Why were blacks denied the Priesthood in the first place?

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

My only point is this: using others' racism to rationalize your own cuts no ice with me. So other religions have histories of immoral acts. Is this supposed to be news? You're Mormons, you're supposed to be better, right? But you're not, you're worse in many ways.

Mormons sound like rubes running all over the world calling themselves the only true church and path to salvation, calling themselves the best church, and then using other religions' alleged racsim--or worse, society at large's racism--to justify their own sordid history of instititionalized racism. The best my ass.

Regardless, your case is hard to make absent formal, institutionalize apartheid as existed in the LDS church. How is a church racist if it does not deny membership or priesthood based on race and (at least in the North) doesn't make blacks sit in segregated areas? Whites and blacks migrate to their own churches for all kinds of personal and cultural reasons that have nothing to do with racism.

Tell that to Bill Russell.

I'm not defending the Church's mistake in this area, but in one sense it's understandable, given the Church is led by fallible men with the same biases and prejudices of their environment.

In one sense, if the results are the same, what does it matter if one has an open declaration, and another has a latent insidious form of discrimination? Sometimes the latent form is worse, because it's much more difficult to change.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Seattle is ignoring the de facto segregation of the North in their churches. As a related aside, Bill Russell's struggles in "enlightened" Boston are famous.

The priesthood ban was wrongful, but our ancestors were far from being the sole bigots out there. It was a national epidemic.

Mormons say they're better. They're supposed to be better; they call themselves God's only true church. But they were far from the best and the brightest; they were at the bottom in many ways. You bet racism was all over the place. But there were a lot of enlgightend pockets and islands and peaks. These places led the abolition of institutionalized racism. Unfortunately the self-proclaimed "only true church" had to wise up at the eleventh hour to save itself from international pariah status. Mormons were not the best. They were down there with the worst.

Don't use other racists to rationlize your racist history. It's pathetic.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Tell that to Bill Russell.

Give me a break. I'm sure Bill Russell couldn't have a lower opinion of Mormons if he cares about them in the least. I never said there weren't racists. I said this is the worst apoligetics for the LDS church there could possibly be. It's a disgrace. It's pathetic, citing the racist sub-class in Boston as rationlization.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by SteelBlue

I don't blame you for dodging that question Tex. FWIW, isn't it fair to refer to BY's teachings on the matter as he was the ORIGINATOR of said ban?

I'm not dodging. Not to be offensive here, but it's a silly question. I'm not going to judge the revelatory powers of every prophet over the last 150 years by some obscure statement Brigham Young might have said. Any time any prophet of any generation says something you don't like, you can just whip out your little quote and say, "See?! Brigham thought God was speaking and Brigham was wrong! So maybe this guy is too." What stops me from applying it to any old doctrine/policy I don't like?

People use blacks and the priesthood to justify whatever little pet complaint they have, as I noted here. If that's your cup o' tea, then by all means. It sounds like wishful thinking to me.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Hey mental midget, YOU ARE THE ONE WHO MADE AN ARGUMENT THAT CHURCHES IN THE NORTH WERE SUPERIOR TO MORMONS BECAUSE OF THE CIVIL WAR. If the relative comparison of churches doesn't float your boat, don't do it!!!

I said no such thing. Where did I say it? Show me where I said it. You can't.

I simply said that the following statement (the second post in this thread) by Il Padrino wasn't true:

"Everyone was a racist in this country at that point in history, so it wouldn't be uncommon for blacks to be denied privileges in any organization, be it religious or secular."

That wasn't true in 1830, it wasn't true in the 1860's, and it wasn't true in 1979. "Everyone" wasn't a racist in the U.S. when Mormons were racist. In 1979 Mormon racism was in the extreme fringe, which is (by all objective evidence) why the ban was repealed, so Mormons could retain some claim to the mainstream.

If you believe this line of "reasoning" somehow edculpates the LDS Church's racism, well, I'm surprised, and I can't retain much respect for you.

[SteelBlue]

Originally Posted by Tex

I'm not dodging. Not to be offensive here, but it's a silly question. I'm not going to judge the revelatory powers of every prophet over the last 150 years by some obscure statement Brigham Young might have said.

You're dodging.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by SteelBlue

You're dodging.

Nope.

[BYU71]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Mormons say they're better. They're supposed to be better; they call themselves God's only true church. But they were far from the best and the brightest; they were at the bottom in many ways. You bet racism was all over the place. But there were a lot of enlgightend pockets and islands and peaks. These places led the abolition of institutionalized racism. Unfortunately the self-proclaimed "only true church" had to wise up at the eleventh hour to save itself from international pariah status. Mormons were not the best. They were down there with the worst.

Don't use other racists to rationlize your racist history. It's pathetic.

SU exemplifies what I have always said. What bugs people who know our church well is the strong claim "we are better" than other people. It is what bugs people who know BYU well, the claim BYU is morally superior to everyone else.

It's like Phil Jackson protesting over some signs he saw coming into the Delta Center. He thought "mormons" didn't do that. He has no outrage over the signs, only that "mormons" were involved.

To me the protestations are hollow. SU should be smart enough to realize his anger should be directed to the "holier than thou" segment of the church membership and not the church membership as a whole.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Give me a break. I'm sure Bill Russell couldn't have a lower opinion of Mormons if he cares about them in the least. I never said there weren't racists. I said this is the worst apoligetics for the LDS church there could possibly be. It's a disgrace. It's pathetic, citing the racist sub-class in Boston as rationlization.

Bill Russell couldn't get into certain housing in the most "enlightened" city of the nation. I don't care about Bill's opinions of Mormons, but rather wish to show you that most cities, even enlightened, were not so enlightened, and Mormons merely reflect the rest of society; we rarely lead the way socially, and in fact Mormons tend to lag behind.