emergence of new justifications for the black priesthood and temple ban

[blueglass]

On 7/21/2018 at 1:42 PM, USU78 said:

Yes. Everything else is speculation.

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?

No, you need to engage Paul Reeve's rebuttal of the #7 (history is illusory), not just restate this as the official position without a reference.  "We do not know why" does not appear in the Race and Priesthood essay (Dec 2013).  CFR on the statement that "we don't know" is the current official position of the church.  Paul Reeve wrote the Race and Priesthood essay which was endorsed and signed by the first presidency and quorum of the twelve.  Ahmad Corbitt (LDS church public affairs) does not get up after Paul Reeve's presentation and correct him. 

Edited July 22, 2018 by blueglass

[FunOnlineMan]

10 minutes ago, blueglass 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?

No, you need to engage Paul Reeve's rebuttal of the #7 (history is illusory), not just restate this as the official position without a reference.  "We do not know why" does not appear in the Race and Priesthood essay (Dec 2013).  CFR on the statement that "we don't know" is the current official position of the church.  Paul Reeve wrote the Race and Priesthood essay which was endorsed and signed by the first presidency and quorum of the twelve.  Ahmad Corbitt (LDS church public affairs) does not get up after Paul Reeve's presentation and correct him. 

I would never use the word summary to mean “the official position.” I meant that’s the summary of what I’d just read. I had not just read Paul Reeve’s rebuttal. I will do that and get back to you. 

[katherine the great]

Paul Reeve is a stand up guy. He once took time out from finals week to help me obtain a newspaper article from a now defunct newspaper that I could not access. I'll never forget that small kindness. (He's also an excellent historian, but I tend to celebrate character just as much as academic excellence.)

[USU78]

18 hours ago, blueglass said:

Naw.  Going a different direction.

Edited July 23, 2018 by USU78

[Calm]

On 7/21/2018 at 11:53 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. 

At what point in time can we rest assured the Collective is more likely right than wrong?

If in the past we know the Collective has been wrong but we don't know what "right" is, why should we've assume that now it has finally reached the place it is at least more right than wrong, even if not fully accurate in its explanation/understanding?

Edited July 23, 2018 by Calm

[blueglass]

15 hours ago, USU78 said:

Have you not been paying attention to the GA, including apostolic, statements in this thread postdating the essay?

Sounds like good evidence for responding to a CFR.   The Dec 2013 gospel topics essay on Race and Priesthood with subsequent update published in 2015 is not the last authorized statement on this topic?  If not, then please restate  1)  GA who states that "we don't know" is the official position of the church, 2)  the apostle who states that "we don't know" is the official position of the church.  

[USU78]

1 hour ago, blueglass said:

Naw.   Going a different direction.

Edited July 23, 2018 by USU78

[stemelbow]

On ‎7‎/‎19‎/‎2018 at 3:39 PM, blueglass said:

 

In my personal life since I was born just barely after 1978, I have heard all of these at one time or another.  Many in just the last few months.  Question is what can we do to abandon these justifications for the ban proposed >1978?  Who are the primary proponents of these justifications?  Can we identify the sources and push back against further proliferation?  
 

The Church needs to condemn the ban as never coming from God--that the prophet mislead the people and subsequent ones continued to do so.  Otherwise we're left with all this nonsense of justifying it.  I see no other way to get away from it.

 

 

[USU78]

18 hours ago, blueglass 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?

No, you need to engage Paul Reeve's rebuttal of the #7 (history is illusory), not just restate this as the official position without a reference.  "We do not know why" does not appear in the Race and Priesthood essay (Dec 2013).  CFR on the statement that "we don't know" is the current official position of the church.  Paul Reeve wrote the Race and Priesthood essay which was endorsed and signed by the first presidency and quorum of the twelve.  Ahmad Corbitt (LDS church public affairs) does not get up after Paul Reeve's presentation and correct him. 

Let's begin again.  Our text should be solely the Church's website, where the essay is found.  That essay begins with exposition on the absence of reliable evidence demonstrating that any black person was denied the Priesthood on racial/descendency grounds during JSJr's lifetime:

Quote

There is no reliable evidence that any black men were denied the priesthood during Joseph Smith’s lifetime.

Then we have a discussion of the historical milieu in which the Church found itself in the United States, in which the racial realities on the ground are fairly and accurately reviewed.  See the section titled "The Church in an American Racial Culture."

Sometime after JSJr's death and prior to BY's 1852 address to the territorial legislature, I think everybody agrees, there was an adoption of the ban, though we can trace the "official" ban to that date.  

What is wholly missing in the essay is a "why."  There is no "why" anywhere that I can divine.  What we find very clearly expressed, however, is that the speculations at all levels by all persons in the past are expressly rejected.

Rejecting prior explanations as to "why" isn't the same as saying we know "why."  As you correctly pointed out, no less a light than GBH was quite strong in his denouncement in the actual and potential effects of racial views which are inconsistent with OD2 and its scriptural antecedents, et al.  What he didn't do was state that we know "why."

Nobody in authority has stated "why."

In the absence of documentary or revelatory evidence to the contrary, we may well never know "why."  Claiming you know "why," because there is an acknowledgement of an historical milieu for the ban's adoption is fallacious.  

 

Edited July 23, 2018 by USU78

[FunOnlineMan]

1 hour ago, blueglass said:

Sounds like good evidence for responding to a CFR.   The Dec 2013 gospel topics essay on Race and Priesthood with subsequent update published in 2015 is not the last authorized statement on this topic?  If not, then please restate  1)  GA who states that "we don't know" is the official position of the church, 2)  the apostle who states that "we don't know" is the official position of the church.  

What is the official position of the church—other than saying that the official position is simply a position that is stated by LDS general authorities that cannot be found on Reeve’s list?

 

Quote

Nobody in authority has stated "why."

Love to agree with the board 

 

Edited July 23, 2018 by FunOnlineMan

[Glenn101]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

The Church needs to condemn the ban as never coming from God--that the prophet mislead the people and subsequent ones continued to do so.  Otherwise we're left with all this nonsense of justifying it.  I see no other way to get away from it.

 

 

If the current president were to receive such a revelation I am sure that he would promulgate it to the church. That is his calling n'est-ce pas?

[stemelbow]

10 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

If the current president were to receive such a revelation I am sure that he would promulgate it to the church. That is his calling n'est-ce pas?

At this point i'd question any supposed revelation the Church has on this topic seeing as no revelation has ever been given.  It's always just someone saying there was a revelation or must have been a revelation to start, end, and explain the ban.  

Poor Brigham's explanation of why the ban has been relegated to nothing more than some man talking nonsense today.  Thus, his prophetic utterances on the matter, don't seem to be taken seriously at all.  We might as well reject the ban itself on those grounds.  And if so, we might as well reject the lifting of the ban, for it was less revelation and more administrating, seeing as they didn't produce revelation.  If the current president offered something that was revelation, I'd be skeptical.  I'd imagine he simply realized the whole affair was complete and utter nonsense and his utterances would be in response to that realization.  I suppose in some contexts such realizations are revelation.  And if that's the case, then revelation is had by everyone all the time.  Forget the Church.  

[USU78]

You know, there's an issue the LDS.org essay doesn't address that I wish it had:  the very real fear that our ancestors had of America and Americans during the 2nd half of the XIXth Century.  We've seen Reeve tackle the issue relatively recently, of course, but people often miss the very real fear underlying LDS response to yellow-journalists' and -caricaturists' horribly nasty burlesques of the LDS.  This was both in the lead-up to and prosecution of the American invasion of Utah Territory in '57-58 as well as during the Reconstruction Era.  Because of the very real threat to life, liberty and property represented by Johnston's Army, the very fresh memories of American atrocities during the Mexican War of '46-48, and the horror that was American military thoroughness of suppression of the Southern States in '61-65, the LDS had to take threats implicit in those depictions in the popular press, as well as firebrand rhetoric during the entirety of the 2nd half of the XIXth Century, even if a mistake was made, we are hardly in a position to judge Him/him/those responsible for the mistake, are we?

And, let me add, it's not like the "justifications" being bandied about occur in a vacuum:  They are inevitably in response to attacks from without.

So ... who bears the moral responsibility for keeping the "justifications" going?  Those who keep weaponizing history, or those who respond to that weaponization?

Edited July 23, 2018 by USU78

[jkwilliams]

On 7/21/2018 at 2:43 PM, CV75 said:

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

The issue is pretty simple: the ban is a painful subject for a lot of faithful members. The church has said in its essays that we don't know the reason why, and it rejects the attempts to justify the ban made by members and leaders over the years. Coming up with new reasons is just picking at an old scab instead of letting it heal.

I'm reminded of when my two younger brothers were killed in a car accident. My mother said that the most distressing thing to her was when people would say, "Heavenly Father must have needed them on the other side." She said that she couldn't imagine that Heavenly Father would have planned a horrible collision that killed 3 BYU students and left 2 more with disabilities for life. For her, it was more comforting to understand that it happened because of someone's poor decisions or just to acknowledge that it was a random accident. It certainly wouldn't help if someone came up with a new explanation of why God had planned it.

Sometimes, "We don't know" is the best answer. That is clearly what the church has decided. 

[stemelbow]

4 minutes ago, USU78 said:

 

So ... who bears the moral responsibility for keeping the "justifications" going?  Those who keep weaponizing history, or those who respond to that weaponization?

Without a doubt the Church itself.  There's no revelation had by anyone regarding the ban, so the Church holding the ban as revelation and appropriate for that time, does nothing but stoke people's curiosity.  If the Church simply officially stated the ban was a mistake, then it'd likely cause many to question the leaders as it'd be shown they'd have led people astray, but at least then the Church would be honest and there'd be no need for people to continue to try and make the square ban fit in the round hole. 

It'd be odd to blame the curious member who gets troubled by the ban and wants to try and figure out an explanation to satisfy his/her discomfort.  

[USU78]

5 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Without a doubt the Church itself.  There's no revelation had by anyone regarding the ban, so the Church holding the ban as revelation and appropriate for that time, does nothing but stoke people's curiosity.  <snip>

= the functional equivalent of slut-shaming the high school girl with the short skirt.

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, USU78 said:

= the functional equivalent of slut-shaming the high school girl with the short skirt.

So claims of revelation and prophets are nothing more than the clothes someone chooses to wear?  Interesting thought.  Sounds like we must then conclude claimed revelation is really nothing more than someone drawing a conclusion.  No wonder why leaders rarely tell us "thus sayeth the Lord..."

[Glenn101]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

At this point i'd question any supposed revelation the Church has on this topic seeing as no revelation has ever been given.  It's always just someone saying there was a revelation or must have been a revelation to start, end, and explain the ban.  

Poor Brigham's explanation of why the ban has been relegated to nothing more than some man talking nonsense today.  Thus, his prophetic utterances on the matter, don't seem to be taken seriously at all.  We might as well reject the ban itself on those grounds.  And if so, we might as well reject the lifting of the ban, for it was less revelation and more administrating, seeing as they didn't produce revelation.  If the current president offered something that was revelation, I'd be skeptical.  I'd imagine he simply realized the whole affair was complete and utter nonsense and his utterances would be in response to that realization.  I suppose in some contexts such realizations are revelation.  And if that's the case, then revelation is had by everyone all the time.  Forget the Church.  

Yes, most of the posters on this board know that you and some others seem to be questioning just about everything about the LDS church. 

[Glenn101]

2 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

The issue is pretty simple: the ban is a painful subject for a lot of faithful members. The church has said in its essays that we don't know the reason why, and it rejects the attempts to justify the ban made by members and leaders over the years. Coming up with new reasons is just picking at an old scab instead of letting it heal.

I'm reminded of when my two younger brothers were killed in a car accident. My mother said that the most distressing thing to her was when people would say, "Heavenly Father must have needed them on the other side." She said that she couldn't imagine that Heavenly Father would have planned a horrible collision that killed 3 BYU students and left 2 more with disabilities for life. For her, it was more comforting to understand that it happened because of someone's poor decisions or just to acknowledge that it was a random accident. It certainly wouldn't help if someone came up with a new explanation of why God had planned it.

Sometimes, "We don't know" is the best answer. That is clearly what the church has decided. 

Sometimes I agree with you. This is one of the times.

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Glenn101 said:

Sometimes I agree with you. This is one of the times.

I obviously expressed myself unclearly before and offended some people. My feeling about this is that we cause more problems than otherwise if we can't take "we don't know" for an answer. I should note that, after rereading the essay, the church doesn't explicitly say "we don't know," but no reason is given and all attempts to justify the ban have been rejected. To me, that's an implicit "we don't know." 

[CV75]

3 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

The issue is pretty simple: the ban is a painful subject for a lot of faithful members. The church has said in its essays that we don't know the reason why, and it rejects the attempts to justify the ban made by members and leaders over the years. Coming up with new reasons is just picking at an old scab instead of letting it heal.

I'm reminded of when my two younger brothers were killed in a car accident. My mother said that the most distressing thing to her was when people would say, "Heavenly Father must have needed them on the other side." She said that she couldn't imagine that Heavenly Father would have planned a horrible collision that killed 3 BYU students and left 2 more with disabilities for life. For her, it was more comforting to understand that it happened because of someone's poor decisions or just to acknowledge that it was a random accident. It certainly wouldn't help if someone came up with a new explanation of why God had planned it.

Sometimes, "We don't know" is the best answer. That is clearly what the church has decided. 

Yes, the ban being a painful subject for some is certainly one of the issues. They essay does say that Brigham Young made a public announcement about it and that we now look to the future, which leaves us to conclude that we do not know its precise origin. But historians and academia will still look for something clearer. I don’t think the essay was designed to shut down research. If it is legitimate, it will not be for the purpose of creating pain for others, but to advance the fund of knowledge and understanding of Church history and doctrine.

I myself see a completely different possibility which dovetails nicely with “we don’t know,” which I posted earlier and which to me is a perspective that alleviates both pain and contention. Those who have transcended the pain of the ban still talk about it and how the Lord or a particular perspective helped them do that. This is another reason I think the topic can remain alive without the pain—this is why the Church celebrates its lifting; she looks to the future without burying the past.

[jkwilliams]

5 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Yes, the ban being a painful subject for some is certainly one of the issues. They essay does say that Brigham Young made a public announcement about it and that we now look to the future, which leaves us to conclude that we do not know its precise origin. But historians and academia will still look for something clearer. I don’t think the essay was designed to shut down research. If it is legitimate, it will not be for the purpose of creating pain for others, but to advance the fund of knowledge and understanding of Church history and doctrine.

I myself see a completely different possibility which dovetails nicely with “we don’t know,” which I posted earlier and which to me is a perspective that alleviates both pain and contention. Those who have transcended the pain of the ban still talk about it and how the Lord or a particular perspective helped them do that. This is another reason I think the topic can remain alive without the pain—this is why the Church celebrates its lifting; she looks to the future without burying the past.

Attempting to bury it is not the same thing as not coming up with new justifications. Obviously, it will never go away because it's part of the church's history, but continuing to try to find reasons to make it "God's will" doesn't seem to help anyone, IMO. Going back to my analogy: my family will never forget what happened 30 years ago on that terrible day, but it would be awful if people were continually hypothesizing to my parents why God did it on purpose. 

Edited July 23, 2018 by jkwilliams

[Scott Lloyd]

36 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Attempting to bury it is not the same thing as not coming up with new justifications. Obviously, it will never go away because it's part of the church's history, but continuing to try to find reasons to make it "God's will" doesn't seem to help anyone, IMO. Going back to my analogy: my family will never forget what happened 30 years ago on that terrible day, but it would be awful if people were continually hypothesizing to my parents why God did it on purpose. 

You’re right that continuing to try to find reasons for it doesn’t help. But neither does dismissing it as a mistake. 

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

You’re right that continuing to try to find reasons for it doesn’t help. But neither does dismissing it as a mistake. 

As I said, the answer seems to be “we don’t know.” 

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

As I said, the answer seems to be “we don’t know.” 

And I think I repped you for it each time you said so. 

Edited July 24, 2018 by Scott Lloyd