From: jwindley%asylum.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Jay Windley)
Subject: Re: Even more Mormonism!!!!!!!!
Date: 12 Apr 92 16:34:36 MDT
Organization: University of Utah CS Dept

vbaker@hamp.hampshire.edu writes:
>
>I assume that you are refering to a statement of mine.  I have been taught,
>as a Mormon, that a dark skin is a curse of God, that in the ressurection 
>all people will be fair-skinned, and that Jesus was honey-blonde;

Well, here's what I have taught as a Mormon:

1.  God has at times set a mark of dark skin on people.  It does not
    follow that all people with dark skin have been so marked.

2.  The doctrine of the resurrection does not specify skin color.

3.  Mormons have never taught that Jesus was honey-blonde.  We have no
    doctrine regarding Jesus' hair color.

>I have
>met only two or three black Mormons in my life.

I have met dozens personally.  Perhaps they just aren't as populous
where you live, but trust me -- there are a lot out there.  In my
mission in Italy we had a congregation composed entirely of black
Mormons, NOT for segregational purposes, but for language purposes.
Many couldn't speak Italian and these services were conducted in
English, which most of them spoke.

>I think the perception 
>that Mormonism is white-supremist is justified, at least from my experiences.

If your experiences tell you that then I cannot dispute them.  But my
experiences tell me the opposite.  Have you actively sought black
Mormons?  Have you asked blacks how they feel about Mormonism?  It
might be a worthwhile project.

I have seen Africans and Caucasians serve alongside each other in the
Church in several capacities of leadership and responsibility.  In
fact, a girl I used to date in high school married a black man who now
serves as the financial clerk (a position of great responsibility) in
my parents' congregation.

>It has been within the past ten years that Mormons were forbidden to refer
>to other Christians as `followers of Satan,'

Other Christians have never been referred to as followers of Satan by
the Church, at least in any sort of official capacity.  That
individual Mormons might do this is certainly a possibility, but such
an opinion does not derive from Church doctrine and has always been
frowned upon by Church leaders.

>and it is fundamental to Mormon
>beliefs that all other religions are wrong.

It is not fundamental to Mormon beliefs that all other religions are
wrong.  We believe that all churches have portions of the truth.  But
we believe that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
contains more truth than any other.  We do not teach that other
churches do not have their share of inspiration.

>Ask any Mormon if, for instance,
>the Methodist church is true.  He or she might hem and hah, but the final
>answer will be some brand of `no.'

You will probably get the same answer from a Catholic, a Moslem, a
Jew, and an atheist.  One joins a particular denomination for a
reason, presumably because one thinks the truth is to be had there,
rather than elsewhere.

>Let alone non-Christian religions.

You might try reading the Church's official position on other
religions, published a few years ago.  It states that religious
leaders of all faiths and in all times, including Mohammed, Luther,
and others I cannot recall, received wisdom and inspiration from God
to lead and guide their people, and that God is active in the life of
whomever believes on Him.

>Mormons believe that Jesus was in fact Christ

I believe this is a fairly common Christian belief.

>and was himself punished for
>our sins so that we will not have to be.

I believe this is also a fairly common Christian belief.

>Mormons believe that God is
>incapable of forgiving those who are truly penitent without first strictly
>and sorely punishing someone who is innocent and completely uninvolved.

Meaning Christ?  It sounds like you have more of a quarrel with
Christianity in general than with Mormonism.  It is quite clear in LDS
theology (and in that of mainstream Christianity) that Jesus wilfully
submitted, in fact, volunteered for this redemptive act.

>Mormons believe that God has a physical, biological, of flesh-and-blood

No, flesh and bones.  There's a difference in LDS theology.

>but
>perfected body, is male, is married (possibly polygamous), is both perfectly 
>just and perfectly merciful (a contradiction that no one has sufficiently 
>explained to me)

Where does it necessarily follow that a Being possessing a body cannot
at the same time be perfectly just and merciful?  I have asked this of
nearly a dozen Catholics, and none has yet to show that there even
EXISTS a contradition.  In fact, most have not even offered an
explanation; they just shrug their shoulders and say "It's obvious."
Well, it isn't.  I don't see a contradiction.  Didn't a patristic
writer say that "we believe absolutely that there is no evil in
matter"?

>Mormons believe in a Heavenly Mother, God's wife, who is not worshipped or
>prayed to at any time or in any way, and who is in fact rarely even mentioned
>because something to the effect of `God loves Her so much, and is so careful
>of Her, that He doesn't want us to know about Her because we might take Her 
>name in vain.'  (This is a direct quote from a lesson taught to fifteen-and-
>sixteen-year-old young women.)  She is completely without power, position or 
>authority.

Amazing, you've gone from complaining that we don't know any details
about a Heavenly Mother to asserting that she is without any authority
-- all within the confines of a single paragraph.

Doesn't it seem a litte presumptuous to make this statement while
admitting there is no information on the subject?

>Again, it is a common but not universal Mormon belief that the Celestial
>Kingdom (heaven) and the Millinium (when Christ rules the earth) will be
>polygamous

The state of plural marriage in the hereafter is not explained in LDS
theology.  While many have speculated and arrived at a personally
acceptable conclusion on this matter, there is no doctrinal
pronouncement on this point.

>and hence, God may have more than one wife.

That is within the scope of speculation, but absolutely not part of
LDS doctrine.

[basically correct explanation of afterlife deleted]

>a place that most people ever have to worry about.  Also, probably, Satanists
>go there, but I don't know if that's official policy or just a widespread
>opinion.

In LDS doctrine, Satanists do not go to Outer Darkness, nor is this a
very common belief.  Those who go to Outer Darkness are those who have
real, specific, personal knowledge of the divinity of Jesus Christ
(such as was enjoyed by his apostles), but who turn away.  Some LDS
leaders have speculated that Judas went here, but it is not a matter
of doctrine.

[basically correct notion of Satan deleted]

>Mormons believe that sex is only to be practiced by righteously married (male-
>female) couples

Yes.

>when there is at least a possibility of conception occuring.
>Hence, birth-control in any form, including the rythm method, is disallowed,

Absolutely incorrect.  Birth control is a matter of personal choice.

>as well as masturbation, oral sex, anal sex, homosexual sex, or anything else
>that doesn't involve the sperm being discharged into the vagina.

The Church does not dictate what are acceptable forms of sexual
expression except in the case of masturbation and homosexuality.

>I don't 
>know whether sex during pregnancy is allowed or not; sex after menopause seems
>to be but I don't know the rationale for it.

Perhaps it is because you have been misinformed.  Sex is "allowed"
after menopause because the sexual act is considered part the
expression of love between husband and wife.

>Mormons believe that a person's physical sex has a great deal of bearing over
>his or her emotions, reasoning ability, career choices, potential authority
>within the church, worth, and so on -- for instance, that women may not hold
>the priesthood,

In other words, we believe that each sex has certain duties and
responsibilities.  We do not claim that any one responsibility is
inherently more important than another.

>should not provide financially for the family,

If the husband is present and is able to provide for the family, we
believe it is his duty to do so.  However, there are many cases when
this is not possible, and that duty devolves fully or partially upon
the wife.  In which case it is as binding upon her as it would be upon
the husband.

>and should be
>solely or near-solely responsible for the upbringing of children

If I read this correctly, Vincent claims that women are "solely or
near-solely" the parents of children.  This simply is not so.  It is
the LDS position that a man's first calling in life -- priesthood or
no -- is to be a father to his children, involved in all aspects of
parenting.

>-- and that 
>modes of speech, gesture, and clothing are and should be specific to each sex
>-- for instance, that males should not wear `female' clothing, nor makeup, nor
>jewelry;

Well, I have pictures of myself with nearly shoulder-length hair.  No
one even mentioned it to me.  Our Elder's Quorum president (leader in
charge of one priesthood group) has a prominent pony tail.  By
"jewelry" I assume you mean female-type jewelry.  I and several other
Mormons with whom I associate wear gold neck chains (to church), and
in my teenage years I associated with many Mormon peers who wore
earrings.

Vincent's experiences may be different, but having grown up in very
conservative Kansas and not having seen any particular opposition to
personal choices of style and dress, I just don't see this as much of
a problem.  It may be where Vincent lives, but I don't think it's true
in Mormonism in general.

This is not to say that the Church doesn't suggest modest standards of
dress and comportment.  It does, but not as matters of doctrine.

>however, women may wear `male' clothing, though not to church, and 
>go without makeup and jewelry.  (I know, I don't understand it either.)

The choice of makeup and jewelry is left completely up to the desires
of the women in question.  The Church does not prescribe these things.

In general, conservative dress for men and women is suggested for
Church attendance.

>As always, if you agree, disagree or otherwise feel strongly, I'm glad to 
>talk about it.

I only have a problem with the section on sex.  Having studied the
material provided to bishops for counsel on such matters, I have never
seen any reference to accepted or disallowed modes of sexual behavior,
except where noted above.

Either something's changed drastically in the past four years, or you
received some very incorrect or inappropriate counsel.

I agree with the majority of what you present as fact.  Since a lot of
this is your opinion, all I can really say is that my opinion is
different.  As long as we're both happy with our opinions then there's
really no need to try and convince each other.
--------------------------------+---------------------------------------
Jay Windley                     | jwindley@asylum.utah.edu
Department of Computer Science  +---------------------------------------
Univ. of Utah, Salt Lake City   | "I have detailed files."  -- T2