How Do You Read The Race Statement?

[bluebell]

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.

The biggest problem with that option is that Pres McKay wanted to remove the ban, prayed a lot for confirmation of that desire, and believed that God told him no, it was not time.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

The biggest problem with that option is that Pres McKay wanted to remove the ban, prayed a lot for confirmation of that desire, and believed that God told him no, it was not time.

Yet we also know that under President McKay, an attempt was made to lift the ban and some of the quorum of the 12 refused to allow it to happen. 

[bluebell]

Yet we also know that under President McKay, an attempt was made to lift the ban and some of the quorum of the 12 refused to allow it to happen. 

 

Yes, but if God truly did tell Pres. McKay that it was not time and to quit asking about it, then that actually fits Brian's #1 (see post 273).  

 

It still does not work with his #3 probability, which is that God had been trying to get the saints to lift the ban since it was instated, but no one was listening.

[Tacenda]

Yes, but if God truly did tell Pres. McKay that it was not time and to quit asking about it, then that actually fits Brian's #1 (see post 273).  

 

It still does not work with his #3 probability, which is that God had been trying to get the saints to lift the ban since it was instated, but no one was listening.

What happened to "the prophet will never lead you astray".  Sounds like many did exactly this.  How many were harmed because of it?

[bluebell]

What happened to "the prophet will never lead you astray".  Sounds like many did exactly this.  How many were harmed because of it?

 

It only sounds like that if you believe that the ban was purely a man-made invention that God had tried to get lifted from day one but no one before 1978 would listen.

 

I don't believe that.

[Stone holm]

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.

 

I think this is the option that people are left with if they say that the Church has disavowed the ban,  the reason that I cannot accept that is that it means for a century the Prophets were ignoring or resisting the Lord on a very important issue and therefore it calls into question whether the Lord was guiding and directing the Church at all during that Century or just stubborn opinionated men.  And if one comes to that conclusion, then there is no justification for believing that the Lord suddenly started leading the Church again with the advent of Spencer W. Kimball.  That goes against my personal testimony that the Lord is guiding and directing the Church and therefore I rejected the notion that such was the case and reject the notion that the Church intended to disavow the ban when it disavowed the racist explanations or justifications previously given for the ban.  That the Church is led by an inspired Prophet is a central tenet of Mormonism.  While I think that people who are not living in a total bubble, have to acknowledge that not every statement by the Prophet is inspired -- many times their personal opinions which are colored by cultural upbringing taint their statements, and have to acknowledge that not every policy or action that the Church takes is really inspired --- I do believe that when the Church implements a policy and leaves it in place for a century, that the Lord had a hand in it, and the Lord had a reason for it.  So I cannot accept the idea that the Church has disavowed the ban

[Stone holm]

It only sounds like that if you believe that the ban was purely a man-made invention that God had tried to get lifted from day one but no one before 1978 would listen.

 

I don't believe that.

 

I agree, it is incompatible with our beliefs regarding the Prophets.

[Tacenda]

It only sounds like that if you believe that the ban was purely a man-made invention that God had tried to get lifted from day one but no one before 1978 would listen.

 

I don't believe that.

How come I always brace myself when I see that you are quoting me.    I guess I do believe it was purely man made.  And that God did indeed try to get it lifted! 

[Brian 2.0]

What happened to "the prophet will never lead you astray". Sounds like many did exactly this. How many were harmed because of it?

That's the problem with #3. And I'm not saying I believe #3.

This is a rock and a hard place issue. I don't know how to explain it without either making God complicit with the ban in some way, or make the prophets unable to determine God's will on the ban.

Edited January 10, 2014 by Brian 2.0

[JarMan]

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.

 

I'm trying to get at how you interpret the article, particularly the sentence, "Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form." I played along and tried to answer all of your questions without dodging. So play along, won't you? If you find that you need to modify or qualify your answer later, no problem. I'm not trying to spring a gotcha or anything. Just trying to narrow the focus of the discussion, if possible. Here's the question again: 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?

[JarMan]

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.

 

 

I think you've nailed it.

 

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.

 

You've nailed it again, here. It DOES bring up interesting questions regarding prophethood. But these questions are healthy for Mormons to address.

[Brian 2.0]

I'm trying to get at how you interpret the article, particularly the sentence, "Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form." I played along and tried to answer all of your questions without dodging. So play along, won't you? If you find that you need to modify or qualify your answer later, no problem. I'm not trying to spring a gotcha or anything. Just trying to narrow the focus of the discussion, if possible. Here's the question again: 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'll gladly play, and I don't want to dodge...

 

I don't believe the ban was from God so it's no stretch to pretend it.  I also think that ban is racist, pure and simple.  So If I read the statement, "Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any from" and used my assumption that the ban is racist (an assumption shared by most all of the non-lds world), then it would seem that that church leaders have condemned the ban (hence the media coverage).

 

But... since I believe the church previously didn't consider the ban racist and disagreed with my assumption that the ban was racist, I would want to know if they now did consider it racist (because if they didn't, that would change my interpretation of what the church was trying to say with that statement).

Edited January 11, 2014 by Brian 2.0

[Brian 2.0]

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.

 

So do you think that Nephi killing Laban was a sin, wrong, or an immoral act?  If God didn't command Nephi to kill Laban would you consider the act to be more immoral or wrong?

 

If there are instances in the scripture where it's written that God is using a means that is immoral/sinful to justify an ends (such as the genocide during the reclaiming of the promised land) then I don't buy that.  I chalk that up to the prophets writing something down that is their interpretation of what God said/wanted, but they are just mistaken.

[Stone holm]

So do you think that Nephi killing Laban was a sin, wrong, or an immoral act?  If God didn't command Nephi to kill Laban would you consider the act to be more immoral or wrong?

 

If there are instances in the scripture where it's written that God is using a means that is immoral/sinful to justify an ends (such as the genocide during the reclaiming of the promised land) then I don't buy that.  I chalk that up to the prophets writing something down that is their interpretation of what God said/wanted, but they are just mistaken.

My wife is very uncomfortable with the genocides in the OT. My position is kind of a Harry Seldon approach. God on the one hand is establishing principles for us to live by, on the other hand He continues to tweak His Creation so that it will evolve according to the way it needs to evolve, and so sometimes He has to take actions which are ends oriented. So He said unto Nephi that it was better one man die than a nation dwindle in unbelief for lack of Scriptures. I suspect that the ban was a tweaking.

[Brian 2.0]

My wife is very uncomfortable with the genocides in the OT. My position is kind of a Harry Seldon approach. God on the one hand is establishing principles for us to live by, on the other hand He continues to tweak His Creation so that it will evolve according to the way it needs to evolve, and so sometimes He has to take actions which are ends oriented. So He said unto Nephi that it was better one man die than a nation dwindle in unbelief for lack of Scriptures. I suspect that the ban was a tweaking.

 

I guess my question is do you think these actions God takes that are end oriented are ever immoral/sins/"condemnable"?  Or would be immoral/sins/condemnable if there we being done by anyone but God?

 

Do you think that had Nephi NOT been commanded to kill Laban, and did it on his own accord because he viewed Laban's life less valuable than the scriptures for his posterity, that that action would be a sin or immoral?

 

Surely God treats situations differently for different people that might not be ready for a higher law (law of tithing instead of law of consecration) and certain actions can be immoral or moral under different circumstances (i.e.  Not all killing is considered murder).  But I think there is a line that God simply can't cross, or at least I don't care to worship a God that crosses that line.

Edited January 11, 2014 by Brian 2.0

[thatjimguy]

My wife is very uncomfortable with the genocides in the OT.

 

 

So she should be. But we are not the barbarians that they were. I doubt that the Isrealistes were the only ones committing those acts. But that is how they were. There was no middle ground for war back them Imagine.

 

Just like the preisthood ban was pretty crummy, but maybe nessasary...here is a hypothecical scenario;

 

Although we have no real true reason for the start of the ban, I had heard that some black man was calling himself a prophet and sleeping with white women. This, of course, enraged many. I can see not just the one man getting castrated or killed, but a large purge of such anger ending the lives of many innocnent black men.

 

To squash the anger, maybe Brigham Young thought that taking away the priesthood would be a punishment that would satisfy the masses, thus saving lives.

 

This is the thought I had because the whole ban thing really worried me at first when I was investigating the church. This came to my mind about the subject.

Edited January 11, 2014 by thatjimguy

[Stone holm]

So she should be. But we are not the barbarians that they were. I doubt that the Isrealistes were the only ones committing those acts. But that is how they were. There was no middle ground for war back them Imagine.

 

Just like the preisthood ban was pretty crummy, but maybe nessasary...here is a hypothecical scenario;

 

Although we have no real true reason for the start of the ban, I had heard that some black man was calling himself a prophet and sleeping with white women. This, of course, enraged many. I can see not just the one man getting castrated or killed, but a large purge of such anger ending the lives of many innocnent black men.

 

To squash the anger, maybe Brigham Young thought that taking away the priesthood would be a punishment that would satisfy the masses, thus saving lives.

 

This is the thought I had because the whole ban thing really worried me at first when I was investigating the church. This came to my mind about the subject.

Really, we are not the barbarians they were? We who incinerated 150,000 people with one bomb deliberately dropped at a time of day and a city to maximize civilian casualties. We who carpet bombed a country which in its own had gassed over six million people because of their ethnicities , sexual preference, and economic/ political beliefs?

[cdowis]

My wife is very uncomfortable with the genocides in the OT.

 

 

Has she ever read the Book of Mormon on the issue?

[Stone holm]

Has she ever read the Book of Mormon on the issue?

 

You have something in particular in mind?

[cdowis]

Yes, the BOM explains the circumstances of the "genocide".  Do I need to look it up for you?

Edited January 14, 2014 by cdowis

[Tacenda]

I've been listening to this Mormon Matters podcast...http://mormonmatters.org/

 

C/P the info below.  

 

210: Genesis, Part 3–Cursing of Canaan and the Tower of Babel

 

In this episode, the Mormon Matters “Genesis Team”–David Bokovoy, Tom Roberts, and Brian Hauglid–share good, fair, and scholarly framings of two difficult biblical stories: (1) the cursing of Canaan, Ham’s son, to become a servant to the races descending from Noah’s other two sons because of his Ham’s indiscretions upon discovering Noah naked within his tent; and (2) the Tower of Babel and God’s confounding of human languages. There is so much more going on in the Genesis text than typically gets discussed in LDS devotional settings. This episode also folds in sections of the Book of Abraham and Book…

 

******

 

One thing that stuck out to me was when someone on the panel mentions, that the only religions that specify blacks being cursed were the Muslims reading of Genesis and ours before the disavowal,  but I might have heard wrong. It stood out to me because I know that Joseph studied Muhammad, so could he have gleamed this reasoning from that thought process about blacks being cursed?  Or having a skin of blackness which is in the BoM?

[BlueDreams]

 

One thing that stuck out to me was when someone on the panel mentions, that the only religions that specify blacks being cursed were the Muslims reading of Genesis and ours before the disavowal,  but I might have heard wrong. It stood out to me because I know that Joseph studied Muhammad, so could he have gleamed this reasoning from that thought process about blacks being cursed?  Or having a skin of blackness which is in the BoM?

 

No, you're going too out there for an explanation. It was a fairly common christian folk belief in the U.S. From a textbook I'm reading for a class right now:

 

"White religious leaders supplied the fuel for racist belief systems when they, just as the British had, refashioned religious beliefs to rationalize the enslavement of Africans. In his 1706 treatise the Negro Christianized, Cotton Mather, a leading puritan minister, uses the story of Ham to contend that the enslavement of Africans and Native Americans ("heathens," he says) is divinely ordained."

 

With luv,

BD

Edited January 17, 2014 by BlueDreams

[Stone holm]

No, you're going too out there for an explanation. It was a fairly common christian folk belief in the U.S. From a textbook I'm reading for a class right now:

 

"White religious leaders supplied the fuel for racist belief systems when they, just as the British had, refashioned religious beliefs to rationalize the enslavement of Africans. In his 1706 treatise the Negro Christianized, Cotton Mather, a leading puritan minister, uses the story of Ham to contend that the enslavement of Africans and Native Americans ("heathens," he says) is divinely ordained."

 

With luv,

BD

Cotton was such a charming chap, he was so supportive of the witch hunters in Salem as well.