A Mormon Says Sorry

[CV75]

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

...

Which one of you is next?  

 

 

I’m sure he feels much better now!

 

But he evidently has a residual need to share the blame. An apology is so much more liberating when you just take full responsibility for what you have power over, and let go of any expectations for others to do the same.

 

I also think he might feel even better once he understands his own sense of morality (guilt/apology/blame) in a proper historical and cultural context.

Edited December 19, 2013 by CV75

[mercyngrace]

I just bumped into a blog post which calls for the church to apologize AND accept accountability.

 

http://rationalfaiths.com/apology-priesthood-ban/

 

As to the notion that an apology implies some measure of accountability, I buy that. But I also recognize that it doesn't imply intent. When I bump into someone and apologize, it isn't because I acted with predetermined malice and ran them down. I apologize for being unaware they were there, or that I was unintentionally careless, or that I might have hurt them in some small way. It's just a simple acknowledgement that other people are just as important as I am, that they have a right to inhabit this world and take up space, and that their feelings matter to me. I am accountable for all the wrongs I commit, even when they are unintentional or accidental, so I apologize for them. 

 

If there has been unintentional harm done by the practice of the priesthood ban and certainly by the false teachings surrounding it, then I see only good coming from a heartfelt apology.

[The Nehor]

I apologize for my culpability in this.....mostly for deciding to ration melanin (a personal invention of mine) in differing quantities to humans in the premortal world. I created much of what we call racism and I apologize.

[Calm]

I apologize for my culpability in this.....mostly for deciding to ration melanin (a personal invention of mine) in differing quantities to humans in the premortal world. I created much of what we call racism and I apologize.

Should have stuck to fjords.

[The Nehor]

Should have stuck to fjords.

 

They assigned me Africa and said fjords were not equatorial enough.

[Calm]

They assigned me Africa and said fjords were not equatorial enough.

Too bad you just couldn't have stuck with playing with the animals...giraffes?  really?

 

http://answersafrica.com/weird-bizarre-animals-of-africa.html

http://answersafrica.com/african-animals.html

[sunstoned]

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

Agreed, but I feel that the church is responsible for half-baked, false, outdated and misguided notions taught by its prophets and leaders as doctrine. 

[Robert F. Smith]

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.

It took courage and faith tor John Burton to have made such an admission of wrong-doing.  Certainly an appropriate response to the recent official LDS Church statement.  He is not the only LDS member to have continued to parrot old fashioned folklore, as we learned from the statement from BYU professor Randy Bott, a year or so ago.  I place Burton's apology on a par with the timely statement by the late Apostle Bruce R. McConkie, which was likewise courageous and appropriate.

 

Repentance is always good, and always welcome.

[Robert F. Smith]

Agreed, but I feel that the church is responsible for half-baked, false, outdated and misguided notions taught by its prophets and leaders as doctrine. 

That is precisely why the latest statement is so appropriate and so welcome.  Naturally, not everyone is going to be satisfied with it.

[Robert F. Smith]

I apologize for my culpability in this.....mostly for deciding to ration melanin (a personal invention of mine) in differing quantities to humans in the premortal world. I created much of what we call racism and I apologize.

You might consider an anthropological lesson in genetics and adaptation.

[why me]

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. 

A revelation may not have been needed but it was asked for. So what we have is God telling the GAs that the ban should be lifted. If it wasn't god's will to begin with, why did He need to give a revelation? I think that church leaders need to be very careful. Antimormons are looking for ways to abuse the church and certainly this would be one way to do it. If the church apologizes, antimormons will claim that the church is man-made since the prophets got it all wrong and were only voicing their own opinions in the name of god when past GAs were commenting on the ban.

[mormonnewb]

I apologize for my culpability in this.....mostly for deciding to ration melanin (a personal invention of mine) in differing quantities to humans in the premortal world. I created much of what we call racism and I apologize.

 

REPLY DELETED TO RETAIN TEMPLE RECOMMEND.

 

Edited December 19, 2013 by mormonnewb

[SeekingUnderstanding]

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.

I can't really understand this statement. It appears to be popular and well received (four rep points) so maybe someone can help me out. By 1993, the church had stopped talking about the reasons for the ban. Was there anywhere that they published that the reasons were wrong?

Let me put it this way. We have had a few official public statements come out of church headquarters over the last couple of years. We have a church newsroom statement (related to Pro Bott), we have the new heading for OD-2, and we have the latest essay on lds.org. Nowhere in any of these statements is there any comparison made between the priesthood ban and Levitical priesthood restrictions. No comparison is made to Christ withholding the gospel from the Gentiles. And definitely no support for the idea that the ban was divine ("no clear insights into the origins of this practice").

Are you saying that someone that if someone today teaches that the ban was instituted by God, that the ban has old testament parallels, "it would be a shame"? At what point must we abandon these ideas, if they are not touched on in official statements released from the church? 5 years? 10 years? Does the church have a written statute of limitations somewhere?

[Avatar4321]

I have no intention of apologizing for something I was not responsible for. If you feel responsible for it, feel free to apologize. I have enough to apologize for with my actual sins. If I started apologizing for things I am not responsible for, I'd never get anything done.

 

I don't know why the Lord limited the Priesthood to the levites. I don't know why He limited it to the House of Israel. I don't know why He preached solely to Israel and not the Gentiles. And I don't know why the Lord limited the Priesthood in this dispensation.

 

What I do know is that the Lord does all things for a wise reason. And I also know that the time was prophecied that all men and women would be able to recieve the blessings of the Gospel on the conditions of Repentence. That's the beauty of the Redemption of the dead. When the ban was lifted, it was lifted retroactively.

 

Regardless of the reasons for the ban, the Lord has eliminated it for time and all Eternity. So let's start preaching Redemption to every man.

[Buckeye]

A revelation may not have been needed but it was asked for. So what we have is God telling the GAs that the ban should be lifted. If it wasn't god's will to begin with, why did He need to give a revelation? I think that church leaders need to be very careful. Antimormons are looking for ways to abuse the church and certainly this would be one way to do it. If the church apologizes, antimormons will claim that the church is man-made since the prophets got it all wrong and were only voicing their own opinions in the name of god when past GAs were commenting on the ban.

 

Again, I do not believe God needed to give a revelation.  He would have been fine if the brethren changed the policy/doctrine on their own.  But since the leaders needed a revelation (at least most of them) and since many members needed a revelation, God was happy to meet their needs.

 

An apology would change nothing for those antagonistic to the church.  They already believe the 1978 relevation was man-made; that God does not guide the church.  So what if an apology is used by them to persist in that belief?

 

The apology is needed for the members and for prospective members whose hearts are closed because of the ban.  First, an apology would heal the broken hearts of those affected by the ban's harm.  It was a very, very big harm.  Second, an apology would set an example of repentence for the members to follow.  And third, an apology begins to reestablish the cornerstone principle that God continues to speak to his prophets today. 

 

Whatever potential an apology has to undercut members' belief in their leaders, a much greater danger exists (at least long-term) if our leaders persist in saying "we don't know."  We can survive an admission that we erroneous spoke in God's name before.  We cannot survive a change in doctrine whereby the heaven's are closed.  After awhile, if we continue to say "we don't know" members will conclude their either (a) their leaders don't care to know or (b) their leaders are no longer in contact with God.

[cdowis]

Unfortunately I guessed this was going to happen when the church started publishing apologetic articles on lds.org. Defensive apologetics is a very delicate and specialized process, and not for the inexperienced. 

 

You need alot of experience conversing with nonLDS and critics to know what works and what does NOT work.  Someone who has simply  written articles for the Ensign and the Joseph Smith Papers just does not have the preparation for this.

 

You really really really need to know what you are doing, or you will only make things much much much worse.

[Buckeye]

Unfortunately I guessed this was going to happen when the church started publishing apologetic articles on lds.org. Defensive apologetics is a very delicate and specialized process, and not for the inexperienced. 

 

You need alot of experience conversing with nonLDS and critics to know what works and what does NOT work.  Someone who has simply  written articles for the Ensign and the Joseph Smith Papers just does not have the preparation for this.

 

You really really really need to know what you are doing, or you will only make things much much much worse.

 

So, how should the article have been written?  And who should have done it?  From Elder Snow's interview, it appears the articles were drafted by competent historians and then run by church leaders for approval.  These were not written by the church leaders themselves. 

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

 

 

But that doesn't mean that I personally did anything personally to you.

This is that apology of empathy I was talking about earlier. I think it could be useful.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Many people are imprecise in their use of language.

 

Be that as it may, an apology for a thing should not be expected from someone who is not personally accountable for that thing.

This was my earlier point I just muffed it up.

[thesometimesaint]

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.

 

I seem to remember BRM asking us to forgive him. http://speeches.byu.edu/?act=viewitem&id=1570

 

Personally I've never had those particular beliefs about the rationalizations for the Priesthood ban. So I don't feel any need to apologize for them.

Edited December 19, 2013 by thesometimesaint

[Buckeye]

Many people are imprecise in their use of language.

 

Be that as it may, an apology for a thing should not be expected from someone who is not personally accountable for that thing.

 

So do you disagree with the US Congress and President Reagan's decision in 1988 to apologize to japanese-americans mistreated during WWII?  Or for the US Senate's 2009 apology for slavery?

 

http://www.npr.org/blogs/codeswitch/2013/08/09/210138278/japanese-internment-redress

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2009-06-19/politics/36855638_1_congressional-apology-resolution-slavery

 

Edit to fix date typo.

Edited December 19, 2013 by Buckeye

[thesometimesaint]

So do you disagree with the US Congress and President Reagan's decision in 1998 to apologize to japanese-americans mistreated during WWII?  Or for the US Senate's 2009 apology for slavery?

 

http://www.npr.org/blogs/codeswitch/2013/08/09/210138278/japanese-internment-redress

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2009-06-19/politics/36855638_1_congressional-apology-resolution-slavery

 

I don't believe we have the authority or the ability to apologize for God. For our own actions and beliefs yes. For God not so much

[Buckeye]

I don't believe we have the authority or the ability to apologize for God. For our own actions and beliefs yes. For God not so much

 

Of course not.  But what about an apology for the church instituting a harmful practice under an erroneous reading of scripture which, however well believed at the time, just was not God's will?

[thesometimesaint]

Of course not.  But what about an apology for the church instituting a harmful practice under an erroneous reading of scripture which, however well believed at the time, just was not God's will?

 

I don't believe anyone was actually harmed, other than hurt feelings(Mine included), by the Ban. The Church certainly doesn't owe me an apology.  No one was declined membership in the Church because of the Ban. No Eternal Blessing was denied because of the Ban. If some random member did something harmful then they personally should apologize for their own actions. 

[Buckeye]

I don't believe anyone was actually harmed, other than hurt feelings(Mine included), by the Ban. The Church certainly doesn't owe me an apology.  No one was declined membership in the Church because of the Ban. No Eternal Blessing was denied because of the Ban. If some random member did something harmful then they personally should apologize for their own actions. 

 

Seriously?  Families were kept from being sealed.  Temple covenants were denied members who wanted them.  How can you say there is no harm? 

 

Perhaps you are saying that the harm will be rectified in the eternities.  If so, I agree with you.  But a future fix doesn't remove the fact that harm was done.  If I were to cut off your leg, I imagine you would consider that harmful even though the leg will be restored in the resurrection.