It's long overdue, and I wish an official apology had been offered along with this. But it's a good attempt to explain essentially a non-explanation for a policy that should never have existed, but did.
It astounds me that some in the church still espouse something along the lines of black's not being ready for the priesthood until the 1970s. Or that God had not determined it was time yet.
I am pleased we will all be on the same page about this now. Namely, that's all nonsense.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
It doesn't astound me too much, given that it's taken so long to even get this much officially stated and, as you've noted, they really should have gone a bit further.
There's also the problem that, for a religion that sort of makes a Thing of uniquely having a "Living Prophet", it's a bit of a head scratcher that something so big could be gotten so wrong.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Hey. Could be worse. It took us 350 years to apologize to Galileo.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
"Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse..."
Are they including the claim in the Book of Mormon that the descendants of Laman and Lemuel were cursed with dark skin?
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
I'm not sure I'm finding the official statement quoted in the blog post. Is it on LDS.org?
EDIT: Ah, it was added to the reference, not the newsroom.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
afr: Link.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: "Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse..."
Are they including the claim in the Book of Mormon that the descendants of Laman and Lemuel were cursed with dark skin?
Not that I am aware of. Maybe Nephi was the BOM's version of Brigham Young?
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: "Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse..."
Are they including the claim in the Book of Mormon that the descendants of Laman and Lemuel were cursed with dark skin?
Not that I am aware of. Maybe Nephi was the BOM's version of Brigham Young?
Well, he was also the one, some chapters later, who wrote: "“[The Lord] denieth none that cometh unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; . . . all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile."
The BoM has multiple examples of the Lamanites, the ones with the curse, being more righteous and blessed than the Nephites, and the Lamanites and Nephites intermingling. It is a strange description of the curse that Nephi makes in 2 Nephi 5, because the rest of the BoM doesn't really bear it out, or does so in a fairly complex manner.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
While I've read parts of the BoM that do dispel the notion that it was ever doctrine that those 'cursed' with dark skin were ever universally wicked or anything...
Well, scifibum is pretty much completely right from a logical standpoint it seems to me. There's something of a problem when one's received-wisdom font says something that is later recognized to have been so badly wrong.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
There's a bit of a misunderstanding when it comes to what non-LDS think LDS expect a prophet to be. I feel like this has been discussed here in considerable depth already, but maybe I'm misremembering. This process of correction of earlier prophets, unfolding in real time, is precisely what is supposed to happen. Brigham Young was wrong in the matter of blacks and the priesthood; the living prophet at the time, Spencer W. Kimball, reversed the Church's course in that matter. That's how it's supposed to work. The living prophet is the "received-wisdom font" for the current time; in fact, the calling of prophet is specifically to interpret what past prophets have said for the benefit of the people today.
That said, I'm not arguing that an earlier prophet couldn't have reversed the decision on blacks and the priesthood and ended what amounted to a racist stance much earlier, especially when it was not actually crystal clear why the policy was in place in the first place. I'm happy to see the Church coming out more succinctly on the matter and look forward to more to come.
I personally think it's a terrible misinterpretation of the BoM for any Church member to use it as license to take any sort of racist stance. No, it's not a pleasant explanation in 2 Nephi 5 about the Lamanites receiving a "skin of blackness" or that being used to keep the Nephites and Lamanites from intermingling. I'm not going to make any excuses for the BoM at that point. It is what it is. Nephi included it, although I get the impression he was far from comfortable with it. I will note that the people in the BoM from that time forward seemed to want to go out of their way to do exactly the opposite--make peace with the Lamanites and not be separate from them anymore. The dark skin doesn't seem to be considered by anyone the curse in itself; the curse is their wickedness and ignorance which keep them in so much misery and conflict while the Nephites lived in relative peace and prosperity. The BoM is in part an account of the Lamanites overcoming that curse and in fact being given many promises because of their propensity to goodness and faithfulness when they had the truth.
It's silly to take any cues from 2 Nephi 5, because it's not meant as a model for policy or even opinion about others. It's sad to think that it may have been taken as such and served as a basis for many racist misconceptions and decisions over such a long period of time among many members of my church.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
I don't think there's a misunderstanding, at least not in the way you are describing it. It's just that the prophet is, according to LDS theology, uniquely entitled to revelation that guides the entire church. He is literally God's representative on earth. And, for a period of time, God's representative on earth was a racist and said some pretty terrible things about black people and mixed marriages.
It's not just that I have trouble squaring it as a non-Mormon. I'm not even entirely sure how it's consistent with the LDS doctrine on the role and purpose of the prophet that such a fundamental fact as the equality of all men (and women - though we're not quite there yet) was something that would only become clear to the holder of that office after the civil rights battle was already fought and won in society at large. It seems to be taking "in the world but not of the world" in the wrong direction.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:There's a bit of a misunderstanding when it comes to what non-LDS think LDS expect a prophet to be. I feel like this has been discussed here in considerable depth already, but maybe I'm misremembering. This process of correction of earlier prophets, unfolding in real time, is precisely what is supposed to happen. Brigham Young was wrong in the matter of blacks and the priesthood; the living prophet at the time, Spencer W. Kimball, reversed the Church's course in that matter. That's how it's supposed to work. The living prophet is the "received-wisdom font" for the current time; in fact, the calling of prophet is specifically to interpret what past prophets have said for the benefit of the people today.
That said, I'm not arguing that an earlier prophet couldn't have reversed the decision on blacks and the priesthood and ended what amounted to a racist stance much earlier, especially when it was not actually crystal clear why the policy was in place in the first place. I'm happy to see the Church coming out more succinctly on the matter and look forward to more to come.
I don't expect we'll find much common ground here, but there are at least a few very serious problems with this reasoning, from a logical standpoint. One, religions in general and Mormonism in particular are quite content with telling their flocks things that run against the common grain and might even seem unpopular. An unabashedly racist doctrine migh have been popular, and perhaps more importantly abandoning it might have been very unpopular, one hundred to a hundred and fifty or so years ago, yes. But so was the doctrine of polygamy and the taboo on alcohol. In more modern times, taboos on premarital sex and homosexuality are becoming less and less generally accepted, but I don't think there are any signs of a revision of stance on these issues, are there?
So what's the need for a series of prophets who will give different messages in different times for different people? I'm not talking about a different *focus*-wealthy, powerful people receiving wisdom dealing particularly with pride and poverty, for example-but outright different messages. Different wisdom.
One hundred plus years ago, there was no difficulty in a prophet saying 'polygamy is acceptable', despite it being hugely *un*acceptable to most. The source of this received wisdom wasn't shy about sending a message that was, relative to all the rest of the people on Earth, badly chosen indeed. Are we just to shrug our shoulders and say 'God works in mysterious ways' for these hurdles to reason, or shouldn't we look at a much likelier explanation-that like all other human institutions on Earth, even all of the other religions (which are flat-out wrong or shades of wrong, to the one with the received wisdom) exhibit exactly this same pattern? The pattern that shows us that for questions of morality, over time flexibility is the rule and not the exception?
And if I'm a person of color, or someone simply concerned with justice, why should I have any truck with an institution which tries to say 'once it was just to say people of color were cursed to be that way'? And if they once believed it under received wisdom but then abandoned it, why should I or anyone trust their received wisdom?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Put another way, what's the value, really, of received wisdom if it will also say 'this is being said by God's prophet' (or various shades of 'being said by the person who is also God's prophet but is not currently speaking with our version of ex cathedra')...but really you need to wait a century or two to get a real feel on whether or not it was of God. We might be quite emphatic in the present that it is, but we also in the present reludiafe the equally or even more emphatic statements made ex cathedral in the past.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
Well that bit is explained, though a bit post facto-y. There is a modern distinction made between stuff said "as the prophet" vs "as an individual" which is more or less determined by context. If the prophet is speaking at General Conference, what he says is doctrine. If something is said in an official First Presidency statement to the church, that's also doctrine. However, what he might say while speaking at a town hall meeting or in a self-published book is considered his own opinion and not necessarily inspired, correct doctrine. Church members however, are all over the place on whether his not-necessarily-doctrinal comments are actually not-necessarily-doctrinal, and whether one can be considered to be supporting the prophet if one publicly disagrees with them.
[ December 10, 2013, 02:52 AM: Message edited by: MattP ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Sure, I'm aware. That's what I was (trying to) get at.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
To the church's credit, this recent announcement doesn't seem to lean too heavily on the distinction between "doctrine", aka "speaking as a prophet", and everything else. Belief in any kind of prophetic infallibility - even if you restrict it to doctrine that makes it into the canon - is pretty dangerous, IMO.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:And if I'm a person of color, or someone simply concerned with justice, why should I have any truck with an institution which tries to say 'once it was just to say people of color were cursed to be that way'? And if they once believed it under received wisdom but then abandoned it, why should I or anyone trust their received wisdom?
Well probably your first question besides those questions would be "why on earth is this not paired with an apology"
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Me, if I were God, and I knew one of my potential prophets would wind up spreading malicious speculation as if I'd told it to him, I'd pick another person to be my prophet.
Posted by vegimo (Member # 12618) on :
NSFW lyrics.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Rakeesh: Let me qualify my remarks about current prophets changing what past prophets have said in the Mormon Church. It's not often that a current prophet reverses what a past prophet said or put in place. President Kimball effectively reversing President Young's directive on blacks and the priesthood is an exception, as is President Woodruff's ending of polygamy in the Church (both pronouncements now included as part of LDS scripture canon--that's how exceptional they are). You'll find that, far more often, the current prophet will draw on what past prophets have said as a foundation for the guidance he himself is giving, and by and large what a prophet has said does stand and is drawn upon for many years to come.
Can I point out as well (following the Church's statement that prompted this discussion) that Brigham Young, in making his pronouncement about blacks and the priesthood, also said that one day that restriction would no longer apply. I bring that up not to excuse Brigham Young in a harmful policy, but to show that this was not a case of one prophet negating what another prophet said would always be the case.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Me, if I were God, and I knew one of my potential prophets would wind up spreading malicious speculation as if I'd told it to him, I'd pick another person to be my prophet.
That makes me curious. If you were God, would you call prophets?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Can I point out as well (following the Church's statement that prompted this discussion) that Brigham Young, in making his pronouncement about blacks and the priesthood, also said that one day that restriction would no longer apply.
I thought it was this:
quote:President Young proclaimed that the "true eternal principals[sic]" of God are that "a man who has the African blood in him cannot hold one jot nor tittle of Priesthood", and reiterated his conviction that only after death would black men achieve the priesthood: "In the Kingdom of God on the Earth the Africans cannot hold one particle of power in Government."
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:If you were God, would you call prophets?
It'd be handy to have a physical representative, assuming I couldn't actually be everywhere and do everything. (So it depends on what my powers are, as a god.) If for some reason I couldn't do it myself by popping out an avatar or something whenever it would be handy, yeah, I'd probably hand-pick a prophet after vetting him or her pretty carefully (which would including seeing into the future to make sure that this person was not the type to ever misrepresent me to my followers.)
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots: Rakeesh: Let me qualify my remarks about current prophets changing what past prophets have said in the Mormon Church. It's not often that a current prophet reverses what a past prophet said or put in place. President Kimball effectively reversing President Young's directive on blacks and the priesthood is an exception, as is President Woodruff's ending of polygamy in the Church (both pronouncements now included as part of LDS scripture canon--that's how exceptional they are). You'll find that, far more often, the current prophet will draw on what past prophets have said as a foundation for the guidance he himself is giving, and by and large what a prophet has said does stand and is drawn upon for many years to come.
Can I point out as well (following the Church's statement that prompted this discussion) that Brigham Young, in making his pronouncement about blacks and the priesthood, also said that one day that restriction would no longer apply. I bring that up not to excuse Brigham Young in a harmful policy, but to show that this was not a case of one prophet negating what another prophet said would always be the case.
This is a topic which is bound to be important and sensitive to you, afr, and also bound to attract lots of attention. I don't want to be a part of a dogpile so if you like I'll stop, or in any event won't take offense if you get tired of discussing it anymore.
Now, all of that said...if doctrine is that the change allowing 'those with the African blood' the priesthood wasn't so much a change as an expiration of a policy that came with an expiration date then doesn't that beg one very simple question? That question being, "So if this isn't actually a reversal of policy, does that mean the policy wasn't wrong for its time?"
That appears to be what you're...I wouldn't say leaning towards, but sort of nodding towards anyway. Indicating that you might be indicating. If that's the case then we're left with the question of why it was a good policy then but not now, and if so what's the point of a deity that is apparently a moral relativist?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I got two questions right now, since this place has quickly become my go to fact check on mormon criticism
Is most or all of the stuff in this article a fair description of the LDS and the issue of race? Did Kimball actually say this about converted indians becoming 'white and delightful?'
2. when this thread says 'renouncing folk racism' what does that come from? it feels more like 'renouncing church policy of racism' - in this context, what's 'folk racism'
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
2. Some people are interpreting the church's condemnation of "all racism, past and present" to include merely the speculative explanations for the church policies limiting ordinances and preventing ordinations for black people. In other words, they think "racism" refers to the ways people would justify the policy, rather than the policy itself.
However, since the policy was clearly racist (I mean there's really no other way to describe a policy of racial discrimination) the policy itself - the church was also condemning the policy. So it's not *merely* folk racism that was disavowed, but also the actions of the church and its leaders. At least that's my reading. There are church members engaging in some apologetic interpretations, saying that of course the church isn't saying the policy was a mistake or against God's will*, but I think you have to construct a rather narrow and unconventional definition of "all racism" to exclude racist discrimination on the part of the church.
*This is because of the unfortunate claim, accepted by many church members, that Wilford Woodruff made that said the LDS prophet can't lead the church astray. This new explanation and condemnation of racism pretty clearly shows a way that certain prophets went astray, so there's a conflict between the two things, which is why some people are tempted to say the policy hasn't been declared a mistake, only explanations for the policy. I really don't think there's any way you can call the policy "not racist", though.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:At one meeting a father and mother and their sixteen-year-old daughter were present, the little member girl—sixteen—sitting between the dark father and mother, and it was evident she was several shades lighter than her parents—on the same reservation, in the same hogan, subject to the same sun and wind and weather. There was the doctor in a Utah city who for two years had had an Indian boy in his home who stated that he was some shades lighter than the younger brother just coming into the program from the reservation. These young members of the Church are changing to whiteness and to delightsomeness. One white elder jokingly said that he and his companion were donating blood regularly to the hospital in the hope that the process might be accelerated.
:|
Well then.
Does a Council Report by an Elder go into the category of a prophet speaking revelations from god and/or otherwise being officially correct in some capacity the prophets have to communicate God's truth that people normally don't have, or has it been downgraded into a category of "when the prophets say something here, it's not necessarily correct or divinely inspired"
Posted by Yozhik (Member # 89) on :
A few thoughts on the issue:
The Lord wanted the Israelites, come out of Egypt, to come and claim the promised land. The Israelites were weak and didn’t want to do it, so the Lord made them wander in the wilderness for 40 years. After all the people who could not accept the possibility of entering the promised land had died out, then and only then did the Lord decide it was time for the new generation to cross the Jordan River and do what the Israelites had been intended to do at first.
I think that maybe the priesthood ban, and its revocation, follows this pattern as well. (In case you couldn't tell, the white majority of the LDS were the Israelites, and the priesthood ban was the wilderness.)
I'd be interested to see where we get to in the next 40 years or so. It's conceivable that we could end up the most integrated denomination in the US.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
But the white majority got to be priests; they weren't banned or punished in any way.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
Except the recent statement pretty much says the opposite - that refusing the priesthood to blacks was an error made by men, not part of a divine plan.
quote:Over time, Church leaders and members advanced many theories to explain the priesthood and temple restrictions. None of these explanations is accepted today as the official doctrine of the Church.
quote:At one meeting a father and mother and their sixteen-year-old daughter were present, the little member girl—sixteen—sitting between the dark father and mother, and it was evident she was several shades lighter than her parents—on the same reservation, in the same hogan, subject to the same sun and wind and weather. There was the doctor in a Utah city who for two years had had an Indian boy in his home who stated that he was some shades lighter than the younger brother just coming into the program from the reservation. These young members of the Church are changing to whiteness and to delightsomeness. One white elder jokingly said that he and his companion were donating blood regularly to the hospital in the hope that the process might be accelerated.
:|
Well then.
Does a Council Report by an Elder go into the category of a prophet speaking revelations from god and/or otherwise being officially correct in some capacity the prophets have to communicate God's truth that people normally don't have, or has it been downgraded into a category of "when the prophets say something here, it's not necessarily correct or divinely inspired"
This was a speech in the General Conference, not an official declaration or addition to the canon.
The excerpt here equates skin color with "delightsomeness" and so is clearly part of what the church has just (more directly and succinctly than in the past) disavowed. (I think the church is probably presently also against misunderstandings of how genes and skin color work.)
But it was from a general conference talk so it is in a category that would normally be taken quite seriously.
Basically this is a clear example of misguided preaching from a very high level, of the specific sort that has now been disavowed.
Of course this serves as an example of a rule: that just because you hear it in General Conference, it doesn't mean it's correct [from a believer POV]. There are plenty of similar examples.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: I got two questions right now, since this place has quickly become my go to fact check on mormon criticism.
Is most or all of the stuff in this article a fair description of the LDS and the issue of race? Did Kimball actually say this about converted indians becoming 'white and delightful?'
Let me see if I can help.
"Dark skin is a sign of God’s curse, while white skin is a sign of his blessing."
No, amongst the Book of Mormon people it was said that God gave the Lamanites, the evil faction that broke off dark skins so as to differentiate them from the Nephites. It never makes a statement that having dark skin in of itself is a curse, while having white skin is a symbol of divine favor.
I've never heard the succeeding Kimball quote or anything like it. It doesn't sound impossible especially for 1960, but I need to look at the citations.
quote: 2. when this thread says 'renouncing folk racism' what does that come from? it feels more like 'renouncing church policy of racism' - in this context, what's 'folk racism'
I added the word folk because to me these justifications for denying black's the priesthood were always folk additions. The initial ban was never done via revelation, and because the ban was wrong, people had to come up with justifications for it. These justifications are folk belief, and I believe they are in part what the church is repudiating.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Joseph Smith taught that Black people are cursed as “sons of Cain” but also could be saved.
No citation, I'm not going to do the work for her.
quote:Since dark skin was a divine punishment for sin (rather like Eve’s curse, which causes women to suffer in childbirth)
Nope. Eve was not cursed, that is antithetical to Mormon belief on the topic.
quote:Over the years, ordinary Mormons and church leaders have struggled with this heritage. One racist passage in the scripture has simply been fixed by Mormon authorities. 2 Nephi 30:6 originally said that conversion to Christianity creates a “white and delightsome people,” but in 1981 the Church adopted a variant which reads, “a pure and delightsome people.
Don't know anything about this change, racist guilt is not the only explanation for it even if they are right, which I can't say they are.
quote:Mitt Romney inserted the phrase “the same god” into his domestic policy debate against Barack Obama.
Um, that's what we believe.
quote:Shifting sexual mores have made Mormon polygamy and sacred undergarments a matter of slightly kinky fascination rather than Puritan disgust.
What?....
quote:Friday’s document from Mormon headquarters explains even the Church’s history of racism in terms that say, we are simply part of American culture
As opposed to what? Not part of American culture?
Anyway.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
The migration hypothesized by that evidence predates the BoM times by many thousands of years. The supposed Israelite migration is still a pretty weird belief.
EDIT: The claim I was responding too was deleted. Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP: The migration hypothesized by that evidence predates the BoM times by many thousands of years. The supposed Israelite migration is still a pretty weird belief.
EDIT: The claim I was responding too was deleted.
I'm sorry Matt, that post wasn't supposed to exist yet as I was still researching its accuracy and accidentally hit submit.
But I still think it's telling that European lineage could have been as prevalent as it was, and it was missed up until now, and originally discounted as contamination by scientists who didn't want to believe the results.
We're still looking at an enormously fragmented record of where the people in the Americas came from.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I think that maybe the priesthood ban, and its revocation, follows this pattern as well. (In case you couldn't tell, the white majority of the LDS were the Israelites, and the priesthood ban was the wilderness.)
So to clarify, the white (overwhelming) majority of the LDS were the Israelites, and among the things they were commanded to do was to set aside racism. But they didn't do this, so God put them in a sort of holding pattern in the 'wilderness' of His church's leadership endorsing racism explicitly and in practice?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I seriously think you guys are watching a roadmap for how the church is going to repudiate its current stance of anti marriage equality, and this event was itself roadmapped by the church's repudiation of polygamy.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
It's possible.
However, as a quibble: the church didn't truly repudiate polygamy. Polygamy is still an official part of church doctrine, and the Manifesto that ended its practice within the church was essentially a declaration "oh yeah we're not doing that any more." They have never said that its practice was wrong - it originated with Joseph Smith, and is still taught (quietly) as a higher law that simply isn't in effect in the mortal sphere right now.
However, I would say that the way that racist discrimination has now been repudiated - and even though there's some coy avoidance of saying BY was wrong about this, I do believe they have in effect repudiated the policy - may open the door to further revisions of doctrine.
It seems more plausible to me that polygamy will need to be further repudiated before positions on SSM and female ordination will be significantly revised. There is a sexist element to temple sealings - men can be sealed to more than one woman, but women cannot be sealed to more than one man - that ties in closely with the past practice of polygamy and firmly dovetails with various doctrinal views of differences between the sexes.
Before SSM, before female ordination, the church would have to back waaaaay off the fundamental, eternal gender roles and restrictions. It's still rather implausible to me that this will happen before 2100, but it's seeming more possible than it did before the church was willing to say, without much mincing of words, that Brigham Young was a racist, and racism is always bad. It's that much closer to a view of the early church leaders that would permit admitting mistakes in the actual, canonical church doctrine.
If canonical examples of fundamental sex and gender proscriptions are weakened or removed, modifying the Proclamation on the Family will be easy by comparison. It was never voted into official doctrine.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
OH WAIT I'm talking about changing the church's teachings on marriage and stuff.
Changing the stance on legal SSM is a much lower bar. And yeah, maybe in 40 years or so the church is going to be able to say that its opposition to civil SSM was perhaps misguided. It will not yet be ready to solemnize SSM much less modify its view of the eternities to give it an equal place with MF or MFF[...]F marriage.
Posted by Yozhik (Member # 89) on :
To Tom Davidson: This life is not the only place to be punished. Or to repent. Mormons believe in a purgatory-like state, though we don't call it that.
I think the church as a whole will end up paying for this. Who will be called to account for it at the Last Judgement? Who will look at their brothers with grief in their souls as they realize how they have wronged them and must repent? In this life, those of African descent would have been much more likely to accept our message if not for the history of the ban, and that will be on the church as a whole as well, not on the lost potential converts, in the next life. The ban will be a millstone around missionaries' necks.
Posted by Yozhik (Member # 89) on :
To Tom Davidson: This life is not the only place to be punished. Or to repent. Mormons believe in a purgatory-like state, though we don't call it that.
I think the church as a whole will end up paying for this. Who will be called to account for it at the Last Judgement? Who will look at their brothers with grief in their souls as they realize how they have wronged them and must repent? In this life, those of African descent would have been much more likely to accept our message if not for the history of the ban, and that will be on the church as a whole as well, not on the lost potential converts, in the next life. The ban will be a millstone around missionaries' necks.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
So, in this line of reasoning there's a multilayered problem. One, non-whites are less likely to accept God in this life, resulting in separation of them from God's church continuing longer than it otherwise might have (that is, in this life). The second problem being a congregation and even leaders and prophets being either outright rebellious or so burdened by racist tendencies of the world that they can't hear God properly.
The solution to this problem isn't that God speaks to those who choose the next prophet to find one who will actually listen to the 'Don't Be Racist' inspiration. It's not some larger more direct, tangible intervention as happened so often in the distant past. It's not inspiring the church as a whole to question the racist doctrine. Instead, the...punishment is that nothing will change for well over a century. The prophets won't listen, those who choose the prophets will continue to select racist successors, and the wider body of the church won't change either until *after* the broader world they live in has already had this change well underway.
If this were any other institution, I suspect we would all quickly agree this sort of justification was just a matter of shooting an arrow and painting a bullseye around where it lands. I fail to see why 'it will be addressed posthumously' should count as any sort of persuasive statement.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: It's possible.
However, as a quibble: the church didn't truly repudiate polygamy. Polygamy is still an official part of church doctrine, and the Manifesto that ended its practice within the church was essentially a declaration "oh yeah we're not doing that any more." They have never said that its practice was wrong - it originated with Joseph Smith, and is still taught (quietly) as a higher law that simply isn't in effect in the mortal sphere right now.
However, I would say that the way that racist discrimination has now been repudiated - and even though there's some coy avoidance of saying BY was wrong about this, I do believe they have in effect repudiated the policy - may open the door to further revisions of doctrine.
The polygamy repudiation was mainly to survive the government. Long enough to overthrow, succeed, or outlive it, as I hear it told.
The repudiation of the racist teachings was motivated on a different level. The church would have simply shrunk to irrelevance if it remained so openly racist or preserved its racist teachings.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Yeah, but similarly motivated in that both changes were necessary in order to thrive.
I like to think that the 1978 change was recognized as the correct, moral thing to do, and the leaders who effected the change weren't at all surprised or dismayed by the revelation they claim to have received on the matter. (It is my understanding that there were a couple members of the quorum of the twelve who WOULD have been dismayed, and they were sent out of town when this stuff went down. I'm talking about the rest.)
I have no such sense that the ending of the practice of polygamy is now typically viewed by modern LDS as a step forward for morality. As you said, it had a pretty clear strategic value in that they were seeking statehood and polygamy was seen as a deal breaker. I can easily imagine that a number of as-yet-unsistered wives were quite relieved by the development, but at this point it's generally accepted by the church that polygamy was fine, it was just fine in a certain context and currently isn't fine in the present context.
There was some of that, but less of it, with the racist policy thing too. But now it's clearer that the racist stuff was never fine, in the opinion of the current leadership.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
In related news..... Told ya this was going to happen sooner or later:
quote:
A federal judge in Utah has struck down a key portion of that state's marriage law that makes polygamy illegal, raising concerns among pro-family leaders that the nation may be entering a new phase in an all-out attack on marriage.
On December 13 Judge Clark Waddoups of the U.S. District Court of Utah struck down a portion of the state law that prohibits polygamous cohabitation, ruling that it violated both the First and 14th Amendments to the Constitution.
The ruling came in response to a lawsuit by Kody Brown and his four “wives,” who are the the subjects of the reality show Sister Wives on the TLC network. Brown is only legally married to one of the women, but the religious sect the five belong to, called the Apostolic United Brethren, embraces polygamy and holds that Brown and the other three women are married in a “spiritual” union.
I wonder if Gay rights groups will support them. Or if the LDS church will fund opposition to any eventual attempts to make polygamy completely legal.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
It would make no sense to me theologically for the church to try to keep legal restrictions on polygamy around.
If it did, I'd expect some sort of missive from church headquarters explaining the reasoning.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Also, Link.
Posted by Nelson Elis (Member # 13104) on :
Do you think that brother Brigham woke up last week wondering why he was suddenly in the Terrestrial Kingdom with thick bus tire tracks running up and down his resurrected hide?
Though, if I'm reading the press release right, the real responsibility for racism in mormonism actually lies with the contemporary American culture which impacted individual leaders starting with Young and ending with McConkie (give or take)...
quote:Toward the end of his life, Church founder Joseph Smith openly opposed slavery.
Sure, but just a tiny bit closer to the middle of his life (though late enough that he had already published the Book of Mormon and founded the church) he stridently opposed the abolitionist movement, writing: "I do not believe that the people of the North have any more right to say that the South shall not hold slaves, than the South have to say the North shall."
As of at least 1836, he was still very much one of the individuals rejecting abolitionist arguments against slavery based on the theory he was himself propounding--that blacks were the cursed seed of Canaan, through the lineage of Ham, and that their enslavement was ordained by the God of the bible, and that the abolitionists were working against the dictates of the true Christian God:
quote:Originally by Joseph Smith:
"After having expressed myself so freely upon this subject, I do not doubt but those who have been forward in raising their voice against the South will cry out against me as being uncharitable, unfeeling and unkind--wholly unacquainted with the gospel of Christ.
"It is my privilege, then, to name certain passages from the Bible and examine the teachings of the ancients upon this matter, as the fact is incontrovertible that the first mention we have of slavery is found in the holy Bible, pronounced by a man who was perfect in his generation and walked with God. And so far from that prediction's being averse from the mind of God, it remains as a lasting monument of the decree of Jehovah, to the shame and confusion of all who have cried out against the South in consequence of their holding the sons of Ham in servitude!
"'And he said cursed be Canaan: a servant of servants shall he be unto this brethren. And he said, Blessed be the Lord God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant--God shall enlarge Japheth and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.' (Gen. 8: 25-27)
“Trace the history of the world from this notable event down to this day and you will find the fulfillment of this singular prophecy. What could have been the design of the Almighty in this wonderful occurrence is not for me to say, but I can say that the curse is not yet taken off the sons of Canaan, neither will be until it is affected by a great power as caused it to come; and the people who interfere the least will come under the least condemnations before him and those who are determined to purse a course which shows an opposition and a feverish restlessness against the designs of the Lord will learn, when perhaps it is too late for their own good, that God can do his work without the aid of those who are not dictated by his counsel."
The press release points out that the view that blacks were of the lineage of Cain can be traced within US culture 100 years before Joseph Smith (so he didn't start it, see?), and it seems to imply that Joseph Smith had nothing to do with it, throwing Mormon leaders after Smith under the bus for subscribing to the theory, while pointedly highlighting Smith's support for abolition toward the end of his life. But not only did Smith clearly subscribe to and advocate for this racist theory for most of his life (including during the early formation of the church), but the LDS canon that was revealed by the hand of Smith has explicit and unique references attesting to the racial characteristic of this cursed seed of Canaan, like this bit of extra light Smith shed about what Moses wrote:
quote:Moses 7:22
"And Enoch also beheld the residue of the people which were the sons of Adam; and they were a mixture of all the seed of Adam save it was the seed of Cain, for the seed of Cain were black, and had not place among them."
And lest anyone is confused about what Joseph Smith's unique additional revelations regarding Moses' take on God's ancient segregation curse should mean regarding, say, being allowed to hold the priesthood, fret not: we need only turn to Smith's unique revelations regarding the alleged words of another biblical Patriarch:
quote:Abraham 1:21-27:
21 Now this king of Egypt was a descendant from the loins of Ham, and was a partaker of the blood of the Canaanites by birth.
22 From this descent sprang all the Egyptians, and thus the blood of the Canaanites was preserved in the land.
23 The land of Egypt being first discovered by a woman, who was the daughter of Ham, and the daughter of Egyptus, which in the Chaldean signifies Egypt, which signifies that which is forbidden;
24 When this woman discovered the land it was under water, who afterward settled her sons in it; and thus, from Ham, sprang that race which preserved the curse in the land.
25 Now the first government of Egypt was established by Pharaoh, the eldest son of Egyptus, the daughter of Ham, and it was after the manner of the government of Ham, which was patriarchal.
26 Pharaoh, being a righteous man, established his kingdom and judged his people wisely and justly all his days, seeking earnestly to imitate that order established by the fathers in the first generations, in the days of the first patriarchal reign, even in the reign of Adam, and also of Noah, his father, who blessed him with the blessings of the earth, and with the blessings of wisdom, but cursed him as pertaining to the Priesthood.
27 Now, Pharaoh being of that lineage by which he could not have the right of Priesthood, notwithstanding the Pharaohs would fain claim it from Noah, through Ham, therefore my father was led away by their idolatry;
I don't doubt that the racism of mainstream America during the early years of mormonism impacted the views of leaders like Brigham Young. And I don't doubt that the racist theories that got kicked around by early mormon leaders started before Joseph Smith or any other mormon was even born. But to downplay Smith's personal role in propagating these theories, as well as completely ignoring the role of the texts he "revealed" that are still accepted as canonical, the way that this new press release has, means that the rigmarole is quite simply more of the same patently deceptive revisionism on the issue that has apparently always been church policy.
Oh, and:
quote:Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse
Really? So, the church is disavowing the single-biggest plot device of the Book of Mormon? Nephi and Alma must have been impacted by 19th century American cultural attitudes too...
quote:From the Book of Mormon:
2 Nephi 5:21 "And the Lord had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them."
Alma 3: 6 "And the skins of the Lamanites were dark, according to the mark which was set upon their fathers, which was a curse upon them because of their transgression and their rebellion against their brethren, who consisted of Nephi, Jacob, and Joseph, and Sam, who were just and holy men."
And people ought to cut Kimball a break on his bit about Native American's miraculously re-attaining delightful whiteness. Assuming the Book of Mormon is still canonical, he's definitely got precedent on righteousness reducing a tan:
quote:3 Nephi 2:14-15 " And it came to pass that those Lamanites who had united with the Nephites were numbered among the Nephites; And their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites."
PS: I B SP
[ December 18, 2013, 04:14 AM: Message edited by: Nelson Elis ]
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
Thank you Nelson. I was working on a similar post, but it was taking far too long.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote: So, the church is disavowing the single-biggest plot device of the Book of Mormon? Nephi and Alma must have been impacted by 19th century American cultural attitudes too
they are certainly blatantly retconning "white and delightsome" and hoping nobody really notices what it is they're really doing so I guess yeah
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Better to retcon than to defend blatantly wrong policies.
I've heard the church is going to keep on releasing new statements on controversial issues (I think I heard there were a total of a half dozen or so).
THIS WEEK: The church on Monday released a new page on polygamy reaffirming that it was the right thing at the time.
Also, just for emphasis regarding the recent court decision:
Multiple marriage licenses - trying to legally marry more than one person at the same time - still illegal. Law preventing this hasn't been ruled unconstitutional. This hasn't changed.
What the court decision touched on was pretty much an anti-poly-cohabitation law. Living with multiple "wives" where there is no legal recognition of more than one wife was against the law in Utah. This law was declared unconstitutional by the judge. Which makes sense because of freedom of association and whatnot.
"Anti-polygamy law declared unconstitutional" is only accurate so far as the anti-cohabitation law was meant to target polygamous relationships. There's a totally separate legal restriction on marrying more than one person, so all polygamous marriages are either violating this still-standing law, or don't involve any legal/civil recognition of the +1s.
This decision is good for freedom and bad for taking away one of the state's levers sometimes used to pry apart some of the abusive and otherwise deeply problematic child-bride-loving adolescent-male-shunning polygamist cult tangles that still exist in rural corners.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I find it interesting that again, there's apparently some avoidance of the actual central controversy: Joseph Smith's personal practice of this.
Posted by Nelson Elis (Member # 13104) on :
quote:Better to retcon than to defend blatantly wrong policies.
This is true.
In the grand scheme, the recent flack attack is undoubtedly a good thing--another step forward in the cultural evolution.
But on the other hand, it also demonstrates how deep the commitment is to suppress the actual truth, rather than honestly address it in an earnest attempt to reform.
Brigham Young was only a part of the poison--the theological justification for racist attitudes and policies is, in reality, far deeper and further-reaching than what the church has acknowledged here. And in the current information age, Young's reputation was actually already beyond salvation--folk knowledge of the indefensible turpitude of his actions and teachings was already so widespread at this point in time (when even oppressed minorities have access to the internet) as to put his reputation and authority beyond redemption. So what the church appears to have done here is simply to have used him as a scapegoat--to load up the blame for the racist policies on him (while focusing on contextualizing his fallibility as a product of an external culture), and pretend that the issue has been quarantined and "honestly" dealt with, in spite of the fact that the clear intent of the action is actually quite the opposite of a genuine confession of wrongdoing: they've taken the culpability that everyone already knew about and thus could no longer be hidden, and shamelessly used an admission of the well-known dirty laundry as a pretext to bolster their bona fides as a probatively introspective and forthcoming institution, whilst simultaneously obfuscating the real extent of the problem, and the real locus of guilt.
If the "honestly confess your sins" component of repentance taught by the church has any validity, the current leadership seems not to care--since the example they are setting here is rather: confess what you've been caught doing, and use the trust that such an admission engenders to support your denial of the stuff you've done that most people don't know about...
[ December 18, 2013, 07:24 PM: Message edited by: Nelson Elis ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Ok if Brigham Young is being made a scapegoat by the church throwing a lot of its distasteful religious teachings on him, what things specifically were core and central to the church that you don't think they should be allowed to pawn off on him or the other 'misguided' tote-offs
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Nelson Elis: First all, welcome to Hatrack, I do hope you will stick around. And thank you for taking so much time to express a nuanced opinion on this topic.
I had a few things to say in response, I hope you won't take them as an angry rebuttal.
quote:Do you think that brother Brigham woke up last week wondering why he was suddenly in the Terrestrial Kingdom with thick bus tire tracks running up and down his resurrected hide?
Cute. But who said this? Racism is hardly an unforgivable sin. The dude was a blend of good and evil, just as we all are. What matters is having been presented with the truth after dying, what would he say to it. I fully expect he would willingly abandon the racist philosophies he espoused.
quote:Though, if I'm reading the press release right, the real responsibility for racism in mormonism actually lies with the contemporary American culture which impacted individual leaders starting with Young and ending with McConkie (give or take)...
I don't think the press release says it's "the real responsibility" it says that the men who formulated these erroneous teachings were products of their time. You are correct scriptural commentary on skin color are not addressed, but how could they be? We have no idea what (assuming we accept Smith's accounts) Nephi's culture said about racism, or Moses, or Abraham when they wrote what they did.
But seeing as how the church did not emphasize that regardless of the error of Young's (and successors's views) the scriptures are correct in some of these statements I think it's clear we can apply the church's repudiation to these verses.
I believe Nephite statements that Lamanites became white after they reintegrated with them is something I would expect to happen as the two races mingled over time. African Americans are often a good deal whiter than Africans are.
It seems equally plausible that Lamanites mingled with indigenous people nearby while perhaps Nephites called everybody else including aborigines Lamanites.
quote:I don't doubt that the racism of mainstream America during the early years of mormonism impacted the views of leaders like Brigham Young. And I don't doubt that the racist theories that got kicked around by early mormon leaders started before Joseph Smith or any other mormon was even born. But to downplay Smith's personal role in propagating these theories, as well as completely ignoring the role of the texts he "revealed" that are still accepted as canonical, the way that this new press release has, means that the rigmarole is quite simply more of the same patently deceptive revisionism on the issue that has apparently always been church policy.
It seems right to me that Smith after revealing these verses (as I believe he did) would have been affected by them, and repeated those lessons. But I think it's instructive that he himself started ordaining black people to the priesthood. He also stated publicly that were blacks afforded the same educational opportunities as whites, there would be no difference between the races.
But remember these statements may or may not have been available to Brigham Young, and Young was not around when Smith was murdered. When Young returned after Smith's assassination he encountered a succession crisis, and a church that was being persecuted into possibly extinction. The only text the church had in common was the Book of Mormon, and the Book of Commandments, which would later become the D&C. But this was fragmented and missing tons of revelations that would eventually be included.
With that in mind, I don't find it surprising that Young in order to get who he could to Utah, and rebuild a new home for the church, had to take a relatively free form religion with a lot of diversity, and grind it into a single unified purpose. A lot of good things and bad were tossed out in this consolidation. But I think future prophets all borrowed this heritage, seeing as how Young was extremely successful in building up the church during his tenure.
Because Smith was almost deified as the greatest prophet in history save Christ, subsequent prophets felt obligated to treat their predecessors if not on equal standing, near equal standing. It was only by sticking together like glue, that the persecuted church had survived at all. With Mormons always viewed as a strange religion at best, and an evil cult at worst this has only reinforced the perceive need to keep all leaders of the church in the highest esteem, as well as vilifying those who try to break up that unshakable faith in the church.
As scholarship began to relearn the diversity of views in the early church, and Smith's real history (quite different from the official church line) certain key leaders in the church panicked and locked everything down. Eventually the information got out there anyway, and with the internet there's just no way to stop it. So the church is now starting to realize that their enemies are going to publish their views, so the church might as well publish theirs.
I think it's a wonderful development, and since this conversation is only just starting, it is to be expected that the church won't say everything that ought to be said, but it should be encouraged to do so.
I don't think anything will be gained by mocking them for having not been forthcoming, or not being comfortable speaking about its past openly. I would think we should encourage this behavior, not laugh and mock them. I mean unless you want to criticize but not actually illicit any change. In which case that's exactly what one should do.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I don't think anything will be gained by mocking them for having not been forthcoming, or not being comfortable speaking about its past openly. I would think we should encourage this behavior, not laugh and mock them. I mean unless you want to criticize but not actually illicit any change. In which case that's exactly what one should do.
Except, and this is something I don't feel you took much note of (in this reply, anyway) is that the church makes some might big claims for itself. The most true church to God's will, led by divinely inspired prophets, with a set of sacred texts revealed and ongoing revelations...anyway, when such an institution behaves in a way that points to feet of clay, so to speak...yeah, I think it's worthwhile to point it out. Even if it's not as gently encouraging and forgiving as the church itself might like. THIs kind of whitewashing and misdirection and carefully nuanced and very specific retractions and the lack of apologies are what we expect from a business, a government, a political party. Well, and a religion really but not generally their own members.
Yeah, I'm feeling some satisfaction in that a group claiming to be in tightest of all people with God has had to shuffle their feet in embarrassment over some past transgressions, especially when they're so very recent.
But BB, if the church wants the kind of solicitous respect and regard for its explanations and apologies and retractions, it's gonna need to actually fess up and *ask forgiveness* for so many recent generations of institutional, *divinely inspired*, or put forth by those who had access to such inspiration (at least until it wasn't) racism. I don't see why anyone should tiptoe through the tulips on this. The kind of courtesy and deference you're asking for ought to come *after* the church has copped to wrongdoing, and not before. Or at least I don't see why anyone should be criticized for pointing out, in various ways, the strange and rather flexible value divine inspiration has to the church that claims it.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Put more simply: criticizing the church (or any other, really) in an effort to highlight how wrong and dangerous and common it is for claims of divine inspiration are is a worthwhile goal in and of itself, and ought not be dismissed as mere criticism for its own sake. Not that I blame you for doing so or expect you to take a different stance, standing on the other side of jt divide and all, but I think it's important that when some of our fellow hairless apes start in with a direct line to God and how this line ought to be a guide for how we all ought to act...criticize? Can hardly criticize enough!
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Rakeesh:
quote:Except, and this is something I don't feel you took much note of (in this reply, anyway) is that the church makes some might big claims for itself. The most true church to God's will, led by divinely inspired prophets, with a set of sacred texts revealed and ongoing revelations
Why is that statement incompatible with prophets who are fallible?
Racism existed in the church and was taught as doctrine. It also teaches the correct (In my opinion) principles of priesthood authority for those officiating in the sacred rites God has revealed for the salvation and progression of his children.
No other institution contains that truth.
quote:THIs kind of whitewashing and misdirection and carefully nuanced and very specific retractions and the lack of apologies are what we expect from a business, a government, a political party. Well, and a religion really but not generally their own members.
This isn't misdirection or whitewashing, quite the opposite in fact. Misdirection would be what the church members previously practiced, "The only people presenting these lies are enemies of the church and apostates", "We do not understand why God acts in mysterious ways, but surely he will reveal the truth one day."
The church did not apologize for racist doctrines of the past, it's true. But these articles are releases designed to clarify doctrine for members and non-members. An apology wouldn't be found there. Honestly it would not surprise me if the church recognizes that it needs to formally apologize, and is considering how it will do so. Interestingly enough, it's actually dealing with many members of the church who are absolutely floored by the idea that Brigham Young taught incorrect principles. It flies in the face of the belief that the prophet while not infallible, would not teach as the words of God things that are not true. The church has to help it's members understand how a prophet can be a man and God's mouthpiece, as this belief of prophets not making these sorts of mistakes is over 100 years old.
quote:But BB, if the church wants the kind of solicitous respect and regard for its explanations and apologies and retractions, it's gonna need to actually fess up and *ask forgiveness* for so many recent generations of institutional, *divinely inspired*, or put forth by those who had access to such inspiration (at least until it wasn't) racism. I don't see why anyone should tiptoe through the tulips on this. The kind of courtesy and deference you're asking for ought to come *after* the church has copped to wrongdoing, and not before. Or at least I don't see why anyone should be criticized for pointing out, in various ways, the strange and rather flexible value divine inspiration has to the church that claims it.
I have absolutely no qualms with an apology being necessary. But I have not seen (and I've been involved in many conversations) anybody actually happy that the church is disavowing any virtue behind the priesthood ban ever existed.
Rather, it seems that had an apology accompanied these statements, people would have simply moved from "Where's the apology?" to "How can the church have taken this long to get this right? Why isn't it leading the world on social issues (aka doing things I think are right)?"
quote:but I think it's important that when some of our fellow hairless apes start in with a direct line to God and how this line ought to be a guide for how we all ought to act...criticize? Can hardly criticize enough!
And yet an enormous percent of the doctrine the church espouses is not known much less adhered to. LDS doctrine contains principles that are transcendent in their beauty, and properly understood and exercised make for some of the absolute best specimens of humanity I have ever encountered.
It's certainly an awful thing when somebody claims to have God sanctioning a damaging belief. But if we are going to pass judgement on the edicts a prophet gives, perhaps we should judge all of them, rather than sifting for just errors.
[ December 19, 2013, 01:32 AM: Message edited by: BlackBlade ]
Posted by Nelson Elis (Member # 13104) on :
Sam:
quote:Ok if Brigham Young is being made a scapegoat by the church throwing a lot of its distasteful religious teachings on him, what things specifically were core and central to the church that you don't think they should be allowed to pawn off on him or the other 'misguided' tote-offs
I don't know that I'd comment on what is "core and central" to the church--as I tend to believe that orthodoxies in general are quite fluid (which is particularly true of a relatively young religion like the CJCLDS), regardless of the tempocentric prepossessions of any given generation. I'm further inclined to believe that radical flexibility will be an even more indispensable trait for the survival of meme-modifying institutions in the future, as technologies continue to accelerate the rate of the transmission and processing of information along a curve that appears to be asymptotic.
In other words: I think that things that the saints might think today are core and central (even everlasting covenants, and such) are more likely than not to change in shorter order than might be supposed by most. Because our forms of understanding the world are literally being informed at an increasingly rapid rate.
That said, to answer your question, I simply think that the church should be more forthright about what is really written in the canon, and the role that Smith played in the attitudes the church has taken as pertains to race.
BlackBlade:
quote:First all, welcome to Hatrack, I do hope you will stick around.
Thanks. I've actually been here before, under an account I can no longer access, though it's been years since I contributed some half-a-dozen posts.
quote:Cute. But who said this?
I'll take credit for my own original tropes, though I'll not be shocked if it's shown that it's sooth--as Koheleth quoth--that there's nothing new under the sun...
quote:What matters is having been presented with the truth after dying, what would he say to it.
I think you mean that this matters to you--this conceit matters little to me. Besides, if we insist on taking such things literally, wouldn't it matter more to clarify whether contemporary mortals assigning blame to a dead person in a way that could figuratively be described as "throwing him under the bus" could somehow metaphysically cause tire tracks to appear on his postmortal corporeal form?
quote:I fully expect he would willingly abandon the racist philosophies he espoused.
I'd submit that this says something about your disposition, but very little about Young's disposition.
quote:I don't think the press release says it's "the real responsibility"
I agree. That's why my construction focused on what is to be interpreted, rather than on specific words that were said.
quote:You are correct scriptural commentary on skin color are not addressed, but how could they be?
I'm not sure I understand this question. I know how I would address the scriptural texts, but I wouldn't presume to instruct church leadership on how to explain the fact that the Book of Mormon quite clearly indicates that God curses wicked people with the mark of dark skin.
In any case, however they choose to qualify it, it should begin with an actual acknowledgement of what Mormonism's unique canonical scriptures do in fact say regarding the topic.
quote:assuming we accept Smith's accounts
I think it's a mistake to make this assumption.
quote:We have no idea what (assuming we accept Smith's accounts) Nephi's culture said about racism, or Moses, or Abraham when they wrote what they did.
But we do have the text. And the church does teach that the text constitutes sacred revelation. And the church does claim the right to provide guidance to members regarding the authoritative interpretation and application of such text (it's kind of the raison d'etre of the church).
I don't think that the church needs to provide an anthropological disquisition on the racial attitudes of mesoamerican cultures, but I do think it's a bit absurd of church leadership to instruct its audience with a historical analysis of the cultural attitudes of 19th century America to contextualize the actions of its contemporary leaders, while it studiously ignores the actual unique scriptures it maintains to be canonical which clearly talk about the exact theme they're treating.
quote:But seeing as how the church did not emphasize that regardless of the error of Young's (and successors's views) the scriptures are correct in some of these statements I think it's clear we can apply the church's repudiation to these verses.
OK...
So I've got this straight: you believe that the fact that a press agent on the church website published a disavowal of the theory that God marks the wicked with dark skin--without mentioning the Book of Mormon scriptures that clearly state that God marked people with dark skin for the transgressions of their forefathers--means that it's clear that the church repudiates the Book of Mormon scriptures?!?
I'll simply say that this does not match my understanding of how church members are encouraged to assign priority when confronted with apparent contradictions in authoritative statements...
quote:I believe Nephite statements that Lamanites became white after they reintegrated with them is something I would expect to happen as the two races mingled over time.
I believe you should reexamine the context the Book of Mormon supplies regarding that particular miraculous event.
I cited verses 14 and 15, to isolate the specific event. Here are those verses, bracketed by verses 13 and 16, to give you some context regarding the timeframe of the event.
quote:13 And it came to pass that before this thirteenth year had passed away the Nephites were threatened with utter destruction because of this war, which had become exceedingly sore.
14 And it came to pass that those Lamanites who had united with the Nephites were numbered among the Nephites;
15 And their acurse was taken from them, and their skin became bwhite like unto the Nephites;
16 And their young men and their daughters became exceedingly fair, and they were numbered among the Nephites, and were called Nephites. And thus ended the thirteenth year.
Note, regardless of the time frame, that the text says that the "curse was taken from them," implying the miraculous nature of the event...
quote:It was only by sticking together like glue, that the persecuted church had survived at all. With Mormons always viewed as a strange religion at best, and an evil cult at worst this has only reinforced the perceive need to keep all leaders of the church in the highest esteem, as well as vilifying those who try to break up that unshakable faith in the church.
Does it occur to you that this kind of idea works more than one way? In other words, the types of actions by "outsiders" that groups which get labelled "cults" tend to perceive as persecution, can also be perceived as concerned reactions relating to their (definitively characteristic of "cults") tendency to insulate adherents from the outside world--separating adherents from their erstwhile communties and even from their families by presenting them with an us vs them mentality, or apotheosizing charismatic leaders and instilling new members with the sense that they have to stick together with the new group and perceive any criticism of the unimpeachable leader (even by family or close former friends of the new member) as persecution (without permitting the adherents a valid opportunity to give any regard to whether the criticism and concern of outsiders regarding the dear leader might actually be valid or justified).
(This isn't an attack, it's simply a comment on what types of patterns of social dynamics create the unique social conflicts that result in certain groups fitting the characteristics of a what is labelled a "cult.")
quote: I would think we should encourage this behavior, not laugh and mock them.
Like I said to scifi, I think it's a good step in some ways. But I don't think a church leadership really should need everyone to stand up and applaud them for *not denying their well-documented history,* particularly if the admission of what the history entails still involves glaring omissions, and clear half-truths apparently designed to manipulate perceptions regarding things they still aren't willing to admit.
[ December 19, 2013, 12:39 AM: Message edited by: Nelson Elis ]
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:I'd submit that this says something about your disposition, but very little about Young's disposition.
Perhaps, but if Young could be taught to believe in the falsehood of white racial supremacy he could also be taught to believe in the equality of the races. I think it can be safely said that Young's belief in the supremacy of God's commands was greater than his belief that the black man has been cursed since Cain. I don't think it could be otherwise.
quote:I'm not sure I understand this question. I know how I would address the scriptural texts, but I wouldn't presume to instruct church leadership on how to explain the fact that the Book of Mormon quite clearly indicates that God curses wicked people with the mark of dark skin.
Yes, the Book of Mormon clearly identifies a darkness of skin descending on the Lamanites and the writer's identify this as a curse from God.
The writers of the Book of Mormon multiple times indicate that there are mistakes in the Book of Mormon, and that they are the mistakes of men. I don't think they meant just grammatical ones. I think that the writers wrote things that they believed were true, but are not actually accurate. For instance battle casualties seem inflated in some instances, and conversations being recited verbatim when the person writing about it was not there, nor could we expect those conversations to have been written down at the time they were made.
There are also perceptions of events that the writers probably misunderstood. There are the vagaries of translation on top of that. And the issues of trying to convert the words from reformed Egyptian to a semblance of King's James English that Smith was not a scholar of.
Having said that, I do believe the writers are the men they claim to be, and that Smith translated their writings. And that those writings were inspired of God.
But in this instance dark skin being a curse from God, I think they were wrong.
quote:In any case, however they choose to qualify it, it should begin with an actual acknowledgement of what Mormonism's unique canonical scriptures do in fact say regarding the topic.
What I'm trying to say is that there are two verses in the Book of Mormon that discuss the dark skin of the Lamanites. The Pearl of Great Price contains 2 as well. If we look at sermons that the early Mormons were hearing from Joseph Smith and Brigham Young I can find no discussion of race as it pertains to the Book of Mormon or POGP until Young's famous lecture to the Utah Legislature where he cites the Bible tellingly. I would welcome any sermon you can find where Smith discusses native Americans still being under any sort of curse as evidenced by darker skin.
quote:So I've got this straight: you believe that the fact that a press agent on the church website published a disavowal of the theory that God marks the wicked with dark skin--without mentioning the Book of Mormon scriptures that clearly state that God marked people with dark skin for the transgressions of their forefathers--means that it's clear that the church repudiates the Book of Mormon scriptures?!?
Press agent? That statement was vetted by the First Presidency and probably the Quorum of the Twelve before it was released by headquarters. That being the case, absolutely.
quote:Note, regardless of the time frame, that the text says that the "curse was taken from them," implying the miraculous nature of the event...
If we are not limiting it to a 1 year event (and I don't think we can), it seems perfectly plausible for people to have noticed the skin color change that year, and wrongly assumed it was a miraculous event.
Much like the now often bandied Kimball quote where he notes that Native Americans are starting to appear white because of their association with the Saints.
quote:Does it occur to you that this kind of idea works more than one way? In other words, the types of actions by "outsiders" that groups which get labelled "cults" tend to perceive as persecution, can also be perceived as concerned reactions relating to their (definitively characteristic of "cults") tendency to insulate adherents from the outside world
Oh, so the murdering, and raping, and theft, and confiscating of firearms followed by more murder, and the exiling, and the sending of the army to subjugate Utah Territory on the say so of a handful of men without an investigation were all the actions of concern citizens trying to protect Mormons from becoming an insular cult?
Mormonism from its inception was very inclusive, the Nauvoo charter specifically enumerated that members and non-members were equal under the law. Smith himself invited people of all faiths to live there.
It was these negative experiences of persecution and mobs that shoved Mormons from place to place until they found the most God forsaken place they could, hoping that because it was an awful place, nobody would want it, and come to kick them out of it, that ultimately lead to the insular Utah Mormon culture that has frustrated people for a long time.
But it's nonsense to call that insular environment the result of an inherent cult like behavior germane to Mormonism.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nelson Elis: Sam:
I cited verses 14 and 15, to isolate the specific event. Here are those verses, bracketed by verses 13 and 16, to give you some context regarding the timeframe of the event. 13 And it came to pass that before this thirteenth year had passed away the Nephites were threatened with utter destruction because of this war, which had become exceedingly sore.
14 And it came to pass that those Lamanites who had united with the Nephites were numbered among the Nephites;
15 And their acurse was taken from them, and their skin became bwhite like unto the Nephites;
16 And their young men and their daughters became exceedingly fair, and they were numbered among the Nephites, and were called Nephites. And thus ended the thirteenth year.
quote:Note, regardless of the time frame, that the text says that the "curse was taken from them," implying the miraculous nature of the event...
Maybe the Lamanites spent a lot more time in the sun before they started hanging out inside with the Nephites? Afterall, they probably had a ton of partying to catch up on.
Posted by Nelson Elis (Member # 13104) on :
BlackBlade:
quote:Yes, the Book of Mormon clearly identifies a darkness of skin descending on the Lamanites and the writer's identify this as a curse from God.
The writers of the Book of Mormon multiple times indicate that there are mistakes in the Book of Mormon, and that they are the mistakes of men. I don't think they meant just grammatical ones. I think that the writers wrote things that they believed were true, but are not actually accurate. For instance battle casualties seem inflated in some instances, and conversations being recited verbatim when the person writing about it was not there, nor could we expect those conversations to have been written down at the time they were made.
There are also perceptions of events that the writers probably misunderstood. There are the vagaries of translation on top of that. And the issues of trying to convert the words from reformed Egyptian to a semblance of King's James English that Smith was not a scholar of.
Having said that, I do believe the writers are the men they claim to be, and that Smith translated their writings. And that those writings were inspired of God.
But in this instance dark skin being a curse from God, I think they were wrong.
I'm not sure how productive a discussion regarding the full scope of errors in the Book of Mormon would be. I suspect that such an iquiry would quickly depart from the parameters that are relevant to this topic.
And you're certainly entitled to your beliefs, and entitled to whatever modality you employ to reconcile your views with evidence to the contrary.
But within the text itself, all the evidence suggests that the the skin color change is a miraculous event. Nephi and members of his generation are witnesses to the change, which is clearly a physical phenomenon--which means that their perceptions can't be simply dismissed as the expression of some subjective internal prejudice on the part of the Nephites. Furthermore, the fact that Nephi is writing about it indicates that the physical skin-color transformation occurred in a single generation. And since Laman and Lemuel had wives from the same exact same genetic stock as Nephi et al's mates (Nephi's wife was the sister of Laman and Lemuel's wives), and there is absolutely no mention of the existence of aborigines (which would have borne mentioning in a record that not only meticulously describes the details of how they learned to survive and establish a new civilization in the new land--details from the seeds they brought from the Old World to set up their agriculture [one of those Book of Mormon mistakes, btw--crops like the barley and wheat mentioned in the BoM would have left a trace in the ecology and paleoethnobotanical record: these Old World seeds Nephi brought, and the crops the Nephites grew, simply didn't exist in America until after Columbus], to the woodworking and craftmanship Nephi taught his people, to the ironworking and forging of rustable swords [another mistake, btw: ironworks definitely would have left an archaeological record, and there's simply no record of ironworking or metal swords in mesoamerica] they undertook to defend themselves from the Lamanites--but additionally is a record that actually does point it out as soon as the Nephites find evidence of the any other peoples [such as the Jaredites and Mulekites], so it would be quite illogical to assume that they met aborigines that the highly detailed record simply failed to mention), which means that there is every indication that this single-generation skin tone transformation in a group of people from identical genetic provenance is only explicable as the hand-of-God physical miracle which it is explicitly stated to be within the text.
Meanwhile, if all of the circumstantial evidence presented in the narrative doesn't lead us to the only logical conclusion to explain the miraculous transformation (the powerful, miracle-causing God character did it), we do have the fact that Nephi is wearing his prophetic mantle and telling us that the incredible skin color transformation is the fulfillment of the actual words the Lord spoke to him, which you should have already seen if you looked up the context of the verses I cited earlier:
quote: 2 Nephi 5:21-23
21 And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.
22 And thus saith the Lord God: I will cause that they shall be loathsome unto thy people, save they shall repent of their iniquities.
23 And cursed shall be the seed of him that mixeth with their seed; for they shall be cursed even with the same cursing. And the Lord spake it, and it was done.
Interestingly, the next verse:
quote:24 And because of their cursing which was upon them they did become an idle people, full of mischief and subtlety;
...reflects the other type of argument Smith made in the "On Abolition" essay I cited earlier, in arguing that, not only were abolitionists wrong to agitate against the enslavement of blacks due to his perception that slavery was the fulfillment of God's curse upon the seed of the Canaanites, but that freedom wouldn't be good for blacks in any case, since they were an immature race of boy-persons, who were too lazy and incapable of industry of their own initiative to survive if they were freed:
quote:originally by Joseph Smith:
"What benefit will it ever be to the slave for persons to run over the free states & excite indignation against their masters in the minds of thousands and tens of thousands who understand nothing relative to their circumstances or conditions? I mean particularly those who have never traveled in the South and scarcely seen a negro in all their life.
“How any community can ever be excited with the chatter of such persons-boys and others who are too indolent to obtain their living by honest industry & are incapable of pursuing any occupation of a professional nature, is unaccountable to me.”
Now, as you suggested, BlackBlade, it is possible that Smith derived his attitudes and arguments against abolition from the Book of Mormon, which clearly suggests that the curse God put on people marked with dark skin also included a degenerate state of indolence and mischief. But allow me to suggest that the fact that there is no indication whatsoever that this particular racist attitude existed in Jerusalem (or anywhere else) in 600 BC, whereas this was the exact racist cultural attitude which was prevalent in Smith's time and culture for his whole life up to and after he revealed the Book of Mormon, leaves us with a set of facts that lead much more rationally to the conclusion that the author of the words and attitudes expressed in the Book of Mormon was actually the guy (from the culture that clearly possessed exactly such attitudes) who wrote/dictated the book, rather than him being influenced by the 19th century American racist cultural attitudes miraculously and anachronistically possessed by the 6th century BC characters in his book...
Or, rather than the guy who wrote/dictated the book, perhaps I should say the guy who plagiarized it--at least, if we think that there is any chance Oliver Cowdery might have shown his cousin Joseph Smith A View of the Hebrews, the book (about Native Americans being the lost ten tribes splintered off from Jerusalem, and how their Great Spirit resembles the Hebrew God, and prophesies in Isaiah and Jeremiah indicate that their true nature will be restored in the "latter days," etc, etc [the coincidences go on]) originally written by the Cowdery family pastor Ethan Smith, and published right before the time that Joseph Smith claimed to discover the golden plates...
(Tangentially, since our topic is the forthrightness of Mormon leadership regarding their history, it's worth noting that the church leadership is well aware of the apparent source material which inspired the Book of Mormon, since mormon scholar and apologist BH Roberts brought the existence of A View of the Hebrews to Talmage and the church presidency when he came across it, and urged them to respond to the remarkable coincidences he found in this book written by the pastor of a principal collaborator of Smith's, but they responded by burying it, and--until the internet came around--if rumors ever emerged that the BoM smacked of plagiarism, mormon leadership would always explain that the theory was that a different book, by Solomon Spalding, is the alleged source material, and explain how the evidence for this book being a source for the Book of Mormon is extremely weak, concluding that the theory that the BoM was plagiarized has been thoroughly discredited...)
quote:What I'm trying to say is that there are two verses in the Book of Mormon that discuss the dark skin of the Lamanites. The Pearl of Great Price contains 2 as well.
Huh?
Why do you think that there are only two verses in the BoM that discuss this topic? Be assured that there are multiple verses that I haven't cited that reference this curse of dark skinned loathsomeness God placed on the Lamanites, as well as multiple instances that make it very clear that the prophet-characters of the Book of Mormon believe that the tone of one's skin is ultimately a reflection of God's judgment of the moral content of such individuals or their ancestors:
quote:Jacob 3:5,8
5 Behold, the Lamanites your brethren, whom ye hate because of their filthiness and the cursing which hath come upon their skins, are more righteous than you;
8 O my brethren, I fear that unless ye shall repent of your sins that their skins will be whiter than yours, when ye shall be brought with them before the throne of God.
And this isn't Jacob misunderstanding God's odd racist metaphysics out of his own internal racism, so it's clear--he's actually very clearly exhorting his people against racist attitudes:
quote:Jacob 3:9
9 Wherefore, a commandment I give unto you, which is the word of God, that ye revile no more against them because of the darkness of their skins; neither shall ye revile against them because of their filthiness; but ye shall remember your own filthiness, and remember that their filthiness came because of their fathers.
...whilst he nonetheless explains that skin tone is an indication of God's metaphysical judgment, whether it's the mark of dark skin with which God cursed the wicked and their descendants, or it's the delightfully fair skin tone of the righteous at the bar of judgment.
By the way, earlier in the thread, in response to another person's allusion, you said:
quote:No citation, I'm not going to do the work for her.
...so I take it that you see no reason to acknowledge the existence of things that aren't explicitly cited here in the thread, but perhaps you would consider tempering your assertions suggesting that text that contradicts your opinions doesn't exist.
I wouldn't make presumptions about the extent your familiarity with the Book of Mormon or the Pearl of Great Price, or everything early mormon leaders have said, but neither should it be the responsibility of others to "do the work" for you, and demonstrate that these things you imply don't exist do, in fact exist...neh?
quote:Press agent? That statement was vetted by the First Presidency and probably the Quorum of the Twelve before it was released by headquarters. That being the case, absolutely.
Again, you're entitled to your own beliefs--and in this specific case, I actually am quite gratified by the belief you are expressing that the racist scriptures should be repudiated--but this is absolutely not consistent with the protocols members of the church are taught regarding the priority to assign to apparently contradictory statements from authoritative sources. Actual Book of Mormon text is explicitly explained to members as being at the top of the hierarchy of canonical authority, above even instruction directly from the mouths of individual church authorities, and something said by a flack agent--even if the statement is vetted by high ranking church authorities--certainly doesn't assume a higher authority than Book of Mormon scripture, particularly if, as in this case, such a statement doesn't even mention the Book of Mormon scriptures which its content appears to directly contradict.
quote:Oh, so the murdering, and raping, and theft, and confiscating of firearms followed by more murder, and the exiling, and the sending of the army to subjugate Utah Territory on the say so of a handful of men without an investigation were all the actions of concern citizens trying to protect Mormons from becoming an insular cult?
Mormonism from its inception was very inclusive, the Nauvoo charter specifically enumerated that members and non-members were equal under the law. Smith himself invited people of all faiths to live there.
It was these negative experiences of persecution and mobs that shoved Mormons from place to place until they found the most God forsaken place they could, hoping that because it was an awful place, nobody would want it, and come to kick them out of it, that ultimately lead to the insular Utah Mormon culture that has frustrated people for a long time.
But it's nonsense to call that insular environment the result of an inherent cult like behavior germane to Mormonism.
I don't believe I remotely suggested that murder and rape were expressions of concern when I pointed out that components of your broad statements regarding the persecution complex of Latter Day Saints could be understood from more than one single framework.
Mormons have indisputably historically been the victims of egregious persecution, and I neither have nor would deny this reality.
Nonetheless, views that fail to comprehend more than one single side's perspective in complex social conflicts do usually seem to me to be incorrect by dint of oversimplification and lack of insight...
For instance, we can tout the idealistic egalitarianism in Nauvoo's charter---which may seem to imply that the mob persecution that occurred there was a one-sided, good vs evil affair of black-hearted outsider bullies violently attacking the pure and innocent, open-armed mormon saints, but in doing so, we would actually be completely ignoring the complex nuances of the notorious mob actions that stemmed from that location.
We'd be ignoring, for example, the fact that the mob violence that ended Smith's life wasn't actually rooted in outsider persecution--it was headed by former faithful latter day saints (including a recent former member of the First Presidency of the church) who were upset by Smith's assumption of absolute political control, and by his alleged attempts to use his position of power to seduce several of their wives (allegations which have a quite a bit of validation, considering a long set of precedents in Smith's history). In fact, this particular mob "persecution" actually came to a head when Smith used his political authority as Mayor to invoke the governmental apparatus to effectuate the destruction of the presses these dissidents were using to publish their allegations of the abuse of his power.
None of this remotely suggests that the mob murder of Smith was justified, or that more straightforward forms of persecution are non-existent within the history, but it is telling that the real history of the most salient single event in the folk mormon persecution narrative is actually quite nuanced and complex--and the reality completely departs from the general "got to stick together against the persecution of outsiders" theme you invoked...
[ January 12, 2014, 09:56 PM: Message edited by: Nelson Elis ]
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:And you're certainly entitled to your beliefs, and entitled to whatever modality you employ to reconcile your views with evidence to the contrary.
Well, alright. I'll extend you that same courtesy and not say another word on the subject.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I can understand why you're angry, BB. Nelson has certainly been an assertive critic. I just hope you can understand how frustrating, angering, and baffling this sort of thing can be for the other side too.
In the name of God, a church that purports to be the truest source of divine presence in the world today-for the remainder of time if I'm not mistaken-endorses for generations an openly racist, repellent doctrine. It changes this doctrine *after* a sea change in the rest of the ocean it swims in, so to speaj. Much later it speaks on the issue, but it's not a straightforward 'this was wrong, immoral, and worthy of contempt' which it plainly was.
But it doesn't say that. Even you, someone as committed to fairness and open discussion on deeply personal issues as I've met, don't quite say that even though it's the plain truth. In fact? When people point that out they are criticized for being too harsh and not sufficiently diplomatic and respectful about this disavowal.
I like you heaps, man, but I don't give a fart in a hurricane for whether or not people are too unkind about the church's statements and motives until such time as a statement is issued along the lines of a real apology, a real repudiation, and not something that has as much of an eye to preserving prestige as admission of wrongdoing.
Posted by Heisenberg (Member # 13004) on :
Too bad, this was an interesting discussion.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Rakeesh: People have plenty of latitude from me to be annoyed, upset, angry, frustrated, et al. Don't direct it at me if you want to talk about it.
Personally, I think it's great that even the church that has revelations from God needs to rely on other people (also God's creations) for some of the truth and knowledge God wants everyone to have. Frankly I don't think it *would* be very wonderful if all truth that could be known was filtered down through one man. And everybody stopped thinking, and probing him for answers to everything.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Rakeesh: People have plenty of latitude from me to be annoyed, upset, angry, frustrated, et al. Don't direct it at me if you want to talk about it.
My point is also to say likewise. But I might simply have been reading more into your statement to Nelson when you said 'unless you simply want to criticize without trying to improve things' as significantly more irritated and even angry and dismissive than I should've.
quote:Personally, I think it's great that even the church that has revelations from God needs to rely on other people (also God's creations) for some of the truth and knowledge God wants everyone to have. Frankly I don't think it *would* be very wonderful if all truth that could be known was filtered down through one man. And everybody stopped thinking, and probing him for answers to everything.
Except this is pretty basic stuff. Earthly politcians were able to take a firm step closer, sooner, to right thinking than the church that has revelations from God. 'Humans aren't worthy based on the color of their skin or their genetic background.' Pretty simple stuff. Hard, prosecutorial questions are unavoidable, however unpleasant and unwanted, if one is to claim revelation from God yet have missed such a thing for so very long. Again, this wouldn't be happening if the church didn't claim such an extremely high position of moral authority-particularly since the church *also* claims a similarly high position on precisely the same basis on other issues as well, and doesn't seem to stint at doing so.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
If I were to stipulate that LDS prophets had unique authority and revelation, I am sure that I could still construct a fallible-human argument for why they were late to the game on race, gay rights, and gender equality (I mean I still expect some developments on those last two).
It'd still be fair to ask what that special authority is good for, if one follows the culture instead of leading it.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Rakeesh:
quote:My point is also to say likewise. But I might simply have been reading more into your statement to Nelson when you said 'unless you simply want to criticize without trying to improve things' as significantly more irritated and even angry and dismissive than I should've.
I wasn't angry, but I was feeling that Nelson's posts are peppered with tiny comments like the one I decided to stop responding at.
quote:Except this is pretty basic stuff. Earthly politcians were able to take a firm step closer, sooner, to right thinking than the church that has revelations from God. 'Humans aren't worthy based on the color of their skin or their genetic background.' Pretty simple stuff. Hard, prosecutorial questions are unavoidable, however unpleasant and unwanted, if one is to claim revelation from God yet have missed such a thing for so very long. Again, this wouldn't be happening if the church didn't claim such an extremely high position of moral authority-particularly since the church *also* claims a similarly high position on precisely the same basis on other issues as well, and doesn't seem to stint at doing so.
Pretty simple? What do you believe was worked out this past few weeks? It certainly wasn't just racism is bad. The church learned that a long time ago.
It is dealing with the nature of prophets, and realizing that a paradigm of fallible prophets who are prevented by God from uttering things in his name that aren't so doesn't hold up. It's realizing that our scriptures contain ideas that contributed to these incorrect statements. That our prophets failed to recognize this sooner, but they should have.
That sounds like a way more complex problem to wrestle with than "Should we declare racism as bad, yes or no?"
Perhaps it was necessary for our prophets to get something wrong for so long to thoroughly convince them that they must remain open-minded, and not expect revelations on everything important concerning the church to come through the revelatory channel.
But that's just idle speculation.
I think you should think more carefully about saying that because the church was behind on this, that it's not "leading". Church leaders are way head of politicians and many other people on a great many issues. You'd profit (no pun intended) from doing a more comprehensive review other than every time somebody else, even me, points something out.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Pretty simple? What do you believe was worked out this past few weeks? It certainly wasn't just racism is bad. The church learned that a long time ago.
The church worked it out only just barely outside of my own living memory, nearly a decade *after* everyone else worked it out. That's an oversimplification, of course, since neither the Civil Rights Act not the church's admission of darker-skinned people to the priesthood are sufficient to be said to have 'worked it out', but still. It wasn't a long time ago at all, and even at the time it was worked out, it was well *past* time for a group which claims special moral insight.
In historical terms, brisk and even surprising speed of social change for a government or human society. In religious terms? A truly glacial pace of progress, not bulk me the whole 'hey, human slavery is bad' issue. By itself as scifibum points out this doesn't invalidate claims of divine inspiration, but it does call into question its usefulness. Particularly when without an apparent diminished confidence, the same inspiration is claimed elsewhere.
quote:That sounds like a way more complex problem to wrestle with than "Should we declare racism as bad, yes or no?"
Certainly, there are layers. But one of those layers remains 'is of was racism a reflection of God's will, yes or no?' Those of us outside the group don't give (or at least, some of us) a fig for the ins and outs of which prophets are fallible to what extent and when, anymore than it's much concern to you which statements attributed to the Buddha should be adhered to or not. Trouble is, your church doesn't just claim to have a message for its believers. It wishes to enter the wider contest of ideas in the mainstream society.
Well, alright. Let it be so, then. In that case special claims and controversies of privilege and revelation are of what concern to outsiders, then?
quote:Perhaps it was necessary for our prophets to get something wrong for so long to thoroughly convince them that they must remain open-minded, and not expect revelations on everything important concerning the church to come through the revelatory channel.
Rather hard luck then for all of those people whose second-class humanity in the eyes of religion, society, as law was upheld for so long. Longer, in fact, among the church with divine revelation than in the rest of society. But if that idle speculation *is* valid-and it's an interesting though also pretty cold-blooded possible explanation-well it will apply to every other prophetic remark or revelation, but somehow I suspect the church wouldn't see it that way. Somehow it gets to retract past revelations and policy as plainly wrong (indirectly, anyway) but not sacrifice any of its moral authority in the future.
quote:I think you should think more carefully about saying that because the church was behind on this, that it's not "leading". Church leaders are way head of politicians and many other people on a great many issues. You'd profit (no pun intended) from doing a more comprehensive review other than every time somebody else, even me, points something out.
I'm aware of some of them. I respect the church's committment to charity, to what it sees as service on a grassroots level, to its attention to the social welfare of its membership, to its efforts to safeguard against the excesses of certainty an authority present in an institution with divine revelation. There's more of course that's worthy of credit.
But that's the kind of thinking and credit/blame analysis I do for human institutions. Perhaps I seem overly focused on the negative here, but I have to again point out that I wouldn't be doing that if your church weren't claiming direct, ongoing, divine intervention. That messes up the curve in a big way, so to speak! If a group wants to claim such an inside line on justice, truth, and virtue then when it fails to measure up-even if on the whole it does better than average-I won't be made to feel guilty for finding it severely lacking.
Posted by Marlozhan (Member # 2422) on :
As an LDS person, this blog post says fairly well how I feel on the subject. I personally am glad that the Church (leadership & the rest of membership) is being pushed to take a more mature view of the differences between the roles of church authority, individuals, and God.
quote:Sustaining and Supporting vs. Following and Obeying: People Are Not Yet Gods
I will not and cannot follow someone down a path that I believe is highly destructive and morally wrong, even if that person is my mortal leader. At some point, that becomes a slippery slope and, with the wrong leader or command, suicidal. In other words, to cite our Article of Faith, in the end I simply must follow the dictates of my own conscience. I believe in following and obeying God, completely and without reservation; I believe in sustaining, supporting and respecting mortal leaders. People are not yet gods, and my "submission" to both is different in nature, just as they are different in nature.
Proposition 8 for California members was a perfect example of this, in my opinion. Many members could sustain and support their leaders but refuse to contribute their time and/or money to the campaign, while others sustained and supported their leaders by contributing. Sustaining and supporting does not have to mean walking in lock step to every mortal request as if it was eternal, divine command.
It's important to me to remember that the heart of Lucifer's plan was, "I will make them do whatever I say, and I will bring all of them back to you - in the exact same condition as they are now, with no growth or progression." It's also important to remember that nothing should be commanded and obeyed solely "by virtue of the Priesthood". Growth and progression are found in the lessons of both victories and defeats, success and failure - and those have to be my own lessons to be most beneficial to me. I have to "muddle in the middle" to a degree and find my own path, and I can't do that by reflexively following OR not following other people. I have to walk my own path amid the paths of my faith community - and that sometimes includes doing things or not doing things contrary to the desire and/or expressed request of my leaders. I can't treat my leaders as if I want them to enact Lucifer's plan - ceding the responsibility to exercise my agency and conscience - shutting down my mind and heart and asking or allowing them to treat me as a robot. I can't follow anything solely by virtue of the Priesthood or because they are my leaders.
I have to live with myself and the choices I make (and who I become as a result), so I have to make those choices carefully and intentionally. Lacking strong feelings otherwise, I support my leaders by doing what they ask me to do, and there have been multiple times when my first reaction was negative but I accepted and followed anyway (either because those issues were not critical in my mind or because I came to agree upon further consideration) - but I don't do so when I feel strongly and deeply that I must do differently.
Posted by Nelson Elis (Member # 13104) on :
BlackBlade:
quote:I'll extend you that same courtesy and not say another word on the subject.
I'm sure I feel entitled enough already that we need not reify my right to an opinion with silence.
Actually, my disposition toward evidence that contradicts my views is generally to seek to understand it better, with an eye to modifying my preconceptions accordingly.
I particularly enjoy seeking out interlocutors with differing or contradictory views, as a way to expand my own knowledge set. I enjoy reading and researching on my own as well, but other individuals with divergent opinions tend to be dynamic sources of knowledge that can challenge my understanding with information gleaned from experiences I haven't had, and the perspective to apply that information in ways that might not occur to me on my own.
I realize that I'm extremely critically-minded, which can be abrasive, and I tend to value blunt honesty over tact when these values collide, which can be socially disruptive, and--probably worst of all--I'm perpetually amused (on an idiosyncratic, queerly parenthetical level) which can apparently be absolutely infuriating to folks that take their opinions in contentious issues uncompromisingly seriously, but please understand that it was not my intention to have caused offense, and accept my apology (which is--I should admit--of the weak variety: the kind that is sincere in sorrow felt for the frustration caused, but nonetheless gives no confession of wrongdoing, and makes no facile promise of modifying my MO going forward) for any insult given.
In any case, I'm not certain what the "tiny comments" were which made my posts too piquant for your palate (particularly since I'm generally most ashamed of my impossibly large comments--the convoluted concatenations of complex clauses that slip the leash and run on and on, long beyond the length that any self-respecting sentence should tend to have the sense to see itself distended [pun intended]). But on the off-chance the offense that set off your distemper was my suggestion that you temper the assertions/implications that no text outside of *that which has been cited here* actually exists, allow me to qualify that comment, in a way which may (or may not) make some small amends:
See, while I stand by the value of the suggestion--which was motivated as much by this statement earlier in the thread:
quote:No... It never makes a statement that having dark skin in of itself is a curse, while having white skin is a symbol of divine favor.
...as it was by the later implication that the four verses I cited were the only verses treating the skin tone issue--I nonetheless undoubtedly should have conveyed the idea in a less condescending tone. Not only because the way I offered the suggestion was a bit rude, but also because--to proffer my own pate in the same public pillory where I put you--I'm often guilty of taking the same tack. In fact, I'm hypocrite enough to have done it in the exact same post:
quote:But allow me to suggest that the fact that there is no indication whatsoever that this particular racist attitude existed in Jerusalem (or anywhere else) in 600 BC, whereas this was the exact racist cultural attitude which was prevalent in Smith's time and culture for his whole life
Clearly I can't know that there is no indication that the culture in 6th century BC Jerusalem expressed these type of racist attitudes regarding black skin being a mark of God's curse, and dark skin being related to a degenerate nature with a proclivity toward indolence and mischief--my claim extends beyond what I rightly know, and asserts as authoritative fact that "no indication exists," when the reality is simply that I'm not aware of any evidence that such racial attitudes were expressed at that time.
The problem with such a construction goes beyond arrogating an authoritative tone that can't be backed up epistemologically (and even beyond appearing a hypocritical fool as I did by urging you to avoid doing the exact same thing I blithely proceeded to immediately do)--on top of these problems, overextending ourselves into such assertions engenders an antagonistic role for anyone that can demonstrate the lacunae in our knowledge that belie our thus-constructed asseverations.
While there may have been more tactful ways for me to supply the information I possessed that the Book of Mormon does indeed include statements that dark skin is a curse, and that the references to dark skin go far beyond the first 4 verses I initially supplied, there actually isn't a way to straightforwardly counter these overreaching constructions without adopting a fundamentally adversarial pose (regardless of how diplomatic) that "hey, what you just said is wrong--here's evidence to the contrary." By the same token, if anyone has evidence that 6th century BC racial attitudes in Jerusalem were similar to those attitudes known to have existed in slavery-era America (and in the BoM), there's really not a way to respond to my statement, given the way the way I phrased it, without some form of the adversarial posture: "Hey Nelson--what you told everyone is a fact is actually not a fact." I'm sure someone more subtle that I am can come up with a tactful way to navigate the discursive antagonism engendered (though in this case I think it would only be right for any forthcoming comeuppance to come with an indication of what an ignorant idiot I am on top of my hypocrisy ), but the conflict of contradiction is nonetheless inevitable based on the invalid nature of the initial claim.
All of this is easily resolved if we limit our claims to the proper boundaries of our individual awareness, ie: "I'm unaware of any Book of Mormon scriptures that directly state X," or "I've never seen any indication that this type of racial attitude existed in Jerusalem at this time..." Properly constructed, these limited claims allow interlocutors to responsively supply additional information without engendering an adversarial tone.
I dunno. Maybe none of this has anything to do with the pepper you sniffed out that ached you (bless you).
At any rate, sorry if my brusqueness (or wryness [or insufferable linguistic turgidness]) irked you.
Mostly just an interesting conversation, to my eye...
[ December 21, 2013, 01:44 AM: Message edited by: Nelson Elis ]
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I will admit that I misstated how many scriptures in the BOM deal with the dark skins of the Lamanites. I went off the top of my head, rather than doing a search.
Posted by Nelson Elis (Member # 13104) on :
I appreciate that, BB.
But, to be honest, this minor, inconsequential tangent in an obscure web chat room is really simply a reflection of what I see to be the real topical problem here: the reality that this recent statement actually represents the LDS church leadership continuing be dishonest about the nature and extent of the racism in its theology.
It's patently duplicitous of the church leadership to represent its history of racism as rooted in the contemporary cultural attitudes of the outside world while ignoring the fact that its unique canonical scriptures contain a great deal of substance that explicitly supports the racist attitudes and beliefs of erstwhile leaders.
Church leadership doesn't actually have any responsibility to instruct its membership in the historical cultural racism of slavery-era America. But it does have a responsibility to explain the text in its own canon--text that isn't accepted by any other religions or historians--that explicitly reifies in clear "scriptural" language the exact racist theories that proponents of slavery were insisting should be interpreted from a highly biased, subjective reading of a much smaller set of much more ambiguous language in the biblical text. So what's honest, true, or of good report when the church carefully couches its disavowal of the theories and actions of a former leader within the context of a detailed historical analysis of the external cultural influences that would have swayed his view, while completely omitting any mention of the way the canon they're actually responsible for explaining contains a substantial amount of racist material that clearly supports that racist leader's racist actions and views?
It's also deceptive of the church to focus solely on Joseph Smith's eleventh hour support of abolition, making it appear that the real dear leader was completely innocent of any questionable racist action, while ignoring the fact that he fervently opposed abolition for the majority of his life, publishing screeds in church publications directly stating that abolitionists were interfering with the will of God, that they should desist from their ignorant agitation which was both contrary to the will of the Lord and was pragmatically counterproductive re: the welfare of the boy-person blacks, or else they would face judgment for their actions.
This press release may be a positive step in certain ways, but make no mistake about it: the mendacity hidden behind the manipulative half-truths the leadership has published here represents an egregious and devastating betrayal of any person of color who decides to join the church based on a perception that the church has honestly and straightforwardly admitted and rejected its racist history.
There will be dark-skinned individuals who struggle with joining the church, based on not only its racist history, but due to the fact that doing so will involve conflict and distance from their non-mormon families and community--not only in the sense of the peculiar insider vs outsider mechanism we discussed that characterizes the culture, but in real tangible ways--such as parents, siblings and lifelong friends not being permitted attend or participate in their weddings. If such individuals make their decision based trust that statements such as this recent PR represent a fully honest disclosure and ownership of the racial problems in church theology and history, those individuals are now in for an even more devastating shock when they discover that this PR is actually actively covering up the real extent of the racism with blatant half-truths.
Because, unlike caucasians who may be able to read the BoM a dozen times without really latching on to the problem with the fact that the God character apparently uses dark skin as a curse and a mark of loathsomeness to incentivize his chosen delightfully fair white people to keep their lineage pure from the wicked, indolent, mischievous darkies, you can bet that this scriptural content is eventually going to stick out to people without delightsomely beautiful fair white skin.
And while white folks might have no problem of trust with Joseph Smith even if they find out he was an anti-abolition racist for most of his life--as long as they see evidence that he publicly embraced abolition at some later point (around the time he embarked on a political career, to be precise), individuals from a racial minority might have a different visceral reaction upon discovering a fuller context of Smith's actions and views that the church leadership has decided to essentially cover-up in their *comprehensively honest review* of the history of racism among early church leaders.
You asked me why I'm critical, rather than encouraging of what is good here. The answer is simple: because I know enough of the whole truth to see that the PR consists of carefully selected half-truths that appear designed to manipulate and deceive.
And there are real people that will end up being hurt and betrayed by this deception.
Here's a little thought exercise for you: Let's say we know a husband has been cheating on his wife with the maid and with his wife's sister. Let's call the husband "Joe," the cuckold wife "Emma," the maid "Fanny," and the wife's sister "Louisa." Now, imagine that the rumor gets out that he's been fooling around with Fanny the maid. Long after the cat seems well out of the bag on this affair, he finally stops fooling around with Fanny. He makes a big deal to his wife about how he had a revelation that he needed to get rid of the maid, and how it's going to be great for their marriage, and he fires Fanny--though he denies that anything wrong had technically occurred. (As best as we can tell, he's still fooling around with Louisa.) After a long time of swearing up and down to his wife that all the rumors about Fanny are a silly misunderstanding, that nothing wrong had actually happened, and that she should be happy he loved her so much that he fired Fanny, whilst--all the meantime--more and more people keep bringing Emma evidence that Joe really had been having an affair with Fanny that everyone knew about, Joe finally breaks down and tells his wife he's gonna be completely honest with her. He admits everything about the affair with Fanny, but says nothing about the affair with Emma's sister Louisa--in fact, he even goes out of his way to mention to Emma that, curiously, it was actually the moral example he saw in her sister Louisa, who loves Emma so dearly, and is such a paragon of chastity and virtue, that had been a big part of his realization that he had to break off the affair with Fanny, and come clean about the whole thing. Joe also carefully explains to Emma that the affair had only happened because--as she should well remember--he had been under such extraordinary external stress, reminding Emma that he was only human, and he swears that he now repudiates the horrible actions he had committed--in the past, during his time of stress--with Fanny. Again, as far as we can tell, there's no evidence that the affair with Louisa has actually ended. Joe emphatically disavows the attitudes and behaviors he had committed--as a human under extraordinary stress--in his affair with Fanny the maid.
So what do you think, BlackBlade? Should we simply applaud Joe for his forthrightness about the affair with Fanny the maid to encourage the *honest* behavior, and should we avoid criticizing him for covering up everything we know about the affair with his sister-in-law Louisa, because that might just come across as critical without trying to improve things?
And do you think that we should just take him at his word that his disavowal of his behaviors in his affair with Fanny means that he also disavows his behaviors with Louisa, and that it's safe to simply assume that that affair is over?
[ December 22, 2013, 03:48 AM: Message edited by: Nelson Elis ]
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:It's patently duplicitous of the church leadership to represent its history of racism as rooted in the contemporary cultural attitudes of the outside world while ignoring the fact that its unique canonical scriptures contain a great deal of substance that explicitly supports the racist attitudes and beliefs of erstwhile leaders.
That *is* where it should be rooted! Joseph Smith was clearly comfortable ordaining blacks to the priesthood. And at no time were Native Americans banned from the priesthood.
You can call Smith's views on abolition "11th hour" ones, but I sure hope we are allowing people to having transitional, fluid and evolving views, rather than only pegged and constant ones. Further, his opinions on abolition seem to me tied like many people of his day to how best to free the slaves.
Smith like many people felt that a wholesale freeing of all African Americans would be disastrous economically and socially for the South, which was why he advocated for the federal government to purchase all the slaves, and free them. He did not support those who wanted to free all the slaves full stop, that's it. That was considerably a more progressive view than many of his day.
Further, it was Young who started banning blacks from the priesthood in the church. He didn't backpedal when presented with Elijah Abel, and when he addressed the Utah Legislature he didn't cite the Pearl of Great Price, he mentioned some ever present rule that if a person mixes with the black race they are worthy of death. That doctrine isn't found anywhere in the Mormon canon. He may have derived it from a misunderstanding of Biblical and Mormon doctrine, but that concept still isn't found anywhere.
quote:Church leadership doesn't actually have any responsibility to instruct its membership in the historical cultural racism of slavery-era America. But it does have a responsibility to explain the text in its own canon--text that isn't accepted by any other religions or historians--that explicitly reifies in clear "scriptural" language the exact racist theories that proponents of slavery were insisting should be interpreted from a highly biased, subjective reading of a much smaller set of much more ambiguous language in the biblical text. So what's honest, true, or of good report when the church carefully couches its disavowal of the theories and actions of a former leader within the context of a detailed historical analysis of the external cultural influences that would have swayed his view, while completely omitting any mention of the way the canon they're actually responsible for explaining contains a substantial amount of racist material that clearly supports that racist leader's racist actions and views?
Because we don't actually know how Young was influenced by the Mormon canon. If you read his discourses he is extremely Bible heavy, because he was most familiar with it.
Even in his discussions of the Book of Mormon it is always as a compliment to the Bible. The Doctrine & Covenants is also respected, but the Pearl of Great Price isn't found because it hadn't been canonized yet.
The first version of it was published in Great Britain.
We take it for granted that the way we discuss the Book of Mormon and the rest of the canon are pretty much exactly how things were discussed in the early days of the church, but this just isn't so. People were not initially fluent with any of these new scriptures. Smith would have revelations fairly regularly, but you'd be hard pressed to know that if you were Young up in Canada or Great Britain.
We have had years now to unify our interpretations of every scripture found in our canon, Young had a hand in this because he became prophet after only 12 years in the church. Much of it overseas teaching, not in a seminary studying.
You call it duplicitous, and your analogy just doesn't fit with what the church actually did. I call it an incremental approach to actually understanding what happened. The church leaders themselves are dealing with hard truths they never had to consider. We aren't dealing with a Brigham Young today who still won't own up to his actions, we are dealing with many prophets over 100 years later.
You're asking Joseph's grandchildren (the Joseph sold into Egypt) why Abraham sent Hagar and Ishmael away if he was supposed to be a role model for everyone on Earth.
I don't believe the leaders of the church today ever considered that they would *ever* have to say that Brigham Young (a hero and prophet in the church) had taught incorrect principles in the name of God. Which is ironic because Young himself said that leaders of the church could make mistakes like this, and members had to get their own witnesses from God that what was said was true. We've also had no problem dismissing his Adam-God theory.
But other prophets promulgated the idea that God himself would never permit the prophet to "lead the church astray" whatever that vague phraseology means.
But the church is trying to deal with what happened, without all the facts. This isn't one guy having affairs for years, and hiding everything. It's leaders of the church trying to describe the actions of predecessors of which they have nothing but journal entrees and sermons to go off of.
Frankly, I do think them taking that step is worthy of approval and support. Sure, continue to press that an apology is still necessary, I agree it needs to come.
But castigating them because they haven't reached the same explanations you have, and that your explanations must be correct and their failure to reach those same ones indicates either duplicity or willful blindness is further than I am willing to go.
For one thing this is 15 men who have to come to an agreement before these things are said.
Posted by Nelson Elis (Member # 13104) on :
quote:That *is* where it should be rooted! Joseph Smith was clearly comfortable ordaining blacks to the priesthood. And at no time were Native Americans banned from the priesthood.
You seem to have missed the point.
Brigham Young's denial of the priesthood to blacks is not the only component of mormon history/theology that is horribly racist.
Your response here actually establishes my point about how effectively deceptive the press release was. Here we've had a conversation where I've cited a substantial amount of egregiously racist material which is unique to the LDS canon: material that clearly and unambiguously supports the validity of the biased interpretation slavers imposed on far more ambiguous biblical references that could be read by a determined racist to suggest that the curse of Cain was black skin; material that explicitly explains that since the Pharaoh was of this cursed lineage he could not have the right of priesthood; material that makes it clear that this curse of blackness upon the seed of Cain was not the only time an apparently racist God has used dark skin as a curse--showing that God also placed a curse of dark skin on the Lamanites to fulfill His promise that, since their fathers did not repent of wickedness, their seed would be cursed with a mark of loathsomeness, and that anyone who mixed with their seed would also inherit this curse dark-skinned loathsomeness. None of this material is hard to identify as egregiously racist. None of this material is attributable to Brigham Young, and it all represents root material that is older, deeper and more fundamental to the church than anything Young said or did. Yet when I point out that the church has astonishingly completely avoided acknowledging any of this racist material in its highly contextualized representation of its "history of racism," you respond by following the church's lead, ignoring all of the deeply racist substance that is clearly more fundamental to church history than Young's subsequent actions and beliefs, and insisting that the only thing that matters as pertains to the history of racism in the church is that blacks were ordained to the priesthood in Smith's time, and that the practice was banned by Young.
I don't personally think that you're as responsible for this unbelievably selective "see-no-evil" double standard in judging what constitutes racism in the church legacy as I perceive church leadership to be here, because you may have been swayed by the apparent intent of the authoritative statement released by church leadership to whose authority you can be assumed to defer (just as Young can be assumed to have deferred to the authority of Smith's revelations in his opinions), but I do have a rhetorical question I think you should consider:
What do you think "duplicity" means?
quote:You can call Smith's views on abolition "11th hour" ones, but I sure hope we are allowing people to having transitional, fluid and evolving views, rather than only pegged and constant ones.
Certainly. I'm of a mind with Emerson on this matter--"a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" and "I wish to say what I think and feel today, with the proviso that tomorrow perhaps I shall contradict it all." I have infinitely more respect for individuals whose opinions adjust upon the acquisition of new information, than for fools who try to adjust new information to account for their hardened opinions.
As such, Smith deserves and merits my respect for reversing his public advocacy on abolition toward the end of his life.
But my point still stands that a press release purporting to fully acknowledge the history of racism in the early church is being manipulatively deceptive in carefully pointing out his late-life advocacy while staying mum on the full context of his advocacy on the issue as a church leader.
quote:Further, his opinions on abolition seem to me tied like many people of his day to how best to free the slaves.
Then you're not reading the cited material very well. The excerpts I quoted show Smith arguing that the servitude of the blacks was the design of God, that slavery remained as "a lasting monument of the decree of Jehovah, to the shame and confusion of all who have cried out against the South in consequence of their holding the sons of Ham in servitude!" and that "those who are determined to purse a course which shows an opposition and a feverish restlessness against the designs of the Lord will learn, when perhaps it is too late for their own good, that God can do his work without the aid of those who are not dictated by his counsel."
It's worth reading the article in its entirety at the link I provided. Smith also clearly provided "pragmatic consequences" reasoning against abolition, but these reasons followed the problems of a free "degenerate race" type I supplied above more closely--such as Negroes being incapable of the industry for self-sufficiency, or the idea that freeing the slaves might be tantamount to "set(ting) loose upon the world a community of people who might peradventure overrun our country and violate the most sacred principles of human society, chastity and virtue.”
quote:when (Brigham Young) addressed the Utah Legislature he didn't cite the Pearl of Great Price, he mentioned some ever present rule that if a person mixes with the black race they are worthy of death.
Sure. Let me assure you that you'll get no argument from me suggesting that Young isn't responsible for adding his own unique brand of racism to the mix.
However, since you mention Young's radical views regarding miscegenation, it's worth mentioning that even though Smiths views on abolition evolved, he does appear to have nonetheless maintained an anti-miscegenetic attitude, and I haven't seen evidence that this racist attitude changed in his life:
Smith:
"Had I anything to do with the negro, I would confine them by strict law to their own species"
That said, I don't see any evidence that Smith's anti-miscegenetic attitudes approached Young's radical fervency unto advocating the murder of violators of what he considered the natural order...Young's on his own on that one.
quote:
quote:NE: What's honest, true, or of good report when the church carefully couches its disavowal of the theories and actions of a former leader within the context of a detailed historical analysis of the external cultural influences that would have swayed his view, while completely omitting any mention of the way the canon they're actually responsible for explaining contains a substantial amount of racist material that clearly supports that racist leader's racist actions and views?
BB: Because we don't actually know how Young was influenced by the Mormon canon. If you read his discourses he is extremely Bible heavy, because he was most familiar with it.
Even in his discussions of the Book of Mormon it is always as a compliment to the Bible. The Doctrine & Covenants is also respected, but the Pearl of Great Price isn't found because it hadn't been canonized yet.
The first version of it was published in Great Britain.
We take it for granted that the way we discuss the Book of Mormon and the rest of the canon are pretty much exactly how things were discussed in the early days of the church, but this just isn't so. People were not initially fluent with any of these new scriptures. Smith would have revelations fairly regularly, but you'd be hard pressed to know that if you were Young up in Canada or Great Britain.
Your approach is backwards, here, BlackBlade.
And I'm not saying this because of how preposterous it seems that you're implying that Brigham Young--tireless proponent of constantly improving the mind by absorbing as much knowledge from all sources of revelation as possible--may not have bothered to read some of Smith's most well-known revelations, I'm rather suggesting your approach is backwards because, in a discussion regarding the question of whether the church is being forthright about the full extent of racism in its history when it comes out with a PR blaming everything on Young, while ignoring the racist content in its canon, and the full mixed-bag complexity of the teachings of the far more fundamental leader Joseph Smith, you seem to think that the only important thing is whether or not it can be proved that Brigham Young's racist actions can be directly linked to the racist historical source material that preceded him!--as if it's OK to fail to acknowledge racist components that remain active in full force within the church legacy, as long as nobody can demonstrate that they were directly responsible for the ban.
(So it's clear, I personally find it vastly more offensive that I was brought up encouraged to read "sacred scriptures" that teach that God is in the habit of using a curse of dark skin to make the descendants of wicked people loathsome to his chosen fair people so that they'll keep separate from each other, than I find it that I was also taught that black people weren't ready to get God's sexist man-magic power til 1978, but, hey, to each his own, I suppose.)
Again, your tactics actually prove my point about the apparently misleading intent of this PR. Rather than acknowledge that the canonical material we've examined is indeed troublingly racist, or even addressing the question of whether this deeper-rooted doctrine contains content that seems to support a racist policy like the one Young instituted, you seemed to be focused on supporting the underlying intent of the press release: to consolidate the responsibility for the the church's history of racism as the full responsibility of a single (scapegoat) individual, in a historically manipulative attempt to quarantine the damage.
quote:But the church is trying to deal with what happened, without all the facts.
Exactly. The church is trying to deal with what happened, without acknowledging all the facts.
quote:your analogy just doesn't fit with what the church actually did
Well, I'm no Jesus of the perfect parable, so let me supply the translation key for my allegory to help you see just how exactly it fits:
"Joe" represents church authority.
"Emma" represents people of color.
"Fanny the maid" loosely represents Brigham Young, and "the affair with Fanny" more specifically represents the racist policy banning blacks from holding the priesthood.
"Louisa the sister-in-law" loosely* represents Joseph Smith, and the affair with Louisa more specifically represents the racist material in the canon Smith "revealed."
I suggest you go back and read the allegory again through the lens of the Urim and Thummin I just loaned you, and see if you can't see how perfectly the allegory fits.
*One of the reasons that I have to qualify this representation as being of "loose" nature is due to the fact that I'm aware that you consider BoM and PGP characters to be real historical figures responsible for the words at issue, whereas, from my perspective, these characters are clearly fictional (with the possible exception of Abraham, who may be very loosely based on a real historical figure, though I see no compelling reason to that the Hebrew version of this character's story is much more than ethnocentric myth and legend, and Smith's version seems fictitious to a parodical degree), and Smith should be seen as responsible for the views expressed in his own work.
quote:You're asking Joseph's grandchildren (the Joseph sold into Egypt) why Abraham sent Hagar and Ishmael away if he was supposed to be a role model for everyone on Earth.
Allow me to submit that an examination of the stories the Hebrews made up to express their own ethnocentric sense of superiority over ethnic relatives that weren't part of their direct lineage is an entirely different topic that shouldn't get conflated with the ethnocentric stories early LDS leaders made up...
[ December 23, 2013, 01:22 AM: Message edited by: Nelson Elis ]
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Nelson:
quote:Your response here actually establishes my point about how effectively deceptive the press release was. Here we've had a conversation where I've cited a substantial amount of egregiously racist material which is unique to the LDS canon: material that clearly and unambiguously supports the validity of the biased interpretation slavers imposed on far more ambiguous biblical references that could be read by a determined racist to suggest that the curse of Cain was black skin; material that explicitly explains that since the Pharaoh was of this cursed lineage he could not have the right of priesthood; material that makes it clear that this curse of blackness upon the seed of Cain was not the only time an apparently racist God has used dark skin as a curse--showing that God also placed a curse of dark skin on the Lamanites to fulfill His promise that, since their fathers did not repent of wickedness, their seed would be cursed with a mark of loathsomeness, and that anyone who mixed with their seed would also inherit this curse dark-skinned loathsomeness. None of this material is hard to identify as egregiously racist. None of this material is attributable to Brigham Young, and it all represents root material that is older, deeper and more fundamental to the church than anything Young said or did. Yet when I point out that the church has astonishingly completely avoided acknowledging any of this racist material in its highly contextualized representation of its "history of racism," you respond by following the church's lead, ignoring all of the deeply racist substance that is clearly more fundamental to church history than Young's subsequent actions and beliefs, and insisting that the only thing that matters as pertains to the history of racism in the church is that blacks were ordained to the priesthood in Smith's time, and that the practice was banned by Young.
Yes, that is where I am planting my feet, because as far as the Mormon church is concerned that *is* the only thing that matters.
Assuming Smith translated the Book of Mormon and the Pearl of Great price, then those doctrines are things prophets not running the current dispensation of the gospel believed to be true. That makes them no different than Elisha sicking a bear on some kids, or Peter thinking gentiles should be circumcised when they joined Christianity and insisting on it.
The Book of Mormon advocates a system of government that flies in the face of what we imagine a good government would be. That's hardly a problem, Mormons don't think it has any bearing on how any of our countries should work. It was when the church took hold of those racial theories from the past, and married them with racial beliefs of their times, and formed policy that any real problem began to exist. For now with a false doctrine enshrined in the church, other doctrines had to be constructed to prop them up. These doctrines created a more tangled mess, which became a stumbling block for future saints.
It's no different than the problem some non-mormons have with unbaptized children going to hell or any place other than heaven. Mormons believe there's no such thing as original sin that taints us all, so there's no need to deal with the child baptism implications.
Had the church stuck with Smith's lead, black people would have continually been ordained to the priesthood, and there would have been no point in the administration of the church where blacks were treated incorrectly. Since the church never had a problem with segregation to begin with, and largely did not support slavery, and strives to be an internationally oriented organization, I think everything would have been in place for them to be good example of a non-racist society from the beginning until now.
quote:However, since you mention Young's radical views regarding miscegenation, it's worth mentioning that even though Smiths views on abolition evolved, he does appear to have nonetheless maintained an anti-miscegenetic attitude, and I haven't seen evidence that this racist attitude changed in his life:
OK.
quote:And I'm not saying this because of how preposterous it seems that you're implying that Brigham Young--tireless proponent of constantly improving the mind by absorbing as much knowledge from all sources of revelation as possible--may not have bothered to read some of Smith's most well-known revelations
I didn't say "didn't bother" I said did not have access to them in the same way we do. And what he did have access to, he was not given any sort of guidance on what those passages mean, he would have had to rely on his own intuition, inspiration from God, and whatever he could learn from other's insights. Today, the Book of Mormon has been poured over and commented on verse by verse. In Young's day, you were lucky if people knew the order of the books in the BOM.
quote:I suggest you go back and read the allegory again through the lens of the Urim and Thummin I just loaned you, and see if you can't see how perfectly the allegory fits.
Dude, please don't make light of my beliefs. You may not have meant to, but I found that very offensive.
quote:Allow me to submit that an examination of the stories the Hebrews made up to express their own ethnocentric sense of superiority over ethnic relatives that weren't part of their direct lineage is an entirely different topic that shouldn't get conflated with the ethnocentric stories early LDS leaders made up...
You missed the point of what I was saying. I am not drawing parallels with Abraham's racism. I was saying that somebody as far removed chronologically from Abraham as Joseph's grandchildren in Egypt were would be ill equipped to "acknowledge all the facts" as to why Abraham acted as he did.
Posted by Nelson Elis (Member # 13104) on :
quote:Assuming Smith translated the Book of Mormon and the Pearl of Great price, then those doctrines are things prophets not running the current dispensation of the gospel believed to be true. That makes them no different than Elisha sicking a bear on some kids, or Peter thinking gentiles should be circumcised when they joined Christianity and insisting on it.
A better analogy might be other churches maintaining the canonicity of Yahweh massacring the firstborn children of Egypt to show off his superiority over the Pharaoh--since it matches the narrative elements more closely: it's God who is actually acting in an unconscionably brutish way, effecting a miraculous punishment on apparent innocents for the sins of their leader, in a way that shows favor to his "chosen" people, and it's also likewise a central plot element within the overall narrative.
While I take your point, I'll point out that other Judeochristian religions shouldn't actually be given a pass for teaching that this kind of barbaric travesty of morality is a piece of holy historical truth that represents a paradigm for understanding the expression of God's moral will. The traditional acceptance of this awful type of backward moral tale over thousands of years doesn't really make it OK for modern institutions pretending to moral authority to abuse constituents with notions of the holy validity of such savage mythology.
Furthermore, the assumption that the LDS leadership can sidestep its responsibility regarding its unique canonical material based on the passage of such a tremendous amount of time isn't actually valid regarding a set of text that it maintains it was ordained to reveal in this very dispensation. Establishing the canonicity of the material is very much the responsibility of the only church leadership that has ever presented this material to the world as a testament of truth. LDS leaders can neither hide in the wide folds of diffused responsibility that other churches can by pointing out the vast array of institutional traditions maintaining the holy goodness of widely held but morally repugnant biblical material, nor can they defer the responsibility to the ancients who established such a canon in a different era, because it is solely and uniquely the responsibility of leadership in this dispensation for representing this material as part of God's holy word.
In other words: even if the "a lot of other churches are teaching that bad stuff written for people a long time ago is God's holy word" argument were valid (which it's not) it wouldn't apply in this case, where the unique mormon canon is presented as something that was always intended to be revealed to the world in precisely this dispensation by precisely the leaders that revealed it.
quote:Had the church stuck with Smith's lead
You do realize that Smith didn't take the lead in ordaining blacks to the priesthood, right?--he merely didn't ban the practice after finding out it had happened once or twice.
And that may well be because the "mingling of cursed and blessed seed" issue hadn't sprung up yet. After all, Young only banned the practice after he discovered that one of the few ordained black members had married a white mormon girl. By the same logic as you supply, we can just as well assume that if the mingling of seed (which the mormon canon so specifically explains that God was trying to keep separate in coming up with the race curse) hadn't occurred, that Brigham Young never would have seen it necessary to institute the ban on blacks receiving the priesthood. Similarly--to continue in the vein of this chop-logic you've invoked--we could suggest that, given Smith's anti-miscegenistic attitudes, if he had lived to see black men exploiting their priesthood office to marry and mingle their seed with white mormon girls, that he too would likely have found that to be sufficient motivation to ban blacks from having the priesthood himself.
quote:Dude, please don't make light of my beliefs. You may not have meant to, but I found that very offensive.
My apologies. I only invoked the stones as a topical allusion--a reference with stylistic relevance to literary "translation devices" I was supplying. I'll admit that when I employ literary devices like allusion, part of the intent is to provide interpretive license to my audience--such as, for example, the lighthearted conceit that I'm comparing myself to God or an angel, with the power to bestow magical interpreters, in ironic contrast to my immediately antecedent disavowal of Jesus-like divinity, but I wasn't actually denigrating the concept.
I do understand that it's possible that certain references are a sensitive subject for others, who might not want to discuss or entertain those specific ideas, and I can certainly try to avoid such subjects upon request out of courtesy, but it's also important to understand that this cultural currency is actually as much mine as it is anyone else's.
I mention this because, while I'm happy to avoid discussion of the seerstones in conversations with you if it's a topic you prefer not talk about, I do have my own relationship with the idea, which is rather complex--spanning both lightheartedness and solemn fascination, encompassing rueful embarrassment and awe, resentful anger and delighted elation. I invoke literary devices to express components of my own complicated relationships with the ideas themselves. Recognition that others might experience similar (or completely different) reflections of their relationships with such ideas upon the invocation of such a device is usually simply part of the joy of communication to me--a sense that some universal, oppressive solipsistic law appears to have been paradoxically breached, though I'll never figure out exactly how it happened...
I don't think I was deriding the seerstones there, but I'll avoid the idea when talking with you in the future, BB. I suspect that conversation with me might often seem somewhat personally abrasive to you, though, since it seems we share a great deal of cultural currency--and my complex relationship with our overlapping memetic coin is such that you might frequently find yourself dissatisfied with the way I tend to measure the exchange, though I think much of it will depend on your own sensitivity in negotiating the variable rate of difference in our perspectives. An example is how I bandied banter round my view of the priesthood above--I'd suppose that describing it as "sexist man-magic power" would sound far more derisive than what I said of about the stones, but it seems not to have struck as strident of a note--judging by your response. I'm not certain how much of this is due to your interpretation of a deeper context--my rougher treatment of priesthood is far more clearly contextualized in terms of my own subjective feelings, based on my own highly personal formative experiences, so my own ownership of the concept is much more directly delineated; though it may be more explicitly derisive, nesting the expression in terms of my ownership relationship with my object can make it less off-putting: you don't feel the need to object to a linguistic device I employ to express my own complex relationship with an idea that I'm explaining as distressingly thrust upon me in my childhood experiences, the same way that you do regarding an object of which I'm not so clearly expressing a relationship of ownership--but one that you perhaps have a complex relationship with yourself...
In any case, let me know when I'm pushing against your boundaries, and I'll try to ease up off the throttle a bit, but also try to remember that, though the things I say might evoke a cacophonous reverberation in your own relationship with a given token of our mutual cultural currency, the reality is that I'm really invoking a note sounding some component of my own relationship with such an object...
[ December 23, 2013, 05:09 AM: Message edited by: Nelson Elis ]
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:While I take your point, I'll point out that other Judeochristian religions shouldn't actually be given a pass for teaching that this kind of barbaric travesty of morality is a piece of holy historical truth that represents a paradigm for understanding the expression of God's moral will. The traditional acceptance of this awful type of backward moral tale over thousands of years doesn't really make it OK for modern institutions pretending to moral authority to abuse constituents with notions of the holy validity of such savage mythology.
Well, fine. But we aren't trying to sort out all the stuff that has been chronicled in the scriptures. It's thousands of years of stuff and millions of considerations of which most we have no way to firmly grasp.
quote:Furthermore, the assumption that the LDS leadership can sidestep its responsibility regarding its unique canonical material based on the passage of such a tremendous amount of time isn't actually valid regarding a set of text that it maintains it was ordained to reveal in this very dispensation.
I've said multiple times that I am fine with the church accepting responsibility. Nobody has advocated for sidestepping. I have only advocated for understanding, and allowance for what church leaders do not actually know and could not say with any degree of confidence. When they say they do not know why the practice of ordaining blacks to the priesthood was stopped, I believe them. I don't think they do. If they had known, I would expect that event would have been cited frequently to justify how things were up until the 70s.
quote:n other words: even if the "a lot of other churches are teaching that bad stuff written for people a long time ago is God's holy word" argument were valid (which it's not) it wouldn't apply in this case, where the unique mormon canon is presented as something that was always intended to be revealed to the world in precisely this dispensation by precisely the leaders that revealed it.
And what do those writers say? Multiple admissions of weakness in writing, concerns that what they say will look foolish to us. But strong affirmations that they wrote to the best of their ability.
And this, "Behold, I will show unto the Gentiles their weakness, and I will show unto them that faith, hope and charity bringeth unto me—the fountain of all righteousness."
I would say the church is being thoroughly humbled by this state of affairs. A real shift in how we believe is taking place. A shift I think will leave us in a much better place for taking personal accountability for the beliefs we espouse rather than, "I was just following the prophet who is unable to lead the church astray."
quote:You do realize that Smith didn't take the lead in ordaining blacks to the priesthood, right?--he merely didn't ban the practice after finding out it had happened once or twice.
I'm sorry that's just not true. Elijah Abel was ordained an Elder by Joseph Smith himself, and was appointed to be a Seventy long before Smith was killed.
quote:And that may well be because the "mingling of cursed and blessed seed" issue hadn't sprung up yet. After all, Young only banned the practice after he discovered that one of the few ordained black members had married a white mormon girl. By the same logic as you supply, we can just as well assume that if the mingling of seed (which the mormon canon so specifically explains that God was trying to keep separate in coming up with the race curse) hadn't occurred, that Brigham Young never would have seen it necessary to institute the ban on blacks receiving the priesthood. Similarly--to continue in the vein of this chop-logic you've invoked--we could suggest that, given Smith's anti-miscegenistic attitudes, if he had lived to see black men exploiting their priesthood office to marry and mingle their seed with white mormon girls, that he too would likely have found that to be sufficient motivation to ban blacks from having the priesthood himself.
You could suggest it, and I could suggest otherwise. We'll never know will we?
quote:I do understand that it's possible that certain references are a sensitive subject for others, who might not want to discuss or entertain those specific ideas, and I can certainly try to avoid such subjects upon request out of courtesy, but it's also important to understand that this cultural currency is actually as much mine as it is anyone else's.
I have no issue talking about anything pertaining to Mormonism, except those things I have promised not to disclose or discuss outside the temple.
But I don't respond to everything I find offensive in your posts (and I imagine you do the same with my posts) until I reach a threshold where I feel like I'm being egregiously condescended to, insulted, or ridiculed.
If you had said, "here's a pair of glasses, now try reading my allegory again" I would have found that insulting too. It's belittling.
I will try to bear in mind that you write the way you do because of a complex relationship with these issues. But we don't have to discuss as adversaries or even opponents. But two people trying to work out what's right. Where I do not do that, I'd welcome you pointing it out.
[ December 23, 2013, 01:22 PM: Message edited by: BlackBlade ]
Posted by Nelson Elis (Member # 13104) on :
quote:Elijah Abel was ordained an Elder by Joseph Smith himself
My mistake, then. Everything I had read had suggested that Smith merely was aware of the ordinations. A bit more research indicates that, yes, Smith reportedly performed the ordination of Abel.
There also appear to be references claiming that Smith later revoked Abel's priesthood, but I wouldn't find such claims to be very credible without stronger documentation than I've found--it seems more likely that sour grapes racists were re-writing the history to support their views.
quote:
quote:Furthermore, the assumption that the LDS leadership can sidestep its responsibility regarding its unique canonical material based on the passage of such a tremendous amount of time isn't actually valid regarding a set of text that it maintains it was ordained to reveal in this very dispensation.
I've said multiple times that I am fine with the church accepting responsibility. Nobody has advocated for sidestepping. I have only advocated for understanding, and allowance for what church leaders do not actually know and could not say with any degree of confidence. When they say they do not know why the practice of ordaining blacks to the priesthood was stopped, I believe them.
I was talking about the church leadership sidestepping its responsibility for explaining (or even acknowledging) the explicitly racist material in its canon.
And I have such great respect for the honesty in a stance that one's knowledge is limited, and one shouldn't speak to something that he/she can't really know, that I might be impressed with the idea that modern church leaders can't speak to the racism in say, the BoM text, because contemporary leaders can't really know why God cursed the Lamanites with a mark of dark skin, or why BoM prophets claim that God did this so that the would be loathsome to the Nephites. At least, I'd be impressed with such a humble admission of what the leadership can't truly know if it weren't for the reality that nobody would be under the impression that these are things God did and wanted to reveal in a testament of his divine will in the first place, except for the fact that church leaders have solemnly borne testimony over and over that they "know" that the book is true, and that it represents God's divine will for the people whom they have convinced it's true!
In other words, show me the church leader who hasn't claimed to "know" that the Book of Mormon is true, the guy who hasn't sworn he "knows" the words represent what God wants to share with us regarding his will, and I'll hop sides here and agree with you that that church leader isn't remotely responsible for explaining the apparently inexplicable racism of God's actions and revealed words within the book.
Better yet: show me a church leader who has publicly acknowledged that we can't actually "know" that the book is what Joseph Smith claimed it was based on some entirely subjective good feeling we get when we read and pray about it, and I'll show you an honest man--one who doesn't have any responsibility to explain the racist text he can't understand within the canon.
But for the group of leadership of which I'm aware, the "can't speak to something you can't truly know" argument for why they needn't acknowledge the racism in the canon they're teaching as true is an argument that simply doesn't pass muster. Such an argument would just be another indication of a pattern of selective-truth duplicity.
They convinced people that the book is true based on solemn statements that they know it's true and it represents the will of God (even though, of course, they can't actually know this), so they can't pretend they simply won't speak to things they can't fully know when folks ask why it makes it seem that God and his prophets had a racist agenda...
[ December 23, 2013, 08:02 PM: Message edited by: Nelson Elis ]
Posted by Nelson Elis (Member # 13104) on :
quote:But I don't respond to everything I find offensive in your posts (and I imagine you do the same with my posts)
Actually, I'm kind of the opposite. I tend not to respond to stuff I consider correct in others' posts, since I usually see it as worthy of standing on its own merits without my objections or qualifications, and I usually respond to substance to which I object, or with which I disagree. And I'm a bit pachydermic--I tend to be amused rather than offended...
...which is why my own reaction to your statement that my carefully crafted analogy "just didn't fit" wasn't to be insulted or offended, it was to simply to mock my own apparent parable incompetence, supply the key, and play back in a way I intended to be amusing in return...
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:I don't know that I'd comment on what is "core and central" to the church--as I tend to believe that orthodoxies in general are quite fluid (which is particularly true of a relatively young religion like the CJCLDS), regardless of the tempocentric prepossessions of any given generation. I'm further inclined to believe that radical flexibility will be an even more indispensable trait for the survival of meme-modifying institutions in the future, as technologies continue to accelerate the rate of the transmission and processing of information along a curve that appears to be asymptotic.
In other words: I think that things that the saints might think today are core and central (even everlasting covenants, and such) are more likely than not to change in shorter order than might be supposed by most. Because our forms of understanding the world are literally being informed at an increasingly rapid rate.
That said, to answer your question, I simply think that the church should be more forthright about what is really written in the canon, and the role that Smith played in the attitudes the church has taken as pertains to race.
yeah I think that pretty much syncs with my own theories of tempocentric linkage of religious teachings, a.k.a. The Constantly Changing Eternal Truths of God
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Monkeys]](graemlins/monkeys.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
), but the conflict of contradiction is nonetheless inevitable based on the invalid nature of the initial claim.![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)