40 Years: Commemorating the 1978 Priesthood and Temple Revelation

[Suzie]

54 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

Brigham Young was a racist, and he abused the prophetic mantle, and it took 136 years for the Church to correct a racist. As to my experience, this is in part why I say this notion, my personal opinion, more dangerous now than any previous explanation for the policy.

Okay, we came to an understanding of the semantics involved with the word policy or even practice (as the Church has stated in the past). In my view, if indeed was a revelation, we should have record of it. The alleged revelation was never presented to the body of the Church. I think that's enough evidence for me to call it a policy/practice.

About Young, he was a product of his era, Prophet and all. For today's standards, he would definitely be considered a racist. Orson Pratt was way ahead of his time.

[Vort]

26 minutes ago, Suzie said:

I think that's enough evidence for me to call it a policy/practice.

There is no question that it was a policy and a practice. That's not up for debate. The fact that it was policy and practice does not mean it wasn't revelation. That's the point.

(And the fact that it wasn't presented and voted upon as revelation is utterly irrelevant. The brethren receive revelations daily to run the Church, and vanishingly few of those revelations are ever presented to the body of the Church for a sustaining vote.)

[Just_A_Guy]

8 hours ago, Suzie said:

Marvin Perkins was a speaker at the Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship. For those who don't know Marvin, he is a music and DVD producer. Many years ago, I watched the DVD Marvin produced called "Blacks in the Scriptures" (Thanks Margaret Young for sending me a copy ).

He said the following a couple of days ago:

"The Policy of the Priesthood ban set in 1852, also created the wall of false teachings, attitudes and perceptions. Though the 1978 declaration tore down that policy wall, the walls of false teachings, attitudes and perceptions still remain."

What are your thoughts?

 

1.  Back when @skippy740 was participating in the forum, we went a few rounds on Perkins and his methods.  My position was and is that Perkins—at least at the time—was rather disingenuous in his argument and something of an eel in his presentation.  

2.  Technically the policy dates to 1848, not 1852.  This is germane to questions of why we don’t have a record of any revelatory/inspirational impetus behind the policy; because Salt Lake City at this time was still a collection of tents and sod huts, and Young spent much of this period on the road.  His contemporaneous record-keeping of pretty much anything left a lot to be desired, as decisions great and small got made on the fly and more-or-less in the heat of battle.  

Young was subsequently very clear, and repeatedly so, that the policy reflected the will of God; and he attributed that position to divine mandate as clearly (if not more so) as President Nelson has done regarding the new two-hour block.  The difference is not in the degree of disclosure about how the policy was made, or the claim to authority underlying that policy.  The difference is merely in the fact that we, the membership, happen to be culturally predisposed to embrace the one policy, and to reject the other.  

3.  Jonathan Stapley’s The Power of Godliness suggests that the policy was an outgrowth of Young’s growing understanding of the “cosmological priesthood”, which led him to a belief of (what he perceived as) the gravity of Cain’s murder of Abel and the supposed justice of suspending those blessings to Cain’s perceived progeny until Abel could enjoy similar blessings.  I don’t 100% agree with Stapley, insofar as he mostly denies the possibility of any divine inspiration  behind the policy; but I think he comes nearer to Young’s thought processes than most.  If Perkins is still suggesting that the policy was simply a product of Young’s animus towards, mistrust of, condescension about, or sexual intimidation by blacks, then Perkins is even more historically illiterate than I thought.  

4.  As far as @JohnsonJones‘s observations go:  my own experience (for what it’s worth) suggest that he somewhat overstates the cleavages that exist in the Church.  To the extent that such rifts do exist, though, I think most actually have more to do with economic/social cleavages generally rather than race or nationality per se.  Racial issues are further complicated, at least in America, by the fact that what various ethnic groups want in terms of recognition, self-identification, integration versus a distinct cultural identity, equal-versus-preferential treatment, etc.; seem to be in a constant state of flux.  When everything I, as a white male, try to do turns out to be wrong; at some point I’m just going to say “I don’t  have time for this crap” and focus my ministry (such as it is) on people who aren’t inclined to demand I make moral, spiritual, and pecuniary obeisance to them just because I was born with the wrong skin color.

Edited October 16, 2018 by Just_A_Guy

[JohnsonJones]

7 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

4.  As far as @JohnsonJones‘s observations go:  my own experience (for what it’s worth) suggest that he somewhat overstates the cleavages that exist in the Church.  To the extent that such rifts do exist, though, I think most actually have more to do with economic/social cleavages generally rather than race or nationality per se.  Racial issues are further complicated, at least in America, by the fact that what various ethnic groups want in terms of recognition, self-identification, integration versus a distinct cultural identity, equal-versus-preferential treatment, etc.; seem to be in a constant state of flux.  When everything I, as a white male, try to do turns out to be wrong; at some point I’m just going to say “I don’t  have time for this crap” and focus my ministry (such as it is) on people who aren’t inclined to demand I make moral, spiritual, and pecuniary obeisance to them just because I was born with the wrong skin color.

The statement that, one as a white male, is the persecuted individual is a defining part of racism today in the US.  Just because one cannot understand or even wish to try to comprehend how hurt and wounded those who are minorities are in the US, much less the Church, is a primary example of how inherent our racism is in the system.

Ignoring and playing the victim while there are very REAL victims out there to me, is disgenius.  The church is known as racist for a very REAL reason.  Trying to say it does not exist, or that the people who experience this and bring this to the forefront is a prime example of types of racism that are plaguing our society today in the US.  That it exists SO STRONGLY in the Church and people come straight out and state it at times, is probably an indication that much of the racism that the Church is accused of may actually be correct.

I will blatantly state that as per some individuals that I would probably qualify as racist to a degree and probably part of the problem, or at least I have been labeled as such.  When I look at our stake which has many PoC and realize that not ONE of our leaders is a PoC, the situation shows it's ugly head.  When we realize that close to 50% of our Church is PoC and then look at our General Authorities and see their composition, the situation shows it's ugly head. 

I agree that there are economic and social differences and these are also problems that many point out, racism is one that seems a more hidden act of aggression that is enacted in our church, even ignorantly at times.  Perhaps the things I notice are caused MORE by these differences than blatant discrimination.  I'll admit this.  Perhaps part of my thoughts are reflective upon me and what I see as my own failings rather than that of the church membership itself.  However, we do have witnesses from at least one PoC in a leadership position to reflect what they may be going through as well as PoC opinions.

The following video is actually a very low viewed video...12:15 is a good conversation starter to view.  I caveat this with the warning that it is put out by the SLTribune which is known to be hostile to the church.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iL6h-VK1D84

And this article covers some of this, but is not inherently against Mormons and says some good things about Mormons

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/08/black-and-mormon/497660/

I think this quote, which shows that PoC are FAITHFUL members that are TRYING to do what they can, and are just as much children of our Lord as you or I explains what they may experience in the church but that many of us are so willing to just blatantly ignore and try to blame them instead.

Quote

June, Alice Faulkner Burch—a women’s leader in the Genesis Group, an LDS-sponsored organization for black Mormons in Utah—said black Mormons “still need support to remain in the church—not for doctrinal reasons but for cultural reasons.” Burch added that “women are derided about our hair ... referred to in demeaning terms, our children mistreated, and callings withheld.” While leadership duties over the Church, community areas, and entire congregations are exclusive to men, women act as leaders over secondary organizational groups known as “auxiliaries.” Throughout the world, black men and women head their congregations and organizational groups, respectively. Still, the upper male and female leadership of the LDS Church remains largely white and American. While these leaders many be perfectly efficient in their roles, the persistent racial disparity suggests that the previous restrictions, and the ambiguity regarding their origins, still influence the pool from which the highest-ranking members of the Church are selected.

From the same lady, who is still a part of the Genesis Group from what I can tell

http://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=4006506&itype=CMSID

Quote

The Utah-based LDS Church has come a long way since 1978, Burch said, but there is much left to do.

"As members of the church, we need to have the hard and uncomfortable conversation of racism," she said. "We need to keep having it to expel all the hot-air anger and have it until we're able to reach effective dialogue during which we are truly hearing one another, learning and changing our generations-old myth-based paradigm."

Burch thanked the gathered historians for "bringing into the light truth long hid," so that all members would know "God did not curse black people."

Please, Burch begged them, "don't stop."

Now I am definitely an old school type of guy when it comes to the Scriptures and Church History.  That means that some of my views are probably seen as extremely racist to those who feel that racism is a problem in the LDS church.

This is NOT their culture vs. our Culture...and even MORESO in the Church.  The Church is supposed to be for ALL people of ALL races and ALL colors.  It isn't just supposed to be for white American culture only.

What is amazing is that people like Burch who feel this racism in the church and thus have every "cultural" reason to leave such a thing remain faithful and loyal to a church that persecutes them for even being there, or expresses ignorance of their situation and many do not even try to understand their difficulties.  It speaks volumes of how much stronger some of their testimonies may be than some of ours (or at least mine, perhaps).

As I said, I am very old school in regards to my views of scriptures and ideas, which some would say places me squarely in the racist category of those in the church.

How ironic then that in this thread, I am one of those who at least recognizes this problem in the Church today rather than ignoring it or victim blaming it upon those who suffer racism against them?

Edited October 16, 2018 by JohnsonJones

[Colirio]

11 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

 

I remember recently someone brought up the fact that we now have a Hispanic Apostle to one set of inactives that I visited with them.  The inactive members laughed at us saying he is no minority, but a white man.  Anyone who would refer to him as a minority are just showing the inherent racism in the LDS church.   They are excited to have a Hispanic Apostle, but also see how the LDS church claiming he is a minority is a racist attack upon those who truly cannot pass for white or any semblance of it in Latin America or elsewhere.

 

Are you talking about Elder Ulisses Soares? 

 

If so, he's Brazilian, not Hispanic. 

 

Regardless, we are all children of God. Man-made labels have far less interest to me than something that helps us become ONE with CHRIST. 

Edited October 16, 2018 by Colirio

[MarginOfError]

The racist tendencies of the Church are subtle, but they certainly exist.  The image below is a map of the Cleveland area. The lighter colors represent lower incomes, with darker colors showing higher incomes. You could also note that population density tends to be higher in the lighter colored areas and the lower in the darker areas.

The dots show the locations of LDS chapels.  The Kirtland ward (yes, as in, the Kirtland Temple) is the on at the north east location.  It's about 20 miles outside of downtown Cleveland.  (you can read my full blog post around this here: http://myuncommondissent.blogspot.com/2013/03/reforming-missionary-program-in.html).

The thing is, the area in those lighter colored portions is predominantly black. The chapel built there hosts one ward and a YSA branch. And it is a phase I building.  And it is the only building in the area that you can get to using public transport on Sundays. 

And yet, the vast majority of the areas that are predominantly black are assigned to wards that meet in those buildings in the suburbs. It's a struggle to get black members to Church there because either a) they don't have a car, or b) they can't afford the gas to get to church.  And yet, we continue to build most of our buildings where they are inaccessible to those members.

One of the things that used to drive me nuts when I lived there was people would constantly dream of building a new temple in Kirtland. (remember, that's on the north east side). I can't think of a worst place to put a temple.  It really ought to be somewhere closer to Cleveland where there is a public transportation line. If you want minorities to attend and participate in the church, you have to make it accessible to them.  Our church fails to do that routinely.

Sure, the language that gets used is about property values, expense management, blah blah blah.  The effect is the same. 

Some will argue that this really isn't racist because the decisions aren't being made with race in mind.  Well, sure...at best then, its classist.  But remember, socioeconomic class is very strongly associated with race because of institutional racism that prevented minorities from accessing education and employment. When we make decisions based on socioeconomic factors, that perpetuates the effects of racism and is precisely what liberal snowflakes are talking about when they talk about privilege.

So, in theory, the Church is not racist, and in theory, they do have a very real interest in reaching out to minorities.  But quite literally, the Church does not put its money where it's mouth is.

Racism is strong in the LDS Church. Maybe not intentional, and maybe not obvious. But it is still strong.

 

[Guest]

16 hours ago, Suzie said:

 The alleged revelation was never presented to the body of the Church. I think that's enough evidence for me to call it a policy/practice.

Point of order.  Any practice and policy is presented to the body of the Church.  We may not have a formal vote or sustaining.  But it is presented.  Every individual must then make the determination to obey or not.

We recently had Pres. Nelson tell us to stop calling ourselves "Mormons".  That was never voted on.  But what was his wording?

Quote

The Lord has impressed upon my mind the importance of the name He has revealed for His Church, even The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. We have work before us to bring ourselves in harmony with His will. In recent weeks, various Church leaders and departments have initiated the necessary steps to do so. Additional information about this important matter will be made available in the coming months.

That sounds like a revelation to me.  Just because it does not satisfy your requirements doesn't mean it isn't so.

16 hours ago, Suzie said:

About Young, he was a product of his era, Prophet and all. For today's standards, he would definitely be considered a racist.

Maybe so.  Maybe not.  I don't really care.  I tend to think everyone is racist on some level (not just whites).  And everyone is sexist (not just hetrosexual men).  And by today's standards, that is definitely true because it is an impossible standard to dodge.

But to call Young a racist may or may not be true.  I'm having difficulty considering him a racist with the statement he made about "one of the finest elders of the priesthood" or something like that.

Edited October 16, 2018 by Guest

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, MarginOfError said:

The racist tendencies of the Church are subtle, but they certainly exist.  The image below is a map of the Cleveland area. The lighter colors represent lower incomes, with darker colors showing higher incomes. You could also note that population density tends to be higher in the lighter colored areas and the lower in the darker areas.

The dots show the locations of LDS chapels.  The Kirtland ward (yes, as in, the Kirtland Temple) is the on at the north east location.  It's about 20 miles outside of downtown Cleveland.  (you can read my full blog post around this here: http://myuncommondissent.blogspot.com/2013/03/reforming-missionary-program-in.html).

The thing is, the area in those lighter colored portions is predominantly black. The chapel built there hosts one ward and a YSA branch. And it is a phase I building.  And it is the only building in the area that you can get to using public transport on Sundays. 

And yet, the vast majority of the areas that are predominantly black are assigned to wards that meet in those buildings in the suburbs. It's a struggle to get black members to Church there because either a) they don't have a car, or b) they can't afford the gas to get to church.  And yet, we continue to build most of our buildings where they are inaccessible to those members.

One of the things that used to drive me nuts when I lived there was people would constantly dream of building a new temple in Kirtland. (remember, that's on the north east side). I can't think of a worst place to put a temple.  It really ought to be somewhere closer to Cleveland where there is a public transportation line. If you want minorities to attend and participate in the church, you have to make it accessible to them.  Our church fails to do that routinely.

Sure, the language that gets used is about property values, expense management, blah blah blah.  The effect is the same. 

Some will argue that this really isn't racist because the decisions aren't being made with race in mind.  Well, sure...at best then, its classist.  But remember, socioeconomic class is very strongly associated with race because of institutional racism that prevented minorities from accessing education and employment. When we make decisions based on socioeconomic factors, that perpetuates the effects of racism and is precisely what liberal snowflakes are talking about when they talk about privilege.

So, in theory, the Church is not racist, and in theory, they do have a very real interest in reaching out to minorities.  But quite literally, the Church does not put its money where it's mouth is.

Racism is strong in the LDS Church. Maybe not intentional, and maybe not obvious. But it is still strong.

 

I'm not following your logic here.  What does this have to do with racism? 

I'm not saying it doesn't exist.  It does.  But not only am I having difficulty following the "correlation". I fail to see how this correlation is evidence of a causal relationship.

[MarginOfError]

 

2 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I'm not following your logic here.  What does this have to do with racism? 

I'm not saying it doesn't exist.  It does.  But not only am I having difficulty following the "correlation". I fail to see how this correlation is evidence of a causal relationship.

Put simply, the Church has a tendency to build its buildings in a manner that they are inaccessible to a large proportion of minorities unless those minorities first overcome socio-economic barriers.  

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, MarginOfError said:

Put simply, the Church has a tendency to build its buildings in a manner that they are inaccessible to a large proportion of minorities unless those minorities first overcome socio-economic barriers.  

This is what I meant by the lack of causal relationship.  All the stuff you summed up in "blah blah blah" is exactly the argument that you have to prove is incorrect.  But you simply chose to ignore it.  But I guess that is what statisticians do.  Whatever doesn't fit, ignore it to fit your preconceived paradigm.  Right?

[MarginOfError]

3 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

This is what I meant by the lack of causal relationship.  All the stuff you summed up in "blah blah blah" is exactly the argument that you have to prove is incorrect.  But you simply chose to ignore it.  But I guess that is what statisticians do.  Whatever doesn't fit, ignore it to fit your preconceived paradigm.  Right?

No. You've misunderstood.  Because I never claimed the "blah blah blah" had a racist cause.  I claimed it had a racist effect. And hence, unintentional racism.

[zil]

1 hour ago, MarginOfError said:

Well, sure...at best then, its classist.

Call it this, or more accurately, "practical classism" or "classism driven by practical concerns" and you'll stand a better chance of getting people to recognize, acknowledge, and address the issue.  Because I expect the vast majority of people will recoil against the accusation that they are racist (most people not giving skin color or ethnicity a moment's thought), but will acknowledge class-based fears, and especially culture-based fears and conflicts (as mentioned by @Carborendum).

46 minutes ago, MarginOfError said:

And hence, unintentional racism.

1) By definition, I don't think any -ism can be "unintentional" - the negative -isms are all about intent^a.  2) It's self-defeating to go around calling people (unintentional) racists.  (See above.)

^aFrom google's dictionary: "prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior."  How do you unintentionally "direct"?  How do you unintentionally "believe"?  I don't think you do.  I know people will disagree with me - after all, some people believe that if you are born white in America, you are a racist.  (I wonder if those same people believe that if you are born black in the heart of Africa that you are a racist.)

[Guest]

1 hour ago, MarginOfError said:

No. You've misunderstood.  Because I never claimed the "blah blah blah" had a racist cause.  I claimed it had a racist effect. And hence, unintentional racism.

That makes zero sense.  Racism is only racism where there is an intent.  Unintentional racism is an oxymoron.  And a bad one at that.

The Church has ALWAYS had a policy to hold off on building any buildings until there was a justified use for it (i.e. sufficient people would utilize the facility).  It goes along with "no such witness until after the trial of your faith".

Edited October 16, 2018 by Guest

[Guest Scott]

Quote

This does not imply that said 1852 policy was not enacted as a result of revelation. That is an improper inference to draw.

Brigham Young said that the reason for the ban was because of the curse of Cain.  

Brigham Young, February 5 1852, Church Historical Department, Box 48, Folder 3 (exact citation; complete with grammatical and spelling errors):

Through the faith and obedience of Able to his heavenly father, Cain became jealous of him, and he laid a plan to obtain all his flocks; for through his perfect obedience to father he obtained more blessings than Cain; consequently he took it into his heart to put able able of this mortal existance. after the deed was done, the Lord enquired to able, and made Caine own what he had done with him. Now says the grand father I will not distroy the seed of michal and his wife; and cain I will not kill you, nor suffer any one to kill you, but I will put a mark upon you. What is that mark? you will see it on the countenance of every African you ever did see upon the face of the earth, or ever will see. 

Now I tell you what I know; when the mark was put upon Cain, Abels children was in all probability young; the Lord told Cain that he should not receive the blessings of the preisthood nor his seed, until the last of the posterity of Able had received the preisthood, until the redemtion of the earth. If there never was a prophet, or apostle of Jesus Christ spoke it before, I tell you, this people that are commonly called negroes are the children of old Cain. I know they are, I know that they cannot bear rule in the preisthood, for the curse on them was to remain upon them, until the resedue of the posterity of Michal and his wife receive the blessings, the seed of Cain would have received had they not been cursed; and hold the keys of the preisthood, until the times of the restitution shall come, and the curse be wiped off from the earth, and from michals seed. Then Cain's seed will be had in rememberance, and the time come when that curse should be wiped off.

 Now then in the kingdom of God on the earth, a man who has has the Affrican blood in him cannot hold one jot nor tittle of preisthood; Why? because they are the true eternal principals the Lord Almighty has ordained, and who can help it, men cannot. the angels cannot, and all the powers of earth and hell cannot take it off, but thus saith the Eternal I am, what I am, I take it off at my pleasure, and not one partical of power can that posterity of Cain have, until the time comes the says he will have it taken away.

More recent prophets have refuted this:

This is from Race and the Priesthood as linked and mentioned above (exact quote):

Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form.

Church doctrine now days is that Brigham Young was wrong.   

Brigham Young also said many times that no blacks could receive the priesthood until every single white person had a chance to have the priesthood.   If Brigham Young was right, we wouldn't be ordaining blacks to the priesthood at the present time.  

Both statements (Brigham's and from the more recent prophets) cannot be right.

Either Brigham's statements weren't revelation or the more statements weren't revelation.   You can't have it both ways.  

Edited October 16, 2018 by Scott

[Traveler]

For the most part I agree with @Carborendum One possible exception is that I tend to see two classifications of prejudice.  One is a learned, acquired  or taught prejudice.  The other is a prejudice of the unknown.  This second prejudice is often subtle and overlooked (even denied) by the person that is prejudging.   In general we tend to fear and be cautious of the unknown.   In short we tend to be more cautious around people we do not know that we are around those that we have befriended.  But there is an additional problem - In many cases where someone exercises caution because they are not familiar - the other (not familiar) individuals are twice as cautious concerning those that are cautious of them.  This create a feed back of prejudice similar to screeching and annoying feedback of a microphone in front of a speaker.  Who is to blame?

The basic concept of prejudice is that only one party is to blame - but that is seldom the truth.  Most prejudice is a two way problem that is amplified with tits for tats of those refusing to forgive.  I know of cases where a person has wronged someone and that in turn the person has wronged the first in response.  But then the person of first offense has repented and has sought forgiveness - but the second would have none of it and continues to blame the first.  I honestly believe in such cases the second is more evil than the first - even if the first does not repent.  So I see those that cry prejudice pointing to others are themselves guilty of greater prejudice.  (I also realize this puts me in a precarious place in saying this).  

Every Saint of G-d is obligated to forgive those that trespass against them - when they refuse to forgive they deny the atonement of Christ.  I know it sounds harsh to tell someone offended that they must forgive the offender - but it is true - they must.  And as harsh as it sounds those that do not forgive are guilty of a greater offense before G-d.  Those the blame others for their bitterness are in greater danger than those that offend in ignorance.

 

The Traveler

 

[Vort]

1 hour ago, Scott said:

Brigham Young said that the reason for the ban was because of the curse of Cain.

Indeed, it appears that he taught this. It seems clear he believed it. But the Church today disavows such ideas. Nota bene: The Church does not refute such theories; it disavows them. Important difference.

1 hour ago, Scott said:

More recent prophets have refuted this:

This is from Race and the Priesthood as linked and mentioned above (exact quote):

Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form.

Note your mistake. The Church did not refute any such theories; it disavowed them. Such theories form no part of the doctrine (teachings) of the Church. That's what it means that they are "disavowed".

Most of us disbelieve many (or all) of these old ideas. I recall Elder Holland as specifically stating he disbelieved many of them. But note that your disbelief, my disbelief, or even Elder Holland's disbelief does not make a thing false. The Church's disavowal is about establishing doctrine (teachings), not truth per se. There is an infinite number of truths that do not constitute any part of our doctrine. God is 196 centimeters tall (or some other number). Joe Blow from Chicago in 1893 is a son of perdition (or will be exalted). When Bishop Jones told that story about the miraculous bag of groceries, he was right (or maybe wrong). Each of these has a truth, yet none of them is a part of our doctrine.

There was indeed a reason for the Priesthood ban. We don't know what that reason was. Some ark-steadiers love proclaiming that it was Brigham Young's hateful racism, or perhaps the racism of all those awful white Church members. And they are welcome to hold such theories, offensive though they may be. But they are wrong to preach such idiotic theories as if they were truth -- just as wrong as (if not more wrong than) those who continue to preach that blacks were denied the Priesthood because of a lack of premortal valiance and/or fence-sitting and/or the blood of Cain blah blah blah.

1 hour ago, Scott said:

Church doctrine now days is that Brigham Young was wrong.

This is just plain false. It is wrong. It is a lie. Period. There is no such Church doctrine. Anyone who says there is is wrong, and is either ignorant or a liar.

1 hour ago, Scott said:

Either Brigham's statements weren't revelation or the more statements weren't revelation.   You can't have it both ways.

Another logical falsehood, though slightly less offensive than the previous statement. Brigham Young's teachings are not recognized today as Church doctrine. Many of them have been specifically disavowed, as mentioned above. This disavowal does not mean that the teachings are necessarily false, only that they constitute no part of Church doctrine today. We are free to disbelieve them if we choose, as many of us do. But we can also believe them, if we like. The disavowal does not mean the teachings are uniformly false. It does not mean that we say falsehoods like, "The Church teaches that Brigham Young was wrong." It most certainly does not mean that we preach outright lies like, "The Church has acknowledged that racism was at the root of the Priesthood ban."

The truth is this:

We don't know.

Anyone who preaches anything other than this (and who isn't the prophet) is going beyond the mark and speaking out of turn, no matter how well-intentioned s/he may be.

[Guest Scott]

Quote

This is just plain false. It is wrong. It is a lie. Period. There is no such Church doctrine. Anyone who says there is is wrong, and is either ignorant or a liar.

Quote

Another logical falsehood, though slightly less offensive than the previous statement. Brigham Young's teachings are not recognized today as Church doctrine. Many of them have been specifically disavowed, as mentioned above. This disavowal does not mean that the teachings are necessarily false, only that they constitute no part of Church doctrine today. We are free to disbelieve them if we choose, as many of us do. But we can also believe them, if we like. The disavowal does not mean the teachings are uniformly false. It does not mean that we say falsehoods like, "The Church teaches that Brigham Young was wrong."

 

Was Brigham Young right or wrong when he said (many times and in many words) that no blacks will ever received the priesthood until every single while person had the chance to receive it?  

Was Brigham Young right or wrong when he said that the penalty for interracial marriage will be death on the spot and this will always be so?  

Here is the exact quote (March 8, 1863):

Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so. 

These are two simple questions.   Please answer them.  It should only take a few words at most. 

And don't say "we don't know" because we most certainty do know the answers to the above questions.    

Edited October 16, 2018 by Scott

[Vort]

18 minutes ago, Scott said:

Was Brigham Young right or wrong when he said (many times and in many words) that no blacks will ever received the priesthood until every single while person had the chance to receive it? 

 Apparently wrong, assuming we can trust the historical record on this point.

18 minutes ago, Scott said:

Was Brigham Young right or wrong when he said that the penalty for interracial marriage will be death on the spot and this will always be so?

This is a false question. Brigham Young said no such thing about "interracial marriage". Go reread your quote.

Now that I have answered your questions, quit preaching false doctrine.

[Guest MormonGator]

13 minutes ago, Vort said:

 Apparently wrong, assuming we can trust the historical record on this point.

 

Remember @Vort, we trust the historical record when it suits our needs, and we distrust it when it doesn't. 

[Vort]

7 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Remember @Vort, we trust the historical record when it suits our needs, and we distrust it when it doesn't. 

No, that's too cynical and (mainly) too facile. The historical record is full of holes. When many sources say the same thing, especially if it's a first-person record, that's quite convincing. I am no historian -- nor, for that matter, do I particularly trust those who are -- but my understanding is that President Young's statements are widely attested, making them more credible than the one-off or occasional historical reference. Whether or not this suits my personal biases is not really relevant.

[Grunt]

18 hours ago, MormonGator said:

I think it's also important to remember that a group of largely white people talking about race is like a group of non-LDS talking about Mormonism. They might make good points here or there, but they don't fundamentally know what it's like to be Mormon. Just like we don't know what it's like to be a minority. 

Why?  I don't have a race?  I'm not speaking about what it is like to be black, which is what I would have to be doing for your analogy to work.  I'm speaking about race relations, of which I'm a part, and past policy of the Church, of which I have access to about the same data as anyone else here.  To say I'm unqualified to discuss the topic is a page right out of the liberal playbook to establish a moral or intellectual superiority that just doesn't exist.

[Guest MormonGator]

Just now, Vort said:

No, that's too cynical and (mainly) too facile

It's also human nature. We ignore history we don't like, we embrace history when it backs up what we believe.

[Guest MormonGator]

2 minutes ago, Grunt said:

to establish a moral or intellectual superiority that just doesn't exist.

Too late. I'm British, I think I'm superior to everyone.

[Vort]

1 minute ago, MormonGator said:

It's also human nature. We ignore history we don't like, we embrace history when it backs up what we believe.

Lots of things are human nature. Raping your pretty neighbor is human nature. Hacking to pieces the guy that bothers you is human nature. The fact that it's in our nature doesn't mean we do those things.

[Vort]

1 minute ago, MormonGator said:

Too late. I'm British, I think I'm superior to everyone.

Pretty sure the British way is to just imply this in everything you do and say, and avoid coming right out and stating it. You've been Americanized.