BKP on the Priesthood Ban

[snowcat]

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.

I am going to use this.

[pelagius]

If by "worse" you mean "even better", then I agree. This is definitely going up on the board next time I teach Priesthood.

I do teach a lesson occassionally that I call, "The DCF approach to understanding the gospel." I remember one time I taught that lesson and some yelled out, "I Cant believe you're writing math on the board!"

[smokymountainrain]

But isn't the BoM "the most correct if any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion"? (History of the Church, 4:461.)

I think TD already addressed this issue above.

[Flystripper]

One of the different things about this is when you look at some of the folks that are hit hard by this, it is a very different group than is usually questioning the church. If you look at the ProgMo/Cafeteria Mormon/Liberal Mormon/Democrat or whatever you want to call them crowd, they already believed the ban was about racism. Their only reaction to this is "Awesome! About time!". This is hitting the 100%/all-in/TBMs (not all of them, but a few of them). If in 2013 you still believed that you were born black because of pre-earth sins, you were either A) Active in the church for over 35 years or B) Prone to believe that anything ever said by an apostle is the absolute truth. These are two groups that are not often shaken by official church pronouncements, which makes this interesting.

anyone checked in on grapevine today?

[Uncle Ted]

how so? it can have a thousand errors and still be the most correct book, assuming all other books have more errors.

I have seen some short books with very few, if any, errors.

[Moliere]

how so? it can have a thousand errors and still be the most correct book, assuming all other books have more errors.

I'm glad you made this post as it will save me many sleepless nights...

[Goatnapper'96]

One of the things I think a lot about when I am in the Temple is the statement: "blood and sins of this generation." I think for many of us religious folks we are not wired to inherently question societal norms and values. For many of us it just isn't how we are wired. Hence, I think it is a great challenge for us not to succumb to participating, believing in or promulgating the "blood and sins" of our various generations - usually the one in which we live, I think. Joseph Smith had his demons like any other human being but on the concept of race relations he was one who I think overcame his generations' "blood and sins." Brigham Young not so much. I often wonder what I/we are missing right now.

[old_gregg]

Back in the day when I used to post on religious topics this is what I argued:

http://cougarguard.com/forum/showthread.php?t=21104

how do you even evaluate those outcomes? there's no objective way to measure the empirical correctness of one's conduct (the exception being the word of wisdom context, i guess) in following prophetic counsel. another issue is that "the prophet" is not one individual. what is the presumptively rational action when there is discontinuity or contradiction in doctrine? what about when two reasonable interpretations of the same advice exist? there's also a wide gap between following prophetic counsel based on probability and recommending that others do the same.

[Moliere]

That is perhaps the most pelagius post I have ever read.

As to Harry Tic ' comments, I believe it was Wilford Woodruff who made the "won't lead you astray, not in the program" statement. I haven't checked dates but I believe he said that with the backdrop of the manifesto and a fractured church, looking to rally his base. I could be remembering this way wrong.

This is correct. WW made the statement as he knew the Manifesto would be very controversial as it was a break from previous church doctrine (which doctrine was preached very, very recently to when the Manifesto was made) so he was basically reassuring the church that the way he was going was the correct path.

[wuapinmon]

I have seen some short books with very few, if any, errors.

I had a good friend named Andy Phoenix. His dad Don worked in the computer industry. One night in about 1990, we were up late playing Axis n' Allies, and while I was waiting for him to take a turn, I noticed a handsome leather-bound with guilded lettering book on the shelf in his den titled, "Everything I Know about the Computer Industry" by Don Phoenix. Intrigued by the title, I pulled it from the shelf and opened it to see that it was nothing but blank pages inside. One might say that that book was flawless.

[Jeff Lebowski]

That is perhaps the most pelagius post I have ever read.

As to Harry Tic ' comments, I believe it was Wilford Woodruff who made the "won't lead you astray, not in the program" statement. I haven't checked dates but I believe he said that with the backdrop of the manifesto and a fractured church, looking to rally his base. I could be remembering this way wrong.

This is correct. WW made the statement as he knew the Manifesto would be very controversial as it was a break from previous church doctrine (which doctrine was preached very, very recently to when the Manifesto was made) so he was basically reassuring the church that the way he was going was the correct path.

Furthermore, WW was facing a revolt in the Q12. He floated the idea of the manifesto to the Q12 and the response from most was "Hell, no!". So he pulled a few people together, drafted the manifesto, and released it to the press. Most of the Q12 learned about it by reading it in the SL Trib. Can you imagine?

[Uncle Ted]

I don't think I mentioned this previously (and sorry if I have), but last summer several families in the stake were invited to a joint FHE, including the stake president. The discussion leader presented a variety of questions that nonmembers might ask about the church, inviting us to provide sample answers. One of the questions was why blacks were denied the priesthood. Most responses were along the lines of "we don't know", and thankfully nobody went Randy Bott on us. But my wife, sensing my discomfort, kept goading me into responding. Finally, I said there were probably several reasons, but that among the principal reasons was that "Brigham Young was a virulent racist." I noted that many great leaders, both secular and spiritual, were deeply flawed in certain areas (I didn't bother with the Founding Fathers and slavery stuff), but that perhaps Brigham Young was one of the few people capable of preserving the Church and leading it to a place where it would eventually flourish. I droned on a bit more, feeling cheery that I might be foreclosing any significant future callings in the stake (the SP acted a bit uncomfortable, but didn't challenge me). The discussion leader was a bit surprised, but joked, "I guess you won't be getting called as ward mission leader", unaware that that was and is my current calling, though thankfully not for long.

With this very significant release by the Church, I'm thinking "swish!".

That is a great answer but isn't that "evil speaking of the Lord's anointed"? Of course, is it "evil speaking" if the evidence seems to show that it is true?

This article really doesn't present anything new. President David O. McKay, in 1954, said:

"There is not now, and there never has been a doctrine in this church that the negroes are under a divine curse. There is no doctrine in the church of any kind pertaining to the negro. We believe that we have a scriptural precedent for withholding the priesthood from the negro. It is a practice, not a doctrine, and the practice someday will be changed. And that's all there is to it." ("David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism")

If anything the article just re-ignites lingering questions about the entire thing and creates new ones. e.g.,

(1) How is a 'servitor' different from a 'slave'? The footnote points out that Utah territorial "legislators perceived “servitude” to be a more humane alternative to slavery." Were these "servitors" free? For example, if some white guy ask a "servitor" to get a beer from the frig could he say, "F-off and get your own damn beer you lazy white cracker" without risking being beaten with a whip?

(2) Why does the article mention Jane Manning James without mentioning that she was promised to be adopted into the family of Joseph Smith Jr? Of course, instead she was sealed to JS Jr as a slave "servitor" instead. The article fails to mention anything about that part.

(3) Why didn't the article mention that Elijah Abel was a GA and was ordained by JS Jr?

[Moliere]

Furthermore, WW was facing a revolt in the Q12. He floated the idea of the manifesto to the Q12 and the response from most was "Hell, no!". So he pulled a few people together, drafted the manifesto, and released it to the press. Most of the Q12 learned about it by reading it in the SL Trib. Can you imagine?

And if I remember correctly some of them went along with it for a while as they thought the Manifesto was more of a political face and that the true doctrine wasn't changing, which is evidenced by the continued polygamous marriages performed for over a decade after the Manifesto. It wasn't until subsequent statements by WW that 2 of the apostles resigned from their calling and broke from the church.

It seems the church has learned a bit from its past by taking things slowly when it comes to changing (or disavowing) doctrine as it tends to make this stuff easier to swallow.

[Y84it]

I don't think I mentioned this previously (and sorry if I have), but last summer several families in the stake were invited to a joint FHE, including the stake president. The discussion leader presented a variety of questions that nonmembers might ask about the church, inviting us to provide sample answers. One of the questions was why blacks were denied the priesthood. Most responses were along the lines of "we don't know", and thankfully nobody went Randy Bott on us. But my wife, sensing my discomfort, kept goading me into responding. Finally, I said there were probably several reasons, but that among the principal reasons was that "Brigham Young was a virulent racist." I noted that many great leaders, both secular and spiritual, were deeply flawed in certain areas (I didn't bother with the Founding Fathers and slavery stuff), but that perhaps Brigham Young was one of the few people capable of preserving the Church and leading it to a place where it would eventually flourish. I droned on a bit more, feeling cheery that I might be foreclosing any significant future callings in the stake (the SP acted a bit uncomfortable, but didn't challenge me). The discussion leader was a bit surprised, but joked, "I guess you won't be getting called as ward mission leader", unaware that that was and is my current calling, though thankfully not for long.

With this very significant release by the Church, I'm thinking "swish!".

To justify your statement more. I served in our EQ with an AA who has only been a member for 2 years. When investigating the church and doing his own research he told me nearly word for word what you said above. Although he is not a fan of BY he said that he was the man for the job that was needed at the time. He also reverenced JS in the early days doing lots of things for the AA communitiy and was against slavery. That research confirmed to him (along with other things) that JS was a man of god. Just thought I would share.

[Dwight Schr-ute]

Furthermore, WW was facing a revolt in the Q12. He floated the idea of the manifesto to the Q12 and the response from most was "Hell, no!". So he pulled a few people together, drafted the manifesto, and released it to the press. Most of the Q12 learned about it by reading it in the SL Trib. Can you imagine?

I can't. Why not go through KSL?