SeekingUnderstanding

Yes. I’m saying that once internal (via church members questions, questions about ordinations in Brazil and other areas where mixed races were common) and external pressure started to mount, church leaders began to seriously look at this issue. They used this quote out of context to push a narrative that the priesthood ban was temporary, and would end in the Lords time as foretold by Brigham Young. They left off (very intentionally in my opinion) the part where Brigham Young said exactly when the ban was foretold to end.

Since it is the source of “the long promised day” prophesy, I’d say it was pretty well known (just selectively edited).

CFR, please. ““The Lord told Cain that he should not receive the blessings of the priesthood nor his seed, until the last of the posterity of Abel had received the priesthood, until the redemption of the earth,” Young intoned to the legislators. “If there never was a prophet, or apostle of Jesus Christ spoke it before, I tell you, this people that are commonly called Negroes are the children of old Cain. ...Were the children of God to mingle their seed with the seed of Cain, it would not only bring the curse of being deprived of the power of the priesthood upon themselves but entail it upon their children after them, and they cannot get rid of it.” Here Brigham Young declares the revealed doctrine invoking his prophetic mantle. As for the rest of your post, I find it most unconvincing. Find me something written in the 1950’s stating that the priesthood ban had no revelatory backing or scriptural provenance. You won’t find anything. I have no doubt that if the church makes a change here that the apologists in decades to come will have no problem showing that the church’s discrimination against LGBTQ members had no scriptural or revelatory provenance. There are liberal members in the church today making these very arguments.

This is not true. Brigham Young claimed revelatory provenance for the ban. And there are way more scriptures justifying the ban than there are justifying discrimination against LGBTQ people. The Book of Mormon establishes that God uses skin color as a mark of a curse. The iBook of Abraham establishes the doctrine that certain lineages are banned from the priesthood. The Book of Moses establishes that the descendants of Cain were cursed with a black skin and that Adam’s other descendants did not intermarry with them. The intermarriage theme is further supported by the Book of Mormon narrative where Lamanites skin color s was designed to not be enticing for the Nephites. Further there is statement after statement in talk after talk by general authorities expounding on this doctrine. The idea that the ban lacked a scriptural basis is revisionist history at its finest.

And where do the members learn from? Why hasn’t the book miracle of forgiveness been officially disavowed? I used to work for a major corporation and participated in accident investigations. A couple of decades before I came into my role, industry figured out that blaming individuals, the low man on the totem pole was pointless. It didn’t reduce anything. What led to huge reductions in incidents and injuries was addressing system wide problems that led to individuals failings. The church (which teaches leader fallibility) has such a toxic relationship with actually admitting fallibility (“we don’t apoligize”) that it allows things like the miracle of forgiveness to fester instead of admitting that the teachings of a prophet were really flawed (we all make mistakes). As another example consider racism in the church. Because the church never disavowed the racist doctrine of past leaders as late as the 2000’s professor Bott was still teaching it at BYU, and Mormon Doctrine was still being sold at deseret book. If the church had just disavowed it all in 1978 (like they finally did in the essay) how much pain could have been saved. Unless church leaders take active visible steps to change things they own what members do in their name.

Letting someone into your room is not inviting sexual assault (which is what my niece seemed to be implying). Addressing your question, when BYU investigates it’s rape victims (which gladly they discontinued after the practice came to light a couple years ago) and then punishes them with suspension or kicking them out, do you think that encourages them to report and get help or not? The article I linked to (and many more like it) show that men at BYU actively threaten their victims with reporting to the honor code office if they are reported. This system of perverse incentives that enables rapists and disempowers victims was awful and with enough media scrutiny, BYU came to the same conclusion.

Where I sit, it is better to submit to and live through a rape than getting your self killed. Not to mention many women just freeze. I know I’m feeding a troll, but your attitude is horrible and terrifying. Luckily society and humanism is pushing the church away from views like yours and towards more just and wholesome values.

Just because it hasn’t happened to you doesn’t mean it’s not endemic. Are you familiar with the BYU honor code changes recently? The ones that basically until recently punished rape victims if they came forward for honor code violations? The way the BYU PD was basically integrated with the honor code office? Have you read articles like this: https://www.sltrib.com/religion/local/2017/07/27/how-outdated-mormon-teachings-may-be-aiding-and-abetting-rape-culture/ Just one story: How about Tad Callister’s recent address where called women walking pornography, and stated that in the end women get the kind of man they dress for? https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2014/03/the-lords-standard-of-morality?lang=eng There are a million modesty threads on this board where the faithful women talk about how damaging the churches approach to modesty is. Go read this: https://bycommonconsent.com/2016/04/28/rape-and-the-miracle-of-forgiveness/amp/ Go Google Elizabeth Smart and chewed gum. My niece is at BYU and was hanging out with my sons recently (who are both exMormons). They were shocked when she explained that if something happened to some of the rule breaking girls (who allowed boys into their dorm room) of course it would be their fault. My sons were outraged. Where’d she get that idea? This is pervasive in the church today.

I’m pretty sure the second sentence sets the terms whereby we can interpret “voluntary”. If we don’t “struggle” then it would have been better to die. I have no idea why you are even trying to defend this horrendous statement. Since we are providing context don’t forget this sentence just above: “Also far-reaching is the effect of loss of chastity. Once given or taken or stolen it can never be regained.” That anyone can still try and defend this trash makes me want to throw up.

I think an equally important question is how do Christians determine morality. Certainly not scripture since that justifies things that we find abhorrent today. Latter-day Saints can point at modern prophets, but they are forced to disavow the abhorrent things said and done by past prophets (raising the question what will be disavowed today). It seems to me that modern Christian ethics (the ones where heretics are no longer burned at the stake) were shaped and formed by humanistic ideas as much as the other way around.

Slavery is bad? Paul says stuff like “Slaves, be obedient to your human masters with fear and trembling, in sincerity of heart, as to Christ” Homosexuals can form romantic relationships just like straight people? Killing heretics is bad? (“If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, 'Let us go and worship other gods'... do not yield to him or listen to him. Show him no pity. Do not spare him or shield him... You must certainly put him to death. Your hand must be the first in putting him to death, and then the hands of all the people. Stone him to death... Then all Israel will hear and be afraid, and no one among you will do such an evil thing again.”)

Once you launch a huge ad campaign using the phrase “I’m a Mormon” and launch a movie called “Meet the Mormons” you’ve moved beyond tolerance to embracing. Your other point though is well taken. There has never been acceptance of the phrase “Mormon Church”

Exactly. Anyone remember ErayR? He just vanished. https://www.mormondialogue.org/profile/12644-erayr/content/?type=forums_topic_post&change_section=1 Making a public post also can help make the break official for those that feel like they are spending too much time here...

Based on your posts in this thread, I’m not sure you would be in a position to know. However, since I believe the church isn’t true, all I can say is carry on!

I think that is fair and I certainly think that’s how the word was originally coined. Language continually evolves though and people will naturally take shortcuts. It’s why people still use “Mormon” as a shortcut for Latter-day Saint. I still have not found a replacement for “Mormonism” and notice that around here the word “anti-Mormon” is still used even by those that object to the use of the word “Mormon”.