AMA a positive model and example for LDS Church

[SeattleUte]

Until the 1960's, some AMA Chapters, mostly in the South, excluded blacks and/or limited their leadership opportunities (no, it's not true the whole world was racist until 1978). Tomorrow the AMA will issue a formal apology, over forty years after denouncing these practices.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/heal...yt&oref=slogin

The AMA will apologize even though many chapters were always exemplary on race issues. The AMA felt it needed to apologize to try to purge its racist past.

If the AMA felt it needed to apologize, why not the LDS Church? What's worse, the LDS Church won't even denounce the teachings that led to the priesthood ban. Most Mormons still believe them.

I guess the AMA is a greater moral authority than the LDS Church. Do we need any more proof of this?

[MikeWaters]

Does God direct the AMA?

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Does God direct the AMA?

I'm glad to see you still have a sense of humor.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Does God direct the AMA?

The only possible rationale for the LDS Church not apologizing must be that its prophets and apostles are infallible. They're infallible.

I challenge anyone: Give me another coherent explanation.

Your doctrine is that they are infallible. Ergo, no need to apologize. God made them do it. Is there another possible explanation than this apparent "doctrine of infallibilitiy" of the LDS Church?

[MikeWaters]

I think a parsed apology will eventually come, probably after some of the principals pass on. They won't apologize for the ban, they will apologize for the many hurtful racist statements and beliefs.

I don't know that this wil happen in my lifetime, but if I had to bet, I would bet it does happen in my lifetime.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

The only possible rationale for the LDS Church not apologizing must be that its prophets and apostles are infallible. They're infallible.

I challenge anyone: Give me another coherent explanation.

Your doctrine is that they are infallible. Ergo, no need to apologize. God made them do it. Is there another possible explanation than this apparent "doctrine of infallibilitiy" of the LDS Church?

I don't think all that may here think the Prophet is infallible.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I don't think all that may here think the Prophet is infallible.

Even our most orthodox here do not assert it. We may argue they actually feel that way, but in word, they won't make that statement.

[il Padrino Ute]

You've chosen to leave the fold. Why do you refuse to leave it alone?

Good hell, man, get over it. We get it. You hate the LDS Church. Shut up about it already.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Even our most orthodox here do not assert it.

They would probably also say that they can't rule out the existence of bigfoot. Ergo, they doubt it and will doubt their eyes if they do see it.

[Solon]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

The only possible rationale for the LDS Church not apologizing must be that its prophets and apostles are infallible. They're infallible.

I challenge anyone: Give me another coherent explanation.

Your doctrine is that they are infallible. Ergo, no need to apologize. God made them do it. Is there another possible explanation than this apparent "doctrine of infallibilitiy" of the LDS Church?

I'm of the opinion that this is it. If not "infallible," then "never wrong in terms of leadership." Modern leaders are extremely hesitant to correct even obvious and blatant misstatements of earlier ones, perhaps out of respect, but (in my cynical opinion) more likely because casting doubts on past leaders undermines the position of present leaders.