Bob Oliverio Posted April 11, 2012 Posted April 11, 2012 This is not a political thread. And I know that I have been a big advocate of a formal Church apology for the Church treatment of blacks in the past. I still am very much so.And, as I warned long ago, it will come to haunt and harm the Church in such a HUGE WAY this year.I don't want to turn this into a political thread, but a thread of reality. This is just a very small sample of what will be heading our way this year:http://m.newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2012/04/10/it-begins-msnbc-investigates-mitt-romneys-mormonism-and-how-it-dealsOur leaders need to get smart sooner before later. I fear this will take the Church backwards 100 years!We need a formal apology NOW!
BCSpace Posted April 11, 2012 Posted April 11, 2012 (edited) And, as I warned long ago, it will come to haunt and harm the Church in such a HUGE WAY this year.Only if the anti Mormon view is exclusively presented. The doctrine itself as is currently published is not racist. It wasn't racist in the past either. There were indeed some past speculations but that is all taken care of by adhering to the Church's standard for doctrine.The political reality so far has been that blacks vote for the other party at a rate of 90+% anyway as do those who suffer from white guilt. There really is nowhere to go but up for Romney on this issue and I think, especially given our history and the unwarranted criticism against us, now is the time for the GOP to specifically target this group with ads and visits to leaders and neighborhoods etc. One good mention of the christian hypocrisy on this issue (from both blacks and whites) by Romney in a national debate and the issue will swing his way.I find it distasteful to even refer to blacks or whites or women etc. as separate groups to be targeted politically but that unfortunately is another reality.We need a formal apology NOW!Not at all. We should not apologize for that which we have not done. Edited April 11, 2012 by BCSpace
Mudcat Posted April 11, 2012 Posted April 11, 2012 We need a formal apology NOW!I know this isn't a political thread, but ..... the press for an immediate apology given the context seems politically motivated to me.I imagine, given the current atmosphere, faithful LDS will see a gross misrepresentation of their faith on a scale that has not been seen as yet. Regardless of what efforts are exercised.I am sad for it on a number of levels. Grim times ahead I think.
Bob Oliverio Posted April 11, 2012 Author Posted April 11, 2012 Only if the anti Mormon view is exclusively presented. The doctrine itself as is currently published is not racist. It wasn't racist in the past either. There were indeed some past speculations but that is all taken care of by adhering to the Church's standard for doctrine.I can assure you, and anyone else on this board with common sense will support me, that your defense will not resonate with the media wave that is about to hit the Church like a tsunami! With no disrespect intended BC, this will not be the world of naive sacrament talks. This will be A HUGE ISSUE for the Church to attempt to defend - whether it wants to or not. Staying silent, as has been it's practice in the past will only make things worse for it's favorite son and our image worldwide. THIS IS SERIOUS! We can no longer look at this in the safety of F&T Sunday confines. We can no longer be naive.I know the Church sees this coming and predict a formal announcement. If not, Romney is done!But let's collectively pull out heads out of the sand on this one. We need to! 1
Pahoran Posted April 11, 2012 Posted April 11, 2012 (edited) Our leaders need to get smart sooner before later. I fear this will take the Church backwards 100 years!We need a formal apology NOW!I live in a country which has enshrined socialism and the concomitant sense of collective entitlement, into our national consciousness. Years ago when people dared to timidly suggest that there might be some problems for which the ideal solution was not simply for the government to throw money at them, the cries of anguish from the chattering classes could be heard around the world. I read an article in our most prestigious news magazine which attacked that idea by listing various problems that "desperately need government funding."What they actually needed was money. Whether they deserved it -- or could source it elsewhere -- were questions that were not even asked. For the journalist, "money" was exactly equivalent to "government funding."And I see exactly the same kind of obsessive tunnel vision in your continuous, jet-engine-pitched demand for "a formal apology NOW!"And I'm sorry, but I don't agree. As I think I have said before: if belonging to a church whose history is not 100% sanitised, 21st century centre-left political correctness from day 1 is just too uncomfortable for you, then I suggest you go and steady someone else's ark.Regards,Pahoran Edited April 11, 2012 by Pahoran 2
Log Posted April 11, 2012 Posted April 11, 2012 (edited) 24 And it came to pass that I beheld others pressing forward, and they came forth and caught hold of the end of the rod of iron; and they did press forward through the mist of darkness, clinging to the rod of iron, even until they did come forth and partake of the fruit of the tree.25 And after they had partaken of the fruit of the tree they did cast their eyes about as if they were ashamed.26 And I also cast my eyes round about, and beheld, on the other side of the river of water, a great and spacious building; and it stood as it were in the air, high above the earth.27 And it was filled with people, both old and young, both male and female; and their manner of dress was exceedingly fine; and they were in the attitude of mocking and pointing their fingers towards those who had come at and were partaking of the fruit.28 And after they had tasted of the fruit they were ashamed, because of those that were scoffing at them; and they fell away into forbidden paths and were lost.31 And he also saw other multitudes feeling their way towards that great and spacious building.33 And great was the multitude that did enter into that strange building. And after they did enter into that building they did point the finger of scorn at me and those that were partaking of the fruit also; but we heeded them not.34 These are the words of my father: For as many as heeded them, had fallen away.As many as heeded them fell away. Edited April 11, 2012 by Log 2
BCSpace Posted April 11, 2012 Posted April 11, 2012 I can assure you, and anyone else on this board with common sense will support me, that your defense will not resonate with the media wave that is about to hit the Church like a tsunami! With no disrespect intended BCNone taken. One may always speak freely with me., this will not be the world of naive sacrament talks. This will be A HUGE ISSUE for the Church to attempt to defend - whether it wants to or not. Staying silent, as has been it's practice in the past will only make things worse for it's favorite son and our image worldwide. THIS IS SERIOUS! We can no longer look at this in the safety of F&T Sunday confines. We can no longer be naive.I think those grounded in the doctrine will have no need to fear. Frankly, calling for an apology or denying existing doctrine (not saying you have on the latter) or applying "editorial" silences is not evidence of doctrinal grounding. Those who know the doctrine understand there is no racism involved and can face the challenging times and defend that stance successfully. I've been successful taking this stance on the ground and in reality with blacks. One of my missionary companions was black (Kenya) and we served in downtown LA and Hollywood (-weird) and he took the same stance. We were succesful there. We will continue to be succesful IF we accurately communicate the doctrine without sugar-coating or hiding. Such diffuses more situations than any other apologetic.
Tepui Posted April 11, 2012 Posted April 11, 2012 Steadying the ark is right:D&C 85: 8 While that man, who was called of God and appointed, that putteth forth his hand to steady the ark of God, shall fall by the shaft of death, like as a tree that is smitten by the vivid shaft of lightning.Good luck with that.
Areabird Posted April 11, 2012 Posted April 11, 2012 Not at all. We should not apologize for that which we have not done.So when the church does issue the apology will we hear you say something to the effect of "Forget all that I said.... The prophet has spoken".
Bob Oliverio Posted April 11, 2012 Author Posted April 11, 2012 And I see exactly the same kind of obessive tunnel vision in your continuous, jet-engine-pitched demand for "a formal apology NOW!"And I'm sorry, but I don't agree. As I think I have said before: if belonging to a church whose history is not 100% sanitised, 21st century centre-left political correctness from day 1 is just too uncomfortable for you, then I suggest you go and steady someone else's ark.I respect your emotions. But I will come defend my position in six months or less. And this is really about the truth of our history. While many of us may want rationalize the history of treatment to blacks in our Church, there is no changing of the facts and the same facts the media will flood the nation with this year. It's coming folks.The Church does not have a good hand to play when it comes to historical and documented facts w respect to it's treatment of blacks. Our emotions simply won't change that - try as we may! And if we believe that winning arguments in the isolated confines of boards like this will change what is heading toward the Church, we truly are naive.The Church must apologize. It really has no choice when you set emotions aside and think about it logically.
Fifth Columnist Posted April 11, 2012 Posted April 11, 2012 The Church must apologize. It really has no choice when you set emotions aside and think about it logically.Don't you think it's a bit presumptuous for Church leaders to apologize for something God commanded. God doesn't make mistakes so there is nothing to apologize for.
BCSpace Posted April 11, 2012 Posted April 11, 2012 (edited) Not at all. We should not apologize for that which we have not done.So when the church does issue the apology will we hear you say something to the effect of "Forget all that I said.... The prophet has spoken".I would generally hope so but it's not necessarily going to be the case. For example, the change from "principal ancestors" to "among the ancestors" didn't change anything. It's going to depend on what is said and how it's said. Another example is the fact that there has been no change on the doctrine of homosexuality. The apparent "softening" is merely an emphasis or presentation of a different side of the same thing. Edited April 11, 2012 by BCSpace
Bob Oliverio Posted April 11, 2012 Author Posted April 11, 2012 Don't you think it's a bit presumptuous for Church leaders to apologize for something God commanded. God doesn't make mistakes so there is nothing to apologize for.You may be late to this issue. But the Church has not and will not publicly claim that God was the One who withheld the priesthood from the blacks or inspired all the things that Lds leaders have said about the blacks in the past. And that really is the problem. The Church has painted itself into a corner on this one and that is exactly why it will need to formally apologize. 1
Storm Rider Posted April 11, 2012 Posted April 11, 2012 This is not a political thread. And I know that I have been a big advocate of a formal Church apology for the Church treatment of blacks in the past. I still am very much so.And, as I warned long ago, it will come to haunt and harm the Church in such a HUGE WAY this year.I don't want to turn this into a political thread, but a thread of reality. This is just a very small sample of what will be heading our way this year:http://m.newsbusters...nd-how-it-dealsOur leaders need to get smart sooner before later. I fear this will take the Church backwards 100 years!We need a formal apology NOW!Gosh, I appreciate your warning to us and to the Church. Do you think all of the sensationalism that you put into this topic will motivate the Church of Jesus Christ to do anything? I am sorry to ring the wake up bell, but the Church has been through trials before. More importantly, it will go through additional trials in the future. Long before you came along we were warned about how difficult it would be for us. Trials are nothing new. Let them come for we stand on a sure foundation found in Jesus Christ. As long as we build our foundation on him, we will weather any storm or any tempest in a teacup also.
BCSpace Posted April 11, 2012 Posted April 11, 2012 But the Church has not and will not publicly claim that God was the One who withheld the priesthood from the blacksIncorrect. The Church has said:From the dispensation of Adam until the dispensation of the fulness of times, there has been a group of people who have not been allowed to hold the priesthood of God. The scriptural basis for this policy is Abraham 1:21–27 . The full reason for the denial has been kept hidden by the Lord, and one is left to assume that He will make it known in His own due time.(http://institute.lds.org/manuals/doctrine-and-covenants-institute-student-manual/dc-in-131-od2.asp).....and that the lifting of the ban was in response to the long promised day (Official Declaration 2,Who could make such a promise?).But I would agree with you that the Church is not going to put it front and center.
Freedom Posted April 11, 2012 Posted April 11, 2012 Hmm lets see here. Mormons didn't allow blacks to hold the priesthood versus baptists, methodists, lutherins ect actively and openly murdered blacks, raped their daughters and attempted to enshrine slavery. To this day, there are evangelical ministers who refuse to perform mixed race marriages and there are, to this day, segregated congregations. And the mormons have to apologize? You're kidding right?Will the Catholic apologize because Jesus didn't minister to non-Israelites? 3
thesometimesaint Posted April 11, 2012 Posted April 11, 2012 Freedom:In principle, the wrongs of one group don't validate the wrongs of another group. I don't believe we were wrong in withholding the Preisthood, but the speculations for it were wrong.
inquiringmind Posted April 11, 2012 Posted April 11, 2012 I can assure you, and anyone else on this board with common sense will support me, that your defense will not resonate with the media wave that is about to hit the Church like a tsunami! With no disrespect intended BC, this will not be the world of naive sacrament talks. This will be A HUGE ISSUE for the Church to attempt to defend - whether it wants to or not. Staying silent, as has been it's practice in the past will only make things worse for it's favorite son and our image worldwide. THIS IS SERIOUS! We can no longer look at this in the safety of F&T Sunday confines. We can no longer be naive.I know the Church sees this coming and predict a formal announcement. If not, Romney is done!But let's collectively pull out heads out of the sand on this one. We need to!With Obama as the alternative, I'm not sure Romney will be done, but you can bet his faith will be attacked from the left, and it's already started.A commentator on MSNBC ranted about how JS started in new religion because he was caught with the maid, etc., etc., and this is what Mitt Romney believes in.(I'm quoting only the part I heard reported on Fox News, and I don't know if this particular rant involved the priesthood ban, but I'm sure it will come up.)
thesometimesaint Posted April 11, 2012 Posted April 11, 2012 Unfortunately religion has always been the redheaded step child of US politics. I don't want to go down that road, however if Obama's religion is fair game then so is Romney's. 1
inquiringmind Posted April 11, 2012 Posted April 11, 2012 Unfortunately religion has always been the redheaded step child of US politics. I don't want to go down that road, however if Obama's religion is fair game then so is Romney's.But didn't virtually all Dems insist that Obama's religion (and his relationship to Rev. Write) weren't fair game?And haven't they (up until now) been saying that Romney is the most electable Republican candidate (and speaking as though only ignorant, bigoted, Evangelical Republicans would make an issue of his religion)?
altersteve Posted April 11, 2012 Posted April 11, 2012 You have no right to tell the Church what it "needs" to do, Bob. That right is reserved for Thomas S. Monson by the Spirit of revelation. Besides, whether the Church issues such an apology or not, the work of God will continue to move forward. Life goes on.
thesometimesaint Posted April 11, 2012 Posted April 11, 2012 Inquiringmind:I believe they did. I'm not a Dem, and I don't believe religion should ever be used as a criterion for any public office in the US. So to me Romneys religon is no more problematic than Obama'sHe probably is the most electable of the Republican candidates. However I won't be voting for him, and it has nothing to do with his religion.
Cobalt-70 Posted April 11, 2012 Posted April 11, 2012 This is not a political thread. And I know that I have been a big advocate of a formal Church apology for the Church treatment of blacks in the past. I still am very much so.And, as I warned long ago, it will come to haunt and harm the Church in such a HUGE WAY this year.We need a formal apology NOW!And a related issue, which could be a problem for Romney and Hispanics, is that the LDS Church still teaches (because it's in the Book of Mormon) that Native Americans were a cursed people, and that the pigment in their skin was a mark to prevent interracial marriage between whites and Native Americans. The media will want to know (and frankly, I do too) whether Romney believes that. I suspect he will claim he doesn't. But the fact that he even would have to deal with that issue is a bit embarrassing.
Kenngo1969 Posted April 11, 2012 Posted April 11, 2012 I also think Mr. Romney should apologize for the Church's treatment of women, redheads, and Coke drinkers, as well.
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted April 11, 2012 Posted April 11, 2012 I know this isn't a political thread, but ..... the press for an immediate apology given the context seems politically motivated to me.I imagine, given the current atmosphere, faithful LDS will see a gross misrepresentation of their faith on a scale that has not been seen as yet. Regardless of what efforts are exercised.I am sad for it on a number of levels. Grim times ahead I think.The thing I know will happen if Romney wins…and for this reason I fear if he does. The sidewalk outside the Whitehouse will look like General Conference with insulting signs for four, maybe even eight years.
Recommended Posts