Is Mormonism racist?

[Smoke]

Criticising a religion for the heinous acts of some of its adherents is simply intellectually indefensible, which I'm pretty sure you appreciate.

I strongly disagree. As long as you look at consistent patterns and not just isolated events, I think the behavior of the adherents is the best basis for evaluating any religion. That's why I like so few of them.

 

[Katzpur]

And some of us make no attempt whatsoever to try to define your doctrines for you. We simply ask questions of you to clarify those doctrines. Unfortunately, it seems we rarely get clear answers.... even in this thread, we are getting conflicting answers.

I didn't accuse everybody. When the shoe doesn't fit, there's no need to try to put it on. I'm sorry if you feel you are getting conflicting answers. In reading through what we've said, it does seem to me as if we're trying our best. It's a difficult subject and there are varying opinions on it even among members of the Church.

I do appreciate that you've taken the time to type out what President Kimball said. Though again I wonder.... why was a 'revelation' needed to change what you told me earlier was not 'doctrine?'

I can see why you would. I've actually wondered the same thing myself. I think that, had the ban not been in place for so many years, it may not have happened this way. Things might have just slowly changed over time. (As a non-official practice, that would certainly have been a possibility.) But for every Latter-day Saint who was living in 1978, the ban was so much a part of life that President Kimball felt the need to make it official. Remember that none of the men who were a part of removing the ban had had anything to do with it going into place originally. So while it was not originally instituted by the Lord, they felt the need to go to Him in prayer and ask, "What shall we do? What is it you want?" When the answer came, they recognized it as coming from the Lord and stated it to the membership of the Church as such. It became doctrine so that such discrimination would never be allowed to happen again.

Just to be clear... since it has been a point of contention in the past... I am not in any way trying to smear you or your religion. A question was asked in this thread about a generally believed (by us non-mormons... in my case based on what I was told by actual mormons) part of the mormon church's ... revelation?? doctrine?? policy?? history?? teaching?? skeleton?? whatever you want to call it... has been blatantly racist. I am merely trying to understand where this ... revelation?? doctrine?? policy?? history?? teaching?? skeleton?? whatever you want to call it... came from. In your previous answer, you implied it was simply a teaching by someone who is considered a prophet, but that this teaching was not considered a prophecy from God, since prophets are only people unless they are actually prophesying. Please clarify, as rather than learning about your religion, I'm just getting more confused.

Actually, you seem to have gotten it right. The original policy was put into place by the will of men (who may or may not have thought they were doing what God wanted). But God had actually never authorized the practice or we would have a record of it. The reversal of that process came many years later when the Prophet Spencer W. Kimball asked God what should be done about this practice and responded by doing as God directed.

 

[James the Persian]

I strongly disagree. As long as you look at consistent patterns and not just isolated events, I think the behavior of the adherents is the best basis for evaluating any religion. That's why I like so few of them.

Only if the actions of those adherents represent the teachings of their religion rather than pervert them. In order to see whether that is the case you need, of course, knowledge of what the religion actually teaches, hence my comment.

James

 

[Zsr1973]

Only if the actions of those adherents represent the teachings of their religion rather than pervert them. In order to see whether that is the case you need, of course, knowledge of what the religion actually teaches, hence my comment.

James

this is a high truth. too many times those who truly understand the essence of their faith don't stand up and lead those of their faith when they know a shortcoming has occured. I speak from experience.

 

[jonny]

Coincidentally, yesterday was the anniversary of the church's announcement in 1978 that the priesthood would be extended to all worthly males.

 

[Bishka]

Coincidentally, yesterday was the anniversary of the church's announcement in 1978 that the priesthood would be extended to all worthly males.

Really? Awesome socks!!!!

 

[Katzpur]

Really? Awesome socks!!!!

And I'm the only Mormon on RF who's old enough to remember the day very well. I'm not sure how awesome that is.

 

[Bishka]

And I'm the only Mormon on RF who's old enough to remember the day very well. I'm not sure how awesome that is.

I want to be that old. I think it would be neat to remember someting as monumental as that.

 

[SoyLeche]

I want to be that old. I think it would be neat to remember someting as monumental as that.

You'll be remembering monumental things long after Katz is gone....

Did I just say that? Sorry Katz :sorry1:

 

[Katzpur]

You'll be remembering monumental things long after Katz is gone....

Did I just say that? Sorry Katz :sorry1:

Yeah, as a matter of fact, you did! :sarcastic