Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Women leaders ordered off the stand


JAHS

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, BRMC said:

Sure, because they are typically well cited and BYU speeches are direct sources.  The first website I went to that was previously linked was some dudes blob that cited some other dudes blog that had dead links for every citation OR linked to a 300 page book with no linked citations.   
 

The offer given was pretty straightforward, I thought.  Apparently it was harder than he thought.  

A lot of links at FAIR are unfortunately broken because BYU has the poor habit of frequently updating their scholarly papers sections without tying in the older links.  The Church website sometimes has the same problem too.  FAIR appreciates people reporting broken links and generally gets them fixed pretty quickly if they understand the issue (people need to be precise on what is broken and where they want it to go if possible).  We are all volunteers and we are not only trying to maintain what has been put up, but update with new information when it becomes available…this last can be very time consuming.

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
4 hours ago, BRMC said:

Why is it so difficult for you to just do what you said you could?

He did originally use a FAIR reference which provided the sources requested for past statements claiming the ban originated from Joseph Smith.

https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/75654-women-leaders-ordered-off-the-stand/?do=findComment&comment=1210169496

1949 and 1969 First Presidency statements…

Quote

The attitude of the Church with reference to Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the priesthood at the present time.

Quote

From the beginning of this dispensation, Joseph Smith and all succeeding presidents of the Church have taught that Negroes, while spirit children of a common Father, and the progeny of our earthly parents Adam and Eve, were not yet to receive the priesthood, for reasons which we believe are known to God, but which He has not made fully known to man. 
 

 

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
2 hours ago, BRMC said:

that cited some other dudes blog that had dead links for every citation

This is the scholarly paper the blog about the impact of Lester Bush was based on (author making it more accessible by blogging about it, it appears)

https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1013&context=arrington_stwriting

Not allowing me to copy/paste, so screenshot of beginning of discussion on Lester Bush on page 4:

image.thumb.png.a582775a42933396791c82d8f54cb663.png

 

page 5

image.thumb.png.6269d89594f8d60a4ffeaf294ee4028c.png

footnote on page 5

image.thumb.png.ff33c01e73d5a60ed2f966f9ed0abe37.png

Link to comment
13 hours ago, webbles said:

I've always read that as saying that the doctrine of the church has always been founded on direct commandment from the Lord.  Not that the priesthood restriction has been around since the beginning.

Given it was issued in reference to questions about the ban, in a time period where the ban was believed to be revelation, as well as the entire context of the letters, I believe the more likely interpretation is it was meant to establish the ban was a revelation given at the beginning of the Church (but not like the week of its organization, just in the years of the establishment of the Church).  I think our desire to harmonize positions over time does push the interpretation to the ‘doctrine has always been founded on direct commandment’, but even that at least establishes the Ban was perceived as revealed given it was part of the doctrine of the Church at that time (1949).

I may try to find some more contemporary reactions to the statement to see how they interpreted it, but if so, it will be later.

The 1969 statement, also at that link, is more precise about Joseph being the originator of blacks not receiving the priesthood yet:

Quote

From the beginning of this dispensation, Joseph Smith and all succeeding presidents of the Church have taught that Negroes, while spirit children of a common Father, and the progeny of our earthly parents Adam and Eve, were not yet to receive the priesthood, for reasons which we believe are known to God, but which He has not made fully known to man. 

 

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
13 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Do you accept that it was Lester Bush’s work that started to turn the tide - leading people to the correct knowledge that Brigham started the ban??

I think it was one of many influences on the removal of the ban.  If Edward Kimball is correct, it might have played a key role, if late though…

Added: if you are solely focused on the question of where the ban originated (and don’t mean turned the tide on removing the ban), whether it was Joseph or Brigham, I have to do more digging for that, though it is clear imo the concept the ban was not supported by scripture was around long before the article.

Quote

Most General Authorities tried to avoid public discussion of the topic.32 Hugh B. Brown, counselor to President McKay from 1961 to 1970, appears to have been the leader most open to change. He urged that the priesthood restriction could be dropped as a matter of Church administrative policy without requiring a specific revelation. He reasoned that if the restriction had not come by revelation,33 it could be vacated without revelation. But despite his strongly held views and powerful influence, President Brown’s position did not then prevail.34

President McKay sometimes said in private conversations that the restriction on priesthood was not a doctrine but was a policy and subject to change.35 Although one might assume that this “policy rather than doctrine” distinction would make change easy, President McKay himself apparently meant only that the rule or practice was not established by direct revelation. He did not mean that change could come by the simple administrative decision of Church leaders. He maintained the position that the long-established policy was inspired and that change would require divine intervention.36 President McKay desired and sought such revelation, but he did not receive it. He told Elder Marion D. Hanks that “he had pleaded and pleaded with the Lord but had not had the answer he sought.”37 Leonard Arrington reported a statement by Elder Adam S. Bennion in 1954 that President McKay had prayed for change “without result and finally concluded the time was not yet ripe.”38

Kimball in 1963:

Quote

The conferring of priesthood, and declining to give the priesthood is not a matter of my choice nor of President McKay’s. It is the Lord’s program. . . . When the Lord is ready to relax the restriction, it will come whether there is pressure or not. This is my faith. Until then, I shall try to fight on. . . . I have always prided myself on being about as unprejudiced as to race as any man. I think my work with the minorities would prove that, but I am so completely convinced that the prophets know what they are doing and the Lord knows what he is doing, that I am willing to rest it there.59

As well as in 1975:

Quote

When in 1975 President Kimball announced the construction of a temple in São Paulo, Brazil, there was concern about how to determine who, in such a racially mixed country, would be eligible to enter the completed temple. He later said that at the time he “was not thinking in terms of making an adjustment.” He thought, rather, that the Church would simply have to inquire even more carefully into the racial background of members seeking recommends.103

See sections Implementation of Policy, Prospects for Change, and Changing Perceptions of Policy in the Church.

Pres. Kimball had obviously been thinking about the issue for a long time , though little is apparently known about those musings as he would respond to questions with the traditional answers.  

Quote

Spencer maintained a notebook full of correspondence and clippings about blacks and priesthood. The range and extent of the notebook’s content show that the matter concerned him greatly. But the latest item is dated about 1975, well before the 1978 revelation. Perhaps his accelerating presidential schedule did not allow him to maintain the notebook, or perhaps he turned more to internal seeking….

When Howard returned to report a successful conclusion to the lawsuit [1976], Spencer confided “his concern for giving the priesthood to all men and said that he had been praying about it for fifteen years without an answer, . . . but I am going to keep praying about it.”104


The lack of scriptural support was explored decades earlier (see footnote 109):

Quote

According to Leonard Arrington, as early as 1954 a committee of the Twelve concluded that denial of priesthood was not soundly based on scripture. Arrington, Adventures of a Church Historian, 183.

Quote

In May 1975, President Kimball referred to his counselors various statements by early Church leaders about blacks and the priesthood and asked for their reactions.113 Wary of ways in which the question had been divisive during the McKay administration, he asked the Apostles to join him as colleagues in extended study and supplication.114 Francis M. Gibbons, secretary to the First Presidency, observed special focus on the issue in the year before the revelation.115 Ten years after the revelation, Dallin H. Oaks, president of BYU in 1978, recalled this time of inquiry: “[President Kimball] asked me what I thought were the reasons. He talked to dozens of people, maybe hundreds of people . . . about why, why do we have this.”116

From the section on Seeking Revelation, a number of examples are documented.
 

In March 1978:

Quote

On March 23, Spencer reported to his counselors that he had spent much of the night in reflection and his impression then was to lift the restriction on blacks. His counselors said they were prepared to sustain him if that were his decision. They went on to discuss the impact of such a change in policy on the members and decided there was no need for prompt action; they would discuss it again with the Twelve before a final decision.136

Francis Gibbons, secretary to the First Presidency, had the impression that President Kimball had already come to know God’s will and was now struggling with how to resolve the matter in a way that the entire leadership would stand behind.137

Whether or not this was the first encounter with Bush’s article cannot be determined given the extent to which Pres. Kimball was studying the issue over the years, but if it was the first, it may have sped up Pres. Kimball’s presenting the change to the apostles, but otherwise I don’t see it having much other effect on him given he appears to have already received the inspiration that he had sought on the matter.  That does not speak in any way though to the effect of Bush’s article on those who had an impact on Pres. Kimball over the preceding years.

Quote

On May 25, Mark E. Petersen called President Kimball’s attention to an article that proposed the priesthood policy had begun with Brigham Young, not Joseph Smith, and he suggested that the President might wish to consider this factor.148

On May 30, Spencer read his counselors a tentative statement in longhand removing racial restrictions on priesthood and said he had a “good, warm feeling” about it.149 They reviewed past statements and decided to ask G. Homer Durham, a Seventy supervising the Historical Department, to research the matter further.150 They also concluded to alter the pattern of their next Thursday morning meeting with the Twelve by canceling the traditional luncheon in the temple and asking the council members to continue their fasting.151

Source:  https://byustudies.byu.edu/article/spencer-w-kimball-and-the-revelation-on-priesthood/

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
Quote

Steven Taggart, Mormonism’s Negro Policy: Social and Historical Origins (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1970). This book grew out of an article for Dialogue that Taggart shelved in favor of the book, published by his family after his untimely death in 1969. The First Presidency discussed the Taggart article draft September 10, 1969. Bush, “History of My Research,” 12–14; and Bush, “Writing ‘Mormonism’s Negro Doctrine,’” 238–40; both quote from and cite President McKay’s diaries. President Brown firmly believed this “Missouri hypothesis.” Edwin B. Firmage, “Hugh B. Brown in His Final Years,” Sunstone 11 (November 1987): 7–8.

Footnote 55, above link

Footnote 33, same

Quote

33. There has never been any suggestion that the restriction was based on an unpublished revelation. Bush, “History of My Research,” 26; Bush, “Writing ‘Mormonism’s Negro Doctrine,’” 245.

If leaders were aware in the mid1950s there was no real scriptural support (or at least some accepted that from their study) and there was no folklore or speculation about an unpublished revelation, the origin had to be either Joseph or Brigham (I am assuming the position would have been seen as inspired by most apostles at that time, even without a scripture or revelation basis, iow full on revealed as in impressions of words from the Spirit, etc).  

I need to check what Lowry Nelson (apparently nothing, he saw it as policy as far as I can tell and was first aware it was seen as doctrine in 1947****) and Mauss said about that***, if anything, if there was any discussion in the early 20th century to 70s it came from Brigham rather than he just first publicly articulated doctrine he had been taught by Joseph.  I also want to see what Taggart says about the consensus on the source, if there was one back then among scholars, though he saw it himself as Joseph, I am guessing.

***putting here so I don’t lose track of these

Armand L. Mauss, “Mormonism and the Negro: Faith, Folklore, and Civil Rights,” Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought 2 (winter 1967): 36 (hereafter cited as Dialogue); Armand L. Mauss, “Mormonism and Secular Attitudes toward Negroes,” Pacific Sociological Review 9 (1966)

added:  I believe Mauss sees the source as Joseph..

https://scholarlypublishingcollective.org/uip/dial/article/2/4/18/245119

image.thumb.png.4853180ff9861ae9c8141c4dacf39e3f.png
****first letter from Nelson https://archive.org/details/LowryNelson1stPresidencyExchange/page/n1/mode/2up?view=theater

I find it interesting that a highly educated member who lived in Utah was not aware of the believed doctrinal position of the ban, just the fence sitter justification; it seems the ban was not discussed much across the pulpit in those days, at least not the believed scriptural justifications.

Next on my agenda is to check Reeve’s book and then Stevenson’s.  I can’t remember what they have to say on the matter of belief on the origin post the discussion on the changing of Joseph F Smith’s position about Elijah Able.

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
12 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

approach the throne of God ourselves?

Or the equivalent of our community (pray, go to the temple, study it out, etc) that gets us connecting with God for revelation

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
On 11/25/2023 at 5:37 PM, BRMC said:

No, but there has been definitive statements from our Priesthood Leaders.

Is that like all the definitive statements Priesthood Leaders made about the priesthood ban?  You know-all the ones McConkie told us just to forget about?

On 11/25/2023 at 5:37 PM, BRMC said:

 

 

 People have lost their membership for pushing this issue because it goes against "the laws and order of the Church".  

Sort of like opposing the statement below right?  This one by the LDS First Presidency?  Is this also included in what McConkie told us to just forget about?

Quote

 

First Presidency Statement (17 August 1949)1

The attitude of the Church with reference to the Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the Priesthood at the present time. The prophets of the Lord have made several statements as to the operation of the principle. President Brigham Young said: “Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a skin of blackness? It comes in consequence of their fathers rejecting the power of the holy priesthood, and the law of God. They will go down to death. And when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the holy priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will then come up and possess the priesthood, and receive all the blessings which we now are entitled to.”

President Wilford Woodruff made the following statement: “The day will come when all that race will be redeemed and possess all the blessings which we now have.”

The position of the Church regarding the Negro may be understood when another doctrine of the Church is kept in mind, namely, that the conduct of spirits in the premortal existence has some determining effect upon the conditions and circumstances under which these spirits take on mortality and that while the details of this principle have not been made known, the mortality is a privilege that is given to those who maintain their first estate; and that the worth of the privilege is so great that spirits are willing to come to earth and take on bodies no matter what the handicap may be as to the kind of bodies they are to secure; and that among the handicaps, failure of the right to enjoy in mortality the blessings of the priesthood is a handicap which spirits are willing to assume in order that they might come to earth. Under this principle there is no injustice whatsoever involved in this deprivation as to the holding of the priesthood by the Negroes.

 

 

Link to comment
4 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Adopt Merkabah mysticism, go into an ecstatic trance, and approach the throne of God ourselves?

I know nothing about Merkabah mysticism, but Paul seemed to think we already are the temple of God, and the Spirit of God already dwells within us, one possible implication being that to "approach the throne of God" is to undertake a journey without distance. 

Edited by manol
Link to comment
On 11/25/2023 at 6:20 PM, Buckeye said:

As one example of how the change is happening, I stopped attending endowment sessions for a couple years because I couldn’t get comfortable with the obligation for wives to obey their husbands. I continued to keep my recommend and attended youth baptisms in the course of my calling. At times there were questions from friends and church leaders regarding why I didn’t attend the endowment. I lovingly explained why not. Then out of the blue (to me at least) came a change to the endowment to remove to obedience obligation. I’ve attended ever since.

Many years ago when I had a Temple recommend, I sat up and took notice of how many things in the Temple are explicitly associated with Priesthood:  There's a garment, a robe, signs, tokens, ordinances, and then just before passing through the Veil a claim or affirmation is made which has to do with Priesthood. 

I think most of us would agree that it would be totally out of place for a man who is not a priesthood holder to wear the garment, and the robe, and participate fully in every aspect of the Endowment Ceremony including those explicitly associated with Priesthood, and finally to stand at the veil and speak those words.  

How then is it not totally out of place that fully HALF the full-on participants - the women! - are not priesthood holders??

One possible explanation is this:  The women participating fully in all Priesthood-specific aspects of the Endowment ceremony are not out of place because they are ALREADY Priestesses!   And for whatever reason this has not yet been overtly taught. 

I have a theory of when the sisters became Priestesses, and I think @mfbukowski also has a theory of when it happened. 

Edited by manol
Link to comment
54 minutes ago, manol said:

Many years ago when I had a Temple recommend, I sat up and took notice of how many things in the Temple are explicitly associated with Priesthood:  There's a garment, a robe, signs, tokens, ordinances, and then just before passing through the Veil a claim or affirmation is made which has to do with Priesthood. 

I think most of us would agree that it would be totally out of place for a man who is not a priesthood holder to wear the garment, and the robe, and participate fully in every aspect of the Endowment Ceremony including those explicitly associated with Priesthood, and finally to stand at the veil and speak those words.  

How then is it not totally out of place that fully HALF the full-on participants - the women! - are not priesthood holders??

One possible explanation is this:  The women participating fully in all Priesthood-specific aspects of the Endowment ceremony are not out of place because they are ALREADY Priestesses!   And for whatever reason this has not yet been overtly taught. 

I have a theory of when the sisters became Priestesses, and I think @mfbukowski also has a theory of when it happened. 

The doctrine, which hasn’t been explicitly taught for that many years, is that all endowed women have access to the power of priesthood without being ordained.

Link to comment
3 hours ago, manol said:

I know nothing about Merkabah mysticism, but Paul seemed to think we already are the temple of God, and the Spirit of God already dwells within us, one possible implication being that to "approach the throne of God" is to undertake a journey without distance. 

Paul probably was a Merkabah mystic. The being caught up to the third heaven think that he really didn’t want to talk about but felt he had to share to prove his legitimacy over the other “apostles”.

Link to comment
3 hours ago, manol said:

I have a theory of when the sisters became Priestesses, and I think @mfbukowski also has a theory of when it happened. 

Hmmm. ...

When?

Not sure about when, but it is now quite clear, in the opening of the temple endowment presentation, in the most recent description of the presentation, (as of this date ;)where it mentions the ordinances "performed previously" if you listen carefully, it makes it clear (to me) that men have to do MORE to become "fully clean" than women.

One used to, as a man and woman, have to go to perform the "ordinances performed previously", (initiatories) then go to the celestial room with each other and discuss the differences between the ordinances for men vs the ordinances for women. 

The separation is done  due to modesty issues, AND also show that WOMEN PERFORM PRIESTHOOD ORDINANCES as men also do, under the authority of the Temple President's "setting apart" which is arguably a de facto "ordination" for this purpose.

It used to be VERY unlikely that the man and woman couple would even catch the differences unless both the man and woman were temple workers who had memorized the words of the ordinances, and compare them word for word.

It has to do with being "pronounced clean"

The fact that this difference used to be virtually invisible, to its present state of being plastered across the screen, is relevant to the issue, imo, @manol raised

There are things in some men, I believe,  as "natural men" not (usually) found in "natural women";  from which men must repent and be made clean, which are plainly extremely rare in women.

Just watch the nightly news if you disagree.

I am speaking of sexual violence.

I have never even heard of a genuine case of it in which a woman was a perpetrator, unless agreed upon previously ;)

Imo, this is a big part of "the blood and sins of this ( every) generation", a major flaw and TEST for EVERY generation's men who experience the desire.

I can't think of anything else that can empirically be shown in the category of "sin" which would generically separate the spiritual " cleanliness " of men vs women that imply that men are generically less naturally spiritually "clean" than women.

 

Edited by mfbukowski
Link to comment
1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

I am speaking of sexual violence.

I have never even heard of a genuine case of it in which a woman was a perpetrator, unless agreed upon previously ;)

Ummm…..did you ever look? There is plenty of it.

It is comparatively rare but is also underreported.

Warning: This video is depressing. Not graphic or obscene. Just depressing.

 

Link to comment
51 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Ummm…..did you ever look? There is plenty of it.

It is comparatively rare but is also underreported.

Warning: This video is depressing. Not graphic or obscene. Just depressing.

 

Idiocy to think this supports your argument.

Was he raped and killed? Do women do that to men - repeatedly? 

Do you actually need a list of serial killers who pursue this behavior of rape and murder against women which will compare with women pursuing a similar drive against men?

Does anyone dare to say that a list of women perpetrating this crime by women against men, resulting in murder, would show, and allege that such a list proves men and women "equal in every way" including depravity, with men?

And that the male victims enjoyed it while dying in pain? Your video of a boy finding "rape" enjoyable in comparison is simply...., simply unspeakable.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I can't think of anything else that can empirically be shown in the category of "sin" which would generically separate the spiritual " cleanliness " of men vs women that imply that men are generically less naturally spiritually "clean" than women.

But there is also ritual purity which may be less about nature and more about symbolic language

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Buckeye said:

It’s a damning doctrine to suggest women are less fallen than men - damning in that it places on men a guilt by birth and damning on women in that it places them on a pedestal. For much of Christianity’s history we falsely believed women were more fallen due to Eve’s actions. Thankfully the restoration has begun to cure that ignorance. Let’s not counter it with an equally-false notion that men are more fallen. 

Evidence please showing women to be as "depraved" as, say, Ted Bundy.   And showing that AS MANY women as men act out this behavior.

Good luck, I hope you can prove me wrong.

Link to comment
7 minutes ago, Calm said:

But there is also ritual purity which may be less about nature and more about symbolic language

Sorry, not following you. Very interested in your point, though, as always.

Link to comment
53 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Idiocy to think this supports your argument.

Was he raped and killed? Do women do that to men - repeatedly? 

Do you actually need a list of serial killers who pursue this behavior of rape and murder against women which will compare with women pursuing a similar drive against men?

Does anyone dare to say that a list of women perpetrating this crime by women against men, resulting in murder, would show, and allege that such a list proves men and women "equal in every way" including depravity, with men?

And that the male victims enjoyed it while dying in pain? Your video of a boy finding "rape" enjoyable in comparison is simply...., simply unspeakable.

You watched that video and think it was about him enjoying being raped? 😳

And fun fact*: It is still sexual violence even if you don’t kill the victim.

I did not say they were “equal in every way”.

I was mostly responding to this insanity:

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I am speaking of sexual violence.

I have never even heard of a genuine case of it in which a woman was a perpetrator, unless agreed upon previously ;)

“Equal in every way” and “never even heard of a genuine case” is not a binary choice.

 

*Fact may not be fun at all.

Link to comment
47 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Sorry, not following you. Very interested in your point, though, as always.

Ritual purity may be symbolic of being sinless such as after baptism or just prepared to be presented before divinity, such as happens in the endowment or priests being in the Jewish temple.

To say differences in ritual reflected the moral natural state of an individual is assuming too much, imo

Baptism is the same ritual for all and yet obviously some who undergo it have few sins to be washed clean by Christ, if only because of their youth and others’ spiritual clothing may be black as night, but we don’t equate their state of their sinfulness as equal because the ritual is identical

Nor should we assume one is less spiritually pure or prepared because there is more ritual preparation involved for them to go through.

This was a mistake made by some with rituals linked with women’s biological cycles…because they were seen as ritually unclean/impure at these times, some translated that as meaning inherently sinful and to be shunned

https://torahsisters.com/niddah-sending-wife-town-week-not/

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
54 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Evidence please showing women to be as "depraved" as, say, Ted Bundy.   And showing that AS MANY women as men act out this behavior.

Good luck, I hope you can prove me wrong.

Darya Nikolayevna Saltykova 

Elizabeth Bathory

Vera Renczi

Theresa Knorr

Katherine Knight

Angela Simpson

Michelle Knotek

And I won’t Google this to get the names but there are women who were involved or in charge of the creation of child torture porn, snuff films, and other vile garbage.

And I consider your demand that the numbers be equal to those of men to be moving the goal posts.

Link to comment
38 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

"Equal in every way” and “never even heard of a genuine case” is not a binary choice.

Where did I say that???

Wow.

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...