Doctrinal Mastery Changes

[ALarson]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So you disagree, then, that God could have had an non-racist reason for instituting the ban?

I believe instigating the ban was a mistake and came from man, not God.  It's a disgraceful part of our church's history, IMO.

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

Do you believe that George Albert Smith was incorrect when he stated this below?
 

• "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."

 

 

 

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?

How then do we explain Abraham 1 and the revelation of 1978?  How do we explain the Levitical priesthood?  These are still canon.

I am not saying the ban was a revelation from God.  Far from it.  But OD2 does state that:

• "He has heard our prayers, and by revelation has confirmed that the long-promised day has come when every faithful, worthy MAN in the Church may receive the holy priesthood".

Do we think that OD2 was misinterpreted by President Kimball when he said the revelation fulfilled the promise of future inclusion?  Because believing there never was a valid exclusion would negate his interpretation of his own revelation.
If the male only priesthood is likewise viewed as a cultural mistake why did God not use this same revelation to correct that as well?

Edited September 14, 2016 by JLHPROF

[rongo]

1 hour 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. 

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?" 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. 

Edited September 14, 2016 by rongo

[cinepro]

56 minutes 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.

What do you mean by "non-racist reason for doing so"?  The ban was based on race.  People of a (presumed) certain race were treated one way, and those who weren't were treated another way.  The only distinguishing factor was (presumed) race.

It would be like if I opened a hamburger stand with my dad and I wouldn't allow Jewish people to eat there because my dad said so.

If the Jewish people protested that my dad was anti-Semitic and the policy was anti-Semitic, and I responded "No, that's impossible.  My dad isn't anti-Semitic at all!  There's probably some other reason that Jews can't eat here that has nothing to do with their religion, and it's only the common factor of them also being Jewish that makes it look anti-Semitic.  While I have no idea what that other common factor might be, please be assured that we have nothing but love for the Jewish people in general, and you are free to grab a few napkins and ketchup packets while you're here, but no hamburgers" would that make more sense?  And would you expect that to make them feel better?

 

Or to put it another way, the ban makes about as much sense as if President Monson stood in conference next month and said "Brothers and Sisters, the Lord has made known to me that effective immediately, those brothers who are of Irish ancestry are no longer to have the Priesthood, nor can men and women of Irish ancestry be sealed in the Temple or perform Temple ordinances.  This will apply to all those who have red hair and freckles.  I don't know why the Lord is doing this, but it is being done in His wisdom and according to His will."

If you were sitting next to two red-headed 11 year olds who had been looking forward to getting the Priesthood, would you just look at them and say "Tough break boys.  If you read the scriptures and study Church history, you'll see that God does this sometimes"?  Would the policy seem a little odd to you?

What if the Priesthood and Temple blessings were withheld from everyone with blue eyes.  Or naturally curly hair.  Or presumed Chinese ancestry, but not Korean or Japanese, and you weren't allowed to use DNA testing to determine if anyone had mixed heritage.

These aren't hypothetical situations; they are exactly equivalent to what is now being suggested for the implementation of the Priesthood ban.  The only difference is that at the time it was implemented, there weren't enough blacks in the Church for it to make waves.

 

Edited September 14, 2016 by cinepro

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

I believe instigating the ban was a mistake and came from man, not God.  It's a disgraceful part of our church's history, IMO.

That wasn't the question.

The question was whether you think God could have had a non-racist reason for decreeing the ban.

[JLHPROF]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

That wasn't the question.

The question was whether you think God could have had a non-racist reason for decreeing the ban.

I think the ban was racist in its nature.  Assuming God did decree the ban whether God's reason had anything to do with race is not clear.
There are many reasons God could in his wisdom have known to restrict priesthood.

Why did God choose to send the gospel first to the Jews THEN to the gentiles?  Doesn't the atonement cover all men and always has?
Perhaps the continued existence of slavery until the 1860s could have been a cause of the decree (just speculating wildly here).

The ban WAS racist, but that doesn't mean that if God instituted it that he did it for racist reasons alone.

[Scott Lloyd]

17 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. 

I'm determined not to let this get buried.

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

 

[JLHPROF]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I'm determined not to let this get buried.

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

 

Well he hasn't been on the board since before you issued it as far as I can see.
Perhaps you should PM him instead.

[rongo]

1 minute ago, JLHPROF said:

I think the ban was racist in its nature.  Assuming God did decree the ban whether God's reason had anything to do with race is not clear.
There are many reasons God could in his wisdom have known to restrict priesthood.

Why did God choose to send the gospel first to the Jews THEN to the gentiles?  Doesn't the atonement cover all men and always has?
Perhaps the continued existence of slavery until the 1860s could have been a cause of the decree (just speculating wildly here).

The ban WAS racist, but that doesn't mean that if God instituted it that he did it for racist reasons alone.

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."

[JLHPROF]

3 minutes 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."

It is part of our culture today that 100% equality among all people in all things is the only good.  Nobody can be allowed to have something you don't and nobody
should have to suffer without something you have.
Any separation of people is seen as discriminatory and therefore wrong.  (Have you heard about the push to replace "boys" and "girls" with "students" in schools?)

I am not convinced that God sees things that way at all.  There is much grouping and division of people occurring by God all throughout scripture, going all the way back to the "noble and great ones" and all the way forward to "these shall be angels/these shall be gods".

So is "racism" always bad?  What about "reverse racism"?  Gender equality movements?  Civil rights?  Affirmative action?
Equality is a myth, regardless of how you group people.

[rongo]

12 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Well he hasn't been on the board since before you issued it as far as I can see.
Perhaps you should PM him instead.

I don't care for the incessant "bumping" and demands that CFRs be answered that some engage in here. Silence can also be an answer to a CFR, no? 

[bluebell]

5 minutes ago, rongo said:

I don't care for the incessant "bumping" and demands that CFRs be answered that some engage in here. Silence can also be an answer to a CFR, no? 

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

[JLHPROF]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

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

They'd have to visit the board to do so.

[Scott Lloyd]

10 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

They'd have to visit the board to do so.

Presumably, if he ever returns (which he does, from time to time) he will be held accountable for it. But not if, in the meantime, it's allowed to fade into oblivion.

I'll just ask: Can anyone here provide a link to what Reel is referencing? I remember a while ago seeing a Facebook post or some such thing where Dehlin was purveying a rumor and citing an anonymous source, coyly saying he doubts it is true, but I can't even find that now. Perhaps it has been taken down. Dehlin has a habit of posting stuff on the internet and then removing it according to whim.

 

Edited September 15, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[ttribe]

22 minutes ago, rongo said:

I don't care for the incessant "bumping" and demands that CFRs be answered that some engage in here. Silence can also be an answer to a CFR, no? 

Agreed.  That may be the most abused rule on this board.  It's become a weapon to be wielded to discredit an opponent, not a method for ensuring accuracy, learning new information, or providing proper attribution.

[Scott Lloyd]

46 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Agreed.  That may be the most abused rule on this board.  It's become a weapon to be wielded to discredit an opponent, not a method for ensuring accuracy, learning new information, or providing proper attribution.

Well I don't cop to that in this instance.

He said Dehlin had a source that says the new policy will be rescinded with publication of a handbook revision next year. I asked him if this is referencing what Dehlin was claiming before or if he had something more solid than that to go on. Instead of saying yes or no, his response was "I'm going to leave you guessing." It was after that that I issued the CFR.

I did so for the purpose of learning new information, ensuring accuracy and knowing what the attribution is.

By failing to provide it, he discredits himself, but that's not my doing.

But if you think I'm abusing the rule, your recourse is to take it to the moderation team. In fact, another of the rules is that you do that instead of being a net nanny.

 

 

Edited September 15, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[ttribe]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Well I don't cop to that in this instance.

He said Dehlin had a source that says the new policy will be rescinded with publication of a handbook revision next year. I asked him if this is referencing what Dehlin was claiming before or if he had something more solid than that to go on. Instead of saying yes or no, he response was "I'm going to leave you guessing." It was after that that I issued the CFR.

I did so for the purpose of learning new information, ensuring accuracy and knowing what the attribution is.

By failing to provide it, he discredits himself, but that's not my doing.

But if you think I'm abusing the rule, your recourse is to take it to the moderation team. In fact, another of the rules is that you do that instead of being a net nanny.

 

 

I didn't even mention you; mine was a general comment.  Really, Scott, not everything I respond to on this board has something to do with you.

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, ttribe said:

I didn't even mention you; mine was a general comment.  Really, Scott, not everything I respond to on this board has something to do with you.

That's good to know, but I was definitely part of the context of the conversation, as rongo, when he complained about it, was responding to JLHPROF's comment about my bumping the thread so as not to lose track of the CFR.

[ttribe]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

That's good to know, but I was definitely part of the context of the conversation, as rongo, when he complained about it, was responding to JLHPROF's comment about my bumping the thread so as not to lose track of the CFR.

I understand.  I happened to see rongo's post and, since the abuse of the CFR rule has become a bit of a pet peeve of mine over the years, I chose to add my voice in agreement to his about the general trend of using the CFR as a blunt instrument.

[Scott Lloyd]

14 minutes ago, ttribe said:

I understand.  I happened to see rongo's post and, since the abuse of the CFR rule has become a bit of a pet peeve of mine over the years, I chose to add my voice in agreement to his about the general trend of using the CFR as a blunt instrument.

Got it. Thanks for the clarification.

 

[bluebell]

56 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Agreed.  That may be the most abused rule on this board.  It's become a weapon to be wielded to discredit an opponent, not a method for ensuring accuracy, learning new information, or providing proper attribution.

I think, while it's meant to do all those things, that it's also meant to keep people honest.  It's nice knowing that the board can't dissolve into people making all sorts of statements of fact without being held accountable for them.  In other words, some people make statements that need to be discredited and the CFR is a great tool for being able to do that (when it's needed).

I do like the 'asked and answered' rule as well though.  I think it tries to keep people from beating others over the head with incessant CFRs.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

They'd have to visit the board to do so.

He visited the board about an hour after this was posted.

[JulieM]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

He visited the board about an hour after this was posted.

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.

[churchistrue]

12 hours ago, bluebell said:

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

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

 

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, churchistrue said:

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

No, it just keeps (most) posters honest.