"Forceful repudiation" of priesthood ban? ....

[_Rollo Tomasi]

Yesterday the LDS Newsroom issued a "Getting It Right" response to several recent media programs concerning the LDS Church and Mitt Romney. Here is the link:

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/m ... -august-29

In the first part of the essay, concerning NBC's Rock Center report on Mormonism, here is a description of a part of the Rock Center program involving an interview of Matthew Bowman (emphasis mine):

Bowman provides a brief overview of the Book of Mormon's narrative and its account of a divinely led exodus from Jerusalem. He also clarifies the misperception about the Mormon afterlife, noting that Mormons believe God prepared the earth for a time of growth and experience for mankind to eventually learn to become like Himself in terms of His attributes -- not His cosmological assets. (For more information on the noncanonical status of similar claims, please see our Mormonism 101 page.) In addition, Bowman gives an overview of the priesthood policy regarding race, including the Church's recent statement on race and "forceful repudiation" of any theories that were generated in order to explain past policies.

First, I don't really know what is meant by "cosmological assets." Would Kolob count as such an "asset"?

Second, I guess putting quotes around "forceful repudiation" means these were Bowman's words, but does this mean that the Church now agrees with him that the Church has issued a "forceful repudiation" of all prior explanations for the priesthood ban? Would this include the 1852 statement by Brigham Young (made as prophet and apostle) that he "knew" the ban was premised on the Curse of Cain? Would this include the official 1949 FP Statement citing both the Curse of Cain and premortal existence as doctrinal bases for the ban? I did not read the Church's statements last year (issued as a result of the Randy Bott debacle) as "repudiating" any doctrine (which is how the 1949 FP Statement described the ban). In fact, the above quote from the LDS Newsroom refers to ban-related matters as "past policies." Has anything really been "repudiated"? I consider the current "We don't know" reasoning not a repudiation of anything (because, if "we don't know" the actual reason for the ban, how can we say that past Church leaders weren't right, at least in part?). The Church can never escape its past racism unless it repudiates everything and, at the same time, apologize for the Church's racist past.

[_just me]

The Church can never escape its past racism unless it repudiates everything and, at the same time, apologize for the Church's racist past.

Agreed!

[_Fence Sitter]

I would expect the 'cosmological assets" has something to do with us becoming Gods but not the 1st God. I agree it is a weird way to phrase it.

'Forceful repudiation of any theories" is a another way avoiding responsibility and rejecting all previous racist explanations. As long as the Church continues to maintain it was a directive from God that they just don't understand, they are still teaching that God is a racist.

[_dblagent007]

First, I don't really know what is meant by "cosmological assets." Would Kolob count as such an "asset"?

I think this refers to members eventually having their own planets (cosmological assets = planets, stars, galaxies, etc.). The church's statement is saying that Mormons believe members will become like God in that we will have his attributes. Members won't become like God in the sense that they will have their own planets, etc.

[_Equality]

No, I think putting "forceful repudiation" in quotes shows that the church does not think it has forcefully repudiated anything. Putting quotes around it is akin to referring to it as a "so-called forceful repudiation." At least that's how the church usually uses such quote marks. So you can read the statement thus:

In addition, Bowman gives an overview of the priesthood policy regarding race, including the Church's recent statement on race and so-called forceful repudiation of any theories that were generated in order to explain past policies.

[_Called2Swerve]

You know what would clear this all up right here and right now? A Prophet that will address this and all other issues in this upcoming October's General Conference. This is the Mormon Moment and the FP/Q12 and most particularly the one who speaks for the church and for the Lord (TSM) to deliver the word of prophesy and of God. Not only for all those in the media and politics in this Romney moment, but for members like myself who grew up being taught that the priesthood ban was punishment for something that happened in the pre-existence.

[_bcspace]

The Church can never escape its past racism unless it repudiates everything and, at the same time, apologize for the Church's racist past

The Church has already escaped criticism of the past. Despite their best attempts, no one but a few anti Mormons and other idiots and lunatics are seriously worried about it and the Church continues to gain mainstream acceptance.

[_Bob Loblaw]

The Church has already escaped criticism of the past. Despite their best attempts, no one but a few anti Mormons and other idiots and lunatics are seriously worried about it and the Church continues to gain mainstream acceptance.

You're living proof that Rollo is right. As long as people like you are out there making excuses for racism--or flat out denying it--the church will have to deal with its racists doctrines and their defenders.

[_angsty]

I don't think they understand what "forceful repudiation" means. Or maybe they do, but they assume their membership doesn't-- because no one outside the church who cares about Civil Rights issues is going to buy anything the church has said so far as a "forceful repudiation".

[_Sethbag]

First, I don't really know what is meant by "cosmological assets." Would Kolob count as such an "asset"?

I think this refers to members eventually having their own planets (cosmological assets = planets, stars, galaxies, etc.). The church's statement is saying that Mormons believe members will become like God in that we will have his attributes. Members won't become like God in the sense that they will have their own planets, etc.

I read it that way too. We'll be just like God, except that we won't have our own planet/galaxy/universe/whatever. Which is a total reversal and backpedal from what was taught forever in the church.

I really don't get what is motivating some Mormons in the CoB to backpedal on the whole elevation to Godhood belief - with all that that entails. They now imagine LDS doctrine positing a "Godhood Lite" concept, ie: God's attributes, but not live and do what God does now, over our own domains. Not only is that a reversal of what was taught in the past, but it's also a dilution of the promises made. They aren't adding incentives to Mormons, they're removing them IMHO.

Apparently someone thinks this will make Mormon doctrine less heretical to mainstream Protestants. Whatever.