emergence of new justifications for the black priesthood and temple ban

[Calm]

59 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Doesn't modern revelation supposedly solve this problem?

That depends on what you believe revelation is supposed to do.

I don't believe the purpose of revelation is to avoid the thorns.  I think it throws us into the middle of them quite often.

 

[Thinking]

On 7/19/2018 at 4:47 PM, mfbukowski said:

No biggie. It was a mistake. Get on with life in this wonderful church and live by testimony, take human advice for what it is worth and confirm, confirm, confirm by the spirit.

No biggie?

[Thinking]

On 7/19/2018 at 6:14 PM, cinepro said:

All the other stuff you mention is a result of that being too mentally painful for some people, and so we feel a need to come up with some psychological spackle to ease our minds.  Cognitive dissonance hurts that way.

This.

I believe that a significant number of members can't believe that something as significant as the priesthood ban would be allowed to exist for 100+ years if it was just a mistake. "We don't know why" is not good enough.

[USU78]

What do we know about G-d?

What do we know about Joseph and Brigham and the rest?

What does that tell you about the ban?

Bring it down to fundamentals.

[stemelbow]

The only reason to explain the ban is to assume it was inspired by God.  the only reason to assume it was inspired by God was it was instituted by the Church, it seems to me.  There's no revelation to read.  But as soon as it was instituted there was reason given for it.  The whole "we don't know why" that has surfaced in retrospect only works now because it is obvious to all the ban was reprehensible.  And it is only needed for those who believe the leaders can't lead people astray, which was a teaching given to members by leaders.  We're stuck in endless circles initiated by assumptions.  "I assume this...therefore I assume this...therefore that means I assume this...."  Its silly particularly since there had been repeatedly explanation given officially by leaders of the Church for the ban for most of the Church's existence.  

The claim of "we don't know" is out of convenience, deflecting because the ban itself is reprehensible racism.  It feels like the Church is hoping this all just goes away but perhaps someday the Church will have to admit the obvious.  When it does the Church and everyone so associated will be much better off.  

[stemelbow]

5 minutes ago, USU78 said:

What do we know about G-d?

Next to nothing.  

5 minutes ago, USU78 said:

What do we know about Joseph and Brigham and the rest?

Some. Surely more than we know about God.  

5 minutes ago, USU78 said:

What does that tell you about the ban?

It was a racist practice conceived in the hearts of conspiring men.  

5 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Bring it down to fundamentals.

 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Thinking said:

No biggie?

 I guess that's a California expression that means "It should not be a big deal."

I guess I was obviously exaggerating, but the fact is I join the church only 2 years after the ban was lifted. I would not have joined it before.

But I remember thinking very clearly that in retrospect it was no big deal because everybody was racist in those days, I know it had been corrected. The church was on the right path.

No biggie. 

As Sterling McMurrin said, " I was not disillusioned because I was never illusioned in the first place."

I I had never bought into the prophetic omniscience thing.

Heck I was raised Catholic and you know about them thar popes.

Not much to be illusioned about there.

I think it would be well for us to start looking at prophets the way Catholics look at popes.

"Here's a new one. Hope he's good." 

Sometimes you win sometimes you don't.

That's the difference between 200 years of human leadership vs 2000 years.

 You pretty much learn that people are people.

 

Edited July 26, 2018 by mfbukowski

[USU78]

44 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Next to nothing.  

Some. Surely more than we know about God.  

It was a racist practice conceived in the hearts of conspiring men.  

 

And this tells us exactly what the issues truly are:

Those who reject G-d, the prophets and apostles, and covenantal ties will inevitably impute evil.  The truth of unknowability puts each of us in that lonely but unutterably important place where we are free to choose our path.

[stemelbow]

2 minutes ago, USU78 said:

And this tells us exactly what the issues truly are:

Those who reject G-d,

I don't

2 minutes ago, USU78 said:

the prophets and apostles,

I've learned prophets and apostles are just mortal men and most often, if ever, prophesy about things like business policies and current or sometimes late to the party political or pop culture issues.  Not bad, just not anything more than most others living in this world in our day.  

2 minutes ago, USU78 said:

and covenantal ties will inevitably impute evil. 

Racism is evil.  

Quote

Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism

https://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng

It used to not be unequivocally condemned because old times were different and people didn't see it as all that bad.  But unequivocally suggests to me evil, even from the Church's perspective.  And yes the policy was all based on race and doing so is explicitly without question racism.  that is what racism means.    

2 minutes ago, USU78 said:

The truth of unknowability puts each of us in that lonely but unutterably important place where we are free to choose our path.

But Brigham all the way through, at least, George Albert  and all their followers did know.  not until David O did the leaders seem to stop and ask the question, "oh...oops we really are behind the times now...are we correct about this?  Shall we proceed with a little more caution?"  Even then it took decades for any substantive action.  And decades after that we still have members who claim to know, just as Brigham knew, all of which you seem to pretend never was, for some odd reason.  

[jkwilliams]

 

33 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I I had never bought into the prophetic omniscience thing.

Heck I was raised Catholic and you know about them thar popes.

Not much to be illusioned about there.

I think it would be well for us to start looking at prophets the way Catholics look at popes.

"Here's a new one. Hope he's good." 

Sometimes you win sometimes you don't.

That's the difference between 200 years of human leadership vs 2000 years.

 You pretty much learn that people are people.

Wow, we are agreeing again. Isn't that one of the signs of the Apocalypse? 

Some people seem to believe that the expression "line upon line," etc., means that the church is building one truth upon another, with a never-ending progression of truth. As you note, people are people, and it's unrealistic to expect that an organization with human leadership isn't going to have some setbacks and errors that have to be cast aside and learned from. Obviously, if you don't believe God is involved in running the LDS church, it's not a stretch to attribute the priesthood ban to racism, full stop. But believing in God, the prophets and apostles, and covenants does not require one to believe that mistakes haven't been made. 

You remind me of my father telling me how he had abstained from sustaining Joseph Fielding Smith as prophet, as he had personal experience with the man and thought he was an idiot (his word). He couldn't bring himself to oppose him, but he couldn't sustain him, either.

[Glenn101]

4 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

Obviously, if you don't believe God is involved in running the LDS church, it's not a stretch to attribute the priesthood ban to racism, full stop. But believing in God, the prophets and apostles, and covenants does not require one to believe that mistakes haven't been made.

And that is the rub. Who decides what were mistakes and what were not?

Glenn

[jkwilliams]

Just now, Glenn101 said:

And that is the rub. Who decides what were mistakes and what were not?

Glenn

I would imagine that's between you and God. 

[Glenn101]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

I would imagine that's between you and God. 

That is not what a significant number of people seem to believe as evidenced by this thread. Efforts are being made, actually explicit statements are being made that the subject under question was a mistake and efforts are and have been made to pin culpability on one person. God Himself has been very silent on the subject, allowing His prophets to speak for Him. Fortunately none of those who are piling on brother Brigham have to face him on that.......yet.

Glenn

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, Glenn101 said:

That is not what a significant number of people seem to believe as evidenced by this thread. Efforts are being made, actually explicit statements are being made that the subject under question was a mistake and efforts are and have been made to pin culpability on one person. God Himself has been very silent on the subject, allowing His prophets to speak for Him. Fortunately none of those who are piling on brother Brigham have to face him on that.......yet.

Glenn

If people believe it was a mistake, that's their prerogative. As I said, I have my own opinion about it, but I am not constrained by any need to believe God was involved.

[cinepro]

7 hours ago, USU78 said:

What do we know about Joseph and Brigham and the rest?

 

I don't know about Joseph and "the rest", but we do know why Brigham Young implemented the ban.  He told us, and he also said the reason was based on "true eternal principals the Lord Almighty has ordained."

That seems to be an important point that gets swept under the rug in our haste to argue "we don't know."

 

Edited July 26, 2018 by cinepro

[Glenn101]

23 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

If people believe it was a mistake, that's their prerogative. As I said, I have my own opinion about it, but I am not constrained by any need to believe God was involved.

I am not constrained by a need to believe that God was involved either. Not am I constrained by a need to accede to what may be the popular opinion in some circles. Nothing that has been posted here, none of the reams of research that has been done has really answered that basic question.  What it really boils down to is pretty much a "My opinion is better than your opinion" syndrome. 

Glenn

[Glenn101]

5 minutes ago, cinepro said:

I don't know about Joseph and "the rest", but we do know why Brigham Young implemented enforced the ban.  He told us, and he also said the reason was based on "true eternal principals the Lord Almighty has ordained."

That seems to be an important point that gets swept under the rug in our haste to argue "we don't know."

 

Fixed it for you. There is good reason to believe that Brigham Young got those ideas from Joseph Smith.

Glenn

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

I am not constrained by a need to believe that God was involved either. Not am I constrained by a need to accede to what may be the popular opinion in some circles. Nothing that has been posted here, none of the reams of research that has been done has really answered that basic question.  What it really boils down to is pretty much a "My opinion is better than your opinion" syndrome. 

Glenn

Hence my belief that this is best left in the "we don't know" category. I'm as much a speculator as anyone, but I don't find it helpful to tell anyone that my opinion is better than your opinion.

[cinepro]

53 minutes ago, Glenn101 said:

Fixed it for you. There is good reason to believe that Brigham Young got those ideas from Joseph Smith.

Glenn

What is the good reason?

[CV75]

2 hours ago, cinepro said:

I don't know about Joseph and "the rest", but we do know why Brigham Young implemented the ban.  He told us, and he also said the reason was based on "true eternal principals the Lord Almighty has ordained."

That seems to be an important point that gets swept under the rug in our haste to argue "we don't know."

 

All he says is, “I know that they cannot bear rule in the priesthood…” and “a man who has has the Affrican [sic] blood in him cannot hold one jot nor tittle of priesthood…” He does not announce the implementation of a ban. At most he is assuming it is in place already, and using this conclusion to support a political position and passing bills.

So yes, we still do not know the origin of the ban even though Brigham Young argued it was in place from Cain's day onward.

[Exiled]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

All he says is, “I know that they cannot bear rule in the priesthood…” and “a man who has has the Affrican [sic] blood in him cannot hold one jot nor tittle of priesthood…” He does not announce the implementation of a ban. At most he is assuming it is in place already, and using this conclusion to support a political position and passing bills.

So yes, we still do not know the origin of the ban even though Brigham Young argued it was in place from Cain's day onward.

What do we really know anyway? Someone may say something and it may appear as though we can draw a conclusion, but we never can be sure, especially when it is a contrary conclusion.

Edited July 27, 2018 by Exiled

[CV75]

54 minutes ago, Exiled said:

What do we really know anyway? Someone may say something and it may appear as though we can draw a conclusion, but we never can be sure, especially when it is a contrary conclusion.

I don't care what the conclusion is as long as it's based more on a direct connection than a leap.

Now if anyone wants to beat up Brigham Young for his views, or the Church for past prophets' views, that's different (I'm not saying that anyone in this thread is doing that, but if so, please clarify), but I think the higher road is to condemn his views without beating up him or the Church.

[Glenn101]

4 hours ago, cinepro said:

What is the good reason?

Have you read the letter from Joseph Smith to Oliver Cowdery on the subject of abolition that was published in the Messenger and Advocate?

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, Glenn101 said:

Have you read the letter from Joseph Smith to Oliver Cowdery on the subject of abolition that was published in the Messenger and Advocate?

Link?

[Hamba Tuhan]

2 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Link?

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Latter_Day_Saints'_Messenger_and_Advocate/Volume_2/Number_7/Letter_to_Oliver_Cowdery_from_Joseph_Smith,_Jr._(Apr._1836)