Mormons are ashamed of their own beliefs

[_mikwut]

Pahoran and Consigleri,

I concede that a Mormon is well within his acceptable believing rights to view the "doctrine" portion of this issue as Pahoran does. Critics of Mormonism spend way too much time on the doctrine red herring.

To me the question isn't whether it was doctrinal or not. The question to me is spiritual. Whatever label is placed on the practice i.e. attitudinal, false beliefs, policy, historical practice, cultural constructs etc.. it occurred. The perspective isn't an empirical test of elimination of whether it was doctrinal or not. The test is the same discernment taught by the church itself.

A claimed Restored Church of Jesus Christ, with the sole authority of the priesthood to act in God's name, with the blessing of revelation akin to the Prophets of scripture, with additional scripture revealed to them, with the gift of the holy ghost (not a trivial gift) and incredible temple blessings and more all given to them while isolated from the culture at large of American society after establishing the Great Basin to utilize these non-trivial blessings and authority among themselves they remained as a people no different in attitude (in my observation of history and personal experience), belief conditions, and maturity than the culture they came from, particularly in regards to one of the greatest moral issues that faced the country during both of the first centuries it existed.

Using our personal knowledge, that Mormonism teaches, which is the same knowledge bases in which to determine the truth of the restoration and the Book of Mormon, namely, spiritual recognition, spiritual judgment, reflection and discernment one is justified and warranted in saying the church isn't what it claims to be. Or, in the alternative, minimally like the Zoramites in the Book of Mormon others aren't obligated to believe because of the actions of the members.

My take on the issue, regards - Mikwut

[_consiglieri]

My take on the issue, regards - Mikwut

I agree with much of what you say, Mikwut.

I have come to see the institution of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as having much less contact with the divine than is believed by most of its members.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[_Themis]

My take on the issue, regards - Mikwut

I do agree that members have been and are today very similar to the thinking and culture they are surrounded by. If the ban was a mistake then it just shows in this instance that the church is no better off then any other church or group out their, all lacking real discernment on the issue. It's to bad the church seems to find itself on the wrong side of these kinds of issues and is always 10-20 years or so behind most of society, unless you believe the ban was from God. I am not sure this makes God look very good. :)

consiglieri

I have come to see the institution of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as having much less contact with the divine than is believed by most of its members.

I agree, but only because I see it having no more contact then any other religion. In Joseph Smith day he was claiming a hell of a lot of contact, and if the ban was a mistake one has to wonder why God wouldn't communicate this when it is such an important issue that casue a lot of trouble for the church today.

[_harmony]

If the policy had been what's been stated, then there was no reason for excluding black women from the temple prior to 1978.

So why were black women excluded?

[_mikwut]

A very salient point harmony.

regards, mikwut

[_harmony]

A very salient point harmony.

regards, mikwut

I suspect we won't have anyone who even attempts to answer that question, mikwut.

[_Yoda]

If the policy had been what's been stated, then there was no reason for excluding black women from the temple prior to 1978.

So why were black women excluded?

*crickets chirping*

[_Pahoran]

If the policy had been what's been stated, then there was no reason for excluding black women from the temple prior to 1978.

So you see no connection between the Priesthood and the ordinances of the Temple, do you?

All I can say to that is, "Oh."

So why were black women excluded?

For the same reason that black men were excluded. Regardless of anyone's opinion of the validity or otherwise of the former Priesthood ban, the fact that it must necessarily entail exclusion from the ordinances whereby candidates are endowed with power from on high and receive the fulness of the Priesthood is so blindingly obvious as to require no further comment.

Regards,
Pahoran

[_Jason Bourne]

So why were black women excluded?

For the same reason that black men were excluded. Regardless of anyone's opinion of the validity or otherwise of the former Priesthood ban, the fact that it must necessarily entail exclusion from the ordinances whereby candidates are endowed with power from on high and receive the fulness of the Priesthood is so blindingly obvious as to require no further comment.

So what was the reason for the ban then? Really please enlighten us. You argue all that so many LDS leaders said about the race of Cain and that those born there in were less valiant in the pre-existence were simply misinterpretation of the doctrine of the ban or mere opinion. So what was the basis for the doctrine that created the ban?

And really, if all these leaders got the interpretation of the doctrine so wrong for so long what else are they did they get wrong and what might be wrong now?

These are serious questions and I would like some serious thoughts. If you cannot answer without being flippant do not bother.

[_Pahoran]

So what was the reason for the ban then? Really please enlighten us. You argue all that so many LDS leaders said about the race of Cain and that those born there in were less valiant in the pre-existence were simply misinterpretation of the doctrine of the ban or mere opinion. So what was the basis for the doctrine that created the ban?

And really, if all these leaders got the interpretation of the doctrine so wrong for so long what else are they did they get wrong and what might be wrong now?

Shush, Jason. You're not supposed to let the cat out of the bag so quickly. You're supposed to back the apologist into a corner and then spring the ambush.

It is obvious from both the content and the timing of the various explanations for the ban that they represent a posteriori attempts to explain a situation already in place.

In other words, the policy came before the explanations.

If a doctrinal reason for the ban had ever been revealed, the various (mutually exclusive) speculations would not have been necessary.

But revelations rarely come with explanations, anyway. If the ban had been brought about by revelation (and not all revelations were published) then the reason for it would not necessarily have been given.

There are a number of possible explanations that I am aware of, but I don't know which of them is really correct. Therefore, given the ethos of the anti-Mormon web, I'm not going to put any of them forward, even tentatively; because as sure as eggs are eggs, some day in the future, someone will say, "Back in 2011, YOUUUU said...."

These are serious questions and I would like some serious thoughts. If you cannot answer without being flippant do not bother.

My serious thought is that, for the purpose of "why were black women excluded," it doesn't matter whether the ban was 100% right, 100% wrong, a temporary measure that outlived its time, or anything else. The fact that it was (1) lineage-based, and (2) necessarily excluded those under it from Temple ordinances meant that it automatically excluded black women, and asking why that should be so invites the utmost flippancy.

Regards,
Pahoran