mormonism racist?

[DeepShadow]

Thanks, AD. See, when the ban was lifted in 1978, there were a lot of people with egg on their faces. They had been trying to explain why the ban was in place, and the explanations were all smashed to bits by OD2. It was wrong for them to try to fill in the WHY when God had not shared it with them. That quote you led me to made me realize that I was doing the same thing: I was trying to fill in the why after the fact, when God had not revealed it to me.

This is, in the end, a matter of faith. I used to think that I had faith because of how much of the gospel I understood. As a teenager, I went to Sunday school and found myself saying, "I get it!" I thought that was faith. Now as an adult, as life gets more complicated, as I get deeper into the knotty problems of the world and the church, I find myself saying, "I don't get it...but I trust You."

Looking back over the church history, all I can say is that the modern church seems to have done a good job of removing racism from their ranks. I was too young to understand personal revelation when Kimball died, but I've prayed about every prophet since, and God has told me to follow them.

 

[Watchmen]

So this policy was a mistake on the part of the Church?

It was a mistake on the part of the people.

 

[Watchmen]

When Young says that he's speaking as a prophet, and in the name of Jesus Christ he's what? Mistaken? When the First Presidency issues an official communication claiming that the ban is doctrine they're mistaken?

It's not in the Doctrine and Covenants, is it?

 

[Katzpur]

For anyone's information who may be interested, I just edited my post #510 because I totally misread the question Mr. Spinkles posed to me. My original answer was completely opposite from what it is now. Serves me right for posting when I'm either too tired or too busy to read people's posts carefully.

 

[DeepShadow]

It's not in the Doctrine and Covenants, is it?

Which is why I'm so surprised that there was such a declaration. Still, it wasn't offered up in General Assembly, which means it wasn't added to the doctrine of the church.

But I can see how that's too fine a line for people outside the church.

 

[Autodidact]

It was a mistake on the part of the people.

the people in the Church, right? I mean, the Church is made of people. So the First Presidency was mistaken when they said it's doctrine? Brigham Young was mistaken when he claimed to speak as a prophet? All the Prophets from Young to Harold Lee were mistaken in this point? They all were wrong about what God said? Do you see the problem with that?

 

[Autodidact]

It's not in the Doctrine and Covenants, is it?

So Young was mistaken about speaking as a prophet? The First Presidency was mistaken when they said it was doctrine?

You know that Mormon doctrine includes more than the D & C, right?

 

[Autodidact]

Every communication on the subject, official, unofficial, every letter, every interview, every utterance by every Prophet and First Presidency from Brigham Young to at least 1950 makes it clear that Black men cannot be priests, that this is because they are descendants of Cain (or possibly "fought less valiantly), without exception. It is often referred to as doctrine or as foundational by those same people and entities, and referred back to a scriptural basis in the curse of Cain. Those are the facts. The question is, what do you do with those facts? Is God racist? Is the Church wrong? Which?

 

[DeepShadow]

You know that Mormon doctrine includes more than the D & C, right?

It includes the four Standard Works (Bible, BoM, D&C, PoGP) and Official Proclamations.

 

[Autodidact]

So, DeepShadow, when the First Presidency said in 1949 that the ban was doctrine, they were wrong?

 

[DeepShadow]

Those are the facts. The question is, what do you do with those facts? Is God racist? Is the Church wrong? Which?

There are any number of possibilities, considering those facts:

* The church needed to be racist because God knew about things that would destroy the church otherwise.

* God allowed the church to be racist because it would have split apart if He forced them to do what was right

* God needed people to complain about this, so that something else good would happen...somewhere...

* The church went astray for however many years, and was only re-inspired with Kimball.

It's like Bill and Ted's excellent adventure, only with alternate realities. There are lots of ways for the church to be racist then and still inspired today. I don't have to pick one. All I need to do is ask God if I should stay in this church. He said yes, so I stayed.

 

[DeepShadow]

So, DeepShadow, when the First Presidency said in 1949 that the ban was doctrine, they were wrong?

Again, there are infinite possibilities. Perhaps this single letter was uninspired, but others were not. Perhaps that entire presidency was uninspired. Perhaps this letter needed to be sent to avoid something worse than the racism that resulted. Perhaps the entire church was corrupt from top to bottom until Kimball.

We're talking about God here, who knows and sees all things. There are reasons out there why He would allow a racist doctrine, a racist church, a racist prophet. I don't have to know what they were back then to follow a subsequent prophet today.

 

[Autodidact]

It seems to be that the problem is if you accept that the Church, Prophet and First Presidency can all be wrong about God and His commandments, then you can't rely on them now for guidance on the same. It raises a problem with the idea of ongoing revelation as a reliable source of divine inspiration. "Yes, all the prophets from Brigham Young to the one just before me were wrong, but I'm right and divinely inspired, trust me on this." Doesn't really work. Is the prophet inspired by revelation directly from God, or isn't he? Or is he sometimes and sometimes not, and even he can't tell the difference? If you wanted to know whether something was doctrine or not, wouldn't you ask the First Presidency? Shouldn't they be relied on to say what is and is not doctrine? If not, what good are they? Shouldn't you just figure it out for yourself, and go join the FLDS if that's where you think God is leading you?

 

[maklelan]

Again, there are infinite possibilities. Perhaps this single letter was uninspired, but others were not. Perhaps that entire presidency was uninspired. Perhaps this letter needed to be sent to avoid something worse than the racism that resulted. Perhaps the entire church was corrupt from top to bottom until Kimball.

We're talking about God here, who knows and sees all things. There are reasons out there why He would allow a racist doctrine, a racist church, a racist prophet. I don't have to know what they were back then to follow a subsequent prophet today.

I saw what Autodidact had to see in your post, and I thought I'd answer his question. If one interprets the 1949 statements as claiming the ban was official church doctrine, yes, it is wrong. It was never presented to the general assembly of the church for its approval (see the end of OD's 1 and 2), and it was never presented as a revelation ratified by the Church High Council, and so it was never formally introduced as official doctrine. If one interprets the statement as a confirmation of the established and unwavering position of the church, then no, it's not incorrect. Since the justification for their position is "this is the way it's always been," and never, "it was made official," it is clearly a defense of the establishment of the policy.

Since the facts are never going to undermine the dogmatism of our antagonists, I'm not going to comment further on this thread. If anyone wishes to make explicit their prioritization of their opinion over the truth, feel free to level the same myopic and naive accusations at me that have been the standard up to this point.

 

[Watchmen]

It seems to be that the problem is if you accept that the Church, Prophet and First Presidency can all be wrong about God and His commandments, then you can't rely on them now for guidance on the same. It raises a problem with the idea of ongoing revelation as a reliable source of divine inspiration. "Yes, all the prophets from Brigham Young to the one just before me were wrong, but I'm right and divinely inspired, trust me on this." Doesn't really work. Is the prophet inspired by revelation directly from God, or isn't he? Or is he sometimes and sometimes not, and even he can't tell the difference? If you wanted to know whether something was doctrine or not, wouldn't you ask the First Presidency? Shouldn't they be relied on to say what is and is not doctrine? If not, what good are they? Shouldn't you just figure it out for yourself, and go join the FLDS if that's where you think God is leading you?

And this is where you ignore the crucial element DeepShadow has attempted to share: DeepShadow, or the other Mormons I know, don't do what they do or believe what they believe because of something the prophet said. They do what they do or believe what they believe because of what god said to them. The prophets have even explained that we are free, as individuals, to go to God in prayer and get the answers for ourselves.

The recent Prop 8 issue is a good example. We have a letter from the First Presidency. But we don't have to rely on that letter alone. We are each free to go to God and seek guidance. For me, that guidance was to not support Prop 8. Others received a different answer. Does that mean it's wrong and we're all crazy? You'd probably think so. But I accept that God does what he does for His own reasons and I seldom know why. I suppose this is baffling to an atheist - but then, I'm not an atheist - and neither is DeepShadow.

If you wanted to know whether something is doctrine or not, you can go to our Standard Works (as previously described by DeepShadow). There is a process for adding to the Standard Works. Brigham Young's statements regarding the mark of Cain and the "negro situation" never what through that process. Thus, when Kimball received the 1979 revelation, he repealed a practice - not a doctrine. Again, I recognize this has almost no meaning to a non-Mormon, but it is significant to Mormons.

 

[Autodidact]

I saw what Autodidact had to see in your post, and I thought I'd answer his question. If one interprets the 1949 statements as claiming the ban was official church doctrine, yes, it is wrong.

Well, let's read it:

[FONT=Verdana,Courier New,Courier,Monaco]August 17, 1949[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana,Courier New,Courier,Monaco]The attitude of the Church with reference to Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the priesthood at the present time....[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana,Courier New,Courier,Monaco] I interpret that to say that the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization is to the effect that Negroes...are not entitled to the priesthood. What do you interpret it to say?

[/FONT] It was never presented to the general assembly of the church for its approval (see the end of OD's 1 and 2), and it was never presented as a revelation ratified by the Church High Council, and so it was never formally introduced as official doctrine. If one interprets the statement as a confirmation of the established and unwavering position of the church, then no, it's not incorrect. Since the justification for their position is "this is the way it's always been," and never, "it was made official," it is clearly a defense of the establishment of the policy.

Since the facts are never going to undermine the dogmatism of our antagonists, I'm not going to comment further on this thread. If anyone wishes to make explicit their prioritization of their opinion over the truth, feel free to level the same myopic and naive accusations at me that have been the standard up to this point.[/quote]

 

[Watchmen]

Obviously, the 1949 letter at the very least misused the word doctrine and at the very most was issued by a misguided First Presidency. The letter can't rely on the Standard Works to support its claim.

 

[Autodidact]

And this is where you ignore the crucial element DeepShadow has attempted to share: DeepShadow, or the other Mormons I know, don't do what they do or believe what they believe because of something the prophet said. They do what they do or believe what they believe because of what god said to them. The prophets have even explained that we are free, as individuals, to go to God in prayer and get the answers for ourselves.

The recent Prop 8 issue is a good example. We have a letter from the First Presidency. But we don't have to rely on that letter alone. We are each free to go to God and seek guidance. For me, that guidance was to not support Prop 8. Others received a different answer. Does that mean it's wrong and we're all crazy? You'd probably think so. But I accept that God does what he does for His own reasons and I seldom know why. I suppose this is baffling to an atheist - but then, I'm not an atheist - and neither is DeepShadow.

If you wanted to know whether something is doctrine or not, you can go to our Standard Works (as previously described by DeepShadow). There is a process for adding to the Standard Works. Brigham Young's statements regarding the mark of Cain and the "negro situation" never what through that process. Thus, when Kimball received the 1979 revelation, he repealed a practice - not a doctrine. Again, I recognize this has almost no meaning to a non-Mormon, but it is significant to Mormons.

It's all so interesting. So when the First Presidency said it was doctrine, they were mistaken?

If it's all about direct revelation to the individual, and the Prophet has no more information from God than every Mormon, then it seems to me that there's no basis on which to refute Warren Jeffs et al. They say they got a direct revelation, etc., and they are using the same standard works that you are, so how can you disagree with them?

If you get a revelation that polygamy is now permitted, or same-sex marriage, is that legitimate?

Doesn't this open the door for multiple contradictory revelations?

Doesn't God talk to us through His prophets? Isn't that kind of a basic Mormon belief?

That's what I'm getting at: Does God talk to us through His prophets or does he not?

 

[Autodidact]

Obviously, the 1949 letter at the very least misused the word doctrine and at the very most was issued by a misguided First Presidency. The letter can't rely on the Standard Works to support its claim.

O.K., so we can't rely on the First Presidency to tell us what is doctrine and what is not. They can say something is doctrine and be just plain wrong. Similarly, Brigham Young can claim to be speaking as a prophet and in the name of Jesus Christ and be equally wrong, correct? If they can be wrong about that, can't they be wrong about anything? I mean, if they don't even know doctrine from un-doctrine, they're not very authoritative, are they? But isn't the whole point of the First Presidency to be authoritative?

Since the whole idea of "doctrine" and distinguishing between what is and is not doctrine is crucial to Mormons, this seems like something the First Presidency would want to be very clear and correct about.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I can see where it would be insignificant to you or to any other non-Mormon. To most Mormons, the distinction between "doctrine" and "non-doctrine" is huge. Whether God said something or whether men decided upon it themselves makes an enormous difference to us, or at least it should.

I understand that it's huge if you're Mormon and you're concerned about the preserving the infallibility of LDS doctrine. However, it's beside the point if we're just people, concerned about how others are treated. The less-than-doctrine pronouncements of the Church leadership hold enough sway and do enough damage to be worthy of criticism in their own right. Correct me if I'm wrong, but there was no official doctrine that said Mormons had to donate millions of dollars to stomp on the rights of thousands of LGBT people in CA. You (and others on this thread) seem to be driving at a lesson, which is that Mormons should question everything the Church says, even disobey in some cases, because the Church leadership can sometimes be totally immoral and misguided, if it isn't official doctrine. How many Mormons accept that lesson in practice? I hope more and more will as time goes on. But no one will accept that lesson if the focus is on how right the Doctrine is/always was, rather than on how wrong the Church is/has been on specific issues, which required independent thinking instead of group loyalty.

Or am I to understand that Mormons don't take the Church's word on anything that is not official doctrine? (A serious question)

As far as I can see, there was never any doctrine stating that any worthy male male member of the Church be excluded from being able to be ordained. The 1978 revelation established as doctrine the fact that no one should be excluded in the future.

Why wasn't it doctrine from the beginning? What other worthy doctrines do you think have been left out to date....LGBT equality, perhaps?