BYU Religion Made Me Puke
Wow. I’m speechless. This is a real presentation from BYU’s religion department that is still being advertised on BYU TV’s website (ht: Justin). Click on the “Priesthood Restrictions Through The Ages.” They actually think that there’s evidence that Joseph Smith instituted the ban, that the pre-existence mumbo jumbo still works [see comments #1 and #108], and seem to be operating out of the 1950s historiographically. Now, I’m not sure when this recording was made, but I find it a disgrace that BYU TV is still showing this. They apparently missed Elder Holland’s rebuttal of the “folklore.”
Ok, listening to it again, they don’t take a clear position on the pre-existence stuff. Millet brings up pre-existence right before he discusses JS’s “revelation” on the ban, but doesn’t make a direct connection between the two.
Comment by David G. — June 9, 2008 @ 2:08 pm
I’m getting that the url is not valid.
Comment by Jared T — June 9, 2008 @ 2:14 pm
K, it’s fixed now.
Comment by David G. — June 9, 2008 @ 2:18 pm
Wow. Shocking. These people are “experts”?
Comment by J. Stapley — June 9, 2008 @ 2:25 pm
Basically a “who’s who” in the rel. dept. on the PofGP.
Comment by David G. — June 9, 2008 @ 2:26 pm
I posted this on a BCC thread a little bit ago, but aren’t there several sources attributing the ban to Joseph Smith?
Comment by Tim J. — June 9, 2008 @ 2:31 pm
It’s a generational change, folks. The rising generation is different from the prior. Just by way of reality check.
And by way of another reality check, BYU Rel Ed is an institution independent of other similar institutions, has its own rules, its own experts, its own paradigms of religion and knowledge.
I find it easier to figure them out when I recognize that they are as much Mormon as the Chomsky-lovers I spend my time with. The body of Christ comprises all of us, even the Beaver-Cleaver racists.
That said, on this issue particularly it will be nice when they are able to make the transition from outmoded explanatory models to something a little closer to the scriptural witness.
And, finally, there are other institutions of higher learning where degrees are awarded and spouses are found.
Comment by smb — June 9, 2008 @ 2:33 pm
Tim, nothing reliable.
Comment by smb — June 9, 2008 @ 2:33 pm
Because…?
Not that it would change anything…
Comment by Tim J. — June 9, 2008 @ 2:36 pm
Because we have evidence that Joseph approved the ordination of blacks and no contemporary sources of any integrity that can overcome that fact. For a fuller discussion see chapter 8 of Armand Mauss’s All Abraham’s Children.
Comment by SC Taysom — June 9, 2008 @ 2:39 pm
As far as the paradigm is concerned, in this case it seems to be based on the old motto: we’ve made up our minds, don’t confuse us with the facts.
Comment by SC Taysom — June 9, 2008 @ 2:40 pm
Give me a break. There is strings of evidence that Joseph instituted the doctrine. It existed in 1846 – Where did everyone get that idea? Why weren’t there more blacks with the priesthood? We only know of Elijah Abel, for sure, during that time…
Comment by se7en — June 9, 2008 @ 3:05 pm
Weird. They’re advertising that?
Comment by Researcher — June 9, 2008 @ 3:08 pm
se7en, not so.
Comment by J. Stapley — June 9, 2008 @ 3:10 pm
7, you give me a break. What you present as “evidence” is not evidence, much less “strings” thereof.
Comment by Jared T — June 9, 2008 @ 3:17 pm
se7en, I posted this on another thread. It should clear up your misunderstandings.
Comment by David G. — June 9, 2008 @ 3:19 pm
It has a copyright date of 2003. The episode airs this Sunday on BYU TV.
Comment by Justin — June 9, 2008 @ 3:24 pm
“Strings” of evidence. What is weaker than strings? Wisps? Motes? That’s not the strongest image you could have used. How about scads, or tons, or even ropes. But strings?
Comment by SC Taysom — June 9, 2008 @ 3:24 pm
Wow. To think that a couple years ago I envisioned myself wanting to work in the BYU Religious Department. For some reason however, I see myself more and more hoping to never do so. Hopefully smb is right and this will pass with the next generation.
Also, I wonder if at least some of these professors have matured in their views. It seems Millett’s recent works, particularly “Bridging the Divide,” seem to argue an opposite view than what is expressed here.
Comment by Ben — June 9, 2008 @ 3:29 pm
I know and respect at least 4 of the 6 people talking on that track. Um…I think this is a case of apologetics gone berzerk. They all keep referring to it as a “hard doctrine,” which it was I suppose. But it doesn’t have to be a hard doctrine anymore.
Comment by John C. — June 9, 2008 @ 3:37 pm
Wow.
Comment by Christopher — June 9, 2008 @ 3:58 pm
I cannot account for the assertions made regarding Elijah Abel and the institution of the priesthood ban. The participants ignore the scholarship of the last 30+ years on this subject (e.g., the articles collected in Neither White Nor Black).
Comment by Justin — June 9, 2008 @ 4:01 pm
The problem is, this thing will be AIRED on Sunday. We have to do more than just talk about it. Something has to be done to STOP IT.
HOW DO WE STOP IT??? I plan on contacting some KBYU people and some BYU religion professors. This simply cannot happen.
HELP ME!
Comment by Margaret Young — June 9, 2008 @ 5:25 pm
I just submitted a request to BYU TV for them not to show this. We’ll see if I get a response.
Comment by David G. — June 9, 2008 @ 5:38 pm
Here is a link to send them an email:
http://www.kbyutv.org/contact/
Here is their phone number:
1-800-298-5298
Lets swarm them!
Comment by Catherine — June 9, 2008 @ 5:45 pm
I forgot to post this, you’ll need this information when you call or email:
Pearl of Great Price Series
Episode 10 – “Priesthood Restrictions Through The Ages”
Airing on BYU Television June 15 @ 6:00 AM
Comment by Catherine — June 9, 2008 @ 5:54 pm
Thanks for that info Catherine.
Comment by Jared T — June 9, 2008 @ 6:09 pm
Wow, guys. Trying to silence people with whom you have theological differences?
What ever happened to “the best response to bad speech is more speech”?
Comment by JimD — June 9, 2008 @ 6:14 pm
JimD,
When professors of religion and a church-sponsored school specifically espouse views that have been labelled folklore by an apostle, they shouldn’t be allowed to continue to present those views.
If this were a blog or op-ed piece, I would agree with you, that we should use more speech to correct their errors.
But these professors clearly label many of these views as doctrine; doctrine that has been officially disavowed by the church. It’s time they retire these worn-out, mistaken, and racist ideas.
Comment by Kari — June 9, 2008 @ 6:22 pm
It’s not a theological difference. It is fact v. fiction.
Just sent KBYU my comments.
Comment by Randy B. — June 9, 2008 @ 6:23 pm
Here is a copy of my email sent through the BYU TV contact page.
—————
Subj: Pearl of Great Price Series – Episode 10
Pearl of Great Price Series
Episode 10 – “Priesthood Restrictions Through The Ages”
Airing on BYU Television June 15 @ 6:00 AM
I have had the opportunity to listen to this episode online. I see that it is scheduled to be broadcast this coming Sunday, 15 Jun at 6:00 am.
I would encourage you to not broadcast this episode. We just marked the 30th anniversary of the lifting of this restriction this past weekend and I find it unfortunate that many of the reasons given by previously for the ban, and repeated in this episode, have been discredited, and specifically labelled as “folklore” by Elder Holland in the PBS series, “The Mormons.”
Continuing to propogate this folklore only discredits the religion department at BYU as well as the Church as a whole. Please do not continue to broadcast this episode until the doctrinal and historical errors can be corrected.
Thank you.
Comment by Kari — June 9, 2008 @ 6:23 pm
Wait–since when did the Bloggernacle accept the preposition that it is acceptable to put a muzzle on BYU faculty if they deviate from GA-imposed doctrinal and cultural norms?
C’mon, guys. If it were Lynne Whitesides or Sonia Johnson making doctrinally insupportable statements, most of you would never dream of running to KBYU demanding that they be silenced.
As for
I’m sure Messrs. Young, Smith (JFS), and McConkie were quite sure that viewpoints in opposition to theirs were “fiction”, as well.
Somehow, the idea that it’s OK to silence ideological opponents as long as we know they’re wrong is hardly reassuring.
Comment by JimD — June 9, 2008 @ 6:40 pm
The bloggernacle is not a monolith.
Comment by Jared T — June 9, 2008 @ 6:43 pm
Well, Jared, I didn’t want to get overly personal.
But I trust I’ve made my point.
Comment by JimD — June 9, 2008 @ 6:45 pm
JimD,
Do you really think that in today’s correlated church we should have BYU professors, on BYU TV, espousing as doctrine and historical fact ideas that have been labelled as folklore by a man sustained as a prophet, seer, and revelator?
If they wanted to discuss these ideas on their personal blogs, I would have no problem with that. I would certainly comment there that their ideas are inaccurate, both doctrinally and historically. And while we can certainly disagree on many theological ideas, it is irresponsible of them to repeat as fact the idea that Joseph Smith voided Elijah Abels priesthood ordination, or that Joseph smith was responsible for the ban, when all historical evidence is fairly clear that it originated during Brigham Young’s leadership.
The problem is that this is being presented as religious education from a church sponsored school, on a church sponsored television station. It isn’t somebody discussing things on their personal blog, or a personal essay in Dialogue or Sunstone. Its presence on BYU-TV gives the appearance of imprimatur, which is unfortunate, and, in my opinion should be avoided/prevented.
Comment by Kari — June 9, 2008 @ 7:02 pm
JimD said, “If it were Lynne Whitesides or Sonia Johnson making doctrinally insupportable statements, most of you would never dream of running to KBYU demanding that they be silenced.”
Are you kidding? These are professors being paid by the Church-owned University. C’mon, JimD. Moreover, these KBYU programs are sort of like Gospel Doctrine class for those wishing to watch from home.
And since when is it wrong to send in a “letter to the editor”? Besides, this may be the first time the KBYU editors/production folks have thought about the issue in relation to this series.
Comment by Hunter — June 9, 2008 @ 7:07 pm
Re: 35
Ditto to what Kari said (better).
Comment by Hunter — June 9, 2008 @ 7:09 pm
Sonia Johnson!? What century are we in? Yikes. And, for what its worth, most of the intellectuals that you are attempting to lump her in with never took her seriously even then.
Comment by SC Taysom — June 9, 2008 @ 7:14 pm
“But I trust I’ve made my point.”
Yea, but a weird one. The factual assertions contained in the presentation about the origins of the priesthood ban are inaccurate, a point you do not dispute. Instead of applauding the efforts to correct those misstatements, you are all worked about “silencing” voices in the marketplace of ideas. That strikes me as an odd concern in these circumstances — i.e., suggesting in a email comment that the church’s TV station not perpetuate falsehoods. But to each their own.
Comment by Randy B. — June 9, 2008 @ 7:14 pm
JimD,
These aren’t mere differences of opinion. There are some blatant misstatements of fact in that broadcast. Further, I can’t speak to the others, but Elder McConkie clearly repudiated his own statements on the priesthood ban, so I don’t think we need to continue to cling to them.
Comment by John C. — June 9, 2008 @ 7:16 pm
Just for the record, I thought it might be helpful to paste up here the pertinent section from the Elder Holland interview to which David linked. It’s about as powerful a statement about this subject as I have read.
Comment by SC Taysom — June 9, 2008 @ 7:38 pm
Thanks for posting that, SC.
Comment by Ben — June 9, 2008 @ 7:42 pm
Kari:
Do you really think that in today’s correlated church we should have BYU professors, on BYU TV, espousing as doctrine and historical fact ideas that have been labelled as folklore by a man sustained as a prophet, seer, and revelator?
Yes. Of course, the schizophrenia inherent to the BYU Religious Education Department’s existence probably merits a few posts of its own. But if they’re going to call themselves “professors” and claim to be part of a “university”, then the same academic freedoms that would apply to a professor of psychology (at BYU or elsewhere) should apply to a professor of religion. BYU-TV should respond by seeking and presenting alternate viewpoints–not by shutting down the offensive speech.
And I would very much be interested in hearing whether you would be comfortable inflicting the same type of treatment on Whitesides and Johnson as you seek to inflict on Millet and Fronk.
Comment by JimD — June 9, 2008 @ 7:43 pm
Didn’t catch the statement re Johnson earlier. But OK. Delete Johnson’s name, and take your pick of any of the September Six.
Comment by JimD — June 9, 2008 @ 7:45 pm
JimD,
In my email, I suggested that KBYU hold off on broadcasting this segment until the participants had a chance to review it and correct the statements that are almost certainly embarrassing to them now.
It is one thing to have a difference of opinion. It is quite another thing for people with PhD after their names to be ignorant of 30 years of scholarship, as Justin pointed out upthread.
I am almost certain that KBYU would be doing a favor to the church AND to these people by withdrawing this broadcast.
Comment by Mark IV — June 9, 2008 @ 7:52 pm
JimD,
I think you will find that the folks around here take pretty good shots on poor scholarship coming from all sides. Furthermore, I frankly resent your suggestion that we are shills for “the September Six” or anybody else. I absolutely promise you that if any of the historians that you seem to think we are in league with came out on record and in public with an argument that was as wrong on the historical facts and as poor in logic as the dreck on that tape, you would see instant and fierce objection on this blog.
Comment by SC Taysom — June 9, 2008 @ 7:59 pm
JimD,
You seem to be intentionally missing the point. The problem is not merely that the speech is offensive, though that certainly compounds the problem. Rather, the assertions made are factually incorrect. Does that not bother you at all? Should a television station not take accuracy into account when deciding what to air? Do you really believe it improper to petition the media to be more accurate in what they put on TV?
And frankly, your defense of these statements on grounds of academic freedom is laughable. No one is saying these folks can’t make these statements, or that they should be fired for doing so. The point here is that the church’s TV station shouldn’t be perpetuating falsehoods, particularly where the church’s own leaders have expressly renounced them. That you take umbrage at that is positively astonishing.
Comment by Randy B. — June 9, 2008 @ 8:12 pm
Mark IV –
Fair enough.
SC Taysom –
Why do you resent it? It wasn’t addressed at you specifically. It was addressed at those who were trying to “swarm” BYUTV with e-mails demanding that the broadcast be stopped (not supplemented with an additional broadcast featuring critics of the original broadcast, but altogether stopped). My impression was that several of this thread’s participants have come off in other fora as favoring free-speech at BYU in other contexts, and I think there’s a legitimate question as to why overconfident conservatives (be they religious or social) shouldn’t be granted the same amount of leeway that (I presume) we all agree should be granted to overconfident progressives.
Comment by JimD — June 9, 2008 @ 8:27 pm
I find it easier to figure them out when I recognize that they are as much Mormon as the Chomsky-lovers I spend my time with.
That is a key insight to understanding the difference between cultural or academic mormonism and the LDS Church.
As late as March 1847, we have Brigham Young saying that “Its nothing to do with the blood for [from] one blood has God made all flesh, we have to repent [to] regain what we av lost – we av one of the best Elders an African in Lowell.” The elder referred to was Walker Lewis, who was ordained by William Smith (JS’s brother) in 1842.
And, we have the Marsh who ran the brothel and a law firm from the same saloon in Salt Lake City, and who pretty much sealed things, all in all.
Comment by Stephen M (Ethesis) — June 9, 2008 @ 8:32 pm
Well I hope everyone on this blog is in favor of free speech, whether at BYU or elsewhere.
Again, you’re intentionally missing the point, JimD.
Comment by Randy B. — June 9, 2008 @ 8:37 pm
Randy, I think it goes back to the issue I hinted at regarding whether BYU should have a Religious Education department at all, or whether it should just be rolled into CES. (I would advocate the latter). But my view is (pardon the cliche), if they’re going to “talk the talk” of a university, they should “walk the walk”. Certainly, BYU should be able to have a television station that can function in relative independence without the burden of people wondering whether its programs carry the imprimatur of the church. Whether it does is obviously an entirely different question. Perhaps I’m living in a dream world.
Re non-factual assertions: Sure, it bothers me. But have you ever bothered to count how many non-factual assertions are reported on TV every minute? Have you called the television station in every instance, demanding that the program be pulled? If not, why this one? The statement re Joseph Smith and Abel’s ordination is certainly a howler, but I don’t think it justifies the program’s being pulled.
Comment by JimD — June 9, 2008 @ 8:40 pm
Randy (#50):
Then why are so many trying to impose a prior restraint on the dissemination of an idea?
Comment by JimD — June 9, 2008 @ 8:42 pm
Nope, JimD is right. Let’s come clean. He’s cracked the code! We are a cabal that seeks, through strong-arm tactics like letter writing, to silence, muzzle, and generally dominate “overconfident conservatives” (who we all know have very little opportunity to voice their opinions on BYU TV) while using their bones to pave the road on which Sonia Johnson and the other “overconfident progressive” icons of our movement will march to victory. What am I going to do with all of those victory banners now?!
Comment by SC Taysom — June 9, 2008 @ 8:46 pm
Actually though, I sort of do see JimD’s point as he has continued to express it. I think we all sort of know that this show isn’t going anywhere. To be frank, if I thought I had the power to actually shut it down I would probably be more circumspect and would likely agitate for some sort of equal time thing. But the fact is, I know that any email I might send simply represents my effort to point out serious problems with the content that could be seriously misleading to people who don’t know better. By the way, I like the way you didn’t abandon the argument even when outnumbered.
Comment by SC Taysom — June 9, 2008 @ 8:52 pm
JimD,
As a person who is more or less conservative, it’s pretty damned insulting to hear you attempt to connect the crapola that is on display in that video clip to me.
This has nothing to do with conservative or progressive. It has to do with ignorance.
Comment by Mark IV — June 9, 2008 @ 9:01 pm
Ramping up academic freedom at BYU does not require giving a pass to bad research, unsupported assertions, and false statements, JimD. Nor does it entitle individuals to the privilege of free air time on local television to broadcast baseless allegations.
So why voice concern in this particular case? With all due respect, JimD, the significance of the past couple of days seems to have passed you by.
Comment by Randy B. — June 9, 2008 @ 9:01 pm
Thanks, SC. I’m not as good with words as I ought to be, and my tone was initially overly confrontational. My apologies, and thanks for sticking with me.
Comment by JimD — June 9, 2008 @ 9:02 pm
“Then why are so many trying to impose a prior restraint on the dissemination of an idea?”
JimD, what has been suggested here is not a prior restraint, at least in the legal sense. No one here is a state actor. Nor is there any effort to ban the expression of an idea (did you click through the first link the post, right?). Unless your position is that citizens do not have the right to petition for accuracy in public broadcasting, your argument simply doesn’t work.
The professors in this production have every right to rattle off their poor thinking concerning the priesthood ban. And I have every right to reject their statements. I even have the right to suggest that the local television station not air their baseless and in my opinion damaging allegations.
Well enought for now. Good night all.
Comment by Randy B. — June 9, 2008 @ 9:22 pm
I think that as Mormons we have a duty to inform people when they are broadcasting thing – undoubtedly in good faith – that will undoubtedly hurt the missionary work. Holding on to discredited racist ideas and promulgating them is a huge impediment to the work of the Church.
I suspect those airing this simply don’t realize what effect they are having.
Comment by Clark — June 9, 2008 @ 9:23 pm
Mark, would “arch-conservative” have been better? (That was how I originally worded it, believe it or not.) I don’t want to quibble about semantics (and I consider myself more or less conservative myself), but it strikes me that anyone who defends the priesthood ban or its underlying “explanations” seems to fall on the right side of the spectrum, at least where religion is concerned.
Randy–
I agree with you. But once a decision has been made to broadcast something, I’m not sure a couple of factual howlers regarding what Joseph Smith did or didn’t say are sufficient to shut it down–regardless of when the program is slated to air.
(If what you find objectionable is that Millet & Co. referred to some of the “explanations” of the ban, that’s a different issue and one I really don’t want to get into tonight. Suffice it to say that, while I dislike the explanations as much as anyone, I’m not sure that OD-2, the Holland quote cited here, or the McConkie quote cited over at BCC say quite as much as we wish they did. I think Millet & Co. at least had a “rational basis” for their arguments, even if they’re wrong at the end of the day.)
Comment by JimD — June 9, 2008 @ 9:23 pm
“I agree with you.”
Well said.
Comment by Randy B. — June 9, 2008 @ 9:25 pm
Wow, I leave you all alone for 2 hours and this is what happens…
#34, I was spoofing the typical response of another group that says something akin to what I wrote every time it perceives an attack. I should have put a smiley. Apparently it was too obscure a reference anyway to get picked up on by anyone else. Shucks. Hint, hint, you’re arguments just aren’t fair. [cough]
I second #45 & 46 as well as the “talk the talk” line in your #51.
Comment by Jared T — June 9, 2008 @ 9:55 pm
[...] Considering David’s post, how beneficial is it for evangelicals to dialogue with BYU religion professors to obtain [...]
Pingback by Bloggernacle has begun a sizzling summer « Heart Issues for LDS — June 9, 2008 @ 10:51 pm
maybe BYU-TV by way of balance could boadcast Darius’ and Margaret’s movie
Comment by DavidH — June 9, 2008 @ 10:54 pm
Excellent idea, DavidH.
Comment by David G. — June 9, 2008 @ 10:55 pm
Congrats to the JI on its first troll!
Comment by Steve Evans — June 10, 2008 @ 12:30 am
Do you all automatically grant the same deference to other statements by apostles that you seem to be demanding be automatically granted to the statement of Elder Holland? Elder Oaks’ statements on “Alternate Voices”? Elder Packer’s statements on “Faithful History”? Or is the appeal to Elder Holland’s statement merely one of convenience?
Comment by Nat Whilk — June 10, 2008 @ 8:23 am
Nat Whilk is a troll, as his posts on lots and lots of blogs can attest. Don’t feed him.
Comment by SC Taysom — June 10, 2008 @ 8:46 am
KBYU’s response,
Dear Randy,
Thank you for your email regarding KBYU TV. Thank you for your comments. We always enjoy hearing from our viewers. I will pass your comments on to the programming department for review. If you have anymore questions regarding KBYU, our phone number is 1-800-298-5298.
Stephanie Dautel
Membership Services
BYU Broadcasting
Comment by Randy B. — June 10, 2008 @ 10:49 am
Randy: Funny, that is the same exact response I received. You don’t think it is a generic message, do you?
Comment by Ben — June 10, 2008 @ 10:57 am
Steve, is this directed at JimD? I sure hope not, because he hasn’t done much more than take a position contrary to the author’s and defend it. In fact, I think he’s done so rather politely. I mean, if that’s all you have to do to be a troll, then there are some who might consider you a troll, Steve.
Comment by jimbob — June 10, 2008 @ 11:20 am
Well I am gonna write, but the show is June 15 at 6 AM. doesn’t sound too damaging as a time slot. None of these men have that much notoriety. Millet is famous but not that exciting. BYU has much better (and acclaimed) professors to offer.
Comment by TrevorM — June 10, 2008 @ 11:22 am
JimD,
I apologize for being obtuse, but I continue to fail to see your point. If an anti-Mormon were spreading false facts about the church in a public forum, why wouldn’t we object? Why should it be different for members of the church? Or anybody? As I understand the marketplace of ideas concept, those ideas stated as facts should actually be facts in order to be allowed into the competition. Is that not so?
Comment by John C. — June 10, 2008 @ 11:27 am
Just phoned in my concern. The secretary said they’d received a number of calls/emails about this.
There is no room for this sort of nonsense to be perpetuated. Too many people have worked too hard to try to affect some kind of collective repentance on this issue to give these false notions another molecule of oxygen.
Thanks for bringing his to our attention, David G. (and for the sidebar link on BCC that brought me here).
Comment by Jeremy — June 10, 2008 @ 11:39 am
Trevor M.:
It’s more of a matter of principle for me. For us to grow up on the race issue, it requires institutional education and collective institutional change. Aside from directions emanating from the pulpit (in the manner of Elder Holland’s message), I can’t think of a more effective way to spread that change than to educate the media arm of the church’s university.
Comment by Jeremy — June 10, 2008 @ 11:42 am
Jeremy,
I agree and I wrote. I wish the church leaders spoke more about this.
Comment by TrevorM — June 10, 2008 @ 11:49 am
Thanks, Steve, but we’ve had a few trolls. We’ve even banned a couple of commenters.
Comment by Christopher — June 10, 2008 @ 12:12 pm
Didn’t Elder Ballard invite us to use the internet and modern media to clear up the misinformation out there?
How can you go wrong by writing KBYU. Not only are you clarifying outdated teachinhgs with a modern Apostle’s statements, you are also following the counsel of an Apostle by doing so. It seems the only problem is that it is the Church’s own school that is misinformed.
Comment by G.J. — June 10, 2008 @ 12:29 pm
If I wanted to see that this bit did not air, and I thought that these professors’ views had changed since the taping, instead of contacting KBYU, I would contact the professors. Ask them if they stand by their comments. They have a much better chance of being able to halt the broadcast than I do.
Comment by gst — June 10, 2008 @ 1:15 pm
All these whiny lawyers — sheesh.
Say it with a lawsuit, guys. Much more effective. Nothing says “please don’t broadcast this segment” quite like the words “preliminary injunction.”
Comment by Kaimi — June 10, 2008 @ 1:20 pm
You’re all thinking in the last century.
The broadcast is ephemeral and not a big deal. It might perpetuate stupidity that is in the minds of some innocent viewers, but if you’re watching KBYU at 6 am…
The fact that is is constantly available on-demand on the web is much more harmful. Mormon-kooks and anti-Mormons alike can link to it and use it to back up their own assertions. An amended program and web page would be most appropriate. I’ll be the first to admit that such a thing won’t happen.
I’m astounded that professors at BYU are ignorant of the last (nearly) 40 years of scholarship on this issue. Either that or they are playing ignorant. They had a real opportunity with this program to do some good and get some information out there that is very helpful to people and that is not as widely available as it should be. I’m happy to give them failing grades for the program and assign remedial work.
Comment by a random John — June 10, 2008 @ 1:37 pm
Sue the internet!
Comment by Kaimi — June 10, 2008 @ 1:45 pm
Isn’t that exactly what IRI is doing?
Comment by a random John — June 10, 2008 @ 1:50 pm
They aren’t ignorant of the scholarship. That is what all of this “hard doctrine” crap is about–it is hard, in their view, for “so called intellectuals” to deal with an unpopular, but in their minds, true doctrine. Just because it was reversed by revelation, the thinking goes, does not mean that God wasn’t responsible for it and that the prophets who offered excuses and justifications for it were wrong. I think this is an example of a situation in which they are looking at statements (old ones) from church leaders and then looking at scholarship that diverges from it (in the matters, for example, of Joseph Smith’s involvement with the ban and the question of scriptural justification for it)and seeing it as an opportunity to defend the true faith in the face of sneering opposition. That is the only reading I can come up with for this situation. The interesting part is that they are in a bind. In order to defend the previous statements, they have to ignore more recent ones.
Comment by SC Taysom — June 10, 2008 @ 2:46 pm
But I have to say that this entire episode points to a broader problem. I think we are too quick to call this nonsense “folklore” as if it simply existed on the whispered fringes of Mormon life, like the stories when I was young that floated around about Ozzie Osbourne being the son of a stake president and an active member until he died his garments purple. The sad fact is, there is plenty of material that was conveyed in circumstances that implied much more than what “folklore” implies, at least in popular usage.
Comment by SC Taysom — June 10, 2008 @ 2:53 pm
Folklore to me entails it’s very popular in the mainstream.
Comment by Clark — June 10, 2008 @ 3:00 pm
Steve, I agree, given that they start out the presentation with “there are some that say that there is no scriptural basis for the ban.” They definitely have an “other” in mind here. I also found it interesting when Millet said that he was completely satisfied in his mind that JS originated the ban, even when Millet’s colleague asked if JS ever made any statements on the ban, and Millet had to concede that the Prophet had never even mentioned it. As for the problem of using “folklore” to cover what was obviously a mainstream teaching, that is a problem. We need a better term.
Comment by David G. — June 10, 2008 @ 3:02 pm
@ 64: I think that’s a great idea.
@ 66: Steve, I calls ‘em like I sees ‘em. If I’m a troll, then fine.
@ 73: I would hope I would respond by being allowed to tell my side of the story. A demand that the broadcast be stopped would only beg the question of what I’m trying to hide, and why I am so afraid of it. It sends a message that there is no good argument against the ideas perpetuated in the broadcast–which, in light of the work of Darius, Margaret, and others, is manifestly not the case.
Moreover, if you start imposing requirements of “truth” or “fact” in broadcasting then you beg the questions of a) whose “truth” or “facts” are going to become the standard, and b) what kinds of factual errors will we let slide, and what kinds are sufficient to get a program canned. It strikes me as just being too messy.
Comment by JimD — June 10, 2008 @ 3:04 pm
As someone who likes to dabble in “folklore” scholarship, I disagree that it is a bad term for this situation. Folklore merely means something that is spread from one generation to another, whether it is true or not, and it is usually through oral tradition. To me, the reasoning for the priesthood restriction, specifically as depicted in this discussion, fits precisely what the proper definition of “folklore” implies. Folklore is often at the root of a culture, exemplified through popular teachings and beliefs, and is usually very tough to be let go.
Comment by Ben — June 10, 2008 @ 3:08 pm
Excellent post; thanks for bringing it to everyone’s attention!
I, like SCTaysom, find the attempted justification for this from scripture (to the ignorance of modern statements) perplexing. I’m surprised that no one has pointed out that none of these scriptural experts really focuses on what we know about the priesthood in the period discussed. For example, the priesthood in the Hebrew Bible was banned from 11/12ths of the tribes of Israel! That, and in the Hebrew Bible there appears to be no discrimination based on skin color (though John C. would be able to say better). This appears to be revelation based on 19th century ideas inherited from a complex interpretative network.
What is more, they fall into the trap of using Jesus’ restrictions on preaching the gospel to describe priesthood bans, which is analogous, at best. But the idea of priesthood *denial* based on broad lineage is not explicit in the Hebrew Bible or in the NT. They have skirted the real issues here and wrested the scriptures to their own ends.
Comment by jupiterschild — June 10, 2008 @ 3:09 pm
Ben, I don’t think that, as used in this context, we can apply that technical definition to “folklore.” I think that people use the word to describe the justifications for the ban as a means to suggest that the justifications are false and unreliable, and therefore easily dismissed. But, as Steve suggests (and has been suggested by others on other threads) folklore as used in this way does not adequately address the problem of the justifications coming from authoritative sources.
Comment by David G. — June 10, 2008 @ 3:17 pm
Alright, go ahead and use your own (false) definition of “folklore.”
Comment by Ben — June 10, 2008 @ 3:22 pm
[...] Sunday morning. They appear to defend (create?) a doctrinal basis for the priesthood ban. This was called to the ‘Nacle’s attention by David G at Juvenile Instructor. In the discussion that ensued, a call was made to petition KBYU not to broadcast the [...]
Pingback by Provo-based Media and the Priesthood Ban « Faith Promoting Rumor — June 10, 2008 @ 3:29 pm
Ben:
Folklore, like myth, is one of those terms that has a popular meaning and a scholarly meaning(s). The typical deployment of the term in the case of the priesthood ban does not show the marks of the technical usage. There is, for example, little concern with the mimetics of the phenomenon. Folklore, in the technical sense, is value neutral. In almost every case, when that word is applied to the topic at hand here, it is laden with a negative charge and ends up carrying a meaning something like this: “it wasn’t official doctrine, which would mean we have something to defend or apologize for, it was just folkore, which means that it was not official and therefore something for which we bear little responsibility.”
Clark: If, in this case, folklore means something popular and mainstream, try subsituting that term for folkore where you see it come up. See if it changes the meaning.
Comment by SC Taysom — June 10, 2008 @ 3:32 pm
7. smb, RE: The body of Christ comprises all of us, even the Beaver-Cleaver racists.
.
I grew up watching the Cleaver family — what part of them was racist? Maybe isolated, but racist???
Comment by manaen — June 10, 2008 @ 4:13 pm
My thought here (and JimD, while controversial, is not a troll from my observations) is to have us think through the difference between attempting to eliminate the historical theology of race and priesthood and the attempt to distance ourselves from other dark aspects of our past (say the polygamy “cover-up”).
Comment by smb — June 10, 2008 @ 4:21 pm
Elder McConkie said CLEARLY that every statement justifying the ban prior to 1978, including his own, were wrong and should be forgotten. That was his word – FORGET. To me, that means ERASE – never claim again – etc.
BYU-TV is seen as the voice of the Church by many members AND non-members. Of course, we should express our concern.
Fwiw, I called the 800 number. As soon as I identified the program by name, I was transfered to “the supervisor who is taking THESE calls”.
I generally do not believe in calling dropping, but I told them my location and current calling and that I had become aware of their plans to air this episode. I said that, after listening to it, I hoped that NONE of the members or non-members in my area listened to it, as I believe it is not in harmony with the statements made by multiple apostles and Prophets since the revelation in 1978.
The supervisor took my name and e-mail address, said they were in the process of reviewing it and promised to send me an e-mail telling me what they decide to do.
We have worked WAY too hard in the last 30 years to sit back and not say anything.
Comment by Ray — June 10, 2008 @ 4:34 pm
#66 Steve Evans:
Where’ve you been? They let me guest blog a while ago.
Also Marlin Jensen touched on the ban folklore in his interview with Helen:
Comment by BHodges — June 10, 2008 @ 5:10 pm
Thanks Blair for posting this. I’ve heard that along with post-Manifesto polygamy, the priesthood ban is something that Rick Turley and Elder Jensen would like to tackle after the Mountain Meadows book is done. But we’ll see if that happens. Elder Jensen doesn’t sound too confident here.
Comment by David G. — June 10, 2008 @ 5:29 pm
I think Elder Jensen was just minding his p’s and q’s there.
Comment by BHodges — June 10, 2008 @ 6:01 pm
JimD,
This isn’t a course in epistemology or deconstructionist thought, nor is this a matter of competing worldviews. They make claims about the ordination of blacks to the priesthood in Joseph Smith’s period that are demonstrably false (ie. they state that Elijah Abel was the only black person given the priesthood and that Joseph Smith took it away from him). That isn’t a competing worldview; it is a mistake. The force of Brother Millet’s assertion that Joseph Smith originated the ban might be a worldview issue, but it is still troubling because there is no credible evidence to support it and quite a bit of evidence to the contrary. But stating that falsehoods are being broadcast as facts is not the same as saying I don’t like your interpretation.
As an example, I have heard in the past that various unsavory things take place in LDS temples. This isn’t a matter of the necessity of temple ritual or the interpretation of phrases therein. I’ve been told of baby killing and sex over altars. While the first examples might qualify as differences of interpretation, the latter group are bald-faced lies and second-hand misinformation. It is in the second group that I put the more objectionable “facts” offered by those BYU professors.
Once again, I know and love many of them. I don’t believe that they were acting in bad faith or trying to distort the doctrines of the church. I think that they were simply defending doctrines that we no longer need to defend and not doing a very good job of it.
Comment by John C. — June 10, 2008 @ 6:06 pm
I am grateful to read Elder Jensen’s words which are also forceful on the subject, sure he minds his P’s and Q’s but is clear on what the doctrine was and that he thinks it was an untrue theory.
Comment by TrevorM — June 10, 2008 @ 6:07 pm
I haven’t listened to the whole thing with full attention, but I wanted to share a few thoughts from what I have heard.
I think it should be noted that these professors made it very clear that we really don’t know why the ban was instituted. (I typed that as I was listening to them make this statement emphatically. They repeat this throughout.) They specifically say that they don’t suggest a pre-mortal connection. They talk about our ignorance and lack of revelation about the reasons why it existed.
Rather than seeing this discussion as perpetuation of the folklore that has been denounced, I tend to see it more as an exploration of ancient scripture (I didn’t see them necessarily definitively tying ancient scriptural occurrences to latter-day decisions, although I may have missed that) and expression of faith in latter-day prophetic leadership from Joseph Smith onward. I am not so sure their position in general is as out of line as people want to make it out to be.
They also shared inspirational stories about blacks who held onto their faith for decades before the ban was lifted…to me, underscoring the faithfulness and righteousness of these people.
What I am hearing is to me (unless I missed something) is a far cry from perpetuating folklore about blacks being less valiant in some way…is not that the folklore that our leaders are most concerned about?
I haven’t seen any definitive statement made by recent leadership about when (or by/through whom) the ban started, why it started, etc. These professors seem to believe it came from Joseph Smith, and some people disagree with that, and that is their right to do (on both sides, I think, as there are clearly different opinions about this). If that is the problem people have with it, then I think the reaction may be a bit overblown. As far as I know , there isn’t any clear, authorized answer about this. Scholarship is not the same as an authorized, definitive statement. And these people are scholars expressing their thoughts on the topic, just as scholars in the ‘nacle have done. Without an authoritative statement, we really don’t know who is right on that.
Especially after what Elder Holland said, of course we shouldn’t create or perpetuate folklore about why the ban took place. But by the same token, I think caution needs to be had by those who want to dismiss the ban as a mistake, or assert that they know it didn’t originate through Joseph Smith or wasn’t perpetuated through inspiration of prophets along the way. As these professors state, only revelation about the whys could really clear these questions up. So, either way, imo, I think explanations tread onto thin ice.
Elder Holland says,
But if we don’t know, we don’t know either way, right? He didn’t take a position either way, so neither should we, imo. We don’t know why it happened, and that includes not knowing when it started or through/by whom, or why it continued until 1978.
To me, if we are going to use Elder Holland as justification and support for being concerned about this BYU discussion, imo, we need to be consistent about applying his counsel to ALL positions on this topic. We. Just. Don’t. Know. I am as uncomfortable with the folklore Elder Holland addresses as I am about people who want to explain it away or claim definitive answers which no one really has. None of us can explain it nor explain it away without risking perpetuating false explanations either way.
Elder Holland says, “I think, to the extent that I know anything about it, as one of the newer and younger ones to come along, … we simply do not know why that practice, that policy, that doctrine was in place.”
He repeats that idea twice. It sounds to me like as far as the past goes, he is willing to let it go and let it go on faith. And frankly, that is basically what I hear these professors doing more than anything else. The only specific thing I hear them doing is expressing faith in Joseph Smith’s calling as a prophet with this issue. If you aren’t convinced the ban came from him, that’s fine. But beyond that, you can’t fault these people for expressing faith in prophetic leadership on this topic for the 100+ years after Joseph Smith, which they do as well.
I do see these professors not apologizing for the ban itself, but that to me is not a sin or inappropriate. Elder Holland himself said,
”
And now we are loyal to the current concept. We rejoice in that. But I never hear him renouncing the past doctrine/practice/policy. He did share how much he hoped and prayed for this change, and I think many leaders and others felt that way. And yet, the timing was what it was. Why? Again, we just don’t know.
I think we all would do well to take his advice and stay away from trying to explain one way or another about the whys, whens, etc. of this issue and instead, as Sister Fronk and others said (quoting Pres. Hinckley, as well, no?), just move forward with what we know and rejoice in what we have.
Comment by m&m — June 10, 2008 @ 6:18 pm
Ha. A post-length comment. Sorry.
Comment by m&m — June 10, 2008 @ 6:19 pm
m&m,
They are not apologizing for it in the sense of saying we are sorry it happened. They are apologizing for it in the sense that they are attempting to come up with justifications for it (God has arbitrarily restricted access to the priesthood throughout the ages; therefore, you shouldn’t worry about this). I don’t think that either form of apology is absolutely necessary on the part of the church.
Comment by John C. — June 10, 2008 @ 6:32 pm
The fundamental issue is the perpetuation of false teachings. I transcribed the entire presentation and found an appalling number of errors. I like Brother Millet, and I have heard him say that we can identify a true doctrine through several keys, one being, “Is it still being taught?” It breaks my heart that these professors–including Brother Millet–are teaching something which is speculation at best and false doctrine at worst. And these particular ideas–about curses, specifically, and including a frightening comfort level with the idea that the restriction began with Joseph Smith by revelation–do real harm to many who WANT to come unto Christ and feel that they have not really been invited–or that their invitation was an afterthought. This hurts our missionaries, and I care deeply about that.
Comment by Margaret Young — June 10, 2008 @ 7:08 pm
John, thanks for the response. I appreciate you explaining perhaps why some people are up in arms about this.
But still…I don’t think the professors should be attacked for exploring the idea of priesthood bans in the past. They are, after all, scholars of ancient scriptures. We shouldn’t be *afraid* of discussions about this concept; priesthood restrictions did exist. Changes in who was able to receive what did happen in the course of scriptural history. If we should avoid scholarly discussions on this topic, then there are a whole bunch of ‘nacle conversations that ought to be banned, no?
I am particularly interested with how these scholars seemed to me to be careful (extremely careful in my estimation) to explain that we just don’t know why this current ban happened. But as scholars, are they out of line for looking at scriptural patterns and musing about the latter-day ban? Again, is that any different from people on the ‘nacle exploring the issue as has been done repeatedly?
I just am not convinced that the reactions here are warranted for the context of what these people are doing *as scholars.* They aren’t authorities for the Church and don’t pretend to be. I do see them supporting the prophets through the time when the ban was in place, and people think that is somehow inappropriately representing the Church, then I wholeheartedly disagree. I think in fact that support for that period of time is actually in line with Elder Holland if anything. They never said they rejoiced in the doctrine or felt that blacks were somehow lesser people. If anything, they did the opposite. But they show a loyalty to the concept and the leaders for the time it was in place, which Elder Holland also did.
What is important to me is that they they seemed to me to actually *avoid* (and even discount in some ways with their stories of faith of blacks) the key elements of false teachings (about a lesser race) that Elder Holland and Elder Jensen mention (particularly the premortal righteousness one). So to me, using Elder Holland to completely denounce what these people are doing just doesn’t gel. Disagree with their scholarship if you will, but disagreements on scholarship aren’t necessarily reason to pull a program, are they? If they are, the ‘nacle ought to be shut down.
Comment by m&m — June 10, 2008 @ 7:10 pm
That is exactly the problem, m&m. They are not acting as scholars, because they fail to even deal with the relevant scholarship on the issue. This sounds like a bunch of uninformed high priests, not people with advanced degrees. It is really unbelievable.
I hear them say that we don’t know and we shouldn’t speculate, then in the next breath I hear them ooh and ahh about how interesting it is that JS only began restricting access to the priesthood after learning about the doctrine of the pre-mortal life. That is sickening. It is like saying that I’m not going to gossip about my neighbor, but isn’t it interesting that her boyfriend’s car was parked there all night. It is inexcusable.
Comment by Mark IV — June 10, 2008 @ 7:25 pm
m&m,
The point being that we haven’t come up with any good reasons for any of the priesthood bans up until this point, aside from “God arbitrarily does this from time to time.” That isn’t really much of an explanation. I don’t believe we have a better one, but why devote a whole 30 minutes to essentially saying that?
I will go further and say that, while I respect the scholarship of many of these people, what you hear in the excerpt that I heard was not good scholarship. Scholars undergo training for many reasons, but one of the most important is to avoid basic factual errors. There were basic factual errors in that broadcast; that is why it was upsetting. I don’t particularly want to hear them say that Brigham Young was a racist (which is, I believe, the moral equivalent of saying that polygamy was instituted because Joseph Smith liked sex; it’s too simple). I don’t see the point. I would like to think that Elder McConkie’s statement should be sufficient for anybody (which I interpret to mean something along the lines of “we were wrong and we were sorry”).
Again, this is not about competing worldviews. This is about the promotion of factually inaccurate statements as facts. It ought not to be done.
Comment by John C. — June 10, 2008 @ 7:29 pm
Now, now, John–a scholar is only a scholar when he is speaking as such!
(OK, maybe that was a little trollish.)
Comment by JimD — June 10, 2008 @ 7:34 pm
[...] Brief Apologia for Going to Teach in the Religious Education Department at BYU A commenter on another post said “To think that a couple years ago I envisioned myself wanting to work in the BYU [...]
Pingback by A Brief Apologia for Going to Teach in the Religious Education Department at BYU « Faith Promoting Rumor — June 10, 2008 @ 8:16 pm
Indeed it is. But that’s just folklore.
Comment by SC Taysom — June 10, 2008 @ 8:29 pm
OK, so John, Margaret, what are the factual errors? If that is the concern, let’s address them rather than dismissing the whole discussion.
I just tend to think there is as much an emotional reaction here as a logical one.
Comment by m&m — June 10, 2008 @ 8:37 pm
m&m,
I think that the issue of Joseph Smith’s involvement with the origin of the ban is of incredible importance, and I think that the idea that there is overreaction to the question is unwarranted. As several people have made clear in this discussion, there is an overwhelming scholarly consenus regarding Joseph Smith ordaining blacks to the priesthood. It is not, as you suggest, an issue over which vigorous contestation is at play. There is a minority opinion, expressed on the tape, but it is asserted and never argued. The reason it is not argued is that there is no sound evidence to support it. If I were advising a graduate student on a dissertation, and he or she made an assertion of this sort with the kind of evidence, or lack thereof, that is offered to support the idea that the ban originated with Joseph, I would be negligent were I to allow the assertion to stand. It commits two related academic sins: 1)It rejects and contradicts a fact (as opposed to an interpretive thread) without reason–and in fact without acknowledgment–in the work of established scholars and 2) It offers no positive, evidentiary cause to accept the assertion as a valid argument. You seem to suggest that the issue could be resolved by an authoritative decree of some kind. I’m wondering about this. Are you imagining a kind of prophetic pronouncement? Or the discovery of an unknown documentary witness?
Comment by SC Taysom — June 10, 2008 @ 8:48 pm
m&m,
They say that Elijah Abel was the only black man ordained to the priesthood in Joseph’s period and that Joseph sought to limit Elijah’s use of his priesthood. Neither of these are true.
Comment by John C. — June 10, 2008 @ 9:00 pm
m&m,
Factual errors #s 1 and 2 -
Elijah Abel’s certificate of ordination states that he was ordained an elder in 1836. He was ordained a seventy in December, 1836. He served as a missionary for the church in NY and Canada during the late 1830s and early 1840. For Millet to assert that JS restricted Abel in the exercise of his priesthood beginning in the early to mid 1830s is factually wrong.
The restrictions that were placed upon Abel were put there in 1843 by Apostles John Page, Orson Pratt, and Heber Kimball. It happened at a branch conference in Cincinatti and we have no reason to believe that JS knew anything about it. The white members of the branch felt uncomfortable around him, so the three apostles asked him to proselyte only among “his own people”. There is no evidence – none whatsoever – that JS ever tried to restrict his exercise of the priesthood.
Millet pulled the year 1835 out of the air, then when one of the panelists asked if he had any evidence, he said “No”. I have a lot of respect for Millet, which makes this episode all the more embarrassing.
Comment by Mark IV — June 10, 2008 @ 9:01 pm
And by the way, that episode with the Cincinatti branch is the first time we see official limits placed on black people. Page said that while “he respects a coloured Bro, wisdom forbids that we should introduce [him] before the public.” When the apostles told him to go only to “his own people” , there is no question that it was a racially motivated decision. I have no problem calling the decision racist, but I’m guessing you do. What word would you suggest instead?
Comment by Mark IV — June 10, 2008 @ 9:11 pm
OK, so error about Elijah Abel aside, I still feel like the issue that is really on the table is not the scholarship (although that is part of it for some) but the faith the professors express in the divine nature of the ban. (Whether it began with JS or BY is in that sense beside the point — the point is that they still would believe in the prophets, including all that followed up to and including Pres. Kimball and of course beyond.)
I understand that people disagree on this, but my bottom line point is that if we truly don’t know why the ban was in place, we can’t explain it OR explain it away. Perhaps these professors tried too hard to explain it. But I have seen too many people in the ‘nacle try to explain it away, and I think that in its own right is inappropriate and potentially problematic.
In the end, I agree with the professors that we’d need some kind of revelation from the Lord to really clarify things, because there is speculation and effort to try to ‘prove’ things on ‘both sides’ of this issue and I think either side at either extreme can be wrong. I don’t think there are enough ‘facts’ to definitively support either side. If Elder Holland says we don’t know then we should stop there rather than trying to ‘prove’ things either way.
“We just don’t know, in the historical context of the time, why it was practiced. … That’s my principal [concern], is that we don’t perpetuate explanations about things we don’t know. …”
Again, my main point all along has been this — I think Elder Holland’s concern applies to all of us, not just to these professors. He stated clearly that we don’t know enough from the history to understand why this took place — and that to me means either in unfounded defense or explanation of it or trying to refute it. We don’t have enough facts to prove anything with this situation.
Frankly I think it’s best just to take the approach that I think Elder Holland took — loyalty to what was when it was (that doesn’t mean you have to like it or that we have an explanation for it!), and loyalty to what is now. We don’t undermine the prophets before 1978, and we embrace wholeheartedly the prophets from that point on. Elder Holland elsewhere in this interview talks of loyalty to the role of the prophet. That to me is the bottom line of what the BYU professors were about in this discussion.
Comment by m&m — June 10, 2008 @ 10:01 pm
That to me is the bottom line of what the BYU professors were about in this discussion.
Actually I should say that I think they were trying to do tw o things — show that there were scriptural examples of other priesthood restrictions and that doctrines/teachings practices can change…and also to express their faith in the prophets.
Comment by m&m — June 10, 2008 @ 10:03 pm
m&m, even if we say that we don’t know why the ban was in place (and I agree that that is the current official policy of the church), we are still left with the “folklore.” Are you uncomfortable with saying that the leaders who instituted the ban used racist theology which was built on centuries of Christian racism to justify it?
To add, Able also served a mission in 1884 (I believe without double checking the date), which he served only to return home and die. They weren’t just wrong about Able, they were completely ignorant of the vast body of scholarship on the matter.
Comment by J. Stapley — June 10, 2008 @ 10:14 pm
Did I miss where Elder Holland calls the ban divine? I do not believe he said that, and if he did, could you please show me where?
You seem to be taking the position that since we don’t know all the detail, we must assume God intended it, otherwise we are being disloyal to previous church leaders. Can we not allow them to be wrong occasionally, but still deserving of our loyalty and support?
Comment by Mark IV — June 10, 2008 @ 10:43 pm
Are you uncomfortable with saying that the leaders who instituted the ban used racist theology which was built on centuries of Christian racism to justify it?
In short, yes I am. I’m all the more uncomfortable with it when reading Elder Holland who said more than once that we don’t know why the ban was instituted. He says specifically that “we just don’t know, in the historical context of the time, why it was practiced” and yet this to me seems to be just another attempt to interpret the historical context and give reasoning that he has said he himself cannot give.
You seem to be taking the position that since we don’t know all the detail, we must assume God intended it, otherwise we are being disloyal to previous church leaders. Can we not allow them to be wrong occasionally, but still deserving of our loyalty and support?
I am taking the position that until and unless we know for sure one way or the other, I think we should be loyal to the doctrine/practice/policy (all words used by Elder Holland) that was carried on by multiple prophets throughout more than a century, and of course to the revelation from 1978, and leave it at that.
Does that mean that leaders can never be wrong? No, but that is beside the point. Again, I go back to Elder Holland’s comments (which for many were the justification for people getting upset about this BYU discussion). If an apostle says we don’t know why it was instituted, I think that includes somehow claiming (without any authority) that we know it was a mistake that it was instituted. That is as much speculation as any other explanation I have heard, even if people think there are ‘facts’ that support it. Elder Holland says we don’t know enough. I don’t see how present attempts to give explanations are exceptions to his comments any more than perpetuating past explanations are. Either way, we don’t really know for sure. That was his main point. Therefore, I think if people want to stick to what Elder Holland has said, that should apply to all speculation. We should stick to what we do know, and that is that the ban was in place for well over a century, and it was removed by revelation. Let’s move forward with that and let the past be. It’s ok to just say, “We don’t know why it was then, but isn’t it great that things are they way they are now?!? And we know God loves all of His children!” What more do we really need to say?
BTW, I also don’t believe I said that Elder Holland called it divine, but he never says it wasn’t, either. He said he was “loyal to (1) the position and (2) the brethren and (3) the whole concept” (obviously the numbers were my addition). That doesn’t mean he didn’t ache along with many others to have it changed. We can all be grateful that it was changed, and I doubt there are any of us here who aren’t. But, to me, loyalty to those three things doesn’t leave a lot of room for suggesting it was all just a mistake, unless someone with the authority to do so says so.
I understand not wanting to offend people who might still be offended by the ban. But I think we do them a disservice and could risk creating other problems (or creating a new generation of folklore!) by trying to hold to or present explanations that aren’t supported by our leaders. It’s really that simple to me. If an apostle says he doesn’t know enough to explain it (or explain it away), I don’t believe any of us should assert that we do.
Comment by m&m — June 11, 2008 @ 1:56 am
“We don’t know why it was then, but isn’t it great that things are they way they are now?!? And we know God loves all of His children!”
And I know that came across sounding more rah-rah-ish than I wanted it to. I know this is heartrending for some people. I’m in no way trying to minimize it, so please don’t misunderstand me. I think we can sympathize with that pain and struggle and point people to the gospel truths that truly convert and help them see that we can say, ‘we don’t know’ and still have faith in the gospel plan and in the Savior’s atonement and His power and ordinances.
Comment by m&m — June 11, 2008 @ 1:59 am
m&m,
The difficulty that we run into with your approach is that if we show loyalty of the kind you suggest to previous church leaders, then we are showing disloyalty to Elijah Abel, Jane James, et. al., truly “the least of these”. At the incident in Cincinnati when apostle Page gave in to racial attitudes and said he didn’t want to put a colored man in front of the public, Br. Abel responded by saying that he had “no disposition to force himself upon an equality with white people.” That is a heartbreaking statement, and the influences that forced him to that point are antithetical to the gospel. I think we need to say that good and loud.
As I see it, we have two choices:
1) Attribute this to previous church leaders. We know that every reason they put forward (seed of Cain, cursed lineage, Hamitic lineage, lack of valiance in pre-mortal life) has been repudiated.
2) Attribute this to God. We have no text of a revelation stating it was His will. The earlier brethren realized this, that is why they invented all the stupid rationalizations.
In the absence of a written, canonized revelation, we are on very thin ice suggesting that this was God’s will.
At any rate, I’m glad that Elder Holland did not claim a divine origin for this practice. In your comment 118, you said:
I take it then that you agree on the following points:
1. This video clip is atrocious scholarship, if that is even the word I’m looking for. Any institution which has the word *university* in its name ought to be embarrassed to put this out in public.
2. This video clip perpetuates ideas that have been repeatedly repudiated, and which are specifically in violation of Elder Holland’s statement that the least we can do is stop the folklore.
3. Therefore, the video clip has no merit, either as scholarship or as faithful explication of our teachings, and should be withdrawn.
I will repeat again my belief that the participants on this panel discussion are probably embarrassed by some of the things they said. KBYU would be doing the participants themselves, not to mention the rest of us, a favor by withdrawing the broadcast.
Comment by Mark IV — June 11, 2008 @ 7:30 am
m&m and Mark IV have touched on a key issue here. There are those faithful LDS who believe this ban was of divine origin and those equally faithful LDS who believe it was not. Never the twain shall meet.
Comment by SC Taysom — June 11, 2008 @ 7:36 am
In short, yes I am. I’m all the more uncomfortable with it when reading Elder Holland who said more than once that we don’t know why the ban was instituted.
So m&m, you are saying that it is possible the folklore is true? I can understand saying that we don’t know why it happened. I can’t understand not being willing to condemn the horrible things that were taught to justify it.
Comment by J. Stapley — June 11, 2008 @ 8:40 am
124 Mark, I’d be interested to know what the participants think about it. (Does anyone know how old it is?)
125. Yes indeed. That pretty much sums it up.
126. No. I don’t equate saying ‘we don’t know why the ban was instituted’ to believing that the folklore (whatever that may mean) is true. (I think we may all have a bit of a different idea of what is folklore and what is not. The only specific folklore Elder Holland mentioned was the premortal righteousness one.)
Comment by m&m — June 11, 2008 @ 12:10 pm
m&m, I think you’re being a bit disingenuous with your arguments, by conflating what these BYU professors have said with Elder Holland. Nobody is really questioning what Elder Holland has said — his position is fairly neutral, really, and in essence completely ducks the question of whether the ban was from God or not.
These BYU professors, however, are decidedly NOT neutral, and have clearly come out with arguments for the divine nature of the ban. This a) goes against their scholastic training, as it causes them to ignore plain evidence and wrest the scriptures and b) goes against their calling as BYU professors and Latter-day Saints, as they see fit to pronounce on issues where our leaders have remained silent. They are, in this minor way at least, being fundamentally disloyal to the current leadership of the Church.
So if you’re really interested in supporting the brethren on this one, call in to KBYU and request that the show not be broadcast!
Comment by Steve Evans — June 11, 2008 @ 12:11 pm
yikes.
Comment by J. Stapley — June 11, 2008 @ 12:15 pm
m&m, I don’t hear these professors “exploring the idea”, but rather defending a position. The fallacy of the “I don’t know” answer is that it’s not a political position to take, as if it’s the only responsible thing to say. Every historian could throw up their hands and say something similar about any event, motivation, circumstance, etc. in history, but that’s not doing history. Of course, uncertainty needs to have its place in the discussion, but true exploration of the idea needs to admit every possible explanation for discussion, even if to be immediately rejected. This includes the possibility that the Lord never “wanted” the ban, that this is an instance of leaders being men and acting on their (admittedly racist) predispositions. As many commenters have said, they neglect to engage an entire corpus of evidence.
Along these lines, they’re not doing responsible biblical scholarship either. The taking of the Gospel to the Gentiles is not the same as a priesthood ban. As I said earlier, in the Hebrew Bible priesthood was about who could have it, not who couldn’t. Only a very small fraction of male society could possess the priesthood, even within Israel. The Egyptians weren’t banned from the priesthoood any more than an average Reubenite. In the New Testament, something similar is happening. And, when Gentiles are admitted to the congregation, it’s because the entire concept of Israel is being reinterpreted. (And even still, this has nothing to do with priesthood.)
Comment by jupiterschild — June 11, 2008 @ 12:24 pm
Does anyone know when this was recorded and first aired? When I listened to it in my media player, the information at the bottom of the player said “Copyright 2003″. I thought that maybe this was an umbrella copyright dating to the beginning of this discussion series, but on looking into the series as a whole, I’ll bet that this was recorded in 2003, and that there was major interest in this question then because of the 25th anniversary of the repeal of the ban. (I made a chronological mistake along these lines over at FPR (comment 4).) This would also explain why we have access to it online before it is due to air.
If true, this doesn’t change a whole lot about our discussion, except that they wouldn’t have had access to Elder Holland’s interview on the PBS documentary, so maybe they would take a bit different tack today, and perhaps that we should stop beating them up for not incorporating Elder Holland’s statements.
Comment by jupiterschild — June 11, 2008 @ 12:33 pm
130
Once again, a key point I have been trying to make is that there are people here defending a position as well. Very few people, actually, hold to neutral ground with this issue. That is why I bring up Elder Holland repeatedly. If we are going to hold BYU professors to neutrality, I think we should hold all scholars to neutrality. SC got to the core of the challenge here…you aren’t going to see people agreeing on this issue…most people have an opinion one way or the other, I think. And as such, I’m not sure we can expect even scholars to agree on these points or on how to approach the topic.
I can’t answer for the BYU professors. I do wonder how they would respond here. I do think, however, that there is a bit of a double-standard that is being applied here by using Elder Holland to condemn what they did.
J., was that yikes to me or Steve? If to me, can you tell me what’s so yikesy about what I said?
Comment by m&m — June 11, 2008 @ 12:44 pm
BTW, folks, this is on lds.org, so perhaps what they talked about isn’t as out of line as some suggest.
“Ever since biblical times, the Lord has designated through His prophets who could receive the priesthood and other blessings of the gospel. Among the tribes of Israel, for example, only men of the tribe of Levi were given the priesthood and allowed to officiate in certain ordinances. Likewise, during the Savior’s earthly ministry, gospel blessings were restricted to the Jews. Only after a revelation to the Apostle Peter were the gospel and priesthood extended to others (see Acts 10:1–33; 14:23; 15:6–8).”
Comment by m&m — June 11, 2008 @ 12:49 pm
m&m that was a yikes for you. Even the hint that Mormons could believe today that Black people are:
the seed of Cain (and therefore were under his curse)
the seed of Ham (and therefore were under his curse)
going to resurrect white
and that intermarriage is an abomination
is down right scary.
Comment by J. Stapley — June 11, 2008 @ 1:03 pm
124: Mark, you’re right that we can attribute the ban either to God or to man, but your reasoning isn’t complete. It is very possible to attribute the ban to God, while still inventing “reasons” for it. We do that all the time with other matters that we attribute to God when He has set life up in ways we don’t understand. (Why don’t women hold the priesthood in the same way as men? Why, of course, because they are so spiritual they don’t need the priesthood, and besides, they have the power to be MOTHERS. Why don’t we know more about a Mother in Heaven? Why, of course, because God wants to protect Her from disrespect. Why did Johnny die in the accident when Jimmy survived? Why, of course, because God needed Johnny’s help on the other side, and there is something Jimmy still needs to learn here.)
This God-said-so-but-I-don’t-understand-why-although-I-know-I-don’t-believe-THOSE-nasty-explanations is where I have been for a long time. The more I come to understand what the ban meant and still means to those affected and to the Church and the progress of the Kingdom, the more reluctant I am to accept the current scholarly position that God allowed all that because of a cheap, racist flaw on the part of Brigham Young. I think God would have removed BY from the picture rather than to allow such suffering and setbacks to His plan by a simple “mistake.”
Of course that leaves me in the position of having to hope — and it is a “hope” in the religious sense — that the ban came from God without His giving us the least clue to understanding it. I know that’s unpopular, but I haven’t found a more satisfactory way to reconcile my conflict. The current popular view is untenable to me.
But that doesn’t mean I like this BYU discussion one bit. It’s clumsy at best. They should NEVER again link the ban to premortality in any way, no matter how clumsy or unintentional it might be (to give BYU a charitable reed to cling to). The program should not be aired, and should be pulled from the website. No cosmetic statement added to it can salvage it.
Comment by Ardis Parshall — June 11, 2008 @ 1:05 pm
Ditto what Ardis said–and curses to KBYU for airing such trash.
I feel comfortable saying both I don’t know why the ban was in place, and that BY was obviously racist, which perpetuated his theodicy about why the ban was in place. .
Comment by mmiles — June 11, 2008 @ 1:10 pm
m&m,
I accept that we don’t know everything, but why must we take that as an advice against talking about what we do know?
We know that a restriction was put upon Abel, not through divine guidance but because of Elder Page’s attempt to mollify racists.
We know that BY instituted slavery in Utah in 1852.
We know that Zebedee Coltrin administered temple ordinances to Abel, then later lied about doing it.
We know that Joseph F. Smith first supported Abel, then decades later withdrew his support, claiming that he was confused and that there must have been two Elijah Abels, one white and one black.
None of this is speculation. These are known facts, and anybody who wants to defend the ban as divine, or even possibly divine, has to deal with them.
Comment by Mark IV — June 11, 2008 @ 1:10 pm
J., I NEVER said that these things are explanations that should be accepted, so please don’t put words into my mouth. Seriously, I can’t figure out where you are pulling that from.
I was more thinking about what is on lds.org that I wonder if some people want to dismiss as folklore.
And thanks, Ardis, for sharing your thoughts. I was hoping you would chime in!
Comment by m&m — June 11, 2008 @ 1:17 pm
Those are good points, Ardis, and I am almost persuaded.
We differ in that I think God gives us a somewhat freer rein than you do. While I agree that the policy did and continues to do much damage, it doesn’t bother me to hold BY responsible for it. In my sphere of influence, I have also done damage, real damage to people. So I don’t look upon BY as a terrible person, I can still see him as a very good and heroic man whose flaws nevertheless caused pain.
Comment by Mark IV — June 11, 2008 @ 1:26 pm
I don’t really care for the statement on LDS.org either, however I can at least see the arguments as analogous. BUT, LDS.org isn’t posting bad scholarship about JS starting the ban. i agree on some level with Ardis about BY that the ban could have been divine but the folklore uninspired foolery, but I am also comfortable with it being a big mistake. Especially since we have ordinations to the Priesthood clear into the 1930s.
M&M we are displeased by the bad scholarship shown in this program. Which is an attempt to assign a divine origin to the ban, using bad information. If the show was done with some tact and more attention to modern scholarship on the issue it probably wouldn’t be so distasteful.
Comment by TrevorM — June 11, 2008 @ 1:31 pm
“Almost thou persuadest me to be a Parshallian.”
As long as we’re still friends.
Comment by Ardis Parshall — June 11, 2008 @ 1:31 pm
They discussed this at RadioWest a few minutes ago mentioning they “heard about it at a blog” (but didn’t mention the name) They also played a clip from the web link you guys provided. If you play the MP3 link for Radiowest (linked at their site above) it is in the last 10 minutes of the show.
Interestingly they said they were going to try to get Millet and others on to discuss this on a followup show.
Comment by Clark — June 11, 2008 @ 1:32 pm
To add, now that this was on RadioWest which is broadcast nationally on XM radio this has moved well beyond merely being an unfortunate broadcast at 6 in the morning which no one would watch. KBYU ought realize you can’t excuse things simply because no one would normally watch the feed.
Comment by Clark — June 11, 2008 @ 1:33 pm
Ardis, thank you for your explanation. I am still not convinced, but at least now I understand why some might hold that view.
Comment by Randy B. — June 11, 2008 @ 1:34 pm
Yeah, and what do you want to bet that now people are going to blame *us* for the additional publicity, instead of for trying to stop it before it got started.
Comment by Ardis Parshall — June 11, 2008 @ 1:36 pm
Write in people. Let’s stop this garbage.
Comment by TrevorM — June 11, 2008 @ 1:37 pm
I don’t know if that will happen. I think the parties involved should have just known better. On the bright side the folks on RadioWest (Quinn and then the producers of that documentary on blacks and the priesthood) were pretty emphatic about correcting the erroneous scriptural exegesis. I didn’t hear the discussion that went on before. It was on when I was getting lunch so I only heard the last 15 minutes.
Comment by Clark — June 11, 2008 @ 1:40 pm
M&M we are displeased by the bad scholarship shown in this program. Which is an attempt to assign a divine origin to the ban, using bad information.
I understand. And I don’t disagree that not having all the facts clear on these points is a problem. That said, I just don’t see the whole discussion as being as bad as some people want to make it out to be. Whether it should be pulled? I’ll leave that up to people smarter than I am to decide that.
I’ll be interested to see what BYU decides to do with it.
Comment by m&m — June 11, 2008 @ 1:42 pm
To add, now that this was on RadioWest which is broadcast nationally on XM radio this has moved well beyond merely being an unfortunate broadcast at 6 in the morning which no one would watch.
But RadioWest wouldn’t have had a CLUE about this had it not been mentioned in the ‘nacle. That it has been on NPR is certainly not BYU’s fault.
Comment by m&m — June 11, 2008 @ 1:44 pm
Yeah, and what do you want to bet that now people are going to blame *us* for the additional publicity, instead of for trying to stop it before it got started.
Sorry, Ardis, but discussions that bring things to light do bear some responsibility for getting bad press to stuff that people don’t like.
Comment by m&m — June 11, 2008 @ 1:45 pm
(My thought is that there are ways to get feedback to people when there is a concern without bringing unnecessary attention that could be harmful in its own right.)
Comment by m&m — June 11, 2008 @ 1:46 pm
Ardis, always.
m&m,
I think the paragraph from lds dot org which you quoted in 133 doesn’t do as much work as you want it to. It obviously isn’t folklore, because there are recorded instances in scripture where God commanded that only the Levites, for example, could offer sacrifice. As I have said before, if we had a written, canonized commandment, it would be different. But we don’t, so I don’t think the situation is analagous.
I will also point out that the verses from Acts do not apply here. Christ told his disciples to go into all the world and teach all peoples. The revelation recorded in Acts wasn’t a change in policy; it was an admonition to do what they had already been told. Our dispensation also started with the charge to take the gospel to all nations. June 8, 1978, can be seen as a reminder that we were dragging our feet.
Comment by Mark IV — June 11, 2008 @ 1:47 pm
I say, bring on the spotlight. People who say stuff like this in public forums need to own their statements.
Comment by Mark IV — June 11, 2008 @ 1:49 pm
NPR?
Comment by TrevorM — June 11, 2008 @ 1:49 pm
let me clarify.. I know what NPR is. This has been on NPR?
Comment by TrevorM — June 11, 2008 @ 1:51 pm
m&m: J., I NEVER said that these things are explanations that should be accepted, so please don’t put words into my mouth. Seriously, I can’t figure out where you are pulling that from.
So, I asked you, “I can understand saying that we don’t know why it happened. I can’t understand not being willing to condemn the horrible things that were taught to justify it.” I had previously asked “Are you uncomfortable with saying that the leaders who instituted the ban used racist theology which was built on centuries of Christian racism to justify it?”
You said that you were uncomfortable saying that the justifications for the ban (aka folklore) were built on racist theology. You also said, “I think we may all have a bit of a different idea of what is folklore and what is not. The only specific folklore Elder Holland mentioned was the premortal righteousness one.”
Beyond those things I listed in comment #134, are there any other folkloric justifications used by Church leaders who instituted or upheld the ban used? I also think that you are mis-reading Holland.
Comment by J. Stapley — June 11, 2008 @ 1:51 pm
As I have said before, if we had a written, canonized commandment, it would be different. But we don’t, so I don’t think the situation is analagous.
The only ‘work’ I wanted it to do was to suggest that the discussion about these particularly points was not so out of line. That’s all.
Comment by m&m — June 11, 2008 @ 1:52 pm
150, Well, there is where we part company on this particular issue, m&m. As a practical matter, we can either talk about things, or not. If we don’t talk about them for fear of drawing unfavorable press, good stuff (like pulling a bad program, or at least editing a pernicious section — and I do think it’s worse than you want to admit, although I do agree with you that some of the early comments were overheated) couldn’t happen, either.
Comment by Ardis Parshall — June 11, 2008 @ 1:54 pm
Trevor, see 142.
Comment by Ardis Parshall — June 11, 2008 @ 1:55 pm
Ah, J., I think I can see better what happened. I think I misunderstood you. Yes, I do think some racist theology was used to JUSTIFY it (and I think this is what Elder Holland is concerned about). I won’t speculate on what drove leaders to INSTITUTE it — that is where I am uncomfortable. Does that help clarify?
Comment by m&m — June 11, 2008 @ 1:58 pm
Ok, I thought radio west was an AM station. gotcha.
Comment by TrevorM — June 11, 2008 @ 2:05 pm
Fair enough, Ardis, as long as we can still be friends.
But I should say that I’m not saying we shouldn’t talk about things. But we should then not completely blame BYU professors for the extra attention that has come. Cost and benefit and all of that.
I also think we ought to leave some time and space for these professors to respond.
If and when anyone hears about a follow with Brother Millet et. all, I’d be interested to hear what he and/or others have to say.
Comment by m&m — June 11, 2008 @ 2:08 pm
I just hope Brother Millet et al don’t really still believe JS instituted the ban, and are humble enough not turn this into a nightmare. I am sure that they are all good, well-meaning people.
Comment by TrevorM — June 11, 2008 @ 2:11 pm
Look, Trevor, I don’t think you can fault them for their belief. I certainly can’t speak for them, but given the conviction I heard in their voices, I doubt you will hear them suddenly take back their belief and change their minds on it. I can understand not wanting them to use false facts to justify that belief, but you have to leave room for people to believe what they will about this. And at some point, you can’t blame bad scholarship for that, either. Sometimes people will believe what they believe even if others think facts somehow prove that belief to be unfounded.
That is something that is not sitting well with me here in this discussion, and perhaps why I am coming to their defense perhaps more than some think I should.
Comment by m&m — June 11, 2008 @ 2:20 pm
Ardis, as always, the voice of reason. I’m going to drop a note on KBYU as well this afternoon. The timing of this with the 30th anniversary of the end of the ban is so unfortunate.
Comment by kevinf — June 11, 2008 @ 2:22 pm
I am still confident this could turn into a nightmare. I see that you can’t fault them for their belief. If they want to believe JS instituted the ban that is fine. whatever lets them sleep at night. But I would hope that since such a view isn’t supported by facts it would not be trumpeted from the School’s TV station. What I am saying is if they decided to get vitriolic and defend what they said it could be a PR nightmare.
btw, I don’t think the conviction that they feel can be measured by their voices on the program. Maybe it can, but I doubt it. Nobody is saying hang them, or that they are evil, just that the program is unfortunate and ought not to air.
Comment by TrevorM — June 11, 2008 @ 2:25 pm
“I don’t think you can fault them for their belief. . . . I can understand not wanting them to use false facts to justify that belief, but you have to leave room for people to believe what they will about this.”
Well that is interesting. Are you willing to take this approach in all cases, or only when defending BYU professors?
Comment by Randy B. — June 11, 2008 @ 2:29 pm
I think TrevorM’s last paragraph should be amplified and emphasized. I think most of us, many of whom are BYU grads or current students, have a great deal of respect for these professors. That is what makes this whole thing so much more difficult, at least for me.
Comment by SC Taysom — June 11, 2008 @ 2:31 pm
Randy, I’m not sure what you are asking me. Clarification, please?
Comment by m&m — June 11, 2008 @ 2:33 pm
I think most of us, many of whom are BYU grads or current students, have a great deal of respect for these professors. That is what makes this whole thing so much more difficult, at least for me.
Can’t Mark’s logic from above hold, though? If people think prophets can make mistakes, why not professors?
Comment by m&m — June 11, 2008 @ 2:41 pm
I would rather that the program not air (or err, for that matter), but I do think a lot of people look at the prior practice/policy/doctrine in the way that these good professors do. And while the scholarship is off on some points, I do not know that their implicit views of God’s involvement or the overall history are any more off base than my own. (After all, it is possible that Joseph did receive an unrecorded revelation and passed it on to others (outside of Coltrin), but our records are inadequate. I doubt it, but I suppose almost anything is possible.).
My concern, though, is that the broadcast of BYU religion professors speaking on the issue may be viewed as having the implicit imprimator of the Church, and lead viewers to think that alternative views or conceptions of the previous practice/policy/doctrine/history are improper.
It helps that the broadcast is at a time when most people are still asleep. But I think it would also be helpful to have other programs where other views or conceptions are presented (a la the Darius’ and Margaret’s movie).
Comment by DavidH — June 11, 2008 @ 2:43 pm
m&m, #170, yes, but if I had published a paper on particle physics based on 1950′s understanding and scholarship, I’d certainly want to republish or pull the old one back in 2008. All we’re pursuing here is putting a stop to perpetuating bad scholarship.
Comment by kevinf — June 11, 2008 @ 2:45 pm
Professors? Make mistakes? I know what those words mean individually, but I can’t seem to decipher the meaning when placed together in a sentence!
Comment by SC Taysom — June 11, 2008 @ 2:46 pm
m&m,
Exactly. These panelists made a mistake. It’s that’s simple. There’s nothing there to defend, really, and nobody is attacking their right to believe that the moon is made of green cheese, should they choose to do so. The objection is to their speaking on behalf of the rest of us, with the implicit church approval which is conferred by being broadcast on KBYU.
Comment by Mark IV — June 11, 2008 @ 2:51 pm
Taysom, those aren’t mistakes. They’re false facts.
Comment by Mark IV — June 11, 2008 @ 2:52 pm
m&m, I’m not sure why you are so mystified.
You’ve taken an interesting approach as to belief. I’m simply asking whether you are willing to apply this approach more broadly, or is this merely a tool you invoke to defend those with whom you agree or otherwise believe merit defense? I might be sympathetic to your approach if applied in an even handed way. Somehow, I doubt that is the case.
Comment by Randy B. — June 11, 2008 @ 2:56 pm
By the way, it is worth noting for those who may not be familiar with the inner workings of the scholarly world (and are thus probably engaged in something genuinely productive), that the critiques given as part of the peer-review process or through book reviews, or even in the context of invited commentary from colleagues on essays in progess, can be absolutely brutal. Much harsher than what has been aimed at the professors here. It’s part of the game.
Comment by SC Taysom — June 11, 2008 @ 3:03 pm
Re-reading #176, I came off far more sharply than I had intended. I really am interested in your answer, m&m, and don’t mean to be snotty. You’ve peaked my curiosity.
Comment by Randy B. — June 11, 2008 @ 3:04 pm
ummm . . . piqued.
Comment by Randy B. — June 11, 2008 @ 3:05 pm
Folks, I need to be done with my part in the discussion. I think we have sort of run the rounds, and my shingles are acting up from it all
…so I need to bow out.
If someone could please let me know if there is any official follow up, I’d appreciate it. I am curious to see what happens with this, if anything.
mulling_and_musing found at hotmail
Comment by m&m — June 11, 2008 @ 3:20 pm
Or maybe that should have been a frowny face…can I make one of those?
Comment by m&m — June 11, 2008 @ 3:21 pm
DavidH wrote, regarding the possible existence of an unrecorded revelation to Joseph Smith introducing the ban, that “almost anything is possible.” That’s correct. Anything. And this is why the “possible” is all but useless as an analytical category. We are forced to work with varying levels of probability in scholarship, implicitly conceding that while it’s possible that we are all just figments of some cosmic infant’s imagination or that all of the evidence we have of the existence or reality of almost anything is possibly incorrect, such things are unlikely. It’s not a perfect epistemology, to be sure, but it’s what we’ve got.
Comment by SC Taysom — June 11, 2008 @ 3:22 pm
It’s been on the main local Utah NPR affiliate KUER. Their (locally produced) one hour radio show dealt with it and that show is also picked up by XM the national sat radio system. It’s been on XM a little over a year. I have absolutely zero knowledge about what ratings it gets on XM. It does appear to be the main NPR affiliate on XM although I notice they don’t carry the main NPR shows but more PRI produced shows. (I believe NPR doesn’t let their main shows go on sat so as to preserve their local affiliates)
Comment by Clark — June 11, 2008 @ 3:48 pm
I’ve read several times in this discussion that the program is airing “early.” Maybe early if you’re in Utah. For us, it’s airing about the time we’re starting our drive to church. For someone tuning into BYU-TV in England (over the internet of course) it would be in the middle of Sunday.
Second point. There’s a lot of poor content on BYU-TV. Saturday’s Warriors?!? And a couple of other movies from the 1970s that I started letting my kids watch but had to turn off because they were so awful that they would hardly deserve to be called “b-grade.” It takes a lot of place holders to fill the 361 days in-between general conferences and unfortunately some of their choices are not up to par.
I do love having the tabernacle choir broadcasts available and a few other very select programs.
Comment by Researcher — June 11, 2008 @ 3:59 pm
Researcher, I think that’s definitely true. I do think KBYU is attempting to expand. For one they now have something like 4 digital channels. They are in the midst of building a new building with new studios and brand new equipment. So I think BYU and presumably the Twelve see a lot of opportunities there. But you’re completely right that right now they don’t have enough content.
Part of that is exasperated by the fact that there are two PBS affiliates here in the valley so each tries to carve out a bit of a niche. (For instance KBYU has more kids shows while KUED has more history shows) But the funding is divided and Utah’s not a huge market to begin with.
Comment by Clark — June 11, 2008 @ 4:36 pm
” If we should avoid scholarly discussions on this topic, then there are a whole bunch of ‘nacle conversations that ought to be banned, no?” I’m ardently hoping so.
“Disagree with their scholarship if you will, but disagreements on scholarship aren’t necessarily reason to pull a program, are they? If they are, the ‘nacle ought to be shut down. ” Again, I’m ardently hoping this will happen soon.
Comment by NOYDMB — June 11, 2008 @ 6:28 pm
Kevinf (172).
While theoretically it would be great if all science had revisionist historians going through and making it look as though scientists were never wrong, or they always corrected themselves, I can tell you, “No Scientist has such faith in Science or Scientists” People fight about Black holes, Astronomy, detections of molecules, theories, and mechanisms. Usually there are very few republications or errata. Only if maliciously incorrect data was published, not incorrect interpretations. No one on this hate-filled blog has proven that the authors were outside the reasonable bounds of evidence at the time (but they were certainly outside the bounds of reasonable evidence now). Before we finish lynching these professors, can we please ask them their current opinion? I know the mormoliberalbloggocrats don’t like anyone with varying opinions to explain themselves, but I believe that’s how we learn.
Oh, btw, how freaking old is these program? Is it pre June 8 1978? Is it pre-McKonkie speech telling everyone to forget everything???
Comment by NOYDMB — June 11, 2008 @ 6:36 pm
Margaret Young, 106.
Would your transcription be available (or is that some sort if (C) infraction)?
Comment by NOYDMB — June 11, 2008 @ 6:44 pm
NOYDMB,
Chill, dude (or dudette). The program has to have been originally recorded in the past 10-15 years because most of these professors have not been working at BYU longer than that. That said, there really wasn’t anything to tie Joseph Smith to the origination of the priesthood ban at that time. The copyright on the program is (as has been stated) 2003. This would normally indicate its production in that year, though not necessarily always. I do know that BYU has been producing these mostly in the past 10 years.
Comment by John C. — June 11, 2008 @ 6:54 pm
NOYDMB, how freaking uninformed are you? It is obvious you didn’t even list to the broadcast because they only make reference to the June 1978 revelation like 20 times. But I guess you never let facts get in the way of a making an ass of yourself in public. No wonder you post under a pseudonym.
Comment by mormonliberalbloggocrat — June 11, 2008 @ 7:32 pm
Robert Millet notes at the beginning of the program that he is Dean of Religious Education and that Andrew Skinner is chair of the Dept. of Ancient Scripture. Millet was dean from January 1991 to September 2000, and Skinner served as chair of AS from February 1997 to September 2000. Based on these dates, it appears that the show was taped sometime between February 1997 and September 2000.
BTW, the priesthood fireside will air: BYU Television: Wednesday, June 11, at 6 p.m.; Thursday, June 12, at 10 p.m.; Friday, June 13, at noon; and Sunday, June 15, at 11 a.m. KBYU-TV, Channel 11: Sunday, June 15, at 1 p.m.
Comment by Justin — June 11, 2008 @ 7:49 pm
NOYDMB, Either chill out or go elsewhere. Calling the Juvenile Instructor “hate-filled” and advocating shutting down the bloggernacle displays not only your immaturity, but also your ignorance.
This is your only warning.
Comment by Christopher — June 11, 2008 @ 8:11 pm
Thanks Justin.
Comment by jupiterschild — June 11, 2008 @ 9:36 pm
Several years I was at presentation at BYU. Unless I am mistaken, I heard Ron Esplin state that Joseph Smith learned about the priesthood ban in the temple. From what I remember, the other historians in the room were astonished at his comment. I don’t recall anyone challenging him. Maybe they assumed he had the documents to back up his assertion. After all, he is the chief editor of the Joseph Smith Papers Project. Do any of you currently work with him? Could you follow up on this memory of mine? I think all of us would be very interested to know whether the Joseph Smith Papers Project will include a document that answers the question of whether Joseph Smith knew about and instituted the priesthood ban.
Comment by Sterling — June 11, 2008 @ 10:11 pm
Sterling, Esplin did indeed write that Brigham learned it from Joseph. However, his argument doesn’t hold up. See, e.g., Lester Bush’s review of the historiography.
Comment by J. Stapley — June 11, 2008 @ 10:23 pm
Sterling: Ron made that argument in an article in a 1979 BYU Studies article. He basically presents a plausible scenario for the ban coming out of the temple endowment, but does not produce any solid evidence for his view. A lot of scholarship has come to light since Ron wrote that article that goes contrary to his argument. See my comment #16 for some of it.
I worked for the Project for 5 years (2002-2007) and I am still close friends with many of the people there, and I can assure you that there will not be any documents produced that shows that JS knew about the ban.
Comment by David G. — June 11, 2008 @ 10:26 pm
Sterling, it may have been a presentation that he turned into a publication (or vice versa) that was published in BYU Studies 19:3 entitled, “Brigham Young and the Priesthood Denial to the Blacks: an alternative view”. Pg. 394-402. As I read the article, I don’t see that there is any solid evidence presented connecting Joseph to the ban and the article is kind of dated. It has some interesting ideas, though.
Comment by Jared T — June 11, 2008 @ 10:30 pm
Justin & John C.
Thank you for responding intelligently and giving me some idea of the filming of this program, and the priesthood commemoration. I was aware of the 2003 copyright, but am also aware, that not everything is copyrighted when it is produced.
Christopher,
I don’t know what you consider condemning someone for saying something wrong 10 years ago without asking them if they’ve changed their opinions (or learned more), but I consider it hateful. Q. Are blogs really meant to be a place to discuss, or must we call people names (Trolls) and ban them if they dare to question the PoV’s of people on the blog? A. Those afraid of the truth silence dissent. I’ve watched bloggers here attack anyone who disagrees or sometimes even asks clarifying questions. If that’s loving, you all have more in common with the Anti-Mormons than you recognize.
Yes, MLBC, I didn’t “list to the broadcast” instead I stood straight up, and didn’t sway side to side. It sure is loving to call someone you don’t know immature and ignorant.
Christopher,
Are there some hard and fast rules, or must one simply not disagree with liberals/and or those who kick others off for having a different viewpoint?
I don’t how me calling some of you hate filled is worse than you all calling some other’s bigots when they’ve distanced themselves from bigotted beliefs. Hyporcrisy, thy child teaches thee. (That’s a pun, in case you can’t figure it out.)
Comment by NOYDMB — June 11, 2008 @ 10:40 pm
K, bub, you were warned. See ya.
Comment by David G. — June 11, 2008 @ 10:57 pm
Unlike the rest of what you said I think there’s some substance here. However I don’t think most are condemning the speakers. At worst they are shocked at some ignorance at some basic historical points and a surprising lack of concern and some of the implications for the Church. (I assume they knew this was being taped)
However I’d lay reasonable odds that many of those speaking would not say the same things. (We should all recall that most of these people were well known and respected people)
Where I think the problem is isn’t with the speakers but rather KBYU broadcasting it without looking at the nature of the content. Once again I’m reasonably sure it wasn’t intentional. Probably there were a whole slew of tapes on the shelves and they are going through all of them seeking content. I bet they hadn’t even really watched it closely. One would hope that now that the concerns have been voiced that they’ll rethink keeping this particular tape.
Comment by Clark — June 11, 2008 @ 11:53 pm
What we need is an up to date publication looking over the history of the ban. Maybe even a series. Or a series of essays. Topics to be covered include the best evidence as to when the ban began, an overview of scholarship trends over time, a sociological look at the effect of the ban, etc. Should be easy enough.
Comment by BHodges — June 12, 2008 @ 10:34 am
Clark: I agree. I doubt it was recently reviewed before being scheduled for broadcast.
Comment by BHodges — June 12, 2008 @ 10:35 am
BHodges, have it…it’s called “Setting the Record Straight: Blacks and the Mormon Priesthood”. [cough]
Comment by Jared T — June 12, 2008 @ 10:46 am
Blair, much of what you are asking for is available in Bringhurst’s and Smith’s Black and Mormon (U. of Illinois, 2004).
Comment by David G. — June 12, 2008 @ 10:49 am
haha Jared T. I’ll put it next to my Setting the Record Straight: Emma Smith book.
David- thanks for the reference.
Does anyone think the problem may be further alleviated by a straightforward conference talk by an apostle or member of the First Presidency? We have examples of apostles putting down falsehoods (McConkie at a BYU fireside for CES instructors, Holland in the documentary) but what about an explicit published or in-conference statement declaiming any prevalent misunderstandings?
Comment by BHodges — June 12, 2008 @ 11:22 am
I know I am coming into this very late, but I just listened to the broadcast and felt compelled to make a few comments.
First I want to than David for giving the link, I have down loaded quite a few other talks that are of interest to me.
I think Millet and co. actually has a point when it comes to laying the blame for the ban at Joseph’s feet. I have always been uncomfortable making Brigham carry this racists garbage all by himself. God knows that Brigham has many atrocities he has had to face or will face at judgment day. I think Millet’s point is that the scriptures the panel reads (Moses 7:8&22 and Abr. 1:21-27) give Mormon’s justification for such racists ideas; I would include the Book of Mormon’s “white and delight some” words. This is not to say the Bible is not equally racists, the problem is Mormons have all this additional garbage that came directly from Joseph Smith’s lips. Historically we are also literalist when it comes to scripture. Look at the amount of money spent by the church trying to prove the Book of Mormon is a ancient record and not a nineteenth century religious myth or supernatural history, much like the miracles in the New Testament.
I know all about Elijah Abel and that Brigham did not use these scriptures for justification. What I do know equally well is Jeff Holland and I grew up in a church that did use these scriptures and we heard apostles and prophets use them as reasons for the racist ideas. This racist garbage for Mormon’s does start with Joseph Smith. I have fought my entire life trying to throw this garbage off my back, thank goodness my children were told not to believe in this rubbish.
As Tamu Smith said in the Salt Lake Tribune, “For racism to stop, we need to hear it condemned at Conference as often as pornography or abuse are,” BTW, Tamu is my new hero.
Comment by Joe Geisner — June 12, 2008 @ 11:34 am
God knows that Brigham has many atrocities he has had to face or will face at judgment day.
I find that to be a rather astoundingly judgmental statement.
Comment by BHodges — June 12, 2008 @ 11:51 am
This is a great point. It is one of the reasons that I have a problem with the use of the term “folklore” to describe this entire pre-1978 discourse, at least to the extent that it is a subtle way of saying that we never really taught this stuff through official channels. It was as official as lots and lots of stuff that is taught today in General Conference or in the Ensign which is not technically official, but which most people in the church think is official because it comes from church leaders.
Comment by SC Taysom — June 12, 2008 @ 11:56 am
I don’t know if it’s been posted yet, but last night the mp3 of yesterday’s RadioWest interview with Darius Gray, Margaret Young, and Michael Quinn was posted. It’s a great interview, and, as Clark has already mentioned, they play a clip of Millet talking and the three interviewees respond to the clip. They also give a shoutout to this post. They also promise a follow-up episode.
Comment by jupiterschild — June 12, 2008 @ 1:24 pm
Sorry, I meant I don’t know if anyone has already linked to it (the link is definitely posted). Sorry for any confusion.
Comment by jupiterschild — June 12, 2008 @ 1:26 pm
Thanks, jc. I’ll add it to the sideblog.
Comment by David G. — June 12, 2008 @ 1:54 pm
Parenthetically, for the most part I really enjoyed Quinn’s additions to the dialog.
Comment by BHodges — June 12, 2008 @ 2:09 pm
Margaret is very complimentary of the “young people” on the blog (although, sadly, she doesn’t mention the blog by name), stating that we know our material and that the new generation is not going to let these kind of things just pass. Thank you Margaret.
Comment by David G. — June 12, 2008 @ 2:18 pm
Note they are doing a followup with Millet. Maybe they’ll ask someone here about the issue too.
Comment by Clark — June 12, 2008 @ 2:56 pm
Yeah, should be interesting if they do. I’m not eager to explain my post title to Bro. Millet.
Comment by David G. — June 12, 2008 @ 4:04 pm
If you literally puked you should be alright.
Otherwise….good luck.
Comment by BHodges — June 12, 2008 @ 4:13 pm
You *did* get your post title from the Rolling Stone article you linked to, n’est-ce pas? If people realize that, it should mitigate the ick factor.
Comment by Ardis Parshall — June 12, 2008 @ 4:21 pm
Ardis,
Your blatant use of French in that comment clearly tags you as a liberalblogocrat, or whatever the hell that guy was railing about above. You are so busted.
Comment by SC Taysom — June 12, 2008 @ 4:28 pm
And here I was trying to be so cool, what with my familiarity with Rolling Stone and all …
Comment by Ardis Parshall — June 12, 2008 @ 4:38 pm
I did get it from there, but explaining to Millet why that’s funny in this context is another issue.
Comment by David G. — June 12, 2008 @ 4:50 pm
He’s a good guy, I doubt he’ll mind.
Comment by Mark IV — June 12, 2008 @ 4:53 pm
m&m and m&m detractors,
It’s been interesting to watch m&m and all those self-declared experts who rail on him. In my view, m&m is one of the few on this board speaking with clarity. It is clear that many are convinced Brigham Young was racist, not realizing that we all are victims in time and space of our own generation. We see history through 21st century glasses. There are biases and limitations to our views that only future generations may see as we are all in the 21st century fish bowl together. Many on this board repeat “scholarship” and hide behind it, declaring, or course, that their view is the scholarly one, and invoking many self-important “scholars” to back them up. They make the assumptions that:
1) Evidence and interpretation are one in the same. A false concept.
2) A critical mass of people agreeing on one point of view determines its truth. Absolutely false. Most “scholars” believe Joseph Smith was a fraud. “Scholars” once believed in the ether, the flat world, eggs are good, now are eggs are bad, now they’re good again, etc.The problem is that we have limited information at any point in time, and our interpretive mechanisms are always lacking as we simply cannot see as God sees.
3) Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. People use this lack of documentation to label Brigham Young a racist since it fits their word view. It is my opinion (which is just an opinion since there is no documentation), that perhaps the lack of documentation was deliberate. Prophets have been told many times not record certain things. For whatever reason, we have a sparse record that it will be impossible to piece together. If we’re still arguing after all these years, it’s clear the record is not clear.
4) It’s clear why most of us on this board are not prophets and apostles. We are not humble enough.
It is my observation that self-declared scholars are the most susceptible to the great and spacious building. Many times they are actual residents without realizing it. Remember, Satan was a “scholar”. How else did he get 1/3 to follow him? Careful observation of scripture shows that more often than not, the scholars usually get it wrong, despite their possession of “scholarly training.” Do we worship our training? I would ask, “Have ye enquired of the Lord? Have you knelt before Him and considered yourself a fool as you seek for understanding? Have you admitted that your knowledge is pitifully nothing in comparison to His Almighty power?” I will warn you, this might put your blessed scholarship in great peril as you place it on the altar. However, such is the test of life. It is a test not of the mind but a test of the heart.
m&m basically puts forth a position that the self-declared experts here are piecing fragmentary evidence to create their own folklore and declare previous generations of prophets and apostles as ignorant. They are doing as much speculation, if not more, than those of the past that they accuse.
Finally, I don’t see m&m putting himself as the centerpiece of his arguments. He is putting his testimony of living prophets as the centerpiece. He is not seeking to set himself up as a light, while many others who respond to him seem to do this by their very tone.
Perhaps the whole purpose of this policy is to flush out our hearts!? It brings out the best and the worst in us. If you claim you believe in modern prophets yet are adamant in proving Brigham Young is a racist and finding evidence for it, then perhaps the real tragedy is the state of our heart. Brigham Young is dead and his eternal destiny is already secure. We are the ones on trial now. Our book is still being written.
Comment by MG — June 13, 2008 @ 1:07 pm
MG, assuming this is a serious post on your part. I really think you’re over simplifying things here. The haphazard scholars vs. believers dichotomy is sadly lacking in both depth and perspective.
Comment by Jared T — June 13, 2008 @ 1:31 pm
MG, it’s nice that you’re supporting m&m but “he” is a she.
Comment by Researcher — June 13, 2008 @ 1:41 pm
MG,
Thanks for the call to repentance. And for the lesson on historical methodology. I assure you that I will pay exactly the same amount of attention to each.
Comment by SC Taysom — June 13, 2008 @ 1:43 pm
“Remember, Satan was a ‘scholar’.”
Awesome. Just awesome.
Comment by Randy B. — June 13, 2008 @ 1:46 pm
Take comfort, Randy B. The scare quotes must mean that Satan was a pseudo-scholar, not a real one.
Comment by Ardis Parshall — June 13, 2008 @ 2:25 pm
“Remember, Satan was a ’scholar’.”
I thought he was a lawyer.
Comment by J. Stapley — June 13, 2008 @ 2:37 pm
Like so many of us, he was a lawyer who wanted to be a scholar.
Comment by Randy B. — June 13, 2008 @ 2:40 pm
I’m pretty sure he is a dentist.
Comment by SC Taysom — June 13, 2008 @ 2:41 pm
No, dentists are just his minions.
Comment by Randy B. — June 13, 2008 @ 2:48 pm
SCT wins the “when I grow up contest.” Hands down.
Comment by smb — June 13, 2008 @ 2:48 pm
Jared T,
Alternatively, I think sometimes folks over complicate things, looking “beyond the mark for things they cannot understand.” (I notice how little scripture is quoted on this blog.)
As a side note, Truman Madsen tells a story of once bringing up a particular intellectual objection that the Prophet Spencer W. Kimball that he was aware of. President Kimball’s response? “If they would just get the Spirit, they wouldn’t think that way!”
Now I personally like delving into the details of historical and doctrinal issues. However, I believe this is the Spirit that we should bring to the table when doing so, especially if we care about getting it right.
My point is that I detect much disdain for Brigham Young and his so-called “racism” in many posts by members (not just on this board), and I find that having made that determination, they begin to see the “scholarly evidence” in that light. They don’t want to believe that Joseph Smith could have originated the policy, therefore they don’t. We are too arrogant when we believe that we are not influenced by our biases (much like many doctors believe they, as a profession, are not influenced by prescription drug companies, despite studies showing that, in fact, they are). Am I influenced by my biases? Absolutely! Could they be wrong? Absolutely! How can we guard against the wrong bias so that our conclusions have the greatest chance of being correct? I don’t think we can 100%, but I like to try to see myself in the scriptural characters and see where I stand. Is my thinking more like Nephi or like Laman? Am I on the straight and narrow or am I hanging out in the great and spacious building? If we really care about getting it right (which is scholarly), then I think we can’t disregard the heart when approaching issues of the mind, especially muddy doctrinal issues like this one, else our thinking can be clouded and conclusions botched despite our methodology.
My dichotomy is not so much scholars vs. believers as it is faithful scholars vs. pessimistic scholars. Pessimism can be a distorted prism. This is more an issue of psychology than history.
Satan, more correctly, was and is a pseudo-scholar, using pseudo-scholarly methodologies to achieve his objectives. That is why his philosophies are often found abundantly among the self-declared pessimistic scholars.
Sorry m&m, had a hard time distinguishing the gender based on the acronym:).
Comment by MG — June 13, 2008 @ 4:07 pm
MG, this blog’s aim is to analyze Mormon history/contemporary issues within the framework of scholarly discussion. There are other blogs more with different aims–some more devotional in nature, others more anti-intellectual, and still others that are overtly critical of the LDS church. I suggest you go elsewhere to gripe and complain about the evil, wicked scholars.
This is your only warning. Either dial down your tone a notch, or you will not longer be welcome to participate here.
Comment by Christopher — June 13, 2008 @ 4:43 pm
“They don’t want to believe that Joseph Smith could have originated the policy, therefore they don’t.”
MG, please. How much have you read on this subject? Have you even read through this whole thread? The historical evidence is more solid that BY originated it, period. Could JS have? Sure. Would any of your “pseudo-scholars” have any problem accepting JS as the originator if there were solid historical evidence for that? I doubt it. The problem is not predisposition, prejudice against BY, or any other crazy indictment on your part. It’s a problem of evidence.
Your blanket judgment of the humility of unnamed bloggers is ironic given what you’ve written here, and your judgment of the spirituality of the same speaks to that.
You’re out of line as well as being off topic.
I second Christopher’s remarks, dial it down or pursue it somewhere else.
Comment by Jared T — June 13, 2008 @ 4:49 pm
I am awaiting Booker T’s participation on this thread.
Comment by Steve Evans — June 13, 2008 @ 4:57 pm
If a blog entry title “BYU Religion Made Me Puke” and attributing racist motives to Brigham Young (his motives are undocumented) can pass muster, but quoting scripture and President Kimball brings a warning to “tone it down”, then I believe you are correct, I’m out of place on this blog. I’ll pull this blog off my RSS feed and go elsewhere. Sorry for the interruption.
Comment by MG — June 13, 2008 @ 4:57 pm
I have no problem, MG, with quoting scripture or LDS Church presidents. The problem comes when you use those sciptures and statements to challenge the sincerity and faith of individuals on this blog.
Comment by Christopher — June 13, 2008 @ 5:07 pm
Again, you are horribly off base. It’s not the scripture or the Pres. Kimball quote that ought be toned down. You’re skewing of the material in this post and in the comments is probably why you feel “out of place”. Good night, and good luck.
Comment by Jared T — June 13, 2008 @ 5:08 pm
I apologize for my obscure reference.
Comment by Steve Evans — June 13, 2008 @ 5:21 pm
Channeling Keith Olbermann, Jared?
Comment by David G. — June 13, 2008 @ 5:23 pm
Just for the record, Brigham Young was a prophet. And a racist. I don’t think anybody wants to have to trot out the evidence for the latter, so let’s avoid making assertions about what an open-minded fellow he was.
Comment by SC Taysom — June 13, 2008 @ 5:24 pm
David, I thought it was Edward R. Murrow, if I’m following you.
Comment by Jared T — June 13, 2008 @ 5:27 pm
It was, but Keith Olbermann has coopted it.
Comment by David G. — June 13, 2008 @ 5:35 pm
This blog is to be complimented. You know a blog is high quality when even its trolls are of the highest quality. That was fabulously entertaining trollage, truly. Bravo.
Comment by anon — June 13, 2008 @ 5:36 pm
I get it from Murrow, but even so, mine is a superficial reference as my knowledge of Murrow’s use of the phrase comes from the movie. I never watch MSNBC, I don’t have it, so I am not at all familiar with Olbermann.
Comment by Jared T — June 13, 2008 @ 5:42 pm
I doubt you’d like Olbermann, Jared. Margaret once referred to him as her “Obama-drug dealer.”
Comment by David G. — June 13, 2008 @ 5:45 pm
Haha.
Comment by Jared T — June 13, 2008 @ 5:53 pm
I think that JI is to the Daily Universe Letters to the Editor page what AAA is to major league baseball.
This is where people come to prove they have that unique combination of zaniness and righteous indignation that enables them to go big time.
Comment by Mark IV — June 13, 2008 @ 6:03 pm
I am shocked and appalled by that accusation, Mark IV. Maybe you should go talk to your bishop. And what secret sins are you practicing, anyway?
Comment by Ardis Parshall — June 13, 2008 @ 6:17 pm
Black market dentistry?
Comment by Randy B. — June 13, 2008 @ 7:00 pm
Excellent, Ardis. That is a good, solid effort. I award it an A, and my opinion should count for something, since I have been a fan and close observer of the DU letters genre for over two decades now.
I have only two suggestions. First, it always helps to boast of your own righteousness right off the bat. For instance, your opening line could have said: “As a faithful, temple-going returned missionary and latter-day saint, I am shocked and appalled . . .” Second, it is good technique to end with a rhetorical flourish that again reinforces the distance between you and the disgraceful apostates you are addressing. Something along the lines of “As for me and my house . . .” always works well. It is like kicking them out of the house, slamming the door, then opening it again long enough to yell “And stay out!”, then slamming it again. It is very effective in bringing people to an awful knowledge of their sinful state.
Comment by Mark IV — June 13, 2008 @ 8:12 pm
I have a bi-racial child, and bi-racial family members. If racism is alive and well, it’s because parents teach it to their children. Some people are complaining STILL about the black issue in the LDS Church, but are any saying well done that we’ve overcome whatever the reason was and now Blacks can hold the priesthood. Whine on about the past if you must it won’t change it.
There is racism on both sides: black, white, brown, and red. Blacks have their issues; whites have their issues, and so on. I have no idea why God does or does not decree certain things. Example of something, I don’t understand: Men aren’t born circumcised but for biblical reasons, God wanted them circumcised and many are–even in our “modern” times. Let’s not forget the women who are also forced into this special type of torture man designed to inflict on women.
Humanity says we cannot terminate (euthanize)terminally ill people, but we can terminate a healthy, viable baby who has not been born yet;I’m a bit confused by some things,
Ones skin color is not what curses us, we do it too ourselves. For every white man that curses a black, there is a black cursing a white. It’s a vicious MAN made, insane circle. I won’t post it here, but I recommend ppl look at the poem: THE COLD WITHIN
Comment by ML Brown — June 13, 2008 @ 9:05 pm
Sorry to threadjack back to the original topic (I really have enjoyed this detour), but I just finished listening to the Margaret Young/Darius Gray/Michael Quinn interview on KUER and at the very end they play a quote from the PoGP roundtable from BYU’s website. I listened to the whole PoGP discussion before, but the quote they played on KUER (about Joseph being the originator of the ban and he *must* have gotten it from the translations of Abraham/Moses and skin color being a factor in those scriptures) just took on a new brightness of painfulness when juxtaposed with the actual historical facts and scholarship that Margaret, Darius and Michael had just laid out. The only word I can think of is damning.
A sad day to be a BYU student, I must say. I think I’m going to wake up at 8 this Sunday (I’m on the east coast) and see if they do air the show on BYU TV.
Comment by austin s — June 14, 2008 @ 12:30 pm
You can say that again. Since when does a discussion of the reasons for the priesthood ban involve female genital mutilation, circumcision, abortion, and euthanasia?
Who is whining? These folks run a blog that analyzes LDS history in a scholarly way. Or as you put it, in a pseudo-scholarly way.
If that’s whining to you, well, I’ll just refer you back to your quote I led off with. Confusion, thy name is ML.
Comment by Capt Jack — June 14, 2008 @ 1:39 pm
Austin:
You said, “A sad day to be a BYU student, I must say.” I wonder if there is another view.
In D&C 122:7
“…know thou, my son, that all these things shall give thee experience, and shall be for thy good.” I’m clearly taking this small part out of context, but the phrase is an absolute truth.
Without having a remembrance I can only speculate. Nevertheless, in understanding God and his way of doing things, He is a god of order. In reasoning, perhaps we were given the choice before we came to earth that whites would play a role and blacks would play a role. Perhaps we can give the Prophet of God, Joseph, the benefit of his experiences and knowledge and assume that he knew exactly what he was saying, he did converse with Gods’ messengers, and he was instructed by divine authority.
Now, I don’t believe Joseph was infallible. However, in light of human error maybe we can consider a few factors: the scribes who made notes of his speeches paraphrased, if an oral story was shared then recorded latter by someone other than Joseph himself, I’m open to giving the benefit of doubt.
We say it’s racism, maybe it is simply man hating man. Whites hate whites and blacks hate black and on and on it goes–hate seems to be the main variable. With all that hate, the opposite has to exist as well, the love and acceptance of others regardless of gender or religion, education, or employment.
Comment by ML Brown — June 14, 2008 @ 1:59 pm
Capt. Jack:
The whining I referred to was that some people (on Radio West blog) complain about how the past LDS policy of not allowing all males to have the priesthood is racists, that is the whining I was referring to. To me it is in the past, let us move on. Others want to go on and on about it.
In regards to the things you took out of my comments, those standing alone would have little to do with what I said.
What I said was I have no idea why God does certain things, I said I am confused about why circumcision is allowed, to both men (it’s done humanely) and women (it’s a form of torture), I’m also confused why abortion is okay but euthanizing terminally ill adults is not okay. I don’t believe God condones these horrific acts. I was thinking of the “world” and how some of them they do.
If I were addressing ONLY an LDS reader/audience, I wouldn’t have had to say that. MOST LDS members do not agree with circumcising women and they do not agree with abortion.
Also, Capt Jack, I appreciate your feedback. I will try not to be confusing in the future. I’m still getting a sense of this site.
Comment by ML Brown — June 14, 2008 @ 2:16 pm
ML Brown, there are many things that are logically possible. However nothing, indicates that there was 1) some sort of pre-mortal pact 2) that Joseph instituted the ban or 3) any of his sermons talk about the ban (see number 2). However, there is a significant amount of documentation that Joseph 1)gave the priesthood to black men 2) there were black elders in the Church in full fellowship after his death 3) the Church has condemned all the reasons that later Church leaders gave for the ban as being false doctrine.
So, either the ban was the will of God, but Brigham misunderstood the will of God and gave crappy reasons for it and then every church leader after him followed suit or the reasons for the ban that Church leaders gave were as much the will of the Lord as the ban itself. In either case, until you come up with some decent evidence for you claims, you are simply making stuff up (some of which is painfully offensive to many).
Comment by J. Stapley — June 14, 2008 @ 2:18 pm
Capt Jack:
ERROR:I was thinking of the “world” and how some of them they do.
CORRECTION: I was thinking of the “world” and how some of them do.
Comment by ML Brown — June 14, 2008 @ 2:18 pm
Also, female genital mutilation is not “allowed.” What the heck are you thinking?
Comment by J. Stapley — June 14, 2008 @ 2:21 pm
J. Stapley
Thank you for your feedback; I will reflect on it. In regards to: “(some of which is painfully offensive to many). The offense will be something they will or will not, choose to take; it is not given nor intended. I try hard to say what I mean and mean what I say. There are a lot of “if” scenarios in any conversation.
A note in regards to my future postings, when I give offense, it is with intent. Until that time, it is others finding offense and choosing to take it. I’m honest and practical from my views and experiences, as I suppose you are from yours.
I’m not “thinking” anything, but acknowledging that this practice is indeed “allowed” and does indeed occur. Take a moment and study the African tribes and some Islam tribes who do “allow” Female Genital Mutilation (FGM). And, as I’ve worked with women from Africa raising their daughters here in the Salt Lake Valley, don’t tell me it doesn’t occur here as well.
As I see it, it is wrong, but it does happen and NOTHING is done to the mothers who do this to their daughters. The authorities here, do not want to get involved.
“It is a cultural practice that started in Africa approximately 2000 years ago. It is primarily a cultural practice, not a religious practice. But some religions do include FGM as part of their practices. This practice is so well ingrained into these cultures, it defines members of these cultures. In order to eliminate the practice one must eliminate the cultural belief that a girl will not become a woman without this procedure” (http://members.tripod.com/~Wolvesdreams/FGM.html).
Comment by ML Brown — June 14, 2008 @ 2:35 pm
Dude, ML, I don’t particularly care whether you intend to be offensive or not. I doesn’t matter. Your intentions don’t excuse you.
I think you will find that most everyone here understands what FGM is, and that it is practiced some places. It is not allowed in our Church or nation. What does that have to do with anything?
Obviously, you don’t really have anything particular to add besides your trollery.
Comment by J. Stapley — June 14, 2008 @ 2:49 pm
J Stapley
I explained myself to you—it won’t happen again. We could go on and on, you appear to be emotional about this; let us move on.
But as Jared said to me this morning: “I don’t think this warrants further discussion. Thanks, and enjoy the blog.”
Comment by ML Brown — June 14, 2008 @ 3:05 pm
I closed the comments temporarily because things were way off course.
I didn’t get up early to see if they showed it, but I’ve been reliably informed that they did. Has anyone heard back from KBYU with an explanation?
Comment by David G. — June 16, 2008 @ 2:20 pm
I haven’t heard back, but I can add to your witnesses–they showed it. I saw it with my own two eyes (but it came on 8 AM here, so I didn’t have to get up thank goodness). I’m sorry to say that I had a hard time imagining that they would actually pull it.
Comment by SC Taysom — June 16, 2008 @ 2:23 pm
BYUTV made me puke.
Comment by Christopher — June 16, 2008 @ 2:29 pm
Wow, they showed it. Un-believeable.
Comment by Steve Evans — June 16, 2008 @ 6:22 pm
Steve Evans wrote:
“Un-believeable.”
I do not think that means what you think it means.
Comment by I. Montoya — June 16, 2008 @ 6:32 pm
My concerns were duly noted, but as you say, they showed it anyway.
The only thing that balanced it was that I got to see the Genesis fireside rebroadcast from the 8th on KBYU-TV Cable yesterday, which was amazing, right up until the lame version of “Sing We Now with One Accord”. Obviously, the Multi Cultural Choir didn’t get the memo on that one, especially in comparison with the awe-inspiring rendition of “I Know That My Redeemer Lives”. Literally, I was in tears for that.
Comment by kevinf — June 16, 2008 @ 6:59 pm
I’m with SC here. I had hopes, but no real expectations. To pull it would be tantamount to admitting a mistake, and I just didn’t see that happening.
I’ll be interested to see if they show this again, though. Hopefully next time around they’ll make the right call on the front end.
Comment by Randy B. — June 16, 2008 @ 7:05 pm
The real story here is that, for the first time in its history, something stupid has come out of the BYU Religion Department. This really is remarkable, given that up to now, BYU religion teachers have been, to a man (and woman), the most insightful group of people on gospel-related topics ever to walk the earth, bar none.
AB
Comment by Aaron Brown — June 16, 2008 @ 10:10 pm
Ardis (at #135) said:
“The more I come to understand what the ban meant and still means to those affected and to the Church and the progress of the Kingdom, the more reluctant I am to accept the current scholarly position that God allowed all that because of a cheap, racist flaw on the part of Brigham Young. I think God would have removed BY from the picture rather than to allow such suffering and setbacks to His plan by a simple “mistake.””
After reading 270 comments, this is the one that most sticks out to me. It’s a rather obvious point, but one that doesn’t get articulated that often on the blogs. While I personally just don’t have it in me to believe that God was the author of the Priesthood Ban (and I’m more than willing to jettison strong notions of God’s hand in the scriptures, if needs be, to maintain a consistent view concerning God and racism), I think Ardis’ point is an important one to think about and points to a real stumbling block that prevents some of us (i.e., me) from being completely comfortable with the position on this issue that we hold.
AB
Comment by Aaron Brown — June 16, 2008 @ 10:18 pm
It is amazing how much pain this issue is still causing today, thirty years later, on both sides. Clearly the isn’t it wonderful, the priesthood was given to every worthy male” line of thinking isn’t in evidence in this thread.
Aaron,
Are you saying the church must have apostatized with the Ban? It seems to me you are saying exactly what all those offended by the same ideas the most conservative elements on this thread. The idea that calling Brigham Young a racist is a fatal flaw for the church, proof it is uninspired. You are taking the idea exactly where they fear you would and justifying their angst.
Personally, I have no idea if there would still be a church, or if it would be anything near its current size or strength today if it were torn apart by anger, fear, and hatred caused by allowing racial intermarriage in the temple in the 19th Century. But I do know that at some point these wounds are going wounds and the suffering you talk about are going to need healing. My faith is that God grieves as much as I do over the kind of bickering, uncertainty and fear exhibited by both sides of this debate. It can be painful to be a centrist.
Comment by Doc — June 16, 2008 @ 11:39 pm
I agree that it is too simplistic to blame the priesthood ban on, as Ardis says, “a cheap, racist flaw on the part of Brigham Young.” If you look at BY’s comments and compare them to others of the time, say Abraham Lincoln in the 1850s, they represent the standard societal mindset. Scapegoating BY with the benefit 20/20 hindsight is too easy and fails to take account of his surrounding circumstances.
But I do not agree with Ardis that God so actively manages the church that His failure to remove BY as prophet thus proves that God gave His blessing to the priesthood ban. Nor do I think the fact that the ban has caused such great pain amoung so many somehow bolsters that conclusion. (At least this is how I read Ardis’s position; if I’m not reading her correctly, hopefully she’ll chime in an let me know.) I find that perspective much more difficult to swallow than a God who allows bad and hurtful things to happen, even in the church.
Comment by Randy B. — June 17, 2008 @ 9:10 am
Bruce, Darius and I returned from SF early this morning. I just got on the blog to find out if they had, indeed, pulled the program.
Well damn.
Comment by Margaret Young — June 17, 2008 @ 11:45 am
KBYU might not pull the program or take the initiative to edit it, but has anyone contacted the BYU faculty members who are participants in that program and asked them to edit or redo that presentation? I’d be interested to see if they are willing to acknowledge that their presentation was not in harmony with an apostle’s statement. (The snarky side of me wants to comment that BYU religion faculty never, ever acknowledge error on their part… but I’m willing to assume that they may be better than I hope.) I think it’s less likely that they would change their presentation based on historical research about the priesthood policy.
Comment by no-man — June 17, 2008 @ 12:02 pm
I think you might be wrong, no-man. Too much is at stake, and Brother Millett, at least, knows that.
The original recording would have been made after Pres. Hinckley’s appearance on _60 Minutes_, since it’s referenced.
Comment by Margaret Young — June 17, 2008 @ 12:17 pm
Margaret,
As Justin noted in #17 it has a 2003 copyright.
Comment by a random John — June 17, 2008 @ 2:56 pm
A poster on another message board claims to have emailed Millett and received this response:
I believe the post to be genuine given my experience with the poster but, of course, it is prudent to be skeptical of the authenticity given the nature of the internet and semi-anonymous message boards.
The original thread is here:
On Elijah Able
Comment by pelagius — June 17, 2008 @ 3:06 pm
Thanks, pelagius. If it’s legitimate, then that answers a lot of our questions. Perhaps the most telling statement:
Comment by David G. — June 17, 2008 @ 3:15 pm
But apprently not not enough of a historian to be circumspect in offering public judgments about historical matters.
Comment by SC Taysom — June 17, 2008 @ 3:26 pm
Exactly, SC.
Perhaps someone should pdf Bro. Millett some reading material. It’s one thing to miss the mark, as we all do from time to time. It’s quite another to refuse to correct prior misstatements when brought to our attention.
Comment by Randy B. — June 17, 2008 @ 3:47 pm
274, I’m chiming in. You very much overstate my position. I do not claim that Brigham Young’s survival proves that God blessed the priesthood ban!
I’ve spent too much time this afternoon trying to redraft my comment at 135 to be clearer. I can’t. It’s clear enough, if read as it was written.
Comment by Ardis Parshall — June 17, 2008 @ 5:51 pm
Looking back, you are right to object to my use of the word “proves”. You certainly did not make that bold of a statement.
Beyond that, having re-read #135 and 283 several times now, I can only conclude that I must be missing your intent somehow. Though I’m still curious, I won’t press further. Another time, perhaps.
Comment by Randy B. — June 17, 2008 @ 7:06 pm
What you’re missing is that I’m struggling to reconcile conflicting beliefs. I reject the facile dismissal of Brigham Young as a racist as adequately explaining anything, but I don’t have a better explanation to offer. I have outlined some of the conflicting beliefs which I’m trying to reconcile — please don’t extrapolate from that outline anything so solid as “therefore, you are claiming that …” because I’m not claiming anything! That’s pretty much my entire point: I don’t know the origin or reason for the ban, and nothing that scholarship has suggested is satisfactory to me because no piece of scholarship has addressed all of my objections.
Comment by Ardis E. Parshall — June 17, 2008 @ 8:40 pm
Ardis wrote
In my humble opinion, everyone who has a view on this subject may be divided into one of two groups: those who don’t know the origin of and reason for the ban and those who refuse to admit that they don’t know.
Comment by SC Taysom — June 17, 2008 @ 9:12 pm
That’s actually quite helpful, Ardis. In that light, my comment in #174 more properly addresses not your ultimate conclusion but instead one of the conflicting beliefs you’ve identified, namely that the priesthood ban could not have been a “simple ‘mistake’” as God would have intervened if that were the case. While we (it would appear) have different views on that more narrow issue, SC is plainly right that none of us is in a position to authoritatively declare that we “know” the answer to this puzzle.
Comment by Randy B. — June 17, 2008 @ 10:04 pm
You know, usually when a thread goes over 100 comments and people start reinterpreting what was said earlier, discussion degenerates to “But you said!” and “No, I didn’t!” and gets nasty fast. May I just say what a pleasure most of this discussion has been — maybe it’s an unpleasant topic, but people have been remarkably calm and courteous. Thanks for your share in that, Randy B.
Comment by Ardis E. Parshall — June 17, 2008 @ 10:19 pm
Ardis, I agree that it’s been a fun thread. Although most have been calm and courteous, we have had to ban at least one commenter because of statements made here. I’m glad that we were able to get (maybe) a statement from Millet that essentially confirms our suspicions. For now, I’ll be closing the comments again so as not to attract new flies.
Comment by David G. — June 17, 2008 @ 11:01 pm
[...] the last year, we have (thanks to J. Stapley) updated the blog’s layout, generated some mild controversy, been the object of criticism from more “orthodox and mainstream” bloggers, and even [...]
Pingback by Juvenile Instructor » The Juvenile Instructor Turns 1 — October 26, 2008 @ 9:25 pm
[...] BYU Religion Made Me Puke (With an astounding 290 comments) [...]
Pingback by Juvenile Instructor » From the Archives: Posts You Might Have Missed, June-August 2008 — July 3, 2009 @ 11:25 am
[...] BYU Religion Made Me Puke [BTW, has BYU-TV indeed gotten rid of that episode?? Some follow up?] [...]
Pingback by Juvenile Instructor » Teaching About the Priesthood Ban and Official Declaration 2 in Sunday School — December 7, 2009 @ 8:43 pm
[...] ban. Despite succeeding in pushing the ban’s dating back two years, Esplin also discovered a crucial 1847 letter (see comment 16) that revealed that Young did not consider Blacks ineligible for the priesthood. [...]
Pingback by Juvenile Instructor » Revisiting: “Mormonism’s Negro Doctrine: An Historical Overview” — January 25, 2010 @ 11:10 pm
[...] in the past such as my report on the TA strike at the University of Illinois, David’s classic “BYU Religion Made Me Puke,” and Ardis’s call for signatures of support for the Women’s Research Institute at BYU. In [...]
Pingback by Juvenile Instructor » The Responsibilities of History (and Historians) — September 1, 2010 @ 12:09 pm