Comments on: What can repair the church’s race relations?

By: Joey A Jones

Joey A Jones — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 03:29:58 +0000

I have to admit, it was a good try. Many have tried to understand the priesthood ban and i don’t think it will ever as long as people try to find good in evil.
I suppose Hitler done some good thing for the Jews before the Holocaust also. There are many the even say that the Mormons were good, kind and gentle slave owners. I suppose none of them had a whip. I find that ironic too.
If what you say is true, why isn’t there one drop of evidence in Temple Square?
Why isn’t there one picture of a black person in Temple Square?
I have been there about 10 times thinking that one day it might change. All the church history that exists and is showcased in Temple Square, there isn’t one wall or one corner with one black person. I am sure there are about 1000 paintings, murals, and photos but there isn’t a painting, mural, or photo of one black person. The day the church become more diverse will be the day I believe that the LDS church is sincere. For some reason I get the impression that heaven won’t have any black people.

0 likes

By: Hellmut

Hellmut — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 12:32:22 +0000

Exactly. Matt has also identified the biggest obstacle to reform.

If the brethren undermine claims of revelation and divine authority with apologies, members will reduce the level of their sacrifice.

In plain English, that will mean that the LDS Church will collect less tithing.

0 likes

By: Matt

Matt — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 04:16:07 +0000

I have to say that my only real problem with this is, unforunately, the crux of Mormonism’s claim to validity and authority: that such claim, as human as you and I know them to be, are made from the position of the supreme mind of the universe. And though these are often watered-down with “glass darkly” type caveats, they nevertheless command godly respect. This I can neither forgive nor forget. It is not my right to excuse or explain or in any week seek to minimize such claims as merely human failing.

You claim to speak for god and right or wrong you’ve introduced the inhuman as justification for the inhumane.

0 likes

By: tn trap

tn trap — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 20:00:49 +0000

I agree, the answer is make an actual apology: admit the mistakes, false doctrine, and make an apology. Would that really harm the church? Who would fall away because of it? For a church that believes so much in continuing revelation, we (or some of us) are rather afraid of continuing revelation. To continue to defer to PR fears is small minded and unbecoming.

0 likes

By: aerin

aerin — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 18:49:44 +0000

I was going to mention my prior post on BY here, but saw the shout out. Thanks Andrew.

I believe there are two competing pressures here. (Which may be what is being said here, I don’t know). 1 – this religion or belief system is evangelical. The LDS church seeks to convert the entire world to the LDS faith. In trying to convert the world, it tries to put its best foot forward. It claims to bring the one true path to happiness and to be the restored gospel of Jesus Christ.

2 – Competing with that is the comment Andrew quoted above. The LDS church currently doesn’t need to make any changes or address any of its critics. It only does those things in its own time. That process is not transparent and difficult to follow at best.

The LDS church, an individual, whomever can’t have it both ways IMO. You can’t attempt to convert the world and not incorporate feedback and change. Your message will not be heard – because of exclusionary tactics.

The nature of that feedback might come from current members or former members or outsiders. Eventually, this will change or need to change. I’m not saying that the LDS church will implode or no longer be around. I’m just saying that I don’t think this model will be functional for much longer.

I don’t know a great deal about the Amish – but their community (for example) has been able to remain unchanged over many decades. The difference is – they have a method of incorporating some changes AND are not trying to convert others (as far as I know).

0 likes

By: Hellmut

Hellmut — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 13:30:03 +0000

Aboz makes a good point but it is analytically wrong footed.

The Church does not make any decisions. It takes no action. The Church is an institution that structures actions of human beings.

The Brethren are making decisions, many of which hurt the Church, to say nothing of the members.

The Brethren should make more ethical decisions even when it hurts their interests because in the long term, it will strengthen the Church. Without the Church, the Brethren are nothing.

So in the long term, the Brethren have an interest in the well being of the Church.

0 likes

By: Hellmut

Hellmut — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 13:26:06 +0000

Now, I can accept that members will believe crazy, undoctrinal things.

Are you thinking of members such as Thomas Monson, Gordon Hinckley, Boyd Packer, Bruce McConkie, Brigham Young, or Joseph Smith?

0 likes

By: chanson

chanson — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 06:17:05 +0000

This is an excellent explanation of what’s wrong with the LDS church refusing to make any official, doctrinal statements about controversial LDS teachings. If Aboz is a faithful Mormon, then that comment is jaw-droppingly honest when it comes to the church’s priority on PR. The one point I’d take issue with is the claim that “there is only historical evidence and good logical conclusion from those evidences.” There aren’t spcific conclusions (on doctrinal issues) that follow clearly from the evidence — that’s the whole point. There is only expedience.

0 likes

By: Jonathan Blake

Jonathan Blake — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 00:50:33 +0000

Yeah, I would feel better if the LDS community would spend less time playing the apologist and for the church to offer a sincere apology. Really, that’s all.

They’ve painted themselves into a corner where they can’t repent without losing face, so they’re going with a tried-and-true strategy of ignore, ignore, ignore, profess ignorance, and delay until people forget, like what has been done with Adam-God or the commandment to practice polygamy in D&C 132. We’ll see how well that works in an internet world.

0 likes

By: Steve M

Steve M — Sun, 15 Mar 2009 21:04:31 +0000

I’m not sure that the solution is for the Church to come up with some systematic way of differentiating “official” from “unofficial” doctrine. Mormonism is already legalistic enough. And in the abstract, the idea of rejecting creeds (as expounded by Joseph Smith) sounds great. I think there is value in keeping a relatively narrow canon of official doctrine.

The problem, in my opinion, has more to do with the combination of an ambiguous canon with widespread unwillingness to second-guess or disagree with church leaders, past and present. Since General Authority pronouncements are given a strong, almost irrebuttable presumption of validity, virtually everything they say constitutes quasi-official doctrine. Deference to leaders is so strong that controversial or unenlightened General Authority statements are only classified as “unofficial” long after the fact, and only when it is necessary to do so. Even then, the statements are seldom contradicted.

The result is that, rather than facilitating diversity of belief, Mormonism’s amorphous canon acts like a black hole, drawing in nearly every crazy notion ever uttered by a General Authority.

And so the 21st century Church finds itself in a difficult position. The commonsense solution to its race problems would be to officially (and specifically) renounce the Priesthood Ban, as well as all of the terrible folk doctrines that were used to justify it over the years. But that would clash with the Mormon practice of not contradicting those revered as prophets.

And so, in my view, the only real solution would be to reduce the authoritarian aspects of Mormonism and try to remove the stigma associated with dissent. Until or unless that step is taken, I don’t see how the LDS Church can ever come to terms with, much less rectify, its past blunders.

0 likes