BKP on the Priesthood Ban

[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.

[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.

[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]

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!

[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.

[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.

[SeattleUte]

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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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".

[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.

[All-American]

We are a consmopolitan, not a tribal culture.

Gotcha. You dirty Mormon, you.

[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.