A formal apology...

[_why me]

Because it is quite clearly inappropriate for a bunch of white people associated with an institution that had racist policies at a time when it had an entirely white leadership to apologize to black people for those policies.

As whyme points out so tellingly (thanks for letting me see his post!), the only people who need to apologize are black people associated with the institution that had racist policies. White people certainly shouldn't try to get in on their act.

.

The point I was trying to make is that it is the active black members who are in positions of leadership with the support of black active members have the right to ask for an apology. Not exmos who have an agenda. Active Black people do not need to apologize but they can ask the church for an apology. But so far, there is no organized group requesting such an apology.

[_Drifting]

Because it is quite clearly inappropriate for a bunch of white people associated with an institution that had racist policies at a time when it had an entirely white leadership to apologize to black people for those policies.

As whyme points out so tellingly (thanks for letting me see his post!), the only people who need to apologize are black people associated with the institution that had racist policies. White people certainly shouldn't try to get in on their act.

.

The point I was trying to make is that it is the active black members who are in positions of leadership with the support of black active members have the right to ask for an apology. Not exmos who have an agenda. Active Black people do not need to apologize but they can ask the church for an apology. But so far, there is no organized group requesting such an apology.

How big does the group of blacks have to be? One, three, seven, fifty?
Do they need to be in an official Church sanctioned and recognised group?
Does organised mean appointing a leader with a title?
Should Priesthood Holding whites with black friends stay right out of it?

What would be the tipping point, in your world, that would make an apology from the Church necessary?

[_Chap]

And of course the key to the whole LDS theology of sin is 'Move on'. Don't waste time feeling guilty, repenting, and making amends to those you have hurt. Move on. Those you have hurt need to move on too, and apologies from you will only hold them back.

Should the Church have admitted blacks to the priesthood before 1978, or would have have been detrimental to them (and persons of all other races) to have aligned themselves with a cultic and corrupt priesthood?

In order to find the racist policies of organization X reprehensible, it is by no means required that one should think it a good idea that people should join organization X. It is only required that one should think that if people wanted to join organization X they should not be disabled from so doing on grounds of race.

(But Yahoo Bot knew that. He just had to say something for the team.)

[_Yahoo Bot]

Might you answer my question? I don't accept your proposition. I'll bet you don't answer my question.

I think it a legitimate question but so many here are afraid to respond to my challenges, including you.

Look at it this way. Many of us in the church admit that the policy was, for all intents and purposes, racist. I am among those. I have expressed many times my beliefs as to how the doctrine, and it was a doctrine, arose and why it was changed.

As a historian, I might want to comment upon the fact that a religion excluded blacks and other races from their priesthood.

But to browbeat believers over the issue, on the one hand, and to deride the religion as a cult and the product of a con-man is another thing. Seems, under that analysis, it would have been a far better thing if blacks (or persons of any other race) had as little to do with the Church as possible.

Your repeated browbeating and fingerpointing is a rather senseless waste of time, and really counterproductive. But, you are not alone. Even the mods browbeat good members here over their beliefs in Jesus, "free speech" notwithstanding. But, there are so many fine and good members of the church who very much believe in Jesus Christ and try and follow Him, and are goodhearted and kind. This isn't like browbeating the Ku Klux Klan or the Nazis.

[_Darth J]

And of course the key to the whole LDS theology of sin is 'Move on'. Don't waste time feeling guilty, repenting, and making amends to those you have hurt. Move on. Those you have hurt need to move on too, and apologies from you will only hold them back.

Should the Church have admitted blacks to the priesthood before 1978, or would have have been detrimental to them (and persons of all other races) to have aligned themselves with a cultic and corrupt priesthood?

I think that the food at Del Taco sucks.

Therefore, I cannot say it is racist for Del Taco to refuse to serve black people.

[_Darth J]

But, there are so many fine and good members of the church who very much believe in Jesus Christ and try and follow Him, and are goodhearted and kind. This isn't like browbeating the Ku Klux Klan or the Nazis.

Angela Merkel has never killed any Jews.

Therefore, the Third Reich was not racist.

[_Drifting]

it would have been a far better thing if blacks (or persons of any other race) had as little to do with the Church as possible.

Yes...yes it would...

[_Chap]

Might you answer my question? I don't accept your proposition. I'll bet you don't answer my question.

Your question was:

Should the Church have admitted blacks to the priesthood before 1978, or would have have been detrimental to them (and persons of all other races) to have aligned themselves with a cultic and corrupt priesthood?

I responded:

In order to find the racist policies of organization X reprehensible, it is by no means required that one should think it a good idea that people should join organization X. It is only required that one should think that if people wanted to join organization X they should not be disabled from so doing on grounds of race.

(But Yahoo Bot knew that. He just had to say something for the team.)

You don't seem to think that my response was adequate. So let me look at what you said again, and I suspect that you think your klller question is this bit:

would [it?] have have been detrimental to them (and persons of all other races) to have aligned themselves with a cultic and corrupt priesthood.

As you know, no-one is obliged to accept the terms in which a question is put to them without demur. In particular, I hope you won't insist on the 'cultic and corrupt' bit - those words aren't mine, and I am under no obligation to accept them as a descriptor of the LDS priesthood just because you use them.

But what I would say is this:

(a) As for joining religious organizations of whatever kind, I think it has to be up to each individual to decide what organizations do them good, so long as they do no harm to others. It would therefore be up to black, brown, yellow and pink people to decide for themselves whether joining the priesthood of the CoJCoLDS was a good thing to do.

(b) I'd like that choice to join the LDS priesthood be just as open to black people as to people of other colors, even if I probably would not want to join myself.

[_Chap]

And of course the key to the whole LDS theology of sin is 'Move on'. Don't waste time feeling guilty, repenting, and making amends to those you have hurt. Move on. Those you have hurt need to move on too, and apologies from you will only hold them back.

Should the Church have admitted blacks to the priesthood before 1978, or would have have been detrimental to them (and persons of all other races) to have aligned themselves with a cultic and corrupt priesthood?

I think that the food at Del Taco sucks.

Therefore, I cannot say it is racist for Del Taco to refuse to serve black people.

That puts it much more neatly than I did.

[Guest]

As you know, no-one is obliged to accept the terms in which a question is put to them without demur. In particular, I hope you won't insist on the 'cultic and corrupt' bit - those words aren't mine, and I am under no obligation to accept them as a descriptor of the LDS priesthood just because you use them.

But what I would say is this:

(a) As for joining religious organizations of whatever kind, I think it has to be up to each individual to decide what organizations do them good, so long as they do no harm to others. It would therefore be up to black, brown, yellow and pink people to decide for themselves whether joining the priesthood of the CoJCoLDS was a good thing to do.

(b) I'd like that choice to join the LDS priesthood be just as open to black people as to people of other colors, even if I probably would not want to join myself.

A very poor imitation of a Jesuit. Hey, I'd answer your questions as put. Reframing questions to one's liking is to show fear.

Darth and Drifting answered, one with a witty joke and the other with a real response. But, yours was a handwringer, right on. More more to the courageous!