The church and race (part 1,000,000,008)

[Cali Coug]

I think I have a pretty solid understanding of racial issues that have plagued the church's history. I attribute many of those issues to racism on the part of church leaders.

While I am deeply bothered by many of the issues that I deem to have been due, at least in part, to racism by church leaders, I still have a firm testimony of the gospel. Why?

I think a big reason is my belief that the church leaders can, and do, err. None of them are infallible. They generally have good intentions, and I believe they are inspired. I also believe they make mistakes like any other human being does and sometimes those mistakes wind up being interpreted as doctrine. I think the priesthood ban is a good example. At the end of the day, I can remain firm in my testimony that the gospel is God's work and the church is His church while still accepting the flaws of the leaders and certain policies of the church.

Over the course of the next 20 years and beyond, the church is going to be subjected to an increasingly powerful microscope. Many racial issues of the past that the church has obscured or skirted will be harder to ignore. Many members will be confronted with many aspects of church history with which they are not familiar. We have talked about this a bit in the context of the utility of "spiritual innoculation."

I think that the concept of "infallibility" of the prophet has seeped into church culture and will make it all the harder for members to accept and understand errors of previous church leaders. Will they leave the church over it, or will they be able to reconcile the history with their faith? If I believed in the Mormon version of infallibility, I don't know that I could still be strong in my faith. Perhaps I would find a way, but it would be a big obstacle for me.

This puts the church in a bit of a bind. On the one hand, the church certainly wants people to listen and to follow the prophet (for good reason). If they teach that the prophet can err, they open the door to schisms and to many of the issues the Catholics face in America (where many issues of doctrine are a matter of taste). On the other hand, if the church teaches that the prophet can never lead people astray, they open the door to questions about church history which will only get bigger and harder to explain.

Thoughts?

[SeattleUte]

I understand you and others here believe LDS Church leaders are fallible. But how can "the only true church" be so consistently laggard on social progress? These are not issues of marginal import. The last 3,000 years have been about resolving issues of social inequality and liberty. Sometimes these issues have involved life and death, sometimes just economic inequality or casting shame or humiliation on a minority group. If you were to sum up what makes the human story resonate, what is its central theme, that would be it.

And the LDS Church, despite being born in America, and its high flown claims, is always slow to awaken to these important developments. I've decided that the LDS Church's entire raison d'etre, and the thing that has been its greatest appeal, has been its place in America as opponent of social progress. This cuts across the entire spectrum of the LDS Church's makeup, including its medieval magic world view.

[MikeWaters]

just today a sacrament mtg speaker said that the prophet cannot lead us astray, and quoted ETB (I think) that the prophet can guide us on civil matters (which the speaker said, cryptically, is especially important today).

[Jim Swarthout]

The problem with explaining the priesthood ban on the fallibility of church leaders is that on some matters they shouldn't make such mistakes. It is perfectly acceptable to write off some blunders as the errors of men.

But when it comes to the salvation of an entire race of people, it's not too much to ask that our prophets, seers, and revelators get it right.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Jim Swarthout

The problem with explaining the priesthood ban on the fallibility of church leaders is that on some matters they shouldn't make such mistakes. It is perfectly acceptable to write off some blunders as the errors of men.

But when it comes to the salvation of an entire race of people, it's not too much to ask that our prophets, seers, and revelators get it right.

I am certain the salvation of an entire race of people was unaffected by the racism of church leaders. Whether or not people will be "saved" following this life has nothing to do with any racist sentiments of any human being. Certainly I wish they had got it right earlier (Joseph Smith at least appears to have done so), and it is sad and maddening that they didn't.

If church leaders can err on one issue, they can err on any issue (and see my note above for why this is a problematic fact for the church- or any church who believes in a prophet). It wouldn't make much sense to argue that church leaders can err on most issues, but on the issue of race, they are infallible.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

If church leaders can err on one issue, they can err on any issue

The question that is always on my mind when watching General Conference is, "Can I really believe this?"

[fusnik11]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

While I am deeply bothered by many of the issues that I deem to have been due, at least in part, to racism by church leaders, I still have a firm testimony of the gospel. Why?

http://www.valpo.edu/geomet/pics/geo...rch_bodies.gif

You still believe because you were probably born in Utah and your parents were Mormon.

Let's face it a large majority of the people here would be defending Catholicism with the same vigor as we defend Mormonism if we were born in New England and were fans of BC.

If we lived in the 'dirty' we would be expounding on the priesthood ability of all believers and how biblical authority is what makes our baptism valid.

We are who we are spiritually primarily because of the choices our grandparents and parents made and thus you, and the majority of us here, can believe the church charter regardless the warts, inconsistencies and history of unchristlike behavior.

[il Padrino Ute]

Originally Posted by fusnik11

http://www.valpo.edu/geomet/pics/geo...rch_bodies.gif

You still believe because you were probably born in Utah and your parents were Mormon.

Let's face it a large majority of the people here would be defending Catholicism with the same vigor as we defend Mormonism if we were born in New England and were fans of BC.

If we lived in the 'dirty' we would be expounding on the priesthood ability of all believers and how biblical authority is what makes our baptism valid.

We are who we are spiritually primarily because of the choices our grandparents and parents made and thus you, and the majority of us here, can believe the church charter regardless the warts, inconsistencies and history of unchristlike behavior.

I will agree there are a very large many from Utah who are traditionalist Mormons, much like the traditionalist Catholics that are in Italy. And you are correct that we are who we are because of the choices of our progenitors. We can't help but be shaped by our environment, though there comes a time in each individual's life that we make the decision to solidify who we are by making our own choices.

Bottom line, IMO, is that we have control over our beliefs and principles. I choose to believe despite the warts. It's good to know that while the leaders and all the members are imperfect, the Gospel itself is correct.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by fusnik11

http://www.valpo.edu/geomet/pics/geo...rch_bodies.gif

You still believe because you were probably born in Utah and your parents were Mormon.

Let's face it a large majority of the people here would be defending Catholicism with the same vigor as we defend Mormonism if we were born in New England and were fans of BC.

If we lived in the 'dirty' we would be expounding on the priesthood ability of all believers and how biblical authority is what makes our baptism valid.

We are who we are spiritually primarily because of the choices our grandparents and parents made and thus you, and the majority of us here, can believe the church charter regardless the warts, inconsistencies and history of unchristlike behavior.

That holds for a while, but not forever. I am in my late 30's now, and I am confident in my beliefs apart from what my parents may or may not have believed.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

The question that is always on my mind when watching General Conference is, "Can I really believe this?"

You are clearly one of the members who falls into the camp of "the prophet is infallible" and who will struggle the most with the issues I noted above. I really hope you can work through it.