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

[Calm]

The lines directly before the ones you quoted acknowledge that a specific belief concerning blacks and the priesthood, one which McKonkie held himself, was in error.

"There are statements in our literature by the early brethren which we have interpreted to mean that the Negroes would not receive the priesthood in mortality. I have said the same things. . . . All I can say to that is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet."

Also:

“We get our truth and our light line upon line and precept upon precept. We have now had added a new flood of intelligence and light on this particular subject, and it erases all the darkness and all the views and all the thoughts of the past. They don’t matter anymore.

Why would truth need to be erased? Wouldn't one assume that what is being erased is error, especially since it is being contrasted with or replaced by "truth and light"?

[Calm]

I'll come out and say that I'm in the same boat as your family/friends and I personally think that Joseph Smith made some mistakes in how he implemented plural marriage, mistakes in how he understood the sealing doctrine, and even think it's highly possible that the whole concept of plural marriage was a mistake made in trying to "restore all things." .....

BUT, I also don't think that the institution necessarily NEEDS to make an apology for it.

If it was established that plural marriage itself was in error and not just how it was implemented or some of it understood, then I do believe the Church needs to come out and admit that error and even possibly apologize for it or at least the institutional practice of it and (big "if" though).

[Palerider]

The section for those who are interested:

As far as I can tell while the claims of Bennett practicing abortions were widespread, the claim he did so for the wives of Joseph Smith were limited to Sarah Pratt and possible Ebenezer Robinson (still looking for the direct quote I read eons ago).

It appears that Pratt's only source was Bennett if her claim is accurate, whose credibility on other issues is questioned. Such a claim needs solid confirmation, imo.

PS: the quote from Robinson has been interpreted to possible mean abortion or possibly just a secluded birthplace so the children could be given to others to raise, but as of yet I can't find the full quote so am not drawing any of my own conclusions yet.

Calmoriah,

Personally I think Bennett was a despicable man and have never been able to figure out why Joseph even let him near the church. His reputation preceded him and was well established.

That being said, doesn't Joseph's own integrity for truth telling have to be weighed as well? It is very well documented that he (and those around him) lied to the church regarding polygamy. One may try to rationalize or justify it somehow but that would only be expected from someone who's spiritual investment in the church was crucial to their life paradigm.

[cinepro]

Since it is quite obvious that Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and other top leaders of the church made mistakes (just like any other person on this earth has done), do you think the Church will ever decide to make a big announcement to the world that these mistakes were made in an effort to heal and move on with their current agenda of becoming a more "mainstream" church?

As far as I can tell, the Church does admit mistakes... and those admissions are called "Official Declarations"...

[Deborah]

Yeah, I see what you mean. It's just that some Mormons around me (family / friends) believe things like polygamy to be a mistake.

And yet it is discussed in the D&C, one of our official scriptures. I don't get this idea that it is a mistake. Were mistakes made in the practice? Most certainly; but as has been pointed out those were mistakes with individuals. The practice itself was established by God and is of ancient origin. Given human failings, particularly jealousy and selfishness, it was likely not practiced as it was divinely intended.

[cinepro]

And yet it is discussed in the D&C, one of our official scriptures. I don't get this idea that it is a mistake. Were mistakes made in the practice? Most certainly; but as has been pointed out those were mistakes with individuals. The practice itself was established by God and is of ancient origin. Given human failings, particularly jealousy and selfishness, it was likely not practiced as it was divinely intended.

Maybe part of the admitting it was a mistake would be the de-canonization of D&C 132 (and replacing it with the Proclamation on the Family).

As it is, we really only acknowledge the first 29 verses as relevant anyway, so we've already effectively de-canonized half of it by ignoring it. This would just finish the job.

[Deborah]

As it is, we really only acknowledge the first 29 verses as relevant anyway, so we've already effectively de-canonized half of it by ignoring it. This would just finish the job.

Really? I'm not aware we ignore it. How do we ignore it other than that we don't practice plural marriage (except we do but not with living spouses).

[Calm]

That being said, doesn't Joseph's own integrity for truth telling have to be weighed as well?

Yes, including motivations for lying.

[ERayR]

Since it is quite obvious that Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and other top leaders of the church made mistakes (just like any other person on this earth has done), do you think the Church will ever decide to make a big announcement to the world that these mistakes were made in an effort to heal and move on with their current agenda of becoming a more "mainstream" church?

For example, they could announce on www.lds.org and Deseret Morning News something about Joseph's practice of polygamy. They don't need to go into detail, but they could just say Joseph made a mistake in the way he practiced plural marriage. If the public asks for more, they could point them to FAIR.

What good would this action take?

It would provide a way for the church to truly move on. It would be a way of repenting and healing. I think the public would appreciate this as a sign of maturity in the organization.

Now when young people start looking on the Internet and see weird LDS church history, they will know it was a mistake and be able to understand that their beloved church is in a better place now. It would provide some comfort to those who wish to stay LDS.

Thoughts?

Who gets to decide what was a mistake and what was not?

[ERayR]

I think there is a difference between saying all men sin and fall short of the glory of God, and claiming you personally did some specific sin. For the Church to repudiate Section 132 of its D&C would end the need for Temples and much of the Restored Gospel itself. We would become just another Protestant religion.

Thats what they want.

[ERayR]

The power to be healed is derived from the choice to apologize.

For what?

[ERayR]

Maybe their agenda is to become the opposite of a mainstream church.

I'm defining "mainstream church" as a main or major Christian group. The opposite are lessor known groups, sometimes referred to as cults or sects.

I was thinking of all my Mormon friends/family and people in my Mormon community who sort of make up what is Mormon to me. I see websites like www.mormon.org and even the main site www.lds.org and I get the feeling the major themes of all the big "mainstream churches" are the focus of Mormonism today (i.e. focus on Christ and family).

The Mormon Church has always been focused on Christ and the family.

[ERayR]

Per the OP, the question is about the church being healed.

The church being healed? From what? You make absolutly no sense to me.

[ERayR]

Just saying that it's not all so cut and dry that someone's "spiritual and intellectual honesty" should be questioned, if they have some doubts about Joseph's integrity. That statement by BC Space is why I brought this up. And, this is just one small item, in a vast mountain of...things that could cause one to "wonder" about Joseph's integrity.

Just saying it is real easy to drag unsubstantiated filth accross the reputation of a dead man. Just one thing to cause one to wonder about your integrity.

[Bernard Gui]

Maybe their agenda is to become the opposite of a mainstream church.

I'm defining "mainstream church" as a main or major Christian group. The opposite are lessor known groups, sometimes referred to as cults or sects.

I was thinking of all my Mormon friends/family and people in my Mormon community who sort of make up what is Mormon to me. I see websites like www.mormon.org and even the main site www.lds.org and I get the feeling the major themes of all the big "mainstream churches" are the focus of Mormonism today (i.e. focus on Christ and family).

I could be wrong, but I sure don't think the church wants me to be wrong. I truly believe they want to be a mainstream church.

I've been LDS for 65 years, and the church has always focused on Christ and the family.

Rather than wanting to be a "mainstream" church, whatever that is, LDS just want to be

thought of as human beings and not the caricatures we have historically been assigned.

Now we have the media means to do it.

Bernard

[Calm]

I've been LDS for 65 years, and the church has always focused on Christ and the family.

Rather than wanting to be a "mainstream" church, whatever that is, LDS just want to be

thought of as human beings and not the caricatures we have historically been assigned.

Now we have the media means to do it.

Bernard

Even if they weren't aware of it before (and I think they likely were), after the poll that came out awhile back showing that those who didn't personally know a LDS (or at least didn't know they knew) liked LDS less than those who knew at least one.

There is huge difference between wanting to be known and understood for what we are and trying to change what we are in order to become popular.

[Libs]

It's true, that familiarity is very important in fighting any kind of prejudice.

(Just the opposite of the old fable that says, "familiarity breeds contempt")

[Calm]

It's true, that familiarity is very important in fighting any kind of prejudice.

(Just the opposite of the old fable that says, "familiarity breeds contempt")

I think it can play both ways, being very familiar with someone lets you know as much of their faults (which may not be so apparent in public as they are in private) as their good points, but definitely one tends to feel more comfortable around people you know if only because you believe you can predict their behaviour more.

Most cliches tend to have their opposite number it seems (birds of a feather flock together vs. opposites attract for example)

[Libs]

Yes, that's true. Good point.

[thesometimesaint]

Libs:

No, it just breeds.

[cion]

OK, let's rid ourselves of all the strawmen (whatever those are) and gotchas. Putting all that aside, might I ask a (sincere) question?

It is this:

We understand that the men who founded and lead this church are not perfect men. They make mistakes, right? No big deal. I'm not trying to make anyone or the institution of the church look bad. Please don't demonize me for making that suggestion. Let's assume that these guys (who make mistakes just like the rest of us) create something. Is it possible for imperfect men (and to a very small extent, women) to create (through the hand of God) a perfect institution and doctrine? Is it possible that imperfect men can make judgement errors in what they create that end up requiring correction down the road? Is this difficult to accept as a possibility? If so, why? IMO, this should be expected of any institution. Okay, and moving on from that, do you believe there is some benefit in admitting that founders of an institution made mistakes in their creations (i.e. doctrines, scripture, rituals, etc)? If these creators made a mistake or two, why would it not follow that the institution started out with some mistakes that were later fixed? Why not admit these were mistakes and move on? I imagine you are going to ask again, "What mistakes? where are they?" My response is, if you see no mistakes, just say there are none. I'm not trying to "catch" you. I just believe every institution on this earth has mistakes in it, that's all.

Please don't accuse me of strawmen and gotchas and cloaks and daggers etc. I have no idea why that keeps happening. God, this place is so painful...

[ERayR]

OK, let's rid ourselves of all the strawmen (whatever those are) and gotchas. Putting all that aside, might I ask a (sincere) question?

It is this:

We understand that the men who founded and lead this church are not perfect men. They make mistakes, right? No big deal. I'm not trying to make anyone or the institution of the church look bad. Please don't demonize me for making that suggestion. Let's assume that these guys (who make mistakes just like the rest of us) create something. Is it possible for imperfect men (and to a very small extent, women) to create (through the hand of God) a perfect institution and doctrine? Is it possible that imperfect men can make judgement errors in what they create that end up requiring correction down the road? Is this difficult to accept as a possibility? If so, why? IMO, this should be expected of any institution. Okay, and moving on from that, do you believe there is some benefit in admitting that founders of an institution made mistakes in their creations (i.e. doctrines, scripture, rituals, etc)? If these creators made a mistake or two, why would it not follow that the institution started out with some mistakes that were later fixed? Why not admit these were mistakes and move on? I imagine you are going to ask again, "What mistakes? where are they?" My response is, if you see no mistakes, just say there are none. I'm not trying to "catch" you. I just believe every institution on this earth has mistakes in it, that's all.

Please don't accuse me of strawmen and gotchas and cloaks and daggers etc. I have no idea why that keeps happening. God, this place is so painful...

Why is it that you seem to need the church (leaders) to come out in sack cloth and ashes and publicly flog themselves. If there are errors in the organization just do what needs done to correct them and move on. The LDS Church is constantly changing its organization (not doctrine) to meet the needs of its members. If someone who is long dead offended or hurt someone then let that be taken care of in the spirit world. I have no obligation nor do I have the right to appologize for something I had nor could have had anything to do with. I CANNOT apologize for someone else.

[cion]

Why is it that you seem to need the church (leaders) to come out in sack cloth and ashes and publicly flog themselves. If there are errors in the organization just do what needs done to correct them and move on. The LDS Church is constantly changing its organization (not doctrine) to meet the needs of its members. If someone who is long dead offended or hurt someone then let that be taken care of in the spirit world. I have no obligation nor do I have the right to appologize for something I had nor could have had anything to do with. I CANNOT apologize for someone else.

How about this. What if the 60 minutes interview with GBH went like this:

Q: There are some significant differences in your beliefs. For instance, don't Mormons believe that God was once a man?

A: This was taught early on but we realize now that we really just don't know. The men who taught this were just stating their opinion, which could very likely be wrong.

And the famous Larry King interview. Maybe it could have gone like this:

Larry King: You condemn it.

Gordon B. Hinckley: I condemn it, yes, as a practice, because I think it is not doctrinal. It is not legal. And this church takes the position that we will abide by the law. We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, magistrates in honoring, obeying and sustaining the law. The men who originally taught it as doctrinal were mistaken. We know better now.

[Lightbearer]

Since it is quite obvious that Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and other top leaders of the church made mistakes (just like any other person on this earth has done), do you think the Church will ever decide to make a big announcement to the world that these mistakes were made in an effort to heal and move on with their current agenda of becoming a more "mainstream" church?

In a word NO! I see no "obvious" mistakes except maybe to trust some so-called friends with sacred things that perhaps they could not or would not understand. Why should anyone focus on their "weaknesses" in public? I think the modern culture is one of scandal mongering where people are more interested in sex scandals than the workings of their own government. The morning talk shows that "entertain" people by airing their marital problems and infideleties is very popular but does not edify. Also why should we bend to the will of apostates and Anti-Mormons who distort and try to tear down the reputations of men whom they are not worthy to black their boots?

For example, they could announce on www.lds.org and Deseret Morning News something about Joseph's practice of polygamy. They don't need to go into detail, but they could just say Joseph made a mistake in the way he practiced plural marriage. If the public asks for more, they could point them to FAIR.

What good would this action take?

No good at all, it would draw attention to the FLDS and other apostates who fail to recognize the Manifesto for what it is a revelation from the same God who revealed D&C 132. It may also place the idea in some people's minds that the Church is still condoning plural marriage when it does not. It would also put the lie out that plural marriage was not from God. If that be the case we may as well throw out the entire restoration as a lie. Me I can live with the fact that the early Saints had plural wives but this world was too abominable to accept the sacred relationship, instead they had to make something impure and unholy out of it. But that is just because that our modern era is full of those with depraved minds.

It would provide a way for the church to truly move on. It would be a way of repenting and healing. I think the public would appreciate this as a sign of maturity in the organization.

Now the quote comes to mind from an old Eastwood movie: "Don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining"! There is nothing to "repent" of and those who cannot except that fact do not need to be in the Church in the first place. I don't want the church to be "accepted by the world" because the world is corrupt and evil and if the church were to try to "mainstream" in such a way it must needs fall into apostasy. Besides the enemies of the Church would never ever ever allow the Church to "move on" it would use any such "admissions" to pulverize it into oblivion. It would be a sell-out and it would also be calling the revelations of God an unholy thing, it would be blasphemy and the Lord would probably destroy the Church and there would need to be a new restoration.

Now when young people start looking on the Internet and see weird LDS church history, they will know it was a mistake and be able to understand that their beloved church is in a better place now. It would provide some comfort to those who wish to stay LDS.

Thoughts?

These lies have been vomited out since the establishment of the Church in 1830, just because Satan has a greater technology to advance his lies faster and more effectively does not negate that fact that they are still damnable lies and I have more faith in the young people to accept any crackpot garbage they might dredge up on the internet or anywhere else Satan's propaganda machine is at work...

Well you did ask for my thoughts on the matter.

[Deborah]

If there are errors in the organization just do what needs done to correct them and move on. The LDS Church is constantly changing its organization (not doctrine) to meet the needs of its members.

This is why we have living prophets and continuing revelation. And changes come not because something in the past was wrong, but it is not meant for our day. What we may consider questionable in the past wasn't so for that time and that people.

We need to stop looking at the past with our present sensibilities and prejudices. I think it ironic some talk about BY for example for some of his statements which they consider racist, but they are blinded to their own bigotry in not understanding the times or the customs.