Possibly the best thing I have read on the internet, ever.

But, in hind sight, not all these justifications can be seen as correct, hence they bear the culpability for some of my sense of betrayal.

From the Race and Priesthood Essay on lds.org:

“Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form.”

Here it is quite clearly suggested that the Church regards the past statements of Brigham Young and other prophets regarding blacks and the priesthood to have been wrong and racist. Think what you want to think, but your view that the ban is attributable to God’s revelations through the LDS prophets is out of line with the LDS church’s most recent statement on the issue.

One of the best books I have read in recent years about the influence of North American religious traditions on each other is Peter Manseau’s “One Nation, Under Gods.” I can’t recommend it highly enough. (Word caution: If you seek out this book, make sure you get the one written by Manseau. There are numerous books with the same or a similar title.)

And I share your views regarding “prophetic adaptation of environmental elements.” It provides a useful explanation as to why we do things a lot differently than those who have gone before us.

Now I think you are asking the right questions. It’s the same question Elder Packer rhetorically asked about whether homosexuality was irreversible: “Why would God do such a thing?” Elder Packer asked the question sarcastically, but it’s not really a sarcastic question. It’s THE question of the modern world. It is responsible for the rise of Humanism, where the worship of man has replaced worship of traditional theocratic gods.

Mormons think they can avoid the question by simply blaming everything bad that happens on human fallibility. This not only distorts our views on the good faith of our prophets, it blinds us to many of the paradoxes of religion, paradoxes we are going to have to deal with sooner or later.

“Rather than continuing to blame all the messiness of church history on our leaders, we should put the blame where it rightfully belongs: God”

So the leaders are less fallible than God? God is more to blame than the LDS church leaders? If God cannot be treated as the ultimate standard of truth and right, then what can? We should be more charitable to past LDS church leaders than God? This leads me to ask: who do you worship? The LDS church leaders or God?

“Even though President David O. McKay pushed for reform on racial matters, he was convinced that it would take a revelation to overturn the ban. Hugh B. Brown…believed otherwise. Brown reasoned that because there was no revelation that began the ban, no revelation was needed to end it. McKay’s position held sway, especially as McKay claimed he did not receive a divine mandate to move forward” (pg. 170).

He cites Prince’s book along with several other sources.

How about we say instead: “it was the product of prophets who did their best in the absence of clear direction or revelation on the subject.” That is the more charitable AND accurate assessment of the situation.

It is that absence of direction from God which is startling and problematic, but it needs to be considered. God allows lots of terrible things to happen in the world. We just thought he wouldn’t allow them to happen to his prophets and their teachings. But apparently, that is not the case. Rather than continuing to blame all the messiness of church history on our leaders, we should put the blame where it rightfully belongs: God. He could SO EASILY have made things self evident, clear, consistent, fair, just, and obvious. But He didn’t. He didn’t do it that way at all.

BUT

“Yet these huge blindspots exist”

So the prophets are both infallible and fallible. Sounds like an extreme case of doublethink to me.

As for priesthood ban, 1) was it racist? 2) is racism wrong? 3) was it a product of infallible prophets following God’s revelations? 4) was it a product of fallible prophets subject to cultural biases?

a) yes, yes, yes, yes = 3 and 4 are mutually exclusive. Logically inconsistent.
b) yes, yes, yes, no = God is racist and wrong
c) yes, yes, no, yes = prophets were racist and wrong
d) yes, no = we should probably be shouting you down (how else do we stamp out racism?)
e) no, yes = logically inconsistent with textbook definition of racism

You appear to fall in line with category a. You want to have your cake and eat it too. Category c is the healthiest view. Plus it is the most consistent with the Gospel Topics essay (although the essay should have come out more forthrightly about the doctrine being racist).

It’s honestly hard for me to imagine that prophets weren’t doing their best. What I’ve read and experienced of the character of the leaders of the church, is that these were deeply devout men who were VERY familiar with the experience of the Holy Ghost. On a weekly basis, these men dish out callings and make decisions carefully prayed and ratified by the Spirit. I think they feel the weight of their calling and take it very seriously.

When we cry “prophetic fallibility,” it creates the wrong impression about these men. These are men who trust in God and wait on Him. In the absence of specific direction, they do things as they have been instructed in the scriptures and the historical LDS traditions. In the scriptures, God intervenes in dramatic ways to make sure mistakes are not made: talking donkeys, angels swooping away golden plates, road to Damascus visions, etc. You can’t blame the brethren of the 1970s for refusing to acknowledge the possibility of fallibility over something as serious as the priesthood ban. God does not work that way according to how He presented Himself in the scriptures, and how God has continually spoken to them in countless smaller revelations throughout their lives.

Yet these huge blindspots exist. The existence of these blind spots is a metaphysical question, not a question of human error.