Church to Celebrate 40 years since lifting the ban. He is what I hope happens.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

The Church is going to celebrate the lifting of the Priesthood Ban, for African men and women, which allowed them and their spouses to enter into the Temple, and receive their ordinances. Some years back the Church issue a letter that listed a number of issues as to why there was such a ban. In the letter it spoke of a few things, but also commented "social issues of that time" as one factor. I joined the Church less than a year after the ban was lifted. I fear that if that had still been policy, I might have never joined.

My wish list for this upcoming celebration, is that the joy will also include another letter. A letter that reminds all people everywhere that the pigment of a man or woman's skin, is not the pigment of their soul. Let me explain, "God looks upon the inner man or woman, and upon their hearts. His gaze upon this world, and his ability to see love and purity, is not blocked by someone's race. I hope there will be a letter, noting that the policy was wrong, and had more to do with man's limitations to see beyond, and not our God. May God give to our leaders to strength of mind, body and soul, and grant them the wisdom to know what to say. 

 

 Thoughts? 

[sunstoned]

I would welcome a letter such as that.  I would also welcome a letter that offered an apology for the racist past that is unfortunately a part of the history and former teachings of the church.  If the Pope can issue an apology, I think our Prophet could.  

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

I hope there will be a letter, noting that the policy was wrong, and had more to do with man's limitations to see beyond, and not our God.

I don't hope for this because I don't actually believe it.

Quote

May God give to our leaders to strength of mind, body and soul, and grant them the wisdom to know what to say. 

The good news -- for both of us! -- is that God will certainly guide the prophets in what they might say. I'm happy to be corrected if I'm mistaken.

[Marginal Gains]

1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I don't hope for this because I don't actually believe it.

The good news -- for both of us! -- is that God will certainly guide the prophets in what they might say. I'm happy to be corrected if I'm mistaken.

You don’t believe the Priesthood and Temple Ban for black people was wrong?

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, Marginal Gains said:

You don’t believe the Priesthood and Temple Ban for black people was wrong?

Nope. And neither does my West African housemate or any other Black African* Saints that I know personally. 

-----

*I'm careful in my phrasing since I live in a part of the world where black people who were Church members had access to all priesthood blessings and responsibilities before 1978.

Edited April 19, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[Marginal Gains]

2 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

You don’t believe the Priesthood and Temple Ban for black people was wrong?

 

57 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Nope. And neither does my West African housemate or any other Black African* Saints that I know personally. 

-----

*I'm careful in my phrasing since I live in a part of the world where black people who were Church members had access to all priesthood blessings and responsibilities before 1978.

Staggering.

What do you make of the Church essay “Race and the Priesthood”?

[Hamba Tuhan]

12 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

What do you make of the Church essay “Race and the Priesthood”?

Make of it? I just read the entire thing again. I find it balanced, well researched, and factually accurate. What am I supposed to be making of it?

[Marginal Gains]

6 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Make of it? I just read the entire thing again. I find it balanced, well researched, and factually accurate. What am I supposed to be making of it?

https://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng

Quote

Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse...

Versus

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/2-ne/5?lang=eng

Quote

21 And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.

The two are mutually contradictory. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

5 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

The two are mutually contradictory. 

I disagree.

I also really like the document, purportedly written by Elder Bruce R. McConkie, recently published by Mormon Leaks.

Edited April 19, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[cacheman]

1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Nope. And neither does my West African housemate or any other Black African* Saints that I know personally. 

-----

*I'm careful in my phrasing since I live in a part of the world where black people who were Church members had access to all priesthood blessings and responsibilities before 1978.

I'm interested in your thoughts on this, particularly in light of the genetic research showing evidence of shared common ancestry originating in Africa.  Do you believe, like Brigham Young, that black Africans descended from Cain? When determining a person's eligibility for the priesthood, at what point in historical time did lineage cease to matter?  Or,  was the ban effective for anyone that had any African lineage at any point in their ancestral line?  The mechanics of the ban don't make sense to me, especially in light of what we've learned through modern science.  I'm interested in your perspective. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

21 minutes ago, cacheman said:

The mechanics of the ban don't make sense to me, especially in light of what we've learned through modern science.

No, they don't and never could make sense from that perspective. Race is a purely social construct, and defining race by quantity of melanin is demonstrably recent. If the priesthood restrictions therefore 'did' anything, we should be looking in the realm of social constructions, nowhere else.

Laws against 'miscegenation' are necessary in racially divided societies specifically because a single 'mixed-race' marriage that produces children is the death note of any workable 'science' of race.

ETA: The 'mechanics' of widespread plural marriage likewise quickly break down. I suspect one has much to tell us about the other.

Edited April 19, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[Marginal Gains]

48 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I disagree.

I also really like the document, purportedly written by Elder Bruce R. McConkie, recently published by Mormon Leaks.

One statement disavows the theory that a black skin is a sign of a curse from God.

The other statements explicitly says a black skin was the sign of a curse from God.

In what way(s) are they not mutually contradictory?

Appealing to Mormon leaks as a source for doctrine?

[Hamba Tuhan]

21 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

The other statements explicitly says a black skin was the sign of a curse from God.

I don't think that your over-interpretation of a single verse qualifies as explicitness.

[Hamba Tuhan]

24 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

Appealing to Mormon leaks as a source for doctrine?

Why not? If the document is authentic, it provides a beautiful eyewitness account. It also reminds us that -- as our scriptures themselves suggest -- revelation often doesn't come spoken in words that can be written down ... contra a number of board members who constantly argue that lack of publicly disseminated, dictated revelations is evidence that God isn't speaking to our current prophets.

[cacheman]

1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

 ....If the priesthood restrictions therefore 'did' anything, we should be looking in the realm of social constructions, nowhere else.....

Since you believe the priesthood/temple ban on people of 'African descent' was not wrong.  What do you believe the purpose was?  What did the ban do? 

[Hamba Tuhan]

6 minutes ago, cacheman said:

Since you believe the priesthood/temple ban on people of 'African descent' was not wrong.  What do you believe the purpose was?  What did the ban do? 

That is the question, isn't it? Plural marriage in the Church has a significantly clearer genealogy, though it's still complicated. More than a century after the Manifesto, do we all agree what its purposes were?

For what it may be worth, I shared something in an Institute class in America once. The instructor then asked me to stay after. In his office, he let me read an email that his CES mate had just sent him. A stake president, the friend had just had Pres Boyd K. Packer as the visiting authority at his stake conference. Pres Packer had earlier returned from doing some stake organisations in West Africa, and he had told the leadership of the stake that he was just beginning to understand the Lord's purposes for the priesthood ban.

Maybe the first place to start in all this, in light of Pres Packer's words (which are of course hearsay in the legal sense), is to ask if we are even capable of entertaining the possibility that the Lord really has been in charge of His Church in this area? Unless or until the answer to that question is yes, discussing possible purposes is pointless.

[Alan]

In my view, people just need to get over this. There was a restriction, there isn't now, that's the end of the matter.

What is the point of constantly raking this over?

[hope_for_things]

9 hours ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

The Church is going to celebrate the lifting of the Priesthood Ban, for African men and women, which allowed them and their spouses to enter into the Temple, and receive their ordinances. Some years back the Church issue a letter that listed a number of issues as to why there was such a ban. In the letter it spoke of a few things, but also commented "social issues of that time" as one factor. I joined the Church less than a year after the ban was lifted. I fear that if that had still been policy, I might have never joined.

My wish list for this upcoming celebration, is that the joy will also include another letter. A letter that reminds all people everywhere that the pigment of a man or woman's skin, is not the pigment of their soul. Let me explain, "God looks upon the inner man or woman, and upon their hearts. His gaze upon this world, and his ability to see love and purity, is not blocked by someone's race. I hope there will be a letter, noting that the policy was wrong, and had more to do with man's limitations to see beyond, and not our God. May God give to our leaders to strength of mind, body and soul, and grant them the wisdom to know what to say. 

 

 Thoughts? 

I would go further, they need to apologize explicitly for the wrongs of the past, for how those wrongs hurt so many people and how those wrongs were rooted in racism and were evil.  

I would also like to see some kind of acknowledgment that we still have racism in the church today, and how we need to do better at a local and institutional level first by better understanding how racism is present in our current church.  They could announce some initiatives that could include a more in-depth dive into the history of racism and the realities of racism today.  Maybe this could be a focus lesson for 4th Sundays for 6 months of teaching?  Maybe it could be a primary theme for a year and a special theme for conference addresses.  Maybe we could bring people of color to the front of the class and get them to share their experiences and teach us.  Maybe those of us with privilege could sit back and listen.  

Lastly, I've been thinking about this announced celebration and I'm a little troubled by it.  How can a group that perpetuated these practices for so long and even resisted the social change happening, turn around and celebrate ending this evil practice?  Is that really a celebration?  Should we celebrate the end of polygamy?  Should groups that used to practice abuse celebrate the end of their abusive practices?  I'm not sure this should be a celebration considering the baggage that the church has on this subject, it seems problematic from my perspective, but honestly I'd like to know how people of color view this celebration because I'm a privileged white guy.  

[cacheman]

31 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

That is the question, isn't it? Plural marriage in the Church has a significantly clearer genealogy, though it's still complicated. More than a century after the Manifesto, do we all agree what its purposes were?

For what it may be worth, I shared something in an Institute class in America once. The instructor then asked me to stay after. In his office, he let me read an email that his CES mate had just sent him. A stake president, the friend had just had Pres Boyd K. Packer as the visiting authority at his stake conference. Pres Packer had earlier returned from doing some stake organisations in West Africa, and he had told the leadership of the stake that he was just beginning to understand the Lord's purposes for the priesthood ban.

Maybe the first place to start in all this, in light of Pres Packer's words (which are of course hearsay in the legal sense), is to ask if we are even capable of entertaining the possibility that the Lord really has been in charge of His Church in this area? Unless or until the answer to that question is yes, discussing possible purposes is pointless.

Ok.  I am capable entertaining the possibility that the Lord really has been in charge of His Church in this area.  So, tell me what you think the purpose(s) was. 

[Marginal Gains]

1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I don't think that your over-interpretation of a single verse qualifies as explicitness.

In what way(s) am I over interpreting 2nd Nephi 5:21? Because I appear, at least to me, to be taking it at face value with no interpretation beyond what it actually says in plain English.

Edited April 19, 2018 by Marginal Gains

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I would go further, they need to apologize explicitly for the wrongs of the past, for how those wrongs hurt so many people and how those wrongs were rooted in racism and were evil.  

I would also like to see some kind of acknowledgment that we still have racism in the church today, and how we need to do better at a local and institutional level first by better understanding how racism is present in our current church.  They could announce some initiatives that could include a more in-depth dive into the history of racism and the realities of racism today.  Maybe this could be a focus lesson for 4th Sundays for 6 months of teaching?  Maybe it could be a primary theme for a year and a special theme for conference addresses.  Maybe we could bring people of color to the front of the class and get them to share their experiences and teach us.  Maybe those of us with privilege could sit back and listen.  

Lastly, I've been thinking about this announced celebration and I'm a little troubled by it.  How can a group that perpetuated these practices for so long and even resisted the social change happening, turn around and celebrate ending this evil practice?  Is that really a celebration?  Should we celebrate the end of polygamy?  Should groups that used to practice abuse celebrate the end of their abusive practices?  I'm not sure this should be a celebration considering the baggage that the church has on this subject, it seems problematic from my perspective, but honestly I'd like to know how people of color view this celebration because I'm a privileged white guy.  

"Spend a year", that would only make matters worse. A simple apology, or an acknowledgment will do, and the members will follow suit. But spending a year teaching a negative will not have positive results. 

[Marginal Gains]

1 minute ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

"Spend a year", that would only make matters worse. A simple apology, or an acknowledgment will do, and the members will follow suit. But spending a year teaching a negative will not have positive results. 

I wouldn’t hold your breath...

Quote

The church doesn't "seek apologies," he said, "and we don't give them."

http://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=2122123&itype=CMSID

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

2 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

The two are mutually contradictory. 

I disagree.

I also really like the document, purportedly written by Elder Bruce R. McConkie, recently published by Mormon Leaks.

This is an example of why additional statements that are even more explicit are needed.  This strikes me as similar to the events surrounding Charlottesville last year where the Church newsroom made an initial statement condemning the racism but some white supremacist Mormons were using the church's initial statement to continue to promote their perspectives.  The church then released a second statement very explicitly condemning white culture and those who promote it as superior.  See the below statements for a refresher.  

I think there are many who read the church's essay on blacks and and priesthood and they try to find a way to read those words as supporting their earlier paradigm, that God was behind the priesthood ban.  To me the message of the essay is clear, the priesthood ban was racist and is disavowed.  I think the church needs to be even more clear on this matter because of all the misreading going on.  

Quote

Sunday, August 13, 2017

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints released the following statement Sunday, August 13, 2017:

It is with great sadness and deep concern that we view the violence, conflict and tragedy of recent days in Charlottesville, Virginia. People of any faith, or of no faith at all, should be troubled by the increase of intolerance in both words and actions that we see everywhere.

More than a decade ago, the late Church President Gordon B. Hinckley (1910-2008) addressed the topic of racism when speaking to members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. He powerfully and clearly taught this principle: "No man who makes disparaging remarks concerning those of another race can consider himself a true disciple of Christ. Nor can he consider himself to be in harmony with the teachings of the Church of Christ." For members of the Church, we reaffirm that teaching today and the Savior's admonition to love our neighbor.

Our prayers are with those who are suffering because of this intolerance and hatred. We pray for peace and for understanding. Above all, we pray that we may treat one another with greater kindness, compassion and goodness.

 

Quote

UPDATE: Tuesday, August 15, 2017

The Church has released the following statement:

It has been called to our attention that there are some among the various pro-white and white supremacy communities who assert that the Church is neutral toward or in support of their views. Nothing could be further from the truth. In the New Testament, Jesus said: “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself” (Matthew 22:37–39). The Book of Mormon teaches “all are alike unto God” (2 Nephi 26:33).

White supremacist attitudes are morally wrong and sinful, and we condemn them. Church members who promote or pursue a “white culture” or white supremacy agenda are not in harmony with the teachings of the Church.

https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-statement-charlottesville-virginia

 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Marginal Gains said:

I wouldn’t hold your breath...

http://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=2122123&itype=CMSID

I won't hold my breath, I do not understand the ban. If it "is or is not" God's will. I would just love to tell the many people whom I see on splits, that it was a mistake, instead of trying to defend it. I know how ""I" feel about it, but I could be wrong. Having said that I know many who thought that the "Ban" would never have been lifted.  

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Why not? If the document is authentic, it provides a beautiful eyewitness account. It also reminds us that -- as our scriptures themselves suggest -- revelation often doesn't come spoken in words that can be written down ... contra a number of board members who constantly argue that lack of publicly disseminated, dictated revelations is evidence that God isn't speaking to our current prophets.

I ran across this different recollection of this event a couple years ago.  An interesting exchange with Legrand Richards who seems to have quite a different view of the significance of this event.

https://thoughtsonthingsandstuff.com/the-legrand-richards-interview/