Mark E Petersen On Race

[Robert F. Smith]

So, was the Priesthood ban doctrine during Brigham Young's time (the current Prophet) and up until the ban (practiced during many other "current Prophets")?  Or do you believe it was not consistent with scripture and the Holy Ghost?

It was "doctrine" all right -- False Doctrine.

[Robert F. Smith]

I'm surpised to hear you say this. We've had numerous discussions about the essay where this very question has been debated. Most recently, as I recall here:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/65353-bishop-dismisses-sunday-school-teacher-for-using-essay

 

In this thread, Scott Lloyd made the following comment (which you thought worthy of a rep point): --Sorry, Seeking, but I cannot find my rep point comment for Scott.  Could you point it out to me, please?

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/65353-bishop-dismisses-sunday-school-teacher-for-using-essay/page-9#entry1209493348

 

And a couple posts down:

 

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/65353-bishop-dismisses-sunday-school-teacher-for-using-essay/page-9#entry1209493365

 

 

In the same thread Rongo also expressed:

 

 

Going back further you can read a whole thread with a poll attached (where 62% of respondents thought the ban was not disavowed) here:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/62412-how-do-you-read-the-race-statement/

O.K.  I guess I must eat my words (with crow) and acknowledge the sheeple out there who actually accept that the ban was not disavowed.  Still, are you certain that most of those are TBMs, and that a random sample of TBMs would agree with that conclusion (after reading the essay).  If so, I'm mystified.  I think we need better data.

Edited September 1, 2015 by Robert F. Smith

[bcuzbcuz]

It was "doctrine" all right -- False Doctrine.

The church principle of not allowing blacks to receive the priesthood, prior to 1978, was the reason my (now deceased) wife left the church. She became a member a few months after we married (1969) and at first, accepted the explanation (provided by the missionaries and the bishop) that skin colour reflected the level of obedience in the pre-existence. But upon reflection, the churches stance caused an ever increasing amount of dissonance for her, that finally led to her leaving the church for good.

Back then, the churches stance made some modicum of sense, an explanation for racial differences.....until reality raised its ugly head. If God had given a policy that people with black skins were not made of the right stuff, then what about people who were half negroid? Could they receive half the priesthood? What if a person was 60% white, but 40% negroid? Or 99% white, but 1% negroid?

Was it so, that a person who "looked" white could receive the priesthood, while a person who "looked" black would be denied. (And no, I have no statistics to back up the previous sentence) But I do have relatives that "returned" two adopted first nations childen they had in their family for 13+ years, when upon these boys reaching their rebellious teen years, the family took their deeper tans as signs that the boys had started living less faithfully and more sinfully.

I cannot find any reason why the church policy, prior to 1978, was anything less than a racist policy.

Do you know of anyone who was less than 100% negroid that received the priesthood (post JS)?

[CV75]

I'm not sure how to make this any more clear: http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/65955-mark-e-petersen-on-race/page-27#entry1209532270

Oh—must have gotten lost in the sauce.

 

Moral offenses would be acts which deny right of property or life, take away this world’s goods from someone, put one or a group in jeopardy of either life or limb, or inflict any physical punishment upon them. The Church was and is acting consistently with D&C 134:10 (paraphrasing):  We believe that all religious societies have a right to deal with their members [according to their ideology], according to the rules and regulations [and practices] of such societies; provided that such dealings be for fellowship and good standing; but we do not believe that any religious society has authority to [abuse or deny] men on the right of property or life, to take from them this world’s goods, or to put them in jeopardy of either life or limb, or to inflict any physical punishment upon them.

 

To further paraphrase, those offended for these or any other reasons can remove themselves them from the society and withdraw from fellowship. 

 

The mere fact that you and others don't consider the racism  of the ban and subsequent teachings an immoral act is precisely why the church needs to apologize and thus signal that YES, this was an immoral act.

No, it was not an immoral act; please see first comment in this post. 

 

HappyJack gave a solid response in post 572 to your points so I'll just add that I too am laughing... at the amount of spin you have to place on this matter to avoid admitting that the church should follow its own teachings and apologize.

Now you’re just reducing your part in the discussion into a shouting match.

 

What about practices and actions that are undertaken based on ideology?

Please see first comment in this post. 

Edited September 1, 2015 by CV75

[HappyJackWagon]

 

Happy Jack's oinking and grunting has no validity. None.

 

I just wanted to quote this because it's funny. . . and classy

 

Russell would have made a great Pharoah because he speaks with such power and authority. So let it be written, so let it be done.

Edited September 1, 2015 by HappyJackWagon

[SeekingUnderstanding]

O.K.  I guess I must eat my words (with crow) and acknowledge the sheeple out there who actually accept that the ban was not disavowed.  Still, are you certain that most of those are TBMs, and that a random sample of TBMs would agree with that conclusion (after reading the essay).  If so, I'm mystified.  I think we need better data.

I think that most people in the church think that God for unknown reasons instituted the ban (this holds in talking to my family, select friends and neighbors and participation at boards like these). The official church position on the subject appears to be agnostic (see heading for OD 2 which simply states: " Church records offer no clear insights into the origins of this practice. ")

 

As for the essay, I think people take from the essay what they bring to it. If they already thought the ban was of man, the essay reinforces this idea. If they thought the essay was from God, there is nothing in the essay that specifically says it wasn't. 

 

When I click to view who repped the post below, I see Robert F. Smith:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/65353-bishop-dismisses-sunday-school-teacher-for-using-essay/page-9#entry1209493348

[Ares]

Knock off the personal comments.