Cobalt-70 Posted April 26, 2012 Posted April 26, 2012 Even the most critical of the church would find it difficult to find a racist word in the annals of the church, from the time of restoration until today. That type of history would show that we are not racist...if we where you would find it with in the teachings of the church and the words of the prophets...that is the fair test. Based on that we come up pretty clean.It's not hard at all to find such statements. Joseph Smith published one in 1836. Brigham Young had several such statements. John Taylor is on record with at least two particularly egregious ones, etc. I think the 20th century statements are comparatively mild, but even the First Presidency issued statements in 1849 and 1869, basically reaffirming what Brigham Young had taught, though in a nice way.
Log Posted April 26, 2012 Posted April 26, 2012 (edited) President Hinckley made the claim, not me.President Hinckley was pretty clear who he was talking about - you, on the other hand, were purposefully ambiguous in the claim you made. So either retract, or specify, or own. Edited April 26, 2012 by Log
ERayR Posted April 27, 2012 Posted April 27, 2012 Now ask yourself was God forestalling the ordination of certain lineages because they weren't ready or because we (the Saints) weren't ready. Between the treatment of the Saints in the 1800s for abolitionist views, the problems of mixed marriages faced by the Quakers, the overriding protestant beliefs of the time, etc. I am leaning towards "we weren't ready" over God didn't want blacks to have the priesthood from 1850 to 1978.But both of us are speculating at this point.I am somewhat chagrined by the insistence of some Saints to justify our actions prior to having more light and knowledge on the subject.I'm leaning toward "we don't know". Anything else is purely speculation.
Bob Oliverio Posted April 27, 2012 Posted April 27, 2012 Brooks is welcome to try to excuse or rationalize the behavior of her fellow idealogues, but in doing so, she ought to avoid mischaracterizing the position of the Church. Equally, the Church needs to publicly characterize, explain or define if they believe, through our claim of prophetic knowledge, that the ban was of God or man.Neither Brooks nor the Church should be allowed an "ignorance pass"!
selek1 Posted April 27, 2012 Posted April 27, 2012 Equally, the Church needs to publicly characterize, explain or define if they believe, through our claim of prophetic knowledge, that the ban was of God or man.They have- you just don't like the answer.
cinepro Posted April 27, 2012 Posted April 27, 2012 President Hinckley was pretty clear who he was talking about - you, on the other hand, were purposefully ambiguous in the claim you made. So either retract, or specify, or own.I believe LDS men before 1978 were susceptible to the same weaknesses of character as men after 1978. Being fallible and all that.
Pahoran Posted April 27, 2012 Posted April 27, 2012 Perhaps a good public flogging as opposed to the censure would appease your desire for justice? Only if Kevin got to hold the whip.Regards,Pahoran
Pahoran Posted April 27, 2012 Posted April 27, 2012 I believe LDS men before 1978 were susceptible to the same weaknesses of character as men after 1978. Being fallible and all that.That's a clever quip. The fact remains that President Hinckley was admonishing people for the attitudes they held at the time he spoke, not what they or others might or might not have thought 28 years previously.Regards,Pahoran
Senator Posted April 27, 2012 Posted April 27, 2012 If President Hinckley meant what he said in 2006, then I think it's the most clear disavowal of the ban we can expect in our lifetimes:I agree with you that it is a sharp disavowal, albeit I sense an inadvertent one.
Scott Lloyd Posted April 27, 2012 Author Posted April 27, 2012 I didn't start this thread.No, it was I who did that. And it was for the purpose of debunking a false statement by an outspoken and somewhat visible pundit, not because I felt any pressing need to get the Church to "move on from" something.Those who are hung up on the way things were prior to 1978 will have to work through their own issues as best they can. But so long as Jesus Christ is in charge, they are not given leave to hold the Church hostage over those hangups, however strident they might be in the attempt. 2
cinepro Posted April 27, 2012 Posted April 27, 2012 That's a clever quip. The fact remains that President Hinckley was admonishing people for the attitudes they held at the time he spoke, not what they or others might or might not have thought 28 years previously.Regards,PahoranThou sayest.
Mark Beesley Posted April 27, 2012 Posted April 27, 2012 I think Scott, that you would be hard pressed to find any racist comment from a Prophet of the restoration. I know that many of the Prophets since Joseph Smith and Brigham had felt very trouble about the issue, especially David O Mckay. Cinepro's quote from President HInckley was a very powerful, I still remember when I heard it.I remember when that revelation came that the Priesthood would go every eligible man here on earth no matter his race or colour I was so happy. I think most members would have been too. Even the most critical of the church would find it difficult to find a racist word in the annals of the church, from the time of restoration until today. That type of history would show that we are not racist...if we where you would find it with in the teachings of the church and the words of the prophets...that is the fair test. Based on that we come up pretty clean.For those who believe that we are guilty of being racist, we will never have the currency to repay the debt that has accumulated in their mind, apology or not!Go to the Journal of Discourses, volume 7, page 290 and tell us whether or not anything Brigham Young said in that sermon might be construed as racist today.To make it clear, I believe Brigham Young was a product of his 19th Century culture which was rife with racism. Even though he ascended to the position of President of the Church, he did so based on faithfulness to fulfilling callings he received in the Church, not based on having perfected his social conscience. He was the prophet, not the pope. He was entitled to having failings. 3
Mark Beesley Posted April 27, 2012 Posted April 27, 2012 (edited) No, it was I who did that. And it was for the purpose of debunking a false statement by an outspoken and somewhat visible pundit, not because I felt any pressing need to get the Church to "move on from" something.Those who are hung up on the way things were prior to 1978 will have to work through their own issues as best they can. But so long as Jesus Christ is in charge, they are not given leave to hold the Church hostage over those hangups, however strident they might be in the attempt.Seems to me that that Sister Brooks reads Church statements differently than you. When the Church publishes a statement in which it denies knowledge of precisely when and why a policy was adopted, and which was subsequently abandoned, then I would suggest that Sister Brooks is on relatively firm ground in saying that the Church has acknowledged it was erroneous. Edited April 27, 2012 by Mark Beesley
Calm Posted April 27, 2012 Posted April 27, 2012 He was the prophet, not the pope. He was entitled to having failings. So is the Pope.
Scott Lloyd Posted April 27, 2012 Author Posted April 27, 2012 (edited) Seems to me that that Sister Brooks reads Church statements differently than you.I think she's at least as off-base as Bott was in making the statements for which he was castigated.When the Church publishes a statement in which it denies knowledge of precisely when and why a policy was adopted, and which was subsequently abandoned, ...According to OD 2, it was not a simple matter of abandonment of a policy. Rather, the prophet spent many hours in prayer imploring the Lord to change a practice he and his Brethren obviously believed was God-directed, and there was no action until they were all certain a revelation had been given. If it were a simple matter of abandoning a misguided policy, it probably would have happened much sooner, because it's obvious President Kimball was earnestly hoping for a change in the status quo. ... then I would suggest that Sister Brooks is on relatively firm ground in saying that the Church has acknowledged it was erroneous.Obviously, I disagree. Edited April 28, 2012 by Scott Lloyd
Mark Beesley Posted April 27, 2012 Posted April 27, 2012 I think she's at least as off-base as Bott was in making the statements for which he was castigated.According to OD 2, it was not a simple matter abandonment of a policy. Rather, the prophet spent many hours in prayer imploring the Lord to change a practice he and his Brethren obviously believed was God-directed, and there was no action until they were all certain a revelation had been given.Obviously, I disagree.I'm curious Scott. Sister Brooks made her comments on her blog. Have you posted over there so you can reach the same audience she was addressing?Have a good one.
Scott Lloyd Posted April 28, 2012 Author Posted April 28, 2012 I'm curious Scott. Sister Brooks made her comments on her blog. Have you posted over there so you can reach the same audience she was addressing?I rarely post anywhere but here. I addressed her blog because someone linked to it on a prior thread that got closed before I saw the link.
Recommended Posts