Callings given to imperfect human beings

[Meadowchik]

34 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Then why on earth do you say such awful, unkind things about us?  All the time, apparently?

If there is any implication of what I say about the church on the individual in the church, my words implicate me, too. I defended it for a very long time. 

Anyways, you are taking me to task for my participation on another board, without trying to engage with me on it there or agreeing to try to understand my words there. That, to me, is not an example of dialoguing in good faith.

23 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I guess I'm conflating her posts here with posts elsewhere (which are not "civil and kind," to say the least).

Yes.  As do we all.

Perhaps so.  I admit that I have a hard time with members of the Church who use online anonymity to publicly say awful, and often false, things about us.

But perhaps I should not publicly respond to such things.

Thanks,

-Smac

Perhaps you should not. But I can say, that many of the very painful things I have said in some places are ones I have thought about and considered deeply, and there is moral reasoning behind them. Again, I am willing to back up the accusation about profanity, and grooming, etc...and yet I do agree with you about the decency of church leaders. Like my dad says, people are mixed bags, and so are institutions. 

 

[ALarson]

11 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So after pressuring him into removing the quotes, you now have plausible deniability because there is no convenient way for a typical reader to find the quotes and judge their nature for him/herself. 

I did read them before they were removed and that's what I was basing my opinion on.  Smac did the right thing to remove them, IMO.

Meadowchik's post above states things well:

Quote

If there is any implication of what I say about the church on the individual in the church, my words implicate me, too. I defended it for a very long time. 

Anyways, you are taking me to task for my participation on another board, without trying to engage with me on it there or agreeing to try to understand my words there. That, to me, is not an example of dialoguing in good faith.

Perhaps you should not. But I can say, that many of the very painful things I have said in some places are ones I have thought about and considered deeply, and there is moral reasoning behind them. Again, I am willing to back up the accusation about profanity, and grooming, etc...and yet I do agree with you about the decency of church leaders. Like my dad says, people are mixed bags, and so are institutions. 

 

Edited September 3, 2019 by ALarson

[Scott Lloyd]

1 minute ago, ALarson said:

I did read them before they were removed and that's what I was basing my opinion on.  Smac did the right thing to remove them.

Meadowchik's post above states it well, IMO:

 

So in effect you expect us to accept your opinion of those quotes on your say-so alone. We can’t conveniently judge for ourselves, because you have pressured Smac into removing them. 

[ALarson]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So in effect you expect us to accept your opinion of those quotes on your say-so alone. We can’t conveniently judge for ourselves, because you have pressured Smac into removing them. 

It's against board rules to quote posts from other boards.  He did the right thing and removed them.  

If you're that interested in what Meadowchik is posting elsewhere, I believe she stated she uses her same identity on the other board.  You can search there and read them if it's important to you.

 

[Meadowchik]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So in effect you expect us to accept your opinion of those quotes on your say-so alone. We can’t conveniently judge for ourselves, because you have pressured Smac into removing them. 

The only thing that's really relevant is that they were taken from another board. It appears that SMAC checked the rules for himself then removed them. I personally do not object to discussing what I have said elsewhere, if it is not against this board's rules. Or discuss them there, for that matter. 

[smac97]

13 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So in effect you expect us to accept your opinion of those quotes on your say-so alone. We can’t conveniently judge for ourselves, because you have pressured Smac into removing them. 

To be fair, Alarson didn't pressure me.  If the rules don't allow cross-posting content from other boards (I haven't checked), then I was in the wrong in doing so.  I don't object to Alarson pointing that out.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited September 3, 2019 by smac97

[RevTestament]

4 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Institutional bodies still harm. What is it, then, when a leader who can acknowledge and make corrections does not do so? What is it called when a person does not choose the right?

I think it is a fallacy to believe that one can presume to repent for another. That is not in any gospel that I have ever known. In fact that may be harmful. It seems disrespectful. It is not choosing the right to presume to repent for the sins of another largely based on hearsay more than 100 years old. Further, polygamy was legal under the law of Moses which gave a law of inheritance if a man have two wives. It can be abused, but you seem to denounce it wholly. Unless you claim to be a prophet, I don't think you have any word from the Lord to authorize such a blanket denouncement of it. Any cases of harm need to be addressed by those who committed it rather than being judged based on hearsay some 160-170 years later. 

Institutions are legal fictions allowed to exist for liability and tax reasons. As far as God is concerned "the Church" is the whole body of its members, whom the prophet cannot presume to apologize for. Not all sinned. I, myself, have pointed out various faults of Joseph Smith. The Lord called him to repentance - the same as He has His other prophets. However, I would never presume to apologize for him. He is the one who needs to repent for his sins. Those are between he and his God, and it is not for me to judge him. The Church has put your contentious points behind it. That is good. It should please you, but I don't think you would be happy even if the Church presidency issued some apology. Would you return from your "apostasy?"

4 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

It think it is far to easy to squash a point by labelling a person a  "social justice warrior." It's a facile reduction of what is happening. Maybe, awkward and uncomfortable that movements toward social justice can be, they are part of that epidemic of kindness that you have asked me about. People are wanting to do good. They are wanting to do what's right. They are wanting to see what they cannot see and so they are listening to people they weren't hearing before. My telling you that the church and leaders as leaders have harmed people is a kindness. Me telling the world that I expect the church and leaders to repent is a kindness, because that is what I expect of people and institutions of integrity. 

They are hearing from people like you? No offense, but you are a self-proclaimed apostate whom I do not see returning. The Church has always had critics. Basically, all churches do. Even I have had criticisms. You are just another voice masquerading as a voice of "kindness." Like Smac, I do not see it. Your throwing rocks from afar is a kindness? What? You think I do not know about the polygamy of the Church? One of the issues I had with joining the Church was the priesthood ban. I am well aware of these issues, but I don't feel your kindness. You presume to be doing me some favor? Nah. No thanks. I am a big boy, and don't want your "kindness." I prefer you get off your soapbox. Even if you are right, the Church has nothing to correct. The Church is an institution of integrity, which is why it has changed, but it should not live by your expectations, but rather by the expectation of our Lord, who doesn't ask us to presumptuously apologize for the sins of others. That is a violation of their agency, and is based in presentism or judgment based on lots of hearsay. In fact Yeshua told us not to judge others for we would receive that same judgment - just a word to the wise. Maybe it is time to take off that sheep's clothing...

 

 

[Meadowchik]

27 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

I think it is a fallacy to believe that one can presume to repent for another. That is not in any gospel that I have ever known. In fact that may be harmful. It seems disrespectful. It is not choosing the right to presume to repent for the sins of another largely based on hearsay more than 100 years old. Further, polygamy was legal under the law of Moses which gave a law of inheritance if a man have two wives. It can be abused, but you seem to denounce it wholly. Unless you claim to be a prophet, I don't think you have any word from the Lord to authorize such a blanket denouncement of it. Any cases of harm need to be addressed by those who committed it rather than being judged based on hearsay some 160-170 years later. 

Institutions are legal fictions allowed to exist for liability and tax reasons. As far as God is concerned "the Church" is the whole body of its members, whom the prophet cannot presume to apologize for. Not all sinned. I, myself, have pointed out various faults of Joseph Smith. The Lord called him to repentance - the same as He has His other prophets. However, I would never presume to apologize for him. He is the one who needs to repent for his sins. Those are between he and his God, and it is not for me to judge him. The Church has put your contentious points behind it. That is good. It should please you, but I don't think you would be happy even if the Church presidency issued some apology. Would you return from your "apostasy?"

They are hearing from people like you? No offense, but you are a self-proclaimed apostate whom I do not see returning. The Church has always had critics. Basically, all churches do. Even I have had criticisms. You are just another voice masquerading as a voice of "kindness." Like Smac, I do not see it. Your throwing rocks from afar is a kindness? What? You think I do not know about the polygamy of the Church? One of the issues I had with joining the Church was the priesthood ban. I am well aware of these issues, but I don't feel your kindness. You presume to be doing me some favor? Nah. No thanks. I am a big boy, and don't want your "kindness." I prefer you get off your soapbox. Even if you are right, the Church has nothing to correct. The Church is an institution of integrity, which is why it has changed, but it should not live by your expectations, but rather by the expectation of our Lord, who doesn't ask us to presumptuously apologize for the sins of others. That is a violation of their agency, and is based in presentism or judgment based on lots of hearsay. In fact Yeshua told us not to judge others for we would receive that same judgment - just a word to the wise. Maybe it is time to take off that sheep's clothing...

 

 

I have not been saying that President Nelson or anyone else can repent for Joseph Smith. I do think a concept of institutional repentance would benefit the church and those it impacts. It has impacted me. I believe that Joseph Smith's polygamy has impacted me personally via the church. 

I'm not sure if more talk with you will be fruitful now that you've gotten hostile. I am disappointed because I have enjoyed talking to you and was looking forward to discussing your Meaning thread some more.

That said, I would like to point out the Groupthinky nature of your reaction here, since you've expressed concern for groupthink in another thread. You've implied I'm a wolf in sheep's clothing (watch out, guys, an enemy in our midst!) You've basically told me to stop airing criticism since I am now an outsider and that as such my perspective is less valuable. Yet, I am here, trying to address harm by the church when relevant. I insist that my voice matters. I insist that what the church does matters to me and others. I want to break that groupthinkiness that says otherwise. 

Edited September 3, 2019 by Meadowchik

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

To be fair, Alarson didn't pressure me.  If the rules don't allow cross-posting content from other boards (I haven't checked), then I was in the wrong in doing so.  I don't object to Alarson pointing that out.

Thanks,

-Smac

Whatever his reasoning for getting you to remove the quotes — or yours for removing them — it does place you at a disadvantage when he then comes back and contradicts you regarding the character of those quotes. Again, he enjoys plausible deniability thereby. 

Edited to add: Just now, I did check the guidelines. This is on the list of “banned behaviors”:

“Engaging in board wars by bringing other boards [sic] content here or vice versa.” 

So I suppose the question is whether posting content from other boards is absolutely forbidden or only when it’s done for the purpose of “engaging in board wars.” Were you engaging in  a board war? I didn’t get that sense. I thought your quotes were to illustrate a point, not to foment a “board war.” We post material all the time from elsewhere on the internet to illustrate points we are making. Why should another discussion board be any different, so long as a “board war” is not our aim?

Edited September 3, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[ALarson]

9 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Whatever his reasoning for getting you to remove the quotes — or yours for removing them — it does place you at a disadvantage when he then comes back and contradicts you regarding the character of those quotes. Again, he enjoys plausible deniability thereby. 

Like I already posted, Meadowchik's comments are over on the other board for you to read if it's that important to you.  (She's not hiding them.)

Otherwise, let's stick to discussing what is posted here.  She has been very open and willing to do so.  Maybe engage directly with her if you have questions or comments about her opinions?  

Edited September 3, 2019 by ALarson

[smac97]

10 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Whatever his reasoning for getting you to remove the quotes — or yours for removing them — it does place you at a disadvantage when he then comes back and contradicts you regarding the character of those quotes. Again, he enjoys plausible deniability thereby. 

I'm okay with that.  I paraphrased the quotes.  That's sufficient to get my point across.

And Alarson may also have been correct about me making this thread to personal.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

If there is any implication of what I say about the church on the individual in the church, my words implicate me, too. 

 

Which is the very reason I am contemptuous of the concept of institutional or collective guilt. It is manifestly unjust to implicate many for the misdeeds of one or of a relative few. 

[Scott Lloyd]

15 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Like I already posted, Meadowchik's comments are over on the other board for you to read if it's that important to you.  (She's not hiding them.)

Otherwise, let's stick to discussing what is posted here.  She has been very open and willing to do so.  Maybe engage directly with her if you have questions or comments about her opinions?  

But most people cannot readily find them without going over there to poke and dig around. As I said, it’s inconvenient. So you have set the stage to give yourself the advantage. 

[Meadowchik]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Which is the very reason I am contemptuous of the concept of institutional or collective guilt. It is manifestly unjust to implicate many for the misdeeds of one or of a relative few. 

What is the way to expect institutions to be accountable without recognition of institutional guilt?

[ALarson]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

But most people cannot readily find them without going over there to poke and dig around. As I said, it’s inconvenient.

Ok. Then read smac's paraphrasing of them (or just drop it )

19 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I paraphrased the quotes.  That's sufficient to get my point across.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

The only thing that's really relevant is that they were taken from another board. It appears that SMAC checked the rules for himself then removed them. I personally do not object to discussing what I have said elsewhere, if it is not against this board's rules. Or discuss them there, for that matter. 

Smac specifically said he had not checked the rules. He took ALarson’s word for it. 

I then checked them and found there was one that prohibited “engaging in board wars.” I don’t think that’s what Smac was doing. 

[smac97]

8 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

What is the way to expect institutions to be accountable without recognition of institutional guilt?

"Accountable" in what sense?  Not under the law, surely?  

This is a discussion about being accountable to God (as evidenced by the calls for "repentance").  

Before we talk about ways for "expect{ing} institutions to be accountable {to God}," we should examine the reasonableness of that expectation.

I submit that this is not a reasonable expectation.  The concept of "institutional guilt" is likewise unreasonable (from a theological perspective).  

Surely you don't find all Jews "institutionally guilty" of the Crucifixion?

Surely you don't find all Catholics "institutionally guilty" of the excesses of the Spanish Inquisition?

Surely you don't find all Muslims "institutionally guilty" of terrorism committed in the name of Islam?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Meadowchik]

Just now, smac97 said:

"Accountable" in what sense?  Not under the law, surely?  

This is a discussion about being accountable to God (as evidenced by the calls for "repentance").  

Before we talk about ways for "expect{ing} institutions to be accountable {to God}," we should examine the reasonableness of that expectation.

I submit that this is not a reasonable expectation.  The concept of "institutional guilt" is likewise unreasonable (from a theological perspective).  

Surely you don't find all Jews "institutionally guilty" of the Crucifixion?

Surely you don't find all Catholics "institutionally guilty" of the excesses of the Spanish Inquisition?

Surely you don't find all Muslims "institutionally guilty" of terrorism committed in the name of Islam?

Thanks,

-Smac

Are the Jewish leaders saying that the crucifixion was what G-d commanded at the time? Is the Pope testifying of the divine wisdom of the Spanish Inquisition? Are Muslim leaders calling on believers to terrorise for Allah?

If there is a yes to any of these questions, globally or locally, I'd say the adherents have a moral responsibility to do what they can to counter such teachings. But as far as I know the RCC has accepted institutional responsibility for many of its harms. So it is a concept that some institutions use, hopefully for improvement.

[Scott Lloyd]

37 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

What is the way to expect institutions to be accountable without recognition of institutional guilt?

I’m of the opinion that only those personally and materially involved in a misdeed bear accountability for it, although those who come later can express disapproval of it. 

This happened several years ago when the Illinois General Assembly passed a resolution expressing regret for the oppression of the Latter-day Saints in that state in the 1840s. There is no way anyone now living bears culpability for said oppression. But it was a nice gesture. 

It also happened when Church leaders some years ago expressed regret for the errant actions of Church members who perpetrated the Mountain Meadows Massacre. No one now living is culpable for the massacre, and the Church as an institution is not, because the perpetrators acted without authorization from the Church. But a formal expression of regret (not an apology or an acceptance of blame) was appropriate under the circumstances.

 

Edited September 3, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[Meadowchik]

10 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I’m of the opinion that only those personally and materially involved in a misdeed bear accountability for it, although those who come later can express disapproval of it. 

This happened several years ago when the Illinois General Assembly passed a resolution expressing regret for the oppression of the Latter-day Saints in that state in the 1840s. There is no way anyone now living bears culpability for said oppression. But it was a nice gesture. 

 

I appreciated that resolution and I think this kind of gesture is more than just show. It helps imo to prevent the legalised oppression from being used as a precedent for future oppression. It helps people heal.

[RevTestament]

44 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

I have not been saying that President Nelson or anyone else can repent for Joseph Smith. I do think a concept of institutional repentance would benefit the church and those it impacts. It has impacted me. I believe that Joseph Smith's polygamy has impacted me personally via the church. 

I'm not sure if more talk with you will be fruitful now that you've gotten hostile. I am disappointed because I have enjoyed talking to you and was looking forward to discussing your Meaning thread some more.

That said, I would like to point out the Groupthinky nature of your reaction here, since you've expressed concern for groupthink in another thread. You've implied I'm a wolf in sheep's clothing (watch out, guys, an enemy in our midst!) You've basically told me to stop airing criticism since I am now an outsider and that as such my perspective is less valuable. Yet, I am here, trying to address harm by the church when relevant. I insist that my voice matters. I insist that what the church does matters to me and others. I want to break that groupthinkiness that says otherwise. 

Groupthink would call for the President to apologize or repent for someone else's sin. There is no scriptural precedent for that. Now you seem to be accusing me of goupthink. I laugh at that one. I interpret the scriptures much differently than my piers in the Church, and have given several examples of that. I haven't taken any sides here except the side of scripture which is from our Lord, and by which we will be judged.. I am just giving you my perceptions of your behavior which you are now interpreting as hostile, because I am not taking your side. Joseph Smith's polygamy also impacted me. It is possible he sinned, but again, that is through the eyes of hearsayers. Even if he did it doesn't invalidate his revelations nor the truths of the Church, and as I have pointed out it is not proper for the Church to repent for him. I will leave that to God, and I suggest you do that too. That suggestion is not hostile. It is really for your own good, and I think will help you heal. I am just pointing out that perceptions do harm too. Perceptions are often not real. Our interpretations of "reality" are often skewed, which is why it is important for us to not judge any sins of Joseph, because they are reliant on people who printed those perceptions. One was that Joseph was a sex-crazed philanderer. If so, he was terribly better at birth control than anyone else in his age, because those other women he allegedly "married" never seemed to have even one of his children. I'm sure you know this has been verified with genetic testing of the descendants of these women. The cold-hard scientific facts don't seem to jive with the perceptions of people who made those reports like those you rely on for your own personal judgment. 

Your whole position is tenuous from start to finish. But knowing people on the internet like I do, I doubt you will reconsider it. I am sorry you feel harmed, but no one I know of harmed you. You have not been abused by Joseph Smith. The Church did not teach you to enter plural marriage, and my guess is you will say the Church avoided the subject, and that is how you were "harmed." Do you remember any good in the Church? Do you remember happiness, and good feelings? Do you have happy memories? Did you bear your testimony to these things? I think one or two things which have been corrected shouldn't outweigh all the good in the Church. Despite the mistakes of men, this is the Lord's appointed Church in which He is working to restore His truths, and you are fighting against it....is that where you really want to be? Any Church will make mistakes, because men make mistakes. Women make mistakes. Flailing around promoting kindness without any structure will just leave you lost.... like Lennon. I don't want to imagine a world without God. He is the best thing about this world. Without His precepts I have rarely seen your "kindness." I am disappointed because I now perceive you as hiding a different agenda behind your mask of "kindness.," whether you realize it or not. 

[Scott Lloyd]

9 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

I appreciated that resolution and I think this kind of gesture is more than just show. It helps imo to prevent the legalised oppression from being used as a precedent for future oppression. It helps people heal.

I think you are confusing what I’m talking about with the governor of Missouri in the 1970s rescinding the Extermination Order of 1839. Totally separate event from what the Illinois state legislators did later. 

But I do agree that both actions are worthy of appreciation, though I hasten to repeat that the lawmakers’ action was not an apology or an acknowledgement of guilt borne by anyone now living. 

[smac97]

28 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Are the Jewish leaders saying that the crucifixion was what G-d commanded at the time?

You are dodging the question.  Are all Jews "institutionally guilty" of the crucifixion?  If yes, then wow!  If no, then you don't really subscribe to the notion of institutional guilt (to which I would say: Good for you!).

28 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Is the Pope testifying of the divine wisdom of the Spanish Inquisition?

Dodge.

28 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Are Muslim leaders calling on believers to terrorise for Allah?

Dodge.

28 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

If there is a yes to any of these questions, globally or locally, I'd say the adherents have a moral responsibility to do what they can to counter such teachings.

"Counter such teachings" is a very different proposition from "repent on behalf of other people."

I reject your premise of collective guilt.  I am obligated to repent of my own sins, not the sins of others.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Meadowchik]

7 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Groupthink would call for the President to apologize or repent for someone else's sin. There is no scriptural precedent for that. Now you seem to be accusing me of goupthink. I laugh at that one. I interpret the scriptures much differently than my piers in the Church, and have given several examples of that. I haven't taken any sides here except the side of scripture which is from our Lord, and by which we will be judged.. I am just giving you my perceptions of your behavior which you are now interpreting as hostile, because I am not taking your side. Joseph Smith's polygamy also impacted me. It is possible he sinned, but again, that is through the eyes of hearsayers. Even if he did it doesn't invalidate his revelations nor the truths of the Church, and as I have pointed out it is not proper for the Church to repent for him. I will leave that to God, and I suggest you do that too. That suggestion is not hostile. It is really for your own good, and I think will help you heal. I am just pointing out that perceptions do harm too. Perceptions are often not real. Our interpretations of "reality" are often skewed, which is why it is important for us to not judge any sins of Joseph, because they are reliant on people who printed those perceptions. One was that Joseph was a sex-crazed philanderer. If so, he was terribly better at birth control than anyone else in his age, because those other women he allegedly "married" never seemed to have even one of his children. I'm sure you know this has been verified with genetic testing of the descendants of these women. The cold-hard scientific facts don't seem to jive with the perceptions of people who made those reports like those you rely on for your own personal judgment. 

Your whole position is tenuous from start to finish. But knowing people on the internet like I do, I doubt you will reconsider it. I am sorry you feel harmed, but no one I know of harmed you. You have not been abused by Joseph Smith. The Church did not teach you to enter plural marriage, and my guess is you will say the Church avoided the subject, and that is how you were "harmed." Do you remember any good in the Church? Do you remember happiness, and good feelings? Do you have happy memories? Did you bear your testimony to these things? I think one or two things which have been corrected shouldn't outweigh all the good in the Church. Despite the mistakes of men, this is the Lord's appointed Church in which He is working to restore His truths, and you are fighting against it....is that where you really want to be? Any Church will make mistakes, because men make mistakes. Women make mistakes. Flailing around promoting kindness without any structure will just leave you lost.... like Lennon. I don't want to imagine a world without God. He is the best thing about this world. Without His precepts I have rarely seen your "kindness." I am disappointed because I now perceive you as hiding a different agenda behind your mask of "kindness.," whether you realize it or not. 

I didn't view your disagreement as hostile, just that you implied I am a wolf in sheep's clothing. That's hostile.

Again, I have not argued that President Nelson repent for Joseph Smith's sins, but that it would benefit the church and others to apologize and repent for harm it caused as a church, and that individual leaders repent for  sins they commit in their leadership capacities.

I knew about Joseph Smith's polygamy when I was a teen. It was hidden from my husband, but not me. I think you are imagining a stereotype instead of my actual objections to polygamy: I object to its coercive nature. I object to the multilayerer deceptions the church and Joseph used to protect it. I object, perhaps most of all, to the level of control required for a theology to convince people to break their marital vows. I view that level of control as unhealthy and as a generational harm that persists today in the church.

People have written articles about "polygamy culture," if you'd like to listen to others who feel they've been harmed by it, and which discuss the way polygamy has shaped the institution.

[Meerkat]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

What is the way to expect institutions to be accountable without recognition of institutional guilt?

It's human beings who make mistakes, not the institution of the Church. 

This is from the title page of the Book of Mormon: "to show unto the remnant of the house of Israel what great things the Lord hath done for their fathers; and that they may know the covenants of the Lord, that they are not cast off forever—And also to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God, manifesting himself unto all nations—And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ.

Meadowchik, you strike me as a sincere person and I have enjoyed some of your questions.  Very thought provoking.  I believe there have been mistakes made by well intentioned people, starting with Adam and Eve.  Learning from our mistakes is an important part of mortality.  I am always surprised to see anyone assigning blame for their circumstances or their feelings to another person.   "If the Church would only apologize for decisions made over a hundred years ago..."  The Church acted and revoked the practice of polygamy.  What further would you want from an apology?  Remorse?  Regret?  There is nothing preventing you from disagreeing with the practice back then.  It is okay to have doubts and concerns about ideas or practices from long ago.  That is where faith comes in.   We can seek the knowledge to help us understand.  Our 9th Article of Faith states: " We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does no reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God."  We can have those things revealed to us.  But the proper channel to reveal them to the Church is through the prophet.    

 

I baptized a black man and his wife and daughter  back in 1977.  My Mother said "I could never join a church that wouldn't let a black man hold the priesthood."  Several months later, our daughter was born and it was time for her to receive a name and a blessing.  We invited my parents to the service.  That particular fast Sunday, the good man and his daughter decided to bear their testimonies for the first time.   He stood and said "I don't know why God won't let me have the priesthood and take my family to the Temple right now.  But I have prayed about it.  I have been assured by the Spirit of God that the day will come when I will have every blessing that any other member has.  I have read and prayed about the Book of Mormon, and I know it is true.  That's why I was baptized, and am glad to be a member of this church."  Within the year, the priesthood was given to every worthy male in the Church.

 

I asked Mom "What are your thoughts about Bro. Bailey's testimony?"  What do you think she said?  She said "Well, I could never join a church that wouldn't let me have my coffee."

 

So the problem she had with blacks and the priesthood was apparently a red herring.  I'm sure you and many others have sincere disagreements.  One of my children asked "Why did Joseph Smith copy sections of the King James Bible?"  I said "I've heard that when he saw the same doctrine being preached in the new world as was preached in the old, he copied what he could for convenience sake."  He said “That makes sense to me.  I’ll never ask that question again.”! My son then pivoted to "Well, Joseph Smith committed polyandry.  What about that?  And Polygamy?  The Book of Mormon was plagiarized from another book. What about that? "  "Blacks and the priesthood."  The way the Church feels about LGBTQ," Etc.  There was no end to his pivoting.  I go back to Bro. Bailey's formula, because it's been mine too.  Pray about it.  For me, if the answer is "It's true," then I embrace it.  If false, I would walk away.  I have had the truth of it confirmed to me many times over and over.

 

Regarding Polygamy, my daughter teaches Seminary.  Last year, the subject of polygamy came up.  She didn't want to teach it because she didn't feel good about it.  She told her class "This is one area I don't feel comfortable or qualified to teach because I don't like the idea of polygamy.  I will fast and pray this weekend for confirmation.  Will you pray for me?"  When she taught seminary on Monday, she told them she had studied and prayed and received a confirmation that it was a true doctrine.  When Joseph Smith first received the revelation, he did not want to participate in it.   There were women in the Church who were married to non believing husbands.  Joseph felt he could satisfy the commandment by marrying those wives for eternity.  That way, the marriages would not need to be consumated in this life.  Through further study, she became convinced that Joseph's motives were good, and he was trying to follow what God had commanded him to do.  She believes now that Joseph was indeed acting in his office as the mouthpiece of God.  That is her.  Brigham Young says everyone is entitled to their own revelation as to what is true.   So I wish you the very best in sorting this all out.

 

Edited September 3, 2019 by Meerkat