- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Even in my most TBM days I hated that we ever had such a policy. The church has made great strides in race relations but we are still left with this elephant in the room . One day I will have to explain to my children what happened and why. I will have to explain 2 Nephi 5:21 to them ” And he caused a 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 as 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 ” Here is the scriptural justification for teaching that we should not mix races. BTW I am a child of mixed parents I look mostly caucasian but Dad is from the middle east. Now I recently read a book called “Mormonism and the Negro” (yes it was as offensive as its title) It was written in 1960 I bought it because it predates the church lifting the ban on Blacks from having the priesthood on sept 30 th , 1978. as I understand the policy back then it was
“Negros and others with Negroid blood can become members of the church, and through righteous works recieve patriarchal blessings, enter the temple to recieve baptisms for the dead, become heirs to the Celestial Kingdom and otherwise partake of the blessings afforded worthy members of the church, but they cannot be ordained to the priesthood, nor are they eligible for marriage in an LDS temple; Negroes and non-negroes should not intermarry.”
I can see how people thought they were being tolerant here , they certainly weren’t burning cross’s or anything like that but to me it is still racism, just in a more subtle package.
Ok I don’t want this to become a book report but the book basically lays out the defence to the ban . I also learned that as a “skeptic ….inside… the church ” That i am foolish , hypocritical , a mormon baiter, and a partaker of the spirit of satan. But this issue is not about me the defence was basically that black and colored people were less valiant in the pre existance and therefore are being punished by being given a “handycap” ( being coloured and particularly black) before coming to earth. It said that it shows Gods justice because why else would one person be born to a good christian home and another born in poverty living like a animal . Scriptural justifications were mostly from the BoA 1:21-27 ( preisthood ban), also BoA 3:22-28 (premortal life were the nobel interpretet to mean the nobel and great ones were to stay white and give them the right to the priesthood) and from the Bo Moses 5:39-40 ( mark of cain). It was also taught that if you had children with someone of color you would call down less valiant souls who also couldn’t hold the preisthood. BY refers to the mark of cain as the “black skin and flat nose” Joseph F Smith assures us while talking at a faithful colored lady’s funeral “that she would in the resurrection attain the longing of her soul and become a white and beautiful person” .
Also it said the black man JS ordained Elijah Abel was not black but a “mullatto” and only 1/8th black and that JS may not have even know he was black at the ordination ( if anyone knows if this is true i’m intrested to know)
OK I think everyone gets the flavor , I work from the premise that we are born equal to God and I except the scientific explainations for different races . If some are born to poverty it is because humans are greedy and created this world in a unfair way or even in abstract way so we can learn mercy. I refuse to blame it on God, further if there are different races perhaps it is so we can learn tolerance and to overcome difference and because God loves diversity.
But we are left to struggle with this problem of church indorsed racism in our relitively recent history , in many ways it still lingers around from parents to child, My mission president even counselled a RM friend of mine not to marry the native girl he had fell for . Yes we have made strides but I would like to explore this issue the whys ? the what to teach kids without distroying faith ? and has the church done enough to move pass this ?( it is still in our canon and there was never a apology or a expalination just a change in policy and a de emphasis )
This is going to be LOOOONG, so I apologize in advance, but it is very personal to me – and I have written a lot about it. Here goes: One of the most vocal speculators said the following:
Quote:Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.
We get our truth and our light line upon line and precept upon precept. We have now had added a new flood of intelligence and light on this particular subject, and it erases all the darkness and all the views and all the thoughts of the past. They don’t matter any more.
(”All Are Alike unto God” – Bruce R. McConkie, BYU devotional – August 18, 1978)
To me, it’s pretty simple:
Brigham Young and most of the Church couldn’t get past the racism of their upbringing. God basically said, “If you aren’t going to rely on revelation (which they didn’t) and depend on incorrect human interpretations of scripture (which they did), I’ll leave you alone to face the consequences and let you suffer for the incorrect traditions of your fathers – until everyone left in the highest positions and most of the membership can accept my will.”
I wrote the following post on Mormon Momma and comments on Times & Seasons:
A)
http://www.mormonmomma.com/index.php/2008/racism-as-a-barrier-to-becoming/
As to the length of the ban, consider the following from the allegory of the olive tree in Jacob 5:65-66.65 And as they begin to grow ye shall clear away the branches which bring forth bitter fruit, according to the strength of the good and the size thereof; and ye shall not clear away the bad thereof all at once, lest the roots thereof should be too strong for the graft, and the graft thereof shall perish, and I lose the trees of my vineyard.
66 For it grieveth me that I should lose the trees of my vineyard; wherefore ye shall clear away the bad according as the good shall grow, that the root and the top may be equal in strength, until the good shall overcome the bad, and the bad be hewn down and cast into the fire, that they cumber not the ground of my vineyard; and thus will I sweep away the bad out of my vineyard.
It is more than an implication that the Church will include “bitter fruit” that will be cleared away only at a pace that will not destroy the tree itself. I don’t accept the ban as God’s will, but I also see the clear fact that the lifting of the ban in 1978 had a *hugely* different affect within the Church leadership and membership than I believe it would have had even one generation earlier. Sometimes, a generation (in this case a full lifetime of exposure to bigotry among men who were born and raised in a deeply racist time) must pass away before a group can enter the Promised Land.
C) You ask if I have implored God and received a personal witness. Yes, I have. I might be wrong, but – yes, I have. One of the strongest spiritual impressions of my life (and I have had some very strong ones), came as I served in a Stake Mission Presidency in the Deep South
**after the revelation lifting the ban**– as I struggled with how to reach into the Black community and was allowed to see the continuing effects of racism on the Church where I lived (both within a small minority of members and a much larger percent of non-members, Black and White). I will never forget that impression and the lessons it taught me. I will never forget how that vision changed dramatically how I perceived this issue.Next, to answer your [request for my reasoning]:
1) Black men were ordained during the leadership of Joseph Smith. Nobody disputes that. Nobody.
2) Can we agree that there has not been unanimity among the apostles and prophets on this issue?
3) No unanimity means that apostles and prophets disagreed on this issue.
4) Disagreement on this issue means that it is not *obvious* that the ban was God’s will, given by direct revelation. Perhaps it is not obvious that it was not God’s will, but it is not obvious that is was.
5) Disagreement also means that I am not siding against the apostles and prophets in my belief. It simply means I am disagreeing with some and agreeing with others.
6) It is extremely easy to read the verses that were used to justify the ban differently than they were interpreted to justify the ban. Iow, the scriptures themselves (which were the foundation for the claim that God had spoken) are *not* conclusive that God had, in fact, spoken. It is extremely easy to read the more modern scriptures (the NT and BofM) as saying that the former practice of distinction by race had ended with the ministry of Jesus.
7) My mother was a secretary in David O. McKay’s office. That has given me a few insights into the workings of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles that are somewhat rare. Most importantly for this comment, it made it clear to me that much of the internal dissent and debate on this topic was not expressed publicly, since there was a deep and abiding belief among the brethren that airing their disagreements publicly simply was not to occur. Elder McConkie was a renegade in this regard, as were a few more who shared his view on the ban. Those who were the most vocal tended to be those who supported the ban, since the ban was the policy of the time [- and those who thought it should be rescinded didn’t speak publicly about their beliefs].
When I am faced with two viable options, even in the face of a lack of spiritual confirmation, I *always* side with the one that appears to be in line with the preponderance of scriptural evidence and harms the fewest people. Imo, the ban as a result of human weakness and prejudice fits those criteria *far* better than seeing it as God’s will.9) I tend to accept the words of current prophets over the words of former prophets. I also have read enough of modern and ancient scripture to understand that God has allowed prophets and apostles to make horrible mistakes all throughout time. He sometimes steps in and announces an ideal in very clear ways, but even then He steps back and lets His prophets and other leaders live it or reject it. Therefore, the ban has no fundamental impact on my testimony – my spiritual witness of Brigham Young and John Taylor and Wilford Woodruff and all other prophets who upheld the ban – even as I believe is was not God’s will.
10) My mind leans toward my current understanding, but my heart and soul is WAY beyond leaning. I know Black saints who could not hold the Priesthood and/or attend the temple prior to the lifting of the ban, and to even hint that they were less valiant in the pre-existence is simply abhorrent to my soul. Having seen their dedication, I know firsthand how much deeper and richer and fuller it was than mine and nearly all White members I knew at that same time. Frankly, I believe much of the acceptance of such a theory on a purely intellectual level is a result of not knowing intimately such people and the persecution they endured to remain true to the faith – persecution that was both blatant and subtle and which came from both outside and inside the Church.
11) This is not an intellectual understanding for me. It is deeply spiritual one – forged over multiple decades of observing and studying the roots and continuing traces of bigotry in this country and, unfortunately, the Church.
12) I might be wrong, notwithstanding the nature of my spiritual witness, but I would rather be wrong in my current opinion than to be wrong with the alternative. I am intelligent enough to construct a lucid and compelling justification for either view, so I have consciously chosen to follow my deeply personal, spiritual witness, my overarching belief in the messages of the scriptures and what my heart wants to believe – preferring in all ways my current position to its alternative. If I am wrong, I believe I will be better being wrong with this view than being wrong with the other one.
At the most basic level, I return to my first paragraph. Due to my calling at the time [Stake Mission Presidency], I believe I was given a perspective that is somewhat unique. It was burned into my soul in a way that I can neither forget nor deny. I cannot say I saw the Father crying for the hardness of the hearts of His children, but I can say that I understand that image in a way that would have been impossible without that experience. It has shaped the way I see many things over the years, and I would not trade it for the world.
Oh, and to the issue of it still being in our canon, I don’t think it is. When you look at the verses in the Book of Mormon that generally are quoted and read them figuratively ( and in light of what I wrote in my Mormon Momma post), we are left with the VERY clear verses that say God does not discriminate against people because of skin color – like 2 Nephi 26:33: Quote:For none of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he doeth that which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him,
black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile. That is pretty blunt to me, so I use it as the baseline scripture to understand the other ones – and all of the other ones can be read figuratively without any mental gymnastics at all, imo.
I come to the same end conclusion as Ray. I approached it from a different angle, but my path lead to the same destination. I believe the ban existed because of the flaws of the LDS Church people (and the leaders), and it was not the will of God. That was one of the best explanations I have seen Ray, especially using the olive tree scriptures. Thanks! I also spent a lot of time researching this topic in order to feel like I could understand it. I’ll post my stuff later tomorrow. I have a lot going on at work today. I approached this more from a history angle going forward.
Ray, thanks for your thoughts I always enjoy hearing what people have to say that lived threw the ban . I was 5 years old when the ban was lifted so I appreciate hearing from someone who was there. Many my age are not aware of the details of racism in LDS history so the purpose of my initial post was to make clear what was being taught and and practiced prior to 1978. I hope that I represented the time in a correct way. Your reponse to me focused mainly on the ban, in my post I tried to cover a little more ground as I found out the justifications for the ban with premortal existence turned out to be more ugly than I had assumed before I looked into it. I would like to state my case now. First of all you should know that the scripture that I quoted from 2 Nephi 5:21and the teaching of skin cursings in the BOM is one of my strongests evidences against the historicity of the BOM . I am not talking DNA here i’m am talking as you say the heart believes what it wants to believe and I to would rather be wrong on this side than right on the other, you may find this foolish I really don’t know. I am aware that you know this but I feel the need to state it here in saying that it is not a admission of lack of faith in the gospel. We can look at the game of chess it has racist elements to it as, it does sexists ones . There is a reason white always goes first , as there is that the most powerful player on the board is male and cannot be killed. Does this take away from the beauty of the game NO it is a beloved game all around the world and what some people can do with the game blows my mind. I can honestly say the same thing with the LDS cannon and maintain that is has racist passages and other human elements.
Now I will concede, that JS had a fairly forward thinking policy on Black people for a man of his time
” they have souls, and are subjects to salvation . Go into Cincinnati or any other city , and find an educated Negro, who rides in his carriage , and you will see a man who has risen by his own mind to his exahlated state of respectability. The slaves in Washington are more refined than many in high places, …….”
We could also talk about his campain platform of freeing the slaves .But that does not mean he was a man without his own cultural influences. The way I see it America was trying to justify treating Black people as worse than second class citizen at the time of the restoration . Further America was busy stealing Native land and pushing them into the territories. People needed a reason that this was ok, and it was a common belief that Black people bore the mark of cain to justify such actions . Natives weren’t even entitled to such a justification as they were seen as savages. We seem to be on agreement on this point.
I find it intresting that you would admit that our prophets can be faillible but not concide that our sacred books written by prophets can be. I quoted some scriptures and I think I have been in the church long enough to know exactly what it is teaching in those passages. The Bom clearly teaches skin cursings it is a offensive teaching and it is very convenient to turn around after 100 plus years and say it was figurative and all a big misunderstanding. I failed to mention 1 Nephi 19:14 and 3 Nephi 16:9 that refers to the jewish people becoming a hiss and a byword again I know how to read and know what was ment here. The scripture you pointed to does point out one of the many paradoxes in the BOM , I don’t mind that they are there they force you to think but I don’t like it when people try to deny that they exisit .The line between doctrine and culture is very thin in this church as we all know and In a church were the leaders word is as good as the word of God they must take responsibillity for what they say and have said .
I find the easiest expalination to these racist elements being in our cannon the 18 century influence. I look at the BoA and BoMoses having these influences in part perhaps subconciencely to try to stop the blood from spilling in Missouri .I’m glad you have found a suitable explanation to these problems ( believe me when I say I tried ) but many cannot and are forced to the same conclusion that I was forced to make. Again this is does not take away from the good in these book to me.
Now I asked if we have done enough it has been 40 years since the civil rights movement and 30 years since the ban was lifted yet the 1st presidency and the 12 is as pale as it was in 1830 that is a fact , I don’t even know if we have a Black GA ? When I go to the temple the video clearly depicts only white and delightsome people that is a fact . My point our spiritual ideal has shifted from white working class to white rich and old . For a world wide church with our track record this is simply not enough IMO.
The scriptures I used in Moses about the premortal life clearly talks of noble and great ones becoming our leaders it is now generally understood to mean the brethern. Meaning they were rewarded with those spots for there performance in the pre mortal existence . Which means what ? Logic tells us if they were rewarded then others were not so the idea of us being born equal is out the window . The spiritual ideal I spoke of earlier being white and rich filters down from the top of the church to the bottom and many local leadership reflects the ideal portayed at the top weather deserved or not .Most of the time a good education is seen as a prerequisite to leadership in the church to many getting a good education means being born into a family and location were that is a possiblity . It may not be a ban but I find it elitist.
AS for BRM quote if i’m being honest here he sounds like a politician who just lost, throwing his support behind his oppponent after defeat. Yes I agree in this theology the current leaders position trumps the past leaders but we still have a long way to go. Also by that rational the future leaders teachings will trump the current for better and for worse . I try to put my faith in that it will be for the better.
Also Ray you said something that intrested me , something to the effect that if the ban was lifted sooner it would have not had the effect amongst church leadership as it did in 1978 . Please explain this further . I have a deep respect for men like David O mcKay and Hugh B Brown for there work in lfting the ban and am only vaugley aware of the in fighting on this issue as I understand it Joseph Feilding Smith and Harold B Lee were the hold outs but you caught my attention. I should tell you up front I feel it may have looked like folding to political pressures if they did lift then back then , but I feel it ended up looking like they were being dragged out of the stone age. Also you said that no one disputed JS ordained Blacks it was disputed in the book I read as I said. I asked because I thought it may have been rhetoric to justify the ban . Do you know for sure Elijah Able was visibly black and that there were others that JS knew of ?
Salo – Quote:I find it intresting that you would admit that our prophets can be faillible but not concide that our sacred books written by prophets can be.
I’m not sure Ray concludes that, but he can speak for himself. I certainly don’t conclude that at all. The scriptures, IMO, absolutely can be misinterpreted and can be “seeing through a glass darkly.” In many places they seem to contradict themselves. There are clearly problems there to be dealt with.
Someone summed up the human problem this way: “The Catholics say their pope is infallible and none of them believe it; the Mormons say their prophet is fallible and none of them believe it.” Maybe the priesthood ban, polygamy, and other problematic elements are there to keep us from relying too much on the arm of flesh, as a stinging reminder that the gospel of Jesus Christ is pure and true, but is instantly corrupted (to varying degrees) when it comes through human beings. We have to learn to find truth for ourselves and not rely on others to tell us everything or to interpret everything for us. That shouldn’t be an excuse for us to do less, but rather a reason to do much more and to become strong enough to rely on ourselves.
hawkgrrrl wrote:…as a stinging reminder that the gospel of Jesus Christ is pure and true, but is instantly corrupted (to varying degrees) when it comes through human beings. We have to learn to find truth for ourselves and not rely on others to tell us everything or to interpret everything for us. That shouldn’t be an excuse for us to do less, but rather a reason to do much more and to become strong enough to rely on ourselves.
I love that, to me it speaks volumes. I can’t imagine that to become more God-like means to lean heavily on others interpretations. What does it mean when our thoughts and inspirations don’t align perfectly with someone else’s? To me it demonstrates the human condition, but does not automatically mean we need to surrender our position and quit seeking our own way.
Old-Timer wrote:Oh, and to the issue of it still being in our canon, I don’t think it is. When you look at the verses in the Book of Mormon that generally are quoted and read them figuratively
Yes Ray , will have to expalin for himself what was ment here. This was what I was responding to when I said
Salo wrote:I find it intresting that you would admit that our prophets can be faillible but not concide that our sacred books written by prophets can be.
I actually agree will Ray in that the skin cursings are best looked at as figuratively. If I was in Sunday school this is the appraoch that I would take. After all I feel the whole BOM is best taken figuratively. But we are not in Church right now . What I was objecting to is that this is what the church teaches in regards to skin cursings and that the BOM was originally intented to be figurative in regards to skin cursings . When the church has its back against the wall it usally blames its members for misunderstanding or not being worthy, etc. It never takes full responsibilty for its actions it diverts and blames.
Now in regards to lamanite skin cursings the scripture is clear and has always been understood not as figurative but literal. Consider that all things in the church have to be approved by the 1st pres. including all pictures used in class and in manuals and art hanging in the buildings . I have always seen lamanites portrayed as having dark skin and nephites having white skin. People see these church appraoved images all the time as we do in church movies who use real not figurative dark skined people to portray lamanites and real not figurative white people to portray nephites. Everyone understands this and all these materials are approved by the church. When I asked my bishop about skin cursings he believed it to be literal but admitted he struggled to understand it. This is the same as every other believing member I have ever talked to . Is this the failure of the members to comprehed what is being taught them or is something else ? If the members don’t understand at what point do the leaders take responsibility ? Even if the lamanites curse is to be understood figuratively to teach it useing the symbols of real dark skinned people is problematic to me which is why I will make no attempt to candy coat this teaching. It is what it is, and I stand by cultural influence being the most logical reason for racist elements in our cannon and that they are still there. I stand by that I have not imagined this or misunderstood this teaching. People struggle all the time trying to fit the churches past and present errors into there heads consider polygamy yes we don’t teach it anymore and we all seem to agree it is not what it claims to be, however not focusing on it dosen’t change the content of D&C 132 nor does it change the fact that many men continue to be sealed to more than one woman . This practise has implications for the next life . My TBM wife is scared to death she will have to practice the principal in the next life. Is this her fault as well for not understanding ? MY point we as a church do not address its errors in a very good way we just try to pretend it didn’t happen or that it is all fixed by not focussing on it . Skin cursings and the ban still have very real effects on people as do the teachings on pre earth life . My points about the white ideal shown to us in the temple is valid as are the points of the living ideal we see in the church leadership of white educate men privileged to be born in the church and in the right areas of the world. Even our teaching that we are a chosen people reserved to come forth at this time can affect how we view others. But it is not nice to confront the errors in our history,doctrine or cultural practises it is a bit like when you find out your Dad isn’t perfect. To be honest I sometimes wonder if I am in the right place because to be frank as devoted as I am to the church I simply cannot and will not bury my head in the sand on these issues . MY message is that the church has not done enough to fix this past error and frankly i’m shocked no one else has expresssed this .Often I find people are trying so hard to not be critical of church and to make it work for them , that these forums just become apologist sites . This is not aimed at anyone in particular i’m just just feeling a little frustrated.
I’m running out the door in about 2 minutes to date my wife, so I only have time now for this: Quote:I find it interesting that you would admit that our prophets can be fallible but not concede that our sacred books written by prophets can be.
I have never taken that position. I have said many time in many places that we get our scriptures through the biased perspectives of men – even though we accept them as prophets.
More later.
Salo, I hear you. Believe me when I say we all see things that we would like to change if we had the chance. Acknowledging that, what can I honestly do? If someone is troubled by watermelon seeds (excuse the lack of a meaningful metaphor) should they discard the watermelon all together? Is it worth dealing with some flaws to get to something worthwhile? I can see how you draw parallels to all positive speaking and apologists, you’re right in many cases. On the other hand I see some major differences between the mission of StayLDS and apologists. We are not in a position of defending anything, other than personal worth. We try to illuminate a new way to look at the Church that makes it more “do-able” from the eyes of disaffection. Illuminate, not compel or anything close to it. We recognize there are things about the church that will never align with our preferences, and try to personally grow to a point where we can tolerate it. Yes, we try to see a positive spin where possible. I think it’s like any relationship – if I hated my wife’s cooking I could always bug her about it (hear Dr. Phil: “how’s that working for you?”) or I could learn to see past it. If I’m locked into a relationship I need to consider doing most of the ‘peacemaking’ work (at least from my viewpoint) and be content with that to reap the rewards. I hope this doesn’t sound to preachy, I don’t intend it that way. Just trying to keep it real. Maybe some other topics could help to build the desire for this end. We’re still trying to feel our way around here – the blind leading the blind so to speak.
Salo wrote:To be honest I sometimes wonder if I am in the right place because to be frank as devoted as I am to the church I simply cannot and will not bury my head in the sand on these issues . MY message is that the church has not done enough to fix this past error and frankly i’m shocked no one else has expresssed this .Often I find people are trying so hard to not be critical of church and to make it work for them , that these forums just become apologist sites . This is not aimed at anyone in particular i’m just just feeling a little frustrated.
It is frustrating at times. The Church could do a lot more (in a lot of areas). I think there are issues for all of us that we may never accept again (and shouldn’t accept). There’s a much bigger chance that the Church *will* change if people like you, me and others stay inside the community. It is very unlikely to change much from outside pressure.
Those incorrect teachings were around both culturally (society in general) and doctrinally (in the LDS Church) for many generations. It will take decades to work them back out. It can happen. The Church will have more and more pressure to do so, since they are trying so hard to become a world religion. They can’t be a world religion AND go around preaching about skin shades. They will need to purge out the implied racism too from pictures and other lesson materials. That stuff just doesn’t work anymore, and I think they care more about growth and progress than old doctrine.
Its a tricky balancing act to stay in, tolerate views that we think are plainly wrong, and try to be a part of the solution.
Salo, I honestly believe that there isn’t much more the Church could say that it hasn’t said already. Elder McConkie’s statement at BYU in 1978 (which I quoted in my first comment) is explicit and direct. Pres. Hinckley’s condemnation of racial slurs in April 2006 General Conference (saying nobody who uses them is worthy of the priesthood) couldn’t have been stronger. Perhaps the Church could excise its records of racist statements, but if it did that the critics would accuse it of whitewashing and trying to cover up its past. All it can do is not make such statements and condemn them in the here and now – and it has done that.
Finally, although I am free to speculate about my perception of the ban, apostles and prophets are not. I hope they learned from earlier examples what happens when they speak publicly and express personal speculation. They just can’t do that as freely as they used to. Therefore, they can’t guess publicly about exactly why the ban occurred and lasted as long as it did, as you and I can. All they can say is that the justifications were wrong (and they have done that), that those who instituted and continued the ban were wrong in why they did it (and they have done that) and that we cannot perpetuate those justifications and the slurs that can accompany them (and they have done that). All they can do is make sure black members can lead mixed-race congregations (and they have done that – better, ironically, than many or most other Christian denominations), more black leaders are called into high priesthood positions (and they are doing that), black members are able to represent the Lord in the temple (and they have done that), etc. We still have a long way to go, but I think the distance is not as vast as some people assume – especially in comparison to many other Christian denominations. (That’s a perspective that gets lost in most discussions of this issue.)
The Church is nowhere close to blameless on this, but I just don’t see a lot more it can do that it isn’t doing or trying to do.
Orson, your watermelon metaphor is worthy of a response , it brings to mind my lame attempt at the chess metaphor we are esentially saying the same thing. I am the first to point out the good in the church when deserved on this issue I am sensitive and will not back down . As I said I am from mixed blood myself and despite the fact that my Fathers blood would not have prevented me from holding the priesthood it still feels personal . I feel I have presented the facts as they are and have demonstrated clearly that not enough has been done to correct the errors of our past. You ask what can agnologing that do ? We are on the same team but do not see eye to eye on how to help the disaffected and perhaps eachother . Some people will be drawn to your appraoch i’m sure others will be drawn to mine . But to answer your question Well for starters agnologing that the cannon has racists elements is not the same things as throwing away the whole watermelon it is simply agnologing that fact . I have no golden cows and I simple call it like I see it. Many people myself included come to these forums so that we don’t feel we are losing our minds, agnologing and exploring here what we cannot agnology and explore elsewhere is a important step to reclaiming and developing our personal faith . This is something that simply cannot be achieved by saying well its not really so bad is it. I would rather explore these feelings in a safe controlled enviroment with others trying to stay active than in other forums were this is not the goal . We don’t have to agree on all things but the excuses , rationalizations and philosophical reflections on this particular topic turn my stomach. It is against everything I stand for and I can not excuse the unexcusable. On a larger scale I believe the dissafected in this church can be agents for change, It is one of the reasons I stay . I believe the members of this church have more power to change than they give themselves credit for . But first we must talk
As for the question about scriptural fallibility, I am as strong a proponent of that as lives on this planet. Take the Book of Mormon, for example. If we parse it for what it actually claims, what is that? How would it be described best?
This is my take:
Quote:The Book of Mormon claims to be a compilation of prophetic writings, with three primary authors – one of whom abridged most of the writings into his own words.
Nephi is the claimed author of the first two books, with a handful of other minor authors; Mormon is the author and abridger of most of the book; Moroni was the final author. What is overlooked by most people is that this arrangement leaves the perspective we get in the book in the hands almost entirely of these three men. Furthermore, Mormon plays a disproportionately large role, simply because he chose which “hundredth part” to pass on to us -meaning we have (figuratively) 1% of the actual record that was written and for which the prophets prayed to have preserved for later generations.
We have NO clue what Mormon left out. We have NO idea what social interactions they had that didn’t make the final cut. We know Mormon was a military general who saw the destruction of his people, so it would be naive to think that life played no role in his decisions regarding what to include and what to exclude. In fact, I believe that his position as prophet-abridger is exactly what resulted in the grand morality tale we have in the current version. The list of “issues” goes on and on and on and on – and that is if we start from a totally “faithful” and “believing” standpoint. Therefore, the best I believe we can say is that we have a book that the modern “translator” and the original authors/abridger thought was accurate and inspired and compiled explicitly so we could avoid what they could not avoid.
So, I am left with the freedom to read the entire book in context, apply my understanding of possible textual meanings and reach my own conclusions about what the book actually is teaching. The post I linked in my first comment includes an example of just such an effort – to see how “family” could start defining other “family members” based on skin tone (which consistently was called “dark”, not “black”). It also frees me to see how color descriptions were used in the OT to mean things entirely different than a literal skin color – how color can be employed symbolically, just as we still do to this day.
We say, “It’s black and white,” “I see a lot of gray,” “He looked at me darkly,” “black as sin,” “pure and white as freshly fallen snow,” etc. I try hard not to use terms like the last two anymore, but they are omnipresent in our society. They also were used freely in the OT, with the following being the most interesting:
Job 30:30 – “My skin is black upon me, and my bones are burned with heat.”
Jeremiah 8:21 – “For the hurt of the daughter of my people am I hurt; I am black; astonishment hath taken hold on me.”
Jeremiah 14:2 – “Judah mourneth, and the gates thereof languish; they are black unto the ground; and the cry of Jerusalem is gone up.”
Luke 11:36 – “If thy whole body therefore be full of light, having no part dark, the whole shall be full of light, as when the bright shining of a candle doth give thee light.”
This is not as easy a topic as most people assume (on either side), especially given the obviously racist interpretations that dominated our modern history for too long. However, when you strip away all of that modern interpretation and go back to the actual source, I simply don’t think the passages “must” be read literally and with racist overtones outside of the actual conflict of the time. In other words, while I think the Book of Mormon statements regarding the Lamanite skin color are discriminatory and racist in nature (one part of a family justifying its opposition to another part of the family by focusing on skin pigmentation), I think they should have been totally irrelevant to the Priesthood ban – since I don’t think they apply at all to worthiness of one race to hold and exercise the authority of God. I think the Anti-Nephi-Lehis prove that without a doubt. In other words, I think those verses are misapplied in a discussion of the Priesthood ban.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.