Be One (Teaser Trailer for the Celebration on the Priesthood)

[juliann]

2 hours ago, rongo said:

 

But we now interact very well, and have for some time. What does that tell us? 

Doesn't matter --- if you disagree about past Church racism, off to the re-education camps with you!  

Have you not read the recent Ensign article? It is thinking that everything is going "very well" now that is the problem. It completely erases the experiences that blacks are still having in our congregations even as they are telling us. And this is not just a Mormon problem, we do have the advantage of not officially segregating congregations so we don't have the bigger the problem of a white church on one side of the street and a black on the other. 

[juliann]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

 

The page with the link to where this quote from John Taylor came from is not to be found, if it weren't for other websites it may be lost forever. I guess that would be a good thing, or would it? Maybe like the holocaust, we can never forget how racism is so wrong and not of God.

Oh for heaven's sakes. The Journal of Discourses is going to disappear. Are you organizing book burnings and expecting the internet to wipe all content?  And yeah, a quote that  might magically disappear is just like the Holocaust. I'll be sure to mention that to my Jewish friends. 

[BlueDreams]

21 hours ago, cinepro said:

It is an odd visual to be "celebrating" (commemorating?) the end of the Priesthood Ban.  I wonder if they considered a similar celebration back in 1990 to celebrate 100 years since OD1.

 

20 hours ago, bluebell said:

I think the celebration only makes sense if God was behind the ban.  Celebrating the day that long withheld blessings were made available by God to every person makes sense.  Celebrating the day the church figured out it had wrongly been keeping a lot of people from God's greatest blessings, makes less sense.  

I think it may be helpful to know that a number of African American holidays or events often carry bittersweet connotations to them. Such as Juneteenth or Loving Day. Or the excitement over a lynching monument being erected acknowledging race-based terrorism in this country. It's not odd for a minority/historically oppressed group to celebrate a reduction in oppression, overcoming difficulties, or acknowledgment of pains. Particularly those in the US....but not necessarily limited to that. 

 

Another important general note to make is that this event was suggested and brought up by black LDS saints. I'd heard it mentioned through the minority grapevine before it was a thing. Many black LDS folks don't believe that the ban was divinely instituted and often have a broader belief. It may be helpful for context when discussing this. This was a specific desire and idea brought by black members to celebrate and promote unity in diversity...and from the look of both the video, scanning some of the ensign, etc I would also assumed addressing current issues that are pressing on minorities as of late in general (black, brown, or otherwise). It's not been a fun year or 2 for minority concerns and it's often showing in local communities. Intolerance and hate-speech are more open and being enabled and it's having real effects on minority communities. A lot of these concerns, at least for me as a brown woman, often feel ignored or left unknown by white saints (and white people in general). So I see this celebration as opening a conversation and experience that are often left unseen by those around me who are white.  

 

With luv,

BD

[bluebell]

4 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

 

I think it may be helpful to know that a number of African American holidays or events often carry bittersweet connotations to them. Such as Juneteenth or Loving Day. Or the excitement over a lynching monument being erected acknowledging race-based terrorism in this country. It's not odd for a minority/historically oppressed group to celebrate a reduction in oppression, overcoming difficulties, or acknowledgment of pains. Particularly those in the US....but not necessarily limited to that. 

 

Another important general note to make is that this event was suggested and brought up by black LDS saints. I'd heard it mentioned through the minority grapevine before it was a thing. Many black LDS folks don't believe that the ban was divinely instituted and often have a broader belief. It may be helpful for context when discussing this. This was a specific desire and idea brought by black members to celebrate and promote unity in diversity...and from the look of both the video, scanning some of the ensign, etc I would also assumed addressing current issues that are pressing on minorities as of late in general (black, brown, or otherwise). It's not been a fun year or 2 for minority concerns and it's often showing in local communities. Intolerance and hate-speech are more open and being enabled and it's having real effects on minority communities. A lot of these concerns, at least for me as a brown woman, often feel ignored or left unknown by white saints (and white people in general). So I see this celebration as opening a conversation and experience that are often left unseen by those around me who are white.  

 

With luv,

BD

I completely agree.

I'm not saying that celebrating the day when a wrong was righted would be odd in general.  I'm saying that, given the way the celebration is being advertised so far, it seems odd for it to be about the day the church figured out it had wrongly been keeping a lot of people from God's greatest blessings.  I just don't see the church presenting the celebration in that way, but maybe that will change.

[BlueDreams]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

I completely agree.

I'm not saying that celebrating the day when a wrong was righted would be odd in general.  I'm saying that, given the way the celebration is being advertised so far, it seems odd for it to be about the day the church figured out it had wrongly been keeping a lot of people from God's greatest blessings.  I just don't see the church presenting the celebration in that way, but maybe that will change.

No, I agree. It's not likely that. 

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, juliann said:

Oh for heaven's sakes. The Journal of Discourses is going to disappear. Are you organizing book burnings and expecting the internet to wipe all content?  And yeah, a quote that  might magically disappear is just like the Holocaust. I'll be sure to mention that to my Jewish friends. 

I mainly quoted that to show those that might think it came from God, how far out in left field it got.

[juliann]

4 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I mainly quoted that to show those that might think it came from God, how far out in left field it got.

Right. Because those kinds of statements were just totes unusual in that era. And nobody, especially those who have been discussing this for years, would know without you making sure that all people of color who read this board get that thrown in their faces one more time in a discussion that is about unity. So helpful. So thoughtful. 

[rockpond]

28 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I completely agree.

I'm not saying that celebrating the day when a wrong was righted would be odd in general.  I'm saying that, given the way the celebration is being advertised so far, it seems odd for it to be about the day the church figured out it had wrongly been keeping a lot of people from God's greatest blessings.  I just don't see the church presenting the celebration in that way, but maybe that will change.

This is a good explanation of how I feel as well.

[rockpond]

8 minutes ago, juliann said:

Right. Because those kinds of statements were just totes unusual in that era. And nobody, especially those who have been discussing this for years, would know without you making sure that all people of color who read this board get that thrown in their faces one more time in a discussion that is about unity. So helpful. So thoughtful. 

Juliann -- Respectfully, your responses to Tacenda are a bit overboard.  The discussion here is not just about unity.  It is about the theme that the Church is wrapping around the anniversary of the end of the temple/priesthood racial restrictions.  It's not wholly inappropriate for someone here to show that what church leaders are teaching now (with respect to race) is contrary to what was taught earlier.

[juliann]

5 minutes ago, rockpond said:

This is a good explanation of how I feel as well.

But I do think this is where our focus should be. What BD explained is what I understood from conversations with black leaders, they don't expect the past to not be racist and don't get hung up on that. 

 

Quote

Another important general note to make is that this event was suggested and brought up by black LDS saints. I'd heard it mentioned through the minority grapevine before it was a thing. Many black LDS folks don't believe that the ban was divinely instituted and often have a broader belief. It may be helpful for context when discussing this. This was a specific desire and idea brought by black members to celebrate and promote unity in diversity...and from the look of both the video, scanning some of the ensign, etc I would also assumed addressing current issues that are pressing on minorities as of late in general (black, brown, or otherwise).

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2018/06/commemorating-the-1978-revelation/its-because-youre-black?lang=eng

Quote

Some believe that racism doesn’t exist anymore. While I feel the world has made progress, I’ve also felt the sting of stereotypes that some still hold. But I have hope we can continue to progress past racism by recognizing our assumptions and not stereotyping.

She states the problem but then ties it up with something forward looking and beautiful that is applicable to all....so, unity.

Quote

My faith is in God. I am so grateful for the gospel of Jesus Christ found in His Church. I have always loved it and wanted to learn more about it. The more I study the scriptures, the more that love grows. I’ve lived the gospel and I’ve seen its blessings. I don’t think I could live my life as well or as happily if I weren’t a member of the Church. Thanks to the Savior and His gospel, I can become better and find peace through any struggle I have.

 

[juliann]

7 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Juliann -- Respectfully, your responses to Tacenda are a bit overboard.  The discussion here is not just about unity.  It is about the theme that the Church is wrapping around the anniversary of the end of the temple/priesthood racial restrictions.  It's not wholly inappropriate for someone here to show that what church leaders are teaching now (with respect to race) is contrary to what was taught earlier.

And bring in the Holocaust? Seriously? It is overwrought and off-topic. She gave no context for that ugly quote, no explanation, no link to the current dialogue....only the concern that it would disappear and we will end up in death camps. Or something.  I'm sick of race baiting when there are intelligent conversations to have. 

Proving Godwin's Law is never appropriate. 

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, juliann said:

But I do think this is where our focus should be. What BD explained is what I understood from conversations with black leaders, they don't expect the past to not be racist and don't get hung up on that. 

 

https://www.lds.org/ensign/2018/06/commemorating-the-1978-revelation/its-because-youre-black?lang=eng

She states the problem but then ties it up with something forward looking and beautiful that is applicable to all....so, unity.

 

I get that... I struggle with how to separate the racist past from the unified present when we still believe that God was behind the denial of temple access and priesthood ordination to an entire race.  If we still believe that God wanted the racial distinction than it is not entirely in the past.

[bluebell]

16 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I get that... I struggle with how to separate the racist past from the unified present when we still believe that God was behind the denial of temple access and priesthood ordination to an entire race.  If we still believe that God wanted the racial distinction than it is not entirely in the past.

I think we need clarification.  If God was behind it, then we need to know that so we can deal with it.  If God wasn't behind it then we need to  know that so we can deal with it.  The ambiguity causes angst without the benefit of any real closure either way.  

[Tacenda]

I don't know if this has been shared yet, but it's a good read. https://bycommonconsent.com/2018/05/09/no-known-records-exist-the-fallacy-of-racial-restriction-origins/#more-105846

From the article:

"I think that this fallacy probably started getting traction with the 2013 edition of the scriptures. When the intro to Official Declaration 2 was revised for this edition, editors included the following: “During Joseph Smith’s lifetime, a few black male members of the Church were ordained to the priesthood. Early in its history, Church leaders stopped conferring the priesthood on black males of African descent. Church records offer no clear insights into the origins of this practice.” The first two sentences are readily validated. The last is easily controverted.

Let us look at the scholarship. Paul Reeve’s award winning book Religion of a Different Colorclearly demonstrates the history of the restriction. It shows how church records do offer clear and precise insights into the origins of the practice. Church leaders ordained black men to priesthood offices during Joseph Smith’s lifetime. After JS’s death, over a protracted period, Brigham Young introduced the restriction and the basis for it. In my recent volume The Power of Godliness, I deal expressly with Brigham Young’s rationale (pp. 20-22):"

Edited May 9, 2018 by Tacenda

[juliann]

36 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I get that... I struggle with how to separate the racist past from the unified present when we still believe that God was behind the denial of temple access and priesthood ordination to an entire race.  If we still believe that God wanted the racial distinction than it is not entirely in the past.

But who is this "we." As we can see from the board, there are those who aren't in a place where they can accept the prophetic voice and admit grave errors. But I am not bound to that. I can say it wasn't God and I say it loudly. As you can see, this is one hill I am willing to die on. I have been involved for the past two decades in getting the word out because I lived through it. 

When we first came online, I had to learn how to counter the racist accusations. The first thing I had to accept is that the church was racist and admit it. That is when I began to study the history of race and discovered that we weren't the worst of the bunch by far. We are just a lot more defensive and dumb about it. So I began to counter the race baiting quotes like Tacenda's with other religious leaders' shocking statements....and real life brutality. And it finally shut the Evangelical bashers up because they couldn't defend their history or present either. But that certainly didn't help resolve the real issues. It was just a bunch of white people using POC as bats to hit each other with. 

I think the rationalizations we have used to maintain this God did it excuse are soooo easy to poke holes in that it is an eye roller. But I can see reasons why what happened did and books like Paul Reeve's can even engender a little sympathy for the Mormons who were being assaulted from all sides. Because of that I can see it as a historical reality that was pervasive. For me, that only points to what has to be done now. And it is uncomfortable to always be on guard and worrying about what I think or say because sometimes I don't know what is racist. But I can ask and then I can LISTEN and be willing to accept what those who are experiencing racism are saying whether I agree or not. Usually what happens is that once I lower the barriers, I do begin to agree.  Hopefully, by the time I die I will have expunged it all. 

Edited May 9, 2018 by juliann

[juliann]

18 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think we need clarification.  If God was behind it, then we need to know that so we can deal with it.  If God wasn't behind it then we need to  know that so we can deal with it.  The ambiguity causes angst without the benefit of any real closure either way.  

I think the church essay very strategically allows you to think either way, unfortunately. But the point is, it does allow you to remove God. At that point, I think it becomes an individual question of why some are not willing to grab and hold onto that with all their strength.

So the church has to deal with this and I think what they are doing now in trying to wean people away from expecting infallibility shows that they are very aware that has to be dealt with first. 

 

[Tacenda]

13 minutes ago, juliann said:

But who is this "we." As we can see from the board, there are those who aren't in a place where they can accept the prophetic voice and admit grave errors. But I am not bound to that. I can say it wasn't God and I say it loudly. As you can see, this is one hill I am willing to die on. I have been involved for the past two decades in getting the word out because I lived through it. 

When we first came online, I had to learn how to counter the racist accusations. The first thing I had to accept is that the church was racist and admit it. That is when I began to study the history of race and discovered that we weren't the worst of the bunch by far. We are just a lot more defensive and dumb about it. So I began to counter the race baiting quotes like Tacenda's with other religious leaders' shocking statements....and real life brutality. And it finally shut the Evangelical bashers up because they couldn't defend their history or present either. But that certainly didn't help resolve the real issues. It was just a bunch of white people using POC as bats to hit each other with. 

I think the rationalizations we have used to maintain this God did it excuse are soooo easy to poke holes in that it is an eye roller. But I can see reasons why what happened did and books like Paul Reeve's can even engender a little sympathy for the Mormons who were being assaulted from all sides. Because of that I can see it as a historical reality that was pervasive. For me, that only points to what has to be done now. And it is uncomfortable to always be on guard and worrying about what I think or say because sometimes I don't know what is racist. But I can ask and then I can LISTEN and be willing to accept what those who are experiencing racism are saying whether I agree or not. Usually what happens is that once I lower the barriers, I do begin to agree.  Hopefully, by the time I die I will have expunged it all. 

I'm sorry I hit a nerve, I'm definitely good at it around here. I will watch myself. 

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, juliann said:

I think the church essay very strategically allows you to think either way, unfortunately. But the point is, it does allow you to remove God. At that point, I think it becomes an individual question of why some are not willing to grab and hold onto that with all their strength.

So the church has to deal with this and I think what they are doing now in trying to wean people away from expecting infallibility shows that they are very aware that has to be dealt with first. 

 

I think the reason for the issue (bolded) was illustrated by Nehor's posts.  Some people are not willing to declare that something was not of God when they just don't know, even if they really really hope that it wasn't.  I agree with you about the ambiguity in the essays and i think it was probably put in there on purpose.  

[rockpond]

22 minutes ago, juliann said:

But who is this "we." As we can see from the board, there are those who aren't in a place where they can accept the prophetic voice and admit grave errors. But I am not bound to that. I can say it wasn't God and I say it loudly. As you can see, this is one hill I am willing to die on. I have been involved for the past two decades in getting the word out because I lived through it. 

When we first came online, I had to learn how to counter the racist accusations. The first thing I had to accept is that the church was racist and admit it. That is when I began to study the history of race and discovered that we weren't the worst of the bunch by far. We are just a lot more defensive and dumb about it. So I began to counter the race baiting quotes like Tacenda's with other religious leaders' shocking statements....and real life brutality. And it finally shut the Evangelical bashers up because they couldn't defend their history or present either. But that certainly didn't help resolve the real issues. It was just a bunch of white people using POC as bats to hit each other with. 

I think the rationalizations we have used to maintain this God did it excuse are soooo easy to poke holes in that it is an eye roller. But I can see reasons why what happened did and books like Paul Reeve's can even engender a little sympathy for the Mormons who were being assaulted from all sides. Because of that I can see it as a historical reality that was pervasive. For me, that only points to what has to be done now. And it is uncomfortable to always be on guard and worrying about what I think or say because sometimes I don't know what is racist. But I can ask and then I can LISTEN and be willing to accept what those who are experiencing racism are saying whether I agree or not. Usually what happens is that once I lower the barriers, I do begin to agree.  Hopefully, by the time I die I will have expunged it all. 

Well, I am with you that the temple/priesthood restrictions were not of God.  But, that is not yet the official position of the church.  The official position of the church is, currently, ambiguous.  That’s why I said, earlier in this thread, that the 40th anniversary celebration ought to be accompanied with a prophetic declaration that God did not have a part in the race-based policy.

As for comparing us to other churches, if it is helpful to you, that’s good.  It isn’t helpful to me because I don’t see us as being comparable to other churches. 

[SouthernMo]

43 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think we need clarification.  If God was behind it, then we need to know that so we can deal with it.  If God wasn't behind it then we need to  know that so we can deal with it.  The ambiguity causes angst without the benefit of any real closure either way.  

Boom.  Well said.  Clarity...

[juliann]

5 minutes ago, rockpond said:

 

As for comparing us to other churches, if it is helpful to you, that’s good.  It isn’t helpful to me because I don’t see us as being comparable to other churches. 

Did you not notice that I said it was a bunch of white people using POC as brickbats? What it did demonstrate is that those who accuse are usually not aware of their own history, so again, this ignorance is not a Mormon thing. In the sense that having it put in front of the accusers educated them, it probably was helpful.

[juliann]

18 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think the reason for the issue (bolded) was illustrated by Nehor's posts.  Some people are not willing to declare that something was not of God when they just don't know, even if they really really hope that it wasn't.  I agree with you about the ambiguity in the essays and i think it was probably put in there on purpose.  

I think it is quite knowable with the growing body of evidence. That there was no claimed revelation that started it should be enough, IMO.  We do know that. There is a difference in what can be "known" and how the church has to walk on eggshells because of members who will fall apart.

[Hamba Tuhan]

2 minutes ago, juliann said:

There is a difference in what can be "known" and how the church has to walk on eggshells because of members who will fall apart.

What a patronising approach to people who understand this situation differently to how you do!

[juliann]

Just now, Hamba Tuhan said:

What a patronising approach to people who understand this situation differently to how you do!

It is only patronizing if those people can provide solid evidence that a racial ban was revealed from God. That is where the burden of evidence lies and it not there. 

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, juliann said:

I think it is quite knowable with the growing body of evidence. That there was no claimed revelation that started it should be enough, IMO.  We do know that. There is a difference in what can be "known" and how the church has to walk on eggshells because of members who will fall apart.

But there is a claimed revelation (or at least inspiration) that kept it going, isn’t there?  I thought that Pres. McKay claimed that he wanted to end the ban, and prayed to be able to do so, but was told “not now.”