© 2024 The Interpreter Foundation. A 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization.
All content by The Interpreter Foundation, unless otherwise specified, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available here.
Interpreter Foundation is not owned, controlled by or affiliated with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. All research and opinions provided on this site are the sole responsibility of their respective authors, and should not be interpreted as the opinions of the Board, nor as official statements of LDS doctrine, belief or practice.
“Will God allow the President of the Church to authoritatively state something is God’s will when it isn’t?” Yes, of course. Otherwise one would have to conclude that no prophet is ever allowed by God to make a mistake, which is in opposition to what the prophets themselves have said about themselves and one another and in opposition to the principle of agency that Val has so succinctly addressed. Case in point: Modern prophets have disavowed the “official” reasons given by previous prophets and others for the modern priesthood and temple ban, so logic tells me that either the modern prophets are wrong about the previous official reasons or the previous prophets were wrong about their reasons for the ban (to clarify, I am only talking about the _reasons_ for the ban, not the ban itself which has not been disavowed given the lack of full clarity of its origins/purpose), yet they are _all_ still considered prophets and have been allowed by God to continue in their office. Just as we individually need constant correction as we grow up, so too does the Church. God will allow no man to knowingly lead the Church astray into wickedness (they would be excommunicated), but God certainly allows errors of judgment and mistakes, past and present, due to ignorance.
I do feel a need to say for the record that this paper does not directly address many of the topics being discussed in these comments. The paper mainly addresses the presence, purpose, and meaning of lineal curses in scripture. What implications this might have on the modern priesthood ban is not the focus and would require way more study and dialogue. Further, this paper does not state nor prove that the modern ban was a man-made error (that is for God to unfold), but it does use ancient scriptural and cultural understanding to call into question the modern reasons given for the ban and it complicates the purpose of its existence. My hope is to further the dialogue and cultivate the soil for additional inspiration.
John: You respond God will “of course” allow His Prophet to authoritatively state something is God’s will when it isn’t. You conclude, “Otherwise one would have to conclude that no prophet is ever allowed by God to make a mistake . . . .” But that “all-or-nothing” conclusion does not follow. God does and will allow His Prophet to make many mistakes even if He will not allow him to erroneously state something is God’s will when it isn’t. That prophets can err in other respects, such as interpreting scripture, understanding doctrine, doing many things of their own will through healthy trial and error, does not mean God, therefore, “must” allow them to err in stating something is God’s will when it isn’t. This distinction matters. If God’s Prophet can erroneously say something is God’s will, how does anyone know? How would anyone decide whether God actually told His Prophet what the Prophet says God told him? Are we supposed to ask God if God in fact told His Prophet what the Prophet claims God told him? The absurdity and confusion in such a system are manifest. The very foundation upon which the Church is based would crumble. We would be prophets unto ourselves, left to decide for ourselves whether God’s Prophet is accurately declaring something is God’s will. Even worse, a Prophet could lie and mislead us by saying something is God’s will when it is not. You may say God would not allow that, but why would God not allow that, but still allow a Prophet to otherwise erroneously state something is God’s will when it isn’t? Whether the Prophet is acting in good faith is irrelevant to the fact that he is erroneously saying something is God’s will when it isn’t. Whether innocently or otherwise, he is misleading us regarding God’s will. That is the problem and it has nothing to do with the Prophet’s intent or state of mind. Joseph Smith says God revealed the Word of Wisdom to him (D&C section 89). He says it is God’s word and God’s will. More recently, President Nelson authoritatively declared the Lord wants His Church called by its full name. According to you, Joseph Smith and President Nelson “could” be mistaken. They “could” be misstating God’s will. (I’m not saying you actually believe they are mistaken, but your response allows for that possibility). In fact, under your conclusion, every authoritative statement by every Prophet in history whether in scripture or not regarding God’s will is subject to scrutiny and may be innacurate. Why would anyone place much faith in Prophets under such circumstances? With respect to the priesthood ban, multiple Prophets authoritatively said the ban was God’s revealed will. Multiple Prophets said God instituted the ban and only God could change it. You note the Church disavows “reasons” stated for the ban but has never said the previous Prophets were wrong when they said the ban was God’s will. Consider this hypothetical: If President Nelson declared tomorrow that God told him the previous Prophets were wrong and the ban was contrary to God’s will, would you believe him over the previous Prophets or would you believe the previous Prophets? If a subsequent Prophet said God told him President Nelson was wrong and the previous Prophets were correct, whom would you believe? In your paper, you say understanding the mechanics of inheritance law does not answer why the priesthood ban existed. True. But why it existed is unkown and hardly important. Of utmost importance is whether multiple Prophets accurately declared it was God’s revealed will. It is troubling to believe precious priesthood and temple blessings could be withheld from an entire population for 126 years contrary to God’s will because His Prophets were discriminatory racist men of their times. Is the existing gender-based priesthood restriction concerning women God’s will or man-made? And, how do we know? If man made, what future wrongful discriminatory actions could God’s Prophets impose? It is far more comforting to believe God is directing decisions regarding His priesthood (as He has done throughout history as you explain). Your paper provides an unpredcedented understanding of the relevant passages in the Book of Abraham. You explain it is incorrect to assume “that lineal curses are not scriptural or must be reflections of modern racism. There is biblical and broader ancient Near Eastern cultural precedent for concluding that one’s personal actions could indeed cause a loss of priesthood and other divine blessings among one’s descendants if nothing is done to overcome the state of things in the family.” You provide solid scriptural authority and explanation that the modern-day priesthood ban “could” be consistent with God’s historical dealings with His people (you, of course, do not say that it actually was or was not God’s will). If the multiple Prophets who said it was God’s will were correct, then it was God’s will. If they were wrong, then it wasn’t.
“prophets unto ourselves” indeed. Brother Brigham challenged the Saints to be less trusting in his (Brigham’s) word, and to ask the Lord for themselves whether what their President said was true. He ruminated:
“What a pity it would be if we were led by one man to utter destruction! Are you afraid of this? I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by Him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken that influence they could give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman know, by the whispering of the Spirit of God to themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not. This has been my exhortation continually.” JD, 9:150 (Jan 12, 1862)
Claiming virtual infallibility would make this proviso completely meaningless, and leave Latter-day Saints without their key, distinctive claim to be led by the Holy Spirit — which is anathema to many of those outside the faith.
I refer to a very narrow and limited circumstance and to only one person, not general infallibility of Church leaders. As I state: It does not seem God will allow the President of the Church to authoritatively state something is God’s will when it isn’t. As I responded to Brother Thompson, this does not mean the President is not able to make mistakes in other areas and ways. He can and does. This does not mean he doesn’t have his personal thoughts and opinions. He does. This does not negate the “key” LDS claim of personal revelation through the Holy Ghost. All are entitled and expected to seek testimony and truth from the Holy Ghost. But, if the Church President could authoritatively state something is God’s will when it isn’t, it would raise the absurd and chaotic scenarios I reference in my response to Brother Thompson. You expect 17 million members to ask God if God actually told President Nelson what President Nelson says God told him? And, if He did, the Holy Ghost will universally confirm such to all 17 million and all is well? What if some believe the Holy Ghost confirmed President Nelson was inspired, but some believe the Holy Ghost told them President Nelson wasn’t? What if the percentage were 10% yes, and 90% no; or, 90% yes, and 10% no? And, under your position, this would play out every time President Nelson claimed the Lord revealed His will to His Prophet, President Nelson. Am I the only one who sees the absurdity and chaos in such a system? Such a system is also contrary to lines of authority and corresponding revelatory entitlement. We don’t blindly, naively, or recklessly trust the Church President to accurately reveal God’s will. We are expected and entitled to gain a personal witness and testimony from the Holy Ghost that this is God’s Church, restored by His Prophet, Joseph Smith, along with God’s priesthood authority and keys, and is led by a current Prophet of God. Our trust in God’s Prophet is quite informed. That is what Brigham Young was talking about. But to say each member must seek spiritual confirmation that President Nelson is correct whenever he authoritatively states something is God’s will would place us on the same level with President Nelson concerning revelatory scope. For example, President Nelson says God told Him it is God’s will, and you say the Holy Ghost told you it isn’t. You have become the equivalent of President Nelson receiving revelation for the entire Church that President Nelson is wrong in his claim. To be clear, I am not talking about personal revelation we all receive when we seek to apply President Nelson’s statements and teachings in our individual lives. I refer only to a Church President’s claim that something is God’s will. Chaos, confusion, division, and dissention would run rampant if 17 million members were left to decide for themselves each time President Nelson authoritatively declared that something was God’s will.
For major changes in policy or doctrine, I think the issue is more complicated than just having the prophet receive a revelation to settle the matter. David O. McKay, who entered the quorum of the 12 in 1906, would have been well aware that the quorum can become divided on key doctrines and that the division is a serious problem for the church. He came into the quorum in the midst of the messy transition out of polygamy, a transition that saw John W. Taylor and Matthias Cowley be expelled from the quorum. The church fractured to some degree over that change, with the rise of various apostate polygamy sects. A wise norm of seeking consensus in the First Presidency and Quorum of the 12 on major changes in doctrine/practice has developed, a norm that constrains the prophet in some measure. In the 1950s and 1960s, there were quorum members who were quite strongly opposed to a change in the priesthood policy. That limited what God and David O. McKay could do. Prophets and apostles don’t just take dictation from God. They are not ventriloquist dummies whose mouths move at God’s command and, on all occasions, speak his words and will verbatim. They have their own dispositions and beliefs. Since he respects our agency, God works with and around parameters set by the personality and will of human church leaders. The church is, among other things, a human institution, so what God can do with it is conditioned by human nature. Given his respect for agency and the necessary corollary that human beings are cocreators of the world we live in, changes in doctrine are partly a function of the apostles’ culture and personality and willingness to listen and change. God can get us where we need to be over time, can get the First Presidency and Quorum of the 12, and through them, the rest of us where we need to be. But doing so while preserving our agency and co-creator role is not as simple and linear a process as some of the comments above imply. Were it simple, the stories in the Bible and the history of the church would be nothing like what they are. God’s hand is in both, but so are our fallible, inconstant human hands.
Hi Val: I agree the process of instituting and changing Church policy is often complicated as you discuss. I’m not sure you meant to include “doctrine” since that never has nor will “change” even though we may receive revelation of additional doctrine or revelation that clarifies or corrects our understanding of a doctrine. My comment was not meant to describe how all Church policy changes occur. It was narrowly focussed on this issue as I stated: “will God allow the President of the Church to authoritatively state something is God’s will when it isn’t?” As I mentioned, the undisputed record shows multiple Presidents of the Church over 126 years authoritatively stated the priesthood ban was instituted by God’s inspiration and would continue until God inspired a change. President McKay stated he sought God’s inspiration and approval to lift the ban but God told him it was not the proper time. President Kimball said God inspired the 1978 change, not man. Could every President be wrong in his authoritative statement regarding God’s will?
I have often heard people say that doctrine doesn’t change, but it is pretty clear that it does. And the fact that doctrines change over time is not surprising. At any given time, the church will have a set of doctrines, i.e., statements about what the key tenets of the faith are. In a church that embraces continuous revelation, it is to be expected that some original views will prove to be at a minimum incomplete, but “incomplete” is probably too generous. Some initial formulations of doctrine contain errors. Indeed, the “doctrine” portion of the Doctrine and Covenants, the Lectures on Faith, was included in that canonized work of scripture for close to a century before it was dropped. It contained clear doctrinal errors. Here is a useful Wikipedia summary of the Godhead doctrine in Lecture 5:
The Godhead, or the collective persons of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, is expounded upon:
1. The Godhead consists of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost (Lecture 5:1)
2. There are two “personages”, the Father and the Son, that constitute the “supreme power over all things” (Lecture 5:2, Q&A section)
3. The Father is a “personage of spirit, glory, and power” (Lecture 5:2)
4. The Son is a “personage of tabernacle” (Lecture 5:2) who “possess[es] the same mind with the Father; which Mind is the Holy Spirit” (Lecture 5:2)
Over time, as we came to understand the Godhead more fully—and, clearly, the basic nature of the Godhead is a matter of doctrine—it was evident that the Lectures were not doctrinally sound. They implied that the Father did not have a body and that the Holy Ghost was not a separate “personage,” but rather, the shared mind of the Father and Son. (The third largest branch of the Restoration, the Monongahela Rigdonite branch is “binatarian,” i.e., still affirms the Lectures doctrine articulated above.) The First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve commissioned a careful study of this topic in the early 20th century, identified points on which the, then, scriptures were inconsistent, came to a more correct understanding of who the Father is and who the Holy Ghost is (a separate person), and decided to delete the outdated doctrine section of the Doctrine and Covenants. That is a change in doctrine by any reasonable standard. But again, there is nothing scandalous about it in a Church that affirms the importance of ongoing revelation to and from prophets and apostles. Over time, revelation leads the leaders, then the members to throw off errors and embrace new truths. And if some of the leaders could be in error for nearly a century on the nature of God and the Holy Ghost, other leaders certainly could have been in error about the status of members of African descent and the priesthood ban.
We differ on whether doctrine can actually change. “Gospel doctrine is eternal and unchanging and comes from the Godhead. The doctrine informs Church policies and practices.
Church policy is guided by doctrine but is subject to adjustments, as revealed by the Lord to His prophet.” (https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/liahona/2021/12/come-follow-me/why-does-church-policy-sometimes-change?lang=eng).
“Doctrine refers to eternal truths, such as the nature of the Godhead, the plan of salvation, and Jesus Christ’s atoning sacrifice. Policy is the application of doctrine based on current circumstances. Policy helps us administer the Church in an orderly way.
While doctrine never changes, policy adjusts from time to time. The Lord works through His prophets to uphold His doctrine and to modify Church policies according to the needs of His children.” (Elder Pingree, Oct, 2023 Conference talk)
Doctrine exists as truth apart from our understanding or interpretation of it. Our understanding of doctrine may change as we receive more revelation and that necessarily means our prior understanding was incomplete and/or erroneous because doctrine is eternal and unchanging Gospel truth regardless of our understanding or state of knowledge.
In contrast, policies are not eternal, unchanging truth. When they change, it doesn’t necessarily mean the prior policy was erroneous. Both the prior policy and the altered policy may be proper and consistent with God’s will.
That is a subtle but crucial distinction between doctrine and policy.
Church leaders struggling to accurately and completely interpret and understand a point of “doctrine” is far different from the issue I have raised, i.e., will God allow the President of the Church to authoritatively state something is God’s will when it isn’t God’s will? Would God allow multiple Presidents of His Church over a 126 year period to erroneously continue to state it is God’s will when isn’t?
Amazing article, John. Thank you. John Reynolds’ point may be better said as: Some of the 9 LDS Church Presidents between Pres Young and Pres Kimball authoritatively stated God instituted the Priesthood ban and therefore only God could remove it. The official 1949 Church statement said: “It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization . . . .” The 1969 official statement said: Our living prophet, President David O. McKay, has said, “The seeming discrimination by the Church toward the Negro is not something which originated with man; but goes back into the beginning with God…. “Revelation assures us that this plan antedates man’s mortal existence, extending back to man’s pre-existent state.” President McKay has also said, “Sometime in God’s eternal plan, the Negro will be given the right to hold the priesthood.” Until God reveals His will in this matter, to him whom we sustain as a prophet, we are bound by that same will. Priesthood, when it is conferred on any man comes as a blessing from God, not of men.” Pres McKay petitioned God to remove the ban and said God told him it was not yet time. In 1974, Pres Kimball stated: “I am not sure that there will be a change, although there could be. We are under the dictates of our Heavenly Father, and this is not my policy or the Church’s policy. It is the policy of the Lord who has established it, and I know of no change, although we are subject to revelations of the Lord in case he should ever wish to make a change.” (Kimball, Spencer Kimball and the revelation on priesthood, https://byustudies.byu.edu/article/spencer-w-kimball-and-the-revelation-on-priesthood/#footnote-216-backlink; David Mitchell, “President Spencer W. Kimball Ordained Twelfth President of Church,” Ensign 4 (February 1974): 6.) Official declaration 2 says God heard our prayers and the “long-promised day has come when [every faithful man may receive the Priesthood].”
To now say the Priesthood, God’s sacred authority, and the profound Priesthood power available through temple ordinances and covenants were withheld from a particular race (lineage) for 156 years and through 9 prophets because of man’s erroneous racist beliefs seems to undermine the very foundation upon which the Church is established, i.e., revelation since multiple prophets declared it was due to revelation. Are we to say they were wrong?
While we do not know the reason(s), do we trust the repeated authoritative statements from our Prophets and church Presidents regarding the source of the policy? Thanks again for a wonderful, insightful article that finally seems to make sense of the verses in Abraham 1.
We know that the priesthood and temple ban on Black people was not Joseph Smith’s policy, and only began after his death, despite Orson Pratt’s vigorous opposition to such a change.
We also have the words of Elder Bruce R. McConkie to chew on:
“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, and people write me letters and say, ‘You said such and such, and how is it now that we do such and such?’ And all I can say to that is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. 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.” https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/bruce-r-mcconkie_alike-unto-god-2/ .
Thank you for your comment, Robert, but I’m not sure it addresses my point. Elder McConkie’s statement you cite specifically addressed comments regarding when Blacks would receive the priesthood- a completely different issue than whether the ban was inspired by God. Moreover, whether the ban began with Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, or another President and Prophet doesn’t answer whether that Prophet and the many who followed him supporting the ban and President Kimball, who lifted the ban, were inspired. Living Prophets often receive revelation regarding policy changes that run contrary to prior Prophets’ inspired policies. Such is the blessing of living Prophets and continued revelation.
The fundamental question still remains: Was the ban and its continued existence for some 156 years and its revelatory lifting in 1978 inspired by God through His living Prophets? I cited fairly strong evidence in my initial post that at least 9 Prophets unambiguously believed it was inspired.
It wasn’t 156 years. More like 133 years at most. As for the unambiguous notion of inspiration, that doesn’t explain why Pres McKay had the Church Archives carefully searched for any sign of a revelation on the subject and could find none. The only reason he did not open a Black African mission and begin ordaining Black men was because his close friend Joseph Fielding Smith advised him that he needed a revelation — probably wise advice, given the cultural situation in America at the time. Realpolitik, you know.
As to Elder McConkie’s statement, I take it much more broadly than you. It is no surprise to me that prophets might disagree, just as they did in the Primitive Church, and throughout much of the Old Testament.
Thanks for setting my math straight. From when Brigham announced the ban in 1852 to the1978 revelation is 126 years, not 156. Still, a very long time and through many different Prophets. I don’t see anything in Elder McConkie’s statement suggesting a broader sweep beyond his explicitly stated meaning and intent. I would love to read more about the President McKay history you reference. Could you cite your source? In any event, President McKay sought God’s approval to lift the ban and was told by God, not yet. Like many of the other Prophets seeking God’s inspiration, President McKay would need to study it out in his mind and conduct his own due diligence. Regardless of any “cultural” apprehensions, the history strongly indicates President McKay would have lifted the ban had God approvingly answered his petition. That there is no “revelation” declaring the ban does not mean God’s Prophet Brigham Young and the numerous subsequent Prophets who reaffirmed it until God lifted it were not inspired by God. Most “policies” and policy changes lack a “revelation” but are nonetheless inspired changes directed by God through His Prophet. Do we have a “revelation” instituting the ordinance of baptism for the dead? Paul references it and Joseph Smith described it and gave guidance on how it should be done in several sermons and letters, but we have no “revelation” from God on it, do we? Nonetheless, the ordinance was authoritatively instituted by God’s Prophet under His inspiration. In the end, if we don’t believe God inspired His Prophets regarding Blacks and the priesthood, do we instead believe God sat idly by while His prophets wrongfully denied precious priesthood authority and temple blessings to an entire population because His Prophets were racists? Yet at least some of His Prophets authoritatively declared it was God’s will and only God could change it. This seems to undermine the very foundation on which the Church is built. Sure, Prophets are fallible, but will God allow the President of the Church to authoritatively state something is God’s will when it isn’t? Not just one Prophet, but multiple Prophets over 126 years? Would we place much confidence in a Church led by such Prophets? If the current Prophet were to say those prior Prophets were wrong- that God did not inspire the ban or its continuation for 126 years – who is to say the current Prophet is “right”? Perhaps the next Prophet would say the current Prophet was wrong and the prior Prophets were right. And so on….
Great article. You address what is probably the single most thorny theological issue raised in scripture: the issue of race/ethnicity/priesthood. I hope your solution for this constellation of problems is widely adopted. As I read the article, you make two critically important and related points.
First, in the eternities (which is what ultimately matters) priesthood is inherently familial. It is a power that seals us all into the kind of eternal community that is signified by a prayer circle or the arcing circle of sealed couples we see reflected in the facing mirrors when we kneel at the sealing altars of the temple. Familial priesthood is the priesthood paradigm. Ecclesiastical priesthood–including all offices in the Church–are temporary and atypical manifestations of priesthood that disappear after this life. So it is unsurprising that scriptures emphasized the connection between lineage and priesthood. That emphasis was consistent with the ultimate nature and purpose of priesthood.
Second, with the possible exception of lineal descendants of Aaron, through time all of us have lost our connection to lineage priesthood because one of our ancestors broke the seal that makes us a member of the divine community. As you note, we cannot inherit our place in the community from ancestors who are not members of it. So everyone (or almost everyone) is cursed at some point in their ancestral line. And all of us have the power to make ourselves and our descendants accursed, even if we are born in the covenant. We break the seal if we are unfaithful to the familial priesthood legacy we have inherited when born in the covenant.
I think those two principles provide a theological framework that puts all of us equally in or out of the kingdom based on our individual choices and degree of faithful participation in temple ordinances. If we keep those principles in mind, we can read most of the troubling passages in scripture as reflecting the importance of familial priesthood or as political rhetoric, used illegitimately by people in power to delegitimize territorial and governance claims of disfavored rival peoples, e.g., Canaanites. The bottom line: thanks again for providing a framework within which each of us can understand that all of us have been severed at some point from the divine community and that all of us may be grafted in again along with all of our faithful descendants if we participate in temple ordinances that seal us into the community of the redeemed, into the family of our Heavenly Mother and Father, who are the terminus of the line of sealings effectuated in the temple.
Dear Brother Thompson,
Excellent article and a well made argument. I was more interested in the explanations to what happened with Ham as it relates to his Egyptian posterity, but I really enjoyed the discussion of inheritance couched in the framework of covenants. Especially since I am reading Dr Mulhestein’s book Let God Prevail.
I note a typo where you reference Alma 41, seems like there’s an extra -.
You mention a potential “high priest” (kohen gadol) at the Jewish temples of Elephantine and Leontopolis, Egypt, but in each case these would merely be chief priests from the lineage of Aaron within the Tribe of Levi, and even the D&C defines them as lineal Aaronic priests only. Aaronide Kohanim within the Tribe of Levi continue to serve the Jewish community today.
How would they differ, if at all, in authority, from Moses’ father-in-law Jethro, the Priest of Midian (kohen), or from the High Priest of Re at Heliopolis, Egypt (kohen), who was the grandfather of Ephraim & Manasseh (Gen 41)? Indeed, how would the lineage of Ephraim & Manasseh be affected by their mother being the daughter of an idolatrous priest? If, as you emphasize, all the Egyptians hail from Egyptus (Zeptah, Daughter of Ptah), where does that leave generic Egyptian priesthood? Even if, as you suggest, the Canaanite Hyksos were in charge in the Delta during the time when a Pharaoh arose who didn’t know Joseph?
Just a few of the questions which I wish you had clarified in this article.
All LDS prophets including Spencer Kimball insisted that the practice of denying the Priesthood was the correct one. Spencer Kimball said he would maintain the practice unless the Lord declared otherwise. The Lord evidently knows how to optimise the chances for his children to inherit the best degree of salvation and acts accordingly to give us the most suitable earthly experiences for that end. If that means no chance of hearing the Gospel in this life, as is true for most of the people who have come to earth in the past, then that is part of the plan. We may not know exactly why these things are so, but we need to trust the Lord’s decisions as to when his children hear the plan or have the chance to receive the priesthood
I think you are mischaracterizing Pres. Kimball and others by claiming they “insisted that the practice of denying the Priesthood was the correct one.” They certainly felt it required divine direction to change the policy, but I think historical sources demonstrate that they struggled to understand its purpose and existence, as we still do today.
Can you please point me to any evidence that top leaders prior to 1948 stuggled to understand the purpose of the priesthood ban? I am familiar with Orson Pratt’s views, but not anything from the first presidency between 1880-1948 indicating that they had any issues with the priesthood ban which they apparently believe origionated with God as revealed to Joseph Smith. Very greatful if you can point out the struggle that you refer to in your comment.
Enemies of the Church often make the false claim that Latter-day Saint theology is grounded in the infallibility of its leaders. As noted by Pres Dieter Uchtdorf in 2013, “to be perfectly frank, there have been times when members or leaders in the Church have simply made mistakes. There may have been things said or done that were not in harmony with our values, principles, or doctrine.
“I suppose the Church would only be perfect, if it were run by perfect beings. God is perfect and his doctrine is pure. But he works through us, his imperfect children. And imperfect people make mistakes.” https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2013/11/saturday-morning-session/come-join-with-us.html?lang=eng#title1 .
I would appreciate it you would consider responding to the origional question rather than changing the topic.
With respect to infallability, we are taught by the Lord’s mouthpiece President Nelson in 2020 in response to the question “President Nelson, would you ever lead anyone astray?” Response “Oh, no. That’s not what prophets do, is it? Some of them have said, if the President of the Church should ever lead people astray, God would take him away. So I’d like to stay here. And I won’t lead you astray. ” https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/media/video/2020-05-0030-follow-prophets-they-speak-for-god?lang=eng&alang=eng&collectionId=9e790dc7ca744028bf6f1e1e4676fd60 This apparent contradiction with the other statements which you quoted might lead to some confusion on the part of both members and non-members alike.
Regrettably, President Uchtdorf fails to clarify the “mistakes,” “misstatements,” or the “church leaders” he references. Until he is willing to say it, I’m not sure we should do what he refused to do and assert he is referencing the priesthood ban in any way.
In any event, we don’t need an Apostle’s statement to know all church leaders are fallible. That mere declaration does not answer or even specifically address whether the priesthood ban, which was authoritatively stated in 1852 by God’s Prophet, authoritatively reiterated and reaffirmed by at least 9 successive Prophets over 152 years despite some of them pleading for God’s inspiration to lift the ban, and finally lifted by God’s Prophet in 1978 after he authoritatively declared God had inspired such action, was inspired by God.
Simply stating the obvious-that all people including church leaders, are fallible- does not begin to address that question.
Speaking of fallibility, I mistakenly typed 152 years instead of 156 years in my last reply. My apologies.
1978 – 1852 = 126 years, not 156 years.