Survey Re: Lds Beliefs On Race

[smac97]

Here (an article in the Deseret News) (emphasis added):

Religious controversies continue to rile the 2012 presidential campaign. One of the most recent concerns The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its past ban on blacks receiving the Church's priesthood. This role is ordinarily open to all Mormon men, so the racial restriction prevented blacks from full participation in the Church.

.

The ban ended in 1978, but the topic could still be incendiary in 2012, if Mitt Romney becomes the Republican presidential nominee. The contest for the White House would then involve the first Mormon to win a major-party nomination challenging the first African-American president. Critics of Mormonism could well attack the LDS Church's racially-exclusionary past, while its defenders could charge prejudice against the racially-inclusive contemporary LDS Church.

.

The current controversy was sparked when the Washington Post published statements attributed to Randy Bott, a professor at LDS Church-owned Brigham Young University, repeating a "folk doctrine" that was once offered to explain the ban, but was not an official doctrine of the LDS Church.

.

In a nutshell, the folk doctrine alleged that blacks were "cursed" by choices made in a pre-mortal confrontation, known among Mormons as the "war in heaven."

...

The Washington Post article provoked a strong reaction in Mormon circles. The LDS Church issued an official statement declaring that such views "absolutely do not represent the teachings and doctrines" of the Church, and then went on to say, "we believe all people are God's children and are equal in His eyes and in the Church. We do not tolerate racism in any form." The president of Genesis, a support group for black Mormons, labeled the folk doctrine "vile," while numerous blog posts and op-ed pieces similarly denounced them.

.

But what do rank-and-file Mormons actually believe? Does the folk doctrine on race hold any sway? Or do most Mormons agree with its repudiation?

.

A few weeks before this controversy flared up, we surveyed a nationally representative sample of American Mormons, and happened to ask about this very folk doctrine.

.

Adopting Mormon religious language, our question read: "In the past, some Mormons have said that blacks had to wait to hold the priesthood because they were less valiant in the war in heaven, or the pre-mortal existence. Have you ever heard this?" Those who had heard of the statement were then asked whether they agree or disagree.

.

Less than half of all Mormons, 45 percent, report having heard this teaching. When we combine awareness and agreement, just 9 percent of all Mormons have both heard of, and agree with, the folk doctrine (just 2 percent strongly agree).

In other words, over 90 percent of Mormons have either never heard the folk doctrine or, if they have, reject it.

.

This does not surprise me. The first time I heard about the "less valiant in the pre-existence" concept was when I was a teenager reading my dad's old edition of Mormon Doctrine (I believe it was the first edition). This would have been in the late eighties. I asked my dad about it and he said that this had been a common explanation for why blacks were not given the priesthood prior to 1978. My dad also said that Elder McConkie had himself repudiated this explanation soon after the 1978 revelation came out. I believe he was referring to Elder McConkie's well-known "All Are Alike Unto God" address given at the CES Religious Educators Symposium on August 18, 1978, in which he stated (emphasis added):

.

We have read these passages and their associated passages for many years. We have seen what the words say and have said to ourselves, “Yes, it says that, but we must read out of it the taking of the gospel and the blessings of the temple to the Negro people, because they are denied certain things.” There are statements in our literature by the early Brethren which 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?” And all I can say to that 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 President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever 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.

.

We get our truth and our light line upon line and precept upon precept. We have now had added a new flood of intelligence and light on this particular subject, and it erases all the darkness and all the views and all the thoughts of the past. They don’t matter any more.

.

It doesn’t make a particle of difference what anybody ever said about the Negro matter before the first day of June of this year, 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.

.

I was too young in 1978 to appreciate the significance of the revelation on the priesthood, but my dad said that it was a source of joy for the vast majority of the members of his acquaintance.

The Des News article concludes:

.

Awareness of the folk doctrine is related to involvement in Mormon culture and practices. Sixty percent of Mormons who have been church members all their lives and have done full-time missionary service have heard of the doctrine. However, greater awareness of the folk doctrine does not increase agreement with it. We suspect that awareness reflects exposure to both speculation on the topic inside, and criticism from outside, the LDS Church.

.

Young Mormons are slightly less likely to be aware of this folk doctrine, but much more likely to disagree with it if they have. Among Mormons born since the priesthood ban ended in 1978 (under 35 years of age), just 40 percent have heard of it but only 5 percent are both aware and agree (merely 1 percent strongly agree). Looking forward, it is likely that this folk doctrine will literally die off due to generational change.

.

That sounds about right. I have something of a racially diverse family. I have an adopted Hawaiian sister who married a Filipino, an adopted Tahitian brother, and a biological brother who married a Samoan. I've never thought of my siblings in racial terms, nor was I ever taught by my parents or anyone at Church while growing up in the Church in Utah County that race matters a whit (as noted above, I had to read an old book to find out about the "less valiant" concept).

A few years ago I was watching To Kill a Mockingbird with some of my older children, including an 8-year-old son, "Scott". This son has two cousins whom he is very close to: "Joseph" (the son of my biological brother and has Samoan wife, so he looks rather Samoan - black, wavy hair, brown skin, brown eyes) and "Jack" (the son of my biological sister and her husband, who is totally Caucasian, blond hair, blue eyes, etc.). After the movie Scott turned to me and asked why some of the characters in the movie had mistreated Tom Robinson (the black man on trial for rape in the book/movie). I explained that some people dislike others based on the color of their skin being different, and that this is called "racism." Scott seemed a bit perplexed at this. I asked him, "Think of your two cousins, Joseph and Jack. Can you imagine being really mean to Joseph because he has brown skin, and being really nice to Jack because he has white skin?" Scott was genuinely taken aback and said "No way! That doesn't make sense at all!" And I said, "Well, good. You don't have a problem with racism then."

I've spent my entire life in the Church. I have never heard the "less valiant" concept taught in any Church setting. The only time I have heard it mentioned at all is when it is being repudiated. That's not to say that racism doesn't exist in the Church, or out of the Church. We all face an ongoing struggle. But from my corner of the LDS world, racism is neither taught nor, it seems, is it a sentiment given voice amongst ourselves. And I'm very glad of that.

-Smac

Edited March 31, 2012 by smac97

[Rivers]

I haven't heard the "less valiant in the pre-earth life" doctrine a whole lot either. But I have heard the "curse of cain" doctrine taught in seminary and institute several times. I would really like to here a talk about race this weekend and maybe a more official denouncement of the folk doctrines. It would be a great time to do so. But that is probably wishful thinking.

[juliann]

One only has to look at this board to see how a few are determined to stick with this stuff. I grew up in the church and I assumed I'd always known about it but I'd never stopped to think about when I first heard about it. I do remember it being more of a whispered type thing by the late 60s when that horrid Dyer article was passed around on the sly. But I do think it is an "old folk" type thing. My daughter's generation just looks at you funny if you try to get into this. However, in the UVU conference the Pew presenter had a statistic on a high percentage of Mormons who thought there was no racism. He attributed it to the centralized geography where so many members just weren't acquainted with it....or didn't recognize it. I think that is where we get into trouble because I continue to hear stories of Mormons who really think they are being loving by telling black members that they will be white in heaven and such things. My friend who lives in SLC got really fed up with members asking if they could touch her braided hair or asked her if it was real.

As for the election season, it could turn out bad for Mormons but it could also turn out bad for other religions if their practices are also put on the table. They can only get Mormons on the past by ignoring everyone else and they really can't get us on the present when so many others remain segregated. But that assumes fair reporting.

[KevinG]

"In other words, over 90 percent of Mormons have either never heard the folk doctrine or, if they have, reject it."

...and the other 2% that strongly support it post it all over the internet.

[juliann]

"In other words, over 90 percent of Mormons have either never heard the folk doctrine or, if they have, reject it."

...and the other 2% that strongly support it post it all over the internet.

[selek1]

One only has to look at this board to see how a few are determined to stick with this stuff.

This will- as sure as the sun rises- get dinged; either for "speculating" or for some other trumped up excuse.

But your caricature of the discussion does not accurately reflect the position or tactics of those who disagree with an "all or nothing" interpretation regarding the Ban.

It does not reflect my arguments, nor those of BCSpace, nor even those of Frankenstein.

It does not, in fact, reflect the arguments of any faithful LDS I've seen discussing the topic on these boards.

While the mods have extended a sheltering- and censoring- hand over the entire argument, I have yet to see any faithful LDS member "determined to stick with" Botts' folk doctrine.

You alleged in another thread that "all of the reasons for the Ban" had been "thrown under the bus." Implicit in this reasoning is the idea that the Ban was automagically wrong.

That is not the case- a fact that has been argued both forcibly and reasonably.

Nor is it implicit or explicit in the Church's official position.

That faithful members are not prepared to agree with the full extent of your position does not mean that they are somehow endorsing- let alone "sticking with" the folk doctrine.

That faithful members are not prepared to throw out the baby with the bathwater does not mean that they are wrong.

The Church's position is clear- and yet allows faithful Saints plenty of wriggle room on their personal understanding of the Ban.

That's not speculating- that's a clear assessment of what the Church's official statement is- and what it is not.

Juliann, I love you to death- and more importanly- I deeply respect you.

But I cannot agree with either your argument (as laid down in the other thread) or in your characterization of the arguments as laid out above.

As for the election season, it could turn out bad for Mormons but it could also turn out bad for other religions if their practices are also put on the table. They can only get Mormons on the past by ignoring everyone else and they really can't get us on the present when so many others remain segregated. But that assumes fair reporting.

This, however, I agree with completely.

[selek1]

"In other words, over 90 percent of Mormons have either never heard the folk doctrine or, if they have, reject it."

...and the other 2% that strongly support it post it all over the internet.

Bravo Zulu, DaddyG.

Well done.

[smac97]

So the vibe I'm getting from the posts so far is that there is an ongoing debate amongst a few observant LDS on this board as to the origins of the priesthood ban (that is, whether the ban was the result of revelation or else a policy borne of 19th-century prejudices which gradually became entrenched in the Church and attained a quasi-doctrinal status, and which could only be dislodged by a revelation such as was received in 1978).

Am I correct in this assessment?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Log]

If there were debate allowed, then that assessment might be correct.

[Mudcat]

But that assumes fair reporting.

Wish you the best in that dept.

[BCSpace]

I was too young in 1978 to appreciate the significance of the revelation on the priesthood, but my dad said that it was a source of joy for the vast majority of the members of his acquaintance.

It was. I was not too young then but still cognizant of the issue. My own dad had taught me then that BRM's Mormon Doctrine, not being published by the Church, was not a doctrinal work.

One only has to look at this board to see how a few are determined to stick with this stuff.

I've not noticed a single person on this board who does. But I have noticed there are those who still disagree with the Church's currently published doctrine on the subject.

[SearchDog]

Thank you, Smac97, for the summation of the Church's reality on this subject.

I have been a member for more than a decade and have not experienced or witnessed any form of racism in the LDS Church (even toward interracial couples).

But more important to me, with my liberal Democratic views, I have not experienced or witnessed any resentment from my mostly conservative Republican brothers.

God bless the saints for their love of all kinds.

Edited March 31, 2012 by SearchDog

[orion88]

We have read these passages and their associated passages for many years. ... Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever 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.

A similar stance is used by Jehovah's Witnesses when you try to show that they may have

taught false doctrine in their history.

There are several references made to "folk" or "quasi" doctrine, but when you read Doctrines

of Salvation, this was taught as being true, not "folk", "quasi" or "urban-legend" doctrine.

"There is a reason why one man is born black and with other disadvantages, while another

is born white with great advantages. The reason is that we once had an estate before we

came here, and were obedient, more or less, to the laws that were given us there. Those

who were faithful in all things there received greater blessings here, and those who were not

faithful received less." (page 61).

The book did not mention these other advantages.

"There were no neutrals in the war in heaven. All took sides either with Christ or with Satan.

Every man had his agency there, and men receive rewards here based upon their actions

there just as they will receive rewards hereafter for deeds done in the body. The Negro,

evidently, is receiving the reward he merits" (page 66).

See "The Way to Perfection" (pages 101, 102, 103, 107, and 111) at my Facebook (the last

5 images in the album). It has a lot more to say about the subject.

As far as the presidential election is concerned, I don't believe this will be an issue for Mr.

Romney if he's the Republic candidate.

[DarkScythe]

This is my opinion only, That Racism within the American Culture as a whole is on the decline. Racism, to normal person, is course disgusting. But it was more of the cultural norms early in the 20 century.

[SearchDog]

This is my opinion only, That Racism within the American Culture as a whole is on the decline. Racism, to normal person, is course disgusting. But it was more of the cultural norms early in the 20 century.

Each of the four generations of my non-Mormon family which I personally knew, from my Grandmother through my children, are less biased in the matter of race than the their predecessors. It is only a matter of time. There are more racists dying than are being born.

[juliann]

A similar stance is used by Jehovah's Witnesses when you try to show that they may have

taught false doctrine in their history.

There are several references made to "folk" or "quasi" doctrine, but when you read Doctrines

of Salvation, this was taught as being true, not "folk", "quasi" or "urban-legend" doctrine.

"There is a reason why one man is born black and with other disadvantages, while another

is born white with great advantages. The reason is that we once had an estate before we

came here, and were obedient, more or less, to the laws that were given us there. Those

who were faithful in all things there received greater blessings here, and those who were not

faithful received less." (page 61).

The book did not mention these other advantages.

"There were no neutrals in the war in heaven. All took sides either with Christ or with Satan.

Every man had his agency there, and men receive rewards here based upon their actions

there just as they will receive rewards hereafter for deeds done in the body. The Negro,

evidently, is receiving the reward he merits" (page 66).

See "The Way to Perfection" (pages 101, 102, 103, 107, and 111) at my Facebook (the last

5 images in the album). It has a lot more to say about the subject.

As far as the presidential election is concerned, I don't believe this will be an issue for Mr.

Romney if he's the Republic candidate.

Are you unaware that the neutral in heaven stuff was specifically denounced some time ago or are you just choosing to ignore it? I consider dragging out old, discredited racist statements to be race baiting. It can certainly be done to your religion, as well. I find it particularly abhorrent because it is like someone who insists he is a friend but greets you with "hey, guess what I heard about you!?" everytime he sees you. My question is how anyone can possibly claim they give a fig about blacks when all they want to do is throw the worst things that can be dug up in their faces at every opportunity. It makes me very short tempered.

[juliann]

So the vibe I'm getting from the posts so far is that there is an ongoing debate amongst a few observant LDS on this board as to the origins of the priesthood ban (that is, whether the ban was the result of revelation or else a policy borne of 19th-century prejudices which gradually became entrenched in the Church and attained a quasi-doctrinal status, and which could only be dislodged by a revelation such as was received in 1978).

Am I correct in this assessment?

Thanks,

-Smac

It tends to have more to do with the refusal of some to accept the recent church denunciation of Bott's claims about black descendents of Cain and the twisting of the BoA to get black descendants of Ham and Egyptus. Without the curse and lineage stuff, there is no reason or explanation for the ban except "just because". Some want to insist that what the church plainly said wasn't doctrine, as in ". . . absolutely do not represent the teachings and doctrines of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" really is doctrine. They can claim God did it just because until the cows come home but it is a little hard to get away with saying the church didn't just say what it just said about its doctrine.

[Ares]

A similar stance is used by Jehovah's Witnesses when you try to show that they may have

taught false doctrine in their history.

There are several references made to "folk" or "quasi" doctrine, but when you read Doctrines

of Salvation, this was taught as being true, not "folk", "quasi" or "urban-legend" doctrine.

"There is a reason why one man is born black and with other disadvantages, while another

is born white with great advantages. The reason is that we once had an estate before we

came here, and were obedient, more or less, to the laws that were given us there. Those

who were faithful in all things there received greater blessings here, and those who were not

faithful received less." (page 61).

The book did not mention these other advantages.

"There were no neutrals in the war in heaven. All took sides either with Christ or with Satan.

Every man had his agency there, and men receive rewards here based upon their actions

there just as they will receive rewards hereafter for deeds done in the body. The Negro,

evidently, is receiving the reward he merits" (page 66).

See "The Way to Perfection" (pages 101, 102, 103, 107, and 111) at my Facebook (the last

5 images in the album). It has a lot more to say about the subject.

As far as the presidential election is concerned, I don't believe this will be an issue for Mr.

Romney if he's the Republic candidate.

We have been very clear about not spreading this racist nonsense any more. You just got banned.

[Zeta-Flux]

It tends to have more to do with the refusal of some to accept the recent church denunciation of Bott's claims about black descendents of Cain and the twisting of the BoA to get black descendants of Ham and Egyptus. Without the curse and lineage stuff, there is no reason or explanation for the ban except "just because". Some want to insist that what the church plainly said wasn't doctrine, as in ". . . absolutely do not represent the teachings and doctrines of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" really is doctrine. They can claim God did it just because until the cows come home but it is a little hard to get away with saying the church didn't just say what it just said about its doctrine.

juliann,

Again, just as selek said, I think you are mischaracterizing the position of those who disagree with you. We do not refuse to accept some or all of the recent church statements. We accept them wholeheartedly.

Rather, what we don't accept is your interpretation of them. You seem to think that because the church has specifically denounced some teachings (like the less valiant in heaven theory), because the church stated that Br. Bott absolutely does not represent them on doctrinal matters, and because some of the things Br. Bott said could be viewed as racist, that makes everything he said racist. We do not agree with you. We do not agree that the church specifically denounced the curse of Cain doctrine or said that the ban was not of God. Nor do we, like you, view the ban as a necessarily racist thing.

It is like Br. McConkie's "Mormon Doctrine." Some things in there have been specifically refuted. Some things in there are racist. And it "...absolutely do[es] not represent the teachings and doctrines of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." It only represents the personal opinions of Br. McConkie. That's why, when you go to Deseret Book, in any book on doctrine not produced by the church, you see a disclaimer in the introduction.

So, just to reiterate: We do accept the church's recent statements (and their past ones as well). We do accept that the church has repeatedly and clearly denounced the less valiant in heaven theory. We do accept that we should not promote racist teachings, nor speculate on divisive issues with racist theories. I personally also accept that it is unwise to speculate with theories which could be viewed as racist (like the curse of Cain theory), even if they are not so.

What we don't agree with you on is that the church specifically denounced everything Br. Bott said (which would be non-sensical anyway, given that some of the things he said were correct), but rather denounced anything racist he said, and that he doesn't represent the church. And we do not agree with you about which of the things he said must be racist.

I hope this clarifies things, and helps you understand that we are coming at this issue the best we know how. That we do unequivocally accept the church's recent statements. And if future statements make it clear that your interpretation is right and ours is wrong, we will accept those too.

Edited April 1, 2012 by Zeta-Flux

[frankenstein]

It tends to have more to do with the refusal of some to accept the recent church denunciation of Bott's claims about black descendents of Cain and the twisting of the BoA to get black descendants of Ham and Egyptus. Without the curse and lineage stuff, there is no reason or explanation for the ban except "just because". Some want to insist that what the church plainly said wasn't doctrine, as in ". . . absolutely do not represent the teachings and doctrines of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" really is doctrine. They can claim God did it just because until the cows come home but it is a little hard to get away with saying the church didn't just say what it just said about its doctrine.

You still have not honored a CFR on your claim that every reason offered for the ban was thrown under the bus.

You and others consistently refuse to present the true the position of the Church.

The Church ONLY renounced SOME EXPLANATIONS, the Church did not renounce ALL explanations. When we all are honest about the position of the Church then a constructive dialogue van happen; until then those who present a falsehood are doing a disservice to the Church.

As others have said, this issue is not Botts comments, the issue is your willing misrepresentation

of the position of the Church.

Edited April 1, 2012 by frankenstein

[Log]

Contrary to popular opinion, one does not take upon oneself the name of Christ through getting dunked in the baptismal font. I grow extremely displeased with the waspish, self-righteous attitude of condemnation I frequently perceive from the postings of certain individuals whenever racial issues are addressed on this forum. It demonstrates neither discipleship nor charity.

If the Lord is willing to give wisdom to them that ask of him in sincerity, and to reason with one as a man reasoneth, why not ask him? Better yet, why not emulate him?

As Joseph Smith said, "it does not prove a man is not a good man because he errs in doctrine."

To constructively contribute to this topic, I offer the following statement from someone whom I have found to be reliable:

The hardest thing in the world for men to learn is "this one lesson—that the rights of the priesthood are inseparably connected with the powers of heaven" (D&C 121:35-36). They are God's alone to give and take away, and no one will dispute his right to do as he pleases with his own. So now the whole issue boils down to asking whether it is really God and not man who has ordered this thing. Members and nonmembers alike who up until now have laughed at the thought of asking such a question are suddenly exercised by it. And so it gives me great pleasure to be in a position to answer the question with an unequivocal affirmative: it is indeed the Lord's doing. How do I know it? By revelation—which I am in no position to bestow upon others; this goes only for myself. And that makes the "Negro Question" as unreal as the "Mormon Question" which kept the nation in an uproar for many years. Left to myself, the last thing in the world I would do would be to advocate polygamy or impose any limitations whatever on the Negro—and I have often heard the brethren express themselves to the same effect. When the Lord told Joseph Smith that he couldn't always tell his friends from his enemies or the wicked from the righteous, what was left for him to do? "Therefore I say unto you, hold your peace until I shall see fit to make all things known unto the world concerning the matter" (D&C 10:37). Granted that this puts us, as it put the prophet, in an uncomfortable and even dangerous position, still it provides the best possible test for our faith, our hope, and above all our charity.

Edited April 1, 2012 by Log

[LDSToronto]

Adopting Mormon religious language, our question read: "In the past, some Mormons have said that blacks had to wait to hold the priesthood because they were less valiant in the war in heaven, or the pre-mortal existence. Have you ever heard this?" Those who had heard of the statement were then asked whether they agree or disagree.

.

Less than half of all Mormons, 45 percent, report having heard this teaching. When we combine awareness and agreement, just 9 percent of all Mormons have both heard of, and agree with, the folk doctrine (just 2 percent strongly agree).

In other words, over 90 percent of Mormons have either never heard the folk doctrine or, if they have, reject it.

I would suggest that the wording of the question is leading. By stating that "some Mormons have said...", the notion that an Apostle said the same thing is lost. I wonder if this influenced the outcome of the survey.

H.

[juliann]

So, just to reiterate: We do accept the church's recent statements (and their past ones as well). We do accept that the church has repeatedly and clearly denounced the less valiant in heaven theory. We do accept that we should not promote racist teachings, nor speculate on divisive issues with racist theories. I personally also accept that it is unwise to speculate with theories which could be viewed as racist (like the curse of Cain theory), even if they are not so.

Thanks for the explanation but keeping the Cain stuff on the table is deeply troubling. Especially because this was an old canard used for unspeakable atrociites that was around long before Mormons picked it up.

What we don't agree with you on is that the church specifically denounced everything Br. Bott said (which would be non-sensical anyway, given that some of the things he said were correct), but rather denounced anything racist he said, and that he doesn't represent the church. And we do not agree with you about which of the things he said must be racist.

What was attributed to Bott was denounced in absolute terms. It is simply not debatable. It is there, in black and white staring us in the face.

We are not representing church doctrine if we say: " the descendants of Cain, who killed his brother, Abel, “were black.”

We are not representing church doctrine if we say: " all of the descendants of Ham and Egyptus were thus black and barred from the priesthood."

Again, anyone may represent any other reason for the ban but I am quite sure that anything left would put any adherent in the racist camp because it only leaves one with the other silly stuff Bott was claiming, like blacks "weren't ready". If I am missing something I am open to correction but no one has done anything but complain taking these words at their face value is an "interpretation" without explaining which statement is being misused.

We may not use black descendents of Cain or descendants of Ham and Egyptus being barred from the priesthood. So the Africans are barred because of lineage (which was determined by skin color for the most part until mixed races required more finesse) is now off the table. The church even uses strong words like "racism" after condemning these positions. These statements are far too understandable and plain in meaning to mess with.

I notice that all who object are avoiding any response to the actual words condemned. I bolded them to make it even more plain. All I am seeing is an appeal that the church didn't condemn everything. OK. What hasn't been rejected? What are they still standing behind? What else is there to condemn that has not already been condemned? This is nothing but a "no way!" response that cannot even be addressed.

Without being able to used black and descendants there is no more reason for Africans to have been banned than Swedes. But that creates the problem that we have so many statements on record using the now discredited black descendant theories that this cannot be revisited or re-explained. All that can be done is what the church did, using the unequivocable declaration..... " absolutely do not represent the teachings and doctrines of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints"

I think the wiser course is to support the church instead of reaching for some unmentioned something somewhere out there that Bott didn't cover in the article where his attributions were condemned as... absolutely do not represent the teachings and doctrines of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

This is not open to "interpretation". If anyone has information that makes the above statement wrong, produce it so there can be a discussion about it rather than continuing to do no more than claim it has been "mischaracterized" or "misinterpreted".

(And I'm sorry to see Orion banned)

Edited April 1, 2012 by juliann

[frankenstein]

Juliann you are the one avoiding things.

The Church did not renounce every reason.

The Church specificaly only renounced some explanations.

Why must someone be a racist because that person accurately presents the position of the Church.

You have misrepresented the statements of the Church to fit your personal agenda.

You still have to show that every reason offered has been renounced as racist.

"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 fullyknown toman.

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 backintothe beginning with God…. "

Of course you very well aware of this First Presidency letter and the 1949 letter, as with all things Church it is up to the individual to deny the Prophets or to follow.

It is interesting and very telling that the current position of the Church is that reason for the ban is "not known precisely" and it is interesting that the statement from 1969 states reason known to God but not fully known to man. The consistent message is that we do not know precisely, but God does.

Edited April 1, 2012 by frankenstein

[blooit]

In the early 1980s, I remember someone mentioning "fence sitters in heaven" in a lesson. I was very young. I asked my dad about it and he came unglued. I remember him teaching me, even then, that it was folklore and not to be accepted.