Mormonism Under Attack?

[Avatar4321]

If they want to attack us, let them attack us. We just need to choose to continue to reach out a hand of friendship and fellowship.

You can't kick Mormonism down. Only up.

[Avatar4321]

The attacks on the church is simply the fulfillment of prophecy, and it will get worse. The G&A building will not go away.

I personally find it rather invigorating. Who enjoys being ignored? I keep passing out those "I'm A Mormon" pass along cards.

I find it invigorating too. In fact, I welcome it. It means the Lord's Spirit will be working with us more. If they left us alone we would convert the world, if they choose to attack us, we will do it faster.

[Sky]

I know it was rhetorical question, but I'll answer it anyway. The reason the Church is getting attacked isn't because it has a racist past, but rather because it is now dealing with its own past so poorly. Broadly claiming that "we don't know" and we have "no official position" is a cop-out.

Here is exactly what the Church should do: President Monson should boldly declare that the priesthood ban originated with the racism of past church leaders and not from God. He should apologize on behalf of the church for the pain and misunderstanding that the church's institutionalized racism has caused. That would put the issue to rest.

It isn’t enough to say that the racist rationalizations offered by past apostles and prophets aren’t official doctrine. The Prophet should clarify that those beliefs are false.Until he does, the racist attitudes in the Church that have been on display this past week will fester.

The Church isn't going to say anything that could possibly destroy a person's testimony or confidence in its prophetic leadership. But regardless of what happened in the past regarding racism, the Church has nevertheless made great strides, and I think this ought to be appluded.

I would like to see you and Xander and others be a bit less harsh in your judgements and more willing to recognize the Church's sincere efforts. The Church has issued the strongest statement against racism that it possibly could - but short of actually saying the ban itself was wrong. I can understand why you and others may find that frustrating. Nobody really seems to know why the Priesthood ban occured, but at some point we have to leave this behind us and leave it in the Lord's hands.

Edited March 5, 2012 by Sky

[Sky]

I would like to mention just one more thing: press releases on the Church newsroom website are approved by the fifteen men at the top (FP and Qof12). So in that sense they are official, even though they are not actually written by them.

[Calm]

What has this to do with the topic?

[thesometimesaint]

calmoriah:

Not much. I'll gladly get back to the OP.

As the election draws near I believe we've seen just the beginnings of the attacks on our religion. I personally wish to keep all religion out of politics, and deal with the pressing problems we have to solve as a country.

[Analytics]

The Church isn't going to say anything that could possibly destroy a person's testimony or confidence in its prophetic leadership. But regardless of what happened in the past regarding racism, the Church has nevertheless made great strides, and I think this ought to be appluded.

I would like to see you and Xander and others be a bit less harsh in your judgements and more willing to recognize the Church's sincere efforts. The Church has issued the strongest statement against racism that it possibly could - but short of actually saying the ban itself was wrong. I can understand why you and others may find that frustrating. Nobody really seems to know why the Priesthood ban occured, but at some point we have to leave this behind us and leave it in the Lord's hands.

Most people really do know why the ban occured. The Church just isn't willing to say it because it doesn't like the implications. It also knows most of the "explanations with respect to this matter" are in fact false, but it isn't willing to say they are false, and merely says that they are "not doctrine", implying that they may in fact be true.

Just to be clear, I don't consider the contemporary LDS Church or the vast majority of its members to be at all racist. The problem is that the Church's history is still there, and its implications need to be dealt with it. If the Church is unwilling to do so, then well-meaning members and scholars will fill the void, which perpetuates disagreement, misunderstanding, and unproductive beliefs.

It's a no-win situation for the church--I get that. But I still think the right thing to do is tell the full truth and apologize.

[Analytics]

What has this to do with the topic?

A poster was complaining about how despicable, spiteful and slanderous the media is towards the Church, and I pointed out Rush Limbaugh’s mouth, just to keep things in perspective.

[thesometimesaint]

Analytics:

We don't know the "full truth" concerning the Ban. Even at it its best it is just speculation as to why such bans have existed since the beginning of organized religion. If it is God directed it is his responsibility to clarify his stance, but for whatever reason he has chosen not to do so. If it is man made who really cares what a small minorty religion believes as long as they treat their fellow men with honor and respect.

I can see the need an apology for some of the speculations about the ban and BRM offered it. However there are those that will harbor a grudge no matter what will accept no apology however heartfelt and sincere it is.

The ban was lifted over thirty years ago with great rejoicing and hope amongst the Saints. Harlem; NY has an active fast growing black LDS community. We now have Branches, Wards, Stakes, and three active Temples in Africa with many more hoped for. It is time, past time, to move on.

Edited March 5, 2012 by thesometimesaint

[divinenature]

It's hard to move on when we still hear about the ban and scriptures attached to it in church and institute. It is hard to move on when an apology and acknowledgement of wrongdoing has not occurred. For many, this is still an open festering wound.

Only when racist teachings are completely wiped from the manuals and scriptures (or openly explained as racist) will the membership and the church be able to really move on.

[thesometimesaint]

divinenature:

OD2 is still part of our Scripture. It is kinda hard to explaine OD2 without explaining at least some of the history behind it. Would you have us delete OD2 from our Scriptures?

Edited March 5, 2012 by thesometimesaint

[Analytics]

Analytics:

We don't know the "full truth" concerning the Ban. Even at it its best it is just speculation as to why such bans have existed since the beginning of organized religion. If it is God directed it is his responsibility to clarify his stance, but for whatever reason he has chosen not to do so. If it is man made who really cares what a small minorty religion believes as long as they treat their fellow men with honor and respect.

I can see the need an apology for some of the speculations about the ban and BRM offered it. However there are those that will harbor a grudge no matter what will accept no apology however heartfelt and sincere it is.

The ban was lifted over thirty years ago with great rejoicing and hope amongst the Saints. Harlem; NY has an active fast growing black LDS community. We now have Branches, Wards, Stakes, and three active Temples in Africa with many more hoped for. It is time, past time, to move on.

I know why the ban was there, and I'm happy to share this nugget of truth with anybody who asks. Saying "we don't know the full truth" is being a weasel because it does nothing to clarify what is and is not known.

I’m now repeating myself, but I’ll restate my position one final time. I don’t believe the Church itself is racist, and I don’t believe the vast majority of members are racist.

But if the Church doesn’t make a definitive statement as to why there was a ban in the first place, then idle, conflicting, and usually racist speculation will fester among the Latter-day Saints. I think the culture of wanting to gain further light and knowledge runs too deep in Mormonism for the Latter-day Saints to rally around and be satisfied with the non-answer of “we don’t know and we don’t want to know. Let’s stop talking about it, stop asking about it, stop thinking about it, and act as if it never happened.”

The issue has nothing to do with whether or not somebody would accept an apology or would hold a grudge. The issue is that the Church is being a weasel with it's statements of the the origins of the ban are "not entirely clear." Since the Church is being a weasel, faithful Latter-day Saints such as Randy Bott are left to speculate as to why with reasoning that faithful Latter-day Saints such as Don Harwell consider vile. The spoken and unspoken tension among the Saints themselves is the problem.

Edited March 5, 2012 by Analytics

[KevinG]

The usual stuff that triggers feelings of emotion that Mormons insist is the spirit of God telling people "this Church is true." Who could have know that Hollywood had the keys to heaven all this time?

Same reason we send awkward 19 year old boys around the world to places they can barely speak the language and tell them to teach by the Spirit... yeah that's the ticket.

[KevinG]

I would like to mention just one more thing: press releases on the Church newsroom website are approved by the fifteen men at the top (FP and Qof12). So in that sense they are official, even though they are not actually written by them.

I support that opinion. But knowing some people who prepare public materials for the Church for a living, I can report while the brethren don't write all of them they certainly do edit the heck out of all of them! Even the pageants.

[KevinG]

Most people really do know why the ban occured. The Church just isn't willing to say it because it doesn't like the implications. It also knows most of the "explanations with respect to this matter" are in fact false, but it isn't willing to say they are false, and merely says that they are "not doctrine", implying that they may in fact be true.

Just to be clear, I don't consider the contemporary LDS Church or the vast majority of its members to be at all racist. The problem is that the Church's history is still there, and its implications need to be dealt with it. If the Church is unwilling to do so, then well-meaning members and scholars will fill the void, which perpetuates disagreement, misunderstanding, and unproductive beliefs.

It's a no-win situation for the church--I get that. But I still think the right thing to do is tell the full truth and apologize.

When you learn something your parents didn't know do you apologize to the public for their ignorance or do you share that information with everyone and still honor your parents for being as good as they were?

[KevinG]

I know why the ban was there, and I'm happy to share this nugget of truth with anybody who asks.

You know more than the Apostles then. Or you think you do.

[Analytics]

You know more than the Apostles then.

I agree.

To be precise, I know why it was there with 99% clarity.

Maybe the apostles know even more about it than I do. The difference is, rather than clarifying the 99%+ they know, they weasle that the truth is "not entirely clear" and drop it at that, thus allowing the misconceptions among the Saints to fester.

And on that note... you are excused from this thread. -Ares

[Analytics]

When you learn something your parents didn't know do you apologize to the public for their ignorance or do you share that information with everyone and still honor your parents for being as good as they were?

I believe that the Church as an entity can apologize for the harmful things it has done, and I think it should in fact do so.

I don't believe that the current leaders should apologize for what past leaders have done. I don't believe past leaders should be thrown under the bus and not honored for being as good as they were. Most people were racist back then--it isn't that big of a deal. The problem is when a current group of believers think that past racism was commissioned by God, and their leaders aren't willing to definitively state that it was not.

[KevinG]

I think we have definitively stated past restrictions were not doctrinal. How much further can we go without throwing past leaders under the bus?

I'd like to see your exact wording for this supposed "entity apology" and how it would differ from what was done last week. But I guess you will have to offer that in another thread now...

[why me]

It's hard to move on when we still hear about the ban and scriptures attached to it in church and institute. It is hard to move on when an apology and acknowledgement of wrongdoing has not occurred. For many, this is still an open festering wound.

I don't think that the ban is actively discussed in institute. And what wrong doing has occurred? If african americans did not want to join the church because of the priesthood ban they were free not to do so. If african americans still wanted to join the lds church even with the ban in place, they were free to do so. The ban did not ban membership in the lds church. And so what apology should be made?

[why me]

I believe that the Church as an entity can apologize for the harmful things it has done, and I think it should in fact do so.

I think that you have a chip on your shoulder. What harm has the church done today? What harmful thing has the church done? And what is the church?

[BCSpace]

I don't believe that the current leaders should apologize for what past leaders have done.

Indeed there is no need. The Church's standard for doctrine already identifies was is the doctrine on the ban and what is speculation. Those familiar with the Newsroom statements, especially the media, can also be referred to Approaching Mormon Doctrine. Regarding the media, perhaps the word "ought" ought to be added to that. That is why the recent Newsroom statements need not be specific as to what were speculations. We already have been given the tools to know.

[KevinG]

Analytics:

It wasn't an apology. He said it was a "wrong choice of words". The thought(lack there of) that motivated his slut comments, and fantacizing(putting on the internet so he can watch her engage in sex) about her sex life still remain.

Especially given that her testimoney was about her friend that needed The Pill to control ovarian cysts, the woman finally lost one of her ovaries to cysts.

He is a thoroughly disgusting excuse for a human being.

Not making excuses for the dumb comments of the radio host but did you know the woman involved is a 30 year old activist who enrolled at Georgetown expressly to lead efforts like the one to force employers to fund contraceptives, etc.

I have a daughter who suffers from conditions where the pill helps her, and I appreciate that being covered by insurance - to let you know what side of the discussion I'd probably land on... however this was a gotcha set up that the host stepped into. Not some poor innocent co-ed being unfairly picked on.

Of course the left side of the media was primed and ready to use her as the sympathetic foil to the Catholic church's efforts to get out from under government mandate.

Edited March 6, 2012 by KevinG

[KevinG]

Back on topic... I don't see these criticisms as new or even attacks. They aren't flattering and some are just weird. It is the frequency of public airings that is new because of the election and recent events like the Book of Mormon musical and the church ramping up its public affairs work to get their own voice "out there".

It does have its benefits... my son said many guys at Basic Training chose to attend the LDS services to find out what they were like.

[selek1]

I am deeply disgusted with the hypocrisy and political opportunism on display, so this will be my last and only comment on the kerfuffle.

Especially given that her testimoney was about her friend that needed The Pill to control ovarian cysts, the woman finally lost one of her ovaries to cysts.

The dirty litte secret is that using "the pill" for that treatment was already covered by the plan.

Fluke (a paid political mercenary) misrepresented that fact in order to advance the political agenda of her employers.

He is a thoroughly disgusting excuse for a human being.

This designation is deeply ironic, considering who makes the list and who doesn't.

Who, among this list, has done more harm (direct and indirect) against women?

Larry Flynt

Al Goldstein

Anthony "Check Out My Twitter" Weiner

Ed "Palin's daughter is a whore" Shultz

Keith "I'm not a Stalker, I'm a Fan" Olbermann

Chris "Hillar Clinton is an 'uppity female'" Matthews

Bill "Dumb T--t" Maher

Bill "Better Put Some Ice on That" Clinton

Ted "Chappaquid****" Kennedy

Rush Limbaugh

Yet who is the only one hated and vilified? Limbaugh.

Why?

Because he does not share SometimeSaint's political agenda.

The derision and hatred against Limbaugh is driven by ideology not conduct.

One doesn't need to be beaten up and then left to drown in a sinking car to see that.