emergence of new justifications for the black priesthood and temple ban

[Hamba Tuhan]

22 minutes ago, Eek! said:

Is it possible that Brigham Young and his successors got something so big so wrong for so long? 

Yes, it’s possible. I personally don’t believe it to be the case, but I don’t think you’re a bad member or my intellectual inferior if you’ve reached a different conclusion. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

43 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

The longer people continue to rationalize the ban, the harder it is to put it in the past. The rationalizations arise because some members can’t accept that church leaders can make mistakes. 

As I have pointed out previously on this topic, my black housemate completely rejects this kind of thinking. For the sake of decency, I won’t quote his exact response to your comment...

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

As I have pointed out previously on this topic, my black housemate completely rejects this kind of thinking. For the sake of decency, I won’t quote his exact response to your comment...

I have no problem with your roommate disagreeing with me. I don’t know why what I said would anger anyone, but OK. 

[carbon dioxide]

46 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

The longer people continue to rationalize the ban, the harder it is to put it in the past. The rationalizations arise because some members can’t accept that church leaders can make mistakes. 

Of course church members can make mistakes.  However there is no conclusive proof that they made a mistake in this issue even though you or others may believe they did.   Since we don't understand conclusively the origins and reasons for the ban because Brigham Young is not here to explain it, then all we are left is our opinion based on whatever evidence we have.  Perhaps the ban was a mistake and perhaps it was not.  I don't know but I reserve judgement and spare myself the embarrassment and apology that I will need to give to Brigham Young in the spirit world for wrongly judging the issue.  I set it aside and will ask Brigham when I see him.

[jkwilliams]

4 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

Of course church members can make mistakes.  However there is no conclusive proof that they made a mistake in this issue even though you or others may believe they did.   Since we don't understand conclusively the origins and reasons for the ban because Brigham Young is not here to explain it, then all we are left is our opinion based on whatever evidence we have.  Perhaps the ban was a mistake and perhaps it was not.  I don't know but I reserve judgement and spare myself the embarrassment and apology that I will need to give to Brigham Young in the spirit world for wrongly judging the issue.  I set it aside and will ask Brigham when I see him.

I am not saying it was a mistake (though you can guess my opinion). I’m saying people make up reasons to avoid dealing with that possibility. And as long as people keep coming up with reasons, which they can’t possibly know, this will never be put to bed. Again, I don’t know why anyone is getting angry about what I said, but sorry for offending. 

Edited July 21, 2018 by jkwilliams

[Hamba Tuhan]

5 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

I don’t know why what I said would anger anyone.

That is frequently how these things work. 

[jkwilliams]

4 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

That is frequently how these things work. 

Well, I’m sorry I offended you and your roommate. I still believe rationalizing things will keep this issue alive instead of putting it in the past. 

[Eek!]

35 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Yes, it’s possible. I personally don’t believe it to be the case, but I don’t think you’re a bad member or my intellectual inferior if you’ve reached a different conclusion. 

Thank you. 

I disagree with your assessment that I am not your intellectual inferior, but for now I'll refrain from proving you wrong. 

(And just for the record, I'm no longer a member.  I don't mean to deceive anyone into thinking that I am.)

Edited July 21, 2018 by Eek!

[cinepro]

5 hours ago, CV75 said:

My remarks were limited to the source you provided for the Church’s more careful consideration (Note 9 / my link). This source discusses his views, not the policy or the ban. He is not connecting his views to the policy but to humanity’s current failure to be united as children of God.

Again, not sure where you're coming from on this.

The quote I provided was referenced in the Essay footnote (#9) - the footnote says " Brigham Young, Speeches Before the Utah Territorial Legislature, Jan. 23 and Feb. 5, 1852"

That second link is to this quote.  I'll bold the part that refers to the Priesthood Ban directly:

Quote

Now then, in the kingdom of God on the earth, a man who has the African blood in him cannot hold one jot nor tittle of Priesthood; Why? Because they are the true eternal principals the Lord Almighty has ordained, and who can help it − men cannot, the angels cannot, and all the powers of Earth and Hell cannot take it off, but thus saith the Eternal, ‘I am, what I am, I take it off at My pleasure’, and not one particle of power can that posterity of Cain have, until the time comes the [Lord] says He will have it taken away. That time will come, when they will have the privilege of all we have the privilege of, and more. In the Kingdom of God on the Earth the Africans cannot hold one particle of power in Government” (The Teachings of President Brigham Young: Vol. 3 1852-1854, Fred C. Collier, ed., p. 43. Speech given to the Joint Session of the Legislature in Salt Lake City, on Thursday, February 5, 1852. Brackets in original). 

There is also this quote in the same speech:

Quote

What is that mark? you will see it on the countenance of every African you ever did see upon the face of the earth, or ever will see. Now I tell you what I know; when the mark was put upon Cain, Abel's children was in all probability young; the Lord told Cain that he should not receive the blessings of the priesthood nor his seed, until the last of the posterity of Able had received the priesthood, until the redemption of the earth. If there never was a prophet, or apostle of Jesus Christ spoke it before, I tell you, this people that are commonly called negroes are the children of old Cain. I know they are, I know that they cannot bear rule in the priesthood, for the curse on them was to remain upon them, until the residue of the posterity of Michal and his wife receive the blessings, the seed of Cain would have received had they not been cursed; and hold the keys of the priesthood,

That's the speech in the footnote.  Brigham very clearly explains why the ban is in effect.  He may have been wrong, but his views were not "unknown" and we can't say we don't know why he implemented it.

Edited July 21, 2018 by cinepro

[cinepro]

(Doop)

Edited July 21, 2018 by cinepro

[Glenn101]

17 hours ago, cinepro said:

If you're suggesting that Brigham Young joined the church as radically non-racist, and it was only decades in the Church (and scripture study) that turned him into the radical racist he later became, I'm not sure that's a good thing...

“The purpose of the gospel is … to make bad men good and good men better, and to change human nature.*”- David O. McKay

*Side effects may include radical racism.

I am not suggesting that Brigham was radically non-racist in his early life and years in the church. I am merely suggesting that since he claimed that the ban came fro God, it may have affected his views. 

[Glenn101]

7 hours ago, cinepro said:

That's the speech in the footnote.  Brigham very clearly explains why the ban is in effect.  He may have been wrong, but his views were not "unknown" and we can't say we don't know why he implemented it.

 We know who he said was the source of the ban and that  the source was the only one that could change it. After all is said and done that is all we really have. All else is speculation and opinion.

[CV75]

7 hours ago, cinepro said:

Again, not sure where you're coming from on this.

The quote I provided was referenced in the Essay footnote (#9) - the footnote says " Brigham Young, Speeches Before the Utah Territorial Legislature, Jan. 23 and Feb. 5, 1852"

That second link is to this quote.  I'll bold the part that refers to the Priesthood Ban directly:

There is also this quote in the same speech:

That's the speech in the footnote.  Brigham very clearly explains why the ban is in effect.  He may have been wrong, but his views were not "unknown" and we can't say we don't know why he implemented it.

No, he very clearly explains his views, but the ban is not mentioned. It is important to tie the doctrine to the policy, and this isn't done in these documents as far as I can tell. His doctrinal view is being used to make other points, not to support the ban. If he had a speech about the ban, and about implementing it, and tying these views to it, then we'd have something to go by. If we are going to look at this critically, that link has to be shown in the documentation. It's easy to make the leap, but very difficult to actually bridge that gap.

Once we find out what really happened, and if there is a proven link (i.e. "This is our doctrine [or other non-doctrinal reason, whether by revelation, allowance or rebellion] therefore this is our policy"), I think we should treat Brigham Young (and any others) as we would the brother of Jared. We do not condemn the brother of Jared for not having known that the Lord would have flesh and blood, and we would not have condemned him if he hadn't had the incredible faith (given his circumstances) to see the truth of the matter.

The brother of Jared was censured of the Lord for not praying (trying to come unto Him and the truth of all things), not for not knowing a particular doctrinal point, or holding to an incorrect point.

Edited July 21, 2018 by CV75

[Glenn101]

17 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

There was no published Revelation.

Duly noted and agreed upon. Of course if that were the bottom line criteria the Melchizedek Priesthood would not be among us. And the Ordain Women movement would have a more solid basis for their belief that women should be ordained to the priesthood.

17 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Certainly though we cannot know what would have happened had it gone the other way.

That is pretty undeniable.

Agreed.

Glenn

[USU78]

21 hours ago, FunOnlineMan said:

I just finished article posted above. Maybe I missed the actual reason for the ban, but what I took from it was that the official position is, “We don’t know.” Is that a fair summary?

Yes. Everything else is speculation.

[USU78]

17 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

The longer people continue to rationalize the ban, the harder it is to put it in the past. The rationalizations arise because some members can’t accept that church leaders can make mistakes. 

I cannot follow your logic here. As others have stated in this here thread, the reason for the ban is unknowable. If the reason is unknowable,  how can we say with confidence that it was a mistake?

If it pleases people to speculate as to the reasons for its implementation, they are free to do so. Speculations are fun. They certainly do no harm that I can divine. Those who are upset by speculation are going to be upset at something else absent speculation.

[DBMormon]

On 7/20/2018 at 11:37 AM, pogi said:

Can you please show me your statistical analysis report for each of the "troublesome" topics listed above?  Surely, if you have the only rational conclusion, and that any other possibility is "less likely", then you have the statistics to back it up, right?  Anything else would be irrational, right?   If this is simply a matter of statistical probabilities - show me the numbers!   Because what seems statistically absurd and irrational to me is making statistical analysis without any numbers or way to compare variables or probabilities.  What also seems absurd is assuming that you think that there is some objective list of variables that we can compute in a statistical probability equation for religious claims.  How can you possibly "rationally" account for all possible variables and their probabilities?

What seems rational to me is that rational minds can disagree on matters such as these. 

Again, your right any one person can easily use what they consider logic and rationale while being entirely irrational.  Even collectively as a group, people can do such.  But I think generally the collective seems over time to sort issues out more and more rationally.  Of course you could disagree and state that the collective is getting more and more irrational but I think history proves out that we have better explanations for the processes we observe today than in the past and hence I trust deeply the collective progressive advancing view on those processes and rationale of the collective. 

Edited July 21, 2018 by DBMormon

[Calm]

Quote

But I think generally the collective seems over time to sort issues out more and more rationally. 

So the US collective's reaction to Trump and Clinton is more rational in your view than say Clinton and Bush or Eisenhower and Stevenson?

[CV75]

18 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

The longer people continue to rationalize the ban, the harder it is to put it in the past. The rationalizations arise because some members can’t accept that church leaders can make mistakes. 

So rationalizations arise in reaction to the rationalization that it was a mistake…? What is the rationalization that it was a mistake a reaction to?

Plus, I don’t see “we don’t know the exact origin, only that it existed” as a rationalization of the ban. But where not knowing is one key source of rationalization, those who choose to rationalize do so because they are uncomfortable with ambiguity and unanswered questions. Sometimes to the point of forgetting what they know.

[CV75]

48 minutes ago, DBMormon said:

Again, your right any one person can easily use what they consider logic and rationale while being entirely irrational.  Even collectively as a group, people can do such.  But I think generally the collective seems over time to sort issues out more and more rationally.  Of course you could disagree and state that the collective is getting more and more irrational but I think history proves out that we have better explanations for the processes we observe today than in the past and hence I trust deeply the collective progressive advancing view on those processes and rationale of the collective. 

Yes, and the best explanations involve non-rational techniques, which inspire thought. For example, freedom and liberty advance many causes (for better or worse) because of the emotional and spiritual impact they have upon the human mind, individually and collectively. The advancement of the Gospel is why the Lord often removed His people from the rest (e.g. Jared, Moses, Lehi, Brigham Young) to acquire religious and spiritual advancement and then infused them back into the population to expand it (Jesus, Kimball).

[jkwilliams]

11 minutes ago, CV75 said:

So rationalizations arise in reaction to the rationalization that it was a mistake…? What is the rationalization that it was a mistake a reaction to?

Plus, I don’t see “we don’t know the exact origin, only that it existed” as a rationalization of the ban. But where not knowing is one key source of rationalization, those who choose to rationalize do so because they are uncomfortable with ambiguity and unanswered questions. Sometimes to the point of forgetting what they know.

Exactly. Everything other than “we don’t know” is an attempt to rationalize it, and those rationalizations keep the issue alive. 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

Exactly. Everything other than “we don’t know” is an attempt to rationalize it, and those rationalizations keep the issue alive. 

What do you see as the issue, and what is the issue with it being kept alive?

[pogi]

22 hours ago, DBMormon said:

Again, your right any one person can easily use what they consider logic and rationale while being entirely irrational.  Even collectively as a group, people can do such.  But I think generally the collective seems over time to sort issues out more and more rationally.  Of course you could disagree and state that the collective is getting more and more irrational but I think history proves out that we have better explanations for the processes we observe today than in the past and hence I trust deeply the collective progressive advancing view on those processes and rationale of the collective. 

This sounds more like an argument to blindly follow the crowd, rather than an argument for rational/logical thinking.

In your original post you said this:

Quote

But none of us are thinking rationally if we live our life expecting the less likely answer to be true.  That is the definition of irrational thinking.

You see, originally, it sounded like you had some statistical equation which could determine the likelihood of religious claims.  So again I ask, how do you determine "likelihood"?  If you have no way to determine likelihood, how can you possibly posit that your interpretation is the only "rational/logical" one?  

It sounds like your new argument is not a matter of "likelihood" or rationality at all, but is simply an argument that the most popular opinion is likely the right one.  To which I say, bologna!  I am curious though, which "collective" group people are you referring to in regards to the popular opinion of these "troublesome topics"?  I mean, if you were being "rational/logical" about this, then you should still be able to show me some numbers by which you are basing your judgment.  Because it looks like this is purely a numbers game to you.  So, again I ask, show me the numbers! 

[mfbukowski]

On 7/21/2018 at 10:53 AM, DBMormon said:

Again, your right any one person can easily use what they consider logic and rationale while being entirely irrational.  Even collectively as a group, people can do such.  But I think generally the collective seems over time to sort issues out more and more rationally.  Of course you could disagree and state that the collective is getting more and more irrational but I think history proves out that we have better explanations for the processes we observe today than in the past and hence I trust deeply the collective progressive advancing view on those processes and rationale of the collective. 

So obviously then since The Collective is usually right, the world as a Collective is full of peace and harmony!

Good to know!

Truth triumphs!

[mfbukowski]

On 7/21/2018 at 10:53 AM, DBMormon said:

Again, your right any one person can easily use what they consider logic and rationale while being entirely irrational.  Even collectively as a group, people can do such.  But I think generally the collective seems over time to sort issues out more and more rationally.  Of course you could disagree and state that the collective is getting more and more irrational but I think history proves out that we have better explanations for the processes we observe today than in the past and hence I trust deeply the collective progressive advancing view on those processes and rationale of the collective. 

Please define "rationality" within a religious community as seen or defined by actual philosophers.

In other words, CFR

On what basis are you making this statement and upon what theory of what constitutes "rationality"?

You are clearly mixing paradigms here, or as Wittgenstein would  say, mixing language games.

Your lack of a response will indicate that you have no such reason for making such a statement and therefore the statement is itself irrational literally,  "without reason".

 

 

Edited July 22, 2018 by mfbukowski