I caught up with an old friend of mine that has served as bishop many times in his life. While our conversation covered many subjects, the most interesting was the topic of repentance and an experience he had while counseling a young married couple. He remembered the exchange between the husband and wife vividly because it was just so odd to him. Now I want to now share that dialogue (the best that I can remember) and see what you think. (In an effort to make it more real, I turned the conversation into a video in addition to the transcript. Names, voices, and hairstyles have been changed to protect the privacy of those involved.)
[iframe src=”http://www.xtranormal.com/xtraplayr/14251711/conversation-in-the-bishops-office” width=”100%” height=”480″]
(transcript below)
Suzy: So when did you start looking at porn, Ralph?
Ralph: There are no clear insights into the origins of when I started, but usage of porn is terrible.
Suzy: I remember you told me once that a friend gave you a magazine your freshman year in high school. Is that when it started?
Ralph: I don’t know precisely why, how, or when it started.
Suzy: But it was around the time you started high school, right?
Ralph: There are no clear insights as to when it started.
Suzy: Well when didn’t you look at porn?!
Ralph: Not before eighth grade, I guess.
Suzy: So it would be safe to say it all started in your early teen years?
Ralph: It is not known precisely why, how, or when it started – but I don’t do it anymore! Porn is bad.
Suzy: Well, I guess the specifics of when you started looking at it aren’t really important. But even though you don’t look at it anymore, the whole situation is still hurtful to me. Are you sorry for looking at porn?
Ralph: Porn is bad and should not be used now or ever. I don’t look at it anymore.
Suzy: I know you don’t anymore, but you used to, right? So don’t you feel bad about it at all?
Ralph: Yes, there was a time I looked at it – but it has ended. I unequivocally condemn porn. I told you already, porn is bad and I do not look at it anymore. Anyone looking at it cannot consider himself to be a true disciple of Christ. Nor can he consider himself to be in harmony with the teachings of the Church.
Suzy: Okay, I get it already. But you were still looking at porn while we were married. You told me you did it because it helped our sex life. Do you still believe that was true?
Ralph: Anything I said about it before was with limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that has now come into my world.
Suzy: So what you said about it helping our sex life was wrong?
Ralph: It’s behind us. Look, that’s behind us. Don’t worry about those little flecks of history – listen to what I’m saying! My position is clear. I unequivocally condemn porn! Anyone that looks at porn is sinning, and I don’t do it anymore!
Suzy: I’m so frustrated and upset! I feel like I’m going in circles here! Do you even feel bad about looking at it or not, Ralph? Please!
Ralph: Porn is bad. There was a time when I didn’t look at porn and it is unclear when I started, but I don’t look at it anymore because porn is bad. I don’t tolerate it in any form.
***END OF CONVERSATION***
What a terrible conversation! Could you feel the frustration of the wife with her husband’s answers? Was there any admission of wrongdoing? Did you get the feeling that Suzy was questioning a person coached or aided by a lawyer? Did you want to punch Ralph in the neck meat during this whole conversation?
So what does any of this have to do with the new LDS 2013 scriptures?
In my last post we talked about the changes in the new edition of the scriptures. I found the new introduction to the Official Declaration 2 – the declaration that allowed blacks to get the priesthood – lacking some much-needed detail, to put it mildly. My beef was specifically with this part: “Early in its history, Church leaders stopped conferring the priesthood on black males of African descent. Church records offer no clear insights into the origins of this practice.” Some were satisfied with this introduction. Some were not, myself included. In the comments of my post there were several people who could not understand why I was making such a big deal over those two little sentences. And that is why I shared the above conversation between Ralph and Suzy. I needed to find something to parallel the new introduction that would be more relatable for the majority of the people reading this blog, because most of us can’t understand the genuine pain that those sentences hold. I feel like sometimes people are completely ignorant of the emotional impact those sentences have on an entire race of people because it’s just not personal for them. It doesn’t really register in their souls because, well, they’re probably not black and cannot sympathize, let alone empathize, with how serious and painful of a situation this was, and is, for so many. Anyway, I thought the new introduction to OD2, much like past explanations for the ban, were comparable to the above conversation between Ralph and Suzy. Can you see the parallels? Here are some samples from the racism spectrum so you can see what I mean (I bolded the similarities to make your life easier. You’re welcome.):
Statements against racism from the Church:
- “The Church unequivocally condemns racism, including any and all past racism by individuals both inside and outside the Church.” (Newsroom Race and the Church All Are Alike Unto God)
- “No man who makes disparaging remarks concerning those of another race can consider himself a true disciple of Christ. Nor can he consider himself to be in harmony with the teachings of the Church. Let us all recognize that each of us is a son or daughter of our Father in Heaven, who loves all of His children.” (2006 Gordon B. Hinkley)
- “black and white, bond and free, male and female; … all are alike unto God” (2 Nephi 26:33).
- The Church’s position is clear—we believe all people are God’s children and are equal in His eyes and in the Church. We do not tolerate racism in any form. (Newsroom, Church Statement Regarding ‘Washington Post’ Article on Race and the Church)
Statements explaining wrong teachings from the Church:
- “We spoke with limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that has now come into the world.” – Bruce R. McConkie
- “It is not known precisely why, how or when this restriction began in the Church, but it has ended.” (Newsroom Race and the Church All Are Alike Unto God)
- Interview on 60 Minutes:
Mike Wallace: From 1830 to 1978, blacks could not become priests in the Mormon church. Right?
Gordon B. Hinckley: That’s correct.
Mike Wallace: Why?
Gordon B. Hinckley: Because the leaders of the church at that time interpreted that doctrine that way. [cut]
Mike Wallace: Church policy had it that blacks had the mark of Cain. Brigham Young said, “Cain slew his brother, and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin.”
Gordon B. Hinckley: It’s behind us. Look, that’s behind us. Don’t worry about those little flecks of history.
Statements by the Church attempting to clear up the history of why the ban happened:
- “It is not known precisely why, how or when this restriction began in the Church, but it has ended.” (Newsroom Race and the Church All Are Alike Unto God)
- “It is not known precisely why, how, or when this restriction began in the Church but what is clear is that it ended decades ago.”(Newsroom, Church Statement Regarding ‘Washington Post’ Article on Race and the Church)
- “Early in its history, Church leaders stopped conferring the priesthood on black males of African descent. Church records offer no clear insights into the origins of this practice.” (Introduction Official Declaration 2)
In the church’s statements, you can see that there has never been an apology or any admission of wrongdoing. It’s almost as if they are saying, “We can neither confirm nor deny any wrongdoing.” You can, however, see a strong condemnation of racism, perhaps to compensate for the lack of apology.
One of the problems with the statement “no clear insight into the origins of this practice” is that it leaves a big question mark. Even though we don’t know the exact meeting or the exact date when the ban came about, we do know a lot. For example, we know under what administration the ban began. So just using that knowledge, how about a statement like this: “The historical record makes it clear that racial prejudice affected American society generally as well as members of the Church, including leaders, at the time this practice originated, and that this practice grew out of said prejudice. Many incorrectly assumed that this racial prejudice was inspired by the Lord, which allowed the persistence of this practice until 1978, when it was overturned.” (Written by Derek Lee, RationalFaiths.com reader, not a lawyer.) This statement paints an excellent picture without throwing anyone under the bus. And I personally think an apology would be best offered during General Conference.
Another problem I see is that the Church’s nonspecific statements are repeated by its members. As you can see, the Church has already repeated this statement three times, the third making into our scriptures. So is this good history? Is this responsible history?
Lastly, the biggest issue is that these statements don’t respect the pain and trials our black brothers and sisters faced and, in some cases, still face. Remember, it was just in 2006 when then-prophet Gordon B. Hinckley spoke on racism. I’m sure that it’s probably hard to shake 100+ years of teaching racist doctrine, but I’m of the opinion that it’s even harder to shake when there is no admission of any wrongdoing or apology.
MY CHURCH, MY PEOPLE CAN DO BETTER! WE CAN DO BETTER!
P.S. The conversation with Ralph and Suzy was fake, but hopefully you already knew that.
Pablo
Born and raised in Northern California, Pablo received his education at Ricks College and BYU with a BA in Spanish, minor in PE Coaching. Pablo served his LDS mission during the years 94-96 in Rosario, Argentina. He now runs a skate shop and batting cages in Orem, UT. He's married and has 4 boys.
All posts by Pablo
All I can say is yes, I agree with this posting. It’s time to throw the rug away that has been the hiding place for anything negative for the church and just speak with honest. I once heard an article of faith that started out “we believe in being honest…”
Well said Paul! The way you worked the statements demonstrating how The Church continues to deny any wrongdoing was truly telling. Like I said, if black folk see missionaries in area they may want to rethink engaging them in conversation lest they inherit racist ideology about themselves as black people, which might lend to some mental health disorder. I am just saying.
Really? I wanted to slap the woman in your dialogue, just saying 🙂
Ah the poor lady just wanted some straight answers!
She wanted to dwell on the negative and be unforgiving. And we know what happens when people dwell on the negative and are unforgiving.
Hard to do that when the person is unwilling to admit any wrong doing
Pablo I do agree a lot with what you say. One of my boys was just asking me about this exact situation at dinner the other night and I let him know that I don’t completely understand it all. My question to you I guess is are you assuming some things in regards to early church leaders or do you have clear and concise evidence of what you have alluded to? Love you bro.
Glad you are able to have those conversations with your kids. I can’t wait for that time with my children. Here is a source from the website called FAIR. I’m not sure if you are familiar with them. They had a guest speaker Darius Gray who is an expert in the field. Here is the link to his presentation: http://www.fairblog.org/2013/02/27/mormon-fair-cast-131-blacks-and-the-lds-priesthood/
“In 1847, President Brigham Young began the practice of withholding the priesthood only from men of Black African descent. It would be another two years before any official statement was made.” Seems to be a LOT more specific than what our scriptures allude to.
Paul,
FAIR is not the Church’s website.
ooops.
It’s a false comparison. Your strawman has some repenting to do for his own sins, not for those of his great grandfather. You are asking those who are living now to appologize for what dead men did, dead men living in a different generation with different generational teachings. We don’t repent for other people–we repent for our selves. There is something wrong, pious and culturally imperious about applying modern sensibilities to the past and holding dead figures accountable for new sensibilities. You will undoubtedly fail the sensitivities developed 100 years from now. Will future Barkers in the year 2113 be morally deficient if they do not confess guilt and sorrow for what you and other Barkers did in 2013?
Hagoth
As an organization, we should tell a better complete history. Are we as organization guilty of not telling the correct history? As an organization when we do something wrong we should be quick to apologize and not try to hide our history and therefore hide any wrong doing.
That is why I put my question to you with respect to the Barkers. The Barker family is an organization, complete with quirks, history and a sense of identity. Each generation thus far has felt compelled to retain the name, history, quirks, traditions and history. You and I, partially products of our time, will seem ludicrous to our posterity. In truth, that is the way it is supposed to be, each generation improving on the last. Will the Barkers 100 years from now be morally deficient for not apologizing for your sins? Will you post now in your blog, a litany of the sins of your deceased great-grandmother and great-grandfather and express your sorrow for their sinful ways?
With the logic that has been presented in your comment, their should be no Nuremberg Trials; we should stop looking for Nazis hiding in Peru, Argentina and elsewhere. After all the concentration camps, the gas chambers, and the ovens are all in the past.
I wonder if someone defamed your great-grandfather’s name, would you defend it? After all he is now dead. I would, and assume you would as well. Equally, if my grandfather said or did something that hurt or injured someone else’s family, I would apologize. It is my name, not only my great-grandfather’s name.
Our church is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. As such, it is Christ’s church, Joseph Smith’s church, Parley P. Pratt’s church, and my church. We all have the responsibility of stewardship of our church. As such, if someone has been wronged, as part of the repentance process, an apology must be made. And to answer your question, YES, I hope my posterity takes ownership of their last name and apologizes on behalf of me for things I have said or done.
Not so. The Nuremburg trials and Nazi hunts hunted for the living, not the dead.
Regardless, if my grandfather killed someone because he was drinking and driving, I would offer an apology to that family to simply mourn with those that mourn, to help them heal, to offer an olive branch. Or should I hide the fact that he was a drunk and may or may not have owned a car?
I recognize your decision to repent for your grandfather’s sins, particularly where you have clear facts about what he did. But I question whether you would be morally deficient for your failure to do so. Chances are pretty good that your ancestors and mine from 100 years ago mistrusted and actively discriminated against a number of people who you and I wouldn’t. My guess is that my ancestors hated gays, lesbians, papists, blacks, Mexicans, Chinese, democrats, etc. That’s just my guess. If I bring it closer a generation, I recall some racist things that one of my ancestors said to me. I was shocked at the time that someone so loving to me and most people could speak so hatefully regarding an entire class of people. I knew she was wrong and know it now. I feel no guilt for what she thought or did, and, in fact, I recognize that she was the product of a prior generation whose views on the subject were just as harsh but probably more violent in the execution of those feelings. I don’t feel any remorse for how she felt or what she said or did. I am not accountable for her transgressions. I am for mine. I can get worked up about someone who isn’t sorry for his own sins, but not for the sins of his ancestors. If you feel differently, I suspect that your ancestors too probably hated gays and lesbians. This blog might be a good place for you to display your personal remorse for your grandfather’s homophobic bigotry.
Are we still responsible to tell a more accurate history and to put in it’s context?
Which statement is more accurate to you:
“The historical record makes it clear that racial prejudice affected American society generally as well as members of the Church, including leaders, at the time this practice originated, and that this practice grew out of said prejudice. Many incorrectly assumed that this racial prejudice was inspired by the Lord, which allowed the persistence of this practice until 1978, when it was overturned.”
OR
“Early in its history, Church leaders stopped conferring the priesthood on black males of African descent. Church records offer no clear insights into the origins of this practice.”
I have racist ancestors. They are still living. I appologize for them everytime I teach Sunday School. There are people in that class who know my racist ancestors and who share their opinions. There are also people in that class whose ancestors have been hurt by my racist ancestors. That is why I appologize.
To deny an apology is to refuse to acknowledge that a wrong has been done. To refuse to acknowledge that it is wrong to treat people of a different ethnicity in a demeaning manner is racist.
Did Germany burn down all the camps and hide what happened? No they left them up as reminders of what happened, so that it will never happen again in their country. They left them up to remember those that were hurt and killed in those camps. To deny or hide that history would be a terrible mistake.
Which statement? I’m not sure. I have read extensively on the topic as well and have enjoyed this blog’s posts on the subject under the bias series. The history gives us three clues. First, empirical evidence. Ordinations stopped. (That doesn’t tell us why they stopped, it just tells us that they stopped.) Second, Pratt and later Brigham Young (followed by others) explain why they believed the practice commenced. My problem with this is that the post-hoc explanation is not a pre-hoc announcement. Evolution has hardwired our brains to provide explanations even when those explanations are historically inaccurate. No dissembling required–we are story tellers. It is a part of what makes us human. Cognitive tests have had a field day with our inescapable penchant for making up reasons, often entirely unreliable. (For example, you can tell a brain-damaged patient who has no short-term memory to perform an action. He has no memory of what you said, but he can follow the direction. Ask him why he is doing what he is doing and he will make up a reason, any reason.) The fact that Pratt, Young and others after the practice explained their view doesn’t tell us why the view commenced which is all that the new OD-2 sentence addresses. Third, we have overwhelming evidence of cultural attitudes of racism, including racist views held by those who probably instituted the policy, namely Brigham Young. He was a product of his time. Does that fact offer a “clear insight” into the origin (again, think origin, not continuation) of the practice? (Note the statement sidesteps why the practice continued except that church leaders “believed” that revelation was necessary to discontinue the practice. If my job is to determine what actually happened, not what probably happened, intellectual honesty compels me to say, no.
Look, if you remove all of the rigor I proposed of being right, then condemning them is easy. But the brethren are not inclined to throw their ancestors under the bus based upon what they probably meant or what probably happened, any more than we would throw Jesus under the bus as a racist for saying that a Cannanite woman and her sick daughter were dogs who were unfit to dine at the theological table with Jews or receive a blessing with his power. (Note in that example, by the way, that he changes his stated practice (first, entirely ignoring her, second, insulting her and her suffering daughter), but where is his apology or acknowledgement of guilt? I don’t assume that he needed one because I don’t know why he behaved the way he did, and I think more of him than to judge him by his insults and shunning alone. See Mathew 15:21-28.
Can we paint a clearer picture than what has been said? Can we do a better job?
We are limited by the historical record that we have. I don’t think that what we have yields a definitive answer about the origins. It does yield a much clearer picture about beliefs about continuation. I appreciate your question, though, which comes from a very different perspective than the supposition that the present leadership is morally deficient for refusing to repent for dead prophets.
We can start by telling the story as best we can.
As for the apology, as see only good coming from it. If we are to suffer with those that have suffered and continue to suffer, an apology would be a good thing.
Yes, exactly German citizens are very open about the extremity of their past wrongs and very apologetic.
The reason they are so open goes beyond guilt, or self-criticism but a deep moral obligation to ensure that these evils are never repeated.
I agree with you 100% in that openess and apology are crucial.
I agree that the church comes off as racist during that entire time. However as with your example of the porn thing what the injured want and what the accused wants is two seprate things. One wants a public apology for a past mistake where the other just wants to move on. In the porn ananlogy I felt like she just wanted him to admit he was a piece of crap to the bishop to prove she was right. He did say she was right and he had moved on and repented of it. Same with the racism thing. The one thing that is clear is that the church leaders from the past either were racist or felt they recieved that revelation from God. To make the new leaders go back and apologize for something they had no hand in is wrong and short sighted as well. America’s history is tainted with racism but to dwell in the past does not allow us to move to the future either. I love ya Paul.
Repentance is not complete without confession of the wrong doing or feeling remorse for one’s actions. This is clearly absent in both examples.
Andrew,
See my above comment to Hagoth.
I reply under Michael for both statements. Number one, in the porn thing it sounded like Suzy just found out about the porn usage and was trying to take Ralph to the Bishop for further ridicule as opposed to fixing any problems. It sounded to me like Ralph had dealt with it and had moved on from the issue and wanted nothing to do with it again. It’d be impossible to sit there with my wife and go through each and every thing that I had done wrong. I like the quote from Dan In Real Life that says let my past be the past and judge me for who I am now. I’ve been in the repentance chair before and will be again. I dealt with it once I don’t need to relive the details again. As for the Church it seems as if the only way to appease the history is to apologize…however if we are to believe the church is ran by Jesus Christ and ultimately God how can you expect a mortal man to apologize for something instructed from on high? It seems a lot of assuming is going on with the early leaders of the chruch. I believe it was revealed to do what they did.
Men are human. Men make mistakes. Even prophets. We can start by telling a more accurate history of what happened so that it never happens again.
Andy –
My original dialog was going to be set up as an interview with me and a porn addict. So it was going to be a “tell all”, but to my dismay the interview wouldn’t result to any answers but slick dodging by the addict. We switched it to a husband and wife so that we can see the pain of the addict’s actions from the wife eyes. The history part was put in there, to dig at church statements like this one: “Early in its history, Church leaders stopped conferring the priesthood on black males of African descent. Church records offer no clear insights into the origins of this practice.”
Paul your imaginary porn conversation was spot on. It is just round and round we go when we apologize nobody knows.
Bishop: “Ralph, when was the last time you looked at porn?”
Ralph: 1978
Bishop: So, this happened long before you were even married?
Ralph: Yes
Bishop: Suzy, why can’t you forgive Ralph?
Suzy: Because he hasn’t apologized to me. I need him to show some real humility before I can even think about forgiving him. In fact, it would really help me forgive him if he could show me the names and volumes of the magazines he looked at. If I could just see for myself what he looked at and if Ralph donned sackcloth and ashes and really begged for my forgiveness then perhaps I could start to think about forgiving him.
Bishop: But Suzy, you weren’t even married to Ralph 40 years ago.
Suzy: But what he did was still really wrong and I need him to show some real contrition. After all, how can I remove the mote from Ralph’s eye if he won’t let me?
Bishop: I’m not sure you’re required to remove the mote from Ralph’s eye. If fact, how can you even see Ralph’s mote when you have that giant 2×4 poking out of your left eye?
Suzy: I can still see out of my good eye. But Ralph hasn’t apologized to me personally
Bishop: I’m not sure that it’s necessary for Ralph to apologize to you in order to be forgiven
Suzy: Yes, yes it is. Ralph must don sackcloth and ashes and wear a sandwich board proclaiming his guilt. Once he has humbled himself and apologized to MY satisfaction then maybe I’ll forgive him.
Bishop: What about the scripture that says: “Wherefore, I say unto you, that ye ought to forgive one another; for he that forgiveth not his brother his trespasses standeth condemned before the Lord; for there remaineth in him the greater sin. I, the Lord, will forgive whom I will forgive, but of you it is required to forgive all men.”
Suzy: Yes, I agree with that scripture, it’s one of my favorites. When Ralph apologizes to me, wears the sandwich board proclaiming his sins AND takes out an ad on TV saying that he was wrong, then I’ll forgive him.
Bishop: But the scripture doesn’t say anything about the sinner asking us for forgiveness. Only that the sinner must confess to the Lord. Suzy, it’s been almost 40 years, can you forgive Ralph?
Suzy: of course I can. Once he apologizes to me, wears the sandwich board to church, takes out the ad on TV and stands up on a soap box at the town square in sackcloth and ashes and begs the world for forgiveness then I’ll also forgive him.
Bishop: But you’re required to forgive Ralph, no matter what. Even if he doesn’t apologize
Suzy: And I will once he dons the sackcloth, rolls in the ashes, begs for forgiveness, proclaims his error to the world, etc. etc.
Bishop: Ralph, you’re a patient man. Good luck in your marriage to Suzy.
You missed the point… Oh well
Your sympathy for our black brothers is overwhelming. If Jackie Robinson were alive today, I’m sure he would award you with a huge medal for your outreach to understand and mourn with those that have suffered under our racist policies.
Not acknowledging our past or sweeping our history under the rug, doesn’t do any one any good.
Because we don’t own up to what we have done, we have this guy Andy who I don’t know, telling me in this post that it was God who did with held the priesthood from the blacks, not a mistake by men. So God gave the priesthood and JS’ day, then God took it away in BY’s day, then gave it back in 1978. Yes God is racist, that clears everything up. God wanted us white people to think we are better than those of black skin. That makes perfect sense. Because the brethren have not cleared the air, we have assumed teachings like Andy’s post that many members have adopted to fill in the gap. Because we aren’t more forthcoming, in 2006 GBH had to give a talk about racism to condemn it.
A clear statement from our leaders to acknowledge what happened begins the healing process, paints a better picture of our past (warts and all) and is more honest. This would be extending an olive branch to our black brothers and sisters and I good way of mourning with those that mourn. This will also insure that this will never happen again to any other group. I see only good by telling a better history. I see only good by acknowledging our mistakes.
Folks,
You’ve all missed the mark…you pigeon holed the decision to allow Blacks to recieve the proesthood as the Brethren’s decison. It was the Lords.(period). End of discussion. I don’t think any of us are in the position to apologize for Him?
We are not privy to His decison making nor His reasons. There are things in the Lord’s church that aren’t rational. Either you sustain the Brethren or you don’t. There is no middle ground; which is what you are trying to create here. Good luck with that.
We are fortunate to live in the Last Days when prophecies, miracles, scriptures, & saving ordinances are all available to get us back to our Heavenly Parents. Go to the Temple and really listen to the coventants you make in the Endowment session; and you’ll reconsider this dribble. Sacrifice may entail NOT getting a full explanantion as to the Lord’s mysterious ways. Ever thought the Brethren really don’t know the reason for the changes made over the years; but we have to sustain the actions.
God Bless you in your journeys along the strait and narrow path. I believe you may be slightly loosening your grip on the iron rod here.
I’m going to have to disagree with you Andy. You say that it was the Lords decision, period. The evidence points to the contrary. The evidence points to it being a racist policy implemented by men. I am not judging those men because it was a different era and they had a different understanding. But what you must not forget is that while Christ is at the head of the church, it is being run by men. Men who are fallible and make mistakes. The Lord allows us to make these mistakes and to grow. Is the gospel perfect? Yes. Is the church perfect? No. But it is improving and evolving as we gain better understanding.
As for the church needing to make full reparations and apologies, I don’t think so, as Hagoth pointed out in previous comments. But I am pleased to see the direction the church is heading and to see the change and progress that is occurring. There is much to encourage us that the brethren are abandoning some of their dogmatic policies and instead are trying to think of what Christ would do/want.
My personal feeling is that current leadership of an organization such as the LDS church has a moral obligation to fully acknowledge and make amends for the negative impact of erroneous teachings, practices and behavior of prior leadership. End of story. I’m not certain if the updates in the scriptures are the place to do this. And it doesn’t look like that was ever the intent of the leadership when making these changes anyway. So I’m not quite sure what to say about that.
As a matter of general principle, however, when a current leadership of an organization (or members of a family) fully acknowledge the wrong doing and erroneous thinking and behavior of its forerunners, then real change and progress can occur. Without full disclosure and acknowledgement true change cannot happen. This is central to the doctrine of repentance. (and organizational change)
Negative effects of said forerunners’ actions don’t disappear just because a change in behavior has occurred. The after-effects continue “unto the third and fourth generation” if you believe certain portions of the D&C. So, I agree with you Paul. Repentance and true change never includes hedging or vague references to either past or present harmful behavior or practices.
I also agree that it is impossible for the present leadership (or family descendants) to “repent” for predecessor’s behavior. Only for the portion they themselves have inherited and continue to perpetuate.
Good post. Interesting discussion.
As a Latino member of the Lord’s Church I have been called terrible names and persecuted by my fellow Brothers and Sisters of all skin colors (those not members of this Church too).
What has been the result? Forgiveness. Now these Brothers and Sisters as they have gotten to know me have become my friends. They now look beyond my nationality. I have never asked for apologies, I just serve and love them.
I am white, with brown hair and light brown eyes. So I could never figure out why I was treated so badly by some. My paternal grandmother had green eyes and so do many of my family. I have cousins with red hair!
It so happens that a cousin married a Nigerian young man and their little girl has colored skin, she is beautiful!
I NEVER BLAME THE LORD OR HIS SERVANTS. I never blame the Lord for the horrible things I experienced during war, the horrible torture, the physical pain, you see He went through much worse.
The Lord and His Gospel has helped me tremendously. As stated all of us are not perfect and we are all learning. Never ever talk badly of our Prophets, because we will never be led astray by the Living Prophet as President Woodruff said.
If you continue to follow the Lord and feast upon His word, He will reveal to you personally all you are searching for.
All the best Amigos. I AM SO EXCITED TO PURCHASE THE 2013 EDITION OF THE WORD OF THE LORD.
I am thankful for the missionaries that knocked on my door and taught me about my ancestors in El Libro De Mormon, and about the Prophet Joseph whom I love and respect, as I do our current Prophet.
Take care amigos and hugs to you all. May you be blessed in all things spiritual. The Spirit will lead you to answers as you search with faith, nothing wavering.
I think it’s brilliant that the church now acknowledges the fact that Joseph Smith ordained blacks to the priesthood, and in the pages of the scriptures no less.
I think this is a huge step towards being more transparent with historical problems. We have something there, in our standard works, which calls into question the whole fallacy regarding the infallibility of the brethren, and it relates to a big issue that has been a stumbling block for many, including myself. This is a big deal.
I think Paul, we have to be grateful for small pieces of progress and not think that the church is just going to turn 180 degrees and start being completely open about historical problems. Unfortunately that’s not going to happen, for a number of reasons. We may slowly get there though, bit by bit.