Brad Wilcox fireside to Alpine youth on Feb 6.

[2BizE]

On 2/15/2022 at 2:39 PM, amo said:

Could you please take the time to explain "HOW" Bro. Wilcox has degraded and offended "women, girls, black people, people of other religions, people who have left the church, etc...."?

 

Thank you.

I think Jana Riess does a really good job of expressing the same concerns I have…

https://religionnews.com/2022/02/16/mormon-leaders-apology-for-racist-remarks-does-not-go-far-enough/

[Calm]

11 hours ago, JustAnAustralian said:

It's not a theory I think is correct but I'm pretty sure I've read that other people have put it forward.

TheSaintsUnscripted videosummary …with the new material Reeves believes it is clear that it was race mixing that triggered the ban, not a revelation. William Appleby went back to Lowe and discovered that Walker Lewis’ son had married a white woman and they had a child. He wrote a distressed letter to BY and told him it was the most disgusting thing he had ever seen. At the time the marriage was legal in Mass even though illegal in most states.  Appleby then returned and reported to BY in Winter Quarters about his trip and gave him a personal report for 4 hrs, 13 lines survive…all about racemixing. BY was also dealing with McClary iirc who set up his own cult that involved racemixing again. When Brigham Young spoke to the Legislature it was about race mixing. Blacks were the descendants of Cain, Cain killed Abel, therefore no descendant of Cain could get the Priesthood before the descendants of Abel…why not, because then there would be race mixing which would destroy the Church as it would destroy humanity if globally allowed.  No revelation was claimed, just knowledge.

No sign of a revelation and since prophets were still wondering how the ban was supposed to work and holding meetings about it much later, the ban itself wasn’t really solidified until Joseph F Smith had a false memory that Joseph had vested ordination and from then in that was the narrative that embedded the ban into our culture so firmly a revelation was required to get it out, which Pres Kimball purposely went out preparing it to happen. Which it did and so unlike the struggling to figure out what was going on at the beginning, you have a very clear, cut revelation that all knew what it meant. 

Edited February 18, 2022 by Calm

[CV75]

11 hours ago, kimpearson said:

For those of us traumatized by the Church, Brad Wilcox is a puppet of the Church.   Brad was taught these things in Church.  Brad was rewarded for teaching these things by being called to the YM's presidency because that call was supposedly made by divine revelation by prophets, seers and revelators.  Those prophets, seers and revelators will never admit that the spirit told them nothing about Brad's beliefs.  Active fully believing members will blame Brad because they would never concede that the men at top made a mistake.  I will also likely hear from fully believing members that Brad was allowed to be called by God to teach a lesson which would be very weird for a God who would abhor such teachings.  For many of us Brad is just a proof of one of several problems with our top Church leaders.  Problems that many of us see as not being that hard to solve.

Just a few thoughts, given my general concern for your trauma and its impacts.

As far as the men at the top making a mistake in calling Brother Wilcox, that God would not inspire this call: God knows and loves each of His children:

All of us are imperfect, and in this condition, God called every one of us into the Church, some by birth and some by conversion. He keeps every one of us in the Church despite our imperfection, and gives us callings at every level. Any lack of revelation in issuing callings is offset by a clear revelation somewhere along the line to call the caller… with God knowing, and by virtue of His atonement, taking responsibility for the potential impacts of leaders’ fallibility and agency, including the potential trauma resulting from agency. The Atonement of Jesus Christ is the price He paid for our suffering through this probationary estate, and He will restore every traumatized person. We are all in this Church together, just as we are all in this world together.

Is this a problem to be solved, and fairly straightforward to solve?

[bluebell]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

TheSaintsUnscripted videosummary …with the new material Reeves believes it is clear that it was race mixing that triggered the ban, not a revelation. William Appleby went back to Lowe and discovered that Walker Lewis’ son had married a white woman and they had a child. He wrote a distressed letter to BY and told him it was the most disgusting thing he had ever seen. At the time the marriage was legal in Mass.  Appleby then reported to BY and gave him a personal report for 4 hrs, 13 lines survive…all about racemixing. He is also dealing with Mclary iirc who set up his own cult that involved racemixing again. When Brigham Young spoke to the Legislature it was about race mixing. Blacks were the descendants of Cain, Cain killed Abel, therefore no descendant of Cain could get the Priesthood before the descendants of Abel…why not, because then there would be race mixing which would destroy the Church as it would destroy humanity if globally allowed.  No revelation was claimed, just knowledge.

No sign of a revelation and since prophets were still wondering how the ban was supposed to work and holding meetings about it much later, the ban itself wasn’t really solidified until Joseph F Smith had a false memory that Joseph had vested ordination and from then in that was the narrative that embedded the ban into our culture so firmly a revelation was required to get it out, which Pres Kimball purposely went out preparing it to happen. Which it did and so unlike the struggling to figure out what was going on at the beginning, you have a very clear, cut revelation that all knew what it meant. 

Can you share more information about the false memory?

[Tacenda]

8 hours ago, let’s roll said:

Amén and amén.

I guess this could be amen and amen to show that humans aren't perfect. It's just the harm done in the mean time.

[rongo]

14 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Can you share more information about the false memory?

Yeah, this is sounding like a lot of breathless "Reeve thinks this, and Reeve wrote that in his book that will hopefully come out soon." He has his strong opinion and his interpretation of the record, to be sure, but I think people come away from the sources with different ideas on it. In other words, it isn't clear-cut, and it looks to me like Paul Reeve is becoming/has already become a milepost in arguing from authority (simply because Reeve says so). 

There had better be really good evidence for a claim that Joseph F. Smith based his continued support for the ban on a "false memory."  

I'm **really** glad the Brethren took the hard edges off of what was submitted for the gospel topics essay. 

[CV75]

12 hours ago, kimpearson said:

I have a hard time understanding your comparison.  Which active members of the Church are asking for an official explanation of why they should serve missions, in callings, serve in the community, keep the Word of Wisdom and the Law of Chastity, pay tithing and so on.  I don't know of anyone asking the Church for further clarification because no one really knows the reason for these doctrines.  The only issues I see are questions about how the Church enforces and interprets those policies.  Examples, are people influenced to serve missions when they really shouldn't for various reasons.  Are bishops overworked and do callings take to much time away from ones personal life?  Does breaking the word of wisdom make one a terrible person not able to go to the Celestial kingdom.  Is breaking the law of chastity really a sin next to death?  Why does the Church need more tithing.  Many just don't believe the explanation the Church has given.  Not the same type of issue at all as far as the Church explaining doctrine.  Doctrine is explained in your examples.  Doctrines of the past with little to no explanation like Brad addressed are very different.

I think his point is that racism is not a policy like his other examples, but it was and is part of the culture within which the Church was restored and still functions (and not only in the USA). As such, it might be reflected in the attitudes and beliefs of some Church members and in the teachings and policies of leaders from 1830 onward. While our leadership has been calling, and culling, it out, we can count on imperfect people continuing to err. But Zion will eventually eradicate all false notions.

What do you hold to be features of an acceptable explanation for the ban and related, disavowed teachings? I usually look for a justification, a reasonable degree of "why regress" and self-evidence (in a good way), but you may be expecting something else.

[bluebell]

45 minutes ago, rongo said:

Yeah, this is sounding like a lot of breathless "Reeve thinks this, and Reeve wrote that in his book that will hopefully come out soon." He has his strong opinion and his interpretation of the record, to be sure, but I think people come away from the sources with different ideas on it. In other words, it isn't clear-cut, and it looks to me like Paul Reeve is becoming/has already become a milepost in arguing from authority (simply because Reeve says so). 

There had better be really good evidence for a claim that Joseph F. Smith based his continued support for the ban on a "false memory."  

I'm **really** glad the Brethren took the hard edges off of what was submitted for the gospel topics essay. 

Where can we learn more about what was submitted?

[Tacenda]

I thought this was interesting...pulling an ex-Mormon and Jim Bennett into the conversation about Brad Wilcox. Jim just wants the church leaders to specify once and for all what the church believes...either it was all false that the blacks were cursed for a time, or made up BS. 

 

Edited February 18, 2022 by Tacenda

[BlueDreams]

11 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

“the priesthood ban was God's will and God's timing.” Led me to believe he was saying the ban was God’s will. 
 

Are you saying the ban itself was a mistake, but we needed a revelation from God on the timing to undo a mistake? Not trying to put words in your mouth, just curious. 

For the record I lean closer to that, but i would describe my view on what god was doing with the start of the ban as not completely solid. I vacillate between God allowing us to make mistakes and work through our errors and juxtaposing a recent answer i received on something else that’s basically summarized as sometimes it’s okay to be wrong in order to get something important right in the short terms. A funny example of this from the NDE research book I’m loving, there’s stories of people who saw a higher being of some sort. Some named or assumed Jesus and/or HF. But many didn’t. One included a man who assumed he met Gandalf. Other did really see a being but more experienced it. Yet the feeling and experience most had within this being’s presence was very similar (love, peace, oneness). In my worldview, God met them in the way they were ready to comprehend him…even if that was likely not accurate.
 

The only reason I can’t cross off the last idea fully is because I wasn’t in this context at the time. Oddly, reading things like the 1619 project book and other earlier histories makes me realize just how messed up and volatile this era was when it comes to race. My entire life experience has no equivalent to the beliefs and practices then that were used to maintain a rigid racial caste system that tainted every aspect of life and school of thought in the us…from religion to humanitarian work, to industry/economics, to understanding alex to social interactions/etiquette, to science. It was baked into the system insomuch that we as still grappling to remove the residue of it from us and our society. I think it’s a little quaint to say the church was behind society. It was behind legal decisions that had , society was still dealing with its inherent racism and willingness to compromise other people’s rights for social stability and welfare. We (as in American society) are still grappling to come to terms with what this meant and just how intrinsic it was in our system. There’s still a fluffy denialism that freaks out about feeling guilt or discomfort around this. It leads to weird practices like weddings at plantations…you know where people were held against their will, tortured, dehumanized, and exploited to build and maintain said structure. Those were effectively headquarters for operating forced labor camps. 
either way, all of this is based on receiving a personal answer to “why” the ban when i deep dived and began changing my understanding of scripture away from the most common explanations of passages that have been racialized I’d received. However you cut it, it was racism that drove the ban. I just don’t feel apt to fully judge a position I barely understand the position they were in. In and from a racist society…a society that they had at best a precarious standing in and were often seen as another problem to the social order that needed to be rectified. They’d learned painfully that the US versions of fixing a problem often was violent and destructive. And the early info is clearer now but still scant. I don’t feel i have the capacity to fully judge the decisions that led to this. As you’ve probably guessed at this point, I’m also not a fan of simplified narratives so I veer away from absolute conclusions.

i lean to the ban being lifted in the time that God gave approval. I tie this to the account of McKay. Also with how I generally see the purposes of the church…namely one of communal growth toward zion. The ban lifting was an indication to me that the people in the church had moved far enough in a form of change and desire for the change that we could move forward to a new chapter. In short it’s a form of communal repentance/covenant that the people were ready to move forward more fully. 
 

with luv, 

BD 

Edited February 18, 2022 by BlueDreams

[rongo]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Where can we learn more about what was submitted?

I would like more details on that, too. Reeve said that his original submission was "about 55 pages long with footnotes." After "several layers of approval process . . . the Church History Department . . . boiled down that longer essay to what got posted online so I had no say over what got posted online, what eventually appeared as Race and the Priesthood, but it was a condensed version of the longer piece that I produced for them."

https://faenrandir.github.io/a_careful_examination/reeve-poor-justifications-for-black-priesthood-ban/

I haven't read his book(s), but I have heard from those who have that he argues adamantly for the Church repudiating it in full. 

[bluebell]

Just now, rongo said:

I would like more details on that, too. Reeve said that his original submission was "about 55 pages long with footnotes." After "several layers of approval process . . . the Church History Department . . . boiled down that longer essay to what got posted online so I had no say over what got posted online, what eventually appeared as Race and the Priesthood, but it was a condensed version of the longer piece that I produced for them."

https://faenrandir.github.io/a_careful_examination/reeve-poor-justifications-for-black-priesthood-ban/

I haven't read his book(s), but I have heard from those who have that he argues adamantly for the Church repudiating it in full. 

Oh, ok. That leaves me wondering how do you know that the hard edges got removed from the submission?  

[rongo]

Just now, bluebell said:

Oh, ok. That leaves me wondering how do you know that the hard edges got removed from the submission?  

Because the published essay doesn't call for a complete repudiation of it --- it leaves room for people like me (and many of the Brethren, apparently) to continue to believe the ban's inception and timing were God's will. It quite conspicuously does that, while only "disavowing" certain explanations for it. That was edited into Paul Reeve's version (based on what he's written, from what I can see). 

[bluebell]

40 minutes ago, rongo said:

Because the published essay doesn't call for a complete repudiation of it --- it leaves room for people like me (and many of the Brethren, apparently) to continue to believe the ban's inception and timing were God's will. It quite conspicuously does that, while only "disavowing" certain explanations for it. That was edited into Paul Reeve's version (based on what he's written, from what I can see). 

So you don’t actually know if a complete repudiation was included in the complete report and had to be removed?

It seemed like you were making a statement of fact when you said that you were glad the Brethren took the hard edges off what was submitted.   

[ttribe]

58 minutes ago, rongo said:

Because the published essay doesn't call for a complete repudiation of it --- it leaves room for people like me (and many of the Brethren, apparently) to continue to believe the ban's inception and timing were God's will. It quite conspicuously does that, while only "disavowing" certain explanations for it. That was edited into Paul Reeve's version (based on what he's written, from what I can see). 

What is the value in continuing to believe that "the ban's inception and timing were God's will?"

[Kenngo1969]

9 hours ago, Calm said:

She kind of went ballistic, but expects the apostles to be asking her forgiveness sometime in the near future…the few surviving ones at least.

Did she call down fire and brimstone on 'em?  

[Tacenda]

27 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Did she call down fire and brimstone on 'em?  

She probably has a voodoo doll.

Edited February 18, 2022 by Tacenda

[Calm]

3 hours ago, rongo said:

There had better be really good evidence for a claim that Joseph F. Smith based his continued support for the ban on a "false memory."

I need to doublecheck, but I believe this is Reeve’s explanation for the change in Joseph F. Smith’s position described below.  His book is boxed up as I am consolidating my library into one room, so not sure I will be able to get to it.  Haven’t finished watching part 1 so likely in there and I will post that once I get around to finishing.

http://www.blacklatterdaysaints.org/history

1879

Quote

Abraham Smoot and Zebedee Coltrin Claim Joseph Smith Instituted the Priesthood Ban
Smoot, who owned two slaves, and Coltrin claim that Joseph Smith instituted the ban in the 1830s and dropped Abel from the priesthood. (L. John Nuttal diary, May 31, 1879, p. 170, Special Collections, BYU). Coltrin is working from an old memory and makes several factual errors. Joseph F. Smith provides the two certificates indicating Abel’s status as a Seventy, which contradict Coltrin’s claims, as does Abel’s patriarchal blessing, which is read aloud at the meeting. Joseph F. Smith says he thinks Brother Coltrin’s memory is incorrect. One interesting note that may be relevant if accurate: Both Coltrin and Smoot claim to have asked Joseph Smith what to do with the “Negroes in the Southern States.” “[The Prophet] said I could baptize them by the consent of their masters, but not to confer the priesthood upon them.” (Above sources as quoted in Neither White nor Black, Bush and Mauss, Signature Books, pg. 60.)

1895

Quote

Joseph F. Smith Claims Abel was Ordained Under Direction of Joseph Smith
The Quorum of the Twelve discuss the black issue again. Joseph F. Smith is a strong advocate that Joseph meant for blacks to received the priesthood. In contrast, George Q. Cannon asserts that Joseph Smith instituted the ban, but says it is second-hand information he heard from John Taylor.

1908

Quote

Joseph F. Smith Changes His Position Relative to Blacks
Joseph F. Smith abandons his former position on Elijah Abel’s status and now claims that Joseph Smith declared Abel’s ordination “null and void.” (Council Minutes, 26 August, as quoted in Neither White nor Black, Signature Books, pg. 140) Historians today don’t understand this reversal, as Smith had Abel’s ordination certificates which supported his earlier (strongly held) position and don’t support his new views.

 

Edited February 18, 2022 by Calm

[Calm]

56 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Did she call down fire and brimstone on 'em?  

Been too long since I listen/watched her reaction.  I am pretty sure it was discussed here and will try and find the thread.

Added, thankfully google pulled it up fast.

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/71899-julie-rowe-rumor/?do=findComment&comment=1209908215

Quote

At 35:30, she essentially labels herself as the Lord's Anointed and talks about an individual's death due to speaking against her...though she won't pinpoint who it is (this covers her if her SP doesn't die soon enough) she has had visions about all the evilspeakers up to seventies and maybe apostles and their dooms.

She talks about premortal memories along with the visions that inform her about these men...which would suggest she has a different view of agency, that they were destined to condemn her...or she could just be throwing stuff out there without really trying to make it logical.  She goes on to accuse the people at her council of having porn or mental illness problems because she can see it.

She claims a "huge percentage" of the Seventies and 12 will apostasize...(me adding my impression of what she is saying:  'if they haven't already by having her excommunicated').  And two apostles will come to her in Idaho (she is then living up there) to ask her for forgiveness on the behalf of the Church.

BYUIdaho becomes the new church headquarters.

There is more info in the thread…

There is a derailment or two that goes on for a bit, if you want to skip that, the discussion on Rowe restarts here:

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/71899-julie-rowe-rumor/?do=findComment&comment=1209911490

 

Edited February 18, 2022 by Calm

[Tacenda]

Has anyone read the tiny book, "Mormonism and the Negro"? I have that book in a box somewhere that I inherited from my parents. What does it say about the ban? 

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, ttribe said:

What is the value in continuing to believe that "the ban's inception and timing were God's will?"

I think the value is that you don’t have to figure out the whole issue of racist prophets keeping people from blessings against God’s will but still being prophets.

[mtomm]

52 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Has anyone read the tiny book, "Mormonism and the Negro"? I have that book in a box somewhere that I inherited from my parents. What does it say about the ban? 

Oh, man, my dad had the book and I never took the chance to read or ever ask him about it. I wish I taken that opportunity.   He carried a copy of Mormon Doctrine with his scriptures to church every week. My dad was a liberal member of the Church and liked to push boundaries (in a very muted sort of way.) I really wish I would have attended his lessons in the High Priest class. Would love to know his thoughts now. Too bad we don't figure that out until it is too late. 

[rongo]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

So you don’t actually know if a complete repudiation was included in the complete report and had to be removed?

It seemed like you were making a statement of fact when you said that you were glad the Brethren took the hard edges off what was submitted.   

I don't have a "smoking gun" statement from Reeve I can point to, no. But you yourself have commented more than once over time that the essay leaves room for both interpretations, and that you wish there were more clarity and finality in it. Based on what you know about what Reeve has written about this, what do you think his original 55 page draft said vs. what was published? Do you think the room the published essay leaves to believe in the ban was (and continues to be) his original thought on the matter? I don't at all. Only Reeve himself can really comment on what was changed, removed, added, or altered in his 55 page draft (the Church isn't going to comment on it).

 

 

[MrShorty]

2 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

Also with how I generally see the purposes of the church…namely one of communal growth toward zion. The ban lifting was an indication to me that the people in the church had moved far enough in a form of change and desire for the change that we could move forward to a new chapter. In short it’s a form of communal repentance/covenant that the people were ready to move forward more fully. 

This makes a lot of sense to me -- especially as it applies to the historical issue of race and priesthood. The challenge for me with this conclusion is that it suggests the possibility that we might still be harboring blind spots or have other things where we need communal repentance (maybe the other issues from Wilcox's talk like women and priesthood and gender roles or like LGBT issues). I have observed elsewhere that the Church with its gerontocracy and its requirements of "unity" when making changes at the top seems very much inclined towards "conservatism" -- or assume communal repentance (change) is not needed until moved upon by a strong outside force/revelation. And the revelation may not come until after the change/repentance, but will we be able to recognize what needs to change before the revelation can come?

In the end, I'm not sure how to incorporate this idea into my working model of prophets and scripture and revelation.

[Calm]

58 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Has anyone read the tiny book, "Mormonism and the Negro"? I have that book in a box somewhere that I inherited from my parents. What does it say about the ban? 

Have it in a box waiting to be donated to FAIR for auctioning as part of my effort to downsize my library.  I may go dig it out for you if you are really interested. It has been eons since I read it.  It was not a pleasant experience.