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

[selek1]

You are correct. I did establish assumptions at the beginning, which I did believe would be accepted assumptions. Namely that the ban was, by it's definition, racial discrimination. There was some challenge to that assumption, which is perfectly acceptable, and I also agree that the discussion could not move on to a discussion of the "consequences of the varioius positions the Church might take" without first addressing those assumptions. Which is what I am trying to do now.

Laying out a debate and discussion is difficult in that we need to agree on a set of assumptions first. I don't want to put words in other's mouths, but it seems the response to the assumption of "the ban was racial discrimination" is this...

While it may appear to be racial discrimination to some, racial discrimination denotes an "unfair" or "negative" practice in relation to restricting something to someone based upon their race. If God did indeed inspire the ban, then it would by definition NOT be "unfair" because God is just and is no respector of persons. Therefore the term "racial discrimination" or "racist" would not be applicable to the ban.

Would this be an accurate assumption?

I actually find this to be a fairly valid stance to have, regardless of if I personally believe in it. It would be intersting to continue discussing and debating this assumption alone, and I think that debate actually could be possible, but as you said, it could become rather difficult given that we cannot speculate into why God would do the ban in the first place.

I actually have a problem with that reasoning, in that it at least appears to invoke circular logic.

In its form and reasoning, the argument is too much like the tired old chestnut that

"the Bible is inerrant because it tells us that it is the word of God and the word of God tells us that it cannot contain error or falsehood".

I would further stipulate two things:

First, that since the Priesthood is God's to delegate or refuse as he sees fit, then any discrimination is only alleged, rather than explicit.

For example, if I authorize my daughter to use the family car, but not my son- have I discriminated against my son?

Most people would suggest that I have not, as "discrimination" is commonly understood.

The assumption that either the Ban or not allowing my son to use the car was "discrimination" is speculative. It is inferred, rather than explicitly stated.

My son has no "right" to use the family car. It is a privelege that I can bestow or withhold entirely at my discretion- and for any reason.

It is not your place (or anyone elses) to criticize me on who, how, or when I delegate the use of the family vehicle.

It is not your place to pass judgement on my reasons.

The same logic applies to the Priesthood Ban.

No one now alive or dead (save Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ) have any right to the Priesthood.

That is a privilege that is theirs to bestow or withold as they see fit- for any reason or for no reason at all.

Unless and until it is demonstrated that the Priesthood Ban was not divinely sanctioned, none of us have any right to quibble over the reasoning behind the Ban.

It is not our place to tell God to whom he "must" delegate his authority and under what conditions.

Second, I would stipulate that (assuming for the sake of argument) that I had discriminated against my son- can one assume that I did so on the basis of his gender?

Can one assume that I did so on the basis of his race?

Can one assume that his conduct is "less valiant" than that of his sister?

Can one assume that I did so because of his age?

All of these speculations about my reasoning are just that- speculation.

Unless and until I make my reasoning clear, your guess is just as good as anyone elses.

Unless and until the Lord makes his reasoning (or states plainly that the policy was not divinely authorized) then any guesses as to why are likewise speculative.

One cannot assume that the Ban was (by definition) "racial discrimination" until one can demonstrate conclusively that "race" was the deciding factor.

One likewise cannot assume that the Ban was wrong- unless and until one can demonstrate definitively that it was not the will of the Lord.

Edited March 22, 2012 by selek1

[selek1]

Also, I didn't mean to insinuate that you are breaking off the discussion, but wondering (aloud through fictional dialogue) if this debate is at a stalemate.

The comment wasn't addressed to me, but I thought I'd toss in my two cents:

Considering that every argument that has been (and in my opinion can be) offered is speculative on its face, the entire kerfuffle is both a waste of time and a violation of the Board rules.

Unless and until we receive more authoritative information, such speculation and argument cannot lead to either resolution or to enlightenment.

As such, the only possible function of such speculation is to stir up contention and dissension amongst the Saints.

While such bickering ultimately undermines the unity needed to truly establish Zion, in the short term it serves only to entertain and encourage apostates, critics, and Sons of Perdition- which is why they continue to demand an apology and drum up contention over a practice that ended nearly four decades ago.

[zerinus]

I aplogize for the long fictional dialogue, and I don't want to put words in your mouth. Also, I didn't mean to insinuate that you are breaking off the discussion, but wondering (aloud through fictional dialogue) if this debate is at a stalemate.

I am tring to restate your position so I understand it and know we are on the same page and at least understanding what each of us is talking about. Does the following statement accurate represent what your position?

While it may appear to be racial discrimination to some, racial discrimination denotes an "unfair" or "negative" practice in relation to restricting something to someone based upon their race. If God did indeed inspire the ban, then it would by definition NOT be "unfair" because God is just and is no respector of persons. Therefore the term "racial discrimination" or "racist" would not be applicable to the ban.

You are making it unnecessarily complicated. My position is the same as the Church's:

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

[selek1]

While such bickering ultimately undermines the unity needed to truly establish Zion, in the short term it serves only to entertain and encourage apostates, critics, and Sons of Perdition- which is why they continue to demand an apology and drum up contention over a practice that ended nearly four decades ago.

Brian2.0,

Upon re-reading my earlier post, I realized that this statement might be taken as a slur or accusation against you or others,

Let me be clear: I am in no way suggesting that you or other sincere questioners qualify as apostate, critics, or Sons of Perdition.

Those categories are reserved in my estimation, for those who recently stirred up the issue for partisan and personal gain.

You are not going to call anyone Sons of Perdition and stay in the thread.

[Log]

No, it isn't.

Let me give you a few examples you would be free to comment on so we can hash this out.

Example 1: Suppose I build car. Joe comes along and shoots at my car, and it blows up. Did I build a bomb?

I'm sorry, that is not analogical to the case under consideration.

Example 2: Consider the following hypothetical. On planet Grnn, there is are two races, the Melkies and the Jojos. At one point in time the Melkies are statistically weaker than the Jojos. So they create a strict regimen, work hard, and a few centuries later the Melkies are statistically stronger than the Jojos. Were the Melkies created to be weaker? Stronger? Were they created to progress from one to the other?

I'm sorry, unless you can establish this example is analogical to the case under consideration, I'm going to reject it also.

As for your original hypothetical, have you discovered where the answer to your question may be found? If not, I can PM it to you. Like I said, it is not favorable to your position, and, in fact, may be seen as supporting mine quite strongly.

Edited March 22, 2012 by Log

[Zeta-Flux]

I'm sorry, that is not analogical to the case under consideration.

I'm sorry, unless you can establish this example is analogical to the case under consideration, I'm going to reject it also.

As for your original hypothetical, have you discovered where the answer to your question may be found? If not, I can PM it to you. Like I said, it is not favorable to your position, and, in fact, may be seen as supporting mine quite strongly.

It appears we may be talking past each other. Why are my examples not analogical? What principle is different between my examples and yours?

[Log]

Why are your examples analogical?

Here's an example of why I find your 1st question completely irrelevant:

Suppose God created a human. Suppose Joe came by and shot him. Does that mean God created a dead human?

You'll notice that question exactly mirrors the "logic" of your question.

Your second question bears no resemblance to any claims anyone has made that I'm aware of, so again, unless you establish relevance, I'm simply going to ignore it.

Here are a few for you, though, that are direct:

Do you agree that God created the races?

Granting that, do you agree that God had full control over the design, specifications, and implementations, of the varying races?

Granting that, do you believe - and I know you do - that God infallibly foreknew the material consequences of each of his plans, and executed actions - that is, there is no possibility of any claim of "unforseen consequences" here?

Edited March 22, 2012 by Log

[Zeta-Flux]

Why are your examples analogical?

Here's an example of why I find your 1st question completely irrelevant:

Suppose God created a human. Suppose Joe came by and shot him. Does that mean God created a dead human?

You'll notice that question exactly mirrors the "logic" of your question.

Your second question bears no resemblance to any claims anyone has made that I'm aware of, so again, unless you establish relevance, I'm simply going to ignore it.

And I still don't see why this isn't analogous to your examples. What is your answer to your question? Did God create that dead human?

You claim there are statistical differences between the races. Those statistical differences can be attributed to choices, and are not necessarily in a causal relationship with race. Correlation does not imply causation.

Here are a few for you, though, that are direct:

Do you agree that God created the races?

I don't know. If by race you mean lineages, then no. I think we created them through our choice of mates.

Granting that, do you agree that God had full control over the design, specifications, and implementations, of the varying races?

No. We have free will.

Granting that, do you believe - and I know you do - that God infallibly foreknew the material consequences of each of his plans, and executed actions - that is, there is no possibility of any claim of "unforseen consequences" here?

Actually, as I said in another thread, I do not believe in infallible foreknowledge. I simply believe God knows the future.

That said, I agree there are no unforseen consequences. That does not make God the author of them, unless (as you say) we grant "that God had full control over the design, specifications, and implementations". He does not. We implement our own wills.

Edited March 22, 2012 by Zeta-Flux

[Brian 2.0]

Brian2.0,

Upon re-reading my earlier post, I realized that this statement might be taken as a slur or accusation against you or others,

Let me be clear: I am in no way suggesting that you or other sincere questioners qualify as apostate, critics, or Sons of Perdition.

Those categories are reserved in my estimation, for those who recently stirred up the issue for partisan and personal gain.

I took no offense at your comment. I personally have not found it be a waste of time, and actually have learned a bit more about how certain people look at the situation differently. And I understand the delicate nature of this debate, which is why I don't bring it up in Gospel Doctrine class on sunday and instead bring it up here.

A while I agree that it is pointless to speculate why the ban was instituted in the first place, I do find the latter half of my original post to still have some points of interesting discussion, if wanted. Namely, if the chruch ever did come out and say that the Ban was from God, would that open a "can of worms" and some in other threads have stated?

The issue of the ban could be replaced with polygamy I guess if we wanted to steer clear of the ban issue. It is still speculative yes, but it's sometimes interesting to speculate. In this case how the general membership would react if the current leadership came out and said that the prophet(s) in the past were wrong about a certain piece of doctrine or policy. Obviously if it's something like "we were wrong about the Perpetual Education Fund, it probably wouldn't be an issue. But there are those that claim that if there was admission that the ban was not from God, then it would cause a huge shake up in the chruch body. Personally, I don't believe that. I think people would be just fine with it.

[Brian 2.0]

You are making it unnecessarily complicated. My position is the same as the Church's:

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

I'm aware that is your position. I guess I was trying to restate what it seemed your answer was to the question of "But isn't the ban racial discrimination?"

I feel that's a answer that we'd be well served to answer if asked. I guess you could simply restate the chruch's position again. Which is an acceptable answer, and that's maybe what you just did.

[Log]

And I still don't see why this isn't analogous to your examples. What is your answer to your question? Did God create that dead human?

You claim there are statistical differences between the races. Those statistical differences can be attributed to choices, and are not necessarily in a causal relationship with race. Correlation does not imply causation.

Right about there (at the bolded part) is when I lose interest.

When you address claims made, and not claims not made, then we can perhaps continue.

I notice Brian is diligently bypassing my straightforward questions to him.

Edited March 22, 2012 by Log

[zerinus]

I'm aware that is your position. I guess I was trying to restate what it seemed your answer was to the question of "But isn't the ban racial discrimination?"

The answer to that is simply "No". What is your problem with that answer?

[Minos]

When you do that, you are speculating about the nature, origin, and cause of the Ban (which is now officially verboten), but worse, you slip (I believe unintentionally) into advocacy of a certain course of action.

sigh

One more time, we will not tolerate promoting the speculation that the church rejected in the recent press release condemning racism.

[Brian 2.0]

The answer to that is simply "No". What is your problem with that answer?

Nothing I guess. It's an answer. Just not much of a discussion.

[Brian 2.0]

I notice Brian is diligently bypassing my straightforward questions to him.

I wasn't purposely avoiding your question. It's just hard to have multiple dialogues at once.

Your initial problem with me was my definition of "racial discrimination"

I have since revised by definition of "racial discrimination" to the following: Abusive actions or unfair treatment of a person or group on the basis of race.

Edited March 22, 2012 by Brian 2.0

[Brian 2.0]

sigh

One more time, we will not tolerate promoting the speculation that the church rejected in the recent press release condemning racism.

I'm not sure if this was directed at Selek, or at me, whom Selek is referring to in the quote you used.

I have not been asking for people to go into those speculations, in fact, whenever I am asking a question where someone could be tempted to get into those speculations, I am specifically asking them not to. If I have, please let me know where and I can edit the post.

Thanks.

It was directed to Selek.

[zerinus]

Nothing I guess. It's an answer. Just not much of a discussion.

It is not "an answer;" it is the right answer. If you have a problem with that answer, say what it is; if you don't, what is there left to discuss?

Edited March 22, 2012 by zerinus

[Brian 2.0]

It is not "an answer;" it is the right answer. If you have a problem with that answer, say what it is; if you don't, what is there left to discuss?

It's not that I have a problem with you answer, it's just that we were involved in a discussion where your answer was more detailed than that.

In your Post #96 you gave a much more detailed answer where you explained why the ban doesn't need to be viewed as racial discrimination. I was simply trying to restate your answer so that I understood you, then you said I was making it much more complicated that it needs to be and then used the chruch stance. I wasn't trying to make it more complicated, I was trying to restate your Post #96 so I knew that I was understanding you correctly.

[Zeta-Flux]

Right about there (at the bolded part) is when I lose interest.

When you address claims made, and not claims not made, then we can perhaps continue.

I notice Brian is diligently bypassing my straightforward questions to him.

I would like to address claims made. I apologize if I was misrepresenting your claims. From my point of view this is the sequence of events in our discussion; please clarify where I went wrong.

(1) I thought you were asserting that statistical differences among the races along with a belief that God created the races implies the belief that God is racially discriminatory.

(2) I thought this logic was faulty, and tried to explain by talking about "created and emergent properties".

(3) You responded "That's incoherent" (with no further input).

(4) I disagreed and offered some analogies to try and generate discussion so we could discuss my argument.

(5) You responded with "I'm sorry, that is not analogical to the case under consideration." and "I'm sorry, unless you can establish this example is analogical to the case under consideration, I'm going to reject it also."

(6) At this point, I was quite confused. I suggested we were talking past each other and asked why you didn't think my analogies were analogous. I wanted you to explain how I was misunderstanding your claims.

(7) You responded first by asking why my examples were analogous, second by offering another analogy which you claimed was off topic (showing my analogy was completely irrelevant), and third asking me some questions.

( I answered those questions. I explained that I thought your new analogy was on topic, and expressed the fundamental reason I thought it was on topic --namely, just because two things are correlated does not make them causally related.

(9) You responded that you lost interest in my post and that I wasn't responding to your claims.

I answered your questions. I asked for clarification. You respond with attacks and boredom. So be it.

I'm gonna go out on a limb and suggest that your logic only works if God not only creates all things, but then also implements all things.

[Log]

Hi Zeta,

Given Brian's old definition of racial discrimination, and the fact that there are statistical and observational differences between the races, coupled with the belief that God instituted the races and at least some of their differences - be it intelligence, skin color, eye shape, hair type, or what have you - it follows directly that God is racially discriminatory.

Your examples were not relevant to that argument, and I'm not interested in eternal logic chopping.

[Saints Alive]

Hi Zeta,

Given Brian's old definition of racial discrimination, and the fact that there are statistical and observational differences between the races, coupled with the belief that God instituted the races and at least some of their differences - be it intelligence, skin color, eye shape, hair type, or what have you - it follows directly that God is racially discriminatory.

Your examples were not relevant to that argument, and I'm not interested in eternal logic chopping.

I just want to point out that while there may be observable statistical differences between races that does not mean that those differences are due to race. In fact most of the noticeable differences are likely more due to culture than any physical characteristic of race.

[Zeta-Flux]

I just want to point out that while there may be observable statistical differences between races that does not mean that those differences are due to race. In fact most of the noticeable differences are likely more due to culture than any physical characteristic of race.

Wow. You summed up in two sentences what I've been trying to say in too many posts.

[Zeta-Flux]

Hi Zeta,

Given Brian's old definition of racial discrimination, and the fact that there are statistical and observational differences between the races, coupled with the belief that God instituted the races and at least some of their differences - be it intelligence, skin color, eye shape, hair type, or what have you - it follows directly that God is racially discriminatory.

Your examples were not relevant to that argument, and I'm not interested in eternal logic chopping.

You don't need to refer to the statistical and observational differences at all for this argument to succeed. If we take it as given that God instituted some of the differences, then that suffices.

Further, as I kept trying to say, and as Saints Alive quite succinctly said, the statistical and observation differences do not need to be due to God. So I personally think that part of the argument is fallacious. But if indeed Brian claims that God gave the races differences, then yes under his definition your argument would hold.

[juliann]

Racial discrimination has a definition. As long as we are part of the world we are going to have to live with the same definition everyone else uses. To see people trying to redefine it simply to exclude the ban from meeting the definition everyone else uses is bizarre. What it obviously leads to is speculation about race, some of which is downright distasteful. All of those discussions are question begging. The very concept of race is questionable and it is incumbent upon those who want to pull this out to establish what it is before using it. Without DNA what is it? Color? Features? Body build? I suppose one could make a convoluted case that the church wasn't using race because they were looking at those traits to exclude and those traits do not determine "race". But that would look as crazy as trying to redefine racial discrimination......

[Sky]

Racial discrimination has a definition. As long as we are part of the world we are going to have to live with the same definition everyone else uses. To see people trying to redefine it simply to exclude the ban from meeting the definition everyone else uses is bizarre. What it obviously leads to is speculation about race, some of which is downright distasteful. All of those discussions are question begging. The very concept of race is questionable and it is incumbent upon those who want to pull this out to establish what it is before using it. Without DNA what is it? Color? Features? Body build? I suppose one could make a convoluted case that the church wasn't using race because they were looking at those traits to exclude and those traits do not determine "race". But that would look as crazy as trying to redefine racial discrimination......

The conundrum that believing Latter-day Saints find themselves in with this issue, myself included, is feeling the need to defend past leaders while at the same time standing completely behind where the Church stands at the present day. It’s a delicate balance. We are not comfortable with accusing our leaders of being racists, past or present. When push comes to shove, we are simply not taught that they possibly could have been wrong. We are taught that God chooses His representatives here on earth, and that we are to sustain them in their callings. So if we have to live with the same definition of racial discrimination that everybody else uses, we will also have to live with the ongoing accusations of racism.