I think Mormon’s attitude toward children solves that problem whether or not there’s a ban.

Your not understanding my position probably has more to do with my vagueness than anything else. Let me just say that IMO without the ban the problem of racism would have been exacerbated within the church–not to mention the further difficulties that may have come from without.
How many members were truely ready to be lead by a black bishop back in the day? Too many whites would have been offended and too many blacks would have been denigrated by such offenses beyond that which they have already suffered. It was culturally unthinkable–as sad as it is to contemplate such things.

According to your logic God is a murderer because he commanded the Israelites to kill every male among the Middiantes.

May be. War is complicated matter. I would like to take a look at the exact passage that you have in your mind.

One thing is for sure. There are passages in the Old Testament that one has to attribute to propaganda rather than revelation.

You missed my point entirely.

I am still not sure that I understand your position. To me the test of a sound policy regarding the race ban is that no one’s child is denigrated in the name of God.

The current policy leaves all of our children vulnerable. It undermines the self-esteem of African children and inculcates European children with racist arrogance.

Whatever it takes that has to end.

You missed my point entirely. I said that it’s probably better to apologize (rather than get in a tango over the reasons why since we really don’t know) *especially* with regard to some of the reasoning set forth for the ban. Some of it is down-right silly. But when Brigham Young says (in so many words) in the name of the Savior that blacks shall not receive the priesthood, then it gets a little tricky re: whether or not it was the right thing to do for a time inspite of the silly reasoning.

According to your logic God is a murderer because he commanded the Israelites to kill every male among the Middiantes.

That is not in the past. It happens every week to African American children. Their teachers continue to proclaim doctrine as long as we hold to the notion that God authorized Brigham Young to discriminate against Africans.

The more faithful the children are, the greater the damage. Count your blessings, I guess.

HP/JDC #105. It is true that Quakers were never a mass movement. But they have been the salt of the earth. Their righteousness compromised their appeal while setting the American agenda.

There is a reason why the Savior taught us to take the narrow path. With respect to slavery and racism, Brigham Young chose the broad road. The Quakers chose the narrow path.

That’s another indicator that Young’s decision was less than Christlike.

Quakers were never many but they brought about religious freedom in Massachusetts. They respected the rights of native Americans. They attacked slavery. Even during our life time, Quakers continue to pay the price for loving our enemies.

The idolatry of numbers is a weakness of Mormon identity, which undermines our commitment to the Savior’s values.

You’re right that it’s probably better to say sorry, especially with regard to some of the reason set forth for the ban. However, I can’t help but feel that we might be swallowing too big a fish if we apologize for its implementation when we really have no way of knowing that BY was simply going with his gut “racist” instincts rather than revelation. On at least one occasion he involked the name of the Savior in stating his position on the ban. If we heard such a statement today from the president of the church (on whatever issue) we’d all be jumping pretty high.

Also, when you say that you don’t buy the idea that the ban was to protect the church from “anti-black forces” I think you’re modernizing–and thereby over-simplifying–the issue a bit too much. The whole of society was segregated in those days. No doubt, even most abolitionists would have had great difficulty with the idea of giving their daughters in marraige to black men. It was a different world.

The anti-slavery groups you mention did not have much of a presence in the South.

I am not buying the idea that the Ban was to protect the church from anti-black forces in Society.

We will never know why. I am simply glad (as are most of my mission converts in Africa) that its behind us. Its better to say sorry and make it right then to try and come up with historically weak semi-justifications

Well, I don’t think I’d put it that way but if one considers the history of Israel it sure can cast a bad light on God by modern standards. When do we see the “chosen people” doing anything about neighboring countries? Except, perhaps, annihilating them? No out-stretched hand of fellowship at all. What was God up too all those millennia?

God is the worst relativist. What do you think! He is a Darwinist!!! What is survival of the fittest??? We eat each other. Whatever works.

Mercy.