A Mormon Says Sorry

[thesometimesaint]

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. 

 

Yes seriously. Membership is the only criteria for all the Eternal Blessings of the Gospel. Given that NO Blessing from God will be denied simply because of earthly Priesthood ban(s) the point is moot. IE; It is still the case that juvenile members do not participate in Temple covenants(The Endowment) even if they want to.

 

Really what harm is there other than some hurt feelings? The Church hasn't cut off anyone's leg, or pulled a rib out of anyone, and its been a long time since God did. You and I will someday die(Hopefully not anytime soon), and that's a lot worse than having a leg cut off. I've had my shoulder cut off and sown back on three times. It is not the fault of the doctor whom did the surgery, or the Church, or of God.

[CV75]

Regarding expecting an apology: it is more liberating just to let it go.

And with regards to receiving an apology: it is less liberating than having the offense reversed. In the Church, we have the 1978 revelation, work for the dead, and especially Jesus.

[Buckeye]

Yes seriously. Membership is the only criteria for all the Eternal Blessings of the Gospel. Given that NO Blessing from God will be denied simply because of earthly Priesthood ban(s) the point is moot. IE; It is still the case that juvenile members do not participate in Temple covenants(The Endowment) even if they want to.

 

Really what harm is there other than some hurt feelings? The Church hasn't cut off anyone's leg, or pulled a rib out of anyone, and its been a long time since God did. You and I will someday die(Hopefully not anytime soon), and that's a lot worse than having a leg cut off. I've had my shoulder cut off and sown back on three times. It is not the fault of the doctor whom did the surgery, or the Church, or of God.

 

We will just have to disagree then. 

[cdowis]

So, how should the article have been written?

 

Differently.  Basically they threw BY under the bus -- "Blame Brigham" is the clear message when it says that JS ordained blacks, and the priesthood ban began with BY.  My wife, a returned missionary and faithful member, was very upset when she read the article.

 

The writer of this article "forgot" to write any mention of any revelation or scriptural basis for the ban.  Where is Abraham 1:27, a discussion of the Levitical priesthood, the restriction on teaching the Gentiles during the ministry of Chist?  I cannot tell whether this writer has any knowledge of scriptures. 

 

  And who should have done it?

 

Somebody who's not afraid to quote scripture, who actually knows and understands the scriptures.  In short, somebody else.

 

At least, listen to what Pres. Hinckley said about it and follow his example -- "It's behind us and we have moved on".  Period.

 

  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. 

 

That is the problem.  They left it to history pinheads who lecture students at BYU.

Edited December 19, 2013 by cdowis

[thesometimesaint]

We will just have to disagree then. 

 

And that's OK.

[mormonnewb]

Regarding expecting an apology: it is more liberating just to let it go.

 

 

I'll be sure to tell my wife this if I ever cheat on her.  "You can sit around here expecting an apology, but it is more liberating just to let it go."  I'm sure she'll take that really well (women!).

 

And with regards to receiving an apology: it is less liberating than having the offense reversed. In the Church, we have the 1978 revelation, work for the dead, and especially Jesus.

 

 

Here's the problem, the church can't reverse this offense (if you consider it an "offense").  Black saints were denied the blessings of the priesthood and the temple.  And yes, they can receive those blessings posthumously (assuming someone remembers them), but that isn't the same as having them in the first place.  If it was, then all of us could have not "wasted" the time on our endowments and simply waited for our grandchildren to baptize us later.  There are real and temporal blessings to be received in the temple (right?) and those can NOT been restored.

 

To use the analogy above, I could not REVERSE an extramarital affair.  I can promise not to do it again but even then, I don't see how my wife and I get past that transgression if I say, "Hey, I could apologize to you, but it would be better if I just don't do it anymore."

Edited December 19, 2013 by mormonnewb

[Ahab]

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. 

You think so, do you.  Then please specify what the harm was.  I don't see any harm done.

[cdowis]

 

Here's the problem, the church can't reverse this offense (if you consider it an "offense").  Black saints were denied the blessings of the priesthood and the temple.  And yes, they can receive those blessings posthumously (assuming someone remembers them), but that isn't the same as having them in the first place.  

 

 

Do you wonder about the Gentiles who were denied the blessings of the gospel while Christ was on the earth and ministered among the Jews.  Maybe I am wrong, but I think the Lord knows what He is doing, and we can leave the "problems" and the apologies to Him.

 

What do you think?

[cdowis]

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. 

 

OK.  Now who is going to decide which doctrines ("notions") fall under that category?

 

Are you offering yourself as a candidate.

[CV75]

I'll be sure to tell my wife this if I ever cheat on her.  "You can sit around here expecting an apology, but it is more liberating just to let it go."  I'm sure she'll take that really well (women!).

It even works for that, but the messenger could make a difference. The principle doesn't have to be explained by the adulterer to the offended spouse, and is best learned by the Spirit.

Here's the problem, the church can't reverse this offense

But Jesus does, ad He outranks the Church. He heals the wounded and gives us every blessing in due time. This can happen on either side of the veil with equal efficacy. He will take care of the Church as he sees fit.

 

And yes, they can receive those blessings posthumously (assuming someone remembers them), but that isn't the same as having them in the first place.

Yes it is--particiapte in a proxy sealing sometime.

 

There are real and temporal blessings to be received in the temple (right?) and those can NOT been restored.

Yes, but those blessings not attained in this life are more than made up for in the next life. The term is "for time and eternity" -- neither one really stops; time still rolls on in eternity and eternity has its presence in time (a.k.a. "heaven on earth").

 

To use the analogy above, I could not REVERSE an extramarital affair.  I can promise not to do it again but even then, I don't see how my wife and I get past that transgression if I say, "Hey, I could apologize to you, but it would be better if I just don't do it anymore."

Bad analogy, because the Lord can reverse the effects of your affair (for all involved and affected). Again, you wouldn't be in a good position to be the messenger for what you are saying to your wife in the way you are saying it. You're only in a good position to repent (which would normally involve a heartfelt apology, not the kind you're portraying here), and your wife always has the Lord to rely on, not her glib adulterer of a husband of all people! Edited December 19, 2013 by CV75

[thesometimesaint]

 

I'll be sure to tell my wife this if I ever cheat on her.  "You can sit around here expecting an apology, but it is more liberating just to let it go."  I'm sure she'll take that really well (women!).

 

 

Here's the problem, the church can't reverse this offense (if you consider it an "offense").  Black saints were denied the blessings of the priesthood and the temple.  And yes, they can receive those blessings posthumously (assuming someone remembers them), but that isn't the same as having them in the first place.  If it was, then all of us could have not "wasted" the time on our endowments and simply waited for our grandchildren to baptize us later.  There are real and temporal blessings to be received in the temple (right?) and those can NOT been restored.

 

To use the analogy above, I could not REVERSE an extramarital affair.  I can promise not to do it again but even then, I don't see how my wife and I get past that transgression if I say, "Hey, I could apologize to you, but it would be better if I just don't do it anymore."

 

 

I'd have more than just my wife to contend with if I were to cheat on her. So that is irrelevant to the discussion.

 

Everyone whom has ever lived on this earth will have the opportunity to accept to whatever level they want the blessings of God. This life is but less than a blink of the eye in eternity.

 

Doing so would be unwise as we will be judged by what we did with what we knew.

 

All the blessings are real but not all of them are experienced in mortality. My Sealing to my wife won't come into effect until both of us are dead.

 

There is but one unforgivable sin, and infidelity as serious as it is, isn't that one. Again if I was unfaithful to my wife I'd have more to worry about than her reaction.

Edited December 19, 2013 by thesometimesaint

[mfbukowski]

Let me be clear: YOU ... Mfbukowski ... are blameless in this matter. However, SOME of the other 15 million members might have some level of culpability and an apology might bring to healing to those who have been affected. I think we can agree on that, right?

Thanks for the clarification.  At least your position is now clear:  Those who taught these principles should apologize, and not any others.

 

That in itself is a thorny question- suppose capitalism is overthrown completely and we are now socialists.

 

Should those who ever taught capitalism apologize for believing in it?

[why me]

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.

 

I do believe that god needed to give a revelation because the brethren did not know what to do. If they were also clueless and since they were engaged in debate about it for quite some time, a revelation was needed to solve the stalemate. Anytime such a major change occurs a revelation would be needed unless the ban was man- made.

Edited December 19, 2013 by why me

[why me]

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.

I don't think that the leaders know why there was a ban. What they do know is that a debate existed about the ban for quite some time. And a revelation was needed to solve the problem. And a revelation was received. If I were to tell the members back in 1979 that the church would be issuing an apology for the ban in 2013, they would not believe me or they would think me crazy. I think that it is hard to apologize for something that one does not know.

Edited December 19, 2013 by why me

[mfbukowski]

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

I certainly agree, but the OP implied, or at least I thought it implied, that every Mormon should go on youtube and record their own apology.

 

I was debating the moral assumptions inherent in that position, and still am to an extent I guess.

 

I mean if you take the position to its extreme, the OP's "Mormon half" should apologize to his own "black half" simply because he is a Mormon now.

 

But now he has clarified that only those who have preached the previous policies should apologize, or at least I think that is his position.

 

Unquestionably as a question of empathy,  it probably would be "nice" if others who felt some culpability apologized as well, but whether or not they have a clear moral obligation to do so remains very much up in the air in my opinion.

[why me]

Unquestionably as a question of empathy,  it probably would be "nice" if others who felt some culpability apologized as well, but whether or not they have a clear moral obligation to do so remains very much up in the air in my opinion.

I think that the problem comes from someone who believed that they were teaching truth at the time suddenly learning that maybe they weren't teaching truth as perceived at that time. Should they apologize for it? Maybe not. If so, the world would be full of apologies and all truth would be held as suspect since truth can change. No one would ever wish to teach 'truth'.

[CV75]

I think that the problem comes from someone who believed that they were teaching truth at the time suddenly learning that maybe they weren't teaching truth as perceived at that time.

That's one thing, but he's combining it with conflicting redirection of feelings and expectations from 1)  others to himself (he expects the Church to apologize, supposes it won't, but at least he is) and 2) vice-versa (he feels guilty and so the Church should).

 

(...and I think he was saying that he was teaching truth as he perceived it at the time)...

Edited December 19, 2013 by CV75

[mfbukowski]

I think that the problem comes from someone who believed that they were teaching truth at the time suddenly learning that maybe they weren't teaching truth as perceived at that time. Should they apologize for it? Maybe not. If so, the world would be full of apologies and all truth would be held as suspect since truth can change. No one would ever wish to teach 'truth'.

I agree- that states the problem well I think.

[mfbukowski]

mormonnewb

 

I think the issue here frankly is that we are all struggling to some extent or other with the sudden admitted change in beliefs and each of us to some extent or other feel confused about what has been said and what or what not to do about it.

 

Probably, were I in your shoes, I would feel that these Mormons are a bunch of unfeeling zombies, but I want to assure you that that is not the case at all.

 

For many of us, these were beliefs held for generations which have been repudiated.  For others of us- who never believed them in the first place- it is a question of coming to grips with whether or not we bear personal responsibility for these issues and to what extent.

 

So please realize that each of us is going through an emotional adjustment now, not quite sure what to make of all these changes.

 

So I am just suggesting that you give us all some leeway in this matter until we ourselves can sort it all out.

[Robert F. Smith]

Hey, get over it already!!

[canard78]

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

 

Do you realise you're talking about things taught as doctrine, by several apostles?

Edited December 20, 2013 by canard78

[canard78]

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?

 

I know him (UK is a small Mormon world). He's legit. He has kids on missions etc.

[canard78]

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

 

Why? Because you're realised your position of being dismissive of the " half-baked, false, outdated or misguided notion floating around" is untenable when it was prophets promoting those notions?

[canard78]

Sounded a bit fishy to me as well.

 

As mentioned earlier, I know this guy. He's not bogus.

[canard78]

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.

 

It's not like they could ask God or something.