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

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Peacefully said:

since we only have a few of His conversations from 33 yrs of life so how do we know?

I was going to make that point, but now I don’t have to.  I always find it weird that people are so certain Jesus behaved a certain way based on what scriptures say and don’t say when the scriptures cover 1/10th of his life and not much casual, day to day detail provided. 

[CV75]

4 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

So, your church is perfect, just like Jesus?

No more perfect than the disciples for whom He did not apologize.

[CV75]

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

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?

Well, for one thing President Nelson is not the Pope. Who does the exempting and the blaming, anyway?

[Damien the Leper]

19 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Well, for one thing President Nelson is not the Pope. Who does the exempting and the blaming, anyway?

True. Nelson isn't the Vicar of Christ.

[CV75]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

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/

He wouldn't need to apologize for His Church, either. He certainly didn't while He was alive, and He admitted many were offended because of Him, which at the time would have included His organization, however loosely or formally it was instituted at any particular moment. Apologies from the disciples/leadership did not attend the Church policy changes mentioned in Acts.

I think He would support the "render unto Caesar" principle for His Church on keeping the laws that maintain an orderly and peaceful society (extreme case in point, He submitted to the soldiers who arrested Him and to Pilate), but this involves paying penalties more than rendering apologies. The Church certainly submits to the earthly powers that be in this regard. Without apology.

As far the disciples personally and not as Church leaders, He did teach repentance, and in our more modern society we have come up with some helpful steps for how to do it. I mentioned where apology is a useful and appropriate thing for individuals to do.

[Damien the Leper]

24 minutes ago, CV75 said:

No more perfect than the disciples for whom He did not apologize.

Did the OG12 institute a racial ban needing an apology to be granted?

[CV75]

3 minutes ago, Damien the Leper said:

Did the OG12 institute a racial ban needing an apology to be granted?

Who is OG12? GOG12 and MAGOG12's cousin? I don't think anyone needs to apologize for it, dead or alive. But I'm an exceptionally tolerant person!  

[Damien the Leper]

4 minutes ago, CV75 said:

He wouldn't need to apologize for His Church, either. He certainly didn't while He was alive, and He admitted many were offended because of Him, which at the time would have included His organization, however loosely or formally it was instituted at any particular moment. Apologies from the disciples/leadership did not attend the Church policy changes mentioned in Acts.

I think He would support the "render unto Caesar" principle for His Church on keeping the laws that maintain an orderly and peaceful society (extreme case in point, He submitted to the soldiers who arrested Him and to Pilate), but this involves paying penalties more than rendering apologies. The Church certainly submits to the earthly powers that be in this regard. Without apology.

As far the disciples personally and not as Church leaders, He did teach repentance, and in our more modern society we have come up with some helpful steps for how to do it. I mentioned where apology is a useful and appropriate thing for individuals to do.

Jesus didn't start a church. He started a revolutionary movement that would one day become His church. This church has consistently existed for nearly two millenia. 

[Damien the Leper]

2 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Who is OG12? GOG12 and MAGOG12's cousin? I don't think anyone needs to apologize for it, dead or alive. But I'm an exceptionally tolerant person!  

The original gangstas. The original 12. Duh!

[Calm]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

He wouldn't need to apologize for His Church, either.

The Church is not perfect.  He might not need to in the sense of no one could force him to, but not need because the Church as an institution never did anything wrong?  I highly doubt that given we have examples of changes in policy, etc in the NT.

Quote

He certainly didn't while He was alive,

You don’t know that.  We have very little of what he did and if we believe plain and precious truths were removed, it is surely possible that anything that made Jesus or his people look weak or admitting to error or being fallible was removed or never included because it didn’t match the perception the author or scribes were wanting to present (similar to how Watt took it upon himself to make Brigham Young’s sermons more prophet sounding to his own ears).

Edited June 20, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Damien the Leper said:

Did the OG12 institute a racial ban needing an apology to be granted?

There was prejudice against the nonJews in the early years of the faith community it seems.  It would appear if there was a general practice that required circumcision for converts, that it lasted only a couple of decades…but for those who had complied in those decades, my guess is there were some rather annoyed when they found out it was only a tradition and not a commandment.

https://academic.oup.com/book/5287/chapter-abstract/148017013?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision_controversy_in_early_Christianity

Edited June 20, 2024 by Calm

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Damien the Leper said:

Jesus didn't start a church. He started a revolutionary movement that would one day become His church. This church has consistently existed for nearly two millenia. 

That's nothing to apologize for, either.

[Peacefully]

I wonder if Smac is thinking about this in a legal sense where apologizing and admitting guilt can open an individual or an institution up to lawsuits? 

Edited June 20, 2024 by Peacefully

[Duncan]

6 minutes ago, Peacefully said:

I wonder if Smac is thinking about this in a legal sense where apologizing and admitting guilt can open an individual or an institution up to lawsuits? 

or Pres. Oaks

[CV75]

32 minutes ago, Calm said:

The Church is not perfect.  He might not need to in the sense of no one could force him to, but not need because the Church as an institution never did anything wrong?  I highly doubt that given we have examples of changes in policy, etc in the NT.

You don’t know that.  We have very little of what he did and if we believe plain and precious truths were removed, it is surely possible that anything that made Jesus or his people look weak or admitting to error or being fallible was removed or never included because it didn’t match the perception the author or scribes were wanting to present (similar to how Watt took it upon himself to make Brigham Young’s sermons more prophet sounding to his own ears).

If anyone thinks the ancient Church was wrong on some point or another, or in committing some action, Jesus and His disciples didn’t apologize for it.

Yes, I mean the extant canon we have says that He (or His apostles) didn’t apologize while He was alive for something His Church did; and now that I think of it, neither did He apologize anything after His resurrection in Jerusalem, visiting the Nephites or revealing things to Joseph Smith, Abraham or Moses, upon restoring the keys that had been denied humanity for millennia and so forth. The ODs don’t indicate He revealed His will to apologize. The canon the basis of what I am willing to consider knowledge and to confess that I know, so yes, I do know that (enough to say I know that  ). Some may interpret the canon, consider it wanting or have other sources of knowledge to say He apologized, but these have not been shared with me.

Who is going to apologize for the Apostasy? Any Apostacy-deniers out there?  

[LoudmouthMormon]

10 hours ago, Teancum said:

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.

Illinois and Missouri apologizing for violence, theft, murder, and persecution (persecution as in actual infliction of loss/pain/death, not the watered down word that people shout when they get a speeding ticket).

Suggested church apology for "we want you in our church, but you don't get the priesthood", and what, racism?

I'm having a hard time seeing how these two things fall into the same category of moral severity.   Or did I miss the church's KKK phase?

 

[Damien the Leper]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

There was prejudice against the nonJews in the early years of the faith community it seems.  It would appear if there was a general practice that required circumcision for converts, that it lasted only a couple of decades…but for those who had complied in those decades, my guess is there were some rather annoyed when they found out it was only a tradition and not a commandment.

https://academic.oup.com/book/5287/chapter-abstract/148017013?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision_controversy_in_early_Christianity

This I'm familiar with. Paul and James would have likely disagreed on this subject as James held a more traditionally Jewish perspective in the sense that Jesus+Circumcision=Correct. Whereas Paul laid aside such traditions.

I do sincerely thank you for posting this, nonetheless. 

[Damien the Leper]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

That's nothing to apologize for, either.

I didn't say it was.

[ZealouslyStriving]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

There was prejudice against the nonJews in the early years of the faith community it seems.  It would appear if there was a general practice that required circumcision for converts, that it lasted only a couple of decades…but for those who had complied in those decades, my guess is there were some rather annoyed when they found out it was only a tradition and not a commandment.

https://academic.oup.com/book/5287/chapter-abstract/148017013?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision_controversy_in_early_Christianity

Don't forget the Hellenist widows being neglected in the distribution of foodstuffs. The Apostles had to fix that through the appointment of a 7 member committee of "Bishops". No apology is mentioned, they just fixed the issue.

Edited June 20, 2024 by ZealouslyStriving

[Rain]

I am surprised by the thoughts of "if the bible doesn't mention an apology then I don't think it happened."  When you think about how the bible was put together we know so much is missing. I always knew stuff was missing, but then when you realize that the 4 gospels cover so many of the same stories and then on top of that the idea that 2 of the gospels may have been created using a third gospel the amount of info we have on Jesus is so slim.

And it's not like church members can say the important parts are still there because the teaching is that important teachings were taken out or changed through the translation process. 

Did Jesus ever apologize?  I have no clue.  Was it even a thing people did in that culture?  No idea.  But we can't say he didn't apologize anymore than we can say he did. 

One thing we can see though is that according to scripture he did not need to be baptized for a remission of sins and yet he was baptized. And members follow that example.  I don't see that so far from apologies that it couldn't have happened as well. 

Edited June 20, 2024 by Rain

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Rain said:

When you think about how the bible was put together we know so much is missing.

Especially the common background expected stuff so familiar to people there is no need to mention it…until it’s a culture not familiar with the one they are reading about and so they aren’t aware of something’s presence and assume silence means absence rather than familiarity.

Maybe apologizing was so natural they would have considered needing a command to do so laughable.  And mentioning it in scripture would make as much sense as mentioning one was washing clothes, cooking meals every day, or changing the baby’s nappies, teaching kids to read and write or to learn their father’s trade.

Edited June 20, 2024 by Calm

[The Nehor]

7 hours ago, Damien the Leper said:

Jesus didn't start a church. He started a revolutionary movement that would one day become His church. This church has consistently existed for nearly two millenia. 

I see what you did there.

[Teancum]

10 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Illinois and Missouri apologizing for violence, theft, murder, and persecution (persecution as in actual infliction of loss/pain/death, not the watered down word that people shout when they get a speeding ticket).

Suggested church apology for "we want you in our church, but you don't get the priesthood", and what, racism?

I'm having a hard time seeing how these two things fall into the same category of moral severity.   Or did I miss the church's KKK phase?

 

Of course you are.  And I did not equate them.  Does degree of moral severity, if it is less than the issues the apologies made to the church were about, mean there was not harm that may linger for many?  If what happened to the church members in Illinois and Missouri (which by the way the members of the church contributed to the problems as well and were not entirely innocent) is a 10 on a moral severity scale, ten being the most severe< and the ban say was a 5, does that mean an apology should not be given?  The hoops some of the defenders here go through to excuse not doing an apology is rather amazing and amusing. Telling as well.

[ZealouslyStriving]

7 hours ago, Rain said:

But we can't say he didn't apologize anymore than we can say he did. 

 

6 hours ago, Calm said:

Maybe apologizing was so natural they would have considered needing a command to do so laughable.

Your two conjectures are no more, or less, valid then the conjecture that they didn't apologize. So using scripture to demand that the Church apologize also falls flat. We are back to letting the Lord steady His own ark, not hand-wringing members- and especially not former members and critics.

[Maestrophil]

This thread is interesting to me since I was coming here to start a thread on this topic since I just commented on a TikTok post comment where a black ex member said the church was teaching racism, and I pointed out quotes from recent conferences where members are told any racism from members is unacceptable.  And, oh boy, did I get dogpiled - All the "but what about..."?  And you are telling this woman to shut up and denying her pain"! Along with all the cult, brainwashed, evil, comments directed at me.  Even when I said "the ban sucked, I wish it never happened, I wish the church would do more etc. " I was still pilloried.

I can't stand the reactionary nature of those kinds of Exmos when I am trying to dialog - that said, I do understand that the ban along with racist doctrine taught in books and from pulpits for years are terrible and have and do cause pain and dissonance for people. 

I don't think the church would need to say "sorry" per say, since the institution members at large have little to do with the ban anymore, and I feel like "sorry" is a word for individuals, not institutions.  However - I do think a statement something like this could go a long way - of course it would be more refined but what about:

"In the past, leaders and members of the COJCOLDS have been products of their times and surroundings and as such, have taught and espoused racist ideas and doctrines regarding blacks, their pre-mortal worthiness, and their station in the Kingdom of God.  Black saints were also denied the priesthood and temple blessings for many decades.  We rejoice that this practice was ended in 1978 extending these blessings to all.

The Church wants it known that we currently reject all and any past statements made by leaders and lay members that promote these racist teachings and practices.  We regret the pain it has caused for generations of Church members - especially black members and their families.  Racism is not becoming of a disciple of Christ, and we teach and admonish members to recognize that all people are children of a loving Heavenly Father with equal love and status in his eyes. Any racist attitudes or behaviors are to be repented of.

We believe that Jesus came to help us progress, learn, repent, and love and serve each other.  In that spirit, we will strive to improve as an organization and as Latter-day Saints to become better in overcoming past and current racism."

I would imagine that would go a long long way - I would like it.  

Why would the church only use the word "disavow" and not stronger condemnation for racism and the ban - My statement above was carefully worded to not directly say anything about the ban's origin being condoned by God or not - it just says we regret that it happened, and are glad it is no longer in effect.

Why would't the Church do this simple thing?

 

Edited June 20, 2024 by Maestrophil