A Mormon Says Sorry

[Robert F. Smith]

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 Because you're realised your position of being dismissive of the " half-baked, false, outdated or misguided notion floating around" is untenable when it was prophets promoting those notions?

Prophets are people too.

[canard78]

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.

 

I've used that quote before to try to suggest that he called the ban an error... but I agree with you, it does sound like it's more him making a statement that God could forgive the errors holding black members back.

[mormonnewb]

I'm sure that it's just me, but I don't really see the relevance of "personal fault", whether it was the prophets or wayward members or even Heavenly Father.  As I see it, OUR church had a policy that harmed others.  This has created a perception of racism that impedes the spreading of the Gospel.  As a single body of Christ, I don't see why we aren't all responsible for moving the work of the Lord forward, regardless of whether we are personally to "blame."

 

After all, we often take credit for the good things prior saints have done.  I know I do, although I've been a member less than 3 years.  Sometimes I'll meet someone who will say, "YOU'RE a Mormon?  You know, growing up, we lived next door to the nicest Mormon family."  According to some of you, I should probably shout, "Why are you bringing this up to me?  I wasn't even a member of the church back then.  I had nothing to do with it"?  INSTEAD, I'll say something like, "Well, WE try."  I OWN the goodness of my tribe and don't try to distinguish myself from the many wonderful saints of the past just because "I had nothing to do with it!"

 

On the other hand, imagine if someone said just the opposite me, "Growing up, we lived next door to the meanest Mormon family."  I guess I could respond, "Why are you bringing that up to me?  That had nothing to do with me!" Of course, I would be adding to the "mean Mormon" perception but, at least, I wouldn't have to take responsibility for something that I didn't do, right?

 

Or perhaps, it would better to respond, "I'M SORRY that you had that experience.  As Mormons, none of us are perfect but we're taught to love thy neighbor.  Obviously, it doesn't always 'take,' but there are some truly wonderful people in our church and hopefully, one of them will be your next neighbor.  In fact, on Saturday, we're having a church event and ..."

 

Which of these two approaches would serve the work of the Lord better -- sticking steadfastly to the principle that I never apologize unless I am specifically at fault OR to apologize and attempt reconciliation?

 

So imagine being confronted by someone about the ban.  "Hey, you're Mormon?  Aren't you the guys the people who won't let black people join until like the 90s?"  Once again, you could respond, "Well, actually black people could always join, they just weren't allowed to hold the priesthood until 1978 -- not the 1990s.  And why are you bringing that up to me?  I was only 7 at the time.  And what are you - a Baptist?  You know the stuff that your church did in the past?  Should I ask you about that?"

 

Or would this response be better?  "Yes, guilty as charged.  I'M SORRY to say that we didn't always treat our African-American brothers and sisters with the dignity and respect they deserved.  However, we did change our policies in 1978 and now, I can honestly say that we welcome EVERYONE with open arms into the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.  In fact, on Saturday, we're having a church event and ..."

 

Someone please tell me how the latter response isn't better for a latter-day saint (groan intended)?

Edited December 20, 2013 by mormonnewb

[DBMormon]

I was baptized in 1996 and I was taught these theories as our Doctrine in whispers and in discussions in members homes.  I thought they were true because no one told me otherwise.  This is a sin of commission to begin with by the the Church and still was a sin of omission till this past week.

It is about time we say sorry for covering our own butt rather then acknowledge we mess up from time to time.

[cinepro]

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.

 

 

I don't remember anyone in the Church protesting this apology.  Everyone seemed really happy to accept it, even though no one offering it was 160+ years old.

 

So I guess the rules are different for giving apologies compared to accepting them.

[Tiki]

We should also apologize to the descendants of plural marriages and to P.E.T.A. for the LDS Pioneers eating Buffalo.

In fact we should constantly be apologizing. It should become the 14th Article of our Faith.

"We believe that we should apologize for our big stupid leaders because we are ashamed of ourselves in these the latter-days."

Let's all turn toward the Great and Spacious Building and apologize, morning, noon and night. Who knows, they may let us in.

[changed]

It seems to me that every group of people goes through periods of favor, and of disfavor... for awhile, the Jewish people were "chosen", then it was the gentiles' time to shine etc. etc.  of coarse there are always exceptions to the general trends, like everyone loves Ruth the Moabite - the fact that she was a Moabite is what makes her so enchanting.  I'm a convert, and have never heard anything even close to racist in the Mormon church - quite the contrary, everyone is more than welcoming and accomodating to all varieties and languages. 

[Avatar4321]

 

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."

 

 

Id recommend not cheating on her.

 

And if recieving the ordinances in the temple for the dead aren't the same as having them in life, then why are we doing it?

[Storm Rider]

We should also apologize to the descendants of plural marriages and to P.E.T.A. for the LDS Pioneers eating Buffalo.

In fact we should constantly be apologizing. It should become the 14th Article of our Faith.

"We believe that we should apologize for our big stupid leaders because we are ashamed of ourselves in these the latter-days."

Let's all turn toward the Great and Spacious Building and apologize, morning, noon and night. Who knows, they may let us in.

 

I appreciate irreverence. It is my rebellious side that busts out too often. That nirvana state is really too far for me to go. 

[mormonnewb]

And if recieving the ordinances in the temple for the dead aren't the same as having them in life, then why are we doing it?

 

Huh?  So are you telling me that there are no CURRENT benefits that accrue to you from temple attendance?  You don't get any more enlightenment, peace, or whatever from the temple?  So if someone kept you from the temple, your earthly life wouldn't suffer?  Mine would ... and consequently, so would the lives of my wife and children.

 

And the fact that you would have the opportunity for someone to go to the temple for them in the future would not repair the damage.  In fact, if we could repair all wrongs through vicarious ordinances, we should all free to mistreat other Mormons in the worst ways.  After all, they're going to get their full measure in the hereafter, so why worry about the here and now?  

Edited December 20, 2013 by mormonnewb

[Storm Rider]

I'm sure that it's just me, but I don't really see the relevance of "personal fault", whether it was the prophets or wayward members or even Heavenly Father.  As I see it, OUR church had a policy that harmed others.  This has created a perception of racism that impedes the spreading of the Gospel.  As a single body of Christ, I don't see why we aren't all responsible for moving the work of the Lord forward, regardless of whether we are personally to "blame."

 

.....

 

Our Church had a policy that harmed others? Hmm, how were they harmed?

 

When I look at things in context I worship a God that never talked to my ancestors because they were not of the House of Israel. In fact, when Jesus was on earth he only talked to the Jews and refused to teach others. Did God harm all those that were not affiliated to any Tribe of Israel? Was the vast majority of humanity harmed because Jesus ignored them completely while on earth?  Does God harm all those that never heard of Jesus?  Exactly how are each of these individuals harmed?

 

I think mortals have a very narrow view of existence; it must be today, this minute and eternity has no meaning or value. If I am not pleased, find comfort, gratified in this moment then it is obvious that I am being harmed. Our Father in Heaven obviously takes a very different view of our existence. His purposes are beyond our comprehension, but I am certain that each of us mortals will have an opportunity for exaltation and our Church is the only church that teaches how that will occur.

 

How does wanting denied become being harmed? I have wanted things most of my life and very often I am denied utterly of those things. Have I been harmed?  

[why me]

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)...

I would be surprised if he is actually feeling guilty. I tend to doubt it. I think that he wishes to make a statement, post it on youtube and see where it leads. Already he is known and is becoming a spokesperson. I tend to question those who criticize the church through youtube.

 

I remember a T-shirt that exclaimed: I'm a YouTube Superstar. There are many who wish they were.

[canard78]

Our Church had a policy that harmed others? Hmm, how were they harmed?

 

When I look at things in context I worship a God that never talked to my ancestors because they were not of the House of Israel. In fact, when Jesus was on earth he only talked to the Jews and refused to teach others. Did God harm all those that were not affiliated to any Tribe of Israel? Was the vast majority of humanity harmed because Jesus ignored them completely while on earth?  Does God harm all those that never heard of Jesus?  Exactly how are each of these individuals harmed?

 

I think mortals have a very narrow view of existence; it must be today, this minute and eternity has no meaning or value. If I am not pleased, find comfort, gratified in this moment then it is obvious that I am being harmed. Our Father in Heaven obviously takes a very different view of our existence. His purposes are beyond our comprehension, but I am certain that each of us mortals will have an opportunity for exaltation and our Church is the only church that teaches how that will occur.

 

How does wanting denied become being harmed? I have wanted things most of my life and very often I am denied utterly of those things. Have I been harmed?  

 

Do you really think no-one was harmed by the racist exclusions of the past? Do you think no-one was harmed by the racist attitudes and rationales for racism in the past?

[mormonnewb]

Our Church had a policy that harmed others? Hmm, how were they harmed?

 

Because they were not allowed to enjoy the full blessings of the Gospel.  Why is this so hard for people who enjoy the Gospel to understand?

 

When I look at things in context I worship a God that never talked to my ancestors because they were not of the House of Israel. In fact, when Jesus was on earth he only talked to the Jews and refused to teach others. Did God harm all those that were not affiliated to any Tribe of Israel? Was the vast majority of humanity harmed because Jesus ignored them completely while on earth?  Does God harm all those that never heard of Jesus?  Exactly how are each of these individuals harmed?

 

What are you talking about?  Jesus refused to teach the Samaritan woman at the well?  Jesus didn't visit the Nephites in the Americas just after His resurrection?  Jesus was in a corporeal body, so he couldn't be everywhere at once but he left EXPLICIT instructions with His disciples to share the Gospel with EVERYBODY.  What is not clear about these verses?

 

Matthew 28:19

 

19 Go ye therefore, and teach ALL nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

 

Mark 16:15

 

And he said unto them, Go ye into ALL the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

 

Luke 24:46-47

 

46 And said unto them, Thus it is written, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day:

 

47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among ALL nations, beginning at Jerusalem ["Beginning" means to start and continue from there, not to end in Jerusalem]

 

And since the Holy Spirit did not descend until well after His departure, not even the Jews had been offered salvation PRIOR to the Gentiles; and in no cases, did Christ impose a 100+ year waiting period.

 

I think mortals have a very narrow view of existence; it must be today, this minute and eternity has no meaning or value. If I am not pleased, find comfort, gratified in this moment then it is obvious that I am being harmed. Our Father in Heaven obviously takes a very different view of our existence. His purposes are beyond our comprehension, but I am certain that each of us mortals will have an opportunity for exaltation and our Church is the only church that teaches how that will occur.

 

How does wanting denied become being harmed? I have wanted things most of my life and very often I am denied utterly of those things. Have I been harmed?

 

Being denied things that you DESERVE is harm.  If I take YOUR house, YOUR car, and YOUR family, have you not been deprived?  Are these just things that you WANT and therefore, you can be deprived of them without it harming you in any way?  Come on!  This can't even make sense to you!

 

If this Church kept blacks from having the blessings of the Gospel that Jesus specifically commanded His disciples to share with the ENTIRE world, then yes, blacks were harmed.  Can you not see it because you don't recognize blacks as being of the same kind as yourself?  I bet that if someone took $5 out of your bank account, you would scream bloody murder.  Yet, blacks were denied THE SINGLE MOST PRECIOUS THING IN THIS ENTIRE WORLD -- THE GOSPEL and they weren't harmed?

 

If you really believe that to be true, then renounce the Gospel yourself and wait to accept it again in the afterlife.  Oh, you're not willing to do that, huh?  What a surprise!

[why me]

 

If this Church kept blacks from having the blessings of the Gospel that Jesus specifically commanded His disciples to share with the ENTIRE world, then yes, blacks were harmed.  Can you not see it because you don't recognize blacks as being of the same kind as yourself?  I bet that if someone took $5 out of your bank account, you would scream bloody murder.  Yet, blacks were denied THE SINGLE MOST PRECIOUS THING IN THIS ENTIRE WORLD -- THE GOSPEL and they weren't harmed?

 

If you really believe that to be true, then renounce the Gospel yourself and wait to accept it again in the afterlife.  Oh, you're not willing to do that, huh?  What a surprise!

I don't think that you were around at the time of the ban. If so, you could not write such things. I was around at that time and I knew black members in the church. One was married to a white member. I don't think that he felt discriminated against at all. He was a member in good standing as was his wife. Did he have the priesthood? No. But when he was allowed the priesthood he cried for joy. The church members always welcomed him as a full member of the church with or without the priesthood.

 

Your emotional outbust makes it seem that the church was behaving like racists. Far from it. All races were treated as equals in the NYC ward of the early 70's. And the spirit was present.

[why me]

Do you really think no-one was harmed by the racist exclusions of the past? Do you think no-one was harmed by the racist attitudes and rationales for racism in the past?

I don't think that blacks were harmed as church members. I think that they received wonderful blessings during and after the ban as members of the church. I saw no racism with the members. However, the United States was a racist country with racism permeating throughout the society. And yes, great harm was done to many people. But as church members all members were encouraged to live the word of wisdom, remained chaste, obey the commandments, and love their neighbor regardless of color. And blacks who were taught these gospel truths as church members benefited as church members. As did all other races.

Edited December 20, 2013 by why me

[why me]

I think that it could be a little offensive for members at the time of the ban. It seems that the perception is that they were racists which is far from the truth. Members at the time by and large were good people who loved people of all races. They saw the human being as members of God's family and regardless of race all were called brother and sister. I find it sad that some many young people on this forum who were not even born in the 70's can be a little judgmental of the church and its members at that time of the ban. Here is an interesting article that should be read by all people on this thread and on this forum about the manifestations of the spirit:

 

http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=ce28aeca0ea6b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1

[rodheadlee]

 

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 IS more liberating just to let it go. Give it to Jesus Christ, He will bear the burden, no apology can come close to mending a broken heart.

[Buckeye]

I don't think that blacks were harmed as church members. I think that they received wonderful blessings during and after the ban as members of the church. I saw no racism with the members. However, the United States was a racist country with racism permeating throughout the society. And yes, great harm was done to many people. But as church members all members were encouraged to live the word of wisdom, remained chaste, obey the commandments, and love their neighbor regardless of color. And blacks who were taught these gospel truths as church members benefited as church members. As did all other races.

 

The priesthood ban was referred to by church leaders and members as a "curse."  The original justification for the ban was the "curse of cain."  Regardless of whether a curse is justified or not, it cannot be seriously debated that a curse causes harm.  That is part of its very nature.  Whatever good you believe came into the lives of black members post-78, it must be conceeded that that good was denied them pre-78. 

[cdowis]

Do you really think no-one was harmed by the racist exclusions of the past? Do you think no-one was harmed by the racist attitudes and rationales for racism in the pas

 

 

Our Church had a policy that harmed others? Hmm, how were they harmed?

 

Because they were not allowed to enjoy the full blessings of the Gospel.  Why is this so hard for people who enjoy the Gospel to understand?

 

To answer your question, I personally find it hard to criticize the Lord for his decisions.  I think He knows better than I do what should be done, so I trust Him in his decisions.

 

When I look at things in context I worship a God that never talked to my ancestors because they were not of the House of Israel. In fact, when Jesus was on earth he only talked to the Jews and refused to teach others. Did God harm all those that were not affiliated to any Tribe of Israel? Was the vast majority of humanity harmed because Jesus ignored them completely while on earth?  Does God harm all those that never heard of Jesus?  Exactly how are each of these individuals harmed?

 

What are you talking about?  Jesus refused to teach the Samaritan woman at the well?

 

Ahem, what are you talking about?  The Samaritan woman at the well was partial Jewish -- a mixed race.  His ministry to the Samaritans was very limited.

 

May I suggest that you do your homework.

 

 Jesus didn't visit the Nephites in the Americas just after His resurrection?  Jesus was in a corporeal body, so he couldn't be everywhere at once but he left EXPLICIT instructions with His disciples to share the Gospel with EVERYBODY.  What is not clear about these verses?

 

May I suggest that you read his post, especially the phrase "when Christ was on the earth".  The post specifically addresses the question while Christ was in mortality, not after the resurrection. Christ limited the disciples to ministering to the Jews until AFTER the resurrection.

 

This is getting tiresome.

 

 

Edited December 20, 2013 by cdowis

[cdowis]

The priesthood ban was referred to by church leaders and members as a "curse."

 

OK.

 

  The original justification for the ban was the "curse of cain."

 

I would change your wording to "It was an opinion given on the reason  behind the ban."  Joseph Smith was perfectly aware of the "curse of Cain" but he did not institute the ban.  The "original justification" for the ban was likely found in the Book of Abraham, published after Joseph's death.

 

  Regardless of whether a curse is justified or not, it cannot be seriously debated that a curse causes harm.  That is part of its very nature.  Whatever good you believe came into the lives of black members post-78, it must be conceeded that that good was denied them pre-78. 

 

The problem with the "curse" theory is that all mortals are cursed to one degree or another, through mortality.  Whether those curses cause us harm is a decision that we individually must make on how we deal with them.

[Mustard]

It is interesting that in the past that the Lord in the Bible did not allow people with certain physical attributes officiate in priesthood ordinances:

 

" Whosoever he be of thy seed in their generations that hath any ^ablemish, let him not approach to offer the bread of his God.

 For whatsoever man he be that hath a blemish, he shall not approach: a blind man, or a lame, or he that hath a flat nose, or any thing ^asuperfluous,

 Or a man that is brokenfooted, or brokenhanded,

 Or crookbackt, or a dwarf, or that hath a blemish in his eye, or be scurvy, or scabbed, or hath his stones broken;

 No man that hath a blemish of the seed of Aaron the priest shall come nigh to offer the offerings of the Lord made by fire: he hath a blemish; he shall not come nigh to offer the bread of his God.

 He shall eat the bread of his God, both of the most holy, and of the holy.

 Only he shall not go in unto the ^aveil, nor come nigh unto the altar, because he hath a blemish; that he profane not my sanctuaries: for I the Lord do sanctify them."

 

-Leviticus 21

[DBMormon]

 

The priesthood ban was referred to by church leaders and members as a "curse."

 

OK.

 

  The original justification for the ban was the "curse of cain."

 

I would change your wording to "It was an opinion given on the reason  behind the ban."  Joseph Smith was perfectly aware of the "curse of Cain" but he did not institute the ban.  The "original justification" for the ban was likely found in the Book of Abraham, published after Joseph's death.

 

  Regardless of whether a curse is justified or not, it cannot be seriously debated that a curse causes harm.  That is part of its very nature.  Whatever good you believe came into the lives of black members post-78, it must be conceeded that that good was denied them pre-78. 

 

The problem with the "curse" theory is that all mortals are cursed to one degree or another, through mortality.  Whether those curses cause us harm is a decision that we individually must make on how we deal with them.

 

An OPINION that was titled, taught, and believed to be DOCTRINE.  We seem to gloss over that.   Also there are some documentation (though somewhat weak) that the ban was implemented by Joseph Smith - Zebedee Coltrin as one source but not the only one.

Edited December 20, 2013 by DBMormon

[thesometimesaint]

Huh?  So are you telling me that there are no CURRENT benefits that accrue to you from temple attendance?  You don't get any more enlightenment, peace, or whatever from the temple?  So if someone kept you from the temple, your earthly life wouldn't suffer?  Mine would ... and consequently, so would the lives of my wife and children.

 

And the fact that you would have the opportunity for someone to go to the temple for them in the future would not repair the damage.  In fact, if we could repair all wrongs through vicarious ordinances, we should all free to mistreat other Mormons in the worst ways.  After all, they're going to get their full measure in the hereafter, so why worry about the here and now?  

 

Of course I receive at least some personal benefit from Temple attendance but my personal enlightenment, peace, or whatever isn't the same personal enlightenment, peace, what have you, to you. I highly value my Priesthood. But would my earthly life suffer because I didn't hold the Priesthood? No not really. I still would be a loving and devoted husband and father of my children. I would still pray for them, and do everything within my power to see that they lead happy, productive lives, and yes they would still go to Church.

 

There is no damage done. NO ONE will be deny any blessing from God because of any ban on Priesthood.

[Buckeye]

...

 

There is no damage done. NO ONE will be deny any blessing from God because of any ban on Priesthood.

 

Just to wrap this up, is it your position that the word "damage" only applies to things that are eternal in duration?  In other words, if something is eventually fixed, it was never damaged?  Under this theory I take it you would agree that none of the following actions are damaging:

• Contrary to church policy and teachings, a bishop takes away a member's temple recommend because they voted for a socialist.  The member thereby missed their child's temple wedding.
• Contrary to church policy and teachings, a RS President tellss her sisters not take meals to a member family whose daughter had died because the death was self-inflicted. 
• Contrary to church policy and teachings, a deacon is not allowed to pass the sacrament because his family cannot afford a white shirt.

If this is correct, it would be helpful to know what action(s), if anything, you would consider to be damaging.