We argue about reconciling Evolution with the gospel when there is no conflict there and then magically ignore reconciling the ban with its removal.
We argue about evolution because, whether you admit it or not, evolution taken on its own terms contradicts key truth claims of the Gospel.
We ignore the ban because there's not enough information either way.
We likewise generally ignore polygamy for the same reason.
The last two are crucially different from the first, and that difference is in what is (not) known about them.
Quote
I would like to see one reasonable argument why God "changed his mind" on this issue.
I have a theory, which is perfectly reasonable to me. However, I cannot support it by reference to scriptures nor contemporary documents, so I'll pass. As a hint, I will simply point out that slavery was a live issue at the time of the institution of the ban. I'm not so sanguine about the "it's a mistake" thesis.
If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose my beliefs are true ... and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms. - J. B. S. Haldane
"I see Religion as creating a language to speak of the divine and sacred. Since I see creating this language as a creative act, ... creating a certain view of heaven and earth, a living 'image' of God and Man and their story, past, present and future." - Calmoriah
But have to admit - never saw a predominant African American population there. If memory serves me right on my studies of the country, natives came from a Polynesian culture. And I have no doubt you have many in that country who are readily available for the questions for the missionaries knew very little. Just tough getting objective coverage to answers to those questions I suspect!
This is truly hilarious. Of course there are no African Americans in New Zealand. I love the PC talk. It has rotted this (the USA) country so bad. I think what Bob is saying is that there is no real black people living in New Zealand. Bob just keep digging this hole you are in.
You realize that there are more than just African Americans that are black that live in this world.?
"Mola Ram.... Mola Ram.... Mola Ram Suda Ram. Mola Ram.... Mola Ram.... Mola Ram Suda Ram." Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom.
Dogs have more in common with mammals than they have in common with wolves.
Mola Ram Suda Ram, on 23 April 2012 - 08:02 AM, said:
This is truly hilarious. Of course there are no African Americans in New Zealand. I love the PC talk. It has rotted this (the USA) country so bad. I think what Bob is saying is that there is no real black people living in New Zealand. Bob just keep digging this hole you are in.
You realize that there are more than just African Americans that are black that live in this world.?
From someone who was talking about culturally imposed blinders, it is rather amusing.
When you climb up a ladder, you...begin at the bottom...ascend step by step, until you arrive at the top...so it is with the principles of the Gospel--you must begin with the first...go on until you learn all the principles of exaltation. But it will be a great while after you have passed through the veil before you will have learned them. It is not all to be comprehended in this world. Joseph Smith
Shameless and unabashed user of an iPod touch at church
Contributor
14,971 posts
Posted 23 April 2012 - 11:23 AM
Buckeye, on 20 April 2012 - 06:27 AM, said:
It's the same pattern we see with MMM. The church has apologized. There are still many historical facts that are not settled and likely never will be. But because the church as apologized, there is nothing left for the public to demand and so the issue is dying.
Can you quote or cite such an apology given by the Church?
I'm aware of a Church official (namely, Elder Henry B. Eyring when he was a member of the Quorum of the Twelve) expressing regret. But I don't regard that expression as being the same thing as an apology.
I don't accept that a person or group of people can apologize for something for which they are not accountable. Since today's Church or it's leaders are not responsible for what happened in 1857, they have no standing to apologize for it, although they — or anyone, for that matter — can express regret over it.
Moreover, the Church as an institution was not accountable for it even in 1857, since there was never any authorization, official or otherwise, from the Church for the behavior of the massacre's perpetrators.
If you need a definition for apology, here's an adequate one from dictionary.com:
Quote
awritten or spoken expression of one's regret, remorse, or sorrowfor having insulted, failed, injured, or wronged another:Hedemanded an apology from me for calling him acrook.
As you can see, the definition carries the inherent implication that the party doing the apologizing has some personal accountability for the thing that is being apologized for.
Edited by Scott Lloyd, 23 April 2012 - 11:33 AM.
To whom it may concern: If you feel inclined to do anything for or in behalf of me after I die -- or even while I'm living, for that matter -- that is comparable in intent to Mormon vicarious baptisms or other ordinances for the dead, feel free. I would even regard it as a magnanimous gesture. I would appreciate the thought in any case. Nobody gives you all the facts all at once, leastwise anti-Mormons and hostile critics. If selective focus or emphasis amounts to deceit, they are the worst of offenders. If I detest anything as virulently as anti-Mormons obviously detest Mormonism, feel free to label me as "anti-" the thing I detest. I won't mind in the least. An author who undertakes to criticize publicly another's religious faith and practice has the obligation, in the first instance, to understand it. ... and the anti-Mormon saith unto them: I am no anti-Mormon, for there is none — and thus he whispereth in their ears.
If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose my beliefs are true ... and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms. - J. B. S. Haldane
OK- update on Marvin Perkins- today I got this email, I am busy tonight but wanted to get this posted- I have done editing on the salutation as usual
I had asked him if he was ok with the conference call becoming a "debate" over the history, and this was his reply:
Quote
Monday, April 23, 2012 11:50 AM
Thanks (mfbukowski) Contention is of the devil. When I hear debate, my mind goes to contention. What would be ideal is to have a small group of 10 or less to simply jump on a conference call with their scriptures and have me spend 30 minutes sharing information and scripture that should cause a paradigm shift. At that point, it’s been my experience that their questions would have changed because the positions they came to the call with no longer have a foundation to rest upon. We do these calls all the time, even with our harshest critics. So anyone joining the call will have to do so knowing that they and their viewpoints will be heard and respected and that they commit to do the same. This would be a call to attempt to honor the command to be one, to edify one another.
Let’s move forward. The group can be as small as 2-3, which can then come back and share their individual and collective experiences with the group. We can help 100% of them who have a sincere desire to know. Feel free to post this as well.
"All it takes for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing"
I plan on setting this up- last call for best days and times- if you have a preference, post it here.
"I see Religion as creating a language to speak of the divine and sacred. Since I see creating this language as a creative act, ... creating a certain view of heaven and earth, a living 'image' of God and Man and their story, past, present and future." - Calmoriah
OK- update on Marvin Perkins- today I got this email, I am busy tonight but wanted to get this posted- I have done editing on the salutation as usual
I had asked him if he was ok with the conference call becoming a "debate" over the history, and this was his reply:
I plan on setting this up- last call for best days and times- if you have a preference, post it here.
One Sunday evening might be the best time.
Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way, when you criticize them, you’re a mile away and you have their shoes. - Jack Handey, "Deep Thoughts"
Can you quote or cite such an apology given by the Church?
I'm aware of a Church official (namely, Elder Henry B. Eyring when he was a member of the Quorum of the Twelve) expressing regret. But I don't regard that expression as being the same thing as an apology.
I don't accept that a person or group of people can apologize for something for which they are not accountable. Since today's Church or it's leaders are not responsible for what happened in 1857, they have no standing to apologize for it, although they — or anyone, for that matter — can express regret over it.
...
I view the words expressed by then-Elder Eyring as an apology on behalf of the church. Apparently, the Deseret News and Salt Lake Tribune take the same view:
"The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints issued a long-awaited apology Tuesday for the massacre of an immigrant wagon train by local church members 150 years ago in southwestern Utah." (http://www.deseretne...in-Meadows.html)
"A Mormon apostle, speaking Tuesday at the 150th anniversary memorial service for victims of the Mountain Meadows Massacre, apologized for the church's role, expressing "profound regret for the massacre." (http://www.sltrib.com/ci_6869005)
We'll have to disagree as to whether the leader of an organization can apologize for actions taken by that organization prior to the leader's involvement. In my view, that's entirely appropriate. It's done all the time:
In 2004, Illinois officials apologized for the expulsion of mormons in the 19th century and for the killing of Joseph Smith. (http://www.nytimes.c...nal/08APOL.html)
In 2008, the House of Representatives passed a resolution apologizing to African-Americans for slavery and the era of Jim Crow. (http://articles.cnn....?_s=PM:POLITICS)
In 2000, Pope JPII apologized on behalf of the Catholic Church for sins it had committed against Jews, heretics, women, Gypsies and native peoples. (http://www.guardian....licism.religion)
The church is a "living" organization - at least in the Lord's words. The authority previously possessed by Brigham and others at the time of the massacre was in the possession of President Hinckley and the Twelve at the time Elder Eyring issued the apology. It was therefore appropriate for Elder Eyring, not Brigham, to issue the apology because Elder Eyring, not Brigham, had authority in 2007 to speak for the Church.
It was an apology by the Church. And yes, it was an apology.
Wherefore, for this cause I gave unto you the commandment that ye should go to the Ohio; and there I will give unto you my law; and there you shall be endowed with power from on high;
And inasmuch as my people shall assemble themselves at the Ohio, I have kept in store a blessing such as is not known among the children of men, and it shall be poured forth upon their heads. And from thence men shall go forth into all nations.
Shameless and unabashed user of an iPod touch at church
Contributor
14,971 posts
Posted 24 April 2012 - 10:36 AM
Buckeye, on 24 April 2012 - 10:12 AM, said:
I view the words expressed by then-Elder Eyring as an apology on behalf of the church. Apparently, the Deseret News and Salt Lake Tribune take the same view:
I'm well aware of news coverage of this event. I insist that both the Tribune writer and the writer for my own paper, the Deseret News, were wrong to characterize it as such, for the reason I have already articulated. If I had written the story (and, in fact, I was almost sent down to Cedar City that day to cover it) I would not have termed it as an apology and you would not have had a Deseret News story to marshal in your behalf. I note that Elder Eyring himself, as quoted, did not term it an apology. I think the wording he chose is significant.
In fact, as quoted, he said that "responsibility for the massacre lies with the local leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the regions near Mountain Meadows who also held civic and military positions and with members of the church acting under their direction." He did not say that the Church itself, as an institution, bore responsibility. He could easily have done so had that been the message he intended to convey.
Quote
We'll have to disagree as to whether the leader of an organization can apologize for actions taken by that organization prior to the leader's involvement.
Yes, we do disagree -- diametrically in fact. And I don't see that you have persuasively rebutted my logic. In this instance, the "organization" itself (the Church of Jesus Christ) did not perpetrate the massacre; errant members of that organization did.
Quote
In my view, that's entirely appropriate. It's done all the time:
In 2004, Illinois officials apologized for the expulsion of mormons in the 19th century and for the killing of Joseph Smith. (http://www.nytimes.c...nal/08APOL.html)
I was present at the news conference in Salt Lake City when the Illinois state government officials announced this initiative. As I recall, one of them referenced an issue as to whether it should properly be called an apology as opposed to an expression of regret, as the New York Times story you linked us to makes clear:
Quote
An earlier draft of the resolution asked the Mormons for their "pardon and forgiveness," but the language was weakened at the behest of Illinois lawmakers who said they could not ask forgiveness for acts they had not personally committed.
A question I posed at that news conference was whether any of the officials then present had ancestors who were Illinois residents at the time the Prophet was martyred; none did. Implicit in my question, of course, was the logic I have articulated here: One can express regret about events of the past, but one cannot appropriately apologize for something for which one is not personally accountable.
And even if one's ancestors did commit crimes, a descendant is not accountable for the actions of the ancestor. In short, I reject the fallacy of guilt by association.
Incidentally here's a linkto the story I wrote at the time. I just reviewed it and noted that in none of the official documents I quoted is the word "apologize" or "apology" used.
Quote
In 2008, the House of Representatives passed a resolution apologizing to African-Americans for slavery and the era of Jim Crow. (http://articles.cnn....?_s=PM:POLITICS)
In 2000, Pope JPII apologized on behalf of the Catholic Church for sins it had committed against Jews, heretics, women, Gypsies and native peoples. (http://www.guardian....licism.religion)
My reasoning still applies. Under the definition I have cited it is not properly termed an apology unless the party making the apology assumes accountability.
Quote
The church is a "living" organization - at least in the Lord's words. The authority previously possessed by Brigham and others at the time of the massacre was in the possession of President Hinckley and the Twelve at the time Elder Eyring issued the apology. It was therefore appropriate for Elder Eyring, not Brigham, to issue the apology because Elder Eyring, not Brigham, had authority in 2007 to speak for the Church.
The Church as an institution is not accountable for the unauthorized and errant actions of individual members. If you (I assume you are a Church member) were to go out and commit adultery, for example, you yourself would bear the blame, not the Church. The Church could express regret for your action, but the apology would have to come from you.
Quote
It was an apology by the Church. And yes, it was an apology.
Your assertion is clear; I just don't think you have persuasively argued it.
Edited by Scott Lloyd, 24 April 2012 - 11:23 AM.
To whom it may concern: If you feel inclined to do anything for or in behalf of me after I die -- or even while I'm living, for that matter -- that is comparable in intent to Mormon vicarious baptisms or other ordinances for the dead, feel free. I would even regard it as a magnanimous gesture. I would appreciate the thought in any case. Nobody gives you all the facts all at once, leastwise anti-Mormons and hostile critics. If selective focus or emphasis amounts to deceit, they are the worst of offenders. If I detest anything as virulently as anti-Mormons obviously detest Mormonism, feel free to label me as "anti-" the thing I detest. I won't mind in the least. An author who undertakes to criticize publicly another's religious faith and practice has the obligation, in the first instance, to understand it. ... and the anti-Mormon saith unto them: I am no anti-Mormon, for there is none — and thus he whispereth in their ears.
I agree- that seems to be a time of high usage around here. Thanks for the suggestion.
"I see Religion as creating a language to speak of the divine and sacred. Since I see creating this language as a creative act, ... creating a certain view of heaven and earth, a living 'image' of God and Man and their story, past, present and future." - Calmoriah
I'm well aware of news coverage of this event. I insist that both the Tribune writer and the writer for my own paper, the Deseret News, were wrong to characterize it as such, for the reason I have already articulated. If I had written the story (and, in fact, I was almost sent down to Cedar City that day to cover it) I would not have termed it as an apology and you would not have had a Deseret News story to marshal in your behalf. I note that Elder Eyring himself, as quoted, did not term it an apology. I think the wording he chose is significant.
Yes, we do disagree -- diametrically in fact. And I don't see that you have persuasively rebutted my logic. In this instance, the "organization" itself (the Church of Jesus Christ) did not perpetrate the massacre; errant members of that organization did.
Scott, respectfully, I was not trying to prove anything to you. I was just laying out my position. That fact that the two major newspapers in Utah also described Elder Eyring's words as an "apology" suggests to me that my position is rational. Feel free to disagree (even diametrically).
Quote
I was present at the news conference in Salt Lake City when the Illinois state government officials announced this initiative. As I recall, one of them referenced a minor issue as to whether it should properly be called an apology as opposed to an expression of regret. A question I posed at that news conference was whether any of the officials then present had ancestors who were Illinois residents at the time the Prophet was martyred; none did. Implicit in my question, of course, was the logic I have articulated here: One can express regret about events of the past, but one cannot appropriately apologize for something for which one is not personally accountable.
My reasoning still applies. Under the definition I have applied it is not properly termed an apology unless the party making the apology assumes accountability.
Wow, this really is a big issue for you. My point, though, is that others see it differently.
[Edited to add: Re-reading your statement caused me to see something else. It appears by your question to the Illinois delegation that you may believe it appropriate for blood decendants to apologize for the actions of the predecessors, but not organizational leaders. Thus, Senator XYZ from Georgia could not apology on behalf of the US government for slavery, but he could apologize on behalf of the XYZ family for the slaves his ancestors controlled. Is this right? Please elaborate]
Quote
The Church as an institution is not accountable for the unauthorized and errant actions of individual members. If you (I assume you are a Church member) were to go out and commit adultery, for example, you yourself would bear the blame, not the Church. The Church could express regret for your action, but the apology would have to come from you.
Well, as an attorney, I can tell you that in some instances the Church can be held liable for unauthorized and errant actions of individual members. For instance, the Church has been held liable for child abuse committed by its members in the course of Church-sponsored activities.
As for the apology/regret dichotomy, I would offer the following:
I still think modern leadership or any organization can issue an apology for prior actions by members (particularly leaders) of the organization. It's been done many times. I cited a few examples. There are many more.
Regardless, I think many of those who would like to see an "apology" for the racial ban would be more than content with an "expression of regret." The central theme is not whether the current leadership is personally responsible for prior actions, but whether the prior actions were wrong. An expression of "regret" would be acknolwedgement of error just as much as an apology, and so should suffice.
That said, it would be possible (though I am not suggesting this) for some current leaders to personally apologize for actions taken or not taken by them prior to 1978. Even under your theory, for instance, President Monson could say he was sorry for not spurring action sooner. Again, I'm not saying he should. I don't know his heart. But unlike, MMM, many of the current leadership were involved in maintaining the priesthood ban.
Edited by Buckeye, 24 April 2012 - 11:12 AM.
Wherefore, for this cause I gave unto you the commandment that ye should go to the Ohio; and there I will give unto you my law; and there you shall be endowed with power from on high;
And inasmuch as my people shall assemble themselves at the Ohio, I have kept in store a blessing such as is not known among the children of men, and it shall be poured forth upon their heads. And from thence men shall go forth into all nations.
Shameless and unabashed user of an iPod touch at church
Contributor
14,971 posts
Posted 24 April 2012 - 11:40 AM
Buckeye, on 24 April 2012 - 11:08 AM, said:
Scott, respectfully, I was not trying to prove anything to you. I was just laying out my position.
A position you continue to push without providing persuasive logic or substantiation.
Quote
That fact that the two major newspapers in Utah also described Elder Eyring's words as an "apology" suggests to me that my position is rational. Feel free to disagree (even diametrically).
This is not as momentous as you want it to be. News writers phrase things inaccurately quite often. As I pointed out to you, another writer might have chosen different wording without having his/her judgement questioned by an editor. In fact, the Deseret News writer in this instance easily could have been me, and I would have written it to more closely reflect what Elder Eyring actually did say on that occasion.
Quote
Wow, this really is a big issue for you. My point, though, is that others see it differently.
I recognize that others see it differently. What we are arguing is whether they are justified in doing so; thus far you have not made that case.
Quote
[Edited to add: Re-reading your statement caused me to see something else. It appears by your question to the Illinois delegation that you may believe it appropriate for blood decendants to apologize for the actions of the predecessors, but not organizational leaders. Thus, Senator XYZ from Georgia could not apology on behalf of the US government for slavery, but he could apologize on behalf of the XYZ family for the slaves his ancestors controlled. Is this right? Please elaborate]
Apparently you didn't read my later edit wherein I added, "And even if one's ancestors did commit crimes, a descendant is not accountable for the actions of the ancestor. In short, I reject the fallacy of guilt by association."
I invite you to go back and read the edited version of my post. I added a link to a story I wrote about that expression of regret by the state of Illinois. I quoted the documents, and in none of them is the word "apology" or "apologize" used. And the New York Times piece you linked us to makes a point of saying that the Illinois legislature weakened the language in the resolution because of the very logic I have been articulating here: You' can't apologize for a wrong you yourself didn't commit.
Quote
Well, as an attorney, I can tell you that in some instances the Church can be held liable for unauthorized and errant actions of individual members. For instance, the Church has been held liable for child abuse committed by its members in the course of Church-sponsored activities.
Alas, not all court rulings are just. Judges and juries have been wrong many times in the past, and I daresay there will be occasions in the future when they are wrong.
Quote
As for the apology/regret dichotomy, I would offer the following:
I still think modern leadership or any organization can issue an apology for prior actions by members (particularly leaders) of the organization. It's been done many times. I cited a few examples. There are many more.
Be that as it may, under the definition of apology I cited, one cannot properly apologize for a thing unless one assumes personal or institutional accountability for that thing. It's an important distinction whether or not you choose to recognize it.
Quote
Regardless, I think many of those who would like to see an "apology" for the racial ban would be more than content with an "expression of regret." The central theme is not whether the current leadership is personally responsible for prior actions, but whether the prior actions were wrong. An expression of "regret" would be acknolwedgement of error just as much as an apology, and so should suffice.
That said, it would be possible (though I am not suggesting this) for some current leaders to personally apologize for actions taken or not taken by them prior to 1978. Even under your theory, for instance, President Monson could say he was sorry for not spurring action sooner. Again, I'm not saying he should. I don't know his heart. But unlike, MMM, many of the current leadership were involved in maintaining the priesthood ban.
This is peripheral to the point I'm making pertaining to whether or not the Church "apologized" (or has standing to apologize) for Mountain Meadows.
Again, you have not persuasively rebutted my logic on that point. If you have some new argument to add, and not merely a restatement of your assertion, feel free to respond. Otherwise, I don't have time for an endless back-and-forth.
Edited by Scott Lloyd, 24 April 2012 - 12:03 PM.
To whom it may concern: If you feel inclined to do anything for or in behalf of me after I die -- or even while I'm living, for that matter -- that is comparable in intent to Mormon vicarious baptisms or other ordinances for the dead, feel free. I would even regard it as a magnanimous gesture. I would appreciate the thought in any case. Nobody gives you all the facts all at once, leastwise anti-Mormons and hostile critics. If selective focus or emphasis amounts to deceit, they are the worst of offenders. If I detest anything as virulently as anti-Mormons obviously detest Mormonism, feel free to label me as "anti-" the thing I detest. I won't mind in the least. An author who undertakes to criticize publicly another's religious faith and practice has the obligation, in the first instance, to understand it. ... and the anti-Mormon saith unto them: I am no anti-Mormon, for there is none — and thus he whispereth in their ears.
Okay, Scott, enough back-and-forth as to the term "apology." I'm comfortable with my view. You are comfortable with yours. Let's move on.
That said, I do not think the possibility of an "expression of regret" for the priesthood ban is a peripheral issue. This thread was created to discuss the possibility of a church apology for the ban. If an "expression of regret" would serve the same purpose as an apology, and that phrase would be more acceptable to some (such as you) than the phrase "apology", perhaps an expression of regret is what Oliverio should push for. Again, I think Oliverio's desire (and many others) is that the ban be repudiated. They don't care so much that some individual or even the church takes a fall for the ban. They just want it to be 100% clear that the ban was not of God.
Wherefore, for this cause I gave unto you the commandment that ye should go to the Ohio; and there I will give unto you my law; and there you shall be endowed with power from on high;
And inasmuch as my people shall assemble themselves at the Ohio, I have kept in store a blessing such as is not known among the children of men, and it shall be poured forth upon their heads. And from thence men shall go forth into all nations.
Shameless and unabashed user of an iPod touch at church
Contributor
14,971 posts
Posted 24 April 2012 - 12:08 PM
Buckeye, on 24 April 2012 - 12:03 PM, said:
Okay, Scott, enough back-and-forth as to the term "apology." I'm comfortable with my view. You are comfortable with yours.
That was foregone. What was in question (and still is) was whether you could make a persuasive case for your view; you haven't.
Quote
That said, I do not think the possibility of an "expression of regret" for the priesthood ban is a peripheral issue. This thread was created to discuss the possibility of a church apology for the ban. If an "expression of regret" would serve the same purpose as an apology, and that phrase would be more acceptable to some (such as you) than the phrase "apology", perhaps an expression of regret is what Oliverio should push for. Again, I think Oliverio's desire (and many others) is that the ban be repudiated. They don't care so much that some individual or even the church takes a fall for the ban. They just want it to be 100% clear that the ban was not of God.
Though I rejoiced (and still do) over the 1978 revelation, I'm not one to jump on the bandwagon that the Church should apologize or express regret or acknowledge error for the way things were pre-1978. But it's not a matter I choose to argue about here. So I guess my presence on this thread has come to an end.
To whom it may concern: If you feel inclined to do anything for or in behalf of me after I die -- or even while I'm living, for that matter -- that is comparable in intent to Mormon vicarious baptisms or other ordinances for the dead, feel free. I would even regard it as a magnanimous gesture. I would appreciate the thought in any case. Nobody gives you all the facts all at once, leastwise anti-Mormons and hostile critics. If selective focus or emphasis amounts to deceit, they are the worst of offenders. If I detest anything as virulently as anti-Mormons obviously detest Mormonism, feel free to label me as "anti-" the thing I detest. I won't mind in the least. An author who undertakes to criticize publicly another's religious faith and practice has the obligation, in the first instance, to understand it. ... and the anti-Mormon saith unto them: I am no anti-Mormon, for there is none — and thus he whispereth in their ears.
Okay, Scott, enough back-and-forth as to the term "apology." I'm comfortable with my view. You are comfortable with yours. Let's move on.
That said, I do not think the possibility of an "expression of regret" for the priesthood ban is a peripheral issue. This thread was created to discuss the possibility of a church apology for the ban. If an "expression of regret" would serve the same purpose as an apology, and that phrase would be more acceptable to some (such as you) than the phrase "apology", perhaps an expression of regret is what Oliverio should push for. Again, I think Oliverio's desire (and many others) is that the ban be repudiated. They don't care so much that some individual or even the church takes a fall for the ban. They just want it to be 100% clear that the ban was not of God.
How can something be repudiated when its genesis is as little understood as this issue?
How can something be repudiated when its genesis is as little understood as this issue?
I think the amount of scholarship on the priesthood ban is larger than that for MMM. Thus, if the Church could "apologize" or "express regret" (choose your phrase) for MMM, it could also do so for the priesthood ban. If additional understanding is needed, then it should be sought. Perhaps the Church could commission an independent review of all the historical materials relating to the ban, just at it did with MMM.
Wherefore, for this cause I gave unto you the commandment that ye should go to the Ohio; and there I will give unto you my law; and there you shall be endowed with power from on high;
And inasmuch as my people shall assemble themselves at the Ohio, I have kept in store a blessing such as is not known among the children of men, and it shall be poured forth upon their heads. And from thence men shall go forth into all nations.
Shameless and unabashed user of an iPod touch at church
Contributor
14,971 posts
Posted 24 April 2012 - 01:52 PM
Buckeye, on 24 April 2012 - 12:34 PM, said:
I think the amount of scholarship on the priesthood ban is larger than that for MMM. Thus, if the Church could "apologize" or "express regret" (choose your phrase) for MMM, it could also do so for the priesthood ban. If additional understanding is needed, then it should be sought. Perhaps the Church could commission an independent review of all the historical materials relating to the ban, just at it did with MMM.
Mountain Meadows is not the precedent that you want it to be. As much as you wish it to be so, the Church has not apologized or assumed accountability for the crimes committed on that occasion in 1857, though it has deplored and expressed regret for them.
And as much as you might wish it to be so, the Church has not acknowledged error in the pre-1978 policy with regard to the priesthood, nor is it likely to do so. This makes it quite unlike Mountain Meadows, where there was clear wrongdoing and such wrongdoing has been publicly deplored.
You are trying to draw a correlation where there is no such correlation to be drawn.
Edited by Scott Lloyd, 24 April 2012 - 02:24 PM.
To whom it may concern: If you feel inclined to do anything for or in behalf of me after I die -- or even while I'm living, for that matter -- that is comparable in intent to Mormon vicarious baptisms or other ordinances for the dead, feel free. I would even regard it as a magnanimous gesture. I would appreciate the thought in any case. Nobody gives you all the facts all at once, leastwise anti-Mormons and hostile critics. If selective focus or emphasis amounts to deceit, they are the worst of offenders. If I detest anything as virulently as anti-Mormons obviously detest Mormonism, feel free to label me as "anti-" the thing I detest. I won't mind in the least. An author who undertakes to criticize publicly another's religious faith and practice has the obligation, in the first instance, to understand it. ... and the anti-Mormon saith unto them: I am no anti-Mormon, for there is none — and thus he whispereth in their ears.
If my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain, I have no reason to suppose my beliefs are true ... and hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms. - J. B. S. Haldane
What, lawyers don't make mistakes in communication?
When you climb up a ladder, you...begin at the bottom...ascend step by step, until you arrive at the top...so it is with the principles of the Gospel--you must begin with the first...go on until you learn all the principles of exaltation. But it will be a great while after you have passed through the veil before you will have learned them. It is not all to be comprehended in this world. Joseph Smith
0
mfbukowski, on 22 April 2012 - 09:47 PM, said:
