McConkie account of the removal of priesthood/temple ban

[CV75]

35 minutes ago, rockpond said:

What clarity is still necessary?

• Did the race-based temple and priesthood ban come from God?  Or, was it rooted in BY's racism?
• Was the ban what God wanted?  Initially?  All the way through 1978?
• Why did our prophets, seers, and revelators teach, as doctrine, incorrect principles regarding race for such a long time?

I can't speak to everyone who has left, is leaving, or has lost a certain element of their faith but from those I've spoken with, here are the concerns that seem to come out of this issue and the corresponding essay:

• If the teachings surrounding race were wrong, why was the church permitted to go astray for ~125 years?
• What is the role of a prophet/seer/revelator if they can't correct a doctrinal error impacting the church and, more importantly, many members' access to saving ordinances?
• If we could be wrong regarding an entire race for over a century, how do I know that current teachings regarding _______ [fill in the blank] are also not wrong and will someday all be disavowed with an anonymously authored essay?

I don't see these concerns as seeking a cartoonish version of the gospel.  While I have had to rebuild my testimony around a revised foundation, these concerns speak to the role of the Prophet and Apostles as taught to new and old members alike.  These concerns speak to what the restoration actually is and to our understanding of latter-day revelation.

Does your revised foundation happen to be “the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven…”? Does this form the basis for you to “believe in the gift of the Holy Ghost, the power of faith, the enjoyment of the spiritual gifts according to the will of God, the restoration of the house of Israel, and the final triumph of truth.”? (History of the Church, 3:30; from an editorial published in Elders’ Journal, July 1838, p. 44; Joseph Smith was the editor of the periodical).

I hope so! as that would mollify the need for clarity and temper some of the conclusions (“racism,” “incorrect principles,” “long time,” “go astray,” “doctrinal error,” “access,” “wrong”…). It would clarify the role of the prophet and apostles, the restoration in terms of what Israel is, and the enjoyment of revelation in anticipation of the final triumph of truth.

Edited August 2, 2017 by CV75

[rockpond]

32 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

You haven't explained why knowing that is so important. There are certainly lots of questions we have that would be nice to know answers for. I have a ton. But in what way are those questions important?

The reason I think it's cartoonish is that underneath the complaints is the idea that infallibility is the only viable view. If apostles are fallible (as I think independent of post-Nauvoo developments one has to accept) then those problems basically disappear.

Let's put it a different way. If our modern way of life is so important and good, why did God reveal 20th century ethics and technology 6000 years ago? Why make people suffer for all those years? Why did God let people go astray for thousands of years? If polygamy and racism was wrong, why not make it a key part of the laws taught to Abraham, Moses or Isaiah? Why not reveal the printing press to Isaiah to make sure more people heard God's word?

Any complaint you could possibly make about the 20th century I can make orders of magnitude worse by just asking why it didn't happen thousands of years earlier.

I agree with the principle of prophetic fallibility.  I had to make that an integral part of my faith after everything crumbled some years ago.  And I agree that once you fully accept fallibility, *those* problems disappear.  But other ones come back... like those I highlighted in my list of questions.

I can understand that prophetic fallibility and racism likely led us into a lengthy period of denying priesthood and temple ordinances to people because of their race.  I can understand that removal of that ban was delayed because the church members weren't ready and/or because of disunity among the quorum.  Those explanations work for me.

I'm not asking for all to be revealed at once.  I'm not asking for God to make all dispensations ethically and morally equal.  I'm not asking for God to provide us with perfect prophets, seers, and revelators.

What I am asking is that now that we know our teachings on race were wrong, now that we're trying to put past institutional racism behind us, why can we not have a prophet come forward and declare how or why the ban came about in the first place and if its origins were divine or mortal?  If prophetic fallibility is a true principle, why not admit that this was a prophetic mistake rather than continuing to shroud it in double-speak?  Why not formally acknowledge that Woodruff's teachings that "a prophet cannot lead the church astray" may not be exactly what we've made it out to be?

That the concerns I highlighted with my list of questions are "cartoonish" and not relevant to you, does not mean that is true for every member/investigator of the church. 

[rockpond]

20 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Does your revised foundation happen to be “the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven…”? Does this form the basis for you to “believe in the gift of the Holy Ghost, the power of faith, the enjoyment of the spiritual gifts according to the will of God, the restoration of the house of Israel, and the final triumph of truth.”? (History of the Church, 3:30; from an editorial published in Elders’ Journal, July 1838, p. 44; Joseph Smith was the editor of the periodical).

I hope so! as that would mollify the need for clarity and temper some of the conclusions (“racism,” “incorrect principles,” “long time,” “go astray,” “doctrinal error,” “access,” “wrong”…). It would clarify the role of the prophet and apostles, the restoration in terms of what Israel is, and the enjoyment of revelation in anticipation of the final triumph of truth.

Yes.

[ksfisher]

1 minute ago, rockpond said:

If prophetic fallibility is a true principle, why not admit that this was a prophetic mistake rather than continuing to shroud it in double-speak? 

I think one of the problems with saying that it was a mistake, or even saying that it wasn't a mistake, is that there is no record of why it was put in place.  We, now, can say that it is racism, but that is us speaking for and assigning motives to the actions of people in the past.  Why we may understand what happened I don't think we'll ever really understand why it happened.  And I don't think that we today will ever be able to understand the conditions, culture, and events that led to the ban.  We need to be able to walk the proverbial mile in their shoes to comprehend, which we can't.

Perhaps less looking back and judging and more moving forward and forgiving are in order. 

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

I think one of the problems with saying that it was a mistake, or even saying that it wasn't a mistake, is that there is no record of why it was put in place.  We, now, can say that it is racism, but that is us speaking for and assigning motives to the actions of people in the past.  Why we may understand what happened I don't think we'll ever really understand why it happened.  And I don't think that we today will ever be able to understand the conditions, culture, and events that led to the ban.  We need to be able to walk the proverbial mile in their shoes to comprehend, which we can't.

Perhaps less looking back and judging and more moving forward and forgiving are in order. 

I have forgiven and moved forward.

I get that *we* don't understand and that there is no record.  I thought that a prophet, seer, and revelator was able to seek those answers for a church that is troubled by the issue.

 

[CV75]

16 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Yes.

But then you keep creating problems out of prophetic fallibility when infallibility, according to the fundamental principles of our religion, simply isn’t their role.

Compare what has happened with Israel with and without [fallible, mind you!] prophets since her inception, in the fulfillment of Old Testament and book of Mormon prophecy before 1820, and now in the restoration. There’s been nothing but thousands of years of progress toward the final triumph of truth despite the spiritual and societal shortcomings of Israel and her prophets (the only valid ones of which are the Lord’s condemnation in scripture).

If “we know our teachings on race were wrong, now that we're trying to put past institutional racism behind us,” why do we still need “a prophet come forward and declare how or why the ban came about in the first place and if its origins were divine or mortal (again, with the hasty conclusion of “prophetic mistake,” “double-speak” and “astray”)? If someone has such a foundation so carefully reforged in alignment with Joseph Smith’s statement, that would be enough for him to move on, no matter how seriously he takes his own conclusions.

My goodness, I just saw that you persist with these needs after having forgiven and moved forward as well?

Edited August 2, 2017 by CV75

[CV75]

8 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I have forgiven and moved forward.

I get that *we* don't understand and that there is no record.  I thought that a prophet, seer, and revelator was able to seek those answers for a church that is troubled by the issue.

Keep forgiving and moving forward, then...

[ksfisher]

23 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I have forgiven and moved forward.

I get that *we* don't understand and that there is no record.  I thought that a prophet, seer, and revelator was able to seek those answers for a church that is troubled by the issue.

 

Prophecies, visions, and revelations are gifts from the Lord.  If He chooses to make it known it will be known. 

[clarkgoble]

53 minutes ago, rockpond said:

What I am asking is that now that we know our teachings on race were wrong, now that we're trying to put past institutional racism behind us, why can we not have a prophet come forward and declare how or why the ban came about in the first place and if its origins were divine or mortal?  If prophetic fallibility is a true principle, why not admit that this was a prophetic mistake rather than continuing to shroud it in double-speak?  Why not formally acknowledge that Woodruff's teachings that "a prophet cannot lead the church astray" may not be exactly what we've made it out to be?

That the concerns I highlighted with my list of questions are "cartoonish" and not relevant to you, does not mean that is true for every member/investigator of the church. 

But why is knowing the origins of the contemporary ban somehow more important than knowing why God chose Israel and not an other nation? Why is it more important than knowing why God doesn't give his word to most people (which seems much more egregious than the priesthood ban).

By cartoonish I'm not saying these aren't real issues for people. I'm saying that it requires a view of religion where relatively small questions are seen as important because they're recent while the HUGE questions are accepted as not important.

In other words of all the things God has to answer, isn't the priesthood ban pretty small potatoes? Especially since it's almost certainly not an either/or situation but an evolution with a combination of both with thousands of people trying the best they could -- even if God was willing to give an answer what do you do if the answer would take the equivalent of volumes? i.e. it's not simple -- again what I was getting at with "cartoonish." 

I get people want it to be either all of God or all of people. But that's almost certainly just not what the truth is. And once it's a combination it becomes almost unanswerable in principle beyond "it's a combination of things."

 

Edited August 2, 2017 by clarkgoble

[clarkgoble]

48 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

I think one of the problems with saying that it was a mistake, or even saying that it wasn't a mistake, is that there is no record of why it was put in place. 

I'm assuming he wants a clear and unambiguous revelation explaining the origins in detail. (Correct me if I'm wrong)

I think the brethren are honestly trying to answer things the best they can using human knowledge - but as you note it's ultimately an unanswerable question beyond what you already see in the essay.

[rockpond]

10 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I'm assuming he wants a clear and unambiguous revelation explaining the origins in detail. (Correct me if I'm wrong)

I think the brethren are honestly trying to answer things the best they can using human knowledge - but as you note it's ultimately an unanswerable question beyond what you already see in the essay.

Unanswerable using human knowledge.  I thought that the prophet had access to divine knowledge - which could answer those questions.

 

[rockpond]

Clark, CV75, ksfisher,

I get that the questions I listed earlier are not YOUR questions.  They are not relevant to your faith journey.  That's great.

For me, I've answered them.  I've moved on.  My understanding of the answers to those questions is what has allowed me to be comfortable in my faith and with the answers I've received regarding some of the other issues in the church.

But those questions are important to many and relevant to their faith.  Those questions speak to the role of prophets, our place in the restoration, and the power of revelation.  These are important principles in our church.

And, in a church where questions are honored, I don't think those question can be easily dismissed as having a cartoonish view or failing to forgive and move forward.

[ksfisher]

1 minute ago, rockpond said:

Clark, CV75, ksfisher,

I get that the questions I listed earlier are not YOUR questions.  They are not relevant to your faith journey.  That's great.

For me, I've answered them.  I've moved on.  My understanding of the answers to those questions is what has allowed me to be comfortable in my faith and with the answers I've received regarding some of the other issues in the church.

But those questions are important to many and relevant to their faith.  Those questions speak to the role of prophets, our place in the restoration, and the power of revelation.  These are important principles in our church.

And, in a church where questions are honored, I don't think those question can be easily dismissed as having a cartoonish view or failing to forgive and move forward.

I don't think the questions are being dismissed. 

As Clark has pointed out; from a historical viewpoint the answers we have now are the answers we have now.

From a spiritual viewpoint we don't have answers either.  Until the time we do patience, forgiveness, and a willingness to move on seem to be what the Lord is asking us to do.  One day all will be know, but answers come in the Lords time.  Revelations that a prophet receives comes from the Lord and they only come in the Lords time, not ours or the prophets.

Our faith should not be based on what answers prophets do or don't receive.  Our faith should be based on our personal experiences and our personal witness of Jesus Christ as revealed through the Spirit.

[rockpond]

23 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

I don't think the questions are being dismissed. 

As Clark has pointed out; from a historical viewpoint the answers we have now are the answers we have now.

From a spiritual viewpoint we don't have answers either.  Until the time we do patience, forgiveness, and a willingness to move on seem to be what the Lord is asking us to do.  One day all will be know, but answers come in the Lords time.  Revelations that a prophet receives comes from the Lord and they only come in the Lords time, not ours or the prophets.

Our faith should not be based on what answers prophets do or don't receive.  Our faith should be based on our personal experiences and our personal witness of Jesus Christ as revealed through the Spirit.

Your answer here dismisses the questions -- if you go back and read them and then read your reply above it should be apparent.  

[ksfisher]

48 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Your answer here dismisses the questions -- if you go back and read them and then read your reply above it should be apparent.  

I'm not sure how I'm dismissing your questions by attempting to answer them. 

[cinepro]

17 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

That seems dubious reasoning. Consider Moses coming down with the original law. Many of the people are worshipping the golden calf. We get (according to many interpretations) a new set of laws. Now is the idolatrous culture of the Jews irrelevant or did the new law originate with God?

 

That's a terrible example.

In your example, a "law" is revealed to correct sinful behavior in the "culture."  If it were like the priesthood ban, then Moses would have come down from the mountain and seen the idol-worshipping Israelites and said "Hey, there's a new policy that we should worship golden idols!"  And then the Israelites worship golden idols for centuries, but then the culture changes and people start to think it isn't a good thing to worship golden idols, so then Isaiah comes along and says "I have just received a revelation that it is sinful to worship golden idols." 

And the people scratch their heads and say "But it started with Moses, and we've done it for centuries!" and Isaiah says "Yes, but Moses really got the idea from the culture of his time, and there was never a revelation to worship the idols, and all those reasons that you've been taught over the years about how the idols are a similitude and representation of God and so it's great to worship them are wrong.  We don't know why, exactly, Moses told us to start worshiping idols, but we have a revelation now that is telling us to stop.  Forget everything that I've said, or Moses said, or Joshua said, about how we should worship idols and we would do so until the Messiah comes.  We spoke in error and you can totally trust me now."

Edited August 2, 2017 by cinepro

[blueglass]

17 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Women do receive priesthood in the temple.
It just isn't ecclesiastical in order.  And that is why Jane Manning was not permitted to participate.
They are ordinances of the priesthood.

Women receive priesthood in the temple to carry forth the duties, responsibilities, and gifts pertaining to priestesses in zion.  zion has a female gender with a purpose to fulfill the promises of  D&Cov 113:7-8 and is not just restricted to ordinances in the temple, and when joseph said the relief society sisters would move according to the ancient priesthood and would make of this society a "kingdom of priests" it was addressed to the relief society and the work they do occurs both in and outside the temple.  Women wear priesthood garments both inside and outside the temple.  Women receive power and authority in the temples to preside, and act as ministers for christ outside the temple in the world, in zion, in the stakes, in relief society.  Ecclesiastical orders described in D&Cov 20 from 1832 predate the temple endowment by many years and were not updated before Joseph's death, however JS did say that if the RS needs "any officers and wanted to carry out the designs of the institution, let them be appointed and set apart, as deacons, teachers &c [priests] are among us."  In May 1868 when Sarah M. Kimball and Eliza R Snow re-constituted the relief society they did fulfill this promise by delineating the duties of the officers of the relief society.  Offices included "Presidentess", "Councellors", "Secretary", "Treasurer", "Teachers", "Deaconesses".   To say that priestess is not an office in the priesthood and that this office and associated responsibilities do not pertain to ministerial life outside the physical walls of the temple is anachronistic.  In the Kanab Relief Society meeting, Eliza was recognized as "president of all the feminine portion of the human race" and as the "leading Priestess of this dispensation" (see Woman's Exponent 9, Apr. 1, 1881).  

 

Edited August 2, 2017 by blueglass

[ksfisher]

3 minutes ago, blueglass said:

  Women receive power and authority in the temples to preside, and act as ministers for christ outside the temple in the world, in zion, in the stakes, in relief society.

 

The authority to act in the office of, for example, a ward relief society president, is not derived from the temple but from the bishop of that ward.  A ward relief society president is not required to be endowed to fill that office. 

[rockpond]

29 minutes ago, cinepro said:

That's a terrible example.

In your example, a "law" is revealed to correct sinful behavior in the "culture."  If it were like the priesthood ban, then Moses would have come down from the mountain and seen the idol-worshipping Israelites and said "Hey, there's a new policy that we should worship golden idols!"  And then the Israelites worship golden idols for centuries, but then the culture changes and people start to think it isn't a good thing to worship golden idols, so then Isaiah comes along and says "I have just received a revelation that it is sinful to worship golden idols." 

And the people scratch their heads and say "But it started with Moses, and we've done it for centuries!" and Isaiah says "Yes, but Moses really got the idea from the culture of his time, and there was never a revelation to worship the idols, and all those reasons that you've been taught over the years about how the idols are a similitude and representation of God and so it's great to worship them are wrong.  We don't know why, exactly, Moses told us to start worshiping idols, but we have a revelation now that is telling us to stop.  Forget everything that I've said, or Moses said, or Joshua said, about how we should worship idols and we would do so until the Messiah comes.  We spoke in error and you can totally trust me now."

That last sentence (bold added by me).  That seems to be at the heart of the faith crises of many in my own circle of friends and loved ones.

[clarkgoble]

22 hours ago, rockpond said:

Unanswerable using human knowledge.  I thought that the prophet had access to divine knowledge - which could answer those questions.

God can. Whether he choses to is an other question. That's more or less what I'm presuming - that God decides what to reveal and typically he doesn't reveal that much. I don't see that undeniable fact as a problem.

Now if your argument is simply an argument for atheism from the claim that a God who hides so much and reveals so little is useless, that's a reasonable argument to make. It's rather different from arguments about blacks and the priesthood that presume there is a God. After all for an atheist it's all nonsense and the debate doesn't matter at all. So I confess I find it an odd approach to bring up. Especially since you identify yourself as having a faith. Overall I admit to being quite confused as to what it is you're arguing. If one is a theist of some sort then it seems a required belief that God gives extremely limited information.

 

21 hours ago, cinepro said:

That's a terrible example.

In your example, a "law" is revealed to correct sinful behavior in the "culture."  If it were like the priesthood ban, then Moses would have come down from the mountain and seen the idol-worshipping Israelites and said "Hey, there's a new policy that we should worship golden idols!"  And then the Israelites worship golden idols for centuries, but then the culture changes and people start to think it isn't a good thing to worship golden idols, so then Isaiah comes along and says "I have just received a revelation that it is sinful to worship golden idols." 

And the people scratch their heads and say "But it started with Moses, and we've done it for centuries!" and Isaiah says "Yes, but Moses really got the idea from the culture of his time, and there was never a revelation to worship the idols, and all those reasons that you've been taught over the years about how the idols are a similitude and representation of God and so it's great to worship them are wrong.  We don't know why, exactly, Moses told us to start worshiping idols, but we have a revelation now that is telling us to stop.  Forget everything that I've said, or Moses said, or Joshua said, about how we should worship idols and we would do so until the Messiah comes.  We spoke in error and you can totally trust me now."

I honestly don't understand people who treat examples to undermine an argument as only working if they correspond in every detail. Oddly I've encountered this numerous times this week.

To be clear and explicit, the example of Moses was designed to illustrate one point only: that God can give revelation based upon the choices and behavior or the people he is dealing with. It's not illustrating any other point. 

Relative to Blacks and the Priesthood it thereby entails as an important logical possibility that God was giving commandments based upon the weaknesses of the people he had to deal with. I'm not saying that is the case. I'm merely saying those who reject it as a live possibility are doing so incorrectly.

20 hours ago, rockpond said:

That last sentence (bold added by me).  That seems to be at the heart of the faith crises of many in my own circle of friends and loved ones.

i.e. only infallibility entails trust. The logical implication being that of course no one is trustworthy since there are no people who are infallible 

Again I completely understand why this is an issue for people. Yet there is no infallibility. Any engagement with God either has to understand him through a prisim of fallible knowledge or else adopt a fundamentalist mentality (which is what I mean by cartoon belief). Any such fundamentalist view ends up simply denying fallibilism by deny evidence. The problem is that often people give a false dichotomy between fundamentalism or atheism. (I'm not saying you are -- but what I'm calling cartoon discussions end up adopting that logic)

Edited August 3, 2017 by clarkgoble

[cinepro]

58 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I honestly don't understand people who treat examples to undermine an argument as only working if they correspond in every detail. Oddly I've encountered this numerous times this week.

To be clear and explicit, the example of Moses was designed to illustrate one point only: that God can give revelation based upon the choices and behavior or the people he is dealing with. It's not illustrating any other point.

The point was that your example was the opposite of what you were trying to illustrate.  In your example with Moses, you have a Prophet revealing that God thinks what the people are doing is bad and they should stop.  In the case of the Priesthood ban, you are arguing that the people held improperly racist beliefs but instead of God correcting them through the Prophet, He went along with it for some reason.

Second, every revelation that God gives should be based upon "the choices and behavior" of the people, otherwise what's the point?  If President Monson got up and said "God has revealed that we shouldn't mix pickles, succotash, Cool Whip, Jelly Beans and caviar into smoothies", we would rightfully wonder "who is doing that?"  So you're not making a point beyond stating the obvious.

And third, the problem people have with the Priesthood Ban is that there apparently wasn't a revelation to get it started, and that if there was a secret revelation that hasn't been made public, the idea that God would give a racist revelation based on the racist beliefs of his Prophet and the people of the time is a little disconcerting.  Just because a theory is logical doesn't mean it's good. 

And fourth, the idea that God will confirm and support people in their unrighteously racist ideas makes the very idea of God superfluous.  Because there is no need for a God (or "modern revelation") to allow people to continue going along with their culturally racist ideas.  They can do that all on their own.

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

The point was that your example was the opposite of what you were trying to illustrate.  In your example with Moses, you have a Prophet revealing that God thinks what the people are doing is bad and they should stop.  In the case of the Priesthood ban, you are arguing that the people held improperly racist beliefs but instead of God correcting them through the Prophet, He went along with it for some reason.

The typical view of the events with Moses and the calf is that Moses initially was giving a higher law. He came down and saw they were still caught up in idolatry so he gives them a lesser law more in keeping with their limited abilities. See eg. JST Ex 34

I recognize that you might not agree with that view of the events, but it's that to which I'm referring.

The presumption in this interpretation of the priesthood issue (and it's but one among several) is that we, the Church, were wicked and thus were not given blessings we could have had due to our racism. This isn't the only element we as a Church would have been under condemnation for. Pres. Benson clearly taught we were under condemnation for not taking the Book of Mormon seriously for instance. The implication being there were blessings we could have had but didn't have because of that. Some of us might even say that part of the lesson of the Book of Mormon we weren't taking seriously were its thoughts on race. 

Quote

Second, every revelation that God gives should be based upon "the choices and behavior" of the people, otherwise what's the point?

I certainly agree - although many people don't. 

Quote

And third, the problem people have with the Priesthood Ban is that there apparently wasn't a revelation to get it started, and that if there was a secret revelation that hasn't been made public, the idea that God would give a racist revelation based on the racist beliefs of his Prophet and the people of the time is a little disconcerting.  Just because a theory is logical doesn't mean it's good. 

There was no clear recorded revelation it's true. I don't think it follows that the only choices are a secret revelation or that it was uninspired. I'd say that most inspiration on leading the church isn't a clear written revelation nor does it need to be.

Edited August 3, 2017 by clarkgoble

[cinepro]

40 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

The typical view of the events with Moses and the calf is that Moses initially was giving a higher law. He came down and saw they were still caught up in idolatry so he gives them a lesser law more in keeping with their limited abilities. See eg. JST Ex 34

I recognize that you might not agree with that view of the events, but it's that to which I'm referring.

The presumption in this interpretation of the priesthood issue (and it's but one among several) is that we, the Church, were wicked and thus were not given blessings we could have had due to our racism. This isn't the only element we as a Church would have been under condemnation for. Pres. Benson clearly taught we were under condemnation for not taking the Book of Mormon seriously for instance. The implication being there were blessings we could have had but didn't have because of that. Some of us might even say that part of the lesson of the Book of Mormon we weren't taking seriously were its thoughts on race. 

 

I've made that point earlier in this thread.  The problem is that it wasn't the racist Church members who were punished.  It was the black members of the Church who were punished, and the racist Church members weren't even told they were doing anything wrong in the first place! 

In fact, the racist Church members were given scriptural and doctrinal reasons to justify their racism, which is kind of the opposite thing you would expect if they were doing anything wrong.  If anything, it created new racists in each generation as children learned that black people were cursed and inferior (based either on Cain's curse or something they did in the pre-existence).

I can't speak for black people, but I think if that's God's solution to racism in the Church, then maybe the Church is just better off not having God lead them on that one point.

 

[cinepro]

3 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

Relative to Blacks and the Priesthood it thereby entails as an important logical possibility that God was giving commandments based upon the weaknesses of the people he had to deal with. I'm not saying that is the case. I'm merely saying those who reject it as a live possibility are doing so incorrectly.

Here's my theoretical of what this theory is suggesting.

Suppose a report was given to President Monson that there is a problem with bullying in the Church.  Specifically, fat kids in primary and mutual are getting teased and otherwise ostracized by the other kids, and it is causing depression and inactivity.

President Monson stands up at the next Conference and says: "Brothers and sisters, we live in a day where kids treat those who look different as if they weren't deserving of our fellowship and respect.  This obviously doesn't conform to the gospel.  Since ancient days, the scriptures have taught us that gluttony is displeasing to the Lord, and we have in our midst many who are obviously gluttonous.  Whether their gluttony is indicative of a spiritual failing, or because of the sins of their parents, we don't know.  But we do know that we should treat all God's children with respect.  Even so, it has been made known unto me that since gluttony is displeasing to the Lord, effective immediately all kids who are visibly fat, or who have fat parents, will be asked to sit in separate classes in primary.  And while we appreciate their desire to serve the Lord, they will be excused from performing vicarious ordinances in the Temple or serving missions.  And the fat young men can't pass the sacrament or otherwise perform any Priesthood duties.  And I would also advise that our non-gluttonous members not marry those who are fat.  It isn't that we have anything against the larger people, it's just that experience has shown that marriages tend to work better when the partners have similar BMIs."

President Monson then sits down and thinks "That will help solve the problem with bullying in the Church.  Maybe one day the Church members will be ready to worship in the Temple and serve missions alongside the fat kids, but until then, this is the best solution."

Edited August 3, 2017 by cinepro

[clarkgoble]

2 hours ago, cinepro said:

problem is that it wasn't the racist Church members who were punished.  It was the black members of the Church who were punished, and the racist Church members weren't even told they were doing anything wrong in the first place! 

Again though, from typical Mormon conceptions of the institution of the Law of Moses look at what this did: it limited proselytizing and severely limited priesthood and particularly priesthood ordinances. This did not only affect the children of Israel. The typical Mormon understanding was that Moses was preparing to give them exactly what Jesus and Peter later gave. As part of that the whole missionary effort ended. 

This is not an unique interpretation of this. Rather this was a typical interpretation of both the lesser law and how it related to the blacks issue for much of the 20th century.

I'm not saying this interpretation is right, mind you. Again I'm primarily pointing out the range of interpretations that are compatible with the evidence.

Quote

In fact, the racist Church members were given scriptural and doctrinal reasons to justify their racism, which is kind of the opposite thing you would expect if they were doing anything wrong.  If anything, it created new racists in each generation as children learned that black people were cursed and inferior (based either on Cain's curse or something they did in the pre-existence).

There was already abundant scripture given against racism. That the members repressed those texts (especially the Book of Mormon) in preference to Evangelical and southern apologist readings of the Old Testament shows exactly the problem at hand. 

Again the theory is that God wanted to give more but he had to wait until the church was ready for it. Now the counter argument is that God should have forced them to accept it under greater threat. That is, the fact that Abel and others had been ordained was insufficient. And I'm fine with that - I'd simply point out it seems undeniable that God didn't do that (unless - as one might - simply point at most of the 19th century as Mormons suffering due to how poorly they lived the gospel).

Quote

I can't speak for black people, but I think if that's God's solution to racism in the Church, then maybe the Church is just better off not having God lead them on that one point.

 But let's turn this around and ask what was God's answer for racism in the ancient world? (And please don't say the Jews weren't racist --all the evidence is that the Jews from the time of Jeremiah through the time of Christ were horribly racist xenophobes. Even Peter after receiving an explicit revelation on the subject seemed to have problems.)

So note that I completely agree with you. Were it up to me I'd make racism in particular a big focus with lots of scriptures. However what if doing that simply meant that no one accepted the gospel at all? Given the racism of the era I'm not sure we can say the choice was between enforced egalitarian Mormons with a more 21st century conception of equality or our actual history. It may well have been that the choice was status quo or everyone swiftly going apostate.

Now one might say, well then in that case God should have gone to a black freeman instead of Joseph Smith. That would have been fairer. But would it have been as effective if his goal was something like 21st century Mormonism. In other words while I'm 100% sympathetic to the ethical points you raise, if the question is what gets accomplished, I think you are if anything underestimating just how ridiculously racist the United States was through most of its history.

Edited August 3, 2017 by clarkgoble