Resources on the Priesthood Ban from Times and Seasons

[David T]

That is incorrect because the Church defends it thusly:

The defence has nothing to do with practice. In practice, from Brigham Young to Spencer Kimball, Blacks didn'y hold the Priesthood because they could be traced to the African Race. You while you may try to argue that the Doctrinal Explanation Was Lineagist, which is, like, totally not Racist the practical application was by necessity by race, and therefore racist by definition.

In addition to being based on lineage, it is also based on disobedience (like the aforementioned Lamanite curse) as we know from other current doctrinal sources that the ban was from the time of Adam.

CFR that those who were practically denied the Priesthood in the 19th-20th Century were denied it because they were disobedient.

Now I would certainly agree with you that the modern application of the ban seems problematic, but that has nothing to do with the doctrinal basis (which we know) or the full reason (which we don't know).

The 'modern application of the ban' is exactly what's being discussed. Nobody in the 19th or 20th Centuries were denied the Priesthood because they could be shown to be of the lineage of the biblcial Ham or Cain. They were denied the Priesthood because they were part of the Black African Race, which was assumed through demonstrably racist biblical misinterpretation and assumption were the cursed descendants of Cain and/or Ham.

Whatever the theoretical purposes, in practice, as in, what people actually did, the application of the ban was according to nothing more than one's racial background, which is the very definition of racist, value judgement aside. It's the definition.

The Church can't redefine Racism. One can certainly say, "Yes, it was racist, but not all racism is bad", but they can't say, "This was good, but racism is bad, so therefore, this good thing must not have been racism. " That's special pleading. It's a terrible, nnonsensical argument.

Edited March 16, 2012 by nackhadlow

[BCSpace]

That is incorrect because the Church defends it thusly:

The defence has nothing to do with practice. In practice, from Brigham Young to Spencer Kimball, Blacks didn'y hold the Priesthood because they could be traced to the African Race. You while you may try to argue that the Doctrinal Explanation Was Lineagist, the practical application was by necessity by race, and therefore racist by definition.

Which has nothing to do with the basis for the ban, being lineage is not racist. Even the problematic application of the ban is not racist because one was never denied the priesthood because of some intrinsic phenotype. That was never the reason.

In addition to being based on lineage, it is also based on disobedience (like the aforementioned Lamanite curse) as we know from other current doctrinal sources that the ban was from the time of Adam.

CFR that those who were practically denied the Priesthood in the 19th-20th Century were denied it because they were disobedient.

Never claimed that. The ban was brought about by disobedience and has existed from the time of Adam as is the doctrine.

The Church can't redefine Racism.

No one has tried to redefine racism. The facts of the matter is, as I mentioned before, that neither the doctrine or the speculations have posited that the ban is based on race; some inborn or intrinsic property or phenotype.

Edited March 16, 2012 by BCSpace

[David T]

being lineage is not racist

The facts of the matter is, as I mentioned before, that neither the doctrine or the speculations have posited that the ban is based on race; some inborn or intrinsic property or phenotype.

Dictionary.com says your argument is invalid in regards to how the English-speaking world uses and understands the term 'race'.

race

1. descent or heredity.

2. a population so related.

3. Anthropology .

a. any of the traditional divisions of humankind, thecommonest being the caucasian, Mongoloid, and Negro,characterized by supposedly distinctive and universalphysical characteristics: no longer in technical use.

b. an arbitrary classification of modern humans,sometimes, especially formerly, based on any or acombination of various physical characteristics, as skincolor, facial form, or eye shape, and now frequentlybased on such genetic markers as blood groups.

c. a human population partially isolated reproductively from other populations, whose members share a greater degree of physical and genetic similarity with one another than with other humans.

4. a group of tribes or peoples forming an ethnic stock: theSlavic race.

5.any people united by common history, language, culturaltraits, etc.: the Dutch race.

----

Also: When explaining the Ban, Brigham Young specifically taught that the phenotypical signs (flat nose, dark skin) were indications of the lineage who were cursed (the 'no longer in technical use' 3a).

Edited March 16, 2012 by nackhadlow

[BCSpace]

Dictionary.com says your argument is invalid in regards to how the English-speaking world uses the term 'race'.

So where does the doctrine, or even the speculations, state that the ban came about because of someone's race? What you are saying is that God said "Because of your race, I'm not going to give you the Priesthood"? Nothing could be more wrong.

So here is a better question for you; while the circumstances are a little different, the arguments are the same. Do you believe the BoM described Lamanite curse and associated consequences are racist?

I may put this in a poll as it bears discussion.

If you continue with the race baiting you will be banned from this board instead of the thread.

[David T]

So where does the doctrine, or even the speculations, state that the ban came about because of someone's race?

I never said it did. You're moving the goalposts. I said those who carried it out and applied it in the 19th and 20th century could only carry it out based on Racist, by definition, assumptions. I say that nobody could practically have been denied Priesthood in the 1800s-1900s because they were traced to the Biblcial Ham or Cain. I'm talking about the practical application of the policy from Brigham Young - Spencer Kimball. I asked for a CFR that anyone was actually banned because their lineage was definitiely traced to Cain or Ham, and not just because they were from the Black African race, who were assumed, by non-biblical and non-historical and not-documented racist tradition to be cursed descendants of Cain and Ham.

What you saying is that God said "Because of your race, I'm not going to give you the Priesthood?" Nothing could be more wrong.

no, I'm saying that those who resticted the Priesthood from blacks said, "Because of your Black African Heritage/race, you must be from Cain and Ham. I'm not going to give you the Priesthood."

I do NOT attribute that to God.

Edited March 16, 2012 by nackhadlow

[Zeta-Flux]

...who were assumed, by non-biblical and non-historical and not-documented racist tradition to be cursed descendants of Cain and Ham.

no, I'm saying that those who resticted the Priesthood from blacks said, "Because of your Black African Heritage/race, you must be from Cain and Ham. I'm not going to give you the Priesthood."

I do NOT attribute that to God.

And that is the crux of the matter. Brigham Young believed and taught this lineage, as did others in their roles as leaders of the Church, including letters from the First Presidency. You and many others disagree and publicly teach otherwise. The present day Church has distanced itself from either position.

I agree with you this lineage is a non-Biblical tradition. I also agree with you that it is non-historical, in the sense that we don't have records establishing that lineage. I have to disagree, however, with the claim of "non-documented" (as I understand you are using it). We have strong documentation that tells us this was first officially taught by Brigham Young. He did not appeal to the Bible, nor to historical records. Rather, he merely appealed to his own role as prophet. For a good treatment of the history on this topic I recommend Lester Bush's Mormonism's Negro Doctrine.

I hope this document helps you stop race baiting those who know a little more of the history of this teaching in the church.

[David T]

I agree with you this lineage is a non-Biblical tradition. I also agree with you that it is non-historical, in the sense that we don't have records establishing that lineage. I have to disagree, however, with the claim of "non-documented" (as I understand you are using it).

You misunderstand me.

I am very well aware that Brigham taught this by means of assertion. By non-documented, I meant "by demonstrable means other than assertion". It's very documented that Brigham made lots of assertions about Negroes. S o did Joseph Fielding Smith, etc. That's a fantastic article that shows that the only historical precedence for a beginning of the Ban on those of African Descent is, 'Brigham Young Said So." - I constantly refer to it, and share it, along with Edward Kimball's paper Spencer W. Kimball and the Revelation on Priesthood as being somewhat essential preliminaries to having a meaningful, informed discussion on this topic

I hope this document helps you stop race baiting those who know a little more of the history of this teaching in the church.

Really?

Edited March 16, 2012 by nackhadlow

[Zeta-Flux]

You misunderstand me.

I am very well aware that Brigham taught this by means of assertion. By non-documented, I meant "by demonstrable means other than assertion". It's very documented that Brigham made lots of assertions about Negroes. S o did Joseph Fielding Smith, etc. That's a fantastic article that shows that the only historical precedence for a beginning of the Ban on those of African Descent is, 'Brigham Young Said So." - I constantly refer to it, and share it, along with Edward Kimball's paper Spencer W. Kimball and the Revelation on Priesthood as being somewhat essential preliminaries to having a meaningful, informed discussion on this topic

Thank you for clarifying.

Really?

Yes. I don't know how else to describe what you did. You baited those who believe Brigham Young is a prophet of God, by accusing his teaching of being racist and of being false, to come and defend him. Is that not the epitome of race baiting?

No - you may state your opinion about God starting or not starting a ban but you may not continue to justify it by recycling theories the church has rejected. You may discuss the history of the ban and its interpretation but you may not promote the old ideas anymore than you can insist some races are less intelligent (as an example) because somebody said it before. We have made as many warnings and explanations as we are going to give about this.

[David T]

You baited those who believe Brigham Young is a prophet of God, by accusing his teaching of being racist and of being false, to come and defend him

Zeta, the Church itself disavowed his explanations, and you even aknowledged this earlier. It didn't, however, disavow him as a Prophet. I, too, sustain him as a prophet, while still acknowledging he held and promulgated some unsubstantiated racist beliefs that were inherited from Protestantism, and used many of those in reference to explaining the ban. I'm not aware that anyone is arguing that this isn't the case.

[Zeta-Flux]

No - you may state your opinion about God starting or not starting a ban ...

I don't have an opinion about whether or not God started the ban. I don't know.

...but you may not continue to justify it by recycling theories the church has rejected.

I don't want to justify it. But some people claim that the Church has rejected the lineage line of thought. I would argue that the Church has done no such thing: it has neither affirmed nor rejected that lineage doctrine.

In other words, to be completely clear, I do NOT want to argue anything except that the Church has (recently) NEITHER confirmed NOR denied the lineage doctrine. (It has rejected racist justifications.) I view nackhadlow's posts as race baiting, and now I feel like you are punishing me for asking him to merely stop promoting his opinion.

You may discuss the history of the ban and its interpretation but you may not promote the old ideas anymore than you can insist some races are less intelligent (as an example) because somebody said it before. We have made as many warnings and explanations as we are going to give about this.

I thought I was only discussing the history of the ban. Please show me where I ever promoted one side of the discussion over the other. Both sides are opinion-- the Church has remained silent on that specific teaching.

I hope this is viewed not as argumentative, but as a clarification on what I meant. I do not want to justify Brigham's teaching, but I also don't like it when people falsely say the church has denied it directly. (They have directly denied racist teachings, and the less-valiant teaching, and any teaching directly in conflict with the OD 2.)

Edited March 17, 2012 by Zeta-Flux