http://www.press.uillinois.edu/epub/books/walker/

Included in its entirety is a chapter by Armand Mauss entitled “Flowers, Weeds, and Thistles: The State of Social Science Literature on the Mormons.” Here’s the link:

http://www.press.uillinois.edu/epub/books/walker/05.html

More generally, I really enjoyed reading Prof. Mauss’ replies and comments–great idea, Greg. I think sales of The Angel and the Beehive (also published by Univ. of Illinois Press) will spike this week . . . which should help in recruiting future interviewees.

Readers of my various screeds will know that the topic of “blacks and the priesthood” is a long-standing historical and doctrinal interest of mine. I was never confronted with questions about this issue on my mission. Now that I’ve been meeting with the elders at least once a week for almost 3 years, I have had frequent occasion to ask them: “How do you guys handle questions from investigators or door contacts about the Priesthood ban?” I’m happy to report that not once has an elder tried to justify the policy by resorting to “Pre-Existence” explanations or Hamite curses. The most common response is for an elder to analogize the modern priesthood ban against blacks to the ancient priesthood restriction against all non-Levites. Whatever the deficiencies of this explanation (Are we a Restoration of New Testament Christianity, or of Ancient Judaism?), at least it is preferable to the racist theologies of yesteryear, in my opinion.

A few months ago, the Los Angeles Mission President invited a representative of the Genesis Group to give a presentation to a mission-wide conference of missionaries. Since then, I have heard a lot of references to its content from numerous elders. Not having attended myself, I can’t be sure of what the speaker said precisely, but it is clear that he was, at least in part, attempting to put to rest the racial “folklore” that had propped up the priesthood restriction. This is a very welcome development, in my view.

However, I had an experience Sunday night that really surprised me. The elders came over for dinner and correlation meeting, and afterwards we had a 3 hour conversation about a number of “deep doctrinal” and controversial historical topics that were on their minds – (I should point out that I do NOT do this with the elders as a general rule; I actually think it is inappropriate to converse with 19-year old missionaries in this manner, for the most part. However, this particular pair of elders really wanted to discuss what was on their minds, and they are both quite bright – one of them is the smartest, most sophisticated elder I’ve ever run across; He could hold his own at T&S, and he’s only 22) – One of the issues they raised was that of “blacks and the priesthood.” Specifically, the elders grilled me on my own views as to its divine (or non-divine) provenance, and we discussed many of the standard issues that surround this topic. But then, they told me something that really shocked me: The insisted, rather non-chalantly, that when asked about this topic by investigators, they candidly admit that the Priesthood Ban was an unfortunate historical accident! That it wasn’t revelatory in nature at all, but was rather an outgrowth of 19th Century racism that was perpetuated by later Church leaders, but that never really had a divine stamp of approval at all.

Now, I don’t need anyone to review all the arguments for me here; I’m quite familiar with them all. My question is this: Have we now arrived at a point in the Church where our representatives on the Front Lines (i.e. the missionaries) are able to make claims like this to their investigators? I didn’t think we were. And I must point out that these elders aren’t “rebels.” They sincerely believed that their conclusion was the unavoidable message of the Genesis Group speaker’s discourse. I then found myself in the awkward and unusual position (for me) of having to problematize their claims, given the risks I perceived in having elders make this claim to non-members (Do I really need to spell out these risks here?) I am all in favor of the efforts of Mauss, Bush, et al. to shed light on this troublesome historical issue, and I am completely sympathetic to what I understand to be their wishes for future LDS cultural and theological development. I completely agree that the traditional racial theologies and rationalizations should be jettisoned, even “officially” disavowed. But I wonder if the idea that the priesthood ban had no divine provenance – even granting my sympathies with it – is one that has a future among the General Membership, rather than merely on obscure blogs like this one.

Aaron B

Aaron B

The 1978 announcement changed policy but did not offer a detailed explanation of the basis for the change or the status of the many pre-1978 justifications (some of them scriptural) for the ban. The ban was certainly historical. Few would say it was fortunate. Nothing suggests it was it carefully planned, and most accounts point to the existence of black slavery in the South and particularly conflict on that issue in Missouri (certainly examples of historical accident) as having some impact. So “unfortunate historical acccident” works for me.

Maybe I’m out of the loop but do “most accounts,” at least current ones, really tie the priesthood ban to slavery and the Missouri conflict? I thought this was the old Stephen Taggert canard, which was laid to rest by Lester Bush in the ’70s. Perhaps it still has currency with some?

You ask “can one really be too honest”?

This question could easily be a thread all its own, but let me tackle it briefly in the context of my prior post… I’ve traditionally been a member of the “tell it like it is and live with the consequences” crowd, rather than the “Let’s be faith-promoting” crowd. However, I can’t seem to justify sending out 50,000 elders, armed with the “knowledge” that the Church was mistakenly perpetuating a misguided policy for 100+ years (assuming they were – I’m not officially endorsing that position). Maybe it’s just my old age, or my having to look at these issues in a new light, given my callings, but I’d rather have the elders saying “We don’t know” or “It’s complicated” than saying “the prophets couldn’t get their doctrine right” before an investigator even gets a chance to feel the Spirit.

(The “me” of five years ago would never have believed the “me” of today would type that last sentence).

Aaron B

Members have a vague sense that polygamy was a mistake, but generally shy away pursuing the implications of that assertion–they like thinking their leaders are infallible. Leaders have a vague sense that polygamy was a mistake, but the members’ belief in infallibility is such a convenience that they won’t rock the boat either. So there is no institutional willingness to identify and correct past mistakes (and members who try to do so individually are at risk of excommunication). So, naturally, mistakes persist.

Consider that the United States eliminated slavery and most of its vestiges, a huge undertaking that took a century and a civil war that nearly destroyed the country, faster than the LDS Church changed its priesthood ban policy, a change that was accomplished with nothing more than the President of the Church issuing a memo. Thurgood Marshall was on the United States Supreme Court before the LDS Church ordained an African American to its lowest priesthood office.

Anyway, I don’t see anything wrong with these elders’ teaching that. What are we going to do, start saying that it really was inspired? How are you going to talk your way through suggesting it is something other than an unfortunate historical accident, without making up some explanation, as we all know we shouldn’t be doing?

In the absence of some other explanation, asking new investigators to suspend judgment seems like a lot to ask, when for all we know it *was* just a historical accident. And asking them to suspend judgment is what you’re doing if you tell them “We don’t know”. I say, don’t make the missionaries’ job harder than it needs to be. If they’re ready to call it that, let them just call it a historical accident; anything else seems like cruel and unusual punishment.