foster Posted December 7, 2013 Posted December 7, 2013 Notice that the Church doesn't disavow the actual ban or claim it was uninspired. They noted BY's saying that one day they would receive all the privileges and also that the later prophets felt it would take an actual revelation to change the policy which they sought for and obtained. I do note that Church did not condemn the ban.
foster Posted December 7, 2013 Posted December 7, 2013 There's a clear statement made by the church in a way that never has before. It's on the official church website, all in one place, listed under the topic where someone might go to look for it. Putting, for example, the 1852 date of BY's statement on the church website as well as McConkie's acknowledgement that he and other "spoke with a limited light" is also significant. In my opinion, McConkie's statement should only be given the weight of McConkie speaking for himself. McConkie needed to personally disavow his writings on the subject. I also think the setting in which McConkie made the statement, makes it clear he was only entitled to speak for himself and his own statements made with "limited light".
bluebell Posted December 7, 2013 Posted December 7, 2013 If the Church's position is still that the ban was directed or revealed by God, or was God's will, why does the statement not say it directly? The FP and 12 were not afraid to say that it was directed by God in 1949 and 1969. Why are they afraid to say so now? All that being said, I think the ban is in the same category as the ban on women praying in Sacrament meeting from the 1960s until the 1970s, or the disparity in treating men and women married to unendowed spouses before ETB (when such men could be endowed, but women could not): a well meaning policy interpretation that was culturally based or affected, but not reflective of an eternal principle or directed explicitly by God. I don't think the church right now knows one way or the other, and that's why they aren't saying one way or another. I don't think there's any evidence to support where BY got the idea for the ban, and without that, i don't think the church is going to make a declarative statement on the subject.
canard78 Posted December 7, 2013 Posted December 7, 2013 I do note that Church did not condemn the ban.Baby steps foster, baby steps.
DBMormon Posted December 7, 2013 Posted December 7, 2013 I agree this is a well written response and it's in a good and easy place to read. But there isn't anything new here and the disavowal of theories was said pretty clearly in the Professor Bott aftermath.But the article still doesn't answer the question that a lot of people have... Does the church today think the ban was wrong? I don't think you will get them to assume now what prophets past knew and didn't know. What revelation they received and what opinions that pushed forward.
Stone holm Posted December 7, 2013 Posted December 7, 2013 I didn't see a date, is this something new?
Stone holm Posted December 7, 2013 Posted December 7, 2013 I am uncomfortable with this concept of the membership not being ready. For me, the prophet should lead in righteousness and truth and forget about the potential consequences. For me the leadership for generations chose to follow something that was not the will of God, but was the will of man. President McKay should have taken a few the brethren out to the wood shed for a long talk and either brought them in line or removed them. Hugh B. Brown was removed for exactly supporting such courageous moves; it should have been the other way around. I am speaking a little too bluntly, but I tire of excusing the actions of leaders that should be condemned. They either lacked courage or sacrificed a people in exchange for maintaining unity among the Twelve. There is no excuse; it simply was and is history. Other than that, it is Saturday and it is a great day.Except on a smaller scale we saw this in the original status of the W of W.
BlueDreams Posted December 7, 2013 Posted December 7, 2013 In my opinion, McConkie's statement should only be given the weight of McConkie speaking for himself. McConkie needed to personally disavow his writings on the subject. I also think the setting in which McConkie made the statement, makes it clear he was only entitled to speak for himself and his own statements made with "limited light". His opinions and thoughts stated were not exactly unique thoughts about the ban. In fact they were some of the most widespread theories seen on this (ie. cursed/fence-sitters). So repudiating his own theories as one bred in limited light, means that these ideas exemplify what limited light meant. One can't keep his statement in a specific context of his own writings and thoughts and no one else's. Here is how my chair summarized the article: "it is a 4 or so page discussion of the race restriction and how it was not in harmony with how God sees his children, and was more part of the socio-cultural time in which the church was organized, with new accompanying videos, very impressive" IMHO it not only gives room to the idea that the ban wasn't necessarily inspired, but the use of the historical context and wording used gives credence to it. It's also a great resource for parts of my family who still believe a number of these folk doctrines. Before this I had little to go off that was "official" to make the point. BCSpace:Notice the comparison of the 1978 revelation with an "OT" restriction. Now perhaps you might dislike this type of comparison, but unless the Church removes it and several other similar statements, it stands as something being taught as the doctrine in the Church. On this note, I personally don't have much of a problem with it and still hold that the commencement of the ban was less inspiration and more mirroring the prevalent thinking of their time. I actually see both bans in a similar light: not the preferred mode, but one self-imposed by the make-up of their people who would not receive greater light and closeness with the true ways of God. Plus I see "this time" mentioned in the quoted text commencing with JS, sidetracked by the ban and prejudices of an era, and reasserted in the 1978 revelation. I see it as this dispensation and not specifically as the last 30+ years. With luv,BD
canard78 Posted December 7, 2013 Posted December 7, 2013 I don't think the church right now knows one way or the other, and that's why they aren't saying one way or another.I don't think there's any evidence to support where BY got the idea for the ban, and without that, i don't think the church is going to make a declarative statement on the subject.A prophet "gets an idea" for a ban affecting millions based on skin colour; nearly a dozen more perpetuate it with false and unquestioned assumptions about its source and reasons. It's overturned but none of the modern prophets have a clue why or how it started, relying instead on carefully worded articles written by historians. All while the founder of the church opposed racism and freely ordained black members.Can someone remind me how revelation is supposed to work in this church? 3
David T Posted December 7, 2013 Author Posted December 7, 2013 I do note that Church did not condemn the ban.Just every single attempt to doctrinally justify it.
Spammer Posted December 7, 2013 Posted December 7, 2013 It will be an even better day when the Church disavows the ban itself. 2
Tacenda Posted December 7, 2013 Posted December 7, 2013 It will be an even better day when the Church disavows the ban itself.I believe they tried, but couldn't make the leap.
thesometimesaint Posted December 7, 2013 Posted December 7, 2013 I believe they tried, but couldn't make the leap.I never supported the ban, and believe that some made some terrible comments concerning it. But I can't apologize for them. How can I apologize for someone else? We do know that God for whatever his reason(s) has instituted Priesthood bans throughout history. IE; At one time only the oldest son of a High Priest from the Tribe of Levi could hold the Priesthood. What we don't know is the reason(s) behind any ban.
DBMormon Posted December 7, 2013 Posted December 7, 2013 BCSpace since you have taken three threads to say the Church still stands by the ban being revealation I thought this response should be visible to readers as well Nope. The above are all evidences. You've denied them without saying why they are deniable. Your prerogative but unconvincing. BCSpace - I think you are mistaken. The Church stopped short of saying the ban was inspired. Without having a record of BY stating his reason for implementing said ban, there is no way to throw him under the bus unless God clears up the WHY or an unknown document surfaces. With that said, they have gone as far as they can without said evidence to state that we as an institution are sorry it happened and wish to put to bed all reasoning for it. I would suspect if you could hook the top 15 to Lie detectors that none of them would claim the ban was from God and either would say it was a mistake or they don't know. One example we have on record is Elder Holland http://www.pbs.org/mormons/interviews/holland.html . Notice his waffling between the words Doctrine, Policy and Practice One clear-cut position is that the folklore must never be perpetuated. ... I have to concede to my earlier colleagues. ... They, I'm sure, in their own way, were doing the best they knew to give shape to [the policy], to give context for it, to give even history to it. All I can say is however well intended the explanations were, I think almost all of them were inadequate and/or wrong. ...It probably would have been advantageous to say nothing, to say we just don't know, and, [as] with many religious matters, whatever was being done was done on the basis of faith at that time. But some explanations were given and had been given for a lot of years. ... At the very least, there should be no effort to perpetuate those efforts to explain why that doctrine existed. I think, to the extent that I know anything about it, as one of the newer and younger ones to come along, ... we simply do not know why that practice, that policy, that doctrine was in place. And I find it weird that you claim to know it is divinely instituted and Elder Holland doesn't. Especially when no such evidence exists other then decades later a leader trying to defend the practice
DBMormon Posted December 7, 2013 Posted December 7, 2013 BCSpace since you have taken three threads to say the Church still stands by the ban being revealation I thought this response should be visible to readers as well Nope. The above are all evidences. You've denied them without saying why they are deniable. Your prerogative but unconvincing. BCSpace - I think you are mistaken. The Church stopped short of saying the ban was inspired. Without having a record of BY stating his reason for implementing said ban, there is no way to throw him under the bus unless God clears up the WHY or an unknown document surfaces. With that said, they have gone as far as they can without said evidence to state that we as an institution are sorry it happened and wish to put to bed all reasoning for it. I would suspect if you could hook the top 15 to Lie detectors that none of them would claim the ban was from God and either would say it was a mistake or they don't know. One example we have on record is Elder Holland http://www.pbs.org/mormons/interviews/holland.html . Notice his waffling between the words Doctrine, Policy and Practice One clear-cut position is that the folklore must never be perpetuated. ... I have to concede to my earlier colleagues. ... They, I'm sure, in their own way, were doing the best they knew to give shape to [the policy], to give context for it, to give even history to it. All I can say is however well intended the explanations were, I think almost all of them were inadequate and/or wrong. ...It probably would have been advantageous to say nothing, to say we just don't know, and, [as] with many religious matters, whatever was being done was done on the basis of faith at that time. But some explanations were given and had been given for a lot of years. ... At the very least, there should be no effort to perpetuate those efforts to explain why that doctrine existed. I think, to the extent that I know anything about it, as one of the newer and younger ones to come along, ... we simply do not know why that practice, that policy, that doctrine was in place. And I find it weird that you claim to know it is divinely instituted and Elder Holland doesn't. Especially when no such evidence exists other then decades later a leader trying to defend the practice 2
juliann Posted December 7, 2013 Posted December 7, 2013 A prophet "gets an idea" for a ban affecting millions based on skin colour; nearly a dozen more perpetuate it with false and unquestioned assumptions about its source and reasons. It's overturned but none of the modern prophets have a clue why or how it started, relying instead on carefully worded articles written by historians.All while the founder of the church opposed racism and freely ordained black members.Can someone remind me how revelation is supposed to work in this church?I think it is more about how people work in this church. It makes me wonder if the next step in the Restoration is to get us all doing our own work and stepping back a bit from the worshipful attitude we have built up around the top Church leaders without allowing them any room for their own humanity. Perhaps that statement about not always being able to rely on other people's faith applies here rather than a contradiction of the gifts of the spirit. We have to get to the point where we as individuals can separate what the church is now calling well thought out opinion from revelation in Newsroom statement on what constitutes doctrine.. But that is our job, not the leadership's job. It is hard not to see a slow preparation....I don't think it was coincidence that Pres. Uchtdorf preceded this new statement by saying that leaders make mistakes. They surely know they have opened Pandora's Box with this. Maybe they are hoping that we will rise to the challenge rather than continuing to demand and expect absolutes every time they open their mouths. 3
canard78 Posted December 7, 2013 Posted December 7, 2013 I never supported the ban, and believe that some made some terrible comments concerning it. But I can't apologize for them.How can I apologize for someone else? We do know that God for whatever his reason(s) has instituted Priesthood bans throughout history. IE; At one time only the oldest son of a High Priest from the Tribe of Levi could hold the Priesthood.What we don't know is the reason(s) behind any ban.Isn't there a phrase about human nature abhorring a vacuum. The church has disavowed every speculation and reason for the ban but have not replaced it with any other reason. At the same time they've clearly set the origins of the ban in the context of racist America. With no reason proffered by the church but a clear racist context illustrated they've created a vacuum and left an obvious reason to fill it. 1
canard78 Posted December 7, 2013 Posted December 7, 2013 I think it is more about how people work in this church. It makes me wonder if the next step in the Restoration is to get us all doing our own work and stepping back a bit from the worshipful attitude we have built up around the top Church leaders without allowing them any room for their own humanity. Perhaps that statement about not always being able to rely on other people's faith applies here rather than a contradiction of the gifts of the spirit. We have to get to the point where we as individuals can separate what the church is now calling well thought out opinion from revelation in Newsroom statement on what constitutes doctrine.. But that is our job, not the leadership's job. It is hard not to see a slow preparation....I don't think it was coincidence that Pres. Uchtdorf preceded this new statement by saying that leaders make mistakes.They surely know they have opened Pandora's Box with this. Maybe they are hoping that we will rise to the challenge rather than continuing to demand and expect absolutes every time they open their mouths.I would certainly agree that there is a rhetoric of independence coming from some leaders.Elder Uchtdorf's January 2013 CES talk on "find your own truth" and Elder Eyring's Oct 2013 priesthood talk on "you decide," combined with Elder Uchtdorf's "we all make mistakes" have all been significant in shaping where I'm trying to place my focus and emphasis. This of course isn't new. I've quotes going back through the ages with messages like that from assorted leaders. I just hope this message continues to become more prominent. 1
AndyDnom Posted December 7, 2013 Posted December 7, 2013 Nothing's been walked back that I know of. The JoD, for example, was never a doctrinal work of the Church. Do you believe a prophet's mouth is to be controlled by God 24/7 or do they have agency and opinions of their own and express them from time to time? How do you know the difference between a prophets mouth being controlled by god or a prophet using his agency to express his own opinions?
CA Steve Posted December 7, 2013 Posted December 7, 2013 Are there any consequences or blessings for our actions in the preexistence that can be pointed to here in this life other than the opportunity to be here?
thesometimesaint Posted December 7, 2013 Posted December 7, 2013 A prophet "gets an idea" for a ban affecting millions based on skin colour; nearly a dozen more perpetuate it with false and unquestioned assumptions about its source and reasons. It's overturned but none of the modern prophets have a clue why or how it started, relying instead on carefully worded articles written by historians.All while the founder of the church opposed racism and freely ordained black members.Can someone remind me how revelation is supposed to work in this church? We are a conservative religion by nature in that we stick with the way things are until something better comes along.
thesometimesaint Posted December 7, 2013 Posted December 7, 2013 Are there any consequences or blessings for our actions in the preexistence that can be pointed to here in this life other than the opportunity to be here?None that I know of. Though it could be argued that God places us in where we will best serve his purposes.
thesometimesaint Posted December 7, 2013 Posted December 7, 2013 Isn't there a phrase about human nature abhorring a vacuum. The church has disavowed every speculation and reason for the ban but have not replaced it with any other reason.At the same time they've clearly set the origins of the ban in the context of racist America.With no reason proffered by the church but a clear racist context illustrated they've created a vacuum and left an obvious reason to fill it. A vacuum seems to be a pretty common state of nature. But I agree that we humans do try to make defenses for the indefensible.
Recommended Posts