BKP on the Priesthood Ban

[SoonerCoug]

If the church admits that one bit of doctrine or policy of the church was wrong, then the church fears that it undermines some of the foundational underpinnings of the church. If the priesthood ban was wrong, then is the WoW wrong? Tithing? Law of chastity?

If the Church would do the following 3 things, I would be a much happier Mormon:

1) Repeal anti-masturbatory law
2) Grant worthy female members the priesthood
3) Apologize to blacks and women for denying them the priesthood.

I can think of about 530 other things I'd like to see changed, but these three would be a fantastic start.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

It really is just as simple as this. People seem to forget that the "we just don't know" approach is a modern one. The ban stood on interpretation of scripture and statements from the brethren that we now call "folklore". Every single one of these interpretations and explanations has indeed been disavowed. There is no leg left upon which the ban can now or could ever have stood except for "we just don't know". The problem as I see it is that this explanation makes no sense if you apply it pre 1978. They did "know", but apparently they were wrong. I'm with Lebowski, and in my mind there is no doubt.

This is probably the best post of the thread. You can't say "we just don't know" when there were explanations provided on several different occasions prior to the lifting of the ban. MEP sure seemed like he knew back in the 1950s. He was an apostle. I thought he was supposed to provide revelation to the flock?

Problem is, the church can't say that MEP was wrong because that would be tantamount to admitting that what you hear from apostles on doctrinal points is sometimes wrong. The church always hammers home the point that you need to follow the counsel of priesthood leaders all the way up the chain. The other foundational assumption is that our church is the one true church and that it's led by living prophets. What they say, goes.

If the church admits that one bit of doctrine or policy of the church was wrong, then the church fears that it undermines some of the foundational underpinnings of the church. If the priesthood ban was wrong, then is the WoW wrong? Tithing? Law of chastity?

The church doesn't overestimate the judgment of the rank and file member, and I can't blame them. The aggregate of the counsel from the first presidency and quorum of the 12 is excellent and will generally lead to good things. Bits and pieces aren't perfect, but unfortunately there are more idiots in the church than MENSA members. The White Bible tells missionaries not to swim or engage in dangerous activities on P-day. My companion and two other elders in my district interpreted that as meaning that it was okay to strap on rollerblades and hit a skate park with ramps, half-pipes, etc. Low and behold one of the elders gets a severe concussion and is out of commission for about 2-3 weeks.

[byu71]

I am sure folks like surfah and 71 do not intend their posts to sound as such, so please correct me if I am wrong, but just so you know, these are issues of interest to lots of folks. You don't have to be struggling with a testimony or be trying to overcome major obstacles. Some folks just want an answer. It is also an interesting academic endeavor to discuss Church history. It doesn't mean that one questions the Church or disbelieves in the Gospel.

From a PR perspective, the "we don't know" defense doesn't pass the sniff test. True, there is no definitive way to ever prove, one way or the other. But in light of the prevailing public opinion of the day (racism and segregation), given that the Church leaders of the day were humans and prone to error and bias, in light of things such as the Stapley letter or MEP's ridiculous Cadillac talk, considering BRMs 1958 version of MoDoc, followed by redrafts for 66 and then 1978 (as well as an admonition to simply not publish the book at all), there seems to be plenty of circumstantial facts that would indicate that racism played a part in the policy.

A complete denial of any knowledge ("we dont know") is weird. Aren't there folks alive today in the 12 that have knowledge of some of these things?

Any company that denies knowledge of something that the general public deems to be pretty self-evident usually comes under greater scrutiny, not less. In this case, what we are saying is that white guys from utah in the 50s and 60s may have held personal racist sentiments. Shocker. It is what it is.

I can understand the want to know. Anyone on here knows I don't mind a lively discussion. I guess what I am saying though beyond a good thoughtful discussion, I don't see the value in having to know for most of us.

The very fact that the church makes policy and then later says they don't know the reason why bolsters my contention everything said from the pulpit in conference doesn't have to be taken by everyone as gospel. I would be in a real fix if they had a definitive answer for everything. I would hate to live in a culture where there were people I had to accept as being infallible.

If there were GA's in a prior time that were racists, well that is too bad. I suspect that with the loose interpretation of racism, there was a time I was racist. I dealt with the understanding I had at the time. Saying such, I never hurt anyone because of my views and I am certainly not going to kiss someones ass because I admit I could have been and they claim they weren't.

[LA Ute]

In this case, what we are saying is that white guys from utah in the 50s and 60s may have held personal racist sentiments.

Bro. TD, your points are all worth serious consideration and I am sympathetic to many of them. But I also need to get back to work, and this is a potentially endless discussion. I will just note, cheerfully, that when you say that earlier church leaders "may have held personal racist sentiments," you are supporting my (admitedly somewhat legalistic) point: We don't "know." That they "may have" held such sentiments is a definite possibility and a reasonable hypothesis. But it ain't knowledge. Yeah, that sounds like hairsplitting, but I just can't go any farther on an issue like this one.

I know that you will understand. (Won't you? Please? Kinda-sorta?)

[Color Me Badd Fan]

You are correct but this threshold inquiry can be quite confusing, as we see in this instance. BKP made the statement intending that it be accepted for the truth of the matter asserted, but I wouldn't be offering it for any other reason than that here is an offense that is being committed, that must be enjoined. It would be evidence of the injury itself.

You guys all have it wrong. It's statement of the opposing party to SU and therefore it's not hearsay at all under the FRE. You guys would have all picked the wrong answer on the MBE.

[TripletDaddy]

I am sure folks like surfah and 71 do not intend their posts to sound as such, so please correct me if I am wrong, but just so you know, these are issues of interest to lots of folks. You don't have to be struggling with a testimony or be trying to overcome major obstacles. Some folks just want an answer. It is also an interesting academic endeavor to discuss Church history. It doesn't mean that one questions the Church or disbelieves in the Gospel.

From a PR perspective, the "we don't know" defense doesn't pass the sniff test. True, there is no definitive way to ever prove, one way or the other. But in light of the prevailing public opinion of the day (racism and segregation), given that the Church leaders of the day were humans and prone to error and bias, in light of things such as the Stapley letter or MEP's ridiculous Cadillac talk, considering BRMs 1958 version of MoDoc, followed by redrafts for 66 and then 1978 (as well as an admonition to simply not publish the book at all), there seems to be plenty of circumstantial facts that would indicate that racism played a part in the policy.

A complete denial of any knowledge ("we dont know") is weird. Aren't there folks alive today in the 12 that have knowledge of some of these things?

Any company that denies knowledge of something that the general public deems to be pretty self-evident usually comes under greater scrutiny, not less. In this case, what we are saying is that white guys from utah in the 50s and 60s may have held personal racist sentiments. Shocker. It is what it is.

[byu71]

I feel the same way. Except I apply this to believers as well. Going back to the article Lebowski linked, I still don't believe the "don't know" defense to be disingenuous. The author admits that one can't possibly know, yet says we know enough that the "don't know" don't work. So what? Are we supposed to say "probably" racist? Or is that not strong enough? "More than likely" racist?

I understand that this is a major obstacle for many and their testimonies. It just never has been for me. As I said before, if the Church were to release a statement tomorrow admitting racism as the sole cause for the ban my testimony and commitment to the Church would remain intact. If they go on with the "don't know" defense I am fine with that too.

I think LA Ute summed up my feelings best on this issue.

I am pretty sure I agree with you. It might be a legitimate issue for someone struggling with their own personal belief. Much the same a Catholic might with early Popes and what they supposedly did. Some Catholics struggle with their churches position on abortion, etc. I just do not feel it to be my struggle as I have already decided as far as my belief in the Pope and Catholic church.

That is why I don't understand the struggle with those who have already made a determination the Prophet isn't a Prophet.

[SteelBlue]

OK. I take that back. No doubt.

Again, every reason that was originally given for the ban has been disavowed. What is left?

It really is just as simple as this. People seem to forget that the "we just don't know" approach is a modern one. The ban stood on interpretation of scripture and statements from the brethren that we now call "folklore". Every single one of these interpretations and explanations has indeed been disavowed. There is no leg left upon which the ban can now or could ever have stood except for "we just don't know". The problem as I see it is that this explanation makes no sense if you apply it pre 1978. They did "know", but apparently they were wrong. I'm with Lebowski, and in my mind there is no doubt.

[CardiacCoug]

The "folklore" discussed in the article Lebowski posted about it being an indicator of pre-mortal valiance or lack thereof has not limited itself to just race. As a new convert who came out of a broken home and lived in a children's home, a sister in my ward mentioned this about me. (i.e. it's good to see he's here now even if he wasn't valiant in the pre-mortal life or something along those lines.) Saturday's Warrior probably did more to socialize that folklore than anything else. I wonder how many members today believe that the more valiant you were in the premortal life, the better circumstances you are born into? Probably more than we'd like to admit.

Good observation.

We believe that God loves each of us and is perfectly fair to all His children. And yet we see such incredible disparities in the situations into which people are born.

Believing in relative righteousness versus sin in a premortal life is an attempt to explain away this paradox. If a baby is born to a crack addict, he's just getting what he deserves for bad premortal behavior.

In addition to helping us maintain the apparently irrational belief in a loving and just God, hypothesizing a premortal existence where some were less valiant than others is a great excuse for not helping people born into terrible circumstances.

[LA Ute]

The "folklore" discussed in the article Lebowski posted about it being an indicator of pre-mortal valiance or lack thereof has not limited itself to just race. As a new convert who came out of a broken home and lived in a children's home, a sister in my ward mentioned this about me. (i.e. it's good to see he's here now even if he wasn't valiant in the pre-mortal life or something along those lines.) Saturday's Warrior probably did more to socialize that folklore than anything else. I wonder how many members today believe that the more valiant you were in the premortal life, the better circumstances you are born into? Probably more than we'd like to admit.

I hope not. I think that is an extremely dangerous way to think about people and their earthly circumstances. I like to speculate (and that's all I'm doing) that one reason why I was born in an active LDS home might have been that I could not have handled a more difficult situation. My father, who was deaf, was told by Hugh B. Brown (as a friend) that he might have that disability because he needed the greater test that would accompany it (that's one meaning for the word "handicap," which has fallen into disuse). When it comes to why people have the circumstances they do, "I don't know" is the only answer.

ADDENDUM: I do not think we know all that much about the extent to which our premortal life has anything to do with our earthly circumstances. We are taught only that there were some "noble and great ones;" that we would not be here if we had not taken the right side in the debate ("war"); and that some of us are foreordained to certain assignments. I think too many people like to take those ideas and run with them, which is a big part of the folklore that proved so damaging regarding the priesthood issue. We know only so much of the mind of God as He chooses to share with us.

[Surfah]

I guess I am still at a loss for what it is the non-believer wants.

Is it an admission the early GA's were racists and therefor a claim can go forth that we LDS folks believe in something that is false. I hear George Washington and many of the other founding fathers were racist, can I thus claim the constitution to be no good.

The non believers already believe the current GA's are not prophets. Again, what is the purpose in trying to convince me they are not. None of them currently are urging me to have racist attitudes.

It seems like me trying to convince the Catholics they need to have their Priests marry. I am not a Catholic, I couldn't care less if a Catholic is comfortable with the Priest marrying or not. I lose no sleep over the misdeeds of the early Popes. The current Pope seems like a fine man to me, why should I tarnish him with something a Pope did in the dark ages. If I were Catholic, it might be important to me, but as a non-believer it isn't. I fail to see why it should be.

I feel the same way. Except I apply this to believers as well. Going back to the article Lebowski linked, I still don't believe the "don't know" defense to be disingenuous. The author admits that one can't possibly know, yet says we know enough that the "don't know" don't work. So what? Are we supposed to say "probably" racist? Or is that not strong enough? "More than likely" racist?

I understand that this is a major obstacle for many and their testimonies. It just never has been for me. As I said before, if the Church were to release a statement tomorrow admitting racism as the sole cause for the ban my testimony and commitment to the Church would remain intact. If they go on with the "don't know" defense I am fine with that too.

I think LA Ute summed up my feelings best on this issue.

[FMCoug]

The "folklore" discussed in the article Lebowski posted about it being an indicator of pre-mortal valiance or lack thereof has not limited itself to just race. As a new convert who came out of a broken home and lived in a children's home, a sister in my ward mentioned this about me. (i.e. it's good to see he's here now even if he wasn't valiant in the pre-mortal life or something along those lines.) Saturday's Warrior probably did more to socialize that folklore than anything else. I wonder how many members today believe that the more valiant you were in the premortal life, the better circumstances you are born into? Probably more than we'd like to admit.

[byu71]

I guess I am still at a loss for what it is the non-believer wants.

Is it an admission the early GA's were racists and therefor a claim can go forth that we LDS folks believe in something that is false. I hear George Washington and many of the other founding fathers were racist, can I thus claim the constitution to be no good.

The non believers already believe the current GA's are not prophets. Again, what is the purpose in trying to convince me they are not. None of them currently are urging me to have racist attitudes.

It seems like me trying to convince the Catholics they need to have their Priests marry. I am not a Catholic, I couldn't care less if a Catholic is comfortable with the Priest marrying or not. I lose no sleep over the misdeeds of the early Popes. The current Pope seems like a fine man to me, why should I tarnish him with something a Pope did in the dark ages. If I were Catholic, it might be important to me, but as a non-believer it isn't. I fail to see why it should be.

[Jeff Lebowski]

There is no recorded revelation starting lots of things in the LDS Church. Regardless, the POGP/Book of Abraham is a "recorded revelation," and it alludes to the curse of Ham and its consequence that the accursed could not hold the priesthood.

You always overplay the significance of that scripture. I recommend that you (and everyone interested in the topic) check out this article by Mauss. He addresses that scripture in the first page or two.

http://www.sunstoneonline.com/magazine/issues/134/134-56-61.pdf

Some excerpts (my emphasis):

Indeed, it was apparent to many of us even four decades ago that certain scriptural passages used to explain the denial of priesthood to black members could not legitimately be so interpreted without an a priori narrative. Such a narrative was gradually constructed by the searching and inventive minds of early LDS apologists.

Regarding the "we don't know" line:

I am aware that the official “explanation” offered these days for denying the priesthood to blacks is that “we don’t know.” That response to questions about the past is perhaps technically accurate, since very few members or even leaders know much about the history of our black members or of their part in our larger history. It is true also that we can’t be sure of all that lay behind Brigham Young’s 1852 declaration that “descendants of Cain” could not have the priesthood. In the absence of all such knowledge, certainly the safest thing for a Church member or leader to say today is that “we don’t know.” It is also a good public relations tactic, since it has the effect of changing the subject before it gets complicated! Yet it is also somewhat disingenuous to say that we don’t know, and it is certainly an unsatisfactory response to any of our converts, investigators, or youth who are conscientiously troubled by this chapter in our history, especially if they are black. The fact is that we do have a lot more relevant historical knowledge than the we-don’t-know response would indicate.

[LA Ute]

Actually, I find the "we don't know" approach to be disingenuous. If one honestly traces the history of the ban to its origins, there is little doubt that it was a product of racism. There is no recorded revelation starting the ban, just some comments by BY. Each and every reason that was given for the ban has now been disavowed by the church as "folklore". There is nothing left for it to stand on. Furthermore, the "we don't know" approach seems to take an error made by humans and lay it at the feet of God. That disturbs me.

If we are a group of people humbly striving to follow Christ, why not honestly confess and forsake our sins? We are doing the forsake part but we seemed to have skipped the confess part.

(thanks for the link)

This, el duderino, is what I call a very fair point. I disagree, however -- but not vehemently. I won't try to say much more about this gnarliest of subjects because, like Richard Bushman, I do not trust myself to do so. I'm afraid my own biases and personal demons will get too much into the mix.

I do have my own suspicions about what happened and generally think -- and this is only a theory -- that the Church got itself into a box on this issue that it did not know how to get out of. I am not sure it knows how even to this day. I am not willing to call the cause of that problem simple racism because I simply don't know enough to make that charge, which is a powerful one indeed. I also don't think anyone else knows enough to make that charge. On that, you and I will probably have to agree to disagree.

Like many people, what I think about the question today is not what I thought about it 20 or 30 years ago. That alone gives me pause about taking a defintitive position now. For the time being, what Elder Holland said makes me feel as good as I can feel about the whole thing.