Did Elder Snow Misrepresent the Truth on National TV

[_Racer]

During the NBC profile on the Church last night on Rock Center with Brian Williams..Elder Scott, Church Historian was asked about the pre-1978 priesthood ban for blacks of African decent. He said..." We don't fully understand the reasons for this doctrine/policy" Really? Even my TBM wife gaged on that one...she sat up right and said...he's not telling the truth...

So what do you make of his statement? Is the church disavowing 138 years of of prophetic pronouncements? What about Bruce McConkies acknowledgement that we should forget everything that has ever been said regarding blacks and the reasons for the priesthood ban...and in so saying acknowledging that there were some pretty biggeted/racist statements made...did he really expect the world to forget the justification of this ban?

They need to fire the PR firm that is telling them to say that. It just makes them look like idiots. You are the leaders of the organization, and you don't know why policies are implemented?

The problem is the opposite. They need to hire a PR firm. Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the church used to use a popular PR firm from NY during the Hinckley days. A few years ago they decided to take it in-house. A big mistake in my opinion because they can no longer benefit from an unbiased party who can correctly tell them how they are really being perceived or viewed, and how they can adjust or improve public perception.

[_Themis]

I joined the LDS Church in the early 70s. I asked about this because it was a big issue for me. Some people tried to give me an explanation, but in the end they always said, "We really don't know why blacks can't hold the priesthood." So I don't think Scott misrepresented what I was taught 40 years ago.

The church started to move more heavily back then to the we don't know why, but the church certainly gave reasons before then which have not been repudiated by the church. What I think Scott is trying to avoid for PR reasons is that the church still very much thinks the ban was instituted by God, and the 1978 revelation makes it clear on this.

[_consiglieri]

I joined the LDS Church in the early 70s. I asked about this because it was a big issue for me. Some people tried to give me an explanation, but in the end they always said, "We really don't know why blacks can't hold the priesthood." So I don't think Scott misrepresented what I was taught 40 years ago.

This is interesting, because I joined the LDS Church in the late 70's, and everybody I encountered on the issue told me exactly why it was the blacks could not hold the priesthood--(a) Blacks were fence sitters during the war in heaven; and/or (b) The curse of Cain prohibited blacks from receiving the priesthood.

The LDS Church has painted itself into a corner by insisting on inerrant leadership while at the same time confronting an obvious change in doctrine/policy.

They want to hew to a middle path of discounting the former reasons given for the ban while at the same time insisting it was inspired.

Ergo, the new mantra of professed ignorance regarding the matter. We know that it was inspired, and we know that the former reasons given are wrong, and we know it certainly wasn't racist, but we have no idea why it was instituted in the first place.

The LDS Church has no clue how that looks to outsiders, and how this issue will never go away as long as they refuse to engage it.

And by engage, I mean owning up to the fact that church leaders are imperfect, can make mistakes, can (and do) bring in their own prejudices into their positions and sometimes incorporate them into policies and practicies--and yes, even doctrine.

Then follow it up by a huge and heartfelt apology for the ban and those it has negatively affected, including all blacks everywhere, together with a celebration of the fact it was renounced in 1978.

Then, and only then, will this issue be behind the LDS Church.

This is what the leaders cannot figure out. They teach repentance to their members but refuse to exercise it themselves.

They teach honesty to their members but have trouble towing the line on their own.

And strangest of all is that the leaders can't figure out how well such a statement would be received by the outside world.

The problem is they are concerned about collateral damage among the rank and file.

If prophets can be wrong about this, what can't they be wrong about?

Hence the corner into which they have painted themselves.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[_TAK]

Nice!
We don't FULLY know why but damn if we are going to apologize ...

[_angsty]

The problem is the opposite. They need to hire a PR firm. Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the church used to use a popular PR firm from NY during the Hinckley days. A few years ago they decided to take it in-house. A big mistake in my opinion because they can no longer benefit from an unbiased party who can correctly tell them how they are really being perceived or viewed, and how they can adjust or improve public perception.

I completely agree. Edelman was a good move and taking it in-house was a huge mistake. It isn't a matter of talent, it's a matter of objectivity. I'm sure all the in-house PR flacks would be very good at representing other organizations, but they don't seem to be able to understand, at all, how they appear to people who don't have a previously-held belief in the church's divine origin and purpose. There's a huge cultural divide which probably isn't readily apparent to insiders, but can be very off-putting to outsiders. They really do need honest outside opinions, especially since they are no longer being led by a relatively-savvy PR professional/prophet.

[_DarkHelmet]

The church just needs BC Space to explain to the world that the ban was not racist because it was based on lineage.

[_Quasimodo]

The church just needs BC Space to explain to the world that the ban was not racist because it was based on lineage.

Imagine the fun if bc were the PR director for the church! I don't think they are actually doing much better.

They seem to get away with those sort of statements with the press (for now). Sooner or later some clever journalist (who has done some research) will come back with "But, didn't the church Prophets say..."

The whole PR effort will collapse.

[_Themis]

This is interesting, because I joined the LDS Church in the late 70's, and everybody I encountered on the issue told me exactly why it was the blacks could not hold the priesthood--(a) Blacks were fence sitters during the war in heaven; and/or (b) The curse of Cain prohibited blacks from receiving the priesthood.

The LDS Church has painted itself into a corner by insisting on inerrant leadership while at the same time confronting an obvious change in doctrine/policy.

They want to hew to a middle path of discounting the former reasons given for the ban while at the same time insisting it was inspired.

Ergo, the new mantra of professed ignorance regarding the matter. We know that it was inspired, and we know that the former reasons given are wrong, and we know it certainly wasn't racist, but we have no idea why it was instituted in the first place.

The LDS Church has no clue how that looks to outsiders, and how this issue will never go away as long as they refuse to engage it.

And by engage, I mean owning up to the fact that church leaders are imperfect, can make mistakes, can (and do) bring in their own prejudices into their positions and sometimes incorporate them into policies and practicies--and yes, even doctrine.

Then follow it up by a huge and heartfelt apology for the ban and those it has negatively affected, including all blacks everywhere, together with a celebration of the fact it was renounced in 1978.

Then, and only then, will this issue be behind the LDS Church.

This is what the leaders cannot figure out. They teach repentance to their members but refuse to exercise it themselves.

They teach honesty to their members but have trouble towing the line on their own.

And strangest of all is that the leaders can't figure out how well such a statement would be received by the outside world.

The problem is they are concerned about collateral damage among the rank and file.

If prophets can be wrong about this, what can't they be wrong about?

Hence the corner into which they have painted themselves.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

+1

[_Cicero]

The problem is they are concerned about collateral damage among the rank and file.

If prophets can be wrong about this, what can't they be wrong about?

Hence the corner into which they have painted themselves.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

This really ticks me off. The Church seems fairly content to let its most prominent apologists disavow the statements of past prophets regarding (among other things): (1) the Adam-God theory, (2) the so-called "hemispheric model" of Book of Mormon geography, (3) the ancestry of Native Americans, (4) moon landings, etc. Yet, the Church won't "officially" disavow any of these things or any prior racist statements (unless you count the change to the Book of Mormon introduction as an "official" disavowal of (3) above). They really are trying to have their cake and eat it too.

[_Drifting]

The church just needs BC Space to explain to the world that the ban was not racist because it was based on lineage.

Imagine the fun if bc were the PR director for the church! I don't think they are actually doing much better.

They seem to get away with those sort of statements with the press (for now). Sooner or later some clever journalist (who has done some research) will come back with "But, didn't the church Prophets say..."

The whole PR effort will collapse.

In all fairness, at least bc comes out and states what he believes. He doesn't hide behind "I don't know" (except when he runs away from questions and threads when he has no answers).

On the Priesthood ban, bcspace believes the doctrine hasn't changed.