BKP on the Priesthood Ban

[The_Tick]

I would love some of you to look at my FB post from last night and chime in.

I have a few folks in my own stake that are saying "Prophets will never lead us astray, and we don't know why God allowed it to happen."

God had nothing to do with it folks...this is on the "Arm of Flesh".

Pretty plain and simple.


We had a discussion last night and this morning as a family. TK2 did bring up "What else are they going to say they were wrong about?"

And we had some extremely fun discussions in regards to that.

I want to see the letters that they should be writing on:

Polygamy
Word of Wisdom...because I will be honest, I think we are out to lunch on Coffee and Tea. Makes no sense.

[falafel]

Did you go into further explanation or let it slip by?

To be honest, it took me by surprise. I forgot the language was so direct. I let it slide.

[creekster]

This letter really is evidence that everyone, from the prophet on down, believed that anyone with non-white skin was less valiant in premortal life. These weren't 'theories', as the new article is trying to suggest. It was doctrine through and through. And, like JS noted above, it's still doctrine due to those scriptures that the church holds up as canon.

But that's the point; it never was doctrinal. Just as some leaders now wrap themselves in the policy distinction to allow themselves to leave the restriction behind, so leaders in the day hid behind doctrine to justify it. Outside of some very basic principles (love god with all your heart and your neighbor as yourself) the gospel is like a word in humpty dumpty's mouth: it means exactly what church leaders say it does, nothing more and nothing less.

[Jeff Lebowski]

2 Nephi 5:21

We read this as a family the other day and I cringed when my son was reading.

Seriously, how are we now supposed to explain these passages to our kids?

We had this experience a year or two ago with our kids. We read those passages and when we were done they looked at me and said, "Dad, what is up with that?". I thought about it for a minute and said, "I don't care what it says here. I don't believe dark skin ever was a sign of sin or disfavor with God. Ever." They seemed to be quite relieved and happy with that answer.

[creekster]

I don't like the reliance on the BY statement that blacks would one day enjoy all the same priviliges as other members. It feels like Mormon speak for revelation, yet it comes from the same speech in which the errant doctrine was put forth in the first place. Odd. I love that the false reasons, once considered doctrinal by many, are repudiated in one easy to find place, but I still feel too much "gosh, we just don't know why" in the piece.

I don't see it that way. I think the reason they walk through the cultural milieu of the original policy is to make the point that it was politically expedient and culturally based but not doctrinal. The reason for the policy, weak and unjustified though it may be, is right there; it was bigotry. What other reason can there be? The words "we apologize" are not found in the release, but otherwise it is an apology.

This is more than just a statement that the church was wrong about race and priesthood. This is an admission that prophets, even famous latter-day prophets, get things wrong. And not just little things, but big things. Huge things. This says more about the notion of infallibility than any treatise on that topic ever could. As a result, the language is measured and careful. But looking at what they included in the essay, and how they built the case, makes it pretty clear to me that they are spelling out the reason and they are saying "excuse us for getting it wrong" but in order to allow it to settle in they didn't take that final step of making an express apology. I hope that comes soon.

[FN Phat]

2 Nephi 5:21



We read this as a family the other day and I cringed when my son was reading.

Did you go into further explanation or let it slip by?

[Northwestcoug]

Holy crap, but the letter cited here is disturbing:

http://www.cougarboard.com/board/mes...ml?id=11702729

A letter from the first Presidency from 1947 that clearly states that it was doctrine.



I suppose since it wasn't stated in Conference with "Thus saith the Lord" that it's merely their opinions.

This letter really is evidence that everyone, from the prophet on down, believed that anyone with non-white skin was less valiant in premortal life. These weren't 'theories', as the new article is trying to suggest. It was doctrine through and through. And, like JS noted above, it's still doctrine due to those scriptures that the church holds up as canon.

[SteelBlue]

I like the article a lot. It seems we're going with 1) Brigham Young made some non-doctrinal policy changes which were wrong and made some blunders in his teachings, but it's OK since it's all non-canonical 2) Because of this, it all evolved weird and wrong theories were perpetuated until it was fixed in 1978, and we're all good going forward. I like this explanation.

I don't like the reliance on the BY statement that blacks would one day enjoy all the same priviliges as other members. It feels like Mormon speak for revelation, yet it comes from the same speech in which the errant doctrine was put forth in the first place. Odd. I love that the false reasons, once considered doctrinal by many, are repudiated in one easy to find place, but I still feel too much "gosh, we just don't know why" in the piece.

[TripletDaddy]

Watching the reaction has been fascinating. This is rocking some people to the core.

My wife and I were discussing this last night. By disavowing all past racism "in any form," the Church is explicitly disavowing past prophets, past apostles, past bishops, past stake presidents, past missionaries, past general authorities, and basically anyone and everyone that ever promulgated this myth as being God's will. It seems to also be implicitly disavowing the acceptance of racist practices, as that is also a form of racism, in and of itself. In essence, the Church is disavowing everyone because everyone is guilty of moving forward this huge error in the name of God's will.

Noticeably absent in the article was any sort of discussion about those who have been either disciplined, chastised, "corrected," or outright condemned for questioning the ban, its origins, and its motives. Turns out that these people have been right this entire time, at least in their thoughts and suspicions (the manner in which they presented their opinions probably could use much work).

My wife said, "so if we have been wrong all this time, are we wrong on other things?"

That's basically where we ended the conversation.

[SoCalCoug]

2 Nephi 5:21



We read this as a family the other day and I cringed when my son was reading.

Seriously, how are we now supposed to explain these passages to our kids?

[SoCalCoug]

Holy crap, but the letter cited here is disturbing:

http://www.cougarboard.com/board/mes...ml?id=11702729

A letter from the first Presidency from 1947 that clearly states that it was doctrine.

"Dear Brother Nelson:
As you have been advised, your letter of June 16 was received in due course . . . We have carefully considered [its] content; and are glad to advise you as follows:
We make this initial remark: the social side of the Restored Gospel is only an incident of it; it is not the end thereof.
The basic element of your ideas and concepts seems to be that all God's children stand in equal positions before Him in all things. Your knowledge of the Gospel will indicate to you that this is contrary to the very fundamentals of God's dealings with Israel dating from the time of His promise to Abraham regarding Abraham's seed and their position vis-a-vis God Himself. Indeed, some of God's children were assinged to superior positions before the world was formed.
We are aware that some Higher Critics do not accept this, but the Church does. Your position seems to lose sight of the revelations of the Lord touching the pre-existence of our spirits, the rebellion in heaven, and the doctrines that our birth into this life and the advantages under which we may be born, have a religionship in the life heretofore.
From the days of the Prophet Joseph Smith even until now, it is has been the doctrine of the Church, never questioned by any of the Church leaders, that the Negroes are not entitled to the full blessings of the Gospel.
Furthermore, your ideas, as we understand them, appear to contemplate the intermarriage of the Negro and White races, a concept which has heretofore been most repugnant to most normal-minded people from the ancient partiarchs till now. God's rule for Israel, His Chosen People, has been endogamous. Modern Israel has been similarly directed.
We are not unmindful of the fact that there is a growing tendency, particularly among some educators, as it manifests itself in this are, toward the breaking down of race barriers in the matter of intermarriage between whites and blacks, but it does not have the sanction of the Church and is contrary to Church doctrine.
Faithfully yours,
[signed]
George Albert Smith
J. Reuben Clark, Jr.
David O. McKay
The First Presidency"

I suppose since it wasn't stated in Conference with "Thus saith the Lord" that it's merely their opinions.

[wuapinmon]

This should do the trick:

http://www.change.org/petitions/the-...-blacks-cursed

Jesus Christ doesn't have to ask for forgiveness!

[falafel]

I like the article a lot. It seems we're going with 1) Brigham Young made some non-doctrinal policy changes which were wrong and made some blunders in his teachings, but it's OK since it's all non-canonical 2) Because of this, it all evolved weird and wrong theories were perpetuated until it was fixed in 1978, and we're all good going forward. I like this explanation. What's tough to explain though is what's in the canon. I wonder if the church would modify any of this. It's already started to a little bit with the BOM.

Moses 7:22
22 And Enoch also beheld the residue of the people which were the sons of Adam; and they were a mixture of all the seed of Adam save it was the seed of Cain, for the seed of Cain were ablack, and had not place among them.

Abraham 1
23 The land of aEgypt being first discovered by a woman, who was the daughter of Ham, and the daughter of Egyptus, which in the Chaldean signifies Egypt, which signifies that which is forbidden;

24 When this woman discovered the land it was under water, who afterward settled her sons in it; and thus, from Ham, sprang that race which preserved the curse in the land.


Joseph Smith Bible Translation
where the curse of Cain is spelled out

Book of Mormon
skin color as curse for Lamanites

2 Nephi 5:21

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

We read this as a family the other day and I cringed when my son was reading.

[Moliere]

I like the article a lot. It seems we're going with 1) Brigham Young made some non-doctrinal policy changes which were wrong and made some blunders in his teachings, but it's OK since it's all non-canonical 2) Because of this, it all evolved weird and wrong theories were perpetuated until it was fixed in 1978, and we're all good going forward. I like this explanation. What's tough to explain though is what's in the canon. I wonder if the church would modify any of this. It's already started to a little bit with the BOM.

Moses 7:22
22 And Enoch also beheld the residue of the people which were the sons of Adam; and they were a mixture of all the seed of Adam save it was the seed of Cain, for the seed of Cain were ablack, and had not place among them.

Abraham 1
23 The land of aEgypt being first discovered by a woman, who was the daughter of Ham, and the daughter of Egyptus, which in the Chaldean signifies Egypt, which signifies that which is forbidden;

24 When this woman discovered the land it was under water, who afterward settled her sons in it; and thus, from Ham, sprang that race which preserved the curse in the land.


Joseph Smith Bible Translation
where the curse of Cain is spelled out

Book of Mormon
skin color as curse for Lamanites

I find the hierarchy of church doctrinal sources fascinating. For instance, we have many leaders say that the current prophet is the most important but yet we always revert back to whether or not something is supported by the "canon" which is tightly defined as the Bible (preferably the KJV), BOM, D&C and POGP. I once made a "house of scripture" post somewhere on this board and I continue to think that I got the hierarchy correct in that post.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Watching the reaction has been fascinating. This is rocking some people to the core.