- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
The real irony to me is that, depsite our past and relatively late start toward integration, we are WAY more integrated than most of the Protestant churches that surrounded us when we lived in the Deep South in the 1990’s. Say what you want about about the previous policy, and say what you want about the danger of group-think and such, but when Mormons and the LDS Church mobilize around “good” they tend to do it better than most others. This is one great example.
Sure, there still are (too many) racists in the Church – and, yes, there are (too many) wards and branches that struggle with racism – and, of course, there still aren’t enough black members in many places – but there also are many units where black members sit side-by-side with white members and members of other races and ethnicities, both in the pews and in leadership callings.
One of my most memorable temple experiences was seeing the Lord put forth his hand at the veil and realizing it was black.When we do something good, we tend to do it very well.
Old-Timer wrote:One of my most memorable temple experiences was seeing the Lord put forth his hand at the veil and realizing it was black.
I love that! You know if you follow a little of the evolution logic, our first parents were black. (Light skin came as a result of hiding from the sun.) I find much symbolism in that — our first parents created in God’s image. He is wise enough to let us take our long leash and then eat our own lunch!
Old-Timer wrote:The real irony to me is that, depsite our past and relatively late start toward integration, we are WAY more integrated than most of the Protestant churches that surrounded us when we lived in the Deep South in the 1990’s.
I can’t imagine that the Dutch Reformed Church is very mixed these days either. (Despite the name, it was the Afrikaaner church, and was considered more or less to be the apartheid church, when there was segregation in South Africa) It still retains the old attitudes apparently.
Roy wrote:Why would Elder Oaks see this policy as a commandment from God while all the justifications for it are just man made fluff.
I think it is dangerous for the current leadership to admit that previous administrations made mistakes.And not just small mistakes, but mistakes that affected peoples lives greatly, mistakes that one would think God would either step in to correct or “remove the prophet from his post.” If this is to be accepted what would stop people from having similar doubts about the current administration. To believe otherwise, that the entire policy was in error, is to cast the primary assumption that the prophet will never lead the church astray into doubt. What would happen if all members began to doubt this premise? Would the church implode?Would it go the route of the C of C? How many families would lose their center in the ensuing identity crisis? How many teens would might make foolish decisions in the wake of the new world of relativism?… I believe Elder Oaks believes as he does because he has to; to do otherwise would be nigh unthinkable.Based on some other comments that Dallin H. Oaks has made, I get the impression that he is making rationalizations along the lines of the idea that the ends justify the means. Basically, he seems to think that criticizing Church leaders at all is automatically wrong even if the complaints are valid simply because this would tend to weaken the Church and individual members’ testimonies. Claiming we don’t need to know the reasons why God would give commandments that don’t make sense looks like it is mostly just an attempt to try to protect the Church and members’ testimonies at all costs. This is not much of a surprise to me because to TBMs having too many members “fall away” from the Church is very serious because of the potential eternal consequences from their perspective.
While the reasons why Oaks seems to think this way sort of make sense I disagree that he is only doing what he absolutely has to as if he has no other choice. Just because they don’t see any better options doesn’t mean there aren’t better alternatives. Personally, I don’t believe the Church would implode if they started to de-emphasize the idea of unquestioning obedience to prophets and even if this did cause more members to leave I still think it would be the right thing to do anyway because at least that way dissenters would have less to really complain about. Actually, I think de-emphasizing the nearly infallible prophet myth would relieve some of the unnecessary pressure on Church leaders and members and give them more room to operate in a positive way rather than being afraid to ever go against previous Church leaders’ opinions or feeling like they have to make excuses for past mistakes.
To be honest, I think many active members don’t really pay very close attention to this kind of thing and the less they worry about it the better it will be for the Church over the long run. For example, I went on a mission mostly because I thought that’s just what Mormon boys were supposed to do not because I was overly concerned with everything the prophets had said up to that point. Being extremely dogmatic about some of the authoritarianism and obedience hype will only give more members a good reason to really start questioning the Church in my opinion because it basically emphasizes the overall cost of membership more than any tangible benefits or value added by the Church in this life.
Seems other branches have had different attitudes: Bickertonites:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Jesus_Christ_%28Bickertonite%29#Racial_integration
Quote:The Church of Jesus Christ has advocated full racial integration throughout all aspects of the church since its organization in 1862. While America disputed over civil liberties and racial segregation, the church claimed their message was for all races.[25] In 1905, the church suspended an elder for opposing the full integration of all races.[10]
Historian Dale Morgan wrote in 1949: “An interesting feature of the Church’s doctrine is that it discriminates in no way against … members of other racial groups, who are fully admitted to all the privileges of the priesthood. It has taken a strong stand for human rights, and was, for example, uncompromisingly against the Ku Klux Klan during that organization’s period of ascendancy after the First World War.”[26]
At a time when racial segregation or discrimination was commonplace in most institutions throughout America, two of the most prominent leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ were African American. Apostle John Penn, member of the Quorum of Twelve from 1910 to 1955, conducted missionary work with many Italian Americans, and was often referred to as “The Italian’s Doctor”.[10] Matthew Miller, an evangelist ordained in 1937, traveled throughout Canada establishing missions with Native Americans.[10]
Quote:Strangites welcomed African Americans into their church during a time when some other factions (such as the Utah LDS church, until 1978) denied them the priesthood, or certain other benefits of membership. Strang ordained at least two African Americans to the eldership during his lifetime.[85]
I wanted to bump up this thread again, as I think MH on the first page had some really good links on the subject, for those that may not have seen them the first time around this was being discussed. Fair enough Heber. I did read the press release on the other thread. Not entirely happy with it. Why can’t the church ever just say sorry?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.