BKP on the Priesthood Ban

[Harry Tic]

Isn't, "They made mistakes in the past but don't make any now" pretty much the only navigable water left whereby members can be consistent in brushing off the past while singing "Follow the Prophet... he knows the way!"?

You can retreat one step with further with "we just don't know."

I expect to be hearing a LOT of "we just don't know" in the coming weeks.

I don't think that there's anything wrong with tweaking our model of prophetic guidance. Revelation, post-JS, has almost always been of a bottom-up nature. The naive model of the 1P and Q12 enjoying regular PPIs with Jesus where they get their marching orders doesn't really hold water. Do they have the keys to receive top-down revelation? Most of us faithful members would say yes. Does that mean that those keys are actually exercised in a dramatic fashion on a regular basis? It seems to me that it's becoming increasingly difficult to take that model of revelation as the current default.

[Pheidippides]

I don't see it that way. I think the reason they walk through the cultural milieu of the original policy is to make the point that it was politically expedient and culturally based but not doctrinal. The reason for the policy, weak and unjustified though it may be, is right there; it was bigotry. What other reason can there be? The words "we apologize" are not found in the release, but otherwise it is an apology.

This is more than just a statement that the church was wrong about race and priesthood. This is an admission that prophets, even famous latter-day prophets, get things wrong. And not just little things, but big things. Huge things. This says more about the notion of infallibility than any treatise on that topic ever could. As a result, the language is measured and careful. But looking at what they included in the essay, and how they built the case, makes it pretty clear to me that they are spelling out the reason and they are saying "excuse us for getting it wrong" but in order to allow it to settle in they didn't take that final step of making an express apology. I hope that comes soon.

I wonder how much of Dieter ' s talk this last conference had this in mind.

Bushman has also published a response (well, analysis) of this new statement that is spot on, effectively saying that this is part of the maturation of the church but is going to be hard for some to swallow. I'll see if I can find the link.

[Northwestcoug]

It never was doctrine. It was bigotry. It has had various labels attached but it is not doctrine at all. No matter the name it was wrong. Whether or not it was in an official capacity, it was wrong and the church admits it now. So pointing to earlier pronouncements to show this was 'doctrine' misses the point. It was wrong then and it never was doctrinal regardless of how it was presented or justified. BY was wrong.

This is the problem then. You can say it was never doctrine, and it was wrong. And you can dance around the issue and say that BY and other prophets were too laden with cultural racism to be open to revelation. But the fact remains is that we claim that our church is led by divine revelation. And that our prophets are the only authorized ones to expound on doctrine. Well, on the issue of race, they expounded on it. Over and over again. So condemning BY and all the others until Kimball (until he thought enough to pray about it) as products of their time is a pretty damning statement. By the church's reasoning, they should have been better than that. We are implicitly taught that our leaders are better than that.

By the way, if this was never doctrine, prior to 1978, what would have happened to a prominent member, were he/she to have publicly opposed the church leadership on the priesthood ban?

[TripletDaddy]

Isn't, "They made mistakes in the past but don't make any now" pretty much the only navigable water left whereby members can be consistent in brushing off the past while singing "Follow the Prophet... he knows the way!"?

You can retreat one step with further with "we just don't know."

I expect to be hearing a LOT of "we just don't know" in the coming weeks.

[Portland Ute]

This leaves the GAs themselves in an interesting position. I think we saw a microcosm of the paths open to them in the last GC. Either they can go all Ucthdorf ("mistakes were made in the past"). Or they can go all Oaks ("well, we're not making any now").

Isn't, "They made mistakes in the past but don't make any now" pretty much the only navigable water left whereby members can be consistent in brushing off the past while singing "Follow the Prophet... he knows the way!"?

[Harry Tic]

I think the real news here--and the real challenge--is the timing of the clarification. My prediction is that it will be, for all intents and purposes, impossible to talk about the consequences of this course correction without it raising similar isues about the church's current position on marriage equality and other matters. That's not to say that the two issues are intrinsically linked in any way. But I think it will prove to be significant that the clarification was offered at precisely the time when debates about gender are roiling.

This leaves the GAs themselves in an interesting position. I think we saw a microcosm of the paths open to them in the last GC. Either they can go all Ucthdorf ("mistakes were made in the past"). Or they can go all Oaks ("well, we're not making any now").

I'm glad I'm not in their position. That's why they make the big bucks.

[SoCalCoug]

I don't like the reliance on the BY statement that blacks would one day enjoy all the same priviliges as other members. It feels like Mormon speak for revelation, yet it comes from the same speech in which the errant doctrine was put forth in the first place.

And, they took it out of context. Here is the full quote: “When all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the Holy Priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will then come up and possess the priesthood, and receive all the blessings which we now are entitled to." (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 11, p.272.) They left out that Brigham Young said blacks would receive the blessings of the priesthood only after all the white people did. And I won't even go to other quotes from him which made it very clear exactly where he stood on the issue of black people and white people.

I want to see the letters that they should be writing on:

Polygamy
Word of Wisdom...because I will be honest, I think we are out to lunch on Coffee and Tea. Makes no sense.

Many believe that the restrictions on coffee and tea were a way for Joseph to get a dig on Emma, who insisted on the ban on alcohol and tobacco. "Well, if she wants me to prohibit alcohol and tobacco, let's see how she likes me prohibiting coffee and tea, too!"

[PaloAltoCougar]

I don't think I mentioned this previously (and sorry if I have), but last summer several families in the stake were invited to a joint FHE, including the stake president. The discussion leader presented a variety of questions that nonmembers might ask about the church, inviting us to provide sample answers. One of the questions was why blacks were denied the priesthood. Most responses were along the lines of "we don't know", and thankfully nobody went Randy Bott on us. But my wife, sensing my discomfort, kept goading me into responding. Finally, I said there were probably several reasons, but that among the principal reasons was that "Brigham Young was a virulent racist." I noted that many great leaders, both secular and spiritual, were deeply flawed in certain areas (I didn't bother with the Founding Fathers and slavery stuff), but that perhaps Brigham Young was one of the few people capable of preserving the Church and leading it to a place where it would eventually flourish. I droned on a bit more, feeling cheery that I might be foreclosing any significant future callings in the stake (the SP acted a bit uncomfortable, but didn't challenge me). The discussion leader was a bit surprised, but joked, "I guess you won't be getting called as ward mission leader", unaware that that was and is my current calling, though thankfully not for long.

With this very significant release by the Church, I'm thinking "swish!".

[jay santos]

It never was doctrine. It was bigotry. It has had various labels attached but it is not doctrine at all. No matter the name it was wrong. Whether or not it was in an official capacity, it was wrong and the church admits it now. So pointing to earlier pronouncements to show this was 'doctrine' misses the point. It was wrong then and it never was doctrinal regardless of how it was presented or justified. BY was wrong.

What's your take on the scriptures I referenced?

[TripletDaddy]

It never was doctrine. It was bigotry. It has had various labels attached but it is not doctrine at all. No matter the name it was wrong. Whether or not it was in an official capacity, it was wrong and the church admits it now. So pointing to earlier pronouncements to show this was 'doctrine' misses the point. It was wrong then and it never was doctrinal regardless of how it was presented or justified. BY was wrong.

You seem to be splitting hairs. This was "doctrine" in every practical sense of the word, even if not in the true sense of the word. False doctrine is a form of doctrine. this was, at best, false doctrine.

[creekster]

Huh? How does a teaching become doctrine, if it isn't promulgated by prophets? And this wasn't 'opinion' or 'theories'. In this instance, it was done in an official capacity of the leadership of the whole church.

It never was doctrine. It was bigotry. It has had various labels attached but it is not doctrine at all. No matter the name it was wrong. Whether or not it was in an official capacity, it was wrong and the church admits it now. So pointing to earlier pronouncements to show this was 'doctrine' misses the point. It was wrong then and it never was doctrinal regardless of how it was presented or justified. BY was wrong.

[Northwestcoug]

But that's the point; it never was doctrinal. Just as some leaders now wrap themselves in the policy distinction to allow themselves to leave the restriction behind, so leaders in the day hid behind doctrine to justify it. Outside of some very basic principles (love god with all your heart and your neighbor as yourself) the gospel is like a word in humpty dumpty's mouth: it means exactly what church leaders say it does, nothing more and nothing less.

Huh? How does a teaching become doctrine, if it isn't promulgated by prophets? And this wasn't 'opinion' or 'theories'. In this instance, it was done in an official capacity of the leadership of the whole church.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I would love some of you to look at my FB post from last night and chime in.

I have a few folks in my own stake that are saying "Prophets will never lead us astray, and we don't know why God allowed it to happen."

God had nothing to do with it folks...this is on the "Arm of Flesh".

Pretty plain and simple.


We had a discussion last night and this morning as a family. TK2 did bring up "What else are they going to say they were wrong about?"

And we had some extremely fun discussions in regards to that.

I want to see the letters that they should be writing on:

Polygamy
Word of Wisdom...because I will be honest, I think we are out to lunch on Coffee and Tea. Makes no sense.

Ha. I just mentioned your discussion in the FB thread.

[smokymountainrain]

Word of Wisdom...because I will be honest, I think we are out to lunch on Coffee and Tea. Makes no sense.

[Dwight Schr-ute]

I don't see it that way. I think the reason they walk through the cultural milieu of the original policy is to make the point that it was politically expedient and culturally based but not doctrinal. The reason for the policy, weak and unjustified though it may be, is right there; it was bigotry. What other reason can there be? The words "we apologize" are not found in the release, but otherwise it is an apology.

This is more than just a statement that the church was wrong about race and priesthood. This is an admission that prophets, even famous latter-day prophets, get things wrong. And not just little things, but big things. Huge things. This says more about the notion of infallibility than any treatise on that topic ever could. As a result, the language is measured and careful. But looking at what they included in the essay, and how they built the case, makes it pretty clear to me that they are spelling out the reason and they are saying "excuse us for getting it wrong" but in order to allow it to settle in they didn't take that final step of making an express apology. I hope that comes soon.

I agree with all of this. This little release is Alice and the rabbit hole. The very fact that the church is officially back pedaling on previous official declarations open up all of Wonderland. What now is off limits to untruth? Thus saith-ish the Lord.

Although I appreciate the clarification, I think that this whole attempt to backdoor correcting this "little historical tidbit" is pretty embarrassing. Has the church not learned yet that in this day and age you can't just put something in the corner of the internets and not expect someone to find it. I don't know that church needs to publish an official apology, but they need to own this modification. Too many of us have been forced to shrug our shoulders in shame and embarrassment and offer a response of "I don't know" when pressed about this policy to just brush it under the rug at this point.