BKP on the Priesthood Ban

[Jeff Lebowski]

I look at these older men to be much like my father when it comes to the church. We didn't grow up when they did. Some of them did grow up when I did. Those of you who didn't grow up in that era or the previous era don't understand the "we against them" attitude and the closeness of the members.

Conversations that we are having openly I am sure happened, but not openly. When I was young and I am sure to even a greater extent when my father was young, you didn't question the brethern. That is why theories such as the "fence sitting", etc. could take hold and at the same time not seem racist.

My father didn't have a racist bone in his body. The Indians were always at my grandparents house. My grandfather and father were hardore dems. My father was a Western regional manager for a publishing company and hired both blacks and a gay fellow. He didn't care, just that they did there job.

At the same time as far as I know he bought into the fence sitting theory. He didn't see it as racist. Now you intellects can go ahead and call him a racist if you like, won't bother me because I will know you don't know what you are talking about.

I am just saying that these men could have believed some of the traditions or folklore passed on and at the still time not have been racist.

It's interesting how radioactive the word "racist" has become. I am surprised that you would even feel the need to defend your father like that. When I was young I remember my father telling racist jokes. My dear sweet grandmother occasionally uses racist expressions. I daresay there is probably not a person on this board who can't point to some kind of racist comment made by a parent or grandparent. Thomas Jefferson owned slaves and believed that blacks were genetically inferior. And yet most of the world honors him as one of the most enlightened and influential people of his time. So why do we get so bent out of shape with the thought that some of our past church leaders had racist tendencies? Why would we expect them not to be a product of their time?

[Jeff Lebowski]

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.

See, this is what I am talking about. Given the context of the times in which these people lived, why do you think it is such a "powerful charge" to think that there was racism involved? On the contrary, to think that none of the prior church leaders were prone to the biases common to their culture and historical era is much more difficult for me to believe.

[TripletDaddy]

It's interesting how radioactive the word "racist" has become. I am surprised that you would even feel the need to defend your father like that. When I was young I remember my father telling racist jokes. My dear sweet grandmother occasionally uses racist expressions. I daresay there is probably not a person on this board who can't point to some kind of racist comment made by a parent or grandparent. Thomas Jefferson owned slaves and believed that blacks were genetically inferior. And yet most of the world honors him as one of the most enlightened and influential people of his time. So why do we get so bent out of shape with the thought that some of our past church leaders had racist tendencies? Why would we expect them not to be a product of their time?

As much as it pains the general CUF populace, our dear SeattleUte already kinda sorta accurately answered your question. Hero Worship.

I think we Mormons are secretly fond of the idea that our leaders might actually walk on water. Therefore, we blur the lines between the calling and the person holding the calling. It gets to the point where any questioning becomes tantamount to "evil speaking" of our leaders. So it is easier to not ask questions.

[Jeff Lebowski]

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.

I think you are taking his point out of context. He said:

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.

Yes, it is theoretically possible that BY got some revelation on the topic. Then rather than sharing the revelation, he made up a bunch of falsehoods to support the ban. Possible maybe, but not at all likely. Hence the conclusion that it is disingenuous to say that we don't know.

[Jeff Lebowski]

As much as it pains the general CUF populace, our dear SeattleUte already kinda sorta accurately answered your question. Hero Worship.

I think we Mormons are secretly fond of the idea that our leaders might actually walk on water. Therefore, we blur the lines between the calling and the person holding the calling. It gets to the point where any questioning becomes tantamount to "evil speaking" of our leaders. So it is easier to not ask questions.

Yes, SU nailed it. That is the underlying dynamic for our current state of limbo.

[Surfah]

Yes, it is theoretically possible that BY got some revelation on the topic. Then rather than sharing the revelation, he made up a bunch of falsehoods to support the ban. Possible maybe, but not at all likely. Hence the conclusion that it is disingenuous to say that we don't know.

For the sake of argument I'll give you the "we don't know" approach as disingenuous. But then what should the Church say? This was my point earlier when I asked if "most likely racist" would suffice? What would not be disingenuous for the to say? My point being by the same logic I still maintain that it would be disingenuous to say that the ban was pure racism.

As I slept on this debate I have decided that I am okay with the Church not admitting anything and standing behind "I don't know" because I think it would do more harm than good. I think there are far too many members of the Church who believe like SU said and their testimonies and faith would waiver. I think that collectively it is probably better to protect these than make the few like SoonerCoug who profess to be happier members if they admitted racism. I think the Church is okay with that. And I am okay with that.

[Jeff Lebowski]

For the sake of argument I'll give you the "we don't know" approach as disingenuous. But then what should the Church say? This was my point earlier when I asked if "most likely racist" would suffice? What would not be disingenuous for the to say? My point being by the same logic I still maintain that it would be disingenuous to say that the ban was pure racism.

As I slept on this debate I have decided that I am okay with the Church not admitting anything and standing behind "I don't know" because I think it would do more harm than good. I think there are far too many members of the Church who believe like SU said and their testimonies and faith would waiver. I think that collectively it is probably better to protect these than make the few like SoonerCoug who profess to be happier members if they admitted racism. I think the Church is okay with that. And I am okay with that.

I think humility and honesty would be the best strategy in the long run. For a variety of reasons. I am not sure that obfuscation is the best way to strengthen our weakest members.

What's strange about this episode is that we are already admitting leadership error by disavowing all of the previously stated reasons as folklore. That's an admission of fallibility. But for some reason we struggle to accept the simple logical conclusion of this disavowal: the origin of the ban was not divine.

[byu71]

As much as it pains the general CUF populace, our dear SeattleUte already kinda sorta accurately answered your question. Hero Worship.

I think we Mormons are secretly fond of the idea that our leaders might actually walk on water. Therefore, we blur the lines between the calling and the person holding the calling. It gets to the point where any questioning becomes tantamount to "evil speaking" of our leaders. So it is easier to not ask questions.

I really believe as time goes on there will be fewer and fewer of the membership that has to believe "everything" said from the pulpit is doctrine. I think it will be interesting to see how the leaders handle such a change as it transpires. I might be wrong, but I sense a divide. A small group that truly see themselves as the "elect". Even at times quoting scripture and talking about the seperation of the wheat from the chafe (I know I spelled that wrong).

The church and the membership seems much different now than when I was a kid. If you had doubts about anything said by the leadership, you kept it to yourself. Perhaps that was good for a young and growing church. Yes even a 130 year old church is young. It will be interesting to see what happens over the next 30 years.

I predict now, the honor code will be different at BYU in 30 years or BYU will be like one of those schools of other religions where the very orthodox in the church attend.

[Indy Coug]

I think humility and honesty would be the best strategy in the long run. For a variety of reasons. I am not sure that obfuscation is the best way to strengthen our weakest members.

What's strange about this episode is that we are already admitting leadership error by disavowing all of the previously stated reasons as folklore. That's an admission of fallibility. But for some reason we struggle to accept the simple logical conclusion of this disavowal: the origin of the ban was not divine.

The problem is that just because people fail to correctly extrapolate on why something is the way it is does not automatically render the subject itself as wrong.

Did Adam or Abraham have a good explanation for what they were doing? If they were forced to guess, would they have provided an accurate answer?

You can not prove a null hypothesis, you can only fail to reject it.

[SeattleUte]

It's interesting how radioactive the word "racist" has become.

Being a racist in 21st century America is almost as bad as it gets. Our ethos won't tolerate it, except maybe in the case of your or my granny. In terms of stigma and public obloquy for the racist, it's like heretics in medieval times. Your granny is one thing, a public figure is quite another. The only reason LDS dissembling about this doesn't get more attention is that, as BYU71 suggests, most of the world doesn't pay much attention to anything about the LDS Church.

[TripletDaddy]

As I slept on this debate I have decided that I am okay with the Church not admitting anything and standing behind "I don't know" because I think it would do more harm than good. I think there are far too many members of the Church who believe like SU said and their testimonies and faith would waiver. I think that collectively it is probably better to protect these

yeeeee-ikes.

[SeattleUte]

As I slept on this debate I have decided that I am okay with the Church not admitting anything and standing behind "I don't know" because I think it would do more harm than good. I think there are far too many members of the Church who believe like SU said and their testimonies and faith would waiver. I think that collectively it is probably better to protect these than make the few like SoonerCoug who profess to be happier members if they admitted racism. I think the Church is okay with that. And I am okay with that.

This is interesting. It confirms something I have observed. Truth for truth's sake is not an important value in the LDS Church and culture. Disrepect for truth is shown in myriad ways. White lies, dissembling, cover ups, mendacity, these are all critical means to a more important end than truth. I'm not making a value judgment, just an observation.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Being a racist in 21st century America is almost as bad as it gets. Our ethos won't tolerate it, except maybe in the case of your or my granny. In terms of stigma and public obloquy for the racist, it's like heretics in medieval times. Your granny is one thing, a public figure is quite another. The only reason LDS dissembling about this doesn't get more attention is that, as BYU71 suggests, most of the world doesn't pay much attention to anything about the LDS Church.

You are missing my point. Yes, we absolutely should be sensitive about race and hold modern leaders to a high standard. But it is absurd to expect historical figures to share our 21st century views on race or to judge them by modern standards. They were the product of their time.

[Jeff Lebowski]

The problem is that just because people fail to correctly extrapolate on why something is the way it is does not automatically render the subject itself as wrong.

Did Adam or Abraham have a good explanation for what they were doing? If they were forced to guess, would they have provided an accurate answer?

You can not prove a null hypothesis, you can only fail to reject it.

I suppose by that logic that we can't rule out the possibility that BY was abducted by aliens and programmed to institute the ban. Good call.

[byu71]

Being a racist in 21st century America is almost as bad as it gets. Our ethos won't tolerate it, except maybe in the case of your or my granny. In terms of stigma and public obloquy for the racist, it's like heretics in medieval times. Your granny is one thing, a public figure is quite another. The only reason LDS dissembling about this doesn't get more attention is that, as BYU71 suggests, most of the world doesn't pay much attention to anything about the LDS Church.

I would be curios to know what your definition of a racist is. I agree being a racist is as bad as it gets, maybe child molester is worse, but being called a racist is toxic. However, being called one and actually being one can be two totally different things.

Do you have a definition for a racist?