- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
This article was published by The Nation, May, 1952 (that’s 62 years ago, for the arithmetically challenged). It’s an article written by Lowry Nelson, a professor of sociology who had taught at BYU, University of Minnesota and USU. What’s interesting to me is this could have been written today. His specific topic was the priesthood/temple ban that was then in force, and would remain so for 26 more years, and it’s eerily prophetic to read what he had to say. But there are many good elements that are generic and could be applied to struggles with Church doctrine in 2014. For that reason, I’ve included it as a separate topic. It’s not really about race and priesthood, but about a difference of opinion with the Church. A couple of quotes:
Quote:A very real difficulty is the fact that those who disapprove the church’s attitude have no way of expressing their point of view.
Quote:However, my knowledge of the deep humanitarianism of the Mormon people leads me to think that if the question could be openly discussed they would line up on the side of justice.
Here’s the article:
Thanks – and I LOVE the second quote. I also believe open discussion is the key to so much, since, by and large, Mormons really are good, caring, loving people.
Quote:“The upshot is that discussions by interested persons are largely sub rosa.”
Now that all these conversations aren’t secret or private, I wonder what an appropriate term for their relationship to the church would be. Anyone know Latin?
Thanks for sharing. The more things change the more they stay the same. It pains me to say this but it’s difficult when the vision of the general membership of the church outstrips the vision of her prophets and seers.
Like.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.