Originally Posted By utahjosh Hawaii was amazing, and my beautiful wife is fantastic. Thanks for asking. About the "blaming God" thing. It's hard to know the mind of God. But in my church we believe in Prophets and such, who communicate with God and guide His church on this earth. Not just some nice, smart old guys. So when a revelation from God tells us to allow all men the priesthood, then we do it.
Originally Posted By X-san ***So when a revelation from God tells us to allow all men the priesthood, then we do it.*** Twisting the facts and dismissing the racism is not okay, Josh.
Originally Posted By utahjosh What facts did I twist? I acknowledge the racism of the 1800s into the 1900. I don't like it, but it was there.
Originally Posted By X-san The twisted, insulting idea is that god somehow revealed to you, in the 1970's, that being prejudiced was no longer okay. That sort of implies that god was okay with it before then. You can't see that?
Originally Posted By mele I don't understand why it's easier/better to attribute negative things to GOD (saying we just don't understand) than it is to maybe say that the prophets of the time were human and made mistakes. Hello?
Originally Posted By utahjosh No, I do not see it that way. I really DO NOT know all of the reasons the blacks could not hold the priesthood for a period of time. Racism was probably the start of it, the culture of the time. I could give lots of guesses as to why God allowed that to continue until 1970s, but I do not know. There were thousands upon thousands of LDS people before the revelation that wished all men could hold the priesthood. I still believe it was a revelation from God that made the change, after years of petitions from His prophets and other people.
Originally Posted By utahjosh If you want some real insight to the history and attitudes today of Black people in the LDS church, visit this website: <a href="http://www.ldsgenesisgroup.org/" target="_blank">http://www.ldsgenesisgroup.org/</a>
Originally Posted By X-san ****I could give lots of guesses as to why God allowed that to continue until 1970s, but I do not know.**** Oh, for christ's sake... Even as a FORMER Christian this is way over the top. What sort of true GOD would "allow" prejudice? That's totally stupid. And you're, rather sickeningly, attempting to justify racism as "the will of god". Totally crap, nothing more. Sorry to get angry, but it is pretty sickening!
Originally Posted By utahjosh We'll just have to disagree here. But i still Believe that God knew of the policy that the church leaders had in place, and for some reason, unknown to me, he didn't make the change in the church until the 70s.
Originally Posted By utahjosh Or visit <a href="http://www.blacklds.org" target="_blank">http://www.blacklds.org</a> for more opinions from BLACK people on the subject.
Originally Posted By ecdc This is getting silly. Josh is simply parroting the new Mormon position on African-Americans. Now there's this kind of somber attitude, like "well, we didn't like it but who were we to question god's ways." Of course, 40 years ago, Mormon knew *exactly* why God denied blacks the Priesthood. They believed, as did many 19th century Americans - only in a religion like Mormonism where everything is believed to come directly from God, ideas persist longer - that blacks were cursed because Cain killed Abel and a black mark was set upon their skin. They further believed that this curse survived the flood through Noah's son Ham, who was believed to have married an Egyptian woman who had dark skin. Some Mormons, though it was not as popular and was repudiated by other Mormon leaders, believed that blacks were essentially "fence sitters" in the great war in heaven before mankind came to earth. And of course, historians know precisely why Mormons denied blacks the priesthood. The information is there for anyone willing to find it, and has been since men like Lester Bush, Armand Mauss, and Newell Bringhurst began their studies 35 years ago. Mormon founder Joseph Smith gave black men the priesthood; he did not link the popular idea of the Curse of Cain with a denial of Priesthood blessings. However, following Smith's death and the Mormon migration to Utah territory, in a speech before the territorial legislature, Brigham Young, second Mormon President, espoused the view that the curse did entail a denial of priesthood. It was Young and his deep-seated racism that caused the ban. After that, from time to time, other leaders would look at it, but they always operated under the assumption that Brigham Young had a reason from God for what he did; they never actually inquired what happened before and if Brigham Young may simply have been a racist - like practically all 19th century Americans. It's a combination of a a strong belief that everything the church does must be from God, that makes change so slow-going in a religion like Mormonism. It finally took some people like Lester Bush to analyze the historical documents and ask the question "What if the ban was wrong all along? What if it was due to 19th century racism and not God's wishes?" that finally had the issue reversed. Mormons will tell you it was through a "revelation" that the ban was lifted. In reality, it was through keen political maneuvering by a Mormon President named Spencer Kimball. He privately lobbied other Mormon leaders for well over a year, and he waited (as has been done before in Mormonism) for key opponents to be out of town when the vote to lift the ban was taken. Further, previous Mormon leaders like Joseph Fielding Smith (great-nephew of Joseph Smith) and Harold B. Lee had to pass away first, since they never would have approved of lifting the ban. Like all organizations, change comes in Mormonism through political maneuvering, good timing, and hard work on the part of those determined to do the right thing. Again, this whole story is out there for anyone to see. But Mormons continue to perpetuate this absurd notion that "we don't know why" and that it was "changed by a revelation." Like mele astutely pointed out, it would make a hell of a lot more sense to blame Brigham Young and be done with it. Mormons don't realize how much respect they would probably earn from those looking at the church, and they don't know how much baggage they would probably lift from their own shoulders. But instead, they continue to insist on making God the racist, and people like Brigham Young merely his vessels.
Originally Posted By utahjosh I agree with some but not all of your post, ecdc. You talk as if you were there, but you are simply "parroting" anit-LDS views as I am "parroting" current LDS leader's views.
Originally Posted By X-san ***This is getting silly.*** "getting"? I appreciate the well reasoned comments EC...I'm not capable of much more than frustrated disgust at the moment. How any of these people can take themselves and their attitudes seriously really is beyond me (and I'm NOT just talking about Mormons per se but this conversation certainly proves they're no better than any of the rest...no worse either since all of it sucks).
Originally Posted By mele Maybe God thought people should be smart enough to figure out that racism was wrong on their own, without having to be told.
Originally Posted By ecdc Let me add, Mormons face the same issue today with women and the priesthood, but women's issues aren't as politically correct or pressing in our culture, so there's less pressure on the church. It's almost comical to watch Mormons wonder "why can't women have the priesthood," as if there's some magical, mystical reason God's decided to do this. And, like the blacks and the priesthood issue, they've invented any number of creative mental gymnastics to explain why God, who according to their own scriptures is not a bigot, acts like one. But none of those answers is nearly as obvious as the right one, or as satisfying: You have a church that was started in a time period when women went from being their father's property to their husband's property, coupled with an organization that thinks everything its ever done is God's will, and you wonder why women can't have the priesthood? This is one of the key problems with some religions. Instead of simply taking the initiative to do the right thing, they sit around waiting for God to tell them what to do. And almost every time, when God finally does speak up, it isn't "revelatory" or revealing at all - it's an obvious thing. According to Mormons, God spoke out against Communism in the 1950s - what foresight! God finally gave blacks equal rights - in 1978! But where was God on issues that weren't already obvious to anyone with a brain - where was he on the Iraq war? Where was he on the holocaust? How about the Vietnam War? It turns out, Mormonism's god was silent on these issues.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>I agree with some but not all of your post, ecdc. You talk as if you were there, but you are simply "parroting" anit-LDS views as I am "parroting" current LDS leader's views.<< Ah yes, the old "anti-Mormon" label - a nasty label tossed out with little thought by Mormons on a regular basis. I do not agree that the ban was from God, nor do I believe it was changed by revelation. This, therefore, makes me "anti-Mormon" or parroting "anti-Mormons." Yet I have to ask, Josh, you do not believe in the Nicene Creed, nor do you believe that the Pope is god's messenger on earth. By your reasoning and logic, this makes you "anti-Catholic." Are you comfortable with this designation? Mormons need to learn there's a huge difference between those of us who don't believe and who disagree with some of the things the church has done, and those who actively work against it to convert people to Evangelicalism - like the Tanners, Ed Decker, etc.
Originally Posted By X-san ***Now there's this kind of somber attitude, like "well, we didn't like it but who were we to question god's ways."*** Absolutely. If one were to believe in god, one would have to realize that such a sanctimonious viewpoint is utterly sacrilegious and blasphemous. I say that with complete conviction. If there really is a god, He will really be angry about this.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <I admire the gay folk around here (like Dabob2, for one) who manage to keep their composure on this and similar subjects. But my vociferousness (is that even a word?) and my ferocity is an excellent indication of just how fed up I am with all of this.> BlueDevil, I hear you. Believe me, I hear you. Sometimes I get fed up too, and just don't want to suffer the fools gladly anymore. But then I remember that when attitudes have been drilled into people, they can still be changed, but it usually takes a lot of time and patience. Some people will never change their minds, but millions of people HAVE already - that's what you have to remember. With gay marriage, as with integration, literally millions of people who used to oppose it now favor it, and almost no one has gone the other way. You have to keep plugging, and appealing to people's "better angels." <All of my life I've been told, by one person or another, "You're just not good enough." Whether it's family, the churches I grew up around, or people I barely know who should have no power over me. Screw that.> There's a way to say "screw that" without saying "screw you." The former is powerful and necessary. When you say the latter, you just lose people who might one day be your allies.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>When you say the latter, you just lose people who might one day be your allies.<< I'm trying to remember that. My more "moderate" side has been lacking lately, after being subjected to the same ridiculous "evidence" that has been roundly debunked time and again. I'm going to redouble my efforts to control my temper. But at a certain point, bigotry simply needs to be called what it is. Perhaps the discomfort of being associated with that word will move a few more people off the fence where basic fairness hasn't been able to. Because no matter what way you look at it, no matter how "intellectual" an argument against it pretends to be, it is about bigotry.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <He says his experts (and who's to say he didn't find experts friendly to his point of view?) are "stumped." Yet they conclude it must be the gay marriages.> Well no, they didn't concluded that. That you claim so means you really didn't understand what you read.
