Comments on: June 8: Reasoning and Repenting

By: Bro. Jones

Bro. Jones — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 17:43:26 +0000

Regrettably this thread has strayed from the OP’s request, which was to focus on what we as members can do, rather than calling on our leadership to take some kind of action. All I would ask (as someone who is both a person of color and who has Black people in his family) is that if you do hear a member of the Church spouting garbage explanations–not even necessarily the 3 from the OP, but “Blacks weren’t ready” or “It says here in Mormon Doctrine that…”–please speak up and refute it. “We don’t know” comes off a lot better than “We do know and we were trying to protect racial purity/superiority” or something like that.

#66 Uh, what? The Hindu caste system was mentioned in the Rigveda, which was around for almost two thousand years before there even were Muslims.

By: CS Eric

CS Eric — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 20:09:31 +0000

The OP asks what can we do now. It occurs to me that one of the simplest things we can do is to say that, no matter what happened in the past, blacks are certainly welcomed now. And then to back up those words with actions. Hey, there are times when I’m not entirely convinced that I am welcome, and I’m as blond-haired and blue-eyed as they come.

By: Jason Echols

Jason Echols — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 13:30:01 +0000

But I am a one-note troll. That said, 62 was posted in a moment of pique and under my real name mostly because using my only other moniker would’ve guaranteed that it would never see the light of day here at BCC (a situation of my own making, no doubt).

And that said, for what it’s worth, I don’t think Chino ever intended to bring hatred into the mix. I suspect that, more than anything, he’s simply temperamentally ill-equipped to deal. In any case, all apologies for Chino and his vitriol aside, I do think my question still stands: if excommunication is no longer an imminent threat, what other excuse do any of us have for not just stating our case plainly?

Or do we all intend to wait another 20 years from now – after Cleve Jones has joined the church and T&S has done a 3-part series on how awesome he is – before recognizing how admirable we all are for recognizing the righteousness of his cause?

Where do I sign up to pre-order that DVD?

By: Steve Evans

Steve Evans — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 04:15:54 +0000

Jason, such distinctive hatred for the leadership of the Church is definitely unwelcome here. Your position is duly noted (as has been many times in the past under different monikers). But if you want to engage in an intelligent conversation rather than just get labelled as a one-note troll, I am sure you can temper your vitriol. But that’s a big if.

By: RickM

RickM — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 03:47:33 +0000

Tim,

I would be, of course, refering to the GAs acting on behalf of the church. This, IMO would include such things as setting doctrine and even policy.

By: ujlapana

ujlapana — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 02:43:16 +0000

@62: I never said anyone risks official discipline. I think that one would risk being ill-thought of (even accused of disloyalty, as I have been) for being openly disappointed by our failure to properly apologize and repent as an organization. Not all criticism comes through official channels.

Where you might start drawing official response is in referring to GA’s as “so-called leaders” and accusing them of “infinite stubbornness.” Just my 2 cents.

By: britt

britt — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 01:23:47 +0000

I believe strongly that some people have chosen “bad” mortal existences of their own accord. I don’t understand the priesthood ban. I don’t even understand why only the Levites had the priesthood long ago. I think this and the LGBT issue are MORTAL problems. I don’t believe it will be an issue eternally. I’m not sure what that means. I do think it is a part of our test to love everyone. Whatever separates us, pits us against each other, places us in some sort of caste system…that all tests our ability to love.

Of course I also feel the “hindu” caste system was a part of the muslim attempt to destroy Krishna worship, but then I digress.

By: Tim

Tim — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 01:01:39 +0000

If sustain means believing every word they speak, count me out.
Even Henry Eyring disagreed (and quite vocally) with some of his prophet’s words. The members of the twelve themselves had very vocal disagreements about a number of things, and these disagreements didn’t go away when one of them became the new prophet.
But if sustain means support and obey, then I think you’d see a lot of hands for supporting the current First Presidency. And there’s no point in sustaining past First Presidencies, as they are no longer around.

By: RickM

RickM — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 00:47:14 +0000

Should we ask for a show of hands as to those that fully sustain the current First Presidency? How about past First Presidencies?

Maybe we better not.

By: Scott B.

Scott B. — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 00:00:26 +0000

@62-
Well, that is certainly one way of seeing things!