2BizE Posted September 14, 2016 Posted September 14, 2016 I find it confusing as well. The ban on black males not being able to receive the priesthood and black families being unable to be sealed together was an eternal doctrine (segment 5) until 1978. Apostles and prophets explicitly stated this. So, from this we know that eternal doctrines are not always eternal.
Buckeye Posted September 14, 2016 Posted September 14, 2016 4 minutes ago, 2BizE said: I find it confusing as well. The ban on black males not being able to receive the priesthood and black families being unable to be sealed together was an eternal doctrine (segment 5) until 1978. Apostles and prophets explicitly stated this. So, from this we know that eternal doctrines are not always eternal. Bingo. Moreover, per the 1949 FP statement, the ban was a Doctrine revealed from God. That's their words. Capital D Doctrine. Capital G God. So prophets can err as to understanding Doctrine from God. That's the big wrestle. 1
bluebell Posted September 14, 2016 Posted September 14, 2016 13 minutes ago, Buckeye said: Bingo. Moreover, per the 1949 FP statement, the ban was a Doctrine revealed from God. That's their words. Capital D Doctrine. Capital G God. So prophets can err as to understanding Doctrine from God. That's the big wrestle. They haven't said the ban wasn't from God though. All they've done is retract the popular reasons given for the ban, right? 1
bluebell Posted September 14, 2016 Posted September 14, 2016 20 minutes ago, 2BizE said: I find it confusing as well. The ban on black males not being able to receive the priesthood and black families being unable to be sealed together was an eternal doctrine (segment 5) until 1978. Apostles and prophets explicitly stated this. So, from this we know that eternal doctrines are not always eternal. Has the church changed their position on the ban itself and claimed that it wasn't from God?
Gray Posted September 14, 2016 Posted September 14, 2016 13 minutes ago, bluebell said: Has the church changed their position on the ban itself and claimed that it wasn't from God? The change in position has been that "the church" no longer claims that the ban came from God. They say they don't know where it came from, but indirectly they seem to disavow it.
stemelbow Posted September 14, 2016 Posted September 14, 2016 12 minutes ago, bluebell said: They haven't said the ban wasn't from God though. All they've done is retract the popular reasons given for the ban, right? I believe he's referring to the "popular reasons given for the ban" when he alludes to the '49 statement. Quote . The prophets of the Lord have made several statements as to the operation of the principle. President Brigham Young said: “Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a skin of blackness? It comes in consequence of their fathers rejecting the power of the holy priesthood, and the law of God. They will go down to death. And when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the holy priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will then come up and possess the priesthood, and receive all the blessings which we now are entitled to.” and Quote The position of the Church regarding the Negro may be understood when another doctrine of the Church is kept in mind, namely, that the conduct of spirits in the premortal existence has some determining effect upon the conditions and circumstances under which these spirits take on mortality and that while the details of this principle have not been made known, the mortality is a privilege that is given to those who maintain their first estate; and that the worth of the privilege is so great that spirits are willing to come to earth and take on bodies no matter what the handicap may be as to the kind of bodies they are to secure; and that among the handicaps, failure of the right to enjoy in mortality the blessings of the priesthood is a handicap which spirits are willing to assume in order that they might come to earth. Under this principle there is no injustice whatsoever involved in this deprivation as to the holding of the priesthood by the Negroes. Both fo these concepts have since been disavowed. But officially, in '49 they were stated as official positions directly given as revelation and by past prophets. Thus it's not retracting the popular reasons, but actually disavowing past official doctrine and teaching. 3
HappyJackWagon Posted September 14, 2016 Posted September 14, 2016 13 minutes ago, stemelbow said: I believe he's referring to the "popular reasons given for the ban" when he alludes to the '49 statement. and Both fo these concepts have since been disavowed. But officially, in '49 they were stated as official positions directly given as revelation and by past prophets. Thus it's not retracting the popular reasons, but actually disavowing past official doctrine and teaching. Right. It's the "theories", which were once claimed to be doctrines, explaining the ban (ie curses, fence sitting, unrighteous pre-mortal etc) that have been disavowed. The ban itself hasn't been disavowed except for the overall statement of disavowing all racism, past and present. But the ban isn't specifically stated as racist. It requires a basic dot connecting. 2
Buckeye Posted September 14, 2016 Posted September 14, 2016 52 minutes ago, bluebell said: They haven't said the ban wasn't from God though. All they've done is retract the popular reasons given for the ban, right? That's correct. They've repudiated the reasons for the ban - which incidentally are also called 'doctrine' in the FP statement - but they haven't repudiated the ban itself or said it was not from God. That said, the fact that current leadership is leaving the 'ban from God' question open for members to decide speaks volumes. IMO, they're (wisely) allowing a space for older members to not feel mislead, while allowing younger members to view the ban as uninspired. At some point in the future the ban will be repudiated too. 1
JLHPROF Posted September 14, 2016 Author Posted September 14, 2016 30 minutes ago, Gray said: The change in position has been that "the church" no longer claims that the ban came from God. They say they don't know where it came from, but indirectly they seem to disavow it. I'm not sure that saying they don't know is really honest. A big part of both "the ban" and the SSM policies came from interpretation/misinterpretation of scripture. "The ban" was seen as scriptural according to Abraham 1 (and some other lesser referenced OT scriptures). Condemnation of SSM (indeed any SS relations) as sinful are likewise attributed to certain scriptures - Leviticus, Romans, etc. Any expectation of the leaders seeking new revelation on the subject of SSM would require that they first change their current interpretation of scripture. That is what had to happen before OD2 revelation was received. They had to begin to believe the scriptures supporting the ban might not mean what was previously thought. The same would have to happen with SS relationships. And given current reluctance to accept any interpretation of any scripture outside the "current/official" ones I don't see that happening any time soon. If the GA's don't have a question on the doctrine they are unlikely to ask for revelation on a subject.
bluebell Posted September 14, 2016 Posted September 14, 2016 56 minutes ago, Gray said: The change in position has been that "the church" no longer claims that the ban came from God. They say they don't know where it came from, but indirectly they seem to disavow it. Interesting. Can you provide the reference. I've read the essays but I did not see that stated in there.
stemelbow Posted September 14, 2016 Posted September 14, 2016 1 hour ago, bluebell said: Interesting. Can you provide the reference. I've read the essays but I did not see that stated in there. The essay on Race and the Priesthood never clarifies that the Church thinks it was instituted by revelation. That is probably what Gray is thinking, since it represents the most recent official statement on the matter. In it it says, Quote In 1852, President Brigham Young publicly announced that men of black African descent could no longer be ordained to the priesthood, though thereafter blacks continued to join the Church through baptism and receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost. Following the death of Brigham Young, subsequent Church presidents restricted blacks from receiving the temple endowment or being married in the temple. Over time, Church leaders and members advanced many theories to explain the priesthood and temple restrictions. None of these explanations is accepted today as the official doctrine of the Church. Quote In two speeches delivered before the Utah territorial legislature in January and February 1852, Brigham Young announced a policy restricting men of black African descent from priesthood ordination. At the same time, President Young said that at some future day, black Church members would “have [all] the privilege and more” enjoyed by other members.9 The justifications for this restriction echoed the widespread ideas about racial inferiority that had been used to argue for the legalization of black “servitude” in the Territory of Utah. and Quote Nevertheless, given the long history of withholding the priesthood from men of black African descent, Church leaders believed that a revelation from God was needed to alter the policy, and they made ongoing efforts to understand what should be done. The Church seems to be at least shying away from directly stating it was by revelation, if the Church actually thinks so. It kind of feels like the Church doesn't know of any revelation. 1
bluebell Posted September 14, 2016 Posted September 14, 2016 19 minutes ago, stemelbow said: The essay on Race and the Priesthood never clarifies that the Church thinks it was instituted by revelation. That is probably what Gray is thinking, since it represents the most recent official statement on the matter. In it it says, and The Church seems to be at least shying away from directly stating it was by revelation, if the Church actually thinks so. It kind of feels like the Church doesn't know of any revelation. Yes, i was aware of the clarification on the ban. Maybe that is what Gray was thinking of, but i think that's a lot different than a disavowal of the ban itself.
stemelbow Posted September 14, 2016 Posted September 14, 2016 7 minutes ago, bluebell said: Yes, i was aware of the clarification on the ban. Maybe that is what Gray was thinking of, but i think that's a lot different than a disavowal of the ban itself. I read him to suggest the Church's position moved from revelation from God to not sure there was ever was a revelation.
bluebell Posted September 14, 2016 Posted September 14, 2016 1 minute ago, stemelbow said: I read him to suggest the Church's position moved from revelation from God to not sure there was ever was a revelation. Could be. But this is what he said- "They say they don't know where it came from, but indirectly they seem to disavow it."
Gray Posted September 14, 2016 Posted September 14, 2016 1 hour ago, bluebell said: Interesting. Can you provide the reference. I've read the essays but I did not see that stated in there. Looking through it again, the statement isn't actually in the essay. It actually comes from the Church Newsroom: http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/racial-remarks-in-washington-post-article Quote For a time in the Church there was a restriction on the priesthood for male members of African descent. It is not known precisely why, how, or when this restriction began in the Church but what is clear is that it ended decades ago. Some have attempted to explain the reason for this restriction but these attempts should be viewed as speculation and opinion, not doctrine. The Church is not bound by speculation or opinions given with limited understanding. We condemn racism, including any and all past racism by individuals both inside and outside the Church. 2
Gray Posted September 14, 2016 Posted September 14, 2016 19 minutes ago, bluebell said: Could be. But this is what he said- "They say they don't know where it came from, but indirectly they seem to disavow it." The indirect disavowal comes from here: Quote Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form.24 1
bluebell Posted September 14, 2016 Posted September 14, 2016 3 minutes ago, Gray said: Looking through it again, the statement isn't actually in the essay. It actually comes from the Church Newsroom: http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/racial-remarks-in-washington-post-article I'm aware of that statement, thanks for finding it. It doesn't say that the church disavowed the ban, only the explanations for it though. All it says about the ban itself is that they don't know where it came from. They don't claim it came from God, but contrary to your statement, they also don't claim that it didn't. They stay neutral on its origins. 1
stemelbow Posted September 14, 2016 Posted September 14, 2016 27 minutes ago, bluebell said: I'm aware of that statement, thanks for finding it. It doesn't say that the church disavowed the ban, only the explanations for it though. All it says about the ban itself is that they don't know where it came from. They don't claim it came from God, but contrary to your statement, they also don't claim that it didn't. They stay neutral on its origins. Coming out and saying they don't have a revelation on the matter is pretty significant either way. I like when the Church does this type of thing. Of course calling past doctrine just speculation is a clear attempt at revising history. That's pretty disappointing. But that's what comes with a Church that gets so guarded...sadly. 1
HappyJackWagon Posted September 14, 2016 Posted September 14, 2016 1 hour ago, bluebell said: I'm aware of that statement, thanks for finding it. It doesn't say that the church disavowed the ban, only the explanations for it though. All it says about the ban itself is that they don't know where it came from. They don't claim it came from God, but contrary to your statement, they also don't claim that it didn't. They stay neutral on its origins. They don't have a revelation for the ban and it would seem that the burden of proof would be on them to produce a reason. But they can't. They do condemn all racism and that condemnation of ALL racism, past and present, is pretty inclusive. Quote rac·ism prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior: So if we look at the ban we can clearly see that it was discriminatory based on race; then by definition it was racism. The doctrines used by church leaders to justify the ban, those same theories that are now specifically disavowed as racist, prove that the ban was based in a belief of racial superiority, again proving it was racism. The church's statement on this is too cute by half. They condemn the ban without having to actually say the words. But it's very obvious to me that the ban was racist and therefore disavowed. 1
JLHPROF Posted September 14, 2016 Author Posted September 14, 2016 (edited) 9 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: They don't have a revelation for the ban and it would seem that the burden of proof would be on them to produce a reason. The explanation came from misinterpretation of scripture. I don't see that they would have felt a revelation for the ban was needed. To their thinking it was already in the scriptures. The speculation came when a reason for what was in scripture was being wildly theorized. Edited September 14, 2016 by JLHPROF
Gray Posted September 14, 2016 Posted September 14, 2016 1 hour ago, bluebell said: I'm aware of that statement, thanks for finding it. It doesn't say that the church disavowed the ban, only the explanations for it though. All it says about the ban itself is that they don't know where it came from. They don't claim it came from God, but contrary to your statement, they also don't claim that it didn't. They stay neutral on its origins. That's what I said: Quote Gray said: The change in position has been that "the church" no longer claims that the ban came from God. They say they don't know where it came from, but indirectly they seem to disavow it. They used to teach that the priesthood ban came from God. Now they say they don't know where it came from.
Scott Lloyd Posted September 14, 2016 Posted September 14, 2016 2 hours ago, Gray said: The indirect disavowal comes from here: Your conclusion presupposes that the Church acknowledges that the ban was based on racism. I don't see that such a concession has ever been made. 1
Gray Posted September 14, 2016 Posted September 14, 2016 9 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: The explanation came from misinterpretation of scripture. I don't see that they would have felt a revelation for the ban was needed. To their thinking it was already in the scriptures. The speculation came when a reason for what was in scripture was being wildly theorized. Yes, I think that's right.
Gray Posted September 14, 2016 Posted September 14, 2016 3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Your conclusion presupposes that the Church acknowledges that the ban was based on racism. I don't see that such a concession has ever been made. The church doesn't need to acknowledge that for it to be true. The ban was racist - that's an obvious fact. The church does not need to define water as wet before we can conclude that water is indeed wet. 3
Scott Lloyd Posted September 14, 2016 Posted September 14, 2016 13 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: Hey, DBMormon, just quoting this to send out an alert to you that there is a CFR on the table that you've not responded to yet. By bumping this thread to the front page, I seem inadvertently to have given it new life. That's fine, but I still don't want the CFR to get buried.
Recommended Posts