Quote:
Originally Posted by UtahDan
I don't think that the point is that much of the membership is satisfied not knowing the answer and feels that it is "behind us". Clearly it does, by and large. The point is that whether you personally feel like it is behind us or not, this issue is an impediment to blacks joining the church and is a stumbling block to some members or potential members.
MMM is behind us too, and yet GBH goes personally to the dedication of a monument at that site, a huge act of consiliation and an acknowledgement that we don't defend what happened there and that we are sorry that it did.
The issue of blacks and the priesthood is thornier becasue there was so much thought process on record by leaders of the church justifying it. But BRM had it right when he said "forget what I said, I was wrong."
People frequently infer a great deal from the silence of the brethren on a multitude of issues, including that they have considered it and chosen not to do anything. The brethren were not focused on the issue of blacks and the priesthood until the culture changed and they were prompted to inquire internally and with the Lord as to whether it was right. We all know what the answer to that was. A generation had to pass away before this could take place.
Similarly, that the roots of this have not been addressed doesn't mean that it might not be nor that it is improper for one to desire that it be addressed. I see nothing wrong with simply saying "we were wrong" or "those leaders were wrong." There is ample precedent for it. MMM as indicated above. Adam-God theory which has (as I recall) been declared not to be the doctrine of the church. Some day a prophet of a different generation may well do that, based in part on the thoughts that were provoked by articles and discussions such as these.
Why would you impute what I percieve to be a selfish or arrogant motivation to SIEQ rather than the one I'm suggesting? Is there a basis for it or is it knee-jerk defensiveness over feeling like the church is under attack?
|
I don't think it's improper to desire that it be addressed. Personally, I would love to hear an official prophetic statement on the topic--mostly so it would go away.
Ultimately, though, missionary work is not about intellectually convincing people to join the church, nor about making the best, most intellectual argument when a concern arises. If it were, we wouldn't be sending out "callow youth," as one reporter called them, to do the work.
An investigator has to decide if he believes that God calls and directs prophets today, despite their failings. Sometimes that includes accepting policies and doctrines we do not understand. Someone considering membership in the church needs to become familiar with the phrase, "some things we just don't know" because we have to use it a lot ... and that includes the blacks issue.
That doesn't mean we can't stop asking. Obviously Spencer Kimball didn't. But it means coming to terms with "things as they really are" rather than substituting explanations that sound very plausible and reasonable, but may ultimately be incorrect.
That's not to say the intellectual persuasion method doesn't work for some people--obviously it does, as Sleeping has pointed out. Good for them. Personally I don't necessarily consider it a good practice, all the same.
As to the motives for keeping a list, I didn't mean to impute it unfairly to Sleeping, and upon re-reading, I see that's how it probably came across. I've known several folks in wards over the years who like to keep a pet list of controversial statements by church authorities, so they can whip it out at the appropriate moment and shock whoever happens to be in the area. (fusnik, anyone?)
Apologies to Sleeping, if this isn't the case.