05-12-2007, 03:34 AM | #11 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,175
|
Quote:
|
|
05-12-2007, 03:55 AM | #12 | |
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 10,665
|
Quote:
The Supreme Court decided Brown v. Board of Education in 1954. While the Supreme Court is not popularly elected, its Chief Justice, Earl Warren, was a republican from California appointed by Eisenhower. This landmark opinion was not controversial, like Roe, was hailed positively by most educated people, and started a series of Supreme Court opinions in quick succession finally enforcing the Bill of Rights as it originally should have been. Johnson appointed a black man, Thurgood Marshall, to the Supreme Court in 1967. Clearly racism was not the norm in the 1950's and 60's, and was considered imoral by enlightened people, hundreds of millions of Americans, by 1960. LDS Church leaders were way behind the tide of racial enlightenment. Institutional racism did not exist in other major religions, and, in fact, outside the south religions led the abolitionist movement and later condemnation of Jim Crow. And it should not have taken until 1978 to abolish the priesthood ban. By 1978 many of our major cities had black mayors. And then for years afterward you had apostles talking about a white Jesus visiting American aborigines, and Nephites being white and delightsome. Racism was wrong and represented moral deficit in the 1950's and 60's. I don't think it's right to minimize it. And we're talking about a religion for pete's sake.
__________________
Interrupt all you like. We're involved in a complicated story here, and not everything is quite what it seems to be. —Paul Auster Last edited by SeattleUte; 05-12-2007 at 04:21 AM. |
|
05-12-2007, 04:31 AM | #13 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Norcal
Posts: 5,821
|
Quote:
"By today's standards, David O. McKay's views on civil rights are jolting; yet in the context of his own time and place, his views were mainstream. He definitely was not "progressive" on the issue, even if measured by the low standards that would have earned such a label during his lifetime. On the one hand, he never advocated legislation or behavior that would worsen the status of blacks within the US; indeed, his apparent desire was to preserve the legal status quo. Yet he also never advocated legal remedies to segregation and discrimination. He was, at best, a very conservative moderate." |
|
05-12-2007, 05:14 AM | #14 |
Senior Member
|
Several people on this board will be the first to point out their faults and place their own opinions and "knowledge" above the prophets.
The type of arrogance where they feel their opinions and political leanings ought to trump the words and advice of these men. We see that arrogance on display here on a daily basis.
__________________
Masquerading as Cougarguards very own genius dumbass since 05'. |
05-12-2007, 07:14 AM | #15 |
Senior Member
|
"Above" the prophets? As in, I trust my judgement to be more reliable than his?
I don't see that sentiment being expressed here by anybody who still raises their hand to the square every April and October. I see the not-so-radical idea that they are, in fact, mortal men and can be prone to error, and the prophetic advocation to confirm the words of the prophet with revelation from God that may or may not stem from their fallability. I don't see anybody who believes that they are prophets and nevertheless don't take their message seriously. That's not arrogance. That's disbelief-- which they are entitled to.
__________________
εν αρχη ην ο λογος |
05-12-2007, 02:27 PM | #16 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 860
|
Quote:
|
|
05-12-2007, 03:11 PM | #17 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Norcal
Posts: 5,821
|
Quote:
I'm curious Hyrum what your church was doing regarding civil rights in the 50's and 60's? While most churches gave the priesthood earlier than 1978, I wonder how many were meeting in integrated congregations as equals. Christianity as a whole was on the wrong side of the civil rights issue for a long time. Last edited by SteelBlue; 05-12-2007 at 03:18 PM. |
|
05-12-2007, 03:21 PM | #18 | |
Junior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 158
|
Quote:
Why do you think the Apostles are more righteous than you? I think you sell yourself short and oversell the Apostles. I'm being serious here. The main difference between the Apostles and the typical active church member trying his/her best to live the gospel and getting it right most of the time is that they were called of God to be Apostles and we weren't. Most of them happen to be extraordinarily bright men who were highly successful in their careers and who have served in many positions of leadership in the church, but if the high local leaders I know and love (stake presidents, mission presidents, bishops, etc. who likewise have successful careers and are great men overall) are anything like the ones who eventually become Apostles, I am not surprised at all that there would be a fair amount of racism, pride, lust, jealousy, etc. at the highest levels of the church hierarchy. The difference between you and I -- and correct me if I'm wrong -- seems to be that I'm OK with it and you aren't. SoCalCoug's points are valid -- if it's plausible that God would allow the blessings of the gospel to be taken away from all of His children for thousands of years, it's plausible that He would allow certain groups of his children to be kept from the gospel for a variety of reasons even when there are Prophets on the earth. I don't pretend to understand the full magnitude of the interplay between agency and God's desire and ability to turn the course of human events in spite of agency, but based on the many apostasy's and the horrible things that have happened to humans over the past thousands of years, it appears for the most part that He is quite willing to let people do whatever they want to do. In fact, (assuming God would have preferred to provide blacks with the Priesthood all along, as Joseph Smith apparently did) allowing His Prophets to prevent a race of people from having the full blessings of the gospel for a few generations is, in the grand scheme of things, on the happy side of the scale of unfortunate things that God has allowed to happen to His children. |
|
05-12-2007, 03:37 PM | #19 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 860
|
Quote:
That is not the point, however. The LDS church claims to have a direct line to God. I belong to a church that is run by group of elders (all of them significantly more than 19 years old) that does not make such claims. So not even prodding by the example of law in their home country was even enough to open that line to the correct answer for 14 years. If there was truly a direct line to God I think they should have a had a leadership role in getting such measures passed, rather than lagging by half a generation. |
|
05-12-2007, 03:49 PM | #20 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Norcal
Posts: 5,821
|
Quote:
|
|
Bookmarks |
|
|