42 replies to this topic

[Scott Lloyd]

Unfortunately, my thread was shut down before I could address the link to this blog by Joanna Brooks.

She writes:

Quote

Harboring questions and concerns about the commitment to racial equality on the part of a presidential candidate who belongs to a faith that has only in the last few months publicly acknowledged the errancy of its 130-year ban on ordination of men of African descent (and has never apologized for it, unlike other religions with racist histories) is not anti-Mormonism.

I think Brooks herself is in error here. My understanding of the recent Church statement is that it decries racism past and present both inside and outside of the Church, but that it does not acknowledge that the Church's pre-1978 policy itself was in error. I maintain that it is possible and rational for a member of the Church to be not racist but nevertheless to still believe that the policy was God-directed for reasons that, at this juncture, are known only to God.

Brooks is welcome to try to excuse or rationalize the behavior of her fellow idealogues, but in doing so, she ought to avoid mischaracterizing the position of the Church.

Edited by Scott Lloyd, 25 April 2012 - 11:57 AM.

[cinepro]

If President Hinckley meant what he said in 2006, then I think it's the most clear disavowal of the ban we can expect in our lifetimes:

Quote

Now I am told that racial slurs and denigrating remarks are sometimes heard among us. I remind you 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 of Christ. How can any man holding the Melchizedek Priesthood arrogantly assume that he is eligible for the priesthood whereas another who lives a righteous life but whose skin is of a different color is ineligible?

If the Priesthood ban was from God, then the answer to his question is "Because sometimes God commands it".  

And are there really any LDS Priesthood holders who, in 2006, thought blacks shouldn't have the priesthood?

Edited by cinepro, 25 April 2012 - 12:02 PM.

[Scott Lloyd]

cinepro, on 25 April 2012 - 12:01 PM, said:

If President Hinckley meant what he said in 2006, then I think it's the most clear disavowal of the ban we can expect in our lifetimes:





If the Priesthood ban was from God, then the answer to his question is "Because sometimes God commands it".  

Not in 2006, when President Hinckley made the statement.

Quote

And are there really any LDS Priesthood holders who, in 2006, thought blacks shouldn't have the priesthood?

Evidently there were, or President Hinckley wouldn't have found it necessary to make the statement.

[cinepro]

Scott Lloyd, on 25 April 2012 - 12:06 PM, said:

Evidently there were, or President Hinckley wouldn't have found it necessary to make the statement.

If the Priesthood ban was from God, then the question was poorly worded and superfluous.

Compare it to polygamy and OD1.  The Church encounters people who argue that polygamy should still be practiced, and the response is always based on the principle that God can command it in the past, but at this time He hasn't.

Consider if President Hinckley tried to counter modern polygamists by saying "How can any man holding the Melchizedek Priesthood arrogantly assume that he should have more than one wife?"  Does that question sound right to you?  Do you reflexively answer "Because sometimes God commands it?"

The reason it is wrong to think black men shouldn't have the Priesthood in 2006 isn't arrogance, it's because God has commanded that they should have it.   If "arrogance" is the problem, then why would it have been any less of a problem in 1924 than 2006?  

And since LDS men in 2006 obviously knew about the Official Declaration 2 in 1978, they would have to think that Declaration was in error in order to argue that black men in 2006 shouldn't have the priesthood (which is why I doubt anyone in 2006 was actually saying such things).  The problem wouldn't be "arrogance", it would be apostasy.

Edited by cinepro, 25 April 2012 - 12:22 PM.

[LDS_RM]

Unfortunately foe and friend alike have provided adequate grounds for Brooks to make her comment.

[Scott Lloyd]

LDS_RM, on 25 April 2012 - 12:19 PM, said:

Unfortunately foe and friend alike have provided adequate grounds for Brooks to make her comment.

There are never adequate grounds to attribute to the Church a position it does not hold.

Edited by Scott Lloyd, 25 April 2012 - 12:29 PM.

[Cobalt-70]

Scott Lloyd, on 25 April 2012 - 11:45 AM, said:

Unfortunately, my thread was shut down before I could address the link to this blog by Joanna Brooks.

I think Brooks herself is in error here. My understanding of the recent Church statement is that it decries racism past and present both inside and outside of the Church, but that it does not acknowledge that the Church's pre-1978 policy itself was in error. I maintain that it is possible and rational for a member of the Church to be not racist but nevertheless to still believe that the policy was God-directed for reasons that, at this juncture, are known only to God.

I normally agree with Brooks, but in this case, I don't read the church's recent statement as an acknowledgment of errancy. It falls short of that. And I don't think that any statement short of such an acknowledgment is going to be good enough. I think the church has to say "we were wrong" before anybody can move on from this issue.

Also, although I can't rule out your suggestion that maybe a rational, non-racist member of the church could believe that God is the author of the priesthood ban, I don't see how, in practice, that is possible. If you believe that God is the author of a policy that discriminates against black people based on their race, then God is racist until you can come up with a good non-racist theory otherwise, which seems impossible. Even if someone doesn't know why God discriminated on the basis of race, the fact remains that they believe God discriminated on the basis of race.

[Hestia]

Cobalt-70, on 25 April 2012 - 05:32 PM, said:

Also, although I can't rule out your suggestion that maybe a rational, non-racist member of the church could believe that God is the author of the priesthood ban, I don't see how, in practice, that is possible.

Do not accuse others of being irrational or racist by implication of their opinions or you are out of the thread.

[HiJolly]

Scott Lloyd, on 25 April 2012 - 12:25 PM, said:

There are never adequate grounds to attribute to the Church a position it does not hold.

Tell it to the Gospel Doctrine class in my ward, Scott!  Oh, how I wish you were right.

HiJolly

[Scott Lloyd]

HiJolly, on 25 April 2012 - 07:22 PM, said:

Tell it to the Gospel Doctrine class in my ward, Scott!  Oh, how I wish you were right.

HiJolly

I'm afraid I don't follow you. You may elaborate if you like. Meanwhile, I stand by my statement.

[Scott Lloyd]

Cobalt-70, on 25 April 2012 - 05:32 PM, said:

I normally agree with Brooks, but in this case, I don't read the church's recent statement as an acknowledgment of errancy. It falls short of that. And I don't think that any statement short of such an acknowledgment is going to be good enough. I think the church has to say "we were wrong" before anybody can move on from this issue..

Before "anybody" can move on from it? Many have already; I did so in June 1978. It's regrettable that others cannot, but making shrill demands for an apology won't change anything.

Edited by Scott Lloyd, 25 April 2012 - 08:26 PM.

[Scott Lloyd]

cinepro, on 25 April 2012 - 12:17 PM, said:

The reason it is wrong to think black men shouldn't have the Priesthood in 2006 isn't arrogance, it's because God has commanded that they should have it.   If "arrogance" is the problem, then why would it have been any less of a problem in 1924 than 2006?

Arrogance is always a factor when men try to second-guess God. In fact, that's arrogance in action.

Quote

And since LDS men in 2006 obviously knew about the Official Declaration 2 in 1978, they would have to think that Declaration was in error in order to argue that black men in 2006 shouldn't have the priesthood (which is why I doubt anyone in 2006 was actually saying such things).  The problem wouldn't be "arrogance", it would be apostasy.

Apostasy has arrogance at its root. There have always been murmurers and ark steadiers -- people who think they know better than apostles and prophets how to run the Church. Why not in 2006, and why not pertaining to this subject?

[Cobalt-70]

Scott Lloyd, on 25 April 2012 - 08:25 PM, said:

Before "anybody" can move on from it? Many have already; I did so in June 1978. It's regrettable that others cannot, but making shrill demands for an apology won't change anything.

Obviously, we haven't truly moved on, because we are still talking about it.

[zerinus]

Cobalt-70, on 26 April 2012 - 02:38 AM, said:

Obviously, we haven't truly moved on, because we are still talking about it.

Only you are.

[pcarthew]

Scott Lloyd, on 25 April 2012 - 11:45 AM, said:

Unfortunately, my thread was shut down before I could address the link to this blog by Joanna Brooks.

She writes:



I think Brooks herself is in error here. My understanding of the recent Church statement is that it decries racism past and present both inside and outside of the Church, but that it does not acknowledge that the Church's pre-1978 policy itself was in error. I maintain that it is possible and rational for a member of the Church to be not racist but nevertheless to still believe that the policy was God-directed for reasons that, at this juncture, are known only to God.

Brooks is welcome to try to excuse or rationalize the behavior of her fellow idealogues, but in doing so, she ought to avoid mischaracterizing the position of the Church.

I think Scott, that you would be hard pressed to find any racist comment from a Prophet of the restoration.  I know that many of the Prophets since Joseph Smith and Brigham had felt very trouble about the issue, especially David O Mckay. Cinepro's quote from President HInckley was a very powerful, I still remember when I heard it.

I remember when that revelation came that the Priesthood would go every eligible man here on earth no matter his race or colour I was so happy.  I think most members would have been too.  

Even the most critical of the church would find it difficult to find a racist word in the annals of the church, from the time of restoration until today.  That type of history would show that we are not racist...if we where you would find it with in the teachings of the church and the words of the prophets...that is the fair test.  Based on that we come up pretty clean.

For those who believe that we are guilty of being racist, we will never have the currency to repay the debt that has accumulated  in their mind, apology or not!

[The Nehor]

cinepro, on 25 April 2012 - 12:01 PM, said:

And are there really any LDS Priesthood holders who, in 2006, thought blacks shouldn't have the priesthood?

I knew one but he held the Priesthood only in the sense of having been ordained. He hasn't exercised it or been worthy of it in any meaningful way in decades. I expect it's the standard loser's need to have someone to look down on someone else in his case: "I may be a slacker and a covenant breaker but that guy shouldn't be allowed to make the covenant so I'm better then him." Admittedly that logic would have been idiotic even pre-1978.

[Xander]

Quote

I think Brooks herself is in error here. My understanding of the recent Church statement is that it decries racism past and present both inside and outside of the Church, but that it does not acknowledge that the Church's pre-1978 policy itself was in error. I maintain that it is possible and rational for a member of the Church to be not racist but nevertheless to still believe that the policy was God-directed for reasons that, at this juncture, are known only to God.

You are absolutely correct on this.

It is also correct to point out that the Church never refuted the recent comments by a BYU professor, as some have suggested. All it did was say his opinions were not official doctrine, pretty much. But the Church never said he was wrong.

[BCSpace]

Quote

I think Brooks herself is in error here. My understanding of the recent Church statement is that it decries racism past and present both inside and outside of the Church, but that it does not acknowledge that the Church's pre-1978 policy itself was in error.

The Church has said the same types of things for years about the ban, plural marriage, homosexuality etc.  Yet no changes in doctrine or admissions of error or apologies have been forthcoming.  There doesn't even appear to be a need for such.

Quote

I maintain that it is possible and rational for a member of the Church to be not racist but nevertheless to still believe that the policy was God-directed for reasons that, at this juncture, are known only to God.

That is the published doctrine.

[KevinG]

Xander, on 26 April 2012 - 06:30 AM, said:

You are absolutely correct on this.

It is also correct to point out that the Church never refuted the recent comments by a BYU professor, as some have suggested. All it did was say his opinions were not official doctrine, pretty much. But the Church never said he was wrong.

Perhaps a good public flogging as opposed to the censure would appease your desire for justice?

[Cobalt-70]

zerinus, on 26 April 2012 - 02:41 AM, said:

Only you are.

I didn't start this thread.