I was sort of baffled by the black guy that quoted John Taylor

[nikuman]

Originally Posted by jay santos

Attributed to Alvin Dyer, 1961, mission conference in Norway. One of the most disgusting things I've ever read.

Yup, that's it. As soon as you said the name it clicked. The version I read was on a piece of paper that looked like a typewritten letter that had been photocopied seven times, but only after it had been dunked in coffee and folded.

I think my mom still believes that, but her family is originally (meaning WAY back down the line) from the South, so there may be unconscious attitudes that accompany the belief.

[SteelBlue]

Originally Posted by Black Diamond Bay

I can't fathom why he felt like that needed to be mentioned if it was true. Maybe so he could feel more persecuted?

I had not heard that quote, but having studied many others I've little doubt it's true. What I find baffling is your response here.

[Tex]

Very interesting discussion.

While I find the "filling the void left by the GAs" position a bit tenuous, I've seen first-hand more than once the dissatisfaction that accompanies the "we don't know" explanation.

The problem is, filling the void with one's own explanation is really just covering the issue up. It might make the investigator feel better--and who am I to judge, if that works--but is really no better than the next man's conjecture. Heck, it's very satisfying to just tell people polygamy was instituted because so many men died crossing the plains and the families left behind needed support, but that's really not true.

I blanch a little at the comparison of the priesthood ban to Judah sleeping with a harlot, or David committing both adultery and murder. Peter's struggles might be a slightly more compatible comparison--the gospel being blocked from the Gentiles during Jesus' mortal life is usually my explanation for the priesthood issue (and I acknowledge it's no more based in "offical" statements than any other).

It seems more like such a list is kept in case one wants to remind fellow Mormons just how imperfect their church really is. To that motivation, I agree with Gordon, "It's behind us."

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by nikuman

Yup, that's it. As soon as you said the name it clicked. The version I read was on a piece of paper that looked like a typewritten letter that had been photocopied seven times, but only after it had been dunked in coffee and folded.

I think my mom still believes that, but her family is originally (meaning WAY back down the line) from the South, so there may be unconscious attitudes that accompany the belief.

I think my grandparents believe it. My mom is coming around. It's hard for her to buck the system she was taught. I call it rubbish. My kids wouldn't believe you if you told them you used to hear this stuff in church. Good example of generational differences with respect to racism in the church (and it's obviously not just an LDS church issue).

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by Tex

It seems more like such a list is kept in case one wants to remind fellow Mormons just how imperfect their church really is. To that motivation, I agree with Gordon, "It's behind us."

I don't think that the point is that much of the membership is satisfied not knowing the answer and feels that it is "behind us". Clearly it does, by and large. The point is that whether you personally feel like it is behind us or not, this issue is an impediment to blacks joining the church and is a stumbling block to some members or potential members.

MMM is behind us too, and yet GBH goes personally to the dedication of a monument at that site, a huge act of consiliation and an acknowledgement that we don't defend what happened there and that we are sorry that it did.

The issue of blacks and the priesthood is thornier becasue there was so much thought process on record by leaders of the church justifying it. But BRM had it right when he said "forget what I said, I was wrong."

People frequently infer a great deal from the silence of the brethren on a multitude of issues, including that they have considered it and chosen not to do anything. The brethren were not focused on the issue of blacks and the priesthood until the culture changed and they were prompted to inquire internally and with the Lord as to whether it was right. We all know what the answer to that was. A generation had to pass away before this could take place.

Similarly, that the roots of this have not been addressed doesn't mean that it might not be nor that it is improper for one to desire that it be addressed. I see nothing wrong with simply saying "we were wrong" or "those leaders were wrong." There is ample precedent for it. MMM as indicated above. Adam-God theory which has (as I recall) been declared not to be the doctrine of the church. Some day a prophet of a different generation may well do that, based in part on the thoughts that were provoked by articles and discussions such as these.

Why would you impute what I percieve to be a selfish or arrogant motivation to SIEQ rather than the one I'm suggesting? Is there a basis for it or is it knee-jerk defensiveness over feeling like the church is under attack?

[nikuman]

Originally Posted by jay santos

I think my grandparents believe it. My mom is coming around. It's hard for her to buck the system she was taught. I call it rubbish. My kids wouldn't believe you if you told them you used to hear this stuff in church. Good example of generational differences with respect to racism in the church (and it's obviously not just an LDS church issue).

My mom's parents got over it, I think, because they were called to go on a mission from Idaho to North Carolina. Necessity will rid a person of incompatable beliefs in a hurry.

[Sleeping in EQ]

Originally Posted by Tex

Very interesting discussion.

While I find the "filling the void left by the GAs" position a bit tenuous, I've seen first-hand more than once the dissatisfaction that accompanies the "we don't know" explanation.

The problem is, filling the void with one's own explanation is really just covering the issue up. It might make the investigator feel better--and who am I to judge, if that works--but is really no better than the next man's conjecture. Heck, it's very satisfying to just tell people polygamy was instituted because so many men died crossing the plains and the families left behind needed support, but that's really not true.

I blanch a little at the comparison of the priesthood ban to Judah sleeping with a harlot, or David committing both adultery and murder. Peter's struggles might be a slightly more compatible comparison--the gospel being blocked from the Gentiles during Jesus' mortal life is usually my explanation for the priesthood issue (and I acknowledge it's no more based in "offical" statements than any other).

It seems more like such a list is kept in case one wants to remind fellow Mormons just how imperfect their church really is. To that motivation, I agree with Gordon, "It's behind us."

I tell people what I sincerely believe and certainly won't apologize to the likes of you for doing so. I don't put my views forward as "this is the answer" and certainly don't think of them as filling the "void." I do, though, know something of what I speak as I've studied the subject in depth.

In contrast, your assumptions, "conjectures," and commentaries seem, as usual, pulled right out of your backside.

Please treat all of us to more of your belligerence.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

I don't think that the point is that much of the membership is satisfied not knowing the answer and feels that it is "behind us". Clearly it does, by and large. The point is that whether you personally feel like it is behind us or not, this issue is an impediment to blacks joining the church and is a stumbling block to some members or potential members.

MMM is behind us too, and yet GBH goes personally to the dedication of a monument at that site, a huge act of consiliation and an acknowledgement that we don't defend what happened there and that we are sorry that it did.

The issue of blacks and the priesthood is thornier becasue there was so much thought process on record by leaders of the church justifying it. But BRM had it right when he said "forget what I said, I was wrong."

People frequently infer a great deal from the silence of the brethren on a multitude of issues, including that they have considered it and chosen not to do anything. The brethren were not focused on the issue of blacks and the priesthood until the culture changed and they were prompted to inquire internally and with the Lord as to whether it was right. We all know what the answer to that was. A generation had to pass away before this could take place.

Similarly, that the roots of this have not been addressed doesn't mean that it might not be nor that it is improper for one to desire that it be addressed. I see nothing wrong with simply saying "we were wrong" or "those leaders were wrong." There is ample precedent for it. MMM as indicated above. Adam-God theory which has (as I recall) been declared not to be the doctrine of the church. Some day a prophet of a different generation may well do that, based in part on the thoughts that were provoked by articles and discussions such as these.

Why would you impute what I percieve to be a selfish or arrogant motivation to SIEQ rather than the one I'm suggesting? Is there a basis for it or is it knee-jerk defensiveness over feeling like the church is under attack?

I don't think it's improper to desire that it be addressed. Personally, I would love to hear an official prophetic statement on the topic--mostly so it would go away.

Ultimately, though, missionary work is not about intellectually convincing people to join the church, nor about making the best, most intellectual argument when a concern arises. If it were, we wouldn't be sending out "callow youth," as one reporter called them, to do the work.

An investigator has to decide if he believes that God calls and directs prophets today, despite their failings. Sometimes that includes accepting policies and doctrines we do not understand. Someone considering membership in the church needs to become familiar with the phrase, "some things we just don't know" because we have to use it a lot ... and that includes the blacks issue.

That doesn't mean we can't stop asking. Obviously Spencer Kimball didn't. But it means coming to terms with "things as they really are" rather than substituting explanations that sound very plausible and reasonable, but may ultimately be incorrect.

That's not to say the intellectual persuasion method doesn't work for some people--obviously it does, as Sleeping has pointed out. Good for them. Personally I don't necessarily consider it a good practice, all the same.

As to the motives for keeping a list, I didn't mean to impute it unfairly to Sleeping, and upon re-reading, I see that's how it probably came across. I've known several folks in wards over the years who like to keep a pet list of controversial statements by church authorities, so they can whip it out at the appropriate moment and shock whoever happens to be in the area. (fusnik, anyone?)

Apologies to Sleeping, if this isn't the case.

[mpfunk]

Originally Posted by Tex

I don't think it's improper to desire that it be addressed. Personally, I would love to hear an official prophetic statement on the topic--mostly so it would go away.

I think there has been an official prophetic statement on the Priesthood Ban.

"How can any man holding the Melchizedek Priesthood arrogantly assume that he is eligible for the priesthood whereas another who lives a righteous life but whose skin is of a different color is ineligible?"
Gordon B. Hinckley

I interpret this statement to acknowledge it was a wrong policy and it was based on the prejudices of man. I wish they would make a more direct statement, but I think this is still pretty straight forward.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by mpfunk

"How can any man holding the Melchizedek Priesthood arrogantly assume that he is eligible for the priesthood whereas another who lives a righteous life but whose skin is of a different color is ineligible?"

Because prophets and apostles have told him that they are ineligible.