DCP self-editing his thoughts on the priesthood ban

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
User avatar
Kishkumen
God
Posts: 6107
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 2:37 pm
Location: Cassius University

Re: DCP self-editing his thoughts on the priesthood ban

Post by Kishkumen »

Gadianton wrote:
Sun Sep 25, 2022 7:46 pm
Okay, outside of religion we might also spin myths to preserve a status quo, or fight against a status quo, but there is an especially problematic power behind not just making the myth, but canonizing it, and then excommunicating or disowning those who question it.
It's about authority. Until the leaders say jump, no matter how wrong it may be not to jump, you have to wait until the leaders say so. This is especially true in an authoritarian religious organization in which the leaders are perceived by many to be speaking for God.
“If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about the answers.”~Thomas Pynchon, Gravity’s Rainbow
dastardly stem
God
Posts: 2259
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2020 2:38 pm

Re: DCP self-editing his thoughts on the priesthood ban

Post by dastardly stem »

malkie wrote:
Mon Sep 26, 2022 1:54 am
To be contrary about talking to the architect:

Over a period of a number of years I served in several wards as either ward clerk or exec sec. I often found myself ferrying the bishop around - especially to and from bishopric meetings.

On several of these occasions the bishop unburdened himself to me, sometimes talking about very personal matters. One bishop even said to me: "You know how everyone goes to the bishop with their problems? Have you ever wondered who the bishop goes to? Well, now you know.
I hear you, malkie. It's certainly not out of the question. I can see the point "why would he do that?" questioning whether he would have done that--shared his secret with an architect, or saying "why would he do that?" asking why in the world would he be irresponsible enough to tell someone randomly but fail to explain it to everyone?

Admittedly I grow skeptical real quick when I hear people tell stories that tends to backtrack on the narrative a bit and only they would be able to know.
“Every one of us is, in the cosmic perspective, precious. If a human disagrees with you, let him live. In a hundred billion galaxies, you will not find another.”
― Carl Sagan, Cosmos
IHAQ
God
Posts: 1533
Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2020 8:00 am

Re: DCP self-editing his thoughts on the priesthood ban

Post by IHAQ »

DanielPeterson Andrew Hall
7 hours ago
Andrew Hall: "I have a firm testimony in the Restored Gospel, but I also have no doubt that prophets and apostles have made mistakes in the past. It seems clear to me that the priesthood and temple restrictions were the saddest of those mistakes. I don't demand an apology from anyone, I leave that to the prophets. But in general I think apologies are a morally good thing to do, regardless of any concern about efficacy in dampening criticism or grievances."

My concern is that we not apologize for things that we don't know to have been mistakes. And, glad as I am to see it far in the past, I, at least, don't know the pre-1978 priesthood and temple restriction to have been mistaken.
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeters ... nough.html

Peterson still supports the Priesthood Ban. As do many other members. They will continue to do so unless or until a member of the First Presidency acknowledges it as a mistake, apologises, and removes or specifically fully disavows the racist parts of the Book of Mormon (see below). Until then, passive racists like Peterson will proliferate the Church.

2nd Nephi, Chapter 5
21 And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.

3rd Nephi, Chapter 2
14 And it came to pass that those Lamanites who had united with the Nephites were numbered among the Nephites;
15 And their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites;
16 And their young men and their daughters became exceedingly fair, and they were numbered among the Nephites, and were called Nephites. And thus ended the thirteenth year.


These verses are not addressed in the teaching manuals of the Church. In fact, they are blatantly avoided. This creates the vacuum for members who wish to continue believing that dark skin was a sign of disfavour in the eyes of God and that the Priesthood Ban wasn't a mistake, but was/is doctrinal. People will point to the essay "Race and the Priesthood", but as one regular poster on the previous iteration of this board ("moinmoin" who was a serving Bishop) stated, essays are just pr spin for the masses, written with a knowing wink. That essay is unsigned, non doctrinal, and does not trump the scriptures above.

Excerpt from "Race & The Priesthood"
Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse...

If the Church meant that disavowing, then those racist passages in the Book of Mormon would have been removed, or at the very least specifically and unequivically addressed within the teaching curriculums. Neither is the case. Point in case - despite such a clear disavowing in Race & The Priesthood, Peterson still holds on to the Priesthood Ban as not a mistake, not something that needs an apology, not something that has been disavowed. The Church has conscientiously left space for the racists and the white supremacists to continue seeing their disgusting views and beliefs are in line with Church views and beliefs.
Unconvinced
Nursery
Posts: 1
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2022 2:58 am

Re: DCP self-editing his thoughts on the priesthood ban

Post by Unconvinced »

If Dan and Lou Midgley are going to the Celestial Kingdom, then I have zero gripes about not getting invited.
Post Reply