- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
One of the more common explanations I hear among us LDS folks when comments from leaders are contradictory is that the leaders were speaking to us as men when the problematic statements were made. Generally this is used to discredit past statements and archaic doctrine. But it could very easily be used here and now. For example, with regard to the recent comments made by Elder Stevenson at the NAACP luncheon disavowing the curse of dark skin, there may be members who read his comments and say to themselves, “I have been taught my whole life in this church that dark skin is a curse. The BOM is right. The BOA is right. The teachings of past prophets are right. The manual is right. Elder Stevenson was simply speaking as a man at the luncheon and is mistaken.”
I have more thoughts along this line but I will start a separate thread for that.
mfree6464 wrote:
For example, with regard to the recent comments made by Elder Stevenson at the NAACP luncheon disavowing the curse of dark skin, there may be members who read his comments and say to themselves, “I have been taught my whole life in this church that dark skin is a curse. The BOM is right. The BOA is right. The teachings of past prophets are right. The manual is right. Elder Stevenson was simply speaking as a man at the luncheon and is mistaken.”
I have met good, upstanding, somewhat elderly church members that fully believe these teachings about dark skin as a mark of the curse, believing blood, and some spirits being less valiant in the pre-mortal struggle. They believe that the church has had to downplay or distance itself from such doctrines for public relations and political correctness reasons. Most of the disavowals are given by church spokesmen to the media. These are not addressed in GC by our prophet the way that changes and new understandings of doctrine are supposed to be delivered. These are outward facing. Like the Nauvoo and early Utah Saints denying that we believe in plural marriage for the sake of political expediency while knowing in their heart of hearts that it was true.I do believe that the church is moving in the right direction on this. Give it a few decades, those individuals that were indoctrinated with these racist ideas begin to die out and the new generation has been raised on lessons that gloss over these offending scriptures. Then maybe the church can feel more comfortable making a stronger statement of disavowal – like saying that Nephi was wrong, speaking as a product of his time, and that this is false doctrine.
Every time the church talks about these issues, even when it is disavowing them, I want to slip out the back door.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.