Darron Smith to be on RadioWest on Wed. 11am and 7pm MST

[myboynoah]

Originally Posted by Solon

So, Mormons were - according to this small survey - middle-of-the-pack when it came to being racist believers. I fully recognize that it takes time for people to abandon beliefs, but my gripe isn't with the people; it's with the leaders, especially those who continue to propagate this material today.

It is truly sad that The Church, professing direct communication with God via a prophet, was not leading the way in pressing for equal rights for all of God's children here upon the earth. As I've said before, this is a stain upon the history of The Church and I'm sure serves as a significant stumbling block for many.

My wish is that The Church take a more proactive role in correcting any misunderstandings that linger from that era, especially concerning the folklore surrounding the issue (for example, the fence-sitter in the pre-existence issue). Frankly, I'd like to see some kind of statement of regret, an apology for the policy and for being a follower, not a leader in the civil rights movement. But I suppose that would open a whole can of worms and raise questions the leadership would rather not address, not because they fear the answers, but because they fear the impact the answers might have on much of the membership of The Church. I think the strategy is to let the folklore pass along with my parents' generation. I think they are missing a wonderful opportunity.

[Indy Coug]

If you think the church leaders were wrong, forgive them and move forward.

[Solon]

Originally Posted by myboynoah

Frankly, I'd like to see some kind of statement of regret, an apology for the policy and for being a follower, not a leader in the civil rights movement. But I suppose that would open a whole can of worms and raise questions the leadership would rather not address, not because they fear the answers, but because they fear the impact the answers might have on much of the membership of The Church. I think the strategy is to let the folklore pass along with my parents' generation. I think they are missing a wonderful opportunity.

Good call and well put.

[Ma'ake]

Wow. This thread reminds me why I left the church. This was the issue that did me in.

SWK's remarks about Navajo kids in the Indian Placement Program getting whiter skin indicates a deeper - if not fundamentally belligerent - form of racism than we can't really relate to (to say nothing about Navajos being 500 year recent emigres from the North who are likely not "Lamanite", at least in the literal sense).

Mike is right. In the context of theological/ideological racism - if not (it is argued), in hindsight, strict & literal doctrine - the wording can reasonably construed as inherently racist.

Brigham Young was a racist. SWK was a "kinder, gentler" form of racist, probably unwitting, though he had a pivotal role in breaking down more overt racism (a very welcome thing). SWK came from an upper leadership environment in the LDS church (at the time) that included Mark E. Petersen, the same who proclaimed that blacks can get to the Celestial Kingdom as servants. Unless SWK had very strong disagreement with Petersen on the topic (somewhat unlikely, it seems to me, among the highest level leadership), he was likely influenced by & arguably tacitly accepting of, at some level, the toxic thinking.

How can somebody of this background be considered to be comprehensively non-racist?

It was a different time, racism existed in the church, in the fundamental ideology. (I rejected that thinking & left.)

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Ma'ake

Wow. This thread reminds me why I left the church. This was the issue that did me in.

SWK's remarks about Navajo kids in the Indian Placement Program getting whiter skin indicates a deeper - if not fundamentally belligerent - form of racism than we can't really relate to (to say nothing about Navajos being 500 year recent emigres from the North who are likely not "Lamanite", at least in the literal sense).

Mike is right. In the context of theological/ideological racism - if not (it is argued), in hindsight, strict & literal doctrine - the wording can reasonably construed as inherently racist.

Brigham Young was a racist. SWK was a "kinder, gentler" form of racist, probably unwitting, though he had a pivotal role in breaking down more overt racism (a very welcome thing). SWK came from an upper leadership environment in the LDS church (at the time) that included Mark E. Petersen, the same who proclaimed that blacks can get to the Celestial Kingdom as servants. Unless SWK had very strong disagreement with Petersen on the topic (somewhat unlikely, it seems to me, among the highest level leadership), he was likely influenced by & arguably tacitly accepting of, at some level, the toxic thinking.

How can somebody of this background be considered to be comprehensively non-racist?

It was a different time, racism existed in the church, in the fundamental ideology. (I rejected that thinking & left.)

Ignorance has never been a cognizable defense to a charge of racism. If it were the defense may devour the offense altogether in every instance.

[MikeWaters]

The really difficult situation is when you feel like you have received spiritual witnesses of the truth of the gospel, but that you are not confronted with somethingi that feels wrong.

How much easier it would be if we had neve received spiritual witnesses. It would be like walking away from a plate of brocolli and mustard greens.

It's the paradoxical ground that many of us have to deal with, and for many of us, we are able to reconcile this by realizing the church has been and always will be populated by and administered by imperfect human beings. But that does not diminish the role of the divine in our lives.

[Ma'ake]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

The really difficult situation is when you feel like you have received spiritual witnesses of the truth of the gospel, but that you are not confronted with somethingi that feels wrong.

How much easier it would be if we had neve received spiritual witnesses. It would be like walking away from a plate of brocolli and mustard greens.

It's the paradoxical ground that many of us have to deal with, and for many of us, we are able to reconcile this by realizing the church has been and always will be populated by and administered by imperfect human beings. But that does not diminish the role of the divine in our lives.

Well stated, and I agree, a dilemma - but then again, so much in life is a dilemma.

I believe in a higher power, but with my lousy spritual antennae I tend toward a Deist view of things. My take is there may be something to the spiritual witness people experience, but whatever communication might be sent to us is pretty general in nature, and human beings wrap anthropomorphic structure, ceremony, ideology, doctrine & interpretation around it all, much of which is simply untrue, at least in the literal sense human beings seem to gravitate to in assessing truth.

From my way of thinking, Buddha, Shiva (et al), Jesus, Mohammed, Moses, The Creator, and Joseph Smith all may have been exposed to similar "insights" on the devine, but the divergence in ideology & practice is due to their humanity, their spin on things. For example, did the Lord specify particular ordinances to the prophets of old, the Popes, the newer prophets, etc? To me there is too much detail & ritual, things that become the seeds of disillusionment as people come to view the specifics as being arbitrary & superficial.

The banality of religion is what prompts atheism (which I find to be equally "unprovable" to a base belief in a higher power, at least from a scientific standpoint).

In terms of religion's assertions, IMO we know far, far less than the structured ideologies and traditions suggest.

[myboynoah]

Originally Posted by Ma'ake

Well stated, and I agree, a dilemma - but then again, so much in life is a dilemma.

I believe in a higher power, but with my lousy spritual antennae I tend toward a Deist view of things. My take is there may be something to the spiritual witness people experience, but whatever communication might be sent to us is pretty general in nature, and human beings wrap anthropomorphic structure, ceremony, ideology, doctrine & interpretation around it all, much of which is simply untrue, at least in the literal sense human beings seem to gravitate to in assessing truth.

From my way of thinking, Buddha, Shiva (et al), Jesus, Mohammed, Moses, The Creator, and Joseph Smith all may have been exposed to similar "insights" on the devine, but the divergence in ideology & practice is due to their humanity, their spin on things. For example, did the Lord specify particular ordinances to the prophets of old, the Popes, the newer prophets, etc? To me there is too much detail & ritual, things that become the seeds of disillusionment as people come to view the specifics as being arbitrary & superficial.

The banality of religion is what prompts atheism (which I find to be equally "unprovable" to a base belief in a higher power, at least from a scientific standpoint).

In terms of religion's assertions, IMO we know far, far less than the structured ideologies and traditions suggest.

So, I take it you don't give Jesus a special status among his fellow receivers of God's inspiration. In other words, he was not The Messiah, the Son of God, the Savior of mankind.

[Ma'ake]

Originally Posted by myboynoah

So, I take it you don't give Jesus a special status among his fellow receivers of God's inspiration. In other words, he was not The Messiah, the Son of God, the Savior of mankind.

I believe there was a Jesus, and his teachings are very inspired. I just don't know about the (literal) Son of God part of that story. For that matter, I really don't believe man is in God's image, that God looks like us. Which "us"? Sapiens, Neanderthol, (other)? Human-like species have been here for a long, long time, not exactly in the current form. Did God wait until this degree of evolution of primates that looked like him, or is the idea that we look like him an anthropomorphic construct? I think the latter.

There have been a TON of species on this planet... were they all just in preparation for the past 2100 (OK, maybe 6000) years? At least one religious tradition asserts animals & other forms of life are (essentially) for human use. The Hindus have a more comprehensive belief that makes more sense to me, that all life is related, each person & animal have a unique role, maybe we live multiple lives, perhaps in different forms? (I don't know about that part, either, but the larger role of life, evolution, species and our current role I think are bigger than what is written in religious texts.)