THE APOLOGY ABOUT RACISM IS FAKE NEWS

[jadd]

https://www.sltrib.com/news/2018/05/17/ ... of-racism/

[kittycat51]

Salt Lake Tribune can take a hike if you ask me.

[Hie'ing to Kolob]

Sad that someone would mess with people on such a painful issue.

The trib goes on to quote Elder Oaks with a helpful insight into how we can know if an apology from the church is legitimate (spoiler alert: the Church doesn't apologize)...

"Dallin H. Oaks, first counselor in the First Presidency, famously remarked in 2015 that the church does not give or seek out apologies. He later reiterated that point in an interview with The Salt Lake Tribune, remarking that the word “apology” does not appear in the LDS scriptural canon. 

"We sometimes look back on issues and say, 'Maybe that was counterproductive for what we wish to achieve,' ” Oaks said at the time, “but we look forward and not backward.""

[Finrock]

Sad that someone would mess with people on such a painful issue.

The trib goes on to quote Elder Oaks with a helpful insight into how we can know if an apology from the church is legitimate (spoiler alert: the Church doesn't apologize)...

"Dallin H. Oaks, first counselor in the First Presidency, famously remarked in 2015 that the church does not give or seek out apologies. He later reiterated that point in an interview with The Salt Lake Tribune, remarking that the word “apology” does not appear in the LDS scriptural canon. 

"We sometimes look back on issues and say, 'Maybe that was counterproductive for what we wish to achieve,' ” Oaks said at the time, “but we look forward and not backward.""

If the lay members adopt the same philosophy in their own lives as the leaders are displaying here, is that a good thing? Should we "follow" the example set by our leaders and not give or seek out apologies?

-Finrock

[Robin Hood]

Of course it's fake.
The church has nothing to apologise for.

[Hie'ing to Kolob]

Of course it's fake.
The church has nothing to apologise for.

Not sure if you are being sarcastic or not.

I think Elder Oaks is saying its not even an option for the Church to apologize even if it were to be wrong. This of course is based in the notion that the Church has only acted in exactly the way the Lord has directed. The level of obediance to the Brethren asked of members requires absolute infallibility. Otherwise, people will question a lot of things, current, past, and future.

[Robin Hood]

Of course it's fake.
The church has nothing to apologise for.

Not sure if you are being sarcastic or not.

Not.

[Tbone]

Of course it's fake.
The church has nothing to apologise for.

Not sure if you are being sarcastic or not.

I think Elder Oaks is saying its not even an option for the Church to apologize even if it were to be wrong. This of course is based in the notion that the Church has only acted in exactly the way the Lord has directed. The level of obediance to the Brethren asked of members requires absolute infallibility. Otherwise, people will question a lot of things, current, past, and future.

It doesn't require absolute infallibility. It only requires the members to fulfill their part of the covenant when they promise to sustain them, knowing their leaders are imperfect. It's the same on a ward level. Sometimes you get a total idiot in a calling or even someone who makes mistakes, but it's not your role to publicly tear them down or dictate how they should do their calling better. This is pretty common sense here.

[Finrock]

So, should we "follow the prophet" and the example of our Church leaders and not be in the business of giving out apologies? When we make a mistake, should we just ignore the collateral damage or the effects our mistake had on others and just "look forwards and not backwards?"

-Finrock

[Tbone]

So, should we "follow the prophet" and the example of our Church leaders and not be in the business of giving out apologies? When we make a mistake, should we just ignore the collateral damage or the effects our mistake had on others and just "look forwards and not backwards?"

-Finrock

Organizational blanket apologies are stupid. No current church leader was around when the priesthood ban was implemented. What do they have to apologize for? I'm not even confident it wasn't the Lord's will. I'm totally with Robin Hood on this one. If some church leaders and early members were racists and implemented some bad policies, then that's on them. The Lord opened the way in 1978. Get over it.

You are a very intelligent person and make some great comments, but I won't comment on your "follow the prophet" remark, other than to say that it's completely infantile.

[Finrock]

So, should we "follow the prophet" and the example of our Church leaders and not be in the business of giving out apologies? When we make a mistake, should we just ignore the collateral damage or the effects our mistake had on others and just "look forwards and not backwards?"

-Finrock

Organizational blanket apologies are stupid. No current church leader was around when the priesthood ban was implemented. What do they have to apologize for? I'm not even confident it wasn't the Lord's will. I'm totally with Robin Hood on this one. If some church leaders and early members were racists and implemented some bad policies, then that's on them. The Lord opened the way in 1978. Get over it.

You are a very intelligent person and make some great comments, but I won't comment on your "follow the prophet" remark, other than to say that it's completely infantile.

I wasn't referring to blanket apologies. When Illinois apologized 160 years later do you think that was stupid? Were any of those people around? Why do you think they offered an apology?

Follow the prophet, he knows the way. The way, according to a modern prophet is to not offer apologies and to just look forward. Consistency would dictate that we follow suite. Special pleading is fallacious.

-Finrock

[Tbone]

So, should we "follow the prophet" and the example of our Church leaders and not be in the business of giving out apologies? When we make a mistake, should we just ignore the collateral damage or the effects our mistake had on others and just "look forwards and not backwards?"

-Finrock

Organizational blanket apologies are stupid. No current church leader was around when the priesthood ban was implemented. What do they have to apologize for? I'm not even confident it wasn't the Lord's will. I'm totally with Robin Hood on this one. If some church leaders and early members were racists and implemented some bad policies, then that's on them. The Lord opened the way in 1978. Get over it.

You are a very intelligent person and make some great comments, but I won't comment on your "follow the prophet" remark, other than to say that it's completely infantile.

I wasn't referring to blanket apologies. When Illinois apologized 160 years later do you think that was stupid? Were any of those people around? Why do you think they offered an apology?

Follow the prophet, he knows the way. The way, according to a modern prophet is to not offer apologies and to just look forward. Consistency would dictate that we follow suite. Special pleading is fallacious.

-Finrock

Did they offer an apology or statement of regret? I see them as very different. I'm from Missouri and am well acquainted with Missouri's statement of regret. It seemed appropriate to recognize that someone in the past did something they shouldn't have. But apologizing for something you didn't do, like Illinois, is pointless.

Again, in regards to follow the prophet: infantile.

[abijah]

The institution of the Church belongs to Christ, and he is perfect. Therefore no man should need to apologise for its inspired teachings and dealings. The only faults in history with the Church are the faults of men; and whoever they are, they will be accountable.

Neither the Lord nor the Church is responsible for the personal sins of any given member or leader, past or present.

[Hie'ing to Kolob]

I fear that refusing facing reality on these issues is damaging to the Church longterm and I am not ignorant to the practical reality that Church leaders must navigate to hold together faith in The Prophet "Knowing the way" and confronting these issues.

I dont envy them trying to satisfy the literal believers (In Prophet doctrinal infallibility) while keeping those frustrated with the avoidance of obvious truth within the LDS tent. Again, I think the Church desperately needs both.

To illustrate my point, 2 below quotes. One from BY on this issue, the other from the current Church leadership. You may be able to twist this into something else, but it appears to me that the Church is condemning earlier doctrine embraced by the Church.

I think what Finrock is saying is that admitting "mistakes have been made" but refusing to apologize for them is not the optimal moral position...

"You must not think, from what I say, that I am opposed to slavery. No! The negro is damned, and is to serve his master till God chooses to remove the curse of Ham."


"Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form."

[Hie'ing to Kolob]

The institution of the Church belongs to Christ, and he is perfect. Therefore no man should need to apologise for its inspired teachings and dealings. The only faults in history with the Church are the faults of men; and whoever they are, they will be accountable.

Neither the Lord nor the Church is responsible for the personal sins of any given member or leader, past or present.

Im not sure I agree entirely with you here but it is a reasonsble position to take. Personal sins of past leaders and resulting impacts on the Church are not the Church's problem but rather the indivuals who are directly responsible for committing/andvancing them. If prior Prophets taught false doctrine why would current prophets apologize for them.

Thought provoking. Thanks for posting.