Brad Wilcox fireside to Alpine youth on Feb 6.

[smac97]

14 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I find it impossible to believe that you are unaware of racist teachings within the church.

Well, here's your opportunity to show me up.  Again:

Quote

The "Race and the Priesthood" essay has been posted on the Church's website since, I believe, late 2013.  JK referenced "the teachings that create the 'image' in the first place," and "the teachings will persist," and "it all seems perfectly acceptable to teach those things."  All of of this is present and future tense.

Again: "I have spent my entire life in the Church.  I have encountered a few instances of members saying insensitive or even plainly inappropriate things pertaining to race.  But "teachings" would seem to be something that we could point to.  In the manuals, in General Conference talks, on the Church's website, etc."

So . . . CFR.  Where are these "teachings"?

Well?

14 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

You calling them "justifications" as opposed to teachings is comical.

I was referring to explanations about the Priesthood Ban, some of which apparently continued into my lifetime.

You are pointing to "racist teachings within the church."  Okay.  Please point them out.  Chapter and verse.

14 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I don't believe you are communicating in good faith here.

Take a look at what I said here:

Quote

Racism is one of the great evils of our day.  Alongside other great evils, such as physical/sexual abuse, substance abuse, licentiousness, dishonesty, and other vices and sins, racism has a presence amongst the members of the Church.  Unlike these other great evils, however, racism was previously propagated from the pulpits of the Church.  That is the plain and simple truth, and the Saints just have to lump it.  We must acknowledge that our spiritual (and often familial) ancestors, while admirable in many, many ways, nevertheless harbored sentiments about race and racism that we have, for many years now, understood to be quite wrong.  What was said of the Lamanites can also be said of us: "And it came to pass that the Lord began to bless them, insomuch that they brought many to the knowledge of the truth; yea, they did convince many of their sins, and of the traditions of their fathers, which were not correct."  (Alma 21:17.)

I really meant this.

14 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

You seem intent on obfuscation and semantic games.

I am not.  Again:

Quote

The "Race and the Priesthood" essay has been posted on the Church's website since, I believe, late 2013.  JK referenced "the teachings that create the 'image' in the first place," and "the teachings will persist," and "it all seems perfectly acceptable to teach those things."  All of of this is present and future tense.

Again: "I have spent my entire life in the Church.  I have encountered a few instances of members saying insensitive or even plainly inappropriate things pertaining to race.  But "teachings" would seem to be something that we could point to.  In the manuals, in General Conference talks, on the Church's website, etc."

So . . . CFR.  Where are these "teachings"?

JK is referencing, but not citing to or quoting, ongoing "teachings" in the Church that are "racist."  Duncan is referencing these things.  You are now referencing these things.

None of you, however, are actually citing to or quoting these "teachings."

Randy Bott.  Got it.  Ten years ago.  Responded to by the Church.  "Race and the Priesthood" essay came out subsequently.  Substantial condemnation of racism since then at General Conference.  This is not responsive to my request for ongoing teachings in the Church about racism that conflict with or contradict the sentiments expressed in the "Race and the Priesthood" essay, Pres. Hinckley's remarks, Pres. Nelson's remarks, and so on.

14 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

The church even disavows "previous racist teachings" yet you can't seem to accept there were racist teachings.

Wildly, flagrantly false.  Patently untrue.  Please re-read my posts.

Again: 

Quote

Racism is one of the great evils of our day.  Alongside other great evils, such as physical/sexual abuse, substance abuse, licentiousness, dishonesty, and other vices and sins, racism has a presence amongst the members of the Church.  Unlike these other great evils, however, racism was previously propagated from the pulpits of the Church.  That is the plain and simple truth, and the Saints just have to lump it.  We must acknowledge that our spiritual (and often familial) ancestors, while admirable in many, many ways, nevertheless harbored sentiments about race and racism that we have, for many years now, understood to be quite wrong.  What was said of the Lamanites can also be said of us: "And it came to pass that the Lord began to bless them, insomuch that they brought many to the knowledge of the truth; yea, they did convince many of their sins, and of the traditions of their fathers, which were not correct."  (Alma 21:17.)

What I am asking for is this:

Quote

The "Race and the Priesthood" essay has been posted on the Church's website since, I believe, late 2013.  JK referenced "the teachings that create the 'image' in the first place," and "the teachings will persist," and "it all seems perfectly acceptable to teach those things."  All of of this is present and future tense.

Again: "I have spent my entire life in the Church.  I have encountered a few instances of members saying insensitive or even plainly inappropriate things pertaining to race.  But "teachings" would seem to be something that we could point to.  In the manuals, in General Conference talks, on the Church's website, etc."

So . . . CFR.  Where are these "teachings"?

Well?

14 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Maybe you need to take 5 minutes and research this topic a little bit. 

Physician, heal thyself.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

54 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quote

Not seeing "racism" here.

I think that is part of the problem in this particular conversation. Comparing the priesthood restriction that only applied to Black Church members of African descent to the Levitic Priesthood is problematic and racist IMO.

"IMO" being the operative wording.

What did Bytheway say that disparaged black people or any other racial group?  Nothing.  At all.  

54 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

You disagree.

Well, I'm looking at the words Bytheway wrote and I am not finding anything that could be reasonably construed as "prejudiced against or antagonistic toward a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized."

The unadorned, because-I-say-so accusation of racism against Bytheway from an anonymous and overtly hostile critic of my faith is not very persuasive to me.  No explanation.  No analysis.  No evidence.  Just a barebones accusation.  Weighing your unsubstantiated accusation of "racism" against the actual text of what Bytheway wrote, yes, I disagree.

54 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Until that’s worked out I doubt you will find any common ground with Duncan or TTribe on this one.

Right now I'm not looking for common ground.  I'm looking for substantiation of the claim that the Church is presently propagating "racist" teachings.

JK, Duncan, Ttribe, and now you are all apparently persuaded that this is happening.  Fine.  Show me.  CFR.  Where are these ongoing "racits" teachings?  Where is the Church doing this?

54 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Was glad to see that the church gave zero space to spurious reasoning like this in their essay. 

What's "spurious" about saying "I don't know"?

From FAIR:

Quote

Myth #3: The best example to explain blacks not having the priesthood comes from the Levites. The Levites were able to hold the priesthood, while others were not. This shows how God restricts people of certain lineages from receiving the priesthood just like he did with blacks.

While it may be true that Levites could hold the priesthood while others could not, it has little to do with this issue. The ancient practice where only one group is able to exercise the priesthood and work in the temple has little in common with modern times when everyone is able to hold the priesthood except for one group. Repeating this claim as an explanation doesn’t provide adequate support for the argument, and the claim completely falls apart when we recognize that Joseph Smith, Parley P. Pratt, William Smith, and Orson Hyde all ordained blacks to the priesthood in the 1830s and 1840s. The explanation is not helpful and can be hurtful.

So why couldn’t blacks have the priesthood? Gordon B. Hinckley stated, “I don’t know what the reason was. But I know that we’ve rectified whatever may have appeared to be wrong at the time.”(Source: http://www.abc.net.au/compass/intervs/hinckley.htm)

Men are slow to change in their beliefs. Even in the New Testament, Peter had to be lifted beyond his prejudice to sit and eat with the Gentiles. I hope we all take the time to familiarize ourselves with this topic and not perpetuate the hurtful and harmful myths that have been repeated for so long.

See also Paul Reeve's comments here and here, which I find pretty persuasive.

So Bytheway's implication here (that the Priesthood Ban was in some way analogous to the Levites holding the priesthood anciently) is, I think, not well-thought-out and factually and analytically off.  But "racist"?  Again, I'm just not seeing it.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 11, 2022 by smac97

[SeekingUnderstanding]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Church is presently propagating "racist" teachings.

JK, Duncan, Ttribe, and now you are all apparently persuaded that this is happening.  Fine.  Show me.  CFR. 

See the link at the start of the thread containing a general officer of the church propagating racist teachings. 

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Duncan said:

he would say so! I think he's delusional but he gets it from somewhere

and yet here we are and the Church saying nothing. Very telling. I hope they get rid of Brad and it sends a message that overcoming racism is more important than what Brad and others are saying. otherwise the Church is talking out of the side of it's mouth

that the non General officer member of the Church says racist things in Church that you claim to hear on occasion

 

and your attempt to minimize racism isn't going well either

 

show me this in relation to Brad Wilcox

 

yeah, he didn't say a word about the nonsense about African-Americans, does that mean he agrees with it? Why didn't he say anything against it? 

 

as long as people such as yourself, Brad Wilcox, et al lack self awareness and pretend it doesn't exist this problem of racism will continue and the church is it's own worst enemy.

 

first of all it isn't correct, the Book of Mormon ends in 400 or so, Moroni held the Priesthood didn't he?  If you don't see racism there then I can't help you. Talk to "the Hornes" to see if they would agree with you about the correctness of their viewpoints. As long as people like you say that racism is bad or as bad then it will continue to exist and it's hard to believe these statements from the presiding brethren when a chance is given them to actually correct someone that they picked (aren't these people vetted at all?) the do nothing , actions speak louder than words. I hope they release Brad and like Randy Bott we never hear of him again and that his supporters actually repent and become a disciple of Christ like Pres. Hinckley wanted.

So . . . no citations or references to any instances of the Church currently propagating racist teachings. 

"I can't help you."  Well, you aren't obligated to help me.  But you'll understand why people like me tend to be fairly skeptical of broad, unsubstantiated generalizations from people like you.

Thanks,

-Smac

[SeekingUnderstanding]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

What's "spurious" about saying "I don't know"?

And this is what makes communication with you impossible. The spurious explanation is the false equivalence between levitic priesthood and the modern church priesthood ban. The church abandoned this in their essay. 
 

No where did I say “I don’t know” was spurious.
 

Have a great day. 

[HappyJackWagon]

31 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Well, here's your opportunity to show me up.  Again:

Well?

I was referring to explanations about the Priesthood Ban, some of which apparently continued into my lifetime.

You are pointing to "racist teachings within the church."  Okay.  Please point them out.  Chapter and verse.

Take a look at what I said here:

I really meant this.

I am not.  Again:

JK is referencing, but not citing to or quoting, ongoing "teachings" in the Church that are "racist."  Duncan is referencing these things.  You are now referencing these things.

None of you, however, are actually citing to or quoting these "teachings."

Randy Bott.  Got it.  Ten years ago.  Responded to by the Church.  "Race and the Priesthood" essay came out subsequently.  Substantial condemnation of racism since then at General Conference.  This is not responsive to my request for ongoing teachings in the Church about racism that conflict with or contradict the sentiments expressed in the "Race and the Priesthood" essay, Pres. Hinckley's remarks, Pres. Nelson's remarks, and so on.

Wildly, flagrantly false.  Patently untrue.  Please re-read my posts.

Again: 

What I am asking for is this:

Well?

Physician, heal thyself.

Thanks,

-Smac

Again- I don't believe that you are unaware of racist teachings. You may want to call them something else (like an explanation or justification) or maybe even say they aren't racist but when church leaders teach about blacks being denied the priesthood because they weren't valiant in the premortal life etc, then there is racism being taught in church.

I'm sure it's a mistake to engage you on this farce but for the ease of having a few of the quotes in one easy place you can review the link below.

Mormon quotes on blacks (mormonthink.com)

Quote

 

& this is an interesting article about the church's history with regards to racism. The History of Racism and White Supremacy in the Mormon Church - The Atlantic

Edited February 11, 2022 by HappyJackWagon

[ttribe]

15 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Right now I'm not looking for common ground.  I'm looking for substantiation of the claim that the Church is presently propagating "racist" teachings.

JK, Duncan, Ttribe, and now you are all apparently persuaded that this is happening.  Fine.  Show me.  CFR.  Where are these ongoing "racits" teachings?  Where is the Church doing this?

One of three things is happening: 1) you can't read what I and others have said; 2) you won't read what I and others have said; or 3), you are outright lying.  I have not said that the "Church is presently propagating 'racist' teachings." In fact, I specifically stated that the Church is NO LONGER doing such a thing.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

17 minutes ago, smac97 said:

anonymous and profoundly hostile critic

It is so nice to know that you are above thread personalization 

[HappyJackWagon]

16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

So . . . no citations or references to any instances of the Church currently propagating racist teachings. 

"I can't help you."  Well, you aren't obligated to help me.  But you'll understand why people like me tend to be fairly skeptical of broad, unsubstantiated generalizations from people like you.

Thanks,

-Smac

OK- so you only want current racist teachings. I feel a little better that you are at least aware of past racist teachings. Like you said, the church's essay has been out since 2013 so we're almost to 10 years of denouncing the racism. That's good. But that's only 9 years.  In any case, I agree with you that the church is actively trying to be better than it had previously been on issues of race. But with Wilcox it seems clear there is still a lot of room for improvement. Decades of racist teachings don't disappear because an essay is published by the church.

Has that essay ever been addressed in conference, or is the church still expecting people to find it on their own?

[Duncan]

25 minutes ago, smac97 said:

So . . . no citations or references to any instances of the Church currently propagating racist teachings. 

"I can't help you."  Well, you aren't obligated to help me.  But you'll understand why people like me tend to be fairly skeptical of broad, unsubstantiated generalizations from people like you.

Thanks,

-Smac

I don't own some of those books but I was thinking about his blog though and I already gave one of his blog posts

[smac97]

21 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quote

anonymous and profoundly hostile critic

It is so nice to know that you are above thread personalization 

Well, let's take a look at the context of what I was saying (which context you snipped away) :

Quote

Well, I'm looking at the words Bytheway wrote and I am not finding anything that could be reasonably construed as "prejudiced against or antagonistic toward a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized."

The unadorned, because-I-say-so accusation of racism against Bytheway from an anonymous and overtly hostile critic of my faith is not very persuasive to me.  No explanation.  No analysis.  No evidence.  Just a barebones accusation.  Weighing your unsubstantiated accusation of "racism" against the actual text of what Bytheway wrote, yes, I disagree.

As an attorney, the credibility of a witness matters.  You positioned yourself as a "witness" of sorts because you were opining about the motives of John Bytheyway.  In other words, you injected you and your perspective on the Church into the discussion.  I was explaining why I found that perspective lacking, including that it devoid of explanation or analysis, devoid of citation to any evidence, and is instead only probative insofar as it reflects your perspective on the Church.  And your perspective on the Church is uniformly and implacably hostile, is it not?

If I made a barebones assertion in defense of the Church, and if I expected others to find it credibly simply because of my say-so, then my bias - my affection and respect for the Church - would be fair game.  I made it so.

So it was, I thought, with your barebones "problematic and racist" accusation against Bytheway.  

That said, I gave offense.  I apologize.

Thanks,

-Smac

[SeekingUnderstanding]

15 minutes ago, smac97 said:

That said, I gave offense.  I apologize.

No offense. Just noting the blatant hypocrisy.

https://www.google.com/search?q=smac97+personalizing+thread+site:www.mormondialogue.org&client=safari&hl=en-us&prmd=sinxv&sxsrf=APq-WBuwm2NFfhUvGX1UzDdkhUZHKkm0Gw:1644613987908&filter=0&biw=428&bih=827&dpr=3

Edited February 11, 2022 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

So you are claiming that this is official LDS Church doctrine?   "...time for the church to tell the truth of what it truly believes. That Cain killed Abel and cursed him with dark skin."  CFR, Tacenda.  It is certainly not official Church doctrine.  You keep mentioning "they," but it is unclear who "they" is.  Are you referring to the Brethren generally, or to some specific person?  Bear in mind that in 1978 Elder McConkie told us all to forget whatever he and Brigham had said on the matter because they spoke without light and knowledge.  He and Brigham had spoken for the racist wing of the LDS Church, and had been strongly opposed by Orson Pratt, David O. McKay, and others.  Spencer Kimball and others obviously did not buy that nonsense.  So who is "they"?

Why did the church, whomever, let Wilcox/Bytheway continue with the same talk analogy then?

About the CFR, I was talking about past teachings. Not current. I could pull up links but about to go into a buffet with the in laws in Vegas.

[smac97]

37 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Again- I don't believe that you are unaware of racist teachings.

Again, I have never claimed to be "unaware of racist teachings."  I have, instead, explicitly acknowledged their existence.

37 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

You may want to call them something else (like an explanation or justification)

Nope.  I'm happy with "teachings."  That works as well.

37 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

or maybe even say they aren't racist

That would be difficult, since I have explicitly acknowledged that past teachings were racist.

37 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

but when church leaders teach about blacks being denied the priesthood because they weren't valiant in the premortal life etc, then there is racism being taught in church.

Fine.  Point out where this is happening.  You are apparently using the present tense ("when church leaders teach ... then there is racism being taught in the church").

So the Church disavowed the above and other racist teachings/explanations/justifications in the 2013 "Race and the Priesthood" essay, right?  And yet here you are saying that now, in 2022, the Church is still teaching "about blacks being denied the priesthood because they weren't valiant in the premortal life etc"?  Okay.  Show me where this is happening.  CFR, please.

There seems to be a lot of effort to paint the Church as presently propagating racist teachings, but my repeated requests for documentation of that are not being addressed.

37 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I'm sure it's a mistake to engage you on this farce but for the ease of having a few of the quotes in one easy place you can review the link below.

Mormon quotes on blacks (mormonthink.com)

Quotes from Brigham Young, John Taylor, Orson Hyde, George F. Richards (d. 1950), Joseph Fielding Smith (d. 1972), LeGrand Richards (d. 1983), Bruce R. McConkie (repudiated by him well before his death in 1985), Mark E. Peterson (d. 1984), N. Eldon Tanner (d. 1982), and other quotes (all apparently many decades old).

 This, in your view, is responsive to my request as follows:

Quote

The "Race and the Priesthood" essay has been posted on the Church's website since, I believe, late 2013.  JK referenced "the teachings that create the 'image' in the first place," and "the teachings will persist," and "it all seems perfectly acceptable to teach those things."  All of of this is present and future tense.

Again: "I have spent my entire life in the Church.  I have encountered a few instances of members saying insensitive or even plainly inappropriate things pertaining to race.  But "teachings" would seem to be something that we could point to.  In the manuals, in General Conference talks, on the Church's website, etc."

So . . . CFR.  Where are these "teachings"?
...
That's not to say that there are no problems with racism in the Church.  There are, and we still have plenty of room to improve and mature even more than we already have.  My point, though, is that our critics will never, ever grant that "we already have" improved.  My sense is that our critics demand for racism and hatred in the Church far exceeds the actual supply of such noxious things.

I could be wrong of course.  Hence my CFR.  Where are the ongoing "teachings" that are contemporary with, and conflicting and contradictory to, the "Race and the Priesthood" essay, Pres. Hinckley's counsel, Pres. Nelson's counsel, etc.?

Please explain how citations to racist teachings from the 19th century, which the Church publicly and categorically and unequivocally disavowed in 2013, is responsive to my request for "ongoing 'teachings' that are contemporary with, and conflicting and contradictory to, the 'Race and the Priesthood' essay, Pres. Hinckley's counsel, Pres. Nelson's counsel, etc."

This is a sincere request, and one I have presented several times now.

37 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

& this is an interesting article about the church's history with regards to racism. The History of Racisnd White Supremacy in the Mormon Church - The Atlantic

Where in this article is there evidence of the Church propagating "ongoing 'teachings' that are contemporary with, and conflicting and contradictory to, the 'Race and the Priesthood' essay, Pres. Hinckley's counsel, Pres. Nelson's counsel, etc."?

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

55 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

See the link at the start of the thread containing a general officer of the church propagating racist teachings. 

You are referencing Bro. Wilcox's comments, correct?

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

10 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quote

That said, I gave offense.  I apologize.

No offense. Just noting the blatant hypocrisy.

Well, the apology stands.  And the point about hypocrisy is well-taken.

Thanks,

-Smac

[CV75]

Happy Black History Month, everyone!

[Calm]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I'm looking at the words Bytheway wrote and I am not finding anything that could be reasonably construed as "prejudiced against or antagonistic toward a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized."

It is a justification of a behaviour that is seen as racist, thereby diminishing the experiences of those who were affected by that racism…in essence telling them and those who recognize the difference that the pain of blacks not receiving the same blessings joyously given to others was unnecessary pain because they were just looking at the experience the wrong way.  If only they were more mature or insightful about the whole thing.  In Wilcox’s case, he is pretty much saying any black who is upset at being treated differently in the past just wasn’t patient and long suffering enough, as if the Priesthood was a birthday cake and they were short a plate that was quickly brought in a bit later for the last kid to have.  Blacks are treated in his example as being too self centered and not looking at the big picture.  The Levite justification is a category error, equating the experience of being one of many deprived of a blessing with the experience of being the only one deprived of a blessing.   Not the same thing at all.  Again, it makes any black who protests the deprivation of Priesthood and Temple blessings as wrong as being self centered and ignoring God’s Plan for everyone. If only they were wise enough and looked at others’ experiences rather than be so focused on their own, they could see it was all good and nothing to be upset about.
 

The two justifications disregard all the baggage that went along with the deprivation, it disregards the experience of seeing others receive magnificent blessings that have been at the core of our faith, the ability to connect with God on another level through sharing in God’s Priesthood and participating in ordinances that connected us into being part of God’s eternal family at the most personal levels.  It is telling blacks their personal experiences don’t really matter.  It is being impatient, it is wanting something God wasn’t willing to give them.  They are in the wrong for thinking it was unfair because others had been deprived just like them in the past…only they weren’t. It wasn’t the same thing.  How many talks and lessons would black members have to sit through over more than a century that celebrated the presence of Priesthood and the Temple in the families of all members…except for them? Sure, others have to experience deprivations in their lives, but this was an institutional one imposed by the Church on only some of its members, not based on behaviour or the type of person they were or any choices they made, but a skin color that by the time the ban was removed we had learned was pretty meaningless given how genetics and ancestry actually worked.

Edited February 11, 2022 by Calm

[Duncan]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Well, I'm looking at the words Bytheway wrote and I am not finding anything that could be reasonably construed as "prejudiced against or antagonistic toward a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized."

the priesthood was not given to everyone but it wasn't because of race. It was only given to caucasians in 1829, thereby creating  a group of people who didn't receive it until 1978-strictly based on race. That's the problem. In other words caucasians could get the priesthood from 1829 to 1978 (based on race and worthiness) but african americans or anyone with "one drop" of african blood (even though all blood is the same) couldn't get it simply based on the colour of their skin. 

[juliann]

https://zelophehadsdaughters.com/2022/02/10/even-more-correlated-cards-for-valentines-day/

[Calm]

If someone wrote the below in a response to ‘explain’ the persecution of the Church by the federal government back in the day, would you see it as not prejudicial or antagonistic towards the Church?

“Why didn’t anyone have the right to freedom of religion before modern times?  How fair is that? No one had the chance to choose to practice any faith they wanted?  For millennia?  Here’s another question.  Why did only the state religions get support from the monarchies or cities or tribes during earlier times?”

(I am not equating the Priesthood Ban to the persecution of the Saints for religion, I am merely focusing on whether a justification partakes of the prejudice of what it is attempting to justify)

Edited February 11, 2022 by Calm

[Robert F. Smith]

59 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Why did the church, whomever, let Wilcox/Bytheway continue with the same talk analogy then?

Again, who are "they" who are controlling these guys?  If at all.

59 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

About the CFR, I was talking about past teachings. Not current. I could pull up links but about to go into a buffet with the in laws in Vegas.

Again, these are now and always have been false rumors.  They are not in the Bible, and they make no sense when discussing them in context.  For example, the curse upon Cain is never described in the Bible as black skin.  Moreover, even if that invented notion were true, it could not have survived the Flood of Noah, in which only one family survived:  The family of Noah.  So once again we come up against nonsense beliefs and rumors with no basis.

Did Brother Brigham believe such ridiculous nonsense?  Did Elder McConkie purvey those lies in his Mormon Doctrine?  Whatever the case, Elder McConkie told BYU students and staff in 1978 to forget everything he and Brigham had said on the matter, because they spoke "without light and knowledge."  That was a direct admission that it was false doctrine.

 

[rongo]

3 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Moreover, even if that invented notion were true, it could not have survived the Flood of Noah, in which only one family survived:  The family of Noah.  So once again we come up against nonsense beliefs and rumors with no basis.

Egyptus? Ham's wife? Book of Abraham?

The Brethren of the 19th century weren't morons. They knew (and believed) in the flood, and they knew that the curse of Cain had to have a way to continue after it. 

[Calm]

7 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

in which only one family survived: 

What about the belief that one of the son’s wives carried the Curse (thoughI prefer Cain hanging off the side of the Ark myself 😛 )?  Or are you saying that has to be inserted into the text?

[smac97]

17 minutes ago, Duncan said:

Quote

Well, I'm looking at the words Bytheway wrote and I am not finding anything that could be reasonably construed as "prejudiced against or antagonistic toward a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized."

the priesthood was not given to everyone but it wasn't because of race.  

I don't understand what you are saying here.  Are you quoting someone?  Are you responding to what Bytheway wrote?

17 minutes ago, Duncan said:

It was only given to caucasians in 1829,

That's not so.  The Priesthood Ban pertained to those of Black African ancestry.  That's not the same as "only given to caucasians."

AFAIK, there has never been a "Whites Only" restriction on the priesthood.

17 minutes ago, Duncan said:

thereby creating  a group of people who didn't receive it until 1978-strictly based on race. That's the problem.

I understand that.  And I further understand and respect the pain and acrimony that can arise from this, particularly given A) the absence of any revelatory provenance for the ban, B) the ordination of Elijah Abel and others during Joseph Smith's day, and C) the apparent racist origins of the ban.

But what does this have to do with the quote from John Bytheyway?  Here is what he said:

Quote

Why don't women hold priesthood keys?  I don't know.  It's not my call.  But it is a legitimate question, a fair question, and worthy of discussion.  So often in life, we get stuck asking questions, but not all the right ones.  This is not the only question to ask.  There are a lot more.

Why didn't anyone have the priesthood from about AD 100 until 1829 (except for John the Beloved and the Three Nephites, I suppose?)  How fair is that?  No one had the chance to be baptized?  No one had the opportunity to receive the comforting gift of the Holy Ghost?  No one had a chance to go to the temple?  For seventeen centuries?  Here's another question: Why did only the tribe of Levi have the priesthood during earlier times?  Were the tribes of Asher or Dan or Naphtali out demanding they have it too?  And here's another one - why don't women need the priesthood in order to attend the temple?  President James E. Faust taught: "In His infinite wisdom, the Lord requires worthy brethren to wear the mantle of the priesthood in order to enter the temple, but He permits the sisters to enter solely by virtue of their personal worthiness."

That is the quote I was referencing.  He doesn't seem to be speaking about the priesthood in the context of race, but rather in the context of gender.

17 minutes ago, Duncan said:

In other words caucasians could get the priesthood from 1829 to 1978 (based on race and worthiness)

Again, that's not correct.  Plenty of non-caucasians held the priesthood prior to 1978.  That doesn't make the Ban any less problematic, but your statement is factually incorrect.

17 minutes ago, Duncan said:

but african americans or anyone with "one drop" of african blood (even though all blood is the same) couldn't get it simply based on the colour of their skin. 

Right.  But again: I'm looking at the words Bytheway wrote and I am not finding anything that could be reasonably construed as "prejudiced against or antagonistic toward a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized."

You apparently disagree, such that you do see racism in Bytheway's statement.  So where is it?

Thanks,

-Smac