How Do You Read The Race Statement?

[Brian 2.0]

There has been some disagreement on this in the other thread and I wanted to get a sense of where people stood.

 

I personally do not see the "Race and the Priesthood" article as a disavowal of the ban itself, but just the theories and racist teachings.  But plenty of news organizations have reported on it and are framing it as if the chruch has disavowed the ban itself saying that the article claims it was from Brigham Young and not God, etc.  The RadioWest interviews framed it this way.  And the Huffington Post flatout says this:

 

Now, finally, Mormons can point to a new 2,000-word statement posted on the church's website that offers the most comprehensive explanation of why the church previously had barred men of African descent from the lay clergy, and for the first time disavows the ban.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/10/mormon-church-black-racism-_n_4418703.html

 

I can't see that reading.  Curious on your thoughts on how you read it.

Edited December 15, 2013 by Brian 2.0

[JLHPROF]

I don't think it disavowed the ban specifically, but by disavowing the doctrines that led to the ban, it kind of did disavow the ban itself.

 

I also dislike that this is being laid a Brigham Young's door...I think this is oversimplifying things as well as causing people to question Brigham's prophetic position.  He was God's mouthpiece, even if you disagree with some of his teachings.  He really is becoming the whipping boy for any 1800's Church teaching that is no longer accepted in the church today.  At this rate we'll be calling him a fallen prophet next for the ban, Adam-God, polygamy, and who knows what else...

[Brian 2.0]

I don't think it disavowed the ban specifically, but by disavowing the doctrines that led to the ban, it kind of did disavow the ban itself.

 

In the radiowest interviews (you can hear it via a couple podcasts, I know MormonStories has it), Russel Stevenson said, "the spirit of the statement" disavowed the ban.  And I see what he's saying, but to me that's lawyer speak so that the chruch doesn't have to make the claim and accept any repercussions that may come of disavowing the ban itself.  This couldn't have been a quick thrown together statement.  Why just "kind of" disavow it?  What's the point of not being clear on the position (even if that position is "we don't know if it was from God")?

Edited December 15, 2013 by Brian 2.0

[pogi]

I don't think it disavowed the ban specifically, but by disavowing the doctrines that led to the ban, it kind of did disavow the ban itself.

 

The statement made it sound like the "doctrines" regarding blacks did not "lead up to" the ban, but were created in an effort to "explain" the ban.  This, to me, suggests that the ban itself, and the reasons leading up to it (whatever they were), were not disavowed.  It said:

 

"Over time, Church leaders and members advanced many theories to explain the priesthood and temple restrictions. None of these explanations is accepted today as the official doctrine of the Church."

Edited December 15, 2013 by pogi

[thatjimguy]

I don;t see anything for the second question in the article that would say either way.

 

 

 

I would think that if the ban was NOT of God, God would have told the leaders.

 

I would think they would think it was of God, since they prayed about it and did not get an answer to change it until they did get an answer.

[Robert F. Smith]

In the radiowest interviews (you can hear it via a couple podcasts, I know MormonStories has it), Russel Stevenson said, "the spirit of the statement" disavowed the ban.  And I see what he's saying, but to me that's lawyer speak so that the chruch doesn't have to make the claim and accept any repercussions that may come of disavowing the ban itself.  This couldn't have been a quick thrown together statement.  Why just "kind of" disavow it?  What's the point of not being clear on the position (even if that position is "we don't know if it was from God")?

You're overthinking and overinterpreting the statement, Brian, although you are certainly correct to say that it wasn't just quickly thrown together.  The statement verifies what I (and many others) have been saying for decades, including some key things that Apostle LeGrand Richards had said about the matter back in the 70s (and which anti-Mormons had surreptitiously recorded and published), all of it well summed up for us by non-Mormon historian Jan Shipps.  The historical background has been very clear, as is the recent statement, although the hoi-polloi may have missed it all along.

 

I heard the broadcast you refer to, and it seemed to me that John Dehlin was almost angry that the Church statement had been made, but then sought to make  hay with it for his own, separate purposes.  It is so difficult to mollify ideologues.  With them, you are damned if you do and damned if you don't.

Edited December 15, 2013 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

The statement made it sound like the "doctrines" regarding blacks did not "lead up to" the ban, but were created in an effort to "explain" the ban.  This, to me, suggests that the ban itself, and the reasons leading up to it (whatever they were), were not disavowed.  It said:

 

"Over time, Church leaders and members advanced many theories to explain the priesthood and temple restrictions. None of these explanations is accepted today as the official doctrine of the Church."

Does this mean, pogi, that (in your opinion) LDS doctrine can be established by indirect, de facto means, rather than directly?  In other words, since the Church leaders hold the keys, whatever they think and do (rightly or wrongly) becomes the actual doctrine.  Revelation need not be the basis of it?  Nor is there need for continuity?  Is that what the statement says?

[mercyngrace]

The statement reads to me as if the church is disavowing the explanations for the ban but not the ban however I think it goes without saying that the consequences of simply throwing the ban out as an erroneous practice along with identifying church presidents as bound by the culture of their day, opens the door for people to acknowledge both the fallibility of present church leaders, and the reality that we can be led astray - regardless of what our primary children sing. Of course, my personal opinion is that it takes an incredible amount of hubris to think we can't be led astray by church leaders. There just aren't any arms of flesh that reliable. 

[Whiskeypete]

There wasn't a poll choice for it, but is there any logical consistency in the idea that the ban was imposed by Brigham Young, and due to the climate / culture of racism that existed, due to the nature of the prevailing attitudes of the times and exacerbated by the 'conventional wisdom' theories that the ban generated within the church, was allowed to continue by God because the vast majority of the members could not handle the change?

Thus a prophet could legitimately understand that the time for ending the ban had not come, not because God desired for racism to continue, but because He understood the consequences of the divisions that might have occurred in the Church as a result of lifting the ban earlier.

A Book of Mormon example to illustrate my point: I don't think that God wanted Nephi to kill Laban. What He wanted was for Laban to give up the plates to Lehi's sons. But when Laban refused to act according to Gods will, the consequence was a scenario that was less than optimal for both Laban and Nephi.

[ALarson]

I think the church had two options.  They could either state that the ban came from God (and that they either know the reasons behind it or they don't) OR, the ban was put in place by Brigham Young as a result of the current feelings towards blacks at that time ( interpreted by the majority to be racist).  It appears to me, that they chose the second option and kind of waffle on the first possibility.  

 

The problem with choosing to lay this at Brigham Young's feet is that it also lays it at the feet of the other 9 Prophets in between him and Spencer W. Kimball.

 

I had a discussion about this the other night with a group of about 10 members (at a ward activity) and these feelings were also how every single one of them saw it.  Many of them are really struggling with this new essay.

Edited December 15, 2013 by ALarson

[bluebell]

I don't believe the article disavows the ban.

It seems clear to me that the church does not know the origin of the ban at this time, and so has been careful to neither officially say it was of God nor that it wasn't.

[pogi]

Does this mean, pogi, that (in your opinion) LDS doctrine can be established by indirect, de facto means, rather than directly?  In other words, since the Church leaders hold the keys, whatever they think and do (rightly or wrongly) becomes the actual doctrine.  Revelation need not be the basis of it?  Nor is there need for continuity?  Is that what the statement says?

 

No, I definitely don't think that true doctrine can be established through indirect, or de facto means.  Revelation most certainly needs to be the basis of it.

 

I am only commenting on the wording of the article.  It appears to me that they were deliberate and careful in their wording to not disavow the ban itself, but to only disavow the "explanations" for the ban.  I have read it several times, hoping to find something which suggests that the ban itself was specifically disavowed, but I can't find it.  It seems to me that they are hesitant to come out and just say it.  I am not saying that I personally believe that the ban was a result of direct revelation.  Honestly, I can't say if the ban was established through direct revelation or not (I have never prayed about it), but my gut tells me that it was not, and my heart doesn't want to believe it.  

[The Nehor]

This is how I read it. Your mileage may vary:

 

[Rivers]

I don't believe the article disavows the ban.

It seems clear to me that the church does not know the origin of the ban at this time, and so has been careful to neither officially say it was of God nor that it wasn't.

I agree. The article certainly leaves room to believe one way or the other.

Either way, we have a big theological question on our hands. Either God commanded the ban or He allowed the ban to exist. So even if the church disavows the ban itself, we are still left wondering why God did not prevent it from happening.

[juliann]

There wasn't a poll choice for it, but is there any logical consistency in the idea that the ban was imposed by Brigham Young, and due to the climate / culture of racism that existed, due to the nature of the prevailing attitudes of the times and exacerbated by the 'conventional wisdom' theories that the ban generated within the church, was allowed to continue by God because the vast majority of the members could not handle the change?

 

This is a popular explanation that I think comes under the same category as the others that were disavowed.  The statement left God out of this so I see no justification for putting him back in, especially under a scenerio that makes him look like a white supremacist.  Saying that he worries more about what white people think isn't exactly a Godly trait.  If he would do that, then he must have approved of slavery, too.  I wonder if we will ever stop coming up with justifications for it because we so badly need some context for it...but the church has pretty much left us with "we don't know" and stop making up justifications for it, none of that turned out very well.

[foster]

I think the church had two options.  They could either state that the ban came from God (and that they either know the reasons behind it or they don't) OR, the ban was put in place by Brigham Young as a result of the current feelings towards blacks at that time ( interpreted by the majority to be racist).  It appears to me, that they chose the second option and kind of waffle on the first possibility.  

 

The problem with choosing to lay this at Brigham Young's feet is that it also lays it at the feet of the other 9 Prophets in between him and Spencer W. Kimball.

 

I had a discussion about this the other night with a group of about 10 members (at a ward activity) and these feelings were also how ev

every single one of them saw it.  Many of them are really struggling with this new essay.

 

how did these 10 come know of the statement? Did they each read it theirself or did you explain it to them.

[mormonnewb]

I agree. The article certainly leaves room to believe one way or the other.

I agree. I think the church is trying to correct some of the racist folklore from the past without explicitly stating that past prophets were ... the w-word (W-R-O-?-?).

This might be the right approach -- to fix the problem (the proliferation of racist theories) without "breaking" members' trust in the prophets. Of course, the larger question is whether that trust does need to be broken (or more properly, "nuanced") in light of the possibility of future reversals (eg, the ordination of women, the acceptance of SSM, etc.)?

[foster]

This is a popular explanation that I think comes under the same category as the others that were disavowed.  The statement left God out of this so I see no justification for putting him back in, especially under a scenerio that makes him look like a white supremacist.  Saying that he worries more about what white people think isn't exactly a Godly trait.  If he would do that, then he must have approved of slavery, too.  I wonder if we will ever stop coming up with justifications for it because we so badly need some context for it...but the church has pretty much left us with "we don't know" and stop making up justifications for it, none of that turned out very well.

 

The most recent statement did not disavow the past statements (1947, 1949, 1969 and David O. McKay) that attribute the ban to God. One might argue that portions of the past statement were disavowed, but the claims of the origin where not. Until the Church disavows the origin statements by past Prophets then God was never taken out of the equation.  

 

"We don't know" has been the position for a very long time and is even the position mentioned in the statements from the 40's and/or 60's. 

 

Past Prophets claimed it was of God for reasons known to Him, the current "topic" article on Race and Priesthood does not disavow those past Prophets.

[Brian 2.0]

It appears that there have been some that voted that the ban was NOT disavowed in the statement and then voted the the church's current stance on the ban is that it was instituted by Brigham Young, and not god, and is wrong.

 

If anyone did vote that way, I'd be curious to hear why.  If this statement did not disavow it in your mind, then what other info would you point to to believe that the church's current stance is that the ban was not from God and is wrong?

[Brian 2.0]

You're overthinking and overinterpreting the statement, Brian, although you are certainly correct to say that it wasn't just quickly thrown together.  The statement verifies what I (and many others) have been saying for decades, including some key things that Apostle LeGrand Richards had said about the matter back in the 70s (and which anti-Mormons had surreptitiously recorded and published), all of it well summed up for us by non-Mormon historian Jan Shipps.  The historical background has been very clear, as is the recent statement, although the hoi-polloi may have missed it all along.

 

What am I overthinking and overinterpreting?  

 

I think the statement is great and clear on disavowing the racist statments and all the theories and I'm glad that has been pushed away and quotes from Brigham Young and others that seem quite racist can't be trotted out any longer by critics.  And congrats on being so ahead of the curve.  And I think a lot of the members personally "disavowed" those statements long ago and it's nice to finally see the church do it.

 

But do you think the statement is very clear on the church's stance on the ban itself?  What do you think it is?

 

In my mind, the statement didn't say much of anything as to the church's position on if the ban itself is from God or not.  And those using it to make a case either way are the ones "overthinking and overinterpreting" 

[daz2]

Yes, the article does not say exactly what prompted BY to announce the ban in a speech to the legislature.  It is possible to BY had a dream, or God spoke to him in a revelation, and that prompted the statement.  It is also possible he, without consulting God, made a command decision that it was the right thing to do.  Of course the reasons he offered for the ban at the time were not from God.  It would seem odd to me that the same God who would prompt BY to institute a ban would also prompt or allow him to offer false doctrine concerning why it was done. 

 

Of course, the statement is open to the interpretation that BY's decision was prompted by God, but that what he "said" about it was not prompted by God.

 

To me, the fact that the reasons offered for it were not from God undermines a completely assured  confidence in those leaders as much as the decision itself.  Prophets are supposed to teach correct doctrine.  They did not.

 

Of course, part of the problem is that later Brethren came to believe that Joseph instituted the ban based on revelation.  For some reason, God did not reveal to them that Joseph had not started the ban or received a revelation about it.

Edited December 16, 2013 by daz2

[Calm]

Anyone studied what other "church" announcements he made to the legislature?

 

Or why he did it in this case?  Was there potential laws being discussed that might have been influenced by such a ban?

[iamse7en]

It's a carefully crafted PR statement. It seems people take different interpretations on it. 

 

If they're inferring the policy was derived from cultural pressures and not from God, who's to say that's not the case with same-sex marriage. If the prophets could be that wrong for 130 years, despite them saying it was so in the name of Jesus Christ, who knows what else they're so wrong on. Not a road I think the Church wants its members to deductively go down.

 

Either way, the Church is backing itself into a corner. It should seek revelation and not stick with committees to write these documents to pacify progressives and the world. The ban itself had more precedent in antiquated scripture, modern scripture, and modern prophets than does this PR response. What motivated this after more than 30 years since 1978? An important question to consider.

Edited December 16, 2013 by iamse7en

[Robert F. Smith]

I think the church had two options.  They could either state that the ban came from God (and that they either know the reasons behind it or they don't) OR, the ban was put in place by Brigham Young as a result of the current feelings towards blacks at that time ( interpreted by the majority to be racist).  It appears to me, that they chose the second option and kind of waffle on the first possibility.  

 

The problem with choosing to lay this at Brigham Young's feet is that it also lays it at the feet of the other 9 Prophets in between him and Spencer W. Kimball.

 

I had a discussion about this the other night with a group of about 10 members (at a ward activity) and these feelings were also how every single one of them saw it.  Many of them are really struggling with this new essay.

Good for them!!  Struggle and challenges build character.  This is real life, not some parlor game.  We are all on the razor's edge.

[Robert F. Smith]

No, I definitely don't think that true doctrine can be established through indirect, or de facto means.  Revelation most certainly needs to be the basis of it.

 

I am only commenting on the wording of the article.  It appears to me that they were deliberate and careful in their wording to not disavow the ban itself, but to only disavow the "explanations" for the ban.  I have read it several times, hoping to find something which suggests that the ban itself was specifically disavowed, but I can't find it.  It seems to me that they are hesitant to come out and just say it.  I am not saying that I personally believe that the ban was a result of direct revelation.  Honestly, I can't say if the ban was established through direct revelation or not (I have never prayed about it), but my gut tells me that it was not, and my heart doesn't want to believe it.  

Finding out that great and heroic men actually have feet of clay comes hard, but it is part of coming-of-age.  Thus, although I don't know whether George Washington actually chopped down that cherry tree and then confessed, I do know that he and Jefferson owned slaves.  I also know that virtually all the "Christian" churches in the ante-bellum South supported slavery with tortuous exegesis of Holly Scripture, along with a variety of folklore.  Very few men can rise above the sentiments of the mob.  Even enlightened men make accommodations with evil.  Any changes for the better come slowly, if at all.  And quite often we see severe backward movements, as with the very well educated and enlightened Germans turning fully to dark and evil ways during the Nazi era.

 

Hard to find anyone with clean hands and a pure heart.  That is the actual truth, and we need to accept it.