The Church and Race: All Are Alike Unto God

[_Equality]

I know there are several threads on the whole Professor Bott/Priesthood Ban/Church response thing, but I wanted to start one that is dedicated solely to analyzing the text of the second statement posted anonymously at the Newsroom. It raises a number of interesting questions. I'm not really interested in re-hashing the same stuff from the other threads about the history of the ban, but am interested more in exploring the possible implications of this statement (with my comments in parentheses and bold):

The gospel of Jesus Christ is for everyone. (Really? Everyone? Including people who write editorials or letters to the editor disagreeing with the church's stance on gay marriage? Including people who publish articles about Heavenly Mother? Including people who publish PG-13 rated calendars featuring shirtless male missionaries?) The Book of Mormon states, “black and white, bond and free, male and female; … all are alike unto God” (2 Nephi 26:33). This is the Church’s official teaching. (This scripture pre-dates the priesthood ban. If it is Church doctrine now, was it not church doctrine at the time the ban was instituted? And wasn't this scripture part of the canon the entire time the ban was in place? If this scripture provides a basis for not having a priesthood ban, why was a new revelation needed in 1978 to change the policy? Why couldn't the Prophet have just said something like "I was reading the Book of Mormon and saw this scripture verse that I guess no previous Prophet ever noticed before. Looks like we have to lift the ban because the Book of Mormon says so."?)

People of all races have always been welcomed and baptized into the Church since its beginning. (Well, not exactly. President Newsroom should read the Church News, which has stated that "missionaries were discouraged from teaching blacks about the Church until 1978.") In fact, by the end of his life in 1844 Joseph Smith, the founding prophet of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, opposed slavery. (Technically true, but Smith was no abolitionist. Said he, “I do not believe that the people of the North have any more right to say that the South shall not have slaves, than the South have to say the North shall. All men are to be taught to repent; but we have no right to interfere with slaves, contrary to the mind and will of their masters. In fact it would be much better and more prudent not to preach at all to slaves until after their masters are converted, and then teach the masters to use them with kindness; remembering that they are accountable to God, and the servants are bound to serve their masters with singleness of heart, without murmuring.” (Messenger and Advocate 2:289). Smith's views evolved, and later in life he made various proposals to bring about a peaceful end to institutionalized slavery, but to say he opposed slavery is a bit misleading. And, of course, notably absent from the discussion is Brigham Young. Now, why wouldn't President Newsroom mention Young's views on slavery and racial integration? Hmmmm....) During this time some black males were ordained to the priesthood. At some point the Church stopped ordaining male members of African descent, although there were a few exceptions. It is not known precisely why, how or when this restriction began in the Church (This is a lie. Of course it is known, but note the word "precisely," which, I suppose gives the apologist some wiggle room: "Of course, it is generally known, but President Newsroom was making the point that it's not known with precision, so the church isn't misleading people here..." Note how President Newsroom does not address specifically the statements of past prophets and apostles, including official declarations signed by the First Presidency that stated the priesthood ban was doctrinal and that it came from God), but it has ended. Church leaders (Note the use of the term "Church leaders." Who were they? Why not say the Church's Prophet and his fellow Apostles sought divine guidance? Why not say "the Lord's Prophet at the time, President Spencer W. Kimball, prayed in unison with the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles for, and received, a revelation from God ending the ban"?0 sought divine guidance (Note that President Newsroom says the church leaders sought divine guidance but does not state that they received such guidance. And no use of the word "revelation." Why is that? Interesting word choice.)regarding the issue and more than three decades ago extended the priesthood to all worthy male members. The Church immediately began ordaining members to priesthood offices wherever they attended throughout the world.

The Church unequivocally condemns racism, including any and all past racism by individuals both inside and outside the Church. Why doesn't the Church remove such racism from its canon and its teaching materials, which still include racist teachings about interracial marriage?) In 2006, then Church president (Note, again, the absence of the word "prophet" in describing him) Gordon B. Hinckley declared that “no man who makes disparaging remarks concerning those of another race can consider himself a true disciple of Christ. (Is this retroactive or just prospective? I.e., does it cover Brigham Young? If so, why would the church not change the name of its university?)Nor can he consider himself to be in harmony with the teachings of the Church. Let us all recognize that each of us is a son or daughter of our Father in Heaven, who loves all of His children.”

Recently, the Church has also made the following statement on this subject:

“The origins of priesthood availability are not entirely clear. (This is a bold statement! And very broad! Note how it does not say "the origins of priesthood availability to men of all races are not entirely clear," the implication being that the origins of priesthood availability, or lack thereof, for women, are not entirely clear.)Some explanations with respect to this matter were made in the absence of direct revelation and references to these explanations are sometimes cited in publications. (Does this not apply to the priesthood ban for women as well?)These previous personal statements do not represent Church doctrine.”(Some of the previous statements are in Mormon canonized scriptures. To the extent the scriptures go against what is in this statement by President Newsroom, are they no longer doctrinal? Some of the previous personal statements were in official declarations by the united members of the First Presidency. Does this statement by President Newsroom invalidate those earlier statements? What does this say for the future viability of, say, the Proclamation on the Family? What's to prevent President Newsroom from simply sweeping that under the rug whenever it might become expedient to do so? And that gets to my final point: why is this statement being issued anonymously on the church's media web page? Why aren't Monson, Uchtdorf, and Eyring issuing the statement? To me, this would be like if in 1954, instead of writing a judicial opinion, the Supreme Court had sent the janitor out onto the steps of the courthouse to declare for the Court that Plessy v. Ferguson had never been authoritative or controlling law. Where is this Prophet Monson who supposedly communes with the divine regularly? Is he incapable of speaking for the Lord (or himself, or the church he is supposed to be leading)? Why does he let President Newsroom do all the talking?)

[_Fence Sitter]

The whole statement reeks of fear. Frankly it reads like something a lawyer, whose client is being sued, would say in his defense. In the attempt to offend nobody they appeal to none. By the way, if they do not know the origins of the ban, who is to say that Bott was wrong?

[_Equality]

The main point of my line-by-line analysis might be lost in the details. Here it is:
Does President Newsroom speak with greater authority than the united voice of the First Presidency? How do we know that President Newsroom is not engaging in speculation and advancing folk doctrine? Can an anonymous press release really abrogate official statements signed by the First Presidency? For example, a hypothetical: what if President Newsroom publishes a statement saying that what the Brethren have published in the Proclamation to the World on the Family concerning gender is simply folklore and speculation? Would BYU professors then be subject to discipline if they continued to teach the principles enunciated in the Proclamation?

[_bcspace]

Does President Newsroom speak with greater authority than the united voice of the First Presidency?

The FP approves the message. It is established doctrine because it is published by the Church according to it's own definition of doctrine.

[_Equality]

Does President Newsroom speak with greater authority than the united voice of the First Presidency?

The FP approves the message. It is established doctrine because it is published by the Church according to it's own definition of doctrine.

Its own definition was put forth by President Newsroom. It's all circular, see?

[_bcspace]

Its own definition was put forth by President Newsroom. It's all circular, see?

The Church published it, therefore, there is a beginning and an end.

[_Themis]

Its own definition was put forth by President Newsroom. It's all circular, see?

The Church published it, therefore, there is a beginning and an end.

How does saying X is in Y establish that everything in Y is X? :)

[_Molok]

Its own definition was put forth by President Newsroom. It's all circular, see?

The Church published it, therefore, there is a beginning and an end.

The Beginning is the End is the Beginning

[_Sophocles]

I think it's time for Shades to come up with a new dichotomy.

PR Mormonism is a completely different religion, with its own leadership authority (President Newsroom), its own disciplinary procedures, and it's own standards for defining official doctrine.

[_just me]

Before I read the rest I wanted to stop on this point you make:

The Book of Mormon states, “black and white, bond and free, male and female; … all are alike unto God” (2 Nephi 26:33). This is the Church’s official teaching. (This scripture pre-dates the priesthood ban. If it is Church doctrine now, was it not church doctrine at the time the ban was instituted? And wasn't this scripture part of the canon the entire time the ban was in place? If this scripture provides a basis for not having a priesthood ban, why was a new revelation needed in 1978 to change the policy? Why couldn't the Prophet have just said something like "I was reading the Book of Mormon and saw this scripture verse that I guess no previous Prophet ever noticed before. Looks like we have to lift the ban because the Book of Mormon says so."?)

The Book of Mormon states that, yet women are banned from the priesthood as well. So, the LDS church still doesn't believe it. That scripture is meaningless.