Page 1 of 3
Robert Millet in the Wash Post This Morning
Posted: Sat Sep 29, 2012 5:28 pm
by _mms
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/gue ... _blog.htmlHow is it that apologists think this argument works:
That some Mormons in the past may have said or done things that could now be construed as racist is unfortunate; we are taught to be better than that. But those actions were probably no more racist than any other religious body during the 19th or 20th centuries. That is no excuse for unchristian behavior, only a reminder to us of the need to put things into historical perspective.
Does he not understand that the LDS Church's racism is different because it claims direct revelation from God to its prophets and that it is therefore stuck with the idea that God told it to be racist? It's like apologists want to be "just like every other church" when it suits them and God's one true Church that he is constantly communicating with through its prophets the rest of the time. Seems such an elementary observation to me, but then guys like Millet keep parroting this "we were just like everybody else" line. Perhaps ironically, his "we were just like everybody else" argument might be the truest statement he could make.
Re: Robert Millet in the Wash Post This Morning
Posted: Sat Sep 29, 2012 6:36 pm
by _sock puppet
I find it highly naïve of defenders of Mormonism to run for the cover of everyone else was/is doing it too. Mormonism has hoisted itself on the petard of superiority, the only organization on earth that was formed by and is led by god through revelation. God is supposed to be on a perch of superior knowledge and intellect to that of man. The LDS Church's track record as an example of this superiority certainly reflects poorly on god and his supposed superior intellect and information.
And how many other organizations, those of men, were as late as 1977 and the early months of 1978 yet excluding people from other positions or privileges on the basis of race? LDS, listen up--you claim superiority because you claim Jesus is at your helm. You disserve yourselves and your organization when you simply point to what others were doing contemporaneous to what the LDS Church was doing. You are thereby de-legitimizing the claims of continuing revelation or that Jesus is at the helm of your organization.
Re: Robert Millet in the Wash Post This Morning
Posted: Sat Sep 29, 2012 6:45 pm
by _lulu
mms wrote:http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/guest-voices/post/theologian-questions-how-ex-mormon-bishops-daughter-casts-church-in-book/2012/09/28/0058af48-09ae-11e2-a10c-fa5a255a9258_blog.html
How is it that apologists think this argument works:
That some Mormons in the past may have said or done things that could now be construed as racist is unfortunate; we are taught to be better than that. But those actions were probably no more racist than any other religious body during the 19th or 20th centuries. That is no excuse for unchristian behavior, only a reminder to us of the need to put things into historical perspective.
Does he not understand that the LDS Church's racism is different because it claims direct revelation from God to its prophets and that it is therefore stuck with the idea that God told it to be racist? It's like apologists want to be "just like every other church" when it suits them and God's one true Church that he is constantly communicating with through its prophets the rest of the time. Seems such an elementary observation to me, but then guys like Millet keep parroting this "we were just like everybody else" line. Perhaps ironically, his "we were just like everybody else" argument might be the truest statement he could make.
sock puppet wrote:I find it highly naïve of defenders of Mormonism to run for the cover of everyone else was/is doing it too. Mormonism has hoisted itself on the petard of superiority, the only organization on earth that was formed by and is led by god through revelation. God is supposed to be on a perch of superior knowledge and intellect to that of man. The LDS Church's track record as an example of this superiority certainly reflects poorly on god and his supposed superior intellect and information.
And how many other organizations, those of men, were as late as 1977 and the early months of 1978 yet excluding people from other positions or privileges on the basis of race? LDS, listen up--you claim superiority because you claim Jesus is at your helm. You disserve yourselves and your organization when you simply point to what others were doing contemporaneous to what the LDS Church was doing. You are thereby de-legitimizing the claims of continuing revelation or that Jesus is at the helm of your organization.
Everyone else wasn't doing it. I hate it when Mormons go there. The history of abolition and civil rights for African Americans begins in at least 1688 with the Quakers. What part of the Restored Gospel prevented Brigham Young from siding with Garrison.
This false "contextualization" argument is such a red herring. But that's Millet's self professed specialty.
Re: Robert Millet in the Wash Post This Morning
Posted: Sat Sep 29, 2012 6:51 pm
by _Stormy Waters
If they're unwilling to repudiate it, they should just stick with the "We don't know" line. Every time they try to justify or rationalize they just make it worse.
Re: Robert Millet in the Wash Post This Morning
Posted: Sat Sep 29, 2012 7:04 pm
by _cafe crema
mms wrote:http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/guest-voices/post/theologian-questions-how-ex-mormon-bishops-daughter-casts-church-in-book/2012/09/28/0058af48-09ae-11e2-a10c-fa5a255a9258_blog.html
How is it that apologists think this argument works:
That some Mormons in the past may have said or done things that could now be construed as racist is unfortunate; we are taught to be better than that. But those actions were probably no more racist than any other religious body during the 19th or 20th centuries. That is no excuse for unchristian behavior, only a reminder to us of the need to put things into historical perspective.
Does he not understand that the LDS Church's racism is different because it claims direct revelation from God to its prophets and that it is therefore stuck with the idea that God told it to be racist? It's like apologists want to be "just like every other church" when it suits them and God's one true Church that he is constantly communicating with through its prophets the rest of the time. Seems such an elementary observation to me, but then guys like Millet keep parroting this "we were just like everybody else" line. Perhaps ironically, his "we were just like everybody else" argument might be the truest statement he could make.
I feel the same way about his very first words, here is the opening paragraph:
Tricia Erickson’s writing betrays a knowledge of Mormonism that is so shallow, so juvenile, that one is forced to wonder how this kind of thing is legal. I’m disappointed that a respected publisher such as Thomas Nelson (of which WestBow Press is a subsidiary) would not have exercised an ounce of professional caution, even a pinch of scholarly effort before publishing something that is so out of touch with reality that it ought to be downright embarrassing.
Re: Robert Millet in the Wash Post This Morning
Posted: Sat Sep 29, 2012 8:22 pm
by _Kishkumen
lulu wrote:Everyone else wasn't doing it. I hate it when Mormons go there. The history of abolition and civil rights for African Americans begins in at least 1688 with the Quakers. What part of the Restored Gospel prevented Brigham Young from siding with Garrison.
This false "contextualization" argument is such a red herring. But that's Millet's self professed specialty.
Well said. That always gets my dander up.
I also find it disappointing when "well, everyone else is doing it" becomes the excuse for the One True Church doing it, especially when that is a demonstrably false statement.
Re: Robert Millet in the Wash Post This Morning
Posted: Sat Sep 29, 2012 8:51 pm
by _Nomomo
Robert L. Millet wrote:.......there is not a single instance in LDS history where the church or its leaders was responsible for the death of the disobedient or disloyal.
Professor Millet is being intentionally dishonest here.
He is without doubt familiar with what is known as the Springville or Parish murders. Even if one denies Brigham being responsible for triggering the events of the Parrish murders due to the wording of his letter to Bishop Johnson, a Bishop is a Church "leader" and Bishop Johnson was without doubt responsible for the murders making Millet's statement a lie.
Just one example, there are others.
Re: Robert Millet in the Wash Post This Morning
Posted: Sat Sep 29, 2012 9:11 pm
by _Aristotle Smith
lulu wrote:Everyone else wasn't doing it. I hate it when Mormons go there. The history of abolition and civil rights for African Americans begins in at least 1688 with the Quakers. What part of the Restored Gospel prevented Brigham Young from siding with Garrison.
This false "contextualization" argument is such a red herring. But that's Millet's self professed specialty.
Exactly. The history of abolition and civil rights is a long series of churches and denominations recognizing that they had been in the wrong, repenting, and doing better. Hell, even the Southern Baptists voted in favor of civil rights during its heyday (I speak of the votes at the Southern Baptist Convention meetings, not necessarily the behavior of individual Southern Baptists). The problem is that the LDS church was late to the party, last in line, or MIA.
Of course the LDS church has traditionally lead from the front in demanding civil rights for the access to multiple sexual partners for those in high office.
Re: Robert Millet in the Wash Post This Morning
Posted: Sat Sep 29, 2012 10:30 pm
by _Nightlion
The origin of the curse upon the children of Canaan is found in the story of Enoch of recent play these days. After all his Zion was verified by translation as wholly acceptable to God and yet Enoch DID NOT preach to the children of Canaan.
Moses 7
4 And I saw the Lord; and he stood before my face, and he talked with me, even as a man talketh one with another, face to face; and he said unto me: Look, and I will show unto thee the world for the space of many generations.
5 And it came to pass that I beheld in the valley of Shum, and lo, a great people which dwelt in tents, which were the people of Shum.
6 And again the Lord said unto me: Look; and I looked towards the north, and I beheld the people of Canaan, which dwelt in tents.
7 And the Lord said unto me: Prophesy; and I prophesied, saying: Behold the people of Canaan, which are numerous, shall go forth in battle array against the people of Shum, and shall slay them that they shall utterly be destroyed; and the people of Canaan shall divide themselves in the land, and the land shall be barren and unfruitful, and none other people shall dwell there but the people of Canaan;
8 For behold, the Lord shall curse the land with much heat, and the barrenness thereof shall go forth forever; and there was a blackness came upon all the children of Canaan, that they were despised among all people.
9 And it came to pass that the Lord said unto me: Look; and I looked, and I beheld the land of Sharon, and the land of Enoch, and the land of Omner, and the land of Heni, and the land of Shem, and the land of Haner, and the land of Hanannihah, and all the inhabitants thereof;
10 And the Lord said unto me: Go to this people, and say unto them—Repent, lest I come out and smite them with a curse, and they die.
11 And he gave unto me a commandment that I should baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, which is full of grace and truth, and of the Holy Ghost, which beareth record of the Father and the Son.
12 And it came to pass that Enoch continued to call upon all the people, save it were the people of Canaan, to repent;
13 And so great was the faith of Enoch that he led the people of God, and their enemies came to battle against them; and he spake the word of the Lord, and the earth trembled, and the mountains fled, even according to his command; and the drivers of water were turned out of their course; and the roar of the lions was heard out of the wilderness; and all nations feared greatly, so powerful was the word of Enoch, and so great was the power of the language which God had given him.
Thus did the Lord curse the people of Canaan who just happen to also be descendants of CAIN, not because of Cain, but because they were first to commit genocide of an entire people.
This is the curse that Abraham mentioned was preserved in the land by Egyptus who settled her sons (possibly) upon the very same land. I always thought the Great Pyramid was a tomb prepared for Cain to ride out the flood inside. Whatev.
The Nineteenth chapter of Isaiah predicts the precise time when the Egyptian will be able to make a vow and perform it before the Lord and when Israel, Assyria and Egypt will be counted equal before the Lord. Jews Gentiles and the African.
A careful reading shows events like the Six Day War when cities of Egypt will speak Hebrew. The Aswan High dam constructed in the Sixties, turning back the waters of the Nile. And when the Lord smites Egypt he will also at the same time heal it from its spiritual curse, as they were full of witchcraft and mysticism and the children of Noph and Zoan were considered fools before the Lord. But after they as a people cry out against their oppression and assert themselves and a savior stands up among them MLK (?)they are redeemed from their long curse.
Isaiah 19
21 And the Lord shall be known to Egypt, and the Egyptians shall know the Lord in that day, and shall do sacrifice and oblation; yea, they shall vow a vow unto the Lord, and perform it.
22 And the Lord shall smite Egypt: he shall smite and heal it: and they shall return even to the Lord, and he shall be intreated of them, and shall heal them.
Those are the ripe apples. You're all very welcome to the truth.
Re: Robert Millet in the Wash Post This Morning
Posted: Sat Sep 29, 2012 10:42 pm
by _zeezrom
I've been told that the Church is improving and stands today in a more inspired, benevolent light than before. This is certainly a faith promoting view.