thesometimesaint Posted October 2, 2015 Posted October 2, 2015 So far the Church has not given an alternative interpretation. Who knows maybe it will in this weekends GC.
Thinking Posted October 2, 2015 Posted October 2, 2015 Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form. Was the priesthood ban a form of racism?
rockpond Posted October 2, 2015 Posted October 2, 2015 Was the priesthood ban a form of racism? If one can take all the baggage out of that word and just apply the simple definition then yes, the priesthood ban was a form of racism.
Thinking Posted October 2, 2015 Posted October 2, 2015 If one can take all the baggage out of that word and just apply the simple definition then yes, the priesthood ban was a form of racism. By baggage I am guessing that you mean that if it was racism, it would follow that the Church is condemning a major policy that was in place for over 100 years.
rockpond Posted October 2, 2015 Posted October 2, 2015 By baggage I am guessing that you mean that if it was racism, it would follow that the Church is condemning a major policy that was in place for over 100 years. Well, I do read that line as a condemnation by the Church of the ban but it's loose enough that I know not everyone reads it that way. But that isn't what I meant... I think that calling something "racist" seems to invoke some strong emotional reactions. But if we use the definition: "having or showing the belief that a particular race is superior to another", it is correct to call the ban racist. 1
Gray Posted October 2, 2015 Posted October 2, 2015 Was the priesthood ban a form of racism? Absolutely, yes.
Thinking Posted October 2, 2015 Posted October 2, 2015 Well, I do read that line as a condemnation by the Church of the ban but it's loose enough that I know not everyone reads it that way. Was it loose enough intentionally in order to refute the criticism that the Church was led astray?
rockpond Posted October 2, 2015 Posted October 2, 2015 Was it loose enough intentionally in order to refute the criticism that the Church was led astray? I don't know if I'd characterize it as "intentionally loose". I'd probably say that it is a bit of a "soft" statement that likely reflects a consensus view on the matter. In some ways the essay acknowledges that the church was led astray... in terms of the teachings about the ban, but not necessarily the ban itself (depending on how one reads the essay).
busybee Posted October 2, 2015 Posted October 2, 2015 I'm not saying they're always right, but they should know better than racism if they're the representatives and mouthpiece of God for our world. And why it took over a decade after the Civil Rights movement to finally allow blacks to the priesthood. What I'm getting at is I think the right church and it's leaders if inspired by God shouldn't have been so wrong for so many years on racism. The church should've been leading the way in the world in allowing blacks the priesthood, not being behind the times and waiting til 1978 when the civil rights movement was in the 60s.You seem to forget that the USA is only one country in a whole world. Many other countries eg. South Africa, Rhodesia, Northern Rhodesia and other AFRICAN countries had segregation policies. Some of them eg South Africa maintained these policies long after the ban was lifted (until 1992 actually). While the USA may have been ready in the 60's, other countries were not. A lot of African peoples were not, either, because of their tribal traditions etc. I feel you have a very US-centric understanding of the people of Africa. The prophet receives revelation for the world, not just the USA!! (Rant over. but I get really steamed when the US is seen as the only country that factors in the church)
BlueDreams Posted October 2, 2015 Posted October 2, 2015 You're really just restating the problem. How do we know that anything that prophets say is untainted? Because we like the way it sounds? Because we feel nice when we here it? We don't, and I don't think we should expect it. That's the point. I don't think there is any sure-fire way for anyone on earth to be 100% right, enlightened, or what have you. And I don't think that's God's standard for prophets (if the scriptures are any indication) but a cultural one. I'm okay with most ambiguity and not having all the answers or even being wrong. When I listen to conference or other formats where apostles/prophets are speaking I listen for what I personally need for my life. From time to time I hear something that doesn't fit my beliefs/expectations. I assume that maybe it's not fully right or I haven't really learned whatever point being made. I don't usually focus on those unless the topic really peaks my interest. Then I study it out, read about it, ponder, and pray about it. Sometimes I get an answer pretty quick. Most of the time my beliefs go through several periods of revision. It's not a perfect system and may not be satisfactory for you, but it works to me. Expecting church leaders to be untainted from the world, IMHO, is a recipe for disaster. With luv,BD 2
VideoGameJunkie Posted October 2, 2015 Posted October 2, 2015 (edited) busybee, so the prophet should wait until all countries are on board with the US before making a prophetic gospel decision that affects so many? That seems like a poor way to run things. And Brigham wasn't just saying blacks are bad, he was saying that marrying a black was punishable by death on the spot and will always be. That's not a prophet. That's purely plain evil devil speak, I don't care what century. That was evil. I understand prophets are human, but how can a prophet of the one true church speak such EVIL and hate? When I read his words it sounds more like something that Satan would say than God. Edited October 2, 2015 by VideoGameJunkie
HappyJackWagon Posted October 2, 2015 Posted October 2, 2015 (edited) Interestingly, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (strangites) accepted blacks into the priesthood in 1849. They also allow women to hold the offices of Deacon and Teacher. http://www.strangite.org/ Does anyone know if the Strangite church actually is a legall entity in the name of the church as opposed to a trademark like ours. It doesn't really mean much, just curious. Edited October 2, 2015 by HappyJackWagon
omni Posted October 2, 2015 Posted October 2, 2015 Interestingly, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (strangites) accepted blacks into the priesthood in 1849. They also allow women to hold the offices of Deacon and Teacher.http://www.strangite.org/Does anyone know if the Strangite church actually is a legall entity in the name of the church as opposed to a trademark like ours. It doesn't really mean much, just curious.Clearly this is evidence that the priesthood ban was of divine origins. Look at the current strength and numbers of The Church compared to that of the Strangites. This is a perfect case study for what happens when one relies on the arm of the flesh as opposed to the Lord. 1
VideoGameJunkie Posted October 2, 2015 Posted October 2, 2015 In case you couldn't tell Brigham Young is my least favorite prophet of any dispensation or in scripture. My favorite of the modern prophets is Howard W Hunter. He was the man.
Robert F. Smith Posted October 2, 2015 Posted October 2, 2015 (edited) busybee, so the prophet should wait until all countries are on board with the US before making a prophetic gospel decision that affects so many? That seems like a poor way to run things. And Brigham wasn't just saying blacks are bad, he was saying that marrying a black was punishable by death on the spot and will always be. That's not a prophet. That's purely plain evil devil speak, I don't care what century. That was evil. I understand prophets are human, but how can a prophet of the one true church speak such EVIL and hate? When I read his words it sounds more like something that Satan would say than God.Well, of course, Brigham wasn't executing anyone for such "crimes" -- unlike the Priest Phineas, who stabbed an Israelite man and a Midianite woman in the groin for intermarriage (Numbers 25:8 ), and for which he received the praise of the Lord (Num 25:11). Unlike the great Prophet Samuel, who personally executed Agag (I Sam 15:11,32-33), and who ordered the slaughter of a whole people, the Amalekites, men, women, and children (I Sam 15:3), which is genocide. Or unlike John Calvin, who actually burned people at the stake for disagreeing with his theology. Martin Luther said horrific things about the Jews, and about how their synagogues should all be burned -- which gave great solace to the Nazis on Kristallnacht. Are you now going to condemn the Bible, Judaism, and the Christian religion in general for these horrific, Satanic acts? Is it God's fault? Presentists like you have no concept of the things people have believed and practiced in times past. From our perspective, of course they were wrong, but that is conveniently from our perspective. In the present. Edited October 2, 2015 by Robert F. Smith 2
VideoGameJunkie Posted October 3, 2015 Posted October 3, 2015 (edited) Never been called a presentist before. Sounds like a compliment not an insult. We live in 2015 where we can look at the atrocities of the past. Yes I condemn all scripture where people are commanded to kill innocent women and children. That doesn't seem like God to me. Not the God I've been taught. And besides one of the articles of faith is we believe the bible as far as it is translated correctly. Those could be false translations or made up stories we don't know. Why would God want bloodshed and killing of children and women? Are you saying you defend these atrocities just because they're in your scriptures? Edited October 3, 2015 by VideoGameJunkie
Robert F. Smith Posted October 3, 2015 Posted October 3, 2015 Never been called a presentist before. Sounds like a compliment not an insult. We live in 2015 where we can look at the atrocities of the past. Yes I condemn all scripture where people are commanded to kill innocent women and children. That doesn't seem like God to me. Not the God I've been taught. And besides one of the articles of faith is we believe the bible as far as it is translated correctly. Those could be false translations or made up stories we don't know. Why would God want bloodshed and killing of children and women? Are you saying you defend these atrocities just because they're in your scriptures?Rather than making ridiculous accusations, you need to carefully read what people write. I repeat what I just said to you:"From our perspective, of course they were wrong, but that is conveniently from our perspective. In the present." 2
VideoGameJunkie Posted October 3, 2015 Posted October 3, 2015 What accusations have I made that are ridiculous? And when we do see what horrible mistakes people of the past have done, are we supposed to hold them up on a mantle still like we do with those that have made grievous errors? I mean everyone still holds Brigham Young up to the highest of praises still, even knowing what he said and what he taught and believed. I'm fine with following Thomas S Monson today, but we have to admit some prophets aren't as great as members of the church and apologists have made them. Brigham Young is considered a saint and the modern day Moses and has colleges named after him with graven images of his statues. We idolize him still.
Robert F. Smith Posted October 3, 2015 Posted October 3, 2015 What accusations have I made that are ridiculous?You said to me "Are you saying you defend these atrocities just because they're in your scriptures?" And when we do see what horrible mistakes people of the past have done, are we supposed to hold them up on a mantle still like we do with those that have made grievous errors? I mean everyone still holds Brigham Young up to the highest of praises still, even knowing what he said and what he taught and believed. I'm fine with following Thomas S Monson today, but we have to admit some prophets aren't as great as members of the church and apologists have made them. Brigham Young is considered a saint and the modern day Moses and has colleges named after him with graven images of his statues. We idolize him still.Perhaps you hold Brigham up and idolize him. I don't. Unlike some silly billies, I have never regarded any of the prophets as infallible. They are humans just as you and me, and can make "grievous errors." That has always been true. Or perhaps precisely because you previously idolized some such person, you are now so disappointed and traumatized to find them to be human that you now overreact and inordinately despise them, and much that is associated with them. I don't know of any so-called "apologists" who have idolized any prophetic figures. As for your talk of "graven images," you might want to reflect on the images of Moroni which top most of our temples today. Is there something inherently wrong with that? Have you ever seen students bow down to those statues of Brother Brigham? Or to Moroni? 4
VideoGameJunkie Posted October 3, 2015 Posted October 3, 2015 (edited) It is very traumatizing when you find out one of your prophets was just so wrong and said horrible things while the mouthpiece of God. It takes a lot to recover. I mean I can even get over that he had 55 wives and actually slept with these women but the racism Adam God doctrine blood atonement men living on the sun stuff just all adds up to someone I held to a higher standard. Should I not trust any prophet or hold them to have integrity? And I already mentioned in a previous thread that I felt uncomfortable with the gold Moroni statues on top of temples coming out of tithing money. Edited October 3, 2015 by VideoGameJunkie
VideoGameJunkie Posted October 3, 2015 Posted October 3, 2015 But I'll end my mini apostasy because I support today's leaders and have the best Bishop and Stake President a guy can get and I love Thomas S Monson. I would love to meet with him one day. I met Gordon B Hinckley and he was so funny. I was just having a problem with history and our church origins. I love the way the church is today.
Thinking Posted October 3, 2015 Posted October 3, 2015 With 3 openings in the Quorum of the 12, the LDS Church has a chance to show that what is written in the race essay isn't just lip service. If a man of color is called, I hope he's young enough to have a chance to become the president.
busybee Posted October 3, 2015 Posted October 3, 2015 busybee, so the prophet should wait until all countries are on board with the US before making a prophetic gospel decision that affects so many? That seems like a poor way to run things. And Brigham wasn't just saying blacks are bad, he was saying that marrying a black was punishable by death on the spot and will always be. That's not a prophet. That's purely plain evil devil speak, I don't care what century. That was evil. I understand prophets are human, but how can a prophet of the one true church speak such EVIL and hate? When I read his words it sounds more like something that Satan would say than God.I'm saying that perhaps God understood that giving Priesthood authority to many men in Africa who, besides living in political conditions that were less than ideal for them, were living in a traditional society which, in many cases was a matriarchal order,would make their 'authority' useless to them at the time. If the church were of a Matriarchal order and the men held the Priesthood which authority would be recognised. Only the last 2 (at a stretch) generations of African people are not too bothered by the strict tribal laws that ruled their society, although tribal leaders still exist and are recognized by their people and the government (in South Africa).Brigham Young's pronouncement on mixed marriages was a product of the times. It's called Presentism. BTW in South Africa mixed marriages were illegal until 1992 and are still not mainstream ( mixed race children are not happily embraced by black Africans) Like I said, with a bit of insight into Africa and her people, things take on a different light. Insight which I'm sure God has in spades.
SmileyMcGee Posted October 3, 2015 Posted October 3, 2015 Will a prophet get ex'd for teaching false doctrine after correction? Yes, at least in theory. Will a prophet get ex'd for teaching his own personal ideas about said doctrine? No.interesting, you think a prophet today could be excommunicated for false teaching. My point was that leaders and apologists are quick to excuse prophets words and behavior as a result time and culture in which they lived. That doesn't seem to be the case for the rank and file.
Recommended Posts