BKP on the Priesthood Ban

[FMCoug]

My brother had a seminary teacher that taught the class that darker skinned people would get lighter as the remained faithful. At one point during the year the teacher remarked that one guy (can't remember the ethnicity off hand) was lighter than at the beginning of the school year.

Do they become less athletic too?

[byu71]

Those are awful and I like SWK. I forgot about those quotes.

It is really tough laying today's standards, enlightenment, political correctness, etc. on those who came before us. Does one really want to judge a Washington or Lincoln by todays standards?

Once one lets go of the idea that a Prophet is as knowledgeable and understanding as God, one can deal with the really dumb things they may have said or done in the past or to future generations looking back are doing now.

[SoCalCoug]

It is really tough laying today's standards, enlightenment, political correctness, etc. on those who came before us. Does one really want to judge a Washington or Lincoln by todays standards?

Once one lets go of the idea that a Prophet is as knowledgeable and understanding as God, one can deal with the really dumb things they may have said or done in the past or to future generations looking back are doing now.

Did Washington and Lincoln claim they led God's country by direct revelation?

The biggest problem I have with all of this is that the church has trailed behind the enlightenment of today's sensibilities. Now, the church unequivocally condemns racism. Where was the church in the '60's? Surely a church whose leaders receive revelation from God on behalf of the church (if not the world) would be on the right side of these sorts of issues from the beginning, instead of trailing behind the rest of the country, kicking and screaming in some instances.

I would expect more enlightened thinking from the special witnesses of Jesus Christ.

[TripletDaddy]

Did Washington and Lincoln claim they led God's country by direct revelation?

The biggest problem I have with all of this is that the church has trailed behind the enlightenment of today's sensibilities. Now, the church unequivocally condemns racism. Where was the church in the '60's? Surely a church whose leaders receive revelation from God on behalf of the church (if not the world) would be on the right side of these sorts of issues from the beginning, instead of trailing behind the rest of the country, kicking and screaming in some instances.

I would expect more enlightened thinking from the special witnesses of Jesus Christ.

SeattleUte made this point years ago. He bemoaned that the LDS Church always seems to be the last to know...after other governments, the Supreme Court, or even other religions know. Hard to argue that point when it comes to issues of race, polygamy, gender, and in my opinion, sexual orientation. we always seem to miss on the social issues.

[Shaka]

SeattleUte made this point years ago. He bemoaned that the LDS Church always seems to be the last to know...after other governments, the Supreme Court, or even other religions know. Hard to argue that point when it comes to issues of race, polygamy, gender, and in my opinion, sexual orientation. we always seem to miss on the social issues.

One of the flaws of gerontocracy.

[Moliere]

Did Washington and Lincoln claim they led God's country by direct revelation?

The biggest problem I have with all of this is that the church has trailed behind the enlightenment of today's sensibilities. Now, the church unequivocally condemns racism. Where was the church in the '60's? Surely a church whose leaders receive revelation from God on behalf of the church (if not the world) would be on the right side of these sorts of issues from the beginning, instead of trailing behind the rest of the country, kicking and screaming in some instances.

I would expect more enlightened thinking from the special witnesses of Jesus Christ.

One of the worst excuses for the ban is that God allowed it so the church wouldn't be persecuted so much. When I hear that excuse I ask them if God will then make a similar exception for gay people given that people that fight against the gays are now being marginalized.

[TripletDaddy]

One of the flaws of gerontocracy.

Ha, obviously. And a geographically limited one, at that.

But not so obvious for some, I suppose.

[TripletDaddy]

One of the worst excuses for the ban is that God allowed it so the church wouldn't be persecuted so much. When I hear that excuse I ask them if God will then make a similar exception for gay people given that people that fight against the gays are now being marginalized.

who says that? how pathetic.

[old_gregg]

One of the worst excuses for the ban is that God allowed it so the church wouldn't be persecuted so much. When I hear that excuse I ask them if God will then make a similar exception for gay people given that people that fight against the gays are now being marginalized.

god is only not a respecter of persons when socially expedient

[Topper]

SeattleUte made this point years ago. He bemoaned that the LDS Church always seems to be the last to know...after other governments, the Supreme Court, or even other religions know. Hard to argue that point when it comes to issues of race, polygamy, gender, and in my opinion, sexual orientation. we always seem to miss on the social issues.

But we are the first, well not really, but the most persistent to ban tobacco and alcohol, except for JS, who drank red wine the night before he was murdered. As someone else observed, it is worth wondering if these leaders are being inspired from on high, why aren't they ever on the social cutting edge of something deemed good and honorable? It certainly argues against any significant level of enlightenment. But they do give nice, soothing, sing-songy Conference talks.

[Topper]

One of the worst excuses for the ban is that God allowed it so the church wouldn't be persecuted so much. When I hear that excuse I ask them if God will then make a similar exception for gay people given that people that fight against the gays are now being marginalized.

I had heard that posited but I forgot from whom. Maybe it was an apologist, but it was not one of the better explanations.

[Jeff Lebowski]

who says that? how pathetic.

I have seen it a few times in the last week.

[Pheidippides]

Did anybody else listen to the RadioWest piece about the ban on KUED? They had a number of guests - Margaret Blair Young (who has done a lot of work on Jane Manning, if memory serves), Russell Stevenson (wrote the book on Elijah Ables) and John Dehlin. Link is here: http://radiowest.kuer.org/post/revis...and-priesthood.

The second half is the most interesting - the dialogue between Stevenson and Dehlin I think shows the divide between the progressive and conservative camps on this issue. (Also, Stevenson is an ass and had my wife ready to throttle him.)

[jay santos]

One of the worst excuses for the ban is that God allowed it so the church wouldn't be persecuted so much. When I hear that excuse I ask them if God will then make a similar exception for gay people given that people that fight against the gays are now being marginalized.

I appreciate trying to make sense of things, logically. But I think the end result of most of apologetics is that, while it leaves logically being able to fit everything on the shelf, it leaves us with a God that's really pretty impotent and/or uncaring. This argument here about perpetuating racism to preserve the church (God has so few options that perpetuating racism is his best?). Argument for polygamy as if it was necessary to grow the church (God can't grow the church any other way--like maybe touch a few more hearts with the Holy Ghost??). God used Joseph's peepstone method or the BoA prop method because he's limited in how he can get his message to his prophet? Prophets are fallible blah blah blah. Why do prophets have to be so fallible? Prophet that's cranky, cheats on his taxes, watches porn. OK, fine, whatever, he's a man. Prophet that can't ever receive revelation from God or continually screw it up, because he's fallible? Whoah, hold up, why? The Christian model almost seems a little preferable, doesn't it? Christian model: "i have a big powerful God, but he's put in all his work and his shift is over." Mormon model: "Our God works with us today but apparently he's not that powerful or doesn't give a crap."

[pellegrino]

Did anybody else listen to the RadioWest piece about the ban on KUED? They had a number of guests - Margaret Blair Young (who has done a lot of work on Jane Manning, if memory serves), Russell Stevenson (wrote the book on Elijah Ables) and John Dehlin. Link is here: http://radiowest.kuer.org/post/revis...and-priesthood.

The second half is the most interesting - the dialogue between Stevenson and Dehlin I think shows the divide between the progressive and conservative camps on this issue. (Also, Stevenson is an ass and had my wife ready to throttle him.)

I listened to it, and I was kind of blown away by Stevenson's comments about the collective responsibility of the church.

He elaborates on it here:

http://mormonhistoryguy.com/2013/12/13/2013-wow-ok/

I get what he means by saying that members weren't ready for the change, and even when it did come there was significant resistance, but what he fails to take into consideration is the simple fact that this is a top-down church. We follow the prophet, and when the prophet says shit like blacks are cursed, most of us take that pretty seriously. Yes, the body of the church was and to a certain degree is still racist, but the body of the church is also a flock, led by shepherds, who for the purposes of maintaining and leveraging their power, failed to be forthcoming and honest about the origins of the ban and the reasons why it was removed. The revelation was given, but there was zero follow-up. I don't care what McConkie said. The explanation should have come from the pulpit in October of 1978.

In sum, yes, we all have our own responsibility and complicity in this ugly affair, but it's unfair to put the collective blame that the members bear on the same level as the blame that the leaders bear. Rank and file members didn't set the doctrine/policy, they might have supported it with all their hearts, but had DOM done away with it in the 50s, they would have supported that with all their hearts, and Stevenson conveniently wants to forget that, for what reason, I do not know.