Recovery Board  : RfM
Recovery from Mormonism (RfM) discussion forum. 
Go to Topic: PreviousNext
Go to: Forum ListMessage ListNew TopicSearchLog In
Posted by: azsteve ( )
Date: December 15, 2013 08:21PM

The church's recent statement on blacks and priesthood was vegue on one thing in particular. Did god want the blacks to have the priesthood but because of Brigham Young's racism it didn't happen? Or does the church still stick by Hinkley's explanation that god didn't want blacks to have the priesthood until after 1978 and that no one knows why? The recent statement only addresses theories about why. I think the church can still stick to their position that it was god that withheld the priesthood from worthy black men and to not blame the mormon prophets. The question still stands. Is god the racist or are ten consecutive mormon prophets the racists? If the churchwere true, it's got to be one way or the other. Actually the church as much as admitted that those ten prophets were racists. The only question that remains is whether it was injustice or god's will that prevailed in denying black men from holding the priesthood.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/15/2013 08:29PM by azsteve.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Doubting Thomas ( )
Date: December 15, 2013 08:57PM

I was blown away how the statement portrayed Brigham Young as a positive force in the entire process... Read it again and look for it.


Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: dagny ( )
Date: December 15, 2013 09:20PM

They can't make him the scapegoat. They would have to explain why they have a university named after the creep.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Elder Strangelove ( )
Date: December 15, 2013 10:25PM

I've been trying to determine what the statement states as well.

All I get from it is:

1) Brigham Young instigated the ban, but the reason is not known.

2) Brigham Young and the other prophets were racists, in a racist culture.

3) The prophets' racism led to racist theories for the ban, in the absence of any stated reason.

So, as I see it, the article supports your second explanation, in which Hinkley says no one knows why. It's kind of confusing when they spend so much time dwelling on the prevalence of racism in the culture surrounding the church, as if it is building a case to mitigate the racism behind the ban, but then the article concludes with disavowing all racist reasoning for the ban.

Options: ReplyQuote
Go to Topic: PreviousNext
Go to: Forum ListMessage ListNew TopicSearchLog In

Screen Name: 
Your Email (optional): 
Spam prevention:
Please, enter the code that you see below in the input field. This is for blocking bots that try to post this form automatically.
 **      **        **  **     **  **     **  **    ** 
 **  **  **        **  ***   ***  **     **   **  **  
 **  **  **        **  **** ****  **     **    ****   
 **  **  **        **  ** *** **  **     **     **    
 **  **  **  **    **  **     **  **     **     **    
 **  **  **  **    **  **     **  **     **     **    
  ***  ***    ******   **     **   *******      **