"Forceful repudiation" of priesthood ban? ....

[_Sethbag]

Also, I don't recall any forceful repudiation of the priesthood ban at all. I do recall a forceful repudiation of racism, but not the ban.

I guess the church gets to be right on this one if they equate the ban with racism, such that the forceful repudiation of racism covers the ban as well, but I doubt they really want to go there.

[_Bob Loblaw]

I read it that way too. We'll be just like God, except that we won't have our own planet/galaxy/universe/whatever. Which is a total reversal and backpedal from what was taught forever in the church.

I really don't get what is motivating some Mormons in the CoB to backpedal on the whole elevation to Godhood belief - with all that that entails. They now imagine LDS doctrine positing a "Godhood Lite" concept, ie: God's attributes, but not live and do what God does now, over our own domains. Not only is that a reversal of what was taught in the past, but it's also a dilution of the promises made. They aren't adding incentives to Mormons, they're removing them IMHO.

Apparently someone thinks this will make Mormon doctrine less heretical to mainstream Protestants. Whatever.

Whatever they tell the press and the outside world, the established doctrines are still taught in the church's scriptures and manuals. This may be a case of them saying what they want the outside to believe while reassuring the members that they aren't backing off doctrines. I seem to recall GBH doing exactly the same thing.

[_bcspace]

The Church has already escaped criticism of the past. Despite their best attempts, no one but a few anti Mormons and other idiots and lunatics are seriously worried about it and the Church continues to gain mainstream acceptance.

You're living proof that Rollo is right. As long as people like you are out there making excuses for racism--or flat out denying it--the church will have to deal with its racists doctrines and their defenders.

Well, no. The reality is that the worst criticisms of the Church carry no weight and when people look into that, they typically come away feeling better about the Church. It hasn't, nor has it ever had, any racist doctrines. It's only a few suffering from cog-dis that have trouble mentally processing reality that the Church is not not what they claim it to be. The fruits of the Church also put the lie into many criticisms and these lies and yellow journalism turn many people off. Defenders of the Church have also generally done a good job deflecting the issues with reasonable arguments.

The only serious criticism of the Church that is true is that it's doctrine is conservative. But considering the abject and absolute failure of liberalism in every age of the world, it's hardly something we need to worry about.

[_bcspace]

Whatever they tell the press and the outside world, the established doctrines are still taught in the church's scriptures and manuals.

It's official publications, yes. However, the Newsroom is also an official publication.

This may be a case of them saying what they want the outside to believe while reassuring the members that they aren't backing off doctrines. I seem to recall GBH doing exactly the same thing.

Notice that the Newsroom can be and is read by members as well.

[_Bob Loblaw]

Well, no. The reality is that the worst criticisms of the Church carry no weight and when people look into that, they typically come away feeling better about the Church. It hasn't, nor has it ever had, any racist doctrines. It's only a few suffering from cog-dis that have trouble mentally processing reality that the Church is not not what they claim it to be. The fruits of the Church also put the lie into many criticisms and these lies and yellow journalism turn many people off. Defenders of the Church have also generally done a good job deflecting the issues with reasonable arguments.

What planet do you live on?

The only serious criticism of the Church that is true is that it's doctrine is conservative.

How do you define "conservative"? I am politically conservative but recognize racism. Denial does not change the church's racist past.

But considering the abject and absolute failure of liberalism in every age of the world, it's hardly something we need to worry about.

Why would a conservative like me care about the failure of "liberalism" (another nebulous definition)? Thomas Jefferson was a liberal. Did he fail?

[_brade]

Well, no. The reality is that the worst criticisms of the Church carry no weight and when people look into that, they typically come away feeling better about the Church. It hasn't, nor has it ever had, any racist doctrines. It's only a few suffering from cog-dis that have trouble mentally processing reality that the Church is not not what they claim it to be. The fruits of the Church also put the lie into many criticisms and these lies and yellow journalism turn many people off. Defenders of the Church have also generally done a good job deflecting the issues with reasonable arguments.

bcspace, will you please represent what you believe is the most serious criticism of the church and represent defenders' reasonable argument against that criticism?

[_Racer]

The Church can never escape its past racism unless it repudiates everything and, at the same time, apologize for the Church's racist past

The Church has already escaped criticism of the past. Despite their best attempts, no one but a few anti Mormons and other idiots and lunatics are seriously worried about it and the Church continues to gain mainstream acceptance.

No it hasn't or it wouldn't be constantly brought up in all of these "outsider" media stories. The church will never escape this because they keep circumnavigating this issue. Despite your acceptance of the leader's explanations. The majority of society reads the past authoritive quotes concerning race and just scoffs when the PR dept and leaders keep saying "Gee we don't know why this went down this way. It's anyone's guess, but the Lord's. We accept blacks now, and we really have amnesia about what our prophets said in the past. In fact, if any of these quotes are brought up, we'll just refer to it as folklore."

C'mon BC, cut us some slack. The world isn't buying what the church is selling on this matter. The church dug this hole, and rather than dig themselves out of it, they have chosen to cry fowl, obsfucate, or just plain get upset when anyone reminds them of the hole they dug.

in real life I do marketing and PR. It's my job to clean up messes and keep reputations intact and positive. The church is getting it wrong here, in regards to PR 101. All they need to do is admit they were wrong and apologize, and this will rarely ever be brought up again. Official statements and public apologies work 99% of the time and people accept and move on. All it would take is a simple paragraph like this:

"in the past our leaders made ugly divisive remarks about blacks that may have caused unneeded suffering within the communities. We believe these remarks were misguided and wrong. We apologize for the errors of our past leaders and refute these teachings on the African race. These remarks no matter how well intended were unacceptable. Although our past is rocky concerning racism, our present is not. We are a global church and we welcome and rejoice in the diversity that all races and cultures bring to our organization. It makes us stronger and we are better for it. We believe that all races and cultures are equal in the eyes of god, and that he loves all of them."

Compare that statement with: "Doi... We don't know why this happened. We don't know why our leaders said what they said, all we know is that blacks are equal in the church today and we are really happy about that. Doi..."

[_RockSlider]

Hey Racer, not necessarily over the issue of the ban/blacks, but It seems I've heard the reasoning behind not admitting/apologizing over anything is a purely LDS inc (Corporation of the First Presidency) issue.
i.e. they fear possible law suits.
Is this possible?

[_Shulem]

The Church is an ever changing organization. It's NOT the same church from generation to generation. Through the generations it has new people and new doctrines to suit their needs.

1. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints under Brigham Young

2. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints 1949

3. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints 2012

These are three completely different churches. Brigham Young's church would never support today's church. The 1949 church would never go back to Brigham's church. And thus we see that Mormonism is a religion that transforms itself through the generations. Today's church doesn't want to be responsible for the sins of yesterday's church.

Paul O

[_Themis]

Well, no. The reality is that the worst criticisms of the Church carry no weight and when people look into that, they typically come away feeling better about the Church. It hasn't, nor has it ever had, any racist doctrines. It's only a few suffering from cog-dis that have trouble mentally processing reality that the Church is not not what they claim it to be. The fruits of the Church also put the lie into many criticisms and these lies and yellow journalism turn many people off. Defenders of the Church have also generally done a good job deflecting the issues with reasonable arguments.

The only serious criticism of the Church that is true is that it's doctrine is conservative. But considering the abject and absolute failure of liberalism in every age of the world, it's hardly something we need to worry about.

We can always count on bcspace to tell you black is white and white is black. I can only imagine the damage this guy could do if he was in-charge of the church's PR.