Priesthood Ban

[cinepro]

I don't think the priesthood ban, even though in my book wrong, lead the Church astray. The Church is still strong. The gosepel and Christ are still the center and even better, the Church leaders took away that ban thru a revelation.

$20 says you're not black.

[SkepticTheist]

Sorry, but we just don't agree. There's nothing more to say. Is my coming up with some other argument to refute this going to be convincing to you? I doubt it. That is slippery slope.

Well a lot of men were hung in Germany following WWII for this very concept. If it is false then these men were innocent and were murdered by American GI's, instead of executed for crimes against humanity for committing genocide.

I accept that we disagree but the idea and concept is far from unreasonable or illogical. It had been used numerous times in justice systems throughout the world and in international court. I feel deeply that this is inspired wisdom from God. If you feel that it is unreasonable or illogical I would love to hear your position.

[emeliza]

If you're discussing this topic, and haven't read this yet, please, either download it, print it, or just begin reading it. I can't stress this enough.

Will do. It is really long though so probably won't get to it until tomorrow.

$20 says you're not black.

Edit: Was being rude.

No, I am not black. Nor have I even been in a polygamous relationship. I think both the priesthood ban and polygamy were incorrect. I don't think either lead the Church astray. I think at least one if not both hurt the Church in some respects.

[LDSToronto]

Your reason for why you say it is not regrettable to the Church doesn't stand, because you are playing brain surgeon in saying that the Church thinks it isn't regrettable. You don't know the hearts of the authorities and can't get into their heads. Because any rational person can see that the Church is in a position where it cannot apologize, even if it wanted to. Because it would put itself in a position of having to accept possible liability to people that would want reparations. So no, there are many reasons why the Church should not apologize. Secondly, the church's official position is "we don't know." And it really doesn't know for sure. The historical record seems to indicate that it was MOST LIKELY Brigham Young. That doesn't prove without doubt. So until the Church's position officially changes to "Brigham Young was at fault" then they aren't going to say "we are sorry that Brigham Young was at fault."

"Any rational person" who can see the logic in your statement can surely see the logic in the statement, "the church has not demonstrated regret". That aside, let's move out of the realm of logic and into the realm of morality. Is it morally acceptable for the church to abstain from an apology because it may have to make restitution and accept liability for past actions? If it's morally acceptable for the church to do so, is it morally acceptable for me to abstain from apologizing for past actions because I may have to make restitution and accept liability?

Does this sound a bit like failing to repent? If the church can put off repentance, can I?

Similarly, for "was it wrong", the Church has to acknowledge it was Brigham Young at fault for them to then take the position that "it was wrong". Because first the Church needs a position on something that it acknowledges as fact before it can take responsibility. At this point, they feel obviously they have a rational reason to say "we don't know" and therefore they have a rational reason to not feel that an apology is needed.

You seem to indicate the rational reason for saying, "we don't know" is because the church could be found culpable and held accountable.

So it is a bit of unfeeling and uncharitable for you to say "So no, the ban wasn't a mistake. It was intentional, done without regret, and maintained by those who claim proper authority." Because you are trying to make it seem like it should be a simple thing for the church to (1) Admit Brigham Young was responsible and (2) then apologize for what Brigham young did. there are too many other considerations for it to be that simple. And therefore your attempt to captialize on the fact that the Church's position is "we don't know" in order to say that it was intentional and done without regret as fallacious, because there is a huge leap that has to be made from "I don't know" to "it isn't regrettable."

Whether it was Brigham's fault is not my argument - I'd guess there is much more culpability than just Brigham, but, that's a guess. I'm arguing that the church has exhibited behaviour that leads me to believe the ban was intentional, not regretful, and sustained by a majority of priesthood leadership. As you said, I can only speculate about motivation, but a careful reading of my post will show that I have only commented on that which can be observed.

H.

[SkepticTheist]

Ok. So, the people that are at fault are long dead, and people that perpetuated it didn't know better, but LDS 1986 guy thinks they should know better. So head hunters should stop head hunting even without the gospel preached to them. whatever.

Why should a church as an institution be held liable for actions from people generations ago? By that logic, we should all be guilty for Adam's transgression. Men are only responsible for their own transgressions. But this is precisely what you would have me do here. You want me to say that the church in its current day incarnation should be responsible for "sins" of the past and that the responsibility for those sins should be paid for in the modern day. Besides, what liability?

Legal liability and morality are two separate things. The church did no LEGAL wrong to anybody in denying blessings. Whether there was a moral wrong is beside the point if we are focusing in on only legal liability. That's like saying that some dude that is off his rocker that wants to live polygamy should be able to sue the church right now for denying him his extra wives, because he can't have all his "eternal blessings" in mortality right now that the church is denying him. How stupid is that? How is that a legal claim? The dude can go off and join the polygs if he wants what he thinks should be his blessings.

No, I'm saying that people that seek reparations would try to sue the Church if it changed its position. And it should not, because that position is a rational one. And I think it is a good position to avoid nutcases who would definitely try to sue.

Repenting of what?? Repenting of sins of people from the past that they aren't responsible for?

What you have "observed" is only behavior into which you want to read an interpretation.

"Any rational person" who can see the logic in your statement can surely see the logic in the statement, "the church has not demonstrated regret". That aside, let's move out of the realm of logic and into the realm of morality. Is it morally acceptable for the church to abstain from an apology because it may have to make restitution and accept liability for past actions? If it's morally acceptable for the church to do so, is it morally acceptable for me to abstain from apologizing for past actions because I may have to make restitution and accept liability?

Does this sound a bit like failing to repent? If the church can put off repentance, can I?

You seem to indicate the rational reason for saying, "we don't know" is because the church could be found culpable and held accountable.

Whether it was Brigham's fault is not my argument - I'd guess there is much more culpability than just Brigham, but, that's a guess. I'm arguing that the church has exhibited behaviour that leads me to believe the ban was intentional, not regretful, and sustained by a majority of priesthood leadership. As you said, I can only speculate about motivation, but a careful reading of my post will show that I have only commented on that which can be observed.

H.

[semlogo]

Certainly a Latter-day Saint in the 19th century should have known better than to be racist - the BoM clearly states that black and white are equal in the eyes of God.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Certainly a Latter-day Saint in the 19th century should have known better than to be racist - the BoM clearly states that black and white are equal in the eyes of God.

Amen!

2 Nephi 26:33

For none of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he doeth that which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile.

[SkepticTheist]

So then, how is it that those same people in the 19th century could read the book of Abraham in the pearl of great price that says pharaoh, a hamite could not have priesthood.... Just how should they reconcile these scriptures with that in the understanding of their day??????????????????

Certainly a Latter-day Saint in the 19th century should have known better than to be racist - the BoM clearly states that black and white are equal in the eyes of God.

[LDSToronto]

Why should a church as an institution be held liable for actions from people generations ago? By that logic, we should all be guilty for Adam's transgression. Men are only responsible for their own transgressions. But this is precisely what you would have me do here. You want me to say that the church in its current day incarnation should be responsible for "sins" of the past and that the responsibility for those sins should be paid for in the modern day. Besides, what liability?

It was your idea that the church can't apologize because it might be held liable for something, so perhaps you can explain it. Does this belief of yours, that the church as an institution should not be held accountable for the actions of it's leaders generations ago extend to all institutions (publicly traded companies, governments, other church's, etc)?

For instance, should the state of Illinois issue a statement of regret concerning Mormon expulsion and the murder of Joseph Smith Jr., when clearly it happened many generations ago? Or how about the Government of Canada's statement of apology to aboriginal students of residential schools, when clearly those events happened generations ago?

H.

[SkepticTheist]

The Church CAN if it wants to. Should it HAVE to? Absolutely NOT. So no, the Church should not have to if it deems that it doesn't want to. Nobody can rationally force it into that position. Again, this is slippery slope. Why should I talk about extending it to other institutions? That is a slippery slope fallacy, and so I don't think that I need to go that far in this discussion when it is confined to that one issue.

It was your idea that the church can't apologize because it might be held liable for something, so perhaps you can explain it. Does this belief of yours, that the church as an institution should not be held accountable for the actions of it's leaders generations ago extend to all institutions (publicly traded companies, governments, other church's, etc)?

For instance, should the state of Illinois issue a statement of regret concerning Mormon expulsion and the murder of Joseph Smith Jr., when clearly it happened many generations ago? Or how about the Government of Canada's statement of apology to aboriginal students of residential schools, when clearly those events happened generations ago?

H.

[Rivers]

I dunno. If I ever get to a point where I can read God's mind, I'll get back to you? As noted by nackhadlow, Edward Kimball's article is essential reading on this topic.

I also think that throwing around the accusation that Brigham Young was a bigot is rather uncharitable, particularly since he is dead and cannot defend himself.

I also think that people ought to provide references when they make claims about things someone allegedly taught, 'cause sometimes context matters.

[Rivers]

I also think that throwing around the accusation that Brigham Young was a bigot is rather uncharitable, particularly since he is dead and cannot defend himself.

I agree to an extent. I think that bigot is probably too strong of a word. The fact of the matter is this: Brigham Young lived in the nineteenth century America and he thought like someone who lived in that time and place. That's all there is to it. Even the great Abraham Lincold himself once said that whites and blacks shouldn't be considered equal.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

So then, how is it that those same people in the 19th century could read the book of Abraham in the pearl of great price that says pharaoh, a hamite could not have priesthood.... Just how should they reconcile these scriptures with that in the understanding of their day??????????????????

Yes, how could the apparent 'prophet of the Lord' and his fellow 'authorized mouthpieces of God' handle such a conundrum? I just can't seem to figure it out.

[SkepticTheist]

Ok. Now, your swipe at me assumes that they could have gotten revelation, and that assumes that it was in the mind of God to reveal it. It also assumes that they would have asked the right questions to ask for that revelation, which they did not. So my statement was based on the fact that back then they didn't have that light and knowledge, and in that day their assumptions were based on what they knew, and so, for all they knew, the Book of Abraham denied blacks the priesthood. So therefore, your petty swipe was unjustified.

Ed Goble

Yes, how could the apparent 'prophet of the Lord' and his fellow 'authorized mouthpieces of God' handle such a conundrum? I just can't seem to figure it out.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Ok. Now, your swipe at me assumes that they could have gotten revelation, and that assumes that it was in the mind of God to reveal it. It also assumes that they would have asked the right questions to ask for that revelation, which they did not. So my statement was based on the fact that back then they didn't have that light and knowledge, and in that day their assumptions were based on what they knew, and so, for all they knew, the Book of Abraham denied blacks the priesthood. So therefore, your petty swipe was unjustified.

Ed Goble

So they ran ahead of the Lord and taught for commandments the philosophies of men. How am I supposed to know that was the only incident? Seems Brigham did this a lot. So why am I chastised for having serious apprehensions about the claims of Brigham Young and his companions in leadership?

[SkepticTheist]

Ran ahead of the Lord you say? The Lord said nothing, and they did what they knew. Silly me, am I really suggesting that people were actually doing what they thought they knew? Ahead of the Lord you say? The Lord didn't say anything till over a hundred years later? what are they supposed to do in the meantime?

The only incident you ask, and you want to know if there was more? How would we know? That hasn't been revealed. We know for sure about the one issue. So if you truly use logic and think this through, I think that the obviousness of it all stares you in the face. So here, I will spell it out for you.

Because it seems to me that if you are reasonable, and you take the Articles of Faith as your guide for what mormonism believes, it says that many great things are yet to be revealed. If there is something that is not yet revealed, that means that either

(1) it isn't revealed yet, and we don't know about it, or

(2) it isn't revealed yet and we don't know about it or

(3) it isn't revealed yet and we don't know about it

Any one of those three choices are good options.

So, if something does get revealed later, it means:

(1) it either changes something, or

(2) it changes something, or

(3) it changes something, or any one of the other two options.

If something changes something it:

(1) either makes a change in the Church that we thought we knew before but didn't understand correctly, thereby overturning it or

(2) gives us something entirely new or unexpected that entirely gives us something new that we just didn't have before at all that is an entirely new addition that doesn't overturn anything.

Any one of those two options are good.

It so happens that the priesthood revelation did number one in that list.

That means that something that we were doing before got overturned.

And it also means that Joseph Smith himself gave us something in our scriptures to expect just that. So how is something that was given in the time of Spencer W. Kimball supposed to affect the leadership abilities of Brigham Young? Or are you arguing for backwards causality, something that physicists assure us is impossible?

Ed Goble

So they ran ahead of the Lord and taught for commandments the philosophies of men. How am I supposed to know that was the only incident? Seems Brigham did this a lot. So why am I chastised for having serious apprehensions about the claims of Brigham Young and his companions in leadership?

[LDSToronto]

The Church CAN if it wants to. Should it HAVE to? Absolutely NOT. So no, the Church should not have to if it deems that it doesn't want to. Nobody can rationally force it into that position. Again, this is slippery slope. Why should I talk about extending it to other institutions? That is a slippery slope fallacy, and so I don't think that I need to go that far in this discussion when it is confined to that one issue.

Boy, where do I start? Double standards? Not eating one's own dog food (repentance)? Yeeeesh. You're too easy a target, SkepticTheist; it would be unethical of me to continue this debate.

H.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Ran ahead of the Lord you say? The Lord said nothing, and they did what they knew. Silly me, am I really suggesting that people were actually doing what they thought they knew? Ahead of the Lord you say? The Lord didn't say anything till over a hundred years later? what are they supposed to do in the meantime?

The only incident you ask, and you want to know if there was more? How would we know? That hasn't been revealed. We know for sure about the one issue. So if you truly use logic and think this through, I think that the obviousness of it all stares you in the face. So here, I will spell it out for you.

Because it seems to me that if you are reasonable, and you take the Articles of Faith as your guide for what mormonism believes, it says that many great things are yet to be revealed. If there is something that is not yet revealed, that means that either

(1) it isn't revealed yet, and we don't know about it, or

(2) it isn't revealed yet and we don't know about it or

(3) it isn't revealed yet and we don't know about it

Any one of those three choices are good options.

So, if something does get revealed later, it means:

(1) it either changes something, or

(2) it changes something, or

(3) it changes something, or any one of the other two options.

If something changes something it:

(1) either makes a change in the Church that we thought we knew before but didn't understand correctly, thereby overturning it or

(2) gives us something entirely new or unexpected that entirely gives us something new that we just didn't have before at all that is an entirely new addition that doesn't overturn anything.

Any one of those two options are good.

It so happens that the priesthood revelation did number one in that list.

That means that something that we were doing before got overturned.

And it also means that Joseph Smith himself gave us something in our scriptures to expect just that. So how is something that was given in the time of Spencer W. Kimball supposed to affect the leadership abilities of Brigham Young? Or are you arguing for backwards causality, something that physicists assure us is impossible?

Ed Goble

I am glad I no longer have to perform the mental gymnastics you have to perform in order to defend Mormonism.

So you have no way of knowing if Brigham (or his successors) taught something erroneous until the Lord reveals it by some subsequent prophet? How can I trust anything said by LDS leaders if that is the case? How could I know or not if that prophet was wrong in saying the other prophet was wrong?

[SkepticTheist]

Boy, where do I start? Double standards? Not eating one's own dog food (repentance)? Yeeeesh. You're too easy a target, SkepticTheist; it would be unethical of me to continue this debate.

H.

Really? I'm the target?

I don't have anything to defend myself here, because I'm not the one in question. The church's position is the issue in this argument. Don't try to change the focus of the argument to be on me and my words. That is ad homeneim, shoot the messenger. I have nothing to do with what the Church chooses to do. Whether or not there are flaws in the Church's stance, that is not my problem. If you see problems with it, that is your problem, not mine. I don't care what you think. I only care that the Church has a rational reasoning evident in its posturing. And so now you will shoot back and say that I contradicted myself in saying that something that has fallacies in it is rational reasoning. I assert that if something has a purpose in what it does and what they are trying to accomplish by it, then it is logical and rational. This whole thing that the Church is navigating is messy.

I'm explaining the rationality as I see it behind what the Church is doing, but does that mean that I need to defend every logical problem in the Church's stance. If you see double standards in it, then I grant that to you. If you see whatever you see in the church's position, I grant that there are logical problems. I have no need to defend every bit of logical fallacy that is evident in the Church's positioning. If the Church has double standards in what it is doing here, I don't need to defend that. I'm telling you that I see good reasoning in what the church is doing, even if that logic has problems. Call that what you like. I don't need to talk about other institutions and whether I should personally think whether they should be able to do it too. I don't care. So why should I argue that? You were all trying to lead me on a slippery slope path. I refuse to go there. That is not my problem.

Ed

[Olavarria]

Was the priesthood ban the result of bigotry or was it really an inspired policy?

YES.

[SkepticTheist]

Boy, after I laid out that step by step in a logical path for you and even put emphasis on the extremely simple things for you in each step, you call that mental gymnastics. You really are a piece of work. Only a very unreasonable person could not follow the incredibly simple logic that I just laid out before you. Everything, every little nuance, that Mormonism believes or does simply does not have to be godsent and absolutely polished for it to be the Lord's Church. Just go wherever it is that you have gone and believe in your little world of Non-mormonism, whatever it happens to be, and I hope that it leads you to some measure of happiness. I have no more desire to deal with you.

I am glad I no longer have to perform the mental gymnastics you have to perform in order to defend Mormonism.

So you have no way of knowing if Brigham (or his successors) taught something erroneous until the Lord reveals it by some subsequent prophet? How can I trust anything said by LDS leaders if that is the case? How could I know or not if that prophet was wrong in saying the other prophet was wrong?

[Bikeemikey]

Seriously, though.

I know I'm just repeating myself, but for any and pretty much all questions concerning the history of the ban, and the revelation,read this article from BYU Studies, written by President Kimball's son, Edward.

Without straying into hyperbole, all the essential details and documentation are there concerning the full history of this practice, misconceptions, and the exact detailed process leading up to the 1978 Revelation.

It's not an overstatement to declare that this should be essential reading for building an informed opinion on this topic. It's powerful, exhaustive in documentation, and also very, very inspiring.

If you're discussing this topic, and haven't read this yet, please, either download it, print it, or just begin reading it. I can't stress this enough.

Thanks for posting that article. I just finished reading it. It is a tremendous piece. I agree, this should be required reading.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Boy, after I laid out that step by step in a logical path for you and even put emphasis on the extremely simple things for you in each step, you call that mental gymnastics. You really are a piece of work. Only a very unreasonable person could not follow the incredibly simple logic that I just laid out before you. Everything, every little nuance, that Mormonism believes or does simply does not have to be godsent and absolutely polished for it to be the Lord's Church. Just go wherever it is that you have gone and believe in your little world of Non-mormonism, whatever it happens to be, and I hope that it leads you to some measure of happiness. I have no more desire to deal with you.

OK

[semlogo]

So then, how is it that those same people in the 19th century could read the book of Abraham in the pearl of great price that says pharaoh, a hamite could not have priesthood.... Just how should they reconcile these scriptures with that in the understanding of their day??????????????????

Because it confirmed their cultural prejudices. We humans tend to ignore what challenges our cultural beliefs and latch on to what confirms them.

[David T]

Thanks for posting that article. I just finished reading it. It is a tremendous piece. I agree, this should be required reading.

My pleasure. Now just pay it forward, and share it with anyone who isn't familiar with the history.