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

[Tacenda]

16 hours ago, smac97 said:

Certainly.  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.  I think the Church would be sincere in any such thing.

From the Church's perspective, it probably does not matter.  If I commit a trespass, I should apologize and make recompense even if I know reconciliation or forgiveness is not forthcoming.

My point is that I think some of the people calling for an apology will "deem it insufficient," which speaks to the foregoing "virtue signaling, posturing, or pre textual" motivations which may be involved in calling for the apology in the first place.  Put another way, I think this development might expose a lack of good faith by those seeking the apology. From my first post:

Is this happening at all?  And if so, should a lack of good faith in the request be taken into account? In my view, yes.

I agree.  But then, a true sincere apology is typically offered by the wrongdoer to the person(s) who have been wronged.  As I noted previously, I do not subscribe to the notion of collective guilt.

Thanks,

-Smac

As much as I want the church to apologize, it is probably too late. Just as the non apology for the Mountain Meadow Massacre is too late. The church might even wish or want to, but I wonder how awkward it would be. I'd still want them to do something, much like they did with the "Be One" concert. Although, I remember reading somewhere that at the end of it Pres Nelson's talk or comments sounded like the Priesthood Ban was from God. So there's that. And I'd have to go back and listen. 

All in all, I'd love something. 

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, Teancum said:

But who cares if some people might advocate for other such things

Are they not already advocating?  Seems odd not to do something so some won’t advocate when they already are.

[Calm]

12 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Although, I remember reading somewhere that at the end of it Pres Nelson's talk or comments sounded like the Priesthood Ban was from God

Certainly not the closing remarks…quite the opposite imo.  And Pres Oaks was the opening speaker.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/media/video/2018-06-1020-closing-remarks?

Quote

What stood out most to me from the event was President Russell M. Nelson’s address. He pushed back against the philosophies of prejudice, stating that we should not build walls of separation between our brothers and sisters, but bridges of cooperation. The Be One celebration was a spectacle, not only in production, but in its messaging, challenging over a century of racial baggage that has inhibited the church’s ability to reach every nation, kindred, and tongue.

https://religionnews.com/2018/06/06/black-mormon-students-respond-to-lds-churchs-be-one-celebration/

Edited June 19, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

Perhaps the criticism was of Pres Oaks’ comments?  But there it seems he at least rejects all reasons given for the ban….

Quote

I observed the pain and frustration experienced by those who suffered these restrictions and those who criticized them and sought for reasons. I studied the reasons then being given and could not feel confirmation of the truth of any of them.

It appears that people interpreted his talk in opposite ways…

Quote

Pres. Oaks, with training as an attorney and in public relations roles in his career, is a very precise speaker. He uses words sometimes to convey an idea without committing fully to it. He does this in his talk on several points, causing some to interpret things the exact opposite way. I tend to view things from an optimistic stand point, maybe wishing too hard to hear what I want to hear from the brethren. I think of this as receiving them in “patience and faith”, but others may view it as acting as an Apologist.

https://wheatandtares.org/2018/06/07/pres-oaks-on-the-priesthood-ban-at-be-one/
 

So while some might have inferred from his talk the ban was from God, certainly not all did so it doesn’t appear to me to a required reading.  From the comments of this blog, it appears some with that interpretation are taking prior remarks of Pres Oaks from 1988 to determine his current position on the ban itself since it appears he did not address the ban directly in his “Be One” talk, just the reasons given for it (but one of those reasons he never got a confirmation of could have been “because God commanded it”).

I don’t think taking prior remarks is an issue when exploring what one sees as a person’s positions, but to assume a position is presented in a talk solely based using on prior remarks to fill in a gap is taking it too far.  You can’t validly say “he said X in his talk” and then have to point to another talk to attempt to demonstrate this imo.  And to assume his position today is the same in 1988 when quite a bit more historical info on the development of the ban is available is a pretty weak assumption imo and one better not made.

Edited June 19, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

Found Pres Oaks’ remarks here:

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/president-oaks-remarks-worldwide-priesthood-celebration

The quote above is not complete:

Quote

I observed the pain and frustration experienced by those who suffered these restrictions and those who criticized them and sought for reasons. I studied the reasons then being given and could not feel confirmation of the truth of any of them. As part of my prayerful study, I learned that, in general, the Lord rarely gives reasons for the commandments and directions He gives to His servants. I determined to be loyal to our prophetic leaders and to pray—as promised from the beginning of these restrictions—that the day would come when all would enjoy the blessings of priesthood and temple. Now that day had come, and I wept for joy.

The “rarely gives reasons” part could be interpreted as supporting the ban, but it comes across to me in context as more describing his conclusion back then (which may not be the same as now) and written precisely to allow for the possibility that the ban was an actual commandment, but not insisting it was.  He does not label the ban itself as anything but “restrictions”.  I personally think he would be stronger in his language, more definite if he was certain it was a commandment.

Quote

Even as we unite to abandon all attitudes and practices of prejudice, we should remember that it is not prejudice for the Church to insist on certain rules in furtherance of the Lord’s requirement of worthiness to enter a temple. The Lord has declared that obedience to covenants and commandments is an essential requirement to enjoy sacred blessings. Any attempt to erase divine requirements for eternal life and eternal families would be like trying to establish Satan’s plan that “all would be saved.” In our premortal lives, we mortals already rejected Satan’s plan. We chose the plan of our Heavenly Father, which provides the freedom to choose and keep the eternal covenants and commandments that apply equally to all. The equality of God is not equal outcomes for all, but equal opportunity for all.

The first line of this paragraph might be taken as proof he thinks it was a command, but given it’s about “divine requirements for eternal life and eternal families” and the removal of the ban removes such as a divine requirement, I think it is obvious this paragraph is intended to nip in the bud applying the issues with the ban to issues many have with the Law of Chastity.

Pres Nelson’s here:

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/president-nelson-remarks-worldwide-priesthood-celebration

 

Edited June 19, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

One last comment on his talk…actually it’s a question and then a conclusion based on assuming one likely answer to my question.

He makes this comment to close his talk…which means it is an important observation that he wants those listening to focus on.

Quote

This is essential to our preparation for the Second Coming of Him who declared through a Book of Mormon prophet that “he commandeth none that they shall not partake of his salvation” (2 Nephi 26:24) and who declared through a modern prophet that “if ye are not one ye are not mine” (D&C 38:27).

Anyone know if Pres Oaks is one of those who use salvation, eternal life, and/or exaltation interchangeably?  If he does, the use of that scripture could be read as to be saying ‘God does not command anyone not to participate in exaltation ordinances’, which was what the ban was doing when it existed, preventing worthy Blacks from receiving the ordinances of exaltation.  If it was a commandment, that appears to me to be contradictory to that scripture , though I know some will insist that salvation and exaltation are not the same and one can receive salvation without receiving exaltation.  That still seems contradictory to the spirit of the scripture.  It makes no sense to me that if God has not commanded not to partake/barred anyone from receiving salvation, that he would turn around and apply a different standard with exaltation.  To those who say it was only a delay for receiving exaltation, I would point out that is only true in a long term sense.  At the time the ban was in effect it would have been a command not to partake of salvation/exaltation even if later it was revoked.  The scripture doesn’t say that such commands are only temporary, the scripture says such commands do not exist.

Edited June 19, 2024 by Calm

[Teancum]

16 hours 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.  

I wonder what that matters.  In fact it seems to me that makes an apology easier. That fact could be included.

The real risk I think the church has is the point I made on the other recent ban thread you started.  If the the church leadership does not know the origins of the ban, and/or the ban was a mistake, why did prophets, seers and revelators take so long to remedy the mistake. Or why did God remain silent?  If the prophets, seers and revelators got this wrong what else did they get wrong. Are they really prophets seers and revelators. That is the risk and I would speculate this is one of the reasons the LDS leadership is reluctant to do this.

 

16 hours ago, smac97 said:

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

Thanks,

-Smac

Life is full of tough choices.  My council to anyone wanting and apology is don't hold your breath.

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Are they not already advocating?  Seems odd not to do something so some won’t advocate when they already are.

Good point.

[Teancum]

18 hours ago, bluebell said:

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

Yes:

https://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/08/us/illinois-tells-mormons-it-regrets-expulsion.html#:~:text=There%2C Illinois's lieutenant governor%2C Pat Quinn%2C presented church,on the trek that led them to Utah.

I bet @smac97was quite happy about this and about the Missouri governor's apology.  But for some reason he thinks it is to hard for the LDS leaders to do something similar.

 

[MustardSeed]

It’s my opinion that we should not expect apology from the church of Jesus Christ of latter-day Saints. They will change policy and lose members before they will ever apologize. It just ain’t gonna happen.

Edited June 19, 2024 by MustardSeed

[CV75]

22 hours ago, smac97 said:

6 years after a ‘fake apology’ for the Black priesthood/temple ban, many Latter-day Saints yearn for a real one

"They say."

A "conversation" where the "former church member," Jonathan Streeter, initially defended his ruse, and then - to his credit (?) - apologized for it:

Back to the first article:

Perhaps so.  

Or perhaps this call is, like Streeter's noxious stunt above, a pretext for doing something else.

I think there are serious flaws in the notion that we can or ought to import into the Church tactics and rhetoric designed to affect political change and influence in secular government (such as America's constitutional republic form).  These may have some utility in that sphere, but not in the Church of Jesus Christ.

It looks like the Black Menaces folks are attempting to do this at BYU.

It would be interesting to see an evaluation of the positive effects of the SBC's apology.  Were there any?  Or are calls for such public apologies more along the lines of virtue signaling and posturing?  Might these calls even be pretextual?

Did this happen in the SBC?

Did this happen in the SBC?

This same "Tamu Smith" was quoted in the Trib back in 2017: Black Mormons applaud as LDS Church condemns white supremacy as ‘morally wrong and sinful’

Sis. Smith said this in 2017.  Seven years ago. 

Back to the first article:

As individuals, we can choose whether or not to follow the doctrines of the Church, including policies and practices and interpretations of doctrine presented to us by those who preside.  I don't think activism and other pressure tactics are the way to go.  See, e.g., Brother Corbitt's talk, How activism against the Church can blind, mislead ‘valiant’ souls, and Elder Oaks' article, Criticism.

Repentance is a deeply personal thing.  I reject the notion of collective guilt/sin.  "We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression."  (AoF 1:2.)

Oddly, the call for "the church" to "repent" also seems to contradict the 2nd Article of Faith.  

I agree with this, which is part of why I have concluded that the ban was not revelatory.

Hmm.

I don't understand the attempted syllogism here.

Hmm.  So Bro. Wilcox's repeated apologies regarding his own statements were, in some quarters, deemed insufficient.

Kinda makes you wonder if the Church's apology would be treated the same way.

"{T}his issue" being . . . what?

This despite all the Church's efforts to explicitly condemn racism.

I am curious what she is referencing here.

And since Bro. Wilcox's apologies were ineffectual to bring him back into her good graces, I am curious whether an institutional apology would do anything to elevate the Church's stature in her eyes.

Hmm.  I will give this some thought.

Until and unless this or that activist publicly deems such an apology insufficient or ineffectual.  Kinda like the above treatment of Bro. Wilcox's apologies.

I will give this some though as well.

I am curious if such "statements of regret" have had any measurable impact.

Like this one.  Has this "statement of regret" fostered healing?

"The church issued a public apology on behalf of a member..."

Because we do not subscribe to the notion of collective guilt.

The foregoing article seems to be steeped in "activist" thought.  Tamu Smith is apparently a self-described "activist," and she seems to have passed that on to her daughter, and both are publicly utilizing their activism in (against?) the Church.

Having referenced (and linked to) then-Bro. Corbitt's talk against activism, and also to then-Elder Oaks' talk about addressing disagreements in the Church, and in the spirit of "start{ing} a conversation" about activism in the Church, I submit the following article: The March of Dimes Syndrome

Some excerpts:

This seems to be a common - perhaps inevitable - trend in "activism" (which trend may be part of why Bro. Corbitt's 2022 talk is so relevant and resonant).

Obviously "March of Dimes Syndrome" is a neologism.  Although I have frequently perceived its manifestations in much of today's "activist" stuff, I was not aware of the label.  The earliest instance of it I could find was in 2016:

A similar label I have previously encountered is "Mission Creep," described here:

I think "activism" these days is often quite susceptible to the March of Dimes Syndrome / Mission Creep phenomenon.  This includes activism in the Church.

Back to the Tierney article:

I wonder if activist calls for an apology from the Church are borne of this "March of Dimes Syndrome" mindset.  Any progress/success the Church has made/had relative to condemning racism, fostering goodwill, etc. is a threat.  In the minds of some activists, they can never declare "mission accomplished."  Mission Creep happens.

"So activists have moved the goalposts once again."  Yep.

If the Church were to issue a formal institutional apology, would self-appointed "activists" accept it and move on?  Or would they deem it insufficient, move the goalposts, and demand more?

Yeah, the SPLC has really had a lot of mission creep.

I can't help but wonder if some of the activists calling for the Church to issue an apology see Mission Creep not as a bug, but as a feature.  That is, these folks want the Church to issue an apology so that they can, in true "Mission Creep" style and form, deem the apology insufficient, move the goalposts, and demand more.  And the "more" would, in my view, almost certainly - and perhaps almost immediately - take us to demands that the Church "apologize" for the Law of Chastity, for its prohibitions against same-sex behavior, for its past opposition to same-sex marriage, for its current non-recognition (in an ecclesiastical sense) of same-sex marriages, and so on.  And I think the calls would not stop at just an apology, but for alteration of the Church's doctrines, so as to ratify same-sex marriages, to allow temple sealings between persons of the same sex, to allow same-sex behavior, etc.

Additionally or alternatively, I wonder if this is a pretext for calling for women to be ordained to the priesthood.  And perhaps disavowals of claims to prophetic/priesthood authority, the Book of Mormon, and so on.

The Tierney article goes on to explain a third label for this phenomenon (in addition to "March of Dimes Syndrome," mentioned in the article, and "Mission Creep," commented on by me) :

"'The more things improve, the louder become the exclamations about their badness.'"

Might this be said about the Church since 1978?

"First is the negativity effect, or the brain’s innate bias to pay more attention to the negative than the positive."

Might this be in play relative to how some folks treat the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints?  

"As the world gets better—as people become richer, better educated, and longer-lived—we find new things to worry about and have more disposable income and free time to spend curing humanity’s woes, real or imagined."  Again, are black people in the Church better off now than they were in 1978?  If so, why is it that folks of an "activist" bent seem fixated on characterizing the Church in the worst possible ways?

Any other thoughts?

Thanks,

-Smac

The Church does not apologize. Jesus, representing His body (the Church), never apologized for Himself or His disciples. He may have corrected them on His terms, but that is between Him and them. Those they offended are ultimately restored through Him as well.

Apologies are most useful in some interpersonal situations, avoiding lawsuits and so forth. Some may use them in the repentance process (confession, expressing sincere sorrow for moral infractions, part of associated restitution, etc.). But this is not the same as Church leaders through councils (the Church) interacting with the world at large.

[Damien the Leper]

14 hours ago, smac97 said:

Dodge.

Nope. I'm just keeping the playing field leveled.

 

14 hours ago, smac97 said:

"{T}hose who have done wrong" are . . . whom? 

I'm not into collective guilt. The current leadership is not guilty of what rogue general authorities did in 1852. They've just been stuck with the consequences of the actions taken that lack evidence of revelation or inspiration. However, today's representatives can easily say that what was done wrong and condemn it with extreme prejudice. Like what I did there? 😜

 

15 hours ago, smac97 said:

midreading

I'm not familiar with the term. However, if you're trying to accuse me of mindreading then you're wrong again. I included in my statement the word if. Crying presentism doesn't help you either. Though I guess it could work...my grandmother was 16 when she married my grandfather who was 29. That was also the time when it was okay for a man to beat his wife. So yes...presentism does check out. I apologize.

[Teancum]

18 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

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

And was McConkie speaking officially for the church?  Or just giving his own opinion.  As an aside, ya gotta love his comment. "Hey ya all, justfergetaboutit and everying thing we or anyone else said" no matter how harmful what they said may have been.  Just move on.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

22 minutes ago, Teancum said:

And was McConkie speaking officially for the church?  Or just giving his own opinion.  As an aside, ya gotta love his comment. "Hey ya all, justfergetaboutit and everying thing we or anyone else said" no matter how harmful what they said may have been.  Just move on.

Well the answer to my question was no, Bruce McConkie absolutely was not disavowing the racist doctrine. How do we know? He kept publishing his book with the racist doctrine in it after that talk (which the church continued to publish for a long time). The only thing he disavows are his prior statements about timing. 

Edited June 19, 2024 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Tacenda]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

Found Pres Oaks’ remarks here:

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/president-oaks-remarks-worldwide-priesthood-celebration

The quote above is not complete:

The “rarely gives reasons” part could be interpreted as supporting the ban, but it comes across to me in context as more describing his conclusion back then (which may not be the same as now) and written precisely to allow for the possibility that the ban was an actual commandment, but not insisting it was.  He does not label the ban itself as anything but “restrictions”.  I personally think he would be stronger in his language, more definite if he was certain it was a commandment.

The first line of this paragraph might be taken as proof he thinks it was a command, but given it’s about “divine requirements for eternal life and eternal families” and the removal of the ban removes such as a divine requirement, I think it is obvious this paragraph is intended to nip in the bud applying the issues with the ban to issues many have with the Law of Chastity.

Pres Nelson’s here:

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/president-nelson-remarks-worldwide-priesthood-celebration

 

You are right, my memory was totally off base or kilter. Thanks Calm!

[Teancum]

18 hours ago, bluebell said:

Sorry for the confusion; I wasn't referring to the revelation to rescind the ban.  I was referring to the revelation to stop ordaining black men.  JS ordained black men and BY ended the practice.  It's odd that we can't find historical evidence of God anywhere in BY's decision, even though the church ran with it (and extrapolated other doctrines out of it), for over a hundred years. 

We should also note that Orson Pratt opposed Brigham initially and he may have been the first to come up with the idea that those less valiant in the pre existence and war in heaven were born into the black race and cursed.

[MiserereNobis]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

The Church does not apologize. Jesus, representing His body (the Church), never apologized for Himself or His disciples.

So, your church is perfect, just like Jesus?

[Teancum]

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

"{T}hose who have done wrong" are . . . whom?  

Why do you keep asking this when it has been answered numerous times on this thread by numerous posters.  I think you really are being intentionally obtuse.

[Teancum]

17 hours ago, smac97 said:

The acting President of Q12, Pres. Holland, was called as an apostle in 1994.  He played no role in the priesthood ban or its end.

Presidents Nelson, Oaks and Eyring became apostles in 1984, 1984 and 1995, respectively.  None of them were involved in the priesthood ban or its end.

How have these men "done wrong"?

Another answer that has already been given. They represent the institution that did wrong.  See how easy this is?

[Peacefully]

55 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

So, your church is perfect, just like Jesus?

Didn’t you know that, lol! 
 

Saying our church doesn’t apologize like Jesus didn’t apologize doesn’t make sense to me since we only have a few of His conversations from 33 yrs of life so how do we know? Plus, I think it makes our church stronger, not weaker when leadership admits past mistakes that hurt people. 

Edited June 19, 2024 by Peacefully

[Teancum]

3 hours ago, CV75 said:

The Church does not apologize.

Why is that?  What makes the institutional church exempt from apologizing. Heck the pope did it. We can't the LDS Church president do it?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

18 hours ago, smac97 said:

Presidents Nelson, Oaks and Eyring became apostles in 1984, 1984 and 1995, respectively.  None of them were involved in the priesthood ban or its end.

How have these men "done wrong"? 

They oversaw decades where the hateful harmful doctrine supporting the ban was taught in official settings all over the church (from BYU, to deseret book, to seminary and church classes, to even patriarchs refusing to declare lineage for members with African ancestory). They are responsible for that. That happened on their watch as leaders of the church.

Edited June 19, 2024 by SeekingUnderstanding

[MrShorty]

If it helps provide a possible outline for such an apology, here's the Southern Baptist Convention's 1995 resolution that includes an apology for it's past support of slavery and racism: https://www.sbc.net/resource-library/resolutions/resolution-on-racial-reconciliation-on-the-150th-anniversary-of-the-southern-baptist-convention/

[Calm]

5 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

It’s my opinion that we should not expect apology from the church of Jesus Christ of latter-day Saints. They will change policy and lose members before they will ever apologize. It just ain’t gonna happen.

It might happen imo if Elder Utchdorf becomes President as he seems comfortable with the idea of making mistakes and apologizing in general, but he might respect the majority position which seems to me to be not apologizing or even acknowledging poor institutional/policy choices.

Added:  I think the apparent typical approach of just changing behaviour/policy and either not drawing attention to it or only mentioning positive incentives to change and not attempts to correct mistakes is likely based in the same institutional mindset that leads to unnecessary secrecy where nonconfidential information is still difficult to find out and there appears to be very little sharing between departments.  Two example cases pop up in my head, one being where a reporter friend called Salt Lake to get numbers for sister missionaries for an article when he didn’t have access to the published info and the receptionist refused to give him the info or connect him with someone who could and the other being how the Family Proclamation was written without the awareness of the RS and Primary leaders, which ended up with the RS having to dump their plans for presenting their family oriented program that conference after spending a year developing it as well as a third instance where the new yearly RS/PH Presidents of the Church program was almost completed for the first manual before the RS became aware of it, again wasting their efforts in development.  I believe this need for unnecessary secrecy is rooted in the time where secrecy was necessary (mid to late 1800s and early 1900s, basically as long as the federal government was generally antimormon) and it has been perpetuated for so long by our callings for life among our top leadership.  Habits and traditions last a lot longer when turnover is low and memories are available to keep the habits going and the traditions justified.   For example, Spencer W Kimball was born in 1895 and died in 1985.  His youth would have still been during the Mormons as Others period or as Reeve describes it, Mormons as Not White Enough time period and his church service started in 1938 as an stake president and apostle in 1943.  The average years as an apostle since the 1960s has been 30 years and that does not include previous church service, so total general authority church leadership years for the last 40 years looks to be about 40  years.***  40 years to pick up the habits of the older general authorities when a new GA and then to pass those habits on to the newer crop when one became senior.  Since the 1960s 90% of apostles were General Authorities before being called as apostles, 100% since 2000.  That’s a lot of time available for embedding a mindset into top leadership.

***https://qhspencer.github.io/lds-data-analysis/apostles/  Lots of cool data of demographics of apostles

Edited June 19, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

4 hours ago, CV75 said:

Jesus, representing His body (the Church), never apologized for Himself or His disciples. He may have corrected them on His terms, but that is between Him and them. Those they offended are ultimately restored through Him as well.

He wouldn’t need to apologize for himself.  He certainly taught people should apologize***, why wouldn’t that apply to his disciples?  

***Unless you don’t equate apologizing with asking forgiveness and reconciliation.  I do, so see NT Gospel verses here for Jesus’ teachings:

https://biblegen.com/apologizing/