From the BBC News, Saturday, 24 March 2007, 15:56 GMT:
"The General Synod of the Church of England apologised last year for its role in the slave trade. The church, through the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts, once owned the Codrington Plantation in Barbados, where slaves had the word “society” branded on their backs with a red-hot iron."
Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury said:
"The body of Christ is not just a body that exists at any one time, it exists across history and we therefore share the shame and the sinfulness of our predecessors and part of what we can do, with them and for them in the body of Christ, is pray for acknowledgement of the failure that is part of us not just of some distant ‘them’...
Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury said:
"The body of Christ is not just a body that exists at any one time, it exists across history and we therefore share the shame and the sinfulness of our predecessors and part of what we can do, with them and for them in the body of Christ, is pray for acknowledgement of the failure that is part of us not just of some distant ‘them’...
The intention of today is not only to renew that act of repentance, not just an apology but repentance, acknowledgement that we were part of this terrible history, but also to wake people up to where we are now, the fact there still are problems.
It's an opportunity to involve people whose ancestors were involved in this, who are still feeling the effects of it, and so bring to light some of what it meant, some of what it cost.'
"The Archbishops of Canterbury and York led a procession through London [Saturday, March 24, 2007] to mark the 200th anniversary of Britain’s abolition of the slave trade. They [joined] a group who have walked 250 miles from Hull (where abolitionist MP William Wilberforce held his Parliamentary seat) in yokes and chains."
After reading this article, I could not but help wonder: shouldn't the modern LDS Church apologize for it's past advocation, and perpetuation, of racist doctrines and practices??? Certainly, as leaders of a world-wide organization, they cannot pretend that there is no shared responsibility to their fellow men regarding the racist doctrines and practices of The Church's past. The leaders are the ones who can, and have the responsibility to, renounce those past doctrines and apologize for its past practices.
"The Archbishops of Canterbury and York led a procession through London [Saturday, March 24, 2007] to mark the 200th anniversary of Britain’s abolition of the slave trade. They [joined] a group who have walked 250 miles from Hull (where abolitionist MP William Wilberforce held his Parliamentary seat) in yokes and chains."
After reading this article, I could not but help wonder: shouldn't the modern LDS Church apologize for it's past advocation, and perpetuation, of racist doctrines and practices??? Certainly, as leaders of a world-wide organization, they cannot pretend that there is no shared responsibility to their fellow men regarding the racist doctrines and practices of The Church's past. The leaders are the ones who can, and have the responsibility to, renounce those past doctrines and apologize for its past practices.
Ultimately, whether the LDS Church does (or does not) take accountability for it's troubling history is out of my hands. What is in my hands, however, is how I reconcile myself to The Church's history, as well as our current social policies, and how I connect with my brothers and sisters.
3 comments:
Yes, the Church should apologize -- or, at least repudiate those who have been racist over the years. They were like the mainstream of white folks, in the U.S., in Europe and in Latin America, but the fact remains that some members and some citizens in all those places stood up and condemned the evil. Others just made silly excuses or myths, like "they weren't ready yet," or "it wasn't their time," or "they were less valiant in the pre-existence." That sort of silliness always plays a part in justifying evil conduct, whether it is in a religion, a nation, a neighborhood, or in ourselves. We owe it to ourselves, to each other, to our God, and to our Church to say that we refuse to accept the denial.
and so it goes,
Dad
I think the church should make some sort of statement and condemn any such prejudices.
I, however, don't feel conflicted about the matter. I was young enough at the time when all men were given the opportunity to hold the priesthood that I don't remember a time they didn't.
I feel now the church teaches acceptance and tolerance, love not hate. Pres. Hunter's main teaching point was to be kind to others.
This is at a time when other churches in our country which is based on the freedom of religion preach that Mormon's are sinners and going to hell. I have actually had friends try to save me. When I told them I thought the were mistaught and mislead I no longer had a few friends.
I think the church is doing a fine job of teaching that we are all God's children and have the same opportunities. However, a firm statement agaisnt racism might reverse some damage done in the past and may change a few old stubborn hearts.
:)Kj
I think that the apology from the archbishop was a beautiful acceptance of responsibility and a firm decision to not pass the buck. Sincere kudos to him. As humans, we are very forgiving--if the offender apologizes. If he does not apologize, the offense tends to become larger and more heinous in the minds of those offended. I call this refusal to acknowledge any responsibility or shortcoming as the George Bush syndrome (for baseball fans-the A-Rod syndrome). Denial that there is, or was, a problem does not actually make it so.
There are many things in our church's past (and certainly we are not the only ones with a colorful past) that we should not only apologize for, but repent for--as the archbishop said. Our refusal to recognize a problem does not make the problem go away-even if our PR department says it does.
Post a Comment