Teddy Bear Vs Grizzly Bear Answers To Mormonism

[frankenstein]

Bob, I agree with debrha on this, you decided for yourself what you think the Church should do, yet you do not offer anything to support your posistion. Your position seems to be "the church restricted the preisthood, in my opinion that is racist, therefore the church should apologize for the racism i created in my own opinion".

Edited March 11, 2012 by frankenstein

[Jeff K.]

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.

What if the church has been honest? Where does that put you and your protests?

Frankly having read "Rough Stone Rolling" with Bushman getting unfettered access to church archives, along with the Joseph Smith Papers. The church appears to be incredibly honest and open. You on the other hand, seem to dislike the openness and honesty, mainly because it does not subscribe to your own rather small presumed conclusion. The church isn't running from anything, but maybe you might be running from the church, and its openness and its explanations.

I appreciate what the church has done, and is trying to do. Its openness and willingness to review its history seems to be very refreshing. I suppose there will always be those "nattering nabobs of negativity", but what can you say. Some are simply determined to see the absolute worst they can. Theirs isn't about helping the church be better or more accurate, nope, theirs is the armchair general who thinks preset conclusions that somehow justify their complaints are the only ones that have legitimacy.

That unfortunately is wrong.

[Bob Oliverio]

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.

This is precisely the point.  We should never reach conclusions based on what "we don't know"!  That, with all due respect, is simply ignorance.  We should reach conclusions and and defend positions on "what we do know"!  That is the fiber of intelligence and reason.  We, as a Church,  look extremely foolish and hypocritical trying to defend a racist past with the ignorance of an argument - "we don't know"!! 

I really believe most members understand and can see the foolishness in continuing with this ignorant argument.  The entire Christian community does and it just makes our Church look naive.

[Jeff K.]

The church stated it doesn't know regarding that one particular issue. What are they going to say... "Sorry for not knowing?"

[Deborah]

This is precisely the point. We should never reach conclusions based on what "we don't know"!

As opposed to making erroneous conclusions that satisfy some false notion of what you consider "racism." You obviously missed the point of Br. Hamilton's remarks when he said "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 church has always decried racism. The availability of the Priesthood is a separate issue.

[thesometimesaint]

Bob:

Though I expect we'll always be a minority religion, at least until the Milleniemn is well under way. We're doing quite well among the African Americans, and the Africans in Subsaharan Africa.

[Kenngo1969]

This is precisely the point. We should never reach conclusions based on what "we don't know"! ...

"We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to [His kingdom]." Articles of Faith 1:9.

You're welcome. Glad I could clear that up for you.

[Bob Oliverio]

No less than a half dozen media outlets picked this story up to print today alone:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2113463/Reverend-ONeal-Dozier-tells-Mitt-Romney-renounce-Mormonism.html

It's not a matter of whether any of is agree or disagree with it's content, or even fairness. And as many here would prefer to pretend it doesn't matter nor affect the Church, the racists quotes of past prophets and church leaders will become even louder and with wider national media coverage over the next several months.  For many members,  isolated in predominately white areas such as Utah and Idaho, they will continue to seem oblivious to this exposure and this part of our history.

But as I mentioned earlier, articles in places like the Deseret News and/or blogs by BYU professors will not see the day of light in national media. For places like here in Atlanta, the African American community is just gearing up to use this part of our history as a lightening rod against us.

With all due respect to everyone who would prefer to pretend this history and this issue is not a factor in the future of our Church - I would suggest you are being naive.  This year will have more focus on this issue than 1978 ever did.

It really is time for a formal Church apology.  

[Deborah]

For places like here in Atlanta, the African American community is just gearing up to use this part of our history as a lightening rod against us.

And once upon a time polygamy was a lightning rod against us but the church grew. Those who are seeking truth and recognize the spirit will not be swayed by what the media says. You are the one being naive thinking any kind of apology will take away the argument. The church has already stated emphatically that racism is not acceptable in any form.

[Jeff K.]

I don't know why people are stuck on believing that a difference of opinion is "pretending". They should try to consider possibilities outside their own preceptions.

If you want to know, where the history of this church is concerned, the further forward we go, the less the issue plays in its importance. For example we don't really talk much of the racist stance many churches took with segregated congregations, or how preachers often were preaching that slavery was a good and necessary God given act, this was especially strong among southern baptist preachers (ironic isn't it). The issue will reduce in importance as time goes on, and those who deal with it honestly retain the question of "I don't know" in terms as to why the ban existed.

Only those with preconcieved and ill conceived ideas will shout they know the answer, when in fact they don't know.