Scott Lloyd Posted September 14, 2016 Posted September 14, 2016 (edited) 20 minutes ago, Gray said: 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. You are entitled to your opinion of whether or not the ban was racist. What is in question is whether or not the Church leadership or the Church as an institution agrees with you. I think you are jumping to a conclusion that it does and that your opinion constitutes objective reality as opposed to your own personal viewpoint. Edited September 14, 2016 by Scott Lloyd 1
bluebell Posted September 14, 2016 Posted September 14, 2016 16 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. But they can't. They do condemn all racism and that condemnation of ALL racism, past and present, is pretty inclusive. 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. It depends on someone's definition of racism. If, for example, the people who wrote and approved the essays and newsroom article didn't believe that anything that God condones can be racist, then that statement does not mean a disavowal of the ban. If the someone doesn't believe that the ban was because whites were superior then they can believe the ban was from God and still denounce all racism surrounding it, for another example. I think it's better to stick with what the essays/articles actually say and leave it at. Interpretation is so subjective. I don't think it can be used to make statements of fact. 2
bluebell Posted September 14, 2016 Posted September 14, 2016 16 minutes ago, Gray said: That's what I said: They used to teach that the priesthood ban came from God. Now they say they don't know where it came from. I'm sorry if I misunderstood you. I did not read your post to be saying that you believe the church is neutral on the ban being of God or not.
JLHPROF Posted September 14, 2016 Author Posted September 14, 2016 6 minutes ago, bluebell said: It depends on someone's definition of racism. This. Racism is very much a subjective term.
ALarson Posted September 14, 2016 Posted September 14, 2016 5 minutes ago, bluebell said: It depends on someone's definition of racism. . Well, the reasons given by past church leaders for the ban being put in place were definitely racist. That makes it difficult to differentiate between the two (but I realize your point). Those racist statements and explanations from past leaders are what current leaders are disavowing today. 1
Gray Posted September 14, 2016 Posted September 14, 2016 9 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: You are entitled to your opinion of whether or not the ban was racist. What is in question is whether or not the Church leadership or the Church as an institution agrees with you. I think you are jumping to a conclusion that it does. It's not my opinion. A ban based on someone's race is racist. That's what racism is. 2
Gray Posted September 14, 2016 Posted September 14, 2016 3 minutes ago, bluebell said: I'm sorry if I misunderstood you. I did not read your post to be saying that you believe the church is neutral on the ban being of God or not. Sorry, I did make two different statements, one backed up by one quote, the other backed up with a different quote. I can see how it would be unclear. I think officially the church took a neutral position. Indirectly they seemed to be trying to disavow the ban without actually coming out and saying it explicitly. 2
Scott Lloyd Posted September 14, 2016 Posted September 14, 2016 (edited) 19 minutes ago, Gray said: It's not my opinion. A ban based on someone's race is racist. That's what racism is. The official word is that the origin is unknown. If it turned out that it was ordained of God for whatever reason, it would not be based in racism, but rather a desire to obey the commandment of God. You cannot say definitively that it originated in racism. You lack the information to do so. You can only express your opinion to that effect. Edited September 14, 2016 by Scott Lloyd 1
Scott Lloyd Posted September 14, 2016 Posted September 14, 2016 7 minutes ago, Gray said: Sorry, I did make two different statements, one backed up by one quote, the other backed up with a different quote. I can see how it would be unclear. I think officially the church took a neutral position. Indirectly they seemed to be trying to disavow the ban without actually coming out and saying it explicitly. I don't get that from my reading of the essay.
Scott Lloyd Posted September 14, 2016 Posted September 14, 2016 21 minutes ago, ALarson said: Well, the reasons given by past church leaders for the ban being put in place were definitely racist. That makes it difficult to differentiate between the two (but I realize your point). Those racist statements and explanations from past leaders are what current leaders are disavowing today. Not everyone who upheld the ban did so for racist reasons. You should read the biography of Spencer W. Kimball written his son Edward (the second one, based on the years of President Kimball's presidency of the Church). President Kimball ached to have the restriction ended, spending many hours in the temple in prayer to God regarding the matter. But he did not feel he could move forward in doing so without a direct divine revelation, which he ultimately received.
ALarson Posted September 14, 2016 Posted September 14, 2016 15 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: The official word is that the origin is unknown. If it turned out that it was ordained of God for whatever reason, it would not be based in racism, but rather a desire to obey the commandment of God. Do you believe that George Albert Smith was incorrect when he stated this below? Quote The attitude of the Church with reference to the Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the Priesthood at the present time.
ALarson Posted September 14, 2016 Posted September 14, 2016 3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Not everyone who upheld the ban did so for racist reasons. I agree and I've never stated or believed that. I believe that many fought the ban to fight racism and they knew it was wrong.
Scott Lloyd Posted September 14, 2016 Posted September 14, 2016 4 minutes ago, ALarson said: Do you believe that George Albert Smith was incorrect when he stated this below? I don't know. President Smith lived many years before I did and had access to knowledge that I don't have.
Gray Posted September 14, 2016 Posted September 14, 2016 20 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: The official word is that the origin is unknown. If it turned out that it was ordained of God for whatever reason, it would not be based in racism, but rather a desire to obey the commandment of God. You cannot say definitively that it originated in racism. You lack the information to do so. You can only express your opinion to that effect. It doesn't matter what the motive for instituting the ban was. The ban itself is racist by definition, and the church disavows all racism. It has nothing to do with my opinion, or with the origins of the ban. 2
Gray Posted September 14, 2016 Posted September 14, 2016 21 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: I don't get that from my reading of the essay. I think that was the point of not coming right out and saying it directly.
Scott Lloyd Posted September 14, 2016 Posted September 14, 2016 6 minutes ago, Gray said: It doesn't matter what the motive for instituting the ban was. The ban itself is racist by definition, and the church disavows all racism. It has nothing to do with my opinion, or with the origins of the ban. It has everything to do with your opinion. Your opinion doesn't equate to objective reality anymore than mine does.
ALarson Posted September 14, 2016 Posted September 14, 2016 5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: I don't know. President Smith lived many years before I did and had access to knowledge that I don't have. Well, his "access to knowledge" told him that the ban was a "direct commandment from the Lord". I doubt that he could have spoken with more clarity when expressing his knowledge regarding the origination of the ban.
Scott Lloyd Posted September 14, 2016 Posted September 14, 2016 7 minutes ago, Gray said: I think that was the point of not coming right out and saying it directly. So you are thus trying to engage in mind reading.
carbon dioxide Posted September 14, 2016 Posted September 14, 2016 1 hour ago, Gray said: 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. Perhaps it was racist just as denying the priesthood to women is considered "sexist" but our focus should be on pleasing God and following his commandments rather than rejecting God and following where the trends in society are going.
HappyJackWagon Posted September 14, 2016 Posted September 14, 2016 50 minutes ago, bluebell said: It depends on someone's definition of racism. If, for example, the people who wrote and approved the essays and newsroom article didn't believe that anything that God condones can be racist, then that statement does not mean a disavowal of the ban. If the someone doesn't believe that the ban was because whites were superior then they can believe the ban was from God and still denounce all racism surrounding it, for another example. I think it's better to stick with what the essays/articles actually say and leave it at. Interpretation is so subjective. I don't think it can be used to make statements of fact. You're welcome to ignore the racism but acting like the writer of the racism essay doesn't understand basic definitions of racism is a bit silly. I do not see how, by the most basic definition of racism in any dictionary, the ban could not be considered racist. It restricted a race of people, because of their race, from opportunities other races enjoyed. It was racist. One could try to argue that the racism was justified but that also seems like a fools errand. To claim the racist ban was justified one would need to show that God commanded or at least approved of it. The scriptural and doctrinal reasons the church taught to explain how God commanded/approved of the ban have now been disavowed by the church as racist. So that leaves us with a racist ban with no justification for it. So why try to hang on to it. The essays, approved by the Q12 and FP have already admitted the teachings of past prophets were not only incorrect, but racist. I'm curious what is achieved by admitting the doctrines were racist but that the ban was not? Why hold on and defend the ban? I see no purpose in it. 3
carbon dioxide Posted September 14, 2016 Posted September 14, 2016 21 minutes ago, Gray said: It doesn't matter what the motive for instituting the ban was. The ban itself is racist by definition, and the church disavows all racism. It has nothing to do with my opinion, or with the origins of the ban. The Church disavows are man derived sources of racism. However if God chooses to exclude something from one group that is his right. God really does not care much about offending people. The purpose of live for man to submit to God and not find creative ways to get God to bend towards what man wants.
bluebell Posted September 14, 2016 Posted September 14, 2016 4 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: You're welcome to ignore the racism but acting like the writer of the racism essay doesn't understand basic definitions of racism is a bit silly. I do not see how, by the most basic definition of racism in any dictionary, the ban could not be considered racist. It restricted a race of people, because of their race, from opportunities other races enjoyed. It was racist. One could try to argue that the racism was justified but that also seems like a fools errand. To claim the racist ban was justified one would need to show that God commanded or at least approved of it. The scriptural and doctrinal reasons the church taught to explain how God commanded/approved of the ban have now been disavowed by the church as racist. So that leaves us with a racist ban with no justification for it. So why try to hang on to it. The essays, approved by the Q12 and FP have already admitted the teachings of past prophets were not only incorrect, but racist. I think this is an example of how we don't see the world as it is, but see it as we are. But just because you believe that the writers were using the word racism the same way you would use it, does not mean that they were. I already gave two examples of how someone can still understand the basic definition of racism and yet not believe the ban was racist. Quote I'm curious what is achieved by admitting the doctrines were racist but that the ban was not? Why hold on and defend the ban? I see no purpose in it. What is achieved is that all the facts and evidence that we do have is laid on the table. If you don't know whether or not the ban was of God but you know that the reasons given for the ban were not, it's reasonable and logical to deny the doctrines while staying neutral about the ban.
HappyJackWagon Posted September 14, 2016 Posted September 14, 2016 5 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said: The Church disavows are man derived sources of racism. However if God chooses to exclude something from one group that is his right. God really does not care much about offending people. The purpose of live for man to submit to God and not find creative ways to get God to bend towards what man wants. Yes, God can choose to be racist. If God does that, it is right, but it doesn't cease to be racist. However, your depiction of God not caring about offending people seems like a callous God. My opinion of God isn't so negative. The disavowal of all racism, past and present, was the statement. The church didn't qualify that by saying, "unless God said so". It would be reasonable if that was part of their statement, but it wasn't, so you are left putting words into the church's mouth. I see both you and Bluebell working really hard to defend the ban. As I asked before, why? What does defending a ban that is racist by definition, while accepting the disavowal of racist doctrines, accomplish anything. Why hang on to it? 1
stemelbow Posted September 14, 2016 Posted September 14, 2016 29 minutes ago, Gray said: It doesn't matter what the motive for instituting the ban was. The ban itself is racist by definition, and the church disavows all racism. It has nothing to do with my opinion, or with the origins of the ban. I think you're right. It makes no sense to think a ban based on race is not being racism. There's no clearer definition. But I will grant that the writers of the essay might not have had in mind the notion that the ban was racist. I think the intention of saying the Church disavows racism, they may have an exception in mind. Which is fine. but I still think it significant that the Church has gone from saying the ban was inspired to not knowing if it was. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted September 14, 2016 Posted September 14, 2016 9 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: I'm curious what is achieved by admitting the doctrines were racist but that the ban was not? Why hold on and defend the ban? I see no purpose in it. It makes a world of difference as to whether or not the ban itself and its continuation into the latter 20th century was justified. Some of the statements made in attempt to explain it are embarrassing in today's light; some of them are downright shameful. But in the interest of accuracy and keeping the historical record straight, there must be a differentiation made between the ban itself and the vain and misguided efforts to explain it in the absence of information and knowledge. The Church essay by implication draws that distinction, whether or not you are willing to admit it.
Recommended Posts