- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Quote:
Now that I’ve taken a few deep breaths it’s occured to be that we don’t hear much in the way of pronouncements anymore. There’s not the political messages like ETB used to deliver or black and white advice on family planning or women working outside of the home. I wonder why.
IMO this is primarily due to the influence of Gordon Hinckley. It’s his legacy on the church.
I believe the church has significantly shifted it’s focus towards selling itself both to members and non-members. Almost everything said and done these days seems to be carefully crafted towards PR / Marketing. The exception would be Boyd Packer but he’s on his way out – he’s high enough up that he gets a lot of leeway with his anti-gay statements.
Here’s how I reconcile myself with this tidbit of Mormon history: Whether it was “inspired” or BY’s “bigotry” or anything else is really irrelevant to me. What matters to me is that with the priesthood comes responsibility and accountability. No one “denied” these things will be held accountable for not having them. Women currently, and blacks formerly, will not be held accountable for not having been righteous enough to attain the priesthood. I believe God is merciful above all, and perhaps one not having received the priesthood can be viewed as some kind of blessing in disguise — especially as compared to those of us that received it at ages 12 and 19, respectively, and had little to no idea what the responsibilities (oaths and covenants, if you will) meant that we were getting ourselves into.
Just my $0.02, hope no one takes offense.
baldzach wrote:Women currently, and blacks formerly, will not be held accountable for not having been righteous enough to attain the priesthood.
? righteous enough.
GBSmith wrote:baldzach wrote:Women currently, and blacks formerly, will not be held accountable for not having been righteous enough to attain the priesthood.
? righteous enough.
Insert whatever qualification standard you will, that’s just the word that came to mind. Probably not the right one. And probably should have been in quotes.
baldzach wrote:Insert whatever qualification standard you will…
How about patriacrhy or racism?
Let’s make sure to keep this conversation constructive. I agree with Brian – and avoiding implying or stating that worthiness or righteousness had or has ANY relevance to holding the Priesthood is a good start. Just saying. Was 1978 the right year? As I thought more about the actual questions, when parsed strictly, yes, it was the right year – from a purely practical standpoint. It was the earliest it could have happened, given the reality of the situation, so it was the right year – even if it was too late from every other standpoint imaginable.
Imo, the real question isn’t whether or not it was the right year; rather, it’s WHY that year was the earliest it could have happened – and what that can teach us about ourselves and God.
I’ve given my opinion: church leaders and members were reflective of their time in many ways, including being racist when it came down to the final taboo – interracial marriage and sealing; they didn’t ask God – instead ignoring obvious practical reality and relying on apostate Christian doctrine of their time; God walked away from it and said:
Quote:“Let them live in their own constructed captivity until they collectively come begging me to fix the crapfest they created – since I’m not going to deny anyone eternal blessings in the end just because others couldn’t rise above the natural man.”
The fact that it took so long for that to happen – for the right year to arrive – says a LOT about humans, imo – even really good ones who are trying to live good lives and be disciples of Christ.
That’s how I see it right now, but I reserve the right to admit later I’m spectacularly wrong if I come to understand differently in the future. (Maybe that should be part of my signature, as well.)
As is the case with most topics
😳 , I’ve written extensively about the ban and race on my personal blog. If you’re interested, go ahead and read them. (http://thingsofmysoul.blogspot.com )Allow me to rephrase…. Did not mean to stir up the hornets’ nest with a bad choice of words. Quote:Women currently, and blacks formerly, will not be held accountable for not having qualified for the priesthood. I believe God is merciful above all…
How about this? Quote:Women currently, and blacks formerly, will not be held accountable for not having
receivedthe priesthood. I believe God is merciful above all… Kendall White Jr. and Daryl White did a survey at BYU on black attitudes about the priesthood ban; black people gave 5 responses to why the ban existed.
1. lack of historic or even moral readiness on the parts of blacks themselves
2. simply a great quandary (they don’t know)
3. Whether the traditional teachings had a divine or human origin was no longer relevant, and nothing was to be gained by hashing it over.
4. the church had simply allowed human error to influence church policy, because of political compromises (in Missouri or Utah) or because of the need to mollify a few slave-owning converts.
5. blacks had been denied the priesthood all those years because God knew that whites were not morally and spiritually ready to accept black members into full fellowship. This position carried the implication that the blacks had demonstrated superior moral strength through their patience and forgiveness.
Now the study was not a “Random sample”, so results cannot be used as a statistically reliable indicator of black thought, but it certainly represents a diversity of opinion among blacks. Option 2 may be the best, but I found the idea of #5 especially interesting. Can we properly blame the ban on whites lack of preparedness? I think such an idea is plausible. Option 4 is very interesting too.
I did a big write up on the study last year. See
http://www.mormonheretic.org/2011/04/14/current-race-relations-within-the-lds-church/ mormonheretic wrote:1. lack of historic or even moral readiness on the parts of blacks themselves
2. simply a great quandary (they don’t know)
3. Whether the traditional teachings had a divine or human origin was no longer relevant, and nothing was to be gained by hashing it over.
4. the church had simply allowed human error to influence church policy, because of political compromises (in Missouri or Utah) or because of the need to mollify a few slave-owning converts.
5. blacks had been denied the priesthood all those years because God knew that whites were not morally and spiritually ready to accept black members into full fellowship. This position carried the implication that the blacks had demonstrated superior moral strength through their patience and forgiveness.
Now the study was not a “Random sample”, so results cannot be used as a statistically reliable indicator of black thought, but it certainly represents a diversity of opinion among blacks. Option 2 may be the best, but I found the idea of #5 especially interesting. Can we properly blame the ban on whites lack of preparedness? I think such an idea is plausible. Option 4 is very interesting too.
A case could be made for #4 based on historical research though it’s all subject to interpretation and observer bias. The others all depend on where you sit as to level of belief in the whole idea of priesthood and the restoration. My issue with #5 is that it seems to be a spin on the idea that women being more naturally pure, holy, and good don’t need the priesthood and it’s just men, carnal, etc. by nature, who need it to bring them to the level of women.
mormonheretic wrote:How about this?
Quote:Women currently, and blacks formerly, will not be held accountable for not having
receivedthe priesthood. I believe God is merciful above all…
Love it. Thank you.
Yes, it was the right time. If anyone has any problems with this issue, read this: https://byustudies.byu.edu/articleDownload.aspx?title=7885&linkURL=47.2KimballSpencerb0a083df-b26b-430b-9ce2-3efec584dcd9.pdf Quote myself from the other thread Quote:I read all 75 pages. It didn’t make me feel any better.
Shawn wrote:Yes, it was the right time. If anyone has any problems with this issue, read this:
https://byustudies.byu.edu/articleDownload.aspx?title=7885&linkURL=47.2KimballSpencerb0a083df-b26b-430b-9ce2-3efec584dcd9.pdf
Shawn, thanks for that link. It really was a great article about the revelatory process, and the good man at heart that Pres Kimball was.But honestly, it doesn’t help the problem I have with the church perpetuating a policy for over a hundred years prior to this. It is good there are prophets that can recognize or correct our mistakes of the past. But it doesn’t mean there are no mistakes or sins in our past. It just doesn’t.
And I wish the church would just say that and own it, not try to excuse it.
No, it’s still a problematic issue for me.
On another subject…Pres Kimball sounds like a great man, a true prophet of God.
Heber13 wrote:On another subject…Pres Kimball sounds like a great man, a true prophet of God.
Agreed. And so was Hugh Brown.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.