Keith Oberman's eloquent message to Mormons?

[_Ray A]

Pac Man: Olbermann is a Tool.

More "Christianity" in doses.

[_Ray A]

And a special message for "Pac Man":

1 Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.
2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.
3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.
4 Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up,
5 Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil;
6 Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth;
7 Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.
8 Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.
9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.
10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.
11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.
13 And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.

[_asbestosman]

Pac Man said he's for equal rights, but not the word marriage itself. Like I've said a million times--I know some gays who would be satisfied with that--if heteros had the same thing gays had from the state, but it wasn't called marriage.

Pac Man is talking about the historic use of the word marriage. Honestly, I'm not sure what the big deal is with a word's history, but apparently the prophets have said it's important. A bribe used to be a gift of food to a beggar. By and by used to mean immediately. Gay used to mean happy. I don't get the importance, but then again I suppose we could define the union of two adults as superplusgood. Or marriage could mean a nice knock-down argument.

[_Ray A]

Pac Man said he's for equal rights,

So did the Church leaders who believed that keeping black people out of Mormon temples wasn't an "equal rights" issue. In fact, they didn't even believe that equal rights was an issue with segregation. It went back to "the Lord":

August 17, 1949

The attitude of the Church with reference to Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the priesthood at the present time. The prophets of the Lord have made several statements as to the operation of the principle. President Brigham Young said: "Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a skin of blackness? It comes in consequence of their fathers rejecting the power of the holy priesthood, and the law of God. They will go down to death. And when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the holy priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will then come up and possess the priesthood, and receive all the blessings which we now are entitled to."

President Wilford Woodruff made the following statement: "The day will come when all that race will be redeemed and possess all the blessings which we now have."

The position of the Church regarding the Negro may be understood when another doctrine of the Church is kept in mind, namely, that the conduct of spirits in the premortal existence has some determining effect upon the conditions and circumstances under which these spirits take on mortality and that while the details of this principle have not been made known, the mortality is a privilege that is given to those who maintain their first estate; and that the worth of the privilege is so great that spirits are willing to come to earth and take on bodies no matter what the handicap may be as to the kind of bodies they are to secure; and that among the handicaps, failure of the right to enjoy in mortality the blessings of the priesthood is a handicap which spirits are willing to assume in order that they might come to earth. Under this principle there is no injustice whatsoever involved in this deprivation as to the holding of the priesthood by the Negroes.

The First Presidency

Chursh's position on this now? We don't know why "the negro" was denied priesthood.

[_Brackite]

In case anyone missed Keith Oberman's amazing "speech" last night directed to those who supported Prop 8, here it is...

Listen to the speech

Keith doesn't specifically mention Mormons but it seems clear he is addressing them along with other religionists who voted to take away the rights of those with SSA.

~td~

Hello Truth Dancer,

The State of California is a very blue and a liberal State. Here are the Election Results for President, Between Senator Barack Obama and Senator John McCain, Within the State of California:

Barack Obama (Democrat): --- 7,612,126 --- 61.1%
John McCain (Rep): -------- 4,616,723 --- 37.1%

( Source And Link: http://vote.sos.ca.gov/Returns/pres/59.htm )




Keith Olbermann supported Senator Barack Obama for President, over Senator John McCain.
Senator Barack Obama won Senator John McCain by 24 Percentage Points, within the State of California. Senator Barack Obama got 2,995,403 more votes than Senator John McCain, Within the State of California. Yet, As very blue and as liberal the state of California is, Proposition 8 Still Passed, Within the State of California. Proposition 8 Passed and Won by 4.2 Percentage Points, Within the State of California. (1)


1. http://vote.sos.ca.gov/Returns/props/ma ... 000008.htm



Edited To Update Election Results.

[_Ray A]

Let's try another one for size:

December 15, 1969

To General Authorities, Regional Representatives of the Twelve, Stake Presidents, Mission Presidents, and Bishops.

Dear Brethren:

In view of confusion that has arisen, it was decided at a meeting of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve to restate the position of the Church with regard to the Negro both in society and in the Church.

First, may we say that we know something of the sufferings of those who are discriminated against in a denial of their civil rights and Constitutional privileges. Our early history as a church is a tragic story of persecution and oppression. Our people repeatedly were denied the protection of the law. They were driven and plundered, robbed and murdered by mobs, who in many instances were aided and abetted by those sworn to uphold the law. We as a people have experienced the bitter fruits of civil discrimination and mob violence.

We believe that the Constitution of the United States was divinely inspired, that it was produced by "wise men" whom God raised up for this "very purpose," and that the principles embodied in the Constitution are so fundamental and important that, if possible, they should be extended "for the rights and protection" of all mankind.

In revelations received by the first prophet of the Church in this dispensation, Joseph Smith (1805-1844), the Lord made it clear that it is "not right that any man should be in bondage one to another." These words were spoken prior to the Civil War. From these and other revelations have sprung the Church's deep and historic concern with man's free agency and our commitment to the sacred principles of the Constitution.

It follows, therefore, that we believe the Negro, as well as those of other races, should have his full Constitutional privileges as a member of society, and we hope that members of the Church everywhere will do their part as citizens to see that these rights are held inviolate. Each citizen must have equal opportunities and protection under the law with reference to civil rights.

However, matters of faith, conscience, and theology are not within the purview of the civil law. The first amendment to the Constitution specifically provides that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

The position of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints affecting those of the Negro race who choose to join the Church falls wholly within the category of religion. It has no bearing upon matters of civil rights. In no case or degree does it deny to the Negro his full privileges as a citizen of the nation.

This position has no relevancy whatever to those who do not wish to [p.223]join the Church. Those individuals, we suppose, do not believe in the divine origin and nature of the church, nor that we have the priesthood of God. Therefore, if they feel we have no priesthood, they should have no concern with any aspect of our theology on priesthood so long as that theology does not deny any man his Constitutional privileges.

A word of explanation concerning the position of the Church.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints owes its origin, its existence, and its hope for the future to the principle of continuous revelation. "We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God."

From the beginning of this dispensation, Joseph Smith and all succeeding presidents of the Church have taught that Negroes, while spirit children of a common Father, and the progeny of our earthly parents Adam and Eve, were not yet to receive the priesthood, for reasons which we believe are known to God, but which He has not made fully known to man.

Our living prophet, President David O. McKay, has said, "The seeming discrimination by the Church toward the Negro is not something which originated with man; but goes back into the beginning with God....

"Revelation assures us that this plan antedates man's mortal existence, extending back to man's pre-existent state."

President McKay has also said, "Sometime in God's eternal plan, the Negro will be given the right to hold the priesthood."

Until God reveals His will in this matter, to him whom we sustain as a prophet, we are bound by that same will. Priesthood, when it is conferred on any man comes as a blessing from God, not of men.

We feel nothing but love, compassion, and the deepest appreciation for the rich talents, endowments, and the earnest strivings of our Negro brothers and sisters. We are eager to share with men of all races the blessings of the Gospel. We have no racially-segregated congregations.

Were we the leaders of an enterprise created by ourselves and operated only according to our own earthly wisdom, it would be a simple thing to act according to popular will. But we believe that this work is directed by God and that the conferring of the priesthood must await His revelation. To do otherwise would be to deny the very premise on which the Church is established.

We recognize that those who do not accept the principle of modern revelation may oppose our point of view. We repeat that such would not wish for membership in the Church, and therefore the question of priesthood should hold no interest for them. Without prejudice they should grant us the privilege afforded under the Constitution to exercise our [p.224]chosen form of religion just as we must grant all others a similar privilege. They must recognize that the question of bestowing or withholding priesthood in the Church is a matter of religion and not a matter of Constitutional right.

We extend the hand of friendship to men everywhere and the hand of fellowship to all who wish to join the Church and partake of the many rewarding opportunities to be found therein.

We join with those throughout the world who pray that all of the blessings of the gospel of Jesus Christ may in due time of the Lord become available to men of faith everywhere. Until that time comes we must trust in God, in His wisdom and in His tender mercy.

Meanwhile we must strive harder to emulate His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, whose new commandment it was that we should love one another. In developing that love and concern for one another, while awaiting revelations yet to come, let us hope that with respect to these religious differences, we may gain reinforcement for understanding and appreciation for such differences. They challenge our common similarities, as children of one Father, to enlarge the out-reachings of our divine souls.

Faithfully your brethren,
The First Presidency
By Hugh B. Brown
N. Eldon Tanner

We have no racially segregated congregations, it's just that our black brothers and sisters can't hold the PH, can't go into the temple, but, be assured - we love them!

Why do I bring this up? Because the attitude to Gay people is no different.

[_Ray A]

And I'll add the comments of Lester Bush and Armand Mauss:

Mormons, with a legacy of their own as victims of bigotry, might [p.3]wish in retrospect that they had been more progressive in civil rights than the rest of the nation; but given the historical context, this would have been expecting too much. Whether because Haun's Mill, Carthage, and Johnston's Army were too remote in the collective Mormon memory, or because the assimilation of Mormons since those days had made them too much like other Americans, or because prosperity and respectability had vitiated the general prophetic impulse in the Mormon heritage, Mormon attitudes toward blacks remained very much like those of the rest of the nation.3 The traditional denial by the Mormon Church of its lay priesthood to its few black members (the only ethnic group so excluded) was generally regarded by Mormons as their own business; and they preferred to avoid the subject whether within or outside the church. Mormons who questioned the exclusion policy, either as social criticism or out of a personal anguish of conscience, usually generated suspicion about their own loyalty to the Church, for it was nearly universally assumed that the policy had had its basis in revelation. Accordingly, few critical voices could be heard within the Church before the 1960s and not many more from the outside....

I repeat:

Mormon attitudes toward blacks remained very much like those of the rest of the nation.

Where is that magic word? "Revelation"? We see it 15 years after Martin Luther King's historic speech.

[_asbestosman]

Ray, what in your opinion would be wrong with only giving civil unions to both homosexuals and heterosexuals while leaving marriage to churches? Isn't this what the UK does? Is the UK bigoted against gays?

Or are you saying that the church should allow homosexuals to be sealed to each other in the temple? If that's your objection, then your quotes have relevance, otherwise I fail to see the significance given my above paragraph about the UK.

[_Ray A]

Ray, what in your opinion would be wrong with only giving civil unions to both homosexuals and heterosexuals while leaving marriage to churches? Isn't this what the UK does? Is the UK bigoted against gays?

Or are you saying that the church should allow homosexuals to be sealed to each other in the temple? If that's your objection, then your quotes have relevance, otherwise I fail to see the significance given my above paragraph about the UK.

Abman, civil unions do not bestow all the rights that legal marriage does. What if the government said to you that you can't be married, but only have a "civil union"? Every country has different definitions, some allow more rights than others. And if couple with a civil union travels abroad, they are subject to the laws governing civil unions in that country, not their country of origin. Within Australia we have the same discrepancy, in that if a "registered partnership" travels interstate, they are subject to the laws of the state they migrate to. Legal marriage does away with all of these discrepancies. Within the US now you have divided laws, but this is nothing new, as it was in the days of interracial marriage, where people people had to move to different states for an interracial marriage to be "lawful". Do people still fret and fume about this in the US, interracial marriage? No. But it took over a century before the US finally harmonised on this. All of this goes back to one thing - equal rights for all.

As for temple marriage, well the way it is now even non or inactive Mormon parents of couples marrying in the temple cannot attend. And the Church has parameters on marriage in the temple. My point was analogical, about how slow the Church is to accept equal rights, and in this case, even though it would not be forced to accept Gay marriage in the temple, it is proactively seeking to deny common civil rights to all, outside the jurisdiction of its freedom to curtail who enters the temple. In other words, although this would not affect entry to Mormon temples, the Church is trying, successfully, to deny basic civil rights to Gay people in society-at-large. I am quite certain that if the Church said that SSM is okay, but you can't marry "eternally" in a Mormon temple, no Gay person would have taken issue with that. But the Church has gone beyond that by trying to deny equal rights to citizens of a country, knowing that it would never affect who is allowed to enter Mormon temples. Churches are allowed those privileges under the ideal of separation of state and Church, yet churches STILL intervene to deny equal rights in society-at large, and therefore exert or influence state control as well, contrary to the idea of church-state separation.

My other point is this - Mormon denial of "the negro" entry into the temple was based on a false, irrational, and now discarded "doctrine", but one which was held to have come "by revelation". See the FP statements I quoted. The Family Proclamation "to the world", is where the Church is overstepping its boundaries.
I quote Alma 5:62:

62 I speak by way of command unto you that belong to the church; and unto those who do not belong to the church I speak by way of invitation...

But what the Church is trying to do is enforce this ideal on the whole world! And its aim to defeat SSM is based on that. NOT on objective studies of the results of SSM in other countries. It doesn't care about that! Only enforcing an ideal it believes "came by revelation". Hence my reference to its former so-called "revelations" regarding "the negro". I quoted Mark Petersen's talk, which was directed not just at "negroes" as far as the Church is concerned, but he was advocating the continuation of segregation laws in society-at-large!! And that is what the Church is doing with SSM today, even though it will not affect the Church's rights as to who it will marry.

That is why there is so much anger at the Church. Because it wants to make its laws applicable to the whole of society, not just the Church. Ditto for fundy Christians.

[_TAK]

December 15, 1969

To General Authorities, Regional Representatives of the Twelve, Stake Presidents, Mission Presidents, and Bishops.

Dear Brethren: .....

Classic Mormonism Doublespeak..

Best post of the month Ray !!!