Bishop Dismisses Sunday School Teacher For Using Essay.

[Scott Lloyd]

Scott, if this is really the only interpretation the church was going for why did they state: "given the long history of withholding the priesthood " as the reason a revelation was "believed" to be needed instead of something like:

"Because the Lord instituted the ban by revelation, a revelation was needed to end the ban." Is it your opinion that the church is unaware of how people are interpreting this essay (as saying the ban is not from God)? If they are aware (and given the media attention it received I can't imagine they would not be) why haven't they updated the language to clarify this important point? It seems like other essays have been updated multiple times for clarity since they have been published, I wonder why no one has looked at this one.

 

ETA - I'm not claiming that the church is stating the ban was uninspired, only that they are leaving the door wide open for members who wish to believe this. My opinion is that the current leaders of the church don't know (or don't agree on) if it was inspired or not.

As I wasn't involved in the preparation of the essays, and no one  has consulted me about them before or since they were published, I don't think I'm the one to put those questions to. All I can do is give you my interpretation of the wording as it now stands and my reasoning for that interpretation. You may do with it what you will.

[rockpond]

By trying to fix blame?  How does that help solve current problems?

 

Maybe I missed something.  Is someone trying to fix blame?

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Yes, let's strip the Church of Jesus Christ of its uniqueness and turn it into just another Protestant sect.

 

Striking how often these ark-steadying arguments seem to boil down to doing just that.

I appreciate you not using the all-inlcusive "all" right here.

A leap backwards towards Protestantism would be absolutely horrific.

[Scott Lloyd]

Yes he didn't say " the essay amounts to an admission that the Church was in error to leave it in place" but neither did Buckeye when you told him "I think you're out of line in telling them that."

 

I don't think he should be telling young people in a Church setting that they are "welcome to conclude" that the Church was in error when the Church itself has not said that.

 

Did you read what calmoriah posted? I see that as a far wiser approach.

[ERayR]

Maybe I missed something.  Is someone trying to fix blame?

 

It always comes down to blaming BY and painting him as a racist.

Edited May 6, 2015 by ERayR

[BookofMormonLuvr]

I believe the Lord had to be very frustrated that He had to give a revelation correcting such an obvious blunder.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

As I wasn't involved in the preparation of the essays, and no one  has consulted me about them before or since they were published, I don't think I'm the one to put those questions to. All I can do is give you my interpretation of the wording as it now stands and my reasoning for that interpretation. You may do with it what you will.

And its your interpretation that the only way to read the essay that makes not a single reference to the revelatory nature of the ban, is that the ban must have been inspired. I really don't get that, but okay. 

[Scott Lloyd]

 

Disavowing past theoretical explanations for it is not the same as declaring the past policy as being in error.

 

Disavowing all past racism does that. 

 

From the essay:

 

 

Notice that they go out of their way not to say that the original ban was inspired, only that its long history may have necessitated a revelation

 

 

Also, OD 2 is quoted

 

The logical conclusion is, if it were not in accordance with the will of God that the restriction remain in place, He would have told these leaders by revelation to remove it when they asked, and not required them to wait for want of inspiration. It is clear from the statement of President Kimball in particular that he was eager and anxious to remove it (spending many hours in the upper room of the Temple supplicating the Lord) and would have readily done so the moment he received divine direction to that effect.

 

In order to remove it unanimity had to be reached among the 15. The earliest date for that seems to have been 1978, 

 

Disavowing all past racism does not declare the pre-1978 practice to be in error. You are making an a priori assumption that it came about in the first place only due to racism, not because it conformed to the will of God.

 

On the unanimity thing, there had never been an instance prior to 1978 of the president of the Church declaring to have received a specific revelation from God in answer to his supplications on this question.

Edited May 6, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

And its your interpretation that the only way to read the essay that makes not a single reference to the revelatory nature of the ban, is that the ban must have been inspired. I really don't get that, but okay. 

And I think it is you who is jumping to conclusions, but OK.

[BlueDreams]

While there isn't enough information provided to know what might have gone on in the class that may have prompted the "Mormon youth" to entertain and then ask his two VERY UNUSUAL questions, I'm still somewhat suspicious it might have been the teacher's own discussion points that caused the questions to enter into the youth's mind in the first place. I'm doubtful there is a specific lesson in any of the LDS Sunday school manuals for the youth that would contain the kind of information that would spur the sort of thinking that prompted this youth to ask his two extraordinary questions.

...

 At any rate, if I was the teacher it would never even enter into my mind to attempt to broach such a sensitive subject with the youth under my sacred charge, when to my way of thinking it's the child's own parents and/or the bishop who should address such a controversial subjects. I wouldn't even try such a stunt with adults, let alone with the delicate and impressionable minds of our youth. For this reason I think it's possible we're dealing with another overwrought ark-steadier. 

 

It's not a very unusual question. Particularly if you black, part black, or married to someone black (in this case). You get these questions/assumptions far more often. When I was a teen in TX this entailed volleying weird questions from non-members about believing black people were demons or that mormons are white. On the mission, particularly once I had a brown companion (Samoan) they asked why we were part of a white or racist church. And in mormon settings it comes with either discomfort around the topic, assumptions that I am a convert or my people are converts (some are, most aren't), etc. There is also more frank discussions about race if the audience is more brown (doesn't matter the minority group, race is just talked more openly). And that ignores the fact that the younger gen is often more exposed or interested in the more controversial issues. They're also far enough removed that many don't feel a need to defend the policy and end up feelings a little unsettled about it. So considering this happened in honolulu (more racially mixed wards) to a teacher with a black convert wife....no it does not in the least seem unusual to me.

 

 

And no, I wouldn't skirt around "sensitive issues"...all that does is teach kids that I'm uncomfortable with it and that it's not an okay topic to talk about....which is what the parents/bishop is doing. Plus with this topic, where there is so much misinformation, false beliefs, and continued issues around it...relying on people who may or may not have a good hold on the issue isn't helpful. And having the bishop answer a question (which teachers are supposed to do anyways) sounds way too much like micromanaging. I wish I had this info when I was a teen and just finding out more about the ban and the beliefs around it. I found out from the internet, and was skeptical about it. I heard it a little from a seminary teacher (just that there was a ban with little info beyond that). My mother was the one who told me (and believed) in the curse of cain/ham/whoever. When I discussed this with others, I could see their discomfort with the topic (still today)...partially because they knew little about it minus "common wisdom" and were suddenly looking in the face of someone half-black about this issue. In other words, without my natural desire to learn and personal digging with a mix of careful thorough readings through years, I would probably still be at a discomfort with this, feel unanswered, and be unsatisfied.

 

Who better to teach this than a man, fairly acquainted with the issue, and with a resource directly from the church specifically meant to address this issue in a faith promoting format? 

 

And maybe, because I'm only a few years removed from being a teen myself...or maybe because I was a teen when I found out all this "sensitive" info, but it's unproductive to treat them as delicate. Treat them like they're willing and able to learn and grasp concepts that are sometimes difficult. And assume that if you don't other voices will fill the gap and you may or may not like them. Most teens I've known do not have the privilege of being that sheltered.

 

With luv,

BD

[ERayR]

I believe the Lord had to be very frustrated that He had to give a revelation correcting such an obvious blunder.

 

It must be great to know with such assurance that it was a blunder.  Congratulations.

[Robert F. Smith]

Glad you have isolated the problem.  I suggest that a solution would be to increase the bishops salary and only hire those who have received their doctorate from an approved divinity school. 

Yeah, and better yet, rather than Harvard Divinity School or Gonzaga University, CES institutes and seminaries and the BYU campuses in Provo, Rexburg, Laei, and Jerusalem could all ramp up for doctoral programs in theology and ancient Near Eastern studies!!!  No more inferiority complexes when conversing with a Jesuit or a graduate of Princeton Theological Seminary.  Instead, we would be in like flint, playing ping pong with the big guys, right?

 

Wait a minute:  How did that work out for those guys, mingling philosophy with Scripture?  Never mind . . .

[SeekingUnderstanding]

I don't think he should be telling young people in a Church setting that they are "welcome to conclude" that the Church was in error when the Church itself has not said that.

 

Did you read what calmoriah posted? I see that as a far wiser approach.

I read the essay and that's exactly what the church was saying with it. The church is no longer defending the revelatory nature of the ban (or as Bushman stated, the essay drains "the ban of revelatory significance"). It might have been divinely instituted, but the leaders of the church don't know that (or aren't saying if they do).

[mormonnewb]

Anything that happened before 1978 is ancient history.  Is there anything that anybody can do to change it?  So instead of fixating on the past lets identify current problems and spend our time addressing the current problems.  Seems to me that is a much more productive approach.

 

Try to remember that on July 24th or July 4th for that matter.

 

In fact, why don't we cancel Christmas?  That event happened over 2000 years ago.  Why are we drudging up the past year after year?  Why don't we focus on addressing current problems?

 

Or is it only okay to remember our history if it's the part of our history that we are proud of?

[BookofMormonLuvr]

It must be great to know with such assurance that it was a blunder.  Congratulations.

 

Very freeing- I don't have to try to justify a man-made policy with no justification in scripture- especially in light of the Savior and His atonement.

[Gray]

Disavowing all past racism does not declare the pre-1978 practice to be in error. You are making an a priori assumption that it came about in the first place only due to racism, not because it conformed to the will of God.

 

No a priori assumptions are needed to conclude that a race-based ban is by definition racist. 

 

On the unanimity thing, there had never been an instance prior to 1978 of the president of the Church declaring to have received a specific revelation from God in answer to his supplications on this question.

 

As I understand it, there had been attempts prior to 1978

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Try to remember that on July 24th or July 4th for that matter.

 

In fact, why don't we cancel Christmas?  That event happened over 2000 years ago.  Why are we drudging up the past year after year?  Why don't we focus on addressing current problems?

 

Or is it only okay to remember our history if it's the part of our history that we are proud of?

I'd support that! Why use ancient sex-cult pagan holidays to worship the true God, when He has given us perfectly good Feasts in His Law?

[Gray]

Yeah, and better yet, rather than Harvard Divinity School or Gonzaga University, CES institutes and seminaries and the BYU campuses in Provo, Rexburg, Laei, and Jerusalem could all ramp up for doctoral programs in theology and ancient Near Eastern studies!!!  No more inferiority complexes when conversing with a Jesuit or a graduate of Princeton Theological Seminary.  Instead, we would be in like flint, playing ping pong with the big guys, right?

 

Wait a minute:  How did that work out for those guys, mingling philosophy with Scripture?  Never mind . . .

 

Who doesn't mingle philosophy with scripture? Scripture itself is mingled with philosophy.

 

As to how it's worked out for those guys, seemingly it's worked out well. Which is not to say that there are not advantages to a lay clergy. 

[Buckeye]

The Gospel Topics before the essays were added were never signed, why would they need to start now?

 

In general, I don't think the essays need to be signed. But when an essay disavows prior doctrine that disavowal should be signed by those whose role it is to establish doctrine. In 1951 the FP issued a signed letter saying that the curse of cain and premortal valiancy teachings were doctrine revealed from God. The race/priesthood essay express disavows those doctrines (though not necessarily the ban itself). So that's one example where I believe a signature of the FP is necessary. Only the FP can override prior FPs.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

And I think it is you who is jumping to conclusions, but OK.

Your the one who says the ban is inspired. You are the one who is out in front of the Brethren here doing the ark steadying. I'm sure you are aware of the OD 2 heading in the scriptures now:

 

Church records offer no clear insights into the origins of this practice. Church leaders believed that a revelation from God was needed to alter this practice and prayerfully sought guidance. 

 

I am not aware of any place where the church is currently defending the ban as divinely inspired. If the church claims not to know, I'd say the church is fine with either position (could have been a mistake, or could have been the will of the Lord) as long as we remain open to future light and knowledge. Teaching either as the only interpretation would not be inline with where the brethren are.

Edited May 6, 2015 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Tacenda]

I believe the Lord had to be very frustrated that He had to give a revelation correcting such an obvious blunder.

It took 3 years for a new prophet to be called after JS's death.  Makes me wonder why God would let the church hang without one for so long, where was He during that time, I wonder.  How do we even know BY was God's first choice. 

[thesometimesaint]

It took 3 years for a new prophet to be called after JS's death.  Makes me wonder why God would let the church hang without one for so long, where was He during that time, I wonder.  How do we even know BY was God's first choice. 

 

You'll have to ask him.

[ERayR]

Try to remember that on July 24th or July 4th for that matter.

 

In fact, why don't we cancel Christmas?  That event happened over 2000 years ago.  Why are we drudging up the past year after year?  Why don't we focus on addressing current problems?

 

Or is it only okay to remember our history if it's the part of our history that we are proud of?

 

Okay I'll play your game.  Who do we blame for July 4th?  Who do we blame for July 24th?  And most of all Who do we blame for Christmas?  Especially that over spending tradition at Christmas.

Edited May 6, 2015 by ERayR

[Robert F. Smith]

Nevertheless, given the long history of withholding the priesthood from men of black African descent, Church leaders believed that a revelation from God was needed to alter the policy

...............................................................

 

Church leaders believed a revelation was needed, not because the ban was divine, but because of a long history of withholding the priesthood?

...............................................................

When I read that comment, I think the intended context may be President David O. McKay being willing to lift the ban (since his research had shown no doctrinal basis for it), but he did not do so because of the objection of President of the Twelve Joseph Fielding Smith that a revelation was needed to lift the ban.  Members of the First Presidency and Twelve frequently defer to one another due to the deep need for unanimity.

Edited May 6, 2015 by Robert F. Smith

[mormonnewb]

 

It's not a very unusual question. Particularly if you black, part black, or married to someone black (in this case). You get these questions/assumptions far more often. When I was a teen in TX this entailed volleying weird questions from non-members about believing black people were demons or that mormons are white. On the mission, particularly once I had a brown companion (Samoan) they asked why we were part of a white or racist church. And in mormon settings it comes with either discomfort around the topic, assumptions that I am a convert or my people are converts (some are, most aren't), etc. There is also more frank discussions about race if the audience is more brown (doesn't matter the minority group, race is just talked more openly). And that ignores the fact that the younger gen is often more exposed or interested in the more controversial issues. They're also far enough removed that many don't feel a need to defend the policy and end up feelings a little unsettled about it. So considering this happened in honolulu (more racially mixed wards) to a teacher with a black convert wife....no it does not in the least seem unusual to me.

 

 

And no, I wouldn't skirt around "sensitive issues"...all that does is teach kids that I'm uncomfortable with it and that it's not an okay topic to talk about....which is what the parents/bishop is doing. Plus with this topic, where there is so much misinformation, false beliefs, and continued issues around it...relying on people who may or may not have a good hold on the issue isn't helpful. And having the bishop answer a question (which teachers are supposed to do anyways) sounds way too much like micromanaging. I wish I had this info when I was a teen and just finding out more about the ban and the beliefs around it. I found out from the internet, and was skeptical about it. I heard it a little from a seminary teacher (just that there was a ban with little info beyond that). My mother was the one who told me (and believed) in the curse of cain/ham/whoever. When I discussed this with others, I could see their discomfort with the topic (still today)...partially because they knew little about it minus "common wisdom" and were suddenly looking in the face of someone half-black about this issue. In other words, without my natural desire to learn and personal digging with a mix of careful thorough readings through years, I would probably still be at a discomfort with this, feel unanswered, and be unsatisfied.

 

Who better to teach this than a man, fairly acquainted with the issue, and with a resource directly from the church specifically meant to address this issue in a faith promoting format? 

 

And maybe, because I'm only a few years removed from being a teen myself...or maybe because I was a teen when I found out all this "sensitive" info, but it's unproductive to treat them as delicate. Treat them like they're willing and able to learn and grasp concepts that are sometimes difficult. And assume that if you don't other voices will fill the gap and you may or may not like them. Most teens I've known do not have the privilege of being that sheltered.

 

With luv,

BD

 

 

Thank you, sister.  Hopefully your reputation for being level-headed and reasonable will give credence to the point that I've been trying to make for quite some time -- black members of this Church can't just "let go" of the race thing because we are constantly confronted with it.  White saints might not ever have to think about it, but not one week goes by where someone (black or white) doesn't ask ME about the priesthood ban.

 

I guess it's not polite to ask a white saint, "Why were your parents so racist?"  That makes sense.  So instead, they ask ME.  And they ask children of color in the Church.

 

And while I know a few of you think that a "testimony bomb" is the answer to any conceivable question, I seriously doubt that clicking your heels three times and saying, "There's no church like home," is going to calm the anxiety of the young teen who is wondering why HF doesn't love her as much as the other children in the ward.  Or like my 11 year old son, is wondering when HF will turn him white too.