How Do You Read The Race Statement?

[Brian 2.0]

Thanks Cal. Good stuff. You're saving me time in that I don't have to write responses!

[Calm]

Thank you.  I feel my time was well spent then.  

[Stone holm]

I think I understand your position that the Lord allowed the ban to stay in place for so long because he was waiting until the Saints could live the "higher law." This is an interesting theory. But I haven't found anything from the church that tries to explain why it was in place for so long. Have you come across anything? My personal opinion is that once it was in place the later leaders just assumed it was based on revelation and many probably had the same prejudices that Brigham Young had. And since there needed to be a unanimous approval in order to change things, just one dissenting vote could drag things out for decades.

 

Well, I am not sure how old you are -- but I am assuming you are younger than me (forgive me if I am wrong), racism existed when the ban went into place and it persisted very strongly in much of America throughout the 60's and into the 70's.  So as to the timing, the civil rights movement had pretty much died down and the culture had shifted to the point that the vast majority of the Church was more than ready to accept the lifting of the ban when it was lifted. I can testify to the persistent racism in the Midwest throughout the prior decades, and to the general sigh of relief when it was lifted. The transition when it came was swift and smooth.  Although the Church News carried a blurb with the press release about the GAs still cautioning people against interacial marriage because of the additional difficulties that could present to a marriage -- even that was very quickly ignored and forgotten.  So from today's perspective it looks awful, I can certainly understand what was involved -- I also, cannot imagine that the Lord would have wanted racial tensions in the Church and they certainly would have existed had the ban been lifted earlier.  Its sad, even tragic, but I refuse to believe that the Prophets weren't thinking and praying about it.  That may have been true of some, but surely not all of them and it certainly was not true of David O. McKay.

[stemelbow]

I'm pretty much in agreement with most of what JarMan has posted.  I think he's made some great points.  I"ll just add a few ideas here, since I"ve been out for a few days and the conversation has somewhat morphed from what it was when I was participating.

 

1.  It is clear, it seems to all, that the Church disavows many teachings leaders of the Church have given us in very forceful seemingly inspired ways.  There was error preached, in the form of explanations of why the ban at the very least, and thus we know the set up for the Church of inspired leaders getting us the messages of God is not foolproof.  (I, for one, never thought it was.  but here is clear evidence to support that, no?) 

 

2.  If 1 is true, then it stands to reason there are other things/teachings that could possibly be wrong that the Church, through it's leaders, has taught.  We may not be limited here to the reality that the leaders misinformed members for over 100 years on why the ban. 

 

3.  If 1 and 2 are true, then it is not a far stretch to think the ban itself was not of God, was not supported by God.  The leaders, currently, have not explicitly disavowed the ban itself, but the wording of the latest statement leaves the possibility that it was not of God open. 

 

I, personally, would not suggest that the Church has suggested the ban was not God-condoned.  I'm saying it's possible the ban was not condoned by God, whether the Church has explicitly acknowledged it or not.  I'm saying it's quite possible God wished it never was.  After all, we already know, that the explanation was in error but God let it be taught anyway.  It seems to deny that possibility is to deny that mistakes were made.  It is to say God would not let mistakes continue.  But, such reasoning has already been debunked by the latest statement by the Church on the matter. 

 

Right or wrong?

[bluebell]

I'm pretty much in agreement with most of what JarMan has posted.  I think he's made some great points.  I"ll just add a few ideas here, since I"ve been out for a few days and the conversation has somewhat morphed from what it was when I was participating.

 

1.  It is clear, it seems to all, that the Church disavows many teachings leaders of the Church have given us in very forceful seemingly inspired ways.  There was error preached, in the form of explanations of why the ban at the very least, and thus we know the set up for the Church of inspired leaders getting us the messages of God is not foolproof.  (I, for one, never thought it was.  but here is clear evidence to support that, no?) 

 

2.  If 1 is true, then it stands to reason there are other things/teachings that could possibly be wrong that the Church, through it's leaders, has taught.  We may not be limited here to the reality that the leaders misinformed members for over 100 years on why the ban. 

 

3.  If 1 and 2 are true, then it is not a far stretch to think the ban itself was not of God, was not supported by God.  The leaders, currently, have not explicitly disavowed the ban itself, but the wording of the latest statement leaves the possibility that it was not of God open. 

 

I, personally, would not suggest that the Church has suggested the ban was not God-condoned.  I'm saying it's possible the ban was not condoned by God, whether the Church has explicitly acknowledged it or not.  I'm saying it's quite possible God wished it never was.  After all, we already know, that the explanation was in error but God let it be taught anyway.  It seems to deny that possibility is to deny that mistakes were made.  It is to say God would not let mistakes continue.  But, such reasoning has already been debunked by the latest statement by the Church on the matter. 

 

Right or wrong?

 

From my perspective, that's a valid opinion to hold.

 

The only argument between JarMan and myself is that he insists that the church has disavowed the ban, and i insist that the article does no such thing.

[Calm]

From my perspective, that's a valid opinion to hold.

 

The only argument between JarMan and myself is that he insists that the church has disavowed the ban, and i insist that the article does no such thing.

Same here....

[Stone holm]

Same here....

I don't think the ban has been disavowed, or that it is likely to be.

[rockpond]

I don't think the ban has been disavowed, or that it is likely to be.

I really think it can the article can be validly interpreted both ways. I think the bigger problem is that we've created a precedent for immense contradiction within church teachings. I'm sitting here witnessing a family member who is also a bishopric counselor struggle with this wondering what the purpose of a prophet is. He now feels totally unsure of what can be believed/trusted and what should be discounted as opinion.

[Stone holm]

I really think it can the article can be validly interpreted both ways. I think the bigger problem is that we've created a precedent for immense contradiction within church teachings. I'm sitting here witnessing a family member who is also a bishopric counselor struggle with this wondering what the purpose of a prophet is. He now feels totally unsure of what can be believed/trusted and what should be discounted as opinion.

Agreed that it can be interpreted both ways so we will have to agree to disagree. Merry Christmas!

[JDave]

So does the current race statement disavow the 1949 statement from the First Presidency?  As rockpond said, that is perhaps the bigger problem.  Many members would be quite uncomfortable with a statement from the First Presidency being disavowed.

 

They may not realize that when the ban was lifted that it was stated that previous knowledge was limited, and basically rescinded the 1949 statement at that time.

 

I would imagine there are a fair number of members who take ideas like "The Church embraces/encompasses all truth" and "Truth is eternal and unchanging" and produce an unfortunate conflation of "The church teachings are truth that is eternal and unchanging".  They realize that isolated opinions are not necessarily truth and may contain worldly ideas, but they would likely think that First Presidency statements are immune to that.

[Stone holm]

So does the current race statement disavow the 1949 statement from the First Presidency?  As rockpond said, that is perhaps the bigger problem.  Many members would be quite uncomfortable with a statement from the First Presidency being disavowed.

 

They may not realize that when the ban was lifted that it was stated that previous knowledge was limited, and basically rescinded the 1949 statement at that time.

 

I would imagine there are a fair number of members who take ideas like "The Church embraces/encompasses all truth" and "Truth is eternal and unchanging" and produce an unfortunate conflation of "The church teachings are truth that is eternal and unchanging".  They realize that isolated opinions are not necessarily truth and may contain worldly ideas, but they would likely think that First Presidency statements are immune to that.

 

Truth itself is unchanging,the extent that it is revealed, and the extent that the Saints are able to live it changes over time in conformance with what the Lord believes best suits His purposes at the time.

[JDave]

Truth itself is unchanging,the extent that it is revealed, and the extent that the Saints are able to live it changes over time in conformance with what the Lord believes best suits His purposes at the time.

Which inherently means that the degree to which it is correctly taught also changes over time.  I don't think that is a problem as much as it is simply not understood.  The statement made by Bruce R. McConkie, back in 1978, is both perfect for the OP and to illustrate that doctrine can and does change.

I have said the same things, and people write me letters and say, “You said such and such, and how is it now that we do such and such?” And all I can say to that is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.

“We get our truth and our light line upon line and precept upon precept. We have now had added a new flood of intelligence and light on this particular subject, and it erases all the darkness and all the views and all the thoughts of the past. They don’t matter any more.

“It doesn’t make a particle of difference what anybody ever said about the Negro matter before the first day of June of this year.” 

 

I just pray for the day that we can better understand and live the simple unchanging truths, like "Love God.  Love your neighbor."  We will find much more understanding, wisdom, as well as joy and fulfillment.  We will find, I believe, just how superficial some of our disagreements are.  As much as I enjoy the discussions here, they don't help me near as much as when I simply dive into living the gospel, forgetting myself and looking for how to help my family and all those around me.  Merry Christmas!!

[JLHPROF]

Truth itself is unchanging,the extent that it is revealed, and the extent that the Saints are able to live it changes over time in conformance with what the Lord believes best suits His purposes at the time.

 

Amen.  And the important part of this is that when the Saints are unable or unwilling to live the truth as God has revealed it, they lose a blessing.  It has always been so.

[JarMan]

If one sets up a perfect logical argument, but with faulty premises/assumptions to begin with, there is no need to engage the actual argument, just the premise.  For example, if an argument is based on a premise that the world is flat, in this day and age any individual presenting that argument would have to demonstrate first why we should bother with the argument at all given what it rests upon.

 

I am not saying that has happened in all the arguments Jarman has presented as I can't recall them now...brain not awake enough, I do remember thinking 'this is a nonstarter because he hasn't demonstrated why we should accept this premise/definition/whatever yet and he needs to do that before presenting the argument itself'.

 

And perhaps my memory is wrong on this, but I would encourage Jarman if he is tempted to try even one more time to go back to the very basics of his argument and list all the significant assumptions he is bringing to the table and demonstrate first why we should accept these as givens....and then proceed with the logic.

 

The two premises here are 1) that the priesthood ban originated from Brigham Young and not from God, and 2) that the church believes the priesthood ban itself was racist.

 

I have supported these premises time and again but the evidence I presented to support my view has not really been addressed.

[Brian 2.0]

The two premises here are 1) that the priesthood ban originated from Brigham Young and not from God, and 2) that the church believes the priesthood ban itself was racist.

 

I have supported these premises time and again but the evidence I presented to support my view has not really been addressed.

 

By my reading of all the evidence you present it only goes this far to support your premises:

 

1) that the priesthood ban originated from [was announced by] Brigham Young and not from God

2) that the church believes the priesthood ban itself [the theories to explain the ban] were racist.

Edited December 28, 2013 by Brian 2.0

[JarMan]

At issue here has always been your insistence that it was a fact that the church disavowed the ban in the article.

I have never argued that you didn't have the right to believe that's what the church was saying, only that there is no basis for you to claim it is definitely what they are saying.

And I have pointed out that your inability to quote anything from the article that includes the church disavowing the ban to support my argument.

I have repeatedly engaged that discussion.

If you believe that me continuing to disagree with you is actually me refusing to engage on the issue, then yes, you are just wasting both of our time.

 

I HAVE quoted the church's article to support my position. See posts #105, #124 and #187. So far you have not engaged me on what I quoted, but instead continue to insist that I HAVEN'T provided you any quotes from the article.

 

I have quoted and linked to several press articles that have reported that the church has disavowed the ban. The church has not issued a correction, which it did after the 2012 Washington Post story incorrectly stated the church's position. You have not addressed this issue.

 

I mentioned that Richard Bushman (who likely contributed to the article) stated in the Salt Lake Tribune that the article says the ban originated from Brigham Young. You have been silent on this point.

 

I gave several common definitions of racism, which all encompass the priesthood ban. Your response has been to claim that the church has a super-secret definition of racism that somehow excludes the ban. But you have produced zero evidence in support of this view. And you have not provided a definition of racism that does exclude the priesthood ban.

 

I explained the difference between the church's qualified condemnation of polygamy and the church's unequivocal condemnation of racism. You have not addressed this difference, but instead continue to pretend that the church's condemnation of racism is qualified like its condemnation of polygamy. 

 

I explained how this new article supersedes past statements on the ban that could be used to support your position. Your responses have not addressed point.

 

I explained that the context of the article clearly shows that the church is lumping the priesthood ban with other racist institution. Your response has been to claim that this is merely my interpretation, but you have not shown why my interpretation is deficient.

 

And you keep building a straw man by talking about my right to believe what I want about the article.

 

Honestly, bluebell, you have been on this board for a long time and have been involved in many discussions. You certainly realize by now that a fruitful discussion can't take place unless people's actual agreements are addressed and supported with something more than mere assertions. So I want to give you an opportunity to prove your mettle in this arena. I listed several things you have not addressed yet. Knock me out (or at least put me on the ropes) by showing me where I'm wrong and by providing evidence (not assertion) to support your arguments.

[JarMan]

By my reading of all the evidence you present it only goes this far to support your premises:

 

1) that the priesthood ban originated from [was announced by] Brigham Young and not from God

2) that the church believes the priesthood ban itself [the theories to explain the ban] were racist.

 

This is a perfect example of arguing by repeating the original assertion, rather than addressing the counter-arguments.

[Brian 2.0]

From #105

Let's go back to your OP. You express that various news outlets got it wrong by saying that the ban was from Brigham Young and not God. The problem with your argument is that the article does not claim the ban was from God. It does not even hint that it was from God. What the article does say is this: "In 1852, President Brigham Young publicly announced that men of black African descent could no longer be ordained to the priesthood. . ." How can non-Mormons who read the statement come to any conclusion other than that the priesthood ban came from Brigham Young?

This piece of evidence states that Brigham Young announced the ban. It doesn't say that that ban was from God, I was never claiming that the document does that. I've always been firmly on the stance that the church is claiming "we don't know" for it's origins. But how is this a supporting quote that the ban was NOT from God? Are you saying that simply because they did NOT say it was from God, then that means the chruch's stance is that it was not from God?

From #124

"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.

Same quote as evidence. Again. I do not equate "In 1852, President Brigham Young publicly announced that men of black African descent could no longer be ordained to the priesthood. . ." as the church claiming the ban was not from God. To me this is a "here are the facts, it was announced, we can't find a revelation, etc" all supporting a "we don't know" stance on the ban's origins. It they wanted to say it wasn't from god, then simply add, "it was not from God". really easy to do that.

From #187

Here is the church's old stance on the origin of the priesthood ban: "The origins of priesthood availability are not entirely clear." Here is the church's new stance on the origin of the priesthood ban as per the article: "In 1852, President Brigham Young publicly announced that men of black African descent could no longer be ordained to the priesthood. . ." The old claim that it was "not entirely clear" has been discarded and replaced with the fact that Brigham Young implemented it based on the prevailing racial culture at the time.

And as mentioned earlier in this thread, Richard Bushman was quoted as saying, "it drains the ban of revelatory significance, makes it something that grew up and, in time, had to be eliminated." It's quite likely that Bushman contributed to the church's article so I think he would know what's he's talking about.

I put that part in bold because I do not think it supported by the evidence you put forth. I think the article is quite clear that Brigham Young implemented it, and that theories grew up to explain the ban, and the church disavows those theories. It goes on to show the "prevailing racial culture at the time" but plenty read this that these racist culture evidences put forth in the article are to show why the racist theories developed (just a slight step away from the ban itself).

As for Richard Bushman's quote, I believe he's being clear that he thinks the ban doesn't originate from God. And it's a reading that he can have of the article, just like you have that reading, but you and Bushman need to connect those last few dot that the article doesn't connect. It's really easy to connect them, and a lot of people are, but since they actually aren't connected in the article it leaves the window open for people not to connect them and continue to believe the ban originated from God.

I wish the article did connect those last dots and hopefully they do in a later statement.

Edited December 28, 2013 by Brian 2.0

[Brian 2.0]

This is a perfect example of arguing by repeating the original assertion, rather than addressing the counter-arguments.

 

You were just too quick to post.  I should have put them all in one post, but see above.  Also realize that a lot these points have been made by myself and others throughout the thread.  I'm not trying to avoid your counter-argument.  I just don't agree that the evidences for your counter-arguments say what you claim they are saying.

Edited December 28, 2013 by Brian 2.0

[Brian 2.0]

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?

This has been a key point of yours in this thread: The church condemns racism, the ban is racist, therefore the church has condemned the ban.

But look at this quote from the 2012 newsroom article. This is the same article that uses the "we don't know" stance.

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

So did the church condemn the ban back in Feb 2012? If so, how is this article a "game changer"?

[Calm]

My memory says Bushnan did not contribute....hmmm.where did I see that.

This is not the only discussion I've participated on this subject and for me, the more I learn the less I see Jarman's construction as likely at all. I have seen reasoning I am not interested in repeating but if I had to make a decision...and I don't...I would tend to lean in promoting a more divine origin at this point. I am not mentioning this as if it somehow proves any argument, it does not. I provide to explain why I am not interested in arguing any more about something I believe is based on false premises.

What is clear to me is that the article was not meant to be a statement or proclamation of policy or doctrine and people are going too far to use it as such, but was an attempt to provide the historical environment it appeared and continued in.

[Stone holm]

My memory says Bushnan did not contribute....hmmm.where did I see that.

This is not the only discussion I've participated on this subject and for me, the more I learn the less I see Jarman's construction as likely at all. I have seen reasoning I am not interested in repeating but if I had to make a decision...and I don't...I would tend to lean in promoting a more divine origin at this point. I am not mentioning this as if it somehow proves any argument, it does not. I provide to explain why I am not interested in arguing any more about something I believe is based on false premises.

What is clear to me is that the article was not meant to be a statement or proclamation of policy or doctrine and people are going too far to use it as such, but was an attempt to provide the historical environment it appeared and continued in.

I tend to agree. The release, it seems, was simply intended to clear the board of certain explanations.

[JarMan]

I provide to explain why I am not interested in arguing any more about something I believe is based on false premises.

 

You keep talking about this false premise that my argument is based on. Will you please identify what this false premise is?

[JarMan]

This has been a key point of yours in this thread: The church condemns racism, the ban is racist, therefore the church has condemned the ban.

But look at this quote from the 2012 newsroom article. This is the same article that uses the "we don't know" stance.

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

So did the church condemn the ban back in Feb 2012? If so, how is this article a "game changer"?

 

Brian, thank you for engaging. This is a very good question and one that I have been thinking about for awhile. The church issued two statements on February 29, 2012. One was in direct response to the Washington Post article. Here are the relevant quotes from that: 1) "We do not tolerate racism in any form." 2) "We condemn racism, including any and all past racism by individuals both inside and outside the church. The third relevant quote is "It is not known precisely why, how, or when this restriction began in the Church. . ."

 

The other article says, "The church unequivocally condemns racism, including any and all past racism by individuals both inside and outside the Church." The same statement also says, "The origins of priesthood availability are not entirely clear."

 

The 2013 article issues a similar condemnation to the  2012 statements in saying, "Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form." I would argue that this condemnation is slightly stronger than the 2012 statements, but this is not the crux of the difference. What is markedly different in the recent article is the absence of the "we don't know where the ban came from" line. In fact, the recent article affirmatively identifies the ban as coming from Brigham Young: "In 1852, President Brigham Young publically announced that men of Black African descent could no longer be ordained to the priesthood. . ." The position has changed from "It is not known precisely why, how, or when this restriction began in the Church" to we do, in fact, know why (racism), how (Brigham Young publically announced it), and when (1852) this restriction began.

 

In 2012 the church's position was to simultaneously condemn racism and (implicitly) defend the ban by using the polygamy defense (God commanded it). With this position, we didn't have to accept past leaders as being racist. The 2013 article doesn't try to have it both ways anymore or to shield leaders from blame. So the condemnation is the same (or stronger) but the why, how, and when of the restriction have been explained. "God commanded it" is no longer implied. To rely on the "God commanded it" explanation is to rely on past statements which have been superseded.

[Calm]

You keep talking about this false premise that my argument is based on. Will you please identify what this false premise is?

one of the false premises in my view is that your methodology for interpreting is valid.

 

"The two premises here are 1) that the priesthood ban originated from Brigham Young and not from God, and 2) that the church believes the priesthood ban itself was racist."

These are your conclusions if I am not mistaken, not your premises. Premises are the assumptions you start with, sometimes we accept it as given since they can't be proved, others which aren't common sense or generally accepted need to have factual basis.