Pahoran Posted July 1, 2007 Posted July 1, 2007 What a horrible man.And yet he was better than you in every conceivable way. Funny, that.Regards,PahoranWe don't need the tone of either one of these comments. ~mods
selek Posted July 1, 2007 Posted July 1, 2007 Well, there's one thing we can all agree on: the church has come a long way with respect to racial attitudes. Right guys?Hmmm.....MC wants to condemn a man (and through guilt by association, a church) for isolated racist statements made forty years ago- but he's the one who's still looking at skin color first and foremost. Ironic that.Perhaps MC isn't as enlightened as he'd like to pretend.Or perhaps his other bigotries have found a more publicly acceptable outlet.
Pahoran Posted July 1, 2007 Posted July 1, 2007 Yet the death of a single man is far less significant than the subjugation and oppression of an entire race of men. Mr. Stapley may not be guilty of the former, but he is certainly guilty of the latter.Call for references or an immediate retraction. Either you provide evidence that Elder Stapely subjugated and oppressed an entire race of people, or admit that you lied when you accused him of so doing.Regards,Pahoran
Mormon Vader Posted July 2, 2007 Posted July 2, 2007 Call for references or an immediate retraction. Either you provide evidence that Elder Stapely subjugated and oppressed an entire race of people, or admit that you lied when you accused him of so doing.Regards,PahoranLet MC stew in his own juices. He is just stirring the pot. Have a laugh (or a sneer) and move on.
katherine the great Posted July 2, 2007 Posted July 2, 2007 Women have no place in this quorum, that is why we have the relief society.>>> I understand that. It was a joke.
Daniel Peterson Posted July 2, 2007 Posted July 2, 2007 What a horrible man.It astonishes me that the entire life and character of a man born in 1896 can be lightly dismissed as "horrible" because something he once wrote privately failed to conform to some of the pieties that, thanks to painful processes requiring half a dozen tumultuous decades, now dominate 2007. No evidence of personal cruelty or dishonesty or corruption or hatefulness or injustice is required. No no. He was "a horrible man" because his forty-plus-year-old private opinion on a matter is now grossly out of fashion.Personally, I find the casual, totalizing dismissal of a long dead man whom the accuser never knew as "horrible" on the basis of a single civil, non-criminal, non-immoral expression of an opinion quite repugnant. Even so, though, I would not, on so flimsy a basis, pronounce the hyperjudgmental accuser "a horrible man" -- ironically tempting though it be.
Donald Posted July 2, 2007 Posted July 2, 2007 Yep....well said.It astonishes me that the entire life and character of a man born in 1896 can be lightly dismissed as "horrible" because something he once wrote privately failed to conform to some of the pieties that, thanks to painful processes requiring half a dozen tumultuous decades, now dominate 2007. No evidence of personal cruelty or dishonesty or corruption or hatefulness or injustice is required. No no. He was "a horrible man" because his forty-plus-year-old private opinion on a matter is now grossly out of fashion.Personally, I find the casual, totalizing dismissal of a long dead man whom the accuser never knew as "horrible" on the basis of a single civil, non-criminal, non-immoral expression of an opinion quite repugnant. Even so, though, I would not, on so flimsy a basis, pronounce the hyperjudgmental accuser "a horrible man" -- ironically tempting though it be.
Hawkmoon Posted July 2, 2007 Posted July 2, 2007 It astonishes me that the entire life and character of a man born in 1896 can be lightly dismissed as "horrible" because something he once wrote privately failed to conform to some of the pieties that, thanks to painful processes requiring half a dozen tumultuous decades, now dominate 2007. No evidence of personal cruelty or dishonesty or corruption or hatefulness or injustice is required. No no. He was "a horrible man" because his forty-plus-year-old private opinion on a matter is now grossly out of fashion.Personally, I find the casual, totalizing dismissal of a long dead man whom the accuser never knew as "horrible" on the basis of a single civil, non-criminal, non-immoral expression of an opinion quite repugnant. Even so, though, I would not, on so flimsy a basis, pronounce the hyperjudgmental accuser "a horrible man" -- ironically tempting though it be.No worries I will do so for you..."The fact that Mighty Curelom actively advocates the subjugation of people who happen to be Mormon is sufficient to make him a bad man. The fact that he participates in something as undeniably evil as the dehumanization of his fellow man is enough. Surely you'd agree that a murderer is a horrible man. Yet the death of a single man is far less significant than the subjugation and oppression of an entire religion. Mr. Curelom may not be guilty of the former, but he is certainly guilty of the latter."
RenegadeOfPhunk Posted July 2, 2007 Posted July 2, 2007 Isn't this essentially the principle that people will be judged by that portion of the law they do have?...until I meet Mormon missionaries, or any other Mormon, who tell me clearly and without quivication that God doesn't wish me to live that kind of lifestyle....then I have a 'choice'.But then I guess it comes down to how able I am to listen to that message, depending on how my life has influenced me up until that point...I don't feel like I'm debating you here calmoriah. I take your point, and I understand what you are saying - just exploring how far the principle 'stretches' so to speak. But of course, I understand that the final judgement is not meant to be in 'human hands'.But anyway, moving the debate in that kind of direction could easiely end up mis-representing my view on the issue currently in main focus - whether we have the right to 'harshly' judge someone who grew up in a different place and / or time from us. (Heck, how about anybody else 'period'?)I hope I've made my opinion on this clear already:No - I don't believe we have that right. We can draw conclusions on whether the literal acts or opinions are 'good' or 'bad'. And try and learn from them. And try and move forward from them (or towards them, as the case may be).But to judge the person is only to judge ourselves...Here's my problem with this attitude. You are dehumanizing someone who is being....dehumanizing(As usual) very well said.He was "a horrible man" because his forty-plus-year-old private opinion on a matter is now grossly out of fashion.While I'm quite on board about the 'horrible man' comment, let's not kid ourselves that this is about what is 'in fashion'.It shouldn't be the atheist who has to speak up against 'moral relativism' - is it?Or is this more about what you see as 'MC's viewpoint' on the issue?
Calm Posted July 2, 2007 Posted July 2, 2007 ...until I meet Mormon missionaries, or any other Mormon, who tell me clearly and without quivication that God doesn't wish me to live that kind of lifestyle....then I have a 'choice'.What if there are things in your (speaking generically) life that prevent you (through no fault of your own) from making informed choice?Simply because one receives some information externally does not mean that the internal reception is equivalent.One wouldn't expect someone mentally disabled to be able to make an accountable choice even if presented with the Gospel in all its teachings...at least not in this life. Physical disabilities are easily recognizable as possible impediments to true communication of concept and even spiritual witness.Could there not be emotional and/or spiritual disabilities with the same effect?I think we can talk about this in the abstract quite easily--no man having received a full chance in this lifetime to accept the gospel who rejects will receive another chance, but in reality we mortals have no real ability to make this sort of judgment of another human being.I have no problem joyfully opting out when the chance for judgment of someone's internal state pops up...even if at times I wonder about it (my degree was in psych, of course I wonder about the whys of people's behaviour).But then I guess it comes down to how able I am to listen to that message, depending on how my life has influenced me up until that point...In my mind, this is indeed what it comes down to and is an excellent summary of my comments above.No - I don't believe we have that right. We can draw conclusions on whether the literal acts or opinions are 'good' or 'bad'. And try and learn from them. And try and move forward from them (or towards them, as the case may be).But to judge the person is only to judge ourselves...Amen. Judgment ends up pretty much based on 'projection'--what would I do in this situation and why?---and ignores the possibly unique qualities of that individual's experience in preference of your own.
Mark Beesley Posted July 2, 2007 Posted July 2, 2007 In 1974, before I received my mission call, I was interviewed by Elder Stapley. After the interview was concluded and I went home, my father asked me how it was, commenting that it was not every day that a person gets to have a one-on-one interview with an apostle of the Lord. Well, I had not been terribly impressed, so I just told my father it was fine, and I was cleared to go on a mission. So, why was the experience so unimpressive? Well, when Elder Stapely arrived for the interview, he had just come from dinner. He was dressed in a rather drab suit, and was wearing a long, dingy trenchcoat. He was very matter-of-fact during the interview, and was somewhat critical of my local leaders for something they had done.As I have reflected back on that experience, I have been grateful to the Lord that He allowed me to meet an Apostle and see him for who he was, a simple man, devoid of any external attributes that would make him stand out by worldly standards, whom the Lord called to be an Apostle of Jesus Christ. That experience has been invaluable to me throughout my life as I have encountered people in the Church who have been called to positions of responsiblity, not because of who or what they are, but often in spite of who or what they are. The critical lesson for me has been to recognize their Priesthood authority, and leave judgments about their personal characteristics for others.From what I have read, Mighty Curelom would do well to do the same.
Severian Posted July 2, 2007 Posted July 2, 2007 Ah! So if something "seems" wrong, and is written with a Church letterhead... in your mind that is grounds for excommunication... I see. Thankfully, you are not in a position to make that type of decision. The idea of excommunication as punishment does sound rather harsh and uncaring does it not? So what was the policy of the Church at that time regarding pushing a racial political agenda as well as influencing public policy in such a distasteful way? Wasn't Apostle Stapley doing something vastly wrong?
Avatar4321 Posted July 2, 2007 Posted July 2, 2007 i cant help but notice no one has been able to authenticate said letter yet. I really want to know how this letter came into the position of the news media.
Mighty Curelom Posted July 2, 2007 Posted July 2, 2007 No worries I will do so for you..."The fact that Mighty Curelom actively advocates the subjugation of people who happen to Mormon is sufficient to make him a bad man. The fact that he participates in something as undeniably evil as the dehumanization of his fellow man is enough. Surely you'd agree that a murderer is a horrible man. Yet the death of a single man is far less significant than the subjugation and oppression of an entire religion. Mr. Curelom may not be guilty of the former, but he is certainly guilty of the latter."Now, don't think I'm against the Mormon people. I fully agree that the Mormon is entitled to considerations, but not full social benefits nor inter-marriage benefits with true Christians, nor should true Christians be forced to accept them into Christian areas. I friend of mine was a most enthusiastic advocate of the Mormon cause, and went about promoting for them all the privileges, social opportunities and participation enjoyed by true Christians. He met a very tragic end by drowning.
Hawkmoon Posted July 2, 2007 Posted July 2, 2007 The idea of excommunication as punishment does sound rather harsh and uncaring does it not? So what was the policy of the Church at that time regarding pushing a racial political agenda as well as influencing public policy in such a distasteful way? Wasn't Apostle Stapley doing something vastly wrong?You mean it is vastly wrong and distasteful to participate in the political process? I'm not sure what you are getting at, but as a private citizen he has every right to do so-- no matter how distasteful you may find his view. I would have been more concerned if the Church would have interfered in his right to do so... remember, he states quite categorically that he is responding NOT as a leader in the Church but as a private citizen and friend. He never commands him nor uses his "position" to do so. In fact, it appears that after Romney ignored his advice he took no disciplinary action as a leader in the Church... none, zilch, nada. Yet, somehow from this you jump to excommunication and how his view relates to the "policy" of the Church. I don't get it.
Hawkmoon Posted July 2, 2007 Posted July 2, 2007 Now, don't think I'm against the Mormon people. I fully agree that the Mormon is entitled to considerations, but not full social benefits nor inter-marriage benefits with true Christians, nor should true Christians be forced to accept them into Christian areas. I friend of mine was a most enthusiastic advocate of the Mormon cause, and went about promoting for them all the privileges, social opportunities and participation enjoyed by true Christians. He met a very tragic end by drowning.Hm, I am certain that you were the one who ensured his demise... you... you.. murderer... no wait! You are worse than that... you have views I find repugnant... Even if you were a saint in all other aspects of your life, I stand by my charge! I don't care if you fed stray cats, played catch your son, and said please and thank you where appropriate. Enslaver! Bigot! Oppressor!
RenegadeOfPhunk Posted July 2, 2007 Posted July 2, 2007 I remember there were some people in history who once thought like MC.But I don't judge them. They were just 'of their time and place'.
Hawkmoon Posted July 2, 2007 Posted July 2, 2007 I remember there were some people in history who once thought like MC.But I don't judge them. They were just 'of their time and place'.CFR!
RenegadeOfPhunk Posted July 2, 2007 Posted July 2, 2007 CFR!For what?..that there were known groups of people in history that could be said to have 'thought like MC's [parody]'?...are you serious?
Hawkmoon Posted July 2, 2007 Posted July 2, 2007 For what?..that there were known groups of people in history that could be said to have 'thought like MC's [parody]'?...are you serious?You just maligned generations of people by stating they think like MC... I would think that you would have some sort of evidence to back it up. Obviously, you don't.
RenegadeOfPhunk Posted July 2, 2007 Posted July 2, 2007 You just maligned generations of people by stating they think like MC... I would think that you would have some sort of evidence to back it up. Obviously, you don't. Ahhh - I get the joke now!...I was starting to feel like I was in the twilight zone...
SolarPowered Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 i cant help but notice no one has been able to authenticate said letter yet. I really want to know how this letter came into the position of the news media.Indeed.I'm not sure I like what that says about a number of the people participating in this thread.
Matt Andrews Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 . . . a single civil, non-criminal, non-immoral expression of an opinion . . . Are you saying the expression of the opinion is non-immoral, or that the opinion itself is non-immoral? (or something else)I'm not trying to bait at all; I'm just interested in what you mean.
Daniel Peterson Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 Are you saying the expression of the opinion is non-immoral, or that the opinion itself is non-immoral? (or something else)I'm not trying to bait at all; I'm just interested in what you mean.Let me be really clear. I completely disagree with Elder Stapley's view of "the negro question." I think every living General Authority would disagree with it, too, and would find it grievously wrong and even embarrassing.But his private expression of his personal opinion was not immoral and, although we now find the opinion morally troubling (to say the least of it), there was no consensus at the time (and particularly among people of his socio-economic and geographical background and generation) that opinions of this sort were immoral. Can we wish that his opinion had been more enlightened? Sure. Can we justly condemn him as "a horrible man" because of this letter? I find that suggestion morally extravagant and quite indefensible.
Severian Posted July 3, 2007 Posted July 3, 2007 So doesn't sending such a letter out on a Church letterhead by one of the main leaders of the Church constitute more than just a personal opinion and wasn't it an attempt to influence public policy (and influence it in a distasteful manner to boot)?
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.