- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
CW, I agree it’s a bit dishonest, but I like the fact a) it acknowledges JS’ position of appointing black priests and b) humans are equal regardless of origin. That’s positive for me. But I would like to see an apology one day.
It’s a big black mark on our record.
This is the bit I approve of. I don’t agree with the bit starting “Church records” etc in Ray’s quote –
Quote:The Book of Mormon teaches that “all are alike unto God,” including “black and white, bond and free, male and female” (2 Nephi 26:33). Throughout the history of the Church, people of every race and ethnicity in many countries have been baptized and have lived as faithful members of the Church. During Joseph Smith’s lifetime, a few black male members of the Church were ordained to the priesthood. Early in its history, Church leaders stopped conferring the priesthood on black males of African descent.
Cwald, I do not disagree that an apology would be nice or even a statement saying explicitly that there was no revelation for the ban. However, I will emphasize three things: 1) That quote is from 1949 – and there have been MULTIPLE statements since 1978 that say explicitly that justifications prior to 1978 were wrong and shouldn’t be perpetuated. In other words, that quote has been repudiated multiple times by more recent statements, and it isn’t preached by the current leadership. If you are looking to apply a reasonable standard here and not go off of bitterness and frustration only, you have to admit that later statements trump earlier statements.
2) That quote is a statement about why the people at that time believed the ban was in place – roughly 100 years after it originated. It doesn’t disprove the new wording in ANY way. If anything, it bolsters it by highlighting how incorrectly the leaders at that time understood the history of the issue. They weren’t being dishonest; they were being wrong.
3) This statement doesn’t claim explicitly OR implicitly that the ban was based on revelation, while the OD1 statement still does. That is incredibly significant, imo. One does; one doesn’t; the one that doesn’t calls the ban a “practice”, not a doctrine. HUGE difference and HIGHLY instructive. Short of an explicit statement that it was not God’s will and wrong, this is about as close as it’s possible to get.
As I said, if even people who study this issue almost obsessively don’t agree on exactly when and how the ban originated, there really isn’t any dishonesty in the new quote (“clear insight”) – especially as a summary statement in a very short summary statement. I would be fine it that line wasn’t in the statement, but I can’t see it as dishonest, as worded.
Quote:1) That quote is from 1949 – and there have been MULTIPLE statements since 1978 that say explicitly that justifications prior to 1978
were wrongand shouldn’t be perpetuated. In other words, that quote has been repudiated multiple times by more recent statements, Really? Would you mind showing me said statements. Is the words “we were wrong” actually used in the statement?
Please don’t use the quotes from BRM. I didn’t use his quotes to show the racism of the church…which I could. Please don’t use his quotes to show how the church admitted to being wrong in their racist policies.
Quote:If you are looking to apply a reasonable standard here and not go off of
bitterness and frustrationonly, you have to admit that later statements trump earlier statements.
Nope. Bitterness and frustration is what the church has brought onto itself. They could fix this anytime…it’s not that tough. Just apologize and take responsibility for your mistakes and errors. Please, LDS church, don’t blame me and others for your mistakes, and please don’t complain when you get the fruit, the harvest, of what you have sown.
Quote:2) That quote is a statement about why the people at that time believed the ban was in place – roughly 100 years after it originated. It doesn’t disprove the new wording in ANY way.
If anything, it bolsters it by highlighting how incorrectly the leaders at that time understood the history of the issue. They weren’t being dishonest; they were being wrong.I bolded wrong for emphasis. To illustrate we actually agree on the main issue here. Im not sure the average LDS church goer is going to read that same message however.
Quote:…. Short of an explicit statement that it was not God’s will and wrong, this is about as close as it’s possible to get.
That is not good enough for me. I guess Im just bitter and frustrated.
Quote:As I said, if even people who study this issue almost obsessively don’t agree on exactly when and how the ban originated, there really isn’t any dishonesty in the new quote (“clear insight”) – especially as a summary statement in a very short summary statement. I would be fine it that line wasn’t in the statement,
but I can’t see it as dishonest, as worded. That is very charitable of you. I don’t see it that way.
OD 2 Revision Quote:“Regrettably, in the past those who lead the Church were not in tune with God’s will at times, and the ban on the priesthood was the full responsibility of the Church and its leaders. We fully apologize for the pain, anguish, and misunderstanding this caused, and we wish to correct the racist views of the membership that were the inevitable result of these false teachings. Disregard any teachings from previous prophets, seers, and revelators that supported the incorrect doctrine that race alone would disqualify a man from holding the priesthood.
Pretty simple.
Old-Timer wrote:Cwald, I do not disagree that an apology would be nice or even a statement saying explicitly that there was no revelation for the ban. However, I will emphasize three things:
1) That quote is from 1949 – and there have been MULTIPLE statements since 1978 that say explicitly that justifications prior to 1978 were wrong and shouldn’t be perpetuated. In other words, that quote has been repudiated multiple times by more recent statements, and it isn’t preached by the current leadership. If you are looking to apply a reasonable standard here and not go off of bitterness and frustration only, you have to admit that later statements trump earlier statements.
2) That quote is a statement about why the people at that time believed the ban was in place – roughly 100 years after it originated. It doesn’t disprove the new wording in ANY way. If anything, it bolsters it by highlighting how incorrectly the leaders at that time understood the history of the issue. They weren’t being dishonest; they were being wrong.
3) This statement doesn’t claim explicitly OR implicitly that the ban was based on revelation, while the OD1 statement still does. That is incredibly significant, imo. One does; one doesn’t; the one that doesn’t calls the ban a “practice”, not a doctrine. HUGE difference and HIGHLY instructive. Short of an explicit statement that it was not God’s will and wrong, this is about as close as it’s possible to get.
As I said, if even people who study this issue almost obsessively don’t agree on exactly when and how the ban originated, there really isn’t any dishonesty in the new quote (“clear insight”) – especially as a summary statement in a very short summary statement. I would be fine it that line wasn’t in the statement, but I can’t see it as dishonest, as worded.
Regarding #3: I can’t for the life of me understand what comfort anyone would take from this new heading. I’m a woman with full rights of citizenship living in 2013 North America and I read that the God Mormons worship commands polygamy when He chooses, and when He does, nothing but a Supreme Court ruling would prevent the church from practicing it.
Is that not a correct reading of this? Please tell me I’m wrong.
Subtle changes that are supposed to be taken as progress, like “led to the repeal” being replaced with “put and end to” are, to my mind, just spitting in the wind created by Section 132. And in the heading of the actual section, what is accomplished by changing “plurality of wives” to “the principle of plural marriage.” We don’t know what plural marriage is? Is nicer to call it plural marriage?
Here is a compilation of quotes since 1978 about justifications prior to 1978 regarding the ban. It probably isn’t comprehensive, but there are enough to be crystal clear about not accepting or teaching those justifications. “
Repudiating Racist Justifications Once and For All” ( http://thingsofmysoul.blogspot.com/2009/04/repudiating-racist-justifications-once.html If anyone wants to copy the quotes and have them for ready access, have at it. That’s one of the reasons I compiled the list.
I agree Ann….the “change” in regards to polygamy amounts to simple rewording of what is already there. It does nothing to address dc 132. It also as you stated makes it appear that if the Supreme Court had not ruled against it we would still be required to practice polygamy.
It still has the threat that it would/could come back!
At least with regards to the priesthood ban they are saying it was not “doctrinal” revelation. Which means it will NOT come back one day.
Polygamy, including dc 132 is still “revelation” and “doctrinal”.
What a mess!
Dax wrote:I agree Ann….the “change” in regards to polygamy amounts to simple rewording of what is already there. It does nothing to address dc 132.
It also as you stated makes it appear that if the Supreme Court had not ruled against it we would still be required to practice polygamy.
It still has the threat that it would/could come back!
At least with regards to the priesthood ban they are saying it was not “doctrinal” revelation. Which means it will NOT come back one day.
Polygamy, including dc 132 is still “revelation” and “doctrinal”.
What a mess!
I find it fascinating the church is leaving the door open to polygamy’s return.
Even more so because there is a case in the Utah courts right now seeking to declare laws against polygamy unconstitutional. And with other “alternative” marriages being legalized slowly I think polygamy will one day be recognized. Then what will the church do?
Quote:Then what will the church do?
Not practice polygamy, I am sure. Of course, I don’t know that, but I am sure of it.
Old-Timer wrote:Quote:Then what will the church do?
Not practice polygamy, I am sure. Of course, I don’t know that, but I am sure of it.
I agree. So why are we being subjected to this? Put it on the ash heap!
Ann wrote:Old-Timer wrote:Quote:Then what will the church do?
Not practice polygamy, I am sure. Of course, I don’t know that, but I am sure of it.
I agree. So why are we being subjected to this? Put it on the ash heap!
My sentiments exactly.
If they ever try to institute it again then I’ll have some more free time on Sunday.
Unless an angel with a flaming sword shows up or something…
Ironically gay marriage might open the door to polygamy. SamBee wrote:Ironically gay marriage might open the door to polygamy.
Why? Because of the change in definition to marriage of 1 man + 1 woman?
Presuming you’re not suggesting gay marriage would leave lots women needing a husband (given gay marriage applies to both men and women, this wouldn’t be an issue).
Anyway…I guess we’re off topic
I think what SamBee is getting at is redefining marriage as not just Man – Woman, could lead to groups pushing for equal status for all forms of marriage. Polygamous, inter-species, people marrying their jobs, that sort of thing. Dogs and cats living together, end of the world. Quote:
I agree. So why are we being subjected to this? Put it on the ash heap!Not sure what you mean by being subjected. If the question is why is this even in the D&C or why are they commenting on it, I assume it is because it is such a big issue in church history.
Quote:Unless an angel with a flaming sword shows up or something…
💡 😆 If an angel with a flaming sword shows up I’ll just let him kill me and take my chances with God, thanks.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.