It'S Coming, It'S Not Good And It'S Time To Recognize It!

[Pahoran]

And here I thougt the 1978 Revelation did just that, ie ie confronted its past AND started the healing process.

Silly me?!

I actually thought the 1978 Revelation solved whatever problem there was in its entirety.

The Priesthood -- to which no-one was ever entitled -- was extended to all otherwise eligible men from whom it had previously been withheld in the course of a day. This happened thirty-four years ago.

This is a historical footnote. Nobody is owed any apology therefor, because nobody was owed anything anyway.

Even sillier me!!

And those who can't stand being part of a church that hasn't reflected 100% sanitised 21st century opinion every day of its existence might be better off as UU's or something.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Buckeye]

And here I thougt the 1978 Revelation did just that, ie confront the past AND started the healing process.

Silly me?!

You're avoiding the issue. Of course the 1978 revelation started the healing, but it didn't go all the way. The church changed the practice. But it did not condemn or apologize for the ban being in place to begin with.

To use your Lion King analogy, it would be like Simba returning to his family but never saying he was sorry for leaving in the first place. Watch the video and you'll see he does just that. He says he was wrong to have left and now its going to make it right.

[Buckeye]

And those who can't stand being part of a church that hasn't reflected 100% sanitised 21st century opinion every day of its existence might be better off as UU's or something.

Pahoran, to answer your earlier question, this is precisely the sentiment that gets people kicked off of boards. We can disagree without being disagreeable. I've never said you should leave the church, even though I think you're wrong. Please extend me the same courtesy.

[cinepro]

Who cares? Nobody says you should.

That's the point. In the context of this discussion, Mitt Romney thinks people should vote for him for President.

[zerinus]

That's the point. In the context of this discussion, Mitt Romney thinks people should vote for him for President.

What has that got to do with the LDS Church? If he wants to apologize for being a Mormon, and become something else, he has that choice. If he thinks that he stands a better chance of becoming President by disowning Mormonism (and that is more important to him than his religions), that option is open to him. But why does the Church need to apologize?

Edited April 11, 2012 by zerinus

[Zakuska]

Thanks Zakuska. I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not, but that clip is actually a really great argument for why the church should confront its past. Look at the context. Simba says he "knows he needs to confront the past, but he's afraid because it will hurt." Then Rafiki hits him and says - sarcastcially - "it doesn't matter, it's in the past!" The point is that things in the past can still hurt and that running away from them only delays the healing.

EDIT:

Looking at your next post re Lincoln and Jefferson, I can see that you were not being sarcastic in the Lion King clip. So I guess we disagree.

The obvious difference between the church's racial ban and the Lincoln/Jefferson statements is that today the American government, and most of the American people, repudiate and reject those racist statements. We venerate the men, we honor the good they did, we even build them monuments, but no one - particularly the man who now holds the presidency that Lincoln and Jefferson once did - agrees with their sentiments. Those statements are wrong. Perhaps we can cut some slack to the men because they lived in a different day, but the statements themselves are wrong and have no place with us today.

And yet Romney is being asked to apologize for something he never said and is being brow beaten and given zero slack what-so-ever. For statements made 100+ years ago. Guilt by associations is a powerful political tool.

In contrast, Brigham Young and other church leader's racist statements have never been formally repudiated by the current leadership. The church's recent statements are a great progress (particularly removing the notion that the ban was instituted of God), but it is not yet a rejection of the ban itself.

Imagine if President Obama were to say "I'm glad that slavery ended, but I'm not 100% sure it was wrong at the time." That's quite different from his - and the Amercian people's - real view that slavery was always wrong and never should have happened.

False!

"The Church unequivocally condemns racism, including any and all past racism by individuals both inside and outside the Church."

From the church news room.

http://www.mormonnew...cle/race-church

Yet this apology and condemnation is somehow missed by those who are content in painting with broad brushes such as yourself.

Edited April 11, 2012 by Zakuska

[Nomad]

This is not a political thread. And I know that I have been a big advocate of a formal Church apology for the Church treatment of blacks in the past. I still am very much so.

And, as I warned long ago, it will come to haunt and harm the Church in such a HUGE WAY this year.

I don't want to turn this into a political thread, but a thread of reality. This is just a very small sample of what will be heading our way this year:

http://m.newsbusters...nd-how-it-deals

Our leaders need to get smart sooner before later. I fear this will take the Church backwards 100 years!

We need a formal apology NOW!

I think I will have something to say about the topic in a subsequent post, but could you please clarify one thing for me? Do I remember correctly that you have said you are a very recent convert to the LDS church? Thanks.

[Cobalt-70]

I actually thought the 1978 Revelation solved whatever problem there was in its entirety.

The Priesthood -- to which no-one was ever entitled -- was extended to all otherwise eligible men from whom it had previously been withheld in the course of a day. This happened thirty-four years ago.

...

And those who can't stand being part of a church that hasn't reflected 100% sanitised 21st century opinion every day of its existence might be better off as UU's or something.

The issue is not that the Church once had a racially discriminatory ban. Lots of organizations had such bans. The issue is that, unlike those other organizations, there has not yet been an admission that the ban was wrong, so that Mormon educators like Professor Bott can come up with theories as to how the ban was God's will, and Mormons--probably even a majority of Mormons--can still insist that God was the author of the ban, even if they claim not to know God's reasoning. If Romney believes that God was the author of a racially discriminatory ban, then that issue has currency in his campaign.

Edited April 11, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[Nomad]

You guys are all missing the point. The LDS Church is a religious organization, not a political one; and as such it does not owe any "apologies" over it's theological beliefs to anyone. If a Church or religion wants to be theologically racist, that its business; there is no law in the Constitution that says that it shouldn't.--That is quite apart from the fact that the LDS Church has publicly declared that it is not racist, and condems racism in the strongest terms. If tomorrow I started a new religion which was theologically founded on the belief that all redheads are predestined to be damned, and cannot join my new religion, I don't owe any apologies to anyone. That is my religious belief. If anybody does't agree with it, they don't have to join my new religion. The LDS Church has already declared what it needs to declare with regard to racism past, present, and future; and there is nothing further that it needs to say on the subject.

Mitt Romney is a political candidate, not a religious one. He may be a "Mormon" candidate, but he is not the candidate of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. He is neither nominated nor endorsed by the LDS Church. If he feels that his religion is an embarrassment to him, or if he feels that he stands a better chance of election by recanting his religious beliefs (and winning the Presidency is more important to him than his religion), there is nothing to prevent him from disowning Mormonism. But the LDS Church does not owe any "apologies" to anyone, over race or anything else.

[Zakuska]

The issue is not that the Church once had a racially discriminatory ban. Lots of organizations had such bans. The issue is that, unlike those other organizations, there has not yet been an admission that the ban was wrong, so that Mormon educators like Professor Bott can come up with theories as to how the ban was God's will, and Mormons--probably even a majority of Mormons--can still insist that God was the author of the ban, even if they claim not to know God's reasoning. If Romney believes that God was the author of a racially discriminatory ban, then that issue has currency in his campaign.

Huh?

"The Church unequivocally condemns racism, including any and all past racism by individuals both inside and outside the Church."

From the church news room.

http://www.mormonnew...cle/race-church

[Pahoran]

Pahoran, to answer your earlier question, this is precisely the sentiment that gets people kicked off of boards.

Is that a threat?

We can disagree without being disagreeable. I've never said you should leave the church, even though I think you're wrong. Please extend me the same courtesy.

The notion that defending the Church as it is is somehow comparable to demanding that the Church should change to suit a fringe view of "political correctness" seems incoherent. In case you haven't noticed, I'm not the one expressing discontent with (or being a malcontent about) the Church's current stance. I'm the one who is content that the Church has done, and continues to do, what is right.

Which, of course, is highly unpopular in this ostensibly Mormon forum, but there it is.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Buckeye]

"The Church unequivocally condemns racism, including any and all past racism by individuals both inside and outside the Church."

From the church news room.

http://www.mormonnew...cle/race-church

Yet this apology and condemnation is somehow missed by those who are content in painting with broad brushes such as yourself.

Maybe we're not so far apart. But let's be clear. The statement you cite reads as follows:

"The Church unequivocally condemns racism, including any and all past racism by individuals both inside and outside the Church. In 2006, then Church president Gordon B. Hinckley declared that “no man who makes disparaging remarks concerning those of another race can consider himself a true disciple of Christ. Nor can he consider himself to be in harmony with the teachings of the Church. Let us all recognize that each of us is a son or daughter of our Father in Heaven, who loves all of His children.”" (emphasis mine)

I do view this statement as a repudiation (though not an apology) for Brigham Young and other's racist justifications for the ban. But when I quote this statement to others, I find that some do not view this as a repudiation of the ban itself. They still hold that the ban may have been God's will, albeit for reasons never pronounced.

So if you view the Church's statement as stating that the ban was wrong, then we're in agreement and I will step down. But I thought you were taking the position that the ban was (or list may) have been God's will. If that's true, then you wouldn't view this statement as a repudiation of the ban.

[Pahoran]

The issue is not that the Church once had a racially discriminatory ban. Lots of organizations had such bans. The issue is that, unlike those other organizations, there has not yet been an admission that the ban was wrong, so that Mormon educators like Professor Bott can come up with theories as to how the ban was God's will, and Mormons--probably even a majority of Mormons--can still insist that God was the author of the ban, even if they claim not to know God's reasoning. If Romney believes that God was the author of a racially discriminatory ban, then that issue has currency in his campaign.

Really?

Why?

In what way does it influence his policy positions?

In what way is it likely to influence his possible future decisions?

I put it to you that the answers to these questions are, respectively, "It doesn't" and "It won't."

So I am puzzled as to the relevance you think this has.

I can certainly see the utility this question might have; for an utterly unscrupulous anti-Mormon demagogue, it's clearly an opportunity not to be missed. But what relevance does it have to any rational person?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Zakuska]

Maybe we're not so far apart. But let's be clear. The statement you cite reads as follows:

"The Church unequivocally condemns racism, including any and all past racism by individuals both inside and outside the Church. In 2006, then Church president Gordon B. Hinckley declared that “no man who makes disparaging remarks concerning those of another race can consider himself a true disciple of Christ. Nor can he consider himself to be in harmony with the teachings of the Church. Let us all recognize that each of us is a son or daughter of our Father in Heaven, who loves all of His children.”" (emphasis mine)

I do view this statement as a repudiation (though not an apology) for Brigham Young and other's racist justifications for the ban. But when I quote this statement to others, I find that some do not view this as a repudiation of the ban itself. They still hold that the ban may have been God's will, albeit for reasons never pronounced.

So if you view the Church's statement as stating that the ban was wrong, then we're in agreement and I will step down. But I thought you were taking the position that the ban was (or list may) have been God's will. If that's true, then you wouldn't view this statement as a repudiation of the ban.

On the particular issue I'm on the fence on wether it was from God. I'm certianly willing to entertain the idea that the ban was instituted by God. (Even though there is currently no data either way) I mean he seems to have had a ban on the priesthood before since the time of Moses. But then again. Moses' father inlaw was a Priest of the Most High and he was a Midianite, which by all accounts were not white skinned.

PS. I think the doctrine of the ban mostly comes from the Book of Abraham.

Abraham 1:26

26 Pharaoh, being a righteous man, established his kingdom and judged his people wisely and justly all his days, seeking earnestly to imitate that order established by the fathers in the first generations, in the days of the first patriarchal reign, even in the reign of Adam, and also of Noah, his father, who blessed him with the blessings of the earth, and with the blessings of wisdom, but cursed him as pertaining to the Priesthood.

27 Now, Pharaoh being of that lineage by which he could not have the right of Priesthood, notwithstanding the Pharaohs would fain claim it from Noah, through Ham, therefore my father was led away by their idolatry;

This links the idea directly into the curse of cain doctrine.

Edited April 11, 2012 by Zakuska

[Nomad]

So, let's see if I understand this correctly.

Person A brings an accusation of institutional racism against The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Person B defends the Church by suggesting that the accusation proceeds from a lack of imagination.

An anonymous mod turfs person B out of the thread.

Am I the only one who remembers when this forum was one of the few places on the internet where orthodox Mormon voices could speak up in defense of the Church without fear of heavy-handed censorship?

Regards,

Pahoran

I also think it's really sad what's happened to this forum, at least in my opinion. I'm sure there are many of the "new generation" of posters here who think this place is much better than it used to be when it was called FAIR and MADB. Oh, well. It's a free country with free cyberspace and the folks who run this board are perfectly within their rights to run things the way they think is best. But my interest in this place has pretty much tanked, and I think in many ways it is no longer a place where the strong defenders of the faith are permitted to speak freely and boldly. Whereas I used to recommend this place to members struggling with their faith for one reason or another, I would never do that anymore. The anti-Mormon voices have pretty much been given free rein here anymore, and anyone who tries to confront them boldly is sure to get "red-texted" or thread-banned or suspended. It's nothing like it used to be "back in the good old days" ...

Edited April 11, 2012 by Nomad

[Buckeye]

The notion that defending the Church as it is is somehow comparable to demanding that the Church should change to suit a fringe view of "political correctness" seems incoherent. In case you haven't noticed, I'm not the one expressing discontent with (or being a malcontent about) the Church's current stance. I'm the one who is content that the Church has done, and continues to do, what is right.

Which, of course, is highly unpopular in this ostensibly Mormon forum, but there it is.

Regards,

Pahoran

Pahoran, you are welcome to defend your views of how the church should be. I don't think anyone has tried to take that away. But allow others the same right without suggesting they leave the church in order to express their views.

[Nomad]

Pahoran, to answer your earlier question, this is precisely the sentiment that gets people kicked off of boards. We can disagree without being disagreeable. I've never said you should leave the church, even though I think you're wrong. Please extend me the same courtesy.

I agree 100% with Pahoran's sentiments on this issue. The expression of such sentiments used to be welcomed here. Now, it seems to me, it usually does result in some kind of censure. But anti-Mormon sentiments and arguments are much more welcomed and protected than they used to be. I won't be surprised if I'm thread-banned or suspended just for saying what I have said.

[Nomad]

I can certainly see the utility this question might have; for an utterly unscrupulous anti-Mormon demagogue, it's clearly an opportunity not to be missed.

Regards,

Pahoran

Exactly!

[Buckeye]

I agree 100% with Pahoran's sentiments on this issue. The expression of such sentiments used to be welcomed here. Now, it seems to me, it usually does result in some kind of censure. But anti-Mormon sentiments and arguments are much more welcomed and protected than they used to be. I won't be surprised if I'm thread-banned or suspended just for saying what I have said.

To be clear, do you agree with Pahoran's sentiment as to the priesthood ban or his sentiment that those who think the ban was wrong and should be apologized for should find their way out of the church? I don't think anyone gets kicked off of boards for the former, but they do for personal attacks such as the latter. Again, the point is to disagree without being disagreeable. [And for the record I have no sway with the Mods at all; I don't even known them]

As to the "anti-mormon" rhetoric, I let it slide the first time, but I feel compelled to confront it now that you've said it again. I am in no degree an anti-mormon. I served a faithful mission, married in the temple, graduated from BYU, am raising 5 children in the church, have served as an ordinance worker in two temples, have served as EQP, bishopric counselor, and now am on the stake high council. I do not set out my pedigree often as I do not think it should matter to this board. Ideas themselves should matter. But I will when someone labels me an anti-mormon.

Edited April 11, 2012 by Buckeye

[Zakuska]

It should be more like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znrjbo9QRLk

Edited April 11, 2012 by Zakuska

[Calm]

On the particular issue I'm on the fence on wether it was from God. I'm certianly willing to entertain the idea that the ban was instituted by God. (Even though there is currently no data either way) I mean he seems to have had a ban on the priesthood before since the time of Moses. But then again. Moses' father inlaw was a Priest of the Most High and he was a Midianite, which by all accounts were not white skinned.

PS. I think the doctrine of the ban mostly comes from the Book of Abraham.

Abraham 1:26

26 Pharaoh, being a righteous man, established his kingdom and judged his people wisely and justly all his days, seeking earnestly to imitate that order established by the fathers in the first generations, in the days of the first patriarchal reign, even in the reign of Adam, and also of Noah, his father, who blessed him with the blessings of the earth, and with the blessings of wisdom, but cursed him as pertaining to the Priesthood.

27 Now, Pharaoh being of that lineage by which he could not have the right of Priesthood, notwithstanding the Pharaohs would fain claim it from Noah, through Ham, therefore my father was led away by their idolatry;

This links the idea directly into the curse of cain doctrine.

Except there is no "of Cain" mentioned in those verses. What is mentioned is that he descended from Noah through his mother, which makes his lineage matrilineal and not eligible for a patrilineal priesthood.

Now the first ^agovernment of Egypt was established by Pharaoh, the eldest son of Egyptus, the daughter of Ham, and it was after the manner of the government of Ham, which was patriarchal.

Edited April 11, 2012 by calmoriah

[Zakuska]

Except there is no "of Cain" mentioned in those verses. What is mentioned is that he descended from Noah through his mother, which makes his lineage matrilineal and not eligible for a patrilineal priesthood.

But you know as well as I do how the linkage to Cain traditionally goes.

http://en.wikipedia....nd_mark_of_Cain

And its not a strictly Mormon teaching.

Early and modern Christian

According to scholars, early interpretations of the Bible in Syriac Christianity combined the "curse" with the "mark", and interpreted the curse of Cain as black skin.^[9] Some argue that this may have originated from rabbinic texts, which interpreted a passage in the Book of Genesis ("And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell") as implying that Cain underwent a permanent change in skin color.^[10]

Origen, however, states that all the descendants of Cain perished in the Flood, and that all humankind therefore descends from Seth.^[11]

The Church Father Ephrem the Syrian (306-378): “Abel was bright as the light, / but the murderer (Cain) was dark as the darkness".^[12]

In an Eastern Christian (Armenian) Adam-book (5th or 6th century) it is written: “And the Lord was wroth with Cain. . . He beat Cain’s face with hail, which blackened like coal, and thus he remained with a black face".^[13]

The Irish Saltair na Rann (The Versified Psalter, AD 988), records Gabriel announcing to Adam: "Dark rough senseless Cain is going to kill Abel".^[14]

Edited April 11, 2012 by Zakuska

[Flyonthewall]

And yet the Church and members were so grateful and thankful when an apology from Illinois was received in 2004 for the atrocities in Nauvoo, some 160 years earlier:

http://www.deseretne...ticle/595052990

I hardly believe President Hinckley and the members found this apology "worthless".

Perhaps all I'm suggesting is the same level of empathy for the wrongs brought upon blacks for a similar historical look back. I can only believe it would have a similar healing that was brought by the Illinois apology.

Please list the "wrongs" brought upon blacks by the church. Were they denied any rights within the church? What exactly are you so up in arms about?

[Calm]

But you know as well as I do how the linkage to Cain traditionally goes.

http://en.wikipedia....nd_mark_of_Cain

And its not a strictly Mormon teaching.

You said it was linked directly. It is at best an indirect link.

As far as her husband....why is the woman's name given with her lineage and not the man's?

If her husband was one of Ham's sons, grandsons, or greatgrandsons, why is his lineage not given?

Edited April 11, 2012 by calmoriah

[Zakuska]

You said it was linked directly. It is at best an indirect link.

Lets back up a little bit... to the BOA:

23 The land of Egypt being first discovered by a woman, who was the daughter of Ham, and the daughter of Egyptus, which in the Chaldean signifies Egypt, which signifies that which is forbidden;

24 When this woman discovered the land it was under water, who afterward settled her sons in it; and thus, from Ham, sprang that race which preserved the curse in the land.

Egyptus was Hams wife and their daughter settled her sons (their grandsons) in the land. Who was her husband?

Second HAMs posterity had been cursed of not having the Priesthood. and they were preserved through the Flood according to the BOA. So then there was a Race of People on the Earth who had been Cursed of not having the Priesthood.

Edited April 11, 2012 by Zakuska