254 replies to this topic

[Jeff K.]

A very good, very nuanced post.

[Zeta-Flux]

I found the post interesting, but in my opinion it didn't address some of the stronger critiques available.  Also, while not full of racism like (the way) Br. Bott's ideas (were presented), it was still plainly trying to use personal theories to try and understand an unclear past.

[Brian 2.0]

DarkScythe, on 16 March 2012 - 03:52 PM, said:

the ban itself, is not racist or wrong but there were a lot of people that were racist and wrong.

I agree with Cinepro's disagreement with this.

DarkScythe,  what you need to define in this statement is what you think "racist" means to make sense of your statement.  Also... the original poll may need to do this becuase I think we have people defining "racist" differently

Some people read "racist" and see "hate/look down on/think less of black people" and say "no, it wasn't racist.   Nor am I racist"

Some people read "racist" and see "using racial discrimination" and say, "yes, it was racist."

If the first statment was restated as this, would it change anyone's vote?  "The ban was racial descrimination, pure and simple."

Would ANYONE like to refute that the ban was Racial Descrimination?  Anyone?

If no one would like to refute that the Ban was racial descrimination, then the agrument becomes "Can racial descrimination ever be right, or it is always wrong to racially descriminate?"

That's the real question we're talking about here.

[Jeff K.]

Isn't any ban discriminatory?

We don't know what the basis for the ban is, so the argument seeking a "refutation" for one position or another is fallacious since you cannot refute what you do not surely know.  It is the knowledge of why something occurs that allows us to refute or accept, not the speculation when it isn't known.

Your logic then attending to the question can some sort of discrimination ever be right?  The answer is that sometimes it was considered so, even by Christ.  The Samaritans come to mind.

[Zeta-Flux]

Brian 2.0, on 19 March 2012 - 11:16 AM, said:

If no one would like to refute that the Ban was racial descrimination, then the agrument becomes "Can racial descrimination ever be right, or it is always wrong to racially descriminate?"

That's the real question we're talking about here.

No.  We cannot talk about that issue on this board.  We can only give our opinion about whether or not we think the ban was of God or not.  Trying to justify racial discrimination is viewed as race-baiting, and is a punishable offense.

[Brian 2.0]

Zeta-Flux, on 19 March 2012 - 11:25 AM, said:

No.  We cannot talk about that issue on this board.  We can only give our opinion about whether or not we think the ban was of God or not.  Trying to justify racial discrimination is viewed as race-baiting, and is a punishable offense.

I'm truly not tryin to race-bait... honesty...  nor do I want to have anyone try to justify racial discrimination...

But the question is simple.

Is the ban racial discrimination?  I woiuld say yes, I don't know how anyone could say no.  Please challenge this if you believe otherwise.

Then the only question we are allowed to talk about is whether or not this racial discrimination policy came from God.  I would also say no.  Please challenge this if you believe otherwise.

My  questions, and answers, in case I'm not being clear.

Q1:  Is "the ban" racial discrimination?   A:  Yes
Q2:  If you answered Yes to Q1, did this racial discriminaton ban come from God?  A:  No.

Edited by Brian 2.0, 19 March 2012 - 11:35 AM.

[thesometimesaint]

Brian 2.0:

Yes it was racial discrimination. However that answer in and of itself adds nothing to the discussion. The WHY'S, WHEREFORE'S, and JUSTIFICATIONS for that discimination are needed to flesh out the discussion. Part of the problem is that Race is a difficult issue to pin down, and was/is often conflated with nationality. In the Gospel sense we are all alike we are all children of the same God. He values no person above that of an other. Equally we do know that he sets the rules for whom has the Priesthood and when. That in times past certain families, tribes, sects, had had exclusive powers of the Priesthood. We don't know the WHY'S, and WHEREFORE, and that the JUSTIFICATIONS had turned out to be just wild haired Speculations.

I know of exactly ONE member who wasn't thrilled with the OD2, out of all the members that I know. Its been 30 years + now since OD2. It is past time to move on.

[Brian 2.0]

If you answer Q2 with "we don't know"  then you are saying you believe in God that COULD use racial discrimination, even if only for certain periods of time.  If you didn't believe in a God that uses racial discrimination ever, then then there is no reason to say "we don't know" because it obviously didn't come from God.

[thesometimesaint]

Brian 2:

We have Scripture, namely the bible, that has discrimination in it as directed by God. If we believe the Bible to be true, and the Saints do, do we have the authority to apologize for God?

Edited by thesometimesaint, 19 March 2012 - 11:47 AM.

[Brian 2.0]

thesometimesaint, on 19 March 2012 - 11:39 AM, said:

Brian 2.0:

Yes it was racial discrimination. However that answer in and of itself adds nothing to the discussion. The WHY'S, WHEREFORE'S, and JUSTIFICATIONS for that discimination are needed to flesh out the discussion. Part of the problem is that Race is a difficult issue to pin down, and was/is often conflated with nationality. In the Gospel sense we are all alike we are all children of the same God. He values no person above that of an other. Equally we do know that he sets the rules for whom has the Priesthood and when. That in times past certain families, tribes, sects, had had exclusive powers of the Priesthood. We don't know the WHY'S, and WHEREFORE, and that the JUSTIFICATIONS had turned out to be just wild haired Speculations.

I agree with what you are saying, but believing in this God is believing in a God that practices discrimination (racial, tribal, sexual).   And for some, the REASONS don't matter, becauase there is NEVER a reason to them that makes it okay.  There is not an option where a WHY, WHEREFOR, or JUSTIFCATION that can make it okay.

So for a lot of people, the thought that the ban came from God, REGARDLESS OF THE REASONS, is unacceptable, because the God they want to believe in would never use racial descrimination.

EDITED FOR TYPOS

Edited by Brian 2.0, 19 March 2012 - 11:53 AM.

[Brian 2.0]

thesometimesaint, on 19 March 2012 - 11:46 AM, said:

Brian 2:

We have Scripture, namely the bible, that has discrimination in it as directed by God. If we believe the Bible to be true, and the Saints do, do we have the authority to apologize for God?

Yes... and I am saying I do not believe in the discrimination direction by God in the scriputures that you speak of.  I refuse to believe in a God that does that.  I don't want to believe in a God that does that.

But I belief you can believe in the Bible and think that those discriminations directed by God in the Bible actually came from the imperfect men who practiced it and NOT from God.  Basically, take the exact same stance that a lot of poeple take in regards to The Ban.

[Brian 2.0]

thesometimesaint, on 19 March 2012 - 11:46 AM, said:

Brian 2:

We have Scripture, namely the bible, that has discrimination in it as directed by God. If we believe the Bible to be true, and the Saints do, do we have the authority to apologize for God?

You can believe the Bible to be "true" and not believe those discriminations came from God
just like you can believe the LDS Church to be "true' and not believe the ban came from God

[thesometimesaint]

Brian2:

Discrimination in and of itelf is neither good nor bad. It is how it is applied. There may have been good reason(s) for limiting the Priesthood to just the first born sons of the High Priests of the Tribe of Levi. I don't know them but they were there. Just as I don't know the reason(s) why Christ limited his Priesthood to just a few Jews during his mortal ministry.

For me either this Church is what it claims to be; a Restoration of the Gospel of Jesus the Christ with His Power and Authority, or it just another man madeup religion that will slowly fade from existance in the vast sands of time.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Hmm. Old conversations resurrected, happening over and over again. Arguments going round and round in a circle, with no resolution in sight. Such continual déjà vu that one considers dropping a toaster in one's tub just to end the perpetual agony. I could swear that I've seen this before, but where? Where?

[Ares]

We have made an editorial decision not to allow this site to propagate theories about why the priesthood ban took place in opposition to the very clear announcements made by Church authorities in recent weeks.  Please see the pinned announcement at the top of this forum before commenting on this topic again.

On the Groundhog Day reminder this is a good place to close this thread.