Apology for the Priesthood Ban / "March of Dimes Syndrome" / "Mission Creep" / "Spencer's Law"

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Quote

You are, I think, proving my observation about the potential in calls for an apology having pretexts and ulterior motives.  For some, the purpose of an apology would not be reconciliation, but humiliation.  Fodder for badmouthing the Church, forever and ever.  Ammo for arguing against the truth claims of the Church.  "God does not talk to them at all really."  "{A}ll the garbage that prior leaders taught..."

So?

(That sounds snarky but I don't mean it like that, it's a sincere question.  The church has never shied away from doing what it believed what right or correct, even when they knew that others would try to use it against them. 

I pretty much agree.

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Why should this topic be treated differently?).

It shouldn't.  That's sort of my point.

It may be that the Church has not issued an apology because it cannot definitively ascertain the origins of the priesthood ban, only its termination.  

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

If something is the right thing to do, then we should "do what is right and let the consequences follow".

I quite agree.  Resisting a demand presented in bad faith is, or can be, "the right thing to do."

Thanks,

-Smac

[LoudmouthMormon]

Oh - I thought of another institutional apology - Missouri, in 1976, apologized for Gov. Boggs' Extermination order:

Quote

WHEREAS, on October 27, 1838, the Governor of the State of Missouri, Lilburn W. Boggs, issued an order calling for the extermination or expulsion of Mormons from the State of Missouri; and

WHEREAS, Governor Boggs' order clearly contravened the right to life, liberty, property and religious freedom as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, as well as the Constitution of the State of Missouri; and

WHEREAS, in this Bicentennial year as we reflect on our nation's heritage, the exercise of religious freedom is without question one of the basic tenets of our free democratic republic;

Quote

NOW, THEREFORE, I, CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Governor of the State of Missouri, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the State of Missouri, do hereby order as follows: Expressing on behalf of all Missourians our deep regret for the injustice and undue suffering which was caused by this 1838 order, I hereby rescind Executive Order Number 44 dated October 27, 1838, issued by Governor Lilburn W. Boggs.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF:  I have hereunto set my hand and caused to be affixed the great seal of the State of Missouri in the City of Jefferson on this 25^th day of June, 1976.
Christopher S. Bond
Governor

 

[bluebell]

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

It may be that the Church has not issued an apology because it cannot definitively ascertain the origins of the priesthood ban, only its termination.  

My opinion is that this is exactly the case, and the church doesn't want to accidentally apologize for something that actually was of God.  It's also my opinion that if this is the case the church needs to figure it out instead of living in the "we don't know" camp.  It either needs to apologize and leave it completely behind or it needs to stand by it.

As it stands right now it can almost seem like the church is hedging its bets (by neither agreeing nor denying) so it can have its cake and eat it too.

There is also the chance that some leaders who lived through this era are still grappling with their acceptance of the ban and the reasons for it as the will of God, and that getting people to wrestle with the implication of false teachings testified of over the pulpit (maybe even by people still alive and currently in leadership positions) is something some leaders don't want to face.

Sometimes an "I don't know" is just easier to deal with.

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Oh - I thought of another institutional apology - Missouri, in 1976, apologized for Gov. Boggs' Extermination order:

 

Didn't Illinois also apologize, sometime in the 90s?

[MiserereNobis]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

My comments along those lines were attributing "virtue signaling, posturing," etc. to some of those calling for the apology, not for the Church in giving it.

Sorry, I misread your comment. Thanks for the clarification.

[Rain]

 

14 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Didn't Illinois also apologize, sometime in the 90s?

1976 was when the order was rescinded in Missouri.  In 2004 Illinois apologized. I'm finding things about Kansas as well.  It looks like there were several apologies and laws changed by various states over the years.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

For folks who believe an apology is due, I'm interested in what you think it should say.  What, exactly, should be apologized for, and how should it be worded?

 

 

 

 

As someone who has to frequently apologize this isn’t rocket science. A good apology makes people feel heard. That means the apologize needs to be able to describe in detail what they did wrong. They need to be able to describe why it was wrong. They need to be able to elucidate what harm their actions have caused. 
 

Next comes the I’m sorry part. 
 

Now comes the hard part. Describe what changes you have made and are continuing to make to do better next time. Then you need to follow up and follow through. 
 

For an apology to be felt as sincere people need to be able to understand how and why you changed. 

[MiserereNobis]

45 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

I'm supposing nobody would be happy with a short statement saying something like "we apologize for the harm done".  (Even though @Teancum seemed to initially agree, I'm guessing he'd find such a short brief thing issued by the church totally lacking.  Correct me if I'm wrong, please.)

I wasn't being specific to the situation of your church, because I don't know enough about it to try to hash what would be said. I was being general about institutions: the person in charge of the institution apologies on behalf of the institution for the harm caused to the those who were harmed.

For example, here is Pope Francis (person in charge of institution) apologizing for the atrocities committed in Canada in Catholic residential schools (the harm caused). He was in Canada on Native lands meeting with and speaking to Native people (those who were harmed):

(Full text here)

"I am here because the first step of my penitential pilgrimage among you is that of again asking forgiveness, of telling you once more that I am deeply sorry. Sorry for the ways in which, regrettably, many Christians supported the colonizing mentality of the powers that oppressed the Indigenous Peoples.

I am sorry. I ask forgiveness, in particular, for the ways in which many members of the church and of religious communities co-operated, not least through their indifference, in projects of cultural destruction and forced assimilation promoted by the governments of that time, which culminated in the system of residential schools.

Although Christian charity was not absent, and there were many outstanding instances of devotion and care for children, the overall effects of the policies linked to the residential schools were catastrophic. What our Christian faith tells us is that this was a disastrous error, incompatible with the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

It is painful to think of how the firm soil of values, language and culture that made up the authentic identity of your peoples was eroded, and that you have continued to pay the price of this. In the face of this deplorable evil, the church kneels before God and implores His forgiveness for the sins of her children [from Pope John Paul II's bull Incarnationis Mysterium (Nov. 29 1998), 11: AAS 91 (1999), 140]. I myself wish to reaffirm this, with shame and unambiguously, I humbly beg forgiveness for the evil committed by so many Christians against the Indigenous Peoples."

This line ("In the face of this deplorable evil, the church kneels before God and implores His forgiveness for the sins of her children" was taken from St. Pope John Paul II during the celebration of the Great Jubilee. The Catholic Church apologized for much during that Jubilee. From Wikipedia:

Quote

One particularly rich ceremony of the Jubilee, dubbed the "Day of Forgiveness", came on March 12, 2000, the first Sunday of Lent. There the Pope begged forgiveness from God for the sins committed by members of the Church, and particularly sins committed in the name of the Church.

Seven senior curial officials read special prayers asking for forgiveness in specific areas. The first, Benin's Cardinal Bernardin Gantin, then dean of the College of Cardinals, made a general confession of Christians' sins in the course of history. Joseph Ratzinger, cardinal prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, called for confession of faults for the use of "non-evangelical methods" in the service of faith, as for example, in the Inquisition. Roger Etchegaray, cardinal president of the Central Committee for the Jubilee, exhorted the confession of sins that caused division among Christians; Cardinal Edward Idris Cassidy, president of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, acknowledged the faults committed "against the people of the Covenant," the Jews; and Japanese Archbishop Stephen Fumio Hamao, president of the Pontifical Council for the Pastoral Care of Migrants and Itinerant People, mentioned sins committed against love, peace, the rights of peoples, respect of cultures and religions. Nigerian Cardinal Francis Arinze, president of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue, requested confession of sins that have wounded the dignity of woman and the unity of mankind. Finally, Vietnamese Archbishop François Xavier Nguyên Van Thuân, president of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, encouraged confession of sins in the area of fundamental rights of the human person: abuses against children, marginalisation of the poor, suppression of the unborn in the maternal womb or their use for experimentation.

 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Who today would be a recipient of an apology for the priesthood ban that ended in 1978?

It’s hilarious to me that you think this ended in 1978. When was the first time that the doctrine supporting the ban was official disavowed?

[rpn]

44 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Are you referencing this?

No,  that was in MO about how to deal with slaves who were interested in the Gospel.  MO was a slave state, JS couldn't have recommended anything but what Abraham Smoot said.

It was the fact that Smoot ratified Zebedee Coltrin's outright lie that JS had not approved Elijah Able's priesthood ordinance, when he knew that wasn't accurate and that Coltrin had participated in that ordination (in ultimate attempt to preserve the ban) that makes it impossible to promote his name despite any other good he did.  

[MiserereNobis]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Conversely, I will not apologize for something some in my affinity group did 150+ years ago.  I am not morally culpable or responsible for such acts, and any apology I could offer would not have substantive meaning or efficacy.

Correct, your apology would not have substantive meaning, because you're not the leader of the institution.

Now, if President Nelson were to apologize, do you think that would have substantive meaning or efficacy? I think it would, because he's the leader of the institution and he is a good man and would apologize on behalf of the church with sincerity.

[Peacefully]

16 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

I wasn't being specific to the situation of your church, because I don't know enough about it to try to hash what would be said. I was being general about institutions: the person in charge of the institution apologies on behalf of the institution for the harm caused to the those who were harmed.

For example, here is Pope Francis (person in charge of institution) apologizing for the atrocities committed in Canada in Catholic residential schools (the harm caused). He was in Canada on Native lands meeting with and speaking to Native people (those who were harmed):

(Full text here)

"I am here because the first step of my penitential pilgrimage among you is that of again asking forgiveness, of telling you once more that I am deeply sorry. Sorry for the ways in which, regrettably, many Christians supported the colonizing mentality of the powers that oppressed the Indigenous Peoples.

I am sorry. I ask forgiveness, in particular, for the ways in which many members of the church and of religious communities co-operated, not least through their indifference, in projects of cultural destruction and forced assimilation promoted by the governments of that time, which culminated in the system of residential schools.

Although Christian charity was not absent, and there were many outstanding instances of devotion and care for children, the overall effects of the policies linked to the residential schools were catastrophic. What our Christian faith tells us is that this was a disastrous error, incompatible with the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

It is painful to think of how the firm soil of values, language and culture that made up the authentic identity of your peoples was eroded, and that you have continued to pay the price of this. In the face of this deplorable evil, the church kneels before God and implores His forgiveness for the sins of her children [from Pope John Paul II's bull Incarnationis Mysterium (Nov. 29 1998), 11: AAS 91 (1999), 140]. I myself wish to reaffirm this, with shame and unambiguously, I humbly beg forgiveness for the evil committed by so many Christians against the Indigenous Peoples."

This line ("In the face of this deplorable evil, the church kneels before God and implores His forgiveness for the sins of her children" was taken from St. Pope John Paul II during the celebration of the Great Jubilee. The Catholic Church apologized for much during that Jubilee. From Wikipedia:

 

Our church could do well to follow his example. 

[smac97]

33 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Quote

It may be that the Church has not issued an apology because it cannot definitively ascertain the origins of the priesthood ban, only its termination.  

My opinion is that this is exactly the case, and the church doesn't want to accidentally apologize for something that actually was of God. 

Or maybe it wasn't of God, but the Church isn't into the notion of collective guilt.  Pres. Oaks' reference to the "connotations" of "apology" also has relevance.

33 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It's also my opinion that if this is the case the church needs to figure it out instead of living in the "we don't know" camp. 

I suspect the Brethren have sought guidance on this issue.

33 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It either needs to apologize and leave it completely behind or it needs to stand by it.

If cannot definitively ascertain the origins of the priesthood ban, then neither of these options (apologizing for it or standing by it) would seem to be apt.

And I'm not persuaded of the utility of institutional sin/apology anyway.

33 minutes ago, bluebell said:

As it stands right now it can almost seem like the church is hedging its bets (by neither agreeing nor denying) so it can have its cake and eat it too.

What "cake" is there?  I think the Brethren would love to be able to say that the ban was not revelatory. 

33 minutes ago, bluebell said:

There is also the chance that some leaders who lived through this era are still grappling with their acceptance of the ban and the reasons for it as the will of God, and that getting people to wrestle with the implication of false teachings testified of over the pulpit (maybe even by people still alive and currently in leadership positions) is something some leaders don't want to face.

Sometimes an "I don't know" is just easier to deal with.

I don't feel the least bit guilty that the priesthood is limited to men.  That's the way the Church and its leaders have set things.  I don't feel guilty even though I know some women feel injured or deprived about it.  I also don't feel guilty because I give the Brethren a rebuttable presumption or benefit of the doubt.  It is their job to sort these things out.  I don't feel guilty because I have no say in the matter, except to pray and ask the Lord to inspire and guide His servants.

In the main, I think the Brethren are attuned to these concerns.  I also think we ought to temper our expectations as to what the Lord reveals, and how, and when.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Correct, your apology would not have substantive meaning, because you're not the leader of the institution.

Now, if President Nelson were to apologize, do you think that would have substantive meaning or efficacy? I think it would, because he's the leader of the institution and he is a good man and would apologize on behalf of the church with sincerity.

True.  

[smac97]

12 minutes ago, rpn said:

No,  that was in MO about how to deal with slaves who were interested in the Gospel.  MO was a slave state, JS couldn't have recommended anything but what Abraham Smoot said.

It was the fact that Smoot ratified Zebedee Coltrin's outright lie that JS had not approved Elijah Able's priesthood ordinance, when he knew that wasn't accurate and that Coltrin had participated in that ordination (in ultimate attempt to preserve the ban) that makes it impossible to promote his name despite any other good he did.  

Could you provide references?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

You are, I think, proving my observation about the potential in calls for an apology having pretexts and ulterior motives. 

Oh horsepucky. I was simply being cynical due to your long verbose OP where you seem almost entirely to find reasons not to do a simple apology. It is really quite amusing to watch.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

 

 

For some, the purpose of an apology would not be reconciliation, but humiliation.

Honestly I do not want to see the church humiliated. But remorse is part of repentance and as @MiserereNobisnoted it is not a matter of collective guilt.  It is an institutional apolgy for the past, what the church claims, and you claim, was a mistake.  It does not have to be tortured or hand wringing. 

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

 

  Fodder for badmouthing the Church, forever and ever.  Ammo for arguing against the truth claims of the Church.  "God does not talk to them at all really."  "{A}ll the garbage that prior leaders taught..."

Thanks,

-Smac

Good lord cry me a river. You really are thin skinned when it come to Mormonism.  Hey I am not the one who disavowed all of what the past prophets and apostles taught about the ban.  The church leadership did. So president Nelson can give an nice apology, disavow the prior teachings, offer grace to past leaders who were operating and McConkie said, under limited light and knowledge and then move on. 

Personally I don't care either way. It does not impact me one whit. But to emphasize my comment was cynical in response to your OP and a few other comments here.

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

By whom?  To whom?

I answered your to whom by who and so on already.  This is a fine example of straining at a gnat and swallowing the camel.

[MiserereNobis]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

True.  People repent.  Institutions house the people who need to repent.  

And institutions allow people's actions to be magnified. Without the institution, a leader wouldn't be a leader and wouldn't be able to harm others in the same capacity as when he is a leader. This is one of many reasons why institutions should apologize for their past actions.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

2 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

An institution is not a person, so I don't see how an institution apologizing is incompatible with your 2nd article of faith, which deals with people.

"We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression."

I interpolate to add clarity: "We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for {the sins and misconduct of others, whether an individual or group}."

I'm not saying you are going to be punished for someone else's guilt. Apologies don't have to be linked to punishment.

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, Damien the Leper said:

The church isn't a collective. It is an institution. No guilt is being ascribed to you, Smac. You don't owe an apology. However, those who have the attitude of "Is offering an apology even worth it?" perpetuate the sin therefore acting in no kind of faith at all

@smac97simply cannot understand this concept or he is being intentionally obtuse. I think it the latter.

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

I am supposing nobody would be happy with a short statement saying something like "we apologize for the harm done".  (Even though @Teancum seemed to initially agree, I'm guessing he'd find such a short brief thing issued by the church totally lacking.  Correct me if I'm wrong, please.)

 

I think a short paragraph or two would suffice. See my other comment.

[smac97]

13 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quote

Who today would be a recipient of an apology for the priesthood ban that ended in 1978?

It’s hilarious to me that you think this ended in 1978.

The priesthood ban did end in 1978.  There is no reasonable dispute about this.

I served my mission with the son of Joseph Freeman, the first black man to be ordained to the priesthood in 1978.

13 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

When was the first time that the doctrine supporting the ban was official disavowed?

I was speaking about "the priesthood ban that ended in 1978."

The ban officially ended on June 9, 1978.  

Joseph was sealed to his wife and children in the Salt Lake Temple on June 23, 1978.

To answer your question, AFAIK, the first known address disavowing past racialist sentiments took place a few months later.  On August 18, 1978, Elder McConkie said the following:

Quote

We have read these passages and their associated passages for many years. We have seen what the words say and have said to ourselves, “Yes, it says that, but we must read out of it the taking of the gospel and the blessings of the temple to the Negro people, because they are denied certain things.” There are statements in our literature by the early Brethren which we have interpreted to mean that the Negroes would not receive the priesthood in mortality. I have said the same things, and people write me letters and say, “You said such and such, and how is it now that we do such and such?” And all I can say to that is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.

We get our truth and our light line upon line and precept upon precept. We have now had added a new flood of intelligence and light on this particular subject, and it erases all the darkness and all the views and all the thoughts of the past. They don’t matter any more.

It doesn’t make a particle of difference what anybody ever said about the Negro matter before the first day of June of this year, 1978. It is a new day and a new arrangement, and the Lord has now given the revelation that sheds light out into the world on this subject. As to any slivers of light or any particles of darkness of the past, we forget about them. We now do what meridian Israel did when the Lord said the gospel should go to the Gentiles. We forget all the statements that limited the gospel to the house of Israel, and we start going to the Gentiles.

Slavery didn't end in a moment in the British Empire.  William Wilberforce and his compatriots spent decades in the efforts.

In the United States, abolition likewise took decades, and even after the formal abolition of slavery, there was a long way to go (and there still is).

These days, we are beset with the sin of elective abortion.  I don't know if we will ever be able to fully eradicate it, but the effort must still be made.  And the effort will take a long time.

So it is with deeply entrenched sins and errors.  They can take a long time to overcome.

Thanks,

-Smac

[SeekingUnderstanding]

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

So it is with deeply entrenched sins and errors.  They can take a long time to overcome.

So we’d be in an agreement the harm didn’t stop in 1978. So acting like there has been no harm since 1978 is utterly stupid. Correct?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world

Is it your position, that Elder McConkie was disavowing the reasoning behind the ban With this statement?

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quote

So it is with deeply entrenched sins and errors.  They can take a long time to overcome.

So we’d be in an agreement the harm didn’t stop in 1978.

Yes.

5 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

So acting like there has been no harm since 1978 is utterly stupid. Correct?

Correct.  I have not claimed or suggested this, nor "acted" like it is so.  Imputing such things to me is utterly stupid.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

24 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Quote

Quote

For the institutional racism and hurth the ban caused. You know the one that you say was a 120 year mistake.  The one that God was to lazy to tell his alleged representatives on earth to fix. Or they were to hard hearted to hear.  Or God does not talk to them at all really.  You know this is what people and organizations do to mend and heal wounds and the people that were hurt most seem to honestly wish for something like this and think it would be a helpful thing.  

But God forbid the LDS CHurch leadership apologize now for all the garbage that prior leaders taught that with a wave of the hand are relegated to the large Mormonism trash heap of speculation and unofficial teachings.  

For some, the purpose of an apology would not be reconciliation, but humiliation.

Honestly I do not want to see the church humiliated.

Oh.

24 minutes ago, Teancum said:

But remorse is part of repentance and as @MiserereNobisnoted it is not a matter of collective guilt. 

Remorse by whom?  For what?  

24 minutes ago, Teancum said:

It is an institutional apolgy for the past, what the church claims, and you claim, was a mistake.  It does not have to be tortured or hand wringing. 

I think for some of the people calling for an apology, nothing the Church could say or do would matter.  They would just move the goalposts.  Hence my comments about "March of Dimes Syndrome," "Mission Creep" and "Spencer's Law."

24 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Quote

Fodder for badmouthing the Church, forever and ever.  Ammo for arguing against the truth claims of the Church.  "God does not talk to them at all really."  "{A}ll the garbage that prior leaders taught..."

Good lord cry me a river. You really are thin skinned when it come to Mormonism. 

Says the guy who regularly goes to a message board to profane a religious group to its adherents' faces.

To a guy who regularly shows up on that message board and interacts with the first guy.

24 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Hey I am not the one who disavowed all of what the past prophets and apostles taught about the ban.  The church leadership did. So president Nelson can give an nice apology, disavow the prior teachings, offer grace to past leaders who were operating and McConkie said, under limited light and knowledge and then move on. 

Yes, he could.

And in some quarters, it wouldn't make a lick of difference.

And in other quarters, it would be a staging area for the next phase, likely involving same-sex marriage or female ordination.  Hence my comments about bad faith, pretext, etc.

Thanks,

-Smac