A Mormon Says Sorry

[mormonnewb]

In this video, a saint apologizes for his role in teaching the now-repudiated justifications for the priesthood/temple ban.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTUdH1BJTUI

 

Which one of you is next?  

[Rivers]

President Monson is next.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I can't say sorry as I thought it was what it was. All I can say is that I wish I knew what I did now. But I get it.

[Scott Lloyd]

It's a shame he was perpetuating these ideas as late as 1993. I wonder if he was getting them from then-contemporary Church curricula as opposed to dredging them up from the past.

 

I have very clear memories of 1993 (the year I bought my house, etc.) and I don't remember official or institutional Church teaching from that time to the effect that the people of African descent were cursed. I think any such teaching, to the extent that it had prevailed at all in the past, had long been abandoned by then.

 

So it's great that he's apologizing, but he should not be conveying the impression (with phrasing such as "my part in it") that he was reflecting the position of the Church at the time.

 

It's maybe another case of persistent folk doctrine having been passed off as authoritative teaching.

Edited December 18, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Buzzard]

If it makes him feel better, so much the better for him. The past is a foreign country, they do things differently there. 

[mormonnewb]

I can't say sorry as I thought it was what it was. All I can say is that I wish I knew what I did now. But I get it.

 

Isn't it okay to say sorry, even for just an honest mistake?  For instance, if you were to mistakenly take someone else's iPad from church (it had a very similar cover to your own), wouldn't you apologize?  Or would you say to them, "Here's your iPad.  I thought it was mine and I wish I knew it was yours, but I can't say I'm sorry because I thought it was what it was"?

[pogi]

Isn't it okay to say sorry, even for just an honest mistake?  For instance, if you were to mistakenly take someone else's iPad from church (it had a very similar cover to your own), wouldn't you apologize?  Or would you say to them, "Here's your iPad.  I thought it was mine and I wish I knew it was yours, but I can't say I'm sorry because I thought it was what it was"?

 

I agree, if we ever taught the justifications for the ban, then we are accountable in part.  We cannot give all of the blame to the authorities.  They have taught us that we should not accept what they say on blind-faith, but that we should pray and find out if what they are teaching is truth.  If we failed to do so, we should be sorry.  We are as accountable as anybody for the spread of false teachings.

[Palerider]

It's a shame he was perpetuating these ideas as late as 1993. I wonder if he was getting them from then-contemporary Church curricula as opposed to dredging them up from the past.

 

I have very clear memories of 1993 (the year I bought my house, etc.) and I don't remember official or institutional Church teaching from that time to the effect that the people of African descent were cursed. I think any such teaching, to the extent that it had prevailed at all in the past, had long been abandoned by then.

 

So its great that he's apologizing, but he should not be conveying the impression (with phrasing such as "my part in it") that he was reflecting the position of the Church at the time.

 

It's may be another case of folk doctrine having been passed off as authoritative teaching.

 

This line of thinking is pretty naive.

 

Unless the church actively teaches AGAINST this sort of thing in it's curriculum, it is tacitly allowing it to perpetuate.

 

Up until the most recent statement issued by the church, I would have explained the doctrine just as it was taught to me in the mission field in the 70's. They may have changed their "policy" in '78 but their original reasoning for the doctrine wasn't disavowed as far as I knew.

[David T]

It's a shame he was perpetuating these ideas as late as 1993. I wonder if he was getting them from then-contemporary Church curricula as opposed to dredging them up from the past.

 

I have very clear memories of 1993 (the year I bought my house, etc.) and I don't remember official or institutional Church teaching from that time to the effect that the people of African descent were cursed. I think any such teaching, to the extent that it had prevailed at all in the past, had long been abandoned by then.

 

So its great that he's apologizing, but he should not be conveying the impression (with phrasing such as "my part in it") that he was reflecting the position of the Church at the time.

 

It's may be another case of folk doctrine having been passed off as authoritative teaching.

 

Through popular books on sale at Deseret Book like 'Answers to Gospel Questions', 'Mormon Doctrine', 'Doctrines of Salvation', etc.

 

Two of those are among the first things I bought when I was baptized in 2004. They were right there on the 'Teachings of Modern Prophets' shelves, in attractive hardcover reprintings, and bold titles promising Doctrine and Answers, from a President of the Church, and an Apostle, both of whom were individuals I had seen quoted all over the place in the then-current Gospel Principles Church manual. 

 

Basically, I would have had no reason not to trust them from an institutional perspective.

Edited December 18, 2013 by David T

[Storm Rider]

This line of thinking is pretty naive.

 

Unless the church actively teaches AGAINST this sort of thing in it's curriculum, it is tacitly allowing it to perpetuate.

 

Up until the most recent statement issued by the church, I would have explained the doctrine just as it was taught to me in the mission field in the 70's. They may have changed their "policy" in '78 but their original reasoning for the doctrine wasn't disavowed as far as I knew.

 

Thai is an ungainly sized text indeed if it needs to dictate all that it does not believe rather than what it does. 

[stemelbow]

 

It's a shame he was perpetuating these ideas as late as 1993.

 

many many LDS were, much later than that. 

 

That is sad.  It's more sad that error was taught in the first place and claimed as instituted by God.  We are instructed and encouraged to read from past leaders and treat them as inspired people.  It wasn't long ago when wrong teaching was being advocated by the brethren.  It is understandable, if someone accepted it, that they taught it.

 

As for me, I don't believe I ever thought the ban itself was instituted by God.  And I'm quite confident I've ever advocated the since debunked doctrinal teaching that the ban was due to a curse on African people. 

[Buckeye]

This line of thinking is pretty naive.

 

Unless the church actively teaches AGAINST this sort of thing in it's curriculum, it is tacitly allowing it to perpetuate.

 

Up until the most recent statement issued by the church, I would have explained the doctrine just as it was taught to me in the mission field in the 70's. They may have changed their "policy" in '78 but their original reasoning for the doctrine wasn't disavowed as far as I knew.

 

Bingo.  Considering that BYU Professor Bott felt comfortable teaching the pre-78 explanations for the ban to the Washington Post in 2012, it's not that hard to believe that the many others were doing the same.  That's what happens when you stop a practice but don't disavow the practice.  People keep justifying it under the old rationales.  Heck, even McConkie didn't revise his statements in Mormon Doctrine after '78.

[Buckeye]

Thai is an ungainly sized text indeed if it needs to dictate all that it does not believe rather than what it does. 

 

There is a big difference between the need to correct historical teachings that were widespread and false verses the need to sett out everything we don't believe.  The church does not need to say, "we don't believe the Utah Jazz will win the NBA championship in the year 2000" because no other thought the church held that view.  The church does need to say that teachings it once embraced are now not acceptable.  That's exactly what happened in last week's statement.  It just came 35 years later than it should have. 

[stemelbow]

There is a big difference between the need to correct historical teachings that were widespread and false verses the need to sett out everything we don't believe.  The church does not need to say, "we don't believe the Utah Jazz will win the NBA championship in the year 2000" because no other thought the church held that view.  The church does need to say that teachings it once embraced are now not acceptable.  That's exactly what happened in last week's statement.  It just came 35 years later than it should have. 

 

I would say add another 126 years to your should have claim and you have exactly right. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Thai is an ungainly sized text indeed if it needs to dictate all that it does not believe rather than what it does.

As has already been pointed out, this is ridiculous. The church taught all this stuff as doctrine and then slowly piece by piece removed it, without explanation. Eventually they started saying we don't know (which is different than saying we were wrong). The church absolutely has the responsibility to own up to its own teachings and disavow those that it no longer views as correct.

[mormonnewb]

As has already been pointed out, this is ridiculous. The church taught all this stuff as doctrine and then slowly piece by piece removed it, without explanation. Eventually they started saying we don't know (which is different than saying we were wrong). The church absolutely has the responsibility to own up to its own teachings and disavow those that it no longer views as correct.

 

While I personally think that the church should apologize (and ultimately will), I find it curious that there is pressing desire to find "fault" in the situation.  Is that what we've been taught?  That, unless you were "at fault," you should never apologize?  Because this is just the opposite of what I've observed among the saints.

 

I couldn't imagine walking down the hall at the meeting house and having a saint run into me and say, "Well, I would apologize but the church built these hallways too narrow."  Nor could I imagine my brother or sister saying, "Hey, watch where you are going!  I had the right of way here!"

 

Instead, what I imagine is the two of us falling over one another to apologize for the mix-up.  "I'm so sorry.  If I hadn't been so fixated on my own selfish desires to get to the nursery, I would have guessed that you would stop right in the middle of the hallway and that I would smash into you.  Please accept my apologies."  "No!  No!  It's my fault.  If I weren't so selfish, my body would have become permeable and you would passed right through me, but it's always, me, me, me!  I apologize and will you pray for me, brother?"

 

So what makes this any different?  You thought the church would zig left and it zagged right and you both ran over little Latrell.  Yet, rather than picking up Latrell and apologizing (for teaching him and your kids that God loves white people more), there seems to be this desire to argue between the two of you.  Once again, this is so contrary to what would happen amongst individual saints, who would almost come to blows over who gets to take Latrell out for ice cream to make up for knocking him down.

 

What is different when one party to the incident is the Church?

Edited December 18, 2013 by mormonnewb

[SeekingUnderstanding]

While I personally think that the church should apologize (and ultimately will), I find it curious that there is pressing desire to find "fault" in the situation.  Is that what we've been taught?  That, unless you were "at fault," you should never apologize?  Because this is just the opposite of what I've observed among the saints.

 

I couldn't imagine walking down the hall at the meeting house and having a saint run into me and say, "Well, I would apologize but the church built these hallways too narrow."  Nor could I imagine my brother or sister saying, "Hey, watch where you are going!  I had the right of way here!"

 

Instead, what I imagine is the two of us falling over one another to apologize for the mix-up.  "I'm so sorry.  If I hadn't been so fixated on my own selfish desires to get to the nursery, I would have guessed that you would stop right in the middle of the hallway and that I would smash into you.  Please accept my apologies."  "No!  No!  It's my fault.  If I weren't so selfish, my body would have become permeable and you would passed right through me, but it's always, me, me, me!  I apologize and will you pray for me, brother?"

 

So what makes this any different?  You thought the church would zig left and it zagged right and you both ran over little Latrell.  Yet, rather than picking up Latrell and apologizing (for teaching him and your kids that God loves white people more), there seems to be this desire to argue between the two of you.  Once again, this is so contrary to what would happen amongst individual saints, who would almost come to blows over who gets to take Latrell out for ice cream to make up for knocking him down.

 

What is different when one party to the incident is the Church?

Just to clarify, I agree that the church should have apologized for its teachings. Its part of the repentance process as I've been taught.

[Scott Lloyd]

This line of thinking is pretty naive.

 

Unless the church actively teaches AGAINST this sort of thing in it's curriculum, it is tacitly allowing it to perpetuate.

This would make the Church responsible for every half-baked, false, outdated or misguided notion floating around. I don't buy it.

Edited December 18, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Through popular books on sale at Deseret Book like 'Answers to Gospel Questions', 'Mormon Doctrine', 'Doctrines of Salvation', etc.

Can you cite specific quotations from these titles from editions that would have been in print and available for purchase new in 2004, or even 1993?

 

Perhaps you can. But be that as it may, such titles customarily carry disclaimers that the author alone is responsible for the content.

 

I'd call it naive to ignore that disclaimer.

Edited December 18, 2013 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Up until the most recent statement issued by the church, I would have explained the doctrine just as it was taught to me in the mission field in the 70's. They may have changed their "policy" in '78 but their original reasoning for the doctrine wasn't disavowed as far as I knew.

Sorry, you're having explained it in a certain way does not make it authoritative.

[Buckeye]

This would make the Church responsible for every half-baked, false, outdated or misguided notion floating around. I don't buy it.

 

Not so.  The church is only responsible for the half-baked, false, outdated and misguided notions that have floated through its manuals, first presidency statements, and other church-approved materials.  The church's responsibility varies depending on how harmful and widespread the teaching was.  Considering that the priesthood ban was one of the greatest harms possible (it prevented families from being sealed), and was taught extensively (of the 8 missionary discussions taught to investigators in Brazil pre-'78, one entire discussion was dedicated to justifying the ban, see http://www.keepapitchinin.org/2013/05/01/guest-post-extra-pre-1978-missionary-lesson/), it is hard to imagine a more significant false teaching for the church to denounce than the ban.

[Buckeye]

Perhaps you can. But be that as it may, such titles customarily carry disclaimers that the author alone is responsible for the content.

 

 

I'll remember to raise that point next time someone reads from the Neal A. Maxwell Quote Book for their spiritual thought in PEC meeting.

[Scott Lloyd]

Not so.  The church is only responsible for the half-baked, false, outdated and misguided notions that have floated through its manuals, first presidency statements, and other church-approved materials.  The church's responsibility varies depending on how harmful and widespread the teaching was.  Considering that the priesthood ban was one of the greatest harms possible (it prevented families from being sealed), and was taught extensively (of the 8 missionary discussions taught to investigators in Brazil pre-'78, one entire discussion was dedicated to justifying the ban, see http://www.keepapitchinin.org/2013/05/01/guest-post-extra-pre-1978-missionary-lesson/), it is hard to imagine a more significant false teaching for the church to denounce than the ban.

Your dialogue on this subject constantly flows from certain presuppositions.

 

On another thread, I posted this link to what I identified as the most sensible analysis I've yet seen on the recent Church statement. It's from Dr. Gregory Smith.

 

The title pretty much sums it up: "'We Don't Know' Really Does Mean 'We Don't Know'".

[Scott Lloyd]

I'll remember to raise that point next time someone reads from the Neal A. Maxwell Quote Book for their spiritual thought in PEC meeting.

Do what you have to do.

 

I personally think it's better to use scriptures, conference talks and Church-correlated writings as source material for such things.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

This would make the Church responsible for every half-baked, false, outdated or misguided notion floating around. I don't buy it.

How about just the ones we have signed first presidency letters for. Still too much to ask?