Recent Poll Re: Assessment of Priesthood Ban

[CV75]

6 hours ago, Calm said:

Short term yes, I can’t imagine how hurt and possibly pissed off Mary and Joseph were by his staying in temple without letting them know. 

You should get a load of the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, which has gotten some attention in the news lately.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infancy_Gospel_of_Thomas

[The Nehor]

6 hours ago, Calm said:

Short term yes, I can’t imagine how hurt and possibly pissed off Mary and Joseph were by his staying in temple without letting them know. 

Also how many of those moneychangers did he hit?

Also all the people begging him to leave town because his presence was an irritant.

[CV75]

6 hours ago, Calm said:

Without resistance or argument?  Maybe among the leaders and much of the membership, but I have heard of plenty of anecdotes among members of resistance and such and there is still plenty of outright racism in the Church that is at times justified by the ban.

How do you expect me to remember what I wrote almost 2 months ago?  I've posted far more interesting things since!

I would still say there is less resistance or argument rooted in outdated notions within their respective ethoses (i.e., the ban in ours and slavery/segregation/pre-civil rights in the broader USA), on both "outright' (anecdotally, not sure what that means so I'll add systemic) and systemic fronts such as economics and politics and Church welfare/self-reliance and policy.

I don't recall any notable resistance and argument, or any at all, in the pews and parking lots (to be analogous to the streets), then or today. That is the context of my post.

[smac97]

13 minutes ago, Teancum said:

All great evidence that these stories, or more likely myths, and the people involved had no better insight to what god wants then anyone else. 

You speak of the value of prophetic counsel as arising from their own native intellect/wisdom.  That is not the way I perceive and appreciate their value.  Although I think Joseph Smith was an intelligent fellow, his value in my life is about the light and knowledge which the Lord revealed to and through him.  Joseph was also a "special witness of Jesus Christ."  It is in these capacities that I think he - and his successors - have "better insight to what god wants then anyone else."

13 minutes ago, Teancum said:

An appeal to the bible does not persuade me.

That's okay.  I was not looking to persuade you, but to explain my perspective.  You can take it or leave it at your discretion.

13 minutes ago, Teancum said:

The bible is just writings of people thousands of years ago trying to make sense of the world.  They made a god in their image not visa versa.

Unless they did, in fact, experience the theophanies and revelations described in scripture.  If so, the scriptures become quite important.

13 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Quote

We are all of us sinners.  We all need grace and forgiveness.  Mormon 9:31 all the way, baby!

Ok. So?  You and I do not claim to know the mind and will of God. 

I claim to know some portion of "the mind and will of God."

13 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Quote

Yes.  Infallible leaders, on the other hand, is not part of our doctrine.

I never have argued infallibility nor am I now.

There is almost always a "but" which follows those who deny having tacit expectations of prophetic infallibiltiy.

13 minutes ago, Teancum said:

But

And there it is!

13 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I do expect men who claim to be led by direct revelation to get the major things correct,

I generally agree.  I think we disagree on the timeline.

13 minutes ago, Teancum said:

or to fix errors that creep in.

I think the 1978 revelation did that.

13 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I was always taught this is why with the restoration there would not be another apostasy.

"Not be another apostasy" ≠ "No prophet will ever many any substantial mistake."

13 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Quote

Is that what the revelation in 1978 did?

After more than 100 years of a mistake, yes this corrected the ban.

I wonder if any Hebrews, 100 years into their bondage in Egypt, lost faith because they felt that because God had not delivered them by then.

Alas, our expectations of what should happen when often do not align with the Lord's plans and timing.

"For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts."  (Isaiah 55:9.)

From Elder Bednar:

Quote

I do not know why some people learn the lessons of eternity through trial and suffering—while others learn similar lessons through rescue and healing. I do not know all of the reasons, all of the purposes, and I do not know everything about the Lord’s timing. With Nephi, you and I can say that we “do not know the meaning of all things” (1 Nephi 11:17).

This is, I think, one of the main reasons there are so many scriptures about patience, longsuffering, endurance, meekness, humility, and so on.  "In your patience possess ye your souls."  (Luke 21:19.)

13 minutes ago, Teancum said:

One could argue that the church was in a state of some apostasy as a result.

Yes, one could argue that.  I'm not sure "apostasy" is an all-or-nothing thing.  

Then again, perhaps the delay was part of the Lord's plan.  I have sometimes wondered how much what to give to  this account regarding Pres. McKay:

Quote

But the most remarkable account came from Richard Jackson, an architect who served in the Church Building Department from 1968 to McKay's death in 1970:

Quote

I remember one day that President McKay came into the office.  We could see that he was very much distressed.  He said, "I've had it!  I'm not going to do it again!"  Somebody said, "What?" He said, "Well, I'm badgered constantly about giving the priesthood to the Negro.  I've inquired of the Lord repeatedly.  The last time I did it was late last night.  I was told, with no discussion, not to bring the subject up with the Lord again; that the time will come, but it will not be my time, and to leave the subject alone."

For me, it is quite possible that the ban was conceived and instituted in error by Brigham Young, yet the divinely revealed correction of it was delayed to suit, as Elder Bednar put it, "the Lord's timing."

Again, The Book of Mormon and other foundational events of the Restoration, and my spiritual experiences with these things, are what keep me in the Church.

13 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Quote

Most of the time, their counsel is to reiterate and emphasize previously-revealed principles. 

And who decided this parameter?

Quote

We sustain them as they guide the Church according to scriptures and continuing revelation.

And who decided this parameter?

The Lord, I suppose.

"For he will give unto the faithful line upon line, precept upon precept; and I will try you and prove you herewith."  (D&C 98:12.)

13 minutes ago, Teancum said:

In the 20th and 21st century can you let me know four or five items pf "prophetic council" that was given that could not be found in the normal course of any religious system?

All the counsel about reading The Book of Mormon, and seeking revelation confirming it, and living according to its precepts, and extrapolating out from its truthfulness and divinity.

All the counsel about receiving ordinances, joining the Church, and participating in temple worship and ordinances.

All the counsel about missionary work to preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ as restored through Joseph Smith.

And so on.

13 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Quote

But reasonable minds can disagree about such things.

Well obviously we disagree on this topic.

Isn't that kind an important point?  We needn't take a "Either you agree with me or you're dishonest/stupid/duped"-style of vituperative response to each other.

I returned from my mission in 1995, and ever since then have made studying the Restored Gospel a significant priority in my life.  I have spent the last 29 or so years reading what the Church and its scholars/apologists have said about controversies and difficulties pertaining to the claims of the Church.  I have also spent most of that time reading what critics of my faith have to say about such things, and also interacting with many of them in an adversarial setting (message boards).  The claims of the Church, and critiques and criticisms of those claims, are examined, and re-examined.  I have actively involved myself in many of these examinations.

I feel like I am a lot more informed than I was in 1995, and a lot more clear-eyed in my perception of and perspective on the Church and its claims.  But more to the point, examining the Church's claims in an adversarial setting has helped me feel vindicated in my assessment of the Restored Gospel.  I have long believed that the Church's claims are substantively true, but I have spent the last 25 years testing and debating those claims in an adversarial setting.  I have been humbled a lot.  I have had to correct and re-assess some of what I believe and why.  But in the main, I am very happy with the cumulative results of these efforts.  Through revelation, through day-to-day experiences, through prolonged study and examination (including reviewing critical assessments/arguments), I have come to find that the Church's claims are reasonable, resilient, eminently defensible, and substantively true.

I am quite okay with people not agreeing with me.  I do not denigrate their intellect or character, as their disagreement could arise  in any number of ways and for any number of reasons.  I therefore find it encouraging and healthy to advance the foregoing proposal, that reasonable minds can disagree about such things, including important things.  Allowing and accommodating for diversity of viewpoints will help us all get along better, and will hopefully help us in our individual and collective efforts to discern and embrace truth.

13 minutes ago, Teancum said:

For me the Book of Mormon and the other foundational events of Mormonism rest on the claim of prophetic guidance which INO, the LDS church leaders don't have high marks or a good track record on.

See my comments above about the Cadaver Synod.  For myself, I decline to reduce the entirety of a historical person's life down to only his errors, mistakes and worst qualities, and then declare "And that's all they were."

Thomas Jefferson and George Washington were much more than slaveowners. 

Martin Luther King, Jr. was much more than an adulterer and plagiarist. 

Gandhi was much more than a sexist and racist.

And Joseph Smith and Brigham Young were much more than just their respective errors and lapses.

YMMV.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

44 minutes ago, CV75 said:

don't recall any notable resistance and argument, or any at all, in the pews and parking lots (to be analogous to the streets), then or today.

It depends a great deal on where you lived back then from what I have read.  It surprises me at times now when I run into outdated ideas or outright prejudice, so it is everywhere even if quite sparse in some areas and more common in others imo, it’s just sometimes much better hidden.  Kids have exposed it for me a few times by repeating what relatives say without realizing the implication. And I would never have expected it.  My guess is the adults are quite aware enough not to share it at church themselves.

[CV75]

37 minutes ago, Calm said:

It depends a great deal on where you lived back then from what I have read.  It surprises me at times now when I run into outdated ideas or outright prejudice, so it is everywhere even if quite sparse in some areas and more common in others imo, it’s just sometimes much better hidden.  Kids have exposed it for me a few times by repeating what relatives say without realizing the implication. And I would never have expected it.  My guess is the adults are quite aware enough not to share it at church themselves.

Yes, I was surprised when our son on his mission around 2008 shared some racist views from an elder or two from Utah. Not about Blacks (the ban) but Hispanics (the Lamanite curse). I was surprised "this day in age"... It takes many, many generations to weed out that sort of thing* since it takes just one bad seed to perpetuate it.

* generational trauma (often race-based), addressed in at least two fairly recent Liahona articles (links below) and from the example above, its counterpart, generational traumatizing (my term):

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/liahona/2024/04/digital-only-young-adults/3-things-ive-learned-about-the-healing-power-of-family-history?lang=eng

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/liahona/2023/01/digital-only-young-adults/recognizing-and-healing-from-generational-trauma?lang=eng

 

 

[ttribe]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

It depends a great deal on where you lived back then from what I have read.  It surprises me at times now when I run into outdated ideas or outright prejudice, so it is everywhere even if quite sparse in some areas and more common in others imo, it’s just sometimes much better hidden.  Kids have exposed it for me a few times by repeating what relatives say without realizing the implication. And I would never have expected it.  My guess is the adults are quite aware enough not to share it at church themselves.

Yep, serving my mission in TN and KY in 91-93, I encountered more than a couple of these folks.

If someone REALLY wants to find the current racist underbelly hiding in the Church, one only need to spend some time on Twitter/X to find a frighteningly militant bunch of active (purportedly) LDS members with serious racial biases.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, ttribe said:

Yep, serving my mission in TN and KY in 91-93, I encountered more than a couple of these folks.

If someone REALLY wants to find the current racist underbelly hiding in the Church, one only need to spend some time on Twitter/X to find a frighteningly militant bunch of active (purportedly) LDS members with serious racial biases.

Yeah, they are just better at hiding it when in public but it pops out occasionally.

[ttribe]

16 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Yeah, they are just better at hiding it when in public but it pops out occasionally.

The people in this bunch are outright posting swastikas and dropping the N-word. They've been emboldened since...ohhhh...about 2016.

[Doctor Steuss]

[Deleted... likely flirting with making Nemesis have a rough day]

Edited June 14 by Doctor Steuss

[sunstoned]

1 hour ago, ttribe said:

The people in this bunch are outright posting swastikas and dropping the N-word. They've been emboldened since...ohhhh...about 2016.

I believe they became emboldened when Trump and the alt-right came to power.

[Teancum]

21 hours ago, smac97 said:

You speak of the value of prophetic counsel as arising from their own native intellect/wisdom. 

Well yes. Since I do not believe that there is a god that speaks to selective humans only in a way that would cause them to be a prophet in the way I think most of us understand the word.  If there is a god I believe that entity is more aligned with the god of deism or even the god of Spinoza.  I used to believe as you do though.  And once again, I must emphasize, I never did expect infallibility.  But it seems to me they got some things very very wrong that I would think a prophet, in the way I understand a prophet, would have fixed.  For the ban, yes 1978 it was fixed. But it seems irrational to me to think that 120 years of an major error would not be fixed sooner. I guess I cannot get past that.  There are a few other major misses as well IMO but those are not the topic of this thread.

But I do have a question and I have brough this up to you in the past. 

Polygamy was not cultural norm in the 1840s. Also there were many bakes in views about black people in 19th century Americans. Some argue this is why perhap god allowed the ban to continue for so long, that the people were not ready. But for plural marriage, well allegedly Joseph was reluctant but God threatened him with an angel that had a flaming sword so rather than be cut off he instituted plural marriage. So why would a god by so concerned about men taking additional wives during a time when such thing was abhorrent that he forced the issue, but at the same time allow the ban, that you say was an error, to continue for more than 100 years?  And then the claimed revelation only came as the church was seemingly almost forced into it due to civil rights issues and church growth where there were many of African descent.  God could have forced the issue just like God allegedly did for plural marriage.

 

 

21 hours ago, smac97 said:

 

 

That is not the way I perceive and appreciate their value.  Although I think Joseph Smith was an intelligent fellow, his value in my life is about the light and knowledge which the Lord revealed to and through him.  Joseph was also a "special witness of Jesus Christ."  It is in these capacities that I think he - and his successors - have "better insight to what god wants then anyone else."

Yes I understand. 

21 hours ago, smac97 said:

 

 

Unless they did, in fact, experience the theophanies and revelations described in scripture.  If so, the scriptures become quite important.

For me, I have to examine the character and things the self proclaimed prophet exhibits. The only ones I can do this for is the LDS prophets and after years of believing and defending them I could no longer. For ancient prophets I cannot perform the same examination.  For the Biblical prophets and apostles the study takes a different approach and that approach is not the topic of this discussion. But essentially I think the Bible fails miserably.  There is no way to prove or disprove theophanies and revelations. As you know it has to be taken on faith and these days I am suspect of anything that requires my obedience, devotion, time and money and also to conform a lifestyle to a few select people that God tells something  to and then that person tells us. My take it that if there is a god that wants to communicate a message to its creations the methodology of using the so called prophets of theistic religions is a sloppy and poor way to do it. 

 

21 hours ago, smac97 said:

I claim to know some portion of "the mind and will of God."

I meant in regards to telling others what they need to do to properly worship God and what they need to do to get the highest heavenly rewards.

21 hours ago, smac97 said:

There is almost always a "but" which follows those who deny having tacit expectations of prophetic infallibiltiy.

And there it is!

So what?  My but if a fair one. Maybe you don't think so but thing like banning an entire race from the best mortal blessing there are for 120 years, or knowing who and what God is, God's nature, and characteristics and attributes ( Even Joseph Smith said this was one of the first principles of faith) are critical issues for a prophet to get right. Yet Mormonism prophets got wrong on the ban for 120 year and the second prophet taught that Adam is God which after he was dead it was swept under the rug.  So yea there is a but here and a fair one.

 

21 hours ago, smac97 said:

I generally agree.  I think we disagree on the timeline.

Ok.

21 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think the 1978 revelation did that.

Yea, 120 years later and thus a cause of a lot of unnecessary suffering. And conveniently at a time where social pressures and church growth in certain areas of the  world pretty much required it to be changed. My study of the history of the ban, what LDS leaders taught about the ban, the reluctance to make the change really point to a change that came because it had  to.  There was no god nor any revelation in it. Even so, President Kimball had to sneak it around a few reluctant LDS apostles.

 

21 hours ago, smac97 said:

"Not be another apostasy" ≠ "No prophet will ever many any substantial mistake."

That could be debated. I think Brigham getting who god was wrong was a pretty sure sign of apostasy. Worshipping the wrong God, if there is one, seems to but one's salvation in peril.

 

21 hours ago, smac97 said:

I wonder if any Hebrews, 100 years into their bondage in Egypt, lost faith because they felt that because God had not delivered them by then.

If that happened I imagine there were quite a few. That also begs the question of why Yahweh would be so cruel to his "chosen" people.   

21 hours ago, smac97 said:

Alas, our expectations of what should happen when often do not align with the Lord's plans and timing.

That is just a statement of faith really. 

21 hours ago, smac97 said:

"For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts."  (Isaiah 55:9.)

Another scripture that is used as a stop thinking and asking questions tool.  It works well on the masses.

21 hours ago, smac97 said:

From Elder Bednar:

This is, I think, one of the main reasons there are so many scriptures about patience, longsuffering, endurance, meekness, humility, and so on.  "In your patience possess ye your souls."  (Luke 21:19.)

Yes, one could argue that.  I'm not sure "apostasy" is an all-or-nothing thing.  

Then again, perhaps the delay was part of the Lord's plan.  I have sometimes wondered how much what to give to  this account regarding Pres. McKay:

For me, it is quite possible that the ban was conceived and instituted in error by Brigham Young, yet the divinely revealed correction of it was delayed to suit, as Elder Bednar put it, "the Lord's timing."

But man let's send that angel with the flaming sword to Joseph in order to make him institute plural marriage. Oh yea!

 

21 hours ago, smac97 said:

Again, The Book of Mormon and other foundational events of the Restoration, and my spiritual experiences with these things, are what keep me in the Church.

Well there is not a whole lot of unique items since then. What you think it the roll of prophets in the church after seems pretty banal. They almost are not necessary. 

21 hours ago, smac97 said:

\

All the counsel about reading The Book of Mormon, and seeking revelation confirming it, and living according to its precepts, and extrapolating out from its truthfulness and divinity.

All the counsel about receiving ordinances, joining the Church, and participating in temple worship and ordinances.

All the counsel about missionary work to preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ as restored through Joseph Smith.

And so on.

Fairly bread and butter items. Not much prophesying or seering in there is there?

 

21 hours ago, smac97 said:

 

I returned from my mission in 1995, and ever since then have made studying the Restored Gospel a significant priority in my life.  I have spent the last 29 or so years reading what the Church and its scholars/apologists have said about controversies and difficulties pertaining to the claims of the Church.  I have also spent most of that time reading what critics of my faith have to say about such things, and also interacting with many of them in an adversarial setting (message boards).  The claims of the Church, and critiques and criticisms of those claims, are examined, and re-examined.  I have actively involved myself in many of these examinations.

I feel like I am a lot more informed than I was in 1995, and a lot more clear-eyed in my perception of and perspective on the Church and its claims.  But more to the point, examining the Church's claims in an adversarial setting has helped me feel vindicated in my assessment of the Restored Gospel.  I have long believed that the Church's claims are substantively true, but I have spent the last 25 years testing and debating those claims in an adversarial setting.  I have been humbled a lot.  I have had to correct and re-assess some of what I believe and why.  But in the main, I am very happy with the cumulative results of these efforts.  Through revelation, through day-to-day experiences, through prolonged study and examination (including reviewing critical assessments/arguments), I have come to find that the Church's claims are reasonable, resilient, eminently defensible, and substantively true.

You make this point often and I do respect it. Really it is you bearing your testimony. I could say the exact same words but replace I returned from my mission in 1995 with 1981. I went through the same exercises you outline. At around 52 years old or so I just could not make it work any longer. I wonder what  the differences are. I certainly did not want this outcome. I was quite happy as an active Latter-day Saint, for the most part.

 

21 hours ago, smac97 said:

I am quite okay with people not agreeing with me.  I do not denigrate their intellect or character, as their disagreement could arise  in any number of ways and for any number of reasons.  I therefore find it encouraging and healthy to advance the foregoing proposal, that reasonable minds can disagree about such things, including important things.  Allowing and accommodating for diversity of viewpoints will help us all get along better, and will hopefully help us in our individual and collective efforts to discern and embrace truth.

I think the feeling on this is mutua.

21 hours ago, smac97 said:

See my comments above about the Cadaver Synod.  For myself, I decline to reduce the entirety of a historical person's life down to only his errors, mistakes and worst qualities, and then declare "And that's all they were."

Thomas Jefferson and George Washington were much more than slaveowners. 

Martin Luther King, Jr. was much more than an adulterer and plagiarist. 

Gandhi was much more than a sexist and racist.

And Joseph Smith and Brigham Young were much more than just their respective errors and lapses.

YMMV.

Thanks,

-Smac

None of the people you outline claim to have God telling us how to live in order to receive the highest regard in heaven.  None ask us of  our time and money and pure denation. I have no issue with people being products of their time. I think the stone thrown at our founding fathers is ludicrous. I do not believe in presentism. But I do believe someone who tells me God is telling them how I must live to receive salvation and exaltation better get the big issues right. One can debate what the big issues are I guess. But that is where I stand.  Joseph said in the Happiness letter that whatever God commands is right. God can command. God can revoke. But we have to trust the one who is telling us what God commands and what God revokes. I came to the point I could not trust Joseph Smith nor, based on his successor track record, could I trust them.

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, ttribe said:

The people in this bunch are outright posting swastikas and dropping the N-word. They've been emboldened since...ohhhh...about 2016.

When you are anonymous it doesn’t really count as being public.

And yeah, they are awful.

[smac97]

17 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Polygamy was not cultural norm in the 1840s.

Yes.  And a practice that the historical record indicates was accepted with great reluctance and delay by Joseph Smith.  If he had lecherous intent, there were, and are, far less onerous ways to indulge such proclivities.

17 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Also there were many bakes in views about black people in 19th century Americans.

Is "bakes in views" a typo?  Not sure what you are saying here.

17 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Some argue this is why perhap god allowed the ban to continue for so long, that the people were not ready.

As a point of conjecture, yes.

17 minutes ago, Teancum said:

But for plural marriage, well allegedly Joseph was reluctant but God threatened him with an angel that had a flaming sword so rather than be cut off he instituted plural marriage.

Yes, that's the narrative.

17 minutes ago, Teancum said:

So why would a god by so concerned about men taking additional wives during a time when such thing was abhorrent that he forced the issue, but at the same time allow the ban, that you say was an error, to continue for more than 100 years? 

First, polygamy has a known revelatory provenance, whereas the priesthood ban does not.  So the juxtaposition between the two (polygamy and the ban) doesn't work for me.  

Second, Joseph spent some years postponing/avoiding/evading instructions regarding the institution of polygamy.  So the Lord allowed Joseph some years, and some errors, as regarding polygamy.  The "Why did God wait so long?"-style questions apply here.

Third, the members of the Church made plenty of mistakes in their observance/practice of polygamy.  In contrast, the priesthood ban was not really an error of the rank-and-file members, but rather a policy instituted by the Church, about which they had no particular say. So it's not like the members "got it right" on polygamy but "got it wrong" on the priesthood ban.  The "Why did God allow errors to be perpetuated?"-style questions apply here.

Fourth, my comments above about the Lord's processes and timing merit repetition.  Rationales for why the Lord does what He does, and the timeframe in which He does it, are often opaque to us, or else only explained in bits and pieces.

17 minutes ago, Teancum said:

And then the claimed revelation only came as the church was seemingly almost forced into it due to civil rights issues and church growth where there were many of African descent.

I think Edward Kimball's Spencer W. Kimball and the Revelation on Priesthood article does a pretty good job of tracing the history of ban.  I think your implicit suggestion - that the leaders of the Church spent decades sitting on their thumbs and neither thinking about or doing anything about the ban - is flawed.  There are a few reasons for this:

First, the early Saints and leaders had a lot on their plates.  A lot.  The trek west.  Setting up settlements, farms, roads, irrigation, crops, etc.  Addressing conflicts and other challenges associated with the Native Americans, with the U.S. Government, with the fallout of Mountain Meadows, with the Civil War, enforcement of the Edmunds-Tucker Act, the eventual cessation of polygamy, gaining statehood, and so on.  The latter half of the Nineteenth Century was often tumultuous.

Second, the beginning of the 20th Century was no walk in the park, either.  The Industrial Revolution, World War I, the Spanish Flu pandemic, the Great Depression, World War II. 

Third, the Church was, during this period, still numerically pretty small.   

Fourth, as Edward Kimball notes (regarding the ban), "the issue remained abstract for most," perhaps largely because "{s}o few blacks joined the Church that most white members never had to deal with the effects of the ban."  He further posits that "World War II and its aftermath began a cascade of changes that would continue in American society through the rest of the century."  I think this is likely correct.  By this point, though, Brigham Young and all his contemporaries were long dead, and the ban had been in place for nearly a century. 

Fifth, notwithstanding the duration of the ban, the Church started making incremental steps in addressing it in the late 1940s.  The impetus to address the ban was incubating and progressing well before the advent of the Civil Rights Era, and the revelation ending the ban came in 1978 (which seems a bit after the high watermark of "social pressures" associated with the Civil Rights Movement).  So think it's hard to advance or maintain the argument that the Church only acted after "seemingly almost forced into it due to civil rights issues."

Sixth, I tend to agree with you that "church growth where there were many of African descent" was a causative factor in the Brethren seeking - and eventually obtaining - the 1978 revelation.

17 minutes ago, Teancum said:

God could have forced the issue just like God allegedly did for plural marriage.

Yes, He could have done that.  And yet the revelation came in 1978.  

Again, for me, the Book of Mormon and other foundational events of the Restoration, and my spiritual experiences with these things, are what keep me in the Church.  If those things happened, then my job is to stick around and do my best to help out, and to cope with my own errors and those of others via patience, forgiveness, love, and so on.

Thanks,

-Smac

[ttribe]

55 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

When you are anonymous it doesn’t really count as being public.

And yeah, they are awful.

That's just the thing, many of them are using their IRL identity and posting pictures of themselves. Absolutely crazy.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, ttribe said:

That's just the thing, many of them are using their IRL identity and posting pictures of themselves. Absolutely crazy.

Oh….yeah, those are just morons.

Edited June 14 by The Nehor

[Teancum]

22 hours ago, smac97 said:

Yes.  And a practice that the historical record indicates was accepted with great reluctance and delay by Joseph Smith.  If he had lecherous intent, there were, and are, far less onerous ways to indulge such proclivities.

And thus my point. Plural marriage was very much abhorrent to the culture yet God allegedly sent an angel with a flaming sword to force Joseph to introduce the practice. So if something is really important to God, God intervenes.  According to the LDS narrative God did intervene here but I guess God fell asleep about the priesthood ban that you argue was a mistake. If God was really involved he could have sent the message and not wait until 1978 to do it.  And the God's timing is God's timing or God's ways are not our ways is a cop out. Totally. I recall how often I heard that God's ways are not our ways, or God works in mysterious ways, when I was a missionary and challenging other Christian believers about their doctrine about the Godhead and the Trinity and historical creeds. They said that. Often.  It is a cop out and an irrational argument. And as I said before, a thought stopper to keep people in line with whatever that religion wants them to do and believe. You repetition of it shows it is effective.

 

22 hours ago, smac97 said:

Is "bakes in views" a typo?  Not sure what you are saying here.

Sorry about that. I really do need to proof read my posts better. My point was that Latter-day Saints in the 19th century held views about black persons that were part of their culture.

22 hours ago, smac97 said:

 

First, polygamy has a known revelatory provenance, whereas the priesthood ban does not.  So the juxtaposition between the two (polygamy and the ban) doesn't work for me. 

Ah that was a nice hard dodge and pass. So you simply ignore my point. 

 

22 hours ago, smac97 said:

Second, Joseph spent some years postponing/avoiding/evading instructions regarding the institution of polygamy.  So the Lord allowed Joseph some years, and some errors, as regarding polygamy.  The "Why did God wait so long?"-style questions apply here.

No it does not. It was only a few years. Less than 10. 

 

22 hours ago, smac97 said:

Third, the members of the Church made plenty of mistakes in their observance/practice of polygamy. 

Did they? What mistakes?  Do you know the correct way to practice polygamy?

22 hours ago, smac97 said:

 

In contrast, the priesthood ban was not really an error of the rank-and-file members, but rather a policy instituted by the Church, about which they had no particular say. So it's not like the members "got it right" on polygamy but "got it wrong" on the priesthood ban.  The "Why did God allow errors to be perpetuated?"-style questions apply here.

THe Church claims that God reveals his will to the leaders. According to the narrative God force Joseph into practicing polygamy fairly quickly.  But the ban, God let it languish for 120 years.

 

Really this demonstrates, as does your very poor attempt to argue my point away, that there is no God involved in any of this.  There was not angel. Smith wanted to institute plural marriage for some reason or another, which we do not need to discuss here. And Brigham Young institutes the ban and his successor were quite fine letting it stay in place until it came to the point where they really had no choice but to change it. And even then President Kimball has been quoted to say that the church needed to stay a white church, and this after the ban.  For me this is certainly  evidential reasoning and it is easy to conclude LDS prophets and apostles are just good and decent leaders of a church that has no connection to any god.

 

22 hours ago, smac97 said:

Fourth, my comments above about the Lord's processes and timing merit repetition.  Rationales for why the Lord does what He does, and the timeframe in which He does it, are often opaque to us, or else only explained in bits and pieces.

Cop out and thought stopping.  

 

22 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think Edward Kimball's Spencer W. Kimball and the Revelation on Priesthood article does a pretty good job of tracing the history of ban.  I think your implicit suggestion - that the leaders of the Church spent decades sitting on their thumbs and neither thinking about or doing anything about the ban - is flawed.  There are a few reasons for this:

First, the early Saints and leaders had a lot on their plates.  A lot.  The trek west.  Setting up settlements, farms, roads, irrigation, crops, etc.  Addressing conflicts and other challenges associated with the Native Americans, with the U.S. Government, with the fallout of Mountain Meadows, with the Civil War, enforcement of the Edmunds-Tucker Act, the eventual cessation of polygamy, gaining statehood, and so on.  The latter half of the Nineteenth Century was often tumultuous.

Second, the beginning of the 20th Century was no walk in the park, either.  The Industrial Revolution, World War I, the Spanish Flu pandemic, the Great Depression, World War II. 

Third, the Church was, during this period, still numerically pretty small.   

Fourth, as Edward Kimball notes (regarding the ban), "the issue remained abstract for most," perhaps largely because "{s}o few blacks joined the Church that most white members never had to deal with the effects of the ban."  He further posits that "World War II and its aftermath began a cascade of changes that would continue in American society through the rest of the century."  I think this is likely correct.  By this point, though, Brigham Young and all his contemporaries were long dead, and the ban had been in place for nearly a century. 

Fifth, notwithstanding the duration of the ban, the Church started making incremental steps in addressing it in the late 1940s.  The impetus to address the ban was incubating and progressing well before the advent of the Civil Rights Era, and the revelation ending the ban came in 1978 (which seems a bit after the high watermark of "social pressures" associated with the Civil Rights Movement).  So think it's hard to advance or maintain the argument that the Church only acted after "seemingly almost forced into it due to civil rights issues."

Sixth, I tend to agree with you that "church growth where there were many of African descent" was a causative factor in the Brethren seeking - and eventually obtaining - the 1978 revelation.

Yet  with all that plural marriage was instituted but leaving out an entire group of people from the alleged blessings of the full gospel was just to much for God and the Saints I guess.

 

22 hours ago, smac97 said:

Yes, He could have done that.  And yet the revelation came in 1978.  

Maybe God was on vacation for this 120 years. 

22 hours ago, smac97 said:

Again, for me, the Book of Mormon and other foundational events of the Restoration, and my spiritual experiences with these things, are what keep me in the Church.  If those things happened, then my job is to stick around and do my best to help out, and to cope with my own errors and those of others via patience, forgiveness, love, and so on.

Thanks,

-Smac

OK. 

[Buckeye]

On 6/13/2024 at 4:16 PM, CV75 said:

Yes, I was surprised when our son on his mission around 2008 shared some racist views from an elder or two from Utah. Not about Blacks (the ban) but Hispanics (the Lamanite curse). I was surprised "this day in age"... It takes many, many generations to weed out that sort of thing* since it takes just one bad seed to perpetuate it.

* generational trauma (often race-based), addressed in at least two fairly recent Liahona articles (links below) and from the example above, its counterpart, generational traumatizing (my term):

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/liahona/2024/04/digital-only-young-adults/3-things-ive-learned-about-the-healing-power-of-family-history?lang=eng

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/liahona/2023/01/digital-only-young-adults/recognizing-and-healing-from-generational-trauma?lang=eng

 

 

I had this experience in my mission in the mid-90s, only it was about the racial priesthood ban and it was me spewing the harmful message. I could defend myself by saying the questions were unanticipated and the mission training gave me no preparation (both true) but ultimately it was on me to have researched why the ban happened before giving an answer I’d heard from a youth leader (pre-mortal fence sitting). I’m grateful for repentance. 
 

If the church is serious about killing off the zombie resurrection of past false teachings, it must do more than just declare those teachings in error. It must give a correct narrative .
 

As I youth I receive helpful guidance that my mind is like a stage, and if I want to rid bad thoughts from the stage, I cant just push them off. I need to put something good on the stage. That’s what is needed here. 

Edited June 16 by Buckeye

[CV75]

11 hours ago, Buckeye said:

I had this experience in my mission in the mid-90s, only it was about the racial priesthood ban and it was me spewing the harmful message. I could defend myself by saying the questions were unanticipated and the mission training gave me no preparation (both true) but ultimately it was on me to have researched why the ban happened before giving an answer I’d heard from a youth leader (pre-mortal fence sitting). I’m grateful for repentance. 
 

If the church is serious about killing off the zombie resurrection of past false teachings, it must do more than just declare those teachings in error. It must give a correct narrative .
 

As I youth I receive helpful guidance that my mind is like a stage, and if I want to rid bad thoughts from the stage, I cant just push them off. I need to put something good on the stage. That’s what is needed here. 

These do not represent a resurrection of false teachings. They never went away; they have been passed down from generation to generation. You are apparently expressing what more “other people” need from the Church to stop this. But I would counter that it is a simple matter of them paying attention and personally applying what the Church is saying and doing (there are plenty of good things to put on the stage, and the most effective ones are those we wrestle for; we don't need "the Church" to find them for us). This kind of resistance and what it gets people runs much deeper than a proclamation can forestall.

[The Nehor]

20 hours ago, Teancum said:

Maybe God was on vacation for this 120 years. 

And at noon Elijah mocked them, saying, “Cry aloud, for he is a god. Either he is musing, or he is relieving himself, or he is on a journey, or perhaps he is asleep and must be awakened.”