- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Just wanted to add my satisfaction to the list of those who have already done so. I am so glad the church put this piece on their site. This came out, like a day after I talked w/ my brother on the phone, who was trying to “rescue” my wayward testimony. He believes in the curse of Cain. I had no idea he believed that. I have since had many talks w/ people about the priesthood ban, and to my surprise, even some liberal minded people said they didn’t know why the ban was lifted when it was. Well, we have the statement, we now know, let’s move on. How do you all interpret the following letter from the FP, written in our life time (well, most of us old guys anyway). This letter clearly states that it originated with God, and ALL prophets (JS included) have taught it.
Quote:
15 December 1968,To General Authorities, Regional Representatives of the Twelve, Stake Presidents, Mission Presidents, and Bishops.
Dear Brethren:
In view of confusion that has arisen, it was decided at a meeting of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve to restate the position of the Church with regard to the Negro both in society and in the Church.
A word of explanation concerning the position of the Church.
From the beginning of this dispensation, Joseph Smith and all succeeding presidents of the Church have taught that Negroes, while spirit children of a common Father, and the progeny of our earthly parents Adam and Eve, were not yet to receive the priesthood, for reasons which we believe are known to God, but which He has not made fully known to man.
Our living prophet, President David O. McKay, has said, ‘The seeming discrimination by the Church toward the Negro is not something which originated with man; but goes back into the beginning with God. . . . ‘Revelation assures us that this plan antedates man’s mortal existence, extending back to man’s pre-existent state.’ President McKay has also said, ‘Sometime in God’s eternal plan, the Negro will be given the right to hold the priesthood.’
Faithfully your brethren,
The First Presidency
Hugh B. Brown
N. Eldon Tanner
I second Sheldon’s motion. Here is the crux of the article in my view.
Quote:
Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form.They are clearly disavowing the THEORIES about why blacks could not have the priesthood. That is clear. But what does this statement mean?
Quote:
Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form.To me, the words “ALL racism” and “IN ANY FORM” include revelation and policy from “inspired” leaders (even prophets) that restricts priviledges of one racial group, and not all the others. In other words, one could argue they are repudiating the revelations or inspiration and leadership of Brigham Young, prophet, seer and revelator on this issue. In fact, current set of leaders are not only repudiating this portion of Brigham Young’s inspired leadership, they are repudiating this portion of the leadership of subsequent prophets (like David O. McKay) who perpetuated the racist policies.
This to me, means that one prophet or set of church policy-makers, can overturn the revelation of past prophets. This throws into question the reliability of any so-called revelation from a church leader. It also throws into question whether church leaders, even at the highest levels, are as inspired as the general membership seems to believe. If a past prophet can make a mistake on an issue this big, then how can we trust current revelation that appears to defy conscience, logic, or analysis, or any purported guidance for that matter?
Again, I say that if one accepts the implications I’ve expressed here, it increases the chances that certain people will stay active in the church, because no longer are prophets and senior leaders on pedestals. These leaders no longer have to live up to larger-than-life expectations. They are men who make statements of belief rather than absolute revelation. the individual must make up his mind about whether to follow.
Current members who viewed any statement from a prophet, any church policy for that matter as revelation or inspired, or deserving unquestioning obedience may well feel disillusioned due to these implications.
Alex wrote:Old-Timer wrote:It’s exactly what everyone here has been begging to be said – and there isn’t any white-washing, justification, obfuscation or soft-pedaling that I can see – none at all. It’s hard to imagine it being said any more clearly or strongly on the Church’s website.
While I do believe that there is a lot of honesty and openness with the content on lds.org, I do see some “soft-pedaling”….or rather, omissions to the history of this practice. Denial of the priesthood to Blacks is referred to as a “policy” on the website, but in a First Presidency Letter to a member about the issue in 1947 it is referred to as “doctrine.” And “doctrines” are referred by the FP in the exchange with the member as “either true or not true.” Sept 2013 Ensign even says doctrine comes through divine revelation to prophets.
One can argue that doctrines may change (can they?)….or that they can be true for a time, then change at a later time, I suppose. Maybe it’s true unless it isn’t?
But the FP bore their testimonies of the truthfulness of this one.I can’t help it, to me it’s a disturbing omission to the topic on the Church’s website. The scanned letters of the exchange were first brought to my attention on another board and the link is below.
http://mormonstories.org/other/Lowry_Nelson_1st_Presidency_Exchange.pdf ” class=”bbcode_url”> http://mormonstories.org/other/Lowry_Nelson_1st_Presidency_Exchange.pdf I read that letter exchange a few days before the apology came out. The combination of the two is like a pair of sledge-hammers to the head. One is covered in cotton wool, but still causes my brain to hurt.
The brethren preached something as revealed doctrine that clearly is not. This isn’t just a case of them being fallible in the case of yelling at the kids or something. This is an example of the church being led astray for nearly 100 years.
I can’t get over this at the moment. A knife has been put in and it keeps on twisting.
This article had a lot of detailed background on Dr Nelson and picks out the key highlights (lowlights?) of the letter exchange:
Silent Dawning -One thing I have learned from my faith transition is, no one can make you believe anything. You choose it. Whether you choose it before you have evidence or after is personal, but we all choose it. Yes a statement of this nature makes the idea of prophetic fallibility larger than before. However, we see it that way, because our view point has already begun to look for it. For the traditional practicing member it’s not likely to change their view on prophetic revelation. They will take it at face value and move on. I would encourage us not to view traditional practicors as stupid or unintelligent if they don’t see it the same way. All of us have areas of our lives where we don’t analyze deeply. I don’t spend hours wondering where the eggs I buy at the store come from, but I have friends that do, and are sincere in their concern. For me, I need the eggs, I look to see they are not cracked and in my budget. That’s all the time I give it. I believe likewise with this Race and Priesthood statement. Addressing Sheldon’s question – The first thing I thought of when I read the old release – was Thoreau.
Quote:A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. When a man adheres blindly to thoughts or opinions he has vocalized in the past, purely for the sake of seeming true to his principles, Emerson argues that he violates his nature. A man must be willing, every day, to open his conciousness to his intuition, whether or not what it tells him is in conflict with prior conclusions he had come to.
Based on that idea, I think we do ourselves a disservice by bringing up someone else’s past continually. I have just finished reading a great book called
Have a little Faith. In the book 2 religious leaders are presented. One of those leaders is a reformed drug user, convict, thief, and murdered. His congregation is filled with hard luck souls, down and out, homeless and despairing. One of his common sermons regards letting go of the past. Quote:In the book of Acts, we read that Paul – after his conversion – people distrusted him because he used to persecute the church, but now he praised it. Is this the same guy? Can’t be…It’s amazing how folks can’t see you,
’cause they want to keep you in the past.Some of our greatest problems in ministering to people is that they knew us back before we came to the Lord. Through out scripture the story is the same. The Lamanites were the bad guys, even when they were good. The Samaritans, likewise were despised as a lesser people by God’s chosen Jews. Peter and Paul took a lifetime to overcome their divide on Jews and Gentiles – even after Peter has a personal revelation from God telling him that God decides who is clean and unclean.
For me – I want to let go of the past. Not just forget it, but forgive it. Yes, I see them as fallible, but so are the rest of the leaders. So it doesn’t bother me. What I can do, and what nudges me, is how can I use the lesson forward, how can I help heal once inflicted souls and spare future ones. That’s my take away.
Sheldon wrote:How do you all interpret the following letter from the FP, written in our life time (well, most of us old guys anyway). This letter clearly states that it originated with God, and ALL prophets (JS included) have taught it.
I see respect and veneration for the church leaders that have come before. All of these men where raised on stories of the greatness of LDS founders. I assume that they saw JS as receiving revelation more readily than subsequent generations. Who are they to change something that he began? Wasn’t it just recently that Elder Oaks was saying something about “We cannot change God’s law.”?
I believe JS did teach it. I do not believe that JS was consistent in teaching it or that he was consistent in practicing what he had (at one time taught), but he did (at least on some limited occasions) teach it.
First, JS either wrote or translated the PofGP:
Quote:Moses 7:8 “a blackness came upon all the children of Canaan. . . .”
Moses 7:12 “Enoch continued to call upon all the people, save it were [i.e., except] the people of Canaan, to repent. . . .”
Moses 7:22 “.for the seed of Cain were black and had not place among them.”
Abraham 1:21 ” king of Egypt [Pharaoh] was a
descendant from the loins of Ham, and was a partaker of the blood of the Canaanites by birth.” Abraham 1:27 “Pharaoh being of that
lineage by which he could not have the right of Priesthood. . . .” Second, JS provides us with his interpretation on some things:
Quote:“In the evening debated with John C. Bennett and others to show that the Indians have greater cause to complain of the treatment of the whites, than the negroes or
sons of Cain” (History of the Church 4:501.) 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 nature, 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 Hamin servitude! “And he said cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his 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.” —Genesis 9:25-27
“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 as great power as caused it to come; and the people who interfere the least with the decrees and purposes of God in this matter, will come under the least condemnation before him; and those who are determined to pursue 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 own work without the aid of those who are not dictate by his counsel.” (Joseph Smith Jr., Messenger and Advocate Vol. II, No. 7, April 1836, p. 290; History of the Church, Vol. 2, Ch. 30, pp. 436–40.)
So, JS did refer to modern black people as Sons of Ham and Cain (that according to scripture do “not have the right of Priesthood”). I understand that the association of black africans with sons of Cain and Ham was quite widespread in the US at that time.
mom3 wrote:For me – I want to let go of the past. Not just forget it, but forgive it. Yes, I see them as fallible, but so are the rest of the leaders. So it doesn’t bother me. What I can do, and what nudges me, is how can I use the lesson forward, how can I help heal once inflicted souls and spare future ones. That’s my take away.
Mom3, We seem to have been cross posting. I wanted to say how much I am moved by your post.
I cannot improve on what mom3 said, and I have no desire to add to it. Thank you!
mom3 wrote:For me – I want to let go of the past. Not just forget it, but forgive it.
Ok, then let’s forget and forgive all the mistakes from past prophets. But what about the current prophets? They are the ones that put out the words that said this was NOT taught by JS, but was purely made up by BY. I was only showing that even in the steps they took to put this behind them, they still couldn’t get the whole truth. They still wobbled on the truth to preserve Joseph Smith’s reputation. That’s all I was pointing out.
I think it’s a bit amusing how the church can thump and thump and thump about the inspired leaders, never leading astray — aligning thousands of people’s behavior around organizational goals due to the leadership’s special plug-in to God. Claiming the truth — inspired leaders — and then, when a landmark statement like this comes out….Oh well — they made a mistake, let’s move on. Almost as if it was nothing. For me it repudiates decades of teaching and sacrament talks etcetera that have shaped a culture of obedience to prophets who are largely infallible. Anyway, I don’t want to offend anyone, and I will move on and forgive. It’s a heck of a lot easier to forgive now that my take on the implications of this message is that we have to take all revelation with a grain of salt, and not give up our own rationale, conscience, etcetera….that Martin Luther had it right when he said the information goes from God to Man. Not God to Church to Man.
Those stories of people showing outright obedience that defies conscience or logic (like giving their wife away in order to keep a commandment stories) isn’t necessarily the right thing to do. The prophet could be wrong.
Nonetheless, I hope people realize I still will listen to the prophets. I dont’ consider them shysters, or somehow intentionally misleading, AT the same time, I will look at just about anything i hear at church with a healthy skepticism — as I started doing when my own commitment crises hit the books a few years ago. At the same time, if people want to keep believing in the near infallibility of the prophets in spite of this, that is fine with me.
And by the way, I think I’ll feel less like a renegade now that I don’t immediately get in line just because a mortal church leader tells me to. This is therapeutic.
And so, I’ll join the ranks of the people who are moving on. Validated, wiser, and confirmed in my belief in the elevated conscience.
The term Hamitic for certain north African languages is still in linguistic usage. Sheldon wrote:mom3 wrote:For me – I want to let go of the past. Not just forget it, but forgive it.
Ok, then let’s forget and forgive all the mistakes from past prophets. But what about the current prophets? They are the ones that put out the words that said this was NOT taught by JS, but was purely made up by BY. I was only showing that even in the steps they took to put this behind them, they still couldn’t get the whole truth. They still wobbled on the truth to preserve Joseph Smith’s reputation. That’s all I was pointing out.
Not sure what you mean by this portion ” was only showing that even in the steps they took to put this behind them, they still couldn’t get the whole truth. They still wobbled on the truth to preserve Joseph Smith’s reputation. That’s all I was pointing out.”
The most disturbing aspect of this whole thing, for me, is that the ban was only lifted in my lifetime. I’m showing my age, I know. Quote:They still wobbled on the truth to preserve Joseph Smith’s reputation.
No, they didn’t, Sheldon. Joseph Smith ordained black men to the Priesthood and allowed black members to be part of the temple ordinances. The ban absolutely did not start with him. As the explanation says, it was initiated by Brigham Young, and he used scriptures to justify a prevailing philosophy that existed and was taught actively within Protestantism prior to his conversion and after.
I’ve said this in other places, but if you start with the view that the Book of Mormon and the Pearl of Great Price are ancient records (even if you view them as fictional), any racist statements in them need not be charged to the translator / author as proving racism in that person – since racism absolutely was universal, culturally, in ancient societies. One of the things about those records that actually lend a degree of credibility to them (again, whether fictional or non-fictional) is that they contain racist themes. They should be there, given the time period they purport to cover and the views they purport to present.
Even more critically, the words someone writes in something that is set in ancient times cannot be viewed as indicative that he would have supported future actions by someone else IF that person’s own actions during his lifetime don’t support or are in direct opposition to the actions of that other person. It’s not that they are present in those records that is the issue, since they should be from a historical standpoint; it’s the fact that Brigham Young used them to teach the philosophies of men, mingled with scripture – and that others were led to believe (based on faulty information given to them) that Joseph approved of the ban. There is absolutely no evidence that he did – and, in fact, all the evidence says explicitly that he didn’t. All of that is in the explanation, and it all is completely accurate.
I’m not saying Joseph was completely free of racism. He wasn’t. However, there is nothing in our history that even implies the ban would have occurred had Joseph lived to lead the Church in Utah. There is no “wobbling” by current leaders or the historians who wrote the explanation. Joseph, himself, had nothing to do with the ban, and
his actions had to be ignored in order to justify it. Quote:Those stories of people showing outright obedience that defies conscience or logic (like giving their wife away in order to keep a commandment stories) isn’t necessarily the right thing to do. The prophet could be wrong.
This.
Don’t trust in the arm of flesh, at least not completely, no matter whose arm it is. Worship according to the dictates of your own conscience.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.