Doctrinal Mastery Changes

[stemelbow]

16 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So it becomes a question of whether one can ascribe racism -- which is a very human failing -- to God. Given my belief that God is perfectly just and omniscient, I'm not willing to do that.

 

Actually me neither.  that's why I say the ban was never God's will. 

[stemelbow]

14 hours ago, rongo said:

For those who believe that the ban was racist, that it wasn't from God, that it was a mistake, etc. . . .

Do you believe that "the Church" (whoever ultimately came up with the wording for the statements in the Newsroom and essay) was specifically denouncing the ban as racist in making the statements about "all racism, past and present?"

No.  I don't think that the Church was necessarily denouncing the ban as racist. 

14 hours ago, rongo said:

We all agree that the statements are very "wordsmithy" and PR-centric. But what we don't agree on is whether the Church is including the ban in that racist basket. Many on one side turn to the dictionary and say that racist means exclusionary, full stop. No matter why --- ergo, the Church was by definition racist. I don't think anyone (except the side arguing that position) has conceded that that dictionary definition settles the disagreement ("then your argument is with the English language . . ."). 

It sounds to me more like it would be if a statement was made in the aftermath of the "BYU rape culture" disagreement that BYU/the Church condemns "all sexual assault, in any form, past and present" in a PR statement in an effort to move forward in a PR way. Such a statement wouldn't at all accept responsibility or admit to the charges leveled against BYU/the Church; rather, it would seek to give affirmation to those who felt hurt or wronged by BYU/the Church, without agreeing that BYU/the Church had indeed hurt or wronged them.

I see the statements about "all racism, in any form, past and present" as being the same. The goal was to give affirmation to those seeking it and make clear that the Church does not support or condone racism, without agreeing that the Church and the ban were, in fact, racist. The essay/statement tried to thread a pretty thin needle, denouncing "all" theories and explanations, but notably not the ban itself or its origins. This left room for people (like me) who believe that the ban and its aftermath were intended by God, but also room for those who believe in the Church but hate the history and aftermath of the ban. 

It's a thin line. I, for one, would prefer a lot less of the attorneys and PR-types running the Church in the COB.  I think they did as well as they could, trying to make as many happy as possible and driving away as few as possible. 

Good points.  I agree.

[stemelbow]

14 hours ago, rongo said:

Going along with that, if we all agree that the ban was racist, based on a strict dictionary definition, then the question is:

Is that always a bad thing?

"Racist" has all sorts of modern connotations and baggage. There is clearly scriptural precedent for all kinds of restrictions that are "racist" or another kind of -ist based on a strict dictionary definition. I know that the progressive crowd would then insist that all past things that don't toe the line of modern (current) sensibilities about race, gender, orientation, etc. are by definition "bad" and not of God, but this doesn't necessarily follow. This is the ultimate "presentism."

In this case, it was a bad thing.  It still hurts us world-wide.  It's terrible we have to deal with the effects of that ban these days. 

[stemelbow]

14 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I'm determined not to let this get buried.

There is a CFR outstanding that DBMormon has not yet answered.

 

Hey Scott,

I went back to see what this CFR is.  here is what Bill said:

Quote

And John Dehlin has reported he has a source that the policy will be walked back to something diminished from its current state in new Church leadership handbooks of instruction set to come out next year.  This thing whatever it was appears to on a path to the memory hole.

I don't think there's any reason for a CFR here.  There's nothing in this to suggest there is a reference for Dehlin's claim, or Bill's claim that Dehlin claimed to have a source.  Dehlin could have told Bill in a casual conversation for all we know.  I'm curious what you are expecting to get out of this.  We can't even link to Dehlin's site anyway. 

We all have to drop our CFR's at some point.  Sounds like a good time to move on. 

[Gray]

16 hours ago, bluebell said:

The definition of racist is to believe that one race is superior to another.  If the ban (as it was condoned by God--if it was) had nothing to do with the white race being superior to the black race, wouldn't that mean that, by definition, it wasn't racist?

Racism also means " racial prejudice or discrimination", which is precisely what the ban on blacks having the priesthood or attending the temple was. 

[Gray]

16 hours ago, cinepro said:

FWIW, the reason I believe that ban didn't originate from God isn't because of the racism issue.  It's because God is supposed to be smart, and the way the ban was implemented, applied, and rescinded is about the stupidest thing I can imagine from a logistical, genetic and spiritual view.

This cannot be overstated. Every single human on earth has African ancestors. 

[stemelbow]

Just now, Gray said:

Racism also means " racial prejudice or discrimination", which is precisely what the ban on blacks having the priesthood or attending the temple was. 

Racial superiority doesn't need be a part of something for it to be racist.  But it's got to be a mean joke if one thinks there was no racial superiority sentiment as a result of the ban. 

[Gray]

16 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If that's true, I'm glad, but it is not consistent with what you have been arguing.

It's consistent with what I've been saying. I have not made any strong, definitive statements about the intent behind the essay. 

[Gray]

16 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

My argument is with you for insisting that the ban could not have been instituted by God and that He could not have had a non-racist reason for doing so.

It would not matter in the slightest if the ban were instituted by God, or if God had  good reasons for doing it. It would still be racist, by definition. 

[ALarson]

15 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Interesting question.

Do you believe they have always been entitled to the priesthood?  That no restriction on priesthood by race (or tribe, or family, or any other genetic/birth trait) has ever existed in the eyes of God?  Does that extend in your eyes across genders?

Question 1 - Yes

Question 2 -  I don't believe God would ban an entire race from receiving the priesthood.

Question 3 - I don't have strong feelings either way regarding that topic.  If the church leaders announced that women could now receive the priesthood, I'd think that was great.

[ALarson]

15 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

I am not saying the ban was a revelation from God.  Far from it. 

Who do you believe put the ban in place?

[Gray]

14 hours ago, rongo said:

Going along with that, if we all agree that the ban was racist, based on a strict dictionary definition, then the question is:

Is that always a bad thing?

"Racist" has all sorts of modern connotations and baggage. There is clearly scriptural precedent for all kinds of restrictions that are "racist" or another kind of -ist based on a strict dictionary definition. I know that the progressive crowd would then insist that all past things that don't toe the line of modern (current) sensibilities about race, gender, orientation, etc. are by definition "bad" and not of God, but this doesn't necessarily follow. This is the ultimate "presentism."

According to both the church's recent statements on racism and according to president Hinckley, yes, racism is a very bad thing. 

[Gray]

14 hours ago, bluebell said:

Technically it can't. Once a CFR is given the person must present a reference or retract the statement. 

I can't identify where a CFR was actually issued, or what it could be issued for. 

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, churchistrue said:

Lol, this place cracks me up with the CFR thing.  Is a CFR similar to a triple dog dare?

 

Nope.  It just helps keep the board's standards higher than they otherwise would be.

[bluebell]

7 minutes ago, Gray said:

I can't identify where a CFR was actually issued, or what it could be issued for. 

I have no idea what's been said between Scott and Bill.  I haven't followed that conversation.  I was just speaking in general terms.

[bluebell]

13 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Question 2 -  I don't believe God would ban an entire race from receiving the priesthood.

Does that mean that you don't believe that God banned everyone but the Levi's from holding the priesthood, or that He was ever behind the ban that kept the gentiles out of the gospel covenant for so many centuries?

Or does it mean that you think it's o.k. for God to ban entire groups of people from gospel things, as long as it's not decided by race?

That's probably worded poorly but i'm not trying to be snarky-just wondering how you handle those issues in your personal belief.

[ALarson]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

Does that mean that you don't believe that God banned everyone but the Levi's from holding the priesthood, or that He was ever behind the ban that kept the gentiles out of the gospel covenant for so many centuries?

Or does it mean that you think it's o.k. for God to ban entire groups of people from gospel things, as long as it's not decided by race?

I don't believe that exclusions of entire groups of people (based on race, same sex relationships, or any other group) comes from God.  I think those are all man made exclusions.

[bluebell]

20 minutes ago, Gray said:

Racism also means " racial prejudice or discrimination", which is precisely what the ban on blacks having the priesthood or attending the temple was. 

But inherent in every definition of racism and racist that i could find is that it be motivated by a belief that one race is superior to the other (including racial prejudice or discrimination).  And you were the one who said that the church's ban was racist by definition which is why i'm being a stickler about it.

So the question stands, if the ban (if it was of God) was not condoned because whites were superior to blacks (regardless of what the whites believed), is it still racist by definition?

 

 

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I don't believe that exclusions of entire groups of people (based on race, same sex relationships, or any other group) comes from God.  I think those are all man made exclusions.

Interesting.  Thanks for answering.

[stemelbow]

10 minutes ago, bluebell said:

But inherent in every definition of racism and racist that i could find is that it be motivated by a belief that one race is superior to the other (including racial prejudice or discrimination).  And you were the one who said that the church's ban was racist by definition which is why i'm being a stickler about it.

So the question stands, if the ban (if it was of God) was not condoned because whites were superior to blacks (regardless of what the whites believed), is it still racist by definition?

 

 

Hi Bluebell.  Here's the first definitnion of racism via Merriam-Webster:

"poor treatment of or violence against people because of their race"

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism

There's no inherent superiority in this definition mentioned.  As it is, superiority need not factor in in order for something to be racist.  But, it's odd because one of the terrible effects of the ban was racism in the Church. 

Edited September 15, 2016 by stemelbow

[bluebell]

8 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Hi Bluebell.  Here's the first definitnion of racism via Merriam-Webster:

"poor treatment of or violence against people because of their race"

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism

There's no inherent superiority in this definition mentioned.  As it is, superiority need not factor in in order for something to be racist.  But, it's odd because one of the terrible effects of the ban was racism in the Church. 

I suppose if someone believed that another person would treat a race poorly or violently regardless of believing that that race was not inferior to their own race, that could work.  It's hard to believe that anyone would treat an entire race poorly or violently without believing they were superior to them.  

Going back to my previous statement though, if the ban (if it was of God) was not condoned in order to treat blacks poorly or induce violence against them, was the ban itself still racist using the definition you provided?

[Gray]

27 minutes ago, bluebell said:

But inherent in every definition of racism and racist that i could find is that it be motivated by a belief that one race is superior to the other (including racial prejudice or discrimination).  And you were the one who said that the church's ban was racist by definition which is why i'm being a stickler about it.

So the question stands, if the ban (if it was of God) was not condoned because whites were superior to blacks (regardless of what the whites believed), is it still racist by definition?

Yes, it would still be racist. Another definition of racism is simply racial discrimination, and that's what the ban was.

However, on top of all that, every justification for the ban seemed to assume a position of inferiority for black folks. That's the inevitable result of having policies like that. 

[stemelbow]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I suppose if someone believed that another person would treat a race poorly or violently regardless of believing that that race was not inferior to their own race, that could work.  It's hard to believe that anyone would treat an entire race poorly or violently without believing they were superior to them.  

Going back to my previous statement though, if the ban (if it was of God) was not condoned in order to treat blacks poorly or induce violence against them, was the ban itself still racist using the definition you provided?

Blacks were treated poorly.  Of course members condoned it and treated blacks poorly.  But, even if racism wasn't rampant in the Church, I'd say of course a policy created which discriminates based on race is racism. Are you saying the ban was put in place by God without God realizing that it'd do nothing more than encourage racist attitudes among people? 

I'm having a hard time making sense of your point.  It seems like you are saying the ban can't be racist because it was implemented by God and God loves all races.  I'm saying a policy which discriminates based on race, meaning one  race is privileged over another, is racism.  To me, you reading God's mind to try and make that which is racism be said in name as not racism isn't much of a point since the whole policy did nothing but promote racism.  Whether whites thought they were superior to blacks is a matter of public record, generally speaking.  If God truly supported all of that, then God's a racist, at least for a time.  it might be God did that.  And He might have a reason for why He did.  But that doesn't keep racism from being racism.  That merely means God used racism to promote some unknown cause.  I completely hate the thought of God doing that.  I might not be able to see why He would.  But as such, that means I have to settle in the notion that God detested the priesthood ban as much or more than I do/did.  And to Him, it is likely, in my way of thinking, all the humans who are trying to defend the ban in anyway just look silly to Him.  But I concede too, that He might be looking at me who has no desire to defend what I perceive to be the indefensible as not worth His time. 

[bluebell]

14 minutes ago, Gray said:

Yes, it would still be racist. Another definition of racism is simply racial discrimination, and that's what the ban was.

However, on top of all that, every justification for the ban seemed to assume a position of inferiority for black folks. That's the inevitable result of having policies like that. 

Again though, something (dealing with the treatment of people) is only discrimination if it is unjust.  

If the ban was condoned by God, could it be unjust?

I know it probably seems like i'm being a goober by harping on this but what i'm getting at is that by definition, it seems that whether or not something is racist depends on the motivation behind it.  It depends on the 'why'.  

That's why some people disagree with the idea that the ban had to be racist just because it existed.

 

[JLHPROF]

55 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I don't believe that exclusions of entire groups of people (based on race, same sex relationships, or any other group) comes from God.  I think those are all man made exclusions.

Scripture disagrees.