CV75 Posted August 31, 2015 Posted August 31, 2015 If what we did was not directed of God, it was a moral offense to say those things about a race of people and to deny them equality because of their race. Racism is a moral offense.It takes a lot more than that to commit a moral offense meriting institutional apology. Accusations of immorality based on presentism and conflating political correctness with morality are unwarranted as far as the Church is concerned. That is why disavowal of teachings and condemnation of racism (in general--"past and present, in any form") are sufficient.
stemelbow Posted August 31, 2015 Posted August 31, 2015 From President Hinkley in this article- It's a great question. The bigger question remains. How can any prophet of God arrogantly assume that he is eligible for the priesthood whereas another who lives a righteous life but whose skin is of a different color is ineligible? The doctrines explaining the ban have been disavowed but the ban itself still has not been officially disavowed. On this thread alone we see many who believe it was the will of God, yet Hinkley wonders how this could ever be believed. Understanding this inconsistency is a struggle many still face. It's clear to me that this issue simply has not been adequately addressed by our leaders. It simply hasn't. That's a terrible shame, that can be fixed. I don't get the defensiveness on this issue, other than to assume some/most don't quite get the ramifications that result from this whole fiasco. If no one faces those, we're probably in deeper trouble going forward than even this has caused. 2
stemelbow Posted August 31, 2015 Posted August 31, 2015 It takes a lot more than that to commit a moral offense meriting institutional apology. Accusations of immorality based on presentism and conflating political correctness with morality are unwarranted as far as the Church is concerned. That is why disavowal of teachings and condemnation of racism (in general--"past and present, in any form") are sufficient. To play this off as a case of presentism is silly. It wasn't so much that they were wrong, but that they invoked God as the source of their error. What does that say about what comes to us forever more? Leaders in the Church could invoke God and still be wrong, to the degree of abysmal and embarrassing, it seems. 3
stemelbow Posted August 31, 2015 Posted August 31, 2015 I served a mission from 79-81. I was so glad the ban had been lifted. But I still believed it was of God and that the justification related to spirits that were less valiant and even "fence sitters" were born into the race of Cain. I am happy to say I have longed moved past that idea. That view existed among members until my mission era of 95-97. It still creeps up from time to time, with some more often than with others. 2
CV75 Posted August 31, 2015 Posted August 31, 2015 To play this off as a case of presentism is silly. It wasn't so much that they were wrong, but that they invoked God as the source of their error. What does that say about what comes to us forever more? Leaders in the Church could invoke God and still be wrong, to the degree of abysmal and embarrassing, it seems.It is silly to play this off as immoral, and it is immoral to accuse where no moral offense exists.
rockpond Posted August 31, 2015 Posted August 31, 2015 It takes a lot more than that to commit a moral offense meriting institutional apology. Accusations of immorality based on presentism and conflating political correctness with morality are unwarranted as far as the Church is concerned. That is why disavowal of teachings and condemnation of racism (in general--"past and present, in any form") are sufficient. So we condemn racism in the past but don't consider it a moral offense. Interesting position you are staking out for yourself. 4
ttribe Posted August 31, 2015 Posted August 31, 2015 It takes a lot more than that to commit a moral offense meriting institutional apology. May I ask what your criteria are for making this determination? Where is the line between "meriting institutional apology" and not?
stemelbow Posted August 31, 2015 Posted August 31, 2015 It is silly to play this off as immoral, and it is immoral to accuse where no moral offense exists. I'm with the others in wondering on what grounds you are staking your claims.
CV75 Posted August 31, 2015 Posted August 31, 2015 So we condemn racism in the past but don't consider it a moral offense. Interesting position you are staking out for yourself. May I ask what your criteria are for making this determination? Where is the line between "meriting institutional apology" and not? I'm with the others in wondering on what grounds you are staking your claims.It is appropriate to condemn something without it being a moral offense. The Church is being consistent with the teaching in Alma where the law can have no power on any man because of his belief; ideology is not a secular or moral offense (note in the context of Alma, the secular and ecclesiastical law on this point were the same). Thus racism as an ideology is rightly condemned without it being a moral offense and without an apology being necessary.
HappyJackWagon Posted August 31, 2015 Posted August 31, 2015 (edited) It is silly to play this off as immoral, and it is immoral to accuse where no moral offense exists.If it's not a moral offense to restrict eternal exaltation to an entire race of people, what do you deem as a "moral offense?" Edited August 31, 2015 by HappyJackWagon 2
rockpond Posted August 31, 2015 Posted August 31, 2015 It is appropriate to condemn something without it being a moral offense. The Church is being consistent with the teaching in Alma where the law can have no power on any man because of his belief; ideology is not a secular or moral offense (note in the context of Alma, the secular and ecclesiastical law on this point were the same). Thus racism as an ideology is rightly condemned without it being a moral offense and without an apology being necessary. I'm not referring to belief & ideology. It's the actual actions that I believe should be apologized for on an institutional level. 1
CV75 Posted August 31, 2015 Posted August 31, 2015 If it's not a moral offense to restrict eternal exaltation to an entire race of people, what do you deem as a "moral offense?"Get real: who was in reality actually restricted? LOL Do you really believe that?
CV75 Posted August 31, 2015 Posted August 31, 2015 I'm not referring to belief & ideology. It's the actual actions that I believe should be apologized for on an institutional level.OK what are the immoral actions the Church as an institution carried out? I'd say that determination is only a function of your own ideology.
HappyJackWagon Posted August 31, 2015 Posted August 31, 2015 Get real: who was in reality actually restricted? LOL Do you really believe that?I absolutely believe that. Had it not been corrected, the entire race of blacks would be prohibited from exaltation because they could not receive the priesthood or temple ordinances. What am I missing?
rockpond Posted August 31, 2015 Posted August 31, 2015 OK what are the immoral actions the Church as an institution carried out? I'd say that determination is only a function of your own ideology. Preventing them from holding the priesthood and participating in temple ordinances. Making them "second class" church members.
CV75 Posted August 31, 2015 Posted August 31, 2015 I absolutely believe that. Had it not been corrected, the entire race of blacks would be prohibited from exaltation because they could not receive the priesthood or temple ordinances. What am I missing?You are missing that it obviously would not have played out that way, and people who didn't like it didn't have to go along with it. Why ignore the light and knowledge we have today? LOL Preventing them from holding the priesthood and participating in temple ordinances. Making them "second class" church members.See above. Two peas in a pod.
ERayR Posted August 31, 2015 Posted August 31, 2015 I don't know why Mark E Peterson's position is seen so poorly at the expense of the prevailing view among leaders of the church in his era. In 1949 the First Presidency compared having black skin to being "handicapped" for crying aloud. Why anyone presumes to suggest that his was a one time expression of racism in the Church is just silly. It was institutional. I know the practice today is to play it down and to hope it never was. But it was. to have institutional racism is to be uninspired, at least on this one point. They were, as McConkie pointed out, working with limited understanding. They spoke presumptuously for God, on these matters. It happened and will happen again. We must accept that fact in order to move forward and in order to be dynamic enough to accept truth no matter from where it comes.This thread, overall, has been quite discouraging to me. Yes and Protestant churches had segregate churches. It was part of the times. Not right and ugly by today's standards it was the prevailing attitude.
CV75 Posted August 31, 2015 Posted August 31, 2015 You are trying to make the case that the Church committed institutionally immoral acts and you can’t pull it off. Accept the disavowal and condemnation graciously and join with your brothers and sisters of all races who have “looked to the future, as membership among Africans, African Americans and others of African descent has continued to grow rapidly.” 2
ERayR Posted August 31, 2015 Posted August 31, 2015 I absolutely believe that. Had it not been corrected, the entire race of blacks would be prohibited from exaltation because they could not receive the priesthood or temple ordinances. What am I missing? You are missing the fact that God could not and would not let that attitude stand uncorrected and he did not. You are also missing that changes like that do not happen rapidly. It takes time to change that kind of societal inertia.
HappyJackWagon Posted August 31, 2015 Posted August 31, 2015 You are missing that it obviously would not have played out that way, and people who didn't like it didn't have to go along with it. Why ignore the light and knowledge we have today? LOL See above. Two peas in a pod.You are blowing my mind. It didn't do any harm at the time, blocking blacks from receiving the priesthood and attending the temple for saving ordinances, because that error would eventually be fixed? If I purposely broke someone's legs with a baseball bat, knowing that I would take the person to the hospital to get medical treatement, would I be able to claim, months later after both casts are off, that I didn't do anything wrong because it's all fixed now? I simply don't understand this mentality and I believe it is harmful in perpetuating, even today, racism within the church. It's quite disheartening. Admit it was morally wrong. It was awful. Downplaying it only hurts the cause of the church. 2
rockpond Posted August 31, 2015 Posted August 31, 2015 You are missing that it obviously would not have played out that way, and people who didn't like it didn't have to go along with it. Why ignore the light and knowledge we have today? LOL See above. Two peas in a pod. Obviously it didn't play out that way. But if I hurt someone... then later stop hurting them... do I still not need to apologize? You are trying to make the case that the Church committed institutionally immoral acts and you can’t pull it off. Accept the disavowal and condemnation graciously and join with your brothers and sisters of all races who have “looked to the future, as membership among Africans, African Americans and others of African descent has continued to grow rapidly.” We have made the case. And an apology is needed per our own church teachings. But, I understand Oaks statement and don't expect it to happen. That said, I also accept the disavowal though I wish the Brethren would take it to the next step and make it clear to members that the ban itself was not from God. That does not stop me from looking to the future -- it's how I stay happy and active in the church.
ttribe Posted August 31, 2015 Posted August 31, 2015 It is appropriate to condemn something without it being a moral offense. The Church is being consistent with the teaching in Alma where the law can have no power on any man because of his belief; ideology is not a secular or moral offense (note in the context of Alma, the secular and ecclesiastical law on this point were the same). Thus racism as an ideology is rightly condemned without it being a moral offense and without an apology being necessary. I'm still confused; I don't think this answers my question.
rockpond Posted August 31, 2015 Posted August 31, 2015 You are missing the fact that God could not and would not let that attitude stand uncorrected and he did not. You are also missing that changes like that do not happen rapidly. It takes time to change that kind of societal inertia. So, ERayR, will you go on record that the ban was not from God?
Buckeye Posted August 31, 2015 Posted August 31, 2015 It takes a lot more than that to commit a moral offense meriting institutional apology. Accusations of immorality based on presentism and conflating political correctness with morality are unwarranted as far as the Church is concerned. That is why disavowal of teachings and condemnation of racism (in general--"past and present, in any form") are sufficient. Can I hire you as my attorney at the final judgment?. It would be nice to wash away all my transgressions by an appeal to presentism - or, I guess by then it will be called "celestism." 2
rockpond Posted August 31, 2015 Posted August 31, 2015 I simply don't understand this mentality and I believe it is harmful in perpetuating, even today, racism within the church. It's quite disheartening. Admit it was morally wrong. It was awful. Downplaying it only hurts the cause of the church. Amen.
Recommended Posts