How Do You Read The Race Statement?

[Brian 2.0]

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").

 

So have you backed away from your argument that the ban was disavowed because the recent statement condemed racism?  That has been a key point for some time in this thread.

 

This from Post #113

Because the church's statement says, "Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form." In order to believe that the ban itself is not being condemned by this statement you have to believe that the church thinks the ban was not racist "in any form." But the statement doesn't try to explain the ban as not being racist. Instead it explains the ban by comparing it to several other racist institutions in early America.

This from post #120

In order to take your position, you have to believe that somehow the church thinks the ban was not racist in "any form." This is not my "interpretation" of the article, but where sound reasoning necessarily leads us. The interpretation comes in when we try to guess whether the church is trying to have it both ways by unequivocally condemning racism in all forms while simultaneously carving out an exception such that the priesthood ban doesn't qualify as racism. But there is simply no evidence in the article that this is what they are trying to do.

 

Now the church does try to have it both ways with the issue of polygamy (which, by the way, I have no problem with). They condemn it's practice. . . except when God commands it. It is not an unequivocal condemnation, in other words. They could have done the same thing with this issue by condemning racism . . . except when God commands it or with some other qualification that would exempt the priesthood ban. But they didn't do that. They unequivocally condemned racism in all forms. Do you think the church is being duplicitous by saying that or do you think they are being sincere? Your position indicates that they are being duplicitous. I prefer to believe that they are being sincere.

 

You seem to be saying the ban is racist, by definition, and since the church condemned racism in this recent statement they have also condemned the ban.  This point launched us into pages and pages of dealing with the definition of racism and how one could interpret the ban to NOT be racist.  You seemed to be square on the side that no matter how you slice it, the ban was racist.

 

The 2012 statement clearly condemned racism also, so by your own arguments regarding the new statement, how do you believe the that the church wasn't condeming the ban in 2012?

 

This is why I believe that BOTH statements aren't "condeming the ban, per se."  

Edited January 6, 2014 by Brian 2.0

[Brian 2.0]

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. 

 

I agree that they don't have evidence of revelatory origin, which is why the church has been in a "we don't know" stance for so long.

 

I disagree that they can't prove this negative, because  they surely could prove the ban did not come from revelation... simply by receiving a revelation from God that the ban didn't come form Him.  No?

 

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?

 

 

I don't think the church is gonna be quick to publicly say the media outlets favorable press is actually inaccurate.  Besides, we shouldn't look at outside media outlets interpretations on what the church is saying as proof of what the church is saying, should we?  

 

It will be future statements or interviews of a members of the 12 or FP that will be the most telling (whenever they will happen).  Question: "so you've disavowed the Preisthood ban on blacks as being racist and not from God, but Brigham Young?"  Answer: "Yes."    That would be great, and bound to happen at some point, but maybe not for a while.

 

I'll tell you what... Don't go on mormon.org and Ask a Missionary!  Obviously not the best source in the world, but hey why not see if they are aware of this.   I simply asked what the church's stance was on if the priesthood ban was inspired of God or not.  I was told pretty strongly that the ban was revealed from God to his prophet BY and stopped by another revelation to SWK.  I pointed them to the "race and the priesthood" statement and they said they have read it multiple times (which i don't know if that's true).  I was basically run out of town on the chat for even insinuating that it was a mistake and a racist policy implemented by Brigham Young who was simply the product of his times. 

[JarMan]

So have you backed away from your argument that the ban was disavowed because the recent statement condemed racism?  That has been a key point for some time in this thread.

 

This from Post #113

This from post #120

 

You seem to be saying the ban is racist, by definition, and since the church condemned racism in this recent statement they have also condemned the ban.  This point launched us into pages and pages of dealing with the definition of racism and how one could interpret the ban to NOT be racist.  You seemed to be square on the side that no matter how you slice it, the ban was racist.

 

The 2012 statement clearly condemned racism also, so by your own arguments regarding the new statement, how do you believe the that the church wasn't condeming the ban in 2012?

 

This is why I believe that BOTH statements aren't "condeming the ban, per se."  

 

What makes you think I've backed away from my position that that ban was disavowed?

 

The 2012 response to the Washington Post article says, "We do not tolerate racism in any form." This is different than the 2013 article which says that church leaders "condemn all racism, past and present, in any form." We've gone from not tolerating the ban (since it is no longer in place) to condemning it. This is a major shift.

 

The other 2012 article, in my opinion, talks about the racism of individuals, not the priesthood ban, itself. It says, "The church unequivocally condemns racism, including any and all past racism by individuals both inside and outside the church." This statement condemns Brigham Young's racial views, for instance. But the condemnation is aimed at individuals, not institutions. The 2013 article says that we now "condemn all racism, past and present, in any form." The addition of the phrase "in any form" broadens the condemnation from individuals to institutions. This is also a major shift.

 

When you add the fact that the 2013 article leaves out the "we don't know why the ban was implemented" and instead explains it as emanating from Brigham Young, it's pretty clear that the church's position has changed.

[Brian 2.0]

What makes you think I've backed away from my position that that ban was disavowed?

 

The 2012 response to the Washington Post article says, "We do not tolerate racism in any form." This is different than the 2013 article which says that church leaders "condemn all racism, past and present, in any form." We've gone from not tolerating the ban (since it is no longer in place) to condemning it. This is a major shift.

 

The other 2012 article, in my opinion, talks about the racism of individuals, not the priesthood ban, itself. It says, "The church unequivocally condemns racism, including any and all past racism by individuals both inside and outside the church." This statement condemns Brigham Young's racial views, for instance. But the condemnation is aimed at individuals, not institutions. The 2013 article says that we now "condemn all racism, past and present, in any form." The addition of the phrase "in any form" broadens the condemnation from individuals to institutions. This is also a major shift.

 

When you add the fact that the 2013 article leaves out the "we don't know why the ban was implemented" and instead explains it as emanating from Brigham Young, it's pretty clear that the church's position has changed.

 

So you're saying that in 2012 when the church said:

 

The Church unequivocally condemns racism, including any and all past racism by individuals both inside and outside the Church

 

It was NOT condemning racism from institutions?  But only individuals?  That they were carving out only certain forms of racism they were condemning?

 

I don't see how you could read it that way.  It says, "we unequivocally condemn racism" the "including..." after the comma is simply specifying certain things within that label of racism, not excluding things outside those specifics they chose to highlight.

 

The statement doesn't say "we condemn the racism of past individuals inside and outside the church."  If it did, I could see how you could read it that way.

 

If I said, "I unequivocally condemn the eating of cheeseburgers, including those tasty ones from In-N-Out."  Am I ONLY condemning the eating of In-N-Out cheeseburgers and I'm NOT condemning the eating of a McDonald's cheeseburger or a homemade cheeseburger?

 

In your own words from Post #63

Do you understand what "unequivocally" means?

Edited January 7, 2014 by Brian 2.0

[JarMan]

I agree that they don't have evidence of revelatory origin, which is why the church has been in a "we don't know" stance for so long.

 

Except that they don't appear to be in a "we don't know" stance any longer. The 2013 article could have said something along those lines, but it conspicuously didn't. Why do you think that is?

 

I disagree that they can't prove this negative, because  they surely could prove the ban did not come from revelation... simply by receiving a revelation from God that the ban didn't come form Him.  No?

 

What I'm talking about is the church's current position.

 

I don't think the church is gonna be quick to publicly say the media outlets favorable press is actually inaccurate.  Besides, we shouldn't look at outside media outlets interpretations on what the church is saying as proof of what the church is saying, should we?  

 

It will be future statements or interviews of a members of the 12 or FP that will be the most telling (whenever they will happen).  Question: "so you've disavowed the Preisthood ban on blacks as being racist and not from God, but Brigham Young?"  Answer: "Yes."    That would be great, and bound to happen at some point, but maybe not for a while.

 

I wouldn't call the media coverage favorable. The HuffPo's spin on it was essentially that it was too little too late. And the church has been very quick lately to jump on things in the press to issue corrections on their positions. You brought up an example in another thread about the Word of Wisdom and caffeine. Don't you think the priesthood ban is a more important issue than the supposed caffeine ban? I just can't imagine that the church would sit idly by and let the press report that they had condemned the priesthood ban if that were not the case.

 

I'll tell you what... Don't go on mormon.org and Ask a Missionary!  Obviously not the best source in the world, but hey why not see if they are aware of this.   I simply asked what the church's stance was on if the priesthood ban was inspired of God or not.  I was told pretty strongly that the ban was revealed from God to his prophet BY and stopped by another revelation to SWK.  I pointed them to the "race and the priesthood" statement and they said they have read it multiple times (which i don't know if that's true).  I was basically run out of town on the chat for even insinuating that it was a mistake and a racist policy implemented by Brigham Young who was simply the product of his times. 

 

This goes to show that the general membership of the church has a little ways to go in understanding a few things.

[JarMan]

So you're saying that in 2012 when the church said:

 

 

It was NOT condemning racism from institutions?  But only individuals?  That they were carving out only certain forms of racism they were condemning?

 

I don't see how you could read it that way.  It says, "we condemn racism" the "including..." after the comma is simply specifying certain things within that label of racism, not excluding things outside those specifics they chose to highlight.

 

The statement doesn't say "we condemn the racism of past individuals inside and outside the church."  If it did, I could see how you could read it that way.

 

If I said, "I unequivocally condemn the eating of cheeseburgers, including those tasty ones from In-N-Out."  Am I ONLY condemning the eating of In-N-Out cheeseburgers and I'm NOT condemning the eating of a McDonald's cheeseburger or a homemade cheeseburger?

 

In your own words from Post #63

 

The 2012 statements do not say "we condemn ALL racism . . ." The "all" comes later and is describing racism from individuals. The 2013 statement does say we "condemn ALL racism. . ."

 

So in 2012, the church was carving out an exception so that they could conveniently stash the priesthood ban there. In the 2013 statement there is no longer any room for the priesthood ban to hide.

[Brian 2.0]

The 2012 statements do not say "we condemn ALL racism . . ." The "all" comes later and is describing racism from individuals. The 2013 statement does say we "condemn ALL racism. . ."

So in 2012, the church was carving out an exception so that they could conveniently stash the priesthood ban there. In the 2013 statement there is no longer any room for the priesthood ban to hide.

I just can't see it. I can't see a reading of the 2012 statement that doesn't have the church condeming all racism. The addition of the phrase "in any form" in 2013 didn't broaden anything, it's just a different way to say what it's already said.

One last time. Here's the 2012 statement:

The Church unequivocally condemns racism, including any and all past racism by individuals both inside and outside the Church

Here's the 2013 statement:

Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form.

You can't carve out an exception unless you carve out an exception, which 2012 didn't.

Take this example and tell me if I'm broadening the scope between these two statements.

- I unequivocally hate red sweaters, including ugly Christmas sweaters.

- I unequivocally hate ALL red sweaters, it doesn't matter what shade of red it is, short or long sleves, I hate all red sweaters IN ANY FORM. Period.

I may be saying things more forcefully in the second one, but my point hasn't changed. I may be clarifying my point so people really get it, but In no way have I broadened the range of what red sweaters I hate. Nowhere in my first statement have I made room to NOT hate red turtleneck sweaters.

Do you think I've broadened my range of red sweaters I hate between these two statements?

Edited January 7, 2014 by Brian 2.0

[JarMan]

I just can't see it.  I can't see a reading of the 2012 statement that doesn't have the church condeming all racism.  The addition of the phrase "in any form" in 2013 didn't broaden anything, it's just a different way to say what it's already said.

 

One last time.  Here's the 2012 statement:

Here's the 2013 statement:

 

You can't carve out an exception unless you carve out an exception, which 2012 didn't.

 

Take this example and tell me if I'm broadening the scope between these two statements.

 

- I enequivocally hate red sweaters, including ugly Christmas sweaters.

- I unequivocally hate ALL red sweaters, it doesn't matter what shade of red it is, short or long sleves, I hate all red sweaters IN ANY FORM.  Period.

 

I may be saying things more forcefully in the second one, but my point hasn't changed.  I may be clarifying my point so people really get it, but In no way have I broadened the range of what red sweaters I hate.  Nowhere in my first statement have I made room to NOT hate red turtleneck sweaters.

 

Do you think I've broadened my range of red sweaters I hate between these two statements?

 

I think what you're missing here is that racism has more than one meaning. Here are the first two definitions from Dictionary.com.

 

1) a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.

 

2) a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.

 

The first definition is talking about racism from individuals. This is the definition that was being used in 2012. We know that because of the context ("including any and all past racism by individuals both inside and outside the church").

 

The second definition is talking about institutional racism.

 

The 2013 article clearly condemns both 1 and 2.

[thesometimesaint]

Six of one, half dozen of the other.

[Brian 2.0]

I think what you're missing here is that racism has more than one meaning. Here are the first two definitions from Dictionary.com.

1) a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.

2) a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.

The first definition is talking about racism from individuals. This is the definition that was being used in 2012. We know that because of the context ("including any and all past racism by individuals both inside and outside the church").

The second definition is talking about institutional racism.

The 2013 article clearly condemns both 1 and 2.

I think we're at an impasse here.

I think it's adding something that's not there to say that the 2012 statement is excluding the 2nd half of the definition of racism.

I'd be with you if the statements was:

"We unequivocally condemn the racism of individuals both inside and outside the church."

That statement carves out the exclusion. That statement specifies that it's only referring to definition 1.

But the statement isn't that. It's...

"We unequivocally condemn racism, including any and all past racism by individuals both inside and outside the church."

Highlighting individual racism here isn't a qualifier on what definition of racism is being used, or not used. That's not what "including" means. If they replaced "including" with "meaning" then you'd have an argument.

Edit to add:

If someone said, "I'm against racism." Would anyone ever ask, "Well which racism are you against? individual, institutional, or both?"

Edited January 7, 2014 by Brian 2.0

[JarMan]

I think we're at an impasse here.

 

I think it's adding something that's not there to say that the 2012 statement is excluding the 2nd half of the definition of racism.  

 

I'd be with you if the statements was:

"We unequivocally condemn the racism of individuals both inside and outside the church."

 

That statement carves out the exclusion.  That statement specifies that it's only referring to definition 1.  

 

 But the statement isn't that.  It's...

"We unequivocally condemn racism, including any and all past racism by individuals both inside and outside the church."

 

Highlighting individual racism here isn't a qualifier on what definition of racism is being used, or not used.  That's not what "including" means.  If they replaced "including" with "meaning" then you'd have an argument.

 

You are trying to parse individual words without considering the greater context. Remember that the 2012 statements came about because a Mormon expressed the long disavowed notions regarding the reason for the priesthood ban, which got published in a major newspaper. The church was responding to that. As such, they were condemning the racism of individuals who had used similar reasons to defend to the ban. But they were not condemning the ban itself. And nobody read it that way. Otherwise the recent press stories we have seen would have occurred two years ago. And this discussion on this board would have occurred two years ago. And you really don't believe that that is what the 2012 statements were saying, anyway, so I find it disingenuous for you to insist on a meaning that even you reject.

 

What you really need to show is that the 2012 statements are equivalent to the 2013 statement because that is the way to discredit my assertion that they are different. But all you have really demonstrated is that if you ignore the context, the statements could be equivalent. 

[JarMan]

Edit to add:

If someone said, "I'm against racism." Would anyone ever ask, "Well which racism are you against? individual, institutional, or both?"

 

 A major discussion point in this thread has been how the church is defining racism when they are condemning it. You can define racism in a way that excludes the priesthood ban (see definition 1, above). But when you condemn ALL racism in ANY FORM you are condemning every definition.

[Brian 2.0]

I am not trying to be disengenious, but I was trying to understand your position becuase it didn't seem logically consistent.  So I was granting you the argument that since the ban was racist, and the church agreed it was racist, the chruch's disavowal of racism was, in effect, a disavowal of the ban... and then applying that same logic onto the 2012 statement.

 

I think I understand your postion on this particular point now (even though I don't agree with it).  

 

Is this where your are coming from:

 

Assumption 1:  The ban is racist (institutionally)

Assumption 2:  The chruch agrees the ban is racist (institutionally)

 

Argument A:  In 2012, the church condemned individual racism, but NOT instututional racism, therefore it did not condemn the ban itself.

Argument B:  In 2013, the chruch condemned all racism, which includes institutional and individual racism, thereby condeming the ban. 

 

I know some don't like people having there arguments restated, but is this about right?

Edited January 8, 2014 by Brian 2.0

[Stone holm]

I am not trying to be disengenious, but I was trying to understand your position becuase it didn't seem logically consistent.  So I was granting you the argument that since the ban was racist, and the church agreed it was racist, the chruch's disavowal of racism was, in effect, a disavowal of the ban... and then applying that same logic onto the 2012 statement.

 

I think I understand your postion on this particular point now (even though I don't agree with it).  

 

Is this where your are coming from:

 

Assumption 1:  The ban is racist (institutionally)

Assumption 2:  The chruch agrees the ban is racist (institutionally)

 

Argument A:  In 2012, the church condemned individual racism, but NOT instututional racism, therefore it did not condemn the ban itself.

Argument B:  In 2013, the chruch condemned all racism, which includes institutional and individual racism, thereby condeming the ban. 

 

I know some don't like people having there arguments restated, but is this about right?

How about this:

Joseph sought to introduce the higher law where all races treated and respected each other as equals, it became apparent to Brigham Young that the vast bulk of the Saints who were white Europeans could not live the higher law, so he prayed about it and instituted the lesser law which served to segregate out the Africans. His successors prayed and left the ban in place. Meanwhile The Lord worked on the society in general to soften the hearts of white Americans and to build social pressure upon His Saints. When the general society finally began to decry racism and the violent turbulence of the 50s and 60s had died down, he raised up a specially prepared Prophet to bring back the higher law. I suspect that He will eventually raise up a specially prepared

Prophet to bring back the higher law of the United Order as well. That's just how The Lord rolls.

[JarMan]

I am not trying to be disengenious, but I was trying to understand your position becuase it didn't seem logically consistent.  So I was granting you the argument that since the ban was racist, and the church agreed it was racist, the chruch's disavowal of racism was, in effect, a disavowal of the ban... and then applying that same logic onto the 2012 statement.

 

I think I understand your postion on this particular point now (even though I don't agree with it).  

 

Is this where your are coming from:

 

Assumption 1:  The ban is racist (institutionally)

Assumption 2:  The chruch agrees the ban is racist (institutionally)

 

Argument A:  In 2012, the church condemned individual racism, but NOT instututional racism, therefore it did not condemn the ban itself.

Argument B:  In 2013, the chruch condemned all racism, which includes institutional and individual racism, thereby condeming the ban. 

 

I know some don't like people having there arguments restated, but is this about right?

 

This is a pretty fair summary of my position.

[Brian 2.0]

This is a pretty fair summary of my position.

 

Cool.  

 

I think a lot of the thread (before our recent trip back to 2012) went down a road where we were essential arguing the Assumption 2.

 

Assumption 2:  The chruch agrees the ban is racist (institutionally)

 

This is almost an unanswerable question, but when do you think the church classified the ban as racist?  Was it with this recent statement?  Do you feel the church previously at some point didn't consider the ban to be racist?  

 

Because my take is that previously the chruch did NOT consider the ban racist, and that this recent statement clearly labels the theories and explanations as racist, but not necessarily the ban itself.  And if the church STILL doesn't consider the ban racist, then ARGUMENT B can't be valid.

 

Argument B:  In 2013, the chruch condemned all racism, which includes institutional and individual racism, thereby condeming the ban

[JarMan]

Cool.  

 

I think a lot of the thread (before our recent trip back to 2012) went down a road where we were essential arguing the Assumption 2.

 

 

This is almost an unanswerable question, but when do you think the church classified the ban as racist?  Was it with this recent statement?  Do you feel the church previously at some point didn't consider the ban to be racist?  

 

Because my take is that previously the chruch did NOT consider the ban racist, and that this recent statement clearly labels the theories and explanations as racist, but not necessarily the ban itself.  And if the church STILL doesn't consider the ban racist, then ARGUMENT B can't be valid.

 

Brian, I think you have made a good faith effort to discuss this with me rationally and civilly and I appreciate that.

 

In the past I don't think the church considered the ban to be racist. I think the argument went something like this: 1) God instituted the ban. 2) We don't know why God instituted it. 3) Past church leaders have used certain racial ideas to explain the reason for the ban. 4) We condemn those explanations as being racist and non-doctrinal. 5) The ban itself was implemented by God, and therefore, cannot be racist.

 

Somewhere along the line 1 was changed to 1) We're not sure why the ban was instituted. Numbers 2, 3, and 4 have remained the same. And 5 was dropped altogether. And you can see why 5 had to be dropped since it was dependent on (the original) 1 being true. But in many members' minds (including mine, until recently) 5 was valid even after 1 was changed and 5 was dropped. It is a tough pill to swallow, after all.

 

When we get to 2012 we see the argument that I outlined above with the modified 1 and the absent 5. And the church words the statements in such a way that they condemn the historically stated reasons for the ban but not the ban itself. I believe that some of the brethren had come to grips with the ban as being racist and some had not. So that issue just wasn't addressed at that time. (This is pure speculation on my part, of course.) I imagine that in 2012 some of the brethren were hoping that evidence could be uncovered to explain a divine origin for the ban. I have no doubt that church historians did a lot of research into this in the intervening couple of years at the behest of the brethren. I know they had been working on that for several years even before 2012, as well.

 

Now we come to the end of 2013 and historians weren't able to find anything that pointed towards a divine origin for the ban. At that point I think all the brethren had to swallow that tough pill. And I admire them for doing that. (I imagine that many, if not all, prayed about the issue for inspiration, as well so I don't think we can just pin this on the historians.) At any rate, the church decided to release its new essay on race and the priesthood which sings a different tune. . . And the world took notice. But we members are struggling to accept the change because of what it may force us to admit about the church.

[JDave]

Regardless of what the most recent statement truly says or does not say, I think that it is shifting things from a time where our leaders respond to the priesthood ban by simply saying,

 

"That was a long time ago and we are past that."

 

to a time (perhaps years from now) where the leaders will respond to questions about the priesthood ban by saying,

 

"That was a product of times long past."

 

 

I don't think there will ever be a statement blaming Brigham Young for the ban, or blaming racism amongst the members.  It will simply be left to individuals to decide where they want to assign blame.  Or even better, it will be left to individuals to not assign blame to particular people at all.  But I do expect the ban itself, and not just the inappropriate justifications, to be eventually simply labeled a product of less enlightened times.

[Brian 2.0]

Brian, I think you have made a good faith effort to discuss this with me rationally and civilly and I appreciate that.

Ditto to you.  And at some point either of us might get tired of debating these nitty gritty details of our arguments, but I've really enjoyed this thus far, and you're a smart, rational sparring partner, which I appreciate.

 

In the past I don't think the church considered the ban to be racist. I think the argument went something like this: 1) God instituted the ban. 2) We don't know why God instituted it. 3) Past church leaders have used certain racial ideas to explain the reason for the ban. 4) We condemn those explanations as being racist and non-doctrinal. 5) The ban itself was implemented by God, and therefore, cannot be racist.

 

Somewhere along the line 1 was changed to 1) We're not sure why the ban was instituted. Numbers 2, 3, and 4 have remained the same. And 5 was dropped altogether. And you can see why 5 had to be dropped since it was dependent on (the original) 1 being true. But in many members' minds (including mine, until recently) 5 was valid even after 1 was changed and 5 was dropped. It is a tough pill to swallow, after all.

 

When we get to 2012 we see the argument that I outlined above with the modified 1 and the absent 5. And the church words the statements in such a way that they condemn the historically stated reasons for the ban but not the ban itself. I believe that some of the brethren had come to grips with the ban as being racist and some had not. So that issue just wasn't addressed at that time. (This is pure speculation on my part, of course.) I imagine that in 2012 some of the brethren were hoping that evidence could be uncovered to explain a divine origin for the ban. I have no doubt that church historians did a lot of research into this in the intervening couple of years at the behest of the brethren. I know they had been working on that for several years even before 2012, as well.

I agree with this.  I would probably say that 2012 changed the chruch's stance to this:

 

1) God instituted the ban.

2) We don't know why, when, or how God the ban was instituted.

3) Past church leaders have used certain racist* ideas to explain the reason for the ban

4) We condemn those explanations as racist* and non-doctrinal

 

#5 is not stated but can be concluded from above

5) IF The ban itself originated from God, it is not racist.

 

* One could technically argue that the chruch didn't even label the theories as racist, but labeled them as speculation and opinion and only labeled them as non-doctrinal and the condemnation of racism was separate.  (but I won't make that argument as I think it's too much of a stretch).

 

Now we come to the end of 2013 and historians weren't able to find anything that pointed towards a divine origin for the ban. At that point I think all the brethren had to swallow that tough pill. And I admire them for doing that. (I imagine that many, if not all, prayed about the issue for inspiration, as well so I don't think we can just pin this on the historians.) At any rate, the church decided to release its new essay on race and the priesthood which sings a different tune. . . And the world took notice. But we members are struggling to accept the change because of what it may force us to admit about the church.

 

To me the 2013 essay did this:

 

1) God instituted the ban.  Brigham Young announced the ban

2) We don't know why, when, or how God the ban was instituted.

3) Past church leaders have used certain racial ideas to explain the reason for the ban

3a) These church leaders lived in a very racist enviornment in 19th Century America.

4) We condemn those explanations as racist and non-doctrinal.  We condemn ALL racism. 

 

... here's where I think we start to differ... 

 

I STILL think from you you can conclude, if you really want to, #5 

5) IF The ban itself was originated from God, it is not racist.

 

Here's my reasoning...  The statement says that in 1852 Brigham Young announced the ban to the Utah Legislator.  Here's how he announced it:

 

"any man having one drop of the seed of [Cain] ... in him cannot hold the priesthood and if no other Prophet ever spake it before I will say it now in the name of Jesus Christ I know it is true and others know it."

 

 

So he seems to be speaking as a Prophet, in the name of Jesus Christ, that the ban is true.  It's not a stretch believe that while Brigham Young announced it at the Utah Legislator, he was saying something that was revealed to him from God.

 

I do not believe the statement "Brigham Young announced the ban" implicitly means "The origin of the ban was Brigham Young, not God."

 

 

 

 

[JarMan]

Brian, let's pretend for a minute that the ban did NOT originate from God. In that case, can you see any way for the 2013 statement to not be condemning the ban itself?

[Stone holm]

Brian, let's pretend for a minute that the ban did NOT originate from God. In that case, can you see any way for the 2013 statement to not be condemning the ban itself?

Yes.

[Brian 2.0]

Brian, let's pretend for a minute that the ban did NOT originate from God. In that case, can you see any way for the 2013 statement to not be condemning the ban itself?

 

I guess I don't see how those things are connected.

 

The reality of if the ban actually was from God or not doesn't affect what the church's stance is.   Even if the ban was not from God in reality, the church could still believe it was, and not condemn it... they'd just simply be wrong on the point when all is revealed later.

Edited January 10, 2014 by Brian 2.0

[Brian 2.0]

How about this:

Joseph sought to introduce the higher law where all races treated and respected each other as equals, it became apparent to Brigham Young that the vast bulk of the Saints who were white Europeans could not live the higher law, so he prayed about it and instituted the lesser law which served to segregate out the Africans. His successors prayed and left the ban in place. Meanwhile The Lord worked on the society in general to soften the hearts of white Americans and to build social pressure upon His Saints. When the general society finally began to decry racism and the violent turbulence of the 50s and 60s had died down, he raised up a specially prepared Prophet to bring back the higher law. I suspect that He will eventually raise up a specially prepared

Prophet to bring back the higher law of the United Order as well. That's just how The Lord rolls.

This seems to be a theory that people are heading toward, because it addresses the question of "if the ban was wrong, why did God allow it for so long?"

It seems there are two versions of the theory that people could have:

1) God instituted the ban through BY because the saints were basically racist and had it continue until the saints were sufficiently unracist.

2) BY instituted the ban and God allowed the ban to continue because the saints were racist and removed the ban once the saints were sufficiently unracist.

I have a lot of problems with both of these.

It's just too much of an "the ends justify the means". You're going to institute or allow a racist/hurtful/bad policy because in the end it will help the church grow and foster during those times? I don't like a God that rolls that way.

If not being racist and commanding everyone to treat each other as equals means you have less of a membership for a while (even decades) then so be it! Strait is the gate and narrow the way and few there be that find it, right? And if this little old church existed that treated blacks completely equal, and was small because of it because of the racist times, how great would that be when the world finally caught up and let go of its racist ways! Everyone would look to the church and say, "Hey, they had it right all along! They're ahead of the curve on these moral issues!" Imagine church growth under that scenario!

We had the apostasy where people basically rejected the message. If the church really couldn't have survived at all without the racist ban on blacks, then don't restore the church until it would survive. I can't buy God compromising on what is morally right because the church members aren't ready for it. And i don't think the law of consecration/law of tithing is a good equivalent. Having the law of tithing in effect right now instead of consecration doesn't equate with the priesthood ban. Tithing and Consecration is like good vs best. No-ban and ban is good vs. bad.

Edited January 10, 2014 by Brian 2.0

[Brian 2.0]

I do think there is a 3rd option that's a little more respectable in my opinion...

 

God never wanted the ban.  Brigham Young instituted it and God didn't like it.  God always wanted it gone because it was racist and un-christlike.  But try as God might to get the message through, the prophets of the day just couldn't really shake their racist upbringing and listen to what God really wanted on that matter.  And it wasn't until 1978 that the message finally got through.

 

This has its own problems, or rather brings up interesting questions regarding prophethood, but at least it doesn't make God complicit in any way to a racist and unjust policy.

Edited January 10, 2014 by Brian 2.0

[Stone holm]

This seems to be a theory that people are heading toward, because it addresses the question of "if the ban was wrong, why did God allow it for so long?"

It seems there are two versions of the theory that people could have:

1) God instituted the ban through BY because the saints were basically racist and had it continue until the saints were sufficiently unracist.

2) BY instituted the ban and God allowed the ban to continue because the saints were racist and removed the ban once the saints were sufficiently unracist.

I have a lot of problems with both of these.

It's just too much of an "the ends justify the means". You're going to institute or allow a racist/hurtful/bad policy because in the end it will help the church grow and foster during those times? I don't like a God that rolls that way.

If not being racist and commanding everyone to treat each other as equals means you have less of a membership for a while (even decades) then so be it! Strait is the gate and narrow the way and few there be that find it, right? And if this little old church existed that treated blacks completely equal, and was small because of it because of the racist times, how great would that be when the world finally caught up and let go of its racist ways! Everyone would look to the church and say, "Hey, they had it right all along! They're ahead of the curve on these moral issues!" Imagine church growth under that scenario!

We had the apostasy where people basically rejected the message. If the church really couldn't have survived at all without the racist ban on blacks, then don't restore the church until it would survive. I can't buy God compromising on what is morally right because the church members aren't ready for it. And i don't think the law of consecration/law of tithing is a good equivalent. Having the law of tithing in effect right now instead of consecration doesn't equate with the priesthood ban. Tithing and Consecration is like good vs best. No-ban and ban is good vs. bad.

Scriptures are filled with ends justifying means, classic example being a drunken helpless Laban losing his head. As far as waiting until people were perfect before restoring the Church, we would still be waiting. Timing appears to be pretty important to The Lord.