Deseret News Article: "Coming back to church while reconciling faith and sexuality"

[ZealouslyStriving]

4 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

We were very segregated.

It was not a local situation. From a letter from the First Presidency to then stake president Ezra Taft Benson:

The church-owned Hotel Utah refused to allow in black guests. Many segregated hotels made celebrity exceptions, the Hotel Utah did not. Black people were explicitly prohibited from performing in the Tabernacle. The church-owned Deseret News had a policy not to print photos containing both white and black people. 

And if you want something explicit there is Mark E. Petersen

As much as we would like to rewrite history to make the Church marginally progressive for its time it just wasn’t.

Again, not a Church wide policy as concerns Church meetings- but a local situation. Did the FP advise then SP Benson to kick out the black members or make them attend their own meetings? 

Yeah, it's rough on our modern sensibilities, but such was the times- and again, our black members had it better than those in a lot of other churches.

[The Nehor]

5 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

O boy... Mark E. Peterson again. Yay. 😐

Speaking lightly about the Lord’s apostle? Uh-oh.

[The Nehor]

2 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Again, not a Church wide policy as concerns Church meetings- but a local situation. Did the FP advise then SP Benson to kick out the black members or make them attend their own meetings? 

Yeah, it's rough on our modern sensibilities, but such was the times- and again, our black members had it better than those in a lot of other churches.

Allowing them to attend as long as they behave and do nothing to irritate the other members isn’t desegregation. In civic life the church segregated like crazy and encouraged members to act to keep neighborhoods segregated.

They also had it worse than in a lot of other churches. In a lot of those segregated churches they had their own churches and could have their own leadership. They couldn’t do that in our faith.

It is not just rough on our modern sensibilities. It was wrong then. We aren’t a bunch of snowflakes that can’t handle the tough harsh world they lived in because our feelings are so delicate. This also trivializes those alive at that time that recognized this wrong and were actively fighting it. The church leadership made a choice and they chose to see those who fought against this wrong as misguided at best or traitors and apostates at worst.

[ZealouslyStriving]

21 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Allowing them to attend as long as they behave and do nothing to irritate the other members isn’t desegregation. In civic life the church segregated like crazy and encouraged members to act to keep neighborhoods segregated.

They also had it worse than in a lot of other churches. In a lot of those segregated churches they had their own churches and could have their own leadership. They couldn’t do that in our faith.

It is not just rough on our modern sensibilities. It was wrong then. We aren’t a bunch of snowflakes that can’t handle the tough harsh world they lived in because our feelings are so delicate. This also trivializes those alive at that time that recognized this wrong and were actively fighting it. The church leadership made a choice and they chose to see those who fought against this wrong as misguided at best or traitors and apostates at worst.

So you're saying they should've created black wards and white wards?

[The Nehor]

1 minute ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

So you're saying they should've created black wards and white wards?

In some areas we did.

But no, I am just clapping back at the self-congratulatory idea that we were somehow doing better generally than other faiths or other people. We were not.

[Calm]

16 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Did the FP advise then SP Benson to kick out the black members or make them attend their own meetings? 

In one case I know of they were advised to approach the black family not to attend at all, but have the elders bring the sacrament to the family.

Given the number of times we have heard plausible reports of it happening to the few black members of that time period, my guess is the vast majority of black members were excluded from some forms of worship at least some of the time.  All of the time of course for temple worship.

They were forbidden to participate in temple worship.  As far as I am aware, they weren’t even allowed to be baptized in temple baptisms.  
 

They were barred from the temple, not allowed through the doors.  I don’t see how you can claim being segregated from the temple is not being segregated.

I wonder if black children who were adopted by white families were even allowed to be sealed to their parents as minors as the other children could be.  My guess is not.

Edited July 4 by Calm

[Rain]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Allowing them to attend as long as they behave and do nothing to irritate the other members isn’t desegregation. In civic life the church segregated like crazy and encouraged members to act to keep neighborhoods segregated.

They also had it worse than in a lot of other churches. In a lot of those segregated churches they had their own churches and could have their own leadership. They couldn’t do that in our faith.

It is not just rough on our modern sensibilities. It was wrong then. We aren’t a bunch of snowflakes that can’t handle the tough harsh world they lived in because our feelings are so delicate. This also trivializes those alive at that time that recognized this wrong and were actively fighting it. The church leadership made a choice and they chose to see those who fought against this wrong as misguided at best or traitors and apostates at worst.

❤

[Teancum]

17 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

How exactly was I being "ambiguous [unclear or inexact] or deliberately evasive [tending to avoid commitment or self-revelation]"?

Your attempt to distinguish between salvation and exaltation and what the ban meant.  As if somehow that made it ok.  Of course Mormonism ultimately leaves few in a permanent hell.  All but the Sons of Perdition will inherit a kingdom.

[ZealouslyStriving]

18 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Your attempt to distinguish between salvation and exaltation and what the ban meant.  As if somehow that made it ok.  Of course Mormonism ultimately leaves few in a permanent hell.  All but the Sons of Perdition will inherit a kingdom.

Seems you are being inexact. There is a clear distinction between salvation and exaltation, and everyone will be given a fair chance to receive all the blessings reserved for the faithful. To insinuate that the ban prevented blacks from receiving a fullness of Exaltation is, well, a lie.

[MrShorty]

On 7/3/2024 at 10:12 AM, CV75 said:

What admitted mistakes do you see the Church not actively trying to not repeat?

I think a big one is "falsely claiming that popular opinion is actual revelation" followed by "falsely believing that the traditions of our fathers were put in place by revelation." The Race and the Priesthood essay spills a lot of ink talking about how the church was restored during a time when most everyone in America believed some awful things about race, and it was natural for those beliefs to filter into the church. Then, in the mid-20th century, when broader American culture was deconstructing those beliefs, the church held onto those false beliefs as if from God. In a similar way, mid-20th century popular beliefs about homosexuality and transgenderism held that these were clearly sin and/or illness. Now, as popular belief changes around those traditions, how do we know which stance was rooted in revelation and which wasn't? Our inability and/or unwillingness to talk about how we made these kinds of mistakes in matters of race makes it difficult to know if those same dynamics are at play when it comes to questions around homosexuality or gender.

[CV75]

34 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

I think a big one is "falsely claiming that popular opinion is actual revelation" followed by "falsely believing that the traditions of our fathers were put in place by revelation." The Race and the Priesthood essay spills a lot of ink talking about how the church was restored during a time when most everyone in America believed some awful things about race, and it was natural for those beliefs to filter into the church. Then, in the mid-20th century, when broader American culture was deconstructing those beliefs, the church held onto those false beliefs as if from God. In a similar way, mid-20th century popular beliefs about homosexuality and transgenderism held that these were clearly sin and/or illness. Now, as popular belief changes around those traditions, how do we know which stance was rooted in revelation and which wasn't? Our inability and/or unwillingness to talk about how we made these kinds of mistakes in matters of race makes it difficult to know if those same dynamics are at play when it comes to questions around homosexuality or gender.

Where do the bolded quotes come from? Did the Church admit that she falsely claimed that popular opinion is actual revelation? Or that she falsely believed that the traditions of our fathers were put in place by revelation? I believe these are your conclusions but not the Church's admissions.

Individuals are free to draw such conclusions, but it doesn't seem to me that the human fallibility and vulnerability elements/factors in the Church institution's relationship with God have kept Him from restoring the priesthood keys, building temples, promulgating the gospel in new places across the globe, etc. through her instrumentation. For me, the balance of popular opinion and revelation is not an issue because I personally experience the generated blessing of the revelation and fallibility dynamic, conclude that this must be the case at the council level, and I've experienced how God's grace covers all on His terms.

What popular opinions do you think are not right, and is the Church accommodating your POV? What instances show that the popular opinion has caught up with the Church's revelations/policies/positions?

[MrShorty]

On 7/4/2024 at 4:03 PM, CV75 said:

Where do the bolded quotes come from? Did the Church admit that she falsely claimed that popular opinion is actual revelation? Or that she falsely believed that the traditions of our fathers were put in place by revelation? I believe these are your conclusions but not the Church's admissions.

You are correct, those are my conclusions, not the church's. Illustrating one of the challenges whenever we talk about prophetic fallibility. We have little trouble admitting that prophets make mistakes in vague, general terms, but we almost never agree on specific mistakes. As the survey data from the B. H. Roberts foundation shows, we as a church are pretty divided over whether or not the priesthood and temple ban was a mistake or not. We're comfortable talking about prophetic fallibility in generic terms, but seem to become very uncomfortable when specific examples of mistakes get brought up.

On 7/4/2024 at 4:03 PM, CV75 said:

Individuals are free to draw such conclusions, but it doesn't seem to me that the human fallibility and vulnerability elements/factors in the Church institution's relationship with God have kept Him from restoring the priesthood keys, building temples, promulgating the gospel in new places across the globe, etc. through her instrumentation. For me, the balance of popular opinion and revelation is not an issue because I personally experience the generated blessing of the revelation and fallibility dynamic, conclude that this must be the case at the council level, and I've experienced how God's grace covers all on His terms.

Interestingly, my reaction to this paragraph was this picture   . I understand that, overall the church is good and brings good fruits into people's lives. Does the overall good justify dismissing or glossing over the bad? At what level does this apply to all churches -- they are a net good in people's lives?

On 7/4/2024 at 4:03 PM, CV75 said:

What popular opinions do you think are not right,

As it relates to the OP, I don't believe that same sex romantic and sexual behavior are deviant, pathological, and sinful, which was the popular opinion in the mid-20th century. As time has passed, "the world" has generally backed down from these opinions and currently accepts same sex romantic and sexual behavior (I would add, withing a committed, monogamous marriage) as a normal (if uncommon) orientation, but has no pathological or sinful aspects. The church still teaches that same-sex romantic and sexual behavior are inherently sinful (and some try to add a form of pathological claiming that such behavior does not lead to procreation in this or the next life).

[Teancum]

On 6/10/2024 at 9:06 AM, ZealouslyStriving said:

Who implemented the prohibition?

Brigham

Who taught that all the blessings would eventually come to them?

Brigham

My statement is 100% accurate. The fact the some people ignored Brigham's clear teaching is none of my concern.

I assume you believe the Adam God Doctrine?  Because your reasoning above can be used to argue that AGD was doctrine and should be still.

[CV75]

15 hours ago, MrShorty said:

You are correct, those are my conclusions, not the church's. Illustrating one of the challenges whenever we talk about prophetic fallibility. We have little trouble admitting that prophets make mistakes in vague, general terms, but we almost never agree on specific mistakes. As the survey data from the B. H. Roberts foundation shows, we as a church are pretty divided over whether or not the priesthood and temple ban was a mistake or not. We're comfortable talking about prophetic fallibility in generic terms, but seem to become very uncomfortable when specific examples of mistakes get brought up.

Interestingly, my reaction to this paragraph was this picture   . I understand that, overall the church is good and brings good fruits into people's lives. Does the overall good justify dismissing or glossing over the bad? At what level does this apply to all churches -- they are a net good in people's lives?

As it relates to the OP, I don't believe that same sex romantic and sexual behavior are deviant, pathological, and sinful, which was the popular opinion in the mid-20th century. As time has passed, "the world" has generally backed down from these opinions and currently accepts same sex romantic and sexual behavior (I would add, withing a committed, monogamous marriage) as a normal (if uncommon) orientation, but has no pathological or sinful aspects. The church still teaches that same-sex romantic and sexual behavior are inherently sinful (and some try to add a form of pathological claiming that such behavior does not lead to procreation in this or the next life).

What is the importance of there being divided opinions among the saints on what they consider to be specific mistakes (or a cockroach in the cupcake), their significance and how they manage them? We all have the gift of the Holy Ghost and hopefully His companionship as well, plus all the other benefits of fellowship despite differences in opinion. Discomfort is sometimes just the price of engaging in productive discussion, and perfectly manageable.

You discuss opinions that are important to you on this board with other posters who both agree and disagree with you. So, divided opinion doesn’t seem to be an obstacle to discussion and needn't be an obstacle to the companionship of the Holy Ghost and the Lord's grace.

Please review my questions again; your reply provides an example of a popular opinion you think is right, without commenting on whether you feel the Church shares your POV. The second question is also unanswered.