It'S Coming, It'S Not Good And It'S Time To Recognize It!

[Storm Rider]

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.

Pa, I only hope that it happens. It will permanently make these so-called Christians be seen for what they truly are. While they are at it, they will bring more people into the Church than our entire missionary force does in years.

[GingerRed]

Actually what bothers me more than all this kind of hubub about the Priesthood ban....is why haven't black LDS members said anything? They've been kinda silent. Why haven't they spoken up? We have all these prominent black LDS members that a lot of the general public don't even know about. Even Gladys Knight on DWTS hasn't even mentioned her religion. I was REALLY hoping that our General Authority, Joseph W. Sitati would have spoken this General Conference! Not that he needed to have addressed the situation, but it would have been good for all the world to see him speak. Just to show....hey I'm a black Mormon and I'm proud of it.

I don't think the church has anything to apologize for, either. Bob...if the ban doesn't bother the black members of the church...which there are many...and still joining the church...why should it bother YOU so much? Have you ever gone to the blacklds.org and read whats on there? That might shed some light on their side of the story for you.

Red

[jwhitlock]

The church is going to be attacked no matter what it does. An apology at this point would be a huge strategic mistake; our enemies would jump all over it as an admission of fault and demand that we be crucified for it.

Having said all that, I agree that Obama is going to unleash the attack dogs on Romney's religion. He is going to be willing to demonize Mormons in general as a way of getting re-elected. The methodologies of how Obama operatives dealt with Hillary Clinton supporters during the primaries in 2008 gives us a good clue as to what they're willing to do. However, there's also a good chance that it may backfire on them; candidates that campaign on an anti-Mormon platform don't always fare well, as Stephen Douglas found out.

I suspect that from now on, there will be more and more polarization when it comes to the church from society in general. It's time for people to get off the fence, and it looks like the Lord is going to help facilitate that process. This will be interesting.

[Kenngo1969]

The church is going to be attacked no matter what it does. An apology at this point would be a huge strategic mistake; our enemies would jump all over it as an admission of fault and demand that we be crucified for it.

Having said all that, I agree that Obama is going to unleash the attack dogs on Romney's religion. He is going to be willing to demonize Mormons in general as a way of getting re-elected. The methodologies of how Obama operatives dealt with Hillary Clinton supporters during the primaries in 2008 gives us a good clue as to what they're willing to do. However, there's also a good chance that it may backfire on them; candidates that campaign on an anti-Mormon platform don't always fare well, as Stephen Douglas found out.

I suspect that from now on, there will be more and more polarization when it comes to the church from society in general. It's time for people to get off the fence, and it looks like the Lord is going to help facilitate that process. This will be interesting.

You probably have me on "Ignore," so you might never know this, but "We Agree!"

Signed,

"Your 'Favorite' Gosh-Darned Utah Mormon"

[Buckeye]

Hi Bob,

My feelings on the subject are similar to yours. In my personal judgement, the church should come to terms with the reason(s) for the racial ban and, assuming the reason was racism, apologize. As I stated in previous threads, the "we don't know" response will ultimately prove impossible for the following reasons:

(i) The Heavens are open. Modern revelation is a foundational principle of the church. So we have a way to find out if we want to.

(ii) Unlike other issues for which we "do not know" (e.g., the date of the second coming) in this instance we used to know. From inherited curses, to lack pre-existence valiancy, to the denial being good for those denied, the church has provided rationales for the ban throughout its entire existence.

(iii) Most importantly, the church is intent on telling its own story rather than allowing others to do so. If we sit silently by, others will offer the public reasons for the ban and their explanations will be much less charitable (and, IMO, much less correct) than the story we could provide.

Additionally, I have made clear that, in my opinion, the only rational explanation for the ban is racism. According to the church's current statement, the church does not know the reason for the ban. Thus, all explanations are equally viable with the exception of so-called "folklore" taught in the past. The church has not precisely defined what the folklore includes, but whatever it is, the church now expressly rejects it. Certainly the folklore includes the ideas recently taught by BYU Professor Bott, as the church's statement expressly disavows his ideas. I think it is reasonable to conclude the church's statement also excludes the curse of cain, pre-existence valiancy, and all other explanations provided by church leaders in the past. With all those explanations invalidated, I examine the evidence and can only come to one conclusion - racism. Note, importantly, that the church's statement does not prevent this conclusion, as racism was never taught by prior church leaders as the reason for the ban. I don't particularly like this conclusion, but it seems the most supportable. So it is the conclusion I reach for the moment and which I teach to my family and those over whom I have stewardship. I hope to be proven wrong.

As to current events, my speculation (yes, speculation) is that there is a 50/50 chance the church will feel the need to publicly explain the reason for the priesthood ban. Yes, certainly the Romney campaign will be asked about the ban, but Romney has a well prepared and correct answer - "I was thrilled when the ban was lifted. Thus church has been open to all races for some 35 years. I will never judge someone by their race. Let's move on." Its yet to be seen whether this answer will be enough. The media may very well choose to move on because Romney is not a racist (he's clearly not; and I'm a democrat saying that) and because the Mormon angle has already been used extensively in the primary race. In the end, the public's appetite for such investigation will deterimine whether the media keeps pushing Romney to answer the question "sure, you're not racist now, but wasn't the ban wrong?" If that happens, Romney will just defer to the church and I think the church will feel compelled to answer.

Finally, Bob, I would encourage you to come to a peace regarding this issue regardless of whether the church apologies or not at this moment. Neither you nor I are responsible for the church's actions, except in the very limited spheres in which we are called. Focus on those. Teach your children correctly. Show that God is no respecter of persons by living that principle yourself. All wrongs will be corrected in the long term.

[Senator]

You probably have me on "Ignore," so you might never know this, but "We Agree!"

Signed,

"Your 'Favorite' Gosh-Darned Utah Mormon"

I'll quote you to give you visibility.

Oh, wait....he probably has me on ignore too.

Edited April 11, 2012 by Senator

[Gervin]

Will the Catholic apologize because Jesus didn't minister to non-Israelites?

?

I thought he ministered to a Roman Centurion and healed his daughter?

[Mudcat]

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.

I understand your concern but I don't anticipate that, if there is a win a for Romney. Or at least I should say I wouldn't expect it from conservative Evangelicals.

I think about the gap between Catholics and Evangelicals. The JFK Presidency did a great deal to bring about a more harmonious relationship all in all, I think.

Conservative Evangelicals are in a bit of a situation IMO at the moment. Though disagreeable with Romney's religion we are generally agreeable to his core values and some if not all of his political agenda. Some would say he is the lesser of two evils, but this sort of talking point won't stimulate the EV vote and we know it. A change in the dialogue will have to occur on the part of conservative EV's and I think many are scrambling for a good way to change it.

I am quite curious to see how big of a hug some EV leaders are willing to give the LDS hopeful. Personally I would like to see a big bear hug but am thinking more along the lines of a hand shake. I don't expect any magor shift in the acceptance of the LDS faith but I think you will see more exposition on the "holy envy" aspect of LDS and a focus on commonly held beliefs and values. Certainly don't know the fellow's strategy but I think his choice of a VP could make a significant difference in how well EV's warmup to the idea.

I also think you will likely see some of the more outspoken EV critics back off their rhetoric in general. I think the set of critics that are about to present themselves are of an entirely different nature with a completely different set of intentions. In that their intent wont be to try and bring LDS to what they believe is a better understanding of what they believe to be the truth.

These new critics will see Romney's faith as his achilles heel and will simply want to disparage, discredit and alienate the country from the candidate by exploiting what they percieve as a weakness. Their won't be any redeeming intent, they just want to keep their guy in and will do whatever they can to do so. The change in the scale of criticism is about to escalate. Serious cash is about to tossed into creatively painting the LDS faith in the worst possible light.

I feel sorry for what LDS are about to have to endure. I am worried for how all this will impact my own family and my in laws.

Wished I felt more encouraging about the situation, but it is what it is.

Regards,

Mudcat

Edited April 11, 2012 by Mudcat

[ERayR]

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-deals

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!

IMNSHO group apologies for very old wrongs or perceived wrongs are not only invalid but worthless. You are asking someone to apologize for what someone dead and gone did or was perceived to have done. I apologize for any actions I have committed but I can not apologize for my ancestors. My ancestors were shabbily treated by anti-mormon bigots which caused them great hardships and may ultimatley have robbed me of certain financial advantages. I however do not expect an apology from the state of Missouri or the families of any involved in those incidences. Indeed if it were offered I would gracefully decline accepting any apology that I think they do not have the authority to offer.

[thesometimesaint]

Mudcat:

No one wins in this war of religions.

[ERayR]

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.

One of the few times I wholly agree with you SS.

[thesometimesaint]

ERayR:

It must be The Millenium.

[ERayR]

Hi Bob,

My feelings on the subject are similar to yours. In my personal judgement, the church should come to terms with the reason(s) for the racial ban and, assuming the reason was racism, apologize. As I stated in previous threads, the "we don't know" response will ultimately prove impossible for the following reasons:

(i) The Heavens are open. Modern revelation is a foundational principle of the church. So we have a way to find out if we want to.

(ii) Unlike other issues for which we "do not know" (e.g., the date of the second coming) in this instance we used to know. From inherited curses, to lack pre-existence valiancy, to the denial being good for those denied, the church has provided rationales for the ban throughout its entire existence.

(iii) Most importantly, the church is intent on telling its own story rather than allowing others to do so. If we sit silently by, others will offer the public reasons for the ban and their explanations will be much less charitable (and, IMO, much less correct) than the story we could provide.

Additionally, I have made clear that, in my opinion, the only rational explanation for the ban is racism. According to the church's current statement, the church does not know the reason for the ban. Thus, all explanations are equally viable with the exception of so-called "folklore" taught in the past. The church has not precisely defined what the folklore includes, but whatever it is, the church now expressly rejects it. Certainly the folklore includes the ideas recently taught by BYU Professor Bott, as the church's statement expressly disavows his ideas. I think it is reasonable to conclude the church's statement also excludes the curse of cain, pre-existence valiancy, and all other explanations provided by church leaders in the past. With all those explanations invalidated, I examine the evidence and can only come to one conclusion - racism. Note, importantly, that the church's statement does not prevent this conclusion, as racism was never taught by prior church leaders as the reason for the ban. I don't particularly like this conclusion, but it seems the most supportable. So it is the conclusion I reach for the moment and which I teach to my family and those over whom I have stewardship. I hope to be proven wrong.

As to current events, my speculation (yes, speculation) is that there is a 50/50 chance the church will feel the need to publicly explain the reason for the priesthood ban. Yes, certainly the Romney campaign will be asked about the ban, but Romney has a well prepared and correct answer - "I was thrilled when the ban was lifted. Thus church has been open to all races for some 35 years. I will never judge someone by their race. Let's move on." Its yet to be seen whether this answer will be enough. The media may very well choose to move on because Romney is not a racist (he's clearly not; and I'm a democrat saying that) and because the Mormon angle has already been used extensively in the primary race. In the end, the public's appetite for such investigation will deterimine whether the media keeps pushing Romney to answer the question "sure, you're not racist now, but wasn't the ban wrong?" If that happens, Romney will just defer to the church and I think the church will feel compelled to answer.

Finally, Bob, I would encourage you to come to a peace regarding this issue regardless of whether the church apologies or not at this moment. Neither you nor I are responsible for the church's actions, except in the very limited spheres in which we are called. Focus on those. Teach your children correctly. Show that God is no respecter of persons by living that principle yourself. All wrongs will be corrected in the long term.

I am so sorry you have such a lack of imagination that it limits your ability to be able to comprehend other rational reasons for the ban.

You are out of the thread.

[Nofear]

IMNSHO group apologies for very old wrongs or perceived wrongs are not only invalid but worthless. You are asking someone to apologize for what someone dead and gone did or was perceived to have done. I apologize for any actions I have committed but I can not apologize for my ancestors. My ancestors were shabbily treated by anti-mormon bigots which caused them great hardships and may ultimatley have robbed me of certain financial advantages. I however do not expect an apology from the state of Missouri or the families of any involved in those incidences. Indeed if it were offered I would gracefully decline accepting any apology that I think they do not have the authority to offer.

This past weekend I had a chance to converse with a member of the Genesis Group. His anecdotally informed opinion was that the black members of the Church are not looking for any kind of apology -- they are quite content with things having changed and a repudiation of erroneous theories.

On a slightly tangential note, the same individual put forth an interesting theory why 1978. He noted how many protestant denominations are very split, "black churches" and "white churches" and that if the Church had removed the ban earlier, we would have similar self-segregated congregations but now we don't. I'm not quite sure what to think about the theory. I had always assumed it took a long while because the Church is a very conservative organization and the very nature of conservatism is a glacial rate of institutional change.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Pa, I only hope that it happens. It will permanently make these so-called Christians be seen for what they truly are. While they are at it, they will bring more people into the Church than our entire missionary force does in years.

I hope so.

[thesometimesaint]

No fear:

Except that the Church has never been segregated on the basis of race. If someone are within the boundardies of a particular Ward that is where they go for their Church meetings.

[Buckeye]

I am so sorry you have such a lack of imagination that it limits your ability to be able to comprehend other rational reasons for the ban.

Um, how do you read my post to suggest that I'm not open to other ideas? In the same paragraph you highlight, I say that racism is the theory that makes the most sense to me, but that I hope to be proven wrong.

So instead of ad hominem attacks, why not offer a better theory? Just stay away from any of the old folklore. Everything else is fair game.

[Bob Oliverio]

IMNSHO group apologies for very old wrongs or perceived wrongs are not only invalid but worthless. You are asking someone to apologize for what someone dead and gone did or was perceived to have done. I apologize for any actions I have committed but I can not apologize for my ancestors. My ancestors were shabbily treated by anti-mormon bigots which caused them great hardships and may ultimatley have robbed me of certain financial advantages. I however do not expect an apology from the state of Missouri or the families of any involved in those incidences. Indeed if it were offered I would gracefully decline accepting any apology that I think they do not have the authority to offer.

And yet the Church and members were so grateful and thankful when an apology from Illinois was received in 2004 for the atrocities in Nauvoo, some 160 years earlier:

http://www.deseretnews.com/m/article/595052990

I hardly believe President Hinckley and the members found this apology "worthless".

Perhaps all I'm suggesting is the same level of empathy for the wrongs brought upon blacks for a similar historical look back.  I can only believe it would have a similar healing that was brought by the Illinois apology.

[thesometimesaint]

Bob Olivero:

What is there for the Church to apologize for that is even remotely similiar to the actions of the Missouri mobs? We have never burnt their churches to the ground; lynched, tarred and feathered their ministers; burnt their holy books; chased them from state to state and then out of the country. The Southern Baptist Convention exists because of their reactions to the blacks becoming Baptists. We didn't force them from our Church thus forcing them to make their own churches. We never even excluded blacks from membership in the Church. We have publically condemned any uncivil actions towards our black brothers and sisters.

It is true that the African blacks were denied the Priesthood. However if someone don't believe that this Church really has the Priesthood of God why should it matter one whit what we believe.

[DarkScythe]

The Church doesn't need to apologize for the past. So let the past to be past.

[GingerRed]

Bob Olivero:

What is there for the Church to apologize for that is even remotely similiar to the actions of the Missouri mobs? We have never burnt their churches to the ground; lynched, tarred and feathered their ministers; burnt their holy books; chased them from state to state and then out of the country. The Southern Baptist Convention exists because of their reactions to the blacks becoming Baptists. We didn't force them from our Church thus forcing them to make their own churches. We never even excluded blacks from membership in the Church. We have publically condemned any uncivil actions towards our black brothers and sisters.

It is true that the African blacks were denied the Priesthood. However if someone don't believe that this Church really has the Priesthood of God why should it matter one whit what we believe.

Thats just it! The ban didn't really DO anything!.... or cause anyone harm or treat black members badly. Black people were still joining the church back then, with the ban intact! How do you explain that? Did THEY ask the church to apologize first before they joined after 1978?

You're making a mountain out of a molehill, Bob....why does it bother you so much? What difference does it make? It's was soooo long ago and no longer a concern. sheesh would you rather the ban STILL be going on today?? Give the church some credit for the change, at least!!

I find it baffling how much this bothers the critics...! They don't seem to care at all about all the all-black congregations we have, how many black people are STILL coming into the church...there is NO racism that I can see. Please show me where YOU see it in the church today?

[cinepro]

While I am all in favor of an apology (and further clarification on the origin of the Priesthood Ban), I don't think it would make any difference in the next six months of Romney's campaign. Greater forces are at work when it comes to national presidential politics.

I don't think anyone can predict what it going to happen to the Church's public profile over the next 6 months, but suffice it to say:

Thats just it! The ban didn't really DO anything!.... or cause anyone harm or treat black members badly. Black people were still joining the church back then, with the ban intact! How do you explain that? Did THEY ask the church to apologize first before they joined after 1978?

I think the Church should just put that in a press release. Problem solved.

Edited April 11, 2012 by cinepro

[thesometimesaint]

cinepro:

I see nothing to be gained by the Church publishing anything more concerning the issue.

Edited April 11, 2012 by thesometimesaint

[Bob Crockett]

And yet the Church and members were so grateful and thankful when an apology from Illinois was received in 2004 for the atrocities in Nauvoo, some 160 years earlier:

http://www.deseretne...ticle/595052990

I hardly believe President Hinckley and the members found this apology "worthless".

Perhaps all I'm suggesting is the same level of empathy for the wrongs brought upon blacks for a similar historical look back. I can only believe it would have a similar healing that was brought by the Illinois apology.

Institutions apologize by changing their conduct, especially where there is nobody alive in the institution responsible for the adoption of the policy in the first place. What the institution does to change says much more than apology.

I certainly agree that we all rejoice when our adversary is humbled by an apology. It feels so good, doesn't it? But an apology is one to give, not one to demand.

Could the church apologize? Sure, except to do so would require the Church to decide that it had done something wrong. I have the feeling that the instructions given to Pres. Kimball through the spirit did not also come with a justification for past doctrine. So, the Church can't apologize because there is nobody alive who can say whether what it did was wrong or not.

My own particular view is that Brigham Young instituted the policy in the wake of the Missouri Compromise to get the votes necessary to make Utah a state, but it didn't work. It may have been advisable to do so at the time, or not.

[jwhitlock]

I'll quote you to give you visibility.

Oh, wait....he probably has me on ignore too.

Nope, I don't put anyone on ignore.