"it's In The Past"

[Guest TheProudDuck]

I was thinking about something my mother said the other day. She mentioned that she liked how President Hinckley had responded to a question about the Church's past practice of denying the priesthood to people of African descent. She recalled his response as being something like "That's in the past, and we're concerned about the future."

Is the priesthood color-bar issue really in the past?

True, the practice has been changed. But the way it was changed was such that the Church's present doctrine on the subject is that while the bar is no longer God's will, it was up to 1978. In other words, the Second Official Declaration wasn't the correction of a mistake, but a change from one divinely-approved order to another.

So it currently remains effective Church doctrine that God desired to withhold full participation in the Church from people of African descent until 1978.

Has the Church ever changed any of its doctrines or practices in any other way? Has it ever admitted to a goof? Can it?

It happens that I'm on one of my civil-rights kicks, this one triggered by a PBS program on the black boxer Jack Johnson, who dominated boxing around the turn of the century. Some of the sentiments expressed about him and his race at the time -- near enough that I can still have dinner in some of the buildings that existed then, even in relatively-new Newport Beach -- were absolutely appalling. Race questions can't just be swept under the rug, and it seems that the Church's approach to it is to do precisely that. (As a note, I'm equally annoyed at the modern "race industry," which uses historical guilt as a club for political purposes.)

I don't see how the Church can dismiss the past as irrelevant. President Hinckley's authority flows directly from events that happened in the past -- Joseph Smith's restoration of the office of prophet. If the helpful past is relevant, so is the difficult past.

[Amillia]

I don't know that anything is being swept under the rug. Are we to dwell on unproductive and non-relative subjects while we have the end times at our doors?

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Originally posted by Amillia@Jan 28 2005, 06:16 PM

I don't know that anything is being swept under the rug. Are we to dwell on unproductive and non-relative subjects while we have the end times at our doors?

If the end times are truly at our doors, better to repent now of having ascribed racial foolishness to God than to present him at his coming with a church that still officially teaches he thinks dark skin is a bad thing.

[Snow]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck@Jan 28 2005, 04:27 PM

I don't see how the Church can dismiss the past as irrelevant. President Hinckley's authority flows directly from events that happened in the past -- Joseph Smith's restoration of the office of prophet. If the helpful past is relevant, so is the difficult past.

I'm sure that you are being somewhat rhetorical and can come up with as good an argument as possible as anyone why the Church isn't all that interested in "negative" history.

Here's one such argument:

Mormons don't rely on history to understand God. Mormons rely on prophecy and revelation to understand God. Thus, the Bible isn't the "truth," (of if you like, the platonic form of ultimate light and knowledge); it, the Bible, points the way to the "truth." Extending that out a bit... Mormon history is not the "truth," it merely helps to point the way. It the extent that Mormon history strenghtens one's faith and draws one closer to God and helps one to better divine the Spirit and thus ultimately the platonic form or logos and hence God Himself, then great - Hallelujah! But, to the extent that dwelling on mistakes or negativity or endless debates of what we, in our current and supposedly more enlightened and intellectual state view as squirrelly, then to what doth that profit us? Instead of intellectualizing everything to death PD, oh he of the human mind as the end all be all, trust God, seek after the Spirit, obey the commandments and hunger after righteousness and stop fretting about how screwy our forebears might have been.

[pushka]

I think PD has a good point...and I think that the Church should recognise it's mistakes of the past, and repent of them now instead of at the last days.

[Amillia]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck+Jan 28 2005, 07:30 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (TheProudDuck @ Jan 28 2005, 07:30 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Amillia@Jan 28 2005, 06:16 PM

I don't know that anything is being swept under the rug. Are we to dwell on unproductive and non-relative subjects while we have the end times at our doors?

If the end times are truly at our doors, better to repent now of having ascribed racial foolishness to God than to present him at his coming with a church that still officially teaches he thinks dark skin is a bad thing.

God has always shown a prejudice through out the bible. Have you read it? He had a chosen people. Is that not a prejudice? If you prefered one of your children over another and gave them more attention, wouldn't that be considered wrong by men?

But this is God. HE does what HE knows is best. HE has changed HIS prejudice towards some and turned it upon others according to HIS wisdom. HE knows all things.

Consider the fact that the Israelites were slaves for 400 years and then the Black were slaves for 200 years as were the American Indians.

Consider how HE gave some people land by taking it from others when the Israelites were finally freed and after they wandered 40 years in the desert.

What is holding the priesthood back then, being limited to only those who came through the levitical line, any more prejudicial than Him not allowing the Blacks to have the priesthood for a 100 or so years? Out of the 6000 years God has been dealing with this planet and it's people, 100 years is really a pretty light sentence.

[Snow]

Originally posted by pushka@Jan 29 2005, 01:17 AM

I think PD has a good point...and I think that the Church should recognise it's mistakes of the past, and repent of them now instead of at the last days.

Is that what you really think? Do you you think that they should parade their mistakes in public?

[Cal]

Originally posted by Amillia@Jan 28 2005, 06:16 PM

I don't know that anything is being swept under the rug. Are we to dwell on unproductive and non-relative subjects while we have the end times at our doors?

It seems that the only thing that makes history irrelevant is when it contradicts your present view of things. What PD is saying makes some very good points.

The Church makes a big deal about the relevance of history--the BOM itself is supposed to be a history. You can't use history as a sword when it benefits you and a shield, to protect you from contradicions at the same time.

The LDS Church is indeed on very shaky ground with regard to its stand on civil rights. The most difficult question is "Does God change his mind?" because that is exactly the question PD has raised, and I believe rightly so.

[Cal]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck+Jan 28 2005, 06:30 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (TheProudDuck @ Jan 28 2005, 06:30 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Amillia@Jan 28 2005, 06:16 PM

I don't know that anything is being swept under the rug. Are we to dwell on unproductive and non-relative subjects while we have the end times at our doors?

If the end times are truly at our doors, better to repent now of having ascribed racial foolishness to God than to present him at his coming with a church that still officially teaches he thinks dark skin is a bad thing.

PD--I think the church is trying to backpedal on the issue, and given their druthers, the GA's would completely disavow the churches earlier racist teachings. The problem lies in the structure of the church's approach to keeping church members believing. The approach is that to keep people in line you have to have them believe that the prophet speaks for God, that the word of a prophet IS God's word.

What happens is that, whether the prophet is speaking for God or not, people in the church have to believe he is, or they would not be willing to make the sacrifices the church asks them to make (tithing etc). But when they are not speaking for God, they can ususally get away with it because history doens't usually bite them in the butt quite the way the issue of Blacks and the Priesthood has.

So the GA's are faced with the dilema, do we disavow what previous prophets have said, and risk looking like we are uninspired, by saying that the previous doctrine was wrong, OR do we go on pretending like nothing is wrong with this picture, tell people the past is irrelevant and proceed with a policy that acknowledges the rightness of treating Blacks as equals?

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Originally posted by Snow+Jan 28 2005, 06:38 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snow @ Jan 28 2005, 06:38 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--TheProudDuck@Jan 28 2005, 04:27 PM

I don't see how the Church can dismiss the past as irrelevant.  President Hinckley's authority flows directly from events that happened in the past -- Joseph Smith's restoration of the office of prophet.  If the helpful past is relevant, so is the difficult past.

I'm sure that you are being somewhat rhetorical and can come up with as good an argument as possible as anyone why the Church isn't all that interested in "negative" history.

Here's one such argument:

Mormons don't rely on history to understand God. Mormons rely on prophecy and revelation to understand God. Thus, the Bible isn't the "truth," (of if you like, the platonic form of ultimate light and knowledge); it, the Bible, points the way to the "truth." Extending that out a bit... Mormon history is not the "truth," it merely helps to point the way. It the extent that Mormon history strenghtens one's faith and draws one closer to God and helps one to better divine the Spirit and thus ultimately the platonic form or logos and hence God Himself, then great - Hallelujah! But, to the extent that dwelling on mistakes or negativity or endless debates of what we, in our current and supposedly more enlightened and intellectual state view as squirrelly, then to what doth that profit us? Instead of intellectualizing everything to death PD, oh he of the human mind as the end all be all, trust God, seek after the Spirit, obey the commandments and hunger after righteousness and stop fretting about how screwy our forebears might have been.

Interesting argument, and not without merit as far as it goes.

One potential weakness in it lies in its treating Church history, as a tool for pointing the way to God, in isolation. That is, to the extent that the "history tool" is sharpened, by glossing over the questionable parts, another "tool" -- the Church's present doctrine -- is dulled. That is, in order to get past the historic color bar, the Church has carried into the present a doctrine which I genuinely believe, based on everything I know by either faith or reason, was not Godly, and made God a respecter of persons.

I would rather the Church's history become a little less glossy than take the Lord's name in vain, by ascribing to him a race consciousness that I believe is not his.

Not only that, but in its declared willingness to tell only part of its story (indeed, its active attempts to prevent ordinary members, who do not even speak for the Church, from getting too far off the approved narrative) makes the "Mormon history tool" less effective. Which is more effective -- a true history that shows the hand of God working in the Church, guiding it through seasons of error, or a mythic history that makes Mormons into plaster saints? That latter kind of history might have worked in the past, but information is too widely available for it to be as effective now.

Instead of intellectualizing everything to death PD, oh he of the human mind as the end all be all, trust God, seek after the Spirit, obey the commandments and hunger after righteousness and stop fretting about how screwy our forebears might have been.

Fides et ratio,, my friend. Recall my thinking that faith and reason each have their own spheres, with faith providing the answers to the invisible things that reason, by its nature, cannot know. To say 2+2=5 is not to have "faith."

Isn't it possible that I do seek after the Spirit, and hunger after righteousness -- and despite years of trying to make peace with this issue, keep coming back to the conclusion that the present state of doctrine on this subject is not in harmony with either? I'm ordinarily very reluctant to say the Church's leadership is wrong and I'm right, and I look for ulterior motives I might have in thinking so. Here they are on this issue, as far as I can tell: (1) I may want to justify not living other commandments as well as I could, by seeking to diminish the Brethren's authority on those subjects by impeaching their credibility on the racial one; (2) I could be suffering from an excess of individualism, wanting to distinguish myself from the Mormon mainstream by taking a different position on this issue; (3) I may want to run for office someday and don't want to get clobbered with the racial issue (not that I'd get more than 10% of the black vote anyway, being a Republican); (4) I'm still having lingering psychological effects from reading the passage in McConkie's Mormon Doctrine condemning interracial marriage, at a time when I had a life-threatening crush on a very cute part-Hawaiian girl. (Silly me, I didn't realize at the time that "interracial" only referred to relationships between whites and blacks, not whites and other shades on the color spectrum.)

St. Paul wrote that he was given "a thorn in the flesh" to keep him humble. Since I've never had too much of a drive to be physically immoral, or break the Word of Wisdom, maybe my "thorn" is in my head. Maybe I do intellectualize things to death. On the other hand, although thinking about things of the Church has presented me with questions, thinking still further about them has also provided me with answers -- which typically gave me even greater understanding of the gospel than before I encountered the questions in the first place.

The mind is not the "end all be all," but it's not chopped liver, either.

[Cal]

Originally posted by Snow+Jan 28 2005, 06:38 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snow @ Jan 28 2005, 06:38 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--TheProudDuck@Jan 28 2005, 04:27 PM

I don't see how the Church can dismiss the past as irrelevant.  President Hinckley's authority flows directly from events that happened in the past -- Joseph Smith's restoration of the office of prophet.  If the helpful past is relevant, so is the difficult past.

I'm sure that you are being somewhat rhetorical and can come up with as good an argument as possible as anyone why the Church isn't all that interested in "negative" history.

Here's one such argument:

Mormons don't rely on history to understand God. Mormons rely on prophecy and revelation to understand God. Thus, the Bible isn't the "truth," (of if you like, the platonic form of ultimate light and knowledge); it, the Bible, points the way to the "truth." Extending that out a bit... Mormon history is not the "truth," it merely helps to point the way. It the extent that Mormon history strenghtens one's faith and draws one closer to God and helps one to better divine the Spirit and thus ultimately the platonic form or logos and hence God Himself, then great - Hallelujah! But, to the extent that dwelling on mistakes or negativity or endless debates of what we, in our current and supposedly more enlightened and intellectual state view as squirrelly, then to what doth that profit us? Instead of intellectualizing everything to death PD, oh he of the human mind as the end all be all, trust God, seek after the Spirit, obey the commandments and hunger after righteousness and stop fretting about how screwy our forebears might have been.

Come on Snow, that is a cop out and you know it. Are you messing with us again? History is nothing more that the present, a few years ago. To imply that you can just throw away the things that present problems is non-sensical. It is like saying, I will believe only that which supppors my preconcieved notions. Failing to examin the past dooms us to the same mistakes over and over. As I said in the resopnse to PD, the church counts on us believing in very specific things IN THE PAST to get us to do things now. You can't have it both ways. You can't say, " lets forget the past when it makes us uncomfortable, but shove it down our throats when we need you to do something our way."

[Cal]

Originally posted by Amillia+Jan 29 2005, 10:45 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Amillia @ Jan 29 2005, 10:45 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -TheProudDuck@Jan 28 2005, 07:30 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--Amillia@Jan 28 2005, 06:16 PM

I don't know that anything is being swept under the rug. Are we to dwell on unproductive and non-relative subjects while we have the end times at our doors?

If the end times are truly at our doors, better to repent now of having ascribed racial foolishness to God than to present him at his coming with a church that still officially teaches he thinks dark skin is a bad thing.

God has always shown a prejudice through out the bible. Have you read it? He had a chosen people. Is that not a prejudice? If you prefered one of your children over another and gave them more attention, wouldn't that be considered wrong by men?

But this is God. HE does what HE knows is best. HE has changed HIS prejudice towards some and turned it upon others according to HIS wisdom. HE knows all things.

Consider the fact that the Israelites were slaves for 400 years and then the Black were slaves for 200 years as were the American Indians.

Consider how HE gave some people land by taking it from others when the Israelites were finally freed and after they wandered 40 years in the desert.

What is holding the priesthood back then, being limited to only those who came through the levitical line, any more prejudicial than Him not allowing the Blacks to have the priesthood for a 100 or so years? Out of the 6000 years God has been dealing with this planet and it's people, 100 years is really a pretty light sentence.

You simply believe in a God that I, and I think PD (sorry for speaking for you--pardon me if I misrepresent anything) don't believe in. The God that showed all this prejudice for and against people in the OT, which is mainly where you see this stuff, as well as in the BoM, is the God of the IMAGINATION of those doing the writing. If not, then how do you reconcile other places where God says he is not a "respecter" or persons, or that "all are alike unto me, male and female, black and white, bond and free". That is totally inconsistent with this other God, that goes around approving slavery and showing rank favoritism with no discernable rationale.

If that is the God that is in your head---try to keep Him to yourself--He's an embarrasment!

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Originally posted by Amillia+Jan 29 2005, 10:45 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Amillia @ Jan 29 2005, 10:45 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -TheProudDuck@Jan 28 2005, 07:30 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--Amillia@Jan 28 2005, 06:16 PM

I don't know that anything is being swept under the rug. Are we to dwell on unproductive and non-relative subjects while we have the end times at our doors?

If the end times are truly at our doors, better to repent now of having ascribed racial foolishness to God than to present him at his coming with a church that still officially teaches he thinks dark skin is a bad thing.

God has always shown a prejudice through out the bible. Have you read it? He had a chosen people. Is that not a prejudice? If you prefered one of your children over another and gave them more attention, wouldn't that be considered wrong by men?

But this is God. HE does what HE knows is best. HE has changed HIS prejudice towards some and turned it upon others according to HIS wisdom. HE knows all things.

Consider the fact that the Israelites were slaves for 400 years and then the Black were slaves for 200 years as were the American Indians.

Consider how HE gave some people land by taking it from others when the Israelites were finally freed and after they wandered 40 years in the desert.

What is holding the priesthood back then, being limited to only those who came through the levitical line, any more prejudicial than Him not allowing the Blacks to have the priesthood for a 100 or so years? Out of the 6000 years God has been dealing with this planet and it's people, 100 years is really a pretty light sentence.

Amillia,

It's one thing for there to be a "chosen people," or a limited priestly class. It's another when things are reversed -- that is, when most people are eligible for the priesthood, and a small group is not. The latter situation does make it look like you're sticking your thumb in the eye of the excluded group.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say by pointing out that blacks were enslaved for 200 years. (Actually, it's more like 300, if you count Brazil.) Are you saying that was God's will? I've always thought that black slavery was an evil, a result of people who should have known better exercising their free agency in ways that conflict with the clear dictates of the gospel of Christ.

Out of the 6000 years God has been dealing with this planet and it's people, 100 years is really a pretty light sentence.

You sentence people for crimes. What crime did black people commit, to be barred from the priesthood and the temple -- many of them for their entire lives?

[Snow]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck@Jan 29 2005, 01:12 PM

Fides et ratio,, my friend. Recall my thinking that faith and reason each have their own spheres, with faith providing the answers to the invisible things that reason, by its nature, cannot know. To say 2+2=5 is not to have "faith."

Isn't it possible that I do seek after the Spirit, and hunger after righteousness -- and despite years of trying to make peace with this issue, keep coming back to the conclusion that the present state of doctrine on this subject is not in harmony with either?

I assume fides et ratios mean faith as reason or something close.

I reason I chided you about over-intellectualizing is not because systmatic rationality isn’t good or interesting and mind-expanding or a dandy way to uncover truth but because it still seems, after all this time that you are struggling to come to peace with the validity of the restored gospel. Maybe not but that’s the thought I had. At some point you gotta let go and let the faith bit do it’s thing, you know... give into the mystery.

I think through the issue the same as you but I suspect that for me it is just an exercise while for you something hinges on it. For me, at the end of the exercise I conclude something like this:

The brethren have so much faith in the validity of revelation that they a loathe to suggest that what they supposed was prior revelation was or may have been in error. Ergo, there is a substantial institutional obstacle, difficult to overcome, in overuling prior pronouncements or making apologies. For me, it’s no big deal if BY was wrong on the issue, but the Brethren have an all together context to deal with. What will happen, with time, is that those who harbor a racist views of doctrine, will die off and so the CES will be cleaned up; scholarly treatments will set the tone for the Church intellectuals, culture will influence the masses the shift started by Elder Kimball will continue and strengthen, the collegial Brethren will generally reach concensus and then when the heat is not too hot something substantive will be announced that repudiates the past.

But whether or not my supposition wills out or something different happens is not pivotal for me. I certainly prefer the Leonard Arrington approach, but again, it’s not pivotal. Would the Body of Christ be better off if the institution was more progressive, more open, more inclined to Aristotelian self-examination? I dunno, maybe. It would make people like you and me and Cal happy - but would it save more souls?

[Snow]

Originally posted by Cal@Jan 29 2005, 03:02 PM

Failing to examin the past dooms us to the same mistakes over and over.

That's a platitude.

See my post above, I'm not saying that it isn't useful or productive to examine the issue - just that my salvation don't depend on it.

[Amillia]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck+Jan 29 2005, 08:22 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (TheProudDuck @ Jan 29 2005, 08:22 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -Amillia@Jan 29 2005, 10:45 AM

Originally posted by -TheProudDuck@Jan 28 2005, 07:30 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--Amillia@Jan 28 2005, 06:16 PM

I don't know that anything is being swept under the rug. Are we to dwell on unproductive and non-relative subjects while we have the end times at our doors?

If the end times are truly at our doors, better to repent now of having ascribed racial foolishness to God than to present him at his coming with a church that still officially teaches he thinks dark skin is a bad thing.

God has always shown a prejudice through out the bible. Have you read it? He had a chosen people. Is that not a prejudice? If you prefered one of your children over another and gave them more attention, wouldn't that be considered wrong by men?

But this is God. HE does what HE knows is best. HE has changed HIS prejudice towards some and turned it upon others according to HIS wisdom. HE knows all things.

Consider the fact that the Israelites were slaves for 400 years and then the Black were slaves for 200 years as were the American Indians.

Consider how HE gave some people land by taking it from others when the Israelites were finally freed and after they wandered 40 years in the desert.

What is holding the priesthood back then, being limited to only those who came through the levitical line, any more prejudicial than Him not allowing the Blacks to have the priesthood for a 100 or so years? Out of the 6000 years God has been dealing with this planet and it's people, 100 years is really a pretty light sentence.

Amillia,

It's one thing for there to be a "chosen people," or a limited priestly class. It's another when things are reversed -- that is, when most people are eligible for the priesthood, and a small group is not. The latter situation does make it look like you're sticking your thumb in the eye of the excluded group.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say by pointing out that blacks were enslaved for 200 years. (Actually, it's more like 300, if you count Brazil.) Are you saying that was God's will? I've always thought that black slavery was an evil, a result of people who should have known better exercising their free agency in ways that conflict with the clear dictates of the gospel of Christ.

Out of the 6000 years God has been dealing with this planet and it's people, 100 years is really a pretty light sentence.

You sentence people for crimes. What crime did black people commit, to be barred from the priesthood and the temple -- many of them for their entire lives?

My point about 200 years vs 400 or your correction to 300 vs 400 is that in our day the tool of the Devil is to get people so focused and upset about some things that they miss the really important things. This issue of racist behavior by the church is nothing more than a diversion to keep people turned away from the Church of God.

There have been slaves in every country and in every civilization since the beginning of it. We make too much of this thing. I have seen a dozen movies and shows that put out this same scenario. Keep them so busy fighting among themselves that they can't come together against the real evil things surrounding us.

Moroni and Mormon saw this particular problem in our day and gave us the historical event happening in their written history. It was when the Kingman tried to divide the country with putting down the ruling Judge P. trying to take over the government. In the mean time the real problem was the gandianton robbers.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Originally posted by Snow+Jan 29 2005, 09:15 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snow @ Jan 29 2005, 09:15 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Cal@Jan 29 2005, 03:02 PM

Failing to examin the past dooms us to the same mistakes over and over.

That's a platitude.

See my post above, I'm not saying that it isn't useful or productive to examine the issue - just that my salvation don't depend on it.

Was it a duck-billed platitude?

[Cal]

Originally posted by Snow+Jan 29 2005, 09:12 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snow @ Jan 29 2005, 09:12 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--TheProudDuck@Jan 29 2005, 01:12 PM

Fides et ratio,, my friend.  Recall my thinking that faith and reason each have their own spheres, with faith providing the answers to the invisible things that reason, by its nature, cannot know.  To say 2+2=5 is not to have "faith." 

Isn't it possible that I do seek after the Spirit, and hunger after righteousness -- and despite years of trying to make peace with this issue, keep coming back to the conclusion that the present state of doctrine on this subject is not in harmony with either?

I assume fides et ratios mean faith as reason or something close.

I reason I chided you about over-intellectualizing is not because systmatic rationality isn’t good or interesting and mind-expanding or a dandy way to uncover truth but because it still seems, after all this time that you are struggling to come to peace with the validity of the restored gospel. Maybe not but that’s the thought I had. At some point you gotta let go and let the faith bit do it’s thing, you know... give into the mystery.

I think through the issue the same as you but I suspect that for me it is just an exercise while for you something hinges on it. For me, at the end of the exercise I conclude something like this:

The brethren have so much faith in the validity of revelation that they a loathe to suggest that what they supposed was prior revelation was or may have been in error. Ergo, there is a substantial institutional obstacle, difficult to overcome, in overuling prior pronouncements or making apologies. For me, it’s no big deal if BY was wrong on the issue, but the Brethren have an all together context to deal with. What will happen, with time, is that those who harbor a racist views of doctrine, will die off and so the CES will be cleaned up; scholarly treatments will set the tone for the Church intellectuals, culture will influence the masses the shift started by Elder Kimball will continue and strengthen, the collegial Brethren will generally reach concensus and then when the heat is not too hot something substantive will be announced that repudiates the past.

But whether or not my supposition wills out or something different happens is not pivotal for me. I certainly prefer the Leonard Arrington approach, but again, it’s not pivotal. Would the Body of Christ be better off if the institution was more progressive, more open, more inclined to Aristotelian self-examination? I dunno, maybe. It would make people like you and me and Cal happy - but would it save more souls?

I agree with Snow--it is a conundrum.

[Cal]

Originally posted by Snow+Jan 29 2005, 09:15 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snow @ Jan 29 2005, 09:15 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Cal@Jan 29 2005, 03:02 PM

Failing to examin the past dooms us to the same mistakes over and over.

That's a platitude.

See my post above, I'm not saying that it isn't useful or productive to examine the issue - just that my salvation don't depend on it.

Well if you put it that way, there are very few things that your very salvation depends upon, but it is still a relevant issue. If all you want to talk about is what your salvation depends upon, the discussions are going to be pretty short.

[Cal]

Originally posted by Amillia+Jan 29 2005, 10:02 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Amillia @ Jan 29 2005, 10:02 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by -TheProudDuck@Jan 29 2005, 08:22 PM

Originally posted by -Amillia@Jan 29 2005, 10:45 AM

Originally posted by -TheProudDuck@Jan 28 2005, 07:30 PM

<!--QuoteBegin--Amillia@Jan 28 2005, 06:16 PM

I don't know that anything is being swept under the rug. Are we to dwell on unproductive and non-relative subjects while we have the end times at our doors?

If the end times are truly at our doors, better to repent now of having ascribed racial foolishness to God than to present him at his coming with a church that still officially teaches he thinks dark skin is a bad thing.

God has always shown a prejudice through out the bible. Have you read it? He had a chosen people. Is that not a prejudice? If you prefered one of your children over another and gave them more attention, wouldn't that be considered wrong by men?

But this is God. HE does what HE knows is best. HE has changed HIS prejudice towards some and turned it upon others according to HIS wisdom. HE knows all things.

Consider the fact that the Israelites were slaves for 400 years and then the Black were slaves for 200 years as were the American Indians.

Consider how HE gave some people land by taking it from others when the Israelites were finally freed and after they wandered 40 years in the desert.

What is holding the priesthood back then, being limited to only those who came through the levitical line, any more prejudicial than Him not allowing the Blacks to have the priesthood for a 100 or so years? Out of the 6000 years God has been dealing with this planet and it's people, 100 years is really a pretty light sentence.

Amillia,

It's one thing for there to be a "chosen people," or a limited priestly class. It's another when things are reversed -- that is, when most people are eligible for the priesthood, and a small group is not. The latter situation does make it look like you're sticking your thumb in the eye of the excluded group.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say by pointing out that blacks were enslaved for 200 years. (Actually, it's more like 300, if you count Brazil.) Are you saying that was God's will? I've always thought that black slavery was an evil, a result of people who should have known better exercising their free agency in ways that conflict with the clear dictates of the gospel of Christ.

Out of the 6000 years God has been dealing with this planet and it's people, 100 years is really a pretty light sentence.

You sentence people for crimes. What crime did black people commit, to be barred from the priesthood and the temple -- many of them for their entire lives?

My point about 200 years vs 400 or your correction to 300 vs 400 is that in our day the tool of the Devil is to get people so focused and upset about some things that they miss the really important things. This issue of racist behavior by the church is nothing more than a diversion to keep people turned away from the Church of God.

There have been slaves in every country and in every civilization since the beginning of it. We make too much of this thing. I have seen a dozen movies and shows that put out this same scenario. Keep them so busy fighting among themselves that they can't come together against the real evil things surrounding us.

Moroni and Mormon saw this particular problem in our day and gave us the historical event happening in their written history. It was when the Kingman tried to divide the country with putting down the ruling Judge P. trying to take over the government. In the mean time the real problem was the gandianton robbers.

You make the issue of slavery sound like it was no big issue. Perhaps you should consider that to minimize a great evil is the first step toward condoning it. What is even more disgusting, IMHO, is hiding behind a curtain of piety while you do it---like, I'm so religious that I don't have to condemn evil when I see it.

[pushka]

I'm really pleased that this topic has been raised again...it is one that I think about often...this and the turn around on polygamy being allowed within the church and then banned because the USA govt. of the time deemed it an illegal practise. Therefore the church had to appear more presentable to the masses in order to avoid further persecution. I feel that these 'revelations' that the prophets received wherein they changed the churches stance on these 2 issues both occurred at a time when it was deemed necessary to conform to the more acceptable views of the USA in general, and so was not revelation at all...

Snow, I can accept your reasons for justifying the changes that were made, and the reasons for not criticising the church for the opinions of its prophets prior to those changes being made, however, I wonder if there will be a time where other issues that the LDS church has with say homosexuality become so far removed from what is the accepted view of the USA govt. that another prophet will receive 'revelation' regarding the church's opinion on this matter...or others...that is where the danger lies in not acknowledging the mistakes of the past and repenting of them if a non member approaches you with questions about it.

[Traveler]

In general it is my belief and understanding the the doctrine of the Blacks and the Priesthood is a doctrine that is not well understood. Perhaps the greatest missunderstanding comes from a time when Blacks could not be ordained to the Priesthood to now when they are ordained. For the most part there is speculation as to why this has happened. I am not going to imply that my speculations are more inspired that any of the speculations that have been given. However, though I do not know the reason why the change was not from the beginning of the restoration or sooner than it did happen I am greatful that it has taken place and feel that it is at least in part answer to my prayers.

I do not feel it necessary to attempt to find someone or something to blaim. I find great wisdom in Pres. Hinkley's words of recommendation to turn from the past and catch a vision of the future.

The Traveler

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Originally posted by Snow@Jan 29 2005, 09:12 PM

I assume fides et ratios mean faith as reason or something close.

I reason I chided you about over-intellectualizing is not because systmatic rationality isn’t good or interesting and mind-expanding or a dandy way to uncover truth but because it still seems, after all this time that you are struggling to come to peace with the validity of the restored gospel. Maybe not but that’s the thought I had. At some point you gotta let go and let the faith bit do it’s thing, you know... give into the mystery.

I think through the issue the same as you but I suspect that for me it is just an exercise while for you something hinges on it. For me, at the end of the exercise I conclude something like this:

The brethren have so much faith in the validity of revelation that they a loathe to suggest that what they supposed was prior revelation was or may have been in error. Ergo, there is a substantial institutional obstacle, difficult to overcome, in overuling prior pronouncements or making apologies. For me, it’s no big deal if BY was wrong on the issue, but the Brethren have an all together context to deal with. What will happen, with time, is that those who harbor a racist views of doctrine, will die off and so the CES will be cleaned up; scholarly treatments will set the tone for the Church intellectuals, culture will influence the masses the shift started by Elder Kimball will continue and strengthen, the collegial Brethren will generally reach concensus and then when the heat is not too hot something substantive will be announced that repudiates the past.

But whether or not my supposition wills out or something different happens is not pivotal for me. I certainly prefer the Leonard Arrington approach, but again, it’s not pivotal. Would the Body of Christ be better off if the institution was more progressive, more open, more inclined to Aristotelian self-examination? I dunno, maybe. It would make people like you and me and Cal happy - but would it save more souls?

but because it still seems, after all this time that you are struggling to come to peace with the validity of the restored gospel.

Well, yes. You know I've never had a Moroni 10 moment, despite years of banging my head on that particular stone box. I give my assent to the basic historical teachings of the Church, because that's part of what making the Mormon leap of faith entails, but I can't say I'm convinced of many of them, either by spiritual or physical evidence. As a result, the things that hold me to the Church, and keep me willing to suspend disbelief as to other matters, are those things that demonstrate the practical power of the gospel to me, and convince me that there is something in the Mormon mixture of human and divine ideas that makes being a member more helpful to faith than not. I try to "give in to the mystery" as best I can, and try to convince myself I'm not just punting.

I don't want to "come to peace" with the gospel. I want to be convinced, either by the Spirit or anything else. Making my way in the Church as I've done thus far is hard, and I question my capacity to do it indefinitely. Since it is the present Church that keeps me willing to apply the "Simeon solution" of waiting for answers about its past or a comprehensive confirmation that the Church is the one true and literal kingdom of God (which would allow me to ignore pretty much every other issue), troubling aspects of the Church's present teaching (in cases where the troubling doesn't go away over time, no matter how much "mystery" I give in to) weigh more heavily. Shoot all the holes in the Church's history that you want; it's as if that history is a boat, and I'm already in the water; what the boat does doesn't concern me much. Shoot holes in my life preserver, on the other hand, and I get a little more worried.

Would a more open Church save more souls? Like you, I don't know. If a man cannot be saved in ignorance, are souls truly saved when their conversions depend on an incomplete picture of the truth? When some of those souls do run across uncomfortable truth, many of them find their faith wrecked. In legal writing, when there's a precedent that hurts your case, the best practice is to get it in front of the judge before your opponent does, and explain why it doesn't apply or doesn't matter. Otherwise, it invariably blows up in your face: Not only does the opponent get to control the circumstances where the judge considers it, you wind up looking deceptive and making the judge mad at you.

[Snow]

Originally posted by pushka@Jan 31 2005, 02:43 AM

Snow, I can accept your reasons for justifying the changes that were made, and the reasons for not criticising the church for the opinions of its prophets prior to those changes being made, however, I wonder if there will be a time where other issues that the LDS church has with say homosexuality become so far removed from what is the accepted view of the USA govt. that another prophet will receive 'revelation' regarding the church's opinion on this matter...or others...that is where the danger lies in not acknowledging the mistakes of the past and repenting of them if a non member approaches you with questions about it.

Actually I'm not saying those are my reasons. I am saying that what I posted was one plausible argument.

What I think is my point is that I, having been converted by virtue of my faith, not need an end-all-be-all argument. I am convinced that it will all work itself out for the best, through revelation, through the Church intellectuals, through the good intentions of people like the Duckman and others - that somehow, each part will help the whole to grow, progressively, toward the ideal.

For me, at least right now, the arguments are just an exercise.

[Snow]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck@Jan 31 2005, 12:32 PM

I don't want to "come to peace" with the gospel. I want to be convinced, either by the Spirit or anything else. Making my way in the Church as I've done thus far is hard, and I question my capacity to do it indefinitely.

Maybe it's easier for me because I have been convinced and then reconvinced at two forks of the road in my life. Still I have to occassionally come to peace when I have to put something in it's proper context.

You remind me of something Michael Quinn said in a lecture last year about Ruben J. Clark. Quinn put it that Clark, hadn't been convinced by the Spirit either - perhaps like you; and that at some point, he simply willed himself to have the requisite faith to fullfill his calling. It must have worked for him somehow.