I remember quite well the time I chose to apologize to a man on my mission. This man had served as the Branch President for well over the typical five years, built the membership and literally built the chapel. The day the branch turned into a ward, he was released. No one told him he was going to be released. It just happened and no one said thank you.
The man was crushed. His branch-now-ward turned over; his baby; his life. I remember he cried telling me this story. It all happened some 15 years before I arrived to listen to the tale in his home. He loved the church, but felt as if he had been kicked to the curb for no reason. He had devoted so much and wasn't even given a thank you. He had been inactive since the day he was released as Branch President.
I cried with him. I felt so ashamed that my church, the true church of Jesus, of love, of brotherhood and genuine friendship, would do such a thing to its own.
So I said sorry.
On behalf of the Church I apologized to this man for how he was treated. I said I was sorry for the wretched custom within our culture to not even express heart-felt gratitude beyond raising our arm to the square. And how much more should gratitude be given for a man that did so much? I thanked him for the very chapel that he helped raise funds for and build with his own hands. The building in which I then sat in to take the body and blood of Christ. I thanked him for his dedication and love. But of most importance, I said sorry.
Two weeks later, he came back to church.
It's never too late to apologize.
I'm tired. In so many ways I am tired. So, with so much to say but no strength to say it, I leave you with some links. You can explore the issue and ask yourself if the Church should apologize for the ban.
Would Jesus really do this to people? Should the Church apologize?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/the-genesis-of-a-churchs-stand-on-race/2012/02/22/gIQAQZXyfR_story.html.
http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispatches/joannabrooks/5748/racist_remarks_by_popular_byu_religion_professor_spark_controversy/.
http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispatches/joannabrooks/5752/lds_church_acknowledges_past_racism%2C_repudiates_racist_remarks/.
http://stevebloor.wordpress.com/2012/03/05/apology-to-blacks/#comments.
Search, Ponder, Pray, Repeat
I like this. it reminds me of an instance on my mission where we knocked on the door out in the middle of nowhere and we talked to the man living their. Turns out He was a veteran of WWII and My companion and I thanked him for his service and he replied saying that was the first time anyone had ever personally thanked him for his service. As far as the Black issue goes with the Priesthood, there were a few Black Members who held the Priesthood in Joseph Smith's time, but it was changed during Brigham Young's time because they were trying to gain statehood. (Keep in mind that Utah had a much harsher time trying to gain statehood then anyone in the South did after the Civil War.) I am not sure if any apologies were ever issued but I do know that it was no accident that Black People got the priesthood when they did. The Lord had to wait until the entire country softened their heart about Black people in order for them to be accepted into the mainstream Mormon religion, among other religions as well. Yes, there are those from that particular generation who are still living, but the Doctrine of the Church now doesn't hold those views today. I also have never heard much of any Black person demanding an apology from the Church either, unless they were outside of the faith.
ReplyDeleteMartha,
DeleteI've never heard anyone give a reason for "the change" from JS ordaining black priests and Brigham Young's policy statements. Do you have a citation for this "for statehood" claim?
Given the Washington Post article statements of ignorance it would seem unlikely that this statehood maneuver would be true, but I would really appreciate a citation if you have it. I wouldn't want to be misled by a "it was to take care of widows" explanation.
But I have to say that "for statehood" is not at all a good reason to deny people their spiritual right - let alone preach that denial into scripture and dogma. In fact, this excuse sounds like the reverse of the reversal's critique. See, non-LDS and even some LDS believe the reversal of the ban was from outside pressure. Even more, like the manifesto's "ban" of polygamy is believed by non-LDS and some LDS as a maneuver to gain statehood, you seem to be saying that BY put the ban on blacks in order to gain statehood.
Most LDS decry the thought of the polygamy ban being for statehood, but you seem to be claiming that the black priesthood ban was for statehood. This seems like putting yourself between a rock and hard place, or like the Wily Coyote thrusting a bomb from his arms to the Road Runner thinking he's saved himself until he realizes the Road Runner was between him (who is on the extended edge of the cliff) and the rest of the plateau - the Road Runner puts the bomb down & runs off over the safe plateau and the Coyote can only look bug-eyed before the bomb explodes separating the outcropping edge the Coyote is on from the plateau - followed by the classicly delayed, but inevitable, fall into the abyss.
(sorry, been playing with analogies lately.)
I know that was long, but there's more of what you said that bothers me.
DeleteI don't know what you are specifically referring to about the southern states getting statehood after the Civil War (and that Utah had a harder time). The southern states were already states b4 the Civil War - they were welcomed back into the Union swiftly b/c Lincoln wanted a smooth and healing conclusion, not a continuance of harms. And Utah was having trouble becoming a state, not because of it's niceness to blacks, anyway, but because of its theocracy, BY's wishes for his own country or state (as governor), and polygamy.
Now that I think of this, BY was decades into his ban of blacks from the priesthood before they even tried to become state. So that puts you "statehood" excuse out.
And the "Lord had to wait until the entire country softened their heart about Black people in order for them to be accepted into the mainstream Mormon religion, among other religions as well."??? Really? the Lord had to wait? Did the Lord wait to bring Gentiles into The Way (Christianity) only after Jews softened their hearts? And why would the rest of the country care about blacks getting a priesthood that they don't even believe is worth having?
Just because you don't hear it, doesn't mean the feeling is not there. You think they wouldn't be excommunicated if black members started "demanding" an apology. Demanding an apology implies guilt, guilt implies not lead by God - that's LDS blasphemy - and "preaching" that to others is THE criteria for excommunication. You think black members didn't understand that? How that works. Maybe you should actually ask some of them. But then they probably wouldn't trust you.
Did you read the first link- Washington Post. Did you not get that part about Darius Gray and the Genesis Group?
I don't mean to be harsh, I'm just a little shocked.
The LDS institution can never apologize for this ban without seriously harming itself. It can't even apologize for the Mountain Meadows Massacre in which it admits that some LDS members participated. How can we even imagine the LDS institution apologizing for an official theology and practice?
ReplyDeleteIt's so much easier to "put the blame" on God and say that it was God's revealed truth - like it or not. It would even make sense - if, once the ban was lifted, the skin color mark had been lifted, too...
The Washington Post article says that the LDS institution is trying to claim "it doesn't know where the ban came from." "Though the origins of the priesthood ban are unclear, it was understood a change would require revelation."
This is amazing! Far from ever apologizing for what they already blame God, they are now saying they don't know where it came from?
Travis, they would rather confess that they had been following a doctrine for which there is no prophetic document or statement of origin for 150 yrs and insinuate that, for all they know, they were following the teachings of whoever - men? - rather than apologize. If they think it is preferable to plead ignorance than to apologize, even at the implication of fraud for the entire institution, I don't think you should hold your breath.
Or maybe they didn't think about the implication before they pled ignorance.
Oh no, spartacus! They apologized: http://www.deseretnews.com/article/695209359/LDS-Church-issues-apology-over-Mountain-Meadows.html
DeleteSpartacus, please let us all know which church you attend. And then let's dig through the past and see if we can't shed a little perspective on this argument. If you're a protestant, I'll have you explain how 5 million protestants (about 15% of the U.S. population at the time) were members of the Ku Klux Klan in the 1920s. Also, the Southern Baptist Convention was formed specifically to be a denomination to allow slavery.
The past is what it is. We're moving on. This was news 30 years ago. Now since Romney's up for the election, it's time again to mock Mormonism: from vicarious baptism to puritanical fanaticism to past racism.
No matter. In 500 years this will be a footnote. Just like it is for other churches. You can see how easily they've moved past their own history of lynchings, slavery, and genocide. What's amazing to me is the self-righteousness they use when condemning Mormons for the denial of a purely spiritual privilege, while at the same time ignoring the life, liberty, and property that was taken by their predecessors' hands.
"And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but perceivest not the beam that is in thine own eye?"
But many protestants have apologized for those actions. In fact, many protestants have apologized for the way their ancestors treated the early LDS and also apologized for more recent treatment of LDS people during general conference in Salt Lake. I'm glad to see the apology of the Mountain Meadow Massacre, but the issue here is an apology for the treatment of blacks and the priesthood. This history of abuse that you cite is well known. The Protestants in general are sorry and making or have made restitution. The question is, will we? You end by quoting the Bible, but that scripture can go both ways.
DeleteAdam,
DeleteI understand where you are coming from, but maybe we'll get into the ways LDS don't get the difference between people claiming to be Christian and not acting at all like it and LDS prophets instituting dogma and praxis supposedly based on a unique relationship with God.
For now I will just respond to a few things. First, your whole response is to one sentence of my post; you ignore all the rest of my post - and thus the topic of this thread. And then you go for crimes of all religions, as if the LDS church as a special and only true institution can just act like any other religion. But that gets back to that misunderstanding above that I don't want to get into here since it isn't the thread topic.
Second, they did not apologize. https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/pdf/147-74-79.pdf = "leaders were adament that the statment should not be construed as an apology" "We don't use the word 'apology'. We use 'profound regret'"
Now, as far as MMM is concerned I am sympathetic to the institution that doesn't want to apologize for something it doesn't think the institution is "guilty" of. Apologies are implicit acceptance of guilt. That's not actually always true, but "regret" is similar to the other form of apology. So I can see where they are coming from wanting to say only "regret." This would get into arguments of the institutiion's culpability which is beyond this thread, if not us. But this does mean they haven't apologized, which is what I said in the first place. So I stand by what I said.
As for the "church you attend", I don't. Sorry. Travis makes a good point here.
"Shedding perspective" brings us back to this issue of the misunderstanding above. Maybe Travis has something to say about this issue of the difference between lay believers and non-"God selected"-prophets doing something and LDS Prophets doing stuff and we'll get a whole thread on it. But maybe not.
"The past is what it is." I am sure you are saying this in a respectable way - similar to my statement above that the institutional culpability being beyond us. But it sounds a lot like when I hear LDS say polygamy, institutionalized racism, etc. "is behind us, we're moving on". If this is what you are saying, then we have a major issue. Again, maybe a thread topic for the future.
Again, I don't think self-righteousness comes into it, but the definition of "only true church led by the only prophet of God on earth". But that is a topic for later, hopefully. Man, we need to talk about this issue!
Again, I have no issue dealing with my planks or motes. I have no issue with individual lay members of LDS church doing all kinds of evil - we are all sinners- any Christian will tell you this. The issue is the institution (remember "the church is perfect, the people aren't) that is held to a higher standard - "only true" "unastrayable" "only Prophet" - as it should be. Which brings us back to the topic - the dogma and practice of banning blacks from the priesthood which was supported by many LDS Prophets and Apostles and, assumedly, came from revelation. Though the fact that the LDS church claims it doesn't know that last part for sure raises interesting issues all to itself - which was my main point, which you ignored by focusing, again, on one single sentence.
Maybe you can move on - to the rest of my post/this topic. See my response (it's short) to your post below.
In the original post, Travis asked, "Would Jesus really do this to people?"
DeleteWhat do you make of this-Matthew 15:21 ¶Then Jesus went thence, and departed into the coasts of Tyre and Sidon.
22 And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou Son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil.
23 But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us.
24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
25 Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me.
26 But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to cast it to dogs.
27 And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters’ table.
28 Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour.
Notice here it is evident that Jesus "discriminated." Didn't he equate Cannanites with "dogs?" Sounds pretty horrible to me. Certain people for a time were not offered certain spiritual blessings. Yet, through her, faith, her daughter was healed. And I believe that ultimately that woman will be saved in heaven even though the Lord's church on earth most likely never sought her out for baptism (until, perhaps, some modern LDS does her temple work) I don't think Jesus or his church need to apologize for this. I don't quite understand it, but, this is the historical fact. And we are left to ask questions. I would ask, why wasn't Jesus more progressive? Why didn't he right then in 33 AD proclaim absolute equality in rights (both civic and religious) for every race, sex, etc, etc, etc, ad nauseum? Does Jesus owe the world an apology?
We believing members of the church hope that someday we will know why. We're assuming there are valid reasons. It's really nice to look back and see how progressive the church was in many ways (slavery), but discomforting to see that sometimes it wasn't.
The modern church still has in place a discriminatory ban against women holding the priesthood. I agree that there are early evidences in the 1st century and in the 19th that women were allowed the priesthood and assigned to perform certain priesthood functions. Personally, if/when the Lord ever changes this, I won't have any problem whatsoever. But would the church need to offer an apology? I simply don't think so.
Certain people were not offered spiritual blessings? Adam, didn't you read this passage? Jesus granted her what she asked. You scream out that by calling her a dog, like a Jew would, is discriminatory. While I don't think it was nice please don't miss the fact that Jesus did not withhold the blessing from her. My goodness, no. He blessed her. Yes, he called her a dog, but we understand the incarnation as making Jesus a real man in a real time period. But you take that one declaration as justification for the ban? Jesus calls someone a dog, blesses them anyway, and that makes it okay for us to withhold from black males the blessing of holding the priesthood for over 100 years of the LDS Church's existence?
DeleteAdam, people are leaving the church in droves because of the reality of this form of discrimination, both as a part of its history and its contemporary situation. When will the LDS people listen to their own scripture that states it's not necessary for God to command in all things? When will the Church put on its big boy pants and apologize? This is like looking at a disgruntled 3 year old in a sand box whose mad because no one wants to play with him after he's been calling the other children names, withholding toys, and refuses to apologize.
And I can't believe you think that woman is waiting for some snot nose teenager to come rescue her from spirit prison after the faith she showed in a culture that looked down on women and Cannanites. She is saved not by your works, Adam. She is saved by her faith in Jesus. If that's not good enough for you, then why even have a Savior.
I explicitly did not say it was any justification at all. My point is: though Jesus did heal the woman's daughter, no non-Israelite was to be baptized into the church for nearly 70 years. This was Jesus's ban on all non-Jews. Was that justified? I can't see any justification for it. We can only speculate why the Lord would do that. After seeing such great faith, why didn't the Lord look around to his apostles and say, "Ya know what? Look how good this lady is, we should really seek out all people of all races and baptize them, and give them the priesthood"?
DeleteAre you willing to say Jesus was wrong to do so? Are you willing to demand that Jesus apologize or you will refuse to serve Him?
If you won't denounce the Lord for this ban, then why do you hold Brigham Young to a higher standard?
The similarities in both cases are so glaringly obvious: a ban, based on race, was placed for decades until an indisputable revelation from God lifted it. In both cases, no reason is ever given. In both cases, the ban did not prevent those affected by it from receiving a great many blessings from the Lord and His church (as this miracle and other experiences of early Saints demonstrate). Yet, there were a few things that were denied them.
As far as you last two paragraphs... if people are leaving in droves it has zero bearing on whether the Church is true. "Many" of Jesus's followers deserted him in a single day (John 6:66). Being a member of the Church is a privilege. Though the Lord would that all would join it, the doctrine of the Church is not a democratically formulated creed that aims to please the whims of every soul. It is up to us who have been convicted by the Spirit of God's Truth to conform to it. My personal preferences are mine, but I subject them to the Lord and His Church. Perhaps you say this is foolishness. Perhaps this is something you and many others are unwilling to do. Those disciples that deserted the Lord anciently didn't cause Him to recant or apologize.
Lastly, where you see a snot nose teenager, I see a selfless kid sacrificing for another. But hey, "Fools mock, but they shall mourn."
Adam, I apologize for my tone and choice of words in my response. Last night I read a blog about online conduct and I broke some good standards so I am sorry for that. I missed the point of your comment and reacted negatively. My bad.
DeleteI still don't understand where you get the idea that there was a 70 year ban on Cannanites. Sure the tiny ban of Jesus followers weren't able to get to everyone, and sure they had to overcome their own biases. But I don't know if we have evidence of a ban.
Again, I'm sorry for my lack of edicate.
I went out of town over spring break and had a lot of time to read and think about these things. Don't worry about your tone. I was adding fuel the fire myself.
DeleteOne thing I came across was an argument that argued that racism goes to the heart of the Judeo-Christian tradition. He cited Old Testament ideas of being a chosen people, having the best blood pedigree, etc. Some questions were very difficult to refute, like "Why would the God of the whole world only interact with a single man, Abraham, and his descendants?" Ironically, I believe that author was a Muslim, but that's beside the point ;-).
So, if you are really objective about it, this guy has a fair point. According to our tradition, God, for limited periods of time, has limited his priesthood to certain subsets of humanity, often based on race. And even with the House of Israel, only the Levites had the priesthood for what, 1200 years? The 70 year ban that I refer to comes from the fact that I mistakenly thought that Peter's vision came around AD 70. I guess it was actually only like 5 years after Christ's death. But either way, there were hundreds of years of previous racial exclusion. And even though the early church began to baptize all races, the priesthood was not given to all races. The catholic church ordained it's first black Priest in the 19th century.
But I often hear it said that even though the Jews were very ego-centric, Jesus didn't support such a policy. But this episode with the Cannanite woman shows that he clearly did. Even though she wasn't to get as many opportunities as the Jews, she still received a healing blessing based on her faith. Similarly, throughout the Christian tradition, the denial of the ability to hold the priesthood never meant that you were doomed to hell. You could (sometimes) be baptized, take the holy sacrament, be healed, etc.
My whole point here is not to justify Brigham Young and our church. If you were to tell me that you accept that in Jesus's case you have received a spiritual confirmation that his apparent exclusion of all non-Jews was right, but that conversely the spirit told you that the Mormon policy was of the devil, then that's your belief. But it's unfair to condemn Brigham for having instituted any priesthood restriction based on race when it's obvious that Jesus himself and many of the leaders of the Catholic and several subsequent denominations had the very same restriction.
Adam, please send the name of the link to the article you mentioned. Sounds like a good read.
DeleteI have come to learn that the ban on blacks and the priesthood was not simply a ban on black men holding the priesthood but that black people were unable to enter the temple and receive the blessings there. Knowing this I disagree with your insistence that the Canannite woman somehow upholds the church's ban on blacks and the priesthood. Jesus the Jewish rabbi recognized the woman's social standing by calling her a dog but he nonetheless blessed her tremendously. He did not withold the blessing but saw her faith. While I suppose blacks could participate in sacrament meeting, it frustrates me that they were not allowed into the temple. This for me is a contradiction to the story of the Canannite woman. If they are not going to hold the priesthood like all the non-Levite tribes, then why withhold the blessings of the temple when even non-Levite tribes could benefit from the temple even though they could not officiate in it?
Yes, we as humans have a tendency to maintain tribal lines and barriers, but the whole point of having direct access to God is to help us overcome that natural tendency. I don't think God wants to withold the blessings of the temple from black people, nor do I think such a ban was divinely inspired from an all knowing, poweful and loving Father in Heaven who looks on the heart and not on the skin color.
The first black Catholic priest was not ordained in the 19th century. Augustine and many church fathers from Northern Africa were likely black. The Catholic Church in the U.S. probably didn't ordain its first black priest until the 19th century. Besides, I expect the LDS Church to do better than the Catholic Church and I also expect it to do better than the long history of human alienation.
One last clarification. In my original response I mentioned that many people are leaving the church because of issues like this one. You responded by stating that the quantity of membership does not determine the truthfulness of the church. I agree with you wholeheartedly. The point that I didn't make :) was not a question of the truth of the church but that the church has a lot of lost sheep. So I guess I am focused much more on how the church are going to help the lost sheep come back. Aren't we called to lift up those that are genuinely hurting and feeling deceived? I think we do and I just don't see a strategy for the church's membership to help those that struggle with these issues.
Thanks, Adam. I am genuinely challnged by your thoughts and comments. Thanks.
Quick question: If there were a particular mandate from heaven to do something or not do something, should we apologize for the commands of God? Should Peter apologize to those deemed "unclean" whom he was not allowed to preach to until given a revelation in the form of animals on a sheet in the air (another issue of discussion related to a previous post on BofA: Does the means of revelation supercede the content of the revelation? Why do people make more issue with the meansof a revelation than the fruit, the ends, the content of a revelation? Such train of thought would necessitate the questioning of the 10 Commandments revelation. After all, no one was in the mountain with Moses. Moses was talking with a bush that was on fire. The rocks with the commandments on them were hewn over a period of time in which he was in the Mount. However, the content, the doctrine, the principles, are paramount. One can reason away the rest, and question the existence of a God in the process. I have too much personal evidence to negate this line of reason and supposed logic.)? Should Jesus apologize for anything He did (or commanded) that some would deem as harsh, unrestrained, mean, ungodly, etc. How about Paul? He didn't preach to all. There were many whom he didn't preach to, but that later would be visited and taught the Gospel by subsequent missionaries in the Early Church. In the Early Church, different classes of people (for lack of a better term) were treated differently in the Early Church, and were given abilities to practice their faith at different levels, whether it were a Eunech or a convert from a particular region or ancestry. Some early followers were not allowed to worship in the Temples of Jesus' time following the Jewish tradition. The practice of grace for grace, line upon line, here a little, there a little is applicable here in the ordination issue. There are many instances of Presidents of the Church apologizing to followers in Africa back in the 1960's and 1970's, saying, "Sorry, it isn't time yet, but it will be in the near future, etc." We also need to not take such a myopic view in seeing the workings of the Lord. Time and space are manmade constructs. We need to look at this issue with an eternal perspective, not a mypoc view of the last 150 or even 2500 years. Who are we to tell God when or what he can give, withhold, take away, give back, etc. The minds of men should not limit the mind and will of God.
ReplyDeleteAlan said "Quick question: If there were a particular mandate from heaven to do something or not do something, should we apologize for the commands of God? Should Peter apologize to those deemed "unclean" whom he was not allowed to preach to until given a revelation in the form of animals on a sheet in the air?"
DeleteTo answer your question directly, No, I don't think we should apologize for following God's commandments. But by using Peter as your example you point out a central characteristic of early Christianity that is worth remembering. Peter's acceptance of Gentiles into the Christian community without all of the typically Jewish mandated changes and ceremonies was an extrememly progressive move by Peter/early Christians. In other words, its not like Peter was accepting Gentiles 30-40 years after the rest of Judaism had already allowed Gentiles to participate in the Jewish community as full fledge members, without circumcision, etc. God is leading the way in having this group of Jesus-followers allow Gentiles into the fold. It is the Christians that are the first to accept outsiders, with no regards to their occupation (i.e. tax collectors), or skin color (let's remember the earliest Christians were not white, but of much darker complexion. St. Augustine, for example was most likely black).
The point I am making is that if we take into account the progressive nature of Peter's revelation in its context, it teaches us that God wants us, His people, to be the first to love others as equals. Don't wait until the rest of society is looking at you like you were racists to then change your mind and begin accepting people of different color as equals (leaving aside the issue of women in the church). Instead, lead the way. And since the LDS ban on blacks and the priesthood didn't begin until BYoung, it seems like the acceptance of Blacks in the priesthood may have been possible with JS, and indeed, this would have been a bold statement of the time. Too bad the ban was put into place.
Alan said, "(another issue of discussion related to a previous post on BofA: Does the means of revelation supercede the content of the revelation? Why do people make more issue with the meansof a revelation than the fruit, the ends, the content of a revelation? Such train of thought would necessitate the questioning of the 10 Commandments revelation. After all, no one was in the mountain with Moses. Moses was talking with a bush that was on fire. The rocks with the commandments on them were hewn over a period of time in which he was in the Mount. However, the content, the doctrine, the principles, are paramount. One can reason away the rest, and question the existence of a God in the process. I have too much personal evidence to negate this line of reason and supposed logic.)
DeleteAlan, the reason believers of the Bible do not question Moses' mode of receiving the 10 commandments is because he didn't descend from the mountain carrying an ancient text which he claimed to translate and from that translation provide the people the 10 commandments. Moses, comes down and says, this is directly from God. We believe, but we accept the fact that we don't have evidence. It's a belief.
JS on the other hand said that he translated an ancient text. We now have fragments of that ancient text and they have nothing to do with the content we have currently in the BoA. Could JS have said that the BoA was a revelation from God and leave out the translation bit? Sure! But he didn't. He said it was a translation and went around telling people that until his death. So, when someone hands me a translation of an ancient text and that translation doesn't match up with the original, I, along with many others, would cry foul. The integrity of the person making the claim of translation is compromised, thus, not too many people believe JS actually translated anything but instead produced it through other means, like the OT and exposure to the Masonic Lodge.
JS' translation of the BoA does not fit the ancient text. I'm not sure how this could be faulty logic, so please explain why your personal experience some how justifies your logic. Do you have evidence that supports the BoA claim that no one else has? Maybe you are referring to your personal testimony? If that's the case then you can't fault someone for not having that special access to that subjective form of logic. That's a personal belief you have and that's okay, but don't fault people for looking at the evidence and concluding, like we would if it wasn't JS, that this clearly is not a translation from an ancient text as JS claimed. You, like others that believe in the OT, believe despite evidence to the contrary. It's a belief, not logic.
"In the Early Church, different classes of people (for lack of a better term) were treated differently in the Early Church, and were given abilities to practice their faith at different levels, whether it were a Eunech or a convert from a particular region or ancestry."
DeleteI really don't know what you are referring to here. The Eunech of the Book of Acts, maybe? We seem to have evidence inside and outside of the Bible that has women functioning as deacons, so here is a case of greater equality than we afford today. So certainly, if we understand the term 'deacon' not referring to 12yr. old boys, but as an adult station in service to the community of believers, then we have another topic to discuss in our restoration of the gospel. Maybe we can agree that diversity was more prevelant in the early church than we can appreciate, and for some communities there may have been restrictions on some classes, but in other communities there were none.
"Some early followers were not allowed to worship in the Temples of Jesus' time following the Jewish tradition."
The early followers were kicked out of the Temple when the Jewish community began to include in their liturgy the hope that God would one day send a Messiah. Since the Christians already believed the Messiah had come, they no longer felt comfortable worshipping with the Jews and began to worship seperately. If they can't hope for the Messiah then they aren't welcomed.
And again, if 'some' were not allowed into the Temple it was also because they had not yet submitted to the Jewish law of circumcision, food laws, etc., even though the Jewish Christ-followers had accepted them despite their perceived 'uncleanliness.' This again highlights the progressive nature to the early Christian movement in accepting people typically deemed as unworthy by their Jewish counter-parts. Being kicked out of the Temple was not a Christian telling another Christian they had to leave; it was the Jewish community at large telling the Christians they had to leave. And as a true brother or sister in Christ would do, the Jewish Christian went with the Eunech Christian to worship together in their homes.
Myopic?
DeleteHere is my perspective to see how God has enlarged his love in the world. We start off with a man and a woman (Adam and Eve), moving to a man with a promise (Abraham), to a people (Israel), to the world - Jew and Gentile (Jesus Christ). I see a trend of expansion. God is reaching out his love to more people everytime; over and over again, and most of them are not white. These are people of the middle east, north Africa, etc. So the expansion eventually gets to everyone, including people of white complexion. And then, in the LDS restoration, I am suppose to believe that the expansion-tendency that I have noted in the OT and the NT is shortened by denying black people the priesthood, the very people of Egypt,the Nile, and the rest of North Africa that would have known and converted to Christianity in the first couple of centuries of Chrisianity's existence. I'm not being myopic by questioning the ban. I am observing that the ban is myopic and contradictory to the ever expanding love and grace of God, to all people - first the Jew then the Gentile.
But maybe I am being myopic in that I am taking one issue of the restored gospel that for you, is not a big deal. Of course, it is a big piece of our history. We are talking about a race of people that were unable to hold the priesthood of the restored church from approximately 1850 to 1978 of a church that was restored in 1820. The ban is in place for 128 years of a church that's been in existence for 192 years. That's 66% of the LDS Church's existence that the ban was in place. Pretty significant amount of time if you ask me. And I reiterate, the ban was lifted some 30-40 years after the Civil Rights Movement (depending on when you feel the Civil Right's Movement started; for me, 1950). I was born shortly after the ban was lifted! And it took us 30-40 years after the rest of general society had accepted African American's as equals to catch up (taking into account the inequality and racism that still exists).
Alan, myopic is hardly my perspective. You ask me to remember the last 2500 years and I do. God's love has been expanding since creation. In fact, I would say it has always been present in creation, but it is taking us - part of the creation - a long time to integrate that love into our relationships with each other. We, the people of God today, should not be so behind. Infact, I think the whole point of having revelation is so that we can learn to love people better and faster than the atheists. Sadly, I'm afraid that many atheists, and general society in America, beat us to the punch when it comes to equality for African Americans. In this case, it was the revelation that held us back, and I don't think that's how it was meant to work.
Myopic? Hardly.
"Too bad the ban was put into place." I agree with this sentiment. I wish polygamy would've never happened. But, the facts are what they are. I'm sure David O. McKay wanted the revelation to come in the 50s. But it didn't. In my personal experience, I have consistently been told "no" to certain personal questions I have asked God and have yet to receive any explanations. Maybe I never will. Collectively, in this particular issue, we may be in a similar boat as we grasp for meaning.
DeleteI once heard a good point be made about LDS polygamy, and it goes just as well with the priesthood ban.
DeleteWhy don't LDS get a bosom confirmation of the Spirit about polygamy and the priesthood ban?
Members are told they will get a confirmation of the BoM and are told to get a confirmation of teachings, but this should include previous ones too. Do any LDS really say they "felt" a confirmation of polygamy and the ban like they did the BoM?
Also, one main issue with the priesthood ban is not just that it is racism. I personally think if God wanted to "mark" the people who weren't valiant in the 1st estate and deny them the priesthood, then that's His prerogative. But the much more difficult issue is that the ban was taught to be "permanent" in that it would not be lifted until the end when all 1st estate valiants had already received it. That didn't happen. That's a problem - racism or not.
And so when you say "But, the facts are what they are." I think, "too true."
PS to Travis - I like the Blog's new threads (not the topics - though I do like those too - but the "gear" the "wallpaper") - very airy and light - a nice change from the "stuffy" ;) library/office decor before.
Here is a good link with some good resources on the topic: http://www.blacklds.org/priesthood
ReplyDeleteHere is a good timeline on the topic, which includes historical context, both American and World History, that coincides with an understanding of the topic:
http://www.blacklds.org/history
spartacus said, "Why don't LDS get a bosom confirmation of the Spirit about polygamy and the priesthood ban?"
ReplyDeleteNowadays, I would suspect that very few people actually take the time to ponder and pray about these policies because they are defunct. But if you read journals of those that were commanded to practice polygamy, the vast majority of them record (sometimes miraculous) confirmations through the spirit that it was "of God." These are men and women that in the same journals would complain about the day to day of living "the principle," yet affirm their testimony that they knew it was the right thing to do.
I personally have taken considerable time to ponder these questions, and I have received a powerful confirmation that Joseph Smith did not "fall." This was the charge leveled against him by many previously faithful saints in Nauvoo (indeed some today). They had received testimonies of the Book of Mormon, etc, but polygamy they rejected. To them, he had become a fallen prophet. I read and pondered both sides of the question, and I did receive a "bosom confirmation of the Spirit" that he remained a prophet until his death, even though I find polygamy distasteful.
And I have heard black Mormons declare similar confirmations that they have received dealing with the Priesthood ban. Honestly, I can't imagine how any black Mormon would not receive such a confirmation and still be an active member. So, yes, there are many people who would testify to the truth of these policies being commanded of God, despite their difficulty in understanding them.