DiscussMormonism.com

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2007/12/19/2007-12-19_politicians__pundits_please_stop_slander.html

He states:

"It's true that, prior to 1978, blacks could not be ordained to the Mormon priesthood. But here, too, a more nuanced view is helpful. Joseph Smith is now known to have ordained African-American men in the 1830s and 1840s. The prohibition evolved in later decades, propped up by a series of racist folk doctrines.

"Mormons were relieved when those teachings were repudiated. (It adds context but little comfort to note that other major U.S. denominations had racist and segregationist dogma on their books until the 1970s as well.)"

Ah yes indeed - "Racist Folk Doctrines".

Brigham was sure into racist folk doctrines, wasn't he?

What a load of hooey. Brother Jennings: The bigots made me do it.

And in another thread, our hard core TBM Gaz states that BRM's "Mormon Doctrine" is Mormon Doctrine, here is a nice line from BRM himself:

"Negroes in this life are denied the priesthood; under no circumstances can they hold this delegation of authority from the Almighty. The gospel message of salvation is not carried affirmatively to them.... Negroes are not equal with other races where the receipt of certain spiritual blessings are concerned." Mormon Doctrine, 1958, p.477

Since "White and Delightsome" has been replaced with "Pure and Delightsome", that means that God doesn't change the color of a black man to a white man anymore, God just makes them "Pure". (Suddenly a dozen dead Mormon "Prophets" collectively roll over in their graves). So when a black man dies and goes to a white Mormon heaven and becomes a God of his own world, he'll have a world full of black people - will that black God use the white skin as a curse?

I'm sorry, but I don't know that we teach that.

Infymus wrote:http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2007/12/19/2007-12-19_politicians__pundits_please_stop_slander.html

He states:

", a more nuanced view is helpful.

When I see a phrase such as the above, right or wrong, I prepare for the spin or BS to follow.


Chris <><

Infymus wrote:http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2007/12/19/2007-12-19_politicians__pundits_please_stop_slander.html

His op-ed really bugged me. Some parts:

Jennings wrote:Early accounts show the church's founders, including Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, tearfully resisted "plural marriage." They complied not out of eagerness for some hot 19th century swinging, but from a conviction that an authentic Old Testament practice was being divinely restored. Many of these early marriages were primarily "dynastic" - ceremonial, that is, and not romantic or intimate in any way.

Apparently Ken hasn't read about Fanny Alger or other teenage wives that Joseph took (including teenage girls in his custody and foster care).

Jennings wrote:It's true that, prior to 1978, blacks could not be ordained to the Mormon priesthood. But here, too, a more nuanced view is helpful. Joseph Smith is now known to have ordained African-American men in the 1830s and 1840s. The prohibition evolved in later decades, propped up by a series of racist folk doctrines. Mormons were relieved when those teachings were repudiated. (It adds context but little comfort to note that other major U.S. denominations had racist and segregationist dogma on their books until the 1970s as well.) And today, the church has more than half a million black members, including prominent leaders, both here and abroad.

Hey, Ken, the Church still maintains that the ban was God's doing, not the racist folks doctrines of 19th-century GA's. Read Official Declaration - 2. And, I hate to be the one who bursts your naïve bubble, but "those teachings" have never been repudiated! The ban has been lifted, but the reasons given for the longtime ban have never been repudiated.

Jennings wrote:The truth, Huck, is that Mormons believe that God is the Father of us all, which does, I guess, in some sense, make Jesus and Satan brothers. And by the same logic, we also believe that Moses and Orville Redenbacher and Attila the Hun and Neil Diamond are brothers. Happy now?

Wow, note how he begrudgingly admits the obvious. And Jesus and Lucifer are not really comparable to Moses and Orville. Jesus and Lucifer had the seniority in heaven to lead the two factions of innumberable billions of spirits. They directly competed with each other in getting Elohim's approval, and one-third of the innumberable billions felt strongly enough about following their brother, Lucifer, that they were cast out by their Father. Jesus and Lucifer were incredibly powerful and influential in pre-earth heaven, and their brother connection cannot be downplayed, as Ken so much wants to do (is it any wonder that Mitt wants to as well?).

I see the Satan/Jesus brother thing as a complete and total non-issue. So what if the Mormons believe that Jesus and Satan are the spirit brothers of the same parents in Heaven? It's just not a big deal to me personally.

His answers on polygamy and racism, however, are eithre naïve or else disingenuous. As Rollo stated, the teachings surrounding the black priesthood ban were never repudiated. The ban was simply lifted.

Also, characterizing Joseph Smith's polygamous activities as done "tearfully", reticently, unwillingly, and that they were sexless, loveless, ceremonial (and yet fully binding on the woman) unions is likewise either naïve or disingenuous. Oh, and how is the impact of Joseph Smith's rampant polygamy any less if a woman is bound to him in marriage, yet without love or intimacy? She's still bound, and no longer free to seek love or intimacy from another man while Joseph Smith is still alive. And this is somehow a good thing?

Look at poor Helen Mar Kimball. At age 14 she was already "locked up" as Joseph's umpteenth polygamous wife. She was no longer free to seek close friendships with other boys or young men, to build a loving relationship with another man, to marry and enjoy connubial bliss with another man of her choice, etc. Had Joseph Smith lived to a ripe old age, her entire life possibilities of love and joy and sex with a man devoted only to her would have been squandered.

But hey, that's somehow better than Joseph Smith marrying for the nooky, right?

Why did we ever teach people that we need a prophet who can make sure the church doesn't stray, you know, practice "folk doctrines" not authorized by God?

Gadianton wrote:Why did we ever teach people that we need a prophet who can make sure the church doesn't stray, you know, practice "folk doctrines" not authorized by God?

Well you know, if some local bishop gets it into his head to dismiss people from Sacrament row by row, or allow a trumpet to be played in sacrament meeting, or a drum to accompany the "parum pum pum pum" carol during the Christmas program, there's gotta be someone on Earth who can put a stop to that madness.

But remember, that man is still just a fallible man, so don't be too surprised if he introduces his own opinion into things, like that hundreds of millions of God's children on Earth (black Africans) are cursed because Adam's son Cain killed Able, and Cain's offspring will be people who, as spirits, were less valiant in the War in Heaven.

Heaven forbid a bishop dismiss people row by row, however. Thank God there's a Prophet to put his foot down at that kind of nonsense.

oh, now that is a good point.

Infymus wrote:http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2007/12/19/2007-12-19_politicians__pundits_please_stop_slander.html


Ah yes indeed - "Racist Folk Doctrines".

Brigham was sure into racist folk doctrines, wasn't he?

He certainly seemed to be and he even added to them.

Well now, you see it's not the blackness that was the curse. It was just a coincidence. They were just black to show the sign of the curse. They just happened to be cursed and black at the same time. Total coincidence.

It was actually reading a TBM response to this issue that started me thinking - now just hold on a second....