Priesthood Ban and Kimball

[slavereeno]

Has anybody read this:

https://byustudies.byu.edu/content/spen ... priesthood

My Nomish BIL just sent it to me. Its 75 pages and I don't have time to read it, but would like to respond with something.

If someone has already read it a TL;DR version would be greatly appreciated.

[Red Ryder]

Why do I keep whipping myself?

(slap, slap, slap, slaaaap)

TLDR;

The ban wasn't about self worth. It was about priesthood authority. God sayz, priesthood authority can't reside with black males. We aren't saying blacks are worthless. This bothered church leaders. Kimball prayed and was sought with heavy burden. He overturned it. Isn't the church wonderful? Isn't the church true? President Kimball is THe MAN!

Ok so I didn't really read it. Just scanned it before my frontal lobe started to hurt. Like bad.

But here's the thing. It doesn't matter what this apologetic piece says. The church essay on blacks and the priesthood trumps everything in this narrative because it dismisses everyone as racist in the past and all known reasons as opinion.

Throw the essay back at your BIL and ask him how he reconciles the two. They conflict each other.

[Red Ryder]

And here's the signature pattern of LDS institutional dishonesty:

When reporters in Hawaii asked about the revelation, Spencer answered, “It is a different world than it was twenty or twenty-five years ago. The world is ready for it.”

The reporters also asked him for details about receiving the revelation, but the president described it as “a personal thing.” He sidestepped further questions on the subject, saying he was there to rededicate the temple.

[slavereeno]

The church essay on blacks and the priesthood trumps everything in this narrative because it dismisses everyone as racist in the past and all known reasons as opinion.

This paper downgrades it to "policy" quite early on... One way to protect the church is to downgrade doctrine to "policy" and then chalk it up to the foibles of men.

(yes I am reading it instead of working)

[slavereeno]

My proposed response:

Interesting, a very deep dive. It seems a bit of a cop out to dismiss the priesthood ban as bad "policy." There are a lot of things that don't add up and the only faithful way to dismiss them is to throw past prophets (Brigham Young seems to be a fan favorite) under the bus to try to balance the equation. The narrative seems to be that, this was just a bad policy and the "revelation" changed that policy. But that narrative leaves me with a ton of unanswered questions.

For example:
If this was just a bad "policy" and not doctrinal, why was a "revelation" even required to change it? If this wasn't doctrinal and God really isn't a racist and he is the same God today and forever, why change the skins of the Lamanites to "dark" so they would be "loathsome" to white folks? Why did God seem to let so many other people, like racial activists in on this "revelation" before his appointed mouthpiece? Why is God content to let a policy in his "one true church" negatively affect the lives of so many of his children for so long without correction? Why does he wait for his prophets to ask (and only because they are receiving pressure to do so) before giving revelation, is God sitting around on his couch? How can I reconcile this image of a God who will help me find my car keys but leaves generations of real people without essential ordinances?

These questions go on an on in my mind, I just can't seem to make 2+2=5, so I am left with a different conclusion.

Thoughts?

[Reuben]

Good response, but it has too many questions. I couldn't get through them easily, even though I agree with you.

[slavereeno]

Good response, but it has too many questions. I couldn't get through them easily, even though I agree with you.

Good advice, I will prune it a little...

[slavereeno]

A response I gave wrt the sincerity of SWK, I am probably entering bitter apostate territory again...

I don't really doubt his sincerity, or the sincerity of the Q15 at any given time, if there is any delusion its not intentional, its pathological. My only point is that there is a bit of having one's cake and eating it too in glossing over the racism of church history. I think the most generous I can be is to say that SWK was perhaps finally inspired/pressured to remove a bad policy that should never have been there in the first place.

OK, I should be more generous to SWK, he was in a tough situation, his generation grew up with racism and he had to get the entire Q15 on board. That took some time and perhaps some showmanship. They were loosing steam with missionary work and public opinion was turning against them. That coupled with a sizable population of people who were not sympathetic to opening up the priesthood to peoples of African descent put him in a pickle. I have no doubt that he put a lot of effort into making this request. But what finally constituted the "Revelation" was that the Q15 felt a sense of unity about the answer. So as I see it, it was a bad policy that the old guard stressed about for some number of years until they buckled and decided to reverse the policy. I would argue that God spent more effort inspiring the activists that prompted the change in the first place, than the Q15 who finally, and reluctantly capitulated.

[Spicy McHaggis]

Kind of off topic but have any of the offshoot plyg groups accepted Kimball's so-called revelation? I know they don't view Kimball as a legit prophet, but have any of them shunned racism or do they all still believe in the mark of Cain?

[slavereeno]

Update: BIL came back making excuses for the church and saying the racism didn't really hurt anybody because they can get the ordinances later after they are dead. I bowed out of the conversation since it appeared to me that it was going to go nowhere good.

[moksha]

If this was just a bad "policy" and not doctrinal, why was a "revelation" even required to change it?

Racism had become fairly ingrained in the LDS culture. It was much easier to call it a revelation in order for members to understand the importance of this change. It had been referred to by previous Church Presidencies as being the will of God. In truth, it had always been a racist policy put forth by LDS leaders and had nothing whatsoever to do with God.

If this wasn't doctrinal and God really isn't a racist and he is the same God today and forever, why change the skins of the Lamanites to "dark" so they would be "loathsome" to white folks?

It was the way the Book of Mormon story was written. It was a rather blasphemous story in that it had God sanctioning a speculative manmade 19th Century racial theory. Those members who have a modicum of biological sciences in school realize that genetics rather than skin curses is the determinant for skin color.

[Lithium Sunset]

I just find this so annoying for you. Even though you called him Nomish he did a typical TBM thing...
Here, read this impossibly long and boring document so we can "discuss".. but we know he probably didn't read it thoroughly and he doesn't really want to think for himself or is not ready to. Good that you walked away. It will always be one of those sticky topics for the church and there is no point arguing with a TBM about it.

[slavereeno]

there is no point arguing with a TBM about it.

This. Arguing or debating is nothing but a dead end.

[slavereeno]

The question i want to ask:

Why would God force Joseph Smith to take additional wives, and then sit on his hands about racism? Seems like racism goes against the whole gospel message taught by Jesus. Jesus never mentioned how critical polygamy was and yet that is enforced by weapon weilding angels, wtf?

[Red Ryder]

The question i want to ask:

Why would God force Joseph Smith to take additional wives, and then sit on his hands about racism? Seems like racism goes against the whole gospel message taught by Jesus. Jesus never mentioned how critical polygamy was and yet that is enforced by weapon weilding angels, wtf?

Well it's fairly obvious if you come to the conclusion that one of those two involved sex while the other does not.

This is rabbit hole 101.

Joseph Smiths top three priorities:

Money
Sex
Power