emergence of new justifications for the black priesthood and temple ban

[USU78]

2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

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..."

Huh?  What does this:

<thee>:  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  =  <me>:  the functional equivalent of slut-shaming the high school girl with the short skirt.

have to do with that ^?

You blame the Church because people attack it, weaponizing the fact that G-d hasn't chosen to share His reasoning for the ban [assuming Mormon leaders are inspired, which Mormons avow].  Mormons are, by and large, happy to live in ignorance of a lot of G-d's reasons for doing what He does:

Quote

Neither are my thoughts your thoughts.

We aren't the ones starting these fights.  That would be the likes of thee.

[stemelbow]

3 hours ago, USU78 said:

Huh?  What does this:

<thee>:  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  =  <me>:  the functional equivalent of slut-shaming the high school girl with the short skirt.

have to do with that ^?

You blame the Church because people attack it, weaponizing the fact that G-d hasn't chosen to share His reasoning for the ban [assuming Mormon leaders are inspired, which Mormons avow].  Mormons are, by and large, happy to live in ignorance of a lot of G-d's reasons for doing what He does:

We aren't the ones starting these fights.  That would be the likes of thee.

I don’t mind that the answer is they don’t know.  The problem is everything attached to that.  There’s no acknowledgement that it was claimed by prophets that there was a reason.  It was never jus the mistaken thoughts of men. That suggests mistakes could continue.  There could be similar leading astray.  But that is not acknowledged.  There’s plenty more to say along these lines but that’ll due for now.  

I hope this finds you well.  I don’t mean to start fights I just want to reason these things out, but all too often there are walls thrown up.  That’s unfortunate in my view. 

[CV75]

14 hours 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. 

See this: Posted Thursday at 07:23 PM

There are reasonable and helpful folk justifications and ones that are less so. "God's will" is an awfully broad concept, so that in itself needs some definition if anyone is going to use it as part of their justification. There are imposing justifications which hurt and offend and those which arise through study and mutually respectful dialogue that edify and improve understanding, and can even prepare those who have passed through the fire of tribulation to further benefit (more likely, benefit others) from new facts as they emerge.

[CV75]

14 hours ago, 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. 

I don't take "we don't know" as a final answer. It works perfectly well for now because that is precisely where we are at, but I don't think it is meant to stifle continued research or consideration of new information and legitimate ideas.

[jkwilliams]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

See this: Posted Thursday at 07:23 PM

There are reasonable and helpful folk justifications and ones that are less so. "God's will" is an awfully broad concept, so that in itself needs some definition if anyone is going to use it as part of their justification. There are imposing justifications which hurt and offend and those which arise through study and mutually respectful dialogue that edify and improve understanding, and can even prepare those who have passed through the fire of tribulation to further benefit (more likely, benefit others) from new facts as they emerge.

The problem is that it's difficult for you or me to determine which justifications will hurt and offend and which will edify and improve understanding. 

ETA: The people who told my mother that God needed my brothers on the other side said that because they thought it was edifying and improving understanding. It wasn't.

Edited July 24, 2018 by jkwilliams

[CV75]

3 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

The problem is that it's difficult for you or me to determine which justifications will hurt and offend and which will edify and improve understanding. 

ETA: The people who told my mother that God needed my brothers on the other side said that because they thought it was edifying and improving understanding. It wasn't.

That's always a potential problem for any subject as long as people speak to each other about it, and it has more to do with context than content, as well as countless other interpersonal dynamics. That should not keep folks from talking to each other; to the contrary, it is a great reason to keep the channels open.

A few posts back you said something that in passing could have been totally innocuous for some, but was offensive to someone's roommate, irrespective of your intentions. That should not squelch research and conversation in principle.

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, CV75 said:

That's always a potential problem for any subject as long as people speak to each other about it, and it has more to do with context than content, as well as countless other interpersonal dynamics. That should not keep folks from talking to each other; to the contrary, it is a great reason to keep the channels open.

A few posts back you said something that in passing could have been totally innocuous for some, but was offensive to someone's roommate, irrespective of your intentions. That should not squelch research and conversation in principle.

That was what I had in mind. I have to be careful about how I say things, especially around here, and in that instance, I said something I didn't intend to say, and it offended people. I guess I just don't see an upside to speculating about the reasons for the priesthood ban. 

[CV75]

58 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

That was what I had in mind. I have to be careful about how I say things, especially around here, and in that instance, I said something I didn't intend to say, and it offended people. I guess I just don't see an upside to speculating about the reasons for the priesthood ban. 

There are definitely things we don't know, and things that we do. I'm all for expanding what we do know as evidence permits, and for the process of discovering the evidence. There is a broad spectrum between conjecture and hypothesis, and speculation doesn't describe every point along the way.

[Scott Lloyd]

19 hours ago, CV75 said:

I don't take "we don't know" as a final answer. It works perfectly well for now because that is precisely where we are at, but I don't think it is meant to stifle continued research or consideration of new information and legitimate ideas.

That is tolerable insofar as it does not lead to hardening of attitudes (which is the thing that beset the Church in the decades prior to 1978, with certain Church members —  including some individual high-level leaders — thinking they understood the reasons for the ban when, in reality, they didn’t have a clue). 

Alas, we see essentially the same thing going on today, with some people forming the hard-and-fast conclusion that it was a “mistake” borne of racism. The Church’s leaders have not conceded that, and if we wish to avoid error, we will ourselves be wary about drawing that conclusion. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

16 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

I guess I just don't see an upside to speculating about the reasons for the priesthood ban. 

Unless the speculation is that Church leaders just made a mistake?

[jkwilliams]

4 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Unless the speculation is that Church leaders just made a mistake?

I haven’t said that. My point was that people don’t speculate about things unless they are troubled or excited about those things. I doubt too many people are thrilled about the priesthood ban. I’m sorry my clumsy wording offended you and your roommate. 

Edited July 25, 2018 by jkwilliams

[Exiled]

4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Alas, we see essentially the same thing going on today, with some people forming the hard-and-fast conclusion that it was a “mistake” borne of racism. The Church’s leaders have not conceded that, and if we wish to avoid error, we will ourselves be wary about drawing that conclusion. 

The leaders could concede this obvious conclusion one day, though, and then you might be able to entertain the obvious thought as well.

[USU78]

57 minutes ago, Exiled said:

The leaders could concede this obvious conclusion one day, though, and then you might be able to entertain the obvious thought as well.

Obvious to the convinced?

[blueglass]

5 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

That is tolerable insofar as it does not lead to hardening of attitudes (which is the thing that beset the Church in the decades prior to 1978, with certain Church members —  including some individual high-level leaders — thinking they understood the reasons for the ban when, in reality, they didn’t have a clue). 

Alas, we see essentially the same thing going on today, with some people forming the hard-and-fast conclusion that it was a “mistake” borne of racism. The Church’s leaders have not conceded that, and if we wish to avoid error, we will ourselves be wary about drawing that conclusion. 

When high-level leaders such as Joseph F. Smith, Joseph Fielding Smith, Bruce R. McConkie in reality "didn't have a clue" your words.  Then it should be acceptable today to accept the Race and Priesthood essay as authoritative in the disavowals it presents and answers to "why, how, or when"  [https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/racial-remarks-in-washington-post-article].   As you did not answer my CFR, we can conclude there are no authoritative statements after the Dec 2013 Race and Priesthood essay which revert back to the 1969 "we don't know" position.  Therefore lesson 157 of the doctrine and covenants church history Seminary manual my two high school kids will be taking in 2018 - 2019 should be updated.  I just gave away one of the main motivations for this post.  

[CV75]

5 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

That is tolerable insofar as it does not lead to hardening of attitudes (which is the thing that beset the Church in the decades prior to 1978, with certain Church members —  including some individual high-level leaders — thinking they understood the reasons for the ban when, in reality, they didn’t have a clue). 

Alas, we see essentially the same thing going on today, with some people forming the hard-and-fast conclusion that it was a “mistake” borne of racism. The Church’s leaders have not conceded that, and if we wish to avoid error, we will ourselves be wary about drawing that conclusion. 

I see no evidence that it was a mistake, borne of racism or otherwise. I think it is very easy or convenient for some to make such a leap, but sound critical analysis will show the gap is far from closed. This is why I think the brother of Jared story is so helpful: we would not have said he made a mistake had he not had the faith to see how the Lord would appear in the flesh but continued with the light of his dispensation. We do not say that Jared made a mistake because he had not the same vision as his brother. And in either case, the Lord did not want this information revealed until a later dispensation anyway.

I think hardening of attitudes, like determining which justifications will hurt and offend and which will edify and improve understanding, has more to do with temperament than content. That of course can change as we live the Gospel.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Exiled said:

The leaders could concede this obvious conclusion one day, though, and then you might be able to entertain the obvious thought as well.

But this is no basis to draw and foist that conclusion today, given the lack of documentation prescribing its implementation.

[CV75]

19 minutes ago, blueglass said:

When high-level leaders such as Joseph F. Smith, Joseph Fielding Smith, Bruce R. McConkie in reality "didn't have a clue" your words.  Then it should be acceptable today to accept the Race and Priesthood essay as authoritative in the disavowals it presents and answers to "why, how, or when"  [https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/racial-remarks-in-washington-post-article].   As you did not answer my CFR, we can conclude there are no authoritative statements after the Dec 2013 Race and Priesthood essay which revert back to the 1969 "we don't know" position.  Therefore lesson 157 of the doctrine and covenants church history Seminary manual my two high school kids will be taking in 2018 - 2019 should be updated.  I just gave away one of the main motivations for this post.  

The essay does disavow incorrect theories, but it does not answer the "why, how, or when" due to lack of documentation prescribing the ban’s implementation. I doesn’t help students to enable poor critical thinking skills and scholarship by suggesting that it does provide those answers.

[Exiled]

1 hour ago, USU78 said:

Obvious to the convinced?

"We don't know" seems to be we don't want to know or don't want to admit. Even so, one can always use the bias excuse to defend pretty much any position.

[USU78]

1 minute ago, Exiled said:

"We don't know" seems to be we don't want to know or don't want to admit. Even so, one can always use the bias excuse to defend pretty much any position.

"Seems to be" is hardly rigor, is it?

As to your second sentence, I need clarification.  Are you saying LDS ought to use "bias of LDS generations passed" or "bias born of the human condition" or "bias of XIXth Century Anglo-Saxon America?"  Or do you have something else in mind?

[Exiled]

2 minutes ago, USU78 said:

"Seems to be" is hardly rigor, is it?

As to your second sentence, I need clarification.  Are you saying LDS ought to use "bias of LDS generations passed" or "bias born of the human condition" or "bias of XIXth Century Anglo-Saxon America?"  Or do you have something else in mind?

What proof would convince you? Do you need a step be step explanation of the ban genesis? Brigham Young, the head of the church, said a lot of racist things that can be found in the journal of discourses. There was a lot of racist nonsense in society at large at the time including the discounted theories regarding cain and the "curse." So ...... what seems to be the reason for the ban in your mind? It's pretty clear to me.

Perhaps my conclusion is biased because I no longer feel the need to defend a certain organization, but I don't think I am alone. I am sure if outsiders looked at the ban, they would say the reasons for it were racist in origen and a product of the racist culture that permeated the past. They would also say it was a mistake.

[carbon dioxide]

1 minute ago, Exiled said:

What proof would convince you? Do you need a step be step explanation of the ban genesis? Brigham Young, the head of the church, said a lot of racist things that can be found in the journal of discourses. There was a lot of racist nonsense in society at large at the time including the discounted theories regarding cain and the "curse." So ...... what seems to be the reason for the ban in your mind? It's pretty clear to me.

Perhaps my conclusion is biased because I no longer feel the need to defend a certain organization, but I don't think I am alone. I am sure if outsiders looked at the ban, they would say the reasons for it were racist in origen and a product of the racist culture that permeated the past. They would also say it was a mistake.

What you might consider "racist" may not have been seen that way in those days.   If you are using modern day political correctness filters of 2018 to judge statements in the 19th century, then you are using the wrong filters and incorrectly judging things.   Some people today might consider me a bigot and this an that because I still use words in my vocabulary today that was not seen as bad in the 1980s but younger people today see as mean and horrible.  I am not going to change my ways to appease the younger generation.  They are not that important to me.

[USU78]

27 minutes ago, Exiled said:

What proof would convince you? Do you need a step be step explanation of the ban genesis? Brigham Young, the head of the church, said a lot of racist things that can be found in the journal of discourses. There was a lot of racist nonsense in society at large at the time including the discounted theories regarding cain and the "curse." So ...... what seems to be the reason for the ban in your mind? It's pretty clear to me.

Perhaps my conclusion is biased because I no longer feel the need to defend a certain organization, but I don't think I am alone. I am sure if outsiders looked at the ban, they would say the reasons for it were racist in origen and a product of the racist culture that permeated the past. They would also say it was a mistake.

So  ...  you are making recommendations to LDS, and those recommendations amount to "it's pretty clear to me that RACISM!" and "it seems to me that RACISM!" is the only course worth taking, the Church's official agnosticism as to "why?" notwithstanding?

[Gray]

2 hours ago, USU78 said:

Obvious to the convinced?

Obvious to the informed.

[blueglass]

1 hour ago, carbon dioxide said:

What you might consider "racist" may not have been seen that way in those days.   If you are using modern day political correctness filters of 2018 to judge statements in the 19th century, then you are using the wrong filters and incorrectly judging things.   Some people today might consider me a bigot and this an that because I still use words in my vocabulary today that was not seen as bad in the 1980s but younger people today see as mean and horrible.  I am not going to change my ways to appease the younger generation.  They are not that important to me.

Excellent restatement of Reeve's justification #6.  

[Exiled]

28 minutes ago, USU78 said:

So  ...  you are making recommendations to LDS, and those recommendations amount to "it's pretty clear to me that RACISM!" and "it seems to me that RACISM!" is the only course worth taking, the Church's official agnosticism as to "why?" notwithstanding?

Sure, maybe someone needs to let them know how lame the "we don't know" reasoning is to the outside world.