How Do You Read The Race Statement?

[Stone holm]

Yes. The new essay is a game-changer.

 

There are really two relevant questions to ask regarding the priesthood ban: 1) Who instituted the ban? and 2) Why was the ban instituted? For most of church history the answers were 1) God and 2) Because of the curse of Cain; or because black people were less than valiant in the pre-existence; or some similar explanation. The answer to number 2 changed over time to "We don't know." Now, there were some at that time who pointed out that "We don't know" doesn't necessarily eliminate the previous answer and thus refused to let go of the prior explanations. But I think Bruce R. McConkie's mea culpa and other statement's from church leaders helped members to make the transition and reject the old answer.

 

What the new essay does is change the answers to both questions, so that now they are answered, 1) Brigham Young, and 2) Because of the American racial culture that existed at the time. Those who now read the essay but who aren't familiar with the church's past explanations on the matter could not possibly think the essay is saying the answers to the two questions are 1) God and 2) We don't know. Those answers are nowhere to be found in the article. So it is not surprising that the sources you listed in your OP reported on it the way they did. They reached the only conclusions they could reach.

 

Now, I understand why members want to cling to the old answers. They feel comfortable with the old answers and don't want to face the proposition that many of our leaders have just been plain wrong on the subject for a long time. It's similar to those who clung to the old racial theories when the church changed the answer to #2 to "We don't know."

 

I have to admit that when I first read the article my reaction was the same as yours. But I think I've identified why I felt that way and why I was wrong and have come to hold a different opinion. And I think, with time, you will see most of the people in the church make the adjustment, as well. Put the same survey up in a year and I think there will be vastly different results. Time will tell.

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

[JDave]

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

 

It seems that your statement still agrees with JarMan's answers:

1) Who instituted the ban?  Brigham Young

2) Why was the ban instituted?  Because of the American racial culture that existed at the time.

 

Do you actually disagree with those answers?  I guess you are referring to the unstated question #3, which isn't really able to be answered from the new essay.

3) Why did the ban stay in effect so long? 

 

While my initial inclination was that the statement didn't indicate either way, I am starting to agree with JarMan's assessment.

[Stone holm]

It seems that your statement still agrees with JarMan's answers:

1) Who instituted the ban?  Brigham Young

2) Why was the ban instituted?  Because of the American racial culture that existed at the time.

 

Do you actually disagree with those answers?  I guess you are referring to the unstated question #3, which isn't really able to be answered from the new essay.

3) Why did the ban stay in effect so long? 

 

While my initial inclination was that the statement didn't indicate either way, I am starting to agree with JarMan's assessment.

I think I have answered the third question as well, it stayed in effect until overt racism became so unacceptable that the blacks would be accepted and treated well by the members of the Church, in other words when the Saints were capable of living the higher law. I do not know how old you are but I grew up in Indiana during the 1950's and 60's and racism was still pervasive there. The Lord clearly waited until the dust of the civil rights movement had settled. By then a new generation had risen up which would accept the higher law, so then it was just a matter of making it clear what had to happen to the older generation which still had racist tendencies. For that purpose He raised up a righteous Prophet whom He had specially prepared for that purpose and whom He had sustained in just the right order as an Apostle so he would be raised to the Presidency at just the right time to accomplish that task. Why is this so difficult to comprehend?

[mormonnewb]

 

 

OOPS!  DELETED MY POST ... WRONG THREAD

Edited December 20, 2013 by mormonnewb

[bluebell]

"In 1852, President Brigham Young publicly announced that men of black African descent could no longer be ordained to the priesthood. . ." This statement tells us where the priesthood ban came from. The article doesn't spend any time discussing where the ban did not come from. Why would it? It has already told us where it did come from.

 

I'm interested in how you believe that the church could be sincere in holding the stance that the priesthood ban was not racist in any form. Can you show me any definition of racism anywhere that would preclude the priesthood ban?

 

My whole point is that the church has not said if it considers the ban racist or not.  Your interpretation of what the article says in regards to the ban and what the church says about Brigham Young, depends on something (that the church is applying the word 'racism' in the same way you are, or is implying the same thing by it's statement about BY that you are) that we simply Do. Not. Know.

 

Maybe the church will clarify and then we will know, but they have not done so yet.  Until then, we can debate what they meant to our hearts content, but it will never be more than our opinion and neither side will be able to say that their argument is fact.

 

Any declarations we make about what the church meant concerning the ban is our opinion only (and therefore, subjective) because, again, the church does not actually condemn or condone the ban in the article.

[JarMan]

Bluebell, the church doesn't need to have the same definition of racism as I do for my point to be valid because the essay unequivocally condemns racism "in all forms." This is a very broad condemnation that leaves the priesthood ban nowhere to hide.

 

Here are a few definitions of racism from various online sources:

 

Racism is generally defined as actions, practices or beliefs, or social or political systems that are based in view that sees the human species to be divided into races with shared traits, abilities, or qualities, such as personality, intellect, morality, or other cultural behavioral characteristics, and especially the belief that races can be ranked as inherently superior or inferior to others, or that members of different races should be treated differently.

 

Racism - the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, esp. so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.

 

Racism - prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.

 

Racism - 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.

 

The church simply cannot sincerely consider the priesthood ban something that does not fit these common definitions. And, much to its credit, it hasn't tried to. The only ones making the claim that the ban wasn't racist are LDS people who haven't accepted yet what the church is really saying in its article.

 

In saying all of this, I don't find satisfaction in finding fault in past church leaders. But I think to be credible to outsiders and insiders, too, we need to admit mistakes. And I'm not one who sees the ban as the huge, all-consuming mistake that others would portray it as. Clearly, people (including prophets) are influenced by the time in which they live. But we learn and we grow and we move forward. At least I would hope that we could move forward. . . but some people apparently aren't quite ready to do that yet.

[Calm]

Bluebell, the church doesn't need to have the same definition of racism as I do for my point to be valid because the essay unequivocally condemns racism "in all forms."

 

This doesn't make sense.  A definition might be total nonsense, just because something has been labeled racism doesn't mean it can replace any time one sees the word "racism" in the text and expect it to come out meaning what the authors meant it to mean or to be able to promote it as 'this is what they were really saying'.

 

For example, looking at the word, perhaps a nonEnglish speaker interprets it to mean someone who makes running in marathon their lifestyle.  I think we can all agree that such a definition doesn't work.

 

In fact, I don't believe there has ever been a rule of writing that makes it accepted to promote one's own definitions of words over what the author intended it to mean even if he includes all forms of racism (that would be included under his definition of racism, not under someone else's)

 

I have heard someone describe the medical condition of sickle cell anemia as racist in the sense it affects one race more than others.  Is such recognition of a medical fact something that is to be condemned?  Are fundraisers specifically for the disease to be condemned if they target the black community due to the fact it will be their people most affected by such a disease? 

 

The most commonly used definitions of racism are these:

 

 

 

a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the varioushuman races determine cultural or individual achievement,usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior andhas the right to rule others.

2.

a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fosteringsuch a doctrine; discrimination.

3.

hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

 

 

 

Depending on which is being used in the statement will change the meaning.  

 

If only the last is used, if the only identifying key for racism is seen as involving hatred or intolerance of another race....well, then that is a much more limited condemnation than one that applies to any policy, system of government, etc. that is based on or promotes such discrimination...

 

again a somewhat limited view and it may even give the label of racism to actions that could be helpful such as specialized medical treatments....a lot would depend on whether or not the idea that one's own race was superior and had the right to rule others was present...if so, it would turn all acts of definition to into something that should be abhorred and condemned, but if it was purely based on scientifically determined physical differences for the purpose of getting the medical treatment to the people that need it the most...that kind of discrimination and racism is commendable.  

 

The first definition is generally what we think of most of us being involved in and the most difficult to figure out if it is positive or a negative....Affirmative Action is racist by one definition, but if it intended to remove the perceived superiorities, if one believe the differences are cultural and not genetic and not attached to race save by accident so to speak...again not a form of racism to be condemned.

 

It therefore becomes essential to identify exactly what is and isn't being defended and condemned by the authors themselves and not just rewrite the article to say what you want it to say using your own definition of racism, contrary to the definition chosen thoughtfully and carefully I imagine by the writers of the statement.

[Stone holm]

This doesn't make sense.  A definition might be total nonsense, just because something has been labeled racism doesn't mean it can replace any time one sees the word "racism" in the text and expect it to come out meaning what the authors meant it to mean or to be able to promote it as 'this is what they were really saying'.

 

For example, looking at the word, perhaps a nonEnglish speaker interprets it to mean someone who makes running in marathon their lifestyle.  I think we can all agree that such a definition doesn't work.

 

In fact, I don't believe there has ever been a rule of writing that makes it accepted to promote one's own definitions of words over what the author intended it to mean even if he includes all forms of racism (that would be included under his definition of racism, not under someone else's)

 

I have heard someone describe the medical condition of sickle cell anemia as racist in the sense it affects one race more than others.  Is such recognition of a medical fact something that is to be condemned?  Are fundraisers specifically for the disease to be condemned if they target the black community due to the fact it will be their people most affected by such a disease? 

 

The most commonly used definitions of racism are these:

 

 

Depending on which is being used in the statement will change the meaning.  

 

If only the last is used, if the only identifying key for racism is seen as involving hatred or intolerance of another race....well, then that is a much more limited condemnation than one that applies to any policy, system of government, etc. that is based on or promotes such discrimination...

 

again a somewhat limited view and it may even give the label of racism to actions that could be helpful such as specialized medical treatments....a lot would depend on whether or not the idea that one's own race was superior and had the right to rule others was present...if so, it would turn all acts of definition to into something that should be abhorred and condemned, but if it was purely based on scientifically determined physical differences for the purpose of getting the medical treatment to the people that need it the most...that kind of discrimination and racism is commendable.  

 

The first definition is generally what we think of most of us being involved in and the most difficult to figure out if it is positive or a negative....Affirmative Action is racist by one definition, but if it intended to remove the perceived superiorities, if one believe the differences are cultural and not genetic and not attached to race save by accident so to speak...again not a form of racism to be condemned.

 

It therefore becomes essential to identify exactly what is and isn't being defended and condemned by the authors themselves and not just rewrite the article to say what you want it to say using your own definition of racism, contrary to the definition chosen thoughtfully and carefully I imagine by the writers of the statement.

Not sure I understand what you are saying. Are you saying the ban itself is not necessarily racist, but the explanations given were? If so, I can't agree with you. The ban precluded people from entering the Temple and being sealed as families strictly on the basis of race. Given the clear implications of such a restriction, there is no explanation that can be given which is not inherently racist. The only way out of such an awkward situation without laying racism at God's feet is to accept that the racism was that of the Saints. And at that point, the only way, that I see to defend the idea that the Church was directed by Christ throughout that period the ban was in place, is to argue that it was left in place simply because the Saints were not yet ready to live the higher law which required them to shed their racism.

[bluebell]

Not sure I understand what you are saying. Are you saying the ban itself is not necessarily racist, but the explanations given were? If so, I can't agree with you. The ban precluded people from entering the Temple and being sealed as families strictly on the basis of race. Given the clear implications of such a restriction, there is no explanation that can be given which is not inherently racist. The only way out of such an awkward situation without laying racism at God's feet is to accept that the racism was that of the Saints. And at that point, the only way, that I see to defend the idea that the Church was directed by Christ throughout that period the ban was in place, is to argue that it was left in place simply because the Saints were not yet ready to live the higher law which required them to shed their racism.

Cal is saying that just because the church included the words "in all its forms" concerning racism does not mean that any definition of racism a person wants to apply to the article is equally valid, or that it is unnecessary to know what definition the church had in mind before declaring exactly what they meant.

In other words, the phrase "in all its forms" does not change the fact that no one knows how the church was using the term racist in the article, and does not prove that the church included the ban in what they were disavowing.

[stemelbow]

My whole point is that the church has not said if it considers the ban racist or not.  

 

What does that matter?  It is clearly racist.  There is no disputing that, right?  Whether you think God could have condoned it or not, one must admit the ban was discriminating on the basis of race, right?

[bluebell]

What does that matter? It is clearly racist. There is no disputing that, right? Whether you think God could have condoned it or not, one must admit the ban was discriminating on the basis of race, right?

It matters a great deal if someone is attempting to argue that the church's disavowal of all racism in the past HAS to mean they disavow the ban.

[stemelbow]

It matters a great deal if someone is attempting to argue that the church's disavowal of all racism in the past HAS to mean they disavow the ban.

 

Not really.  Its their message to everyone.  if everyone is agreed the ban is racist, as it clearly is, then the message is clear. 

 

it doesn't seem like anyone could possibly, reasonably say the ban was not racist. right? 

[bluebell]

Not really.  Its their message to everyone.  if everyone is agreed the ban is racist, as it clearly is, then the message is clear. 

 

it doesn't seem like anyone could possibly, reasonably say the ban was not racist. right? 

 

No, it's not clear.  Just look at the results of this poll if you doubt that.  Just look at this thread, or all the blogs out there right now on this topic.

 

If they clearly wanted everyone in the world to know that they disavow the ban, they would have said so as clearly as they did when discussing the reasons for the ban, (which no one is confused about, by the way, so we know they know how to do it).  

 

If their message to everyone is 'the ban has been disavowed' then they failed so incredibly badly that they should win some kind of an award for accomplishing zero percent of what they set out to do.

 

Since i don't think they are stupid though, i cant get behind the idea that 'their message to everyone' is something that over half of the people are not understanding.

[stemelbow]

No, it's not clear.  Just look at the results of this poll if you doubt that.  Just look at this thread, or all the blogs out there right now on this topic.

 

If they clearly wanted everyone in the world to know that they disavow the ban, they would have said so as clearly as they did when discussing the reasons for the ban, (which no one is confused about, by the way, so we know they know how to do it).  

 

If their message to everyone is 'the ban has been disavowed' then they failed so incredibly badly that they should win some kind of an award for accomplishing zero percent of what they set out to do.

 

Since i don't think they are stupid though, i cant get behind the idea that 'their message to everyone' is something that over half of the people are not understanding.

 

That does seem to be the problem.  So how can the ban be considered anything but racism? 

 

On my count, in response to you, I've asked this question three times (different wordings each time) now with no answer. 

 

The problem as I see is this.  The statement clearly disavows any past racism.  The ban is clearly racism (there was a restriction for giving people of a certain race something).  So how can any listener read the statement and think the Church does not disavow the racist ban?  you say, well the Church might not consider the ban racist.  How so?  There is no reason whatsoever to indicate it was not racist. 

[bluebell]

That does seem to be the problem.  So how can the ban be considered anything but racism? 

 

On my count, in response to you, I've asked this question three times (different wordings each time) now with no answer. 

 

The problem as I see is this.  The statement clearly disavows any past racism.  The ban is clearly racism (there was a restriction for giving people of a certain race something).  So how can any listener read the statement and think the Church does not disavow the racist ban?  you say, well the Church might not consider the ban racist.  How so?  There is no reason whatsoever to indicate it was not racist.

 

One definition of 'racist' is-

 

-a person who believes that a particular race is superior to another.

 

If the church (as in the leadership and those who wrote the article and approved it) does not believe that the ban was the result of white men believing they were superior to blacks, for example, then they can easily, and correctly, and sincerely, consider the ban to not be racist.

Edited December 20, 2013 by bluebell

[Stone holm]

No, it's not clear.  Just look at the results of this poll if you doubt that.  Just look at this thread, or all the blogs out there right now on this topic.

 

If they clearly wanted everyone in the world to know that they disavow the ban, they would have said so as clearly as they did when discussing the reasons for the ban, (which no one is confused about, by the way, so we know they know how to do it).  

 

If their message to everyone is 'the ban has been disavowed' then they failed so incredibly badly that they should win some kind of an award for accomplishing zero percent of what they set out to do.

 

Since i don't think they are stupid though, i cant get behind the idea that 'their message to everyone' is something that over half of the people are not understanding.

 

I agree that they intended to disavow the ban.  However, that is a separate question as to whether the ban was due to considerations having to do with racism.  There was racism in the Church and amongst the Church leadership and its members.  That much was basically implicitly admitted.  The question is whether the Lord allowed the ban to continue because He was racist -- which I do not for one second believe -- or because He recognized that His Saints were and they needed time to adjust -- that I do believe.  But as to whether the ban was racist, I don't think there can be much doubt about that.

[rockpond]

 

One definition of 'racist' is-

 

-a person who believes that a particular race is superior to another.

 

If the church (as in the leadership and those who wrote the article and approved it) does not believe that the ban was the result of white men believing they were superior to blacks, for example, then they can easily, and correctly, and sincerely, consider the ban to not be racist.

 

It was clearly the belief of many leaders in the church during the ban that whites were superior to blacks.  It is evident in the false ideas that they taught to support the ban.

[JarMan]

The issue here, bluebell and calmoriah, that I don't think you've come to grips with yet, is that the article issues a very broad condemnation of racism. It's not like the nuanced condemnation we have of polygamy. The words "unequivocally" and "all forms" are in the essay and cannot simply be side-stepped. The broad, strong condemnation does not leave any cracks or crevices large enough to hide the priesthood ban.

 

And all of the news outlets that I've seen, both Mormon and non-Mormon, understand this. The broad consensus in the press is that the essay condemns the priesthood ban, itself and that the ban was not divinely inspired. And the church has not come out to and tried to correct this notion one bit. Here's a link to the Salt Lake Tribune article: http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/57241071-78/church-lds-says-mormon.html.csp. Notice the quote from Richard Bushman:

it drains the ban of revelatory significance, makes it something that just grew up and, in time, had to be eliminated.

 

Here's another Utah paper's editorial: http://www.standard.net/stories/2013/12/13/good-thing-i-didnt-write-column-about-mormons-and-blacks and a relevant quote:

I was going to take note of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints finally making clear that its controversial, never-resolved, 126-year prohibition on blacks of African descent being ordained to the priesthood was the product of -- drumroll, please -- racism. Specifically, the bigotry of pioneer prophet Brigham Young -- he of the namesake city, the many statues in public places and the "American Moses" nickname.

and another

But, I realized, other things do: Like my church's acknowledgement that racial prejudice was the root of the priesthood ban from 1852-1978. This is one Mormon who genuinely appreciates the candor.

 

Here's the AP story: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=249846638 and an important quote:

More than three decades after reversing its prohibition of black priests, the Mormon church has disavowed the ban, saying it was put into place during an era of great racial divide that influenced early teachings of the church.

 

And the OP already mentioned the HUFPO story which says

Now, finally, Mormons can point to a new 2,000-word statement posted on the church's website that offers the most comprehensive explanation of why the church previously had barred men of African descent from the lay clergy, and for the first time disavows the ban.

 

We don't need to keep defending something that the church is no longer defending. This is no different than justifying the priesthood ban based on the curse of Cain nonsense after the church had disavowed that teaching. Let this idea that the priesthood ban came from God be part of our past, not part of our present or our future. The church obviously wants to move past it. If we're truly interested in supporting the church then, in my opinion, we really need to move past it, too.

[stemelbow]

 

One definition of 'racist' is-

 

-a person who believes that a particular race is superior to another.

 

If the church (as in the leadership and those who wrote the article and approved it) does not believe that the ban was the result of white men believing they were superior to blacks, for example, then they can easily, and correctly, and sincerely, consider the ban to not be racist.

 wow

[jkwilliams]

 wow

 

It's safe to say that "cursed" people are inferior to non-cursed people, so the notion that there was no inherent belief in the superiority of non-black humans is wishful thinking, at best.

 

Let's just acknowledge that the ban has always been about race. The stuff about lineage is just window-dressing, as we know that the genetically diverse population of sub-Saharan Africans does not descend from a single couple who survived a flood some 6000 years ago.

[bluebell]

 wow

 

This isn't that difficult.

 

If the church believes the ban was from God (all of this is just conjecture but you asked me to do it so i'm doing it), then the ban did not stem from whites believing they were superior to blacks and so, using the definition of racist-isn't racist.

 

I'm not saying that that's the way the church views it or not, or if such would be a correct way to apply the word racist.   I'm simply illustrating why how someone defines the word racist impacts the meaning of what they are saying when they use the word.

[bluebell]

It's safe to say that "cursed" people are inferior to non-cursed people, so the notion that there was no inherent belief in the superiority of non-black humans is wishful thinking, at best.

 

That's not at all the issue of this topic of conversation (because it's VERY clear that the church HAS disavowed the racist reasons given for the ban and that is not at all in dispute). 

 

Let's just acknowledge that the ban has always been about race. The stuff about lineage is just window-dressing, as we know that the genetically diverse population of sub-Saharan Africans does not descend from a single couple who survived a flood some 6000 years ago.

 

 

This is the issue.  It's possible for something to be about race, without it being racist, depending on what definition of racist a person is using.  

 

As Cal pointed out earlier, affirmative action rules were about race, but not many people would mean to include them if they were explaining how they are against racism in all it's forms.

 

And yet, other people would very much call affirmative action racist.

 

It all depends on how the person is meaning to use the word.  

 

And if you don't know how the person is using the word, then it's impossible to declare 'this is what they mean when they use this word!'

[JarMan]

This isn't that difficult.

 

If the church believes the ban was from God (all of this is just conjecture but you asked me to do it so i'm doing it), then the ban did not stem from whites believing they were superior to blacks and so, using the definition of racist-isn't racist.

 

I'm not saying that that's the way the church views it or not, or if such would be a correct way to apply the word racist.   I'm simply illustrating why how someone defines the word racist impacts the meaning of what they are saying when they use the word.

 

You are employing the No True Scotsman Fallacy.

[jkwilliams]

That's not at all the issue of this topic of conversation (because it's VERY clear that the church HAS disavowed the racist reasons given for the ban and that is not at all in dispute).

They have disavowed the Books of Moses and Abraham?

 

This is the issue.  It's possible for something to be about race, without it being racist, depending on what definition of racist a person is using.  

As you defined it, racism was belief in the inherent inferiority of one or more races. By that definition, the curses outlined in the scriptures are racist.

 

As Cal pointed out earlier, affirmative action rules were about race, but not many people would mean to include them if they were explaining how they are against racism in all it's forms.

 

And yet, other people would very much call affirmative action racist.

 

It all depends on how the person is meaning to use the word.

 

And if you don't know how the person is using the word, then it's impossible to declare 'this is what they mean when they use this word!'

I'm just going by how you defined racism.

[JarMan]

 

That's not at all the issue of this topic of conversation (because it's VERY clear that the church HAS disavowed the racist reasons given for the ban and that is not at all in dispute). 

 

 

This is the issue.  It's possible for something to be about race, without it being racist, depending on what definition of racist a person is using.  

 

As Cal pointed out earlier, affirmative action rules were about race, but not many people would mean to include them if they were explaining how they are against racism in all it's forms.

 

And yet, other people would very much call affirmative action racist.

 

It all depends on how the person is meaning to use the word.

 

And if you don't know how the person is using the word, then it's impossible to declare 'this is what they mean when they use this word!'

 

This is also an example of the No True Scotsman fallacy.

 

Let's assume for a second that the church is using a commonly understood definition of the word. Does the priesthood ban qualify as racist? I'm hoping for a yes or no answer but feel free to expound beyond that.