From: bunner@vms.macc.wisc.edu (Dana A. Bunner)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: LDS Freedom of Thought
Date: 16 Oct 92 21:53:21 GMT
Organization: University of Wisconsin Academic Computing Center

In article , zobell@lute.mitre.org (Steve Zobell) writes...
>In article  bunner@vms.macc.wisc.edu (Dana A. Bunner)

>>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. 

Steve, you are being a bit hasty again here.  Note that I was not making
a defense for the action having never occurred.  Of course LDS did deny
the priesthood to Blacks from the 1830s/40s until 1978.  It is quite
evident in the historical record, a record that I agree should not be
ignored.  I was attempting to point out that there is no definitive 
proof that the doctrine as practiced from 1850-1978 originated from 
Joseph Smith, which is what your first response claimed.  There is
reason to suspect it might have.  In any case it was most certainly 
applied during the presidency of Brigham Young.

The subtle case I was making revolved around the lack of canonization
of the doctrine.  I take a small bit of comfort from this, while I 
absorb the shame of the actual practice.

>Let me pose an extreme example to illustrate my point.  

But couldn't you have picked someone else in history other than HITLER???

>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.

I agree.  And I sincerely hope that all LDS members rid themselves of 
any leftover racial intolerance from the previous practice.  However 
considering the relatively short period since the 1978 reversal, the
LDS conversion rate of Blacks is surprisingly high.  There are growing
wards/branches (ie congregations) in several inner cities, increasing
numbers of Black converts across all geographic regions, and tens of
thousands of converts through South America and recently Africa.  I 
have been surprised with how few times I encounter anyone who still
notes the old practice.

>If God spoke to Smith and
>Young, wouldn't he have wispered something in their ear, or burned
>their bosoms the wrong way,

I wish he had turned up the heat on the burning.  Toast some chest hairs
to get their attention.  My perceptions of the linkage between the
leaders of our church and God is somewhat different than many members.
I believe even truly inspired leaders are humans first and are subject to
interpreting the spirit through human filters.  Same goes for Biblical
authors.  And the human authors (writing impliments?) of other inspired
scripture.  And closer to home, I have problems finding the Spirit 
in all the noise from my own filters.

>>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?  

There already are dozens of spinoffs.  I'm not so sure about how many
prophets.  No, I was refering to those harboring more traditional, 
conservative beliefs about church history and doctrine.  As I stated in 
my previous message, there is more latitude within the church than most
"outsiders" perceive.

>And where do I find this "unorthodox" Mormon church and its members?

Dispersed throughout the general membership of the church.  Although 
they do gather from time to time ... but I promise no more advertisements
for Sunstone.  Drat, I failed again.

>>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!

In general I agree with you.  However one of our most creative theological
periods occurred during the late 1800's & early 1900's when there was
a good deal of persecution.  On the other hand, as the Church was still
in it's infancy so perhaps that was largely due to a natural maturing process.

>>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.

Ugh!  What a mental picture that must be.

>But, for fun, why don't you try to point out problems with someone elses
>religious-based beliefs?  

Like I need more grief.

>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.

Yes, church would be so much more fun if it weren't for all of the 
religious people there.

Dana
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc