Darron Smith

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by ChinoCoug

None of this has stopped Africa from being the current hotbed of conversion. I came into contact with all major races on my mission, and blacks are by far the group most able to hear the Shepherd's voice.

This has been my experience as well as the experience of virtually everyone I've talked to that has gone on a mission to Africa, Europe or parts of the US where there are higher concentrations of African-Americans.

There is a AA member that joined the church a year ago in our branch. He said that the church's stance pre-1978 didn't matter to him during his conversion because

1. He had an undeniable spiritual witness that the church was true
2. It was a thing of the past

Sure, there are plenty of black converts that aren't completely up to speed on this issue, but I don't think this brother's attitude/experience is all that atypical either.

[Goatnapper'96]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

This has been my experience as well as the experience of virtually everyone I've talked to that has gone on a mission to Africa, Europe or parts of the US where there are higher concentrations of African-Americans.

There is a AA member that joined the church a year ago in our branch. He said that the church's stance pre-1978 didn't matter to him during his conversion because

1. He had an undeniable spiritual witness that the church was true
2. It was a thing of the past

Sure, there are plenty of black converts that aren't completely up to speed on this issue, but I don't think this brother's attitude/experience is all that atypical either.

Call it what you want but the fact is that the policy has changed. That is what should matter, in fact can't that be the tacit mea culpa admittance that it was wrong in the first place? I find the calls for "apology" rooted more in the time and effort some have spent researching the topic and self-dubbing themselves "sooooooooooooooo-JERS!" in this war. I feel that perhaps they are motivated by pride and such an apology proves that they were right. In my opinion what is right has already happened.

Much like Chino an apology wouldn't bother me, I just don't think it is relevent when the policy no longer exists and hasn't for 30 years. But it is important to note that the historians have usurped the Prophets on this subject.....those watchmen on the towers need to turn their damn towers in the other direction, damnedit!

[Indy Coug]

Somewhat ironically, a 16 year old Dominican in our branch stopped coming to church because (he claims) he found out about the church and polygamy. For whatever reason, that bothers him more than blacks and the priesthood.

[SoCalCoug]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

There is a AA member that joined the church a year ago in our branch. He said that the church's stance pre-1978 didn't matter to him during his conversion because

1. He had an undeniable spiritual witness that the church was true
2. It was a thing of the past

I think the concern is for those for whom this might be an issue. Not for those for whom it isn't.

How many black people failed to join the church in your branch because of the church's pre-1978 stance?

Rhetorical question - of course there's no way to know. But isn't that sort of the point?

I think the real question is how many black people refuse to ever listen to the missionaries in the first place because they know it's a racist church because of the pre-1978 stance?

My feeling is that horse has already left the barn, and an apology wouldn't have a huge effect on the general feeling. However, it might have an effect on a few, and isn't that worth it?

Also, I believe an apology is the right thing, and isn't that worth it?

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by ERCougar

I'm now firmly in Adam and SU's camp--the Church should (and will, IMO) issue a formal apology to African-Americans for the priesthood exclusion rule and the racist statements of some of its leaders.

Come on. A lot more people than Adam and SU are in that camp and have been for a long time.

[ERCougar]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Come on. A lot more people than Adam and SU are in that camp and have been for a long time.

Sorry. As you know, I haven't been around here long and they just seem to be the most vocal about it. I certainly didn't mean Adam and SU as an exhaustive list--I realize there are probably plenty of others who feel this way.

Goat and Chino--this has nothing to do with me being a watchman. Like you, before I heard the interview, I didn't feel too passionately about it. Like you say, it IS in the past, and the policy reversal is sort of a tacit admission of error. However, listening to a black member who really loves the Gospel and the church but feels very strongly about this particular issue, and is in touch with a whole community of members who feel the same way (which I doubt can be said for most of us) changed my mind on this one.

Again, from a practical point of view, there's huge upside with little or no downside.

[Goatnapper'96]

Originally Posted by ERCougar

Sorry. As you know, I haven't been around here long and they just seem to be the most vocal about it. I certainly didn't mean Adam and SU as an exhaustive list--I realize there are probably plenty of others who feel this way.

Goat and Chino--this has nothing to do with me being a watchman. Like you, before I heard the interview, I didn't feel too passionately about it. Like you say, it IS in the past, and the policy reversal is sort of a tacit admission of error. However, listening to a black member who really loves the Gospel and the church but feels very strongly about this particular issue, and is in touch with a whole community of members who feel the same way (which I doubt can be said for most of us) changed my mind on this one.

Again, from a practical point of view, there's huge upside with little or no downside.

I think the upside is that it could bring peace to Darron Smith and others who share his passion about this subject. However, I wonder how much of their peace would be the result of being proven "right." The right actions have already occurred in my opinion.

[BYU71]

Maybe we should get a list together and they could apologize for everything at once.

Polygamy, withholding the Priesthood, teaching birth control was evil, announcing man would not walk on the moon, having a Prophet who was supportive of the John Birch society.

Maybe they could even apologize in advance for women not having the Priesthood and being against gay marriage.

I am sure you can think of others.

Why isn't a change good enough as an apology.

Most people want an apology as a way to have something to further attack with. An apology would mean nothing to folks like SU and Waters. You honestly think an apology would shut them up on the issue.

[SoCalCoug]

Originally Posted by BYU71

Why isn't a change good enough as an apology.

Is that what you teach your children? That when they do something that hurts someone else, there's no need for an apology if they've stopped hurting them?

[BYU71]

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

Is that what you teach your children? That when they do something that hurts someone else, there's no need for an apology if they've stopped hurting them?

My children don't run major organizations and there aren't a myriad of ramifications to that organization.

If my children were evangelicals and through years and years they knocked and ripped the mormon church and eventually joined the church, I wouldn't expect them to send a formal apology to the church.