Blacks and the Priesthood redux, ala David O. Mckay

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

You are right about one thing...the Old Testament is worthless when it comes to offering anything of substance for guiding our morals. Especially Exodus. What a worthless book that is. Esp Chapter 20. Talk about outdated!

The Greeks are better suited to act as moral compasses. Especially the orgy and incest part of their ancient culture. Why cant we all just go back to those good old days?

My understanding is that Greeks didn't have slaves either.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

And yet it didn't influence church doctrine?

Depends on how tightly you want to define the term.

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

And yet, towards the end of DOM's life, there was a substantial debate among the quorum as to whether the ban was policy or doctrine. And whether a revelation was necessary to overturn it. Why would that be?

I don't know. Just about every prophet of that era appears to have insisted that it was necessary, and (if memory serves--don't have the book in front of me) we have at least two who explicitly claim the Lord denied their request.

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

How do you know that folks like Sterling McMurrin didn't hasten the day that the change was made? Then again, not surprising at all that you would take this stance. Fortunately, DOM stood by him in the end.

He may well have, and I don't think it would've been right to excommunicate him. But in my opinion he went about it the wrong way.

Parenthetically it's interesting to note the authors' bias on this question. I don't know that McMurrin was anymore pushy or unreasonable on this topic than McConkie was on Mormon Doctrine, yet one is portrayed as a reprobate and the other as a crusader.

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

This one really has me scratching my head. How could you possibly know that the war was proof that the decision was correct? Is it due to potential danger to the white missionaries who would have been there? What about the thousands or tens of thousands of Africans that would have joined the church? Would you also argue that missionary activities in Europe prior to WW2 were in error?

The church doesn't typically proselyte in war zones.

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

I think you are cherry-picking a little here. You don't like that quote? Fine, there are plenty others with clear documentation.

If there are "plenty" of others with "clear" documentation, one wonders why the authors had to resort to a third-hand quote to make their case.

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

After more thought, I am a little puzzled why this issue has you so up in arms. The book did not hide the fact that it was based on hearsay. And this is not a court of law. It is a history book. And the book was clear and upfront about the source of the quote. It is left to the reader to analyze the significance. Are we going to limit history to firsthand accounts only? If so, there are quite a few things about LDS history that will need to change. I seem to recall not too long ago when your signature line contained a second-hand account of a conversation regarding "leading the church astray".

Let me ask you the question in reverse: do you draw a line at all, or is any hearsay appropriate for a "non-court-of-law" history book, so long as it's properly sourced and documented?

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

And you claim that "over my dead body" is a "grotesque" misrepresentation of what was said. But the exact quote was "My daddy said that as long he's alive, [the blacks will] never have the priesthood,". Seems awfully similar to me.

I think one portrays a more belligerent attitude than the other. The difference is significant to me; maybe it isn't to you.

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

My understanding is that Greeks didn't have slaves either.

Whenever I feel my moral compass needs some re-calibrating, I simply ponder the story of Oedipus....or was it Electra?....

[ChinoCoug]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

My understanding is that Greeks didn't have slaves either.

and their treatment of women was so much better than that of the Hebrews.

[SteelBlue]

Originally Posted by Tex

I think one portrays a more belligerent attitude than the other. The difference is significant to me; maybe it isn't to you.

I don't think the two are much different at all. You're argument that the quote itself is hearsay is the better argument.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by SteelBlue

I don't think the two are much different at all. You're argument that the quote itself is hearsay is the better argument.

My argument is that in the absence of any real context, that sentence in and of itself is insufficient for any reasonable person to draw absolute conclusions about its meaning.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Tex

Let me ask you the question in reverse: do you draw a line at all, or is any hearsay appropriate for a "non-court-of-law" history book, so long as it's properly sourced and documented?

I am saying that I don't equate hearsay with first person accounts, but I don't completely discount it either. The authors were not deceptive about the source of the quote.

And apparently you are just fine with hearsay when it suits your purposes. Here is the quote that was in your signature line recently:

I remember years ago when I was a Bishop I had President [Heber J.] Grant talk to our ward. After the meeting I drove him home....Standing by me, he put his arm over my shoulder and said: "My boy, you always keep your eye on the President of the Church, and if he ever tells you to do anything, and it is wrong, and you do it, the Lord will bless you for it." Then with a twinkle in his eye, he said, "But you don't need to worry. The Lord will never let his mouthpiece lead the people astray." [Marion G. Romney]

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

I am saying that I don't equate hearsay with first person accounts, but I don't completely discount it either. The authors were not deceptive about the source of the quote.

And apparently you are just fine with hearsay when it suits your purposes. Here is the quote that was in your signature line recently:

Game. Set. Match.

[K-dog]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

One more thing, K-Dog, Korematsu did not inolve any statistically demonstrated racial bias. (I think that's a term of art you threw out there kind of like name dropping.) The Court dealt with direct evidence of disparate treatment by government--interning Japanese during WWII. Nowadays it just so happens that the Court deals pretty much exclusively with statistical evidence of racial bias because, practically speaking, the kind of bias the Court dealt with in Korematsu is today so widely recognized as wrong and illegal that it rarely happens, and probably would never provide justification for a Supreme Court case.

To the extent that racial bias meriting Supreme Court review does occur today, it is large-scale, sophisticated and occult, often the product of numerous combined decisions within large institutions, and must necessary be proven by statistical evidence (not to say it is any less invidious that the more crude forms of racial discrimination that occurred in times past). That's the only significance of the "statistically demonstrated racial bias" catch-phrase.

The law is simply that governmental distinctions based upon race are inherently suspect and subject to the strictest scrutiny. I dare say that today there does not exist a circumstance that can satisfy this burden. Any exception you could come up with would be the one that proves the rule.

Of course, the Civil Rights Act imposes a similar burden on private institutions.

That seems like an accurate restatement of the law in this area with the noted difference that lies in the standard required from group to group. Not all racial groups are looked at the same by the law.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

I am saying that I don't equate hearsay with first person accounts, but I don't completely discount it either. The authors were not deceptive about the source of the quote.

Who said anything about being deceptive about the source? I didn't.

The quote is out-of-context, impossible to corroborate, and a couple of people removed from the source, all of which increase the odds of it being either flat wrong or badly misunderstood. And, I might add, it is the only statement in the entire chapter that is so poorly substantiated.

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

And apparently you are just fine with hearsay when it suits your purposes. Here is the quote that was in your signature line recently:

Heh. Yeah, that's the same thing. LOL.