hope_for_things Posted April 19, 2018 Posted April 19, 2018 16 minutes ago, Alan said: As I said before, no apology is necessary, neither will it be forthcoming. I suggest you take it up with God. It is, after all, his priesthood and he can share and withhold it from whoever he jolly well pleases. I believe God wants the church to properly apologize and atone for the wrongs of the past and the present. I don't believe God withholds priesthood from anyone. Just misguided men who've ruled on earth. None of these arbitrary rules are compatible with God. 1
CV75 Posted April 19, 2018 Posted April 19, 2018 4 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: You sound like you believe the church essay is enough of an apology and that nothing else needs to be said or done, I disagree and explained reasons why this is problematic from my perspective. I'm not sure what your last line about bias and what they've said or not said means. I don't see the Church essay as an apology (I'm not so interested in a coffee klatch discussion rehashing the pros and cons, best/worst practices for issuing institutional apologies). Your bias is reflected in interpreting what the Church leaders have said about the revelation as exactly opposite from what they have said in the essay and elsewhere.
CV75 Posted April 19, 2018 Posted April 19, 2018 1 minute ago, hope_for_things said: I believe God wants the church to properly apologize and atone for the wrongs of the past and the present. I don't believe God withholds priesthood from anyone. Just misguided men who've ruled on earth. None of these arbitrary rules are compatible with God. And God is best defined, for you, as your personal experience, right?
hope_for_things Posted April 19, 2018 Posted April 19, 2018 4 minutes ago, CV75 said: Not so. It perfectly frames and supports the Church’s position, which fully and objectively recognizes social human context on past teachings and the ban: https://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng I like the essay as it represents a very positive step forward, and the author who primarily contributed to it is a good scholar. If you haven't read his full book on this subject, it really is a must read for anyone interested in the race topic in contemporary Mormonism. https://www.amazon.com/Religion-Different-Color-Struggle-Whiteness/dp/019067413X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1524160159&sr=8-1&keywords=paul+reeve+religion+of+a+different+color Environmental factors are important to recognize to better understand history, but it was your use of that statement about racism being a default human state, that I found problematic in the context of this discussion. I agree with the statement technically, but not the timing and use of it in this context.
hope_for_things Posted April 19, 2018 Posted April 19, 2018 3 minutes ago, CV75 said: And God is best defined, for you, as your personal experience, right? God for me is my personal experience, just as God for you is your personal experience.
hope_for_things Posted April 19, 2018 Posted April 19, 2018 5 minutes ago, CV75 said: I don't see the Church essay as an apology (I'm not so interested in a coffee klatch discussion rehashing the pros and cons, best/worst practices for issuing institutional apologies). Your bias is reflected in interpreting what the Church leaders have said about the revelation as exactly opposite from what they have said in the essay and elsewhere. I would agree that its not a sufficient apology, but a disavowal and the way the essay talks about racism in the past environment influencing BY, are both big moves towards a more apologetic approach. Would you care to provide any evidence to support your claim that my interpretation is contrary or even opposite to what the essay says or what some church leaders have said?
bluebell Posted April 19, 2018 Posted April 19, 2018 (edited) 48 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: I would agree that its not a sufficient apology, but a disavowal and the way the essay talks about racism in the past environment influencing BY, are both big moves towards a more apologetic approach. Would you care to provide any evidence to support your claim that my interpretation is contrary or even opposite to what the essay says or what some church leaders have said? I don't see that the essay disavows the ban. It does disavow the racists reasons that were given for the ban though (which is a great thing). Edited April 19, 2018 by bluebell 3
hope_for_things Posted April 19, 2018 Posted April 19, 2018 1 minute ago, bluebell said: I don't see that the essay disavows the ban. It does disavow the racists reasons that we given for the ban though (which is a great thing). Lets look at the wording again: Quote Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form. The last sentence is the clearest part to support my point. The church condemns past racism in any form. What form did the church institutionally practice racism in the past? Hmm... Let me think about this, its a tough question. How did the church practice racism in the past, did they have any policies that were racist? YES Did they have any theories that were racist? YES. Both forms of racism are condemned by Church leaders today. That's about as clear as it gets from my vantage point. Where do you disagree? 2
CV75 Posted April 19, 2018 Posted April 19, 2018 34 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: God for me is my personal experience, just as God for you is your personal experience. Not really, as you do not know my personal experience, and what you have described of yours is not my concept of God. So simply asserting that God wants the church to apologize and atone for wrongs past and present has no bearing on the discussion, only your enthusiasm. It's one thing, like the OP, to wish that the Church would apologize as part of the celebration and another to prove that the Church should apologize as part of a celebration. Which gets to two important points: 1. the revelation was not a wrong; and 2. interpreting God's will about apologies is not well defended by misrepresenting the motives of Church leaders who have spelled out the Church position in the race and Priesthood essay.
CV75 Posted April 19, 2018 Posted April 19, 2018 44 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: I would agree that its not a sufficient apology, but a disavowal and the way the essay talks about racism in the past environment influencing BY, are both big moves towards a more apologetic approach. Would you care to provide any evidence to support your claim that my interpretation is contrary or even opposite to what the essay says or what some church leaders have said? LOL I'm saying the essay is not an apology, period, so don't say you agree with me that it is an insufficient one. My evidence is your very post. It portrays none of the sentiments expressed in the essay, just like your "agreement" with me.
CV75 Posted April 19, 2018 Posted April 19, 2018 (edited) 59 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: I like the essay as it represents a very positive step forward, and the author who primarily contributed to it is a good scholar. If you haven't read his full book on this subject, it really is a must read for anyone interested in the race topic in contemporary Mormonism. https://www.amazon.com/Religion-Different-Color-Struggle-Whiteness/dp/019067413X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1524160159&sr=8-1&keywords=paul+reeve+religion+of+a+different+color Environmental factors are important to recognize to better understand history, but it was your use of that statement about racism being a default human state, that I found problematic in the context of this discussion. I agree with the statement technically, but not the timing and use of it in this context. Technically is the only way I was using it. Edit: you might be confusing me with the originator of the statement anyway. Edited April 19, 2018 by CV75
bluebell Posted April 19, 2018 Posted April 19, 2018 45 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: Lets look at the wording again: The last sentence is the clearest part to support my point. The church condemns past racism in any form. What form did the church institutionally practice racism in the past? Hmm... Let me think about this, its a tough question. How did the church practice racism in the past, did they have any policies that were racist? YES Did they have any theories that were racist? YES. Both forms of racism are condemned by Church leaders today. That's about as clear as it gets from my vantage point. Where do you disagree? I agree it could be evidence to support your point. But it depends a lot on whether or not the church considered the ban racist. Seeing as how the church had allowed black members to receive the priesthood (as long as they were not of African decent), there is room to argue that the church does not view the ban in that light. If they had wanted to disavow the ban outright, it is strange that they didn't just say that the church disavows or condemns the past ban. 2
The Nehor Posted April 19, 2018 Posted April 19, 2018 4 hours ago, hope_for_things said: Two reasons, its part of our atonement for the mistakes of the past (repentance as an institution.) Its also would help with understanding how racism is still present in the church today and help towards changing the culture to be more inclusive. A simple apology doesn't cut it. Our atonement? You are claiming some responsibility for the Priesthood Ban?
The Nehor Posted April 19, 2018 Posted April 19, 2018 1 hour ago, hope_for_things said: I believe God wants the church to properly apologize and atone for the wrongs of the past and the present. I don't believe God withholds priesthood from anyone. Just misguided men who've ruled on earth. None of these arbitrary rules are compatible with God. Did God tell you that or are you creating a god in your own image? 3
CV75 Posted April 19, 2018 Posted April 19, 2018 39 minutes ago, bluebell said: I agree it could be evidence to support your point. But it depends a lot on whether or not the church considered the ban racist. Seeing as how the church had allowed black members to receive the priesthood (as long as they were not of African decent), there is room to argue that the church does not view the ban in that light. If they had wanted to disavow the ban outright, it is strange that they didn't just say that the church disavows or condemns the past ban. Where the OP focuses specifically on a gesture to reconcile wounded feelings associated with the ban, I think this is an important point. One of the speakers at the 30-year celebration said this (referencing a scripture); "How foolish it would be to imagine that because I do not understand some things, the things I do know and understand by the powerful workings of the Spirit in my heart are any less real or true." The goodness we know that overshadows an expectation for an apology certainly differs from person to person, but the general sentiment of submission and forgiveness over recompense reflects a fuller spirit of the Gospel, and the Church would be doing a disservice to her members to promote less. She is a true and living Church for true and living people who become true and living saints. 3
Glenn101 Posted April 19, 2018 Posted April 19, 2018 (edited) 15 hours ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said: I joined the Church less than a year after the ban was lifted. I fear that if that had still been policy, I might have never joined. Why did you join then? Would the church be less, i.e. if the ban had not been lifted. would would it have invalidated the Book of Mormon or the Angel Moroni, or the first vision? Glenn Edited April 19, 2018 by Glenn101 emphasis
hope_for_things Posted April 19, 2018 Posted April 19, 2018 1 hour ago, CV75 said: 2 hours ago, hope_for_things said: God for me is my personal experience, just as God for you is your personal experience. Not really, as you do not know my personal experience, and what you have described of yours is not my concept of God. So simply asserting that God wants the church to apologize and atone for wrongs past and present has no bearing on the discussion, only your enthusiasm. It's one thing, like the OP, to wish that the Church would apologize as part of the celebration and another to prove that the Church should apologize as part of a celebration. Which gets to two important points: 1. the revelation was not a wrong; and 2. interpreting God's will about apologies is not well defended by misrepresenting the motives of Church leaders who have spelled out the Church position in the race and Priesthood essay. Interesting that you'd push back against my statement saying that God is your personal experience as much as God is my personal experience, it seems like a fair statement because of its equal subjectivity. Perhaps you just misread my statement. I'm not claiming my experience of God is objectively true and superior to yours, I'm saying our experiences are equally subjective and expressive of our conceptions for God. So that concept carries on into all of my other statements. My experience of God is what God wants the church to do, to apologize. I never claimed that is your experience of God. I never sought to "prove the Church should apologize." I believe my desire for the church to apologize is supported by reasoning, morality and religious precedent though. Your last two points, 1. that the revelation was not a wrong. I never said the revelation was a wrong, not sure where you got that. I said the practice of racism and the teachings about that practice were wrong. The revelation helps to correct some of that wrong and was one step in the right direction, but others are needed. 2. Interpreting God's will is another exercise in that subjective experience of God that I just explained. We all interpret God's will, its a subjective exercise that all religious people practice for the most part. As for my misrepresenting the motives of church leaders, you still haven't explained how I've done that with any specificity. I'm think I'm well acquainted with the essay and I'd be interested in seeing you back up this accusation with any specifics.
hope_for_things Posted April 19, 2018 Posted April 19, 2018 1 hour ago, CV75 said: LOL I'm saying the essay is not an apology, period, so don't say you agree with me that it is an insufficient one. My evidence is your very post. It portrays none of the sentiments expressed in the essay, just like your "agreement" with me. I think the essay is a kind of apology, acknowledging past mistakes and disavowing and condemning racism and the theories of the past are in the spirit of an apology. But I don't think they go far enough, as I explained earlier. You still haven't provided any specific evidence and I'm confused about what you think I'm misrepresenting or misinterpreting. I've replied to multiple people in this thread. If you can point out the specific item you disagree with, that would help, otherwise I can't really respond to your accusations of misrepresentation.
hope_for_things Posted April 19, 2018 Posted April 19, 2018 1 hour ago, bluebell said: 2 hours ago, hope_for_things said: Lets look at the wording again: The last sentence is the clearest part to support my point. The church condemns past racism in any form. What form did the church institutionally practice racism in the past? Hmm... Let me think about this, its a tough question. How did the church practice racism in the past, did they have any policies that were racist? YES Did they have any theories that were racist? YES. Both forms of racism are condemned by Church leaders today. That's about as clear as it gets from my vantage point. Where do you disagree? I agree it could be evidence to support your point. But it depends a lot on whether or not the church considered the ban racist. Seeing as how the church had allowed black members to receive the priesthood (as long as they were not of African decent), there is room to argue that the church does not view the ban in that light. If they had wanted to disavow the ban outright, it is strange that they didn't just say that the church disavows or condemns the past ban. It not just "could be evidence to support your point." It is evidence and I think its quite clear. If you have evidence from the essay that contradicts this reading or if you have another way of interpreting the wording, could you please explain. Help me understand what you mean by "it depends a lot on whether or not the church considered the ban racist." From my point of view it doesn't matter what the church considers is racist. The church doesn't get to define the language of our society as a whole. The word racism has a meaning that is defined by society, not the church. The ban clearly meets the definition of racism. The second part of what you stated about blacks of non African descent receiving the priesthood, how does this support the church not viewing the ban as racist? I don't understand this. If the ban excluded just people of African descent, then its still racist against people of African descent. This is very confusing to me. Lastly they did disavow the ban outright with the statement that I put in bold "Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form."
hope_for_things Posted April 19, 2018 Posted April 19, 2018 1 hour ago, The Nehor said: 6 hours ago, hope_for_things said: Two reasons, its part of our atonement for the mistakes of the past (repentance as an institution.) Its also would help with understanding how racism is still present in the church today and help towards changing the culture to be more inclusive. A simple apology doesn't cut it. Our atonement? You are claiming some responsibility for the Priesthood Ban? I think as members of the church, and for me especially since I have pioneer ancestry, that we all have some responsibility for the actions of the past.
hope_for_things Posted April 19, 2018 Posted April 19, 2018 1 hour ago, The Nehor said: 3 hours ago, hope_for_things said: I believe God wants the church to properly apologize and atone for the wrongs of the past and the present. I don't believe God withholds priesthood from anyone. Just misguided men who've ruled on earth. None of these arbitrary rules are compatible with God. Did God tell you that or are you creating a god in your own image? I imagine if God created me and gave me a brain to think with that God has some responsibility for my thoughts about God. Aren't we all creating God in our own image to some extent, especially in Mormonism where we are taught to anthropomorphize God. Do you have a clear way of distinguishing your thoughts from God's thoughts, or are any attempts to separate the two ways of thinking just self delusion?
Marginal Gains Posted April 19, 2018 Posted April 19, 2018 4 hours ago, Alan said: Negroes were not permitted to hold the priesthood at one time, now they are. Gentiles were not permitted to hold the priesthood at one time, now they are. Non-Levites were not permitted to hold the priesthood at one time, now they are. How far back do you want this apology to go? I think just as far back as the Restoration. Why not apologise for it?
Marginal Gains Posted April 19, 2018 Posted April 19, 2018 5 hours ago, Alan said: There will be no apology because it wasn't wrong. Where is the doctrinal support for it being right?
Alan Posted April 19, 2018 Posted April 19, 2018 1 minute ago, Marginal Gains said: Where is the doctrinal support for it being right? Do you really need me to tell you?
Marginal Gains Posted April 19, 2018 Posted April 19, 2018 3 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said: Where is the doctrinal support for it being right? 1 minute ago, Alan said: Do you really need me to tell you? Yep, I really do.
Recommended Posts