Can The Church Admit Some Fault In Order To Heal And Move On?

[Libs]

I was told (as a new convert) that the Book of Mormon was translated in private, with a sheet up between Joseph and the scribe, so that even the scribe didn't know how it was done.

[SilverKnight]

More importantly, what do the leaders (today) say? Do they believe the ban was from God?

No they do not.

Elder Holland has gone on record saying it was folklore:

I've talked to many blacks and many whites as well about the lingering folklore [about why blacks couldn't have the priesthood]. These are faithful Mormons who are delighted about this revelation, and yet who feel something more should be said about the folklore and even possibly about the mysterious reasons for the ban itself, which was not a revelation; it was a practice. So if you could, briefly address the concerns Mormons have about this folklore and what should be done.

One clear-cut position is that the folklore must never be perpetuated. ... I have to concede to my earlier colleagues. ... They, I'm sure, in their own way, were doing the best they knew to give shape to [the policy], to give context for it, to give even history to it. All I can say is however well intended the explanations were, I think almost all of them were inadequate and/or wrong. ...

It probably would have been advantageous to say nothing, to say we just don't know, and, [as] with many religious matters, whatever was being done was done on the basis of faith at that time. But some explanations were given and had been given for a lot of years. ... At the very least, there should be no effort to perpetuate those efforts to explain why that doctrine existed. 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.

What is the folklore, quite specifically?

Well, some of the folklore that you must be referring to are suggestions that there were decisions made in the pre-mortal councils where someone had not been as decisive in their loyalty to a Gospel plan or the procedures on earth or what was to unfold in mortality, and that therefore that opportunity and mortality was compromised. I really don't know a lot of the details of those, because fortunately I've been able to live in the period where we're not expressing or teaching them, but I think that's the one I grew up hearing the most, was that it was something to do with the pre-mortal councils. ... But I think that's the part that must never be taught until anybody knows a lot more than I know. ... 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. ...

We don't pretend that something wasn't taught or practice wasn't pursued for whatever reason. But I think we can be unequivocal and we can be declarative in our current literature, in books that we reproduce, in teachings that go forward, whatever, that from this time forward, from 1978 forward, we can make sure that nothing of that is declared. That may be where we still need to make sure that we're absolutely dutiful, that we put [a] careful eye of scrutiny on anything from earlier writings and teachings, just [to] make sure that that's not perpetuated in the present. That's the least, I think, of our current responsibilities on that topic. ...

http://www.pbs.org/mormons/interviews/holland.html

[Libs]

No they do not.

Elder Holland has gone on record saying it was folklore:

http://www.pbs.org/mormons/interviews/holland.html

I've seen that before. He's not calling the "ban", itself, folklore. As a matter of fact, he calls it "doctrine".

"we simply do not know why that practice, that policy, that doctrine was in place."

What he is denouncing are the the "whys" of the ban...all of the explanations given over the years, like "not valiant in the pre-existence" or "Curse of Cain" explanations. I don't see him saying the ban, itself, was folklore.

[Mars]

I think it's fair to say at the very least that the ban was allowed by God, given the context of its revocation.

The "why" is exactly what we fight over... The critic says that it's evidence the Church is man-made institution, bowing to the racist culture of the time. The believer has sometimes said that it was because black folks were less valiant, or some curse of Cain hullaballoo that was passed down through his descendants.

I don't believe for a moment that any of those who were unable to hold the Priesthood while the ban was in force were denied any measure of blessings in the eternities by God. So why have the ban, then? That's another one I'll have to sit down and talk to God about...

[SilverKnight]

I've seen that before. He's not calling the "ban", itself, folklore. As a matter of fact, he calls it "doctrine".

"we simply do not know why that practice, that policy, that doctrine was in place."

What he is denouncing are the the "whys" of the ban...all of the explanations given over the years, like "not valiant in the pre-existence" or "Curse of Cain" explanations. I don't see him saying the ban, itself, was folklore.

That's as close as your going to get to an LDS leader calling it folklore - but many have called it a policy not based on any sort of doctrine or revelation.

David O. McKay privately told numerous people he felt it was a policy, not a doctrine, before the ban was lifted.

Hugh B. Brown felt it was undoctrinal as well. He felt since it was a policy it could be changed by administrative procedure, and called for a vote to change it in a meeting of the Q12. The Quorum voted unanimously to change it. But one apostle, Harold B Lee, who was not present for the vote, felt a revelation was needed to change the policy. So without unanimity the effort failed.

[Libs]

That's as close as your going to get to an LDS leader calling it folklore - but many have called it a policy not based on any sort of doctrine or revelation.

David O. McKay privately told numerous people he felt it was a policy, not a doctrine, before the ban was lifted.

Hugh B. Brown felt it was undoctrinal as well. He felt since it was a policy it could be changed by administrative procedure, and called for a vote to change it in a meeting of the Q12. The Quorum voted unanimously to change it. But one apostle, Harold B Lee, who was not present for the vote, felt a revelation was needed to change the policy. So without unanimity the effort failed.

Thanks, SilverKnight. That's really interesting. I had not heard that before.

I am really curious as to what President Monson thinks about it. I don't think I've ever seen him speak about it.

[cinepro]

I was told (as a new convert) that the Book of Mormon was translated in private, with a sheet up between Joseph and the scribe, so that even the scribe didn't know how it was done.

I'm sure whoever told you that was sincere in their belief that that was how it was done. I think Martin Harris may have mentioned a curtain for his part in the process (which was limited to the lost 116 pages), but for the other scribes (Emma, Oliver and John Whitmer), none ever mentioned a curtain, nor did any of the people who were in the room at the time.

[Libs]

I think it's fair to say at the very least that the ban was allowed by God, given the context of its revocation.

The "why" is exactly what we fight over... The critic says that it's evidence the Church is man-made institution, bowing to the racist culture of the time. The believer has sometimes said that it was because black folks were less valiant, or some curse of Cain hullaballoo that was passed down through his descendants.

I don't believe for a moment that any of those who were unable to hold the Priesthood while the ban was in force were denied any measure of blessings in the eternities by God. So why have the ban, then? That's another one I'll have to sit down and talk to God about...

I can buy that God allowed it, but I don't think he commanded it. Was really just wondering where the church now stands on this issue. I thought it was fairly solid that it was believed to have been in the realm of doctrinal revelation of some sort. Most LDS (I have known) defend it with a comparison to the O.T. Temple where only Levites held the Priesthood.

[Libs]

I'm sure whoever told you that was sincere in their belief that that was how it was done. I think Martin Harris may have mentioned a curtain for his part in the process (which was limited to the lost 116 pages), but for the other scribes (Emma, Oliver and John Whitmer), none ever mentioned a curtain, nor did any of the people who were in the room at the time.

Yes, there are a lot of stories out there, I have since learned. Who knows?

This is not an issue that ever really concerned me.

[cinepro]

I've seen that before. He's not calling the "ban", itself, folklore. As a matter of fact, he calls it "doctrine".

"we simply do not know why that practice, that policy, that doctrine was in place."

What he is denouncing are the the "whys" of the ban...all of the explanations given over the years, like "not valiant in the pre-existence" or "Curse of Cain" explanations. I don't see him saying the ban, itself, was folklore.

I hope he's not calling the Priesthood Ban "folklore".

It actually happened (the ban), and I wouldn't expect LDS to start calling it "folklore" for another 50-100 years.

[SilverKnight]

Thanks, SilverKnight. That's really interesting. I had not heard that before.

I am really curious as to what President Monson thinks about it. I don't think I've ever seen him speak about it.

I don't know about Pres Monson, but the aggregate of statements by Gordon B Hinkley on the subject makes it appear that he thought it was a policy - not doctine.

I doubt if any living LDS apostle thinks there was any doctrinal or revelatory reason behind the ban. .

By the time President Kimball sought the revelation, nobody was a fan of the ban, and all of them were greatly relieved and overjoyed at the change.

[Scott Lloyd]

And we shouldn't forget that the Church has apologized for something in the past: The Mountain Meadows Massacre.

When you read about this apology, what is your reaction? Do you feel the apology is superfluous? Meaningless? Unneeded because the massacre wasn't carried out under official Church sanction? Unneeded because the men who perpetrated the massacre are dead, so we bear no culpability (or ability to apologize) for their actions? And does such an apology mean anything to the descendants of the victims? Should it?

The headline over the article linked to above was misleading. What President Eyring did on that occasion was express regret. I draw a distinction between that and issuing an apology.

On a personal level, I can express regret over the massacre (or any other deplorable thing, for that matter). In fact, I hereby do so now. But I can't apologize for it, as I had no part in it.

[Mars]

I don't defend the ban by mentioning Levites, or the Savior's open refusal to bless and minister to the Gentiles (Matthew 15) but rather to illustrate that it's not out of the realm of possibility that a certain subset of a population may be denied the Priesthood.

[Libs]

I don't know about Pres Monson, but the aggregate of statements by Gordon B Hinkley on the subject makes it appear that he thought it was a policy - not doctine.

I doubt if any living LDS apostle thinks there was any doctrinal or revelatory reason behind the ban. .

By the time President Kimball sought the revelation, nobody was a fan of the ban, and all of them were greatly relieved and overjoyed at the change.

Yes, I've heard that from my LDS friends. Most people were very overjoyed and relieved that the ban was lifted.

[Libs]

I hope he's not calling the Priesthood Ban "folklore".

It actually happened (the ban), and I wouldn't expect LDS to start calling it "folklore" for another 50-100 years.

lol Cinepro!

[Craig Paxton]

Are you saying the artwork that the church uses to depict the translation is a lie, that Joseph Smith Jr. never translated any of the Book of Mormon in that way?

I wouldn't go so far as to call it a lie...and I understand that the church is only trying to put the most positive face on its history...but do I believe that it is an honest portrayal of what happened? No I do not. and when a new convert learns the truth...it can be a cause to lose belief in the church. That all I"m trying to say. period.

[cinepro]

The headline over the article linked to above was misleading. What President Eyring did on that occasion was express regret. I draw a distinction between that and issuing an apology.

The opening paragraph too...

LDS Church issues apology over Mountain Meadows

Published: Wednesday, Sept. 12, 2007

By Carrie A. Moore, Deseret News

CEDAR CITY — 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.

[Deborah]

...and when a new convert learns the truth...it can be a cause to lose belief in the church. That all I"m trying to say. period.

Only if their testimony wasn't based on the spirit in the first place. I know many converts, being one myself, who learn a lot of things through the years they didn't know up front. They never lost belief in the church though they questioned some things.

As has already been pointed out we don't even know if the stone in the hat is an accurate depiction. It just points out how critics will take something that is unsubstantiated and run with it. The church is much more careful about substantiating and connecting sources.

[Avatar4321]

Exactly what faults do we need to admit and what exactly do we have to heal from?

[Kenngo1969]

By-the-by, as long as we're talking about admitting fault, I think the Church ought to put its money where its mouth is: an admission of fault means nothing, unless the Church is also prepared to open its pocketbook and compensate those who have been so egregiously wronged. (Heck, I can think of a time or two when I've been wronged by Church leaders. I don't know what the Church thinks that might be worth, but it's easily worth seven figures to me.)

Cha-ching!!!

[Kenngo1969]

No they do not.

Elder Holland has gone on record saying it was folklore:

http://www.pbs.org/mormons/interviews/holland.html

Saying the various reasons proffered for the ban are folklore is a far cry from saying the ban itself is folklore.

[Kenngo1969]

That's as close as your going to get to an LDS leader calling it folklore - but many have called it a policy not based on any sort of doctrine or revelation.

David O. McKay privately told numerous people he felt it was a policy, not a doctrine, before the ban was lifted.

Hugh B. Brown felt it was undoctrinal as well. He felt since it was a policy it could be changed by administrative procedure, and called for a vote to change it in a meeting of the Q12. The Quorum voted unanimously to change it. But one apostle, Harold B Lee, who was not present for the vote, felt a revelation was needed to change the policy. So without unanimity the effort failed.

Elder Lee proved to be right, didn't he?

[bookofmormontruth]

By-the-by, as long as we're talking about admitting fault, I think the Church ought to put its money where its mouth is: an admission of fault means nothing, unless the Church is also prepared to open its pocketbook and compensate those who have been so egregiously wronged. (Heck, I can think of a time or two when I've been wronged by Church leaders. I don't know what the Church thinks that might be worth, but it's easily worth seven figures to me.)

Cha-ching!!!

Agreed!

I could make a few from my personal injuries (dislocated shoulder, sprained ankle) from the most dangerous sport in the world: CHURCH BASKETBALL!

[Craig Paxton]

Only if their testimony wasn't based on the spirit in the first place. I know many converts, being one myself, who learn a lot of things through the years they didn't know up front. They never lost belief in the church though they questioned some things.

As has already been pointed out we don't even know if the stone in the hat is an accurate depiction. It just points out how critics will take something that is unsubstantiated and run with it. The church is much more careful about substantiating and connecting sources.

What? Ah Deborah...the stone in the hat is not an unsubstanciated event. There were multiple eye witnesses, it happened. The church can continue to ignore it or they can deal with it. The reason that church critics point this event out is #1 It's Bizaar and connects Joseph to his folk magic days and #2 They know that the church is not as forthcomming in sharing this event with church membership as they purhaps should be.

Most people who leave the church do not do so over historical difficulties...they simply go inactive and fade away. I've heard that as many as 80% church wide are inactive. But there is a growing number of formerly active, tithe paying ,members who struggle and leave once they discover that Joseph translated the Book of Mormon by placing a rock he had found while digging a well for Willard Chase, a rock that he had also use to defraud individuals with his claim of be able to find buried treasure by the very same means that he used to translate the Book of Mormon, namely placing his well rock in his hat and burying his face in it....among other things.

If you find this as faith promoting...I applaud you...but many life long active members of the church who discover this reality struggle to make sense of it.

Should the church apologize for this? No...should they be more forthcoming with it than a single mention 18 years ago in an Ensign article...I think so.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

If you find this as faith promoting...I applaud you...but many life long active members of the church who discover this reality struggle to make sense of it.

I have never understood this. So, JS is said, in simple terms, that JS translated the BoM by the gift and power of God. I remember learning in primary that JS used teh U&T to translate the BoM. Later in life I learned about the stone in the hat. No in all honested, I cannot figure out why one is so much harder to learn about then the other. Both, scientifically, do not make sense and that is why it is dismissed. But when one considers the beauty of the BoM and the witness of the Spirit, it is hard to loose the faith because there is more to the story. So what I am saying is that both methods used are just as miraculous as the other.

This is about as lame as JS using a gun at Carthage. I would wager that many life long active members who do discover this reality don't stuggle with it at all. I mean after all JS used a stone of some sort to translate the BoM.