Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

consiglieri

Racism In The L.D.S. Church

Recommended Posts

I have, in regard to a procedural issue rather than a doctrinal one.

So have I. I know of several who have not make a public issue of a statement made who have written in to ask for clarifications, including some where changes were made. It's not that hard to do.

Share this post


Link to post

FYI-I secured the email address of the Currculum Development and shared my views on this quotation. They wanted my ward and stake and home address, I am kind of spooked now, because I like my Bishop tons and I don't want to get secretly murdered or anything.

Share this post


Link to post

So have I. I know of several who have not make a public issue of a statement made who have written in to ask for clarifications, including some where changes were made. It's not that hard to do.

What? Resolve an issue? But, But, But... then he'd have to find a new one!

Share this post


Link to post

FYI-I secured the email address of the Currculum Development and shared my views on this quotation. They wanted my ward and stake and home address, I am kind of spooked now, because I like my Bishop tons and I don't want to get secretly murdered or anything.

You shouldn't be. The information is freely given and the church is just one that loves to keep records. I sent mine up through the Stake Presidency with a note to him that if he thought it appropriate to pass it on. Didn't hear anything for a month or so, and was the point of not even thinking about it when I did recieve a thank you for the information and opinion.

Share this post


Link to post

There is a difference between "denouncing" a teaching and admitting that prior Church leaders got it wrong.

But there have been plenty of current Church authorities who have stated that previous teachings or theories about the priesthood ban were speculative, misplaced, or whatever -- that we simply don't know. What more do you want? What would satisfy you? And why would what you might want even matter?

As I mentioned, I tend to think that the early Church simply got it wrong and that it then became self-perpetuating. To me, that's the best explanation. And how they may have got it wrong isn't of that much interest to me. I'm not sure what an admission beyond the "we don't know" would accomplish. I suspect it might help to shut up those few that still cling to the old theories and speculation, but it also might play more into the hands of critics, resurrecting an issue that for the vast majority no longer exists. And in 20 or so years, those few that still cling to the preexistence, mark of Cain, descentend of Ham, etc., theories will no longer be around.

I'm talking about doing what's right, regardless of how it appears to the critics.

My preference clearly does not matter to the church, or probably anyone here (who doesn't agree with me). The whole priesthood ban just screams "culture", IMO (not something from God). The culture was extremely racist, back then, and most all of the contrived "reasons" for the ban were based in racist attitudes (not valiant in the pre-existence, curse of Cain, etc)..the "reasons" have all been denounced and the church admits they do not know why the ban was put in place. Why not just take that a step further and admit it was most likely the culture of the times...not something from God?

Share this post


Link to post

FYI-I secured the email address of the Currculum Development and shared my views on this quotation. They wanted my ward and stake and home address, I am kind of spooked now, because I like my Bishop tons and I don't want to get secretly murdered or anything.

IF we don't hear from you, we'll know what happened.:ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post

You shouldn't be. The information is freely given and the church is just one that loves to keep records. I sent mine up through the Stake Presidency with a note to him that if he thought it appropriate to pass it on. Didn't hear anything for a month or so, and was the point of not even thinking about it when I did recieve a thank you for the information and opinion.

I'm relieved and can go out of my pad now!

Share this post


Link to post

I'm talking about doing what's right, regardless of how it appears to the critics.

My preference clearly does not matter to the church, or probably anyone here (who doesn't agree with me). The whole priesthood ban just screams "culture", IMO (not something from God). The culture was extremely racist, back then, and most all of the contrived "reasons" for the ban were based in racist attitudes (not valiant in the pre-existence, curse of Cain, etc)..the "reasons" have all been denounced and the church admits they do not know why the ban was put in place. Why not just take that a step further and admit it was most likely the culture of the times...not something from God?

I have been leaning towards the "cultural" side of this for some time. But of course I have no way of knowing -- except by direct revelation, which I have not sought. Frankly, it's not important enough for me to make a big effort about. The issue is a non-issue to me.

Share this post


Link to post

You shouldn't be. The information is freely given and the church is just one that loves to keep records. I sent mine up through the Stake Presidency with a note to him that if he thought it appropriate to pass it on. Didn't hear anything for a month or so, and was the point of not even thinking about it when I did recieve a thank you for the information and opinion.

I've sent several through the email and received replies back for all of them. In addition they asked if I would like to participate in a couple of studies, which I did. Never heard anything from my homeward about it.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm talking about doing what's right, regardless of how it appears to the critics.

My preference clearly does not matter to the church, or probably anyone here (who doesn't agree with me). The whole priesthood ban just screams "culture", IMO (not something from God). The culture was extremely racist, back then, and most all of the contrived "reasons" for the ban were based in racist attitudes (not valiant in the pre-existence, curse of Cain, etc)..the "reasons" have all been denounced and the church admits they do not know why the ban was put in place. Why not just take that a step further and admit it was most likely the culture of the times...not something from God?

Clearly, God was elitist when he wouldn't let the Priesthood go to the Gentiles.

Clearly, God was elitist when he kept the Priesthood lines to the Levites.

Clearly, God was racist for keeping the Priesthood from Blacks until 1978

Seems to me that all of these statements are false...

Share this post


Link to post

I'm talking about doing what's right, regardless of how it appears to the critics.

My preference clearly does not matter to the church, or probably anyone here (who doesn't agree with me). The whole priesthood ban just screams "culture", IMO (not something from God). The culture was extremely racist, back then, and most all of the contrived "reasons" for the ban were based in racist attitudes (not valiant in the pre-existence, curse of Cain, etc)..the "reasons" have all been denounced and the church admits they do not know why the ban was put in place. Why not just take that a step further and admit it was most likely the culture of the times...not something from God?

If you are that concerned, then why not write the Church about it? I am sure how non and former members perceive the Church is of interest to them, especially when it comes to the area of effective communication.

Share this post


Link to post

As a brand new convert, I'm surprised you joined, based on your post...

But frankly, in the 15 years that I've been reactivated, I've seen nothing to indicate that "many memebers" have been left to believe that "blacks are somehow inferior"... nor have I seen any indication of an attitude that we whites "must" treat "them" well... or that we feel that blacks are not equal.

In fact, when I served as a temple ordinance worker in the Portland, OR temple, we had a number of blacks on my schedule, and I saw nothing of the sarcastic attitude that you have exhibited here, nor any of the treatment of our black workers that you describe. IMO, it is your attitude and the sarcasm of your remarks that give me pause.

And I stand by my earlier posts.

GG

My attitude and sarcasm give you pause?

Oh, Miss Ma'am, I is sooooo sorry! Please don't tell Massa. I be good from now on. I promise!

Your concern for my "attitude and sarcasm" might be warranted if I had joined the Church of Garden Girl of Latter-day Saints. However, since I joined Jesus's church, you can relax. Jesus loves the flippant as well. My understanding is that Jesus also loves the repentant as well.

And while some have suggested that I'm waiting for some grand apology on the part of the church, I have no such desire or expectation. I'm simply asking that the church not continue in practices that might cause offense to those it has hurt in the past. Isn't that part of repentance?

For example, let's suppose that a man cheats on his wife. She stays with him but is understandably suspicious and asks that he report regularly his whereabouts and asks to check his cell phone messages, e-mails, etc. If the man balks by claiming this wife is being "unreasonable," I'd doubt his sincerity about changing in the future. If he wants to earn back her trust, he must AT THE VERY LEAST delete his mistress' phone number. That's all some of us have been asking ... throw away the phone number (the reference to race in the APM). I acknowledge that the rest of the passage contains much wisdom and people should consider cultural differences. However, since racial differences don't necessarily equate to cultural differences, why not just strip out the offending language? In those cases where people of different races come from different cultures, they will be adequately warned. Yes, I know that we are being "unreasonable" and unnecessarily "sensitive," but given the past, I really don't think it's asking too much.

And besides, let's be clear. We are not talking about some trivial matter of political correctness. We are talking about our effectiveness in bringing souls into the Kingdom. Isn't that worth making a few minor edits to a manual? Or do we want to answer to Heavenly Father and say, "Sure, we left behind MILLIONS of your children (and our brothers and sisters), but we weren't going to bow to PC pressure!" For the sake of the gospel, would it be so wrong to yield on this point?

No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by LONG-SUFFERING, by GENTLENESS and MEEKNESS, and by love unfeigned; By kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile–(D&C 121:41-42)

Share this post


Link to post
FYI-I secured the email address of the Currculum Development and shared my views on this quotation. They wanted my ward and stake and home address, I am kind of spooked now, because I like my Bishop tons and I don't want to get secretly murdered or anything.

It's too late. The Danite hit squad has already been despatched to your home.

And I know because -- well, let's just say that I know. (Pulling on gloves.)

Oh well, it was nice knowing you. Just take comfort in the knowledge that it's business, not personal.

Regards,

Pahoran

Share this post


Link to post

My attitude and sarcasm give you pause?

Oh, Miss Ma'am, I is sooooo sorry! Please don't tell Massa. I be good from now on. I promise!

Your concern for my "attitude and sarcasm" might be warranted if I had joined the Church of Garden Girl of Latter-day Saints. However, since I joined Jesus's church, you can relax. Jesus loves the flippant as well. My understanding is that Jesus also loves the repentant as well.

Well lucky for us, none of us joined the Church of ElijahWasAbel of Latter-Day Saints either. Perhaps you should keep that in mind.

If you were offended by it, send in a comment card as Calmoriah as suggested.

Share this post


Link to post

If you are that concerned, then why not write the Church about it? I am sure how non and former members perceive the Church is of interest to them, especially when it comes to the area of effective communication.

Is that sarcasm or do you mean that? (Sorry, it's difficult to tell, sometimes, on a message board)

Share this post


Link to post

Is that sarcasm or do you mean that? (Sorry, it's difficult to tell, sometimes, on a message board)

I don't know whether he was being sarcastic, but from a "business" standpoint, feedback from past customers can be extremely valuable. You probably won't get them back, but it can help you keep your remaining customers happy. :pardon:

And based on what happened with the "Temple Survey" and subsequent changes to the Temple ceremony in the early 1990's, I would have to say the Church isn't so prideful that they can't respond to constructive feedback.

Share this post


Link to post

It's too late. The Danite hit squad has already been despatched to your home.

And I know because -- well, let's just say that I know. (Pulling on gloves.)

Oh well, it was nice knowing you. Just take comfort in the knowledge that it's business, not personal.

Regards,

Pahoran

i can't breathe, i can't breeee ackackaack,good night irene! plunk!

Share this post


Link to post
I'm simply asking that the church not continue in practices that might cause offense to those it has hurt in the past.

So you've written to the Church asking this?

Share this post


Link to post

Is that sarcasm or do you mean that? (Sorry, it's difficult to tell, sometimes, on a message board)

Sincerely mean it. I think everyone with sincere issues about teachings should send feedback to Curriculum Department. I think those who have broader concerns should write the appropriate people about them. Simply sitting around worrying or complaining about something is a waste of time and energy and accomplishes nothing but distraction from doing good, imo. And complaining about it on a relatively obscure message board isn't likely to accomplish much either (though I am not suggesting this is what you were doing, you were discussing your concerns which was appropriate for this thread).

Share this post


Link to post

Oh, Miss Ma'am, I is sooooo sorry! Please don't tell Massa. I be good from now on. I promise!

Yep, continues adding up to be another sockpuppet account which "conveniently" supports the OP.

Share this post


Link to post

My attitude and sarcasm give you pause?

Oh, Miss Ma'am, I is sooooo sorry! Please don't tell Massa. I be good from now on. I promise!

I find this offensive.

Share this post


Link to post

I find this offensive.

The report button is available to all, I just used it myself. :) I found it a very disproportionate response to GG's comments.

Share this post


Link to post

I don't know whether he was being sarcastic, but from a "business" standpoint, feedback from past customers can be extremely valuable. You probably won't get them back, but it can help you keep your remaining customers happy. :pardon:

And based on what happened with the "Temple Survey" and subsequent changes to the Temple ceremony in the early 1990's, I would have to say the Church isn't so prideful that they can't respond to constructive feedback.

Thanks, cinepro. Maybe, I'll do that..

I did write to Gordon B. Hinckley, once, to let him know his book "Standing for Something" was instrumental in bringing me into the church. It was a thank you letter. I got a very nice response (although, I doubt it was from him, personally, but still very nice).

Share this post


Link to post

I find this offensive.

Can't be. You must have it backwards.

"Lesson 31 in the current Aaronic Priesthood Manual 3" is the only thing "offensive".

Share this post


Link to post

Automatic generated message

This topic has been closed by a moderator.

Reason: Out of control

Kind regards,

Mormon Dialogue & Discussion Board Staff

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×