Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I have a whole family that eat everything he serves. I seems mindless drivel to me, but so do a lot of things. Hear is a great pod cast about his Mormonism and his carreer. Ray, I like what you have to say about pure Mormonism. I would like a little of my own slant on the word Mormonism. In my view the word Mormon vs. Latter Day Saint has explicit cultural connotations. For me when I am making a statement about my culture that I grow up in I make it a point to us the word Mormon. When I am trying to talk about the pure religion I typically talk about the Gospel. Again the idea of religion completely separate from culture is an idealized concept. The main way we learn about the gospel is through prophets or teachers who all have their own personality and cultural beliefs and I think these always color anything these people teach. When Isaiah prophesies I do not think he is speaking in the voice of God. It is his voice and if another man was in his calling at the same time these prophesy would come from his voice.
Just Me, Great points. Is God not all powerful? Could there not be a source of meat without killing? If your thinking is right is there no meat in any of the Kingdoms? For that matter is there free agency in the other kingdoms?
Ray, I finally got to reading your second blog post. I enjoyed it and posted this:
Ray,
Great post, although I think we read it with tainted eyes. Few people ever see themselves as prejudice. If you read comments from the leaders of the time they will call for equal rights for all in one line than say things that smack of clear unadulterated bigotry when looking through our 21 century eyes.
I would like to share two examples.
In 1946 in a talk to the YWMIA conference J Rueben Clark of the First presidency said this:
”We should hate nobody, and having said that, I wish to urge a word of caution, particularly to you young girls. It is sought today in certain quarters to break down all race prejudice, and at the end of the road, which they who urge this see, is intermarriage. That is what it finally comes to. Now, you should hate nobody; you should give to every man and every woman, no matter what the color of his or her skin may be, full civil rights. You should treat them as brothers and sisters, but do not ever let that wicked virus get into your systems that brotherhood either permits or entitles you to mix races which are inconsistent.”
Notice how Elder Clark calls for treating all as brothers and sisters yet teat black brothers very different than you treat white brothers. In the way we think of equality this we would call prejudice, Elder Clark did not see it the same way.
In 1954 in a talk to BYU Elder Mark E. Peterson said:
“[The Negro] is not just seeking the opportunity of sitting down in a café where white people sit. He isn’t just trying to ride on the same streetcar….
t appears that the Negro seeks absorption with the white race. He will not be satisfied until he achieves it by intermarriage. That is the objective and we must face it….Remember the little statement that they used to say about sin, “First we pity, then endure, then embrace.””I believe Elder Peterson likely would agree with the lesson you quoted. I do not believe he would see his statements as inconstant with civil rights.
In the same way today our leaders and we as a group of membership do not see how our actions in prop 8 are inconstant with equal rights. Notice in every document the church puts out calling to help pass a prejudicial bill they say we should never discriminate. Also, how we ask gay members to be secretive about their orientation, and we can not see how that is discriminatory. I believe at some point our leadership and our membership will be able to see past the blinding prejudice on this issue as well.
Quote:SamBee said:
“I think this is one of the most progressive Articles of Faith, and that the church’s stance on original sin is a good and liberating one.”
I believe most of Joseph’s theology is very progressive and liberating, and not just for the time. I believe he successfully explained many of the most condemnatory and contested doctrines of the time. Original sin could have been one of the most harmful. The idea that babies are not innocent and are naturally born sinful I think is a world view that is very dark and oppressive world view. Joseph was able to do this and still maintain the idea of a fallen state, and thus keeping the need for atonement. A Christian world view requires a some what dark perspective, yet Joseph could diminish most of the harmful effects of this dark perspective.Ray,
Great blog post on things of my soul, I love the quotes you have gathered, most I had not read before. What I think we forget is the doctrine of Cain’s cures being on the heads of the African nations was not new. This is the main theological arsenal of the European and American slave trade. It is a page straight out of the book of the KKK.
I agree with you and applaud you Ray for your work of repudiating these ideas. I think this is not done enough. I believe mostly we as a people strive to forget them. I think to do so would mean losing out on a great lesson from Mormon history.
This points out a clear case of when our leadership have policies that have no backing from the scriptures or revelation we should be leery. I think Elder Oak’s comment is very telling.
Quote:“I can’t remember any time in my life when I felt greater joy and relief than when I learned that the priesthood was going to be available to all worthy males, whatever their ancestry. I had been troubled by this subject through college and my graduate school, at the University of Chicago where I went to law school. I had many black acquaintances when I lived in Chicago, the years ’54 through ’71. I had many times that my heart ached for that, and it ached for my Church, which I knew to be true and yet blessings of that Church were not available to a significant segment of our Heavenly Father’s children. And I didn’t understand why; I couldn’t identify with any of the explanations that were given. Yet I sustained the action; I was confident that in the time of the Lord I would know more about it, so I went along on faith.”
He was uncomfortable with this because he personally knew black men and women. This is a clue to the reason why the policy was in place. It is difficult to be prejudice when you truly know people of a certain group personally. I believe the generation of church authorities older than Oaks had little or none relationship with anyone black.
It is also interesting to read David O Mckay’s quote:
Quote:“There is not now, and there never has been a doctrine in this church that the negroes are under a divine curse. There is no doctrine in the church of any kind pertaining to the negro. We believe that we have a scriptural precedent for withholding the priesthood from the negro. It is a practice, not a doctrine, and the practice someday will be changed. And that’s all there is to it.”
I find this interesting because of other statements he signed his name to. He with the rest of the first presidency in 1947 in a letter to members in CA the full first presidency, George Albert Smith, J. Reuben Clark, and David O. McKay said this:
Quote:“No special effort has ever been made to proselyte among the Negro race, and social intercourse between the Whites and the Negroes should certainly not be encouraged because of leading to intermarriage, which the Lord has forbidden.
This move which has now received some popular approval of trying to break down social barriers between the Whites and the Blacks is one that should not be encouraged because inevitably it means the mixing of the races if carried to its logical conclusion.”
Ray, I have made this mistake before. I am struggling to understand how this line of discussion is not about the middle way. Discussing were we think the church is on this middle way or where Holland is on the middle way, or more importantly what we can do to effect the middle way all these seem directly connected to the topic at hand. Elder Holland’s conference talk seems to give us pertinent information on how to interpret his comments on PBS. Please help me understand how to stay with in your topic guidelines. Are you really suggesting that when a discussion leads into a related discussion line that we should jump to a discussion line that we have not been involved in and has not been active for some time to continue our discussion. The with and depth of the different discussion topics on this site is prodigious to say the least. I am not sure I will ever have the impressive command of it as you. What are you recommending for us here?
Almostoverit, You have experienced horrible abuse. Not just by this man, but at the hand of your church leaders. I also think many doctrines of the church can be abusive, or at least applied in very abusive ways. I think it is important that you allow your perception, feelings, and experience be validated. For goodness sacks if the church is not a safe emotional place for you just stop going. If you want a spiritual home there are a lot of good honest cognations out there that you will likely feel safe in. Find safe places emotionally. Find a spiritual home that is not just going to piss you off when you attend. God love you, and I believe that God wants you to be where you feel loved and cherished. Please, please, please find those places.
I see many none traditional church members talk about finding the good in the church and what is true in the church. It is there. And I do think it is good to look for those things where ever you are. But if this place is hurtful to you, is not helpful to your spiritual well being, if you do not feel safe there, then I say run away. No place is perfect, but you can find places that you do not need to expose you to this kind of pain to find the good true things. In fact I think you will find places that you can feel safety, love, truth without working hard at all it will just feel good for you.
Quote:“I agree with Ray that Elder Holland did not say what is being implied here. However, he was very bold, emotionally charged, and used controversial words in such a way that, to me, marginalized those like me.
Having said that, my response was also emotional, and Elder Holland, for both better and worse, draws out strong emotions in me. I also have some insight into Elder Holland’s real opinions on tent broadening and so forth, and I don’t believe that he intends to marginalize people on the fringes. My initial reaction was much like Cadence’s. But upon another reading I got a different view and my initial emotional response seemed hasty.”
I struggle with what you are saying here. I do not know Elder Holland personally, but I would agree with your opinion that he does not intend to marginalize people. Yes, intent I think accounts for something. My question is what does action account for? What does the real effect of his actions say about how strong that intent is?
Elder Holland sure said a lot on PBS, but what does he say in conference where the church membership is listening, and listening emotionally. If he really wanted to reduce marginalization within the church why does he not do something real about it? Yes, when talking to a largely none LDS audience he is very persuasive about how we do not want to marginalize these groups, yet in conference where Mormons are expected to listen he says things that come across as marginalizing , or at the very least condones the marginalizing that is happening. He does nothing to directly intervene where the clearly marginalization is happening, in conference or otherwise. I do not believe that he is unaware of the marginalization that is happening within our church. For him to say we do not want to marginalize these groups to mostly none Mormons I do not believe is doing anything to change the culture of marginalization. When he chooses inaction in the places he clearly could have great effect, than what does that tell us about the strength of his intent?
John, Thanks for posting this quote. In some ways it is hopeful, but like so many issues the Brethren carefully show one face to the public outside the church while being much harsher within. While Elder Holland says this he is not going to directly contest statements and actions from within the church community like the one in Mormon Matters. And we can all find plenty of quotes both resent and dated from other members of the 12 that are just as intolerant of diversity of opinion of the gospel among the saints as the one in Mormon Matters. If we look to the Brethren on this issue as a block it will just appear that they are speaking out of both sides of their mouth. They will do nothing separately or as a group to encourage this type of tolerant behavior, other than lip service.
The problem in comparing the LDS church with Judaism and Catholicism is we have a completely different pyridine of what it means to be part of the faith.
They both have different groups within them that adhere to the literalness of their faiths beliefs with varying degrees. Both as a Catholic or a Jew I could choice to go to a congregation that would encourage discussion about how literally to take the scriptures and those that would not and still all would be considered part of the greater group. There are congregations of Catholics that do look to Rome as church leaders, but not the mouth piece of God. Some of these groups have openly gay Fathers. The same is true for diffrent Jewish congregations.
As members of the LDS faith we really do not have the same options. We may happen to get a more liberal thinking Bishop, but from the pulpit he would have no real leeway, but to stick to the party line.
When I taught school in Salt Lake City I became friends with a middle school English teacher. He was a return missionary that smoked like a chimney. When I asked him about his belief in the church he bore one of the most moving testimonies I had ever heard of Joseph Smith, and in the same breath he said “that does not mean that Brigham Young didn’t come along and F*** it up.”
He said there are a lot of inactive members in the valley that still feel a strong connection to the church, but do not feel conferrable going to church. He had this dream of renting a building and having a BBQ once a month on a Sunday and calling it the inactive branch. Some how I think this is the type of groups we need to start.
Yes we have forms on the internet like this and NOM, which I think are great, but when we go to church and if we go to church do we not need to at least some what pretend that we are orthodox. Where can We go to church and feel like we can be ourselves or be with like minded people?
I was asked to teach a lesson on an intro to Christianity to a group of 5th and 6th grade Unitarian kids this Sunday. I think the idea of atonement is really at the heart of Christian theology. The hard part in explaining it to these kids is explaining why Christians believe people need an atonement or redemption. The concept of living in a fallen world was foreign to them. One asked what sin was. When I said sin is anything that separates us from God. This makes since to me and I think did to them. They did know the story of Adam and Eve. As I start examining the story, it does seem strange to me that Adam and Eve eating something God told them not to puts us into a world that an atonement is necessary to get back to God. I get the idea of learning and growing through repentance, but am I the only one that struggles with the idea of a fallen world or fallen man? I agree with dash that there are many examples of variability in how the church applies the 12th article of faith. Actually Johnson’s army was not actually firing upon Brigham or his followers. Brigham was not only willing to set fire to the city he also directed men to seal food destroy wagons take horses, everything short of actually killing. All of these things were illegal. The mountain meadows massacre I believe we see willingness by Brigham to cover up and completely be uncooperative with a federal investigation, also, breaking the law. Many of the church leadership in Nauvoo disregarded bigamy laws by marrying woman that were legally married to other men. When federal agents came to investigate the violation of polygamy laws members were directed to tell the agents of Satan anything they needed to protect the servants of the lord. During WWII you can find accounts of Mormons reciting and others actually joining the Nazi party. After the war the church turned the other way and tried to pull the church back together. Even during prop 8 the church still has not claimed as an in kind donation the cost of their California broad cast.
I also agree with Ray that in general the 12th article of faith is held as a good idea, but is given some exceptions.
Gospel according to Gail: I believe that the bishop is there for you when you feel you need to talk to someone to work though your repentance and or guilt. I also believe that Temple recommend interviews, tithing settlement, etc. are your opportunity to be accountable to yourself, by speaking it out loud to someone else. It is accountable to you because specific questions are written and it is between us and the lord if we feel worthy. Am I honest in all my dealings? Well I drove 70 in a 55 today. It is between me and God whether I say yes or no. Do I live the word of wisdom? I absolutely gorged myself on Thanksgiving and I drank Coke on New Years Eve again between me and God whether I say yes or no. These are all details that I would only share with my bishop if I was struggling to make the decision on my own. Or if I need help because these activities were getting in the way of my life and the bishop is who I wanted help from. Or if I just could not get over the guilt on my own when I drank the Coke. Or if I believe that my behavior may get in the way of performing a particular calling. At one point when I was in the Elders Quorum presidency I was the councilor in charge of the teaching I was going to protest on prop 8 and really did not believe in the Proclamation, I went to the bishop and explained why I may not be the best person for this job any more based on my beliefs and activities.
