Prez Candidate Huntsman Weighs In On Priesthood Ban

[David T]

The ban wasn't racist but it is hard to convince others of that not having a background in our doctrine.

BCSpace, the ban is racist by definition. It discriminates based on markers of African lineage/race. (both words have the same meaning, race coming from a word meaning 'roots'). You can try to say it's a "Good kind of racist", or a "Bad kind of racist", but that doesn't make it not racist by definition.

[Jaybear]

BCSpace, the ban is racist by definition. It discriminates based on markers of African lineage/race. (both words have the same meaning, race coming from a word meaning 'roots'). You can try to say it's a "Good kind of racist", or a "Bad kind of racist", but that doesn't make it not racist by definition.

I think his argument is that its based on lineage from Cain/Ham, not race. Of course, this requires that he believe that all those of the African race can trace their lineage back to Ham after the global flood. Plus, this "curse" doctrine strikes me as overtly racist folklore intended to rationalize bigotry.

[David T]

I think his argument is that its based on lineage from Cain/Ham, not race. Of course, this requires that he believe that all those of the African race can trace their lineage back to Ham after the global flood. Plus, this "curse" doctrine strikes me as overtly racist folklore intended to rationalize bigotry.

race = categorization of one's lineage.

The word comes from raza, or one's origins/roots.

Modern Spanish still uses the same word to refer to a tree's roots as it does to an individual's race or lineage.

[ldsfaqs]

BCSpace, the ban is racist by definition. It discriminates based on markers of African lineage/race. (both words have the same meaning, race coming from a word meaning 'roots'). You can try to say it's a "Good kind of racist", or a "Bad kind of racist", but that doesn't make it not racist by definition.

What you're doing is splitting hairs, and one of the known fallacy's.....

Everyone on the planet considers the word and the fruits of racism as "bad". Your trying to create this false dichotomy of the clinical root word is simply completely irrelevant to the issue, and nothing more than a diversionary tactic to avoid accepting the actual facts related to the Priesthood ban, that it was NOT the "bad" as you believe.

You're pretending like you're not calling it racist (the bad racist) by calling it racist (the good racist). Funniest thing.

The proper word you are looking for is "different"..... Different policy for different people, that is all. Little different than the policy related to women and the Priesthood, and certainly not different than past policies on the Priesthood in scriptural history. Segregate can also be a better word, but even it is starting to mean only something bad. There might be a more neutral word, but can't think of it.

Mormonism was always and completely against racism period. The ban doesn't prove racism any more than having womens only nights at a Gym or Nightclub means sexism.

Mormons aren't sexist either simply because of their policy of women not having the Priesthood. We don't degrade women, we treat them equal, etc. Same for blacks, blacks were not degraded, treated badly etc. in the Church. Obviously, in the early days there were some exceptions to that, and the same maybe could be said of some examples toward women, but that still doesn't make the "Church" itself.

Bottom line is that words have all kinds of "roots", that doesn't mean they still mean or are "used" according to their original sanitary root meaning.

Further, let's look at the actual "Definition" of the word according to the Dictionary.....

rac·ism

[rey-siz-uh

m] noun

1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human

races

determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own

race

is superior and has the right to rule others.

2.a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.

3.hatred or intolerance of another

race

or other

races

.

Origin:

1865–70; French racisme. See

race

2

,

-ism

As you can see, even the dictionary doesn't agree with you.... It describes the "bad" word that racism is.

The "ism" is the BAD, that makes the word describing a bad thing.

Your focusing only on the "race" part of the word, is missing the boat.

It's just like the word "Mormon" doesn't describe a system, it describes a person that belongs to a particular ideological system.

Mormonism describes a particular ideological system.

Anti-Mormonism describes an ideological system that is falsely critical of another ideological system, that is Mormonism.

When "parts" are added to a word, the meaning is changed.

Sorry, you lose.

[David T]

What you're doing is splitting hairs, and one of the known fallacy's.....

Everyone on the planet considers the word and the fruits of racism as "bad". Your trying to create this false dichotomy of the clinical root word is simply completely irrelevant to the issue, and nothing more than a diversionary tactic to avoid accepting the actual facts related to the Priesthood ban, that it was NOT the "bad" as you believe.

Mormonism was always and completely against racism period. The ban doesn't prove racism any more than having womens only nights at a Gym or Nightclub means sexism.

Mormons aren't sexist either simply because of their policy of women not having the Priesthood. We don't degrade women, we treat them equal, etc. Same for blacks, blacks were not degraded, treated badly etc. in the Church. Obviously, in the early days there were some exceptions to that, and the same maybe could be said of some examples toward women, but that still doesn't make the "Church" itself.

Bottom line is that words have all kinds of "roots", that doesn't mean they still mean or are "used" according to their original sanitary root meaning.

Your focusing only on the "race" part of the word, is missing the boat.

Sorry, you lose.

So to sum up, your position is:

Racism is always bad. The priesthood ban was a good inspired thing. Therefore, the priesthood ban was not racist.

The priesthood ban was okay, because women don't have the priesthood, which is also okay. Because even though they're not ever allowed to preside over a man, they're still our equals.

Giving one clan specific ecclesiastical duties in the past is the exact same as excluding one race from Gospel blessings given to everybody else.

Just because a word means something, doesn't mean it really means it.

Therefore, I lose.

[TAO]

To be quite honest, I don't think the priesthood ban is racist, in the terms that it is looked upon today.

After all, if it was all planned, nah... not racist... just... long-seeing... a challenge that must be gone through to reach what is needed.

That's life, I guess =).

Meh, I'm pretty sure that's gonna offend someone =P.

[BCSpace]

I think his argument is that its based on lineage from Cain/Ham, not race.

Exactly. And we know from the Bible that the Lord also discriminated based on lineage. For example, you had to be a Levite to have the priesthood.

Of course, this requires that he believe that all those of the African race can trace their lineage back to Ham after the global flood.

It does. My own opinion is that they were trying to follow Abraham 1 to the best of their knowledge which was indeed faulty. But while reasons were given that were racist, the ban itself, the actual doctrine, cannot possibly be racist in part because the blessings were not ultimately denied.

[ldsfaqs]

So to sum up, your position is:

Racism is always bad.

Yes

The priesthood ban was a good inspired thing.

I wouldn't at all say that, I'm not going to put words into God's mouth. But I know it wasn't a "bad" thing on the Churches side anyway. It just WAS.

In scriptural history there have been many things done as a matter of reality and policy, which has a bad aspect to it, but it itself isn't bad, it's simply what needed to done.

For example, God would have loved to give the "Higher Law" to man from the very beginning, is it a "bad" thing that he didn't? In a way yes, but not ultimately because he provided a way for his children to grow still. So, it's bad that the world wasn't righteous enough for the black man to be Free and thus have the Priesthood, but the "Church" itself wasn't bad for having the ban. The ban was apparently necessary because of this SIN that was in the world toward the black man. Do you understand the difference?

Therefore, the priesthood ban was not racist.

Nope, the ban wasn't racist because it had little to no basis of racism on the side of the Church. Did the policy have to do with race, yes. Was it racism, no....

The priesthood ban was okay, because women don't have the priesthood, which is also okay. Because even though they're not ever allowed to preside over a man, they're still our equals.

First, you do know that we have Women leaders who DO in fact preside over all kinds of people, including men?

Not having the Priesthood doesn't mean we don't have Women Leaders. Thus, the are equal in that sense.

Second, who says men and women are "equal" anyway? They are different people with different needs, different roles in life, etc.

However, in the "equality" aspect, they most certainly are equal.

A black only club isn't racist simply because it's for blacks only, a gay bar isn't sexist simply because it's for gays only.

Of course, if there was a white only club that would be considered racist. Meaning and intent are what is actually "real".

Giving one clan specific ecclesiastical duties in the past is the exact same as excluding one race from Gospel blessings given to everybody else.

Strawman, you change the meanings. First, that "clan" and all other clans were a specific LINEAGE.... Likewise, the Priesthood ban and all others given the Priesthood is based on a specific LINEAGE. There is no difference between the two, except in the past less were given the Priesthood, while today MORE are. The only way you think it's different is by how you changed the meanings of the words in your sentence.

Just because a word means something, doesn't mean it really means it.

Misrepresentation.... The word doesn't actually mean what you are saying it means. The "root" of a word, is not the words later adaptations, it's suffixes and prefixes etc.

For example, the word Democracy does not mean it's root word, which is "Demo" which means people. Democracy mean "government by people". Two completely different concepts, one is people, and the other is government by people. Thus, you usage of the root "race" as somehow meaning the same as "racism", is completely false.

Racism means unfair, unjust, and immoral action toward someone of another race, color, culture, etc. Mormonism thereby was not racist. A policy that maybe seems "unfair", is not all the other bad things which would make it wrong or evil. Likewise, a policy of banning strait guys from a gay bar may be unfair, but is not all the other bad things, which would make the policy wrong.

Therefore, I lose.

Yep, you do.... Further, I once left the Church myself over the ban related to woman and blacks, as well as Polygamy. Do you think you're the first person to make such simplistic and misinformed judgments? But, I educated myself, of the history, of scripture, etc., and came to know God's mind and will with man in various issues. And I came to know that despite the policy, the Church itself and the majority of it's people absolutely WERE NOT racist. They had NONE to little of the tell tell signs that makes someone, a policy, etc. as racist. And the rare ethno-centrist or wrong and even seeming racist remark by a few was simply the times when everyone was even worse than that. Lincoln said things just as bad as Brigham did. Yet, Lincoln was a hero to the black cause. You can't judge the past by being ignorant of it, it's context, and by our modern standards. Simple.

[Mordecai]

My response would have been, I was very happy when the ban was lifted. I think that was right. I wouldn't answer further than that, because I wouldn't want to be a spokesman for the church or pretend to be one. I might add that I don't know why we ever had a ban.

[ERayR]

<soapbox> IMHO, we as a people need to learn to face the ugly truths in our history. Every group of people has its problems, nobody is exempt. However, just because there are unpleasant things in our history and in our current culture doesn't mean we don't have something of value to offer the world. By ignoring the bad we both lose credibility and miss an opportunity to improve. I think people would take us more seriously if we "got real" and said "Yeah, we've had our issues, including racism. But look at how the Gospel message has helped us overcome those weaknesses..." You know? </soapbox>

Face them yes. Wallow in them like some would have No. Move on and do better.

[David T]

I wouldn't at all say that, I'm not going to put words into God's mouth. But I know it wasn't a "bad" thing on the Churches side anyway. It just WAS.

Nope, the ban wasn't racist because it had little to no basis of racism on the side of the Church. Did the policy have to do with race, yes. Was it racism, no....

First, you do know that we have Women leaders who DO in fact preside over all kinds of people, including men?

No, we don't. The only position granted as 'president' to women of an organization that has men in it s the Primary, and in those cases, those men, as teachers, are generally practically under the jurisdiction of the Sunday School president - who has to be a male.

You can't even have a General Relief Society meeting now a days without a male Priesthood leader there to preside.

Not having the Priesthood doesn't mean we don't have Women Leaders. Thus, the are equal in that sense.

Except no woman leader will ever be able to preside over male priesthood leaders. Thus, they are halted, capped, and not equal.

Second, who says men and women are "equal" anyway?

Well, you did,

Further, I once left the Church myself over the ban related to woman and blacks, as well as Polygamy. Do you think you're the first person to make such simplistic and misinformed judgments? But, I educated myself, of the history, of scripture, etc., and came to know God's mind and will with man in various issues. And I came to know that despite the policy, the Church itself and the majority of it's people absolutely WERE NOT racist. They had NONE to little of the tell tell signs that makes someone, a policy, etc. as racist. And the rare ethno-centrist or wrong and even seeming racist remark by a few was simply the times when everyone was even worse than that. Lincoln said things just as bad as Brigham did. Yet, Lincoln was a hero to the black cause. You can't judge the past by being ignorant of it, it's context, and by our modern standards. Simple.

Misinformed? Are you really attempting to pass judgement on my own studies and self-education? Why do you believe your process and conclusions are more valid than mine? I'm very much open to a real discussion on this, but most of your arguments have been self-contradictory and incoherent. I recognize the emotion of the moment may be responsible for that, and I'm quite open to your having very legitimate reasons for your position, but I haven't seen them presented yet, and find it incredibly hard to logically follow your assertions.

[Calm]

No, we don't. The only position granted as 'president' to women of an organization that has men in it s the Primary, and in those cases, those men, as teachers, are generally practically under the jurisdiction of the Sunday School president - who has to be a male.

Can you clarify this please? Unless things have changed, I've never seen male teachers in Primary being accountable to anyone besides the Primary Presidency (20 plus years in Primary, including in presidency)