1st Pres. and NAACP

[Marginal Gains]

1 hour ago, JAHS said:

No his hoax hurt way more people than it is going to help. The church will not can not apologize for something that is so ingrained in the history and even scriptures of the church. 
 

His hoax isn’t the problem, but it did highlight the problem.

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, Marginal Gains said:

He also showed (unwittingly?) at how the leadership of the Church are still holding on to the Priesthood Ban being really what God wanted, despite the essay “Race And The Priesthood”.

Perhaps the essay in question does not say what you think it says.

[Kenngo1969]

3 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

His hoax isn’t the problem, but it did highlight the problem.

On the contrary.  Hoaxes, by very definition, are problems.  I'm not inclined to excuse the perpetrator of this one simply because some people think his motives are pure.

Edited May 18, 2018 by Kenngo1969

[JAHS]

1 minute ago, Marginal Gains said:

His hoax isn’t the problem, but it did highlight the problem.

It didn't need to be highlighted. Almost everyone in the church already knows about the issue. This hoax from a former Mormon is not going to help at all, only hurt people who thought it was real.  

[Scott Lloyd]

26 minutes ago, JAHS said:

If I were his bishop it would, but then I am not his Bishop. A Trib article said he was an ex-Mormon:
"The hoax was the work of Jonathan Streeter, a former Mormon who lives in Texas and hosts the blog Thoughts on Things and Stuff under the pen name Thinker of Thoughts. 
Streeter said he had pondered what kind of statement the LDS Church might put out if it ever apologized for its past policies on race — and how he might write his own false apology as a thought-provoking parody."
https://www.sltrib.com/news/2018/05/17/no-the-mormon-church-did-not-apologize-for-having-a-history-of-racism/

Thanks for this information.

Contrary to his characterization, this was not a parody but a hoax, one that appears to have harmed a number of people.

[Marginal Gains]

10 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Perhaps the essay in question does not say what you think it says.

Perhaps it does.

[Scott Lloyd]

38 minutes ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

Why do you care if he is disciplined or not?

Sometimes it seems you get an odd enjoyment when people you don't like are disciplined by Church leaders.

I care because his hoax appears to have harmed a number of people, and it would bother me if someone engaged in such behavior while being a member of the Church.

It's a moot point anyway, because it now seems clear he is no longer a member. But CFR that I have ever given any indication of "an odd enjoyment" over people undergoing Church discipline.

[6EQUJ5]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

But CFR that I have ever given any indication of "an odd enjoyment" over people undergoing Church discipline.

Hmmm... John Dehlin.  Kate Kelly.  That CES letter dude.

But the best one is how excited you got when a "rouge" SP in boston was shut down for by Church HQ.  I could go on.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Marginal Gains said:

He also showed (unwittingly?) at how the leadership of the Church are still holding on to the Priesthood Ban being really what God wanted, despite the essay “Race And The Priesthood”.

Considering that the essay never addresses whether or not the ban was what God wanted, its's not possible for leaders to hold that position despite it.  That's why I was excited about the fake apology-it finally addressed the issue head on. I was excited because I knew it would mean a lot to black members and also because it clarified an issue, with no room for doubt or interpretation, that is otherwise very murky.

[Marginal Gains]

21 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

On the contrary.  Hoaxes, by very definition, are problems.  I'm not inclined to excuse the perpetrator of this one simply because some people think his motives are pure.

Hoaxes are falsehoods masquerading as truth. Say, like presenting something as a translation of papyrus when it’s known not to be. I’m guessing you don’t have a problem with the latter because it teaches important truths. As did the Priesthood Ban apology hoax.

Edited May 18, 2018 by Marginal Gains

[Scott Lloyd]

7 minutes ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

Hmmm... John Dehlin.  Kate Kelly.  That CES letter dude.

But the best one is how excited you got when a "rouge" SP in boston was shut down for by Church HQ.  I could go on.

Not good enough. Show where I indicated an "odd enjoyment" in any of these instances.

As for the stake president in Boston, not only did I NOT call for discipline, but I opined that he ought not be released over the matter.

Either substantiate your accusations or retract them.

Edited to add: And why the scare quotes on "rogue"? Are you implying I used that term in reference to the stake president? Can you document that?

 

 

Edited May 18, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Kenngo1969]

2 minutes ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

Hmmm... John Dehlin.  Kate Kelly.  That CES letter dude.

But the best one is how excited you got when a "rouge" SP in boston was shut down for by Church HQ.  I could go on.

Gotta watch out for those "rouge" stake presidents.  

 

[stemelbow]

This hoax hurt far less people than the church hurts for not apologizing.  I think that is evident alone by the responses that started appearing before people knew it was a hoax. 

 

[Marginal Gains]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Considering that the essay never addresses whether or not the ban was what God wanted, its's not possible for leaders to hold that position despite it.  That's why I was excited about the fake apology-it finally addressed the issue head on. I was excited because I knew it would mean a lot to black members and also because it clarified an issue, with no room for doubt or interpretation, that is otherwise very murky.

Race And The Priesthood

Quote

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

2nd Nephi 5

Quote

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 skinof blackness to come upon them.

The Church is talking out of both sides of its mouth. If the situation is murky, it’s because Church Leaders want it that way.

[Marginal Gains]

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

This hoax hurt far less people than the church hurts for not apologizing.  I think that is evident alone by the responses that started appearing before people knew it was a hoax. 

 

Absolutely.

Edited May 18, 2018 by Marginal Gains

[Kenngo1969]

3 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

Hoaxes are falsehoods masquerading as truth. Say like presenting something as a translation of papyrus when it’s known not to be. I’m guessing you don’t have a problem with the latter because it teaches important truths. As did the Preisthood Ban apology hoax.

Many, I daresay most, perpetrators of hoaxes couldn't care less about the truth.  And you may, if you wish, persist in demanding (at least implicitly) that I accept your underlying assumptions about the Priesthood ban, about the Book of Abraham, or about anything else related to the Church of Jesus Christ of in order to dialogue with me on such issues (assuming that you're even interested in dialogue: there may be room for doubt on that score) but, alas!, you're unlikely to get very far with me if you continue that approach.

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, Marginal Gains said:

Race And The Priesthood

2nd Nephi 5

The Church is talking out of both sides of its mouth. If the situation is murky, it’s because Church Leaders want it that way.

Like I said, the essay does not discuss the origins of the ban itself.  It only disavows the reasons that were taught for the ban.  And I agree that the situation is likely murky because church leaders want it that way.  I can understand that and I don't hold that against them.  But clarity would be really awesome, which is what I reacted to.

[Kenngo1969]

9 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

... Either substantiate your accusations or retract them.

 

Oh, come on, Scott!  I thought your middle name was schadenfreude!  (It does have a nice ring to it: Scott Schadenfreude Lloyd! )

 

[Gray]

42 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Here is what you said on the other thread about your Relief Society president allegedly having her “hopes raised and then dashed” due to the behavior of the “church hierarchy”: 

“She does. Her faith has been on really shaky ground for a while now, mostly due to concern for raising her daughter in the church.“ 

Consistent with your fussing at Hamba above, since your friend is not here, maybe it’s best you just speak for yourself. 

Why is it “unseemly” for Hamba to give an undocumented anecdote but not for you?

It's not unseemly to give an undocumented anecdote - all of us do that. Hamba isn't American, and I assume he is well intentioned and sincere. But since you keep pressing the issue, as you should know this is a common issue in America with our complicated history of race. The "I have a black friend" defense has a very poor history here. It's unseemly to use a black friend as a shield for defending something like a ban on black people fully participating in a church. That nuance may not be obvious to someone from another country.  Black people can speak for themselves on this issue.

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

Given the 1949 First Presidency statement claiming the ban as doctrine, that last sentence seems misleading.

https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Mormonism_and_racial_issues/Blacks_and_the_priesthood/Statements

How can an official statement made by the Prophet and First Presidency not represent Church doctrine?

Exactly!!  I always emphasize the fact that we have many different statements from prophetic or revelatory sources which cannot readily be combined into one simple stream of tradition.  Those not familiar with the Bible or with religious history frequently make the mistake of claiming that everything is cut and dried -- that there are no disjunctures -- when in fact we know very well that such is not the case. This leads biblical scholars to conclude that the Bible contains theologies (plural) rather than one biblical theology.  It leads competent historians to note the obvious disagreements among religious leaders in more recent times.  Some of those disagreements are fundamental, not merely evanescent.  What must we do in the face of such disarray or disagreement?  What can an ordinary, non-scholar do in such a case?  He cannot address the problem from a scholarly POV.  Instead, he must find a more direct route to sorting out the difficulty, some of which has to do with faith, and some of which has to do with prayer.  Does he have any other choice?  The solution is difficult at best, and always has been.

[JAHS]

30 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Considering that the essay never addresses whether or not the ban was what God wanted, its's not possible for leaders to hold that position despite it.  That's why I was excited about the fake apology-it finally addressed the issue head on. I was excited because I knew it would mean a lot to black members and also because it clarified an issue, with no room for doubt or interpretation, that is otherwise very murky.

I worry a little about black members who seem to need an apology about something that really does not affect them  in our time now.  If an apology is given about such a thing are members going to demand and expect apologies for other things that they do not agree with in the future?  What does that do for the confidence members need to have in our church leaders?
Also we don't know for sure what was going on in the minds of the leaders back then. Perhaps they thought it was inspired of God to do what they did at the time or maybe they thought it was simply the prudent thing to do for the survival of the church in a nation where racism was pervasive and accepted. 

Edited May 18, 2018 by JAHS

[rongo]

12 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Like I said, the essay does not discuss the origins of the ban itself.  It only disavows the reasons that were taught for the ban.  And I agree that the situation is likely murky because church leaders want it that way.  I can understand that and I don't hold that against them.  But clarity would be really awesome, which is what I reacted to.

I agree that clarity would be really awesome. I'm beginning to wonder how much clarity clarity would provide. 

For example, if there were to be a blanket apology and condemnation/repudiation of the ban, that still wouldn't solve the "dueling prophets" problem. And what if the 2018 apology/condemnation were later apologized for and condemned? 

That's why I don't feel an apology/condemnation really solves or clarifies anything. I think it's clearly better to just leave things as they are (including the past and past statements) --- unless God is inquired of through the keys of seership and an answer is received. I don't believe that particular question has been or is being asked by the key-holders, and without revelation on the matter, any moves such as apology or condemnation would only be for PR or perceived damage control purposes. That, I think, does more harm than good.

Am I the only one here who didn't think it was real when it came out? I realize that "jumping the gun" might have been a product of wishful thinking, but still. It really doesn't seem like something that would have happened (although I was nervous about a "joint statement" with the NAACP on the eve of the "Be One" broadcast, I still expected it to be bland and generic boilerplate, and said so).

[rongo]

7 minutes ago, JAHS said:

If an apology is given about such a thing are members going to demand and expect apologies for other things that they do not agree with in the future?  What does that do for the confidence member need to have in our church leaders. 

Sorry! I couldn't help thinking of Olive Oyl's dad on the Robin Williams "Popeye" movie. The whole movie, he wanders around muttering to everyone about everything, "You owe me an apology."  

[JAHS]

3 minutes ago, rongo said:

I agree that clarity would be really awesome. I'm beginning to wonder how much clarity clarity would provide. 

For example, if there were to be a blanket apology and condemnation/repudiation of the ban, that still wouldn't solve the "dueling prophets" problem. And what if the 2018 apology/condemnation were later apologized for and condemned? 

That's why I don't feel an apology/condemnation really solves or clarifies anything. I think it's clearly better to just leave things as they are (including the past and past statements) --- unless God is inquired of through the keys of seership and an answer is received. I don't believe that particular question has been or is being asked by the key-holders, and without revelation on the matter, any moves such as apology or condemnation would only be for PR or perceived damage control purposes. That, I think, does more harm than good.

Am I the only one here who didn't think it was real when it came out? I realize that "jumping the gun" might have been a product of wishful thinking, but still. It really doesn't seem like something that would have happened (although I was nervous about a "joint statement" with the NAACP on the eve of the "Be One" broadcast, I still expected it to be bland and generic boilerplate, and said so).

When I first started reading it it seemed like it was real but then as I got deeper into it I got suspicious and started looking around for more sources about it and discovered it was a fake. Only took me a total of about one minute's time.

[bluebell]

7 minutes ago, JAHS said:

I worry a little about black members who seem to need an apology about something that really does not affect them  in our time now.  If an apology is given about such a thing are members going to demand and expect apologies for other things that they do not agree with in the future?  What does that do for the confidence members need to have in our church leaders?
Also we don't know for sure what was going on in the minds of the leaders back then. Perhaps they thought it was inspired of God to do what they did at the time or maybe they thought it was simply the prudent thing to do for the survival of the church in a nation where racism was pervasive and accepted. 

First, I don't know that most black members want an apology.  I think they want unequivocal evidence that says that they are not inferior to white members in any way, shape, or form. 

Second, the Priesthood ban definitely still affects black members today.  Just listen to them share their experiences with racism or micro-aggression in the church.  There are still racist members of the church (temple attending members).  They still have to deal with lessons on the priesthood ban and their kids still have to grow up dealing with all of that.

Third, it's very hard for black members (any members) to get closure on the priesthood ban (whether it was of God or not) when there are some members who still feel the ban was justified because blacks were less righteous than they were in the pre-existence, for example.  

Just imagine if the tables were turned and you had to raise your children in a church where blacks (who were the majority of the church's members) had taught for decades that your children were less valiant in the pre-existence than their kids were, and where there were still members in good standing who believed that today.

Even if you think you wouldn't be bothered anymore by it, surely you can see that it's not unreasonable for others to still be sensitive about the issue.