A
Ahimsa
Guest
Some say the former; some say it was a misinterpretation of sacred texts.
- Status
A
Ahimsa
Guest
May past Mormons leaders have supported the APB; and many current Mormons take the position that said Mormon leaders misinterpreted sacred texts. Insofar as the sacred texts came from God, and insofar as the Mormons were acting on their best understanding of said sacred texts, then one can speak of the APB as the result of a ‘misunderstanding of God-inspired texts’.
A
Ahimsa
Guest
Yes, but prophets are human.
A
Ahimsa
Guest
True, but ‘giving more significant weight’, is different from ‘completely discounting non-papal apologists’.
A
Ahimsa
Guest
Which position makes more sense to you?
Stephen168
New member
I see continuing revelation as a natural process of life, similar to biological evolution. The Old Testament and the New Testament contain quite a few glaring contradictions (which is why many Jews chose to remain Jews, and not become Christian). So, contradiction in itself is not a problem.
Besides, if God has already told us everything He is going to tell us, then we wouldn’t need the Holy Spirit. And, yet, the Holy Spirit is still here, doing His thing.
Stephen168
New member
A
Ahimsa
Guest
I don’t see where I mention that I believe in the LDS. Continuing revelation is a basic element of Christianity, because of the continuing activity of the Holy Spirit. Even Catholics believe in the ‘development of doctrine’.
A
Ahimsa
Guest
I guess the issue is the definition of “own”. Who “owns” Bible? Well, no one living “wrote” the Bible, but many people “claim” the Bible – and yet there are so many different interpretations of the Bible: Jewish, Christian, Muslim, etc. Some of these interpretations are more correct than others, so even if someone claims ownership of a certain text, doesn’t mean that that person fully understands that text.
M
MelanieAnne
Guest
There seems to be a cop-out here. That’s just nonsense. Racism against blacks was unequivocally doctrine, in practice, which is the only thing that really counts. Scholars can argue, and they often do, infinitely, about various arcane points. And that is the red herring that has been inserted in this discussion by some persons. If they want to argue this issue, then I say “go for it” but it has no “real world” application, it’s like many “ivory tower” arguments ~ just TALK.
In the end it doesn’t really MATTER how scholars today interpret things, it matters how people were treated for over 100 years and the fact of the matter is that blacks were discriminated against, as a matter of** Mormon doctrine**, until a very timely “revelation” came that lifted the ban on blacks receiving the priesthood. Before that, they were 2nd class members of the Mormon church, if they chose to be members at all.
Racism does not come from God. It comes from men (and women). We have been, all of us, made in the image and likeness of God. God, by definition, cannot be racist, as we were all created in His likeness and image.
What you choose to think of the racism embedded in early Mormon doctrine is your affair. But it is not of God. It was never of God, it is not of God today. It cannot have ever been of God. And, most likely, although I am speculating here, that “revelation” lifting the priesthood ban on blacks decades ago was also of man, and not of God. It was just convenient. But then, that’s my opinion.
Stephen168
New member
No, the issue is consistency. You say the ban was revelation then you say it could be a misunderstanding of their scripture. Of course you were clear that wasn’t true because their scriptures don’t say there should be a priesthood ban. Then you want to tell us what the Mormon Church teaches but then tell us what ‘some Mormons’ believe as if they are the same thing; they are not. And to suggest Mormon leaders did not understand their own scriptures is silly, and not what Mormon leaders said before the ban. To summarize you seem like a Mormon trying to defend Mormon ‘Prophets’ changing doctrine not a third party trying to explain it. And you have not addressed the OP directly:
A
Ahimsa
Guest
“Racism” includes a whole host of practices and beliefs. The segregationist Jim Crow laws of the post-Civil War South were racist, but I don’t think segregation was part of Mormon doctrine. Also, Joseph Smith was anti-slavery, so you can’t say the LDS was built on the doctrine of slavery.
Thus, it makes little sense to say that “racism”, in all (or even most) its forms, was unequivocally LDS doctrine.
Now, on the issue of the APB, one may reasonably deem such a policy as ‘racist’. On the same grounds, one may deem as racist the prohibition in many 19th-century white churches against having either black members or (God forbid!) black ministers.
Many Mormons acknowledge that racism was a big factor in the APB, but the APB wasn’t simply pure and undiluted ‘racism’. The APB was also a result of a misinterpretation of holy scripture, including the Bible and core LDS scripture. For many of our 19th-century ancestors of European heritage, it seemed pretty clear that (1) God cursed Cain; and that (2) Noah cursed Canaan/Ham; and that (3) West Africans were descendants of Ham/Cain; and therefore (4) slavery of West Africans was therefore justified.
Now, this logical sequence (of #1 to #4) is not “entirely” a result of racism; it also includes an attempt to take the Bible literally/seriously (even though we today would argue that such an attempt at literalness is mistaken). Steps #1 to #2 are purely biblical; step #3 is non-biblical, but part of Christian and Jewish tradition; step #4 is the racist step in the sequence.
I know how much the LDS is disliked in these parts
D), but just to be fair to the LDS, the APB ban is seen by many Mormons as a misinterpretation of scripture, a misinterpretation that, yes, has racist elements, but that also was built on a honest, though misguided, attempt at reading scripture and taking scripture seriously and literally.
A
Ahimsa
Guest
I didn’t say the ban was a divine revelation. I said that many Mormon leaders in the past have said so.
Actually, the scripture doesn’t have to say that there should be a ban, in order for the the ban to be a misinterpretation of scripture. Many European Christians in the past misinterpreted Genesis in regards to African slavery, even though African slavery is not mentioned at all in Genesis. Misinterpretation of scripture often comes about when people think that scripture says something that scripture actually doesn’t.
I never said that what the Mormon leadership says, and what other Mormons say, is the same thing. But I do suggest that what these ‘other Mormons’ say, should not discounted just because they are not the ‘leaders’. If these ‘other Mormons’ use reason and logic to defend their position, then they should be noted and taken seriously.
If someone didn’t write it, then I don’t see how you can say that that someone has unequivocal and total access to the intentions and meanings of whatever was written. If Christians today actually had unequivocal and total access to the intentions and meanings of the biblical authors, then we would not need the Holy Spirit. We could just read the Bible (like Protestants do
).The OP was about racist ideas in the LDS being divine revelation. I didn’t enter this conversation to address the OP’s point. Someone stated that the APB is a direct and logical result of the core LDS scriptures. My point was to simply correct the inaccuracy that the core LDS scriptures themselves explicitly state the APB.
M
MelanieAnne
Guest
More “Ivory Tower” theory.“Racism” includes a whole host of practices and beliefs. The segregationist Jim Crow laws of the post-Civil War South were racist, but I don’t think segregation was part of Mormon doctrine. Also, Joseph Smith was anti-slavery, so you can’t say the LDS was built on the doctrine of slavery.
Thus, it makes little sense to say that “racism”, in all (or even most) its forms, was unequivocally LDS doctrine.
Now, on the issue of the APB, one may reasonably deem such a policy as ‘racist’. On the same grounds, one may deem as racist the prohibition in many 19th-century white churches against having either black members or (God forbid!) black ministers.
Many Mormons acknowledge that racism was a big factor in the APB, but the APB wasn’t simply pure and undiluted ‘racism’. The APB was also a result of a misinterpretation of holy scripture, including the Bible and core LDS scripture. For many of our 19th-century ancestors of European heritage, it seemed pretty clear that (1) God cursed Cain; and that (2) Noah cursed Canaan/Ham; and that (3) West Africans were descendants of Ham/Cain; and therefore (4) slavery of West Africans was therefore justified.
Now, this logical sequence (of #1 to #4) is not “entirely” a result of racism; it also includes an attempt to take the Bible literally/seriously (even though we today would argue that such an attempt at literalness is mistaken). Steps #1 to #2 are purely biblical; step #3 is non-biblical, but part of Christian and Jewish tradition; step #4 is the racist step in the sequence.
I know how much the LDS is disliked in these parts
I am distinguishing here between what scholars argue about today and what was actually PRACTICED by Mormons. The PRACTICE of racism was part of Mormon DOCTRINE for over 100 years. You can blather on about all sorts of things, that won’t change the facts. Racism was embedded in Mormon doctrine, and claimed to be doctrine by its prophets, until it wasn’t, and until a “revelation” changed the situation, whether or not it was considered “doctrine” at the time or not. All the rest is just arcane scholarly argument, it has no basis in reality, no practical application to real life.
So argue on, if that is your wont, but it doesn’t MEAN ANYTHING to real people living real lives. The REAL FACTS are that racism was embedded in Mormon Doctrine and practice for over 100 years. No amount of blather will alter that fact.
Stephen168
New member
So you think Mormon leaders just made it up therefore it was not revelation from God?
M
MelanieAnne
Guest
Indeed.
There is no good outcome to racist practices. EVER.
There is no good outcome to racist practices. EVER.
A
Ahimsa
Guest
I agree that the APB was part of Mormon practice for more than a hundred years. But to claim that “racism” (and all that that entails) was part of Mormonism is to not understand “racism”. I’m not sure if Mormons went around in white sheets burning crosses.
Nor did Mormons make it doctrine that one race was inherently inferior to another race, which is the definition of ‘racism’. To be denied eligibility to the priesthood (however wrong that may be), is different from ‘racism’ – otherwise, one would have to argue that God was ‘racist’ for limiting the priesthood to the Jews, Levite Jews, and the Kohanim, to be specific.
A
Ahimsa
Guest
I don’t think in terms of “either from God, or they made it up”.
I know many honest fundamentalists who argue that God made earth in 6, literally 24-hour, days. They may believe that their belief is a ‘revelation’ from God (because they think that they read it in the Bible). Now, I don’t go around saying that what they believe is Satanic, or that they just ‘made it up’, but I do think their interpretation is a misunderstanding. I understand that the reason they believe this is because they are sincerely using their minds and hearts, as best they know how, in order to follow the Bible.
Likewise, I think that the APB was a result of several forces, some Godly, but some the result of being a mostly European church in a very racially charged nation, involving people doing their best (in general) to follow what they believe God is telling them in scripture.
Stephen168
New member
The OP is as much about how a Mormon can not know what is revelation and what is not; as it is about racism.
Actually you do every time Mormon leadership is clearly inconsistence or wrong about what they say is revelation. You do that for the same reason you would not address the OP.
Stephen168
New member
I’ll take that none answer as a yes; you believe the ban was from God just as Mormon leaders said it was.
- Status