The purpose of Blacks and the Priesthood ban

[Tex]

Originally Posted by creekster

Mike, you kill me sometimes. As one who had reached the age of majoirty (at least as far as the military was concerned) in 1978 when the ban was lifted, I can tell you that the negative press was very significant. You talk as though no one noticed the priesthood ban until now. Not so, my young friend. This new scrutiny may result in a wave of negativity, but it will also generate a wave of support and genuine inquiry. I am not opposed to your concept of innoculation, although I would probabyl differ in approach to implementing same. To think, however, that becaseu a few pundits trumpet their disagreement with the church that the churhc will suffer dramtacially is simply wrong. As long as they spell our name correctly, we'll be fine. Besides, if you believe there is truth, as in eternal truth, in the gospel, then how can you contend otherwise?

Ditto. Mike may be discovering the 1978 ban for the first time, but the rest of America isn't. Sure, if Romney gets the nomination, we may see a 60 Minutes spot or a few 20/20 reports on the ban. Big deal.

A bunch of "opinion leaders" get their panties in a wad and start accusing broad swaths of individuals of being racists. What else is new. Happens everyday on CG, why not elsewhere?

[creekster]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I am saying there is more to be gained by honestly addressing racism that there is in being silent.

Act now. Your gains in the future will be greater. Don't act, you limit your gains.

I'm looking into the future.

OK, so you think the church should simply announce that all those old guys with beards werre a bunch of rascists and we're very sorry about that but, hey, we're on board now so what the heck. WHat effect in the future will that have on the church and its position in the world? Personally, I think a more prudent approach, especially becasue of the current situation, is important.

[BYU71]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I am saying there is more to be gained by honestly addressing racism that there is in being silent.

Act now. Your gains in the future will be greater. Don't act, you limit your gains.

I'm looking into the future.

What would be honestly addressing racism as you see it.

The religion was started in an era where prejudice against blacks wasn't considered racism by everyone. The people who were in or joined the religion think that what their leaders do comes from God. So if I was a member in good standing, I would have to think God was a racist following your logic and that currently he is anti women and a homo-phobe. I didn't, I like other members and leaders groped for reasons for this situation. I never heard anyone tell me I should hate blacks, never. My father as a matter of fact was very pro the civil rights movements. He was a democrat. My grandfather loved the Indians and was always very positive in his conversation about black people.

Why fight an old battle. If you are truly upset about this, do something about a current descriminatory practice. Lobby for women and practicing gays to get the Priesthood.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by creekster

OK, so you think the church should simply announce that all those old guys with beards werre a bunch of rascists and we're very sorry about that but, hey, we're on board now so what the heck. WHat effect in the future will that have on the church and its position in the world? Personally, I think a more prudent approach, especially becasue of the current situation, is important.

The church is a political beast. And they don't want to appear to be helping Romney. So they won't make any major moves that would appear to be trying to appease the public in order to help Romney.

Official and specific repudiation of racists doctrines therefore won't occur until at least the Romney thing has played out, just as it was with his father (see DoM biography).

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by BYU71

anyone tell me I should hate blacks, never. My father as a matter of fact was very pro the civil rights movements. He was a democrat. My grandfather loved the Indians and was always very positive in his conversation about black people.

Why fight an old battle. If you are truly upset about this, do something about a current descriminatory practice. Lobby for women and practicing gays to get the Priesthood.

ETB preached against the Civil Rights movement in General Conference.

I'm happy about your father, but I'm sure he didn't have nearly the influence of ETB.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

The church is a political beast. And they don't want to appear to be helping Romney. So they won't make any major moves that would appear to be trying to appease the public in order to help Romney.

Official and specific repudiation of racists doctrines therefore won't occur until at least the Romney thing has played out, just as it was with his father (see DoM biography).

WHat doctrines are you talking about? The doctrine/policy of the priesthood ban has been specifically rescinded. So if you mean that doctrine/policy, then you must be tlakign about a speciric acknowledgement of a rascist basis for the doctrine/policy? Even if true, I am not sure this would serve the church's or the gospel's interest.

[BYU71]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

ETB preached against the Civil Rights movement in General Conference.

I'm happy about your father, but I'm sure he didn't have nearly the influence of ETB.

Not that a prophet has to be popular, but a lot of people ignored things he said. My dad thought too many of his ideas came from John Birchers. How many members do you think heeded the counsel, no woman in the work place.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by creekster

WHat doctrines are you talking about? The doctrine/policy of the priesthood ban has been specifically rescinded. So if you mean that doctrine/policy, then you must be tlakign about a speciric acknowledgement of a rascist basis for the doctrine/policy? Even if true, I am not sure this would serve the church's or the gospel's interest.

Do you want a list?

1. comments from prophet(s) over the pulpit that were overtly racists
2. comments from prophet not over pulpit but publicy made overtly racist
3. doctrines espoused with no basis in reality, overtly racist (multitude of shifting doctrines used to justify denying blacks the priesthood)

"that's in the past" just doesn't cut it.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

"that's in the past" just doesn't cut it.

Sure it does. Maybe not for the press, or for you, but it should be for the believers.

We have read these passages and their associated passages for many years. We have seen what the words say and have said to ourselves, “Yes, it says that, but we must read out of it the taking of the gospel and the blessings of the temple to the Negro people, because they are denied certain things.” There are statements in our literature by the early Brethren which we have interpreted to mean that the Negroes would not receive the priesthood in mortality. I have said the same things, and people write me letters and say, “You said such and such, and how is it now that we do such and such?” And all I can say to that is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. 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.

One of the best things the man ever said.

[BYU71]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Do you want a list?

1. comments from prophet(s) over the pulpit that were overtly racists
2. comments from prophet not over pulpit but publicy made overtly racist
3. doctrines espoused with no basis in reality, overtly racist (multitude of shifting doctrines used to justify denying blacks the priesthood)

"that's in the past" just doesn't cut it.

Give me one quote that at the time the prophet made the quote would have been considered overtly racist.

Remember, I don't buy the argument that everyone who opposed the civil rights bill was a racist. Some people thought it could be done a different way.