BKP on the Priesthood Ban

[TripletDaddy]

It wouldn't be offered for the truth because he clearly stated he didn't know and offered up what was admittedly personal speculation.

thanks, Indy. Is that from the FRE or just stuff you have across in your general legal studies?

[Jeff Lebowski]

Clearly he's a speaking agent for THE PARTY here. Given the source of the infromation and the number of witnesses to the source's statement it probably comes in under the catch-all exception. If anyone wants to raise double hearsay, clearly Lebowski is making and admission against interest.

If you guys get this all figured out, could you do some sort of translation for the rest of us?

[TripletDaddy]

Actually, 3D and Dan, as I wrote the last post it occurred to me that the hearsay rule is completely inapt because BKP's statement would not be offered for the truth of the matter asserted therein.

That is the first step in analyzing hearsay (also, was it made out of court?). I simply assumed you were going from the angle that BKP story's was being offered as the actual reason why blacks were not getting the priesthood (because we were not ready for the African invasion).

[Jeff Lebowski]

Just a quick hit on this one: General authorities make cringe-inducing statements occasionally, but in my opinion it's not worthwhile to spend much time worrying about statements that are double or triple hearsay and were someone's interpretation of what was said in a meeting to begin with. I do not mean to be dismissive, but this looks like an awful lot of "ado" about not much.

Meanwhile, here is something that is not hearsay and that probably upsets a lot of people here:

I've talked to many blacks and many whites as well about the lingering folklore [about why blacks couldn't have the priesthood]. These are faithful Mormons who are delighted about this revelation, and yet who feel something more should be said about the folklore and even possibly about the mysterious reasons for the ban itself, which was not a revelation; it was a practice. So if you could, briefly address the concerns Mormons have about this folklore and what should be done.

One clear-cut position is that the folklore must never be perpetuated. ... I have to concede to my earlier colleagues. ... They, I'm sure, in their own way, were doing the best they knew to give shape to [the policy], to give context for it, to give even history to it. All I can say is however well intended the explanations were, I think almost all of them were inadequate and/or wrong. ...

It probably would have been advantageous to say nothing, to say we just don't know, and, [as] with many religious matters, whatever was being done was done on the basis of faith at that time. But some explanations were given and had been given for a lot of years. ... At the very least, there should be no effort to perpetuate those efforts to explain why that doctrine existed. I think, to the extent that I know anything about it, as one of the newer and younger ones to come along, ... we simply do not know why that practice, that policy, that doctrine was in place.

What is the folklore, quite specifically?

Well, some of the folklore that you must be referring to are suggestions that there were decisions made in the pre-mortal councils where someone had not been as decisive in their loyalty to a Gospel plan or the procedures on earth or what was to unfold in mortality, and that therefore that opportunity and mortality was compromised. I really don't know a lot of the details of those, because fortunately I've been able to live in the period where we're not expressing or teaching them, but I think that's the one I grew up hearing the most, was that it was something to do with the pre-mortal councils. ... But I think that's the part that must never be taught until anybody knows a lot more than I know. ... We just don't know, in the historical context of the time, why it was practiced. ... That's my principal [concern], is that we don't perpetuate explanations about things we don't know. ...

We don't pretend that something wasn't taught or practice wasn't pursued for whatever reason. But I think we can be unequivocal and we can be declarative in our current literature, in books that we reproduce, in teachings that go forward, whatever, that from this time forward, from 1978 forward, we can make sure that nothing of that is declared. That may be where we still need to make sure that we're absolutely dutiful, that we put [a] careful eye of scrutiny on anything from earlier writings and teachings, just [to] make sure that that's not perpetuated in the present. That's the least, I think, of our current responsibilities on that topic. ...

Your link doesn't match your quotes. Can you provide the correct link? TIA.

Why would this upset anyone here?

[Jeff Lebowski]

It wouldn't be offered for the truth because he clearly stated he didn't know and offered up what was admittedly personal speculation.

Yes. I.e., he was offering up a new round of folklore.

[Indy Coug]

Actually, 3D and Dan, as I wrote the last post it occurred to me that the hearsay rule is completely inapt because BKP's statement would not be offered for the truth of the matter asserted therein.

It wouldn't be offered for the truth because he clearly stated he didn't know and offered up what was admittedly personal speculation.

[SeattleUte]

Actually, 3D and Dan, as I wrote the last post it occurred to me that the hearsay rule is completely inapt because BKP's statement would not be offered for the truth of the matter asserted therein.

[SeattleUte]

Just a quick hit on this one: General authorities make cringe-inducing statements occasionally, but in my opinion it's not worthwhile to spend much time worrying about statements that are double or triple hearsay and were someone's interpretation of what was said in a meeting to begin with. I do not mean to be dismissive, but this looks like an awful lot of "ado" about not much.

Double hearsay fully amissible for the truth of the matter asserted. The statement speaks for itself, counselor. Your editorial comments are not evidence.

[KillerDog]

I think the leadership of the Church is changing their position on blacks in the priesthood as the make up of that leadership changes. I like to think of the Q of 12 as similar to the SCOTUS. There are a variety of opinions on any subject. Some are on one extreme and some are on another. The middle votes decide the issues. Once the issues are decided though, they become unlike the SCOTUS in that they try and present a united front and no dissenting opinions are published.

In the blacks in the priesthood era, the strongest influences in the Q of 12 and first presidency were all racist. Although this was not unusual at the time, the influence such men hold, even after their death, continued to sway the Q of 12. It is as if the Dread Scott decision was written by George Washington. Thus, the quorum had to move dramatically past the rasicm of its past in order to lift the weight of stare decisis and set the new standard. Of paramount concern to the overturning group was the serious implications of whether the decision was revelation based or policy based. Less was needed to overturn a policy based decision. When the body became racially reasonable enough to realized that the decision was policy based, the practice was overturned. That does not mean there are no racists in the Q of 12 right now. I suspect there might be racists still in the Q of 12 and first presidency. I suspect there are some who are opposed to birth control. Logic tells me both of these suspicions are correct. Still, the group sits down, hammers out their combined opinion on a subject and sticks to that party line.

[LA Ute]

We had a GA in our HPG meeting today. He said that he was in a meeting recently with Elder Packer who was addressing with a group of missionaries. Supposedly, Elder Packer said that he didn't know the reason for the priesthood ban but he thought that it might have been because the church was not ready to handle the rapid growth in Africa that is now occurring.

Wow. I am still scratching my head over that one.

Just a quick hit on this one: General authorities make cringe-inducing statements occasionally, but in my opinion it's not worthwhile to spend much time worrying about statements that are double or triple hearsay and were someone's interpretation of what was said in a meeting to begin with. I do not mean to be dismissive, but this looks like an awful lot of "ado" about not much.

Meanwhile, here is something that is not hearsay and that probably upsets a lot of people here: [EDIT: Correct link here.]

I've talked to many blacks and many whites as well about the lingering folklore [about why blacks couldn't have the priesthood]. These are faithful Mormons who are delighted about this revelation, and yet who feel something more should be said about the folklore and even possibly about the mysterious reasons for the ban itself, which was not a revelation; it was a practice. So if you could, briefly address the concerns Mormons have about this folklore and what should be done.

One clear-cut position is that the folklore must never be perpetuated. ... I have to concede to my earlier colleagues. ... They, I'm sure, in their own way, were doing the best they knew to give shape to [the policy], to give context for it, to give even history to it. All I can say is however well intended the explanations were, I think almost all of them were inadequate and/or wrong. ...

It probably would have been advantageous to say nothing, to say we just don't know, and, [as] with many religious matters, whatever was being done was done on the basis of faith at that time. But some explanations were given and had been given for a lot of years. ... At the very least, there should be no effort to perpetuate those efforts to explain why that doctrine existed. I think, to the extent that I know anything about it, as one of the newer and younger ones to come along, ... we simply do not know why that practice, that policy, that doctrine was in place.

What is the folklore, quite specifically?

Well, some of the folklore that you must be referring to are suggestions that there were decisions made in the pre-mortal councils where someone had not been as decisive in their loyalty to a Gospel plan or the procedures on earth or what was to unfold in mortality, and that therefore that opportunity and mortality was compromised. I really don't know a lot of the details of those, because fortunately I've been able to live in the period where we're not expressing or teaching them, but I think that's the one I grew up hearing the most, was that it was something to do with the pre-mortal councils. ... But I think that's the part that must never be taught until anybody knows a lot more than I know. ... We just don't know, in the historical context of the time, why it was practiced. ... That's my principal [concern], is that we don't perpetuate explanations about things we don't know. ...

We don't pretend that something wasn't taught or practice wasn't pursued for whatever reason. But I think we can be unequivocal and we can be declarative in our current literature, in books that we reproduce, in teachings that go forward, whatever, that from this time forward, from 1978 forward, we can make sure that nothing of that is declared. That may be where we still need to make sure that we're absolutely dutiful, that we put [a] careful eye of scrutiny on anything from earlier writings and teachings, just [to] make sure that that's not perpetuated in the present. That's the least, I think, of our current responsibilities on that topic. ...

[tooblue]

"I don't know." Yeah, right. If the rationalization was racist, why not just state the obvious: the practice was racist. Boyd K. Packer isn't being honest. His dissembling is itself racist. The institution can't absolve iteself of the racism until it comes clean about the racism. CONFESS, LDS CHURCH; repent of your racism.

"I don't know" is the same defense you used! Why haven't you confessed and repented of your racism?

[byu71]

Thank you.

Here's a more efficient idea: How about a frank acknowledgement that the GA's have nothing on you or me or the next guy in terms of moral authority. Let's just cut them out of the discourse.

Here is the frank acknowlegement. I don't give a shit whether you think they have nothing on you when it comes to moral authority. How about you leaving it up to me on how I determine it for myself.

I don't consider everything they say from the pulpit as doctrine or unquestionable. Would that be enough to settle you down.

[LA Ute]

Clearly he's a speaking agent for THE PARTY here. Given the source of the infromation and the number of witnesses to the source's statement it probably comes in under the catch-all exception. If anyone wants to raise double hearsay, clearly Lebowski is making and admission against interest.

Why do I feel a sudden urge to rush for the exit?

[tooblue]

Thank you.

Here's a more efficient idea: How about a frank acknowledgement that the GA's have nothing on you or me or the next guy in terms of moral authority. Let's just cut them out of the discourse.

So we can listen to you, your grace?

[tooblue]

Hendrik Herzberg disagrees with you.

It's so satisfying to have turned you into a one trick pony.

Kettle - black! It's so satisfying to see you squirm and wriggle and do everything you can to avoid the truth of your actions and then openly embrace the racism and bigotry you espouse for everyone to see.