Probably because most people including Brigham Young were racist. The bigger question is why does the church come out with this now? I have a pretty damn good guess, but would like your thoughts.Originally Posted by LA Ute
Probably because most people including Brigham Young were racist. The bigger question is why does the church come out with this now? I have a pretty damn good guess, but would like your thoughts.
I know that you didn't ask me, but here is good story on it:
If you're asking why the LDS church is making the move to dig into its past now, the answer is fairly simple. Bottom line, the internet has changed the world as a whole and that includes the LDS church and how its members study their faith and its beginnings.
A new generation of Mormons is going online to find answers to historical questions long avoided in Sunday school classes. The new statements slowly being released by the church are the official answer to those searches. If you talk to Historians that have spent their lives studying the LDS faith you will hear different ideas. In the end there is one consensus, some members of the LDS faith are "becoming convinced that they have been betrayed, or they believe they have been lied to.
"It causes a crisis of faith, and some of them are leaving," said Associate Professor of History at the University of Utah Paul Reeve, who can understand why the church is making a move now. "For a church that puts so much emphasis on missionary work and growth --- losing those already in the flock is not a good thing."
Philip Barlow, Ph.D. is a Professor of Mormon History and Culture at Utah State University and he says that, "The church feels it has a responsibility to foster faith." While solely fostering faith in Jesus Christ may have worked in the past, the LDS church admits they must change.
In a new video released this afternoon Elder Steven Snow from the first quorum of the 70 or the upper levels of church seniority states it is in a similar manner. "We have understandably in the past not spent a lot of time worrying about these issues because our mission is to promote faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. But-- as the information age is now upon us we feel with all this information out there we owe it to the rising generation to provide good reliable information."
I have only a guess. I think it just took a long time for the circumstances to be right to make the change. Those include younger leaders who came of age in the later 20th century, a much more cosmopolitan outlook (and reality) among both leaders and members, and -- from the standpoint of a convinced believer, which I am -- inspiration telling them it's time to put this very sad episode behind them. I am not one who sees the benefit of an apology, but who knows? We may well get one some day. Change rarely comes quickly in this church.
EDIT: I meant to add that the reality of today's world is that there is just a ton of information out there now about all these issues, due primarily to the Internet. In that regard this change is really of the same nature as the new openness about Joseph Smith's polygamy. What used to be obscure facts are now screaming for attention, and the leadership is giving it.
I am inclined to be charitable to BY on this issue. That doesn't mean I don't think he goofed, but I'm not willing to attribute opportunistic or venal motives to him. I think he was a great, if imperfect man, just as Joseph Smith was.
Last edited by LA Ute; 12-11-2013 at 04:32 PM.
"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery
"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
--Yeats
“True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”
--John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell
Another way to put it is, with the growth of internet use, the church is having a lot of trouble controlling what information it's tithe paying members receive about it's history. Members are looking up information and getting frustrated about Smith's polyandry, polygamy with ealry teen brides, history with the law, looking in the hat Brigham's discourses etc. As any very well run organization would do, the LDS Church hires a great PR firm who tells them to get out in front of these issues.
I understand there are about 13 of these coming out. They are well written. The church either has excellent writers and PR guys or they are getting help. Keep in mind, the Church doesn't pay its employees that much
Last edited by Two Utes; 12-11-2013 at 04:45 PM.
The talks and writings by David O McKay, Bruce McConkie and many others in the 40s and 50s certainly seemed to treat the ban as revelation.
[
I understand there are about 13 of these coming out. They are well written. The church either has excellent writers and PR guys or they are getting help. Keep in mind, the Church doesn't pay its employees that much[/QUOTE]
The church PR dept. has a pool of good writers who used to be journalists at the DNews, KSL or elsewhere. (Serisously; not joking).
Another factor is that many people (including many on message boards like this one) have been clamoring for the church finally to address the types of issues you list. So they're doing it, and it looks like they are doing it in a professional manner:
Better late than never, I say. (I speak as a life-long believing member whose eyes popped when I read Rough Stone Rolling.)What is most important about the statement on race to Mormon historian Richard Bushman is its perspective.
"It is written as a historian might tell the story," Bushman says from his home in New York, "not as a theological piece, trying to justify the practice."
By depicting the exclusion as fitting with the common practices of the day, says Bushman, who wrote "Rough Stone Rolling," a critically acclaimed biography of Smith, "it drains the ban of revelatory significance, makes it something that just grew up and, in time, had to be eliminated."
But accepting that, Bushman says, "requires a deep reorientation of Mormon thinking."
Mormons believe that their leaders are in regular communication with God, so if you say Young could make a serious error, he says, "it brings into question all of the prophet’s inspiration."
Members need to recognize that God can "work through imperfect instruments," Bushman says. "For many Latter-day Saints, that is going to be a difficult transition. But it is part of our maturation as a church."
"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery
"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
--Yeats
“True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”
--John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell
Sigh. Yes, they did. At least it seemed to bother President McKay. Elder McConkie simply declared his prior writings null and void.
"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery
"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
--Yeats
“True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”
--John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell
So what are they going to write about Packer about 40 years from now? And when do they leak out to members that, perhaps, some of the things in the Miracle of Forgiveness are bat shit nuts?
Utah was already embroiled in the issue of north & south & slavery - the Compromise of 1850 had been an important part of allowing the territory of Utah to choose whether or not to allow slavery.
Utah people were just racist. Just like Northerners who didn't think it was fair that Southerners had super-cheap labor, and just like Southerners who thought themselves justified in enslaving other people. Lincoln was no lover of black people. He advocated sending them back to Africa or to the Caribbean once they were freed.
The rise of the Republican party & its stated goal of eradicating polygamy probably pushed Utah into the arms of the South more than anything else.
σοφῷ ἀνδρὶ Ἑλλὰς πάντα.
-- Flavius Philostratus, Life of Apollonius 1.35.2.
if there are 13 explanations/clarifications that are scheduled to come out, what are some of the other items on that list?
1. Polygamy
2. Mountain Meadow Massacre
What else?
I think just about everybody was racist then. I'm not offering this as an excuse, just as an explanation. There was not a multi-racial society in existence anywhere in the world when the Declaration and Constitution were signed, and I don't think it was much different in 1850. The anti-slavery folks of both eras were truly ahead of their time and very principled. (In fact, Joseph Smith's ordination of blak men was in the same category.) This is covered very well in Joseph Ellis' "Founding Brothers." Chapter Three, entitled "The Silence," describes the tacit agreement among the Founders to postpone dealing with slavery. They worried concluding that any early attempt at abolition would doom the union before it had a chance to become established. Sad but fascinating.
One can't help but wonder what would have happened if BY had taken the same approach as Joseph did.
"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery
"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
--Yeats
“True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”
--John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell
Here you go Cave Dweller
http://www.washingtonpost.com/nation...2ab_story.html
This could use some nuance.
Race is a social construction. People have always been aware of different skin-colors, but to use that as a defining feature of society is a modern innovation. In the English Colonies, after Bacon's Rebellion in the 1670s, conducted largely by indentured servants wanting better opportunities once their terms of service were up, the authorities began focusing on slave-labor instead of indentured-servitude to grow tobacco. This led to the designation of the few Africans in the area as slaves - by "race" or skin-color, making them easily distinguished from whites. There were African slaves in the Americas long before this (and by Americas, I mean North America, South America, Caribbean), but they weren't enslaved because of their color (indeed, some were indentured servants, finished up their terms, married, and became landowners). They were enslaved and brought to the New World because of their high resistance to contagious disease. It wasn't until the late 1600s in this country that race was equated to slave.
So, to say there was no such thing as a "multi-racial" society before the 18th century is perhaps correct because there wasn't really a concept of "race" in the modern sense for a long time. But that's like saying there was no such thing as an ipad in the 1700s either.
There were plenty of multi-cultural societies throughout ancient history, societies that we would consider multi-racial today. Ancient Egypt, Ancient Athens, Ancient Rome, probably China (although I'm not an expert) - all of these had many people of many different skin-pigments living together - but with very different conceptions of what constituted their identities (e.g., Greeks considered Greekness to stem from language, not from physical appearance).
So, your point is taken that the LDS church is a product of the 19th century, but the picture is pretty complex.
σοφῷ ἀνδρὶ Ἑλλὰς πάντα.
-- Flavius Philostratus, Life of Apollonius 1.35.2.
I don't post about religion because, frankly, what's the point? But I am surprised by how much traction and genuine surprise that this thing (is it a statement, an announcement, a declaration, a revelation) is generating on the interwebs. What is the big revelation? That Brigham Young was racist? Certainly anyone who has ever read any quote by BY with the word "race" in it knew that already. Is it that the Priesthood ban was a racist mistake? Are there still people that think that God somehow approved of racist priesthood? Is it that black members had previously held the priesthood before Brigham Young set the policy? That's a little more obscure, but hardly unknown.
For me, a more interesting statement would not have focused on the priesthood ban's origins, but rather why it took until 1978 to correct the error.
jaw-smiley.gif You're challenging Joseph Ellis? I mean, he did have that little plagiarism problem, but....
Seriously, I get what you are saying. I am no historian. Still, I was talking about American society, and I think Ellis was too. What he seemed to be noting was that at the time of the American founding, a multi-racial/ethnic society like the current USA did not exist anywhere. That's why I admire the Quakers and Franklin, who in 1790 tried to get the Constitution amended to ban slavery. They were way ahead of their time. (Few people today realize what radicals the Quakers were in many ways. I have Quaker ancestry so studying them is a bit of a hobby for me.)
To be clear, I am not saying that as a result slavery was excusable because of the world's condition then, or that early Mormons' racism was excusable. It just was not unusual. Just trying to avoid what you historians call presentism.
"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery
"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
--Yeats
“True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”
--John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell
It was actually written by Peggy Fletcher Stack, the SL Trib's religion reporter, although I was not aware her writing was syndicated under the Religion News Service.
Yeah, I wasn't really disagreeing. Just adding some context to the idea of a multi-racial state.
The understanding that the Constitution's framers would put off a discussion on slavery for 20 or so years is well documented. By the 1770s, race had come to be a defining feature of "free" and "slave" in the US. In fact, Edmund Morgan argued in the 1970s that the distinction between black & white as "slave" & "free" posited a fundamental equality among whites in virginia, and this fundamental equality transgressed normal social & economic lines. This basic equality was the basis of (white) liberal democracy & notions of freedom that gave birth to the American nation. So, in a way, the way whites in Virginia defined themselves as essentially free because they were white established a more egalitarian state than existed back in jolly old england.
So, in sum. the existence of black slavery made whites feel free, whether a poor white ex-indentured servant or a rich bourgeois slaveholder. This common sense of freedom established the basic egalitarianism of American democracy.
Pretty interesting idea, IMO. I buy the Morgan thesis.
http://books.google.com/books?id=Yy_...page&q&f=false
Last edited by Solon; 12-12-2013 at 10:38 AM.
σοφῷ ἀνδρὶ Ἑλλὰς πάντα.
-- Flavius Philostratus, Life of Apollonius 1.35.2.
My best guesses:
Differing Accounts of the First Vision
Word of Wisdom (from suggestion to commandment)
Women & Gender roles (esp. historically - the blessings & stuff)
Book of Abraham
Blood Atonement
Church Finances
Anti-Communism & John Birchy stuff
End of the World & Food Storage
I doubt we see anything on Book of Mormon historicity or Book of Mormon textual problems.
σοφῷ ἀνδρὶ Ἑλλὰς πάντα.
-- Flavius Philostratus, Life of Apollonius 1.35.2.
You may be right. Not sure they'll get into the John Birchy stuff or food storage but those are good guesses.
"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery
"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
--Yeats
“True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”
--John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell
I would be surprised about JohnBirch/Communism. I would also be surprised to see something about women and giving blessings, but I guess anything is possible. I'm going to say a big NO WAY on church finances, if you mean transparency.
Not to me.
"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery
"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
--Yeats
“True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”
--John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell
It will be once the zombie apocalypse hits and I'm trying to get into your food storage.
Hey, you wiseasses go ahead and put your guesses up here and i'll bag on them. :
When I was a kid, Food Storage was emphasized to deal with impending doom of Nuclear Armageddon & the end of the world.
Now it's recommended to alleviate short-term financial problems.
The LDS used to be much more of a millenialist movement. I don't see much of that anymore.
As for the financial transparency, I doubt we see the numbers, but I wouldn't be surprised if we see an acknowledgement that those numbers used to be public, and the church gives some more detailed reasons for keeping them in-house.
Is it true that temple-workers can't have beards? Wow. That seems silly.
σοφῷ ἀνδρὶ Ἑλλὰς πάντα.
-- Flavius Philostratus, Life of Apollonius 1.35.2.
Apologies - I actually think your list is pretty good.Hey, you wiseasses go ahead and put your guesses up here and i'll bag on them. :
When I was a kid, Food Storage was emphasized to deal with impending doom of Nuclear Armageddon & the end of the world.
Now it's recommended to alleviate short-term financial problems.
The LDS used to be much more of a millenialist movement. I don't see much of that anymore.
As for the financial transparency, I doubt we see the numbers, but I wouldn't be surprised if we see an acknowledgement that those numbers used to be public, and the church gives some more detailed reasons for keeping them in-house.
Is it true that temple-workers can't have beards? Wow. That seems silly.
Here are some other possibilities:
- Multiple polygamy pages: one on why we did it, one on why we stopped, and one on how LDS is different than FLDS.
- I think we might say one historicity page: native american DNA and lack of links to Jerusalem.
-ERA
-
Probably a reaction to the Cold War and possible nuclear Armageddon. I recall reading somehere (The Economist?) some pretty wild misperceptions about what food storage is all about.Hey, you wiseasses go ahead and put your guesses up here and i'll bag on them. :
When I was a kid, Food Storage was emphasized to deal with impending doom of Nuclear Armageddon & the end of the world.
Now it's recommended to alleviate short-term financial problems.
The LDS used to be much more of a millenialist movement. I don't see much of that anymore.
Could be. I hadn't thought about that.As for the financial transparency, I doubt we see the numbers, but I wouldn't be surprised if we see an acknowledgement that those numbers used to be public, and the church gives some more detailed reasons for keeping them in-house.
It's my understanding that Pres. Hinckley decided that all temple worker must meet missionary grooming standards. IN the L.A. Temple a prior temple president interpreted this to mean that our bishop (who was about 78 years old) could not perform temple baptisms because he had a mustache. I also was excluded for the same reason. It was a pretty embarrassing experience in front of our youth. I'm not sure if the current temple president takes the same position.Is it true that temple-workers can't have beards? Wow. That seems silly.
Last edited by LA Ute; 12-12-2013 at 02:13 PM.
"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery
"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
--Yeats
“True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”
--John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell
That is one of the areas that I think the church should hit on more (general financial preparedness and the ability to weather hard times). However in many cases that means putting off marriage or child rearing so it can back fire against other church priorities.
Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk
Agree that church finances are not "historical issues" but current issues that I don't see the church adressing any time soon.
Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk
Wait, you have a moustache? My mental image of you just imploded.
I had one for 25 years. In 2004 it went away. My kids had never seen me without it. Neither had my wife. I'll find a photo somewhere.
"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-Exupery
"Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
--Yeats
“True, we [lawyers] build no bridges. We raise no towers. We construct no engines. We paint no pictures - unless as amateurs for our own principal amusement. There is little of all that we do which the eye of man can see. But we smooth out difficulties; we relieve stress; we correct mistakes; we take up other men's burdens and by our efforts we make possible the peaceful life of men in a peaceful state.”
--John W. Davis, founder of Davis Polk & Wardwell
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote