1st Pres. and NAACP

[JAHS]

On 5/17/2018 at 8:08 AM, Ginger Snaps said:

On 5/17/2018 at 7:59 AM, Gray said:

Oh my goodness! I am stunned!!!

 

https://www.mormon-newsroom.org/article/president-nelson-meets-with-NAACP-offers-apology-for-history-of-racism/

 

 

So am I, but thrilled too!  This is truly a historic moment. 

Looks like this fake news website has been taken down. The link is dead now. 

[Scott Lloyd]

13 hours ago, Exiled said:

It seems we can never judge the mormon past. 150 years ago wasn't that long ago. There were abolitionists back then and supposedly mormons were too, except where it counted. Also god, who is supposedly eternal, could have and should have stepped in to correct the nonsense if his prophets were too tied up in cultural mores to do the right thing.

The fact that he didn't -- even in later years when it was clear David O. McKay and others wanted to end the ban but did not feel at liberty to do so without clear revelatorty direction -- says a great deal to me about whether it is to be viewed as a mistake.

[Scott Lloyd]

13 hours ago, Exiled said:

It's sad to think an apology won't ever happen, though. Pres. Eyring came pretty close over mountain meadows and maybe something similar could happen regarding this issue. At least it ought to be viewed churchwide as mistakes of men if an apology can't happen.

Then-Elder Eyring expressed profound regret on behalf of the Church. But I don't believe it was ever the intent of the Church or Elder Eyring to apologize in the sense of accepting blame or culpability. The Church as an institution is not to blame for the errant actions of members acting in contravention of the Church's established values and principles. Moreover, those who were not alive then cannot accept blame for the actions of those who are long since dead.

[Exiled]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Then-Elder Eyring expressed profound regret on behalf of the Church. But I don't believe it was ever the intent of the Church or Elder Eyring to apologize in the sense of accepting blame or culpability. The Church as an institution is not to blame for the errant actions of members acting in contravention of the Church's established values and principles. Moreover, those who were not alive then cannot accept blame for the actions of those who are long since dead.

I think a public expression of profound regret would go a long way.  Of course you and I cannot be blamed for what our ancestors did and the church leaders today cannot be responsible for what the leaders of the past did.  However, there can be a public acknowledgement that the ban was wrong and an expression of regret for it happening, that is if one is willing to acknowledge that it didn't come from God.  But you think the ban did come from God, why?  Is it allowed to speculate why?  Or does that open up yet another can of worms that is best left shut?  I think the safe course is to just admit that it was a mistake of men, like mountain meadows was a horrible mistake of men, like God supposedly commanding the israelites to slaughter all those people in the old testament was a mistake or more likely myth.

[HappyJackWagon]

30 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Then-Elder Eyring expressed profound regret on behalf of the Church. But I don't believe it was ever the intent of the Church or Elder Eyring to apologize in the sense of accepting blame or culpability. The Church as an institution is not to blame for the errant actions of members acting in contravention of the Church's established values and principles. Moreover, those who were not alive then cannot accept blame for the actions of those who are long since dead.

It would be silly for the church to be blamed when its members believed and acted upon church teachings. The members obviously should have known better  It is foolishness to presume the church and its leaders are perfect and worthy of the member's trust. Silly, I tell ya.

Also, it is not unusual for leaders of institutions to accept responsibility and blame for harm the institution has caused in the past. As one example, here's a story about National Geographic's racial apology. It can be done if a leader chooses to lead. https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/03/national-geographic-racism-apology-repents-past/

[Exiled]

3 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

It would be silly for the church to be blamed when its members believed and acted upon church teachings. The members obviously should have known better  It is foolishness to presume the church and its leaders are perfect and worthy of the member's trust. Silly, I tell ya.

Also, it is not unusual for leaders of institutions to accept responsibility and blame for harm the institution has caused in the past. As one example, here's a story about National Geographic's racial apology. It can be done if a leader chooses to lead. https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/03/national-geographic-racism-apology-repents-past/

I get the hair splitting that Lloyd is doing.  You and I aren't responsible for our great-grandparents' views on race, etc.  So, if a profound expression of regret and an admission of it being wrong is what we can hope for, then let's have it and do it publicly.  Pres. Eyring is good at choking up at the right times and maybe E. Holland could be there as well.  He is good at tearing up on queue.

[JAHS]

7 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

It would be silly for the church to be blamed when its members believed and acted upon church teachings. The members obviously should have known better  It is foolishness to presume the church and its leaders are perfect and worthy of the member's trust. Silly, I tell ya.

Also, it is not unusual for leaders of institutions to accept responsibility and blame for harm the institution has caused in the past. As one example, here's a story about National Geographic's racial apology. It can be done if a leader chooses to lead. https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/03/national-geographic-racism-apology-repents-past/

Notice what they said though:
"Over the years, National Geographic has published numerous articles that would be considered racist by today’s standards."

At the time the stories were published they were not considered racist by the standards of the day back then. 

[Exiled]

1 minute ago, JAHS said:

Notice what they said though:
"Over the years, National Geographic has published numerous articles that would be considered racist by today’s standards."

At the time the stories were published they were not considered racist by the standards of the day back then. 

The problem I have with your presentism argument is that it wasn't all that long ago that the ban was in place.  E. Stapely was in my ward prior to the ban being lifted and he preached from the pulpit the "less valiant" nonsense.  President Benson and his john bircher's thought the civil rights movement was a communist plot (as a convenient way to silence it no doubt).  It simply wasn't that long ago.

[JAHS]

31 minutes ago, Exiled said:

The problem I have with your presentism argument is that it wasn't all that long ago that the ban was in place.  E. Stapely was in my ward prior to the ban being lifted and he preached from the pulpit the "less valiant" nonsense.  President Benson and his john bircher's thought the civil rights movement was a communist plot (as a convenient way to silence it no doubt).  It simply wasn't that long ago.

Doesn't really matter the number of years, it's the attitude of the culture and people of the times, even if it's only 50 years ago. The ban wasn't lifted until it was the right time to do so and could be accepted by most of the church members. 

[Tacenda]

15 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Doesn't really matter the number of years, it's the attitude of the culture and people of the times, even if it's only 50 years ago. The ban wasn't lifted until it was the right time to do so and could be accepted by most of the church members. 

Members were too racist to accept it earlier than 1978? Pretty darn sad lot then!

[Exiled]

22 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Doesn't really matter the number of years, it's the attitude of the culture and people of the times, even if it's only 50 years ago. The ban wasn't lifted until it was the right time to do so and could be accepted by most of the church members. 

I don't think the church members were ever canvassed but I could be mistaken.  I think it was yet another top down decision, supposedly from the Lord.  Although today, according to the essay, it is unclear why they thought they needed a revelation to change the racist policy in the first place.  There is a lot of fog regarding the ban itself, the reasons behind it, who was responsible, why a revelation was even necessary, etc.  We just don't know when we remain under the pillow, hiding behind presentism, or some other nebulous concept.  We aren't to blame as there is no more ban and those from the past cannot be blamed because, you know, presentism.  When does presentism start by the way?  10 years ago?  20 years ago?  Certainly pre-1978 because heaven forbid someone takes responsibility or is held to account.

You know the issue wouldn't be that big of a deal today had the church done away with this in the 60's when everyone else was waking up.  Maybe the church could have had some real credibility had it actually led and done away with the ban in the 40's or even 50's.  Sure, the church might have lost some members in the South but it would have been held up as a standard today and perhaps would be getting a lot of converts today had it taken a leadership position in the past.  But God's ways are mysterious.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

It would be silly for the church to be blamed when its members believed and acted upon church teachings. The members obviously should have known better  It is foolishness to presume the church and its leaders are perfect and worthy of the member's trust. Silly, I tell ya.

 

I don't know what you're trying to convey with this sarcasm, but the Church of Jesus Christ has never done anything close to instructing its members to commit mass killings. The blame for Mountain Meadows rests squarely with those who perpetrated it.

Quote

Also, it is not unusual for leaders of institutions to accept responsibility and blame for harm the institution has caused in the past. As one example, here's a story about National Geographic's racial apology. It can be done if a leader chooses to lead. https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/03/national-geographic-racism-apology-repents-past/

Your analogy would be valid if the order to do the massacre had come from the Church as an institution. But it didn't, so your analogy and reasoning fail.

[Kenngo1969]

2 hours ago, Exiled said:

I get the hair splitting that Lloyd is doing.  You and I aren't responsible for our great-grandparents' views on race, etc.  So, if a profound expression of regret and an admission of it being wrong is what we can hope for, then let's have it and do it publicly.  Pres. Eyring is good at choking up at the right times and maybe E. Holland could be there as well.  He is good at tearing up on queue.

So, you're really good at sneering condescension.  Congratulations!  If that's all you've got, though, I wouldn't blame anybody for not bothering to engage you substantively.

[JAHS]

4 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Members were too racist to accept it earlier than 1978? Pretty darn sad lot then!

The light didn't suddenly turn on for all members  in 1978, but there was a gradual acceptance of the idea starting to grow years before then. 
Even after 1978 there were still some that belonged to your sad lot club; and not just members of the church. 

[Calm]

It may not have only been racism that delayed but a willingness to accept change/new revelation that appears in some people's eyes to contradict the older revelation (for those that believed it was revelation, which would probably have been much higher percentage because the relevant historical documents were unknown or less known).

[Gray]

18 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I'm in his room. We've reviewed the fraudulent apology. I asked him his opinion. His exact words, shared with his express permission:

'The Church didn't do anything wrong with the previous policy, so they don't have anything to apologise for'.

He both rolled his eyes and shook his head as he said this. This is not the first time I've showed him where others are presuming to speak on his behalf. He finds it distasteful.

Who was speaking on his behalf?

[Exiled]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

It may not have only been racism that delayed but a willingness to accept change/new revelation that appears in some people's eyes to contradict the older revelation (for those that believed it was revelation, which would probably have been much higher percentage because the relevant historical documents were unknown or less known).

It could have been almost anything as always.  What do we really know about anything in the past?  However, in my family and my friend's families' opinions, they really wanted the ban to change.  We had a bunch of BYU football fans in the ward and a player that started on the team.  The protests and refusals to play BYU took its toll.  Also, we had lived in the Bay Area in the late 60's and my mother hated being called out by the Black Panthers in threatening tones because of the ban.  So, as far as we were concerned and those around me, we wanted the ban to be done.  Lastly, I distinctly remember an audible gasp in the ward when E. Stapley defiantly reiterated his "less valiant" reasons behind the ban.  Even so, it probably was those unready members that held back our righteous leaders. 

Edited May 19, 2018 by Exiled

[Hamba Tuhan]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

Who was speaking on his behalf?

Really??? You're the one who commented on my post quoted below:

On 5/18/2018 at 2:47 PM, Hamba Tuhan said:

You certainly don't speak for me or, I'm quite certain (based on numerous past discussions), my black housemate on this topic.

In addition, half the people in this thread seem quite happy to project their own offence, assumptions and hopes onto our black brothers and sisters, many of whom share none of the above. It's distasteful.

[Exiled]

16 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Really??? You're the one who commented on my post quoted below:

In addition, half the people in this thread seem quite happy to project their own offence, assumptions and hopes onto our black brothers and sisters, many of whom share none of the above. It's distasteful.

So, how should we comment on this thread if not giving our own opinions on how we view this issue?  If there are any african-american brothers and sisters viewing this thread, please comment.  I know I would like to hear about their views on this subject.  When I was in N. Carolina and then Brazil on my mission, I know I got an earful at times on this subject.  Also, post-mission, I have a lot of african-american clients that need reassurance when they find out that I grew up in SLC, especially those of the older generations.

[2BizE]

On 5/17/2018 at 10:47 PM, Hamba Tuhan said:

You certainly don't speak for me or, I'm quite certain (based on numerous past discussions), my black housemate on this topic.

I apologize.  I'm sure you  are correct. Not everyone would enjoy a heartfelt apology.  However,  this doctrinal ban was offensive to many people who are not black, even though it only affected black people.

[sunstoned]

11 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Members were too racist to accept it earlier than 1978? Pretty darn sad lot then!

It is also not true.  It is just apologist spin.

[Marginal Gains]

6 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Really??? You're the one who commented on my post quoted below:

In addition, half the people in this thread seem quite happy to project their own offence, assumptions and hopes onto our black brothers and sisters, many of whom share none of the above. It's distasteful.

You think the Priesthood Ban only offended black people?

And if non black people being offended about the Priesthood Ban is distasteful to you, isn’t your taking offence about the taking offence likewise distasteful? 

Can you quantify the term “many” in your claim that “many of whom share none of the above.” Just how “many” black members do you presume to speak on behalf of?

Edited May 20, 2018 by Marginal Gains

[california boy]

15 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The fact that he didn't -- even in later years when it was clear David O. McKay and others wanted to end the ban but did not feel at liberty to do so without clear revelatorty direction -- says a great deal to me about whether it is to be viewed as a mistake.

If the priesthood ban was wrong in 1978, why wasn’t it wrong in 1949?  

[Gray]

12 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Really??? You're the one who commented on my post quoted below:

In addition, half the people in this thread seem quite happy to project their own offence, assumptions and hopes onto our black brothers and sisters, many of whom share none of the above. It's distasteful.

Sorry Hamba, the only one attempting to speak for your housemate is you.  All I said to you was this:

"Since your black friend isn't here to speak for himself, maybe it's best just to speak for yourself?"

Black people don't exist to give white people an alibi to support racist things. Black people can  speak for themselves on racial issues. There's a long ugly history of white people (or non black people) using "my black friend" to deflect criticism from supporting something racist. Maybe I'm more sensitive to it because I'm an American and you're left scratching your head because you're not. But over here at least it's very unseemly.

Edited May 20, 2018 by Gray

[Gray]

19 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Members were too racist to accept it earlier than 1978? Pretty darn sad lot then!

I think the ban kept people who otherwise wouldn't be racist more willing to accept racism.