DanielPeterson Andrew Hall
7 hours ago
Andrew Hall: "I have a firm testimony in the Restored Gospel, but I also have no doubt that prophets and apostles have made mistakes in the past. It seems clear to me that the priesthood and temple restrictions were the saddest of those mistakes. I don't demand an apology from anyone, I leave that to the prophets. But in general I think apologies are a morally good thing to do, regardless of any concern about efficacy in dampening criticism or grievances."
My concern is that we not apologize for things that we don't know to have been mistakes. And, glad as I am to see it far in the past, I, at least, don't know the pre-1978 priesthood and temple restriction to have been mistaken.
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeters ... nough.html
Peterson still supports the Priesthood Ban. As do many other members. They will continue to do so unless or until a member of the First Presidency acknowledges it as a mistake, apologises, and removes or specifically fully disavows the racist parts of the Book of Mormon (see below). Until then, passive racists like Peterson will proliferate the Church.
2nd Nephi, Chapter 5
21 And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.
3rd Nephi, Chapter 2
14 And it came to pass that those Lamanites who had united with the Nephites were numbered among the Nephites;
15 And their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites;
16 And their young men and their daughters became exceedingly fair, and they were numbered among the Nephites, and were called Nephites. And thus ended the thirteenth year.
These verses are not addressed in the teaching manuals of the Church. In fact, they are blatantly avoided. This creates the vacuum for members who wish to continue believing that dark skin was a sign of disfavour in the eyes of God and that the Priesthood Ban wasn't a mistake, but was/is doctrinal. People will point to the essay "Race and the Priesthood", but as one regular poster on the previous iteration of this board ("moinmoin" who was a serving Bishop) stated, essays are just pr spin for the masses, written with a knowing wink. That essay is unsigned, non doctrinal, and does not trump the scriptures above.
Excerpt from "Race & The Priesthood"
Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse...
If the Church meant that disavowing, then those racist passages in the Book of Mormon would have been removed, or at the very least specifically and unequivically addressed within the teaching curriculums. Neither is the case. Point in case - despite such a clear disavowing in Race & The Priesthood, Peterson still holds on to the Priesthood Ban as not a mistake, not something that needs an apology, not something that has been disavowed. The Church has conscientiously left space for the racists and the white supremacists to continue seeing their disgusting views and beliefs are in line with Church views and beliefs.