emergence of new justifications for the black priesthood and temple ban

[blueglass]

31 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?

When discussing this time period the Race and Priesthood essay does not use the word "racism", rather it states "highly contentious racial culture in which whites were afforded great privilege."

[USU78]

22 minutes ago, Gray said:

Obvious to the informed.

'Cuz weze awl dum and yooz sow smrt

[USU78]

2 minutes ago, blueglass said:

When discussing this time period the Race and Priesthood essay does not use the word "racism", rather it states "highly contentious racial culture in which whites were afforded great privilege."

We know quite well what you mean, blueglass.

[CV75]

1 hour 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.

This is an example of a problem that gets in the way of acceptance of where we are in the scholarship, advancing that scholarship, and formulating responsible conclusions: the goal to convince exceeds the expectation for objective evidence. This can be a problem for both "insiders" and "outsiders."

[USU78]

4 minutes ago, Exiled said:

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

So we amend:  ". . .  those recommendations amount to "it's pretty clear to me that RACISM!" and "it seems to me that RACISM" and "you're all lame because "RACISM!"

Yes?

[Exiled]

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.

Sometimes actions are unjustified regardless of the time period.  I don't think one can justify slavery or jim crow as "that was just a product of their times."  It was wrong then as it would be now.  Sure, it was a product of the past ..... and incredibly wrong.  Likewise, the ban was incredibly wrong.  It too looks like it was a product of the times but unjustified nevertheless.

[CV75]

26 minutes ago, Gray said:

Obvious to the informed.

What information do you have that shows the ban was to be implemented, including attendant reasons? Subsequent assumptions and explanations simply don't satisfy that standard.

[Exiled]

3 minutes ago, CV75 said:

This is an example of a problem that gets in the way of acceptance of where we are in the scholarship, advancing that scholarship, and formulating responsible conclusions: the goal to convince exceeds the expectation for objective evidence. This can be a problem for both "insiders" and "outsiders."

Ok. But at a certain point, one needs to admit that the flat earth theory is not a theory but nonsense. 

[CV75]

15 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Sometimes actions are unjustified regardless of the time period.  I don't think one can justify slavery or jim crow as "that was just a product of their times."  It was wrong then as it would be now.  Sure, it was a product of the past ..... and incredibly wrong.  Likewise, the ban was incredibly wrong.  It too looks like it was a product of the times but unjustified nevertheless.

If they had no reason it believe it was wrong, and we do, then we would be wrong if we enacted the ban, not them. OD-2 is not about calling out or correcting the ban as a past wrong, but the fulfilling of a promise (which was made to the ancients for all God's children). But the higher and nobler priority is  understanding over justifying, and understanding the promise over understanding the transitions between dispensations.

Ok. But at a certain point, one needs to admit that the flat earth theory is not a theory but nonsense. 

Now you're just getting silly.

Edited July 25, 2018 by CV75

[blueglass]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

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.

As far as enabling critical thinking skills and scholarship, I think it's crucial for our seminary students today to know what the vast majority of scholars expert in this area have said about this issue.  The only hold out is Ronald K Esplin.  He is an outlier - although he has tremendous influence.  In his recent interview he reaffirmed his outlier position.  https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2018/06/10/brigham-young-may-have-started-the-priesthood-ban-on-blacks-but-he-was-no-racist-say-his-descendants-his-mission-was-to-save-the-church/

"The historical record is “ambiguous,” Esplin says. “Whether he learned these views from Joseph Smith (see his 1979 paper) or whether they came from his experience with [interracial marriage] or from God, I don’t think we know.”

Reputable scholars that have published most recently on this topic which have reviewed carefully the primary documents, Paul Reeve, Matthew Harris/Newell Bringhurst, Jonathan Stapley, Margaret Young agree that the Race and Priesthood essay answers with good support the why, when, and how and so we can throw away justification#7, edit the one line in the introduction to OD2, and finally revise all the correlated lesson manuals including the seminary and institute manuals.

Edited July 25, 2018 by blueglass

[carbon dioxide]

16 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Sometimes actions are unjustified regardless of the time period.  I don't think one can justify slavery or jim crow as "that was just a product of their times."  It was wrong then as it would be now.  Sure, it was a product of the past ..... and incredibly wrong.  Likewise, the ban was incredibly wrong.  It too looks like it was a product of the times but unjustified nevertheless.

The problem I have is that you or I could agree that slavery is wrong today BUT who is to say that if you were not born in the south in those days that you would hold the same position as you do today?  They ay have thought it was right and had they won the civil war and slavery was practiced throughout the country today, you  might have a different tune.  Views in society change and you probably hold positions today that 100 years from now people will believe is wrong and perhaps barbaric.  Just because we don't meet these future standards does not mean we are wrong for holding these positions.  

I don't know if the ban was incredibly wrong because I have not spoken to Brigham Young about the subject and he has not explained the reasons to me on why it was done.  Perhaps you had that discussion but since I have not,  I am not planting my flag into the camp that it was wrong until further information is given. 

There is a middle ground in that the ban was wrong but based on sincere and not racist intentions.  Perhaps Brigham Young understood and interpreted scriptures and things the wrong way but it was not done in a racist intent.  I think way too many people are attempting to place Brigham Young as a racist without knowing his intentions, thoughts, and heart.  Perhaps Brigham Young was wrong but even if he was wrong, I think its also possible a lot of people will ask Brigham for forgiveness when they see him in the spirit world for misjudging the issue and making conclusions that did not actually match the real reasons for things.  I hope not to be one of those people asking for forgiveness by asserting a conclusion based on faulty or partial evidence.

Edited July 25, 2018 by carbon dioxide

[USU78]

15 minutes ago, Exiled said:

<snip> I don't think one can justify slavery [...] as "that was just a product of their times."  It was wrong then as it would be now. 

Are you seriously asserting that slavery was unique to Antebellum America, and was not a common thing in the world before the Anglo-American world decided slavery must be stopped once and for all?

[CV75]

3 minutes ago, blueglass said:

As far as enabling critical thinking skills and scholarship, I think it's crucial for our seminary students today to know what the vast majority of scholars expert in this area have said about this issue.  The only hold out is Ronald K Esplin.  He is an outlier - although he has tremendous influence.  In his recent interview he reaffirmed his outlier position.  https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2018/06/10/brigham-young-may-have-started-the-priesthood-ban-on-blacks-but-he-was-no-racist-say-his-descendants-his-mission-was-to-save-the-church/

"The historical record is “ambiguous,” Esplin says. “Whether he learned these views from Joseph Smith (see his 1979 paper) or whether they came from his experience with [interracial marriage] or from God, I don’t think we know.”

Reputable scholars that have published most recently on this topic which have reviewed carefully the primary documents, Paul Reeve, Matthew Harris/Newell Bringhurst, Jonathan Stapley, agree that the Race and Priesthood essay answers with good support the why, when, and how and so we can throw away justification#7, edit the one line in the introduction to OD2, and finally revise all the correlated lesson manuals including the seminary and institute manuals.

If you have to point everything out to support your position that all the questions have been answered, then there isn't much room left for these students to develop critical thinking and expecting the scholarship to advance. Reputations aside (it's not a factor), I don't think the better scholars will say they are through or that their work is definitive.

[Exiled]

31 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

The problem I have is that you or I could agree that slavery is wrong today BUT who is to say that if you were not born in the south in those days that you would hold the same position as you do today?  They ay have thought it was right and had they won the civil war and slavery was practiced throughout the country today, you  might have a different tune.  Views in society change and you probably hold positions today that 100 years from now people will believe is wrong and perhaps barbaric.  Just because we don't meet these future standards does not mean we are wrong for holding these positions. 

With some positions like slavery, jim crow, stealing, rape, murder, etc., presentism doesn't work for me.

[Exiled]

40 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Are you seriously asserting that slavery was unique to Antebellum America, and was not a common thing in the world before the Anglo-American world decided slavery must be stopped once and for all?

It has to be tough trying to defend an indefensible position.  Obviously, I am not saying the above.

[USU78]

1 minute ago, Exiled said:

It has to be tough trying to defend an indefensible position.  Obviously, I am not saying the above.

Yes, you did.  Here are your exact words, without my edits:

Quote

Sometimes actions are unjustified regardless of the time period.  I don't think one can justify slavery or jim crow as "that was just a product of their times."  It was wrong then as it would be now.

The plain implications are that slavery was wrong every time it occurred and that every practitioner of that there peculiar institution was evil, since they cannot be seen as "products of their times."  Prior to the anti-slavery movement's nativity in Britain, slavery was simply presumed everywhere to be a part of life, and even Christ and His Apostles mention the institution without addressing its wrongness.  What they did address, as did BY and JSJr, are the moral/ethical requirements for each individual when encountering master/slave relationships.

Slavery was a product of most times in known/knowable human history.  You do poorly to judge ignorantly in this matter.

As for Jim Crow:  I quite agree.  They knew better.  I don't judge them for their fearful reaction to Reconstruction and what ensued and remained, but I quite agree it wasn't justifiable on moral/ethical grounds.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Exiled said:

Sometimes actions are unjustified regardless of the time period.  I don't think one can justify slavery or jim crow as "that was just a product of their times."  It was wrong then as it would be now.  Sure, it was a product of the past ..... and incredibly wrong.  Likewise, the ban was incredibly wrong.  It too looks like it was a product of the times but unjustified nevertheless.

Whether or not a past action is moral can, I believe, be judged to a certain extent by us if we are aware of the context.  But in order to understand the motivations of those taking that action, you must place them in their world and not treat them as living in ours.  There are many who feel no need to justify an action that has been removed by God, but still they may want to understand the why....for that you need to look at the actors and their world, not those who condemn it in the here and now...or even support it.

[carbon dioxide]

2 hours ago, Exiled said:

With some positions like slavery, jim crow, stealing, rape, murder, etc., presentism doesn't work for me.

Not many points in history where anyone really thought stealing, rape, murder were good things.  I am just saying one should look at things through the eyes of the times they occurred.  What might be considered "racist" today may not have been that "racist" back then.  It simply may have been how people talked or expressed themselves or simply how they understood certain issues at the time.  There is no reason to believe that the modern day "progressives" who proclaim tolerance and all that will be viewed as barbarians by people 100 years from now as views change through time.  I am sure at time will come when people will see all my views as extreme and label me this and that.  I don't care because I am not living for them and not making decisions now to appease some future generation in the future.   I don't believe Brigham Young was worried too much on how people would read his words 150 years later.  He was living more in the moment than trying to tip toe through life to make his views accepted throughout time.

[Gray]

5 hours ago, USU78 said:

'Cuz weze awl dum and yooz sow smrt

No, because if one takes a careful and measured look at it, it becomes obvious that the priesthood ban is historically and scientifically incoherent and theologically unsound.

• The doctrinal underpinnings of the ban originated with US apologetics for slavery, predating the LDS church.
• The ban is based on ahistorical notions of of both priesthood and Canaanites
• Per the premises of the ban, all of "Ephraim" (most of the LDS church) would be disqualified for the priesthood. Ephraim had a "cursed" Egyptian mother
• All human beings have African ancestry, making the ban incoherent
• Most importantly, God is good and not evil

[Gray]

5 hours ago, CV75 said:

What information do you have that shows the ban was to be implemented, including attendant reasons? Subsequent assumptions and explanations simply don't satisfy that standard.

It's no mystery.See point number 7 on the first post in this thread.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

It's no mystery.See point number 7 on the first post in this thread.

See Posted Saturday at 09:19 AM (edited)

Point 7 does not provide that information (the order to implement the ban). Worse, you're just accepting the OP's commentary as fact, and the facts he bases it on aren't there to support it.

On top of that, you are saying the"informed" would call it a "mistake," not say "we don't know." 

[Glenn101]

8 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

I don't know if the ban was incredibly wrong because I have not spoken to Brigham Young about the subject and he has not explained the reasons to me on why it was done.  Perhaps you had that discussion but since I have not,  I am not planting my flag into the camp that it was wrong until further information is given. 

There is a middle ground in that the ban was wrong but based on sincere and not racist intentions.  Perhaps Brigham Young understood and interpreted scriptures and things the wrong way but it was not done in a racist intent.  I think way too many people are attempting to place Brigham Young as a racist without knowing his intentions, thoughts, and heart.  Perhaps Brigham Young was wrong but even if he was wrong, I think its also possible a lot of people will ask Brigham for forgiveness when they see him in the spirit world for misjudging the issue and making conclusions that did not actually match the real reasons for things.  I hope not to be one of those people asking for forgiveness by asserting a conclusion based on faulty or partial evidence.

I fully expect that Brigham Young got his understanding of that situation from Joseph Smith. Brigham was an avid student and disciple of Joseph.  His words and ideas seem to be taken almost directly from words that Joseph said in an 1836 letter to Oliver Cowdery on the subject of abolition. It is included in the History of the Church. There are some who seemingly wish to absolve Joseph of having anything to do with the ban and note that the H. C. has a lot of material authored by others and inserted as coming directly from Joseph, such as William Clayton's entry about the Kinderhook Plates. However, this was a letter from Joseph himself and was also published in the of 9 April 1836 In the Messenger and Advocate.

Glenn

Edited July 26, 2018 by Glenn101
added the souce

[USU78]

3 hours ago, Gray said:

No, because if one takes a careful and measured look at it

Seriously. I get it. You smart. Mormons dumb.

[carbon dioxide]

4 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

I fully expect that Brigham Young got his understanding of that situation from Joseph Smith. Brigham was an avid student and disciple of Joseph.  His words and ideas seem to be taken almost directly from words that Joseph said in an 1836 letter to Oliver Cowdery on the subject of abolition. It is included in the History of the Church. There are some who seemingly wish to absolve Joseph of having anything to do with the ban and note that the H. C. has a lot of material authored by others and inserted as coming directly from Joseph, such as William Clayton's entry about the Kinderhook Plates. However, this was a letter from Joseph himself and was also published in the of 9 April 1836 In the Messenger and Advocate.

Glenn

I am not sure where it came from.  What I do believe is that it is very easy and lazy just to declare Brigham Young was a racist and he made it up.  Some people just feel the need to have all the answers to things and if declaring the ban to be wrong is the easiest way to make a conclusion, they will go with it.  I will let God declare to me that the ban was wrong since I don't see enough information otherwise to make an informed decision based on the actual facts.

[Exiled]

8 hours ago, Calm said:

Whether or not a past action is moral can, I believe, be judged to a certain extent by us if we are aware of the context.  But in order to understand the motivations of those taking that action, you must place them in their world and not treat them as living in ours.  There are many who feel no need to justify an action that has been removed by God, but still they may want to understand the why....for that you need to look at the actors and their world, not those who condemn it in the here and now...or even support it.

Doesn't modern revelation supposedly solve this problem? Sure, we are in some sense prisoners of our times, but God isn't. So, shouldn't God step in and guide his flock? Where was the correct revelation that would have avoided these thorney issues of race and unknown reasons for actions?