BKP on the Priesthood Ban

[Surfah]

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.

Oh say, what is truth?

It kind of is what it is when you have to take so much of religion on faith. I don't want my comments to be taken out of context. I probably should have qualified my statements a bit better. If the brethren know the ban was not divine and simply instituted and kept it for so long because of racism, I believe that they cannot hide behind "we don't know." That flies in the face of truth. However, I don't believe as some here have intimated that the brethren do know for a certainty. Do I think some of the believe that it was racism? Probably. Do I think some of them believe that it was divine? Probably. Do I think that they can say "I don't know" and not be lying? Yes. Do I think admitting to something that they don't know for the sake of appeasing those who have "no doubt" as to the origins of the ban would do more harm than good? Yes. So in that sense I stand behind my statement.

To clarify my thoughts on this issue so as not get anymore from everyone here:

Do I believe the ban was divine? Probably not.
Do I wish it were divine? If I am being honest, sure do.
Was it borne of racism? Probably.
Should the Church apologize? If we knew with certainty that the origin was racism, yes. Since we don't, I am fine with I don't know.

[All-American]

Read it again. I was referring to the greater Western culture, not Mormon culture. Mormon culture hasn't earned the adjective cosmopolitan. It still bears some tribal elements.

Oh, no you don't. You called yourself a Mormon. We all saw it.

You wanna sit by me in Elder's quorum? I can introduce you to the bishop. He'll be happy to receive your check for thirty years' worth of tithing.

Great news, everybody! The sheep that was lost has now been found! Lebowski, go bring in the fatted calf!

[beefytee]

The preisthood ban has been read allegorically in that way; the LDS church is nothing if not derivative. This does not exculpate in the eyes of greater modern society. As a tribe, ancient Jews reflected myriad racisms and bigotries, which is typical. That is 3,000 years in the past. We are a consmopolitan, not a tribal culture.

What are you trying to say? One is more justifiable than the other. The Latter Day leaders are more guilty because there was less cultural bias to overcome?

Seems to me that both are guilty of falling into cultural biases.

Of course the big difference is that one of these was a direct commandment from Jesus (Matt. 10:5-6) and as far as I know there is no evidence that the other was.

[tooblue]

The preisthood ban has been read allegorically in that way; the LDS church is nothing if not derivative. This does not exculpate in the eyes of greater modern society. As a tribe, ancient Jews reflected myriad racisms and bigotries, which is typical. That is 3,000 years in the past. We are a consmopolitan, not a tribal culture.

So says the the racist who sends his children to private school. If that's cosmopolitan then you don't know what cosmopolitan means.

[SeattleUte]

So says the the racist who sends his children to private school. If that's cosmopolitan then you don't know what cosmopolitan means.

You are the only one in the history of this board who has used a racial epithet here, and you did it repeatedly in serious conversation amid a screed against gays. You should be ashamed of yourself. To your credit clearly you are, because the experience seems to have burned a hole in your soul, the way you keep blathering about it. I've never before heard it said that people who send their kids to private schools are racists, but then you are the one who espouses the novel theory that the New Yorker is racist. I do know that the UN has issued a proclamation condemning people like you.

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=f469b36e-c587-40e7-98e5-3aa50a371318&k=23802

[scottie]

You are the only one in the history of this board who has used a racial epithet here, and you did it repeatedly in serious conversation amid a screed against gays. You should be ashamed of yourself. To your credit clearly you are, because the experience seems to have burned a hole in your soul, the way you keep blathering about it. I've never before heard it said that people who send their kids to private schools are racists, but then you are the one who espouses the novel theory that the New Yorker is racist. I do know that the UN has issued a proclamation condemning people like you.

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/na...371318&k=23802

POINT goes to SU.

[TripletDaddy]

I do know that the UN has issued a proclamation condemning people like you.

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/na...371318&k=23802

checkmate. Match to SeattleUte.

tooblue, hermano......you have been summarily pwned by this link. It is in your best interest to never bring this issue up again. Seriously, could there be a more perfectly crafted article to settle this ongoing CG/CUF feud? And by the UN, no less.

Hello, buzzsaw!

[SteelBlue]

Usually lost in this discussion is the debate about just how much control the Lord exerts over his church, and I think that's the more critical issue at play. Folks who take the "it was man, not God" approach are forced to concede that God saw fit to sit idly by for 130 years (give or take), giving revelation and direction on a myriad of other things, yet doing nothing while (potentially) millions of his children were excluded.

I've argued before that the ban really only excluded people for a period of about 20 years. Meaning that it wasn't until the late 50's early 60's that there were black people wanting to join the church. You may recall that the reason there was so much discussion of the subject during McKay's tenure was because of a group in Africa who had discovered a tract and had formed a version of the church there. When they finally made contact with SLC the brethren had to take up the issue.

Even putting that issue aside God "sits idly by" all the time while much worse things happen.

[wuapinmon]

You are the only one in the history of this board who has used a racial epithet here, and you did it repeatedly in serious conversation amid a screed against gays. You should be ashamed of yourself. To your credit clearly you are, because the experience seems to have burned a hole in your soul, the way you keep blathering about it. I've never before heard it said that people who send their kids to private schools are racists, but then you are the one who espouses the novel theory that the New Yorker is racist. I do know that the UN has issued a proclamation condemning people like you.

http://www.canada.com/topics/news/na...371318&k=23802

Wow. Just wow. Greater pwnage knoweth no man than this.

[Indy Coug]

Even putting that issue aside God "sits idly by" all the time while much worse things happen.

Perpetrated or perpetuated by His prophets?

[SeattleUte]

Perpetrated or perpetuated by His prophets?

You folks need to cure yourselves of this quaint notion that these guys talk to some deity. (It's so automatic and ingrained that no one got my TIC post poking fun at it above.) The day that happens the clouds will part, the sun will shine through, and all will be crystaline clear to you.

[Jeff Lebowski]

That's no more intellectually disingenuous than your claim that there is "no doubt".

Metaphysical certainty is not required in order to apply the label disingenuous.

But if you insist on nitpicking without offering a substantive alternative explanation, let's say "beyond any reasonable doubt". How is that?

[Indy Coug]

You folks need to cure yourselves of this quaint notion that these guys talk to some deity. (It's so automatic and ingrained that no one got my TIC post poking fun at it above.) The day that happens the clouds will part, the sun will shine through, and all will be crystaline clear to you.

Yawn. Arguing matters of faith with the faithless doesn't interest me.

[Indy Coug]

But if you insist on nitpicking without offering a substantive alternative explanation...

I'm intellectually honest enough to know I don't possess enough facts to offer any substantive alternative explanation; and even if I did attempt of offer an alternative explanation, I wouldn't have the temerity to be passing it off as indisputable fact.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I'm intellectually honest enough to know I don't possess enough facts to offer any substantive alternative explanation; and even if I did attempt of offer an alternative explanation, I wouldn't have the temerity to be passing it off as indisputable fact.

No. Intellectual honesty would be admitting that there is no other reasonable alternative explanation.