Pahoran Posted March 2, 2011 Posted March 2, 2011 Thank you Scott. I was referring to the story that Elder McConkie had told President Kimball that it didn't originate with Joseph Smith.See Edward L. Kimball, Spencer W. Kimball and the Revelation on the Priesthood, BYU Studies, 2008.Regardless of what "most historians" do or don't believe, we should never underestimate the creativity of Church leaders and apologists. It was, after all, Joseph Fielding Smith who told someone that there were two Elijah Abels in the early days of the Church, one white and one black, and that we were confusing the white priesthood-holding one with the black non-priesthood holding one.So I just want to make sure.Oh, I see. So when an LDS source makes what most people would regard as an almost certainly honest mistake of fact, the resident cynic-pro -- or uber-cynic-pro -- immediately leaps to the conclusion that he's being "creative."If you had one percent of his honesty, you could come right out and call him a liar.Pahoran: You can make the same points without the insults.But you don't, so you won't.Regards,Pahoran
cinepro Posted March 2, 2011 Posted March 2, 2011 See Edward L. Kimball, Spencer W. Kimball and the Revelation on the Priesthood, BYU Studies, 2008.Which page number?
Obiwan Posted March 2, 2011 Posted March 2, 2011 That's racist by definition. You're not doing the church any favors with this excuse. Better to clear the air and apologize than to make poor excuses.No it's not.... If it was "racist by definition" then it would have applied to ALL BLACKS.Blacks are blacks. Racism is based on "immoral" judgments and actions by individuals and otherwise.If you want to talk about only "part" of the technical Dictionary definition, then you're not talking about racism, you are talking something else, such as exclusivism, and exclusivism alone is not racism.Mormonism had an "exclusivity" policy, not a "racist" one.Same way Christ had an exclusivity policy in relation to the Jews.Same way only certain Tribes having the Priesthood was an exclusivity policy. In fact, the modern mormon policy was exactly the same as the ancient policy. The only difference is that "more" were given the priesthood in the modern version, rather than less.Not only that, but lot's of groups, businesses, etc. have exclusivity policy's, that doesn't mean they are racist, sexist, homophobic, or otherwise. Some other examples, felons can't be politicians, criminals can't be religious leaders, etc. Exclusivity exists all through society, such doesn't automatically make anything "bad" that needs to be apologized for.More importantly, Mormonism ALWAYS taught AGAINST racism and intolerance. A religion being racist, obviously wouldn't have taught such if that was the case. Thus, anti-mormons clearly indulge in a form of cognitive dissonance, believing one thing when the facts say otherwise.
zerinus Posted March 2, 2011 Posted March 2, 2011 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.Not as exhaustive as you seem to think. I still haven't read the article all the way through, but I searched it, and it doesn't seem to mention the subpoena that Spencer W. Kimball was issued in relation to the ban. More about that here.
Deborah Posted March 2, 2011 Posted March 2, 2011 How many posters were even alive when it was terminated?I was and so were several others on here. It wasn't that long ago?
semlogo Posted March 2, 2011 Posted March 2, 2011 No it's not.... If it was "racist by definition" then it would have applied to ALL BLACKS.Blacks are blacks. Racism is based on "immoral" judgments and actions by individuals and otherwise.If you want to talk about only "part" of the technical Dictionary definition, then you're not talking about racism, you are talking something else, such as exclusivism, and exclusivism alone is not racism.Mormonism had an "exclusivity" policy, not a "racist" one.Same way Christ had an exclusivity policy in relation to the Jews.Same way only certain Tribes having the Priesthood was an exclusivity policy. In fact, the modern mormon policy was exactly the same as the ancient policy. The only difference is that "more" were given the priesthood in the modern version, rather than less.Not only that, but lot's of groups, businesses, etc. have exclusivity policy's, that doesn't mean they are racist, sexist, homophobic, or otherwise. Some other examples, felons can't be politicians, criminals can't be religious leaders, etc. Exclusivity exists all through society, such doesn't automatically make anything "bad" that needs to be apologized for.More importantly, Mormonism ALWAYS taught AGAINST racism and intolerance. A religion being racist, obviously wouldn't have taught such if that was the case. Thus, anti-mormons clearly indulge in a form of cognitive dissonance, believing one thing when the facts say otherwise.I hate to be the one to break this to you, but African-American is a race. Race isn't just a function of skin color.
cinepro Posted March 2, 2011 Posted March 2, 2011 Not as exhaustive as you seem to think. I still haven't read the article all the way through, but I searched it, and it doesn't seem to mention the subpoena that Spencer W. Kimball was issued in relation to the ban. More about that here.The subpoena was only tangentially related to the ban.For those who didn't read the link, the problem stemmed from the Church's practice of using the Boy Scouts of America as the activity arm of the Aaronic Priesthood. In BSA, the Scout who leads all the other scouts is the "Senior Patrol Leader". Traditionally, the Church had the Deacon's quorum president also serve as the SPL. This obviously excluded any black Boy Scouts in LDS-chartered troops from serving as SPL. So the NAACP sued the Church on behalf of a black Boy Scout in an LDS Troop in Salt Lake City.After considering the matter, the Church changed the policy to allow different boys to serve as SPL and Deacon's Quorum President. Problem solved. (Frankly, we've had different boys as SPL and DQP in our ward, and it definitely isn't ideal as far as coordination and planning goes, and I wouldn't mind seeing the tradition reinstated now that the ban has lifted. But I digress.)The whole situation was hardly even a footnote to the larger issue of blacks and the priesthood (I would consider it more relevant to a history of the Church and Scouting), so I don't blame Kimball for leaving it out of his article.
cinepro Posted March 2, 2011 Posted March 2, 2011 I hate to be the one to break this to you, but African-American is a race. Race isn't just a function of skin color.Now I'm confused. Can someone tell whether or not Charlize Theron is or isn't an African American?
Senator Posted March 2, 2011 Posted March 2, 2011 Now I'm confused. Can someone tell whether or not Charlize Theron is or isn't an African American?I don't care....
zerinus Posted March 2, 2011 Posted March 2, 2011 The subpoena was only tangentially related to the ban.For those who didn't read the link, the problem stemmed from the Church's practice of using the Boy Scouts of America as the activity arm of the Aaronic Priesthood. In BSA, the Scout who leads all the other scouts is the "Senior Patrol Leader". Traditionally, the Church had the Deacon's quorum president also serve as the SPL. This obviously excluded any black Boy Scouts in LDS-chartered troops from serving as SPL. So the NAACP sued the Church on behalf of a black Boy Scout in an LDS Troop in Salt Lake City.After considering the matter, the Church changed the policy to allow different boys to serve as SPL and Deacon's Quorum President. Problem solved. (Frankly, we've had different boys as SPL and DQP in our ward, and it definitely isn't ideal as far as coordination and planning goes, and I wouldn't mind seeing the tradition reinstated now that the ban has lifted. But I digress.)The whole situation was hardly even a footnote to the larger issue of blacks and the priesthood (I would consider it more relevant to a history of the Church and Scouting), so I don't blame Kimball for leaving it out of his article.I believe it has more relevance than you think. The subpoena was very stressful on President Kimball (and no doubt on his counselors and the Twelve), and would have had a bearing on the Church's ultimate decision to lift the ban. But I believe there is more to it than that. There are signs that at that time concerted efforts were being made behind the scenes by some people of influence in the United States to try to embarrass President Kimball and the Church over the priesthood ban issue. The subpoena would not have been the end of the story if the ban had not been lifted. The enemies of the Church had discovered what they thought to be the Church's most vulnerable point, and they intended to make maximum use of it if they could. The lifting of the ban came just in time to deflect that threat. It is not inconceivable that the Lord had allowed that ban to continue until that time to nullify the plots by the enemies of the Church. If the ban had been lifted sooner, the enemies of the Church might have tried to hatch other plots to harm the Church. The deflection of their plots over the priesthood ban issue set back their efforts for a long time.
erichard Posted March 2, 2011 Posted March 2, 2011 .., This obviously excluded any black Boy Scouts in LDS-chartered troops from serving as SPL. So the NAACP sued the Church on behalf of a black Boy Scout in an LDS Troop in Salt Lake City....I thought it was because BYU would be kicked out of the WAC if the church did not lift the ban. I honestly do remember hearing this. Well, and that the Temple in Brazil was creating problems because of the ban.Richard
rpn Posted March 2, 2011 Posted March 2, 2011 I think post #111 is pretty funny in light of Edward Kimball's article which points out that one of the reasons it took Pres. Kimball so long is that he had to make sure it wasn't just that he wanted it to happen. Doesn't sound like he was particularly stressed by any of the extraneous issues, just on whether or not it was God's will.
semlogo Posted March 2, 2011 Posted March 2, 2011 Now I'm confused. Can someone tell whether or not Charlize Theron is or isn't an African American?Not by ethnicity, no. She's Caucasian/German.
kolipoki09 Posted March 2, 2011 Posted March 2, 2011 Not by ethnicity, no. She's Caucasian/German.She's an Afrikaaner (Boer).
Pahoran Posted March 2, 2011 Posted March 2, 2011 I thought it was because BYU would be kicked out of the WAC if the church did not lift the ban. I honestly do remember hearing this.I'm sure you did hear it. Rumours start, and they soon take on a life of their own; and the earliest rumour someone hears is the one they remember the longest. Later on, when the rumours are shown to be without foundation, some of those who made up their minds based upon them start wondering about conspiracies and cover-ups. I call this the "shots fired from the grassy knoll" phenomenon.There were a couple of schools in the late 1960's that took their bat and ball and went home. The sports "protests" started dying away after BYU started granting "athletic scholarships," i.e. paying academic tuition for people based upon their ability to throw and catch things. Many or most of these "athletic scholarships," went to people with hereditary suntans. Apparently this was adopting a practice that was already so widespread that nobody thought to question it. I don't know whether the notion of "protesting" black athletes under the guise of "anti-racism" looked foolish, or if it actually occurred to any of the protesters to wonder what relationship the Priesthood has to "civil rights" (answer: none.) In either case, the sports "protests" were soon reduced to a few stubborn holdouts.Well, and that the Temple in Brazil was creating problems because of the ban.There is a small kernel of truth in that one. The Sao Paolo Temple, which the First Presidency had decided to build knowing the racial makeup of the Church in Brazil, was a topic of some discussion.Regards,Pahoran
USU78 Posted March 3, 2011 Posted March 3, 2011 I hate to be the one to break this to you, but African-American is a race. Race isn't just a function of skin color.I disagree. There is an American race (Churchill said so).
semlogo Posted March 3, 2011 Posted March 3, 2011 She's an Afrikaaner (Boer).Afrikaners (including distinct Boer subgroup) are an Afrikaans-speaking ethnic group in Southern Africa descended from almost equal numbers [9] of Dutch, French and German settlers whose native tongue is Afrikaans: a Germanic language which derives from Dutch.She's not of African ethnicity - anymore than white immigrants in America are Native Americans.
USU78 Posted March 3, 2011 Posted March 3, 2011 Not by ethnicity, no. She's Caucasian/German.No she's not. She's the descendant of Dutch/French Boers with some English in her background. On balance, she's African-American, as an African immigrant to the US.
semlogo Posted March 3, 2011 Posted March 3, 2011 No she's not. She's the descendant of Dutch/French Boers with some English in her background. On balance, she's African-American, as an African immigrant to the US.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlize_TheronTheron was born in Benoni, Transvaal Province, South Africa, the only child of Gerda Jacoba Aletta (n
USU78 Posted March 3, 2011 Posted March 3, 2011 It doesn't really matter if she's Hungarian or Swedish or Japanese, because she isn't ethnically African. She's not African American in any meaningful sense, as African-American is a synonym for the antiquated "negro." Charlize is not a "negro." That's really what we're talking about here. Trying to hid behind semantics involving skin tone or nationality is not honest. The ban was about ethnicity - and denying priesthood/temple entrance to a single ethnicity. It wasn't about white sons of immigrants living in Africa or non-Africans with dark skin.Good catch on the Krautish portion of her ancestry, although she's definitely Boer, which is principally a Dutch/Huguenot group that left Europe because of religious persecution [st. Bartholomew's Day Massacre, etc] by French Catholics under state sponsorship. The German is an afterthought for most Boers. Their promised land was in Africa, but European politics wouldn't leave 'em alone.But that's a rabbit hole, isn't it? Semlogo, the present invented taxonomy of "African-American" that excludes people whose ancestors were down by Joburgh since the early 1600s from being Africans . . . yet lumps people from all over a vast continent as though there were no differences between Xhosa and Guineans and Bushmen . . . is incoherent and dishonest. It is, moreover, quite irrelevant to the subject of why how and when the Priesthood Ban began and why how and when it ended.Besides that it's clumsy to say. It should go the way of "Afro-American," which replaced it back in the '60s because it was clumsy to say and never caught on . . .
Obiwan Posted March 3, 2011 Posted March 3, 2011 I hate to be the one to break this to you, but African-American is a race. Race isn't just a function of skin color.You mean "African" is a race. Yes, I'm well aware of that fact.But what actually makes the "ism"??? What makes the "bad"?There was little of the "bad" within mormonism, and since that is what makes racism, you just can't call it racist, no matter how much you wish to make PART of the dictionary definition of racism the "only" part, that being the part that someone is of a race, and then they are excluded.Actual racism has a 101 different characteristics separate from "exclusionism".What you are doing is no different than those who call Hitler from the "Right" simply because there was some Christianity in Mein Kampf, or some of his other actions were capitalist or similar to right ideology. The full facts is he as a Socialist, vastly way more left than right. Or a less tame example, calling Bush a leftist simply because he is a "social conservative", that is left on some social issues. Or how bout saying most blacks are actually conservatives because they tend to be social conservative, when every other aspect of themselves is liberal?In other words, I repeat again, you can't take one part of a definition at the "exclusion" of the rest, and then try to call it the same thing.Racism has clear characteristics, and "exclusivity" is a MINOR and only ONE PART of those characteristics.
Jason Posted March 3, 2011 Posted March 3, 2011 But that's a rabbit hole, isn't it? Semlogo, the present invented taxonomy of "African-American" that excludes people whose ancestors were down by Joburgh since the early 1600s from being Africans . . . yet lumps people from all over a vast continent as though there were no differences between Xhosa and Guineans and Bushmen . . . is incoherent and dishonest. It is, moreover, quite irrelevant to the subject of why how and when the Priesthood Ban began and why how and when it ended.She is in fact probably more "African-American" than most who would be called that here in the States, since she actually is originally from Africa, wheras most of them were born here, and so were their parents, and their parents, and so forth.Yes I am a Native American. My ancestors a few generations back might be described as "English-American", "Swedish-American", "Danish-American" and "Dutch-American", and I don't have any American Indian ancestors that I am aware of, but I and my father and his father were all born in this country.
semlogo Posted March 4, 2011 Posted March 4, 2011 Good catch on the Krautish portion of her ancestry, although she's definitely Boer, which is principally a Dutch/Huguenot group that left Europe because of religious persecution [st. Bartholomew's Day Massacre, etc] by French Catholics under state sponsorship. The German is an afterthought for most Boers. Their promised land was in Africa, but European politics wouldn't leave 'em alone.But that's a rabbit hole, isn't it? Semlogo, the present invented taxonomy of "African-American" that excludes people whose ancestors were down by Joburgh since the early 1600s from being Africans . . . yet lumps people from all over a vast continent as though there were no differences between Xhosa and Guineans and Bushmen . . . is incoherent and dishonest. It is, moreover, quite irrelevant to the subject of why how and when the Priesthood Ban began and why how and when it ended.Besides that it's clumsy to say. It should go the way of "Afro-American," which replaced it back in the '60s because it was clumsy to say and never caught on . . .Well, usually I just say "black people," but Obiwan wanted to make "black" about skin tone, which it isn't.
semlogo Posted March 4, 2011 Posted March 4, 2011 You mean "African" is a race. Yes, I'm well aware of that fact.But what actually makes the "ism"??? What makes the "bad"?There was little of the "bad" within mormonism, and since that is what makes racism, you just can't call it racist, no matter how much you wish to make PART of the dictionary definition of racism the "only" part, that being the part that someone is of a race, and then they are excluded.Actual racism has a 101 different characteristics separate from "exclusionism".What you are doing is no different than those who call Hitler from the "Right" simply because there was some Christianity in Mein Kampf, or some of his other actions were capitalist or similar to right ideology. The full facts is he as a Socialist, vastly way more left than right. Or a less tame example, calling Bush a leftist simply because he is a "social conservative", that is left on some social issues. Or how bout saying most blacks are actually conservatives because they tend to be social conservative, when every other aspect of themselves is liberal?In other words, I repeat again, you can't take one part of a definition at the "exclusion" of the rest, and then try to call it the same thing.Racism has clear characteristics, and "exclusivity" is a MINOR and only ONE PART of those characteristics.So, Jim Crow laws were "exclusionary" but not racist?
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.