How Do You Read The Race Statement?

[Calm]

I am doing this in bed on my iPad so not the way I would normally outline a logic argument...and I don't think it is really necessary because I believe Brian and Blubell have already pointed out the gaps in your argument. And I admit I am doing this off the cuff and not checking facts as it is too hard to do with the iPad and I have very limited time before I lose my clarity....but if I wait to post in the morning I will be back to this has all been covered by someone already, you are not having three or four or more separate discussions, several of us are including others' comments as developing a total rebuttal of your argument.

" "It is not known precisely why, how, or when this restriction began in the Church" to we do, in fact, know why (racism), how (Brigham Young publically announced it), and when (1852) this restriction began."

Here you've assumed facts not demonstrated...

Please show that the Church holds that racism is the sole reason the ban originated as opposed to the environment in which it was created and therefore we can ignore the possibilities of other influences, including direction from God.

Please show that the Church holds the announcement by BY to mean he created the ban himself and only him and at that time...as it appears you are falsely (in the logic sense ) jumping to assume that a public announcement of the existence of a policy is equivalent to its creation...we have plural marriage to demonstrate this is not so, nor even though he made the official announcement, BY was not the originator of that policy.

When (1852) is demonstrated through documentation.

" "God commanded it" is no longer implied"

And "God did not command it" is not implied either, but only being inferred by you (and others) a premature inference.

Edited December 29, 2013 by calmoriah

[JarMan]

one of the false premises in my view is that your methodology for interpreting is valid.

 

I get that you think I am misinterpreting. But what is the false premise?

[Calm]

That if a policy is seen as part of a context, the source and the only source of that policy must be that context.

Edited December 29, 2013 by calmoriah

[JarMan]

I am doing this in bed on my iPad so not the way I would normally outline a logic argument...and I don't think it is really necessary because I believe Brian and Blubell have already pointed out the gaps in your argument. And I admit I am doing this off the cuff and not checking facts as it is too hard to do with the iPad and I have very limited time before I lose my clarity....but if I wait to post in the morning I will be back to this has all been covered by someone already, you are not having three or four or more separate discussions, several of us are including others' comments as developing a total rebuttal of your argument.

" "It is not known precisely why, how, or when this restriction began in the Church" to we do, in fact, know why (racism), how (Brigham Young publically announced it), and when (1852) this restriction began."

Here you've assumed facts not demonstrated...

 

No, I have demonstrated facts. I've simply cited the article. You are the one assuming things that are not in the article.

 

Please show that the Church holds that racism is the sole reason the ban originated as opposed to the environment in which it was created and therefore we can ignore the possibilities of other influences, including direction from God.

 

I include "the environment in which it was created" to be part of the "racism" argument. This is the reason for the ban mentioned in the article. If you want to claim the ban originated (or may gave originated) from God, rather than from racism, then the burden of proof is on you to support your own assertion. So far you have not provided any support beyond your own opinion.

 

 

 

Please show that the Church holds the announcement by BY to mean he created the ban himself and only him and at that time...as it appears you are falsely (in the logic sense ) jumping to assume that a public announcement of the existence of a policy is equivalent to its creation...we have plural marriage to demonstrate this is not so, nor even though he made the official announcement, BY was not the originator of that policy.

 

I am only pointing out what the church's article says and contrasting that with past statements. You want to believe something that the article does not say. And I'm glad you bring up plural marriage because there is a ton of evidence that it came from God. We simply do not have that with the priesthood ban. But since you are so intent on insisting that the ban was (or may have been) from God, then you need to provide that evidence.

 

 "God commanded it" is no longer implied"

And "God did not command it" is not implied either, but only being inferred by you (and others) a premature inference.

 

When was the last time the church took the position that the priesthood ban was from God?

[JarMan]

That if a policy is seen as part of a context, the source and the only source of that policy must be that context.

 

This isn't a premise, either. It's your description of my reasoning. (And to be fair, the 2 "premises" I listed earlier aren't premises, either, as you correctly pointed out.)

 

You correctly defined a premise as being an assumption that we begin an argument with. So what is the false assumption that I began the argument with?

[Xajax]

From the church article, Race and the Priesthood, we can see that in the 3^rd paragraph down and then under the section entitled, “The Church in an American Racial Culture” that racism throughout the United States was wide spread.  It would be expected that varying degrees of racism existed in the church, and primarily among the American members, whereas those coming from England were not quite as infected as those in the United Sates. 

 

A little research will show that among the leadership of the church in the early 1840 that Joseph Smith was probably the foremost advocate for Blacks receiving the priesthood.  Brigham Young who so admired Joseph held almost exactly the same view as Joseph or was influenced by him so that he reflected Joseph’s views precisely. Lorenzo Snow who had been educated at Overland College, an integrated school of liberal arts, also looked upon Blacks favorably at the time. 

 

On the other hand the Orson Hyde, Parley P. Pratt and Zebedee Coltrin were known to have hard racial view.  When Zebedee Coltrin received the assignment to perform the washing and anointing in the Kirtland Temple for Elijah Ables (a black elder) Zebedee refused saying that it was repugnant to him.  Joseph insisted and then Zebedee complied.

 

The point is that by-in-large the membership of the church was either neutral or held strong feelings against the Black holding the priesthood and there were relatively few who held positive views for Blacks holding the priesthood.

 

Now factor in the incident at Winter Quarters. When Brigham Young was in the Salt Lake Valley in 1847, William Mc Cary, a Black elder, who was back in Winter Quarters began taking plural wives all of whom were white.  With today’s politically correct eyes can you imagine how horrified the early saints must have been when this incident took place not having lived through it yourself? Suffice it to say Brigham Young began to change his view on Blacks holding the priesthood.

 

Now consider an incident that took place in Matthew 19:

7 The [Pharisees] say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?

 8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.

 

I see the ban on the priesthood more of an indictment on the white American members of the church more than on the Blacks.

It is more of a matter of the Lord allowing it to be so because of the hardness of the hearts of the saints all the way up until 1978, and not that the Lord approved of it.

[Stone holm]

From the church article, Race and the Priesthood, we can see that in the 3^rd paragraph down and then under the section entitled, “The Church in an American Racial Culture” that racism throughout the United States was wide spread.  It would be expected that varying degrees of racism existed in the church, and primarily among the American members, whereas those coming from England were not quite as infected as those in the United Sates. 

 

A little research will show that among the leadership of the church in the early 1840 that Joseph Smith was probably the foremost advocate for Blacks receiving the priesthood.  Brigham Young who so admired Joseph held almost exactly the same view as Joseph or was influenced by him so that he reflected Joseph’s views precisely. Lorenzo Snow who had been educated at Overland College, an integrated school of liberal arts, also looked upon Blacks favorably at the time. 

 

On the other hand the Orson Hyde, Parley P. Pratt and Zebedee Coltrin were known to have hard racial view.  When Zebedee Coltrin received the assignment to perform the washing and anointing in the Kirtland Temple for Elijah Ables (a black elder) Zebedee refused saying that it was repugnant to him.  Joseph insisted and then Zebedee complied.

 

The point is that by-in-large the membership of the church was either neutral or held strong feelings against the Black holding the priesthood and there were relatively few who held positive views for Blacks holding the priesthood.

 

Now factor in the incident at Winter Quarters. When Brigham Young was in the Salt Lake Valley in 1847, William Mc Cary, a Black elder, who was back in Winter Quarters began taking plural wives all of whom were white.  With today’s politically correct eyes can you imagine how horrified the early saints must have been when this incident took place not having lived through it yourself? Suffice it to say Brigham Young began to change his view on Blacks holding the priesthood.

 

Now consider an incident that took place in Matthew 19:

7 The [Pharisees] say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?

 8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.

 

I see the ban on the priesthood more of an indictment on the white American members of the church more than on the Blacks.

It is more of a matter of the Lord allowing it to be so because of the hardness of the hearts of the saints all the way up until 1978, and not that the Lord approved of it.

I think you nailed it.

[Believing]

"The Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else," the statement read. "Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form." (from Race and the priesthood)

 

That day in 1978 I rejoiced for my church when we stepped forward in bringing full priesthood blessing to all men and temple blessing to all, and I rejoice in  my church in this step foward. Iwonder what the motives are of those who seem to be unwilling to acknowlege this as noble and good. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[bluebell]

I wonder what the motives are of those who seem to be unwilling to acknowlege this as noble and good.

Has there been anyone who has been unwilling to acknowledge this as noble and good?

 

I haven't seen anyone on here, but maybe i'm missing stuff on other forums.

[Stone holm]

"The Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else," the statement read. "Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form." (from Race and the priesthood)

 

That day in 1978 I rejoiced for my church when we stepped forward in bringing full priesthood blessing to all men and temple blessing to all, and I rejoice in  my church in this step foward. Iwonder what the motives are of those who seem to be unwilling to acknowlege this as noble and good. 

 

People are not arguing that it wasn't noble or good, the question is whether God had a hand in allowing it to be instituted and left in place so long. It's more a question of who is guiding and directing the Church for the century it was left in place and whether God had a reason for it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Calm]

I mentioned that Richard Bushman (who likely contributed to the article)

I knew I had seen this somewhere.

On a reddit AMA Bushman participated in:

Question: How involved were you in the new Topics coming out from Elder Snow's Church History dept?

Answer: I have been aware of the project and talked to the person in charge, but I have not been asked to write any of the essays nor consulted on what topics to consider.

I am not sure if it qualifies to link to by board rules because the site has stuff not allowed on the board, but if you do a search on the question, it takes you straight to it.

Since Bushman was not involved nor apparently had any input into this essay, I don't see why I should value his opinion of what the essay means over what a few of those who were involved in writing have said themselves (granted secondhand, but it was a simple expression that would, IMO, be hard to misinterpret)....and I definitely don't look to newspapers to tell me what stuff on lds.org actually means even if a hundred newspapers say the same thing (for one thing, many just offer up a variation of an original report rather than going to the source themselves so hardly surprising if an error is in the original report it gets repeated a hundred times). The lack of a correction is a very good question, but I see no reason to justify taking speculation based on that lack as having any significant weight since such speculation amounts to mind reading.

Edited December 30, 2013 by calmoriah

[JarMan]

Calmoriah, how did you vote on the second question in the original poll? I'm guessing you said, "We do not know if it was from God or not." Or did you say, "It was instituted by God through His prophets for reasons unknown"?

[Suzie]

Let's also remember that Young wasn't pleased when he heard that Enoch Lewis was married to a white woman and they had a child. Even more because he used Enoch's father (Walker Lewis) as a great example of a Black Elder. Of course people have their own views but do I believe it is just pure coincidence that during the same year (just a few months after) that the Mc Cary incident took place Young made his first recorded statement with regards to blacks not being entitled to the Priesthood? No, I don't believe it is coincidence.

[Brian 2.0]

Let's also remember that Young wasn't pleased when he heard that Enoch Lewis was married to a white woman and they had a child. Even more because he used Enoch's father (Walker Lewis) as a great example of a Black Elder. Of course people have their own views but do I believe it is just pure coincidence that during the same year (just a few months after) that the Mc Cary incident took place Young made his first recorded statement with regards to blacks not being entitled to the Priesthood? No, I don't believe it is coincidence.

But does that rule out the possibility of it being from God?

I also don't believe it's a coincidence that Emma complained about cleaning up tabacco spit off the floor and we get the Word of Wisdom shortly thereafter.

Note: I personally don't believe the ban was from

God and I'm not trying to defend it. I think it was racist.

[Stone holm]

But does that rule out the possibility of it being from God?

I also don't believe it's a coincidence that Emma complained about cleaning up tabacco spit off the floor and we get the Word of Wisdom shortly thereafter.

Note: I personally don't believe the ban was from

God and I'm not trying to defend it. I think it was racist.

No it does not rule out that it was allowed by God. Yes it was racist, but whether it was racist or not does not resolve whether God had a hand in it.

[JarMan]

But does that rule out the possibility of it being from God?

 

It's impossible to prove a negative. So there will never be "proof" that the ban did not come from God. However, I think the intellectually honest position based on what we actually know, is that it did not come from God.

[Stone holm]

It's impossible to prove a negative. So there will never be "proof" that the ban did not come from God. However, I think the intellectually honest position based on what we actually know, is that it did not come from God.

 

I don't think so.  Intellectually, as opposed to politically correct, I believe the conclusion has to be the opposite that it did come from God, if we believe that the Church is directed by Christ.  One can dispell all of the explanations which point to a deficiency in those of African descent, and still have ban coming from God because of the deficiencies in the Whites who were then and now the dominant group in the Church.  We are very familiar with situations where God witholds a higher law because the Saints or His people cannot abide it at the time.  No evidence that the Saints at the time could abide a policy where they were expected to treat Africans well.

[JarMan]

I believe the conclusion has to be the opposite that it did come from God, if we believe that the Church is directed by Christ.

 

My understanding of how Christ directs the church is, perhaps, a little different than how you see it. I imagine a God who is quite hands off and allows leaders to make mistakes. Sometimes even big mistakes. But this is really a topic for a different thread. Actually, I think I will start another thread to discuss some of the things I've been thinking about in regard to this.

[Stone holm]

My understanding of how Christ directs the church is, perhaps, a little different than how you see it. I imagine a God who is quite hands off and allows leaders to make mistakes. Sometimes even big mistakes. But this is really a topic for a different thread. Actually, I think I will start another thread to discuss some of the things I've been thinking about in regard to this.

I believe He does allow them to issue mistaken opinions and sometimes to implement questionable policy, but something as big as that does not get implemented and left in place that long over objections and protests, unless God has a hand in it. Otherwise, we might as well toss overboard the guides and directs claims.

[Brian 2.0]

Brian, thank you for engaging. This is a very good question and one that I have been thinking about for awhile. The church issued two statements on February 29, 2012. One was in direct response to the Washington Post article. Here are the relevant quotes from that: 1) "We do not tolerate racism in any form." 2) "We condemn racism, including any and all past racism by individuals both inside and outside the church. The third relevant quote is "It is not known precisely why, how, or when this restriction began in the Church. . ."

 

The other article says, "The church unequivocally condemns racism, including any and all past racism by individuals both inside and outside the Church." The same statement also says, "The origins of priesthood availability are not entirely clear."

 

The 2013 article issues a similar condemnation to the  2012 statements in saying, "Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form." I would argue that this condemnation is slightly stronger than the 2012 statements, but this is not the crux of the difference. What is markedly different in the recent article is the absence of the "we don't know where the ban came from" line. In fact, the recent article affirmatively identifies the ban as coming from Brigham Young: "In 1852, President Brigham Young publically announced that men of Black African descent could no longer be ordained to the priesthood. . ." The position has changed from "It is not known precisely why, how, or when this restriction began in the Church" to we do, in fact, know why (racism), how (Brigham Young publically announced it), and when (1852) this restriction began.

 

The only thing I quibble with above is the "we do, in fact, know why (racism)"  

 

I think the racism and the "why" being talked about in the article is referring to why the theories/explanations came about and not specifically why the ban itself came about.  And this is why I see it that way:

 

This is the sentance right at the end of the opening paragraph, right before the talk about cultural racism:

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.

To me, this is the thesis per say of the article.  It goes on to show the racial enviornment these explanations grew out of, and then repeats the point of the article at the end

Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form

 

I agree that they have left out the "we don't know" in this new statement and I think that softens the position even more, but it still doesn't disavow the ban/call it wrong/mistake.  To me this article is silent on how the church feels about the ban itself, only presenting some of the facts (when it was announced, when and how it was repealed)

 

 

In 2012 the church's position was to simultaneously condemn racism and (implicitly) defend the ban by using the polygamy defense (God commanded it).

With this position, we didn't have to accept past leaders as being racist. The 2013 article doesn't try to have it both ways anymore or to shield leaders from blame. So the condemnation is the same (or stronger) but the why, how, and when of the restriction have been explained. "God commanded it" is no longer implied. To rely on the "God commanded it" explanation is to rely on past statements which have been superseded.

 

Do you believe that in 2012 by condemning racism the church was condeming the ban?  Were they, in a sense, saying, "we condmen the ban, but we had to do it because God commanded us to?"  Just trying to understand your interpretation of the 2012 statement.

 

p.s.  we will probably never view the statement the same way, and that's fine, but I want to say I am enjoying our back and forth on it.

[JarMan]

 

The only thing I quibble with above is the "we do, in fact, know why (racism)"  

 

I think the racism and the "why" being talked about in the article is referring to why the theories/explanations came about and not specifically why the ban itself came about.  And this is why I see it that way:

 

This is the sentance right at the end of the opening paragraph, right before the talk about cultural racism:

To me, this is the thesis per say of the article.  It goes on to show the racial enviornment these explanations grew out of, and then repeats the point of the article at the end

 

I agree that they have left out the "we don't know" in this new statement and I think that softens the position even more, but it still doesn't disavow the ban/call it wrong/mistake.  To me this article is silent on how the church feels about the ban itself, only presenting some of the facts (when it was announced, when and how it was repealed)

 

 

 

Do you believe that in 2012 by condemning racism the church was condeming the ban?  Were they, in a sense, saying, "we condmen the ban, but we had to do it because God commanded us to?"  Just trying to understand your interpretation of the 2012 statement.

 

p.s.  we will probably never view the statement the same way, and that's fine, but I want to say I am enjoying our back and forth on it.

 

 

I don't think the 2012 statements condemned the ban, per se. The church's position at the time was that we didn't know the reason for the ban. A reasonable implication from that, as I see it, is that the ban was probably from God and we cannot condemn God (which is a re-statement of the "polygamy defense").

 

If the church had any evidence that the ban came as a result of revelation I'm quite certain they would have produced it by now. And this is the point which the article essentially concedes. But they can't prove that the ban did not come from revelation, either, because you can't prove a negative. So instead they put the ban in its proper historical and cultural context, and left the reader to reach a plausible conclusion. And all the press outlets reached the same conclusion. . . Which the church has still not corrected. How do you explain the church's silence on all of the press they have received over this if the press reports did not accurately reflect the church's position?

[JarMan]

Intellectually, as opposed to politically correct,

 

Believe, me, my reading of the church's statement has nothing to do with being politically correct. I'm as far from being politically correct as anybody I know. (As an example of how politically incorrect I am: I actually agree with Ezra Taft Benson's claims that the civil rights movement in the 1960's was infiltrated by communists to further their nefarious ends.)

[Stone holm]

Believe, me, my reading of the church's statement has nothing to do with being politically correct. I'm as far from being politically correct as anybody I know. (As an example of how politically incorrect I am: I actually agree with Ezra Taft Benson's claims that the civil rights movement in the 1960's was infiltrated by communists to further their nefarious ends.)

 

The politically correct reference, is that people are trying to say that God did not have a hand in the ban, because we now view racism as odious, which it is and always was -- but on the other hand, God had to deal with a situation where the majority of His people were racist and having blacks in the Priesthood and in Priesthood leadership would have been a divisive issue because of that.  The problem was that the leadership spun justifications which pointed at deficiencies in the th blacks rather than in the whites where it actually was.  ETB also thought that Sen McCarthy was spot on -- we had a member in our Ward who died awhile back who served time for perjury because he took money to sign false affidavits implicating blacks with the communists.  Its funny how all the objections to communism's denial of civil liberties have kind of faded away as Communist China became our biggest creditor.  Now the ultra right like to complain about "socialism" intending to take aim at our democratic allies in Europe.  One has to suspect that a lot of that is being fomented by people like the Koch brothers for their own personal wealth transfer reasons.

[wenglund]

I view the statement as a well-intended way of enabling some people who have been over-burdened with white guilt to hopefully get unstuck from the distant past and move forward. I am not sure it will work since certain people seem passionately disinclined to off-load or be denied their beloved misery (much of it self-manufactured), and will recycle indefinitely issues that were effectively rendered moot decades ago--call it the gospel of guilt. I wonder if it is enabling to pay the guilt recycling much mind, though it is hard just to stand by when observing the miserating.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[maxrep12]

The article strongly states that the ban was put in place because of the pervasive racism, it does not state that God was opposed to the ban. Therefore given the other explanations have been eliminated, it must be that God knew that the racists in the Church would not accept His black children as brothers and sisters, so He waited until they would. Racism was the reason, it was not God who was racist, but The members of His Church and so He withheld the higher law until the majority would accept it. And, I expect He is waiting for a time when His people will accept other higher laws as well.

Lets superimpose this rational with another current event today:

 

The article strongly states that the ban was put in place because of the pervasive bigotry,  it does not state that God was opposed to SSM. Therefore given the other explanations have been eliminated, it must be that God knew that the bigots in the Church would not accept His gay children as brothers and sisters, so He waited until they would. Bigotry was the reason, it was not God who was a bigot, but The members of His Church and so He withheld the higher law until the majority would accept it. And, I expect He is waiting for a time when His people will accept other higher laws as well.

 

It is interesting to observe how persuasive time can be in correcting our perspectives.

Edited January 6, 2014 by maxrep12