1st Pres. and NAACP

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, rongo said:

That our race (and many other things, such as era, geography, family placement, etc.) are influenced by the pre-existence. I don't believe it's just a random accident of circumstances and chance where any of us, anywhere, entered this life and what we would face. 

So just to be clear, you believe that blacks were denied the priesthood because they were 'fence sitters' in the pre-existence and that blacks were cursed?

[rongo]

10 minutes ago, bluebell said:

So just to be clear, you believe that blacks were denied the priesthood because they were 'fence sitters' in the pre-existence and that blacks were cursed?

No as to "fence sitters." I think it's clear that everyone in mortality chose the plan of salvation (positive choice, not a passive abstention or whatever). Physical body = kept first estate. Period, end of story.  Yes as to a "curse" --- that's the language of the Book of Mormon and Pearl of Great Price. And it isn't only blacks, of course (cf. Book of Mormon and Lamanites). 

I also think that many things we regard as a "curse" are more complex with an eternal perspective and beyond the veil of forgetfulness. I believe that there are different "degrees of difficulty" in our earthly assignments (era, circumstances, opportunity, government system, family, race, physical handicaps, and many, many more), just like there are with mission area and companion assignments --- and God has different reasons for giving some harder and some easier assignments. Just like in many other things in life (workplace, missions, etc.). I think there are many, many reasons why one could be assigned what appear to us to be a "tough" assignment ---- most of which have nothing to do with "bad pre-existent choices." 

Have you ever heard or read anything from the late Renee Olson? She stated her belief that she and others were given the assignment to be black because they were tough, skilled, and God knew he could count on them to carry it out, whereas others wouldn't be able to. That point of view doesn't sound at all like fence sitters, less valiant, etc., and I believe that that factors in in many cases. 

Edited May 22, 2018 by rongo

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, rongo said:

No as to "fence sitters." I think it's clear that everyone in mortality chose the plan of salvation (positive choice, not a passive abstention or whatever). Physical body = kept first estate. Period, end of story.  Yes as to a "curse" --- that's the language of the Book of Mormon and Pearl of Great Price. And it isn't only blacks, of course (cf. Book of Mormon and Lamanites). 

Ok, thanks for clarifying.  One more question (to further clarify) do you believe that blacks were less valiants than whites in the pre-existence?

[rongo]

8 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Ok, thanks for clarifying.  One more question (to further clarify) do you believe that blacks were less valiants than whites in the pre-existence?

No. I believe that some blacks and some whites (and [fill in the blank] ) were more or less valiant than others --- just like here on earth. We progressed at different levels --- just like here on earth. And just like in the hereafter, I believe (I believe in the possibility of progression between kingdoms, and I believe that we will progress at different rates and degrees there, too). I, personally, believe that race (and many other things) on earth stem from what we personally need in mortality --- whether that be trials, experiences, etc. in order to become like our heavenly parents. We all get what we personally need. 

Isn't it interesting within our theology to consider how many black children have died before the age of accountability throughout history? Our theology teaches that they are automatically heirs of the celestial kingdom --- and yes, this would apply to children everywhere (not just black children) of all eras who were sent to earth during times and circumstances of very high infant mortality. They obtained their bodies, and became heirs of the celestial kingdom. Why would so many "less-valiant" or "fence-sitters" be given that reward with no risk? 

Edited May 22, 2018 by rongo

[hope_for_things]

6 minutes ago, rongo said:

No as to "fence sitters." I think it's clear that everyone in mortality chose the plan of salvation (positive choice, not a passive abstention or whatever). Physical body = kept first estate. Period, end of story.  Yes as to a "curse" --- that's the language of the Book of Mormon and Pearl of Great Price. And it isn't only blacks, of course (cf. Book of Mormon and Lamanites). 

I also think that many things we regard as a "curse" are more complex with an eternal perspective and beyond the veil of forgetfulness. I believe that there are different "degrees of difficulty" in our earthly assignments (era, circumstances, opportunity, government system, family, race, physical handicaps, and many, many more), just like there are with mission area and companion assignments. I think there are many, many reasons why one could be assigned what appear to us to be a "tough" assignment ---- most of which have nothing to do with "bad pre-existent choices." 

Have you ever heard or read anything from the late Renee Olson? She stated her belief that she and others were given the assignment to be black because they were tough, skilled, and God knew he could count on them to carry it out, whereas others wouldn't be able to. That point of view doesn't sound at all like fence sitters, less valiant, etc., and I believe that that factors in in many cases. 

Not to pile on here, as I'm really enjoying the back and forth (wish I had some popcorn right now), but this articulation you're giving for a justification for racial discrimination is sounding eerily similar to the Randy Bott BYU professor controversy of a few years back.  

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/the-genesis-of-a-churchs-stand-on-race/2012/02/22/gIQAQZXyfR_story.html?utm_term=.e8dba22fbfb9

This sounds like the kind of reasoning that the church has tried very hard to officially disavow in recent years.  

[rongo]

1 minute ago, hope_for_things said:

Not to pile on here, as I'm really enjoying the back and forth (wish I had some popcorn right now), but this articulation you're giving for a justification for racial discrimination is sounding eerily similar to the Randy Bott BYU professor controversy of a few years back.  

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/the-genesis-of-a-churchs-stand-on-race/2012/02/22/gIQAQZXyfR_story.html?utm_term=.e8dba22fbfb9

This sounds like the kind of reasoning that the church has tried very hard to officially disavow in recent years.  

It would be really easy to squash it once and for all, wouldn't it, and forever more prevent Randy Bott or rongo from using such explanations again. Why hasn't the Church done that? Why the "disavowal-but-stopping-short-of-repudiation-and-condemnation" route?

I think it's clear that the Church is trying to straddle the PR fence --- not to repudiate or condemn doctrines and policies that no revelation condemns, but at the same time to check all the PR damage control boxes. It is a very thin tightrope to walk. I think disavowing the explanations (but not the ban itself) while being silent on "better" or revealed explanations is . . . not really very helpful, except for its intended PR purposes. But, it is good in the absence of revelation on the matter that believers on both sides have room to believe what they want on it. That isn't a bad thing. 

[Calm]

17 minutes ago, rongo said:

No. I believe that some blacks and some whites (and [fill in the blank] ) were more or less valiant than others --- just like here on earth. We progressed at different levels --- just like here on earth. And just like in the hereafter, I believe (I believe in the possibility of progression between kingdoms, and I believe that we will progress at different rates and degrees there, too). I, personally, believe that race (and many other things) on earth stem from what we personally need in mortality --- whether that be trials, experiences, etc. in order to become like our heavenly parents. We all get what we personally need. 

Isn't it interesting within our theology to consider how many black children have died before the age of accountability throughout history? Our theology teaches that they are automatically heirs of the celestial kingdom --- and yes, this would apply to children everywhere (not just black children) of all eras who were sent to earth during times and circumstances of very high infant mortality. They obtained their bodies, and became heirs of the celestial kingdom. Why would so many "less-valiant" or "fence-sitters" be given that reward with no risk? 

So was there some generic behaviour that led to those spirits being placed in 'black' family lines or was it on a case by case basis?

Edited May 22, 2018 by Calm

[JAHS]

19 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Ok, thanks for clarifying.  One more question (to further clarify) do you believe that blacks were less valiants than whites in the pre-existence?

The scriptures tell us that there were "nobel and great" spirits in the premortal life who were pre-ordained to be leaders in Christ's kingdom on earth.

"Now the Lord had shown unto me, Abraham, the intelligences that were organized before the world was; and among all these there were many of the noble and great ones; And God saw these souls that they were good, and he stood in the midst of them, and he said: These I will make my rulers; for he stood among those that were spirits, and he saw that they were good; and he said unto me: Abraham, thou art one of them; thou wast chosen before thou wast born." (Abraham 3:23-24)

The phrase "many of the nobel and great ones" suggests that there is something they must have done or something in the nature of their spirits that sets them apart from others who were not so noble and great. 

Elder Orson Pratt Pratt once said, discussing the conditions that existed in the premortal world that finally led to the War in Heaven:

"Among the two-thirds who remained, it is highly probable that there were many who were not valiant in the war, but whose sins were of such a nature that they could be forgiven through faith in the future sufferings of the Only Begotten of the Father. and through their sincere repentance and reformation.
If all the two-thirds who kept their first estate were equally valiant in the war, and equally faithful, why should some of them be called and chosen in their spiritual state to hold responsible stations and offices in this world, while others were not? If there were none of those spirits who sinned, why were the Apostles, when they existed in their previous state, chosen to be blessed "with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ?" All these passages seem to convey an idea, that there were callings, choosings, ordinances, promises, predestinations, elections, and appointments, made before the world began." (Orson Pratt, "The Pre-existence of Man," The Seer 1 (April 1853): 54-56)

This could mostly be speculation based on how he interprets the scriptures.

Also from the Book of Abraham:
"These two facts do exist, that there are two spirits, one being more intelligent than the other; there shall be another more intelligent than they; I am the Lord thy God, I am more intelligent than they all." (Abr. 3:19.)

So there is evidence that there were differences in terms of who was more or less valiant or intelligent, but nothing based on what the the color of their skin would be.  

[Calm]

20 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Not to pile on here, as I'm really enjoying the back and forth (wish I had some popcorn right now), but this articulation you're giving for a justification for racial discrimination is sounding eerily similar to the Randy Bott BYU professor controversy of a few years back.  

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/the-genesis-of-a-churchs-stand-on-race/2012/02/22/gIQAQZXyfR_story.html?utm_term=.e8dba22fbfb9

This sounds like the kind of reasoning that the church has tried very hard to officially disavow in recent years.  

Actually Bott was more into treating blacks as less developed (it was a blessing for them not to have received the Priesthood because they were not ready for it, like a young child not getting the car keys) while Rongo seems to be open to the idea race is not linked to anything negative, instead could be positive...stronger, more developed spirits who can bear the burden and still grow.

This could be using "curse" in a similar way to the curse of Adam and Eve...all mankind are cursed by mortality so in the long run they have more spiritual growth, etc.  Once the purpose of the curse is accomplished, it is removed through the Atonement.

(Not saying I agree with it, but it would be the direction I would tend to go if I believed in the ban).

Edited May 22, 2018 by Calm

[hope_for_things]

3 minutes ago, rongo said:

It would be really easy to squash it once and for all, wouldn't it, and forever more prevent Randy Bott or rongo from using such explanations again. Why hasn't the Church done that? Why the "disavowal-but-stopping-short-of-repudiation-and-condemnation" route?

I think it's clear that the Church is trying to straddle the PR fence --- not to repudiate or condemn doctrines and policies that no revelation condemns, but at the same time to check all the PR damage control boxes. It is a very thin tightrope to walk. I think disavowing the explanations (but not the ban itself) while being silent on "better" or revealed explanations is . . . not really very helpful, except for its intended PR purposes. But, it is good in the absence of revelation on the matter that believers on both sides have room to believe what they want on it. That isn't a bad thing. 

Actually I think the disavowal is a repudiation and condemnation of racism as a whole which includes the ban.  I think your position sounds 6-10 years behind the church and I think the church’s public position on this topic is becoming increasingly more strident in rejecting racist ideologies (see the statements last year condemning white culture as exhibit A.)  

[bluebell]

4 minutes ago, JAHS said:

The scriptures tell us that there were "nobel and great" spirits in the premortal life who were pre-ordained to be leaders in Christ's kingdom on earth.

"Now the Lord had shown unto me, Abraham, the intelligences that were organized before the world was; and among all these there were many of the noble and great ones; And God saw these souls that they were good, and he stood in the midst of them, and he said: These I will make my rulers; for he stood among those that were spirits, and he saw that they were good; and he said unto me: Abraham, thou art one of them; thou wast chosen before thou wast born." (Abraham 3:23-24)

The phrase "many of the nobel and great ones" suggests that there is something they must have done or something in the nature of their spirits that sets them apart from others who were not so noble and great. 

Elder Orson Pratt Pratt once said, discussing the conditions that existed in the premortal world that finally led to the War in Heaven:

"Among the two-thirds who remained, it is highly probable that there were many who were not valiant in the war, but whose sins were of such a nature that they could be forgiven through faith in the future sufferings of the Only Begotten of the Father. and through their sincere repentance and reformation.
If all the two-thirds who kept their first estate were equally valiant in the war, and equally faithful, why should some of them be called and chosen in their spiritual state to hold responsible stations and offices in this world, while others were not? If there were none of those spirits who sinned, why were the Apostles, when they existed in their previous state, chosen to be blessed "with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ?" All these passages seem to convey an idea, that there were callings, choosings, ordinances, promises, predestinations, elections, and appointments, made before the world began." (Orson Pratt, "The Pre-existence of Man," The Seer 1 (April 1853): 54-56)

This could mostly be speculation based on how he interprets the scriptures.

Also from the Book of Abraham:
"These two facts do exist, that there are two spirits, one being more intelligent than the other; there shall be another more intelligent than they; I am the Lord thy God, I am more intelligent than they all." (Abr. 3:19.)

So there is evidence that there were differences in terms of who was more or less valiant or intelligent, but nothing based on what the the color of their skin would be.  

Oh I know, Rongo and I have already had that discussion.   

[rongo]

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

So was therefore some generic behaviour that led to those spirits being placed in 'black' family lines or was it on a case by case basis?

Generic sounds pretty . . . generic.  

I think it could be any number of things on a spectrum. Some blacks are clearly among the "noble and great ones." Some are not. We all know white trash people who are not, either. There are bad apples in every barrel. And, people can change. 

I'm not an absolute foreknowledge guy, but many here are. For those people, God knew that his leaders would have the ban in place for at least 126 years, and in his wisdom, he let it "run its course." Whom would he choose to be black pioneers during, coming out of, and beyond this? Surely not people with "generic" behavior in the pre-existence.

Like a coach subbing in players, God calls on each of us at different times and circumstances. "I need you to go in and do this." "I'm putting you in now." Different times and circumstances call for different people --- and so do different personal growth and development needs on the part of the person "getting into the game." While there are places for the "generic" (think of a mission president, who needs to place everyone with companions in areas. Some are dynamic, some are a real challenge, and some just are), I believe that many people are placed for their talents and needs. And the talents and needs of those around them. 

[hope_for_things]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

Actually Bott was more into treating blacks as less developed (it was a blessing for them not to have received the Priesthood) while Rongo seems to be open to the idea race is not linked to anything negative, possibly positive...stronger, more developed spirits who can bear the burden and still grow.

This could be using "curse" in a similar way to the curse of Adam and Eve...all mankind are cursed by mortality so in the long run they have more spiritual growth, etc.  Once the purpose of the curse is accomplished, it is removed through the Atonement.

(Not saying I agree with it, but it would be the direction I would tend to go if I believed in the ban).

It’s all in the same vein of thinking that race has any kind of component that would lead to disparate treatment based on a racial component.  It’s highly problematic from my perspective and I think the most recent statements from the church have clarified that they aren’t comfortable with characterizing race in these terms.  

I think the church wants to distance itself from any connection between race and curses.  To see these kinds of theories still held by active and informed members reinforces the great need we have in this church today for explicit statements like were made when white supremacists thought they were on the same side as the church in justifying their position, only to have the newsroom have to come out and make a second statement condemning those individuals very explicitly.  

[rongo]

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Oh I know, Rongo and I have already had that discussion.   

I think it's where the discussion now is (and I enjoy having it):  So, how much *does* the pre-existence influence earth life, then? What do we do with patriarchal blessing or scriptural references to the pre-existence influencing earth life? And if the pre-existence is completely off the table, boy, can we really explain anything? And doesn't God's justice and mercy take a hit if none of it has anything to do with pre-existence? I think those are the big questions, if we try to take the pre-existence off the table for race and things like that. 

[rongo]

3 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I think the most recent statements from the church have clarified that they aren’t comfortable with characterizing race in these terms.

Without a doubt! In spades!  

I think the church wants to distance itself from any connection between race and curses.  

   There is really only one way to truly distance the Church from any connection between race and curses, and the Church has very conspicuously shied away from that, too. Plus, there is the mountain range of Book of Mormon and Pearl of Great Price scriptures that would still remain, and they aren't just small, incidental things. They would be missed, and they would leave gaps. And then we really wouldn't be able to use the pre-existence to explain anything. Should Abraham 3 be included in "the purge?"  

[JAHS]

23 minutes ago, rongo said:

I think it's where the discussion now is (and I enjoy having it):  So, how much *does* the pre-existence influence earth life, then? What do we do with patriarchal blessing or scriptural references to the pre-existence influencing earth life? And if the pre-existence is completely off the table, boy, can we really explain anything? And doesn't God's justice and mercy take a hit if none of it has anything to do with pre-existence? I think those are the big questions, if we try to take the pre-existence off the table for race and things like that. 

In Acts we read:
"And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;" (Acts 17:26)

So according to Paul many spirits may have been foreordained to specific nations and generations ("bounds of habitation"), as well as perhaps when they come to earth. 

 

[hope_for_things]

19 minutes ago, rongo said:

Without a doubt! In spades!  

No, I’m saying I don’t think the church would be comfortable with your statements in this thread about race.  

20 minutes ago, rongo said:

There is really only one way to truly distance the Church from any connection between race and curses, and the Church has very conspicuously shied away from that, too. Plus, there is the mountain range of Book of Mormon and Pearl of Great Price scriptures that would still remain, and they aren't just small, incidental things. They would be missed, and they would leave gaps. And then we really wouldn't be able to use the pre-existence to explain anything. Should Abraham 3 be included in "the purge?"  

I can only speculate about future changes to the canon, but if history is any guide, subtitle and gradual changes are how the church typically operates.  There is also a lot of room for different interpretations which honestly gives great flexibility for scriptural discussion.  

[bluebell]

34 minutes ago, rongo said:

I think it's where the discussion now is (and I enjoy having it):  So, how much *does* the pre-existence influence earth life, then? What do we do with patriarchal blessing or scriptural references to the pre-existence influencing earth life? And if the pre-existence is completely off the table, boy, can we really explain anything? And doesn't God's justice and mercy take a hit if none of it has anything to do with pre-existence? I think those are the big questions, if we try to take the pre-existence off the table for race and things like that. 

As I said previously, I think there is plenty of room to believe that the pre-existence impacts our mortal state without believing that it alone can keep an otherwise worthy person from access blessings they are aware of.

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

So just to be clear, you believe that blacks were denied the priesthood because they were 'fence sitters' in the pre-existence and that blacks were cursed?

That's what I was taught. It never sat well with me, I just don't buy it.

[bluebell]

Just now, Tacenda said:

That's what I was taught. It never sat well with me, I just don't buy it.

Yes, it's good that the church has disavowed such reasoning. 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, rongo said:

Generic sounds pretty . . . generic.  

I think it could be any number of things on a spectrum. Some blacks are clearly among the "noble and great ones." Some are not. We all know white trash people who are not, either. There are bad apples in every barrel. And, people can change. 

I'm not an absolute foreknowledge guy, but many here are. For those people, God knew that his leaders would have the ban in place for at least 126 years, and in his wisdom, he let it "run its course." Whom would he choose to be black pioneers during, coming out of, and beyond this? Surely not people with "generic" behavior in the pre-existence.

Like a coach subbing in players, God calls on each of us at different times and circumstances. "I need you to go in and do this." "I'm putting you in now." Different times and circumstances call for different people --- and so do different personal growth and development needs on the part of the person "getting into the game." While there are places for the "generic" (think of a mission president, who needs to place everyone with companions in areas. Some are dynamic, some are a real challenge, and some just are), I believe that many people are placed for their talents and needs. And the talents and needs of those around them. 

But the application of the ban wasn't to just a small number of people, such as black pioneers; itwas attributed to the whole 'race' of blacks.  This made it so blacks in the South, Africa, and many other places were not sought out to be taught by missionaries at times.

And the idea of the curse itself was rooted in the theology that rationalized enslaving millions for centuries, the Curse of Ham.

Edited May 23, 2018 by Calm

[Marginal Gains]

8 hours ago, rongo said:

It would be really easy to squash it once and for all, wouldn't it, and forever more prevent Randy Bott or rongo from using such explanations again. Why hasn't the Church done that? Why the "disavowal-but-stopping-short-of-repudiation-and-condemnation" route?

I think it's clear that the Church is trying to straddle the PR fence --- not to repudiate or condemn doctrines and policies that no revelation condemns, but at the same time to check all the PR damage control boxes. It is a very thin tightrope to walk. I think disavowing the explanations (but not the ban itself) while being silent on "better" or revealed explanations is . . . not really very helpful, except for its intended PR purposes. But, it is good in the absence of revelation on the matter that believers on both sides have room to believe what they want on it. That isn't a bad thing. 

What would the Church have had to say in “Race And The Priesthood” and susbsequent statements on white supremacists and now the statement with the NAACP, for you to consider that the Church was repudiating/condemning the ban rather than just condemning the explanations for the ban?

Edited May 23, 2018 by Marginal Gains

[Marginal Gains]

9 hours ago, rongo said:

At least that's clarified! 

Who do you think started the ban? i.e., do you place it with Joseph Smith or Brigham Young? What reasons do you claim that he/they had for the ban?

Where do you come down on the Coltrin/Smoot statements?   

 

Personally I think Joseph toyed around with race and never seemed to come out explicitly one way or the other.

Brigham Young clearly enforced the segregation and I put that down to his personal racism - I accept that the cultural context of the day played a significant part in his thinking. I don’t see how God can have had anything to do with it, either in terms of its instigation, nor its removal.

Coltrin and Smoot - what’s their relevance?

[Marginal Gains]

9 hours ago, rongo said:

No as to "fence sitters." I think it's clear that everyone in mortality chose the plan of salvation (positive choice, not a passive abstention or whatever). Physical body = kept first estate. Period, end of story.  Yes as to a "curse" --- that's the language of the Book of Mormon and Pearl of Great Price. And it isn't only blacks, of course (cf. Book of Mormon and Lamanites).

What do you think black people were cursed for? And do you believe (as per the Book of Mormon) that black skin was the sign of the curse?

[california boy]

8 hours ago, JAHS said:

The scriptures tell us that there were "nobel and great" spirits in the premortal life who were pre-ordained to be leaders in Christ's kingdom on earth.

"Now the Lord had shown unto me, Abraham, the intelligences that were organized before the world was; and among all these there were many of the noble and great ones; And God saw these souls that they were good, and he stood in the midst of them, and he said: These I will make my rulers; for he stood among those that were spirits, and he saw that they were good; and he said unto me: Abraham, thou art one of them; thou wast chosen before thou wast born." (Abraham 3:23-24)

The phrase "many of the nobel and great ones" suggests that there is something they must have done or something in the nature of their spirits that sets them apart from others who were not so noble and great. 

Elder Orson Pratt Pratt once said, discussing the conditions that existed in the premortal world that finally led to the War in Heaven:

"Among the two-thirds who remained, it is highly probable that there were many who were not valiant in the war, but whose sins were of such a nature that they could be forgiven through faith in the future sufferings of the Only Begotten of the Father. and through their sincere repentance and reformation.
If all the two-thirds who kept their first estate were equally valiant in the war, and equally faithful, why should some of them be called and chosen in their spiritual state to hold responsible stations and offices in this world, while others were not? If there were none of those spirits who sinned, why were the Apostles, when they existed in their previous state, chosen to be blessed "with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ?" All these passages seem to convey an idea, that there were callings, choosings, ordinances, promises, predestinations, elections, and appointments, made before the world began." (Orson Pratt, "The Pre-existence of Man," The Seer 1 (April 1853): 54-56)

This could mostly be speculation based on how he interprets the scriptures.

Also from the Book of Abraham:
"These two facts do exist, that there are two spirits, one being more intelligent than the other; there shall be another more intelligent than they; I am the Lord thy God, I am more intelligent than they all." (Abr. 3:19.)

So there is evidence that there were differences in terms of who was more or less valiant or intelligent, but nothing based on what the the color of their skin would be.  

What does less valiant in the war in heaven look like?  Were their weapons?  Was it a war of words and some were not as good at persuading others?  Maybe if we could understand what kind of war it was we could understand how some were more valiant and because of how valiant they were, they were born as all the white leaders of the church.   Clearly they are tied together in Mormon doctrine.