Just stopping by for a quick thought.
I think it is useful to start with a couple of concepts:
1- religion has always been discriminatory. From the very beginning of the Judeo-Christian tradition, God had a Chosen People. Religious groups take on a self-appointed form of us-vs-them. Paganism wasn't any better. Certain gods protected certain towns from the opposition. Bigger civilizations had more powerful gods. When Christianity first appeared, it was an amazing combination of traditional Jews and unconventional Gentiles looking to the same God and Christ together. But differences persisted. And as the numbers toppled in heavy favor of non-Jewish adherents, division crept in. Eventually, the Judaic roots of Christianity were minimized, even to the point of blaming the Jews for Jesus' demise. The author of 'Luke' can never find fault with the Romans. Since the Gospel of Luke was written from a Gentile perspective in a Roman world, the blame was fully on the Jews. This made sense from the writer's perspective.
2- we ALL have overpoweringly strong biases. Race plays a factor. Gender plays a factor. Nationality plays a factor. Education level, age, economic wrung, regionality, type-of-work... all these things are at play in our minds. If you think these don't affect you in a way that you deplore in others, just recognize that it's much harder to see in yourself or in your friends, but these are the exact same traits that you see with flashing red lights in others.
Now, to the topic of what the Church is doing and whether it is enough.
People and organizations are going to have different approaches to solve problems. This is largely due to their seeing problems differently and to formulating ways-ahead that make sense to them based on their own life experiences. Since we already know that any group of people will see problems in different ways and solutions in different ways, it cannot be surprising that there will be nay-sayers no matter what approach is settled upon. If I look at my own view the world, I find that it is very different from the way some others view it. When facing a problem at work, I have often used the mantra: "I don't care how we got to here, I'm just trying to figure out where we go from here." In the case of my own children, I used to say, "I don't want you to tell my you are 'sorry', I just don't want you to do it again." In other words, for me, I think predominately in the sense of the future. This, in turn, leads me to conclusions even about things like basic 'gospel' principles. I don't see 'reconciliation' as restoring something that was lost but about attaining something that was never present before. I cringe whenever I hear the teaching that the purpose of our life is to "return to live with our Heavenly Father". Why did we ever leave? But for other people, the opposite is what makes sense. To them the future is not secure until we rectify the past. My wife told me many times that she wouldn't mind if the kids WOULD say they were sorry.
The Church's approach is to try to build bridges. In my mind they are trying to demonstrate to the average member that this is the true us. Even if it is absolutely nothing else, it is a substantial symbol of desire to move forward in friendship. Prior to this, the Church had similar symbolic gestures to cooperate with the Catholic Church. If we are more friendly toward the the Catholic Church and toward the NAACP, I'm not sure what the downside is.
Is it enough? It depends on how you approach problems like this. For the Church, they seem to be taking the long-view. Change the hearts and minds of the people. For others, this won't seem fast enough. Maybe this is a little like a young progressive friend of mine who recently stated that the only way to have real change was for older people to die off.
For those who want more, I suspect they have the idea that if the Church has such a stranglehold on the minds of its members, it can change their hearts and minds via declaration, right?
Yet, in General Conference in 2006 (14 years ago, and 28 years after the lifting of the Ban), GBH said this:
So, is the Church going too far, just right or not far enough? It depends on our own perspective.Racial strife still lifts its ugly head. I am advised that even right here among us there is some of this. I cannot understand how it can be. It seemed to me that we all rejoiced in the 1978 revelation given President Kimball. I was there in the temple at the time that that happened. There was no doubt in my mind or in the minds of my associates that what was revealed was the mind and the will of the Lord.
Now I am told that racial slurs and denigrating remarks are sometimes heard among us. I remind you that no man who makes disparaging remarks concerning those of another race can consider himself a true disciple of Christ. Nor can he consider himself to be in harmony with the teachings of the Church of Christ. How can any man holding the Melchizedek Priesthood arrogantly assume that he is eligible for the priesthood whereas another who lives a righteous life but whose skin is of a different color is ineligible?
Throughout my service as a member of the First Presidency, I have recognized and spoken a number of times on the diversity we see in our society. It is all about us, and we must make an effort to accommodate that diversity.
Let us all recognize that each of us is a son or daughter of our Father in Heaven, who loves all of His children.
Brethren, there is no basis for racial hatred among the priesthood of this Church. If any within the sound of my voice is inclined to indulge in this, then let him go before the Lord and ask for forgiveness and be no more involved in such. --GBH, GC, 2006
