BKP on the Priesthood Ban

[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?

[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.

[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.

[Moliere]

We had this experience a year or two ago with our kids. We read those passages and when we were done they looked at me and said, "Dad, what is up with that?". I thought about it for a minute and said, "I don't care what it says here. I don't believe dark skin ever was a sign of sin or disfavor with God. Ever." They seemed to be quite relieved and happy with that answer.

So it's not the most correct book

[TripletDaddy]

So it's not the most correct book

how so? it can have a thousand errors and still be the most correct book, assuming all other books have more errors.

[Dwight Schr-ute]

Here's an interesting catch-22. Growing up, and even into my adult years, I've heard people explain difficult issues in the church (like blacks and the priesthood) that we are commanded to listen to and follow the prophet. Even if the prophet turns out to be wrong ("although God would never allow for His people to be led astray") we will be exempted of any sin, because we were doing as commanded. So, given the newest admission, what trumps in the game of salvation: following truth or following the prophet? I'm pretty sure that my stake president would side with following in the prophet.

[pelagius]

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.

Back in the day when I used to post on religious topics this is what I argued:

http://cougarguard.com/forum/showthread.php?t=21104

[Northwestcoug]

Here's an interesting catch-22. Growing up, and even into my adult years, I've heard people explain difficult issues in the church (like blacks and the priesthood) that we are commanded to listen to and follow the prophet. Even if the prophet turns out to be wrong ("although God would never allow for His people to be led astray") we will be exempted of any sin, because we were doing as commanded. So, given the newest admission, what trumps in the game of salvation, following truth or following the prophet? I'm pretty sure that my stake president would side with following in the prophet.

If they are not one and the same, then I would hope that a loving god would be merciful to those who choose the former.

[Sullyute]

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.

I assume that you are leaving it up to interpretation as to whether that statement was meant figuratively or literally, but either way I agree.

[Pheidippides]

Back in the day when I used to post on religious topics this is what I argued:

http://cougarguard.com/forum/showthread.php?t=21104

That is perhaps the most pelagius post I have ever read.

As to Harry Tic ' comments, I believe it was Wilford Woodruff who made the "won't lead you astray, not in the program" statement. I haven't checked dates but I believe he said that with the backdrop of the manifesto and a fractured church, looking to rally his base. I could be remembering this way wrong.

[Clark Addison]

One of the different things about this is when you look at some of the folks that are hit hard by this, it is a very different group than is usually questioning the church. If you look at the ProgMo/Cafeteria Mormon/Liberal Mormon/Democrat or whatever you want to call them crowd, they already believed the ban was about racism. Their only reaction to this is "Awesome! About time!". This is hitting the 100%/all-in/TBMs (not all of them, but a few of them). If in 2013 you still believed that you were born black because of pre-earth sins, you were either A) Active in the church for over 35 years or B) Prone to believe that anything ever said by an apostle is the absolute truth. These are two groups that are not often shaken by official church pronouncements, which makes this interesting.

[Clark Addison]

That is perhaps the most pelagius post I have ever read.

Yes, I loved it. Straight from his monograph "A Probabilistic View of Faith-Based Decision Making" published in "The Journal of Applied Econometrics"

[pelagius]

Yes, I loved it. Straight from his monograph "A Probabilistic View of Faith-Based Decision Making" published in "The Journal of Applied Econometrics"

If you read through the thread, you'll notice it gets worse. I write down a sparse little model for MikeWaters:

Okay, I would probably model Waters and Adam more like the following:

Let

X = the set of all information useful and relevant to decide whether option A or B is correct.

Y = the set of all information used by the FPQ12 to decide whether option A or B is correct.

Z = the set of all information used by individual i to decide whether option A or B is correct.

FPQ12 suggest option A is correct and individual $i$ suggests option B is correct.

If Z=Y=X, then

P(FPQ12=correct|X) > P(i=correct|X) (1)

Most of the time Y not equal X and Z not equal X then

P(FPQ12=correct|Y) > P(i=correct|Z) (2)

However Waters argues that sometimes (if the options have to do with civil rights, woman rights, or gay rights) then,

P(FPQ12=correct|Y) less than P(i=correct|Z) (3)

That would be my "Liberal" model although my guess is that conservatives wouldn't object to it in principle. Liberals and conservatives would argue over high hard it is to identify situations like 3 from an ex ante perspective.

[Uncle Ted]

We had this experience a year or two ago with our kids. We read those passages and when we were done they looked at me and said, "Dad, what is up with that?". I thought about it for a minute and said, "I don't care what it says here. I don't believe dark skin ever was a sign of sin or disfavor with God. Ever." They seemed to be quite relieved and happy with that answer.

But isn't the BoM "the most correct if any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion"? (History of the Church, 4:461.)

[Clark Addison]

If you read through the thread, you'll notice it gets worse. I write down a sparse little model for MikeWaters:

If by "worse" you mean "even better", then I agree. This is definitely going up on the board next time I teach Priesthood.