Two New Ensign Articles Affirming Marriage Between A Man And A Woman

[Scott Lloyd]

I didn't see these teachings disavowed until after the Randy Bott interview.  But if there are statements from the leaders, I would love to see them.

So you want to see a disavowal of something that was not officially or definitively taught in the first place? Setting the bar a little high, aren't you?

Edited September 1, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Buckeye]

Sometimes it takes a while for the water to get to the end of the row.

 

I don't remember precisely what Bott was quoted as saying, but it seems to me there wasn't anything in his remarks about "caste systems" or lack of valiance in the pre-moratal existence.

 

Here you go. Bott isn't quoted as specifically advancing the "pre-mortal valiance" argument. Instead, he advances the much more palatable arguments that (i) blacks descended from cain, (ii) blacks are little kids who want to drive before they're ready, and (iii) discrimination is actually good for blacks. Frankly, I'm a little disappointed that God doesn't see fit to bless me and my sons to the same degree he blesses my wife and daughters. Adam was obedient in the garden. Why should us white men be cursed with the priesthood? 

 

 

In his office, religion professor Randy Bott explains a possible theological underpinning of the ban. According to Mormon scriptures, the descendants of Cain, who killed his brother, Abel, “were black.” One of Cain’s descendants was Egyptus, a woman Mormons believe was the namesake of Egypt. She married Ham, whose descendants were themselves cursed and, in the view of many Mormons, barred from the priesthood by his father, Noah. Bott points to the Mormon holy text the Book of Abraham as suggesting that all of the descendants of Ham and Egyptus were thus black and barred from the priesthood.

 

It’s not clear whether Joseph Smith, the religion’s founder, who ordained at least one black priest, supported the ban. But his successor, Brigham Young, enforced it enthusiastically as the word of God, supporting slavery in Utah and decreeing that the “mark” on Cain was “the flat nose and black skin.” Young subsequently urged immediate death to any participant in mixing of the races. As recently as 1949, church leaders suggested that the ban on blacks resulted from the consequences of the “conduct of spirits in the pre-mortal existence.” As a result, many Mormons believed that blacks were less valiant in the pre-Earth life, or fence sitters in the war between God and Satan. That view has fallen out of favor in recent decades.

“God has always been discriminatory” when it comes to whom he grants the authority of the priesthood, says Bott, the BYU theologian. He quotes Mormon scripture that states that the Lord gives to people “all that he seeth fit.” Bott compares blacks with a young child prematurely asking for the keys to her father’s car, and explains that similarly until 1978, the Lord determined that blacks were not yet ready for the priesthood.

“What is discrimination?” Bott asks. “I think that is keeping something from somebody that would be a benefit for them, right? But what if it wouldn’t have been a benefit to them?” Bott says that the denial of the priesthood to blacks on Earth — although not in the afterlife — protected them from the lowest rungs of hell reserved for people who abuse their priesthood powers. “You couldn’t fall off the top of the ladder, because you weren’t on the top of the ladder. So, in reality the blacks not having the priesthood was the greatest blessing God could give them.”

 

 http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/the-genesis-of-a-churchs-stand-on-race/2012/02/22/gIQAQZXyfR_story.html (bold mine)

Edited September 1, 2015 by Buckeye

[Buckeye]

So you want to see a disavowal of something that was not officially or definitively taught in the first place? Setting the bar a little high, aren't you?

 

Come on Scott. The 1949 statement signed by the entire FP taught as "doctrine" both the curse of cain and premortal valiancy. It's tough to get more authoritative or official than that.

[ALarson]

So you want to see a disavowal of something that was not officially or definitively taught in the first place? Setting the bar a little high, aren't you?

You can't be serious.  You really want to state that the reasons the blacks were denied the Priesthood were not "officially" or "definitively taught"?  Do you need to see all the quotes from the statements regarding this from past church leaders?

Edited September 1, 2015 by ALarson

[ALarson]

Here is just one from past leaders (and there are many more) :

Joseph Fielding Smith wrote:

"There is a reason why one man is born black and with other disadvantages, while another is born white with great advantage. The reason is that we once had an estate before we came here, and were obedient, more or less, to the laws that were given us there. Those who were faithful in all things there received greater blessings here, and those who were not faithful received less.... There were no neutrals in the war in heaven. All took sides either with Christ or with Satan. Every man had his agency there, and men receive rewards here based upon their actions there, just as they will receive rewards hereafter for deeds done in the body. The Negro, evidently, is receiving the reward he merits."

- Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, Vol.1, pages 66-67 

 

[Buckeye]

You can't be serious.  You really want to state that the reasons the blacks were denied the Priesthood were not "officially" or "definitively taught"?  Do you need to see all the quotes from the statements regarding this from past church leaders?

 

His logic is that, under current LDS teachings, "doctrine" requires endorsement by the unanimous FP/Q12, and so past statements by prophets or even the FP were not doctrine - even if they said the "d" word - because they didn't meet our modern standard. The problem with such an approach (apart from gross disingenuity) is that it undermines any claims by current leadership to define doctrine. Sure, the FP/Q12 may say in a united voice today that X or Y is doctrine, but in 25 years "doctrine" may required the combined voice of the FP, Q12, 7 Pres of 70, and 3 highest ranking female leaders. So today's doctrinal pronouncements are not really doctrine either. It's all just shifting sand.

[Scott Lloyd]

Here you go. Bott isn't quoted as specifically advancing the "pre-mortal valiance" argument. Instead, he advances the much more palatable arguments that (i) blacks descended from cain, (ii) blacks are little kids who want to drive before they're ready, and (iii) discrimination is actually good for blacks. Frankly, I'm a little disappointed that God doesn't see fit to bless me and my sons to the same degree he blesses my wife and daughters. Adam was obedient in the garden. Why should us white men be cursed with the priesthood? 

 

 

 http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/the-genesis-of-a-churchs-stand-on-race/2012/02/22/gIQAQZXyfR_story.html (bold mine)

So it was just as I remembered then. Bott's comments, though I certainly don't agree with them, were not properly cited to support what was being implied: that he supported the notion of "caste systems" and lack of valiance.

[Scott Lloyd]

You can't be serious.  You really want to state that the reasons the blacks were denied the Priesthood were not "officially" or "definitively taught"?  Do you need to see all the quotes from the statements regarding this from past church leaders?

What I remember is that attempts at explanations were all over the lot, with nobody really being able to settle on anything definitive.

 

The best we could come up with by way of consensus was "reasons known only to God" -- which pretty much how things stand today.

 

Now, to bring this thread derailment back to the point at hand, can you see anything comparable today with regard to homosexual behavior being a sin? That is, inconsistent opinion on the matter among the Church leaders and the bulk of the membership of the Church?

 

I will answer for you. No. The clear and definitive word is that homosexual behavior is not acceptable now and will never be acceptable.

Edited September 1, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[cinepro]

His logic is that, under current LDS teachings, "doctrine" requires endorsement by the unanimous FP/Q12, and so past statements by prophets or even the FP were not doctrine - even if they said the "d" word - because they didn't meet our modern standard. The problem with such an approach (apart from gross disingenuity) is that it undermines any claims by current leadership to define doctrine. Sure, the FP/Q12 may say in a united voice today that X or Y is doctrine, but in 25 years "doctrine" may required the combined voice of the FP, Q12, 7 Pres of 70, and 3 highest ranking female leaders. So today's doctrinal pronouncements are not really doctrine either. It's all just shifting sand.

 

That's what I find lacking in modern apologetics.  There is no awareness of linear time.  Critics are accused of being "presentist", but the past is most harshly judged not by critics, but by defenders who must marginalize anything that was said or done in the past that doesn't align with whatever argument they need to make at the present.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

What I remember is that attempts at explanations were all over the lot, with nobody really being able to settle on anything definitive.

 

The best we could come up with by way of consensus was "reasons known only to God" -- which pretty much how things stand today.

Yes  Scott there were opinions of varying degrees given but you see if we accept that then we must abandon the SSM in the temple meme.

 

I don't ever remember being taught what JSF said. I have heard it but I was never taught that in any coarse at church and I never heard it over the pulpit.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

I didn't see these teachings disavowed until after the Randy Bott interview.  But if there are statements from the leaders, I would love to see them.

The Randy Bott response did not disavow past doctrine. There is no disavowal until the recent priesthood essay. The official line from the church after Randy Bott is we don't know and those views "should be viewed as speculation and opinion, not doctrine. The Church is not bound by speculation or opinions given with limited understanding."

[Scott Lloyd]

Yes  Scott there were opinions of varying degrees given but you see if we accept that then we must abandon the SSM in the temple meme.

 

I don't ever remember being taught what JSF said. I have heard it but I was never taught that in any coarse at church and I never heard it over the pulpit.

Here's what I added to my post:

 

Now, to bring this thread derailment back to the point at hand, can you see anything comparable today with regard to homosexual behavior being a sin? That is, inconsistent opinion on the matter among the Church leaders and the bulk of the membership of the Church?

 

I will answer for you. No. The clear and definitive word is that homosexual behavior is not acceptable now and will never be acceptable.

 

[cinepro]

What I remember is that attempts at explanations were all over the lot, with nobody really being able to settle on anything definitive.

 

The best we could come up with by way of consensus was "reasons known only to God" -- which pretty much how things stand today.

 

 

No, the best "we" could come up with was "Early in its history, Church leaders stopped conferring the priesthood on black males of African descent. Church records offer no clear insights into the origins of this practice."  The current summary doesn't try to attribute it to God, even circumspectly. 

 

The worst that could happen would be to attribute the ban to God without a good reason to do so (which would only serve to perpetuate it far longer than it would have otherwise been.)

 

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/od/2

[Scott Lloyd]

The Randy Bott response did not disavow past doctrine. There is no disavowal until the recent priesthood essay. The official line from the church after Randy Bott is we don't know and those views "should be viewed as speculation and opinion, not doctrine. The Church is not bound by speculation or opinions given with limited understanding."

What is "speculation and opinions given with limited understanding" is the reasons for the restriction. The restriction itself has never been disavowed.

[ALarson]

What I remember is that attempts at explanations were all over the lot, with nobody really being able to settle on anything definitive.

This still does not mean that reasons for the ban were not taught or stated by the church leaders.  Just because you think they were "all over the lot" doesn't change that fact.   So for you to claim that there never were any reasons "officially" or "definitively taught" is not true.  You might not feel that they were in agreement with each other, but there were reasons for the ban taught (by Prophets and leaders).  And, from what I've read, their statements did pretty much all agree as to the reasons.

Edited September 1, 2015 by ALarson

[Scott Lloyd]

No, the best "we" could come up with was "Early in its history, Church leaders stopped conferring the priesthood on black males of African descent. Church records offer no clear insights into the origins of this practice."  The current summary doesn't try to attribute it to God, even circumspectly. 

 

The worst that could happen would be to attribute the ban to God without a good reason to do so (which would only serve to perpetuate it far longer than it would have otherwise been.)

 

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/od/2

God said, "My thoughts are not your thoughts, and my ways are not your ways."

 

This affirms that there will always be things God says and does that are not immediately explainable and may not be for a long, long time.

[Buckeye]

So it was just as I remembered then. Bott's comments, though I certainly don't agree with them, were not properly cited to support what was being implied: that he supported the notion of "caste systems" and lack of valiance.

 

Correct. The Washington Post cited a higher authority than Bott - the First Presidency - for the lack of valiance argument.

Edited September 1, 2015 by Buckeye

[Zakuska]

rockpond asserted a few days ago that the expectation that the Church will one day drop its doctrine regarding the definition of marriage and begin solemnizing homosexual relationships in the temples is "ahead of schedule" on the arbitrary 40-year timeline and even ventured the suggestion that we shave five to 10 years off the timeline.

 

Comes now the September issue of the Ensign magazine with two articles by Elder Bruce C. Hafen affirming the Lord's definition of marriage, particularly as it pertains to the temple:

 

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2015/08/the-proclamation-on-the-family-transcending-the-cultural-confusion.p1?lang=eng

 

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2015/09/the-temple-and-the-natural-order-of-marriage?lang=eng

 

So, as reflected in the official magazine of the Church of Jesus Christ, we are nowhere closer to the change that rockpond and Dehlin predict than we were seven months ago when I started the countdown clock.

 

Which now shows this much time remaining in the 40 years:

 

39 years, 5 months, 1 week, 3 days, 2 hours, 56 minutes and 29 seconds.

 

We have no need to fear of a SSM ever being performed in any of our temples because they are strictly religious in nature.  That's why a man and woman must seak a "sealer" in the temple.  A Eternal Sealing isn't a marriage.  Now Bishops being forced to perform a SSM "till death do you part" in a ward house isn't beyond imagination.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

I was nearly 24 when the revelation on the priesthood was announced, two years home from my mission, not far from college graduation. I clearly remember the times before that, and I'm telling you that when the doctrine on blacks and the priesthood was discussed in Church meetings at all, (which was seldom), there was nothing I remember about "caste systems" and pre-mortal or post-mortal segregation. Those ideas are foreign to my experience and my memory, and I have been active in the Church since infancy. Moreover, because of interest in current affairs, stemming from my chlldhood, particularly as they related to the Church, I was very much aware of the discourse on this and other issues.

 

You are about 30 years too young to speak definitively on this. By the 1970's the rank and file of the church was ready for the change.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

What I remember is that attempts at explanations were all over the lot, with nobody really being able to settle on anything definitive.

 

The best we could come up with by way of consensus was "reasons known only to God" -- which pretty much how things stand today.

 

 

Again your recollections are about 30 years too late to be relevant here. Things were much clearer in the 1940's than the 1970's when it comes to why we had the priesthood ban.

[KevinG]

The reason the leaders issued this statement is clearly expressed:

 

And, here is the entire quote:

 including ellipses.  

[DJBrown]

And over on the Mark E Peterson thread we have almost 600 posts discussing why doctrine taught by prophets and apostles can be disavowed.  And devout members stating emphatically that the position of the church is that the ban never came from God.  If that's the case, than it doesn't really matter whether or not it was prophesied that the ban would be lifted -- it was of men, not god.  The same justification can be used in 40 years.

 

Where is it stated by the church that the ban never came from God?  It isn't stated anywhere.  The theories proposed to explain the ban have been disavowed.  That is not the same thing as stating that the ban did not come from God.

[ALarson]

 including ellipses.  

Yup.  At least I included them to give context to the quote (as that is exactly how it was quoted in the statement from church leaders, I did not add the ellipses).  It all came from a quote by President McKay and he clearly states what subject he is addressing.  You left that out of what you quoted.

 

You also neglected to quote the purpose the leaders stated for issuing this statement and then tried to pass it off as not pertaining to just blacks and the Priesthood.

 

So here it is again:

In view of confusion that has arisen, it was decided at a meeting of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve to restate the position of the Church with regard to the Negro both in society and in the Church.

 

Edited September 1, 2015 by ALarson

[DJBrown]

In 40 years, same sex "marriage" will be as unthinkable in a Gospel context as it is today.

 

To think ssm may someday be OK with God is not much different than thinking we may one day receive a new revelation that states families really can't be sealed for eternity.  Or that Christ really wasn't the Son of God.  The relationship between husband and wife could hardly be more fundamental in the plan of salvation.  To think such can be redefined seem irrational to me.  There is absolutely no conceivable (pun intended) role for a male-male or female- female sexual relationship in the eternities.  It seems to me that people are trying a little too hard to reconcile the philosophies of men with eternal truth.  

[KevinG]

Yup.  At least I included them to give context to the quote (as that is exactly how it was quoted in the statement from church leaders, I did not add the ellipses).  It all came from a quote by President McKay and he clearly states what subject he is addressing.  You left that out of what you quoted.

 

You also neglected to quote the purpose the leaders stated for issuing this statement and then tried to pass it off as not pertaining to just blacks and the Priesthood.

 

So here it is again:

 

No.  I did not.

 

I was making the point that "This plan" could refer not just to the plan for blacks, but the idea that the Gospel plan existed before this earth (not eliminating the belief that blacks not receiving the priesthood before 1978 could be part of that plan.

 

The question still remains what was in the ellipses between the statements.  I'm guessing it was verbiage that shows while the letter was addressing blacks and the priesthood, the general statement about the Gospel plan was intended to circumscribe that the entire plan was established before our existence, not just the rules about priesthood.

 

My   was for your insistence on having a broader quote while ignoring the fact that the article itself was edited.