Apology for the Ban?

[Anonymous]

I agree with bc_pg,

Quote:

I don’t see how the church can apologize.

If we look for an official apology from the Church for past (& present) practices, we will be disappointed.

If we look for changes within the Church, it must start with us (the membership).

When someone in our meetings wants to justify bigotry, racism & homophobia, we have to speak up.

My tendency is to remain silent. Or, get up & walk out. I’m beginning to see that this is just as wrong.

When I do that, I’m ignoring scripture that tells us to be merciful.

I hope that there are others in our congregations that would be willing to stand for what they believe too.

Quote:

Luke 6:

36 Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful.

37 Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:

38 Give, and it shall be given unto you; good measure,…

The leadership of the Church has every right to administer the rules & regulations as they are moved to do so.

It is my responsibility as a follower of JC to be merciful, understanding & forgiving.

It is also my responsibility when I see an injustice to speak up.

Until more members are willing to do that, there will be no change (or apology).

Mike from Milton.

[Anonymous]

There has been tremendous change with regard to race at the top levels of the Church, even as there hasn’t been as much as I’d like in some local areas and within some members – so much so that we are WAY ahead of many other Christian denominations when it comes to racial intergretion in our congergations and leadership.

There’s a difference between change and apology, and I’d rather have change than an apology – even though I’d like an apology, as well – at least, for the effect of the ban.

[Anonymous]

So….has anyone considered the remote possibility that “racism” may be “right”?

Food for thought….

[Anonymous]

I don’t know about everyone, but my own response is along the lines of, “Hell, no!”

As an admin, I’m not going to allow the firestorm that might follow honest answers to that question.

If we can respond appropriately, we can discuss it. If not, we’ll ignore it and continue the conversation.

[Anonymous]

Bruce in Montana wrote:

So….has anyone considered the remote possibility that “racism” may be “right”?

Food for thought….

Wow. Really?

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk 2

[Anonymous]

Bruce, I’ve considered it, and I reject it wholesale. God loves all, male and female, black and white, bond and free. There is no room for racism in God’s heaven.

[Anonymous]

This is tough topic. Let’s make sure to answer honestly, but keep it civil.

My answer is also no. I believe the original thoughts that led to the ban and the racist speculation were THE error. They were the philosophies of men mingled with scripture. Those ideas have a long history prior to Mormonism (Cain, mark=skin,Ham, etc.). We did not invent them, but some early leaders sure picked up that ball and ran with it. In their day, it was a fairly well-accepted idea even among abolitionists. It was still wrong though.

As BRM said in his apology right after the 1978 change, they were working under “limited light and knowledge.” They were in error. Based on what I know of him and his works, that was a pretty big moment of “manning up” to his mistakes. They were mistakes.

[Anonymous]

Bruce in Montana wrote:

So….has anyone considered the remote possibility that “racism” may be “right”?

Bruce, I appreciate your dissenting and provocative viewpoint. I believe you to be sincere in your beliefs. I have no doubt that good and godly men can be racist and that they can ascribe that racism as part of God’s plan. There are various theories on why God would do this. Although not dealing specifically with race, Paul in Romans 9 seemed to suggest that God can foreordain some people for salvation and others for damnation:

Quote:

Rebekah’s children were conceived at the same time by our father Isaac. 11 Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad —in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: 12 not by works but by him who calls—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.”[d] 13 Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”[e]

14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15 For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”[f]

16 It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. 17 For Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.”[g] 18 Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.

19 One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?” 20 But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’”[h] 21 Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?

22 What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? 23 What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory — 24 even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?

In the LDS church we focus heavily on free agency and that persons will be judged by their efforts and the intents of their heart. We emphasize that our God is no respecter of persons and that “black and white, bond and free, male and female…and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile.” 2 Nephi 26:33

So traditional LDS racism has taken a different approach – that persons of African descent where less valiant in the pre-mortal realm. Therefore (according to this theory which has been repeatedly repudiated by Modern LDS leadership), when we have racist views or perpetuate racist policies we are merely giving out the “just deserts” for other people’s lacklustre pre-mortal performance.

IMO – There are several problems with this viewpoint but one of the biggest is that we are judging an entire group of people based on what we believe them to have done in a previous life. A life that we acknowledge that they can’t remember. As if to say, “you don’t remember this, but you brought this crap upon yourself in a previous life.” And then we treat them unequally at best or persecute them at worst. I understand how this viewpoint can make sense doctrinally (depending on the doctrine you believe in), but it seems to be in direct conflict with the principles of Christian living. Even Paul by writing, “19 One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?” 20 But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God?” seems to acknowledge that these concepts are unfair, unequal, and unjust when viewed from our mortal life (the only life for which we have evidence). I think Paul justifies this contradiction by essentially echoing JS to say that [paraphrase]”whatever God commands is right, no matter what it is.” Yet how can we be so sure of what God requires that we allow it to override the bedrock principles of decency and the Light of Christ that we believe he has given to all? How do we do something that feels wrong?

I can’t be sure what God really wants, but I believe that He would have me judge not and err on the side of love and forgiveness. How He handles His plan and His judgment is up to Him

[Anonymous]

The ban was wrong. It was arrogant and un-Christlike. And parenthetically, the worst part wasn’t the priesthood, but the temple exclusion. The church stayed with it too long. I’m grateful it was resolved finally, if belatedly, 34 years ago. I was around during that time, and I didn’t like the ban… I mean, I was a youngster, but old enough to start wondering why God would have such a policy, and right about that time, it was changed, which I found exciting and wonderful. So, that’s my history. I’m not young enough to think of the ban in strictly theoretical terms, and I’m not old enough to have accepted and defended it (thankfully).

I consider that time to have been a great time to grow up, because there was a strong emphasis in the country that we are all just people, and skin color is entirely superficial. I think it was a less cynical time, than either the time before (institutionalized segregation) or the time after (excessive differentiation in the pursuit of diversity)… in the 70’s it was all about being color blind… ignoring the outward appearance and treating all as not only equal but as not different. Sort of an innocent adolescence, not only for me, but for the country, in terms of race relations. Heck, I had a serious crush on a black girl in my junior high school, before the ban was lifted.

So, I view myself as not a racist and as never having been a racist. I’m not a former racist, I’m not a reformed racist, I’m not an apologetic, repentant, racist.

Given that, from my vantage point, I would rather that the church NOT apologize specifically for the ban. Doing so, I feel, would implicate me as needing of absolution. All of my adult life, I have bristled anytime the notion comes up that we are racists because of the past practices of the church. I look around the church and I don’t see racists… sure, there are a few, but no more than in any other cross-section of society at large. In my view, and from where I stood at the time that it happened, my perception is that there was a collective sigh of relief among the rank-and-file church membership when the ban was lifted… not all, but the vast majority.

Apologizing now would go against the idea that we are not responsible to answer for the actions of our predecessors. In fact, there’s a bit of irony there… because when I was a young man, and not understanding of the ban, what was confusing to me is why a “curse” placed on people in an ancient time would have any impact on their posterity. By the same token, I don’t feel responsible and don’t want to have to answer for the church’s prior failures, false teachings, and false practices… The church did eventually get it right. That’s good enough for me, and I would hope that would be good enough for my neighbors.

There are plenty of other areas where the church hasn’t gotten it right yet. Having a long memory about past failures, rather than being ready to forgive the church when it does set things aright, will only strengthen the church’s resolve to justify current practices and slow its willingness to change.

[Anonymous]

Bruce in Montana wrote:

So….has anyone considered the remote possibility that “racism” may be “right”?

Food for thought….

Racism: hatred towards others of another than one’s own race.

Under absolutely no remotely even microscopically slight chance can this be approved by the teachings of Jesus Christ.

Jesus Christ lived in a society were racism was normal. The Jews of His time discriminated against Sumaritans, Palistinians, and other Gentile minorities in Jerusalem. What did Jesus do in response to popular opinion? In all His sacred glory, He made a profound effort to demonish this as a terrible sin. He befriended the woman at the well even though she was a Gentile, and He taught the story of the good Samaritan. He strictly confounded to His apostles the disgust and damning consequences of bitter ethnic bigotry. :angel:

Brigham Young, too, lived in a society were racism was normal. In nineteenth century America, people of European decent were classified on the scholarly level of being intellectually and physically superior to all others. Others such as blacks, hence their second class status. I don’t need to give anyone the history lesson. What did Brigham Young do in response to popular opinion? PRIESTHOOD BAN. :eh: :sick: :thumbdown:

I am not a follower of Brigham Young. I am a follower of Jesus Christ. I agree with everyone. The church needs to apologize for, not only the fact that it happened, but for claiming, and continuing to claim that it was revelation. We have established that.

So I think what we really need to discuss is ways of helping our fellow members realize this. All major church decisions and current doctrine comes from the General Authorities. For an apology to occur, it must come from them, not us.

[Anonymous]

mormonheretic wrote:

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?

I’m on the fence. I want the Church to issue a statement that clarifies correct doctrines. At the same time, the ‘anti’s’ would have a field-day. The saints who may just be “hanging on” may fall away.

I think there is too much “trust in the arm of flesh” – both past and present.

I’m not holding my breath for an apology, but having correct doctrines being taught in an official statement would go a long way.

[Anonymous]

skippy740 wrote:

The saints who may just be “hanging on” may fall away.

I do think that is a factor…but at what cost are they trying to keep those groups? At some point, truth will set you free, even if that means it is a hard thing to do.

[Anonymous]

I want to make a few points more clear. There are some who claim that racism is race hatred. This is just one definition. No where in the church has there been KKK-style race hatred. On that I think we can all agree. But let me point out the definitions, according to dictionary.com

Quote:

rac·ism   [rey-siz-uhm]

noun

1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one’s own race is superior and has the right to rule others.

2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.

3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

Now, I think it is plainly clear that Brigham Young on up through apostles in the 1960s especially (perhaps into the 70s), that the white race is superior. Certainly there was discrimination with regards to the temple for blacks and whites that married blacks. So, let’s not just chalk up the definition of racism to race hatred. Definitions 1 and 2 apply very well to the church, even if definition 3 doesn’t apply so much.

The church isn’t claiming a formal revelation was ever received for the ban, though leaders have claimed to have been inspired to the “practice”. David O. McKay called it a practice in a private discussion with Sterling McMurrin in 1955. In around 1968 or 69, McMurrin wrote a letter claiming that McKay felt it was a practice, not a doctrine, and McKay confirmed the letter. Of course, this created a controversy among the Q12, and the ban was voted away by those present at the Q12 in 1969 (according to Michael Quinn), but when Elder Lee returned, another vote was held and the ban remained in place.

There have been many “reasons” for the ban. Randy Bott claimed the Book of Abraham corroborated the ban, but the next day the Church denounced the Washington Post and said that “we don’t know why, how, or when” the ban began. While they didn’t address the valiancy in the pre-mortal life in the official statement, the fact that it was not in the official church response seems to indicate that they do not find the position credible. So, those who want to blame the ban on blacks being not valiant, or based on the Book of Abraham, are not in harmony with the latest official church statement on the position.

Now, I have my own theories, and I think the priesthood/temple ban has a lot to do with inter-racial marriages in the 1840s. But I want to state that the official Church position seems to reject the 2 most common explanations for the ban.

[Anonymous]

I want to address the issue that The saints who may just be “hanging on” may fall away.

It seems to me that such saints have not built their testimonies on the Rock, but rather on a sandy foundation. While I am not about to encourage the Church to quit caring about these people, I do think that it would be nice to help build these people upon the Rock of Christ, rather than a sandy foundation. I think that if the Church is catering to the weakest of the saints, then the Church is neglecting to build us up spiritually. I really don’t like the argument against an apology for fear of the fact that the weakest saints may fall away. The saints need strong leadership in order to grow more godly, and I think that “no unhallowed hand will stop the work from progressing.” We shouldn’t be unduly concerned with critics or the weak if God is at the helm.

How many wonderful blacks would take the place of those who are “hanging on”? I suspect a net increase in church membership, not a decline.

[Anonymous]

I suspect that only those who really are racist in their hearts (not using the “hate” definition when I say that) would leave the LDS Church if a statement was released saying, in crystal clear terms, nothing more than that the ban itself was not the result of revelation. (Statements implying that have been made already by some apostles and prophets, going back to Pres. McKay’s policy statement, so it’s not like it would be an earth-shattering precedent.)

I would rejoice over that sort of statement even more than an apology, since, again, I’m not into people apologizing for other people. I would rather have repudiation and changed action (which has happened less and very clearly, respectively) than an apology.

[Author]

Posts