I think the "We don't know why" approach needs to be retired. I see nothing wrong with accepting that leaders can and have made mistakes. Sure, we don't understand the root of the ban. But you just can't get around the fact that racism was a factor. I accept that fact while also believing that 1978 revelation was indeed from God. Perhaps God had a reason for not intervening sooner. But giving room to the idea that the ban could have been divinely inspired is just unacceptable.
There are two ways to approach the priesthood restriction. 1) it’s scriptural meaning and origin, 2) the poor explanations that came from imperfect men/leaders for more than 120 years.
Many claim to “not know where it came from.” Well, if that is the case, all of Abraham 1 is in question. But why stop there? Shouldn’t all of Joseph Smith’s revelations them be questioned?
Here’s the interesting thing. The Book of Abraham mentions a priesthood restriction on one lineage, but what everyone has missed is that he says nothing of skin color or any other attributes. Well, not everyone. Richard Bushman describes Abraham 1 very well in Rough Stone Rolling. Where people confuse the restriction with skin color or claims of being inferior, come not from the scriptures, but nineteenth-century explanations. The explanations themselves, which have been disavowed, can easily be described as racist, but those explanations and what Abraham 1 intended are not one in the same.
Oh no! here we go again with the "we don't know why, who or where" fallacy. This essay does a disservice to published historians with expertise in the field by quoting Peterson who is a great Islamic studies scholar but just shooting from the hip on this topic. Almost as bad as quoting R. Esplin. Where are the historical documents referenced by Lester Bush when he said the "priesthood ban - first suggested in 1847, explicitly articulated in 1849, and publicly espoused in 1852 - was inevitably applied to the descendants of Cain, and slavery was deemed justified among the descendants of Ham and Canaan - rather than in either instance specifying African blacks per se the rationale for both policies was thus explicit, and over three decades, Young never varied from this point of view." Kimball read the Lester Bush essay and it was this careful history and his desire to expand Christ's love, his belief in the truth of Galatians 3:29 which helped Kimball knock loose the idea he had in 1963 that the "Lord could change his policy and release the ban and forgive the possible error which brought about the deprivation". You can't read Stapley power of godliness Ch1, Harris/Bringhurst Ch3&4, Reeve's Ch5, or Turner's Pioneer prophet Ch8 and then still come away honestly supporting a "we don't know why" argument. Think of the opportunity Corbitt had in this sunday school video call to call out John Bytheway's ideas in his most recent book.
Thank you for this clear example of Mormons still defending racism in 2022. The world deserves to know.
In 2022, an article that tries to keep people open to the idea that God was the author of Mormonism's racist policies.
A wonderful example of how Mormonism continues to preserve racism because it is pathological in its inability to ever admit wrong.
An article that demonstrates why it is so hard for believers in high demand religions to ever break from false teachings, as she openly declares that she can never view her church leaders as having done something wrong unless those same church leaders declare to her that her church did something wrong!!! 😮
An article that openly proposes that we should "trust and obey" church leaders even when things don't make sense.
A clear example of why Mormon leaders need to do the right thing and admit that their racist policies were not of God. Because in 2022 she will not accept that this racism was wrong until the church openly tells her it was wrong!
This is some disturbing stuff.
Edit: I'm coming off as harsh. In a way I think deservedly so. But I just want to say that I remember a time that I held the same kinds of ideas. I'm not sure I'd have spoken them publicly, but I held them. I understand the power that a religion like Mormonism can have even on the best of people. I'm not better than you. Just in a different place. But I hope you can understand that I just can't tolerate attempts to keep people open to the idea that God even might have been the author of what was clearly racism.
It's one thing to just not have an answer. It's quite another to have an answer, and just not like it.
In 1947, the first Presidency certainly did not "just not know why." They knew. But we just don't like today what they "knew" yesterday. Exhibit A: https://imgur.com/a/xdhPhsW
Sorry guys, I'm more concerned about my stretch marks than I am about this matter! And I am the mother of 2 Black sons!!! This has NEVER been an issue for me. I joined the church in 1979 and that is when I learned of the ban. When I thought about it, I had to laugh out loud! Only a living God would let be choose 1979! Boy does he know me! There are many questions for which the answer has not been made known. Does it alter my future? NO. So I try everyday not to be distracted. Oops, just got distracted, sorry!🙂
I think the "We don't know why" approach needs to be retired. I see nothing wrong with accepting that leaders can and have made mistakes. Sure, we don't understand the root of the ban. But you just can't get around the fact that racism was a factor. I accept that fact while also believing that 1978 revelation was indeed from God. Perhaps God had a reason for not intervening sooner. But giving room to the idea that the ban could have been divinely inspired is just unacceptable.
There are two ways to approach the priesthood restriction. 1) it’s scriptural meaning and origin, 2) the poor explanations that came from imperfect men/leaders for more than 120 years.
Many claim to “not know where it came from.” Well, if that is the case, all of Abraham 1 is in question. But why stop there? Shouldn’t all of Joseph Smith’s revelations them be questioned?
Here’s the interesting thing. The Book of Abraham mentions a priesthood restriction on one lineage, but what everyone has missed is that he says nothing of skin color or any other attributes. Well, not everyone. Richard Bushman describes Abraham 1 very well in Rough Stone Rolling. Where people confuse the restriction with skin color or claims of being inferior, come not from the scriptures, but nineteenth-century explanations. The explanations themselves, which have been disavowed, can easily be described as racist, but those explanations and what Abraham 1 intended are not one in the same.
I agree with what some else said in another forum... This is the same shit Bro Wilcox was shoveling, only prettier words.
Oh no! here we go again with the "we don't know why, who or where" fallacy. This essay does a disservice to published historians with expertise in the field by quoting Peterson who is a great Islamic studies scholar but just shooting from the hip on this topic. Almost as bad as quoting R. Esplin. Where are the historical documents referenced by Lester Bush when he said the "priesthood ban - first suggested in 1847, explicitly articulated in 1849, and publicly espoused in 1852 - was inevitably applied to the descendants of Cain, and slavery was deemed justified among the descendants of Ham and Canaan - rather than in either instance specifying African blacks per se the rationale for both policies was thus explicit, and over three decades, Young never varied from this point of view." Kimball read the Lester Bush essay and it was this careful history and his desire to expand Christ's love, his belief in the truth of Galatians 3:29 which helped Kimball knock loose the idea he had in 1963 that the "Lord could change his policy and release the ban and forgive the possible error which brought about the deprivation". You can't read Stapley power of godliness Ch1, Harris/Bringhurst Ch3&4, Reeve's Ch5, or Turner's Pioneer prophet Ch8 and then still come away honestly supporting a "we don't know why" argument. Think of the opportunity Corbitt had in this sunday school video call to call out John Bytheway's ideas in his most recent book.
Thank you for this clear example of Mormons still defending racism in 2022. The world deserves to know.
In 2022, an article that tries to keep people open to the idea that God was the author of Mormonism's racist policies.
A wonderful example of how Mormonism continues to preserve racism because it is pathological in its inability to ever admit wrong.
An article that demonstrates why it is so hard for believers in high demand religions to ever break from false teachings, as she openly declares that she can never view her church leaders as having done something wrong unless those same church leaders declare to her that her church did something wrong!!! 😮
An article that openly proposes that we should "trust and obey" church leaders even when things don't make sense.
A clear example of why Mormon leaders need to do the right thing and admit that their racist policies were not of God. Because in 2022 she will not accept that this racism was wrong until the church openly tells her it was wrong!
This is some disturbing stuff.
Edit: I'm coming off as harsh. In a way I think deservedly so. But I just want to say that I remember a time that I held the same kinds of ideas. I'm not sure I'd have spoken them publicly, but I held them. I understand the power that a religion like Mormonism can have even on the best of people. I'm not better than you. Just in a different place. But I hope you can understand that I just can't tolerate attempts to keep people open to the idea that God even might have been the author of what was clearly racism.
It's one thing to just not have an answer. It's quite another to have an answer, and just not like it.
In 1947, the first Presidency certainly did not "just not know why." They knew. But we just don't like today what they "knew" yesterday. Exhibit A: https://imgur.com/a/xdhPhsW
Sorry guys, I'm more concerned about my stretch marks than I am about this matter! And I am the mother of 2 Black sons!!! This has NEVER been an issue for me. I joined the church in 1979 and that is when I learned of the ban. When I thought about it, I had to laugh out loud! Only a living God would let be choose 1979! Boy does he know me! There are many questions for which the answer has not been made known. Does it alter my future? NO. So I try everyday not to be distracted. Oops, just got distracted, sorry!🙂