The purpose of Blacks and the Priesthood ban

[BYU71]

Originally Posted by Tex

Sure it does. Maybe not for the press, or for you, but it should be for the believers.



One of the best things the man ever said.

Only one thing I have to say in answer. How do we know some Prophet won't be saying the same thing about the brethern who are telling people to get in line now.

I don't believe in blind obedience.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Tex

Sure it does. Maybe not for the press, or for you, but it should be for the believers.



One of the best things the man ever said.

Good PR and good control stuff. Perhaps even good policy once a person has individually wrestled with it.

However, it's not persuasive as being the road to truth.

I understand why it's said.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by BYU71

Only one thing I have to say in answer. How do we know some Prophet won't be saying the same thing about the brethern who are telling people to get in line now.

You don't.

Originally Posted by Archaea

Good PR and good control stuff. Perhaps even good policy once a person has individually wrestled with it.

However, it's not persuasive as being the road to truth.

I understand why it's said.

I have no problem if historians want to flesh out the history. By all means. I also have no problem if the church resists it. By all means.

But I see no reason for the church to say any more on the topic than it already has. As far as our doctrine and policies go, the issue is history. It's not our fault if others are unable to let it go.

[MikeWaters]

Implied admission of fault is not the same as admission of fault.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Implied admission of fault is not the same as admission of fault.

This is a modern convention that is not historical in nature. Being part of modern conventions I see why we are forced to comply, but I never understood why the sixties crowd make such a big deal out of public confession.

The reason it has always bothered me, is the ones crying for the confession are sometimes persons with more blood on their hands than those publicly confessing. Then we have savior status for those who forced the confession.

[BYU71]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Implied admission of fault is not the same as admission of fault.

How far do you want them to go Mike. Say it was false doctrine all along. Say it was man made and earlier Prophets were racists.

You have to first agree with those that think prejudice is evil, as racism is.

If I walk down a dark alley and two guys with long hair and tatoo's are coming the other way, I am worried. I am not evil and I don't hate people with long hair. I just have a prejudice that those people who have long hair and tatoos are more likely to hurt me.

If later I find they are less harmful in alleys, do you think I need to make a public apology and proclaim I am a biggot.

What is it you would hope to gain. Why the need to break some people out of their naive thinking as you see it. What is it hurting now.

[BYU71]

Originally Posted by Tex

You don't.



I have no problem if historians want to flesh out the history. By all means. I also have no problem if the church resists it. By all means.

But I see no reason for the church to say any more on the topic than it already has. As far as our doctrine and policies go, the issue is history. It's not our fault if others are unable to let it go.

I agree with you there. The Church has said all it needs too. People can accept it or not. I am not looking to have a friendship or collaboration with anyone who thinks the church is still racist. Such people have open minded issues of their own they need to deal with.

[MikeWaters]

You see there is a big difference between "Ignore the accounts that stated it was just the Indians that killed that wagon train" and "We were there, we organized it, we pulled the trigger, we buried the bodies, we lied and covered up, and had a man executed as the scapegoat."

Big difference in my mind.

Maybe I am one of those weird people like Juanita Brook who think the truth matters.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

You see there is a big difference between "Ignore the accounts that stated it was just the Indians that killed that wagon train" and "We were there, we organized it, we pulled the trigger, we buried the bodies, we lied and covered up, and had a man executed as the scapegoat."

Big difference in my mind.

Maybe I am one of those weird people like Juanita Brook who think the truth matters.

Nice binary presentation and self-lionization.

Either you're on the side of angels as I am, or you're lying,cheating, demonizing scum.

I agree more openness is in order. I agree, but all truths are not equal.

Should we as Christians apologize for the acts of Catholics in China?

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Nice binary presentation and self-lionization.

Either you're on the side of angels as I am, or you're lying,cheating, demonizing scum.

I agree more openness is in order. I agree, but all truths are not equal.

Should we as Christians apologize for the acts of Catholics in China?

would a court of law have held me responsible for those acts, in civil court?

would a court of law held the Mormon church partly civilly responsible for MMM?