JLHPROF Posted September 15, 2016 Author Posted September 15, 2016 1 hour ago, Jeanne said: This is the most difficult thing to do when you leave mormonism. Hanging on to God. Sounds like a good reason to stay. I certainly see no benefit to leaving.
rongo Posted September 16, 2016 Posted September 16, 2016 [Sorry about the formatting. Board powers that be: Please, please fix this sometimes awful quote feature . . . ] bluebell: "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?" Gray: "It would still be a form of discrimination if it were just." rongo: I can accept the notion of "just discrimination." Similar to the JST for "judge not" (but judge righteous judgment). Just as we judge all the time --- and should strive to judge righteously --- we also discriminate all the time. The key is for that discrimination to be just. I can buy the slavish adherence to Merriam Webster on this issue along these lines. God's discrimination via the ban was just according to his purposes . . . 1
Gray Posted September 16, 2016 Posted September 16, 2016 (edited) 9 hours ago, rongo said: [Sorry about the formatting. Board powers that be: Please, please fix this sometimes awful quote feature . . . ] bluebell: "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?" Gray: "It would still be a form of discrimination if it were just." rongo: I can accept the notion of "just discrimination." Similar to the JST for "judge not" (but judge righteous judgment). Just as we judge all the time --- and should strive to judge righteously --- we also discriminate all the time. The key is for that discrimination to be just. I can buy the slavish adherence to Merriam Webster on this issue along these lines. God's discrimination via the ban was just according to his purposes . . . Judging people by their skin color, of course, is the opposite of righteous judgement. People judge by outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart, says the author of 1 Samuel. Edited September 16, 2016 by Gray
rongo Posted September 16, 2016 Posted September 16, 2016 38 minutes ago, Gray said: Judging people by their skin color, of course, is the opposite of righteous judgement. People judge by outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart, says the author of 1 Samuel. If based solely on skin color, and only skin color, alone, I would agree. If based on other things, of which skin color appears to be the reason, then that's another thing. I don't know of any who believe that the ban was from God who believe that it was based on skin color.
stemelbow Posted September 16, 2016 Posted September 16, 2016 3 minutes ago, rongo said: If based solely on skin color, and only skin color, alone, I would agree. If based on other things, of which skin color appears to be the reason, then that's another thing. I don't know of any who believe that the ban was from God who believe that it was based on skin color. Skin color is the reason for what other things? In the past all the other things were stated as fact and now are said to be untrue. So what do you have in mind? 2
Gray Posted September 16, 2016 Posted September 16, 2016 (edited) 5 minutes ago, rongo said: If based solely on skin color, and only skin color, alone, I would agree. If based on other things, of which skin color appears to be the reason, then that's another thing. I don't know of any who believe that the ban was from God who believe that it was based on skin color. What was it based on, other than skin color? What is common to ALL black people apart from their ethnicity? I would submit that there is nothing common to all of them beyond that. Edited September 16, 2016 by Gray
cinepro Posted September 16, 2016 Posted September 16, 2016 (edited) 4 hours ago, rongo said: If based solely on skin color, and only skin color, alone, I would agree. If based on other things, of which skin color appears to be the reason, then that's another thing. I don't know of any who believe that the ban was from God who believe that it was based on skin color. No one thinks it was based "on skin color alone". It was based on presumed race. If they thought your ancestry went back to Africa, then "no Priesthood or Temple blessings for you! Come back...1978!" Quote Under the racial restrictions that lasted from the presidency of Brigham Young until 1978, persons with any black African ancestry could not hold the priesthood in the LDS Church and could not participate in most temple ordinances, including the endowment and celestial marriage. Black people were permitted to be members of the church, and to participate in some temple ordinances, such as baptism for the dead.[48] The racial restriction policy was applied to black Africans, persons of black African descent, and any one with mixed race that included any black African ancestry. The policy was not applied to Native Americans, Hispanics, Melanesians, or Polynesians. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_people_and_Mormonism#Racial_restriction_policy But how were we supposed to know if someone had black African ancestry? If only God had given us some visual indicator so we wouldn't have to do 50 generations of ancestry to figure it out. Oh wait, He did! You see some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable and low in their habits, wild, and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind. The first man that committed the odious crime of killing one of his brethren will be cursed the longest of anyone of the children of Adam. Cain slew his brother. Cain might have been killed, and that would have put a termination to that line of human beings. This was not to be, and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin. Trace mankind down to after the flood, and then another curse is pronounced upon the same race—that they should be the "servant of servants;" and they will be, until that curse is removed; and the Abolitionists cannot help it, nor in the least alter that decree. Brigham Young https://journalofdiscourses.com/7/45 Edited September 16, 2016 by cinepro 1
JLHPROF Posted September 16, 2016 Author Posted September 16, 2016 5 minutes ago, cinepro said: No one thinks it was based "on skin color alone". It was based on presumed race. If they thought your ancestry went back to Africa, then "no Priesthood or Temple blessings for you! Come back...1978!" True. There was no such restriction against people from India. It wasn't until the Church became so popular in Brazil and lineage was nearly impossible to determine that things really began to change. The Church didn't even have a stake in black Africa until 1988 but had been in South Africa since the days of Brigham.
cinepro Posted September 16, 2016 Posted September 16, 2016 13 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: True. There was no such restriction against people from India. It wasn't until the Church became so popular in Brazil and lineage was nearly impossible to determine that things really began to change. The Church didn't even have a stake in black Africa until 1988 but had been in South Africa since the days of Brigham. All I can say is thank goodness we didn't have DNA testing for ancestry back in the 1970s... 4
Jeanne Posted September 16, 2016 Posted September 16, 2016 22 minutes ago, cinepro said: No one thinks it was based "on skin color alone". It was based on presumed race. If they thought your ancestry went back to Africa, then "no Priesthood or Temple blessings for you! Come back...1978!" But how were we supposed to know if someone had black African ancestry? If only God had given us some visual indicator so we wouldn't have to do 50 generations of ancestry to figure it out. Oh wait, He did! The quote from Brigham Young above in the Journal of Discourses..I have seen in before of course..but it make my stomach turn every time. Are all his passages like this concerning the Priesthood?
JLHPROF Posted September 16, 2016 Author Posted September 16, 2016 5 minutes ago, Jeanne said: Are all his passages like this concerning the Priesthood? What do you mean? President Young gave many, many discourses on priesthood. Only a few addressed race or the ban in any way.
Jeanne Posted September 16, 2016 Posted September 16, 2016 (edited) 3 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: What do you mean? President Young gave many, many discourses on priesthood. Only a few addressed race or the ban in any way. I was just talking about the quote above..if this was what BY really believed in all his passages about the Negro, ban and Priesthood. I realize I am not familiar with the Journall of Discourse as you are. Just it is seems so contrary to what the church believes now and the total opposite of how I know Mormons feel about the Priesthood ban with the explanation from the essay. Thanks. Edited September 16, 2016 by Jeanne
ALarson Posted September 16, 2016 Posted September 16, 2016 (edited) 35 minutes ago, cinepro said: But how were we supposed to know if someone had black African ancestry? If only God had given us some visual indicator so we wouldn't have to do 50 generations of ancestry to figure it out. Oh wait, He did! 35 minutes ago, cinepro said: You see some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable and low in their habits, wild, and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind. The first man that committed the odious crime of killing one of his brethren will be cursed the longest of anyone of the children of Adam. Cain slew his brother. Cain might have been killed, and that would have put a termination to that line of human beings. This was not to be, and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin. Trace mankind down to after the flood, and then another curse is pronounced upon the same race—that they should be the "servant of servants;" and they will be, until that curse is removed; and the Abolitionists cannot help it, nor in the least alter that decree. Brigham Young https://journalofdiscourses.com/7/45 Wow, just reading this again (it's been a few years) reminds me of how truly racist this ban was. It's amazing to me that anyone can read that quote by BY and claim otherwise! I'm very glad that the church has now disavowed this. . Edited September 16, 2016 by ALarson 4
cinepro Posted September 16, 2016 Posted September 16, 2016 Just now, ALarson said: Wow, just reading this again (it's been a few years) reminds me of how truly racist this ban was. It's amazing to me that anyone can read this and claim otherwise! I'm very glad that the church has now disavowed this. The weird thing is to imagine what the heck God was thinking if what Brigham Young said wasn't true. https://media.giphy.com/media/PFwKHjOcIoVUc/giphy.gif 2
Jeanne Posted September 16, 2016 Posted September 16, 2016 1 minute ago, ALarson said: Wow, just reading this again (it's been a few years) reminds me of how truly racist this ban was. It's amazing to me that anyone can read that quote by BY and claim otherwise! I'm very glad that the church has now disavowed this. . Ohhh...me too! That is what I was asking JLHPROF about...wondering if these discourses surrounding the Priesthood were relatively in the same vein. 1
Calm Posted September 17, 2016 Posted September 17, 2016 (edited) On September 14, 2016 at 10:01 PM, JulieM said: That doesn't mean he saw the CFR. Sometimes I pop on here just to glance at the topics and which ones have new posts. If it's not one I'm that interested in, I don't always click on the thread:. Just saying that he might not have seen it. This is true, I try to remember to check threads I have posted in, but sometimes I forget or just get bored of the topic so miss a response. Edited September 17, 2016 by Calm 1
Calm Posted September 17, 2016 Posted September 17, 2016 11 hours ago, rongo said: If based solely on skin color, and only skin color, alone, I would agree. If based on other things, of which skin color appears to be the reason, then that's another thing. What do you mean by "appears to be the reason"? Misunderstood to be the reason or actually is the reason causing the other things?
Coreyb Posted September 17, 2016 Posted September 17, 2016 If the ban was truly about lineage and not skin color then it was impossible to enforce for its entire duration. 1
rongo Posted September 17, 2016 Posted September 17, 2016 23 hours ago, stemelbow said: Skin color is the reason for what other things? In the past all the other things were stated as fact and now are said to be untrue. So what do you have in mind? The ban as practiced was against people of presumed African heritage --- not simply people with black skin. It didn't apply in practice to Austalian aborigines, or people from India of Dravidian descent. Gray: What was it based on, other than skin color? What is common to ALL black people apart from their ethnicity? I would submit that there is nothing common to all of them beyond that. See above. With 99.99%+ of the Church coming from America and northern Europe in the beginning decades of the Church, the only black people encountered were descendants of African slaves (or slaves themselves). It wasn't until the Church broadened its worldwide presence that the picture of "black" people became broader than simply descendants of African slaves. cinepro: No one thinks it was based "on skin color alone". It was based on presumed race. . Agreed (see above). Ironically, it seems to be modern progressives from 2016 who are fixating as race denoting only skin color, nothing more. There's a lot more to "race" than that. Calm: What do you mean by "appears to be the reason"? Misunderstood to be the reason or actually is the reason causing the other things? What is interesting (and unfortunate) about the Newsroom statement and the essay on the ban is: 1) It was written anonymously by design, with no names from the Q15 attached. This is obviously to provide "plausible deniability," if needed, and to keep their names detached from this powder keg. Yes, it is published by the Church, and thus indirectly endorsed by the key-holders (indirect because they choose to not block it), but I would like it if it came directly from them. I wish that our apostles today would be bold and speak out on mine field issues, without such a heavy influence from the attorneys and PR execs in the COB. This issue is such a big thing in our history and of such importance, that it deserves no less, in my view. 2) Because of this, the statement and essay are both very carefully worded in an attempt to assuage those who aren't happy with the history but without denouncing the ban itself. Past explanations and theories are disavowed in the passive voice without offering an explanation (any explanation) in their places. This is "safe" from a PR standpoint, but still avoids and leaves us wanting an official explanation. It doesn't do much good, actually, in my opinion, to distance from past explanations and then remain silent on any explanation at all. I think it would have been better to have simply remained silent altogether than to try to thread the PR needle. For me, it's obvious that the essay/Newsroom statement is much more a PR move than it is the Brethren speaking on this issue. I think the reasons for the ban that have been disavowed (not neutrality in the pre-existence, which I have never believed, but the notion that our station in mortality is due to the pre-existence) are the only ones that make sense doctrinally --- unless one claims that the Brethren were spectacularly wrong and that God did nothing to correct them. I don't believe this, and I think the implications of wanting to claim this in deference to modern progressive sensibilities are harmful to vital faith in the Restoration. It makes a slippery slope seem like firm ground.
HappyJackWagon Posted September 19, 2016 Posted September 19, 2016 On 9/14/2016 at 5:41 PM, rongo said: For those who believe that the ban was racist, that it wasn't from God, that it was a mistake, etc. . . . 1-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?" 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 . . ."). 2-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. 1- I absolutely see the church ban as racist. And yes, the definition of racism fits very well, buy my argument is not with the English language, but rather the perversion of the English language by those who reject meanings of words. "Racism doesn't really mean racism". Of course it was racist. Words have meanings for reasons. If we ignore those meanings we can say anything about anything and it would mean nothing. Racism has a meaning in the English language. English speakers denounced all "racism", past and present. I'd have to assume they are idiots that don't understand the basic meaning of the word. I guess I credit their intellect a little bit more than that. 2-What if the Polygamy essay (Nauvoo) disclosed JS's marriages to 30+ women, including women who are already married and very young women/teens, many of whom lived in JS's house? And THEN, after suggesting the sxual exploits made the statement about "comdens all sxual assault, in any form, past and present"? Would it be reasonable to connect the condemnation with the subject it had just been speaking about? Of course. So when the church talks about the priesthood ban, doesn't know why it was instituted, and then in the same essay condemns all racism, past and present, then it's not difficult to connect those dots. It's in the same essay. Not connecting the dots requires a willful decision to change meanings of words. 1
Atheist Mormon Posted September 19, 2016 Posted September 19, 2016 On 9/15/2016 at 5:24 PM, JLHPROF said: Sounds like a good reason to stay. I certainly see no benefit to leaving. Yea, why the heck not! You wasted a half century on Occam's Razor, go ahead and blow the rest.
HappyJackWagon Posted September 19, 2016 Posted September 19, 2016 On 9/17/2016 at 9:52 AM, rongo said: What is interesting (and unfortunate) about the Newsroom statement and the essay on the ban is: 1) It was written anonymously by design, with no names from the Q15 attached. This is obviously to provide "plausible deniability," if needed, and to keep their names detached from this powder keg. Yes, it is published by the Church, and thus indirectly endorsed by the key-holders (indirect because they choose to not block it), but I would like it if it came directly from them. I wish that our apostles today would be bold and speak out on mine field issues, without such a heavy influence from the attorneys and PR execs in the COB. This issue is such a big thing in our history and of such importance, that it deserves no less, in my view. 2) Because of this, the statement and essay are both very carefully worded in an attempt to assuage those who aren't happy with the history but without denouncing the ban itself. Past explanations and theories are disavowed in the passive voice without offering an explanation (any explanation) in their places. This is "safe" from a PR standpoint, but still avoids and leaves us wanting an official explanation. It doesn't do much good, actually, in my opinion, to distance from past explanations and then remain silent on any explanation at all. I think it would have been better to have simply remained silent altogether than to try to thread the PR needle. 3-For me, it's obvious that the essay/Newsroom statement is much more a PR move than it is the Brethren speaking on this issue. I think the reasons for the ban that have been disavowed (not neutrality in the pre-existence, which I have never believed, but the notion that our station in mortality is due to the pre-existence) are the only ones that make sense doctrinally --- unless one claims that the Brethren were spectacularly wrong and that God did nothing to correct them. I don't believe this, and I think the implications of wanting to claim this in deference to modern progressive sensibilities are harmful to vital faith in the Restoration. It makes a slippery slope seem like firm ground. 1- Does it inspire confidence or seem Godly in any way to have the church speak in ways that give them plausible deniability? Of course not. One of the problems is, the church speaks boldly and with certitude on these topics, until they are proven wrong or the doctrine/argument becomes too tenuous to maintain. The church was very clear in teaching doctrines it now disavows. So now they have to allow themselves significant wiggle room so they can appear to speak for God while not actually putting their name to it. This strikes me as lacking faith in their message. 2- I think many agree with you that this essay was a PR move. But they find themselves in a catch 22 where if they say nothing it is viewed as approval of racism. If they come out against racism it opens the door to disregard prophetic doctrine. So what do they do? They try to walk the line. They failed and essentially alienated every side with this essay. 3- Yes, I believe the brethren were spectacularly wrong (for over 100 years) and God didn't correct them. So why didn't God correct them? a- He didn't care b- He was content to let the church err and learn from their mistake c- God isn't involved in the church. The slippery slope you speak of is the recognition that prophets are fallible and therefore cannot always be trusted to be speaking the word of God. The race issue is a spectacular example of that. 3
JLHPROF Posted September 19, 2016 Author Posted September 19, 2016 1 hour ago, Atheist Mormon said: Yea, why the heck not! You wasted a half century on Occam's Razor, go ahead and blow the rest. Show me the waste?
Jeanne Posted September 19, 2016 Posted September 19, 2016 1 hour ago, Atheist Mormon said: Yea, why the heck not! You wasted a half century on Occam's Razor, go ahead and blow the rest. Everything I believed in that half of century..was blown to the wind. How could I stay? I am one that cannot pretend..it has to be one way or the other. The church stole more than my belief. It tore my family apart for many reasons that have now be disavowed. I believe I made the right choice for me.
Recommended Posts