How Do You Read The Race Statement?

[thesometimesaint]

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.  

 

BY certainly had and expressed his own ideas, and by our more modern day standards was autocratic. He was just what those earlier day Saints needed.

[ALarson]

BY certainly had and expressed his own ideas, and by our more modern day standards was autocratic. He was just what those earlier day Saints needed.

Oh, I agree.  But, was he a Prophet?   I think that's what members are now struggling with (if they are having any issues with this essay). There's no doubt that Brigham was the leader that was needed during that time in our church's history.

 

Brigham loved Joseph Smith and the words "The Prophet" were in reference to Joseph.  

 

Even Brigham stated that he wasn't a Prophet:

 

"“I am not a prophet, nor the son of a prophet…” 

 

John Taylor (and others) reiterated his feelings: 

 

"Brigham Young in saying that He did not profess to be a prophet seer & Revelator as Joseph Smith was, was speaking of men being born Natural Prophets & seers. Many have the gift of seeing through seer stones without the Priesthood at all. He had not this gift naturally yet He was an Apostle & the Presidet of the Church & kingdom of God on the Earth and all the Keys of the Holy Priesthood & of Revelation was sealed upon him & the spirit & power of Revelation was upon him daily. "

[thesometimesaint]

Oh, I agree.  But, was he a Prophet?   I think that's what members are now struggling with (if they are having any issues with this essay). There's no doubt that Brigham was the leader that was needed during that time in our church's history.

 

Brigham loved Joseph Smith and the words "The Prophet" were in reference to Joseph.  

 

Even Brigham stated that he wasn't a Prophet:

 

"“I am not a prophet, nor the son of a prophet…” 

 

John Taylor (and others) reiterated his feelings: 

 

"Brigham Young in saying that He did not profess to be a prophet seer & Revelator as Joseph Smith was, was speaking of men being born Natural Prophets & seers. Many have the gift of seeing through seer stones without the Priesthood at all. He had not this gift naturally yet He was an Apostle & the Presidet of the Church & kingdom of God on the Earth and all the Keys of the Holy Priesthood & of Revelation was sealed upon him & the spirit & power of Revelation was upon him daily. "

 

I believe he was a Prophet of God. Maybe not in the same exact ways of Joseph Smith established and lead the Church, but a Prophet none the less. As time goes on I seem to like whomever is the current Prophet better than the previous one.

 

I will always think of Joseph Fielding Smith as my Prophet because I converted under his leadership.

[Scott Lloyd]

Here is the most thoughtful and sensible commentary I have come across so far pertaining to the recent Church statement about the priesthood restriction.

 

It is by Dr. Gregory L. Smith. It resonates with me.

 

I especially like this summary passage:

 

It is easy—too easy, for some—to simply decide that this entire episode is all simply fallible mortal power plays or administration, with God lurking in the background (if he exists at all).[12]

One can draw that conclusion if one wishes. Many have and will. But, they ought not to be allowed to claim that the Church has admitted as much.

“We don’t know” really does mean “we don’t know.”

But, we do know God calls prophets, and that there is safety with them, notwithstanding the twists and turns of telestial complexity and mortal fallibility.

 

Edited December 18, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Rivers]

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?

Yep. I'm stumped on this one. I was hoping someone else could provide a satisfactory explanation.

[Buckeye]

Here is the most thoughtful and sensible commentary I have come across so far pertaining to the recent Church statement about the priesthood restriction.

 

It is by Dr. Gregory L. Smith. It resonates with me.

 

I especially like this summary passage:

 

Overall, I think this is a pretty good essay.  It provides many helpful citations with links to the original sources.  I imagine that many members of the church either hold the same views as Greg Smith or will gravitate towards a position such as his in light of the recent disavowal. 

 

That said, I do find it curious that an essay entitled “'we don’t know' really does mean 'we don’t know'" would spend so much time setting forth a narrative that speculates on just that subject.  It seems that Greg, like most all  members I know, is not satified with "we don't know."  He feels a need to find out the truth.  Lacking guidance from the church (which sticks with "we don't know"), he falls to his own intellect and publishes the best answer he can come up with.  That's great.  He has the right to do it.  But it strikes me as problematic for him to quote Elder Holland and then do precisely the opposite of what Elder Holland counsels:

 

They, I’m sure, in their own way, were doing the best they knew to give shape to [the priesthood ban policy], to give context for it, to give even history to it. All I can say is however well intended the explanations were, I think almost all of them were inadequate and/or wrong…. It probably would have been advantageous to say nothing, to say we just don’t know, and, [as] with many religious matters, whatever was being done was done on the basis of faith at that time. But some explanations were given and had been given for a lot of years….

 

(emphasis added)

 

Note:  I'm just pointing out this inconsistency.  Nothing against Greg personally.  Again, I'm just a guilty of publisizing my personal views on the subject.

 

I also disagree with Greg in his approach to members who are doing the same thing as him - speculating as to why - but coming to (somewhat) different conclusions.  He is quite dismissive of members who conclude God had nothing to do with the ban.  I would prefer to treat all members kindly and assume good intentions for all who are wrestling with these historical facts.

[mercyngrace]

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.

 

The question raised in my mind is "If the statement is ambiguous, if it offers no new insight, if it is merely a restatement of what Elder Holland and Elder McConkie have already acknowledged, why publish it at all?"

Edited December 18, 2013 by mercyngrace

[Rivers]

The question raised in my mind is "If the statement is ambiguous, if it offers no new insight, if it is merely a restatement of what Elder Holland and Elder McConkie have already acknowledged, why publish it at all?"

It provides a great overview

of the important facts for those who aren't very familiar with the topic.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

The question raised in my mind is "If the statement is ambiguous, if it offers no new insight, if it is merely a restatement of what Elder Holland and Elder McConkie have already acknowledged, why publish it at all?"

The new insight it offers is that for the first time the church has disavowed the doctrine that blacks were less valient in the preexistance and other similar doctrines associated with the ban. This has never been done officially before. Elder Holland to PBS came close, but with not nearly the clarity of this statement. And certainly not in an official venue.

[Stone holm]

As I have stated on other threads, I do not think they disavowed the ban, but I think a fair reading of the essay leads to the conclusion that the reason for the ban was that the Church members who were heavily dominated by white racists were not ready to accept the Blacks as brothers and sisters and treat them well. So The Lord delayed lifting it until there were fewer racists and popular opinion would force members to treat the blacks well.

[bluebell]

The question raised in my mind is "If the statement is ambiguous, if it offers no new insight, if it is merely a restatement of what Elder Holland and Elder McConkie have already acknowledged, why publish it at all?"

 

I obviously can't speak for them, but i would imagine it's because it's now an official source that people can easily go to when they want to understand the church's past teachings on race.

 

As we've seen, individual apostles or other leadership can say something here or there, and a lot of people (critics and members alike) dismiss it because it doesn't speak for the entire quorum of the 12 and the prophet.  Or someone will insist "find me something from a living apostle" or "it doesn't count because it wasn't said by the prophet."

 

The article helps people to easily understand that this is the official position of the church.

[Brian 2.0]

The new insight it offers is that for the first time the church has disavowed the doctrine that blacks were less valient in the preexistance and other similar doctrines associated with the ban. This has never been done officially before. Elder Holland to PBS came close, but with not nearly the clarity of this statement. And certainly not in an official venue.

The newsroom release in regards to professor Bott came close:

"For a time in the Church there was a restriction on the priesthood for male members of African descent. It is not known precisely why, how, or when this restriction began in the Church but what is clear is that it ended decades ago. Some have attempted to explain the reason for this restriction but these attempts should be viewed as speculation and opinion, not doctrine. The Church is not bound by speculation or opinions given with limited understanding.

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

This is pretty much what the new statement is. But detailing out the specific "speculations and opinions" is good. The new article also takes it one step further to disavow them, not simply view them as opinions. Now we can say they are wrong opinions.

And it's obviously much nicer to have it on a LDS.org topic page and not a newsroom release.

[JarMan]

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.

 

The key sentence related to the issue is as follows: Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form.

 

The key words are "unequivocally" and "any form." Are you taking the position that that the priesthood ban was not racist in "any form?" Do you understand what "unequivocally" means?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

I obviously can't speak for them, but i would imagine it's because it's now an official source that people can easily go to when they want to understand the church's past teachings on race.

 

As we've seen, individual apostles or other leadership can say something here or there, and a lot of people (critics and members alike) dismiss it because it doesn't speak for the entire quorum of the 12 and the prophet.  Or someone will insist "find me something from a living apostle" or "it doesn't count because it wasn't said by the prophet."

 

The article helps people to easily understand that this is the official position of the church.

I'm not sure what you are saying. Can you point me to any source where an apostle repudiated the "folklore" before this statement(for lack of a better term)?

Greg Smith said in his article:

This repudiation is not new—various Church leaders have said the same over the years, but it is wonderful to have it on an official webpage approved by the First Presidency.

I guess, I've had my head in the sand. Can anyone point me to any leader repudiating past statements? The closest I've seen is from Elder Holland who said "I think almost all of them were inadequate and/or wrong." To me this doesn't come close to a repudiation. It is one man's opinion (I think) and it says that "almost" all of them were "inadequate" and or wrong.

Help me out here. What am I missing?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

The newsroom release in regards to professor Bott came close:

"For a time in the Church there was a restriction on the priesthood for male members of African descent. It is not known precisely why, how, or when this restriction began in the Church but what is clear is that it ended decades ago. Some have attempted to explain the reason for this restriction but these attempts should be viewed as speculation and opinion, not doctrine. The Church is not bound by speculation or opinions given with limited understanding.

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

This is pretty much what the new statement is. But detailing out the specific "speculations and opinions" is good. The new article also takes it one step further to disavow them, not simply view them as opinions. Now we can say they are wrong opinions.

And it's obviously much nicer to have it on a LDS.org topic page and not a newsroom release.

Calling it speculation and opinion doesn't come close to saying it was wrong or repudiating it. It just says we don't know. That last step from we don't know to we were wrong is huge (IMHO). If it wasn't we wouldn't be having so much discussion over whether the church disavowed the ban itself. Obviously disavowing something is much different than just saying we don't know.

Edited December 18, 2013 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Mystery Meat]

The key sentence related to the issue is as follows: Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form.

 

The key words are "unequivocally" and "any form." Are you taking the position that that the priesthood ban was not racist in "any form?" Do you understand what "unequivocally" means?

 

Condescending much?

 

If you would have asked me a week ago I would have answered, yes I think it was racist. Now, and I think the Church is saying the same, says we don't know if the ban is racist, but if it was we condemn it.

[JarMan]

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. 

 

You also won't find from the statement whether the church thinks slavery, segregation, or laws against inter-racial marriage were racist, either. But I think a reasonable reader would find it to be implied. And I don't find it surprising that non-LDS readers see the implication from the statement that the ban was racists. In fact, I would be very surprised if a non-LDS reader did not think the ban was implied to be racist from the statement.

 

Let's be honest. Only a member would question whether the ban was racist. And that is why I think the church worded the statement the way they did. 

[stemelbow]

I don't see a far stretch at all to suggest condemning all racism in the past is also condemning the racist ban.  meh...not too far off, I'd say.  It'd be just that much sweeter if the statement officially condemned the ban explicitly, but it's getting close. 

[Scott Lloyd]

Note:  I'm just pointing out this inconsistency.  Nothing against Greg personally.  Again, I'm just a guilty of publisizing my personal views on the subject.

The difference I see is that you are propounding a conclusion that condemns Church leaders. Greg is saying "we don't know" means just that.

[Mystery Meat]

You also won't find from the statement whether the church thinks slavery, segregation, or laws against inter-racial marriage were racist, either. But I think a reasonable reader would find it to be implied. And I don't find it surprising that non-LDS readers see the implication from the statement that the ban was racists. In fact, I would be very surprised if a non-LDS reader did not think the ban was implied to be racist from the statement.

 

Let's be honest. Only a member would question whether the ban was racist. And that is why I think the church worded the statement the way they did. 

 

I don't see a far stretch at all to suggest condemning all racism in the past is also condemning the racist ban.  meh...not too far off, I'd say.  It'd be just that much sweeter if the statement officially condemned the ban explicitly, but it's getting close. 

 

I personally think the Church meant what it said...they don't know. It very well could be but...

[Mystery Meat]

You also won't find from the statement whether the church thinks slavery, segregation, or laws against inter-racial marriage were racist, either. But I think a reasonable reader would find it to be implied. And I don't find it surprising that non-LDS readers see the implication from the statement that the ban was racists. In fact, I would be very surprised if a non-LDS reader did not think the ban was implied to be racist from the statement.

 

Let's be honest. Only a member would question whether the ban was racist. And that is why I think the church worded the statement the way they did. 

 

I also think they worded it they way that they did so its critics could read/imply an admission of racism into the statement regarding the ban. So it goes both ways.

[stemelbow]

You also won't find from the statement whether the church thinks slavery, segregation, or laws against inter-racial marriage were racist, either. But I think a reasonable reader would find it to be implied. And I don't find it surprising that non-LDS readers see the implication from the statement that the ban was racists. In fact, I would be very surprised if a non-LDS reader did not think the ban was implied to be racist from the statement.

 

Let's be honest. Only a member would question whether the ban was racist. And that is why I think the church worded the statement the way they did. 

 

NOw that you say it that way, I'm a little frustrated.  How can the ban not be considered racist?  I know there has been for some time an effort to say a certain race is restricted from the priesthood is not racist, but that is just silly, no? 

[Buckeye]

The difference I see is that you are propounding a conclusion that condemns Church leaders. Greg is saying "we don't know" means just that.

 

Really? Greg's article began with "we don't know" and ended with "we don't know" but in the middle he offered a lot of his own reasoning. 

 

My conclusion is that God was not involved in creating or maintaining the ban.  That conclusion does not condemn any church leader.  It condemns the things they taught.  You should be familiar with that difference.  It's similar to "hate the sin, love the sinner." 

[JarMan]

I personally think the Church meant what it said...they don't know. It very well could be but...

Where in the statement did they say they didn't know whether the ban was racist? I think you are confusing past statement from the church that they didn't know why the ban was instituted. But that old position seems to have been superseded by the recent statement, anyway. So, what are you even referring to?

[Mystery Meat]

Where in the statement did they say they didn't know whether the ban was racist? I think you are confusing past statement from the church that they didn't know why the ban was instituted. But that old position seems to have been superseded by the recent statement, anyway. So, what are you even referring to?

 

Where did they say that the ban was racist?