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

[thesometimesaint]

There are some 25,000 genes in the human genome. 50 are related to race, not one of those 50 has any relationship to intelligence.

http://www.smithsonianchannel.com/site/sn/show.do?show=141379

[Brian 2.0]

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.

I agree with this statement Sky. Very well put, and sums up my reasoning as to why this issue will continue to come up.

[Zeta-Flux]

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.

I agree that this is the right course of action, as we all want to understand one another.

However, rational people can disagree about whether something satisfies a definition or not.

By the way, I like your questions about what constitutes "race".

---

Sky,

I too like your statement.

[juliann]

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.

I understand the dilemma but I guess I don't think our leaders need us to defend them. That almost has a steadying the ark feel to it. I'm reading through an article on all of this by Pres. Kimball's son and it should be required reading for everyone. It shows how unstable this policy was throughout the time it was enforced....and how it was changed. There is no sign it was ever a revelation from God. So we are left with the definition of discrimination/racism we have to use along with everyone else. And the only thing worse than humbly admitting that no one in our church is so close to perfection that they don't even need the atonement is to continue to justify what even the church has labeled as racism. That is where it all comes to a stop for me.

[Pahoran]

Going back to the OP: ultimately it is incoherent to say that it was wrong until we definitively know why. It would be a hasty -- and may I suggest, a rather craven -- surrender to the world for us to throw our forebears under the bus just so our contemporaries would think we were "enlightened," or something.

The Priesthood ban came to an end 34 (that's thirty-four) years ago. It impacted no "civil rights" and deprived nobody of life, liberty or property. The notion that anyone is "owed" anything therefor is nonsense.

Regards,

Pahoran

Edited March 22, 2012 by Pahoran

[zerinus]

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.

Post #96 is something that I said in response to what you had said, and should be understood in that context. If you have difficulty understanding what I had said in post #96, explain what that is, and I will try to do better; but I don't see how reformulating what I had said is going to aid your understanding of what I had said.

[juliann]

Going back to the OP: ultimately it is incoherent to say that it was wrong until we definitively know why. .

I look at it the other way because every single reason for it was "thrown under the bus". How are we supposed to defend leaders who relied on those discredited reasons? So it isn't a matter of right or wrong it is a matter of there is absolutely no support for it. It is a simple matter of policy vs doctrine and even Pres. McKay privately referred to it as policy. Ultimately this becomes a debate over policy and doctrine more than anything else. But those who want to maintain the ban is doctrine do have to come up with a scriptural basis now that the lineage/pre-existence justifications have been repudiated. I find it much easier to simply say it was a policy that went on too long.

[Pahoran]

I look at it the other way because every single reason for it was "thrown under the bus". How are we supposed to defend leaders who relied on those discredited reasons?

The reasons all came after the ban, and were clearly speculative attempts to explain it in retrospect.

So it isn't a matter of right or wrong it is a matter of there is absolutely no support for it. It is a simple matter of policy vs doctrine and even Pres. McKay privately referred to it as policy. Ultimately this becomes a debate over policy and doctrine more than anything else. But those who want to maintain the ban is doctrine do have to come up with a scriptural basis now that the lineage/pre-existence justifications have been repudiated. I find it much easier to simply say it was a policy that went on too long.

I've no doubt it is easier; I'm not sure that's good enough. See the sentence immediately following the one from my post which you quoted.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Sky]

I look at it the other way because every single reason for it was "thrown under the bus". How are we supposed to defend leaders who relied on those discredited reasons? So it isn't a matter of right or wrong it is a matter of there is absolutely no support for it. It is a simple matter of policy vs doctrine and even Pres. McKay privately referred to it as policy. Ultimately this becomes a debate over policy and doctrine more than anything else. But those who want to maintain the ban is doctrine do have to come up with a scriptural basis now that the lineage/pre-existence justifications have been repudiated. I find it much easier to simply say it was a policy that went on too long.

Well, if in fact it was wrong, it is very disconcerting that the Lord didn’t correct the Brethren before 1978. I mean, why??? He could have.

But a more positive way to look at it is the Lord chooses imperfect men to carry out His work. We are the only thing He has to work with. That gives me hope. The Lord really is patient and long suffering with us. All the blessings of the Priesthood and Temple are now available to every living soul who is now living or has lived or who will yet live. God is no respecter of persons – and denieth none who humbly seeketh after Him. I take solace in this knowledge. Whatever mistakes may have been made, the Kingdom of God on the earth will triumph in the end.

[Cobalt-70]

I look at it the other way because every single reason for it was "thrown under the bus". How are we supposed to defend leaders who relied on those discredited reasons? So it isn't a matter of right or wrong it is a matter of there is absolutely no support for it. It is a simple matter of policy vs doctrine and even Pres. McKay privately referred to it as policy. Ultimately this becomes a debate over policy and doctrine more than anything else. But those who want to maintain the ban is doctrine do have to come up with a scriptural basis now that the lineage/pre-existence justifications have been repudiated. I find it much easier to simply say it was a policy that went on too long.

In the late 1960s, the church almost voted to discontinue the ban without a revelation. In fact, they voted to discontinue the ban, but Harold B. Lee happened to be absent during the vote and when he returned, he pressured the others to rescind the vote and wait for a revelation. If all but one of the members of the presiding quorums were willing to abandon it without a revelation in the 60s, that's pretty good evidence that the ban was not instituted by a revelation.

Edited March 22, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[frankenstein]

I look at it the other way because every single reason for it was "thrown under the bus". How are we supposed to defend leaders who relied on those discredited reasons? So it isn't a matter of right or wrong it is a matter of there is absolutely no support for it. It is a simple matter of policy vs doctrine and even Pres. McKay privately referred to it as policy.

CFR that "every single reason for it was thrown under the bus." Also, since when is private statement of a Church leader a means of establishing a position of the Church?

When was the last time you read the Church statements - most recent ones on the ban.

The Church disavowed SOME reasons, and the Church position is that the reason for the ban is not known precisely

"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 [i.e. the "some explanation" made in the absence of direct revelation] are sometimes cited in publications.

These previous personal statements [i.e. the "some explanation" made in the absence of direct revelation] do not represent Church doctrine.” (bracketed text mine)

Edited March 23, 2012 by frankenstein

[frankenstein]

Going back to the OP: ultimately it is incoherent to say that it was wrong until we definitively know why. It would be a hasty -- and may I suggest, a rather craven -- surrender to the world for us to throw our forebears under the bus just so our contemporaries would think we were "enlightened," or something.

The Priesthood ban came to an end 34 (that's thirty-four) years ago. It impacted no "civil rights" and deprived nobody of life, liberty or property. The notion that anyone is "owed" anything therefor is nonsense.

Regards,

Pahoran

Just read this one. I agree with it.

What is to be apologized for? The reason for the restriction is not clear - this is the position of the Church.

The Church only renounced some explanations for the restriction.

The Church did not renounce all explanations that have ever been offered.

When and if the Church renounced all explanations then an apology should be considered. Until those wanting an apology do not understand the current position of the Church towards the restriction; those claiming it was just policy also do not understand the current position of the Church.

Edited March 24, 2012 by frankenstein

[frankenstein]

I look at it the other way because every single reason for it was "thrown under the bus". How are we supposed to defend leaders who relied on those discredited reasons? So it isn't a matter of right or wrong it is a matter of there is absolutely no support for it. It is a simple matter of policy vs doctrine and even Pres. McKay privately referred to it as policy. Ultimately this becomes a debate over policy and doctrine more than anything else. But those who want to maintain the ban is doctrine do have to come up with a scriptural basis now that the lineage/pre-existence justifications have been repudiated. I find it much easier to simply say it was a policy that went on too long.

CFR that "every single reason for it was thrown under the bus." Also, since when is private statement of a Church leader a means of establishing a position of the Church?

When was the last time you read the Church statements - most recent ones on the ban.

The Church disavowed SOME reasons, and the Church position is that the reason for the ban is not known precisely

"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 [i.e. the "some explanation" made in the absence of direct revelation] are sometimes cited in publications.

These previous personal statements [i.e. the "some explanation" made in the absence of direct revelation] do not represent Church doctrine.” (bracketed text mine)

It is a very firm and accurate position that "every reason" for the ban has not been thrown under the bus. It also appears less than truthful to claim every reason was thrown under the bus. Those claiming all reasons have been disavowed bear the burden of proof.

For those wish to defend the church have the responsibility to be accurate about the positions of the Church.

[frankenstein]

I look at it the other way because every single reason for it was "thrown under the bus". How are we supposed to defend leaders who relied on those discredited reasons? So it isn't a matter of right or wrong it is a matter of there is absolutely no support for it. It is a simple matter of policy vs doctrine and even Pres. McKay privately referred to it as policy. Ultimately this becomes a debate over policy and doctrine more than anything else. But those who want to maintain the ban is doctrine do have to come up with a scriptural basis now that the lineage/pre-existence justifications have been repudiated. I find it much easier to simply say it was a policy that went on too long.

CFR that "every single reason for it was thrown under the bus." Also, since when is private statement of a Church leader a means of establishing a position of the Church?

When was the last time you read the Church statements - most recent ones on the ban.

The Church disavowed SOME reasons, and the Church position is that the reason for the ban is not known precisely

"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 [i.e. the "some explanation" made in the absence of direct revelation] are sometimes cited in publications.

These previous personal statements [i.e. the "some explanation" made in the absence of direct revelation] do not represent Church doctrine.” (bracketed text mine)

Juliann, It has been over a week waiting for you honor the CFR.

[frankenstein]

Still waiting juliann.

The Church disavowed SOME reasons, and the Church position is that the reason for the ban is not known precisely

"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 [i.e. the "some explanation" made in the absence of direct revelation] are sometimes cited in publications. These previous personal statements [i.e. the "some explanation" made in the absence of direct revelation] do not represent Church doctrine.” (bracketed text mine)

[frankenstein]

The content of this post was taking from another thread....

The church has said it does not know. Do not misrepresent that if you want to stay on this board.

It is a good thing then that I have not misrepresented the Church position. So I take that the warning applies to all, but as I have not misrepresented the Church, I will do my best to ensure others do not misrepresent the Church.

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

Question: not known? or not known precisely? which is the misrepresentation or do both mean the same thing?

And

“The origins of priesthood availability are not entirely clear. Some explanations [not all explanations only 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 [some explanations mentioned in the previous sentence] previous personal statements do not represent Church doctrine.” (emphasis added)

Question: What explanations do represent Church doctrine? What affect does the recent Church statement have on the 1949 and 1969 First Presidency letters?

The 1949 Official Statement from the First Presidency a personal statement, taken from en.fairmormon.org

Quote

August 17, 1949

The attitude of the Church with reference to Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, ...

The 1969 Official statement from the First Presidency. Also taken from en.fairmormon.org?

Quote

A word of explanation concerning the position of the Church.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints owes its origin, its existence, and its hope for the future to the principle of continuous revelation. “We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.”

From the beginning of this dispensation, Joseph Smith and all succeeding presidents of the Church have taught that Negroes, while spirit children of a common Father, and the progeny of our earthly parents Adam and Eve, were not yet to receive the priesthood, for reasons which we believe are known to God, but which He has not made fully known to man.

Our living prophet, President David O. McKay, has said, “The seeming discrimination by the Church toward the Negro is not something which originated with man; but goes back into the beginning with God….

“Revelation assures us that this plan antedates man’s mortal existence, extending back to man’s pre-existent state.”

President McKay has also said, “Sometime in God’s eternal plan, the Negro will be given the right to hold the priesthood.”

Until God reveals His will in this matter, to him whom we sustain as a prophet, we are bound by that same will. Priesthood, when it is conferred on any man comes as a blessing from God, not of men.

Has the Church leadership renounced these First Presidency statements?

If the Church has renounced the First Presidency statements from 1949 and 1969, I was not aware of such a renouncing. I am only aware that the Church has renounce or has stated that personal statements do not represent Church doctrine.

I will not, nor have I misrepresented the position of the Church.

Edited April 1, 2012 by frankenstein

[frankenstein]

Juliann, I take it that you are not going to honor the CFR... Oh well you are not first of those who would call themselves defenders of the LDS Church who has refused to support their claims; that says a lot.