Teddy Bear Vs Grizzly Bear Answers To Mormonism

[Analytics]

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.

I agree; that is the dillema. That's why they issue broad, vague, statements about how things aren't known with perfect clarity--it admits no wrong, while not contradicting anybody.

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.

Why do you care so much about what the critics think? For the sake of its own members, the church should tell the truth, put this behind them, and apologize.

The church should be in the business of doing what is right, not satisfying the critics.

[Analytics]

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

JMS

To the extent that Methodists believe that Luther was a prophet of God and are conflicted regarding the validity of what he allegedly said, then yes.

[jskains]

To the extent that Methodists believe that Luther was a prophet of God and are conflicted regarding the validity of what he allegedly said, then yes.

To the common public, Monson, Brigham, etc. are all just men, as well as Luther. Your extra condition has no value here.

[LeSellers]

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

Of course they should. Everyone should apologize for everything that has ever offended anyone, any time, any place, no matter who actually did or said it. The Methodists most especially: the name of their church starts with "M", after all.

Lehi

Edited March 8, 2012 by LeSellers

[jskains]

The Church removed the ban and has publicly denounced racism. I am sorry that doesn't satisfy some, but to those unsatisfied people, I would wonder if anything would be accepted.

If the Church issued some big apology, the Anti's would claim it was forced and fake. I think the whole subject is just a political smear campaign that the Anti-Romney folks are cooking up.

So why should the Church dance for the political people?

[LeSellers]

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.

Why do you care so much about what the critics think? For the sake of its own members, the church should tell the truth, put this behind them, and apologize.

I am really not convinced that too many Saints are concerned in the least about this, per se. The only thing I am anxious with regard to this general question is how others (not critics, fer shure) react when they hear the biased reporting we've seen all too frequently on the subject.

But the critics are the ones who constantly and consistently resurrect this topic, and who try to make those others believe that we are doing anything that, without the consent of the principles, changes anything about them (And that doesn't even address the fact that we believe that Jews will remain Jews in the Celestial Kingdom, so their concern is completely without foundation.)

Critics also raise the Priesthood "ban" repeatedly when there is simply no reasonable cause for doing so. If The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the Church of God, as we believe, then whatever happens in regard to Priesthood will be, by our long-standing doctrine "made right" when it actually counts (in the resurrection/judgement), irrespective of the source of God's denying black Africans His Priesthood. If not, then we didn't withhold anything from them because we had nothing to withhold. And, as every prophet who implemented this "ban" has told us, it was temporary, and no blessing that holding the Priesthood ever entailed will be withheld from those who did not receive it during life. We believed, to the contrary of most other Christian churches in the XIX and early XX, that black Africans were just as much sons and daughters of God as any of us who did (or could) hold the Priesthood. Furthermore, the only people who were affected were black African Saints, and they had the choice to believe and accept, or disbelieve and walk away. In the latter case, they lost nothing, and in the former, they gained all. No non-LDS black man was denied the Priesthood based on his race. It was his status as a non-member, and that has not, nor ever will, change. (Which, I suppose, makes us bigots, too, since we can't give the Priesthood to Tom, D|ck, and Harry, not to mention Mary.)

Lehi

Edited March 7, 2012 by LeSellers

[Deborah]

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:

The headline would like to make you think that but it is a statement of regret for the actions of local church leaders which caused the massacre and then tried to blame it on the Indians. The words were carefully chosen. An expression of regret for what happened is not the same as an apology. We can say we regret the racist opinions of the past regarding the ban but that is not an apology for the ban itself. In fact that is what the church has basically said in emphatically announcing that racism of any kind is unacceptable. So what more do you want? If the statement of brother Eyring is considered an "apology" then the statement denouncing racism should be as well.

[Analytics]

I am really not convinced that too many Saints are concerned in the least about this, per se. The only thing I am anxious with regard to this general question is how others (not critics, fer shure) react when they hear the biased reporting we've seen all too frequently on the subject….

With regards to the priesthood ban, I respectfully disagree. The Washington Post article that ignited the recent stir was quite unbiased and gave a fair representation of the situation. The controversy was among Latter-day Saints and the divergent and contradictory things various Saints believe. The article and aftermath prove that many Latter-day Saints believe things that others find hurtful.

Your statements about how if the Church is true then everything will “be made right when it actually counts,” and about how if it isn’t then nothing was actually withheld, is basically the same argument you’ve used in the women and priesthood thread. I find that argument kind of sad—it implies that regardless of whether or not the church is true, nothing in this life really matters. A black Saint feels bad because he can’t baptize his own child. Who cares? It doesn’t matter. A black Saint finds that the speculations of a BYU religion professor about the nature of the ban to be vile. Who cares? It doesn’t matter. Racist attitudes fester in the heart of a white Latter-day Saint because he thinks there is some validity to what prophets have taught about the nature of the ban. Who cares? It doesn’t matter.

[thesometimesaint]

Analytics

If the Church is true, and I believe it is, it doesn't matter whom baptizes whom as long as they have the proper authority. Unless you were born in the Church it is unlikely you had a family member baptize you.

I'm not black, and I don't care for a lot of the speculation concerning the ban. What make a black member any more/less qualified than I to have an opinion on it?

[frankenstein]

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.

Scholars who confulate the statements from the Church need to apologize. The First Presidency has made it clear that the ban was of God. Scholars have muddled the First Presidency to suit their own scholarly or pet agendas. So I do not see why the Church should apologize for the meddling and muddying of issues by scholars.

Edited March 8, 2012 by frankenstein

[Analytics]

Analytics

If the Church is true, and I believe it is, it doesn't matter whom baptizes whom as long as they have the proper authority. Unless you were born in the Church it is unlikely you had a family member baptize you.

I'm not black, and I don't care for a lot of the speculation concerning the ban. What make a black member any more/less qualified than I to have an opinion on it?

If it didn't matter who baptizes you, then on the first Saturday of every month when all the stake's 8-year olds are getting baptized, they'd just have some random priesthood holder baptize all the kids. The fact it's done by somebody close to each individual child--preferably the father--proves that it matters.

I get it that from a theological perspective it doesn't matter. But from a sociological perspective, it certainly does.

[cinepro]

The headline would like to make you think that but it is a statement of regret for the actions of local church leaders which caused the massacre and then tried to blame it on the Indians. The words were carefully chosen. An expression of regret for what happened is not the same as an apology. We can say we regret the racist opinions of the past regarding the ban but that is not an apology for the ban itself. In fact that is what the church has basically said in emphatically announcing that racism of any kind is unacceptable. So what more do you want? If the statement of brother Eyring is considered an "apology" then the statement denouncing racism should be as well.

This story from an interview about the making of "Nobody Knows" makes me think what an apology might look like:

Darius: The project was and is an independent project, and yet we weren't trying to hide anything from the Church. There was an interview that had been conducted with Pastor Cecil ("Chip") Murray. Pastor Murray, from the African Methodist Episcopal Church in Los Angeles, is as well known in the AME Church as President Hinckley is known in the LDS Church. So here is this noted, respected, senior member of the faith being interviewed for our film. In the course of the interview, Pastor Murray says that President Hinckley apologized for the role that the Church had played in discrimination and for the Church's role in slavery. That was obviously of note—that President Hinckley would apologize. So an email was sent to Elder Dallin Oaks, saying, "We have footage in this interview saying this," and asking if the Church would like to respond. But there was no response at that time.

So here we are, fast-forward, seventeen months later. All of a sudden the light has come on, because some of the folks in Public Affairs have seen portions of the film. Again, we weren't trying to hide the pea. The thing that grabbed their attention was that President Hinckley supposedly apologized for anything. "What would this church have to apologize for?" So here we are, having been given the footage by archives, access to this material with the expectation that it would be used.

But at this point, months later, the Church, through its representatives in Public Affairs, was saying, "We don't believe President Hinckley would have said that." So to make a long, long story short, we had Marvin Perkins in California talk to Cecil Murray using open-ended probes—not trying to direct it—say, "You did an interview. You met with President Hinckley. What was that about? Was there anything significant that came from that?" Pastor Murray repeated the story. I had asked Marvin to take quick notes immediately after that meeting and forward those notes to me from that meeting. So Murray repeated and verified that the interview had taken place and that during it President Hinckley had made the comments that Pastor Murray had earlier said he said. I related that to Public Affairs so they could relate that information to those of the Brethren who were ill at ease. Then the question that we posed was, "Have you asked President Hinckley? If you're saying that it wasn't said, ask the other person who was a part of the conversation. The conversation was between Pastor Chip Murray and President Gordon Hinckley. Murray is remembering it; have you asked President Hinckley?" But they were reluctant to ask him. They didn't want to go that route. They did everything except to buy bread on Sunday to keep from asking President Hinckley, who obviously was still alive at the time, though he died while we were still in some phase of negotiation.

----------------------------------------------------------

Margaret: When the Public Affairs people said, "We have no memory of any apology," we said, "Do you remember a conversation about the founding of the first AME by Biddy Smith Mason?" "Yes, we remember that." So we went back to the interview. I had the transcriptions with me, and I said, "What if we add this portion where we talk about who Biddy Smith Mason was?"

Anyway, we reached an accommodation where we would add the material that would make it clear that this was not an over-the-pulpit "I, representing the Church, wish to make a formal apology," but that this was "senior pastor to senior pastor" talking about the founding of the first AME, with that history leading into President Hinckley giving an apology.

Darius: It allowed a context in which the apology was for the Church's role in slavery, and not dealing with the priesthood issue. That was the fear. But it was for the Church's role in slavery, which it cannot deny, since Brigham Young went to the territorial legislature in 1852 and Utah became a slave territory. But the apology was also for the Church's role in discrimination, broadly speaking. So by making additions, rather than subtracting the fact that there had been an apology, the accommodation was made. Then, they could feel, appropriately, that, "No, President Hinckley did not, and was not apologizing for the priesthood restriction." That was the fear, that there was any linkage there, that the Church would have to admit or suggest that there had been any wrongdoing.

"Let the Truth Heal": The Making of Nobody Knows: The Untold Story of Black Mormons, Dialogue Vol. 42 Number 3

Edited March 8, 2012 by cinepro

[Grundelwalken]

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.

I love this new word. I'm going to find places I can use it -- especially here on this board. Thanks CP MW

[LeSellers]

I love this new word [fairasitical]. I'm going to find places I can use it -- especially here on this board.

You do realize that "fairasitical" is a slam on FAIR, right?

Lehi

[Grundelwalken]

You do realize that "fairasitical" is a slam on FAIR, right?

Lehi

Yes, but is still a fun play. I will be kind and probably use it to describe myself more than others. MW

Edited March 9, 2012 by Grundelwalken

[Bob Oliverio]

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/53684212-90/church-romney-faith-dozier.html.csp

And this is just the tip of the iceberg as to what is coming.  There are so many great aspects to what the Church "IS".  

We, as a a Church, and as Christian members, need to convince our leaders that it's time for a formal public apology to put behind us what we can never defend and don't want to "publicly and officially explain"!  It's like quicksand - we will never survive this part of our history the more we try and move around in it.  Common sense at this point.

[Deborah]

I'll repeat what I put on another thread:

There is also a great article in Deseret News by a black member and former bishop: http://www.deseretne...ction.html?pg=1

Of note:

I cannot speak for the church or its leaders regarding the intent of the statements. However, I feel comfortable saying this: Whatever racism that may have been carried out by individuals inside or outside of the church against any person or group of persons is a matter of history, while the origin and purposes associated with the restriction of priesthood against those of African descent is a matter of faith.

The former is concerned with the manner in which mankind treats or has treated other humans, as individuals or collective bodies. The latter reflects how God deals with his children and his kingdom on earth.

So, no Bob, no apology for the ban.

[Calm]

http://www.sltrib.co...dozier.html.csp

Considering the Rev. Dozier's history with Muslims, I hope Romney doesn't take advice on how to get along and be accepted by others from him.

Edited March 10, 2012 by calmoriah

[Bob Oliverio]

I'll repeat what I put on another thread:

There is also a great article in Deseret News by a black member and former bishop: http://www.deseretne...ction.html?pg=1

Of note:

So, no Bob, no apology for the ban.

Ms. Deborah,  I can truly appreciate your feelings and perhaps emotions about this issue and how many members believe it may show weakness in our Prophets of past. But there are many realities that have to be dealt with once we get over the emotions.

For one, an article in the Deseret News is likely to have little  if any,  exposure or weight in our media world today.  And even such blogs as Mr Peterson's, that are written with the greatest care, really have no exposure beyond BYU fellows.  And if they did have any merit behind them, why won't the Church come out officially and formally to use such arguments to defend this history?  They can't and won't because it's not a defensible position on this issue.  One or two black members in a BYU blog or DesNew issue is meaningless. It does nothing for the defense of this history for the Church.  And the Church knows it.

We simply can't keep running from this embarrassing part of our history any longer.  We have no answers that, as a Church, we want to formally, officialy and publicly have our Prophet stand up and defend.  

I just think it's time to be real and honest with the rest of the Christian world, and our members.  That's why an apology is needed.  And, IMHO, I believe eventually on will be issued.  I think we just need to do it now.

[Deborah]

We simply can't keep running from this embarrassing part of our history any longer. We have no answers that, as a Church, we want to formally, officialy and publicly have our Prophet stand up and defend.

"Embarrassing" is your description. Part of history, yes. The church has answered. You just don't want to accept it.

[Bob Oliverio]

"Embarrassing" is your description. Part of history, yes. The church has answered. You just don't want to accept it.

The church has answered. You just don't want to accept it.

We have got to step back from the myopic ward comfort zone.  The acceptance you refer to is not about me or you.  It is about all those outside the Church, and truth be known - so many within the Church.  Let's face it, the answers we see on this board are so weak and embarrassing that we will never see President Monson publicly using any of them. And let's be real, the Church at best is merely avoiding having to explain or discussing this issue with any scriptural or definitive explanation.  And while many members want to accept this avoidance, the rest of the Christian community, particularly the African American Christians continue to shake their heads in disgust and disbelief.  

Let's be real and honest - it's time for our Church to formally apologize.  Pride can always be a hinderance!

[Stargazer]

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.

Not to hijack the thread, I am wondering what you mean he didn't forsake his sin, and just why did you think it was a half-hearted, grudging apology? If he never again refers to Ms. Fluke in the terms he did, then he's forsaken the sin. I listened to the apology and it sounded sincere to me -- perhaps he wasn't abject enough for your preference? But to some he committed the unforgivable sin, and his apology is just so much hot air, regardless of the degree of abjectness he might have used in his expression of apology. And I respond to this in that way only to contrast it to the Church's sin (if "sin" it is). If the Church does not know if it did anything "wrong" -- you know, as in going against a divine mandate -- then an apology for the policy is not in order. An apology for any distress or offense it might have caused is perhaps in order, but until we have a revelation getting into the nitty-gritty, not knowing whether the policy was a matter of divine commandment or of mere divine sufferance, they can't apologize, Of course, to some people, just as in Limbaugh's case, the Church cannot be forgiven no matter what it says and does.

[Deborah]

Pride can always be a hinderance!

Pride? And what do you think it is when you decide what it is the leaders of the church should do?

[Stargazer]

Let's be real and honest - it's time for our Church to formally apologize. Pride can always be a hinderance!

I am being real when I say that while the Church could formally apologize for the distress or offense it might have inadvertantly caused while the policy was in effect, if it doesn't know if the policy existed by divine commandment or by divine sufferance, then it cannot in all honesty apologize for the policy itself. And that is what you seem to want, and what others want as well.

[Bob Oliverio]

Pride? And what do you think it is when you decide what it is the leaders of the church should do?

Facts, reason, common sense and the hopes of opening up the gospel to many more.