Church and Naacp Release Joint Statement on Recent Violence

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

C'mon.  The document was reviewed and ratified by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve, and has been published to the world on the Church's website for years now.

"Log of God?"

Typo:  should have said "law" of God.  Which is what the ban was called.  By a prophet.  It was also called doctrine, by a prophet.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

And holy cow, is there ever a way the Church can placate its critics? 

It is President Nelson calling on every organization to "review processes, laws, and organizational attitudes regarding racism and root them out once and for all".

That's the Prophet's standard, it's not one I made up.  We haven't done that yet and we ought to follow President Nelson's advice on this.  I bet we will... I think President Nelson has a special sensitivity to matters such as these and I think that in the coming months and years he'll lead the church in doing more to address it.  I predict that within a year we'll have a clearer, more unequivocal statement declaring that the priesthood and temple restrictions were not of God and that they were mistakes of men.

[rockpond]

48 minutes ago, juliann said:

And this is where we can start:

1.Stop pretending the priesthood ban was anything but racist to the core. Put the Gospel Topics where people can see them rather than have to know they exist to find them.

2. Remove any equivalency about how the ban started so that members can't hide behind "God did it." There is too much scholarship to play this game anymore.

3. Instruct local units in what racism is and start talking about it. (All one has to do is read Desert News comments to see the problem we have, it's not like there aren't blaring examples in front of our faces.)

4. The biggest force for good, General Conference. Start. Talking. About. Racism. 

I have sat through so many lessons where there have been subtle and not so subtle jabs that people are so used to getting away with they probably don't even realize it. I won't sit through another quietly. Assuming we ever get back to normal....

Agreed!

[cacheman]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Many church members that I encounter still believe that God instituted the racist priesthood and temple restrictions. 

 

I doubt that.  Quite a bit, actually.

Unsubtantiated and unlikely hearsay attributed to "many church members," presented by someone I've never met and don't know, and who is doing so under the convenient cloak of online anonymity, doesn't go far with me.

I have family members who believe that the ban was divinely instituted.  There are also members of this board (Hamba Tuhan, Rongo, and others) who have been open about their belief that the ban was from God.  On this board, there have been polls on this subject in which a number of people voted that they believe the ban was inspired.  Dallin Oaks was interpreted by many as implying such at the 'Be One' celebration.  I'm confused as to why you are skeptical regarding this. 

Edited June 9, 2020 by cacheman
Not sure how to fix attribution for the first quote. It was from Rockpond, not Smac97

[Tacenda]

9 minutes ago, cacheman said:

I have family members who believe that the ban was divinely instituted.  There are also members of this board (Hamba Tuhan, Rongo, and others) who have been open about their belief that the ban was from God.  On this board, there have been polls on this subject in which a number of people voted that they believe the ban was inspired.  Dallin Oaks was interpreted by many as implying such at the 'Be One' celebration.  I'm confused as to why you are skeptical regarding this. 

I believe if Pres Nelson came out publicly in the news or in our SS classes or Gen Conf and said that the PH ban was not divinely instituted and someone is old enough to have heard or read statements from prophets that it is from God, then there would be a host of people that might reconsider that a prophet speaks for the Lord or is God's mouthpiece. It will have a negative outcome or will cause many to leave. I have read where people started doubting the church after reading the church essay on the PH ban. So that might be Pres Nelson's reason for restraint.

Edited June 9, 2020 by Tacenda

[Amulek]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

You are claiming that Colom is demanding the Church spend money. 

Well, technically, I didn't say he was demanding money from the church. I said he was whining about the church not spending money. 

 

Quote

You have provided no evidence to support such a conclusion.

I think it's more accurate to say that you are willfully interpreting the evidence differently. 

The language used by Colom is very thinly veiled PR speak for exactly what everyone knows it to mean. 

 

Quote

The Church has referred to theories.  It has not denounced that which was taught as doctrine and law of God.

Huh? Isn't that precisely what the church has done? 

If what was once taught wasn't truly, genuine doctrine, then what was it? I don't know about you, but "theory" sounds like a pretty good descriptor to me. 

The church clearly teaches today that those previous theories were not correct. Again, what more do you want here?

Do you need us to go back and denounce everyone who used to teach the Copernican model of the solar system while we are at it?

 

Quote

Yes.  I've heard members cite the priesthood/temple restrictions and prophetic teachings that supported the ban as justifying racist beliefs. I even had an actively serving bishop teach me that.

So that's your basis for institutional failure and labeling God's prophet on the earth today a hypocrite?

Wow. 

 

Quote

That's fine but it isn't the standard the President Nelson espoused in his Medium post this week.

The church is focused on helping people become more like Christ which, if successful, encompasses everything you say you want it to do. And like I said before, I honestly don't think this is really even much of a live issue among the majority of church members any longer - especially when you look at the youth. Honestly, I look at my kids and think that they will grow up live to see the day when nobody alive who could have ever been taught differently. 

 

[pogi]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

 It feels silly to get into it, since it appears you largely agree.  "They may be fairly universal NOW as Christ's teachings were so influential across the globe"  That's what I was saying.  Are you suggesting if someone didn't write Jesus words into greek after Jesus died, suggesting these things, we'd never have realized we can actually hope and pray for enemies?  

That seems like the outlandish claim to me.  

How else would those ideas have become so popular and widespread without the Bible and the influence of religion?  Seems outlandish to claim that nothing would be different today without it.

[smac97]

Elder Maxwell in 1995:

Quote

In the same vein, God’s second commandment, love thy neighbor, clearly leaves no room for racism. Yet it is not enough to be free of racism if one is simultaneously enslaved by other appetites. Jesus emphasized the need for proportion, saying there are “weightier matters” even among good things (Matt. 23:23). To the commandment-keeping young man, Jesus responded, “One thing thou lackest,” referring to an errant attachment to material possessions (Mark 10:21). Most of us lack more than just one thing. As we come closer to the Lord, He has promised to “show unto [us our] weakness” (Ether 12:27). Hence, general goodness is no excuse for failing to work on those things which we yet lack.

Elder Alexander Morrison in 2000:

Quote

“No More Strangers”
By Elder Alexander B. Morrison
Of the Seventy

Racism is an offense against God and a tool in the devil’s hands.

The promises and challenges of a new millennium remind us of the continuing urgency for the human family to accept and live the Apostle Paul’s prescient pronouncement that all men and women everywhere are God’s beloved children.  To the Athenians, Paul said God “hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth” (Acts 17:26). Nephi expressed the same vision: Christ “inviteth [the children of men] to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; … and all are alike unto God” (2 Ne. 26:33). In modern times, the First Presidency declared, “Our message … is one of special love and concern for the eternal welfare of all men and women, regardless of religious belief, race, or nationality, knowing that we are truly brothers and sisters because we are the sons and daughters of the same Eternal Father” (First Presidency statement, 15 Feb. 1978).

Perhaps no clearer expositions have ever been given of the brotherhood of man and the fatherhood of God. Sadly, however, deep divisions of race, ethnicity, politics, economic status, and culture still separate people the world over. These divisions corrode, corrupt, and destroy relationships between neighbors and prevent the establishment of societies where there is “no contention in the land, because of the love of God which [dwells] in the hearts of the people” (4 Ne. 1:15).

Unfortunately, racism —the abhorrent and morally destructive theory that claims superiority of one person over another by reason of race, color, ethnicity, or cultural background —remains one of the abiding sins of societies the world over. The cause of much of the strife and conflict in the world, racism is an offense against God and a tool in the devil’s hands. In common with other Christians, members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints regret the actions and statements of individuals who have been insensitive to the pain suffered by the victims of racism and ask God’s forgiveness for those guilty of this grievous sin. The sin of racism will be eliminated only when every human being treats all others with the dignity and respect each deserves as a beloved child of our Heavenly Father.

How grateful I am that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has from its beginnings stood strongly against racism in any of its malignant manifestations. 

(That last bit about the Church "from its beginnings [standing] strongly against racism" is, I think, indicative that we had, and have, room to improve.)

President Hinckley in 2006:

Quote

Racial strife still lifts its ugly head. I am advised that even right here among us there is some of this. I cannot understand how it can be. It seemed to me that we all rejoiced in the 1978 revelation given President Kimball. I was there in the temple at the time that that happened. There was no doubt in my mind or in the minds of my associates that what was revealed was the mind and the will of the Lord.

Now I am told that racial slurs and denigrating remarks are sometimes heard among us. I remind you that no man who makes disparaging remarks concerning those of another race can consider himself a true disciple of Christ. Nor can he consider himself to be in harmony with the teachings of the Church of Christ. How can any man holding the Melchizedek Priesthood arrogantly assume that he is eligible for the priesthood whereas another who lives a righteous life but whose skin is of a different color is ineligible?

Throughout my service as a member of the First Presidency, I have recognized and spoken a number of times on the diversity we see in our society. It is all about us, and we must make an effort to accommodate that diversity.

Let us all recognize that each of us is a son or daughter of our Father in Heaven, who loves all of His children.

Brethren, there is no basis for racial hatred among the priesthood of this Church. If any within the sound of my voice is inclined to indulge in this, then let him go before the Lord and ask for forgiveness and be no more involved in such.

(This seems to improve on Elder Morrison's remark above.)

Elder Ballard in 2017:

Quote

We need to embrace God’s children compassionately and eliminate any prejudice, including racism, sexism, and nationalism. Let it be said that we truly believe the blessings of the restored gospel of Jesus Christ are for every child of God.

Elder Andersen in 2017:

Quote

And Elder M. Russell Ballard from just a few minutes ago: “We need to embrace God’s children compassionately and eliminate any prejudice, including racism, sexism, and nationalism.”

Darius Gray in 2018 (on the Church's blog): Healing the Wounds of Racism (an abridged version of which was published in the June 2018 Ensign as "Moving Forward Together"😞

Quote

Here are four steps each of us needs to take so that we can all move forward together in our efforts to reach our divine potential.

1. Acknowledge the Problem
...
2. Recognize It in Ourselves

Some people acknowledge the problem but may not recognize it in themselves. Sometimes racism is so subtle, we may not realize we’re expressing it.
How are we to judge when are our thoughts and comments might be out of line with gospel teachings? Consider how the following examples could represent racism. How would the Lord have you change your heart if you recognize that you:

• Prefer associating only with those of your own race and think others should too.
• Believe it’s OK to discriminate when selling or renting a home.
• Don’t initiate a friendship (or respond to friendly overtures) because of racial differences.
• Aren’t happy if your children associate with those of a particular race.
• Feel proud of yourself when you behave well toward someone of another race.
• Would have difficulty welcoming someone of a particular race into your family circle.
• Feel less compassion toward those of a different race who suffer the effects of poverty, war, famine, crime, and so on.
• Assume that a person of another race (or who looks different) must be from another country.
• Make jokes or disparaging remarks relating to someone’s race or a racial group.
• Believe that the gospel of Jesus Christ supports any racist thinking or behavior.
• Justify racist attitudes or behaviors because of similar attitudes or behaviors shown by other good people, including Church leaders or members.

If you recognize any of these thoughts or attitudes in yourself, you have identified an opportunity to grow and become more Christlike as you work to overcome them.

3. Learn a New Approach
...
4. Listen

(This is, I think, also an improvement on Elder Morrison's comment above.)

From the March 2020 New Era:

Quote

To the Point

What is the Church’s stance on racism?

We believe that God is the Father of all humankind and that “he denieth none that come unto him, [both] black and white … ; and all are alike unto God” (2 Nephi 26:33). Because all people are equal before God, we believe that no person can rightly claim to be superior to another because of their racial or ethnic background. In addition, we believe that it is sinful to look down upon, denigrate, or discriminate against others because of their race.

Modern prophets and apostles have condemned racism in the strongest possible terms. For instance:

• President Gordon B. Hinckley (1910–2008): “No man who makes disparaging remarks concerning those of another race can consider himself a true disciple of Christ. Nor can he consider himself to be in harmony with the teachings of the Church of Christ.”
• President M. Russell Ballard, Acting President of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles: “We need to embrace God’s children compassionately and eliminate any prejudice, including racism, sexism, and nationalism.”
• President Dallin H. Oaks, First Counselor in the First Presidency: “Racism is probably the most familiar source of prejudice today, and we are all called to repent of that.”

Thanks,

-Smac

[Amulek]

19 minutes ago, rockpond said:

It is President Nelson calling on every organization to "review processes, laws, and organizational attitudes regarding racism and root them out once and for all".

That's the Prophet's standard, it's not one I made up.  We haven't done that yet and we ought to follow President Nelson's advice on this. 

Anecdotal evidence comprised of one single bishop and an undisclosed number of other 'members' doesn't equate to persistent organizational attitudes of ongoing racism. 

The organizational attitude of the church with respect to racism is crystal clear: it is condemned. Period. Full Stop. 

 

Quote

I predict that within a year we'll have a clearer, more unequivocal statement declaring that the priesthood and temple restrictions were not of God and that they were mistakes of men.

I honestly don't think it gets much clearer or much more unequivocal than this:

"Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form."

 

[Calm]

5 hours ago, CA Steve said:

No questions were asked in regard to my lineage or race.

I would assume that skin color (by looking at someone) would have be used first unless someone was in an area where many were of mixed race and paranoid so they automatically asked and then someone would be asked where they were from, parents from, heritage, etc to determine if their genealogy included black African or not.  I am also guessing that a number of members didn't care about the distinction and would have acted like blacks/darker skinned individuals with a heritage from Australia or iTaukei from Fiji should be excluded as well, though they were not.

Anyone older here ever get instructions on their mission.  I will have to ask my husband who went to South America in 76 iirc if he remembers.

[stemelbow]

10 minutes ago, pogi said:

How else would those ideas have become so popular and widespread without the Bible and the influence of religion?  Seems outlandish to claim that nothing would be different today without it.

If not Christianity then another religion we may have not conceived of because Christianity filled the void.  YOu have declared the preeminence of Christianity as being the greatest means to pronounce great moral activity.  But I'm not sure that's much more than assertion or assumption.  

[Tacenda]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Elder Maxwell in 1995:

Elder Alexander Morrison in 2000:

(That last bit about the Church "from its beginnings [standing] strongly against racism" is, I think, indicative that we had, and have, room to improve.)

President Hinckley in 2006:

(This seems to improve on Elder Morrison's remark above.)

Elder Ballard in 2017:

Elder Andersen in 2017:

Darius Gray in 2018 (on the Church's blog): Healing the Wounds of Racism (an abridged version of which was published in the June 2018 Ensign as "Moving Forward Together"😞

(This is, I think, also an improvement on Elder Morrison's comment above.)

From the March 2020 New Era:

Thanks,

-Smac

Thanks for this post and the list from Darius Gray. I think our church may go down in history as rising out of the depths that it was and surpassing the rest on combating racism! 

My son is currently dating an amazing woman who is black. I always worry that something I say might come out racist. I am horrified at the things we kids would say growing up and not even realizing it was racist, I'm 58. I always fear that those sayings will rear it's head while speaking with her almost like a mind thing, trying so hard not to say anything and then it coming out, which I would never think is right or of saying something that wouldn't even faze her or she wouldn't even think is racist. Have you ever had that problem? My dad would say some things that weren't nice at all too, and my grandma and even my MIL. What is up with that generation and maybe my own?!? 

I loved the funeral for George Floyd, I love the spirit that it had! We could use some of that in our meetings, haha. Remember Gladys Knight mentioned something about our music!

 

[Calm]

14 hours ago, rockpond said:

I agree with what Colom said and I don't think the Church needs to spend any significant amount of money to start working to undo the 150 years of damage.  It starts with President Nelson following his own advice:  "leaders at every level to review processes, laws, and organizational attitudes regarding racism and root them out once and for all."

I agree there are things that could be done without spending much, if any money.  Getting more specific in addressing racist attitudes and behaviours in our members and leaders, for example, in instructions and talks.  

However, they may already be doing such things (Pres. Nelson following his own advice) and it not be publicized.  For example, I think ensuring potential mission presidents are aware of racial issues and exploring with them how they would treat them could be happening now.  If not though, hopefully that would be something added to the vetting and training process.  And given that racism exists worldwide against many races, this topic is applicable for all Saints, not just America, Canada, or other places where racial conflicts are highly public.

I hope to see more talks on this and other conferences about it.  Announcements may help improve awareness, but talks in conference gives us permission to make it a topic at church, whether from the pulpit where a talk is based on a conference talk or in classes.  I think as long as it remains an 'unofficial’ topic at church, it will be seen by many as a political topic and therefore avoided at church and possibly even elsewhere with church members.

Edited June 10, 2020 by Calm

[pogi]

9 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

If not Christianity then another religion we may have not conceived of because Christianity filled the void.  YOu have declared the preeminence of Christianity as being the greatest means to pronounce great moral activity.  But I'm not sure that's much more than assertion or assumption.  

I think you have lost track of our discussion.  It has always been about religion vs non-religion.  I'm simply using the example of Christianity because that is what I know.  This whole debate started because you seem to attribute the problems of racism with religion (nothing else could possible "fill the void" there, right?), but when it comes to positive influences of religion, you refuse to give any credit.   That just feels so...wrong.   

[rockpond]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

I hope to see more talks in this and other conferences about it.  Announcements may help improve awareness, but talks in conference gives us permission to make it a topic at church, whether from the pulpit where a talk is based on a conference talk or in classes.  I think as long as it remains an 'unofficial topic at church, it will be seen by many as a political topic and therefore avoided at church and possibly even elsewhere with church members.

I agree and I think we'll hear it addressed in October General Conference.

[stemelbow]

Just now, pogi said:

I think you have lost track of our discussion.  It has always been about religion vs non-religion.  I'm simply using the example of Christianity because that is what I know.  This whole debate started because you seem to attribute the problems of racism with religion (nothing else could possible "fill the void" there, right?), but when it comes to positive influences of religion, you refuse to give any credit.   That just feels so...wrong.   

I haven't refused that.  I think in many ways religion is good for people.  I do think it's time to put away the childish things, which is what religion amounts to today.  Without question, as I see it, religion played a huge factor in contributing to our issues concerning race today.  Ever since people were pulled form Africa to be sold as slaves the Christian world found justification in their teaching.  Slavery simply would not have worked without such justification.  Sure, without christianity something else may have filled the void

[rockpond]

37 minutes ago, Amulek said:

I think it's more accurate to say that you are willfully interpreting the evidence differently. 

I'm taking what Colom said at face value.  You are making an interpretation that he wants the church to spend money.  You admit as much here when you claim it is "veiled PR speak":

Quote

The language used by Colom is very thinly veiled PR speak for exactly what everyone knows it to mean.

 

Quote

Huh? Isn't that precisely what the church has done? 

If what was once taught wasn't truly, genuine doctrine, then what was it? I don't know about you, but "theory" sounds like a pretty good descriptor to me. 

Prophetic teachings of doctrine and law of God are not considered "theories" by members.  What has been said about "past theories" has been ambiguous enough to leave room for members to continue to believe things like the race-based temple and priesthood restrictions are of God.

Edited June 9, 2020 by rockpond

[rockpond]

27 minutes ago, Amulek said:

I honestly don't think it gets much clearer or much more unequivocal than this:

"Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form."

The two issues I have with that statement are:

1.  Prophetic teachings declared as doctrine and "law of God" are not regarded as theories.  That is what makes this somewhat ambiguous.

2.  This was published in an essay, buried several clicks deep (you need to know what you're looking for), without a named author.  To have the full force of the previous racist teachings it should be taught in a similar manner by a prophet.  (And I think it will, within the next year.)

[pogi]

19 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I haven't refused that. 

You have argued this whole time that our understanding and discipline of love would be no different. 

19 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

 I do think it's time to put away the childish things, which is what religion amounts to today.  

Religion amounts to a "childish thing" that needs to be put away?  I hope I am misunderstanding you here.  Religion is "good for people", in one breath.  In the next, it is "childish" and "needs to be put away"? 

19 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

 Ever since people were pulled form Africa to be sold as slaves the Christian world found justification in their teaching.

Which came first, the racism or the justification?  I'm not claiming religion is innocent.  It seems every culture justifies their racism in one way or another, religious or not - but the racism seems to always come first.  Calling for an end to religion to stop racism is a joke!  

19 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

 Sure, without christianity something else may have filled the void

Then what are we arguing about here?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited June 9, 2020 by pogi

[Calm]

12 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

A person repents for what they've personally done. An institution repents for what it has institutionally done. 

An expectation for or an attitude unfavorable towards institutional apologies may be cultural.  It is possible it is more about when I started to pay attention to such things or they just weren't publicized as much, but I don't remember hearing apologies for what was done 50 years or more in the past from organizations, but I remember resistance to being held accountable for the 'sins of the parent' so to speak (I am thinking specifically about demands to German and Austrian companies or families in regards to benefits accrued during the Nazi regime, especially restoration of appropriated art).  I should do probably do some research to see when apologies became relatively common.

I think this is important to consider because for many, including myself, apologies for the actions of others sound artificial and are more PR and a signal that actual action is less likely to follow as public apologies are a cheap way to look proactive without being so.  Maybe my attitude is more from my father whose apologies were expressed in his behaviour rather than spoken than my community growing up, but I think it would be interesting to poll church members and see if there is a difference between older and younger generations on expectations for and interpretations of institutional apologies.  

I have seen enough reaction from sincere, devout members of what an apology for past church behaviours and treatments of blacks and other races by both leaders and members would mean to them, that it would be healing and help them feel a greater, deeper connection to their church family that I now support something happening where before I did not due to my own distaste for apologies.  I think there are greater numbers of church members who would be helped by it happening and I see if done properly there would be little harm done among members who didn't care, though some might be frustrated that the Church was too PC or responding to social pressure.  This might be dispelled in more moderate members by how it was done (emphasizing seeking answers on how to help members through prayer, for example, contextualizing the effort rather than just giving it...would likely make it more meaningful to all to hear in fact).  I also think our greater culture has created an expectation for institutions to deal with their problematic history publicly, so at this point there will be more and more members who interpret a lack of an apology as a defense of past racism, which is not the message our leaders want to send obviously.

-----

The sticking point for many with an apology will be the ban itself, will it be rejected as a revelation or not.  I assume at this point nomfurther revelation has been given on that specifically.  I think this could be handled by being very open and honest about any struggles on deciding what to do and if the inspiration or decision in the abscence of revelation is not to apologize for it, then be clear that it is because we believe we should not apologize for what God instructs us to do without instructions from him and there nothing has been received yet.  That enough prophets in the past believe the ban was revelation, so that even if others were less certain and the scholarship is lacking, it is important not to act without instruction from God.  

Also be very clear we as a church need to apologize for mistakes that were made while doing it or worse, as individuals we need to deeply repent when using the teachings of God as justification for our own sins.  And it would be even better if a personal example was given of even something small so as to show what was being said was sincerely believed and not just feel good words.  Describing personal struggles in trying to learn what the source of the ban was would demonstrate sincerity as well and is consistent with other descriptions of seeking revelation for church issues or personal problems from our leaders.  Such things would help convey that the issue is important to leaders, troubling them and not just a passing thought. 

Edited June 10, 2020 by Calm

[Amulek]

11 minutes ago, rockpond said:

49 minutes ago, Amulek said:

I think it's more accurate to say that you are willfully interpreting the evidence differently. 

I'm taking what Colom said at face value. 

That's pretty much what I'm saying as well - that you are willfully ignoring what he is obviously implying - so I guess we are in agreement. 

 

Quote

You are making an interpretation that he wants the church to spend money.  You admit as much here when you claim it is "veiled PR speak":

Thinly-veiled PR speak, yes. That's how organizations communicate things like this. Sort of like how when the church's spokesman once gave that classic response about how some frivolous issue would 'be given the attention it deserves.' Everyone knows what was really meant - though I suppose if one were determined enough, one could ignore what was obviously being implied and take those words "at face value" as well, and believe that somebody was really going to be taking a look at it. 

 

Quote

Prophetic teachings of doctrine and law of God are not considered "theories" by members.  What has been said about "past theories" has been ambiguous enough to leave room for members to continue to believe things like the race-based temple and priesthood restrictions are of God.

I disagree. What the church has said about past teachings on the subject of race is abundantly clear. What some people may happen to continue to believe in spite of being taught differently is wholly on them. The church is doing its part. 

 

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, juliann said:

And this is where we can start:

1.Stop pretending the priesthood ban was anything but racist to the core. Put the Gospel Topics where people can see them rather than have to know they exist to find them.

2. Remove any equivalency about how the ban started so that members can't hide behind "God did it." There is too much scholarship to play this game anymore.

3. Instruct local units in what racism is and start talking about it. (All one has to do is read Desert News comments to see the problem we have, it's not like there aren't blaring examples in front of our faces.)

4. The biggest force for good, General Conference. Start. Talking. About. Racism. 

I have sat through so many lessons where there have been subtle and not so subtle jabs that people are so used to getting away with they probably don't even realize it. I won't sit through another quietly. Assuming we ever get back to normal....

 

 

I think the Gospel Topic essay left room (in my opinion, purposefully) for people to continue to believe the ban was God's will, even if the reasons for it were not, or to believe that the ban was completely manmade.  I think it's time for the church to remove all ambiguity.  

Either unequivocally state that the ban was a mistake or embrace that the ban was God's will for whatever non-racist reasons, (or I suppose state that they don't know what it was, though that option seems untenable from my perspective).

[Amulek]

36 minutes ago, rockpond said:

The two issues I have with that statement are:

1.  Prophetic teachings declared as doctrine and "law of God" are not regarded as theories.  That is what makes this somewhat ambiguous.

2.  This was published in an essay, buried several clicks deep (you need to know what you're looking for), without a named author.  To have the full force of the previous racist teachings it should be taught in a similar manner by a prophet.  (And I think it will, within the next year.)

Please. The church has been clear about this for (quite literally) decades now.

Here's what Bruce R. McConkie said later that same year (1978):

Quote

There are statements in our literature by the early Brethren which we have interpreted to mean that the Negroes would not receive the priesthood in mortality. I have said the same things, and people write me letters and say, “You said such and such, and how is it now that we do such and such?” And all I can say to that is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.

 

I have heard that, and quotes similar to the ones smac posted previously, throughout my entire life. I'm sorry, but the only way you get to today without knowing better is if you honestly don't care about the topic or if you are purposefully avoiding it. 

 

[rockpond]

4 minutes ago, Amulek said:

That's pretty much what I'm saying as well - that you are willfully ignoring what he is obviously implying - so I guess we are in agreement. 

Thinly-veiled PR speak, yes. That's how organizations communicate things like this. Sort of like how when the church's spokesman once gave that classic response about how some frivolous issue would 'be given the attention it deserves.' Everyone knows what was really meant - though I suppose if one were determined enough, one could ignore what was obviously being implied and take those words "at face value" as well, and believe that somebody was really going to be taking a look at it. 

"Implying" and "PR speak"... you are interpreting what Colom said to mean spending money when he made no such statement about money.  Perhaps he just wants the church to do as @juliann outlined.

 

4 minutes ago, Amulek said:

I disagree. What the church has said about past teachings on the subject of race is abundantly clear. What some people may happen to continue to believe in spite of being taught differently is wholly on them. The church is doing its part. 

Here's the statement from the Medium post:

We likewise call on government, business, and educational leaders at every level to review processes, laws, and organizational attitudes regarding racism and root them out once and for all. It is past time for every one of us to elevate our conversations above divisive and polarizing rhetoric. Treating others with respect matters. Treating each other as sons and daughters of God matters.

For me, that high standard, to which President Nelson put his name, means that we should do more than an anonymous, ambiguous statement buried deep in our church website.  If we want to "root them out once and for all" then denouncing and rebuking past racist doctrines and teachings should be done with the same force with which they were originally taught.  That hasn't happened yet but likely will.  Soon.

[Amulek]

4 minutes ago, rockpond said:

"Implying" and "PR speak"... you are interpreting what Colom said to mean spending money when he made no such statement about money.  

Yes. It is trivially true that he never used the word "money." Man, you really got me there. I don't know how I could have missed it before. I feel so foolish now. 

Look, you can see whatever you want to see. I'm through belaboring this point. Time to move on. 

 

Quote

Here's the statement from the Medium post:

We likewise call on government, business, and educational leaders at every level to review processes, laws, and organizational attitudes regarding racism and root them out once and for all. It is past time for every one of us to elevate our conversations above divisive and polarizing rhetoric. Treating others with respect matters. Treating each other as sons and daughters of God matters.

For me, that high standard, to which President Nelson put his name, means that we should do more than an anonymous, ambiguous statement buried deep in our church website.  If we want to "root them out once and for all" then denouncing and rebuking past racist doctrines and teachings should be done with the same force with which they were originally taught.  That hasn't happened yet but likely will.  Soon.

Again, you have yet to demonstrate what "processes, laws, and organizational attitudes regarding racism" still persist within the institutional church. 

That some individual members may happen to still believe long-since disavowed teachings isn't evidence of the church maintains "processes, laws, and organizational attitudes regarding racism." 

And don't give me any more of this "anonymous, ambiguous" 'hidden on the church website' nonsense. As I noted previously, the apostles and prophets have been consistent in their teaching on this subject for the last 40+ years, and they will continue to do so for the remainder of your natural life. Maybe someday one of them will phrase it so your liking / satisfaction. For the rest of us, it will just be more of what they have been saying for decades though. 

 

[cacheman]

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

Please. The church has been clear about this for (quite literally) decades now.

Here's what Bruce R. McConkie said later that same year (1978):

 

I have heard that, and quotes similar to the ones smac posted previously, throughout my entire life. I'm sorry, but the only way you get to today without knowing better is if you honestly don't care about the topic or if you are purposefully avoiding it. 

 

In Bruce R. McConkie's talk,  he reiterated the theory that the restrictions were based on our premortal faith and devotion.   He also mentioned that the lifting of the restrictions were on God's timeline, and that certain nations were prioritized in regards to the spreading of the gospel.  The only 'theory' he specifically shot down was the one contradicted by the revelation. ...that the restriction wouldn't be lifted in this mortal life. 

Did any leaders, in the late 70's or 80's disavow the theories linking premortal actions to the ban?  Or any of the other theories? I honestly don't know.