Brethren knew reasons for priesthood ban in 1940s ....

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_zeezrom
_Emeritus
Posts: 11938
Joined: Wed Dec 30, 2009 8:57 pm

Re: Brethren knew reasons for priesthood ban in 1940s ....

Post by _zeezrom »

Interestingly, the 2nd official declaration in D&C paints God as the problem, not the brethren. Judgment passed from man to God? I think this is actually pretty common practice among the spiritually elite class.

"Finally God is letting us give everyone the Priesthood!"

How presumptuous and egotistical.
Oh for shame, how the mortals put the blame on us gods, for they say evils come from us, but it is they, rather, who by their own recklessness win sorrow beyond what is given... Zeus (1178 BC)

The Holy Sacrament.
_maklelan
_Emeritus
Posts: 4999
Joined: Sat Jan 06, 2007 6:51 am

Re: Brethren knew reasons for priesthood ban in 1940s ....

Post by _maklelan »

Rollo Tomasi wrote:Bott’s comments did NOT go to the Brethren’s position for the past 30+ years, but to the Church’s reasons for the priesthood ban given during the 150-odd years prior to 1978.


He wasn't asked about outdated ideology, nor does he frame his response as limited to positions no longer held. You continue to be dishonest in the interest of propping up your argument. I can assure you that it's not fooling anyone.

Rollo Tomasi wrote:Bott is not merely a “self-proclaimed” expert on doctrine; rather, BYU’s own website promotes Bott as having "expertise” in “doctrine of the Church.”


Actually those bios are written by the professors themselves.

Rollo Tomasi wrote:The Church’s wishy-washy “We don’t know” position of the last 30 years doesn’t get rid of anything.


It got rid of support for the speculation.

Rollo Tomasi wrote:By not taking a stand one way or the other on the reasons for the priesthood ban during the first 150 years or so of Church history, the Brethren have allowed members (such as Bott) to continue to believe in the correctness of the reasons given for the ban pre-1978 (with all their racial ramifications).


Only if they never actually read the church's statements. Numerous general authorities have repeated stated in church and non-church publications and settings that we shouldn't speculate on why. I've already pointed to several of them, but they've been swept under the rug in the zeal to make this about getting the church on its knees.

Rollo Tomasi wrote:The only way to solve continuing problems like those caused by Bott, is to renounce the past reasons given for the ban and admit the ban was not divinely appointed (but man-made), which, I think, would also require an apology for the racist beliefs and actions of Church leaders pre-1978.


Why would it require it? Please be specific and avoid false inferences and naked assertions.

Rollo Tomasi wrote:This is not about bringing the Church “to its knees,” but the Church simply doing the right thing.


That's quite obviously a lie.

Rollo Tomasi wrote:In other words, “standing for something.” How could anyone object to that?


Such sincere concern. It never ceases to amaze me that such dogmatic and hateful critics think they're fooling anyone with these impassioned pleas for doing the right thing.

Rollo Tomasi wrote:Disagree. If the Church really took a stand on this, the problems caused by a few rogue members would not have nearly the same 'splash' like we've seen this week with Bott.


Oh, you think there would be no issue if the church apologized and a BYU professor said something like this afterward? Another lie.

Rollo Tomasi wrote:You're naïve if you think this Bott debacle has not bothered a lot of faithful members.


That has nothing whatsoever to do with my comment.

Rollo Tomasi wrote:I think the Church can do the right thing and establish consistency once and for all on this issue, at the same time.


It has been consistent for decades. You're not concerned with consistency. Stop pretending otherwise.

Rollo Tomasi wrote:I believe the Church did commit "error" pre-1978 on this issue, and I would like to see it fixed. The Bott fiasco this week only serves to remind me and others that the Church still has not fixed the underlying problem.


People like Bott are not going to have their worldviews changed by an admission of error and an apology, although I'd like to see both as well.

Rollo Tomasi wrote:I have not lied at all about this issue, and for you to suggest otherwise exposes you for the fool that you are.


I apologize for being such a fool.
I like you Betty...

My blog
_Rollo Tomasi
_Emeritus
Posts: 4085
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 12:27 pm

Re: Brethren knew reasons for priesthood ban in 1940s ....

Post by _Rollo Tomasi »

maklelan wrote:He wasn't asked about outdated ideology, nor does he frame his response as limited to positions no longer held.

He was simply speaking to reasons given for the ban during the time the ban was in place. Geesh, you're dense.

You continue to be dishonest in the interest of propping up your argument. I can assure you that it's not fooling anyone.

The only one being dishonest here is you. Simply saying "we don't know" today does NOT in any way get rid of past official (and unofficial) pronouncements concerning the ban.

Actually those bios are written by the professors themselves.

Perhaps, but they must be approved by BYU, and, moreover, they are placed on BYU's own website. Enough said.

It got rid of support for the speculation.

"We don't know" got rid of nothing. And it was not "speculation," but official pronouncements from the First Presidency and other of the Brethren, whom you seem to brand as false prophets.

Only if they never actually read the church's statements.

Do you include the 1949 FP statement in this?

Numerous general authorities have repeated stated in church and non-church publications and settings that we shouldn't speculate on why. I've already pointed to several of them, but they've been swept under the rug in the zeal to make this about getting the church on its knees.

But Bott was speaking to what GA's said when the ban was in place. It's time for the Church to come clean.

Why would it require it? Please be specific and avoid false inferences and naked assertions.

To denounce all pre-1978 reasons for the ban would be to admit past institutional racism of the Church institution -- by conceding this, why wouldn't the Church apologize? That's what we generally do when we commit a significant error (particularly in this case, where black folks were harmed for nearly 150 years).

Rollo Tomasi wrote:This is not about bringing the Church “to its knees,” but the Church simply doing the right thing.

That's quite obviously a lie.

Only to you, my deluded friend.

Rollo Tomasi wrote:In other words, “standing for something.” How could anyone object to that?

Such sincere concern. It never ceases to amaze me that such dogmatic and hateful critics think they're fooling anyone with these impassioned pleas for doing the right thing.

How is it "dogmatic" or "hateful" to want to correct and apologize for over a century of institutional racism?

Oh, you think there would be no issue if the church apologized and a BYU professor said something like this afterward? Another lie.

I think the Church would be in a much better place dealing with a Bott-wannabe some day if the Church were to have already denounced all pre-1978 justifications for the ban and apologized for that institutional racism. The reason the Church so quickly jumped into damage control in Bott's case is because Bott wasn't inconsistent with what Church leaders said pre-1978, but which the Church has yet to denounce and repudiate.

People like Bott are not going to have their worldviews changed by an admission of error and an apology, although I'd like to see both as well.

I think Bott, and others of his ilk, would certainly change their "worldviews" if men they view as prophets, seers and revelators came out and officially denounced all pre-1978 reasons supporting the ban, and also apologized for the Church's pre-1978 institutional racism. It sure couldn't hurt.
"Moving beyond apologist persuasion, LDS polemicists furiously (and often fraudulently) attack any non-traditional view of Mormonism. They don't mince words -- they mince the truth."

-- Mike Quinn, writing of the FARMSboys, in "Early Mormonism and the Magic World View," p. x (Rev. ed. 1998)
_just me
_Emeritus
Posts: 9070
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 9:46 pm

Re: Brethren knew reasons for priesthood ban in 1940s ....

Post by _just me »

I'm quoting myself here. The church today still teaches a reason for the ban. It is in the Institute Manual.

just me wrote:From the Institute Manual:

Therefore, although Ham himself had the right to the priesthood, Canaan, his son, did not. Ham had married Egyptus, a descendant of Cain (Abraham 1:21–24), and so his sons were denied the priesthood.


From Abraham 1:21-24:

21 Now this king of Egypt was a descendant from the loins of Ham, and was a partaker of the blood of the Canaanites by birth.

22 From this descent sprang all the Egyptians, and thus the blood of the Canaanites was preserved in the land.

23 The land of Egypt being first discovered by a woman, who was the daughter of Ham, and the daughter of Egyptus, which in the Chaldean signifies Egypt, which signifies that which is forbidden;

24 When this woman discovered the land it was under water, who afterward settled her sons in it; and thus, from Ham, sprang that race which preserved the curse in the land.


Who were the people historically denied the priesthood in the LDS faith? Wait for it. Wait for it. The supposed descendants of cursed cain.

The curse of cain was and IS doctrine. LDS members just believe that God has lifted the ban caused by the curse.

ETA: In the adult institute class I attended in my stake last year I listened to 70 year olds talk about blacks being less righteous and it must be in their genes. Seriously. I wanted to cry...or vomit. I tried to show them that it would be unjust and wrong but I was quoted a "sins of the fathers" scripture.


So, I guess the general membership hasn't gotten the memo.
~Those who benefit from the status quo always attribute inequities to the choices of the underdog.~Ann Crittenden
~The Goddess is not separate from the world-She is the world and all things in it.~
_cacheman
_Emeritus
Posts: 225
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2007 6:22 pm

Re: Brethren knew reasons for priesthood ban in 1940s ....

Post by _cacheman »

bcspace wrote:From the anti Mormon perspective, one has to lie in order to counter me or the Church, such as claiming or implying the ban has basis in race or ethnicity; again, a very comfortable position for me to be in.


From the official declaration 2:
He has heard our prayers, and by revelation has confirmed that the long-promised day has come when every faithful, worthy man in the Church may receive the holy priesthood, with power to exercise its divine authority, and enjoy with his loved ones every blessing that flows therefrom, including the blessings of the temple. Accordingly, all worthy male members of the Church may be ordained to the priesthood without regard for race or color.

Why would race or color be singled out as characteristics that now don't disqualify worthy men from the priesthood?

Just wondering...

cacheman
_just me
_Emeritus
Posts: 9070
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 9:46 pm

Re: Brethren knew reasons for priesthood ban in 1940s ....

Post by _just me »

cacheman wrote:
bcspace wrote:From the anti Mormon perspective, one has to lie in order to counter me or the Church, such as claiming or implying the ban has basis in race or ethnicity; again, a very comfortable position for me to be in.


From the official declaration 2:
He has heard our prayers, and by revelation has confirmed that the long-promised day has come when every faithful, worthy man in the Church may receive the holy priesthood, with power to exercise its divine authority, and enjoy with his loved ones every blessing that flows therefrom, including the blessings of the temple. Accordingly, all worthy male members of the Church may be ordained to the priesthood without regard for race or color.

Why would race or color be singled out as characteristics that now don't disqualify worthy men from the priesthood?

Just wondering...

cacheman


Perfection.
~Those who benefit from the status quo always attribute inequities to the choices of the underdog.~Ann Crittenden
~The Goddess is not separate from the world-She is the world and all things in it.~
_Daheshist
_Emeritus
Posts: 702
Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2009 1:17 am

Re: Brethren knew reasons for priesthood ban in 1940s ....

Post by _Daheshist »

Once again bcspace, you are 100% WRONG!!!!

The Brethren claimed to "KNOW the reason why" blacks were banned, because they were less valiant in the War in Heaven. They taught that for 130 years that "the reason why the Negro is denied the full blessings of the Gospel is known".

Now, the Church says, "Golly, we just don't KNOW why!"

That's an old Mormon missionary "lie". Gee...we don't know why!

A True Church does not need lies to help it along. Do the math.


bcspace wrote:
Brethren knew reasons for priesthood ban in 1940s ....


Not really. They did not know why that lineage would be singled out and not others who rejected God similarly. There was no priesthood ban on the Lamanites for example. Speculation could be that the Lamanites were considered part of the house of Israel and therefore eligible for the spiritual consequences of rejecting the priesthood. But that is just speculation.
_Bazooka
_Emeritus
Posts: 10719
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2013 4:36 am

Re: Brethren knew reasons for priesthood ban in 1940s ....

Post by _Bazooka »

maklelan wrote:
Rollo Tomasi wrote:The inconsistent positions of the Brethren on this issue leads to ridiculous statements such as we've heard from Bott.


The brethren have been perfectly consistent for the last 30+ years. How on earth can you say Bott, a self-proclaimed expert on doctrine, got confused because more than 30 years ago they used to say something different? Listen to yourself, man.


Hey Mak,

Do you still think the Brethren have been consistent on the subject of the Priesthood ban?

The Book of Mormon teaches that “all are alike unto God,” including “black and white, bond and free, male and female” (2 Nephi 26:33). Throughout the history of the Church, people of every race and ethnicity in many countries have been baptized and have lived as faithful members of the Church. During Joseph Smith’s lifetime, a few black male members of the Church were ordained to the priesthood. Early in its history, Church leaders stopped conferring the priesthood on black males of African descent. Church records offer no clear insights into the origins of this practice. Church leaders believed that a revelation from God was needed to alter this practice and prayerfully sought guidance. The revelation came to Church President Spencer W. Kimball and was affirmed to other Church leaders in the Salt Lake Temple on June 1, 1978. The revelation removed all restrictions with regard to race that once applied to the priesthood.

http://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/od?lang=eng

In 1850, the U.S. Congress created Utah Territory, and the U.S. president appointed Brigham Young to the position of territorial governor. Southerners who had converted to the Church and migrated to Utah with their slaves raised the question of slavery’s legal status in the territory. In two speeches delivered before the Utah territorial legislature in January and February 1852, Brigham Young announced a policy restricting men of black African descent from priesthood ordination. At the same time, President Young said that at some future day, black Church members would “have [all] the privilege and more” enjoyed by other members.8

The justifications for this restriction echoed the widespread ideas about racial inferiority that had been used to argue for the legalization of black “servitude” in the Territory of Utah.9 According to one view, which had been promulgated in the United States from at least the 1730s, blacks descended from the same lineage as the biblical Cain, who slew his brother Abel.10 Those who accepted this view believed that God’s “curse” on Cain was the mark of a dark skin. Black servitude was sometimes viewed as a second curse placed upon Noah’s grandson Canaan as a result of Ham’s indiscretion toward his father.11 Although slavery was not a significant factor in Utah’s economy and was soon abolished, the restriction on priesthood ordinations remained.

https://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the ... d?lang=eng
That said, with the Book of Mormon, we are not dealing with a civilization with no written record. What we are dealing with is a written record with no civilization. (Runtu, Feb 2015)
_Kevin Graham
_Emeritus
Posts: 13037
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 6:44 pm

Re: Brethren knew reasons for priesthood ban in 1940s ....

Post by _Kevin Graham »

Since David O. McKay, however, the church has explicitly and consistently rejected those justifications for the ban and have mostly asserted that the ban was God's will, for whatever reason.


Could you please support this with evidence? Because I have yet to see any. In fact, you seem to have shifted your ground a bit in this thread as Rollo pressed you. You went from saying Church remarks since 1947 represent an "explicit rejection" of the "less valiant in the premortal existence" teaching, to now saying: "It got rid of support for the speculation." Well you can't just assume the Church no longer supported that teaching just because it stopped teaching it. The Church still claims all of its teachings from Joseph Smith to the present day represent doctrine, regardless of how often they are repeated. But given the fact that we've moved into a more race-conscious society over the past few decades, Mormons who remember the racist teachings pre-1978 would naturally understand Church silence on the matter to be a result of that, and not an implied rejection of previously taught and well-established doctrines.

And what you call speculation was never described or defined as "speculation" when the Lord's anointed were preaching it. In fact, Professor Lowery was chastised by the first Presidency for questioning it and was told he was engaged in the "reasoning of men" and urged to remove himself from that path or there would be consequences to rejecting what the Lord has said. This pretty much proves how the Church only accepts intellectual freedom so long as it jives with what they want it to be free about. I mean according to you, they were prepared to punish this guy for rejecting their "speculations."

The brethren have been perfectly consistent for the last 30+ years. How on earth can you say Bott, a self-proclaimed expert on doctrine, got confused because more than 30 years ago they used to say something different? Listen to yourself, man.


Bott's comments undermine your claim. How likely is it that a Mormon educator like Bott working for the Church at Mormon Central Headquarters for as long as he has, would be completely unaware of what you say has been "explicitly and consistently rejected" by the Church for several decades? That's nonsense. I joined the Church in 1989 served a mission in 1991 and I can tell you this teaching was alive and well. It was the explanation I was given before, during and well after my mission. It was read discussed in Church whenever the issue arose. No one questioned it.

The only thing that comes close to being an "explicit rejection" of his explanation is what the Church just released in a press statement this past week, in which case we can dismiss as their opinion as infallible, imperfect men, right? Nothing the Church said during their press release the day after Bott's comments, refutes his explanation as false. It was just a blanket condemnation of "racism" but didn't say his remarks were racist. It just said "we don't know," why the priesthood ban was denied to blacks, which literally means for all they know, Bott's explanation could very well be correct. I mean if they "don't know" what the real reason is, then they cannot say they know what it isn't.
_Bazooka
_Emeritus
Posts: 10719
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2013 4:36 am

Re: Brethren knew reasons for priesthood ban in 1940s ....

Post by _Bazooka »

Kevin Graham wrote:It just said "we don't know," why the priesthood ban was denied to blacks, which literally means for all they know, Bott's explanation could very well be correct. I mean if they "don't know" what the real reason is, then they cannot say they know what it isn't.


In the light of "Race and the Priesthood" this statement of 'we don't know' (used in the Bott statement and in the intro to OD2) can now be seen to be an untruth. The Church clearly did know who, when and why the Priesthood ban came into being, and has known for some time.
That said, with the Book of Mormon, we are not dealing with a civilization with no written record. What we are dealing with is a written record with no civilization. (Runtu, Feb 2015)
Post Reply