Theos-Talk Archives (October 2002 Message tt00199)

Dear Steve, Brian and Bart plus any others even remotely interested in
this topic,

1-The biggest correlation I see is how people bash Mormonism and
Theosophy with equal vehemence but without actually understanding a
fraction of what they are talking about!

2-Steve, what racial policies of the Mormons were in violation of any
civil right statutes? The ONLY policy there ever was was the one that
excluded Blacks from the Mormon priesthood and therefore any attendant
functions. And that is what was undone 1n 1978. Concider this however.
The Mormons STILL will not give women the priesthood and no amount of
pressure by any feminazis in or out of "The Church" has moved that policy
one iota. And while females constitute more than half the Mormon
population, Blacks were only an obscure handfull in those days. And what
of the Gays? Not only can they not hold priesthood office, but any
sexually active gay is excommunicated, as is any woman who speaks out to
openly about the women and the priesthood issue. Blacks could at least be
active members, unlike the gays. In fact a Black had the same status as
any woman. 

3-Other factors were at work during this time period that need to be
understood

a-In the early 60's, a group of Nigerians wrote Salt Lake for
literature, which was sent them. They wanted to become Mormons. But there
was a dilemma. Nigeria did not allow white missionaries in the country
and since Blacks held no priesthood, there was no one to baptise and
organize or lead these people. So the formed there own Church with there
own leaders, sort of a "church in waiting" After the change, thousands
joned in both Nigeria and Ghana.

b-Mormonism made great strides in Latan America during those years. In
Brazil there was a problem because of mixed racial heritage. The change
fixed that.

c-The person of Spencer W Kimball can not be overlooked. I believe more
than anything it was his leadership that made the change happen. He is
the one who claimed the revelation. So it was in his own head. I don't
argue that these things are from within rather than without, but it was
Pres. Kimball's compassion coupled with a genuine need and a "it's time"
attitude rather than threats from the government that brought it about.

4-The plural marriage change was different. Utah was a Federal Territory.
Congress passed anti-polygamy acts which were upheld by the Supreme
Court. Most of the Church Leadership was either in prison for violation
of those statutes or in hiding. The government seized Church properties
and impounded funds. The Church was about to be disincorporated. When
Wilford Woodruff abolished plural marriage in 1890, we wrote in his
journal that he acted for the "salvation of the Church." We see none of
that in the Kimball statement.

5-But it need be noted also that plural marriage had passed its period of
usefulness. In the 1840's, whrn thousands of English mill working girls
converted to Mormonism and came to the U.S., there was a high unbalance
in the sexes. Given the Mormon concept that one need be married to be
"Celestialized," "The Principle" came into being. By the late 1800's this
was no longer the case, and any long term continuence of that practice
would have tipped the scales the other way, with many young men finding
themselves without prospective brides, because their fathers were
marrying them! So though no realized in that day, it to "was time."

6-I won't bore you all with the complete history of the Black's and
prieshood issue at this time other than to say that there we a minor
difference as to the way it is generally portrayed. That is, The black
skin itself not viewed as the curse, but rather the "sign of the curse."
Small distinction in practice, but a Mormon would make it.

Larry Kolts
BN-Study Moderator
Former Mormon High Priest 



On Fri, 25 Oct 2002 15:20:06 -0000 "Steve Stubbs" <stevestubbs@yahoo.com>
writes:
> --- In theos-talk@y..., "brianmuehlbach" <brianmuehlbach@y...> wrote:
> > It might be noted that on 9 June, 1978, 
> > the Mormon hierarchy announced that black-skinned persons would 
> > thereafter enjoy Ôall of the privileges and blessings which the 
> gospel 
> > affords. 
> 
> There is one part of the story that has been left out here. As I 
> recall, their "prophet, seer, and revelator" had a "revelation" 
> regarding this which some cynics (including myself) think was 
> motivated by threats from the federal government that they would 
> soon 
> present him with a "revelation" of their own. Apparently some of 
> the 
> racist policies of the mormon church were in violation of federal 
> civil rights statutes. When polygamy and other mormon religious 
> practices were outlawed, their "prophet, seer, and revelator" had 
> other "revelations" at strategic intervals which nullified 
> previous "revelations" and brought them into compliance with the 
> law. It appears their theology is formulated largely in the 
> courtroom and not in ethereal regions.
> 
> As for the statement by someone else that the Tasmanians were "dying 
> 
> out anyway," (a phrase which seems to have some sort of 
> implication) 
> he is mistaken. Blavatsky said the "Australians" (i.e., the 
> suriving 
> Australian aborigines) and not the Tasmanians were "rapidly dying 
> out." The Tasmanians were already gone, and it was not that they 
> were "dying out anyway" but that they were systematically 
> exterminated. There is no evidence that they were "dying out 
> anyway" 
> prior to the genocidal effort, and the aborigines are no 
> longer "rapidly dying out" now that the genocide against them has 
> been discontinued. So in this instance history offers nothing to 
> support the cycle theory, and we should not apologize for genocide, 
> IMHO.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to 
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 
> 
> 
> 


________________________________________________________________
Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today
Only $9.95 per month!
Visit www.juno.com