BKP on the Priesthood Ban

[byu71]

I'm not sure I understand why. First, the scriptures are full of hard-to-explain commandments and events that are laid at the feet of God. It's clear he doesn't abide by our standard of political correctness.

Second, putting it at the feet of God is actually the most comforting conclusion, for this very reason. If God is not afflicted by human weakness (like racism, homophobia, sexism, etc), if his actions are perfectly calibrated for the ultimate happiness of man, then we can trust he had a purpose for originating and/or permitting the ban.

Usually lost in this discussion is the debate about just how much control the Lord exerts control 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 don't understand how that's any more comfortable a concession than to admit God might have left it in place for a given purpose.

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?

[SeattleUte]

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?

Webster's dictionary's definition works for me.

1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race

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.

[Tex]

Furthermore, the "we don't know" approach seems to take an error made by humans and lay it at the feet of God. That disturbs me.

I'm not sure I understand why. First, the scriptures are full of hard-to-explain commandments and events that are laid at the feet of God. It's clear he doesn't abide by our standard of political correctness.

Second, putting it at the feet of God is actually the most comforting conclusion, for this very reason. If God is not afflicted by human weakness (like racism, homophobia, sexism, etc), if his actions are perfectly calibrated for the ultimate happiness of man, then we can trust he had a purpose for originating and/or permitting the ban.

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 don't understand how that's any more comfortable a concession than to admit God might have left it in place for a given purpose.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.