Admitting Mistakes

If you are anything like “Sheldon” from the big ban therory, you would not do good in any branch of the service!

But I do salute them for realizing they pushing things too far and admitted it didn’t have the effect they wanted. They handled it like a mature person would.

I have been trying to carve out some time to really narrow down my most significant issues I am having with the church. Anybody that has read much of any of my rants will know that the top leadership is where most of my issues are (probably says something about me – or power/authority I used to give them and feel betrayed).

but the last day or so I have been thinking about a comment that I heard about Bruce R. McConkie where a friend or family member mentioned that someone had seen one of the top church leaders be less than kind and this person actually left the church over it. BRM said something to the effect, “Don’t they know we are just human?” I have sympathy for him – for just a few seconds, then I fall back into stage 3 or 4 and get angry and think, “But YOU are the one that set YOU and your fellow leaders as implicitly infallible mouthpieces of God and you can’t have it both ways!”

The church leaders seem to be doing more to admit fallibility now than I can ever remember. I can name a few instances in GC off the top of my head. The admissions seem to be very general.

It took 150 years to semi-admit that no one knows why we had the rule about backs and the priesthood, and that “maybe” it was a mistake wrought out of man’s imperfections.

Unfortunately, some people have built their faith on an idea that the top leaders have regular sit down meetings with divinity – or at least have their ideas divinely inspired/ratified before they move to implementation. For those individuals, an admission that church leaders were wrong about denying priesthood and temple ordinances to those of African descent is just one step below saying that the church is not true.

I believe that is why the church leaders walk the razor’s edge. Admitting fallibility/imperfections/the making of mistakes generally without ever really going into detail. This allows each person to infer what might have been included as a mistake and what was not.

The Essay on the priesthood ban seems to be carefully written in this way. For those that want an official retraction, it serves as such. For those that do not want to believe that church leaders made a mistake in this doctrine, this conclusion is not forced upon them. The money quote says:

In 1852, President Brigham Young publicly announced that men of black African descent could no longer be ordained to the priesthood, though thereafter blacks continued to join the Church through baptism and receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost. Following the death of Brigham Young, subsequent Church presidents restricted blacks from receiving the temple endowment or being married in the temple. Over time, Church leaders and members advanced many theories to explain the priesthood and temple restrictions. None of these explanations is accepted today as the official doctrine of the Church….

Around the turn of the century, another explanation gained currency: blacks were said to have been less than fully valiant in the premortal battle against Lucifer and, as a consequence, were restricted from priesthood and temple blessings.14….

Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form.24

Notice that the “Church leaders and members advanced many theories,” “another explanation gained currency,” “and the church disavows the theories advanced in the past.” If you are looking for a statement that says that the priesthood ban itself is and was wrong, you will have to find it in words “Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form.” That only counts if you view the ban as racist. BRM certainly did not, he wrote: “this inequality is not of man’s origin. It is the Lord’s doing, based on His eternal laws of justice.”

The footnotes are quite interesting. #14 states:

14.Apostle Joseph Fielding Smith, for example, wrote in 1907 that the belief was “quite general” among Mormons that “the Negro race has been cursed for taking a neutral position in that great contest.” Yet this belief, he admitted, “is not the official position of the Church, [and is] merely the opinion of men.”

This footnote is somewhat deceptive. It comes after “blacks were said to have been less than fully valiant in the premortal battle against Lucifer” and would seem to suggest that this theory was not accepted “the official position of the Church, [and is] merely the opinion of men.” JFS was always consistent in decrying the use of the term “nuetral”. According to him everyone had to pick a side. However, this does not mean that everyone who choose a side did so with equal vigor. He later wrote in 1954, “There were no neutrals in the war in heaven. All took sides either with Christ or with Satan. Every man had his agency there, and men receive rewards here based upon their actions there, just as they will receive rewards hereafter for deeds done in the body. The Negro, evidently, is receiving the reward he merits.” This is consistent with the FP statement of 1949 “The position of the Church regarding the Negro may be understood when another doctrine of the Church is kept in mind, namely, that the conduct of spirits in the premortal existence has some determining effect upon the conditions and circumstances under which these spirits take on mortality.”

In short, contrary to what this footnote would have us believe, the theory that blacks had “been less than fully valiant in the premortal battle against Lucifer and, as a consequence, were restricted from priesthood and temple blessings.” Was “The position of the Church regarding the Negro” and was not “merely the opinion of men.”

Even with all the careful language and misleading footnotes this essay was still explosive to the testimonies of some that grew up believing the Theories were part of the gospel.

The church truly has turned a page on the racism of the past, which is to be commended. I am so very happy that the theories that I was told as a missionary are now specifically disavowed.

As for admitting specific mistakes – this is just about as close as it gets. Close,… but not quite. :sick:

Unfortunately, some people have built their faith on an idea that the top leaders have regular sit down meetings with divinity – or at least have their ideas divinely inspired/ratified before they move to implementation. For those individuals, an admission that church leaders were wrong about denying priesthood and temple ordinances to those of African descent is just one step below saying that the church is not true.

And who sets up people to have that belief? I would say the top church leaders. I remember just about a year or so ago Elder Ballard getting up and saying, “We will not, we cannot, lead you astray”. Generations of LDS were led astray due to leaders biases. Could we not be in the same situation today with the churches (or should I say the top leaders) stance on gays?

And I would agree with what I think Roy is saying that it is disingenuous to just write off the past teachings as “just theories advanced.” In their days I think it would be hard to find someone living in the 1950’s church to say, “the leaders could be wrong on this.”

And not to derail this subject, but my reading of the essay seems to be clearly saying that the theories supporting the ban are disavowed, but not the fact that the ban occurred. It seems a kinda-sort-of apology for bad/incorrect theories is hard for the church to slip into an essay, but to actually apologize for the ban itself is a bridge too far.

I think the other issue with the church making apologies (which personally I wish they would do more–it would make me gain respect, but perhaps would have the reverse effect for some) is that they are often apologizing for the mistakes of predecessors, not themselves, so in a way it’s throwing dead people under the bus. That’s a tougher thing to do sometimes, especially given how many of them are related to those older leaders who have said and done wrong things. As former Pres. Bush (W) said, history would be his judge. I’m sure that weighs on the mind of every church leader – which of the things they say & do will be viewed as wrong-headed by subsequent generations. Again, I think that’s a good reason to apologize and move ahead, but my style is obviously different than most of the Q15.

While there are very few instances of apologies (which we have hashed out often here and doesn’t need to get I o this discussion again), there are plenty of cases of the church leadership changing policies and practices, especially when the membership gives serious pushback.

We also have had far more clear Admissions of fallibility and mistakes recently than we had in the previous 40 years of my life in the Church.

There obviously are issues that bother us greatly that aren’t changing at the speed we would like, but to say the church leadership never admits mistakes and makes changes is, I think, conflating the church of our past with the church of our present. Frankly, I think the leadership of the 50’s – 80’s (excepting Pres. McKay) would be appalled at much of what is happening now.

It is important to keep that last sentence in mind.

It took 150 years to semi-admit that no one knows why we had the rule about backs and the priesthood, and that “maybe” it was a mistake wrought out of man’s imperfections.

At one time, the FP had no compunctions about calling the priesthood ban “Doctrine”. A letter surfaced at one time that the brethren wrote to a sociologist about the possiblity and potential of missionary work in Haiti or Cuba or some place in the Carribean. The sociologist lived there. He objected to a statement they made about a high proportion of blacks being a deterrent since they couldn’t be given the priesthood.

The sociologist answered their questions, but made a kind of objection about the impact missionary work would have on people of color. The FP responded back not to rely on the understanding of men, that it was doctrine and to rely on inspiration, not the wisdom of man. Essentially, chastised him for objecting to their racist tendencies.

The letter I saw, scanned and typewritten on an old typewriter, underscored for me how many people believed the ban was doctrine. Now, “we don’t know where it came from”. It really does hurt the claim to revelation if we can teach doctrine and disdvantage entire races without even knowing where the doctrine came from…

Birth control is considered to be fine and accepted for married couples.

Having only a few kids is socially acceptable.

Gay’s being allowed to hold callings, even in bishoprics (OK – only in a few places, but I can’t imagine they would have allowed Mitch Mayne to stay in a bishopric for years).

Women not wearing panty hose to church. Just “bare” legs! 😮

Women wearing open-toed “flip flops” to church and even to the temple.

Women working outside the home is acceptable even when it is not a dire financial situation.

A member of the 1st presidency admitting they drink diet coke in conference.

That the church membership helped elect Trump.

The essays.

How the younger generations have very little issue with gays.

I just noticed how much of these are geared towards women.