From: zobell@lute.mitre.org (Steve Zobell)
Subject: Re: LDS Freedom of Thought
Reply-To: zobell@lute.mitre.org (Steve Zobell)
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, McLean, Va
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 19:11:59 GMT

In article <1992Oct16.042554.11687@macc.wisc.edu> bunner@vms.macc.wisc.edu (Dana A. Bunner)
>In article <1992Oct15.180513.4744@linus.mitre.org>, zobell@lute.mitre.org (Steve Zobell) writes...
>
>>I am indeed very surprised.  What you are saying is that the J. Smith,
>>and the majority of Mormon presidents, have falsely promoted their racial
>>hatred of blacks as inspired church doctrine?  
>
>Well I didn't exactly say THAT!  I do not believe that any Mormon presidents
>possessed a hatred of blacks.  And the practice of denying the priesthood
>to blacks was never based on a canonized revelation.  There are a few
>personal journal entries which suggest the originator of the practice was
>Joseph Smith but there is little hard evidence.  I believe this was a 
>product of the times and people.  Eventually it became a tradition. 

Here we have encountered a major problem when having discussions with
Mormons.  You'll only accept references from canonized sources and seem
upset when people refer to non-canon references or Mormon history.
Non-Mormons feel that Mormon practice and history are valid areas for
examination and should not be ignored.  Let me pose an extreme example
to illustrate my point.  

Imagine that a religion that believed Hitler was the world's most
important prophet of God.  Say they developed a set of canonized
documents consisting of a few of the less hateful paragraphs from _Mein
Kampf_.  For a while they persecuted Jews, homosexuals, and blacks but
after a few decades stopped doing this and became relatively mainstream
citizens.  Whenever asked about the sins of Hitler and the early
members of their church, they would give the answer that this
persecution "was never based on a canonized revelation" and "was a
product of the times and people".

You and I would both attempt to show that their beliefs are wrong and
Hitler was a monster not worthy of a religious following.  You can see
the types of frustrations we would encounter in our quest to eliminate
these lies.  Now, I only intended this as an example and I did not
intend to imply that Smith or the early Mormons could be placed into
the same category as Hitler!  But, I do feel that Smith and other
church leaders were deceivers.  And, the beliefs and practices that
they created and fostered were believed by the followers to be inspired
by God, even if they were not included in LDS canon.

The damage they did to the cause of racial tolerance is large and will
take generations to undo.  LDS members are still not considered a
particularly racially tolerant community even though some leaders and
members are actively trying to change this.  If God spoke to Smith and
Young, wouldn't he have wispered something in their ear, or burned
their bosoms the wrong way, or whatever he does to get your prophets to
tell the truth?  Particularly for such a serious and important issue as
racial equality?  My answer is, if they were prophets and leaders of
the one true church as they claimed to be, they would not have promoted
racial prejudice as inspired church doctrine.  They did, therefore
they were not prophets.  Quite simple really.

>>Don't tell me that none better than Smith was available, because he
>>could not begin to compare to a man like Gandhi, who sacrificed
>>worldly pleasures for his cause and was admired by many of his
>>enemies.
>
>Well you might do better by choosing one of Smith's contemporaries for
>comparison, but I will not argue the point with you.  For this you will
>need an "orthodox" Mormon.

Oh no, another branch of the Mormon faith?  Are my grand children going
to have to deal with dozens of additional Mormon churches (beyond the
handful today) and dozens of prophets?  Are we in the middle ages now,
and is there going to be a Renascence and Reformation?

And where do I find this "unorthodox" Mormon church and its members?
Probably not in the church leadership!  Are you one of their leaders?

>>OK, what else needs to be fixed in the Mormon church?
>
>Most of what needs "fixing" is not doctrinal/institutional but in the
>attitudes of the members.  I would like to see less emphasis placed on
>materialism by the membership. And I would enjoy more theological
>discussion and challenging debate on doctrinal & social issues.  The
>early Church was better on both counts ... perhaps we just need some
>serious persecution.

I disagree.  Persecuted people aren't more likely to challenge and
debate doctrinal and social issues.  They entrench and isolate
themselves.  Look at just about any current cult following!

>>Religious people often cannot face the uncovered lies in their beliefs
>>and will rationalize to recover the lies and protect their precious
>>view of existence.  Here Dana has taken the most important step of
>>recognizing the lie, but refuses to see that the lie leads to more lies
>>and unravels the whole deception.
>
>What an interesting analysis of my inner beliefs.  Can you always do 
>this from reading just one short message?  

Not always, I may have lumped you in will all religious Danas!  Lacking
any other information, I've built an impression of you based on a
composite of other Mormons and religious people I've met.

But, for fun, why don't you try to point out problems with someone elses
religious-based beliefs?  Just see what kind of crazy rationalizations
you'll get entangled in.  A good example is the Mormons /= Christians
debate.  Unfortunately for you and your fellow Mormons, you are dealing
with religious people on this issue and people with religious beliefs
can have a tendency to be irrational.

-- Steve
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc