pfft. Pretty hallow condemnation, considering their own scriptures are filled with racism, far more than any other scriptures on the face of the planet and given the fact that they have yet to repudiate ANY of the past racist statements made by so-called "PRofits". What an insult to our intelligence.
I'm still waiting for an apology from the Mormons (including my father) who heaped insults on my integrity when I opposed the doctrinal racism in the early to mid seventies.
They add anti-social discriminatory 'spiritual' thoughts more and in addition to about all others outside the morg do. Whether its against monogamy, blacks, homosexuals, ex-morgs...
I am also starting to see the racism of the Mormon church. Tell me, do you know if they support with their "tithe" money the State of Israel? They are and apartheid state and it woudld be very disturbing to learn of not only our tax money but now also ththe money supporting it.
I could've sworn that Michael Purdy has not been called to the Q12. And even if he had then how could he leapfrog past all those holy men ahead of him such as Monsoon, Pecker, Pairee, Nailsin, and Chokes.
Or maybe they've changed the temple recommend question to be as follows:
Do you sustain Michael Purdy the Spokesman of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the Prophet, Seer, and Revelator and as the only person on the earth who possesses and is authorized to exercise all priesthood keys?
IMO the media ought to discount anything that is spoken by anyone representing the church unless its the person highlighted in the TR question.
"For a time in the Church there was a restriction on the priesthood for male members of African descent. It is not known precisely why, how, or when this restriction began in the Church but what is clear is that it ended decades ago. Some have attempted to explain the reason for this restriction but these attempts should be viewed as speculation and opinion, not doctrine. The Church is not bound by speculation or opinions given with limited understanding."
Now lets go back in time 59.5 years ago to see what was being speculated upon.
Official Statement of First Presidency - August 17, 1951
"The position of the Church regarding the Negro may be understood when another doctrine of the church is kept in mind, namely, that the conduct of spirits in the pre-mortal existence has some determining effect upon the conditions and circumstances under which these spirits take on mortality, and that while the details of this principle have not been made known, the principle itself indicates that the coming to this earth and taking on mortality is a privilege that is given to those who maintained their first estate; and that the worth of the privilege is so great that spirits are willing to come to earth and take on bodies no matter what the handicap may be as to the kind of bodies they are to secure; and that among the handicaps, failure of the right to enjoy in mortality the blessings of the priesthood is a handicap which spirits are willing to assume in order that they might come to earth. Under this principle there is no injustice whatsoever involved in this deprivation as to the holding of the priesthood by the Negroes"
The professor being quoted is a BYU professor, right? This is another example of the church being called on something and them trying to backpeddle to save face. After all, Professor Bott is a spokesperson for the church. He is teaching and admonishing at the "Lord's University", right. Most tend to think that they can teach this type of doctrine so long as they don't get called out for it. That's what Mr. Bruce R. McKonkie did for decades. And even though "Mormon Doctrine" is not an official publication of the church, it drives and defines the testimonies and doctrinal viewpoints of a great majority of the church. The church has been and continues to be a pick-and-choose-a-doctrine type of organization.
The church and its flawed "doctrines" and "policies" regarding minorities will continue to be a big thorn in its side so long as the culture of the church doesn't reflect the sentiment of the public relations blurbs that get reported from time to time. Saying that the church doesn't tolerate discrimation and observing how the leadership and genernal membership act towards minorities are two entirely different things. When you need a spokesperson or a public relations firm to smooth things over with the public, it really plays down the conviction of the upper leadership to stand up themselves and proactively denounce these attitudes in a general setting over a long span of time.
The following quote from the article exemplifies how certain attitudes about racism can be rationalized because of the majority social conditions.
"I get angry and frustrated when people point at the LDS Church as if it was the only organization in the world that had any people in it who ever made a racist statement."
Mr. Harwell doesn't need to get angry about people pointing out that the church has made racist statments. He should be enraged and upset that racism ever reared its ugly head in the supposedly "only true church upon the face of the Earth." Two wrongs don't make a right. When the leaders and apologists say that they were just following the social climate of the time, it just goes to show you that there was ZERO inspiration from the top. Professor Bott is simply echoing the doctrines, unofficial or not, that continue to be spoken and taught within and without the walls of meeting halls and temples.
This public statement carries no weight behind it. It's a reactionary statement to an idiotic ideology that continues to find sanctuary in a chameleon church.
"When the leaders and apologists say that they were just following the social climate of the time, it just goes to show you that there was ZERO inspiration from the top."
Definately No Inspiration at all and Smiths Book of Mormon thoroughly represents the 'Social Climate of the time'.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/01/2012 08:28AM by zeezrom.