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

[Mars]

I will say though, that what can be said in private differs from what can be said in public. If a bishop feels that a struggling member could do with a sentiment of sorrow, such that the communication was "I'm sorry this has caused you so much distress. I don't stand idly by and coldly wait for you to just get over it. I empathize with you." is communicated, that could never be done in public. I would hope that we're not above weeping and mourn with those who weep and mourn.

[Libs]

Libs, but the same question can be asked: How could a prophet of God be responsible for those kinds of things?

If we're willing to understand that our present cultural understandings of what's right and wrong can be different from what happened to Jeremiah, we should extend the same courtesy to all choices between right and wrong in all their contexts. Early Mormon leaders included.

I can accept that, fully. But, the church still wants to attribute things to God that I believe were more likely from the culture (like the Priesthood ban).

[Libs]

I will say though, that what can be said in private differs from what can be said in public. If a bishop feels that a struggling member could do with a sentiment of sorrow, such that the communication was "I'm sorry this has caused you so much distress. I don't stand idly by and coldly wait for you to just get over it. I empathize with you." is communicated, that could never be done in public. I would hope that we're not above weeping and mourn with those who weep and mourn.

I appreciate that. Many don't want to weep and mourn with us. They would rather tell you not to let the door hit you, in the backside, on the way out.

[Calm]

I will say though, that what can be said in private differs from what can be said in public. If a bishop feels that a struggling member could do with a sentiment of sorrow, such that the communication was "I'm sorry this has caused you so much distress. I don't stand idly by and coldly wait for you to just get over it. I empathize with you." is communicated, that could never be done in public. I would hope that we're not above weeping and mourn with those who weep and mourn.

It is the personal connection there that makes the difference imo. This cannot be done by some sort of generic apology. Public 'admissions' should, imo, be solely for the purpose of providing accurate information (this is something that was done in the past, this is something that we would not allow to happen now, etc.) of current position, not for apologizing for something someone else has done.

[LeSellers]

I can accept that, fully. But, the church still wants to attribute things to God that I believe were more likely from the culture (like the Priesthood ban).

The problem with this approach is that what you (or anyone else) believes may have nothing to do with the reality of the situation.

I have recently read of David O. M^cKay's struggle with God's restricting the Priesthood to smaller or larger groups of people. This was a full quarter century before Spencer W. Kimball's announcement of the change in His policy. In effect, President M^cKay said, "I've had it! I'm not going to ask any more because God told me it was not yet time!" (I don't own the book David O. M^cKay and the Rise of Mormonism, so I can't quote it in full.)

Both Joseph Smith and Brigham Young (whichever one you want to blame for "imposing" this "cultural artifact") said extremely progressive things in regards to Negroes, and both told the Saints that all men would receive the Priesthood at some point the Lord's due time. You might want to read Brother Joseph Freeman's book, In the Lord's Due Time, for the account written by the first Negro to receive the Priesthood in June 1978. Brother Freeman had been a Four-Square Gospel preacher, like his mother, before his conversion to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and had married a Tongan/Samoan(?–as I recall, I know they're different peoples, she may have been Hawai`ian) Saint after his baptism. He was not sealed to her nor their children to him/them for several years until his ordination. The faith and testimony he had were remarkable. I highly recommend his biography.

Plural Marriage was most definitely not one of those "things from the culture". In fact, I can't imagine any of the things people want us to apologize for that can reasonably be attributed to "the culture".

Lehi

[Craig Paxton]

I'm not recommending showing new artwork of Joseph Smith with his head in his hat. If the church does not want to portray that image, that is fine. But the current gospel art kit piece we are talking about could have a drawing of the golden plates then and arrow pointing from those plates to a translated English Book of Mormon. It's not as cool looking maybe, but it's more accurate.

The problem is when by trying to simplify the story you create a misconception of the event. This can lead to awkward interactions and false rebuttals when confronted with historical documents.

Case in point:

A missionary is teaching an investigator about the translation of the BOM and the investigator says, "Didn't he translate it by putting a rock into a top hat and looking into it?" Maybe missionaries are more savvy today, but on my mission we would have said, "no. you must have been reading anti-mormon literature. That's a lie. That's not what happened."

Then when teaching about Polygamy, the investigator asks, "Did Joseph Smith marry women that were already married, even when their husbands were active Mormons?" Again, I would have said, "no. you must have been reading anti-mormon literature. That's a lie. That's not what happened."

After the discussion, this investigator may go onto the internet, and find out that those things actually did happen. Now it's the missionary that lied. End of discussions for that investigator. Then after his mission, the missionary finds some of this stuff out, and realizes that he misled that investigator.

The idea of "inoculating" the members about the church's history is a hard topic. There are arguments to be made both ways. But it's a serious topic now with the availability of information via the internet.

Ok I’m going to jump into this…and come to Brian 2.0’s defense…not that he needs it mind you.

In attempting to promote a faithful history of the translation process for the Book of Mormon the church has chosen to use an artist interpretation that portrays the translation process in its least offensive and most faith promoting manner rather than an interpretation that is reflective of the historical record. In doing so the church has chosen to promote history as they wished it to have occurred rather than how it did occur.

Note that the picture in question shows Joseph sitting at a table pen in hand, translating directly from the plates onto a piece of paper. Clearly, the church wants to promote a faithful/believable/dare I say NORMAL version of the translation process.

Although there have been some limited examples of church authorities giving candid remarks of the real translation process, in its correlated instruction, the church has chosen to portray the process in a manner that is not supported from the historical record. Clearly this is the how the church wants its audience to believe the Book of Mormon was translated…even though the historical record does NOT support this version.

The difficulty I see with this is that it puts the church in the difficult position of being less than honest in its representation of church history at the same time it is asking its membership if they are honest in all of their own dealing with their fellow men.

I once asked a church apologist why the church wasn’t more truthful in disclosing many of the difficult realities of church history to those who are investigating the church. Such as the real Book of Mormon translation process or the multiple first vision accounts. His reply took me by surprise in its honesty…He said…”Craig don’t be so naïve’, if the church were completely honest, no one would join the church”. In other words the church can only share the faith promoting half of its truths in order to complete its mission, if it told the complete story, investigators would become skeptical of its claims and fail to join the church.

Clearly the church understands this and has made the decision to share its history in the most positive, believable, faith promoting light….even if in doing so, it has to sacrifice truth that is not useful in reaching its stated purpose.

[cinepro]

I can accept that, fully. But, the church still wants to attribute things to God that I believe were more likely from the culture (like the Priesthood ban).

CFR that "the church" is still attributing the Priesthood ban to God.

In fact, President Hinckley made a striking statement 5 years ago in conference when he said:

Now I am told that racial slurs and denigrating remarks are sometimes heard among us. I remind you that no man who makes disparaging remarks concerning those of another race can consider himself a true disciple of Christ. Nor can he consider himself to be in harmony with the teachings of the Church of Christ. How can any man holding the Melchizedek Priesthood arrogantly assume that he is eligible for the priesthood whereas another who lives a righteous life but whose skin is of a different color is ineligible?

(emphasis added)

I see two ways of understanding President Hinckley's question:

1. He meant "How can any man holding the Melchizedek Priesthood after June of 1978 arrogantly assume that he is eligible for the priesthood whereas another who lives a righteous life but whose skin is of a different color is ineligible? (Before June of 1978 it wasn't arrogance because God had told us to do it...)".

or

2. His comments applied to all Church members in 2006, and more generally to all Church members and leaders back to 1830. It's arrogance to believe it in 2006, and it's arrogance to believe it in 1850. It might not have been "arrogance" that was responsible for its perpetuation, but it might explain its origin.

(or #3...President Hinckley just totally forgot about the 130 year period in the Church when righteous men of a certain skin color and heritage were denied the Melchizedek priesthood.)

[ELF1024]

CFR that "the church" is still attributing the Priesthood ban to God.

In fact, President Hinckley made a striking statement 5 years ago in conference when he said:

I see two ways of understanding President Hinckley's question:

1. He meant "How can any man holding the Melchizedek Priesthood after June of 1978 arrogantly assume that he is eligible for the priesthood whereas another who lives a righteous life but whose skin is of a different color is ineligible? (Before June of 1978 it wasn't arrogance because God had told us to do it...)".

or

2. His comments applied to all Church members in 2006, and more generally to all Church members and leaders back to 1830. It's arrogance to believe it in 2006, and it's arrogance to believe it in 1850. It might not have been "arrogance" that was responsible for its perpetuation, but it might explain its origin.

(or #3...President Hinckley just totally forgot about the 130 year period in the Church when righteous men of a certain skin color and heritage were denied the Melchizedek priesthood.)

or #4 It would have been arrogance for Man to do that, but it was not for God.

[Deborah]

Clearly the church understands this and has made the decision to share its history in the most positive, believable, faith promoting light….even if in doing so, it has to sacrifice truth that is not useful in reaching its stated purpose.

How is it sacrificing truth to teach something that gives the simplest explanation, especially when that explanation is also true and since no one knows for sure how it was done except the translation was by the gift and power of God.

Here is an article from the Ensign way back in 1977 that talks about the stone in the hat. Seriously people get a life.

translation of BOM

This is a very detailed article on the many described methods of translation and what we actually know as opposed to what someone said and concludes with this:

There are many questions that we cannot answer from the evidence we have at this time: Exactly how, for example, does the Urim and Thummim work? Was there a basis of truth behind David Whitmer’s viewpoint that writing appeared on the Interpreters? Or did the stones somehow focus the thought of the translator? Or did the stones serve to confirm translation? These things the Lord has not revealed to the Church at large, and the answer must remain, “We don’t know.”

[bookofmormontruth]

How is it sacrificing truth to teach something that gives the simplest explanation, especially when that explanation is also true and since no one knows for sure how it was done except the translation was by the gift and power of God.

Here is an article from the Ensign way back in 1977 that talks about the stone in the hat. Seriously people get a life.

translation of BOM

This is a very detailed article on the many described methods of translation and what we actually know as opposed to what someone said and concludes with this:

That is exactly my sentiments.

The translation process and the art-work portrayed which I have seen and heard both and all processes are only an issue among the anti-Mormon/apostate community. Maybe those who left the Lord's Church read the Ensign or went to Church every once in awhile, wouldn't have had such a "shock" that they never learned this irrelevant and non-issue in the LDS community.

[Craig Paxton]

How is it sacrificing truth to teach something that gives the simplest explanation, especially when that explanation is also true and since no one knows for sure how it was done except the translation was by the gift and power of God.

Here is an article from the Ensign way back in 1977 that talks about the stone in the hat. Seriously people get a life.

translation of BOM

This is a very detailed article on the many described methods of translation and what we actually know as opposed to what someone said and concludes with this:

Thanks for pointing out that the stone in a hat translation process is NOT a secret to church authorities. Yet the church has decided NOT to show this process in picture form or really share it in any meaningful manner to prospective converts. Rather it has made the decision to show a process that has NO historical basis. WHY? Becasue a truthful representation would not be faith promoting and would get in the way of convert baptisms.

I'd be happy if every missionary would merely hand out this article from Elder Neilson to each and every investigator. But I won't hold my breath, if the church did this it would not result in more baptisms...the truth would undermine the goal of more converts. thats all I'm saying.

I'm ok with the church not wanting to hang its dirty laundry out in public for all to see. As a religious institution they can share their story as they wish. But don't kid yourself into thinking that when a new convert discovers this information (as many eventually do) They end up feeling lied to by the very institution that they had placed so much trust in.

This informationis not going to harm you or other members of this board...but it will harm those who discover it independant of the church.

[cinepro]

or #4 It would have been arrogance for Man to do that, but it was not for God.

That answers the question of how "any man" could assume such a thing then. It's not "arrogance", it's that "sometimes God commands it".

So if an LDS in 2006 (or 2011) still thought that skin color and/or African descent might disqualify a righteous man from having the priesthood, they're not necessarily arrogant. They might just be behind the times.

[ELF1024]

Thanks for pointing out that the stone in a hat translation process is NOT a secret to church authorities. Yet the church has decided NOT to show this process in picture form or really share it in any meaningful manner to prospective converts. Rather it has made the decision to show a process that has NO historical basis. WHY? Becasue a truthful representation would not be faith promoting and would get in the way of convert baptisms.

I'd be happy if every missionary would merely hand out this article from Elder Neilson to each and every investigator. But I won't hold my breath, if the church did this it would not result in more baptisms...the truth would undermine the goal of more converts. thats all I'm saying.

I'm ok with the church not wanting to hang its dirty laundry out in public for all to see. As a religious institution they can share their story as they wish. But don't kid yourself into thinking that when a new convert discovers this information (as many eventually do) They end up feeling lied to by the very institution that they had placed so much trust in.

This informationis not going to harm you or other members of this board...but it will harm those who discover it independant of the church.

I don't find the account of the stone in the hat to be believable. However, that is just me.

The Book of Mormon is true; no matter the translation process.

[ELF1024]

That answers the question of how "any man" could assume such a thing then. It's not "arrogance", it's that "sometimes God commands it".

So if an LDS in 2006 (or 2011) still thought that skin color and/or African descent might disqualify a righteous man from having the priesthood, they're not necessarily arrogant. They might just be behind the times.

Was it arrogance that kept the Priesthood restricted to the Levite's?

[cinepro]

Was it arrogance that kept the Priesthood restricted to the Levite's?

If President Hinckley had stood and said:

"How can any man holding the Melchizedek Priesthood arrogantly assume that he is eligible for the priesthood whereas another who lives a righteous life but who isn't of the tribe of Levi is ineligible?",

I would be making the same point.

[CV75]

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.

Weirdness really isn't the result of a mistake. But inasmuch as there must have been some mistakes of some kind along the way, this quote from the last General Conference (Elder Packer) seems to apply:

Around us we see members of the Church who have become offended. Some take offense at incidents in the history of the Church or its leaders and suffer their whole lives, unable to get past the mistakes of others. They do not leave it alone. They fall into inactivity.

That attitude is somewhat like a man being hit by a club. Offended, he takes up a club and beats himself over the head with it all the days of his life. How foolish! How sad! That kind of revenge is self-inflicting. If you have been offended, forgive, forget it, and leave it alone.

The Book of Mormon carries this warning: “And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ."

…

If you are carrying some burden, forget it, let it alone. Do a lot of forgiving and a little repenting, and you will be visited by the Spirit of the Holy Ghost and confirmed by the testimony that you did not know existed. You will be watched over and blessed—you and yours. This is an invitation to come unto Him. This church—The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, “the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth,” by His own declaration—is where we find “the great plan of happiness.”

[bookofmormontruth]

Thanks for pointing out that the stone in a hat translation process is NOT a secret to church authorities. Yet the church has decided NOT to show this process in picture form or really share it in any meaningful manner to prospective converts. Rather it has made the decision to show a process that has NO historical basis. WHY? Becasue a truthful representation would not be faith promoting and would get in the way of convert baptisms.

I'd be happy if every missionary would merely hand out this article from Elder Neilson to each and every investigator. But I won't hold my breath, if the church did this it would not result in more baptisms...the truth would undermine the goal of more converts. thats all I'm saying.

I'm ok with the church not wanting to hang its dirty laundry out in public for all to see. As a religious institution they can share their story as they wish. But don't kid yourself into thinking that when a new convert discovers this information (as many eventually do) They end up feeling lied to by the very institution that they had placed so much trust in.

This informationis not going to harm you or other members of this board...but it will harm those who discover it independant of the church.

Yes, so "secret" and such "dirty laundry" that it was published to the entire Church membership in the Ensign, Improvement Era and numerous other books.

I am sure the Lord's Church will have to come out and apologize to the world for not providing a "stone in hat" coloring book to potential converts.

[SilverKnight]

Ok I’m going to jump into this…and come to Brian 2.0’s defense…not that he needs it mind you.

In attempting to promote a faithful history of the translation process for the Book of Mormon the church has chosen to use an artist interpretation that portrays the translation process in its least offensive and most faith promoting manner rather than an interpretation that is reflective of the historical record.

It has? I don't know that the use of a single art piece constitutes officially promoting one translation method and willfully squashing another less palatable ones.

I believe they do this for the same reason they use paintings of handsome blue-eyed Joseph Smiths and Jesus - to put on the best public image possible.

Also, I think it is the discretion of the Church's Marketing Department to select artwork for web sites and publications - not the General Authorities.

But I agree that using this piece of art, on the Book of Mormon website and elsewhere, is giving members and nonmembers an incorrect mental image of the process.

In doing so the church has chosen to promote history as they wished it to have occurred rather than how it did occur.

I think instead they are promoting a simplified version that doesn't include many details about the BoM translation methodology.

I do agree that there is a knowledge vacuum among church members on how exactly the BoM was translated. This is evidence of perhaps a purposefully obscure treatment of the topic, but not evidence of a conscious effort to mislead members into believing incorrect history.

Note that the picture in question shows Joseph sitting at a table pen in hand, translating directly from the plates onto a piece of paper. Clearly, the church wants to promote a faithful/believable/dare I say NORMAL version of the translation process.

Agreed, but this reflects the desires of the marketing/PR department of the church.

Although there have been some limited examples of church authorities giving candid remarks of the real translation process, in its correlated instruction, the church has chosen to portray the process in a manner that is not supported from the historical record. Clearly this is the how the church wants its audience to believe the Book of Mormon was translated…even though the historical record does NOT support this version.

On the occasion that church has published accounts of the translation method, in ensign articles or lesson manuals, they describe the process accurately.

If you can find a published account; a talk, a manual or article - where the author distorts or misleads on the translation method, then you have an argument.

Basing it all on one painting does not constitute evidence for an institutional coverup.

The difficulty I see with this is that it puts the church in the difficult position of being less than honest in its representation of church history at the same time it is asking its membership if they are honest in all of their own dealing with their fellow men.

I don't think you need to grasp this much, and insinuate the church is guilty of deliberate lying coupled with hypocrisy - all for using one painting in their marketing.

I once asked a church apologist why the church wasn’t more truthful in disclosing many of the difficult realities of church history to those who are investigating the church. Such as the real Book of Mormon translation process or the multiple first vision accounts. His reply took me by surprise in its honesty…He said…”Craig don’t be so naïve’, if the church were completely honest, no one would join the church”.

Simply not true. Over the past 2 years our ward has had 5 or so new converts - and the translation process of the book of mormon wasn't even on their radar in things they cared about.

In other words the church can only share the faith promoting half of its truths in order to complete its mission, if it told the complete story, investigators would become skeptical of its claims and fail to join the church.

I think you're waxing a bit hyperbolic if the use of one one painting constitutes "sharing only faith promoting half-truths to complete its mission."

Do investigators even see the misleading painting as part of the discussions?

[Libs]

CFR that "the church" is still attributing the Priesthood ban to God.

In fact, President Hinckley made a striking statement 5 years ago in conference when he said:

I see two ways of understanding President Hinckley's question:

1. He meant "How can any man holding the Melchizedek Priesthood after June of 1978 arrogantly assume that he is eligible for the priesthood whereas another who lives a righteous life but whose skin is of a different color is ineligible? (Before June of 1978 it wasn't arrogance because God had told us to do it...)".

or

2. His comments applied to all Church members in 2006, and more generally to all Church members and leaders back to 1830. It's arrogance to believe it in 2006, and it's arrogance to believe it in 1850. It might not have been "arrogance" that was responsible for its perpetuation, but it might explain its origin.

(or #3...President Hinckley just totally forgot about the 130 year period in the Church when righteous men of a certain skin color and heritage were denied the Melchizedek priesthood.)

I would be very happy, if it was #2, but when I suggested it might be, a couple of people jumped in and said differently...that the ban was definitely from God. We just don't know "why".

So, is this something that's up for interpretation or was the priesthood ban revelation? It was my understanding that it was revelation (although, no one seems to know, exactly, who revealed it - Brigham Young?)

[CV75]

I would be very happy, if it was #2, but when I suggested it might be, a couple of people jumped in and said differently...that the ban was definitely from God. We just don't know "why".

So, is this something that's up for interpretation or was the priesthood ban revelation? It was my understanding that it was revelation (although, no one seems to know, exactly, who revealed it - Brigham Young?)

I think this is a good example where the higher law and the greater blessing, if one truly thinks it was a mistake, is to forgive and move on. The Lord's power is so great it can overcome any mistake, real or imagined.

[ERayR]

Clearly the church understands this and has made the decision to share its history in the most positive, believable, faith promoting light….even if in doing so, it has to sacrifice truth that is not useful in reaching its stated purpose.

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?

[cinepro]

So, is this something that's up for interpretation or was the priesthood ban revelation? It was my understanding that it was revelation (although, no one seems to know, exactly, who revealed it - Brigham Young?)

Based on D&C 40, it is my belief that the Priesthood Ban was not a result of a revelation from God.

Also section 126.

[cinepro]

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?

As far as I know, there is absolutely no evidence that the Book of Mormon translation process ever took place in this arrangement:

And there are lots of other eyewitness accounts that it happened under different circumstances.

Whether that constitutes a "lie" or is just good marketing, I suppose we'll each have to decide.

[Libs]

Based on D&C 40, it is my belief that the Priesthood Ban was not a result of a revelation from God.

Also section 126.

Interesting. I looked those up. D&C 40 "fear of persecution". D&C 126 Brigham is relieved of traveling abroad.

D&C 40, I kind of "get" (as far as how that might fit in with limiting the priesthood). But, D&C 126? No clue.

[Libs]

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