Hans Mattsson, A New Doubter

[why me]

I recognise that as being one potential conclusion, but don't accept it and also don't see any evidence of a divine mandate. The evidence is probably too inconclusive to ever be conclusive. So "we don't know why" is probably the best we'll get from the church.

But that is what historians do. They look at context and content and offer explanations and interpretations. We can either accept or reject them. And quite often historians engage in debate among themselves about facts. I do see the event happening when the black priesthood holder became engaged in his own polygamy. Imagine black priesthood holders marrying 4 or 10 white women in America at that time. It wouldn't go over very well.

http://mormonstories.org/mormon-stories-026-blacks-and-the-lds-priesthood-an-interview-with-darius-gray-and-margaret-young/

Edited July 24, 2013 by why me

[canard78]

canard78, on 25 July 2013 - 02:43 AM, said:

He asked The Lord about polygamy first and not the reverse?

(You replied):

Quote:

D&C 132:1 Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you my servant Joseph, that inasmuch as you have inquired of my hand to know and understand wherein I, the Lord, justified my servants Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as also Moses, David and Solomon, my servants, as touching the principle and doctrine of their having many wives and concubines—

Ah. That'll be another thing about D&C 132 that's in plain sight that I'd not noticed.

You know what curiosity did to the cat...? If only he hasn't asked...

[Calm]

Ah. That'll be another thing about D&C 132 that's in plain sight that I'd not noticed.

You know what curiosity did to the cat...? If only he hasn't asked...

Yes, it would be interesting to know what the Church would be like if his curiosity had been satisfied with the First Vision and the BoM.....but he just kept asking questions...I've wondered if he didn't go back and ask more questions of the Lord about how plural marriage should be engaged in because he was afraid that it might become even more difficult.

[canard78]

But that is what historians do. They look at context and content and offer explanations and interpretations. We can either accept or reject them. And quite often historians engage in debate among themselves about facts. I do see the event happening when the black priesthood holder became engaged in his own polygamy. Imagine black priesthood holders marrying 4 or 10 white women in America at that time. It wouldn't go over very well.

http://mormonstories.org/mormon-stories-026-blacks-and-the-lds-priesthood-an-interview-with-darius-gray-and-margaret-young/

I still don't accept the misbehaviour of one individual to be a justification to exclude a global race from temple covenants, priesthood participation and auxiliary calling a for 130 years.

Just excommunicate the offender. Elijah Able wasn't causing problems. It wasn't black people who were at fault. The fault lay in one person's bad choices and with a whole group of white bigots. Which is why I still don't accept that this excessive 130 reaction was instructed by God.

[why me]

I still don't accept the misbehaviour of one individual to be a justification to exclude a global race from temple covenants, priesthood participation and auxiliary calling a for 130 years.

Just excommunicate the offender. Elijah Able wasn't causing problems. It wasn't black people who were at fault. The fault lay in one person's bad choices and with a whole group of white bigots. Which is why I still don't accept that this excessive 130 reaction was instructed by God.

Listen to the podcast. It is very enlightening and it does give a good perspective on it by a black scholar.

Fall, 1847: Black "Prophet" William McCary seduces a number of mormon white women into his own polygamy rites. McCary considers himself a prophet. He is excommunicated. Subsequently, Brigham Young declares blacks ineligible for certain temple ordinances...maybe reacting from the William McCary affair. Thus, it begins....

Edited July 24, 2013 by why me

[canard78]

Yes, it would be interesting to know what the Church would be like if his curiosity had been satisfied with the First Vision and the BoM.....but he just kept asking questions...I've wondered if he didn't go back and ask more questions of the Lord about how plural marriage should be engaged in because he was afraid that it might become even more difficult.

I'm not saying stop at the Book of Mormon. The doctrine of the pre-earth life and post-earth opportunities are beautiful. The doctrine of eternal families and the purpose of life are wonderful. But I'd happily do without polygamy ever having been a part of the church. It serves no purpose that I can see. I'm not even aware of any functional eternal purpose that's ever been taught for it.

At best I can see it as having an early church purpose.

If they needed to quickly populate a new land with people who were loyal to the leadership (by blood not solely word), then it makes a little pragmatic sense. Given it would be hard to get acceptance as a practical solution it may have been taught as eternal ("for effect").

But it's not required in the eternities based on what has been taught. If you can create spirit children with 1+1, what advantage would 1+3 be? Speed? If you have eternity then speed is meaningless.

[canard78]

Listen to the podcast. It is very enlightening and it does give a good perspective on it by a black scholar.

Thanks, will do.

[ERayR]

I still don't accept the misbehaviour of one individual to be a justification to exclude a global race from temple covenants, priesthood participation and auxiliary calling a for 130 years.

But it gave just enough time for the Church to become rooted and grow until the civil rights movement changed the perspective of a nation.

[why me]

But it gave just enough time for the Church to become rooted and grow until the civil rights movement changed the perspective of a nation.

Listening to the podcast one can see that the ban was contentious from the very beginning within the church. The ban also something to do with southern members coming to Utah with their slaves. I see Brigham as a pragmatist. His main job was the security of the saints and the survival of the saints. But he may not have been very enlightened as a man. But Joseph was another matter. He grew as he experienced humanity, including the black members of the church. He became a very enlightened individual as he grew into his own humanity.

[why me]

We also need to remember that Abel's relative were ordained into the priesthood. For example, in 1934, Abel's grandson was ordained a priest. And a year later he was ordained an elder. Such facts are not very well known.

[ERayR]

Listening to the podcast one can see that the ban was contentious from the very beginning within the church. The ban also something to do with southern members coming to Utah with their slaves. I see Brigham as a pragmatist. His main job was the security of the saints and the survival of the saints. But he may not have been very enlightened as a man. But Joseph was another matter. He grew as he experienced humanity, including the black members of the church. He became a very enlightened individual as he grew into his own humanity.

Don't sell Brigham short. I see it as God having to hold the Church back 150 years to let the country catch up.

[Calm]

Don't sell Brigham short.

I tend to respect Brigham more for the way he actually treated people than for his theorizing about the way things were...

[why me]

I tend to respect Brigham more for the way he actually treated people than for his theorizing about the way things were...

But he did say some terrible things about blacks as did other general authorities. What members need to remember is that lds leaders are human beings first and people with callings second. They are not perfect. Brigham was what the saints needed at that time in their history. But his attitude toward blacks leaves much to be desired. If only he would have been enlightened like Joseph Smith, the church could have been proud of its racial history.

[Calm]

But he did say some terrible things about blacks as did other general authorities. What members need to remember is that lds leaders are human beings first and people with callings second. They are not perfect. Brigham was what the saints needed at that time in their history. But his attitude toward blacks leaves much to be desired. If only he would have been enlightened like Joseph Smith, the church could have been proud of its racial history.

Most certainly for our time. I've read a lot worse from his time (and ours unfortunately) but I have no way of knowing where he fit on the continuum of racism for his society, whether he was average, worse than most or better than most.

I have no problem with knowing that our leaders aren't perfect, but it is important to me to see how they treated people face to face...whether they were more concerned about or crusading for some abstract principle or helping their neighbour in need no matter what, even if they saw them as inferiors. (doesn't excuse racism, just saying that one can still show love and caring even as a racist and one should).

[ERayR]

I tend to respect Brigham more for the way he actually treated people than for his theorizing about the way things were...

He led a mass exodus across a country and colonized a large portion of the west. Did he err on some things? Most definitely but he succeeded where others would have failed.

[ERayR]

Most certainly for our time. I've read a lot worse from his time (and ours unfortunately) but I have no way of knowing where he fit on the continuum of racism for his society, whether he was average, worse than most or better than most.

I have no problem with knowing that our leaders aren't perfect, but it is important to me to see how they treated people face to face...whether they were more concerned about or crusading for some abstract principle or helping their neighbour in need no matter what, even if they saw them as inferiors. (doesn't excuse racism, just saying that one can still show love and caring even as a racist and one should).

Brigham could be a hard man, sometimes, when he needed to be but on the other hand it has been said that Brigham built more miles of rock fence, not because he need rock fence but because others needed jobs.

[cinepro]

But it gave just enough time for the Church to become rooted and grow until the civil rights movement changed the perspective of a nation.

Just so I'm clear, you're saying that a faithful black latter-day saint in 1945 would be turned away from the doors of the Temple because of the "perspective of a nation"?

For the sake of the Church and all that it stands for, if anyone ever asks you about the priesthood ban, please don't say anything.

[cinepro]

Don't sell Brigham short. I see it as God having to hold the Church back 150 years to let the country catch up.

This being the same Church that stubbornly practiced polygamy until 1890, against the most intense social and political pressure the world could bring to bear, only because God told us to.

But don't let black members of the Church have the Priesthood or go to the Temple because the world just isn't ready for it. But go ahead and let Mexicans, Chinese, Indians, Irish, Italians, Hawaiians, Japanese etc. The world has no problem with them.

[canard78]

Just so I'm clear, you're saying that a faithful black latter-day saint in 1945 would be turned away from the doors of the Temple because of the "perspective of a nation"?

For the sake of the Church and all that it stands for, if anyone ever asks you about the priesthood ban, please don't say anything.

Indeed cinepro. I'll leave them to it. As long as people believe that God instituted the ban they will have to play a huge game of mental gymnastics.

I've stated my opinion that I simply don't think God instituted the ban. There was no revelation to do so. Bigotry and ignorance caused it. The same extended and maintained it in different measures. Once both were eliminated the ban was lifted. Unfortunately that took 130 years.

[ttribe]

I have a simple problem. Here we have a good guy who has been a leader in the lds church. I am sure that he had many spiritual experiences while in the lds church in his positions or callings and as a mormon in general. How can a member who most likely had the feelings of the spirit often suddenly chuck it all away? And how can a member of his standing who most likely had countless spiritual experiences throw it all away because he did not know this or that. This is what I just don't get. Like i said, a lds testimony is built on sand. But why?

In the few days I've kept tabs on this matter, I've seen this type of comment (above), or some derivative of it. I have asked myself, and now I ask "out loud" (so to speak) - Why is it so hard for us to believe that a person can honestly develop doubt and then re-evaluate his/her spiritual experiences in the light of new information? Why the need to resort to comments such as "chuck it all away", or worse yet, speculate as to some "secret sin" that is the "real" reason for the person's doubt? Is it a defense mechanism? Is it the application of superficial critical thinking? The notion of belief revision is quite heavily researched in the behavioral psychology literature; it happens all the time (see Bayesian belief revision theories, for example). Why aren't we willing to accept Elder Mattsson's testimony on its face? Why the debate over this man's honesty and motives?

Edited July 25, 2013 by ttribe

[ERayR]

Just so I'm clear, you're saying that a faithful black latter-day saint in 1945 would be turned away from the doors of the Temple because of the "perspective of a nation"?

For the sake of the Church and all that it stands for, if anyone ever asks you about the priesthood ban, please don't say anything.

Indeed cinepro. I'll leave them to it. As long as people believe that God instituted the ban they will have to play a huge game of mental gymnastics.

I've stated my opinion that I simply don't think God instituted the ban. There was no revelation to do so. Bigotry and ignorance caused it. The same extended and maintained it in different measures. Once both were eliminated the ban was lifted. Unfortunately that took 130 years.

I didn't say God instituted it I said he didn't stop it until 1978. Big difference.

[canard78]

This being the same Church that stubbornly practiced polygamy until 1890, against the most intense social and political pressure the world could bring to bear, only because God told us to.

Indeed again! And even after they told the government 'ok we'll stop' in 1890, they were so convinced it was the right thing to do that they continued in secret for another 15 years. Even in the face of the potential consequences for being found out.

But don't let black members of the Church have the Priesthood or go to the Temple because the world just isn't ready for it. But go ahead and let Mexicans, Chinese, Indians, Irish, Italians, Hawaiians, Japanese etc. The world has no problem with them.

Nope. And in 1950, 60 and 70 the world hasn't even considered a change in attitude to black people. Oh wait, it had. Unfortunately our leadership included men who were stuck on the racists attitudes of the last century and opposed the ban being lifted because they were still convinced Cain was somehow being barred from the doors of the temple by excluding 20th C black people.

Like I said. Bigotry and ignorance caused the introduction and perpetuation of the "error" that was the priesthood ban.

[canard78]

I didn't say God instituted it I said he didn't stop it until 1978. Big difference.

Only because a portion of the 15 were not willing to ask. In fact the ban was finally lifted when the two apostles who are on record as being racist were out of town. They did endorse the lifting of the ban. But only once the decision had been made and they were called to effectively be told "the first presidency and 10 of the quorum have ratified this. Will you too?" They could hardly say no. Thankfully.

[rongo]

Only because a portion of the 15 were not willing to ask. In fact the ban was finally lifted when the two apostles who are on record as being racist were out of town. They did endorse the lifting of the ban. But only once the decision had been made and they were called to effectively be told "the first presidency and 10 of the quorum have ratified this. Will you too?" They could hardly say no. Thankfully.

I hadn't heard that. Who were these two? Can I get a CFR as well? Thanks!

Edited July 25, 2013 by rongo

[Danzo]

Only because a portion of the 15 were not willing to ask. In fact the ban was finally lifted when the two apostles who are on record as being racist were out of town. They did endorse the lifting of the ban. But only once the decision had been made and they were called to effectively be told "the first presidency and 10 of the quorum have ratified this. Will you too?" They could hardly say no. Thankfully.

Are you suggesting that this deliberately was timed to exclude those two?

Call For Reference