The Next Step? "We Don'T Know Why... But It Was Wrong"

[Brian 2.0]

DISCLAIMER: The previous "ban" thread was closed due to violation of certain board policies, which can be read and should be adheared to. Do not talk about theories, reason, whys, justifications etc. The policy is that "we don't know." I still have questions and thoughts and hope to be able to discuss them without violating the policy (which I don't think i did. Not sure why it was stopped, or if i was the reason). But I'm sure a lot of people want to talk about this, and this forum is supposed to be for things like this. If you don't want to talk about it, or think the horse is being beaten too long, then fine, no one is forcinging you to read or respond to this thread. And if you do respond, look at their policy first so that this thread is not closed down.

I think the recent statements by the church are good steps in the right direction, espcially if it can lay to rest some truly bad attempts at explaining away the Priesthood and Temple Ban. But the real next step, the big thing that a lot people look for, and hope to see, is an acknowledgement that it was wrong. The offical stance is this:

"It is not known precisely why, how or when this restriction began in the Church, but it has ended."

A lof of people really want it say this:

It is not known precisely why, how or when this restriction began in the Church, BUT IT WAS WRONG, and it has ended.

There is a HUGE difference between those statement.

A lot of people are not looking for reasons why it happened, or who did it, or when it actually started, or any of the doctrines behind it that could justifiy it... they just want the church to acknowledge that is was wrong... that there IS NO JUSTIFCATION of how it could ever have been right. Because they simply do not believe in a God that could practice racial descrimination and that any policy of descrimination throughout the ages, even into bibilical times, has come from men, because God does not descriminate.

To those people, simply stating it has ended just isn't quite enough, because it leaves the window open for a God that DOES descriminate (at certain times, with certain people, for whatever reasons). The church may not know the reasons why, they may not know exactly when or how it started... and that's fine. But if the chruch believes in a God that DOES NOT use racial descriminatation, then they should be able to state that the PRIESTHOOD AND TEMPLE BAN was not from God.

The church has come a long way over the years to the statement that was just released. But will it ever take that next step?

It seems to me, the chruch is stuck between a TWO ROCKS and a HARD PLACE.

ROCK #1 is not ever saying it was wrong because the current prophets and leadership don't know if it MIGHT HAVE BEEN RIGHT. The past prophets may have been right in having the racial descriminatory priesthood and temple ban... for reasons unknown. So they will not "apologize" for it and say that it was wrong, because "who knows?" And in by so doing they promote a God that MAY use racial descrimination a certain times for reasons we do not understand -- a thought a lot of people simply can't accept.

ROCK #2 is if current prophets and leadership do believe the policy was wrong, and a practice of men and not from God, but choose NOT to take the next step in admitting it was wrong, becuase it has the potential to open up a can-of-worms.. how could a prophet, and/or series of succeeding prophets, get it wrong? Why didn't God fix the problem earlier? What does this mean about current policies and teaching of our prophets? Could modern day policies and teachings be seen as "wrong" in the future?

HARD PLACE is taking that next step and dealing with that can of worms that comes with it. Really getting at the meat of what being a prophet and man at the same time is all about. Getting at the meat of what is means to have a church lead BY GOD and ALSO by IMPERFECT MEN. Forming perhaps a more realistic and nuanced perspective on how to believe in prophets and the church, but also admitting that the prophets and chruch can sometimes "get it wrong."

I'm not saying these 3 items are "choices" and that Brethren are considering the direction they want to go, but these are the 3 ways I can see the church going forth in the future... and all of them have difficulties.

Curious to your thoughts on these things, especially what you think the chruch would be like if it went down the "HARD PLACE" option.

Edited March 19, 2012 by Brian 2.0

[cinepro]

I've had those same thoughts. But rocks and hard places tend to get softer as time goes on. Who knows what the "Church" might be saying 50 or 100 years from now?

But I would point out that there is a huge, huge difference between the following statements:

"We don't know why God implemented the Priesthood Ban"

vs.

"We don't know why there was a Priesthood Ban"

The first statement is perfectly reasonable and acknowledges revelation, faith, and a trust God's wisdom, even from our limited mortal perspective.

The second statement is the non-answer equivalent of the politician's "No Comment" or pleading the fifth. And as the Church is finding out, non-answers don't stop people from asking questions.

As far as I can tell, the recent Church statements on the subject reflect the second statement, not the first.

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/race-church

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/racial-remarks-in-washington-post-article

[Zeta-Flux]

cinepro,

Along those lines we have: "The origins of priesthood availability are not entirely clear. Some explanations with respect to this matter were made in the absence of direct revelation and references to these explanations are sometimes cited in publications. These previous personal statements do not represent Church doctrine."

What do we do about those statements which were made in the presence of direct revelation (or at least authoritative claims to such)?

[thesometimesaint]

cinepro:

You something like this?

McConkie's earlier statements on the topic, like those of other church leaders, implied or overtly stated that the priesthood restriction would never be lifted. To this, McConkie stated:

There are statements in our literature by the early Brethren that we have interpreted to mean that the Negroes would not receive the priesthood in mortality. I have said the same things, and people write me letters and say, "You said such and such, and how is it now that we do such and such?" All I can say is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or George Q. Cannon or whoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.

It doesn't make a particle of difference what anybody ever said about the Negro matter before the first day of June 1978. It is a new day and a new arrangement, and the Lord has now given the revelation that sheds light out into the world on this subject. As to any slivers of light or any particles of darkness of the past, we forget about them. We now do what meridian Israel did when the Lord said the gospel should go to the Gentiles. We forget all the statements that limited the gospel to the house of Israel, and we start going to the Gentiles.

Edited March 19, 2012 by thesometimesaint

[cdowis]

We do not know why we should abstain from coffee, why we should keep the Sabbath day holy, why we need to pay tithing (why not 8%)..... polygamy.....

Many have speculated.... but it comes down to obedience to the ONE who is more intelligent than we are..

[Brian 2.0]

thesometimesaint:

The church has repudiated the theories, the speculation... and I admire that. I really like that comment from McConkie. The church has re-emphasized this with it's recent comments. All theories should be put away and not talked about. I get that, and amen to it.

But the church has not repudidated THE BAN itself.

That's what this thread is about.

[Brian 2.0]

We do not know why we should abstain from coffee, why we should keep the Sabbath day holy, why we need to pay tithing (why not 8%)..... polygamy.....

Many have speculated.... but it comes down to obedience to the ONE who is more intelligent than we are..

You are misunderstanding the reason for this post! It's not about "WHY" It's not about SPECULATION.

The ban existed. PERIOD.

The question is the acknowledgement of if it was from God or not and the implications of both of those answers.

PLEASE stay on topic. I don't want this to be shut down.

Edited March 19, 2012 by Brian 2.0

[thesometimesaint]

Brian2:

How could we if the Ban was authorized by God? If the Ban wasn't authorized by God who cares what a small minority religion believes?

[Nemesis]

How can this thread be anything other than speculation. Please change and clarify the direction of this thread asap or it will be closed.

Nemesis

[Sky]

If God says that the Priesthood restriction was wrong, then I’d be okay with the Brethren saying so and apologizing for it (even with the potential “can-of-worms” that could open). But I would hate to see the Brethren do this simply because it’s politically correct or what people want to hear.

Most people don’t even believe that the “Mormon Priesthood” is valid anyway. Or do they?

God’s ways are not man’s ways. That is a hard reality. I’m sure there are a lot of people that would like to see women hold the Priesthood, too. But I don’t see this happening any time in the near future, if ever. I could be wrong, though. God has also not given a reason why only men can hold the Priesthood.

I simply don’t know the reason why this happened. I don’t think any of us do. But I’m truly thankful that it’s over and that I didn’t have to live through it. There is no doubt that this would have been an extreme challenge to my faith and testimony. I admire those that lived through this period in the Church with their faith and testimonies intact.

And, for Heaven’s sake, we now have temples operating in the heart of black Africa! So in light of how far the Church has come, I get a little irked when people dig up non-doctrinal and unfortunate statements made by Church leaders in 1949 or whenever. The Church has moved on, so why can’t they?

The correct approach, as I see it, it to say “We don’t know why this happened. We know some things, but not everything. This is one of those things we don’t know. We will have to wait until God chooses to give us further light and knowledge on the subject. We know that God intends for all of His children to eventually hear the Gospel in His own due time. We will not allow the things we don’t understand to sabotage our faith.”

[frankenstein]

Mcconkie speaking to a crowd of CES educators does not establish a Church position.

The Church ONLY dismissed SOME EXPLANATIONS.

The Church stated that it is not known PRECISELY why there was a ban.

So long as people do not quote the Church.correctly there will be misunderstandings.

[Brian 2.0]

How can this thread be anything other than speculation. Please change and clarify the direction of this thread asap or it will be closed.

Nemesis

I specifically asked there be no speculation regarding WHY the ban existed.

Are we not allowed to talk about the ways the church may move forward and the implications those ways?

My posts talks about the 3 ways I see the chruch and it's stance regarding the ban moving forward, and my takes on the implications of those 3 ways. And I welcome discussion on possibly more ways in which it can move forward, and also different implcations regarding those 3 ways going forward.

If you are going to shut down this thread, as opposed to blocking posters in the thread who are violating the policy, please let me know how I have violated the policy?

I am honestly trying to have a discussion on this matter and am not trying to rabble-rouse or bait out racist comments, and I feel I am operating in accordance to your policies.

Thanks,

Brian

[Brian 2.0]

If God says that the Priesthood restriction was wrong, then I’d be okay with the Brethren saying so and apologizing for it (even with the potential “can-of-worms” that could open). But I would hate to see the Brethren do this simply because it’s politically correct or what people want to hear.

Most people don’t even believe that the “Mormon Priesthood” is valid anyway. Or do they?

God’s ways are not man’s ways. That is a hard reality. I’m sure there are a lot of people that would like to see women hold the Priesthood, too. But I don’t see this happening any time in the near future, if ever. I could be wrong, though. God has also not given a reason why only men can hold the Priesthood.

I simply don’t know the reason why this happened. I don’t think any of us do. But I’m truly thankful that it’s over and that I didn’t have to live through it. There is no doubt that this would have been an extreme challenge to my faith and testimony. I admire those that lived through this period in the Church with their faith and testimonies intact.

And, for Heaven’s sake, we now have temples operating in the heart of black Africa! So in light of how far the Church has come, I get a little irked when people dig up non-doctrinal and unfortunate statements made by Church leaders in 1949 or whenever. The Church has moved on, so why can’t they?

The correct approach, as I see it, it to say “We don’t know why this happened. We know some things, but not everything. This is one of those things we don’t know. We will have to wait until God chooses to give us further light and knowledge on the subject. We know that God intends for all of His children to eventually hear the Gospel in His own due time. We will not allow the things we don’t understand to sabotage our faith.”

Thanks Sky, I really like this response. I also don't feel the Chruch should bow in order to be politically correct. And I too get irked when people bring up those non-doctinal and unfortunate statement you speak of. I do believe the chruch is moving on, or trying to move on. But I also understand the people that "want more." I think those people are who I talked about in my original post:

"A lot of people are not looking for reasons why it happened, or who did it, or when it actually started, or any of the doctrines behind it that could justifiy it... they just want the church to acknowledge that is was wrong... that there IS NO JUSTIFCATION of how it could ever have been right. Because they simply do not believe in a God that could practice racial descrimination and that any policy of descrimination throughout the ages, even into bibilical times, has come from men, because God does not descriminate."

These people are often times members of the church and desperately want to know that the Ban wasn't from God, because it goes against how they view God, so they look forward to the acknowledgement of it being wrong. Which is something that has not happened yet, and may never.

Which is why I don't think we should be surpirsed when people bring this up in an honest fashion. It's is the past, yes, but it still existed for many many years, and it (the Ban) has never been acknowledged as being "wrong." It's not completely dead issue for some people.

Edited March 20, 2012 by Brian 2.0

[CV75]

I'm not saying these 3 items are "choices" and that Brethren are considering the direction they want to go, but these are the 3 ways I can see the church going forth in the future... and all of them have difficulties.

Curious to your thoughts on these things, especially what you think the chruch would be like if it went down the "HARD PLACE" option.

I find these “rocks” somewhat artificial.

RE: ROCK #1, I don’t think not saying it was wrong promotes a God that may use racial discrimination. It contributes to the focus on the central messages such as a God that has a plan to save all His children, black and white, bond and free, etc., including those who themselves would believe that, as part of this plan, God uses (or does not use) racial discrimination.

RE: ROCK #2, going from believing it was wrong to admitting it was wrong is quite a leap that doesn’t make sense. I think they have such integrity and unity that they will not state an opinion of “who was wrong” on this matter until there is a unanimous revelation, which isn’t necessary on a matter that has been settled and that is related to ROCK #1.

RE: HARD PLACE, I believe they must get to the meat of what being a prophet and a man is, every day, if not moment, of their ministry. The least priority is conveying that point to those who do not at the expense of what they are supposed to be doing, also related to ROCK #1. Plus, I think those who get to the meat of what it means to be a follower of Christ and an imperfect man don’t need to watch them wear their hearts out on their sleeve.

[Saints Alive]

I see one of two possible outcomes and they both depend on what the truth is.

1. The ban was a bona fide revelation for what ever reason. The breatheren could choose to clarify the rational or leave it at we don't know

2. The ban was not inspired, the breatheren ask for a million appologies and we move on the best we can

The whole issue hinges upon whether the ban came from God or not and for now (and I don't care what anyone else says) all we know is that we don't know where the ban came from. That doesn't exclude man and it doesn't exclude God. I can accept it either way I suspect some might not and that is something they will have to deal with.

[Brian 2.0]

I see one of two possible outcomes and they both depend on what the truth is.

1. The ban was a bona fide revelation for what ever reason. The breatheren could choose to clarify the rational or leave it at we don't know

2. The ban was not inspired, the breatheren ask for a million appologies and we move on the best we can

The whole issue hinges upon whether the ban came from God or not and for now (and I don't care what anyone else says) all we know is that we don't know where the ban came from. That doesn't exclude man and it doesn't exclude God. I can accept it either way I suspect some might not and that is something they will have to deal with.

I like this, and I agree with you pretty much word for word... nicely put... and I guess emphasizing your last sentance with this thread. Some people cannot accept #1 because the God they believe in would never do such a thing. And some of those people are members of the church. How can we help them deal with that dissonance, if possible.

I'm also saying that either way (1 or 2) comes with a great deal of baggage (which is why I say Rock & Hard Place)

Edited March 20, 2012 by Brian 2.0

[Saints Alive]

I like this, and I agree with you pretty much word for word... nicely put... and I guess emphasizing your last sentance with this thread. Some people cannot accept #1 because the God they believe in would never do such a thing. And some of those people are members of the church. How can we help them deal with that dissonance, if possible.

I'm also saying that either way (1 or 2) comes with a great deal of baggage (which is why I say Rock & Hard Place)

In all fairness I think there are those who should be equally put off to find that 2 is the case. I'm not sure there is anything we or the church can do. Either you have a testimony or you don't. " god help me to accept things beyond my control"

[Stormy Waters]

I doubt that the church will make any further statements on this issue unless this comes up in the media again (which I believe it will during the general campaign between Romney and Obama). I think the church is content to stick with "we don't know." It allows some people to believe it was divinely inspired, and others to believe that it was a mistake.

[Cobalt-70]

But I would point out that there is a huge, huge difference between the following statements:

"We don't know why God implemented the Priesthood Ban"

vs.

"We don't know why there was a Priesthood Ban"

The first statement is perfectly reasonable and acknowledges revelation, faith, and a trust God's wisdom, even from our limited mortal perspective.

The second statement is the non-answer equivalent of the politician's "No Comment" or pleading the fifth. And as the Church is finding out, non-answers don't stop people from asking questions.

I actually think the second statement is better than the first, and reflects the fact that the LDS Church is not certain that God actually did implement the priesthood ban. I think it would be a mistake for the church to claim that God was the author of this policy.

But many black Mormons, and others, myself included, would like to see an official apology. Such a move would generate very good press, and might finally allow the church to put the issue behind it, and move forward. The fact of the ban is a much bigger deal than it has to be. Lots of organizations, including churches, have a history of racial discrimination that continued into the mid-20th century. The way that such organizations typically move on is to issue a formal apology.

[Cobalt-70]

I doubt that the church will make any further statements on this issue unless this comes up in the media again (which I believe it will during the general campaign between Romney and Obama). I think the church is content to stick with "we don't know." It allows some people to believe it was divinely inspired, and others to believe that it was a mistake.

I don't see any benefit at all in allowing Mormons to think that God inspired this policy, or allowing non-Mormons to think that the church still believes that God inspired this policy. I think there will come a day when an apology is issued. We can't move past the issue until that happens.

[Saints Alive]

I don't see any benefit at all in allowing Mormons to think that God inspired this policy, or allowing non-Mormons to think that the church still believes that God inspired this policy. I think there will come a day when an apology is issued. We can't move past the issue until that happens.

You're still speculating that it wasn't from God. You will have to forgive me if I take the church at its word and assume that they don't know if it was from God or not.

[Stormy Waters]

I don't see any benefit at all in allowing Mormons to think that God inspired this policy, or allowing non-Mormons to think that the church still believes that God inspired this policy. I think there will come a day when an apology is issued. We can't move past the issue until that happens.

I do agree this issue will continue to flare up until an apology is issued. But admitting it was a mistake is unbearable concession and may cause many members to doubt in the leadership of the church. If they could be wrong about the priesthood ban, what else could they be wrong about?

[Saints Alive]

I do agree this issue will continue to flare up until an apology is issued. But admitting it was a mistake is unbearable concession and may cause many members to doubt in the leadership of the church. If they could be wrong about the priesthood ban, what else could they be wrong about?

It's a double sided coin. If the church doesn't issue an apology there will be those who never join the church or who lose faith in the leadership for not apologizing.

Edited March 20, 2012 by Saints Alive

[Cobalt-70]

You're still speculating that it wasn't from God. You will have to forgive me if I take the church at its word and assume that they don't know if it was from God or not.

I'm not saying that the church does know. But they could choose to know if they wanted to. The answer is in the history books.

[Cobalt-70]

I do agree this issue will continue to flare up until an apology is issued. But admitting it was a mistake is unbearable concession and may cause many members to doubt in the leadership of the church. If they could be wrong about the priesthood ban, what else could they be wrong about?

I don't think it's an unbearable concession. I think that most Mormons understand and accept that the church sometimes makes policy mistakes. Does anybody remember 18-month missions for men? The Indian Placement Program? Allowing holocaust victims to be baptized by proxy?