369 replies to this topic

[juliann]

Pahoran, on Sep 11 2005, 01:53 PM, said:

I can't speak for Juliann; but I think there are people who just like to exploit things like this for cheap polemical point-scoring.

You can speak for me.  I think race baiting is more disgusting than racism.   The irony is, of course...that those who are howling the loudest with their self-righteous indignation about those poor "blacks" not being able to have the priesthood are the very ones hoping the church will disintegrate.   Which brings us back to the hypocritcal cheap shot.   How convenient that there were people with dark skins around to serve their purposes.  

[Tchild2]

Juliann wrote:

Quote

You can speak for me. I think race baiting is more disgusting than racism. The irony is, of course...that those who are howling the loudest with their self-righteous indignation about those poor "blacks" not being able to have the priesthood are the very ones hoping the church will disintegrate. Which brings us back to the hypocritcal cheap shot. How convenient that there were people with dark skins around to serve their purposes.

Perhaps some critics engage in "race baiting", but the subject goes deeper than a few statements attributed to Brigham Young and others.   The church purports to speak as God's agent and mouthpiece on earth.  the church holds and extends God's priesthood as necessary for exaltation and the reception of certain "blessings" found in the higher ordinances.  This same priesthood is the very differentiating element separating the LDS church from all the other Christian denominations in existance.  The Priesthood claims ARE the 800 pound gorilla of the LDS church if true, not necessarily the BoM or the first vision.

This priesthood, despite the remarks of BY and others was withheld from the negro race until 1978 without a canonized prophecy to do so, but was apparently withheld utilizing human interpretation of scripture and commonly held societal norms of the times (pre 1960's).   This pattern of conduct towards a race of persons for over 100 years, in such a theologically important matter, without a canonized prophecy to do so, leads critics to wonder who is really running the show; men or God?

Edited by Tchild2, 11 September 2005 - 10:03 PM.

[juliann]

Tchild2, on Sep 11 2005, 10:00 PM, said:

Perhaps some critics engage in "race baiting", but the subject goes deeper than a few statements attributed to Brigham Young and others.   The church purports to speak as God's agent and mouthpiece on earth.  the church holds and extends God's priesthood as necessary for exaltation and the reception of certain "blessings" found in the higher ordinances.  This same priesthood is the very differentiating element separating the LDS church from all the other Christian denominations in existance.  

And every other religion who engaged in racism eventually claims the same.    This is a "and your point is...?"    The only place you can go with this is that all religion is therefore false, dangerous and needing to be destroyed.   The next logical problem should be obvious....all of the 19th century population held the same ideas.   So you now have set up a situation where we need to get rid of a few hundred years of history and people.   Have at it.   Just use a single standard.  

Quote

This priesthood, despite the remarks of BY and others was withheld from the negro race until 1978 without a canonized prophecy to do so, but was apparently withheld utilizing human interpretation of scripture and commonly held societal norms of the times (pre 1960's).   This pattern of conduct towards a race of persons for over 100 years, without a canonized prophecy to do so, leads critics to wonder who is really running the show; men or God?

Well,  let's see...if you have a straw up your nose about a particular religion...you would say...men!   If you have a straw up your nose about all of religion you would say....men!   That was easy.  

[Tchild2]

Juliann wrote:

Quote

And every other religion who engaged in racism eventually claims the same. This is a "and your point is...?" The only place you can go with this is that all religion is therefore false, dangerous and needing to be destroyed. The next logical problem should be obvious....all of the 19th century population held the same ideas. So you now have set up a situation where we need to get rid of a few hundred years of history and people. Have at it. Just use a single standard.

The point is...Is your religion divinely lead by God or not?  What other point is there?  Do the Mormons teach that they are one of many "true" churches, or do they teach that they are the only "true and living church upon the face of the earth".  By that very definition, should the LDS church not differentiate itself from the religious pack and human derived mindset?  If you do not think so, then why should any of your (church's) potential converts?

I am not here critiquing the LDS church while supporting another religion as superior or more divinely lead.  I am critiquing the church's conduct based on its claims as the unique posessor of  the priesthood necessary to effectuate the ordinances necessary for salvation and exaltation.   If the LDS church can withhold the highest power given it by God for the exaltation and eternal life of man for over 100 years due to its own cultural and societal conditioning, then where exactly does divinity have any part of its evolution or structure?

Is it like "intelligent design"; God put the church into motion then stood back and then allowed it evolve on its own?  

Edited by Tchild2, 11 September 2005 - 10:27 PM.

[Dill Pickles]

Tchild2, on Sep 11 2005, 10:22 PM, said:

Is it like "intelligent design"; God put the church into motion then stood back and then allowed it evolve on its own?  

from the Pickle jar: essentially, yes. Continuing revelation means that God is constanting tweaking the church, making changes large and small, that correct past errors and modify for current needs.

Plural marriage is a good example of the tweaking. The priesthood is another. The prophets never said they got everything right the first time. Sometimes it takes several prophets over the course of several years to get things the way they're intended to be. If you can't stand constant revelation and constant tweaking, this is not the church for you.

[thesometimesaint]

Dill Pickels:

Tchild2 is our ever present guide to perfection.   He's just wating for God to figure it out and have Tchild2 translated out of here away from us mere mortals.

[juliann]

Dill Pickles, on Sep 12 2005, 08:30 AM, said:

If you can't stand constant revelation and constant tweaking, this is not the church for you.

That is the best summation I have seen...not to mention the most economical.  T2,  I understand where you are coming from.  I understand that if God is supposed to be involved in anyway whatsoever the natural assumption is that whatever he touches has to be without flaw.   But Mormonism does not allow for that let alone claim it.   To demand it only leads us into the downright bizarre situation where our "liberal" critics (I'm not talking about you...I continue to find you reasonable in your disagreements) are the ones who act like fundamentalists.

[Zakuska]

Quote

I understand that if God is supposed to be involved in anyway whatsoever the natural assumption is that whatever he touches has to be without flaw.

I don't see where this assumption comes from... after all he did create the crooked snake as well.

[Moksha]

Zakuska, on Sep 12 2005, 10:06 AM, said:

Quote

I understand that if God is supposed to be involved in anyway whatsoever the natural assumption is that whatever he touches has to be without flaw.

I don't see where this assumption comes from... after all he did create the crooked snake as well.

But he didn't create racism.  Yay, God!

[Abulafia]

juliann, on Sep 11 2005, 09:44 PM, said:

Pahoran, on Sep 11 2005, 01:53 PM, said:

I can't speak for Juliann; but I think there are people who just like to exploit things like this for cheap polemical point-scoring.

You can speak for me.  I think race baiting is more disgusting than racism.   The irony is, of course...that those who are howling the loudest with their self-righteous indignation about those poor "blacks" not being able to have the priesthood are the very ones hoping the church will disintegrate.   Which brings us back to the hypocritcal cheap shot.   How convenient that there were people with dark skins around to serve their purposes.  

Juliann, with all respect to you, I havn't noticed any race baiting.  Indeed in my posts I made it clear that in my area (within the church) I didn't ever encounter any racism.  (Well except on my mission, when a high priest gave a cringingly bad talk about the only part of a negro's body not being cursed was the palms.  All missionaries just about dived under their chairs, and explained to investigators that the guy didn't know what he was talking about)

I asked my mother, long inactive, how she felt about this issue when she joined the church.  She said she hadn't been told, (1970 pre-ban) but when she found out she was troubled, and couldn't equate the doctrine with a loving god.  (She is a great fan of Martin Luther King as most of us are around here)

It is an integral though uncomfortable part of LDS doctrinal/cultural history.
I for one, have learned a lot from this thread on how attitudes actually still differ even within mainstream mormonism (well at least the folks who post here).
I am sure you will agree, that as an apologist, it is one of the more difficult areas to defend.