McConkie account of the removal of priesthood/temple ban

[clarkgoble]

2 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

My earlier post makes 2 assertions:

01. That the church has now admitted that the ban was born out of racism.

02. That the '78 edition of the 12 were acting as if the ban had been put in place due to prior revelation and was God will rather than racism.

I did not assert that the lifting of the ban was not revelation...(at least not in my post) 

It seems to me that you're setting up a false dichotomy. It could be a combination of revelation and racism after all. I make no claims on knowing the full source -- but I think it significant there were people willing to change it who felt like their answer from God was not right now. Of course they could have been mistaken. I'm a fallibilist and so am quite open to that. It might well have been that the Church as a whole was too racist and God was getting the Church ready. After all it's quite plausible to believe God deals with us in our wickedness and weakness. A great example of that was Moses bringing down the law, seeing the golden calf and then getting a different law to meet their level.

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

That doesn't mean that BY wasn't racist though.

[Oliblish]

1 hour ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Please enlighten me Scott.  Was the ban put in place because of the prevailing racism of the time the ban was put in place or was it due to a revelation from God?

I know you didn't ask me, but I thought I would throw in my two cents.

I feel the priesthood essay on LDS.org was written in a way that supports multiple explanations for the ban.  I think different people with different background and experiences can read the essay and come up with very different conclusions.  

A couple of weeks ago I listened to an episode of the Mormon FAIR-Cast where the leadership of the Genesis Group were interviewed.   The way they interpreted the priesthood essay was that the priesthood and temple ban was not of God but something that Brigham Young put in place.  I know that there are other people who read it get something entirely different out of it.

Again, this was a couple of weeks ago and I don't remember the exact words that were said.  But if you are interested in this topic I think this podcast offers interesting perspectives on this subject - perspectives that I don't often hear as an middle-aged white guy in Utah County.

[bluebell]

36 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I'm sure we all are.  I just meant that none of that precluded BY implementing the ban because of being racist.  BY might not be to blame, but none of the points you made serve as evidence that he's not.

[mnn727]

Johnie Cake, I think you're reading things that just are not there, even your bolded statements don't say what you seem to desperately want them to say.

[JLHPROF]

36 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I'm sure we all are.  I just meant that none of that precluded BY implementing the ban because of being racist.  BY might not be to blame, but none of the points you made serve as evidence that he's not.

My most important point is in his motivation.
Brigham was attempting to execute Joseph's vision.  That is the most important point.  It was how he approached everything.
So when we start saying that the unpopular things Brigham implemented came from his own faulty character we are doing a disservice to him and to history.

It's no better in my mind than those so called "scholars" who claim polygamy came from Brigham and make up some silly theories about Joseph's polygamy not really being polygamy.  Or that Brigham's formalized United Order was completely apart from Joseph's teachings on Consecration and Stewardship. 
Disingenuous approach to history.

Edited July 25, 2017 by JLHPROF

[Kenngo1969]

14 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

I think this is the first leak I've been excited to see....the rest just weren't as interesting  

 

 

Hey, a receipt for luncheon expenses from April 31, 1976 when the General Relief Society presidency met with Relief Society leaders on the Stake and Ward level in the Africa West Area ... now that is where it is at, man!  (Did they have water to drink, or did they splurge on soda?!  Sodagate ... Right up there with Watergate!)  

Edited July 25, 2017 by Kenngo1969

[Johnnie Cake]

4 hours ago, Oliblish said:

I know you didn't ask me, but I thought I would throw in my two cents.

I feel the priesthood essay on LDS.org was written in a way that supports multiple explanations for the ban.  I think different people with different background and experiences can read the essay and come up with very different conclusions.  

A couple of weeks ago I listened to an episode of the Mormon FAIR-Cast where the leadership of the Genesis Group were interviewed.   The way they interpreted the priesthood essay was that the priesthood and temple ban was not of God but something that Brigham Young put in place.  I know that there are other people who read it get something entirely different out of it.

Again, this was a couple of weeks ago and I don't remember the exact words that were said.  But if you are interested in this topic I think this podcast offers interesting perspectives on this subject - perspectives that I don't often hear as an middle-aged white guy in Utah County.

We're actually in agreement....I agree that the essays were written in such a way that supports multiple explanations too.

[Johnnie Cake]

5 hours ago, bluebell said:

Can you produce a statement, from the essay, saying that the ban was not of God, or not?  I've read the essay many many times, and I disagree that in it the church admits the ban wasn't of God, so you need to provide the part that you believe supports your assertion. 

 

Bluebell the entire essay on the Priesthood ban is an augment that the ban was born out of the racism in place at the time if was put in place...read it again.  it is shifting responsibility from God and placing it on squarely on BY's shoulders

[Johnnie Cake]

3 hours ago, mnn727 said:

Johnie Cake, I think you're reading things that just are not there, even your bolded statements don't say what you seem to desperately want them to say.

Really and what part exactly isn't saying what I assert? 

When the First Presidency says:

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,

Are you disagreeing with them and saying they were not meaning that it was the direct commandment of from the Lord?

 

And are you asserting that is statement is not racist?

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.

It screams racism...

[Pete Ahlstrom]

4 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

I hope God isn't.

[mnn727]

41 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

And are you asserting that is statement is not racist?

It screams racism...

Maybe to you but not to me. The doctrine that no one will miss out on any blessing in Heaven due to their circumstances here -- thats a wonderful doctrine and much of the reason I am LDS today.

Much of what you are calling racist was very normal behavior for its times. I grew up near the end of the era of "Whites" and "Colored" drinking fountains and restrooms, but they did still exist in my youth and teen years.

You cannot judge history by todays standards, it must be examined in its historical setting to be understood correctly and completely. 

 

Edited July 25, 2017 by mnn727

[USU78]

7 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

 

Edited July 25, 2017 by USU78

[USU78]

6 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

 

Edited July 25, 2017 by USU78

[Johnnie Cake]

29 minutes ago, mnn727 said:

Maybe to you but not to me. The doctrine that no one will miss out on any blessing in Heaven due to their circumstances here -- thats a wonderful doctrine and much of the reason I am LDS today.

Much of what you are calling racist was very normal behavior for its times. I grew up near the end of the era of "Whites" and "Colored" drinking fountains and restrooms, but they did still exist in my youth and teen years.

You cannot judge history by todays standards, it must be examined in its historical setting to be understood correctly and completely. 

 

I hope you are not suggesting that the racist policies of Jim Crow, white's only and Colored fountains and bathrooms were not racist...Just becaseu it was considered normal for its time...does not mean that it was not racist...geez

 

Edited July 25, 2017 by Johnnie Cake

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Bluebell the entire essay on the Priesthood ban is an augment that the ban was born out of the racism in place at the time if was put in place...read it again.  it is shifting responsibility from God and placing it on squarely on BY's shoulders

So you can't produce anything to support your earlier statement?  

[Johnnie Cake]

26 minutes ago, USU78 said:

 Whose racism,?

Whose Racism?  American racism

[mnn727]

24 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

I hope you are not suggesting that the racist policies of Jim Crow, white's only and Colored fountains and bathrooms were not racist...Just becaseu it was considered normal for its time...does not mean that it was not racist...geez

 

What I said and you may have missed it is: You cannot judge history by todays standards, it must be examined in its historical setting to be understood correctly and completely. 

[Johnnie Cake]

6 hours ago, bluebell said:

So you can't produce anything to support your earlier statement?  

That's what you got from my reply?   NO....The entire essay is arguing that the ban was born from the prevailing racism in place during the time the ban was initialed...Come on Bluebell you're a smart person...this can't be that great of stretch for you.  The entire essay is an apologetic piece to provide cover for the church over its priesthood ban and to attempt to explain away the ban

 

Edit to add:  I have used up my few allotted post for the day....so I won't be able to respond to any more posts.  The mods have determined that my POV is not valuable or important enough to warrant being heard.  This board is not a free speech zone...which is their right. I bid you adieu 

 Gaslighting Robert?  Poster removed.   

[bluebell]

33 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

That's what you got from my reply?   NO....The entire essay is arguing that the ban was born from the prevailing racism in place during the time the ban was initialed...Come on Bluebell you're a smart person...this can't be that great of stretch for you.  The entire essay is an apologetic piece to provide cover for the church over its priesthood ban and to attempt to explain away the ban

 

Edit to add:  I have used up my few allotted post for the day....so I won't be able to respond to any more posts.  The mods have determined that my POV is not valuable or important enough to warrant being heard.  This board is not a free speech zone...which is their right. I bid you adieu 

I've read the essay multiple times and i disagree that's what it says.  It clearly says that the reasons behind the ban were racist but it does not address one way or the other whether or not the ban itself was of God.  This is why you can't produce a statement to support your earlier claim.  There is no statement to produce.  All you have is interpretation of statements.

 

[JLHPROF]

4 hours ago, Pete Ahlstrom said:

I hope God isn't.

That depends on whether the scriptural accounts are accurate representations of God.  And if they aren't and the scriptures got that aspect of his character wrong who knows what other personality traits we think God has are wrong too.

Edited July 26, 2017 by JLHPROF

[Stargazer]

On 7/24/2017 at 3:59 PM, bluebell said:

They always make sure it's even whenever i've been in the temple.  Sometimes it takes a while to get enough people of the right gender to volunteer, and when it does we just wait until it's even. 

Can it consist of just women?

I have been in at least one session in the Seattle temple where there were not enough women present, and they just went with it.

[sunstoned]

6 hours ago, bluebell said:

So you can't produce anything to support your earlier statement?  

Have you read the essay?  

[Stargazer]

21 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Within living memory of some of those present on this board, prayer circles used to be held inside ward bldgs.

When setting forth upon my mission, I recall being advised that, if asked, we were not to participate in prayer circles. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

23 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

I have been in at least one session in the Seattle temple where there were not enough women present, and they just went with it.

Different temples but exact same experience, probably 10-15 times. It just doesn't seem to happen anymore, so I'm assuming direction has been given.