BKP on the Priesthood Ban

[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.

[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!

[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.

[SeattleUte]

Gotcha. You dirty Mormon, you.

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.

[All-American]

We are a consmopolitan, not a tribal culture.

Gotcha. You dirty Mormon, you.

[SeattleUte]

I haven't heard anyone bring this up, but it is what I remember being taught in Seminary.

Isn't the Church's line on this to parallel the proclaiming of the gospel first to the Jews and later to the Gentiles? (Acts 11) If I recall correctly, there wasn't a reason given why except that it is what Jesus commanded them to do.

Of course the parallels to racism exists as well as in the vision Peter won't eat anything that is common or unclean. This could easily allude to overcoming some kind of prejudice.

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.

[Indy Coug]

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.

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

[byu71]

I wasn't proposing a bet. It was satire. I don't believe they have been read the riot act either. Duh.

How should I have known. You aren't real good at satire. Duh

[beefytee]

I haven't heard anyone bring this up, but it is what I remember being taught in Seminary.

Isn't the Church's line on this to parallel the proclaiming of the gospel first to the Jews and later to the Gentiles? (Acts 11) If I recall correctly, there wasn't a reason given why except that it is what Jesus commanded them to do.

Of course the parallels to racism exists as well as in the vision Peter won't eat anything that is common or unclean. This could easily allude to overcoming some kind of prejudice.

[il Padrino Ute]

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.

Fortunately, we have you to point things out.

I know, you're only trying to help.

[SeattleUte]

Agreed, the God I believe in is not a racist.

On the other hand I will take your bet on them being read the riot act. How about a $100.

I wasn't proposing a bet. It was satire. I don't believe they have been read the riot act either. Duh.

[SeattleUte]

Tex, I love your sig. We need the Tex and Cali show over here!!

[byu71]

Absolutely, since we know they talk to God all the time. I'm just guessing, but I bet God has read them the riot act and they're embarrassed. They need to belly up and give us the whole story on the tongue lashing of a revelation they received for going behind His back and being racist. God is not a racist!

Agreed, the God I believe in is not a racist.

On the other hand I will take your bet on them being read the riot act. How about a $100.

[byu71]

Webster's dictionary's definition works for me.



Historically a belief that God has cursed a group of people with a darker skin indicating their inferiority is a classic instance of racism. Religious faith does not exculpate a charge of racism if that's what you're getting at. Not according to our public ethos, which is the reality you're dealing with. In fact, much of the last 400 years has been about overcomeing the ignorant elements of religion. Practically every abuse of human liberty has been sanctioned in the name of religion.

Well then, based on that definition, seems to be a lot of people throw the word around without basis.

Ignorance probably exculpates one from the sting of being a racist. Even the LDS faith allows for those who die in ignorance to get a chance. We allow God to be the judge of that. I think I will allow God to be the judge of past people and their being racists or not.

I don't see the need for me to know whether those people were racists or not.

[SeattleUte]

If God left it in place for a given purpose, don't you think one of the general authorities would have the answer and let us know?

Absolutely, since we know they talk to God all the time. I'm just guessing, but I bet God has read them the riot act and they're embarrassed. They need to belly up and give us the whole story on the tongue lashing of a revelation they received for going behind His back and being racist. God is not a racist!