Survey Re: Lds Beliefs On Race

[juliann]

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

This is what I mean. You do not address the statements at all. You just make accusations so I am still asking, ok...how did I misrepresent what I have posted? Someone does need to specifically respond to the two recent statements.

You are using selective statements from Pres. McKay. You do have to take everyone's later statements into account in all instances. We are a church of living prophets. You are doing the equivalent of using Mormon Doctrine as your doctrine while neglecting to use McConkie's "forget all we have said...." later statement.

(And BTW, McKay was likely talking about the beginning of the church, and as we now know, he was wrong. Blacks were not discriminated against in the beginning of the church.... or in the pre-existence).

Cherry picking old quotes isn't going to eliminate the need to address the latest and most current statement from the modern church.

Edited April 1, 2012 by juliann

[juliann]

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

I am talking about reasons. The reasons are limited. You are trying to switch that to quotes. The quotes are endless. If you want to discuss reasons I will but I'm not going to bat around everything ever said by everybody you can find.

Reasons that have been condemned:

Less valiant in the pre-existence

Descended from Cain

Descended from Ham/Egyptus

Blacks skin a curse

God discriminates

I suppose we can get into the servant thing and other Protestant imports but it would be much quicker if you would just tell me what I have missed rather than digging up old quotes.

Ah, I can think of one that hasn't been specifically repudiated, the old Levite comparison...but I think God discriminates sort of does away with it indirectly. It is still on the church website, however.

[Skylla]

Frankenstein: You're out this thread. Read the pinned thread in this folder.

Skylla

[frankenstein]

Speaking of cherry picking, since when does a BRM speaking to a group of CES educators overide at least two First Presidencys? BRM only has authority to speak for himself. And before you bring it up, McKay speaking in private also does not establish an Official position of the Church. It is entirely out of sync with the order of things to use BRM statement or Mckays private statement to dismiss two Official statements from the Church.

The Church renounced Botts claims.

The Church renounced SOME explanations, those explanations were described as personal.

You maintain that the Church threw every reason under the bus. The Church does not know.precisely why concerning the ban, the Church has not renounced that the ban has divine origin - I.e. nothing suggests the Church has renounced the First Presidency statements which address the ban.

And yes God does discriminate, I believe Dr. Petersen even said as much.

Edited April 1, 2012 by frankenstein

[Zeta-Flux]

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.

By this logic, we should throw out God, since He has been used to justify unspeakable atrocities.

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.

Denounced as not representing the church. Not denounced as false. Read the next sentence. "BYU faculty members do not speak for the Church." The statement goes on to clarify, that Br. Bott's statements were personal opinion and that the church renounces anything racist. The statements do not clarify which of the things Br. Bott said were racist. You tend to think everything he said was racist, and that the past positions of the church were racist. We do not believe similarly.

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."

That is correct. The current church statements establish that, currently, the official position is "we don't know the reasons."

Similarly, we are not representing church doctrine if we say: "Brigham young was wrong about black people being descendants of Cain." We are not representing church doctrine if we say: "The interpretation of the verses in Abraham absolutely do not mean what the letters from the First Presidency said they mean." Those are personal opinions that "absolutely do not represent the teachings and doctrines of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" because the current position is "we don't know the reasons".

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.

I would be happy to discuss my current personal opinion on this topic, in the "Focused Discussions" section, if the moderators authorized us to discuss this. Otherwise, I'll limit myself to helping you understand how we read the current statements.

We may not use black descendents of Cain or descendants of Ham and Egyptus being barred from the priesthood.

At least, we may not represent that as the current doctrine of the church. Similarly, we may not say that this idea has been definitely said to be false.

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)

Just to be clear: We agree that Br. Bott's personal opinions "absolutely do not represent the teachings and doctrines of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" As the next sentence in the statement goes on to say, "BYU faculty members do not speak for the Church."

What those sentences do not say is anything about any specific personal view of Br. Bott. Rather, they broadly condemn racism. I think what Br. Bott is represented to say about "car keys" was racist. You think what he said, the whole time, was racist. The statement does not say which is the correct view. The statement does not clarify which past statements of church leaders were racist.

To sum it all up, let me ask you to do the following. Go to the official statement here: statement on the Washington Post article. Read it with the following question: "Could the church simply be saying that Br. Bott is not a representative of them, that the current official position is we don't know, and that the church broadly condemns racism?" If the answer you get is yes, the statement could be saying this, then you understand where we are coming from. If your answer is no, then we fundamentally disagree about what the statement could mean.

[selek1]

What the Church did say:

The Church's position is clear—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.

For a time in the Church there was a restriction on the priesthood for male members of African descent. It is not known precisely why, how, or when this restriction began in the Church but what is clear is that it ended decades ago. Some have attempted to explain the reason for this restriction but these attempts should be viewed as speculation and opinion, not doctrine. The Church is not bound by speculation or opinions given with limited understanding.

We condemn racism, including any and all past racism by individuals both inside and outside the Church.

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

What the Church DID NOT say:

• The Ban was racist.
  
• The Ban was wrong.
  
• The Ban was not of God.
  
• There were no valid reasons for the Ban.
  

All of those bullet points were added to the discussion- not by the Church, but by posters engaging in the very speculation forbidden by the moderators.

Posts that defend or perpetuate racism (by color or lineage) or endorse practices and beliefs that are not currently a part of the LDS church will not be permitted on these boards.

While discussion of race and the history of the LDS church is permitted posters will be censured for comments that contradict the official position of the LDS church on Priesthood and race:

The Church did not say "the Ban was wrong"- those who argue such are contradicting the official position of the Church.

The Church did not say "the Ban was racist"- those who argue such are contradicting the official position of the Church.

The Church did not say "all of the reasons given for the Ban were wrong"- they said "Some explanations". Those who argue more than this are endorsing practices or beliefs that are not currently a part of the LDS church.

The Church did not say "the Ban was not of God"- they said "we don't know when, how, or why the Ban got started". Anyone who presumes to declare more than that is contradicting the official position of the Church.

The Church's official statement is: WE DO NOT KNOW WHEN, WHY, OR HOW the Ban got started.

Anyone attempting to declare truths beyond that position is not representing or conveying the official position of the Church.

[Zeta-Flux]

selek,

Anyone attempting to declare truths beyond that position is not representing or conveying the official position of the Church.

Except when the church has specifically denounced a specific reason, which is the case for the less valiant in heaven theory (repeatedly!).

Otherwise, I agree.

[juliann]

Thanks again for the explanation, Zeta. I understand your viewpoint now but I have absolutely no idea how you are getting there from the very clear words put out by the church. The problem you have with this is that they specifically, clearly, plainly, openly said that "The positions attributed to BYU professor Randy Bott in a recent Washington Post article absolutely do not represent the teachings and doctrines of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."

There is no wiggle room there. None. They are not denouncing Bott's "opinon", they aren't even especially denouncing him at all...they are denouncing the

1. positions (black descendant of Cain, Ham, Egyptus, etc.)

2. attributed to him

3. in one particular WA Post article

Not that much is attributed to Bott. It is a relatively short list. It can't be dismissed. It can't be modified.

"Could the church simply be saying that Br. Bott is not a representative of them, that the current official position is we don't know, and that the church broadly condemns racism?"

Well of course they said that. But they also said, "Thepositions [blacks are descendants of Cain, Ham or Egyptus/barred from priesthood] attributed to BYU professor Randy Bott in a recent Washington Post articleabsolutely do not represent the teachings and doctrines of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."

[Zeta-Flux]

Thanks again for the explanation, Zeta. I understand your viewpoint now but I have absolutely no idea how you are getting there from the very clear words put out by the church. The problem you have with this is that they specifically, clearly, plainly, openly said that "The positions attributed to BYU professor Randy Bott in a recent Washington Post article absolutely do not represent the teachings and doctrines of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."

There is no wiggle room there. None. They are not denouncing Bott's "opinon", they aren't even especially denouncing him at all...they are denouncing the

1. positions (black descendant of Cain, Ham, Egyptus, etc.)

2. attributed to him

3. in one particular WA Post article

Not that much is attributed to Bott. It is a relatively short list. It can't be dismissed. It can't be modified.

Well of course they said that. But they also said, "Thepositions [blacks are descendants of Cain, Ham or Egyptus/barred from priesthood] attributed to BYU professor Randy Bott in a recent Washington Post articleabsolutely do not represent the teachings and doctrines of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."

juliann, I'm glad we are coming to understand one another.

I agree there is no wiggle room there. The descendants of Cain, Ham, Egyptus, etc... absolutely do not represent the (current) teachings and doctrines of the Church. The official current position is, as selek described, "we do not know when, why or how".

That does not imply that the positions of Br. Bott (at least, the non-racist ones, whichever those are, if there are any) are false. Just that they don't represent the current position, doctrine, or teachings of the Church.

We have (respectfully) differed in the past about such things as whether the Book of Mormon teaches that God cursed people, and gave them an actual change in skin color. But we can agree that racism is bad, and that God respects no persons, and loves all, black or white, bond or free, male or female. All are alike unto God. They should be to us also. We should not teach that people with a different skin color than us are inferior, less valiant, or less loved by God.

Edited April 1, 2012 by Zeta-Flux

[selek1]

Except when the church has specifically denounced a specific reason, which is the case for the less valiant in heaven theory (repeatedly!).

You are, of course, absolutely correct.

I accept your codicil.

[juliann]

The Church did not say "the Ban was wrong"- those who argue such are contradicting the official position of the Church.

Red herring

The Church did not say "the Ban was racist"- those who argue such are contradicting the official position of the Church.

Strawman

The Church did not say "all of the reasons given for the Ban were wrong"- they said "Some explanations". Those who argue more than this are endorsing practices or beliefs that are not currently a part of the LDS church.

Strawman

The Church did not say "the Ban was not of God"- they said "we don't know when, how, or why the Ban got started". Anyone who presumes to declare more than that is contradicting the official position of the Church.

Red herring

The Church's official statement is: WE DO NOT KNOW WHEN, WHY, OR HOW the Ban got started.

Who are you arguing with? Strawman.

Anyone attempting to declare truths beyond that position is not representing or conveying the official position of the Church.

Untrue. Not only is anyone saying that the blacks are descended from Cain/Ham/Egyptus/barred from priesthood positions attributed to Bott in the WA Post article absolutely do not represent the doctrine of the Church conveying the official position of the church, they are only quoting the church's official website!

Good grief.

[juliann]

That does not imply that the positions of Br. Bott (at least, the non-racist ones, whichever those are, if there are any) are false. Just that they don't represent the current position, doctrine, or teachings of the Church.

I think we not only owe it to our African-American members but we have a duty to say these particular teachings are false and unscriptural. Further, I think we owe a helping hand to the church. We all recognize what a rock and a hard place they are between. If the members would come together and reject this stuff then the church wouldn't have to.

We have (respectfully) differed in the past about such things as whether the Book of Mormon teaches that God cursed people, and gave them an actual change in skin color. But we can agree that racism is bad, and that God respects no persons, and loves all, black or white, bond or free, male or female. All are alike unto God. They should be to us also. We should not teach that other races are inferior, less valiant, or less loved by God.

Agreed.

[Zeta-Flux]

I think we not only owe it to our African-American members but we have a duty to say these particular teachings are false and unscriptural.

Then you are going beyond what the Church itself has said or done.

Further, I think we owe a helping hand to the church.

So did Br. Bott, for good or ill.

We all recognize what a rock and a hard place they are between. If the members would come together and reject this stuff then the church wouldn't have to.

I will be happy to reject this stuff when our prophets reveal it is false, just as my forbears rejoiced when the priesthood ban was stopped (I was only 1 at the time, but I would have rejoiced too). But until then I won't take it upon myself to lend a "helping hand" to the church on that issue.

On the issue of racism, past and present, I'll do all I can.

[Pahoran]

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.

Do you?

Do you think more Mormons would have suddenly remembered that they'd ever heard of it if the question attributed it to an Apostle?

If so, why?

Or do you perhaps think there was a significant number of Mormon respondents who knew about it but who didn't know that GA's had talked about it? Frankly, I don't.

There is one possible perspective in which wording the question as they did might have "influenced the outcome of the survey," and that is that it avoided push-polling. Which is to say that it consciously avoided pressuring LDS respondents, who being placed "on the spot" in a survey situation would not have had time to evaluate a bunch of new information and form a valid opinion about it, to take a position.

I take it you don't approve?

Regards,

Pahoran

[BCSpace]

The Church ONLY renounced SOME EXPLANATIONS, the Church did not renounce ALL explanations.

That's correct, in part. In the recent statements, the Church never specified any particular explaination. One's explainations can be all wrong line by line or some could be right and some wrong but all are still wrong because what's right is mixed with what's wrong. ZF is right in that the Church has been against the valiancy in the pre-mortal life speculation. I'm quite certain (being and having been part of the line where questions and answers from unsatisfied members go up and down) the Church itself does not consider it's own official doctrines to be racist and when one looks at them, none of them are.

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

What is your intepretation of this scripture:

And Enoch also beheld the residue of the people which were the sons of Adam; and they were a mixture of all the seed of Adam save it was the seed of Cain, for the seed of Cain were black, and had not place among them. Moses 7:22

???

I would certainly agree that over time, not all the descendents of Cain were black. So perhaps you might want to amend your statement along those lines.

Edited April 2, 2012 by BCSpace

[BCSpace]

The Church did not say "the Ban was wrong"- those who argue such are contradicting the official position of the Church.

The Church did not say "the Ban was racist"- those who argue such are contradicting the official position of the Church.

The Church did not say "all of the reasons given for the Ban were wrong"- they said "Some explanations". Those who argue more than this are endorsing practices or beliefs that are not currently a part of the LDS church.

The Church did not say "the Ban was not of God"- they said "we don't know when, how, or why the Ban got started". Anyone who presumes to declare more than that is contradicting the official position of the Church.

Definitely no strawman. The Church's official doctrine on OD 2 from it's current most up-to-date cirriculum:

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

On 1 June 1978 the Savior revealed to President Spencer W. Kimball that the ban on this lineage pertaining to the rights of the priesthood was lifted.

http://institute.lds.org/manuals/doctrine-and-covenants-institute-student-manual/dc-in-131-od2.asp

[BCSpace]

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.

Same here.

[Analytics]

Thanks again for the explanation, Zeta. I understand your viewpoint now but I have absolutely no idea how you are getting there from the very clear words put out by the church. The problem you have with this is that they specifically, clearly, plainly, openly said that "The positions attributed to BYU professor Randy Bott in a recent Washington Post article absolutely do not represent the teachings and doctrines of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."

There is no wiggle room there. None.

I'd kindly disagree. Just because what he said isn't official doctrine doesn't mean it isn't compatible with official doctrine. And just because it isn't official doctrine doesn't mean it isn't true.

What would have been much more clear and would have had a lot less wiggle room would be to declare, "The positions attributed to BYU professor Randy Bott in a recent Washington Post article are false."

The ban itself was, by definition, racist. The open question is whether this racism was instigated by man or by God. If the Church were to officially declare that the racism was instigated by man and not God, that would put an end to it. But the church won't say that because they don't want to throw past prophets under the bus. But the only other option is to throw God under the bus. Understandably, the church wants the issue to die and wants people to forget the question about whether the past racism was of Mormonism's Prophets or Mormonism's God. But the question is valid.

[thesometimesaint]

Was it?

[Bob Oliverio]

I'd kindly disagree. Just because what he said isn't official doctrine doesn't mean it isn't compatible with official doctrine. And just because it isn't official doctrine doesn't mean it isn't true.

What would have been much more clear and would have had a lot less wiggle room would be to declare, "The positions attributed to BYU professor Randy Bott in a recent Washington Post article are false."

The ban itself was, by definition, racist. The open question is whether this racism was instigated by man or by God. If the Church were to officially declare that the racism was instigated by man and not God, that would put an end to it. But the church won't say that because they don't want to throw past prophets under the bus. But the only other option is to throw God under the bus. Understandably, the church wants the issue to die and wants people to forget the question about whether the past racism was of Mormonism's Prophets or Mormonism's God. But the question is valid. 

This is such an accurate and insightful response.  And what is becoming more and more obvious is that everyone outside of the Church can see this so easily.  I think many of the younger members within the Church are coming to this conclusion as well.

Try as it may, the Church will never be able to put this to rest nor find itself on a defensible side until it issues a formal apology.  

[thesometimesaint]

If it was from God how could we apologize?

If it was not from God who would care?

[BCSpace]

The ban itself was, by definition, racist.

While the doctrine is that we don't know the "full reasons" (which I have quoted), or the precise reason as is also stated elsewhere, none of the doctrinal explainations that do exist communicates racism. There never has been any doctrine stating that the ban is a result of some inborn phenotype (such as skin color). Not even the speculations have stated anything of the kind. Such would erroneously communicate that God did not create all on an equal basis.

Edited April 2, 2012 by BCSpace

[Analytics]

If it was from God how could we apologize?

If it was not from God who would care?

If the church declared it wasn't from God, that would close the issue: the church would be in the forgivable and forgiven situation as any other church--a few racist leaders back in racist times. No big deal.

If it was from God, that raises some questions that deserve answers.

[wenglund]

This is such an accurate and insightful response. And what is becoming more and more obvious is that everyone outside of the Church can see this so easily. I think many of the younger members within the Church are coming to this conclusion as well.

Try as it may, the Church will never be able to put this to rest nor find itself on a defensible side until it issues a formal apology.

I don't think that non-LDS interpretations of LDS beliefs is a sound indicator of accuracy.

I also don't think that an apology is warranted, let alone that it would make any meaningful difference in the churches ability to accomplish its 4-fold mission.

I can agree, though, that it will continue indefinitely to be a bone of contention among those who are want to nit pick and criticize the church, and/or who are prone to illegitimate ark steadying, each of whom tend not to get what the church is all about and their proper role in relation thereto,

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[BCSpace]

If it was from God, that raises some questions that deserve answers.

The Church has given some to that effect to the best of it's ability. To the general public, it will merely continue to maintain truthfully that it's doctrines are not racist. For the interested seeker, what doctrines it does have are readily available in the manuals (which are available on the web site) and other areas on it's web site. They are in plain sight and the Church makes no effort to hide them and makes no effort to put them front and center which is as it should be. The ban is not a critical doctrine.