stemelbow Posted September 14, 2016 Posted September 14, 2016 10 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. Fair. But that doesn't mean it's not racism. If God excludes something from a group based on race, then by definition that is racism. It's possible He has His reasons. But we obviously don't know those.
Scott Lloyd Posted September 14, 2016 Posted September 14, 2016 28 minutes ago, ALarson said: 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. I agree that his wording was very clear. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted September 14, 2016 Posted September 14, 2016 28 minutes ago, ALarson said: 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. I agree that his wording was very clear.
HappyJackWagon Posted September 14, 2016 Posted September 14, 2016 2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: 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. But what practical difference does it make? Blacks were treated badly because of false doctrines taught by prophets. Those prophetic teachings were wrong for over 100 years. Does claiming the ban was instituted by God, despite a lack of evidence proving it, make the church less responsible? Does the church look better by shifting the blame to God, even though the church leaders clearly didn't understand God's will and thus taught false doctrines? What's the benefit of clutching to the ban as anything other than a mistake? 1
Scott Lloyd Posted September 14, 2016 Posted September 14, 2016 3 minutes ago, stemelbow said: Fair. But that doesn't mean it's not racism. If God excludes something from a group based on race, then by definition that is racism. It's possible He has His reasons. But we obviously don't know those. 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. 1
bluebell Posted September 14, 2016 Posted September 14, 2016 31 minutes ago, Gray said: I think that was the point of not coming right out and saying it directly. Maybe. But also, maybe not. I think that is Scott's point. We just don't know. We have no references to support a statement of fact either way. All we have are people's opinions based on their personal interpretations, and reasonable people disagree about those. It makes no sense to argue that although we disagree on what certain things must mean, the people who wrote the essays could only have meant 'this on specific interpretation'.
ALarson Posted September 14, 2016 Posted September 14, 2016 3 minutes 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. Then you believe the ban did not come from God? If so, I agree with you. 1
ALarson Posted September 14, 2016 Posted September 14, 2016 In reading more on this topic, I found that a black man (Elijah Abel) was given the priesthood as late as 1934 (and advanced in the priesthood in 1935), is that correct? Quote Several black men received the priesthood after the racial restriction policy was put in place, including Elijah Abel's son Enoch Abel, who was ordained an elder on November 10, 1900. Enoch's son and Elijah Abel's grandson—who was also named Elijah Abel—received the Aaronic priesthood and was ordained to the office of priest on July 5, 1934. The younger Elijah Abel also received the Melchizedek priesthood and was ordained to the office of elder on September 29, 1935. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_people_and_Mormonism
Scott Lloyd Posted September 14, 2016 Posted September 14, 2016 3 minutes ago, ALarson said: Then you believe the ban did not come from God? If so, I agree with you. I don't know how you got that from what I wrote. I believe the ban may very well have come from God. In fact, I believe it quite likely, given how hard President Kimball had to work to obtain a revelation that it was time for it to be lifted.
ALarson Posted September 14, 2016 Posted September 14, 2016 Just now, Scott Lloyd said: I don't know how you got that from what I wrote. I believe the ban may very well have come from God. In fact, I believe it quite likely, given how hard President Kimball had to work to obtain a revelation that it was time for it to be lifted. Sorry if I misunderstood your statement below: 11 minutes 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.
Scott Lloyd Posted September 14, 2016 Posted September 14, 2016 7 minutes ago, ALarson said: Sorry if I misunderstood your statement below: I know what I wrote. It mystifies me that you drew the conclusion from it that you did. i"m saying that, whatever reasoning God had for instituting the ban, it could not properly be called racism, as racism is a negative trait belonging to fallible mortal men and women.
Gray Posted September 14, 2016 Posted September 14, 2016 (edited) 55 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: It has everything to do with your opinion. Your opinion doesn't equate to objective reality anymore than mine does. It's not a matter of opinion that a ban on black people is racist. Your argument is with the English language, not with me. Edited September 14, 2016 by Gray 1
Gray Posted September 14, 2016 Posted September 14, 2016 55 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: So you are thus trying to engage in mind reading. I don't think having an opinion on intent behind a statement amounts to mind reading. We all do this.
Gray Posted September 14, 2016 Posted September 14, 2016 45 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said: 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. I can't argue with that. Some people think that God asks us to engage in racist and/or sexist behaviors.
Gray Posted September 14, 2016 Posted September 14, 2016 42 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said: The Church disavows are man derived sources of racism. That's not what it says in the essay. 42 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said: 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. Whether or not it's right or wrong, it's still racist, by definition.
Gray Posted September 14, 2016 Posted September 14, 2016 32 minutes ago, stemelbow said: 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. Here is what I suspect happened. Some in church leadership are ready to explicitly disavow the ban. Others would not agree to it, so the the disavowal of racism in general was the compromise. Note that I'm not attempting to read anyone's mind. I find this to be a plausible explanation for the language used in the essay. 2
Gray Posted September 14, 2016 Posted September 14, 2016 29 minutes ago, bluebell said: Maybe. But also, maybe not. I think that is Scott's point. We just don't know. We have no references to support a statement of fact either way. All we have are people's opinions based on their personal interpretations, and reasonable people disagree about those. It makes no sense to argue that although we disagree on what certain things must mean, the people who wrote the essays could only have meant 'this on specific interpretation'. I agree that when we're talking about intent, we are speculating. 1
ALarson Posted September 14, 2016 Posted September 14, 2016 (edited) 10 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: I know what I wrote. It mystifies me that you drew the conclusion from it that you did. I just misread it. I understand what you were saying now. I thought you meant that anything racist couldn't have come from God, so this ban could not have originated with God. (I agree with what I thought you wrote, but disagree with what you were actually stating. What a shock, huh? ) . Edited September 14, 2016 by ALarson
cinepro Posted September 14, 2016 Posted September 14, 2016 (edited) 36 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: But what practical difference does it make? Blacks were treated badly because of false doctrines taught by prophets. Those prophetic teachings were wrong for over 100 years. Does claiming the ban was instituted by God, despite a lack of evidence proving it, make the church less responsible? Does the church look better by shifting the blame to God, even though the church leaders clearly didn't understand God's will and thus taught false doctrines? What's the benefit of clutching to the ban as anything other than a mistake? Doing something that looks terrible and doesn't make any sense because God told you to looks noble. Doing it without God telling you to just looks terrible. Edited September 14, 2016 by cinepro
cinepro Posted September 14, 2016 Posted September 14, 2016 5 minutes ago, ALarson said: I just misread it. I understand what you were saying now. I thought you meant that anything racist couldn't have come from God, so this ban could not have originated with God. 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. 3
bluebell Posted September 14, 2016 Posted September 14, 2016 13 minutes ago, Gray said: That's not what it says in the essay. Whether or not it's right or wrong, it's still racist, by definition. 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?
Scott Lloyd Posted September 14, 2016 Posted September 14, 2016 3 minutes 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. Isaiah 55:8-9
Scott Lloyd Posted September 14, 2016 Posted September 14, 2016 13 minutes ago, Gray said: I agree that when we're talking about intent, we are speculating. If that's true, I'm glad, but it is not consistent with what you have been arguing.
Scott Lloyd Posted September 14, 2016 Posted September 14, 2016 12 minutes ago, ALarson said: I just misread it. I understand what you were saying now. I thought you meant that anything racist couldn't have come from God, so this ban could not have originated with God. (I agree with what I thought you wrote, but disagree with what you were actually stating. What a shock, huh? ) . So you disagree, then, that God could have had an non-racist reason for instituting the ban?
Scott Lloyd Posted September 14, 2016 Posted September 14, 2016 25 minutes ago, Gray said: It's not a matter of opinion that a ban on black people is racist. Your argument is with the English language, not with me. 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.
Recommended Posts