Cassius Review of Books: "The Church and the Negro"

[_Ray A]

John J. Stewart's Mormonism and the Negro appears to be online, courtesy of Saints Alive.

Back in the '70s I read Alan Cherry (I think a couple of books) but the one that sticks out most is You and Me Lord. He (through a journalist) made a contribution to Mormon Times in 2008:

Having priesthood 'is my better means to serve'.

The friend contacted his aunt, who contacted the missionaries, who gave Cherry a copy of the Book of Mormon — which he read in two weeks.

"I would have read it in two days, but I could only read after lights out," he said. "I have never been as excited by literature.... It was as if I had come off of a desert.... I was just consuming all that could be given to me."

Fortunately, Bro. Cherry never went on to become a Mopologist with a sharp axe to grind against "apostates and anti-Mormons".

[_Simon Belmont]

Oh. It is perfectly fine for the LDS Church "to mock the fundamental teachings of a religion, and to mock the people to adhere to it." It is bigotry when other people do that to the Church, though.

I wouldn't be fine if the LDS Church did that, but they do not.

P.S. Thank you for your recognizing this as a trap, which is a tacit acknowledgment that there is a factual basis for what I am alluding to.

No, it isn't. The standard scenario that you set up is very predictable.

[_Darth J]

Oh. It is perfectly fine for the LDS Church "to mock the fundamental teachings of a religion, and to mock the people to adhere to it." It is bigotry when other people do that to the Church, though.

I wouldn't be fine if the LDS Church did that, but they do not.

You know, damned Cleopatra didn't spend as much time on de Nile as you do. Here are just two examples:

LeGrand Richards, "Strange Creeds of Christendom", Ensign, Jan. 1973

Would you find it offensive if a Protestant minister gave a talk called "Strange Creeds of Mormonism"?

Jeffrey R. Holland, October 2007 General Conference

In the year A.D. 325 the Roman emperor Constantine convened the Council of Nicaea to address—among other things—the growing issue of God’s alleged “trinity in unity.” What emerged from the heated contentions of churchmen, philosophers, and ecclesiastical dignitaries came to be known (after another 125 years and three more major councils) 4 as the Nicene Creed, with later reformulations such as the Athanasian Creed. These various evolutions and iterations of creeds—and others to come over the centuries—declared the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost to be abstract, absolute, transcendent, immanent, consubstantial, coeternal, and unknowable, without body, parts, or passions and dwelling outside space and time. In such creeds all three members are separate persons, but they are a single being, the oft-noted “mystery of the trinity.” They are three distinct persons, yet not three Gods but one. All three persons are incomprehensible, yet it is one God who is incomprehensible.

We agree with our critics on at least that point—that such a formulation for divinity is truly incomprehensible.

He adds, "It is not our purpose to demean any person’s belief nor the doctrine of any religion." After he just barely did that.

Would it be okay with you if a Protestant minister went through the Articles of Faith and the story of the First Vision, and then talked about how it makes no sense to believe in a man-god who lives on a planet by the star Kolob and used to be a mortal man, and has this pyramid scheme to move himself upward by making more and more gods under him?

P.S. Thank you for your recognizing this as a trap, which is a tacit acknowledgment that there is a factual basis for what I am alluding to.

No, it isn't. The standard scenario that you set up is very predictable.

Backing up what I say? Yes. While your standard scenario is calling legitimate reference to relevant sources "quote mining," relying entirely on argument by assertion, trying to convince everyone that the factual claims of the LDS Church aren't falsifiable because knowledge comes from subjective experience, and calling anyone who points out the implausibility of your cherished beliefs a bigot.

[_darricktevenson]

Yep. The Brethren has decided that the entire Curse of Cain/Priesthood-ban thing is a "mistake" of previous brethren. But to protect the fragile testimonies of the Members, they can't "say" that. So, for the good for the Church (of course) they have instructed LDS Public Affairs to simply "deny" the Church ever taught it, that is was "never a doctrine" but "folklore" that "some Members may have believed" but was "never accepted by Church leaders". YES....Public Affairs is blaming "some Members" for it, and presenting the Brethren as "always being against it" and trying to get "some Members" not to believe it. I AM NOT KIDDING! They are re-writing Mormon history (again).

I know John Lund. He was VERY upset when I sent him proof that LDS Public Affairs was lying. Very....very upset! If he left the Church his wife would divorce him and his family would shun him. John Lund is a very honest man....one of the most pure-in-heart men I've ever known.


Yes, in 1962, Alvin Dyer of the First Presidency gave a LONG speech on the status of the Negro. Which was really ridiculous---since he gave the talk at a Norwegian Mission Conference---Norway in 1962 probably two "Negroes" the entire country!!!! Hahahahaha! Mormonism is so damned funny!

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Hello,

I'm perpetually amazed by a**h***s like you-know who can look at something black and literally say, "Nope. That's white. It's always been white. And anyone who disagrees with me is a bigot."

It ****ing astounds me. The level of denial in the human condition is astounding. THIS is the reason why frauds like Joseph Smith can do what they do. Useful idiots. Crazy.

V/R
Dr. Cam

[_Joseph]

slimeone wrote: "But, I do believe it is hate speech to mock the fundamental teachings of a religion, and to mock the people to adhere to it."
******************************
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^+++++++++++++++^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

It isn't 'hate speech' when we mock you bumnuts. You and your using copyrighted materiel of others without permission and your idiotic 1915 copyright notice telling us all that your material can be used by anyone, anywhere at any time because anything that old is out of copyright protection.

[_Simon Belmont]

You know, f*****g Cleopatra didn't spend as much time on de Nile as you do. Here are just two examples:

LeGrand Richards, "Strange Creeds of Christendom", Ensign, Jan. 1973

Would you find it offensive if a Protestant minister gave a talk called "Strange Creeds of Mormonism"?

That's a weak analogy. A protestant minister would have to give a speech that is much broader than "Mormonism," say "The Strange Creeds of Restorationism." Because Richards's talk was not "The Strange Creeds of [a particular denomination]."

Would it be okay with you if a Protestant minister went through the Articles of Faith and the story of the First Vision, and then talked about how it makes no sense to believe in a man-god who lives on a planet by the star Kolob and used to be a mortal man, and has this pyramid scheme to move himself upward by making more and more gods under him?

There you go with your weak analogies again.

Backing up what I say?

No, asking loaded questions for which you have several quotes already mined to counter the predicted answer.

[_Simon Belmont]

Hello,

I'm perpetually amazed by a**h***s like you-know who can look at something black and literally say, "Nope. That's white. It's always been white. And anyone who disagrees with me is a bigot."

It ****ing astounds me. The level of denial in the human condition is astounding. THIS is the reason why frauds like Joseph Smith can do what they do. Useful idiots. Crazy.

V/R
Dr. Cam

And I am amazed that a leaf on the ground can so easily dupe you.

[_Joseph]

slimey one wrote: "And I am amazed that a leaf on the ground can so easily dupe you".
*****************************
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Like the photo of the leaf on the ground you used without permission of the copyright owner, boy?

[_huckelberry]

The blame obviously lies with the members who actually believed what they were being taught. They could have used their free agency and rejected these racist teachings. If they feel they were duped, too bad for them. They made their own bed.

I was puzzled as to why Simon is going on and on in this tread on unrelated subjects. What drew his attention, not the subject matter of which he is unconscious. Then I realized that this post is a parody of what he has said about the culpabilty of exmormons.

I was looking at this post at first taking it at face value. I grew up Mormon in the 60s and think it is possible to later forget some aspects of the situation which made it more difficult to see outside of the doctrine. There were just too many unreliable people speaking about cival rights, communists socialists Jews, and unitarian universalists, Not to mention negroes. For social direction we were supposed to follow the inspired leaders of the church who clearly warned about the dangers of civil rights leaders.

I may have had some questions about the policy but I doubt I was able to completely reject it untill I left the church. Perhaps becomeing older would have allowed more independence of thought.

I could repeat what has been suggested before that the doctrine that we were the special best spirits, born white, American and Mormon can be made more secure by pointing to groups born to inferior positions. It can also be said that believing the superior caste idea in any form creates a dark spot inside a person which does not allow some things to be seen and understood. Leaders who spread this particular darkness are shareing their own darkness with you.