2015 Curriculum

[mormonnewb]

Depends on the definition of racist.  There is ample evidence in scripture of God favoring one race over another at various times.

Some might argue that it was only ever cultures and not races, but I'm not so sure the scriptures uphold that.  Even to the point that Israel is called a "chosen" race in scripture, logically meaning that there are races that weren't chosen by God.  There are also many, many other scriptures along these lines.

 

So if the "ban" was placed because the early leaders were racists then sure it's racist.  If the ban was placed because God told the early leaders to place it, is it still racist?  Possibly - depends on God's reasoning.

 

I don't find any support for the view that Israel was a RACE, any more than being Mormon is a RACE.  Sure, most Israelites were of Palestian-descent, just as most Mormons are of European descent.  However, in both cases, it was possible to become one of the "chosen" people by becoming subject to the covenant.  That isn't the case with racial classifications.  They are immutable.  And that is why the concept of racism is so deplorable to many, because it involves the denial of rights/benefits/opportunities on the basis of an immutable condition.  It is the exact opposite of NOT being judged for Adam's transgressions.

[teddyaware]

Are you serious?  YES it was racist!  And all of those arguments defy logic.  Can you really not see the difference in saying that "Only this group of people can have this responsibility" and "EVERYONE can have this responsibility except for this group?"  And the only difference between the groups is race.  Please explain how that is not racist.

The "logic" is that I believe the leaders of the Church, past and present, are men of God and not racists. Therefore, I presume you believe most of the Church leaders since Brigham Young were mostly racists. You may feel comfortable making such accusations against the Lord's anointed, I do not. I give the prophets of the latter-days the benefit of the doubt that the ban was God's will and that in the fullness of time, when all the mysteries of God are revealed, we will come to understand that there were good and godly reasons for the ban that few can imagine, but when revealed will shock and humble those who have judged their own prophets harshly.

Like God's command for Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, which likely deeply traumatize both father and son, there are divine mysteries that seem harsh and unkind, but in the end a greater good is accomplished. What will you say to the Lord if in the end, like the Abrahamic sacrifice, the ban proves to be a great blessing and boon in disguise? Will you apologize to Him and to His prophets? Or will you persist in maintaining your incorrect assumptions?

Edited October 1, 2014 by teddyaware

[mormonnewb]

The "logic" is that I believe the leaders of the Church, past and present, are men of God and not racists. Therefore, I presume you believe most of the Church leaders since Brigham Young were mostly racists. You may feel comfortable making such accusations against the Lord's anointed, I do not. I give the prophets of the latter-days the benefit of the doubt that the ban was God's will and that in the fullness of time, when all the mysteries of God are revealed, we will come to understand that there were good and godly reasons for the ban that few can imagine, but when revealed will shock and humble those who have judged their own prophets harshly.

Like God's command for Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, which likely deeply traumatize both father and son, there are divine mysteries that seem harsh and unkind, but in the end a greater good is accomplished. What will you say to the Lord if in the end, like the Abrahamic sacrifice, the ban proves to be a great blessing and boon in disguise? Will you apologize to Him and to His prophets? Or will you persist in maintaining your incorrect assumptions?

 

So you would rather believe that GOD was a racist rather that his imperfect vessels bought into a racist ideologies of their time?  Especially when we have evidence that at least some of them DID (or do you think that God was a John Bircher like ETB)?  Strange logic, my friend.

[volgadon]

 Sure, most Israelites were of Palestian-descent,

 

Umm, no. The most that I've seen scholars argue is that Dan might have been Aegean, allied with the Philistines at one point.

[Guest]

Are you serious?  YES it was racist!  And all of those arguments defy logic.  Can you really not see the difference in saying that "Only this group of people can have this responsibility" and "EVERYONE can have this responsibility except for this group?"  And the only difference between the groups is race.  Please explain how that is not racist.

Amen; if it were my race who could not receive the Priesthood...a very easy call. This entire issue is something that only God could undo, by creating within us a new heart. "Come now, let us reason"...it was wrong and it was racism. So him who asked the question...yes there is one, now two, then three, until at long last, all will see it for what it was.

As I said before...Ironic to note, I never attended a single Church service with someone of another race, until I joined this Church. If I had never converted and remained in my childhood Church, I would still have never attended a Church service with someone of another race. I still remember in the late 60's a Black gentleman came in and sat quietly on the back row...as service had just began, when two deacons got up and very politely told him he could not stay and they gave him an address of a place he could find a Black Church. My mother saw this an was livid! As I remember it was along afternoon while my father tried to explain what happened.

[JLHPROF]

I don't find any support for the view that Israel was a RACE, any more than being Mormon is a RACE.  Sure, most Israelites were of Palestian-descent, just as most Mormons are of European descent.  However, in both cases, it was possible to become one of the "chosen" people by becoming subject to the covenant.  That isn't the case with racial classifications.  They are immutable.  And that is why the concept of racism is so deplorable to many, because it involves the denial of rights/benefits/opportunities on the basis of an immutable condition.  It is the exact opposite of NOT being judged for Adam's transgressions.

 

Um, Israelites, descended from Jacob/Israel through his 12 sons.  Pretty sure that makes them one race.  They may have intermarried with other races, but we don't have that evidence.

We have further scripture that says those descended from his grandson Ephraim is even more chosen.

[mormonnewb]

Um, Israelites, descended from Jacob/Israel through his 12 sons. Pretty sure that makes them one race. They may have intermarried with other races, but we don't have that evidence.

We have further scripture that says those descended from his grandson Ephraim is even more chosen.

We know that Abram circumcised all of his male servants. Should we assume that they were all of his lineage? And what about the Ethiopian Jews? Which of the 12 tribes were they from?

God seems to have accepted ALL those who would assume the covenant. Isn't that what we mean by being a "covenant" people?

[mormonnewb]

Um, Israelites, descended from Jacob/Israel through his 12 sons. Pretty sure that makes them one race. They may have intermarried with other races, but we don't have that evidence.

We have further scripture that says those descended from his grandson Ephraim is even more chosen.

By the way, was it the LINEAGE of Ephraim or the HOUSE of Ephraim? I don't know if one needed to be related by blood to be adopted into the House of Ephraim. Just as in our Church, we are assigned into the 12 tribes and it's not simply a matter of race, is it?

[JLHPROF]

By the way, was it the LINEAGE of Ephraim or the HOUSE of Ephraim? I don't know if one needed to be related by blood to be adopted into the House of Ephraim. Just as in our Church, we are assigned into the 12 tribes and it's not simply a matter of race, is it?

 

Well, adoption is an entirely different issue.  The fact remains that scripturally God has chosen certain lineages/races and wiped out others.

[mormonnewb]

Well, adoption is an entirely different issue.  The fact remains that scripturally God has chosen certain lineages/races and wiped out others.

 

I would say that he has chosen certain PEOPLES.  That is apart from race.  For example, He would often order the Israelites to wipe out an entire group of people, but He didn't seem to make exceptions within that group to spare those of Jewish DESCENT within their midst.  For instance, I find it hard to believe that the Amalekites didn't have ONE Jew within their midst, even as a servant or as someone with 1/2, 1/4, 1/8 Jewish ancestry.  And certainly, there had to be some people amongst the Amalekites who were of other nationalities or lineages.  Yet, NONE were to be spared.  That seems like less of an issue of racial classification as affiliation.

 

In the same way, if some group wanted to kill ALL Americans, it wouldn't limit itself to just white Americans or even those who were born in the country.  We would ALL be considered the enemy because of our affiliation with the nation.

 

This isn't just a logical command (a non-native Amalekite or American is just as dangerous as a native-born person).  It also has an element of justice to it.  HF poured out his wrath on the ENEMIES of His people, not just members of certain races.

[katherine the great]

The "logic" is that I believe the leaders of the Church, past and present, are men of God and not racists. Therefore, I presume you believe most of the Church leaders since Brigham Young were mostly racists. You may feel comfortable making such accusations against the Lord's anointed, I do not. 

Well good for you.  Maybe you will come down and visit me in the afterlife.  The prophets were men of their time and yes, by our standards today some of them were racist.  In time and place, I couldn't really say I would have thought much differently.

[katherine the great]

  There is ample evidence in scripture of God favoring one race over another at various times.

 

I won't argue with that, but don't you see the difference between that and favoring ALL races except for one?

[sunstoned]

I haven't looked at the manual yet, but I am wiling to wager my first born (not happy with his grades these days anyway) that there will be NONE of his Bircher-esque teachings in the manual.  Should there be?

 

On the one hand, I understand that we don't want to dredge up bad things for the sake of just doing so.  And I'd certainly hate for someone to publish a collection of the worst things I've ever written on this board.

 

On the other hand, I see us falling right back into the faith-promoting/"you lied to me" conundrum.  What happens to the well-meaning EQ/HP/RS instructor who goes to the Internet to get some more "context" for his/her next lesson and runs into one of his Benson's diatribes against, say, Dr. King (or fluoride ... sorry, couldn't help myself).  Seriously, I can see someone feeling mighty disillusioned when they learned that we were only presented with SOME of the teachings of the prophet.

 

Perhaps, this is unavoidable in some sense, but I just listened to an iTunes course on the Reformation in which the professor was very candid about Luther's anti-semiticism.  He read some of the worst quotes.  He didn't try to defend them, but he did attempt to add some context so we could understood how Luther came to such wrong-headed conclusions.  I don't imagine any of the Protestant students walked out of that class thinking, "Luther was a flawed man.  I'm going back to Catholicism."  I assume they simply accepted Luther for what he was -- appreciating his courage and doctrinal innovations, yet deploring his intolerance towards Jews.

 

Why can't we Mormons do the same with our beloved leaders?

I believe we can and should be more forthright with our history.  The life and times of the leaders could be told in a straightforward manner that is still within a faithful framework.  Honesty is always the best policy.

[HappyJackWagon]

 

The "logic" is that I believe the leaders of the Church, past and present, are men of God and not racists.

I really think you need to reread the Race and the Priesthood essay. It clearly states that in many ways people are products of their time and circumstances. If you can't believe there were racists in the church then you also don't believe the essay put out by the church. Pull your head out of the sand and read it with clear eyes, searching to see what it says instead of trying to force it into your current paradigm.

[teddyaware]

I really think you need to reread the Race and the Priesthood essay. It clearly states that in many ways people are products of their time and circumstances. If you can't believe there were racists in the church then you also don't believe the essay put out by the church. Pull your head out of the sand and read it with clear eyes, searching to see what it says instead of trying to force it into your current paradigm.

I did reread the statement just yesterday, and it in no way denies that the ban was divinely authorized. Rather, the statement rejoices in the fact that the ban was lifted by revelation from the God of Heaven Himself. There is no hint nor indication the Lord revealed to the leaders that there shouldn't have been a ban in the first place.

Now to make myself clear (I thought I had already made my thoughts plain), I said I didn't believe the prophets of the Church were racists but, rather, that they were and are loving and compassionate men of God who with sincerity always seek to follow Nephi's admonition when he said:

33 For none of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he doeth that which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile. (2 Nephi 26) 

 

One of the main reasons why many cannot accept the divine authenticity of the ban is because they have only a surface understanding of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Hundreds of times throughout the scriptures God uses curses to accomplish greater good than might otherwise have been accomplished if the curses had never been decreed.

 

The very fall of man, and the casting out of Satan and his host upon the face of the earth, is an enormous  curse that has passed upon the entire human family -- a curse that has initiated an earthly reign of endless bloodshed, wars, murder, hatred, cruelty, crimes of every stripe, disease, degradation, prolonged and agonizing death, unfathomable sorrow and a chain of millions upon millions of broken hearts. Yet the curse of the fall is a blessing in disguise. Paradoxically, it is simultaneously, for mortals, the greatest of curses and the greatest of blessings. A temporary priesthood ban, issued as an Abrahamic test of faith, pales when compared to the effects of the curse of the great fall that has passed upon all of us.

 

Jesus Christ Himself was the most cursed man who ever lived:

13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree: (Galatians 3)

and,

7 And lo, he shall suffer temptations, and pain of body, hunger, thirst, and fatigue, even more than man can suffer, except it be unto death; for behold, blood cometh from every pore, so great shall be his anguish for the wickedness and the abominations of his people. (Mosiah 3)

 

The Son of God, who of all men deserved only the best of blessings, at His Father's seemingly cruel command ingested the sum total aggregate of all of the human race's bitterest sorrows, unbearable physical agonies and abject spiritual death. But again, this apparent greatest of curses, placed upon Him by His strict Father, turned out to be the greatest of blessings in disguise. Because He became the most cursed of all men, He rose from the grave as the Lord Of Glory.

 Since the beginning, God has been "blessing through cursing" people and peoples all along. In His mysterious economy, He curses  those he loves that even greater blessings might flow. But it has always been spiritual immaturity and lack of spiritual knowledge that has caused some to condemn God and His prophets for all these difficult to bear curses that are actually blessings in disguise. It's likely it was this same kind of spiritual immaturity that caused 1/3 of the host of heaven to be cast out of heaven because God's plan of salvation of and exaltation, gained through cursings, just seemed too cruel, unjust and unfair.

 

And so it is today: Because of superficiality of spiritual knowledge many can only conceive in their minds that the ban was an act of insensitive cruelty, perpetrated by backward and spiritually blind former prophets, even thought the scriptural warnings to only do otherwise were constantly before them. But what will you say to the Lord, and Brigham Young, if in the end, when all the mysteries of God's kingdom are revealed, that the ban was actually a divinely ordained an Abrahamic test -- another blessing in disguise that will ultimately redound to the black race in even greater glory than they otherwise might have had...

"And when these things come, bringeth to pass the scripture which saith, there are they who were first, who shall be last; and there are they who were last, who shall be first." (Ether 13)

 

Edited October 1, 2014 by teddyaware

[HappyJackWagon]

I hope I'm misunderstanding you.

 

 

But it has always been spiritual immaturity and lack of spiritual knowledge that has caused some to condemn God and His prophets for all these difficult to bear curses that are actually blessings in disguise. It's likely it was this same kind of spiritual immaturity that caused 1/3 of the host of heaven to be cast out of heaven because God's plan of salvation of and exaltation, gained through cursings, just seemed too cruel, unjust and unfair.
 
And so it is today:

So anyone who believes the ban was based in racism is spiritually immature like unto the 1/3 hosts of heaven who followed Satan. So we are like unto perdition? That's a strong statement.

 

The alternative way to view this is that a prophet, who is an imperfect man, made a mistake. He was influenced by his culture and time. There is no revelation to show that the ban was the will of God so we can accept a mistake was made. It's not the end of the world and he's not perdition for making a mistake. But if we don't recognize the mistake for what it is we are doomed to repeat it.

[katherine the great]

 

And so it is today: Because of superficiality of spiritual knowledge many can only conceive in their minds that the ban was an act of insensitive cruelty, perpetrated by backward and spiritually blind former prophets, even thought the scriptural warnings to only do otherwise were constantly before them. But what will you say to the Lord, and Brigham Young, if in the end, when all the mysteries of God's kingdom are revealed, that the ban was actually a divinely ordained an Abrahamic test -- another blessing in disguise that will ultimately redound to the black race in even greater glory than they otherwise might have had...

 

Says the white guy...  I haven't seen the argument on this thread that the prophets were backward and spiritually blind.  I have only seen the argument that they were men of their time (not backward in their time.)  This is supported by current statements from church leaders.

[JLHPROF]

Says the white guy...  I haven't seen the argument on this thread that the prophets were backward and spiritually blind.  I have only seen the argument that they were men of their time (not backward in their time.)  This is supported by current statements from church leaders.

 

I really don't believe for one second that racial bans came as a result of contemporary culture.

I prefer to believe that either the ban was instituted by God (scriptural) and later revoked or that these men misinterpreted God/scripture.

[juliann]

 :

33 For none of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he doeth that which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile. (2 Nephi 26) 

 

So you think that those people, who had never seen anyone remotely black (or white, no one has white skin) divided themselves up into "black and white" skin colors? Seriously? You are the one who suffers with those make believe distinctions, not them. Why in the world would skin colors that don't even exist end up in categories that are clearly opposites?  Probably because black and white refers to righteousness in ancient texts....I kind of like to think of the BOM as ancient....

[HappyJackWagon]

I really don't believe for one second that racial bans came as a result of contemporary culture.

I prefer to believe that either the ban was instituted by God (scriptural) and later revoked or that these men misinterpreted God/scripture.

The essay references racism while at the same time discussing the ban and the theories so it seems clear to me BUT I think it's also true that the men (prophets) misinterpreted God's scripture. Prophets make mistakes. If we can admit that the scale of the mistake is the only question. The mouthpiece of God misinterpreting God is a pretty serious charge, perhaps equal to or even exceeding the mistake of allowing racist tendancies or culture to influence decisions.

[teddyaware]

I hope I'm misunderstanding you.

 

So anyone who believes the ban was based in racism is spiritually immature like unto the 1/3 hosts of heaven who followed Satan. So we are like unto perdition? That's a strong statement.

 

The alternative way to view this is that a prophet, who is an imperfect man, made a mistake. He was influenced by his culture and time. There is no revelation to show that the ban was the will of God so we can accept a mistake was made. It's not the end of the world and he's not perdition for making a mistake. But if we don't recognize the mistake for what it is we are doomed to repeat it.

I can absolutely guarantee you that if it was the Lord's will that the ban be overturned anytime during those 136 years between 1852 and 1978, the Lord would have put an end to it.

The Lamanites were in a very similar situation prior to the ministry of the sons of Mosiah, many hundreds of years after the Lamanite lineage was first cursed. Except for the very few original perpetrators of the wickedness that first caused the curse to come upon them, all the rest of the many of the tens of thousands of Lamanites were innocent of the wrongdoing that caused the curse to come upon that race of men. Yet the Lord, in His mysterious economy, caused the curse to continue for hundreds of years.

When King Lamoni and all the other Lamanite converts to Christ were taught the Gospel by Mosiah's courageous sons, they were presented with an Abrahamic test: 1) Continue to believe in the traditions of their fathers that the Nephites were evil, cunning liars and racially prejudiced perpetrators of fraud and injustice upon their Lamanite progenitors 2) Come unto the Lord's side in spite of the curse and all the problems and injured emotions it seemed to cause and perpetuate. Many of these extraordinarily faithful Lamanites passed that exceedingly difficult Abrahamic test with flying colors, and it was said of them that they were possessed of greater righteousness and faith than any of the Nephites before them. And that faith and righteousness, in no small part, came as a result of successfully passing their great Abrahamic test. 

 

Our black brothers and sisters of the Dispensation of the Fullness of times will be similarly blessed if the each of them, as individuals, passes their great Abrahamic test. The redeeming power of Christ is most glorified when it overcomes the very worst manifestations of hatred and enmities that can exist between individuals, peoples and nations, especially when that hatred and enmity seems perfectly justified.

 

P.S. To answer the main thrust of your post: Spiritual blindness is what caused the 1/3 host to fall and I believe it is spiritual blindness that causes some to rail against the leaders of the Church who for 136 years, maintained the ban until the Lord directed them to do otherwise. I said nothing of perdition, only that said blindness is what is causing some to fail to sustain the Lord's anointed on this one point of contention.

 

It's back to work. I'll be gone for hours. All the best to all...

Edited October 1, 2014 by teddyaware

[teddyaware]

So you think that those people, who had never seen anyone remotely black (or white, no one has white skin) divided themselves up into "black and white" skin colors? Seriously? You are the one who suffers with those make believe distinctions, not them. Why in the world would skin colors that don't even exist end up in categories that are clearly opposites?  Probably because black and white refers to righteousness in ancient texts....I kind of like to think of the BOM as ancient....

Your presentation is imbalanced. You focus in on that one scripture while ignoring all the others that speak of the Lord's curses (blessings in disguise) on certain lineages. These curses are real and cause enmity and friction. But, yes, it is the Lord's will that through the Spirit we learn to overcome the prejudices of the natural man and come to love and serve all the human race with the pure love of Christ. Nevertheless, the curse are real and it is only through the power of God that brotherly love can prevail between those who are cursed and those who are not.

Like I have been trying to say: these curses are Abrahamic tests to see who by faith will learn to overcome the unrighteous inclinations of the prideful fallen nature.

You seem to be trying too hard to find fault by zeroing in on what I write that you disagree with, while seeming to ignore the rest of my presentation.

See you all much later...

Edited October 1, 2014 by teddyaware

[HappyJackWagon]

 

I can absolutely guarantee you that if it was the Lord's will that the ban be overturned anytime during those 136 years between 1852 and 1978, the Lord would have put an end to it.

 

How can you absolutely guarantee this? You hope it is true and even believe it is true because it fits the way you currently view things. That's ok. But you cannot "absolutely guarantee" this for 2 reasons.

 

1- You have no standing to make such a guarantee for God

2- You have no evidence to prove your point and no way of gaining this knowledge (If you want to claim the spirit, fine, but I can claim the spirit for the opposing view as well)

[teddyaware]

How can you absolutely guarantee this? You hope it is true and even believe it is true because it fits the way you currently view things. That's ok. But you cannot "absolutely guarantee" this for 2 reasons.

 

1- You have no standing to make such a guarantee for God

2- You have no evidence to prove your point and no way of gaining this knowledge (If you want to claim the spirit, fine, but I can claim the spirit for the opposing view as well)

Because I have a living testimony that God lives, the Church is true, and that the Lord has the power to do His will and make His will known when necessary, especially to His living oracles. Because of what I know for a surety, I don't vacillate somewhere in between having a vibrant faith in the Lord's chosen latter-day leaders (most especially at this extremely critical time of the worlds history) -- and having little to no faith in them.

Back to work...

[juliann]

How can you absolutely guarantee this? You hope it is true and even believe it is true because it fits the way you currently view things. That's ok. But you cannot "absolutely guarantee" this for 2 reasons.

 

1- You have no standing to make such a guarantee for God

2- You have no evidence to prove your point and no way of gaining this knowledge (If you want to claim the spirit, fine, but I can claim the spirit for the opposing view as well)

Sure he can, he is a white guy who is in a position to tell other ethnic groups what is good for them. That is one of those benefits of being "white."

 

And if you want to defend racism, Teddyaware, list the scriptures you think I don't understand.  I mean, I'm white...I get to interpret them for the benefit of those not white people, too! But here's the deal...we use documentation from accredited scholars rather than our blessed white status.