BKP on the Priesthood Ban

[Surfah]

OK. I take that back. No doubt.

Again, every reason that was originally given for the ban has been disavowed. What is left?

Has it?

If so, then I guess all that is left is a letter to be read over the pulpit admitting as much.

Personally I don't care. If it was pure racism, that's unfortunate. I would be okay with the Church to release a statement saying so. Conversely I am also okay with them not saying anything. The "don't know" defense doesn't bother me at all.

[SeattleUte]

There is no recorded revelation starting the ban

There is no recorded revelation starting lots of things in the LDS Church. Regardless, the POGP/Book of Abraham is a "recorded revelation," and it alludes to the curse of Ham and its consequence that the accursed could not hold the priesthood.

[Jeff Lebowski]

You admitted the doubt in your post. You said little doubt.

OK. I take that back. No doubt.

Again, every reason that was originally given for the ban has been disavowed. What is left?

[Surfah]

And that doubt is based on what? Educate me.

You admitted the doubt in your post. You said little doubt.

[byu71]

Actually, I find the "we don't know" approach to be disingenuous. If one honestly traces the history of the ban to its origins, there is little doubt that it was a product of racism. There is no recorded revelation starting the ban, just some comments by BY. Each and every reason that was given for the ban has now been disavowed by the church as "folklore". There is nothing left for it to stand on. 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.

If we are a group of people humbly striving to follow Christ, why not honestly confess and forsake our sins? We are doing the forsake part but we seemed to have skipped the confess part.

(thanks for the link)

I look at these older men to be much like my father when it comes to the church. We didn't grow up when they did. Some of them did grow up when I did. Those of you who didn't grow up in that era or the previous era don't understand the "we against them" attitude and the closeness of the members.

Conversations that we are having openly I am sure happened, but not openly. When I was young and I am sure to even a greater extent when my father was young, you didn't question the brethern. That is why theories such as the "fence sitting", etc. could take hold and at the same time not seem racist.

My father didn't have a racist bone in his body. The Indians were always at my grandparents house. My grandfather and father were hardore dems. My father was a Western regional manager for a publishing company and hired both blacks and a gay fellow. He didn't care, just that they did there job.

At the same time as far as I know he bought into the fence sitting theory. He didn't see it as racist. Now you intellects can go ahead and call him a racist if you like, won't bother me because I will know you don't know what you are talking about.

I am just saying that these men could have believed some of the traditions or folklore passed on and at the still time not have been racist.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I'm okay with this, but by the same token there is still enough doubt (though little as you stated) to not chalk it up entirely to racism. I think it's just as disingenuous to call it racism because that's what everyone wants it to be.

And that doubt is based on what? Educate me.

[Surfah]

Actually, I find the "we don't know" approach to be disingenuous. If one honestly traces the history of the ban to its origins, there is little doubt that it was a product of racism. There is no recorded revelation starting the ban, just some comments by BY. Each and every reason that was given for the ban has now been disavowed by the church as "folklore". There is nothing left for it to stand on. 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.

If we are a group of people humbly striving to follow Christ, why not honestly confess and forsake our sins? We are doing the forsake part but we seemed to have skipped the confess part.

(thanks for the link)

I'm okay with this, but by the same token there is still enough doubt (though little as you stated) to not chalk it up entirely to racism. I think it's just as disingenuous to call it racism because that's what everyone wants it to be.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Here is the correct link.

I assumed it might upset someone because he says "we don't know." Which strikes me as an honest answer. We do not know. Anyone who says he does know is expressing an opinion. This does not mean I like what happened for all those decades, BTW.

Actually, I find the "we don't know" approach to be disingenuous. If one honestly traces the history of the ban to its origins, there is little doubt that it was a product of racism. There is no recorded revelation starting the ban, just some comments by BY. Each and every reason that was given for the ban has now been disavowed by the church as "folklore". There is nothing left for it to stand on. 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.

If we are a group of people humbly striving to follow Christ, why not honestly confess and forsake our sins? We are doing the forsake part but we seemed to have skipped the confess part.

(thanks for the link)

[LA Ute]

Your link doesn't match your quotes. Can you provide the correct link? TIA.

Why would this upset anyone here?

Here is the correct link.

I assumed it might upset someone because he says "we don't know." Which strikes me as an honest answer. We do not know. Anyone who says he does know is expressing an opinion. This does not mean I like what happened for all those decades, BTW.

[LA Ute]

Double hearsay fully amissible for the truth of the matter asserted. The statement speaks for itself, counselor. Your editorial comments are not evidence.

My objection goes to the weight, not the admissibility, counselor.

[SeattleUte]

Your link doesn't match your quotes. Can you provide the correct link? TIA.

Why would this upset anyone here?

I'd like to know the source too. The statement as far as it goes doesn't make me angry either. In fact, I'd be surprised if it really appeared in an LDS press release.

[SeattleUte]

That is the first step in analyzing hearsay (also, was it made out of court?). I simply assumed you were going from the angle that BKP story's was being offered as the actual reason why blacks were not getting the priesthood (because we were not ready for the African invasion).

You are correct but this threshold inquiry can be quite confusing, as we see in this instance. BKP made the statement intending that it be accepted for the truth of the matter asserted, but I wouldn't be offering it for any other reason than that here is an offense that is being committed, that must be enjoined. It would be evidence of the injury itself.

[Indy Coug]

thanks, Indy. Is that from the FRE or just stuff you have across in your general legal studies?

Supposedly, Elder Packer said that he didn't know the reason for the priesthood ban but he THOUGHT that it MIGHT have been because the church was not ready to handle the rapid growth in Africa that is now occurring.

It comes from the School of Common Sense.

[byu71]

I was trying to think of any current folklore that might be going on presently.

The only one I could come up with immediately is the one that has the BYU honor code as some kind of "God inspired revelation".

[Indy Coug]

Yes. I.e., he was offering up a new round of folklore.

LOL