Deadspin takes on the Honor Code

[Katy Lied]

Unfortunately, this would not silence any critics, although I understand the point you are trying to make. Generally speaking, a large multinational organization publicly admitting to institutional racism results in more dialog, not an end to dialog.

Dunno. I think the Swiss got off relatively scot free with their carefully timed admission that they helped the Nazis relieve innocent people of their possessions during the Dubya Dubya Too. One guy was turfed out and a couple of lawsuits were filed, but the gnomes for the most part still hold the gold, don't they?

[UtahDan]

That was discussed here: http://cougaruteforum.com/showthread.php?t=30271

I sold you short! Sorry!

[oxcoug]

Dunno. I think the Swiss got off relatively scot free with their carefully timed admission that they helped the Nazis relieve innocent people of their possessions during the Dubya Dubya Too. One guy was turfed out and a couple of lawsuits were filed, but the gnomes for the most part still hold the gold, don't they?

Yeah but they're Swiss and generally thought to be unobjectionable. We Morms are not unobjectionable.

[UtahDan]

Someone here will likely know more but here's my interpretation/understanding.

1. Joseph Smith gave the Priesthood to black men and I find it unlikely that 10-20 years later God just changed his mind.

2. In the 1850s two things started happening - (a) the leadup to the Civil War put the vulnerable Utah Territory in an awkward position and not wanting to alienate either side and (b) (I believe this is documented) instances of black LDS courting white LDS created a few incidents that threatened to disrupt the harmony of the young community

3. In light of 1 and 2 Brigham Young made what was a political, not doctrinal or revealed, decision to withdraw the priesthood from black men

4. Without ever being enshrined as doctrine, this political move became the great culturally enshrined error of LDS history - it was, simply, a mistake and a huge one.

To my knowledge it doesn't pass any doctrinal test - i.e. it wasn't announced to the body of the Church in a General Conf, was it?

This is, in my view, a case of LDS culture taking what was originally meant to be a temporary political bandage and transforming into 125 years of awful doctrinal practice.

I'm sure someone thinks I'm wrong.

It is a paradox in Mormon theology that on the one hand a person who concludes that the teachings or counsel of a prophet is wrong is them self, by definition, incorrect, but if those things are later embarrassing or demonstrably false they are lightly discarded as not passing the doctrinal test. It is freely admitted that prophets are wrong and make mistakes in the abstract, but there is so much at stake in admitting error in any particular that it is virtually never done.

I also think it is a little anachronistic to try to break apart anything Brigham Young did as political here, doctrinal there, etc. Brigham was a Benjamin or Mosiah. He was prophet and king.

Last, the idea that God is going to punish or withhold blessings from me because of you seems contrary to the second article of faith. I also have a hard time with the idea that God can command polygamy (which was initially very hard) and then command it to stop (which destroyed the entire familial and social order of the church which was terribly difficult) but that a black man passing the sacrament, giving a blessing or performing a baptism was just too much for the pioneers whose faithfulness and perseverance is rightly legendary.

I'm sympathetic to efforts by believers to want to hang on to their faith while incorporating everything modernity has to offer. I just think this nut is very tough to crack.

[Commando]

It is a paradox in Mormon theology that on the one hand a person who concludes that the teachings or counsel of a prophet is wrong is them self, by definition, incorrect, but if those things are later embarrassing or demonstrably false they are lightly discarded as not passing the doctrinal test. It is freely admitted that prophets are wrong and make mistakes in the abstract, but there is so much at stake in admitting error in any particular that it is virtually never done.

I also think it is a little anachronistic to try to break apart anything Brigham Young did as political here, doctrinal there, etc. Brigham was a Benjamin or Mosiah. He was prophet and king.

Last, the idea that God is going to punish or withhold blessings from me because of you seems contrary to the second article of faith. I also have a hard time with the idea that God can command polygamy (which was initially very hard) and then command it to stop (which destroyed the entire familial and social order of the church which was terribly difficult) but that a black man passing the sacrament, giving a blessing or performing a baptism was just too much for the pioneers whose faithfulness and perseverance is rightly legendary.

I'm sympathetic to efforts by believers to want to hang on to their faith while incorporating everything modernity has to offer. I just think this nut is very tough to crack.

Who's to say it was too much for the Pioneers and not too much for racist America of the 1800's to tolerate from a church they already did not tolerate?

[Paperback Writer]

I also have a hard time with the idea that God can command polygamy (which was initially very hard) and then command it to stop (which destroyed the entire familial and social order of the church which was terribly difficult) but that a black man passing the sacrament, giving a blessing or performing a baptism was just too much for the pioneers whose faithfulness and perseverance is rightly legendary.

I'm sympathetic to efforts by believers to want to hang on to their faith while incorporating everything modernity has to offer. I just think this nut is very tough to crack.

I do agree with the points expressed. But one thing to consider is that it wasn't just a black man performing a priesthood ordinance - I agree that the pioneers and LDS leaders for the most part would have little difficulty with that in Utah Territory. What was "just too much" was a black man marrying a white woman (and potentially more than one) in Utah Territory. In my view, that was the "real" reason for the priesthood ban with blacks. A very tough nut to crack indeed, which doesn't make it any less of a racist policy.

[Eddie]

...Last, the idea that God is going to punish or withhold blessings from me because of you seems contrary to the second article of faith...

This is true. But it is a bit of a challenge to put that together with a belief in free agency.


If I'm a drunk who is too cheap to take a cab home at the end of my binge - I could run a red light or stop sign and hit your car - killing your family, and leaving you crippled for life after a long and drawn out recovery in the hospital.

You might be the most righteous person ever - a church going, scripture reading, prayer saying, tithing paying, 100% home teacher...but you've just lost the blessing of having your family with you due to me.


How many people in the world right now miss out on the possible blessings of having the Gospel in their life due to there being much fewer missionaries in the field than there otherwise would be if every LDS young man between the ages of 19-21 was active, worthy, and chose to serve a mission?

OK - I suppose neither of those are the best examples. Here are a couple more that relate more specifically to the issue of holding the priesthood -

How do we justify only allowing those of the tribe of Levi to hold the priesthood during Moses time? Why did members of the other tribes not have that blessing? What made them unworthy?

During Christ's time, why was the gospel witheld from the gentiles? Why were they punished in that way?

I get what you are saying - but if you look just at the big picture, you could also say that a person not having the priesthood is a temporary test that won't last but for a short time while they are in mortality and that it will be remedied in the end.

And some people not holding the priesthood for a period of time is simply one more example of life not being fair. It isn't supposed to be fair. In the end, that is when the fairness comes.

[UtahDan]

Who's to say it was too much for the Pioneers and not too much for racist America of the 1800's to tolerate from a church they already did not tolerate?

Polygamy was too much for America as well and ultimately the federal brought that to a halt at the point of a bayonette, so to speak. Hard to imagine anyone coming all the way out to Utah to put and end to black clergy, IMO.

[Katy Lied]

I do agree with the points expressed. But one thing to consider is that it wasn't just a black man performing a priesthood ordinance - I agree that the pioneers and LDS leaders for the most part would have little difficulty with that in Utah Territory. What was "just too much" was a black man marrying a white woman (and potentially more than one) in Utah Territory. In my view, that was the "real" reason for the priesthood ban with blacks. A very tough nut to crack indeed, which doesn't make it any less of a racist policy.

Interesting

[Paperback Writer]

Who's to say it was too much for the Pioneers and not too much for racist America of the 1800's to tolerate from a church they already did not tolerate?

An interesting point. It would have made for some interesting discussion especially with the Republican Party platform coming out against the "twin relics of barbarism - Polygamy and Slavery". Even though the Mormon pioneers were anti-slavery, it would have been interesting if they granted blacks full freedom and fellowship (along with the priesthood and voting rights) in Utah Territory. There were so few blacks it might not have mattered but at least the Mormons could have argued that they were willling to grants blacks rights that even many Northern Americans were not ready to recognize.

On second thought, it might not have mattered. Northerners didn't like Mormons because of Polygamy. Southerners didn't like Mormons because they were anti-slavery (and were Northerners). Maybe giving blacks rights in Mormon society would have been "too much" and been just more "fuel on the fire".

[oxcoug]

Last, the idea that God is going to punish or withhold blessings from me because of you seems contrary to the second article of faith.

I don't remember saying that or see it anything I wrote. Maybe you didn't mean to attribute it to me?

I didn't say "God" did anything - I said that Brigham Young did.

[oxcoug]

I do agree with the points expressed. But one thing to consider is that it wasn't just a black man performing a priesthood ordinance - I agree that the pioneers and LDS leaders for the most part would have little difficulty with that in Utah Territory. What was "just too much" was a black man marrying a white woman (and potentially more than one) in Utah Territory. In my view, that was the "real" reason for the priesthood ban with blacks. A very tough nut to crack indeed, which doesn't make it any less of a racist policy.

This is what I was referring to.

[UtahDan]

I do agree with the points expressed. But one thing to consider is that it wasn't just a black man performing a priesthood ordinance - I agree that the pioneers and LDS leaders for the most part would have little difficulty with that in Utah Territory. What was "just too much" was a black man marrying a white woman (and potentially more than one) in Utah Territory. In my view, that was the "real" reason for the priesthood ban with blacks. A very tough nut to crack indeed, which doesn't make it any less of a racist policy.

That is an interesting thought. The idea that it is preferred to marry within one's own race has survived even the priesthood ban, though I don't think it is a widely accepted teaching.

“We recommend that people marry those who are of the same racial background generally, and of somewhat the same economic and social and educational background (some of those are not an absolute necessity, but preferred), and above all, the same religious background, without question” (“Marriage and Divorce,” in 1976 Devotional Speeches of the Year [Provo: Brigham Young University Press, 1977], p. 144).

[UtahDan]

I don't remember saying that or see it anything I wrote. Maybe you didn't mean to attribute it to me?

I didn't say "God" did anything - I said that Brigham Young did.

I was addressing the argument that God withheld the priesthood from blacks because the membership was not ready. You never advanced that argument and I think I did leave the impression that I was attributing that to you. You are quite right and I apologize.

[NorthwestUteFan]

What was "just too much" was a black man marrying a white woman (and potentially more than one) in Utah Territory. In my view, that was the "real" reason for the priesthood ban with blacks. A very tough nut to crack indeed, which doesn't make it any less of a racist policy.

[YOUTUBE]jGQ-ISsDm8M[/YOUTUBE]

As a missionary I had an interesting conversation late one night over an Uno game. We lived in a small MIL apartment housing two sets of missionaries.

The other companionship consisted of two Georgia boys, one from Atlanta and the other from way up in the hills somewhere (sorry, can't remember). The Elder from Atlanta was very accepting of other people, and grew up with many friends of all races, lived in a suburban mixed-race neighborhood, and went to a fully integrated high school. I believe he dated a black girl for a while when in HS, and later married a lady from Jamaica.

The Elder from out in the the hills claimed to be tolerant of others, but very often used the N word. (he would say, "There are white "Ns", red "Ns", gook "Ns", towelhead "Ns" too. The "N" word means 'lowest form of life'...").

One night the conversation turned to "future challenges for the church". The conversation went something like this:

Georgia Elder from the hills: "If a black man were to be put in the Q12 or 1st Presidency, at least half of my stake would leave the church permanently."
naive me: "Seriously? What about their testimonies?"
hills: "Yeah, they still can't stand the thought of "Ns" preaching to them. They would think God doesn't run the church any more."
Atlanta Elder: "In my stake many of the older people would likely leave as well. The younger people would be OK with it, and some of us really WANT this type of thing to happen. It WOULD be a huge deal and it would force people and the church itself to address the issue, and pick a side."

I, from SLC, and my comp, from Canada somewhere, sat there dumbfounded.

I also recall having a very long conversation with a less-active member who was CONVINCED the church wouldn't let her back into full membership because the church wouldn't let her get sealed to her black fiance. I assured her there was no actual bias in the temple, but her mother (TBM, ironically) and other friends had her convinced otherwise. We were going to get the Branch President from the Compton Branch* (an all black branch at the time) to talk it over with her, but I was transferred and I don't know what happened after.

*SUPER cool guy with a great story and strong testimony, and was a body builder who competed in Mr. Universe for a few years.