How Do You Read The Race Statement?

[Robert F. Smith]

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.

Why do bad things happen to good people?  Why did God allow the Holocaust?  What is your answer, Rivers?  You usually have very sage observations.  You're not stumped, are you?

[Robert F. Smith]

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.

B. Young was not supposed to be coerced by God.  Young presumably had the same right to be wrong which the rest of us possess.  The idea that God micromanages things seems to me absurd and completely out of line with LDS doctrine.  Revelation is a two-way street.  Blaming God seems the least likely to be the truth.

[Robert F. Smith]

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?

One might examine the Utah legislative action on "servitude" and on "micegenation" in the past.  Utahns don't have much to be proud of in those past areas, but then other white folk in the USA don't have much to be proud of either.  The past is  mostly (and sadly) filled with those who fell short of the glory of God.  Only once in a long while did someone step up and do the right thing despite the consequences which might follow.  How many of us actually believe and practice "Do what is right let the consequence follow"?

[Brian 2.0]

Robert, do you believe that this statement has disavowed the ban?  And that the current chruch stance is that Brigham Young instituted it and not God?  

 

Just curious from what point you are coming at this from.

[BCSpace]

disavowed the theories/explanations/racist statements "

 

I think it's more accurate to say "disavowed some theories/some explanations/racist statements"

[Brian 2.0]

I think it's more accurate to say "disavowed some theories/some explanations/racist statements"

 

I don't know...

 

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.

 

 

I guess the question is... if the chruch is saying something is NOT chruch doctrine is that the same as disavowing it?

[BCSpace]

The people who are voting "We do not know if it was from God or not." may have something in that the term 'disavow' which the Church uses, means to deny responsibility or knowledge of among other possibilities which seem not to apply given the context.

Edited December 16, 2013 by BCSpace

[Brian 2.0]

The people who are voting "We do not know if it was from God or not." may have something in that the term 'disavow' which the Church uses, means to deny responsibility or knowledge of among other possibilities which seem not to apply given the context.

 

I don't know everyone else's thought process, but I voted that the current chruch stance is "we do not know if it was from God or not" but it has nothing to do with how I interpret the term "disavow".  I voted that way because the word "disavow" is not connected to the ban in the statement, but only the explanations.

[juliann]

They also disavowed past, present, and future racism.  Was the ban racist?  That is the bottom line.  Is anyone really willing to say it was not racist?

[Cobalt-70]

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?

 

You are suggesting that the church body could have been sufficiently racist, circa the 1850s, that the church could not handle a policy of letting black men hold the priesthood or allowing black men and women into the temple. But there was already precedent during Smith's lifetime for ordaining black men, and there was no revolt. Many of the members of the early church were from non-slave states, and many had at one time been abolitionists. The early church was not full of irredeemable racists. At least, not until Brigham Young spent considerable effort to convince them that slavery was ordained of God.

 

Had Brigham Young not been a racist, and had in fact been progressive on this issue, I think the body of the church would have very happily followed him on that point. After all, they followed him from Nauvoo to the Utah territory. Why would they not follow him on a policy issue?

Edited December 17, 2013 by Cobalt-70

[Brian 2.0]

They also disavowed past, present, and future racism.  Was the ban racist?  That is the bottom line.  Is anyone really willing to say it was not racist?

 

Personally, I say it was racist.  But in trying to figure out the church's stance... you need to know if the church thinks the ban was racist.  And you won't find that answer in the statement. 

[bluebell]

Personally, I say it was racist.  But in trying to figure out the church's stance... you need to know if the church thinks the ban was racist.  And you won't find that answer in the statement. 

 

I think that's the issue.

 

Was the church thinking of how the ban was racist when it made that statement about disavowing all past racism, or was the focus of that statment completely on the reasons for the ban?  Unless they clarify we'll never know.

[Brian 2.0]

I think that's the issue.

 

Was the church thinking of how the ban was racist when it made that statement about disavowing all past racism, or was the focus of that statment completely on the reasons for the ban?  Unless they clarify we'll never know.

 

exactly.  And since the statement was being specific about what it was disavowing at the beginning of the same paragaph, I find it telling that they did not include the ban.  Consider the following of how easily this could have been made clear (my word in the brackets)

 

Today, the Church disavows [the past Priesthood restrictions on blacks and] 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

 

 

With something as carefully worded as this statement I find it difficult to believe that their lack of clarity on this specific issue wasn't intentional.

[juliann]

exactly.  And since the statement was being specific about what it was disavowing at the beginning of the same paragaph, I find it telling that they did not include the ban.  Consider the following of how easily this could have been made clear (my word in the brackets)

 

 

With something as carefully worded as this statement I find it difficult to believe that their lack of clarity on this specific issue wasn't intentional.

I agree.  And I think it allows people to read into it what they need for now.   There will have to be more....just as this statement adds to the previous one.     http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/race-church

 

 

It is not known precisely why, how or when this restriction began in the Church, but it has ended.

 

The church is not putting God into this in either statement....until they get to rescinding the ban.

 

Church leaders sought divine guidance. . .

 

The first statement adds more detail about who was engaging in racism, those "inside the Church".   It includes "disparaging remarks" as racism.

The Church unequivocally condemns racism, including any and all past racism by individuals both inside and outside the Church. In 2006, then Church president Gordon B. Hinckley declared that “no man who makes disparaging remarks concerning those of another race can consider himself a true disciple of Christ. Nor can he consider himself to be in harmony with the teachings of the Church. Let us all recognize that each of us is a son or daughter of our Father in Heaven, who loves all of His children.”

 

It also defines appropriate explanations,  they must be given under direct revelation.   So unless someone can claim revelation, they shouldn't be putting forth justifications like blacks/whites/church "weren't ready."

 

“The origins of priesthood availability are not entirely clear. Some explanations with respect to this matter were made in the absence of direct revelation and references to these explanations are sometimes cited in publications. These previous personal statements do not represent Church doctrine.”

 

Again, no insertion of God.

 

So, IMHO, those who do insert God are doing what you did in inserting a phrase.   Which is exactly what they are talking about when it comes to those giving clarifications without direct revelation.   So we do have to stick with what is said about it...and it doesn't say one way or another.

 

However, I think it highly unlikely that they would use a word like racism and expect everyone reading it to modify the definition of such a well understood and ubiquitous word.  If they did, I think that would be of greater concern than anything else.

[omni]

I think it was a carefully crafted statement meant to allow for both interpretations. The individual can read what they want to in the statement as is evident by this thread. As has been mentioned before, this wasn't a hastily put together statement. If the church wanted make it clear they very well could have.

[BCSpace]

I think it was a carefully crafted statement meant to allow for both interpretations.

 

 

I think so too. The problem with that strategy is that such often leads to contradictory statements. And we indeed have that now in terms of comparison with extant scripture because of the two words; "or curse".  It wasn't "crafted" carefully enough thought to throw BY and others under the bus and continues to imply if not outright state that the ban is based on inspiration which is essentially what BY claimed in "To The Saints".

[bluebell]

I agree.  And I think it allows people to read into it what they need for now.   There will have to be more....just as this statement adds to the previous one.     http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/race-church

 

The church is not putting God into this in either statement....until they get to rescinding the ban.

 

The first statement adds more detail about who was engaging in racism, those "inside the Church".   It includes "disparaging remarks" as racism.

It also defines appropriate explanations,  they must be given under direct revelation.   So unless someone can claim revelation, they shouldn't be putting forth justifications like blacks/whites/church "weren't ready."

 

Again, no insertion of God.

 

So, IMHO, those who do insert God are doing what you did in inserting a phrase.   Which is exactly what they are talking about when it comes to those giving clarifications without direct revelation.   So we do have to stick with what is said about it...and it doesn't say one way or another.

 

However, I think it highly unlikely that they would use a word like racism and expect everyone reading it to modify the definition of such a well understood and ubiquitous word.  If they did, I think that would be of greater concern than anything else.

 

My issue is, if they wanted to rescind the ban, along with the reasons for the ban, then why be so sneaky about it?

 

Why rely on people to have to read between the lines ("well, they said racism, and the ban was obviously racist, so therefore they are including the ban in all disavowed past racism...."  It's like a math proof), and use deductive reasoning in order to understand exactly what the church is saying.

 

They are clear about disavowing the reasons for the ban.  They managed to say it in a way where no one is confused.  Why'd they have so much trouble with talking about the ban itself.  If it's highly unlikely that the church wasn't including the ban in what has been disavowed, then why didn't they make it clear they were doing just that?

 

It seems highly unlikely that the church wanted people to understand they were disavowing the ban, but managed to mess up the message so incredibly badly that no one can agree that's actually what they were saying.  

 

I mean, if that article was suppose to disavow the ban along with the reasons for the ban, it's a giant, huge fail because it seems like more than half of the readership (if this poll is accurate for the larger group) has no idea that's what it said.

Edited December 17, 2013 by bluebell

[Brian 2.0]

My issue is, if they wanted to rescind the ban, along with the reasons for the ban, then why be so sneaky about it?

Why rely on people to have to read between the lines ("well, they said racism, and the ban was obviously racist, so therefore they are including the ban in all disavowed past racism...." It's like a math proof), and use deductive reasoning in order to understand exactly what the church is saying.

They are clear about disavowing the reasons for the ban. They managed to say it in a way where no one is confused. Why'd they have so much trouble with talking about the ban itself. If it's highly unlikely that the church wasn't including the ban in what has been disavowed, then why didn't they make it clear they were doing just that?

It seems highly unlikely that the church wanted people to understand they were disavowing the ban, but managed to mess up the message so incredibly badly that no one can agree that's actually what they were saying.

I mean, if that article was suppose to disavow the ban along with the reasons for the ban, it's a giant, huge fail because it seems like more than half of the readership (if this poll is accurate for the larger group) has no idea that's what it said.

Couldn't have said it better myself. This is precisely my point.

[juliann]

My issue is, if they wanted to rescind the ban, along with the reasons for the ban, then why be so sneaky about it?

 

Why rely on people to have to read between the lines ("well, they said racism, and the ban was obviously racist, so therefore they are including the ban in all disavowed past racism...."  It's like a math proof), and use deductive reasoning in order to understand exactly what the church is saying.

 

But the same can be said for the opposite, if they didn't want to rescind the ban why be so sneaky about it?   They are either really stupid or they have written it so as to allow people to interpret it how they need to for now.

[Brian 2.0]

But the same can be said for the opposite, if they didn't want to rescind the ban why be so sneaky about it?   

 

Because the press and critics would jump all over them for it!  

 

It doesn't take much imagination to think of what the news articles would be if the statement said, "We don't know the reasons for it, and we disavow the racist explanations put forth, but we stand by the Priesthood restrictions on blacks as being inspired from God."

 

The kind of press on that statement would have been 180 degress from press they are getting from the current statement.

 

But this way they get the good press without having to actually disavow the ban.  It's a carefully crafted move.

 

either way... the statement neither disavows or stands by the ban.  Those saying it does are adding their own take on it and claiming more than the statement claims.

Edited December 17, 2013 by Brian 2.0

[bluebell]

But the same can be said for the opposite, if they didn't want to rescind the ban why be so sneaky about it?   They are either really stupid or they have written it so as to allow people to interpret it how they need to for now.

 

Oh, I definitely feel they have written it so that people can interpret it in different ways, and i personally feel they did that because they are unsure whether or not the ban was of God and aren't willing to make any proclamations about it based on the limited info they have about it.

 

But admitting it's ambiguous is different than claiming it definitely says 'this' and 'this' is definitely what the church was trying to say or they would not have used the words they did.

[Scott Lloyd]

Oh, I definitely feel they have written it so that people can interpret it in different ways, and i personally feel they did that because they are unsure whether or not the ban was of God and aren't willing to make any proclamations about it based on the limited info they have about it.

 

But admitting it's ambiguous is different than claiming it definitely says 'this' and 'this' is definitely what the church was trying to say or they would not have used the words they did.

If they do feel it was of God, I think they recognize that there would be absolutely no advantage in saying so publicly at this point. To do so is bound to be looked upon with hostility.

[poulsenll]

As with anything I read nowadays, I read it with my reading glasses.

 

Larry P

[Mystery Meat]

Anybody who answers that it disavowed the ban or that it was the result of racism is simply inferring something into the statement that is simply not there. We all do it from time to time (like when we read the scriptures), but I don't know how anyone can walk away with the impression that this was anything less then a "we don't know."

 

Side note, I personally thought that it was the result of racist views from Brigham Young. After reading his statement about the priesthood being extended to blacks at some point in the future I am not so sure anymore.

[ALarson]

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

They heard about it on Facebook and followed the link and read it.

 

I have discussed it further with a few of them now.  One has an appointment with our Bishop to discuss his concerns (I guess his wife is very upset about it).  One other stated, "well, I never did feel warm feelings toward Brigham Young like I do for other past Prophets, and this confirms my feelings."  

 

At least some of the members are thinking and discussing this.