BKP on the Priesthood Ban

[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.

[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.

[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.

[LA Ute]

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?

This is part of what I was referring to in my theory that the Church got into a box it doesn't know how to get out of -- and may have no way of getting out other than to say "we don't know." It reminds me of the times when my wife asks me why I aproached something a certain way, and I am reduced to saying, "Well, it seemed like the thing to do at the time."

[HuskyFreeNorthwest]

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.

I was just thinking Sooner has commented a lot in this thread without bringing up masturbation. You have a lot of love for yourself.

[SeattleUte]

What's most interesting about this thread is that the questions of whether an apology is in order, and why the ban existed are even issues. What's the problem? Martin Luther was a virulent anti-semite, and the Catholic Church was less than valiant during WWII in dealing with the holocaust. No one denies this, least of all Lutherans and Catholics.

Mormon reticence to face the hard facts about their church exists because of the virtually deified status of GA's. The GA's can do no harm. Or can they? That's the issue here beneath the surface. Howl in protest all you want about LDS not believing their leaders area infallible. The fact is that culturally LDS are more deferential and reverent toward their religious leaders than any major religion. The belief in "modern revelation" is part and parcel of this.

The mantra "we don't know" is an effort to preserve the GA institution's credibility--as if there's some occult explanation only available to those who may access the holy of holies. I salute those of you here who are wont simply to say "clearly they were racist" because you've come to terms with LDS leaders' humanity and potential for serious character defects; you are willing to say that the emperor has no clothes.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

This is part of what I was referring to in my theory that the Church got into a box it doesn't know how to get out of -- and may have no way of getting out other than to say "we don't know." It reminds me of the times when my wife asks me why I aproached something a certain way, and I am reduced to saying, "Well, it seemed like the thing to do at the time."

I agree, the church put itself in the box and the only reasonable way out is to simply say "we don't know." It's still a disingenuous answer because they do know why the ban was in place and MEP did a masterful job of illustrating it. It wasn't that MEP was correct, MEP just showed how racist the attitudes of the times were and the Q of the 12 and First Presidency reflected the overall attitudes. Most unfortunately, due to the stare decisis reasoning explained by K-Dog, they didn't let it go until pretty much everyone in society had moved on and it had turned into something of immense embarassment and controversy. We wouldn't be hearing about this hardly at all if the decision had been made in the 1950s and the church was either with or ahead of the curve, instead it didn't happen until 19freakin78.

[LA Ute]

What's most interesting about this thread is that the questions of whether an apology is in order, and why the ban existed are even issues. What's the problem? Martin Luther was a virulent anti-semite, and the Catholic Church was less than valiant during WWII in dealing with the holocaust. No one denies this, least of all Lutherans and Catholics.

Mormon reticence to face the hard facts about their church exists because of the virtually deified status of GA's. The GA's can do no harm. Or can they? That's the issue here beneath the surface. Howl in protest all you want about LDS not believing their leaders area infallible. The fact is that culturally LDS are more deferential and reverent toward their religious leaders than any major religion. The belief in "modern revelation" is part and parcel of this.

The mantra "we don't know" is an effort to preserve the GA institution's credibility--as if there's some occult explanation only available to those who may access the holy of holies. I salute those of you here who are wont simply to say "clearly they were racist" because you've come to terms with LDS leaders' humanity and potential for serious character defects; you are willing to say that the emperor has no clothes.

You know, Seattle, I am beginning to get the impression that you find much about the LDS Church quite unsatisfactory.

BTW, I think you meant "not willing."

[TripletDaddy]

What's most interesting about this thread is that the questions of whether an apology is in order, and why the ban existed are even issues. What's the problem? Martin Luther was a virulent anti-semite, and the Catholic Church was less than valiant during WWII in dealing with the holocaust. No one denies this, least of all Lutherans and Catholics.

Mormon reticence to face the hard facts about their church exists because of the virtually deified status of GA's. The GA's can do no harm. Or can they? That's the issue here beneath the surface. Howl in protest all you want about LDS not believing their leaders area infallible. The fact is that culturally LDS are more deferential and reverent toward their religious leaders than any major religion. The belief in "modern revelation" is part and parcel of this.

The mantra "we don't know" is an effort to preserve the GA institution's credibility--as if there's some occult explanation only available to those who may access the holy of holies. I salute those of you here who are wont simply to say "clearly they were racist" because you've come to terms with LDS leaders' humanity and potential for serious character defects; you are willing to say that the emperor has no clothes.

Hey, are you saluting me for those reasons or are you just happy to see me?

[SeattleUte]

You know, Seattle, I am beginning to get the impression that you find much about the LDS Church quite unsatisfactory.

BTW, I think you meant "not willing."

No, I wasn't being sarcastic. I meant willing.

[SeattleUte]

Hey, are you saluting me for those reasons or are you just happy to see me?

I've never seen you. I'm even the last person to know your true identity.

[LA Ute]

No, I wasn't being sarcastic. I meant willing.

I salute those of you here who are wont simply to say "clearly they were racist" because you've come to terms with LDS leaders' humanity and potential for serious character defects; you are willing to say that the emperor has no clothes.

"Those of you who are wont simply to say?"

WONT: accustomed; used (usually fol. by an infinitive): He was wont to rise at dawn.

I don't know, SU, seems a little strained for me. Personally, I am wont to use simple declarative sentences.

[SeattleUte]

I salute those of you here who are wont simply to say "clearly they were racist" because you've come to terms with LDS leaders' humanity and potential for serious character defects; you are willing to say that the emperor has no clothes.

"Those of you who are wont simply to say?"

WONT: accustomed; used (usually fol. by an infinitive): He was wont to rise at dawn.

I don't know, SU, seems a little strained for me. Personally, I am wont to use simple declarative sentences.

The sentence stands. It is a simple declarative sentence. (We've discussed this subject so often such sayings by some here have become a tendency. This was a different sentence than you referenced the first time. Is this a new tactic? Try to pick apart my writing?)

[SeattleUte]

I salute those of you here who are wont simply to say "clearly they were racist" because you've come to terms with LDS leaders' humanity and potential for serious character defects; you are willing to say that the emperor has no clothes.

"Those of you who are wont simply to say?"

WONT: accustomed; used (usually fol. by an infinitive): He was wont to rise at dawn.

I don't know, SU, seems a little strained for me. Personally, I am wont to use simple declarative sentences.

Morever, I wrote that post literally in the blink of an eye, particularly since I had to leave.

[LA Ute]

Morever, I wrote that post literally in the blink of an eye, particularly since I had to leave.

Now I've got you making excuses. Maybe I will split an infinitive, just to really bother you.