An Unfortunate Attempt To Explain The Pre-1978 Restriction On Priesthood

[Verum]

What I disagree most with is the following:

“You couldn’t fall off the top of the ladder, because you weren’t on the top of the ladder. So, in reality the blacks not having the priesthood was the greatest blessing God could give them.”

But I feel bad for the guy because I think he was trying to do his best to speculate WHY God sometimes discriminates when it came to the priesthood. This is essentially what many faithful Mormons believe.... that it was discrimination, BUT since it was commanded by God, it was justified discrimination because God ultimately knows what is best for us. The same idea applies to a literal belief of scriptures where God sometimes commanded to kill, or take on concubines. Killing and concubines are bad, but God commands and revokes as he sees fit in order to bring about his purpose that will ultimately benefit all of his children. We may not know the reasons why, but liberal mormons get upset by this because they don't like believing in a God that would ever discriminate and can't see any benefit or reason why God would ever break his own rules so to speak.

Of course, I am very skeptical whether those things actually originated from God as I tend to believe they came primarily from man, but for those who are at a place in their faith where they DO believe those were commanded by God, I think its makes a lot of sense for them to believe that God sometimes breaks his own rules to carry out his plan, and that might mean discrimination.

I hope I am not way off here...

Edited February 29, 2012 by Verum

[Buckeye]

Presto!

I bow to your power ...

[cinepro]

I bow to your power ...

Take a screen grab or save the page, because I suspect the cache copy will be going bye-bye soon as well.

[Buckeye]

Take a screen grab or save the page, because I suspect the cache copy will be going bye-bye soon as well.

Good thing we have angels taking down every idle word.

UPDATE. Brad at BCC has now made the blog immortal.

Edited February 29, 2012 by Buckeye

[LeSellers]

The church is not supporting the dogmatic God did it position.

Nor repudiating it.

Lehi

[Freedom]

Thank you Freedom for showing once more why the church needs to speak up. Your views are well-intentioned and thought out, though of course not guaranteed to be correct. I feel no need to disect them. The point is that, for you - as for me, Brother Bott, and so many others - "we don't know" is simply not enough.

Do you mean the church or do you mean God? Ultimately it is up to God to say why it occurred. The restrictions on the priesthood is, to me, a week challenger to issues such as Jesus specifically preventing non Israelites of not only being bared from the priesthood but from even joining the church. There is also the question of mass genocides in the old Testament. If people are concerned about the black issue, why not about these far more preponderous matters? What about the apostasy and nobody anywhere on the planet having access to the gospel for some 1,500 years. I see a double standard. If God wants us to know he will tell us. For those who want an answer to this question, do they push equally for answers to the other examples of exclusion? For those those who are concerned about exclusion, do they also see the inequality in the world with the distribution of wealth? While we sit in our houses, paying enough in monthly internet access to feed an entire family in Africa, are we not profoundly hypocritical as we sit on our pios soap box? We try to justify our doctrines and practices but there are very many plausible explanations. The real answer, however, may be too offensive to our early 21st century cultural biases so God in his wisdom is keeping them to himself. We may be surprised that the so-called racists views of past church leaders were actually correct. Wouldn't that be ironic.

[juliann]

It is time to put the racism aside, Freedom. Seriously.

[Scott Lloyd]

One final comment, the church has asked members to coordinate any media interviews with the Public Affairs office. The particular individual decided to ignore that counsel and present his personal ideas as the position of the church.

The church is paying the price for his arrogance.

When and where did the Church make such a request?

Our own Daniel Peterson was quoted a couple of weeks ago in a Time Magazine blog regarding the matter of baptisms for the dead. I doubt he coordinated that interview with LDS Public Affairs, but he can correct me if I'm wrong.

Did you mean to say the Church has asked its employees to coordinate the interviews? Because that's not the same thing as asking its members. If the latter is true, then I didn't get the memo, and I'm definitely a member.

Edited February 29, 2012 by Scott Lloyd

[juliann]

Nor repudiating it.

Lehi

Like I said, the burden of proof lies on those who want to perpetuate racism. If you think an official statement that the church doesn't know WHY supports anyone telling the world WHY, go for it. You might ask poor Bro. Bott how that's workin' for him. (I actually do feel sorry for the guy at this point)

[Zeta-Flux]

And there we have it. The church is not supporting the dogmatic God did it position.

Nor repudiating it.

Lehi

Exactly. The church today does not take a position on the precise reasons for the ban. They say, for example: "Some have attempted to explain the reason for this restriction but these attempts should be viewed as speculation and opinion, not doctrine." This cuts both ways, and any claim that it was not of God is simply "speculation and opinion, not doctrine." If anyone, on either side of the aisle, wants to claim doctrine, the burden is on them.

That said, one can look at historical sources for what the church previously taught, and what leaders and authorities taught under their prophetic mantles. If it was "racist" the current church condemns it.

[LeSellers]

Like I said, the burden of proof lies on those who want to perpetuate racism.

And, as I said (whether you agree with it or not) the policy was not "racist" from God's point of view. As far as we know, those who were denied Priesthood blessings in this life requested that status, knowing more then than we do today about what it entails, for both potential blessings and cursing. There are a hundred reasons God could have had for it. We don't know.

To claim that God is racist, even by neglect, is more than one step beyond the pale. To imagine that His servants, for a century, consistently did something in conflict with His will is barely less acceptable.

Lehi

[frankenstein]

Like I said, the burden of proof lies on those who want to perpetuate racism. If you think an official statement that the church doesn't know WHY supports anyone telling the world WHY, go for it. You might ask poor Bro. Bott how that's workin' for him. (I actually do feel sorry for the guy at this point)

I feel sorry for him too, because he never attempted to explain "why the ban".

[frankenstein]

I too find it hard to believe that for nearly 100+ years God permitted to Church to lead astray concerning Blacks and the Priesthood. I also find it hard to believe that for that same period of time, when Church leaders were making commentary on the issue, that none save till 1978 ever received any amount of revelation on the matter.

Edited February 29, 2012 by frankenstein

[cinepro]

When and where did the Church make such a request?

Hmmmm...perhaps the more interesting (and important) question is how the heck did the Washington Post get in touch with Brother Bott?

Obviously, the Church didn't put them in touch. So, did they contact BYU? Did they contact Brother Bott directly, and if so, why him? Could his 2008 blog post have popped up and made him look like an authority on the subject (or a source of possibly incendiary comments)?

[Zeta-Flux]

Like I said, the burden of proof lies on those who want to perpetuate racism. If you think an official statement that the church doesn't know WHY supports anyone telling the world WHY, go for it. You might ask poor Bro. Bott how that's workin' for him. (I actually do feel sorry for the guy at this point)

I would argue that Br. Bott did not, and does not, desire to perpetuate racism.

[David T]

And, as I said (whether you agree with it or not) the policy was not "racist" from God's point of view.

C.F.R.

Only revelation we have on record from God is in ending the terrible ban. If we go by what we have on record directly said to be from God, He doesn't appear to have been a big fan of it.

[Buckeye]

...

The real answer, however, may be too offensive to our early 21st century cultural biases so God in his wisdom is keeping them to himself. We may be surprised that the so-called racists views of past church leaders were actually correct. Wouldn't that be ironic.

No, I rather doubt we'll ever see those racist ideas proved correct. Have you read the newsroom's statement today? I am not confident enough in my predictions to tell my children that they'll live to see the second coming. But I am confident they'll live to see the day that all racist teachings (especially by church leaders) are officially repudiated.

My guess is that sometime before the November election, you, Lehi, and your buds will finally be left without any straws to grasp.

"Let us realize the arc of the moral universe is long but it bends toward justice." Martin Luther King, Jr.

[Scott Lloyd]

Hmmmm...perhaps the more interesting (and important) question is how the heck did the Washington Post get in touch with Brother Bott?

Obviously, the Church didn't put them in touch. So, did they contact BYU? Did they contact Brother Bott directly, and if so, why him? Could his 2008 blog post have popped up and made him look like an authority on the subject (or a source of possibly incendiary comments)?

That's a distinct possibility.

I still doubt that the Church has asked every "member" to coordinate media interviews with Public Affairs (as I said, I didn't get the memo) but I'm awaiting cdowis's response on that.

[juliann]

Hmmmm...perhaps the more interesting (and important) question is how the heck did the Washington Post get in touch with Brother Bott?

Obviously, the Church didn't put them in touch. So, did they contact BYU? Did they contact Brother Bott directly, and if so, why him? Could his 2008 blog post have popped up and made him look like an authority on the subject (or a source of possibly incendiary comments)?

I almost wonder if they went trolling for something spectacular because he seems so random it does make one wonder. But he probably had some exposure somewhere. Requests for interviews tend to multiply like rabbits once you do some. They do search out interviews that come from certain perspectives.

And not even FAIR has been asked to get permission for interviews so there is no such rule. In many cases, there wouldn't be time anyway.

[juliann]

If it was "racist" the current church condemns it.

Good point. And they just did.

[LeSellers]

Only revelation we have on record from God is in ending the terrible ban. If we go by what we have on record directly said to be from God, He doesn't appear to have been a big fan of it.

If He was not a big fan of it, He certainly had it in His power to end it long before 1978, but did not.

If not, as we can easily attest, we are forced to confront the question, why did He not end the "terrible ban" in 1852 or '69, or 1903, or 1958? It appears to me that He was a big fan of it.

Lehi

[LeSellers]

And they just did condemn the ban as racist].

Where?

Lehi

Don't alter quotes to give them different meaning. -Ares

[David T]

If He was not a big fan of it, He certainly had it in His power to end it long before 1978, but did not.

If not, as we can easily attest, we are forced to confront the question, why did He not end the "terrible ban" in 1852 or '69, or 1903, or 1958? It appears to me that He was a big fan of it.

Lehi

President Uchtdorf gave the best answer a couple weeks ago.

"Brothers and sisters, as good as our previous experience may be, if we stop asking questions, stop thinking, stop pondering, we can thwart the revelations of the Spirit. Remember, it was the questions young Joseph asked that opened the door for the restoration of all things. We can block the growth and knowledge our Heavenly Father intends for us. How often has the Holy Spirit tried to tell us something we needed to know but couldn’t get past the massive iron gate of what we thought we already knew?"

President Kimball didn't just ask. He did and comissioned active research which led him to believe there was a good chance the ban wasn't the will of God. He brought that conclusion to the Lord. It was ratified powerfully by the spirit - as if it had been dammed back for a long time, waiting to pour out.

Edited February 29, 2012 by nackhadlow

[Buckeye]

If He was not a big fan of it, He certainly had it in His power to end it long before 1978, but did not.

If not, as we can easily attest, we are forced to confront the question, why did He not end the "terrible ban" in 1852 or '69, or 1903, or 1958? It appears to me that He was a big fan of it.

Lehi

Unbelieveable. God also had the power to stop the Holocaust, the Spanish Flu, the Black Plague, and the recent school shooting just outside Kirtland. But he didn't. So obviously, to quote you, "it appears he was a big fan".

Edited February 29, 2012 by Buckeye

[cinepro]

Unbelieveable. God also had the power to stop the Holocaust, the Spanish Flu, the Black Plague, and the recent school shooting just outside Kirtland. But he didn't. So obviously, to quote you, "it appears he was a big fan".

Apparently He was a big fan of the Apostacy too.