Zakuska Posted December 17, 2015 Author Posted December 17, 2015 38 minutes ago, consiglieri said: This might be a good idea to point out that competing narratives exist in the Old Testament as to who could have the priesthood. The primary narrative, and the one Mormons have focused on, is that of the tribe of Levi, who reportedly sided with Moses at the golden calf debacle, and under his command slew a bunch of the non-Levite Israelite debauchers. For this act of loyalty, they were blessed with the priesthood which would be restricted to that line. Scholars believe this is an etiological story written back into the text to justify the Levite priesthood which became established much later. But it fails to explain the numerous Old Testament characters who officiated in priesthood ordinances who were not Levites. Including David who was, of course, from Judah. These stories appear to be remnants of a time when the priesthood was not restricted exclusively to Levites. This also explains why the book of Hebrews goes to such lengths to justify the great Melchezidek High Priest having Priesthood even though no one offered at the Altar for that tribe.
rongo Posted December 17, 2015 Posted December 17, 2015 12 minutes ago, Gray said: Yes, officially silent, except that they also repudiated all racism, past and present. Those who have ears to hear, let them hear. That cuts both ways, too. Reading modern liberal/progressive definitions of racism into the past is one thing. You're projecting your socio-political orientation to make the stretch that condemning all racism, past and present, denotes criticism of the priesthood ban. The essay very carefully avoids judging the policy itself, repudiating the explanations only. by your definition, the ban was racism on its face, simply because it was in place.
Senator Posted December 17, 2015 Posted December 17, 2015 (edited) 11 minutes ago, rongo said: That cuts both ways, too. Reading modern liberal/progressive definitions of racism into the past is one thing. You're projecting your socio-political orientation to make the stretch that condemning all racism, past and present, denotes criticism of the priesthood ban. The essay very carefully avoids judging the policy itself, repudiating the explanations only. by your definition, the ban was racism on its face, simply because it was in place. So I guess what the essay needed to express better, is that not all racism is created equal? And to caution against viewing the ban as racist. Otherwise the writers would need to modify their language of disavowing all racism past and present. Edited December 17, 2015 by Senator
rongo Posted December 17, 2015 Posted December 17, 2015 What is racism, though? My middle school students accuse me of being racist all the time when I ask them to get back on task. It's become sort of a throwaway term approaching Godwin's Law (the race card). If they wanted to disavow the ban and state that God had nothing to do with it, why didn't they come out and say so? Why use a vague catch-all phrase condemning all racism? I'm against racism, too, but I won't concede that the ban was racist simply because it was in place. Hypothetical: if God did command the ban, was it still racist? I know that for some, it's a ridiculous thought experiment, because God would never ever have done that, etc. But, if, if, if He did, would it still be racist? Was He racist for limiting the priesthood and temple service to one tribe? Or expunging people of mixed heritage from temple service (Ezra/Nehemiah)? Was Jesus racist for commanding the apostles not to take the gospel to the Gentiles? When the essay condemns all racism, past and present, is it condemning Jesus, Ezra, Moses, etc.? Or, is it condemning actual racism, past and present? 1
Jeanne Posted December 17, 2015 Posted December 17, 2015 1 hour ago, Buckeye said: The direction of the church action is more telling the the current church position. Previously the church did have a reason and that reason came from God. Now the church does not have a reason and no longer claims that God was involved. Instead, the essay portrays the development as a function of the time and place where the church existed. So while we're not there yet, it's clear to me that the direction will eventually take us to the church confirming that God was not involved and the policy was just the creation of man. By that time, the vast majority of members will have already come to that conclusion on their own. As is unfortunately the case in our times, the church's teachings tend to follow the changes in members' views rather than lead them. But at least the members are (slowly) changing their views on this subject. Thanks be to the "world" which is the primary factor moving church members forward. Bingo...and I am not changing the topic here but just making an observation..the new policy in the handbook..your whole paragraph here could be of the same direction. Someday, this policy too, will be changed because of the development of the time and place..
Senator Posted December 17, 2015 Posted December 17, 2015 6 minutes ago, rongo said: What is racism, though? My middle school students accuse me of being racist all the time when I ask them to get back on task. It's become sort of a throwaway term approaching Godwin's Law (the race card). If they wanted to disavow the ban and state that God had nothing to do with it, why didn't they come out and say so? Why use a vague catch-all phrase condemning all racism? I'm against racism, too, but I won't concede that the ban was racist simply because it was in place. Hypothetical: if God did command the ban, was it still racist? I know that for some, it's a ridiculous thought experiment, because God would never ever have done that, etc. But, if, if, if He did, would it still be racist? Was He racist for limiting the priesthood and temple service to one tribe? Or expunging people of mixed heritage from temple service (Ezra/Nehemiah)? Was Jesus racist for commanding the apostles not to take the gospel to the Gentiles? When the essay condemns all racism, past and present, is it condemning Jesus, Ezra, Moses, etc.? Or, is it condemning actual racism, past and present? Those are all good questions. And it is those questions that expose the weaknesses of the essay, in my estimation. If they wanted us to consider the possibility of a divine mandate for the ban, then perhaps they should have not have made such a blanket disavowal of all racism, sans definition of the same.
consiglieri Posted December 17, 2015 Posted December 17, 2015 23 minutes ago, rongo said: My middle school students accuse me of being racist all the time when I ask them to get back on task. ??? Are you blogging during class?
Gray Posted December 17, 2015 Posted December 17, 2015 45 minutes ago, rongo said: That cuts both ways, too. Reading modern liberal/progressive definitions of racism into the past is one thing. You're projecting your socio-political orientation to make the stretch that condemning all racism, past and present, denotes criticism of the priesthood ban. The essay very carefully avoids judging the policy itself, repudiating the explanations only. by your definition, the ban was racism on its face, simply because it was in place. A ban on black people is racist, by definition. It has nothing to do with liberalism. In any case, no one can say that the ban was inspired by God and claim to be saying so in harmony with the church's position, which is a nice step forward.
consiglieri Posted December 17, 2015 Posted December 17, 2015 24 minutes ago, rongo said: Hypothetical: if God did command the ban, was it still racist? I know that for some, it's a ridiculous thought experiment, because God would never ever have done that, etc. But, if, if, if He did, would it still be racist? Of course it would be racist. The question isn't who does it, the question is what it does. The priesthood ban restricted those men belonging to a specific race from receiving the priesthood--based on no other identifying factor than their race. It also restricted those women and men belonging to a specific race from entering the temple--based on no other identifying factor than their race. That is racism. Pure and simple. The question isn't whether the priesthood ban was racist. The question is whether God is racist. Circumstance has thrust the decision upon us. But when it comes down to a decision as to whether God is a racist, or whether Church leaders have been racist . . . . . . I am going to go with Church leaders every time.
rongo Posted December 17, 2015 Posted December 17, 2015 8 minutes ago, consiglieri said: ??? Are you blogging during class? I've never blogged, but I do follow some message boards. It's the slow season. District computer-based testing, final wind-down going into Christmas break.
rongo Posted December 17, 2015 Posted December 17, 2015 8 minutes ago, Gray said: In any case, no one can say that the ban was inspired by God and claim to be saying so in harmony with the church's position, which is a nice step forward. Sure they can.The Church has never said that it wasn't inspired, so people can absolutely think that it was and be in harmony with the Church's position. Especially since the Church doesn't have a position on whether it was inspired or not.
rongo Posted December 17, 2015 Posted December 17, 2015 16 minutes ago, consiglieri said: But when it comes down to a decision as to whether God is a racist, or whether Church leaders have been racist . . . . . . I am going to go with Church leaders every time. Do you believe in God still?
Gray Posted December 17, 2015 Posted December 17, 2015 (edited) 21 minutes ago, rongo said: Sure they can.The Church has never said that it wasn't inspired, so people can absolutely think that it was and be in harmony with the Church's position. Especially since the Church doesn't have a position on whether it was inspired or not. The church does not teach that the ban was inspired, so to say that it was you have to go beyond what the church is teaching. If the church leaders wanted that message to be spread, they would surely be spreading it themselves. Edited December 17, 2015 by Gray
rongo Posted December 17, 2015 Posted December 17, 2015 And the opposite is also true. To teach that it was not inspired is to go beyond what the church is teaching. If the church leaders wanted that message to be spread, they would surely be spreading it themselves. I think the good thing about the essay was that it allows room for both views, without causing a "showdown." 1
Buckeye Posted December 17, 2015 Posted December 17, 2015 2 hours ago, Bob Crockett said: Yes. Don't make sarcastic references to suspending the law of chastity. Open your heart to the possibility that maybe the Brethren are right in their approach and you're incorrect. Read your Bible. Don't go onto Mormon-themed boards as an anonymous critic of the Church. You asked for my advice. I wouldn't even ask myself for advice. It may be wrong and I may not want to follow it. I don't recall asking your advice. And it's a little odd that you would give so much advice and then tell people to not follow it. FWIW, for most of my life I believed the ban was the will of God. I actively taught that on my mission. It was reading the scriptures and listening to the spirit that eventually opened my eyes to the brethren's error. I have no problem saying they were wrong on this point of doctrine. My parents are wrong sometimes. That doesn't stop me from holding them as my parents and continuing to follow their example as they repent and become closer to Christ. Same thing with church leaders. Humility and the ability to acknowledge errors are actually signs of strength that true disciples will follow.
Buckeye Posted December 17, 2015 Posted December 17, 2015 2 hours ago, rongo said: If things end up transpiring that way, it will sap a lot of energy and enthusiasm from many members. Pronouncements of Church leaders will all be taken with a grain of salt, because they would all be subject to change in the future. My counter-vision for how this will play out is that the Church will remain very cautious and non-committal about the reasons behind the ban. At this point, this all ended 37 years ago, and counting. I think this will actually come to be less and less an issue in the coming years, not more. That is, the potential for social change to drive a perceived need to give a mea culpa on this issue will weaken over time. Our early leaders strongly emphasized the need for members to their own testimonies rather than relying on church leaders. The church will be stronger, not weaker, when most members begin to follow that counsel. As to the ban, so long as the church continues the current "we don't know" position, the % of members who conclude the ban was not inspired will only increase. As that happens, the ban itself will become less of an issue. But the ability of church leaders to claim they cannot lead the members astray will decrease. That's the real, and growing, issue. 1
consiglieri Posted December 17, 2015 Posted December 17, 2015 3 hours ago, rongo said: I've never blogged, but I do follow some message boards. It's the slow season. District computer-based testing, final wind-down going into Christmas break. Could you PM me the name of your school? And the principal? Don't ask for personal information even in jest. -Ares
consiglieri Posted December 17, 2015 Posted December 17, 2015 49 minutes ago, rongo said: Especially since the Church doesn't have a position on whether it was inspired or not. Just one of the benefits of having 15 prophets, seers and revelators.
consiglieri Posted December 17, 2015 Posted December 17, 2015 49 minutes ago, rongo said: Do you believe in God still? Yes. A non-racist God.
consiglieri Posted December 17, 2015 Posted December 17, 2015 13 minutes ago, Buckeye said: FWIW, for most of my life I believed the ban was the will of God. Me, too, Buckeye. Believing Church teachings made me a bigot once. I do not intend to repeat the mistake.
consiglieri Posted December 17, 2015 Posted December 17, 2015 11 minutes ago, Buckeye said: But the ability of church leaders to claim they cannot lead the members astray will decrease. That's the real, and growing, issue. This!
rongo Posted December 17, 2015 Posted December 17, 2015 12 minutes ago, consiglieri said: Could you PM me the name of your school? And the principal? Cassius University. I guess Dr. Scratch would be my immediate supervisor.
rongo Posted December 17, 2015 Posted December 17, 2015 12 minutes ago, consiglieri said: Yes. A non-racist God. But not the Restoration any more, correct?
SeekingUnderstanding Posted December 17, 2015 Posted December 17, 2015 16 minutes ago, consiglieri said: Could you PM me the name of your school? And the principal? Are you his mother?
Guest Posted December 17, 2015 Posted December 17, 2015 Answer to the OP and statement issued in the early days of the Church in Utah during Brigham's days as leader of the 12 and Prophet and President. We belong to a Church that believes in (and rightly so) continuing revelation and that our Prophets as of old are the mouthpiece of God. So much of what Joseph taught is contained with the Doctrine and Covenants as canonized scripture. As the Church has evolved only 3 others Prophets have added (with the Aproval of the 12) to that Book of Scripture; Brigham Young, Wilford Woodruff, Joseph F Smith and Spencer W Kimball. This by the way, our Prophets and Presidents, show great respect and restraint when it comes to revelation, and avoid unnecessary messy finger and footprints upon the "Lord's Church". In any event some things are worthy of note...Joseph ordained Black people and made no effort to claim to have received a revelation to be added to the Doctrine and Covenants, while President Young and others acknowledged that the "policy" would one day end. Seldom does "doctrine" ever end. I have noted in Sunday School classes as a teacher and as a student that I believed it to be a policy based on social thinking of that day and a missed opportunity and a mistake. Each time I have done this, I have met with some approval and much hostility. We do not question or leaders, so even a casual remark in a book or a conference talk becomes doctrine in the minds of those who fail to see (like Moses) they are men who have opinions, human weaknesses, while serving under extreme circumstances. I believe that great men, with great human weakness, which makes what they accomplish even more so amazing, proceeded with a policy that was flawed. I believe that one day, these great men will come to understand this and continue the healing process. Does (or did) punish the children for the sins of the parents? Yes, but those days have long ended as stated in our Americian Constitution and in our own Articles of Faith...that "men are punished for their own sins and not Adam's transgression". In the OT, appears the scripture (pointing to the time of Christ), "that the children will no longer have their teeth set on edge for the sour grapes their parents have eaten" (a paraphrase, not sure if I quoted it correctly). I for one rejoice that the policy has ended and that it ended a few short months before the missionaries blessed me when coming to my home.
Recommended Posts