A Mormon Says Sorry

[why me]

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"?

It depends. Many want to be YouTube superstars and get some publicity. I believe that he youtubed it, right? Also, I haven't listened to the tape but is he an active member now? People do want to be famous for 15 minutes. I think that one can simply leave it be and move on in quiet. Why make it public? Who is too benefit?

[Scott Lloyd]

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

I'm remembering now why I elected not to get involved in this discussion.

[why me]

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  The church is only responsible for the half-baked, false, outdated and misguided notions that have floated through its manuals, first presidency statements, and other church-approved materials.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.

I think that we have a problem. I don't think that the church can claim it was false teaching since the ban was revoked by revelation. And it seems that the revelation did not claim false teaching. But Spencer W. Kimball said some interesting thing about it before the revelation:

 

Notice what I underlined. It could have been an error but.....

 

In 1972 President Spencer W. Kimball declared:

“A special problem exists with respect to blacks because they may not now receive the Priesthood. Some Members of the Church would justify their own un-Christian discrimination against blacks because of that rule with respect to the Priesthood, but while this restriction has been imposed by the Lord, it is not for us to add burdens upon the shoulders of our black brethren. They who have received Christ in faith though authoritative baptism are heirs to the Celestial Kingdom along with men of other races.” (Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, p.237)

In 1973

“Blacks and the Priesthood: I am not sure that there will be a change, although there could be. We are under the dictates of our Heavenly Father, and this is not my policy or the Church’s policy. It is the policy of the Lord who has established it, and I know of no change, although we are subject to revelations of the Lord in case he should ever wish to make a change.” (The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, p.449)

I know the Lord could change his policy and release the ban and forgive the possible ‘error’ which brought about the deprivation. If the time comes, that He will do, I am sure. These ‘smart’ Members who would force the issue, and there are many of them, cheapen the issue and certainly bring into contempt the sacred principle of revelation and divine authority.” (The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball pp.448-9)

Edited December 18, 2013 by why me

[mfbukowski]

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.

Agreed.  I don't know why he taught it then at all.

 

I personally never believed that stuff or taught it.  When asked about it, I told people that I thought it started as a misguided political expediency during those volatile antebellum times, and I still do.

[mormonnewb]

It depends. Many want to be YouTube superstars and get some publicity. I believe that he youtubed it, right? Also, I haven't listened to the tape but is he an active member now? People do want to be famous for 15 minutes. I think that one can simply leave it be and move on in quiet. Why make it public? Who is too benefit?

 

Who is to benefit?  How about the many, many black saints who have labored under the stigma of being "less valiant" or "cursed" for more than 100 years?  How about to the white saints who grew up believing this non-sense, robbing them of possible friendships and business opportunities due to latent beliefs about the inferior of blacks?  How about the millions of blacks (in America and elsewhere) who still see this church as a racist institution and will likely miss out on the benefits of joining with us during this lifetime?

 

And as for leaving it be and moving on quietly, is that how you act in your personal life?  You hurt your spouse's feelings (and we all have) and you simply say, "Hey, I'm not going to apologize.  Who is to benefit?   Leave it be and move on."  Of course, as a faithful latter-day saint, you apologize and try to make amends.

 

Please SOMEBODY tell me why this is any different?

[why me]

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

What would you have them say? I don't think that they know if it was an error or not. Hard to apologize for something that is unknown.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

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.

Under Caste Systems

To illustrate: Cain, Ham, and the whole negro race have been

cursed with a black skin, the mark of Cain, so they can be identified as a caste apart, a people with whom

the other descendants of Adam should not intermarry.

Under Races of Man:

Racial degeneration, resulting in differences in appearance and spiritual aptitude, has arisen since the fall. We know the circumstances under which the posterity of Cain (and later of Ham) were born with the characteristics of the black race. (Moses 5:16-41; 7:8, 12, 22; Abra. 1:20-27.) The Book of Mormon explains why the Lamanites received dark skins and a degenerate status. (2 Ne. 5:21-23.) If we had a full and true history of all races and nations, we would know the origins of all their distinctive characteristics. In the absence of such detailed information, however, we know only the general principle that all these changes from the physical and spiritual perfections of our common parents have been brought about by departure from the gospel truths. (Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 1, pp. 148-151; vol. 3, pp. 313-326.)

The race and nation in which men are born in this world is a direct result of their pre-existent life. All the spirit hosts of heaven deemed worthy to receive mortal bodies were foreordained to pass through this earthly probation in the particular race and nation suited to their needs, circumstances, and talents. "When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam," Moses said with reference to pre-existence, "he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel." (Deut. 32:8.) Not only Israel but all groups were thus foreknown and their total memberships designated in the pre-mortal life. Paul spoke similarly when he averred that God "hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation." (Acts 17:26.)

Here is the disclaimer:

The views expressed herein are the responsibility of the author and do not necessarily represent the position of the Church or of Deseret Book Company

[mfbukowski]

It depends. Many want to be YouTube superstars and get some publicity. I believe that he youtubed it, right? Also, I haven't listened to the tape but is he an active member now? People do want to be famous for 15 minutes. I think that one can simply leave it be and move on in quiet. Why make it public? Who is too benefit?

Sounded a bit fishy to me as well.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

What would you have them say? I don't think that they know if it was an error or not. Hard to apologize for something that is unknown.

Easy to apologize for the doctrine around the ban (i.e. blacks were less valiant, cursed etc). That's the part I was referring to.

[mfbukowski]

Who is to benefit?  How about the many, many black saints who have labored under the stigma of being "less valiant" or "cursed" for more than 100 years?  How about to the white saints who grew up believing this non-sense, robbing them of possible friendships and business opportunities due to latent beliefs about the inferior of blacks?  How about the millions of blacks (in America and elsewhere) who still see this church as a racist institution and will likely miss out on the benefits of joining with us during this lifetime?

 

And as for leaving it be and moving on quietly, is that how you act in your personal life?  You hurt your spouse's feelings (and we all have) and you simply say, "Hey, I'm not going to apologize.  Who is to benefit?   Leave it be and move on."  Of course, as a faithful latter-day saint, you apologize and try to make amends.

 

Please SOMEBODY tell me why this is any different?

Get off your high horse and look at what was posted.

 

The question was- what did the POSTER have to gain from this?

 

That is the issue.

[why me]

 

And as for leaving it be and moving on quietly, is that how you act in your personal life?  You hurt your spouse's feelings (and we all have) and you simply say, "Hey, I'm not going to apologize.  Who is to benefit?   Leave it be and move on."  Of course, as a faithful latter-day saint, you apologize and try to make amends.

 

Please SOMEBODY tell me why this is any different?

I am writing about youtubing it. Usually, this is done to get publicity of some sort. I see no point in doing youtube unless the person wants some sort of publicity. There are better ways to do it. I don't think that I would youtube a public apology to a spouse. There are different ways to make amends.

[stemelbow]

Who is to benefit?  How about the many, many black saints who have labored under the stigma of being "less valiant" or "cursed" for more than 100 years?  How about to the white saints who grew up believing this non-sense, robbing them of possible friendships and business opportunities due to latent beliefs about the inferior of blacks?  How about the millions of blacks (in America and elsewhere) who still see this church as a racist institution and will likely miss out on the benefits of joining with us during this lifetime?

 

And as for leaving it be and moving on quietly, is that how you act in your personal life?  You hurt your spouse's feelings (and we all have) and you simply say, "Hey, I'm not going to apologize.  Who is to benefit?   Leave it be and move on."  Of course, as a faithful latter-day saint, you apologize and try to make amends.

 

Please SOMEBODY tell me why this is any different?

 

You are exactly right.  It would benefit all.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

I think that we have a problem. I don't think that the church can claim it was false teaching since the ban was revoked by revelation. And it seems that the revelation did not claim false teaching. But Spencer W. Kimball said some interesting thing about it before the revelation:

 

Notice what I underlined. It could have been an error but.....

 

In 1972 President Spencer W. Kimball declared:

“A special problem exists with respect to blacks because they may not now receive the Priesthood. Some Members of the Church would justify their own un-Christian discrimination against blacks because of that rule with respect to the Priesthood, but while this restriction has been imposed by the Lord, it is not for us to add burdens upon the shoulders of our black brethren. They who have received Christ in faith though authoritative baptism are heirs to the Celestial Kingdom along with men of other races.” (Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, p.237)

In 1973

“Blacks and the Priesthood: I am not sure that there will be a change, although there could be. We are under the dictates of our Heavenly Father, and this is not my policy or the Church’s policy. It is the policy of the Lord who has established it, and I know of no change, although we are subject to revelations of the Lord in case he should ever wish to make a change.” (The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, p.449)

I know the Lord could change his policy and release the ban and forgive the possible ‘error’ which brought about the deprivation. If the time comes, that He will do, I am sure. These ‘smart’ Members who would force the issue, and there are many of them, cheapen the issue and certainly bring into contempt the sacred principle of revelation and divine authority.” (The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball pp.448-9)

I believe the error quote would be better understood under the doctrine of a divine curse. God would be forgiving the Negroes for the error they made in the pre-existence that brought about the priesthood deprivation.

[why me]

Easy to apologize for the doctrine around the ban (i.e. blacks were less valiant, cursed etc). That's the part I was referring to.

I suppose that one can apologize. But the ban was revoked by revelation and that creates a problem. Why did we need a revelation to undo a man made mistake? Now Spencer W. Kimball did say at one point that it could have been a possible error. See my post above. But still we would need to say that it was an error, the ban itself regardless of the reason.

[why me]

I believe the error quote would be better understood under the doctrine of a divine curse. God would be forgiving the Negroes for the error they made in the pre-existence that brought about the priesthood deprivation.

But we also need to remember that in the bible, certain people did get unfair treatment according to bloodline. And the jews were exclaimed to be the chosen people. Rather strange that the god of humanity would have a chosen people. Sounds a bit discriminatory.

 

And we also have:

 

Hosea 13:16

The people of Samaria must bear their guilt,

because they have rebelled against their God.

They will fall by the sword;

their little ones will be dashed to the ground,

their pregnant women ripped open.

Leviticus 25:44-45 - "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property."

2 Chronicles 15:13

That whosoever would not seek the LORD God of Israel

should be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman.

Edited December 18, 2013 by why me

[SeekingUnderstanding]

I suppose that one can apologize. But the ban was revoked by revelation and that creates a problem. Why did we need a revelation to undo a man made mistake? Now Spencer W. Kimball did say at one point that it could have been a possible error. See my post above. But still we would need to say that it was an error, the ban itself regardless of the reason.

We just disavowed the doctrinal justifications for the ban. As part of the repentance process, I think apologizing for the hurtful statements made by past presidents would go a long way towards healing those hurt by such statements.

[mormonnewb]

Get off your high horse and look at what was posted.

 

The question was- what did the POSTER have to gain from this?

 

That is the issue.

 

 

I am writing about youtubing it. Usually, this is done to get publicity of some sort. I see no point in doing youtube unless the person wants some sort of publicity. There are better ways to do it. I don't think that I would youtube a public apology to a spouse. There are different ways to make amends.

 

I like my high horse, thank you very much!  After sitting on the fence for so long, it feels good to be in the catbird seat.

 

As for YouTubing it, how else do you expect Brother Burton to reach me?  Go door-to-door?  He's reaching me and others the only way he can and it's making SOME impact.  After all, I only found out about this video because it's being shared among black latter-day saints on the Internet.

 

On a personal level, I was moved by the apology.  It further strengthened my testimony of the Church.  While not perfect, MY Church produces Christians like Brother Burton.  I'll take that over "correct" doctrine and policies ANY DAY.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

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"?

Maybe I should have been more specific. I can't say I am sorry for something that I thought was true, I also can't say sorry because I am not likely to cross paths with those people in this life. That was some time ago in a different state. We are not talking about an I pad that I thought was mine that I mistakenly took. We are talking about teaching something that you thought was right. In most cases an apology is not needed. I also would not excpet an apology to those that taught what I taught to other people. I think the dude in the youtube just wants attention. IOW an apology is just not something needed in this regard. No one does it years after the matter. If I was teaching something and I taught something wrong and then realized it on my own I would probably offer up an apology. It should be noted that I have never taught poeple on my mission that people of African descent were cursed.

Edited December 18, 2013 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[pogi]

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

 

I am responsible for my half-baked mistakes, why not the church?

I am responsible for my spreading of false notions, why not the church? 

I am responsible for my misguided notions, why not the church?

Any worthwhile organization is both responsible and accountable for the past and present mistakes of it's authorities/executives.

 

Why do you think that the church does not view themselves as responsible?  Doesn't the release of this article attest to their accountability and resolve to correct previous (even outdated) mistakes?

Edited December 18, 2013 by pogi

[mormonnewb]

But we also need to remember that in the bible, certain people did get unfair treatment according to bloodline. And the jews were exclaimed to be the chosen people. Rather strange that the god of humanity would have a chosen people. Sounds a bit discriminatory.

 

And we also have:

 

Hosea 13:16

The people of Samaria must bear their guilt,

because they have rebelled against their God.

They will fall by the sword;

their little ones will be dashed to the ground,

their pregnant women ripped open.

Leviticus 25:44-45 - "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property."

2 Chronicles 15:13

That whosoever would not seek the LORD God of Israel

should be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman.

 

Jews are semitic people, just like all of their neighbors.  What distinguished Jew from Gentile was not race, but COVENANT.  That is why Abraham circumsized ALL of the men in his household without any regard to race or other distinction because the relationship is one of covenant.  It's why there were Ethiopian Jews five centuries before Christ.

 

And note that when salvation was extended to Gentiles, it was not extended on the basis of race because gentile is not a racial classification; it's a classification of covenant.  Those who hadn't taken upon themselves the Abrahamic covenant were Gentiles, whether black, white or periwinkle.

[Buckeye]

I suppose that one can apologize. But the ban was revoked by revelation and that creates a problem. Why did we need a revelation to undo a man made mistake? Now Spencer W. Kimball did say at one point that it could have been a possible error. See my post above. But still we would need to say that it was an error, the ban itself regardless of the reason.

 

Look at the new statement again, as well as the new introduction to OD-2.  The church's current position is not that a revelation was needed.  The wording is careful to say that the church leaders at the time thought a revelation was necessary.  A more fulsome statement would acknowledge that some leaders at the time, such as Hugh B. Brown, did not think a revelation necessary.

 

IMO, the "need" for a revelation speaks much more to the hearts of the leaders than to God. 

[Ahab]

I am responsible for my half-baked mistakes, why not the church?

I am responsible for my spreading of false notions, why not the church? 

I am responsible for my misguided notions, why not the church?

Any worthwhile organization is both responsible and accountable for the past and present mistakes of it's authorities/executives.

 

Why do you think that the church does not view themselves as responsible?  Doesn't the release of this article attest to their accountability and resolve to correct previous (even outdated) mistakes?

The Church is the collectiive body of members, and each member has his or her own views on each issue with some members who do not agree with some other members.  How can the collective body be responsible for the errors of an individual person?

 

Sounds like you don't know what the Church is.

 

And FYI, the President of the Church doesn't speak for all of the members, either, because there are some members who do not agree with what the President of the Church has to say which means that he is not speaking for them.  He does speak for God, though, when he is speaking as a prophet.  But even when he speaks for God to share God's message to us he is still not speaking for all of the members of the Church as if what he says is what each and every member would say.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

 

Please SOMEBODY tell me why this is any different?

You know, sometimes when you get to a message board often times too much gets read into people's replies. And I am not saying you are doing it. THe guy is probably sincere it probably is a good video. I can't view it right now as I am at work. I hope for the best and if it helps you and other people then it is a good video. Now I can apologize on my part for any misunderstandings.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

 

 

On a personal level, I was moved by the apology.  It further strengthened my testimony of the Church.  While not perfect, MY Church produces Christians like Brother Burton.  I'll take that over "correct" doctrine and policies ANY DAY.

Cool. I am glad it has indeed helped you.

[stemelbow]

IMO, the "need" for a revelation speaks much more to the hearts of the leaders than to God. 

 

interesting.