Jump to content

Dispelling the Black Myth


Theo

Recommended Posts

I just received my electronic copy of the FAIR journal in which it was announced the passing of Renee Olson. Here's what it said..

We are all saddened at FAIR by the passing of one of our volunteers,

Renee Olson.

It was a sudden and surprising death and caught all of us off guard.

She was participating on the FAIR volunteer list just the afternoon

prior to her death, as she was explaining how she as an anti-Mormon

became converted and joined the Church. She was a speaker at our

FAIR conference and was one of the motivating factors behind

blacklds.org. She will be missed.

I was curious to understand who she was and followed this link to a talk she gave at a FAIR conference in 2002.

I have never heard of her before but after watching all 4 parts of her talk I figured others might beneifit from her point of view. She certainly opened my eyes to the different myths perpetuated by leaders and members alike and for me provides a new insight into the issues of blacks and the Priesthood.

Any and all comments are welcomed but no bashing please. Like Renee says...she's over it, you get over it too!

Theo

Link to comment

That's too bad. She was a really good speaker, and a strong voice in defense of the Church on the race issue.

I had no idea who she was..never heard of her, but after seeing this I agree that she will be missed. She has a very refreshing take on this topic that I found enlightening.

A good expense of time to anyone even if you still hang onto the old beliefs about the origin of the ban.

Is the LDS church racist?

Yes, but not any more!

How brilliantly simple.

Theo

Link to comment

Theo:

Nice video. But I think you missed the import of my question. I've know our history for a long time now. What I am asking is sjdawg's understanding of the issue.

I going to assume the conclusions you and I draw from the same information will be different and leave it at that. Every discussion of race degenerates in conversations of what is or isn't official doctrine and what is personal opinion. I don't want to get on that merry go round right now.

Link to comment

I had no idea who she was..never heard of her, but after seeing this I agree that she will be missed. She has a very refreshing take on this topic that I found enlightening.

A good expense of time to anyone even if you still hang onto the old beliefs about the origin of the ban.

Is the LDS church racist?

Yes, but not any more!

How brilliantly simple.

Theo

Not that simple for me I guess. I tend to judge the church (past and present) as one entity.

Link to comment

Renee and I shared a motel room during the conference on a couple of occasions and several of us would gather and she would entertain us with her satirical monologues late into the night. As you can see from her talk, she is incredibly funny. This was such a sad shock...thank you for posting this link.

Link to comment

And yet sd ,if you are not then who is.??

Great question. I don't know and I don't care, but I know I don't have all the truth and I try not to pretend like I do.

My mistakes and my past are just that - My mistakes and my past. I didn't have all the truth then and I don't have it all now.

Link to comment

She certainly opened my eyes to the different myths perpetuated by leaders and members alike and for me provides a new insight into the issues of blacks and the Priesthood.

It's interesting that some people use the word "myth" instead of "teaching".

The important question in distinguishing between a "myth" and a "teaching" is whether or not the person creating the story intends for it to be a "myth" or not. I don't think it's entirely honest to label a sincere teaching as a "myth" decades later without the consent of the original speaker.

We can label it as an "incorrect teaching", or a "mythtake", but that's not the same as a "myth".

Link to comment

It's interesting that some people use the word "myth" instead of "teaching".

The important question in distinguishing between a "myth" and a "teaching" is whether or not the person creating the story intends for it to be a "myth" or not. I don't think it's entirely honest to label a sincere teaching as a "myth" decades later without the consent of the original speaker.

OK, so they sincerely taught a myth [a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon ] or [a popular belief or tradition that has grown up around something or someone]

(definitions from Merriam-Webster)

And Elder McConkie had no problem consigning those sincere teachings of myth to the dustbin without the consent of all of the original speakers.

Link to comment

cinepro:

The term myth still is appropriate.

A traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, esp. one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature.

Yes, in 2010 on an apologetic website, the term "myth" is very appropriate.

My point is that the Church leaders at the time taught these things as history, and doctrine, not as "myth" or legend. So it seems a little disingenuous to reclassify their teachings as "myth" as if LDS had always understood the "legendary" aspects of the stories.

Why not be clear about it and just call them "false teachings"? That way there is no confusion about the fact that they were teachings, assumed to be true at the time, which we now understand to be false.

Link to comment

And Elder McConkie had no problem consigning those sincere teachings of myth to the dustbin without the consent of all of the original speakers.

Elder McConkie only told us to disregard those things which contradicted OD2. And the only thing he ever taught that contradicted OD2 was that blacks would never get the priesthood in this life.

Teachings about pre-mortal invaliance or ancient curses don't contradict OD2, so we can't use Elder McConkie's statement to disregard them.

Remember, he was a lawyer, so his words mean exactly what they say, and no more.

Link to comment

Elder McConkie only told us to disregard those things which contradicted OD2. And the only thing he ever taught that contradicted OD2 was that blacks would never get the priesthood in this life.

Teachings about pre-mortal invaliance or ancient curses don't contradict OD2, so we can't use Elder McConkie's statement to disregard them.

I'm not, I'm using it to disregard your attempt to make doing that an act of dishonesty. If McConkie contradicted one or ten dead speakers is irrelevant. He did contradict.

Link to comment

Why not be clear about it and just call them "false teachings"? That way there is no confusion about the fact that they were teachings, assumed to be true at the time, which we now understand to be false.

Because it can be both and myth carries the meaning that these statements had no basis beyond tradition where simply labeling it "false teachings" does not.

Link to comment

Archived

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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...