The purpose of Blacks and the Priesthood ban

[Tex]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Maybe I am one of those weird people like Juanita Brook who think the truth matters.

Mike has this fantasy of being Tom Cruise in a courtroom with Gordon Hinckley on the witness stand ... "I WANT THE TRUTH!"

Now picture Hinckley leaping off the chair at Mike shouting, "I'M GOING TO RIP YOUR HEAD OFF AND PUKE IN YOUR SKULL!"

Take one for the team, Mike. For truth.

[MikeWaters]

Brooks was almost excommunicated for saying the truth.

History of dedication to historical truth is poor in the church.

For what the church said just this year about MMM, Brooks was almost denied eternal blessings over.

Think about it.

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by Tex

Mike has this fantasy of being Tom Cruise in a courtroom with Gordon Hinckley on the witness stand ... "I WANT THE TRUTH!"

Now picture Hinckley leaping off the chair at Mike shouting, "I'M GOING TO RIP YOUR HEAD OFF AND PUKE IN YOUR SKULL!"

Take one for the team, Mike. For truth.

That would be out of character for GBH. It is far more likely that GBH would stand up and tell Mike, "Pay Attention you s**t"

[creekster]

Originally Posted by Adam

I stand firmly with Mike on this one. I for one am sick and tired of the lies. There is something in some people's DNA that makes them yearn for truth and honesty. Brooks and Arrington had it. Alexander and Bushman have it. Waters and I have it. We didn't decide to be this way. God made us this way. We hate lies and cannot abide them silently.

There is no question in my mind that any honest student of history, when reading the source material, will conclude that the ban on giving blacks the priesthood i) was not instituted by Joseph Smith, ii) is not based in scripture, iii) was perpetuated by men who believed the color of one's skin made a qualitative difference in the esteem God held that man, and iv) who were opposed to equal civil rights for those with dark skin.

If you disagree with these statements you are either ignorant or a liar. There can be no questioning these 5 posits. Many church leaders, and three presidents in a row (McKay, Smith, Lee), didn't want to give blacks the priesthood. McKay seemed to waiver at the end of his life on the issue of doctrine/policy, but it is never recorded that he wanted to lift the ban. Smith and Lee never waivered in their opposition. In contrast SWK says that he actively desired to see the ban lifted.

So what are we to conclude? Maybe the fact that so many church leaders outside SWK and HBB had no foundation for their teaching and were racists had nothing to do with their banning blacks from holding the priesthood. Maybe it was God's will independently and even if they were full supporters of MLK the ban would have continued. I doubt it.

Honest students of church history admit that personal biases matter and God rarely forces man to do something against his will.

If the church would address these issues honestly it would be healing for many members, position us on the right side of honesty, and garner the same respect which we gained for our Mountian Meadows mea culpa. The same logic that lead to the MM apology should lead to one for the ban.

But pride runs deep in powerful men and I would be suprised if current church leadership had the courage to apology only 30 years after the end of the ban. It will likely be my generation who finally does for the ban on blacks holding the priesthood what Hinckley did for MM.

With any luck polygamy will be brought back and you and MIke can spread your DNA for good throughout the kingdom. One can only hope, for your sakes, as it must be a terrible and lonely burden to bear.

[Goatnapper'96]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Brooks was almost excommunicated for saying the truth.

History of dedication to historical truth is poor in the church.

For what the church said just this year about MMM, Brooks was almost denied eternal blessings over.

Think about it.

While I hate to barge in when you are pointing out your sainthood, it is not correct that Brooks would have lost eternal blessings for publishing the truth. It matters not that John D. Lee had his temple covenants posthumously returned if he is the cold blooded murderer I believe him to be. The judgement either by God or his appointed servants is going to be perfect and what mortal man said about Juanita Brooks in the 1950s or 60s will have little impact on that judgement.

Now please beat your drum and be noble.

[Goatnapper'96]

Originally Posted by Adam

I stand firmly with Mike on this one. I for one am sick and tired of the lies. There is something in some people's DNA that makes them yearn for truth and honesty. Brooks and Arrington had it. Alexander and Bushman have it. Waters and I have it. We didn't decide to be this way. God made us this way. We hate lies and cannot abide them silently.

While I enjoy watching you and Mike circle jerk each other, I think it is important to note that Arrington, Brooks, Bushman and the rest are historians. They are academic wankers who do not consider influencing others' decisions and behaviors as important. Theirs is purely the quest for truth and then to allow others to interpret as they may. Arrington was very frank with family members that his concerns were academic and that he realized if he were to carry the ecclesiastical burden that the brethren carry he would not have viewed the importance of promulgating truth similarly. It is unfair to not take into consideration the different roles, obligations and responsibilities. I might not agree with how the Brethren treat the priesthood ban, MMM, the archives or whatnot, but I am not foolish enough to fail to realize that their responsibility to protect the branding of the LDS Church is pure in intent.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Goatnapper'96

While I enjoy watching you and Mike circle jerk each other, I think it is important to note that Arrington, Brooks, Bushman and the rest are historians. They are academic wankers who do not consider influencing others' decisions and behaviors as important. Theirs is purely the quest for truth and then to allow others to interpret as they may. Arrington was very frank with family members that his concerns were academic and that he realized if he were to carry the ecclesiastical burden that the brethren carry he would not have viewed the importance of promulgating truth similarly. It is unfair to not take into consideration the different roles, obligations and responsibilities. I might not agree with how the Brethren treat the priesthood ban, MMM, the archives or whatnot, but I am not foolish enough to fail to realize that their responsibility to protect the branding of the LDS Church is pure in intent.

In other words, when a person wears a different hat, he might take a different tact on the same issue?

[SeattleUte]

I think my sympathies tend toward Mike in this thread. Yes, the ban was well known in 1978, among those who cared. But until recently there never have been many people who cared, inside or outside of Mormonism.

Let's talk first about folks outside Mormonism. Partly because of the ban and polygamy, and the bizarre nature of the "first vision" story, etc. (yes, to the average non-Mormon this is all extremely bizarre), and also because of Mormonism's microscopic size and limited geographic scope, no one outside Mormonism paid much attention, particularly after the ban was lifted. Mormonism just hasn't mattered very much in the world at large. I'm sure the Jehovah's Witnesses have some appalling beliefs of which I'm blissfully ignorant. No one cares about the Jehovah's Witnesses.

Now, what about inside Mormonism. I'll be blunt and to the point. A signal trait of the active Mormon masses, of the Mormon rank and file, is an inability or an unwillingness to think for themselves. A quality like zombies. Is it okay to get a tattoo? Well, what does the prophet say? Gay marriage? Consult the prophet. The refrain recurs almost every day on Cougarboard. Even here on this board I've seen written, "When the prophet speaks the inquiry begins and ends." Zombies. It's like that quote from the Grand Inquisitor I post occasionally, Mormons don't want to think for themselves. It's painful and scary. They want to be told what to think.

The very idea that when some "prophet" speaks the debate ends sounds essentially cult-like, and should deeply offend any knowledgeable, clear sighted and deep thinking individual who appreciates our American republic and its values and humanity's long climb to attain such a status. Such idea should deeply offend anyone who appreciates that but for a free republic like America and tolerance for diverse views a sect like Mormonism could never have taken root. Be that as it may, one of the signature traits of Mormonism, and perhaps its central mystery, is this psychological hammerlock that Mormonism's leaders, largely a bunch of aging ex-life insurance salesmen with a smattering of lawyers, have maintained over the Mormon rank and file. It's like Mormonism has remained in a time capsule from the Middle Ages (there are some interesting explanations for this, beyond the scope of this post).

So when Spencer W. Kimball (the same man who said every Indian and Polynesian and Hawaiian native is descended from the house of Judah, and are in these latter days miraculously turning white as their dark skin curse is fading) said God told him to lift the priesthood ban, whereas the ban was proper before 1978, the Mormon rank and file believed him, without questioning, like zombies. As the Grand Inquisitor told Jesus, that's what the masses are wont to do, because it's easy and not so scary as facing the truth and thinking for yourself.

But now an active Mormon runs for president of the most powerful and moral nation the world has ever known, and is a viable candidate. And suddenly the world cares very much about Mormonism, its roots, its values. Yes, the past matters; the past, and particularly how the present generations process the past and come to terms with it, tells all that needs to be said about today's values. The enlightened world demanded an apology from Catholicism for being faint hearted and obsequious in the face of the Nazi mass murdering machine.

Not surprisingly, one of the first things the world wants to know is if Mitt Romney is one of the zombies, like the Mormon masses (a good cross-section of which you see on Cougarboard). Not surprisingly, his speech about his religion addressed this question first.

Unless Romney's candidacy flames out very quickly, one outcome of this new attention paid for Mormonism could be an end to this peculiar zombie-like feature of the Mormon rank and file. Much has happened to Mormonism very quickly in its 270 year history. Mormonism's character and history are fast developing. And Mormonism took root and its brain trust exists in a country that values above all else critical inquiry and truth.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Adam

Currently, the church leadership is taking the position that it is better to say God was racist then to admit that some dead guys who made hundreds of recorded racist statments were racist.

It's extremely small-minded to think that if God was 100% behind the ban, then that makes him a racist.

[Goatnapper'96]

Originally Posted by Adam

You think that the Church is doing a good job branding itself on the race issue?

I agree that the primary purpose of historians and church leaders differ.
The goal of the historian is truth and the goal of the church leader is to roll out the kingdom.

The question is whether it helps roll out the kingdom more effectively to ignore the historical fact that HBL and JFS and DOM and BY and many others were racist and pretend that instead it was God on his throne who was racist?

It really is that simple. Currently, the church leadership is taking the position that it is better to say God was racist then to admit that some dead guys who made hundreds of recorded racist statments were racist.

This makes me sad. Are you happy with this tact?

Whether or not I am happy is not my point. My point is that the folks speaking for the Church are very much older than you and I and probably don't share your interpretation of what makes or doesn't make somebody racist. You and they are on such different ground that is pointless your you to superimpose your values on the subject on them.

I can accept that there were social and cultural biases that impacted or even inspired the ban. I can also accept the approach that the LDS Church, under the guidance of an inspired oracle, eventually got it right. I believe that the Prophet won't lead the Church astray. I think even if the Prophet has something wrong for 100 years the key is that in time it was fixed. I don't need an apology for closure or to prevent me from feeling sad. I think that the Church leaders believe that more members would doubt the legitimacy of divine revelation to inspired prophets as a consequence of such an apology than they believe other humans would be attracted to joining. Whether or not I share that belief does not get in my way of attributing to the leaders a genuine concern for the salvation of God's children rather than your dogmatic desire to be proven right and honest. As far as my opinion, the honest truth is I really don't know. It could have been that God was complicit in it for reasons known only unto Him. It could be that the leaders were bigoted and too damn protective of the LDS claim that its prophets recieve divine revelation. It could be that God didn't like it Himself, but in His wisdom did not think it would benefit the Church as the cultural biases of the many members would have led to the social fabric being destroyed. My study of the issue has not convinced me that the only logical conclusion is that God was opposed to it but it went on by virtue of racists leading the LDS Church.

However, I do appreciate the noble work for me that fellars like you and Mike do. Makes my nipples hard, no doubt.