MrShorty

I'm seeing reports tonight that the U, along with the Arizona schools, are going to the Big 12 and a couple of the Pac NW schools are going to the Big 10, leaving only 4 members of the PAC 12 still in the PAC 12. Not sure what to make of this. https://www.ksl.com/article/50701889/utah-accepts-invitation-to-join-big-12-in-2024-after-board-of-trustees-vote

My thoughts upon completion. It was a difficult read. This history is heavy. I find myself further convinced, with Reeves (and Mason and Woodward and a growing body of other faithful LDS), that this aspect of our history is not of divine origin. I also recognize that this, in the end, is a major point of contention and disagreement around this issue. In keeping with the opening disclaimer, I don't know how many of Reeves' subjective interpretations and opinions that are present throughout the book are the interpretations and opinions of the Church or its leaders or its members. In the end, I still find myself "dissatisfied" (if that is the right word) with the justifications and explanations that are given. More and more, this issue feels like something that will fall under "problem of evil" type of questions that just don't have good, satisfying answers or explanations. Maybe we can only hope to have conversations around these issues that help us wrestle with the problems and questions and issues in a way that allows our faith to remain intact in some form. Perhaps all we can really do is try to learn from this history, and try to do better in the future as we grow towards Zion and celestial society.

Chapters 17 to end: Chapter 17 is kind of the end of the "documentary history" portion of the book. Chapter 17 is a brief look at what led up to the '78 revelation (appears to pull largely from Ed Kimball's history) told in parallel to the story of a Freda Beaulieu, who was able to receive her temple blessings in July of '78 after years of faithful isolation from the church. Chapter 18 to the end is where Reeves shares his opinions about the sticky questions and implications that come out of this particular part of our history. In Chapter 18, Reeves states that he does not believe in any kind of "divine origin" for the ban. He talks about the post-78 justifications that we use to rationalize the existence of the ban today. He identifies 4: 1) Gospel spreads in stages, trying to draw a parallel between "first to the Jews, then the Gentiles" so that we claim "first to the Whites, then the Blacks" 2) God's restricting priesthood to Whites is a parallel to God restricting priesthood to the tribe of Levi. 3) 19th century America was so racist that something bad would have happened to the church if it had been inclusive and desegregated. 4) Everyone was racist in the 19th century, so 19th century saints just did not or could not know better. Reeves explains why he rejects each of these justifications. One gets the impression that Reeves may not believe there is a "justification" for the priesthood ban. In Chapters 19 and 20, Reeves gives his explanation (I don't think he would call it a justification, though) for the ban. Basically, he chalks it up to agency and human frailty and the idea that God does not always intervene when bad things happen -- even if the bad thing that is happening is due to the choices and frailties and misunderstandings of His prophets and apostles. In chapters 21 and 22, Reeves turns from looking at the past to looking at the future, emphasizing how the church has progressed out of and hopefully beyond its past, regressive beliefs. He talks about his testimony of the Savior and how He can heal us of our errors and help us grow and progress to new and better understandings of issues related to race, with hope and encouragement that we as a people will take the call to "root our racism" seriously. Throughout these last chapters, Reeves emphasizes his status as a believer with a solid testimony of the Restoration and modern prophets in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I think he wants to assure readers that, while this is heavy, difficult history, it need not break our shelves or crush our testimonies.

Chapters 15 and 16: In these chapters, Reeves highlights some of the "disagreements" within the church over the racial restrictions. He mentions Pres. G. A. Smith's 1949 1st Presidency statement and Pres. D. O. McKay's 1969 First Presidency statement, as well as Elder McConkie's Mormon Doctrine. He also documents several examples (mostly from Latin America) of how difficult it was in some places to identify those with Black African ancestry and restrict them from receiving priesthood and temple ordinances. All of this brings us to the end of phase 2 and prepares us for 1978 and phase 3 -- returning to racial inclusivity.

Chapters 12, 13, 14: these chapters take us quickly through the late 19th into the early 20th centuries, showing a broad trend of uncertainty around the ban with examples of some mixed race people receiving full temple blessings and some who don't (Jane Manning James is in this part of the story). As precedent gets more and more firmly entrenched, we go from John Taylor's uncertainty to Joseph F. Smith being the first to fully write out a policy that blanketly restricts anyone with any know black African ancestry no matter the degree from priesthood and temple privileges. This section even includes anecdotes of segregated congregations where faithful Black members were not allowed to worship in the same meetings as white members. I hope the book has hit bottom. Looking forward, the next few chapters appear to be moving into discussing the lead up to the '78 revelation, so I hope it gets better from here.

Chapters 9, 10, 11: This is where it gets hard. 9 focused on the issue of interracial marriage. The main storyline follows a William Appleby who was sent by church leaders to survey the branches on the East Coast. During his travels, he encountered an interracial marriage in Massachusetts, found the situation appalling, and took his concerns to Brigham Young and church leaders. Following popular beliefs of the day ( Reeves cites a Josiah Nott who was an anthropologist firmly opposed to interracial marriages), church leaders agree with Appleby. Reeves suggests that one major motivation for implementing the restrictions was to dissuade against interracial marriages. 10. Covers the 1852 legislative session when Utah Territory codified its acceptance of slavery, notably against the opposition led by Orson Pratt. BY uses his belief in a curse of Cain type doctrine to justify slavery and also restrict Blacks from holding the priesthood. Reeves notes that BY gives no explanation for his change in attitude from a few years before. 11. Turns attention to Orson Pratt. In the prior chapter, Pratt seems a hero, because he seemed so opposed to slavery. In this chapter, Reeves recounts how Pratt introduced the "neutral/less valiant in the preexistence" justification for race based restrictions. Some heavy stuff here. I recall from podcasts featuring Reeves that he told DB when they approached him for this project that he insisted on being able to include stuff from the 1852 legislative session, no matter how hard it would be to read in the 21st century. Reeves mentions the 2013 disavowal a few times as well, but he otherwise doesn't seem to be holding back. Stuff was said and stuff was disavowed and we just have to sit and wrestle with it.

Chapters 6, 7, 8: Chapter 6 focuses on what Reeves calls "Universalism" (meaning universal access to priesthood and temple ordinances) in Nauvoo, with the example of a Sarah Ann Mode, who was mixed race from Phillidelphia, PA, joins the church sometime after census records start listing her as "white," eventually receiving full temple ordinances. According to Reeves, she is the earliest example we currently have of a Black person receiving full temple ordinances. Chapter 7 looks at Winter Quarters after leaving Nauvoo -- in particular the case of William McCary. This account shows how some of the attitudes towards race started changing in the church (McCary wasn't the most upstanding of characters). In chapter 8, Reeves focuses on the scriptural proof texts and interpretations that were used by other Christians and 19th century Latter-day Saints that informed the (flawed??) understanding of race and the supremacy of the white race and the inferiority of all other races. Reeves seems rather sour on these interpretations of the texts, much preferring other interpretations. One aspect he highlights that stood out to me was he noted how the abolitionist/anti-abolitionist divide in the US split other Christian denominations, but the LDS church managed to stay together in spite of differing opinions by many within the faith. This is the end of Reeves' Phase 1 description. I wonder if Reeves has overstated the case for "universal," desegregated access and underplayed the racist beliefs of the 19th century saints in order to emphasize his point. Next time we start into Phase 2 -- the implementation of a race based segregation as far as priesthood ordination and temple participation goes.

Chapters 3, 4, 5: Historical settings that illustrate some of the dynamics of the 1830s and 40s. Chapter 3 goes briefly through the Missouri era. He focuses quite a bit on W. W. Phelps publication of an article in his paper that local Missourians (remember that Missouri was a pro-slave state) felt was too racially inclusive -- an event that Reeves highlights as "the beginning of the Saints expulsion from Jackson County" and, eventually, the state of Missouri. Chapter 4 is a very quick synopsis of the same racial attitudes he describes in much more detail in Religion of a Different Color. Chapter 5 focuses on the specific issue of slavery, noting amongst other things how the issue of slavery split other Christian denominations along north/south lines (like the Baptists), but somehow the Latter-day Saints managed to stay together as a group. Reeves says at the end of chapter 5: It can seem that, though the issues have changed, the church is still trying to figure out how to create a unified church while welcoming people of competing and conflicting and contradictory ideologies.

Chapters 1 and 2: Basically documenting a few examples (including well known examples like Elijah Able) of early black converts. Chapter 1 covers free black converts from the northern US, and chapter 2 covers enslaved black converts (with passing mention of enslavers) from the southern US. The basic idea behind these first chapters is to show that,

I'm not sure of the exact provenance of the account (I've tracked it back to an early Mormon Stories episode 271-274 while it was still nuanced rather than just anti) of Dr. Dan Petersen who served on the curriculum committee for a while. As a joke, he suggested this passage with discussion questions like, "Have you ever killed anyone with a Sacrament meeting speech? What could you do better in the future to avoid this?" The story goes that it made it past correlation and into the final proof gallies. When Dr. Petersen saw the galley proofs, he called someone up and suggested that part be taken out.

Introduction Most of the introduction is anecdotes involving a Ritchie family. The "patriarch" of the family, Nelson, is mixed race born into slavery. He escapes slavery, marries a white woman, becomes a businessman/hotel owner, and joins the church. Reeves describes how various members of the Ritchie family, including the patriarch himself, received priesthood and temple blessings well before 1978. Reeves also explains that he is going to approach this history in 3 phases. Phase 1 he describes as the early years of the restoration when priesthood and temple blessings were available to all. Phase 2 is the period where the priesthood and temple ban is implemented "in fits and starts" until 1978. Phase 3 is the period after the revelation in 1978 which Reeves describes as a return to the original idea of universal access to these blessings for all.

I just got a copy of Let's Talk About Race and the Priesthood by Paul Reeves (library ebook), and will be starting to read it. I'm expecting that this will be a difficult slog, even if it will be a relatively short book, and wanted to have a place to share some thoughts as I go through the book. I'm not going into this entirely blind. I have read Reeves' previous book, Religion of a Different Color. I have also listened to a few podcasts that Reeve did when this book was first published by Deseret Book. At present, I have read the disclaimer -- The views expressed are the responsibility of the author and do not necessarily represent the position of the Church or Deseret Book. I have also read the forward by Darius Gray, which was well done and provides a compelling start from someone who joined the church in spite of the restriction and has a powerful view of this issue. Doesn't it give you nice warm fuzzy feelings to think that I chose ThirdHour for this?

At the risk of derailing something, I recently decided to revisit another old sci-fi favorite of mine -- Asimov's Foundation series. In getting started, I found something at Wikipedia written by a Tim O'Reilly that claims, "Dune is clearly a commentary on the Foundation trilogy. Herbert has taken a look at the same imaginative situation that provoked Asimov's classic—the decay of a galactic empire—and restated it in a way that draws on different assumptions and suggests radically different conclusions. The twist he has introduced into Dune is that the Mule, not the Foundation, is his hero." Just thought this an interesting way that a couple of my favorite old sci-fi classics are linked. Wikipedia link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundation_series

I don't know if I can communicate my thoughts coherently, but, hey, this is the internet which is full of all kinds of incoherent stuff, so who cares if I fail. Interestingly, my first thought goes way back decades to Jr. High in Utah in the early '80s. For those who have not, yet heard of the weather comparisons for this year to those years, we had a few years of high precipitation that was leading to the Great Salt Lake rising above levels that people were comfortable with. I recall a social studies teacher taking a small jab at the Utah legislature for passing a law forbidding the GSL from rising above a certain level. What was the state going to do? Cuff the GSL and haul it off to prison if it rose too high? In the same way, does Uganda think that it can stop people from being LGBT+ by making a law that criminalizes being gay? Of course, I know that such legislation can be more nuanced. In the case of the GSL, of course the state wasn't simply criminalizing the lake's size. I was young, so I don't remember the details, but I expect that such legislation would provide guidance and resources to people and agencies and communities for flood control and mitigation and other ways of dealing with the possibilities around the lake getting too large/high. In the case of the Ugandan legislation, I'm not sure why the legislation exists. The description in the Yahoo piece seems to only describe criminal punishments (fines/incarceration) for violators, but nothing that really addresses that there will inevitably be people who are gay in Uganda. In the same way that, when all you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail, when you are thinking in terms of criminal law, everything undesirable wants to carry a consequence of fines or imprisonment, but it seems to me that the legislation has no purpose other than to add reasons for the long arm of the law to impose fines or imprison people. My thoughts -- and probably worth about what you paid for them.

However we may each individually vote, I just saw on the Church newsroom that Pres. Nelson and company have voted (very strongly) for 9 April/Western Easter. https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/latter-day-saints-to-celebrate-easter-with-single-christ-centered-worship-meeting-and-music

I'm involved in music in our ward, so I often find myself anticipating Easter earlier than many. I learned today that our ward/stake will be having Fast Sunday on 9 Apr (Traditional Western church Easter), so there won't be special musical numbers or such on that day. (The cynic in me is expecting a lot of testimonies focused on the prior week's General Conference, but that's another topic. Shouldn't let the cynic run me down before it gets a chance to be proved wrong). I'm told that we will have our Easter service the following week. At first I was disappointed, but then I learned that 16 April is the Eastern church's Easter Sunday. So, maybe it will be okay. With some of the ways that our General Conference often conflicts with [Western] Easter, I have sometimes wondered if we would do well to regularly adopt the Eastern choice for Easter and break from the Western church on this issue. That might be too much of a break from tradition, though. Can I take comfort in celebrating Easter with the Eastern church, since the date used by the Western church this year is rather inconvenient? One caveat. I'm not entirely sure how serious I am here, so feel free to have a little fun. On a serious note, I am sometimes disappointed in how we do Easter (mostly because it sometimes feels like an after thought to us rather than the highest point of the liturgical year. At the same time, I can understand that the exact date that we celebrate Easter likely means very little in the grand scheme of things.

I'm not sure it is very satisfying, but it seems to me to be something very similar to the question of how prophets and scripture communicate revelation -- my own spiritual experiences are subject to my own failures to receive them properly and interpret them properly. As an example, I thought of the many times we as LDS have "rationalized away" other people's spiritual experiences in relation to their churches/faiths (I don't know if it is the best example, but one thread on this board: Sometimes we talk about how people in other churches might have spiritual experiences around truths that they encounter, but these spiritual experiences should not be interpreted as evidence that their church is as true as the LDS church is. If someone has a spiritual experience with the Bible, does that mean the Book of Mormon cannot be scripture? If someone has a spiritual experience with the Book of Mormon, does that mean that the Book of Mormon must be 100% historical? If someone has a spiritual experience in the temple, does that mean that the creation account in the temple is scientifically accurate? Speaking only for myself, I have had spiritual experiences in relation to the reality of God, but does that mean that everything I believe about God's nature is 100% true? I have had experiences around the reality of Christ and His atonement, but does that necessarily mean that every thing attributed to Christ by the Evangelists in the NT is exactly the way it all happened?. I have also had spiritual experiences with the Book of Mormon and other scripture and experiences related to the restoration, but does that mean that everything that has happened under the banner of the restoration is exactly what God wanted? Spiritual experiences are certainly a key part of our testimony, but are we always certain of our interpretation of those spiritual experiences?

I frequently see this in some of these "accommodationist" approaches, and, in many ways I think it makes sense. However, I also think it sets up a tension between "conservative" religion (what we have been teaching and doing is correct) and "progressive" religion (God is trying to show us where we need to change). Which is fine if that's really what we believe is happening in how God interacts with His people through His prophets. It suggests to me that one aspect of helping some who doubt could involve helping them understand and accept this conservative vs. progressive tension and how we think God wants us to understand it.

I find myself hoping and praying the same thing. It might be leading to be more universalistic than we are typically comfortable with (we have a long history of discomfort with universalism), but there it is anyway.

Everyone's faith journey (or crisis or whatever you want to call it) is unique. For me, it seems that all of the issues that I encounter (historical or otherwise) come down to questions around prophetic fallibility and/or scriptural errancy. We claim that the church is built on the "rock of revelation," with a "foundation of apostles and prophets." What does this really mean, when we also acknowledge that prophets can make mistakes? In many ways, I think Ben Spackman has captured the heart and soul of the issue best while addressing the issue of slavery in the Bible (https://benspackman.com/2019/11/gospel-doctrine-lesson-40-colossians-and-philippians-but-mostly-philemon/ Obviously, there's a lot more that is said to build up to this point, and then some ideas for consideration (Spackman tends to favor an "accommodationist" model of scripture, prophets, and revelation where God gives revelation according to our understanding, in which He sometimes does not counter people's or prophet's strongly held but incorrect beliefs). I recommend the entire essay to see how he gets to this question using the example of slavery in the Bible. In the end, I have not found a good answer to this question. "Accommodationism" or Givens's "Viceroy model" (see chapter 6 of Crucible of Doubt) or Leo Winegar's "Restorative Light model" seem to describe what happens, but they leave open questions around whether there really are eternal moral truths that God cannot violate, or maybe God really doesn't care about truth, whether loyalty to the church/prophets is more important than loyalty to truth, and so on. In my experience, this has been the central issue as I try to figure out what I believe and where my faith journey will go. One additional principle that I think feeds into the problem of prophetic errancy is an all or nothing attitude that is common in our teaching. Some variation of what Pres. Hinckley said about "it's either all true or the greatest fraud" makes the slippery slope even more slippery. Once one finds that prophets/scripture may have made a mistake about [blank], this all or nothing belief then accelerates us down the slippery slope because we believe that it's either all true or all false (One thing I have seen others say, and one of my own pet peeves from ex-Mormon and anti-Mormon commentators is how they seem to believe the same kind of all or nothingness about the church). I know that there is a solid discomfort with "cafeteria Mormons," but I find that it is a very useful concept for staying in the church. I sometimes wonder if finding examples of other cafeteria Mormons is a useful tool for this sort of thing. For example, I recently read Carol Lynn Pearson's Ghost of Eternal Polygamy. I know that some people don't like her book, one thing I found quite compelling in her writing was her strongly held belief that Joseph Smith was a prophet, while also holding the belief that God did not ever (in the OT or in 19th century Mormonism) command or condone polygamy. For another example, I have seen a few interviews with Patrick Mason where he come right out and says that he does not believe that the priesthood and temple ban was ever commanded or otherwise put in place by God. As you indicate in the OP, many of this issues are difficult, often nuanced, and maybe don't even have satisfactory answers. Finding examples of people who have figured out how to be cafeteria Mormons and stay actively engaged with the church in spite of the things they don't believe seems useful to me.

It is interesting, isn't it. I don't know if I have any meaningful insights. Maybe it has something to do with the different ways the people I grew up with valued conformity to group standards? "Boys do ____" vs. "Girls do ____" and we don't want to confuse the two? Of course, some of the new narratives are just conforming to different standards and not really about non-comformity. Maybe it has to do with what is considered pathological? When I was young, homosexuality and trans-gender were solidly considered "illnesses" (technically, it was about a decade after the APA had de-pathologized homosexuality in the DSM, but that sort of change doesn't trickle out to the laity immediately). I don't know if this adds to the conversation, but I have a child who seems determined to get themselves classified as some kind of neurodivergent. They frequently bring up essays and articles about "unexpected signs someone is on the autism spectrum" as if to say, "see, Dad, how I'm really neurodivergent on some level." When I was younger, people didn't want to carry the stigma that comes with labels of mental or neurological illness, where today those same diagnoses do not carry the same stigma. Is it good to be more accepting of people's mental/neural diversity? On some level, yes, it seems good to be more accepting of people as they are rather than stigmatizing or pathologizing significant characteristics about a person. However, as those characteristics become less stigmatized or pathologized, it becomes more accepted (maybe even more desirable??) to be found with those characteristics. I really don't know what we do about some of this. Part of me wants to say that maybe we ought to not make a big deal out of any of it. "You have diabetes? That's fine, no big deal, keep in touch with your doctor for treatment, but otherwise, it's no big deal." "You have depression? That's fine, no big deal, keep in touch with your doctor for treatment, but otherwise, it's no big deal." You're LGBTQ+? That's fine, no big deal, in this case, there is no pathology to deal with, but keep in touch with your doctor for any pathologies that arise, but otherwise it's no big deal." Maybe none of it really matters, and we ought to just accept whatever people are or have as no big deal and live and let live? But I don't know if the whole experience of life is intended to be that stoic.

@Ironhold@NeuroTypical My intent wasn't to focus on the incels specifically. Personally, I'm appalled at their ideas -- especially some of the more violent ones. My main point in mentioning the incels and others is that there is a variety of experiences out there, and to try to say that it is difficult to make some kind of universal, blanket "opposite sex couples are better at deciding that sexual fulfillment is unimportant and same sex couples are more inclined to make sex the end all, be all of their relationships." I was trying to say that there are a variety of experiences across all sexual orientations trying to figure out the proper place for sexual fulfillment, and many who struggle to get it right.

Maybe. I certainly think there is something to the idea that there are basic attitudes and thinking behind some of this. At one extreme, are the so-called "incels" that speak anger and hatred and even violence towards women. Acknowledging they exist, I think they need serious help. They are not a group to look to as a "good" example. More mainstream, I see many heterosexuals who think sexual fulfillment does matter. I also think many of them are good LDS (and broader Christian) people who believe that sexual fulfillment is important. I have not kept it a secret from the group that my own sexless marriage drove me to wonder about the importance of sexual fulfillment in marriage and to seek out ideas from a variety of sources (perhaps of note to a group like this, but, when I looked to the church for ideas, the church was silent on the importance of sexual fulfillment in marriage). In looking through these sources I see a fairly strong majority that believe sexual fulfillment is important. Of course, the devil is in the details, so it can be difficult to find consensus on just how important. Some get hung up on questions of divorce. @The Folk Prophet mentioned men who leave their aging wives for younger models. I think most that I encounter view this as "shallow." But the more common scenario is one where a man (or a woman) will leave his sexually disinterested wife in search of someone with more sexual interest, and they find a similarly aged woman and they make a good second marriage. Some of these might say, "life is too short to live in a sexless marriage, so I amicably left my first wife and found a second wife." If it isn't too explicit for thirdhour, there are women who experience anorgasmia. A frequent topic of conversation is whether these women ought to pursue their own sexual pleasure in pursuit of sexual fulfillment. Most people suggest that female anorgasmia is among the most treatable of sexual dysfunctions, so, yes, it is valuable pursuit. Such a woman need not simply accept sexual unfulfillment due to anorgasmia. I don't have the same kind of discomfort with LGB issues that the OP talks about, but I do find myself uncomfortable with LGB issues. In a sense, I agree that perhaps a big part of that discomfort centers on the issue of just how important is sexual fulfillment to a person's well-being. My big challenge is that I haven't figured out exactly what the appropriate priority sexual fulfillment ought to have. There just seem to be so many different human experiences figuring into this. Some have higher libidos and some lower. Some seem to place too high of a priority on sexual fulfillment, while others dismiss its importance way too readily. I can't even figure out in my own heterosexual relationship what importance to give to sexual fulfillment, let alone try to figure out what that ought to look like for LGB people. I just have not found "THE" answer to the question.

I don't know if the third hour community will consider this appropriate. If you were unaware, in the time since you resigned, the church made all of its handbooks publicly available (churchofjesuschrist.org or in the LDS gospel library app). The section specifically addressing readmission after resigning is section 32.16.2. There are not a lot of specifics given, but the process clearly goes through your bishop (or stake president). If it will help you feel more confident going into your meeting with the bishop, you can review that section of the CHI and see what kinds of things your bishop or stake president is advised to go over with you during the process of readmission.

Any thoughts beyond the video? Personally, I find myself a bit turned off by most generic takes on being "equally yoked" because "equally yoked" is usually referring to the "lesser" status of mixed faith marriages. Since my wife and kids have left the church, I can never tell if someone like this would just as soon see me divorce my wife so that I can remarry a faithful marry (in the mixed-faith marriage circles I frequent, it is not uncommon to encounter people who advocate for divorce and remarriage solely because one spouse leaves the church). Again, I could be missing the point (the video was short and focused only on the axe getting dulled by wood analogy), but it seems to me that my relationships with my family and others who have left the church are still useful in sharpening myself. I'm not sure that an interpretation that a Christian cannot find themself sharpened in their relationships with non-Christians is completely true. I expect that those of use with relationships with non-LDS/non-Christians can point to ways that non-Christians have helped us grow and develop. I'm not sure that all "sharpening" exclusively occurs in LDS-LDS or Christian-Christian relationships. Those are my reactions. As I note, they mostly start from the idea that being "equally yoked" is something St. Paul said to discourage Christians from marrying outside of the faith. If you want to go a different direction with the metaphor, I'm open to other directions.