1st Pres. and NAACP

[Exiled]

19 hours ago, cinepro said:

Once you realize that "racism" isn't some inherent condition, but is taught, then the logical question would be "Why were LDS racist?"  I don't know for sure, but I suspect being taught that black people were cursed and not worthy of entering the Temples or holding the Priesthood would do it.

I think the concept of being a "chosen people" over other people also has something to do with it as well as existing attitudes in the past in society at large.  The teaching of being "chosen" lends itself to a feeling of being privileged over others simply by birth and then couple that with the "less valiant" theories and outside prejudices taught by society at large at the time and "racism" is born in some.  It can be "benevolent" as some seeking to justify may claim, but it still is racism nonetheless.

Edited May 21, 2018 by Exiled

[Gray]

42 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I still recall years ago my mother-in-law telling me of her experience when the ban was lifted.  I know the painting is everyone cheered.  She was astounded that the opposite reaction was demonstrated in her circles.  Her old college friends called up, some crying as if their world was coming down.  "is this the end?" they worried.  "how could they have done this if the end is not yet?"  And that made sense since BY's revelations and all since then suggested the ban would be lifted when all the other of God's children had the priesthood and it's ordinances.  Those who cheered, were happy it was the end of the world, or were ignorant of prophetic utterances on the matter.  Now all these years later we're told every Mormon cheered at the announcement, and there was no worry or question.  

Ok.  I'm not so quick to say racism was cleaned from the church in one fell swoop.  It was ingrained.  I know because I have an adopted black child.  We've seen it since the adoption.  Particularly from the older generations.  

I'm not surprised. The version where everyone is cheering and relieved seems a little too much like rose-tinted glasses.

Our good friends at church also adopted a black child. Like you they also came into a position where they were much more aware of lingering racism.

[Gray]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Then why the need for a revelation?  It was to include them was it not?

If ethnicism was as much a curse word back then as racism is today, Jesus would have been accused of being an ethnicist.  He didn’t even allow the gospel to be taught to them, comparing them to “dogs”.  They were definitely excluded and willing to at least eat from the crumbs that the Christians were feasting on. 

Then suddenly, a revelation changed everything.

The controversy in early Christianity was whether or not gentile converts had to be circumcised and keep Jewish law. There actually were a surprising number of Roman converts to Judaism when Paul was active. He may have converted a number of them to Christianity. The issue wasn't about ethnicity - any ethnicity could be Jewish or Christian. The issue was religious practice. Would Christianity continue to be a Jewish sect and require adherence to Jewish laws? Or would they fundamentally change? One of the early solutions (which you find in one of the synoptic gospels) was to require Jewish Christians to continue to keep the law, while gentile Christians didn't have to. Eventually adherence to the law was abandoned for all Christians. Paul was, of course, one of the principal opponents to keeping the law.

Edited May 21, 2018 by Gray

[Exiled]

3 minutes ago, Gray said:

I'm not surprised. The version where everyone is cheering and relieved seems a little too much like rose-tinted glasses.

Our good friends at church also adopted a black child. Like you they also came into a position where they were much more aware of lingering racism.

I think most in my ward cheered when the change was announced.  However, I first heard about the change from someone who combined the news with a racial slur and a small minority of ward members were not happy.

[Gray]

47 minutes ago, Exiled said:

I think the concept of being a "chosen people" over other people also has something to do with it as well as existing attitudes in the past in society at large.  The teaching of being "chosen" lends itself to a feeling of being privileged over others simply by birth and then couple that with the "less valiant" theories and outside prejudices taught by society at large at the time and "racism" is born in some.  It can be "benevolent" as some seeking to justify may claim, but it still is racism nonetheless.

Probably more accurate to call it nationalism.

[california boy]

2 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

The Left is very good at branding others as racist when it suits their agenda. The definition of racism is:  "prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior." You have accused the Church of being racist because of who was allowed to hold the priesthood and who was not allowed to hold the priesthood. 

Oh, forget it.  This is really not worth talking about.  The definition speaks for itself though it is often used only when it suits the accuser and has little to do with the actual definition.  

Do you really believe that the priesthood ban was not a racist policy?  JHAS quoted President Hinckey.  

 

15 hours ago, JAHS said:

Interesting to note that President Hinckley actually did offer an apology to an individual pastor back in 2012:

"Just before Pastor Murray came to BYU, he met with Gordon B. Hinckley. In that meeting, President Hinckley offered him an apology for the LDS Church's participation in slavery and in racism—using the same spirit Pastor Murray had urged me to use when I approached my angry son. In truth, Dr. Murray himself had some cause for anger; he had personally been confronted by the past Mormon teaching that Blacks were cursed."

This is the tribute Pastor Murray paid to his fellow pastor, President Gordon B. Hinckley:
"President Hinckley is a true messenger of our Lord. Two years ago, I was invited to Salt Lake City by the LDS Church, and President Hinckley took his personal time to sit with our small group that was touring the many ministries and apologized to me in front of the group. That was amazing! Now the [LDS] Church pushes Blacks to learn their lineage via the Church. That will open eyes and doors that will open new avenues of life."

Pastor to Pastor: President Hinckley's Apology for Racism in the Church

Edited May 21, 2018 by california boy

[Kenngo1969]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

And of course the rhetoric used to support the ban included all kind of statements alleging the inferiority of black folks compared to others. Either way you slice it, the ban was racist.

I'm not saying that you cannot construct a valid argument that the ban was racist (though whether it is or whether it isn't is a different question, and different people are likely to find it persuasive, or not).  However, this is not such an argument.  Your argument takes the form, "Arguments in support of [x] are [y]; therefore, [x] is [y]."  As constructed, this argument is fallacious because its conclusion does not necessarily follow from its premise.

[Exiled]

6 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I'm not saying that you cannot construct a valid argument that the ban was racist (though whether it is or whether it isn't is a different question, and different people are likely to find it persuasive, or not).  However, this is not such an argument.  Your argument takes the form, "Arguments in support of [x] are [y]; therefore, [x] is [y]."  As constructed, this argument is fallacious because its conclusion does not necessarily follow from its premise.

However, maybe you are committing the fallacy that fallacious arguments are wrong merely because of the fallacy.

[pogi]

45 minutes ago, Gray said:

The controversy in early Christianity was whether or not gentile converts had to be circumcised and keep Jewish law. There actually were a surprising number of Roman converts to Judaism when Paul was active. He may have converted a number of them to Christianity. The issue wasn't about ethnicity - any ethnicity could be Jewish or Christian. The issue was religious practice. Would Christianity continue to be a Jewish sect and require adherence to Jewish laws? Or would they fundamentally change? One of the early solutions (which you find in one of the synoptic gospels) was to require Jewish Christians to continue to keep the law, while gentile Christians didn't have to. Eventually adherence to the law was abandoned for all Christians. Paul was, of course, one of the principal opponents to keeping the law.

I am talking about Christ's sect, not about mainline Judaism.  Christ specifically forbade the apostles from preaching unto the gentiles and Samaritans (Matt 10:5-6), saying “It is not right to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs (Matt 15:26).”  Christ himself stating that he was "sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (Matt 15:24).  They were an exclusive group until Peter received his revelation.  The controversy of circumcision only arose after they began baptizing gentiles.  That is why we only see the controversy begin after Christs death.  

What do you think Peter's revelation was about, if you think gentiles were preached unto and baptized previously?  There were only a couple exceptions of teaching gentiles before Peter's revelation, but those exceptions prove the rule. 

Edited May 21, 2018 by pogi

[Gray]

26 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

I'm not saying that you cannot construct a valid argument that the ban was racist (though whether it is or whether it isn't is a different question, and different people are likely to find it persuasive, or not).  However, this is not such an argument.  Your argument takes the form, "Arguments in support of [x] are [y]; therefore, [x] is [y]."  As constructed, this argument is fallacious because its conclusion does not necessarily follow from its premise. 

Nope.

One of the definitions of racism:

Quote

3 : racial prejudice or discrimination

The priesthood ban meets this definition, therefore it was racist.

 

[Gray]

17 minutes ago, pogi said:

I am talking about Christ's sect, not about mainline Judaism.  Christ specifically forbade the apostles from preaching unto the gentiles and Samaritans (Matt 10:5-6), saying “It is not right to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs (Matt 15:26).”  Christ himself stating that he was "sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel" (Matt 15:24).  They were an exclusive group until Peter received his revelation.  The controversy of circumcision only arose after they began baptizing gentiles.  That is why we only see the controversy begin after Christs death.   

What do you think Peter's revelation was about, if you think gentiles were preached unto and baptized previously?  There were only a couple exceptions of teaching gentiles before Peter's revelation, but those exceptions prove the rule.  

Even keeping it exclusive to the Jews wouldn't have been an injunction based on ethnicity - it would have, rather, been a religious restriction. As I said before, there were quite a number of Romans who converted to Judaism.

[Stargazer]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

Israel didn't exclude other ethnicities. Neither did the early Christians before their revelation about the gentiles.

You're kidding, right?  They were intensely exclusionary, both of them.  At the time of Jesus, observant Jews couldn't so much as sit down with Gentiles for dinner.  The reason why Peter had that revelation in the first place is because, as an observant Jew, he couldn't have sat down with Cornelius and his household for dinner, let alone baptize them!  I commend for your reading the entire 10th chapter of Acts.

Quote

Acts 10:28 And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath shewed me that I should not call any man common or unclean.

So Peter preached to them, and when the Holy Spirit fell upon them, he witnessed this and said:

Quote

Acts 10:47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?

48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

And it was one of the early church's biggest controversies, that Paul was making Christians out of people who were not first becoming Jews!  Paul circumcised the gentile Timothy so that he didn't have to put up with Jewish complaints of Timothy teaching in synagogues, or even in Christian congregations consisting of Jewish Christians.

Gray, you've got to stop making up things like this.

Edited May 21, 2018 by Stargazer

[Tacenda]

This is going to get me some flack, but I don't trust the meeting with the NAACP. I think it was a precursor for the "celebration" of the ban lift. The church has a PR dept. and uses it well. 

And calling it a celebration doesn't sit well, how about a solemn observance of what not to do in the future. Not ever. Combined with a broken heart and contrite apology.

 

[Stargazer]

12 minutes ago, Gray said:

Even keeping it exclusive to the Jews wouldn't have been an injunction based on ethnicity - it would have, rather, been a religious restriction. As I said before, there were quite a number of Romans who converted to Judaism.

A religious restriction based on ethnicity.  You can cite the few exceptions that existed, but they do not overturn the rule.  

[Jeanne]

16 hours ago, JAHS said:

Interesting to note that President Hinckley actually did offer an apology to an individual pastor back in 2012:

"Just before Pastor Murray came to BYU, he met with Gordon B. Hinckley. In that meeting, President Hinckley offered him an apology for the LDS Church's participation in slavery and in racism—using the same spirit Pastor Murray had urged me to use when I approached my angry son. In truth, Dr. Murray himself had some cause for anger; he had personally been confronted by the past Mormon teaching that Blacks were cursed."

This is the tribute Pastor Murray paid to his fellow pastor, President Gordon B. Hinckley:
"President Hinckley is a true messenger of our Lord. Two years ago, I was invited to Salt Lake City by the LDS Church, and President Hinckley took his personal time to sit with our small group that was touring the many ministries and apologized to me in front of the group. That was amazing! Now the [LDS] Church pushes Blacks to learn their lineage via the Church. That will open eyes and doors that will open new avenues of life."

Pastor to Pastor: President Hinckley's Apology for Racism in the Church

Thank you.

[hope_for_things]

5 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

This is going to get me some flack, but I don't trust the meeting with the NAACP. I think it was a precursor for the "celebration" of the ban lift. The church has a PR dept. and uses it well. 

And calling it a celebration doesn't sit well, how about a solemn observance of what not to do in the future. Not ever. Combined with a broken heart and contrite apology.

 

I'm suspicious as well.  I wonder with all the fallout from the hoax if that will have an impact one way or the other on what the church has planned for the 40th anniversary event.  I'm hoping that church leaders listen to the pain that is out there and I'm hoping that it wakes some of them up.  But I know from past experience, that sometimes very passionate language can make people dig into their position even more deeply, so I'm not sure what to expect.  

Honestly with Oaks in the position he's in, it would take a miracle to get him to backtrack on his 'no apologies" statement.  He's a lawyer and I have real doubts that he will ever change his mind.  

[kllindley]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

The controversy in early Christianity was whether or not gentile converts had to be circumcised and keep Jewish law. There actually were a surprising number of Roman converts to Judaism when Paul was active. He may have converted a number of them to Christianity. The issue wasn't about ethnicity - any ethnicity could be Jewish or Christian. The issue was religious practice. Would Christianity continue to be a Jewish sect and require adherence to Jewish laws? Or would they fundamentally change? One of the early solutions (which you find in one of the synoptic gospels) was to require Jewish Christians to continue to keep the law, while gentile Christians didn't have to. Eventually adherence to the law was abandoned for all Christians. Paul was, of course, one of the principal opponents to keeping the law.

That is an interesting misrepresentation of the New Testament. Is it intentional or just lack of familiarity? The controversy you described was present. But that is not what the text identifies as the message of Peter's vision. 

[Stargazer]

3 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

This is going to get me some flack, but I don't trust the meeting with the NAACP. I think it was a precursor for the "celebration" of the ban lift. The church has a PR dept. and uses it well. 

And calling it a celebration doesn't sit well, how about a solemn observance of what not to do in the future. Not ever. Combined with a broken heart and contrite apology.

 

Here it is: "Flack"!

You're welcome!  

I wonder if my wife really loves me, or just puts up with me because I do the dishes, take out the trash, and make minor repairs to the house.  

Would the Church have had to meet with the NAACP six months offset from the June anniversary for you to have accepted it as it is?  You make no allowance for the fact that the meeting took place because the NAACP just happened to be holding their quarterly board meeting in SLC for the first time?  Perhaps it was the NAACP who asked for the meeting to be held in SLC for first time, and scheduled it as close to the June anniversary as they could so as to take advantage of the anniversary?  In that case it would be NAACP who would be driving the matter, and it was the NAACP's PR department using its opportunities!  Who's to blame for this travesty?

Or maybe it was just coincidental after all, and your suspicions about the Church's motives are mere paranoia?

[Stargazer]

You people who can't observe the Church doing anything at all without instantly narrowing your eyes and wondering what are they plotting this time...

My youngest son is afflicted with paranoid personality disorder.  He interprets everything and anything anyone ever says to him in the light that best confirms his assessment of everybody's out to get him.

I sense a certain similarity between the two worldviews.

[Gray]

11 minutes ago, kllindley said:

That is an interesting misrepresentation of the New Testament. Is it intentional or just lack of familiarity? The controversy you described was present. But that is not what the text identifies as the message of Peter's vision.  

Why don't you give us what you think is the correct reading?

[Gray]

20 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

A religious restriction based on ethnicity.  You can cite the few exceptions that existed, but they do not overturn the rule.  

No, not based on ethnicity. You're reading modern concerns into an ancient text. Canaanites had the same ethnicity as Hebrews. It was their tribal identity and religious practices that set them apart.

Edited May 21, 2018 by Gray

[Tacenda]

8 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Here it is: "Flack"!

You're welcome!  

I wonder if my wife really loves me, or just puts up with me because I do the dishes, take out the trash, and make minor repairs to the house.  

Would the Church have had to meet with the NAACP six months offset from the June anniversary for you to have accepted it as it is?  You make no allowance for the fact that the meeting took place because the NAACP just happened to be holding their quarterly board meeting in SLC for the first time?  Perhaps it was the NAACP who asked for the meeting to be held in SLC for first time, and scheduled it as close to the June anniversary as they could so as to take advantage of the anniversary?  In that case it would be NAACP who would be driving the matter, and it was the NAACP's PR department using its opportunities!  Who's to blame for this travesty?

Or maybe it was just coincidental after all, and your suspicions about the Church's motives are mere paranoia?

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900019155/the-story-behind-last-week-s-meeting-between-the-lds-church-and-the-naacp.html

Thanks Stargazer, this article states what led up to the NAACP meet up. I spoke too soon. Now to follow up on what you quoted below about some people having paranoid personality disorder, I may or may not fit that persona. But will fess up whenever I'm wrong. 

[Gray]

27 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

You're kidding, right?  They were intensely exclusionary, both of them.  At the time of Jesus, observant Jews couldn't so much as sit down with Gentiles for dinner.  The reason why Peter had that revelation in the first place is because, as an observant Jew, he couldn't have sat down with Cornelius and his household for dinner, let alone baptize them!  I commend for your reading the entire 10th chapter of Acts.

You're confusing religious practices (and the associated ritual purity concept) with ethnic concerns.

 

27 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

So Peter preached to them, and when the Holy Spirit fell upon them, he witnessed this and said:

And it was one of the early church's biggest controversies, that Paul was making Christians out of people who were not first becoming Jews!  Paul circumcised the gentile Timothy so that he didn't have to put up with Jewish complaints of Timothy teaching in synagogues, or even in Christian congregations consisting of Jewish Christians.

Gray, you've got to stop making up things like this.

It would be great if you stopped reading your modern notions of ethnicity into an ancient text.

[kllindley]

5 minutes ago, Gray said:

Why don't you give us what you think is the correct reading?

The straightforwstd one. What is on Acts 10 and 11 is clearly a different dilemma than the one reported in Acts 15. Especially, see Acts 11:18

[Gray]

Just now, kllindley said:

The straightforwstd one. What is on Acts 10 and 11 is clearly a different dilemma than the one reported in Acts 15. Especially, see Acts 11:18

You'll have to forgive me, but your interpretation of Acts isn't published in the book itself. So merely quoting a chapter isn't sufficient to explain what your take on it is.