a lengthy era of being led by those who were not true disciples of Christ and yet retain all of our blessings, entitlements, power and priesthood? How did that operate? Can a non-true disciple of Christ pass along priesthood authority? Or is President Hinckley's declaration an overstatement because it proves too much? Does any of this raise the possibility that church leaders can in fact "lead us astray?" Or instead is it that we are never led astray, but they can make mistakes? If so, how are we to distinguish between mistakes, and errors so serious they cannot be regarded as "true disciples of Christ" and yet preclude leading us astray? Doesn't something have to give? Were the church members who opposed the ban "true disciples" even though they were out of harmony with their leaders? If that is the case, how can we know where "true disciples" are to be found, if there is a possibility for the lesser, dissident members who are out of harmony with those leaders to be "true disciples of Christ?" Does it mean we can have "true disciples" led by those who err in teaching for doctrine the commandments of men? Isn't this the problem the Lord intended to solve in His opening statement to Joseph Smith? Are there some leaders now serving who are "not true disciples of Christ?" How do we distinguish between those who will be regarded as "not true disciples of Christ" at some future point but who are now serving in leadership? When do we know we are being taught for doctrine the commandments of men?
These are very interesting questions. What a great opportunity this presents for more study and careful contemplation by us all. Should I agree with President Hinckley and think the worse of earlier leaders? It seems harsh to think them "no true disciple of Christ" on the one hand, but on the other their remarks are quite disparaging of those of another race. Actually, disparaging of one specific race, not other races generally. Should culture bend a "prophet's voice" or does a "prophet's voice" require culture to bend? Were they originally just reflecting social values when speaking disparagingly about the race, and are they doing the same now there is widespread antipathy for racism? If that is the case, then do we really need anything more than popular opinion to guide us then and now?
If these church leaders spoke "in the absence of revelation" how were they "revelators?" Or weren't they? If they were sustained as "revelators" but spoke in the absence of revelation and were wrong, how often has that happened? How often does it happen? How do we tell the difference between truth and teaching for doctrine the commandments of men? Aren't we told essentially everything coming out of the hierarchy is entitled to respect as if it were the Lord speaking? Does that apply when they speak "in the absence of revelation?" What a fascinating assortment of issues the church has now given us to ponder.
Does our eternal salvation require us to resolve these things correctly?
There are so many more questions I can think of now that the church has given this new announcement. I wonder why they weren't addressed in the latest announcement.
