Teddy Bear Vs Grizzly Bear Answers To Mormonism

[Bob Oliverio]

From another thread:

It would seem that the Church leaders thought they were putting the Priesthood Ban behind them in 1978, and that future discussion could focus on the fact that it ended in 1978 (thus ending the need for any further discussion).

It would also seem that the Church leaders thought that shifting the explanations for the ban from the pre-1978 theories to the non-explanation of "We don't know" would be a satisfactory way to deal with any vestigial discomfort.

It would seem the Church leaders were wrong.

I find this right on spot and so applicable to many things facing the Church this year that it has never contemplated to this degree before.

As I've mentioned before, I've been told that our liberal media and blogs are gearing up Romney and the exposure he will bring to the Church.

Here is a great current example of what is coming and how, not only it will be presented within the media, but how so many naive members will be inundated by such media on Church issues and history they may never have contemplated seeing in public:

http://blogs.standard.net/the-political-surf/2012/03/06/grizzly-bear-truth-teddy-bear-truth/

We as a Church will never look good to the public with respect to our racist and discriminatory past history until we offer a formal apology.  We simply can't offer the public the same type of excuses that are offered and defended on this board.  The exchanges on this board alone dealing with the ban demonstrate the Church has little to stand on in trying to explain the past.  If the Church truly believed, today, that the ban was a commandment from God, and was out of our hands as fellow Christians until 1978, it should come out and CLEARLY state that as an official position.  But I don't think they can afford the backlash - especially this year.  So their only other option, which I believe is THE MOST CHRISTIAN OPTION, is to apologize and put this behind them.

[BCSpace]

In this context, I think it's interesting to note that, as far as I can tell, the Church has never in modern times (or at least since I've been alive) been this insistent on political participation. Consider the fact that the Church is now strongly urging it's members to participate not just in the general elections, or a ballot issue, or the political process in general, but is actually specifying in writing that we should participate in party caucuses and that there should be no Church meetings during that time (Utah and Idaho).

It would seem to me (since we're speaking of "seems"), that the Church is actually anticipating the distinct possibility of a Romney (Mormon) nomination and therefore does not fear this or any issue.

Edited March 6, 2012 by BCSpace

[Jeff K.]

Why apologize to people who don't care whether you apologize or not. When sharks smell blood in the water, they aren't sated with just a taste. They will simply extend their attacks to other areas and what are we left with? Not a demand for one apology, but multiple demands by anyone and everyone for any and all imagined sleights. The cascade will be never ending. Worst idea of the day.

Consider: Christ should of course apologize for his sleights against various ethnic groups such as the Samaritans, apparently the stench of racism still exists. The demands upon Christians to say they are sorry for Christs overt racism, really. Or do we know why specifically God allowed such racist policies and then only later, after Christ's death. Why wait until Paul opened up the door for other groups and races, why not at an earlier time? I mean, there were Romans that believed and Samaritans, but they were denied full entry into Christianity until much later?

Are we seeing that clamoring or is there something more trite in the demands being made for the present versus an apology that, after 2000 years, still has not been made. Who will apologize for Christ?

[cinepro]

Why apologize to people who don't care whether you apologize or not.

I know at least two black members of the Church who would be thrilled by an apology. They definitely care, and don't seem very shark-like to me...

[Jeff K.]

I know of hundreds who don't care and simply want to use it as a weapon. Unless it is known for sure, it would be an insincere apology since you are either apologizing for God or for the church, but you can't be sure which. Apologies for matters of convenience aren't apologies, and an apology should never be done by the Lord's church in order to meet some materialistic PR move.

I would put the majority of the anti Mormons who post on this board as being people who would not be satisfied, and would in effect be laughing at the church as they crank up the machine. If an apology makes such an important difference, then perhaps priorities are in the wrong place.

[Jeff K.]

Worst idea of the day.

[LDSToronto]

I know of hundreds who don't care and simply want to use it as a weapon. Unless it is known for sure, it would be an insincere apology since you are either apologizing for God or for the church, but you can't be sure which. Apologies for matters of convenience aren't apologies, and an apology should never be done by the Lord's church in order to meet some materialistic PR move.

I would put the majority of the anti Mormons who post on this board as being people who would not be satisfied, and would in effect be laughing at the church as they crank up the machine. If an apology makes such an important difference, then perhaps priorities are in the wrong place.

An apology would benefit faithful members more than it would benefit any so-called apostate.

H.

[Jeff K.]

Please read the posts.

[Bob Oliverio]

 Apologies for matters of convenience aren't apologies, and an apology should never be done by the Lord's church in order to meet some materialistic PR move.

And yet the Church has been apologizing everywhere in the press for Jewish baptisms for two months now!!

Apologizing for the ban on blacks is what we need more than ever now.  If President Monson believed that the ban was commanded by God, as our leaders so confidently said in the past - he should go on the record and publically state so.  But it's clear he does not believe this and, accordingly, an apology is in order.

[Jeff K.]

You need to learn the difference. The church apologizes for members who broke the rules. We know what happened and why.

The issue concerning the priesthood and African Americans is distinct in that we don't know why. And no, it is not needed more than ever now. What is needed more than ever now is Christ directing our lives, not some PR stunt.

[frankenstein]

Even though the correct and accurate position of the Church is "it is not known precisely why..." What would the Church apologize for?

Should the Church apologize for not knowing precisely why?

[Jeff K.]

For ant Mormons the church should apologize for anything and everything.

[Buzzard]

For ant Mormons the church should apologize for anything and everything.

Yes, apologies are a useful club, since anytime we admit to falling short of perfection, the antis snicker about how the Lords one true church made a mistake. So we issue apologies when we decided they are appropriate internally, and not based on the demands of our enemies. Kind of like the liberal talking head who demanded that Romney disavow our "racist scriptures".

[cinepro]

While there are obviously huge, huge differences between the Mountain Meadows Massacre and the Priesthood Ban, it is interesting the Church has issued an apology for the Mountain Meadows Massacre:

Deseret News: LDS Church Issues Apology Over Mountain Meadows Massacre

This apology happened almost 5 years ago. Now, assuming that the people the Church was apologizing to are generally antagonistic towards the Church, does anyone know if subsequent to the apology things improved between the two parties, or did the antagonizers find other things to complain about?

I only bring this up because people are arguing that things won't get better after an apology, and would probably stay the same or get worse, but I can't see any evidence of that.

[Jeff K.]

So your point is we wait an additional hundred and some years and "then" issue an apology? And only if we know what occurred and why? Sure why not.

[LeSellers]

This apology happened almost 5 years ago. Now, assuming that the people the Church was apologizing to are generally antagonistic towards the Church, does anyone know if subsequent to the apology things improved between the two parties, or did the antagonizers find other things to complain about?

Some are still whining. And no little "some".

Lehi

[cinepro]

Even though the correct and accurate position of the Church is "it is not known precisely why..." What would the Church apologize for?

Should the Church apologize for not knowing precisely why?

That's a good question.

I think the answer depends on whether or not you think the Priesthood Ban was a good thing.

Meaning, whether or not it came from God, was it helpful or hurtful?

If you feel the Priesthood Ban was good, then there is nothing to apologize for, since we don't apologize for the good things we do. We don't apologize for Mormon Helping Hands. We don't apologize for our missionary work. We don't apologize for keeping the Sabbath Day holy.

If, on the other hand, the Priesthood Ban was hurtful to black members of the Church, then it may be entirely appropriate to apologize for acting in a way that hurt someone.

The big question is whether or not it is appropriate to apologize for hurting someone even if God has told you to do it. I would suggest that it is.

For example, suppose I have been asked to speak at a Priesthood Leadership meeting on a Saturday afternoon at the same time my daughter is performing in a recital. She's practiced for months, and she really wants me to be there, but I feel that God wants me at the meeting instead. So my daughter's feelings are hurt by my obedience. Is it appropriate to apologize for missing the recital? I think so. By apologizing, I am not saying that I doubt the correctness of my decision (or lack faith that God wants me to go to the meeting). I am simply recognizing the hurt that this situation has caused and letting my daughter know that I care about her.

Of course, the situation is a little trickier if you have done something that hurt someone and you want to insist that you honestly just don't know why you did it. Whether that non-explanation makes an apology more appropriate or less appropriate, we'll all just have to figure out for ourselves.

[cinepro]

Some are still whining. And no little "some".

Lehi

But in general, did the apology make things better, worse, or the same?

[LeSellers]

But in general, did the apology [for Mountain Meadows] make things better, worse, or the same?

No worse, perhaps, but certainly no better.

People who decide to be offended will be offended no matter what. Feigned offense is even more likely to be an anchor in their imagined storms. Witness the whole Flake/Fluck/Fluke thang.

Lehi

[Analytics]

No worse, perhaps, but certainly no better.

People who decide to be offended will be offended no matter what. Feigned offense is even more likely to be an anchor in their imagined storms. Witness the whole Flake/Fluck/Fluke thang.

Lehi

That's an interesting example. The D&C says that the way to tell if somebody has repented is to confess your sins and forsake them. Mr. Limbaugh didn't forsake his sin, and only offered a half-heared, grudging apology. In contrast, the church did forsake its sin, but never confessed it ever did anything wrong.

I think that D&C standard of telling whether or not sombeody has repented is a good one. If somebody did something that was wrong and says without qualification, "I was wrong, I'm sorry," and then stops doing it, I will totally believe that they "repented."

[frankenstein]

That's an interesting example. The D&C says that the way to tell if somebody has repented is to confess your sins and forsake them. Mr. Limbaugh didn't forsake his sin, and only offered a half-heared, grudging apology. In contrast, the church did forsake its sin, but never confessed it ever did anything wrong.

I think that D&C standard of telling whether or not sombeody has repented is a good one. If somebody did something that was wrong and says without qualification, "I was wrong, I'm sorry," and then stops doing it, I will totally believe that they "repented."

What was the sin the Church committed?

While FAIR might want to convince you that the leaders went rogue with the ban, this fairasitical view of ban does not represent the Church.

The Church has not suggested or implied that the ban was wrong, sin or mistake.

[Analytics]

What was the sin the Church committed?

While FAIR might want to convince you that the leaders went rogue with the ban, this fairasitical view of ban does not represent the Church.

The Church has not suggested or implied that the ban was wrong, sin or mistake.

That's precicely why they need to make the apology--so that its members could accept the truth that it was a mistake, and end speculation regarding whether the ban was from God, and if so, why God wanted the church to be racist.

[Rivers]

If the

That's precicely why they need to make the apology--so that its members could accept the truth that it was a mistake, and end speculation regarding whether the ban was from God, and if so, why God wanted the church to be racist.

If the church were to take this action, wouldn't this undermine the church's claim to revelation from God? I think that is the real dillema the church is facing.

[LeSellers]

If the church were to take this action, wouldn't this undermine the church's claim to revelation from God? I think that is the real dilemma the church is facing.

The real dilemma the Church is facing is there's no way to satisfy the critics.

Any answer will only serve to enrage them more and persuade them that they were right all along.

Lehi

[jskains]

Out of curiosity, should/did the Methodists apologize for Luther's statement that Jews should be hung from the rafters?

JMS