LDS II: The Mormons

[eight bits]

Travis

If you think conflating the inquisition burnings in Spain with the witch burnings in...say Wurzburg is a slur....well then you must think people utter slurs a lot.

Your remark did not concern the Spanish Inquisition. Your remark was about witch burning, which surely did occur in "Catholic territory," and "Protestant territory," and occurs today in contested territory in Africa, not often at Catholic hands. Your remark associated the activity only with Roman Catholicism, while mentioning no other church

Your complaint is that racism, which several churches in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries condoned or promoted, is sometimes linked only with the LDS, while mentioning no other church. Yet, you then did the same thing with witch burning and Catholics. You do your case no good to say "But some Catholics really did religiously burn some folks," because, Travis, some Mormons really did religiously discriminate against African Americans. If past injustice licenses your selective remark, then past injustice licenses the selective remarks of which you complain.

You think I'm a bigot?

What I think is that you are the same kind as somebody who remarks gratuitously today about LDS' past racism. You seem to think that such people may be bigots. All I think is that you're in the same category. What you eventually decide to call your own kind is on you.

 

[Nay_Sayer]

I'm more mystified by the whole reading tablets from an old hat bit.

 

[poblob14]

Is there any evidence the Mormon church is racist now?

Any evidence? Well, Wikipedia informs me that:

The church has never kept official records on the race of its membership, so exact numbers are unknown. No member of the two highest governing bodies, the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, have ever been black. There have been several black members of the Quorums of the Seventy; and, as of 2013, Brazilian Helvécio Martins (a member of the Second Quorum of the Seventy from 1990 to 1995), Joseph W. Sitati (from Kenya) and Edward Dube (from Zimbabwe), both members of the First Quorum of the Seventy, have served as general authorities. There has never been a black member of the general presidencies of the Relief Society, Young Women, Primary, Young Men, or Sunday School. The first African member of the Relief Society general board was chosen in 2003, and she shared her testimony at the general meeting of the Relief Society in September 2003.

 

[catsmate]

I'm more mystified by the whole reading tablets from an old hat bit.

It was a variation on a moderately common method of scrying using 'peep stones', somewhat related to staring into a mirror in a darkened room. The Mormons try an play down the hat and stones bit as it has occult overtones.

 

[Loss Leader]

This thread long ago lost its focus on the Mormon religion and became almost entirely about homosexuality. A new general thread regarding homosexuality,gay marriage, adoption and other issues has been split-off and may be found in Social Issues and Current Events. That is the proper place for general discussion of those topics.

This thread is reserved for discussion of the Church of Latter Day Saints, its history and general Mormon practices and beliefs. Homosexuality and gay marriage may be discussed only in the context of the religious beliefs and practices of the Mormons. With several ex and a few practicing Mormons on the forum, this is an excellent place for learning about and questioning their beliefs.

Many posts still left in this thread would be considered off-topic if reposted below this modbox. Please take care to keep your posts on-topic.

This thread remains moderated at this time. Thank you.

Posted By: Loss Leader

 

[This is The End]

I'm more mystified by the whole reading tablets from an old hat bit.

Wasn't the guy actually arrested for scrying (telling people he could see things (almost always treasure) in glass/stones) years before adding the religion stuff to it?? And on top of that his dad "practiced that art" for years before him...

I'm not sure how anyone gives the guy any credibility after knowing that.

Oh, wait, I forgot what the great P. T. Barnum taught us.

 

[Janadele]

Joseph Smith actually owned a slave which he freed with much fanfare and as I recall the slave was given presents such as a fine horse and other perks. I forget the details.

The Prophet Joseph Smith did not ever own a slave. His advice and proposal to the U.S. Government of the day was to purchase all slaves from their owners and set them free. Had his advice been followed the Civil War would not have occurred

 

[Chernobyl X1]

I'm sorry but I don't follow. Can you find me a church anywhere that makes major doctrinal decisions and doesn't claim it is the will of God?

That depends on how you define "church", "religion", or "gods". Out of the 30,000+ religions, variants, and offshoots, I'm sure you can find hundreds or even thousands that doesn't invoke a god when society pressures dictate change. If one looks, I'm sure they can find a religion that doesn't need to change. A religion that holds to the creed that all people, regardless of (insert controversial issue here), are fully welcomed. A religion that had it right the whole time. They are out there if that is what a person needs in their life.

 

[Nay_Sayer]

The Prophet Joseph Smith did not ever own a slave. His advice and proposal to the U.S. Government of the day was to purchase all slaves from their owners and set them free. Had his advice been followed the Civil War would not have occurred

No, just no, no, no, no....Where do I even begin telling why that is utterly wrong.

 

[CplFerro]

Dear Travis, et al,

Wouldn't atheist activists prefer the Mormon church be racist, so that all the blacks will have a disincentive to believe?

Cpl Ferro

 

[bruto]

Dear Travis, et al,

Wouldn't atheist activists prefer the Mormon church be racist, so that all the blacks will have a disincentive to believe?

Cpl Ferro

I can imagine that scenario if one pictures the "atheist activists" as interested in nothing but the death of churches, sitting in their mountain lairs wringing their hands and chortling like some demented comic book villains. But it seems more likely that atheist activists of actual intelligence would realize that atheism is not better served by believers' choice between one sect and another, and that society in general is not served by anyone being a racist.

In response to the original post and question, I think the Mormon Church's mechanism for changing provides (whatever true, deep-down, divine reasons can be cited) a useful way for the church to evolve and to save face at the same time, and a few other religious groups could benefit from the example. But the cover story of revelation would be a lot more convincing outside the church if it led social change rather than following it. There's still plenty of room for criticism given how slowly that mechanism works and how far the church lags behind much of the rest of society. It's better than nothing, but there's plenty of room to suggest it's not been good enough.

 

[Robrob]

I've seen an awful lot of seeming condescension towards the 1970's revelation in the LDS church in regards to dark skin.

I would think the people in this forum would like a church to abandon racist doctrine.

So this mocking attitude somewhat perplexes me. It was this revelation that allowed the Mormon church I joined in the late 80's to be very active in trying to welcome in black members rather than exclude them. This would seem to me to be a step in the right direction for a large church.

So why all the snark about this?

I swear this and the obsession some people have over the undergarments will always mystify me.

I think it stands out to most people because it's so odd. Plenty of religions wear special hats or have hair policies but AFAIK, LDS is the only one with magic underwear. I've know a couple of them in the military, it was only an issue because their issue military T-shirts were obviously different than everyone else's.

The racial thing is old news, sort of like the plural marriages - interesting from a historical POV but not really relevant to today. Honestly, I'm more concerned about their apparent homophobia.

Dear Travis, et al,

Wouldn't atheist activists prefer the Mormon church be racist, so that all the blacks will have a disincentive to believe?

Cpl Ferro

No, why would any normal person want others to be discriminated against?

 

[Cat Tale]

The Church was not "told to stop doing it" who do you think did so and on what authority?

Of course it was, else why would there be a ban on it? The [SLC] Deseret News had an article entitled Mormon Church apologizes for Jewish baptisms for the dead. There was an agreement made between "LDS and Jewish officials as recently as 2010, the LDS Church has promised that names of the Holocaust victims would not be submitted for baptism for the dead in any of the church's temples unless those names belonged to direct ancestors of those submitting the names."

Sadly, however, this hasn't stopped LDS members from trying to slip things past the computer system. According to News Channel 4 in Utah, Anne Frank was actually baptized in the Santo Domingo Temple, and the Church made an apology. The Church also apologized the previous week (IIRC) for the baptism of Simon Wiesenthal and his parents. This was dated Feb. 21, 2012.

The Church took this seriously, and about a week later on Feb. 29, 2012 put out stronger guidelines that were to be read in Sacrament meeting, I actually remember hearing it read. Here's the statement.

Neither you nor I know whether the name of Anne Frank has been submitted, we do not have access to that information and neither does anyone else not authorised.

Not true. The way it was originally found was it was on familysearch.org.

Under access to Temple Records on familysearch.org "Most temple records are available to the public. For example, about 75 percent of temple records have no restrictions and can be used at the Family History Library and at Family History Centers. Only about 20 percent of temple records are restricted, especially records that include information about living people... Restricted temple records can be used in Special Collections by Latter-day Saints" who are in good standing.

What difference would it make to you anyway when you do not believe there is any relevance or legitimacy to such an ordinance?

Because the Church has promised that we won't do it. And even though it's the member's fault for breaking the rules, what we do can reflect on the Church as a whole, in a case like this.

 

[SezMe]

I saw no racism in the time I was in the church.

Where was the church you attended? How many non-whites were in the congregation? How many in places of power?

o the LDS church is special in this regard....how?

Travis, you have used this general type of comment several times. It is classic tu quoque. Just because other religious organizations have had idiotic policies does not justify the LDS also having bad policies...policies attributed to god. The topic of this thread is the LDS church; let's leave the others out of it.

And this automatically means all Mormons are homophobes? That there aren't members of the church agitating that they change their ways and accept homosexuality? Are you saying my mom and dad don't exist?

Of course not. But then we are talking about official LDS doctrine, not the beliefs of its individual members.

 

[catsmate]

Wasn't the guy actually arrested for scrying (telling people he could see things (almost always treasure) in glass/stones) years before adding the religion stuff to it?? And on top of that his dad "practiced that art" for years before him...

I'm not sure how anyone gives the guy any credibility after knowing that.

Oh, wait, I forgot what the great P. T. Barnum taught us.

Yes he was known as a fortune teller before he invented Mormonism.

The Prophet Joseph Smith did not ever own a slave. His advice and proposal to the U.S. Government of the day was to purchase all slaves from their owners and set them free. Had his advice been followed the Civil War would not have occurred

Actually Smith (and Brigham Young) supported Southern slavery:

“. . . [W]e have no right to interfere with slaves contrary to the mind & will of their masters. In fact, it would be much better & more prudent not to preach at all to slaves, until after their masters are converted: and then teach the master to use them with kindness, remembering that they are accountable to God and that servants are bound to serve their master with singleness of heart, without murmuring.”

“After having expressed myself so freely upon this subject, I do not doubt but those who have been forward in raising their voice against the South will cry out against me as being uncharitable, unfeeling and unkind--wholly unacquainted with the gospel of Christ.
'It is my privilege, then, to name certain passages from the Bible and examine the teachings of the ancients upon this matter, as the fact is incontrovertible that the first mention we have of slavery is found in the holy Bible, pronounced by a man who was perfect in his generation and walked with God. And so far from that prediction's being averse from the mind of God, it remains as a lasting monument of the decree of Jehovah, to the shame and confusion of all who have cried out against the South in consequence of their holding the sons of Ham in servitude!"

“ . . . I am aware that many who profess to preach the gospel complain against their brethren of the same faith who reside in the South and are ready to withdraw the hand of fellowship because they will not renounce the principle of slavery and raise their voice against every thing of the kind.
This must be a tender point and one which should call forth the candid reflection of all men and especially before they advance in an opposition calculated to lay waste the fall States of the South and set loose upon the world a community of people who might peradventure overrun our country and violate the most sacred principles of human society, chastity and virtue.”

 

[Travis]

Travis


Your remark did not concern the Spanish Inquisition. Your remark was about witch burning, which surely did occur in "Catholic territory," and "Protestant territory," and occurs today in contested territory in Africa, not often at Catholic hands. Your remark associated the activity only with Roman Catholicism, while mentioning no other church

Your complaint is that racism, which several churches in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries condoned or promoted, is sometimes linked only with the LDS, while mentioning no other church. Yet, you then did the same thing with witch burning and Catholics. You do your case no good to say "But some Catholics really did religiously burn some folks," because, Travis, some Mormons really did religiously discriminate against African Americans. If past injustice licenses your selective remark, then past injustice licenses the selective remarks of which you complain.


What I think is that you are the same kind as somebody who remarks gratuitously today about LDS' past racism. You seem to think that such people may be bigots. All I think is that you're in the same category. What you eventually decide to call your own kind is on you.

I'm afraid that I do not follow your logic here.

Have I ever insinuated that all Catholics are, today, in favor of witch burnings?

Any evidence? Well, Wikipedia informs me that:

I wouldn't be surprised if they also collect data on shoe size. The church was always a little nuts with compiling databases of all sorts of odd data.

Despite having renounced the church almost two decades ago they still call me up every now and then asking me questions.

That depends on how you define "church", "religion", or "gods". Out of the 30,000+ religions, variants, and offshoots, I'm sure you can find hundreds or even thousands that doesn't invoke a god when society pressures dictate change. If one looks, I'm sure they can find a religion that doesn't need to change. A religion that holds to the creed that all people, regardless of (insert controversial issue here), are fully welcomed. A religion that had it right the whole time. They are out there if that is what a person needs in their life.

Yes, but answer my question: do you think it would have better for the LDS church to not have their revelation regarding racism?

Dear Travis, et al,

Wouldn't atheist activists prefer the Mormon church be racist, so that all the blacks will have a disincentive to believe?

Cpl Ferro

Why would I want that? The people I knew in the church were nice and accommodating. I saw no racism or homophobia when I was there. Several members of our local ward had family members that were gay including my own. Nobody ever cut those gay family members off or even attempted to change them.

It is possible that the church and the attitude of the membership have changed in the twenty years since I've been in it but I just have a hard time reconciling what I experienced and what people here are saying about them.

Where was the church you attended? How many non-whites were in the congregation? How many in places of power?

The Bishop of our ward (back in 1992) had his daughter marry a black man and the reception was held in our church (the actual marriages are performed in a temple). Is that good enough?

Travis, you have used this general type of comment several times. It is classic tu quoque. Just because other religious organizations have had idiotic policies does not justify the LDS also having bad policies...policies attributed to god. The topic of this thread is the LDS church; let's leave the others out of it.

Huh? Please elaborate. Where have I ever tried to excuse anything by talking about what other churches did?

I was upset because I saw a lot of implications that the church must still be racist because it once was. Which would also, by implication, mean my family members who are still in the church are racists.

Then I heard a lot of nonsense that because they only changed policy in 1978 they might as well have not changed the policy at all. Like there was some cut off point where if surpassed it would no longer matter if they changed their policies. Which makes no sense to me.

That's like saying if someone is a virgin past a certain age they can never lose it even if they have all sorts of sex.

"Sorry Billy, because your first sexual experience was past the cut off age you can now have thousands of sex partners and remain a virgin until death. Good luck."

 

[Janadele]

Words of wisdom from a Prophet of God:
"Some portray legalization of so-called same-sex marriage as a civil right. This is not a matter of civil rights; it is a matter of morality. Others question our constitutional right as a church to raise our voice on an issue that is of critical importance to the future of the family. We believe that defending this sacred institution by working to preserve traditional marriage lies clearly within our religious and constitutional prerogatives. Indeed, we are compelled by our doctrine to speak out."
Gordon B Hinckley

 

[AdMan]

Words of wisdom from a Prophet of God:

You mean words pulled out of his ass.

And I'm not even quoting them, since they are so stupid.

 

[Craig4]

Words of wisdom from a Prophet of God:
"Some portray legalization of so-called same-sex marriage as a civil right. This is not a matter of civil rights; it is a matter of morality. Others question our constitutional right as a church to raise our voice on an issue that is of critical importance to the future of the family. We believe that defending this sacred institution by working to preserve traditional marriage lies clearly within our religious and constitutional prerogatives. Indeed, we are compelled by our doctrine to speak out."
Gordon B Hinckley

Your own "prophet's" rationalization of why the LDS should speak out clearly indicates that this is a church attempting to force their doctrine on non-believers. Maybe in your quest to not put original thought into your posts, you could find a quote the justifies why someone who does not share your beliefs should be bound by your taboos.

Remember, the people you are talking to think Smith is a liar and fraud and do not find quotes based on a belief we know to be factually incorrect compelling.

 

[Janadele]

I frankly wouldn't have believed it until you and Janadele started posting here. I was only familiar with Mormons IRL who are like Cat Tale - kind and gentle people who didn't voice intolerance, hatred and bigotry. You've certainly opened my eyes to the other kind of Mormon.

No need to base your perceptions on individual members read the words of the Prophets instead to know what the teachings and doctrines of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints actually are:
"God-sanctioned marriage between a man and a woman has been the basis of civilization for thousands of years.There is no justification to redefine what marriage is. Such is not our right, and those who try will find themselves answerable to God." Gordon B Hinckley. http://www.lds.org/?lang=eng