- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I just posted a transcript at W&T asking if an apology for the ban is appropriate. Brad Kramer and Marguerite Driessen both think that an apology isn’t necessary, but for different reasons. Marguerite feels that an institution can’t apologize, only people can. Brad on the other hand, says an apology isn’t neccesary for the repentance process, but feels that the church should come clean about the ban and say that it was wrong. Here’s the link: http://www.wheatandtares.org/2012/06/11/should-the-church-apologize-for-the-ban/ What do you think?
The ban was wrong and the church should admit it. And apologize. Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2
The ban was wrong and racist. The Church has said it condemns all racism, past and present, even that of former members of the Church. Leaders are members. It hasn’t called the ban racist, but it has condemned all racism – so it has condemned the ban in my book. I’d like to see a more explicit statement, and I’d like to see another direct statement about how horrible and wrong the former justifications were, but I like the statement we have now as a first step.
I don’t like to apologize for other people. It’s just one of those things for me. Something like, “We regret the consequences of the ban in so many people’s lives,” would be enough for me – but I’m a white male, and I respect other people’s desire to hear an apology.
Beating around the bush doesn’t cut it for me. If you screw up, you apologize. If you screw up big time, and your actions have seriouos detrimental affects on others, you darn well better apologize, and the sooner the better. As I recall, that ispart of the repentance process. No, we can’t meaningfully apologize for the past misdeeds of other individuals, but as a representative of an organization I can sure as heck apologize on behalf of that organization. But as we’ve discussed before, it’s not worth holding your breath for, ’cause it ain’t happening. An explicit apology, which again, in my book, is the only kind that matters, would call too many things into question. What the church needs to apologize for is that it took them to long to recognize the error of their ways. The fact that there was racism in the early church may be considered a product of the times. Almost everyone was a racist then to some degree. The troubling thing is that it took the church till 1978 to make a change, well after when most organizations were moving beyond racist policies Some of the leaders alive today where part of that racism. They should be willing to admitt they were wrong.
What they should do — apologize like Dallin H Oakes did for the Mountain Meadows Massacre. CAN they? That would destroy th efaith of so many members? The problem is that past rhetoric says that the ban was the will of God. So it’s hard to say that a whole line of prophets misinterpreted God’s will. There’s a lot of people who couldn’t accept that the “mouthpiece of God” can make mistakes like that. I’m not even sure I can, which is why I have some faith problems. Personally, I don’t believe that the reason for no apology is a fear that the faithful will falter. I believe it’s because they want to interpret the past as charitably as they can. They can and should apologize for their own views, but I can’t say which ones of them need to say what as I don’t know who among them was pro-ban and pro-folklore. Bruce R McConkie was, and he did apologize. He did a lot of damage with Mormon Doctrine (and the justifications for the ban weren’t the extent of it). Also, there were leaders who were against the ban (including David O. McKay) who didn’t repeal it because they felt they received a “no” in answer to their prayer. So, is he responsible? Should he have apologized? What about others in the Q12 who were against it but weren’t in the role to repeal it?
Interesting how society has really turned its back on racism — to the point society is out in front of the church in terms of the morality of this question. We hear talks all the time about how wicked the world is getting, yet in some respects, we are a more righteous society than we were one hundred years ago, and seem to be tugging the church along with us toward higher ideals. Quote:We hear talks all the time about how wicked the world is getting, yet in some respects, we are a more righteous society than we were one hundred years ago
This is something I’ve thought about quite a bit. I would actually make it stronger and say in “many” or even “most” respects.
Just a few ways this is true:
Racism and prejudice
- Women’s rights
- Treatment of gays (a long ways to go but it has improved in the last 100 years)
- Abusive parenting (Abuse has existed and will exist – however at least some aspects of it are now taboo where it was once encouraged – e.g. beatings, whippings, etc. Also children are now considered by society to be more as people – e.g. “Children are to be seen, not heard” has dropped off.)
- Helping victims of things like sexual abuse. It still continues to be a major problem, but I believe victims are supported much more now than in the past. The old way was more one of sweeping in under the rug and acting like the victim was the liar if they said anything.
- Humanitarian aid to others.
- Treatment of those with mental disorders. E.g. They used to just place challenged children in institutions and forget about them.
Hawk, the Church makes official pronouncements all the time on behalf of the church. Why do you think an apology is an individual matter when it was the institution that enforced it. The institution makes proclamations all the time: the PoF, Prop 8, earings, etc. Why must church leaders apologize individually if they feel the right to make pronouncements on a church-wide basis on other issues? I think an apology for all the hurt feelings of black members would be nice, but I’m more interested in making sure that the “valiant in pre-mortal life” or “God commanded racism” be thoroughly debunked.
My thoughts exactly….I’m finding it much easier to believe in a divine institution that makes mistakes than a divine institution which is perfect. Cadence wrote:What the church needs to apologize for is that it took them to long to recognize the error of their ways. The fact that there was racism in the early church may be considered a product of the times. Almost everyone was a racist then to some degree. The troubling thing is that it took the church till 1978 to make a change, well after when most organizations were moving beyond racist policies
Some of the leaders alive today where part of that racism. They should be willing to admitt they were wrong.
I’m going jump on board with this opinion.
We often forget that president monson and hinkley and packer were in the Q12 during the church civil rights debacle.
Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2
SilentDawning wrote:What they should do — apologize like Dallin H Oakes did for the Mountain Meadows Massacre.
So interesting the different circumstances… MMM was reportedly a local action that was never supported from the upper hierarchy. It also inflicted major harm on non-members (as opposed to burdens that the faithful willingly submit to). To apologize for this is a no brainer.
The Ban was instituted and supported by the upper hierarchy for generations but without a revelation and not in the time of JS. For years it was considered a doctrine but it has been repealed and now is downgraded to the status of a practice. [Is the act of repealing the Ban still considered a revelation?] Several upper hierarchy sources have said that the reasons and justifications put forth for the ban were incorrect and “spectacularly wrong.” The Ban did not oppress non-members, so any apology would be for mistreatment of segments of the membership by the church. (or IOW unnecessary hardships endured by some members due to limited and perhaps false teachings within the church.)
Polygamy was instituted by JS and the upper hierarchy by revelation and maintained for generations. It is still considered a doctrine (though not one that is required for exaltation). The reasons and justifications put forth for polygamy are all over the map. I am unaware of any official justification (other than it was commanded). Trying to arrive at a consensus for the purpose of polygamy is hampered because JS gave several different rationales for the practice and also that Mormon theology and cosmology appears to have evolved since the days of JS – so several of those rationales no longer fit within our modern understandings. Polygamy did not oppress non-members, so any apology would be for mistreatment of segments of the membership by the church. (or IOW unnecessary hardships endured by some members due to limited and perhaps false teachings within the church.)
Interesting to compare and contrast.
I don’t see how the church can apologize. To do so would be to almost directly admit that previous prophets were not prophetic. It seems to me that they have to keep the stance “We don’t know why, but we were just doing what God told us to do.” The official 1969 first presidency letter directly states that the reason for the ban was because God commanded it.
God has to be the scapegoat on this one. The alternative is making lots of TBMs question whether a prophet is truly prophetic – not a price they are willing to pay for a limited PR payout. The “it’s in the past” defense is the best one they have – unless someone has watched Lion King too recently
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.