The End Of Race As A Salient Catogory Of Human Relations

[Loran Blood]

Given the furor unleashed here over the proper or appropriate interpretation of the Church's most recent official position and clarification of its view of contemporary questions of race as to the attitudes of members and our understanding of the origin and nature of the "priesthood ban," Further explorations are called for.

Some deeper, more fundamental questions appear in need of further clarification and elucidation regarding the concept of race and the movement of the Church into the future. Here, within the context of the highly focused preoccupation with race we see among substantial sectors of modern American society (and even among some LDS), we must ask in what manner these issues can be negotiated such that atavistic attitudes, including necessary cultural corrections of the past, which have long outgrown their necessity or usefulness and which could now be understood to be raising and enforcing greater barriers to an ordered and positive civil society, can be abandoned rather then working to preserve them and the pervasive racial consciousness they encourage, such that the racial harmony and integration that would naturally occur is obfuscated and repressed in the name of a focus on the idea that, as Cornell West put it, "race matters."

The question for members of the Church is similar:

1. Does race matter?

2. Should race matter (should it continue to be taken into consideration in the church and within society, broadly speaking, and if so, what are the limits and boundaries of such consideration?)?

3. More specifically, given that the Church has officially stated that the reasons and origin of the ban are not known with any clarity, should the Church apologize anyway? If so, to whom and in behalf of whom?

Further questions can be asked, derivative of the implications of the above questions.

[thesometimesaint]

1. Not to me.

2. Not to me.

3. Not to me. The only people that need to apologize are those that actually held and taught racist views and haven't apologized. The Church has no authority to apologies for anyone else, and certainly not for ideas it never held.

[BCSpace]

The only people that need to apologize are those that actually held and taught racist views and haven't apologized. The Church has no authority to apologies for anyone else, and certainly not for ideas it never held.

Would you agree then that the LDS Church's doctrine is not nor ever has been racist? I do. The Church itself seems to take the same doctrinal position by noting priesthood "bans" are based on lineage, not skin color or ethnicity. For example:

Ever since biblical times, the Lord has designated through His prophets who could receive the priesthood and other blessings of the gospel. Among the tribes of Israel, for example, only men of the tribe of Levi were given the priesthood and allowed to officiate in certain ordinances. Likewise, during the Savior’s earthly ministry, gospel blessings were restricted to the Jews. Only after a revelation to the Apostle Peter were the gospel and priesthood extended to others (see Acts 10:1–33; 14:23; 15:6– 8.

With the revelation to President Kimball in 1978, the priesthood is now available to all worthy male members regardless of race or ethnicity (see Official Declaration 2). Each candidate for ordination is interviewed by priesthood leaders to ensure that he understands and agrees to live by established principles of righteousness (see Doctrine and Covenants 84:33–44; 121:34–46).

http://www.lds.org/s...e-1978?lang=eng

Edited March 5, 2012 by BCSpace

[divinenature]

With the revelation to President Kimball in 1978, the priesthood is now available to all worthy male members regardless of race or ethnicity (see Official Declaration 2).

Why does this say race if race never had anything to do with access to the priesthood?

[Loran Blood]

Would you agree then that the LDS Church's is not nor ever has been racist? I do. The Church itself seems to take the same doctrinal position by noting priesthood "bans" are based on lineage, not skin color or ethnicity. For example:

Interesting that, given what authoritative statements we have on the ban, and the examples of similar dealings of the Lord with other people's in the BofM, there appear to be at least several ways the Lord manifests relative blessing/cursing with regard to both priesthood and general gospel blessings. One is lineage (which can originate in apostasy by a specific group or sub-group among a larger lineal base), another is slight morphological alterations (the darker skin of the Lamanites), and another is culture for which the darker skin of the Lamanites was, not so much a symbol, but a marker signifying a culture out of harmony and hostile to the gospel, and to which culture should not be absorbed in any way into Nephite culture.

Note too that the Nephite dissenters marked themselves with Lamanite body decoration (and doubtless body piercing and tattooing common in the contemporary secularist culture surrounding Zion) to signify precisely the same thing and create a cultural distance between themselves and the Nephites.

The crux of all of this seems to be culture, including with reference to the original priesthood ban coming through the lineage of Ham. I recall reading recently of a non-canonical source that mentioned a rebellion against God that occurred among that one branch of Noah's family that would, from an LDS standpoint, explain a great deal about the original impetus for the restriction of priesthood (but not on wisdom and knowledge) for this particular line, but can't think of it at the moment.

The ferocious insistence among even LDS in the apologetic community that the original ban was "racist" in character continues to puzzle me, if only because of the unique place blacks have within the intellectual milieu of civil rights thought, especially in its post-King forms. I wonder, if it had been Eskimos, and only Eskimos who were denied the priesthood, would the continual consternation and, may I say, because I think its accurate, hand wringing, over the issue be as intense as it continues to be, all the way to calls for apologies from the institutional church for what appears to be something doctrinal irrespective of its still being vague and unclear as to origin and meaning?

What if the neo-orthodox elements in the Church are, in fact, wrong? What if the ban was doctrinal, and the ban, its continuance, and its end something foreseen and anticipated by previous prophets (as OD-2 appears to clearly imply)? Where might that place those now calling, from within the Church, for apology and contrition from the Church?

Edited March 5, 2012 by Loran Blood

[Cushan Rishathaim]

Interesting that, given what authoritative statements we have on the ban, and the examples of similar dealings of the Lord with other people's in the BofM, there appear to be at least several ways the Lord manifests relative blessing/cursing with regard to both priesthood and general gospel blessings. One is lineage (which can originate in apostasy by a specific group or sub-group among a larger lineal base), another is slight morphological alterations (the darker skin of the Lamanites), and another is culture for which the darker skin of the Lamanites was, not so much a symbol, but a marker signifying a culture out of harmony and hostile to the gospel, and to which culture should not be absorbed in any way into Nephite culture.

Personally, I find your suggestion that dark skin is a marker signifying a culture out of harmony and hostile to the gospel a reflection of a primitive, not to mention racist view. Dark skin is not a curse in the Bible. Book of Mormon statements should be read in their proper historical/literary context.

[BCSpace]

With the revelation to President Kimball in 1978, the priesthood is now available to all worthy male members regardless of race or ethnicity (see Official Declaration 2).

Why does this say race if race never had anything to do with access to the priesthood?

Because that's the process used to identify lineage. Some will often point to that and say that means the ban was racist. But that can't possibly be true as skin color is still not the reason for the ban. Let's say, for the sake of discussion, that the Curse of Cain speculation is correct. Was the priesthood removed from Cain and his descendants because of skin color? No, it wasn't.

[BCSpace]

Dark skin is not a curse in the Bible.

It is the result of the land being cursed with much heat in the Book of Moses.

[mfbukowski]

Clearly races matter.

Them guys at the Indy 500 make a lot of money.

[cinepro]

Because that's the process used to identify lineage. Some will often point to that and say that means the ban was racist. But that can't possibly be true as skin color is still not the reason for the ban. Let's say, for the sake of discussion, that the Curse of Cain speculation is correct. Was the priesthood removed from Cain and his descendants because of skin color? No, it wasn't.

Even assuming the Curse of Cain speculation is correct, it still wouldn't have any applicability to any living person in the 19th or 20th century. Unless the "lineage" argument is rooted into a recently defined lineage (no more than a few generations back), population genetics quickly overwhelms any useful distinctions and it all becomes genetic soup.

So even if the originator(s) of the ban thought they were basing it on "lineage" and not "race" (if they even cared about such a distinction), the truth about lineage and genetics means they were wrong and it really was just about race in the end. Among all the Churches and people in the world, the LDS Church should know this better than anybody, and if it wasn't for this danged Priesthood Ban we wouldn't have to pretend like we don't understand it.

Edited March 5, 2012 by cinepro

[cinepro]

3. More specifically, given that the Church has officially stated that the reasons and origin of the ban are not known with any clarity, should the Church apologize anyway? If so, to whom and in behalf of whom?

As far as I know, if someone does something that offends or hurts others, saying "I don't know why I did it" doesn't mean they can't apologize for it. In fact, it may actually increase the appropriateness and expediency of such an apology.

It can also be entirely appropriate to apologize even for doing something that the Lord has commanded.

The scarier thought is what if God only meant for the Priesthood Ban to be suspended for a 35 or 40 year period, and He has to again implement it? How we react to that idea (and its probability) probably says a lot about the degree to which we believe He was behind the ban in the first place.

Edited March 5, 2012 by cinepro

[divinenature]

The scarier thought is what if God only meant for the Priesthood Ban to be suspended for a 35 or 40 year period, and He has to again implement it? How we react to that idea (and its probability) probably says a lot about the degree to which we believe He was behind the ban in the first place.

Very interesting thought! (and I agree with it being scary)

[Cushan Rishathaim]

It is the result of the land being cursed with much heat in the Book of Moses.

Again, black skin is not a curse in the Bible. Your Book of Moses reference simply states that God curses the land with barrenness and heat, not that God cursed the Canaanites by making them black. You and this Loran Blood character hold some racists views inconsistent with your Church's present teachings that I would encourage you to keep to yourself, rather than present as LDS doctrine.

[The Nehor]

Some deeper, more fundamental questions appear in need of further clarification and elucidation regarding the concept of race and the movement of the Church into the future. Here, within the context of the highly focused preoccupation with race we see among substantial sectors of modern American society (and even among some LDS), we must ask in what manner these issues can be negotiated such that atavistic attitudes, including necessary cultural corrections of the past, which have long outgrown their necessity or usefulness and which could now be understood to be raising and enforcing greater barriers to an ordered and positive civil society, can be abandoned rather then working to preserve them and the pervasive racial consciousness they encourage, such that the racial harmony and integration that would naturally occur is obfuscated and repressed in the name of a focus on the idea that, as Cornell West put it, "race matters."

Unless we want to do away with the Book of Mormon and the Doctrince & Covenants with their references to Jew and Gentile and Lamanite and the different prophecies associated with each of them and the importance we place on lineage in Patriarchal Blessings we can't pretend race is irrelevant.

In secular society I look forward to the day when we can say race doesn't matter and is irrelevant. There is a prerrequisite for this: the end of racism. We have a LONG way to go first. Until then all we can do is pretend race doesn't matter while it influences the lives of millions of people. That kind of pretending is self-deception akin to an ostrich sticking his head in the sand.

[RadioFreeDeath]

Even assuming the Curse of Cain speculation is correct, it still wouldn't have any applicability to any living person in the 19th or 20th century. Unless the "lineage" argument is rooted into a recently defined lineage (no more than a few generations back), population genetics quickly overwhelms any useful distinctions and it all becomes genetic soup.

So even if the originator(s) of the ban thought they were basing it on "lineage" and not "race" (if they even cared about such a distinction), the truth about lineage and genetics means they were wrong and it really was just about race in the end. Among all the Churches and people in the world, the LDS Church should know this better than anybody, and if it wasn't for this danged Priesthood Ban we wouldn't have to pretend like we don't understand it.

Honestly this may have been part of the practical reason for removing the ban. When they started doing geneology and found very white people in brazil with african lineage in their lines there exists a conundrum. Hence the removal of the ban once it was realized as impracticable.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

"There appear to be at least several ways the Lord manifests relative blessing/cursing with regard to both priesthood and general gospel blessings. One [...] is slight morphological alterations (the darker skin of the Lamanites), and another is culture for which the darker skin of the Lamanites was, not so much a symbol, but a marker signifying a culture out of harmony and hostile to the gospel."

The idea that God literally transforms a person's skin color as a marker of their righteousness is incorrect. The "skin of blackness" referenced in the Book of Mormon and Pearl of Great Price is a purely idiomatic expression. As Nibley remarked in one of his lectures, pointing out a possible Arabic context within which to read the words, "the human race is divided into al-sūdānu and al-bayḍānu. The sūdānu are the black ones, and the bayḍānu are the white ones. [...] It's a cultural thing [between] members of the same race. So we get this idea of the contrast between the good guys and the bad guys, called black and white."

This symbolism is not unique to the Book of Mormon or the Pearl of Great Price. In fact, although folks like John Dehlin find this "nuanced" reading of the text (which merely situates it in its correct cultural and idiomatic context) to be apologetic nonsense which disregards the plain meaning of the text, this just proves that he (and LDS who support the line of argument in which God literally transforms skin color) have not examined the Bible itself carefully enough.

When read in proper context, however, the idea that the "skin of blackness" referenced in 2 Nephi 5:21 is literal skin color is proved incorrect. For instance:

"For the punishment of the iniquity of the daughter of my people is greater than the punishment of the sin of Sodom, that was overthrown as in a moment, and no hands stayed on her. Her Nazarites were purer than snow, they were whiter than milk, they were more ruddy in body than rubies, their polishing was of sapphire: their visage is blacker than a coal; they are not known in the streets: their skin cleaveth to their bones; it is withered, it is become like a stick." -- Lamentations 4:6

(Note here that although critics have long contended that the Book of Mormon manuscript changes from "white" to "pure" is some sort of PR [or PC] cover-up, it is clearly an ancient association which has become obscured through modern racial concerns.)

"Before their face the people shall be much pained: all faces shall gather blackness." -- Joel 2:6

"Our skin was black like an oven because of the terrible famine." -- Lamentations 5:10

"For the hurt of the daughter of my people am I hurt; I am black; astonishment hath taken hold on me." -- Jeremiah 8:21

"Judah mourneth, and the gates thereof languish; they are black unto the ground; and the cry of Jerusalem is gone up." -- Jeremiah 14:2

"When I looked for good, then evil came unto me: and when I waited for light, there came darkness. [...] I am a brother to dragons, and a companion to owls. My skin is black upon me, and my bones are burned with heat." -- Job 30:26

"She is empty, and void, and waste: and the heart melteth, and the knees smite together, and much pain is in all loins, and the faces of them all gather blackness." -- Nahum 2:10

So now, when we read sections such as 2 Nephi 5:21 in the correct context, we see that "whiteness" is a symbolic term for "exceedingly fair and delightsome", whereas "blackness" is a symbolic term for "had hardened their hearts against [God], that they had become like unto a flint."

This has nothing whatsoever to do with literal skin color.

No one's skin turns black or white because of a curse or blessing. My mesoamerican ancestors aren't black anyway -- we're brown. To twist scriptures around to justify a belief in a racist God who would deliberately create iniquities like this between His children is wrong. In point of fact:

"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." -- 2 Nephi 26:33

Edited March 5, 2012 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[WalkerW]

Excerpt from Brant A. Gardner, Second Witness: Analytical and Contextual Commentary on the Book of Mormon, 6 vols. (Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2007-2008) on "skin of blackness" in the Book of Mormon.

[JeremyOrbe-Smith]

Thanks for the tip, WalkerW! And hey, look at that -- I hadn't read that excellent essay by Gardner before, but it says pretty much what I did, even using some of the same examples! Independent confirmation FTW.

Edited March 5, 2012 by JeremyOrbe-Smith

[WalkerW]

That's why it reminded me of it.

[David T]

Because that's the process used to identify lineage. Some will often point to that and say that means the ban was racist. But that can't possibly be true as skin color is still not the reason for the ban. Let's say, for the sake of discussion, that the Curse of Cain speculation is correct. Was the priesthood removed from Cain and his descendants because of skin color? No, it wasn't.

Race. Isn't. Skin Color.

Skin Color can be a marker of one's race, but they aren't the same thing. Really. They're not.

1 A group of persons related by common descent or heredity.

2. a population so related

If the defense that "it wasn't racist" is that it wasn't just based on skin color but by lineage, you're making up a new definition for race.

Race is defined by lineage/descent/heredity, not color.

Please, stop using this silly defense. It's wrong by definition.

Edited March 5, 2012 by nackhadlow

[mercyngrace]

1. Does race matter?

Clearly it matters to some people.

2. Should race matter (should it continue to be taken into consideration in the church and within society, broadly speaking, and if so, what are the limits and boundaries of such consideration?)?

I don't think so. But then I was raised in a very diverse community and learned at a young age that we all bleed red. As the Lord "looketh on the heart", I'm inclined to say He and I are in agreement.

3. More specifically, given that the Church has officially stated that the reasons and origin of the ban are not known with any clarity, should the Church apologize anyway? If so, to whom and in behalf of whom?

I guess that depends on the church's goal. Do they want to mend fences or be "technically" right? I've been known to apologize because doing so heals when clinging dogmatically to my position would drive a wedge. In this case, apologizing may come across as admitting fault. So what? It isn't like anyone believes our leaders are infallible and it certainly doesn't change the fundamentals of the atonement or plan of salvation. Ultimately, the general leaders of the church have to run a cost benefit analysis and determine if losing face is worth gaining souls or if, for that matter, souls will be gained or lost at all by accepting that past leaders may have erred.

Edited March 5, 2012 by mercyngrace

[BCSpace]

It is the result of the land being cursed with much heat in the Book of Moses.

Again, black skin is not a curse in the Bible.

I wasn't disagreeing. I was simply FYI'ing a theological explanation for black skin in the LDS context.

Your Book of Moses reference simply states that God curses the land with barrenness and heat, not that God cursed the Canaanites by making them black.

Exactly.

You and this Loran Blood character hold some racists views inconsistent with your Church's present teachings that I would encourage you to keep to yourself, rather than present as LDS doctrine.

I've not seen any racist views from Loran. As for myself, I am not racist nor have I expressed or defended any racist views. The LDS Church's doctrine is in no way racist nor was it ever racist in the past. There is no need for the LDS Church to keep official doctrine to itself such as:

Priesthood Ordination before 1978

In June 1978, President Spencer W. Kimball received a revelation extending priesthood ordination to all worthy males of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Official Declaration 2). Before that time only worthy male members who were not of black African descent were ordained to the priesthood.

Additional Information

Ever since biblical times, the Lord has designated through His prophets who could receive the priesthood and other blessings of the gospel. Among the tribes of Israel, for example, only men of the tribe of Levi were given the priesthood and allowed to officiate in certain ordinances. Likewise, during the Savior’s earthly ministry, gospel blessings were restricted to the Jews. Only after a revelation to the Apostle Peter were the gospel and priesthood extended to others (see Acts 10:1–33; 14:23; 15:6– 8.

With the revelation to President Kimball in 1978, the priesthood is now available to all worthy male members regardless of race or ethnicity (see Official Declaration 2). Each candidate for ordination is interviewed by priesthood leaders to ensure that he understands and agrees to live by established principles of righteousness (see Doctrine and Covenants 84:33–44; 121:34–46).

http://www.lds.org/s...e-1978?lang=eng

From the dispensation of Adam until the dispensation of the fulness of times, there has been a group of people who have not been allowed to hold the priesthood of God. The scriptural basis for this policy is Abraham 1:21–27 . The full reason for the denial has been kept hidden by the Lord, and one is left to assume that He will make it known in His own due time.

http://institute.lds...-in-131-od2.asp

Edited March 6, 2012 by BCSpace

[Xander]

Personally, I find your suggestion that dark skin is a marker signifying a culture out of harmony and hostile to the gospel a reflection of a primitive, not to mention racist view. Dark skin is not a curse in the Bible. Book of Mormon statements should be read in their proper historical/literary context.

And who should we rely upon for those proper interpretations, based of course on context?

Should we rely on apologetically motivated LDS scholars ("arm of the flesh"), or should we rely on LDS authorities ("the Lord's anointed")? Spencer W. Kimball taught in an official capacity during General Conference that the Book of Mormon reference to "white and delightsome" clearly referred to skin tone. Should we dismiss this as mere opinion and exalt scholarly opinion as divine? If so, why?

Edited March 7, 2012 by Xander

[Cushan Rishathaim]

And who should we rely upon for those proper interpretations, based of course on context?

Should we rely on apologetically motivated LDS scholars ("arm of the flesh"), or should we rely on LDS authorities ("the Lord's anointed")? Spencer W. Kimball taught in an official capacity during General Conference that the Book of Mormon reference to "white and delightsome" clearly referred to skin tone. Should we dismiss this as mere opinion and exalt scholarly opinion as divine? If so, why?

1. Much like those advocated by Loran Blood in this thread, Kimball's statements were both racist and wrong textually.

2. Kimball's views do not reflect the current teachings of the Church.

I therefore see no reason whatsoever that believing members should advocate these offensive views.

[Cushan Rishathaim]

I've not seen any racist views from Loran. As for myself, I am not racist nor have I expressed or defended any racist views:

Note the following highly offensive statement:

"There appear to be at least several ways the Lord manifests relative blessing/cursing with regard to both priesthood and general gospel blessings. One is lineage (which can originate in apostasy by a specific group or sub-group among a larger lineal base), another is slight morphological alterations (the darker skin of the Lamanites)."

Loran Blood has stated that darker skin pigmentation is a sign that a people have been cursed by God. More white supremacy assertions in the name of the Gospel of Christ could be easily extracted from his offensive statements, and to what purpose? To show that white people are more favored than people of darker skin?

Honestly, what year is this that such statement can be made at all, let alone in a Gospel discussion?!!