Don’t forget the power.
True. I certainly didn’t mean to imply that it is all hunky-dory and everyone should be happy about the situation. I merely meant to correct the analogy a little bit.
In my experience, the Mormon notion of priesthood power is a little misunderstood both within the church and outside of it. From an ecclesiastical perspective, blacks were denied power/authority in the church and women still are. But in the more esoteric and eternal notion Mormon theology is quite egalitarian (at least today).
I also want to comment on the term “racist.” I think that a lot of Mormons are hesitant to call Mormonism racist as a matter of semantics. It is tough to argue that Mormonism wasn’t racist in the sense that it viewed blacks as different from whites in a way that was restrictive to blacks. However, I think that there was very little racism in the sense of overt hatred or persecution of blacks. Utah and other Mormon-established areas certainly don’t have the history of black persecution that the South does (often in the name of Christianity). Granted that Utah has never had a large black population, which brings up some quesion of edogeneity.
I suppose this relates back to the earlier discussion of misogyny vs. sexism. Mormonism is sexist in that it restricts women from certain functions in the church but it is not misogynist in any way. Quite the opposite in fact, there are few Christian religions that recognize a mother-in-heaven or the ability to become a goddess. This isn’t to say that there aren’t misogynist Mormons who justify their actions with religion - but that is certainly not unique to Mormonism.
Anyway, subtle differences that are still tough to swallow for many of us but important to understanding Mormonism. That is why it will be tough for a Mormon to get elected President. Explaining the religion is complicated and we all saw from the 2004 election that voters respond favorably to simpicity. But in the near-future, I think Mormonism will lose most of its stigma - both as a result of increased familiarity from the outside but also as the Church continues to reinvent itself.
No more so than any American Protestant denomination that believed in “the Curse of Ham,” as many did well into the '60s. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_of_Ham And many others simply acted as if they believed it. What I found striking about Mormonism is that it has, or historically has had, beliefs about race that have no parallel in any other belief-system and appear positively bizarre to any non-Mormon. See post #68.
Ex-Mormon (not of the bitter variety) and onetime Utah resident here:
To answer the original question, no freakin’ way.
We were barely able to elect a Catholic president, and Catholics are something like 30% of the U.S. population.
A Mormon can’t even get elected mayor of Salt Lake City anymore, for hell’s sake, and SLC is still almost half Mormon!
I can’t argue that it isn’t bizarre to you or many other non-Mormons. However, if you view Mormonism as a mythology, it isn’t that bizarre. Just to be clear, I don’t mean mythology in the sense that it is false but rather a belief system that explains reality through supernatural events. During a time when little was known about genetics, evolution, and natural selection, Mormonism provides several explanations of why there are different races; a question needing an answer if we all descended from Adam and Eve. Just like the Tower of Babel myth explains the different languages of the earth being caused by God, the Lamanite, Cain, and Ham story can all be examples of God changing the color of a people’s skin.
As previously mentioned, the Curse of Ham/Cain are not in any way unique to Mormonism. So what specifically about Mormonism do you find so bizarre? I am not implying that it isn’t bizarre but having grown up with this stuff I need more help understanding how others view it. The wikipedia links from post #68 are interesting and mostly well written but also quite familiar to me.
I guess the strangest thing is when Lamanites that are righteous become white again but that is a debatable issue altogether.
Joining this tread pretty late, but I’m going to vote with the bad analogy group. Close to 100% of active males over 12 years of age have the priesthood in the Mormon Church but the percentage of RCC with the priesthood is very small. In addition to being prohibited from holding leadership positions, blacks were not able to attend temple ceremonies, in which Mormon families are sealed to each other.
The temple ceremony is one of the most important elements in Mormonism, in that this allows families to be reunited in the afterlife. Without being sealed, people will spend an eternity separated from their loved ones. Through partaking of this ceremony, Mormons become eligible to become gods and goddesses in the next life. This is perhaps one of the most controversial doctrines in the Church, and one reason why many other Christian sects refuse to view Mormons as Christians.
Growing up as a Mormon in Salt Lake City during the 60s, I certainly saw discriminatory beliefs against blacks and women. The Mormon temple ceremony used to have women promise to obey their husbands, and this was only changed recently. Mormons have a secret name, which they are given in the temple, which is to not be reveled to anyone, on pain of death. (OK, that part of the temple ceremony also been changed, but I’m going by how it was during my time.) Anyway, unless this has also been changed, the husband knows his wife’s secret name since relies on him to get to the top level of heaven, but the wife is forbidden from knowing the husband’s name.
It should be pointed out that only the practice of polygamy has been renounced. Polygamy itself has never been renounced, and will be practiced in the Mormon heaven. Certainly this is something which the Mormon church wants to keep quiet.
Whatever for? In case I’m mistaken, the federal government has never made any claim to policing the afterlife.
So does the Mormon church believe in the doctrine of polygamy or not?
I was addressing your ridiculous assertion in your posting above.
And if you’re truly interested in what the church teaches, you can easily find out from the church’s websites. But, then, I’m quite sure you’re not all that interested.
Good plan. Just duck the question and dismiss the post as “ridiculous” without offering a counter argument. :rolleyes:
Good plan. Make an asinine assertion–absent any proof whatsoever–that a particular church wants to keep a particular thing quiet. Classic conspiracy nut theory, that.
So does the Mormon church advertise that it still believes in the principle of polygamy? Gosh, look at the web site which you recommended :
Note there is no mention that the Church has not renounced the **principle ** of polygamy, on the current **practice ** of it.
If this is an eternal principle, why not proclaim it from the rooftops?
And, while we are at it, there are a lot of people who say things such as:
Sure, Mormons don’t practice polygamy now, but it will be practiced in the afterlife. The Mormon church and its member sure don’t go out of their way to clarify this point.
Well, since I spend my first 24 years of my life studying and preaching the Gospel according to the Mormon Church, including going through the temple and on a mission, then I think i’ve got a pretty good handle on the basics. Certainly, there are areas where the Church has made doctrinal changes such as the 1990 revisions in the secret temple ceremony, but unfortunately the office site doesn’t list these. For those, you have to go to alternative sites to read things such as :
Didn’t Jesus say there is no marriage in Heaven? Matthew 22:23-33:
Here is a quote from the Book of Mormon on polygamy:
24 Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.
25 Wherefore, thus saith the Lord, I have led this people forth out of the land of Jerusalem, by the power of mine arm, that I might raise up unto me a righteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph.
26 Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old.
27 Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none;
28 For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.
29 Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes.
30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.
As you can see if you read it carefully, Mormon’s believe that polygamy in general is a sin EXCEPT when commanded by the Lord. Anyone’s speculation about whether or not polygamy will return to the Church is mere specualtion. However, those who were commanded to participate in plural marriage, married in the temple, and lived faithfully will have the opportunity to continue to live in such a relationship in the next life.
I don’t exactly understand what TokyoPlayer’s point is. Criticisms about the church changing over time don’t really hold water for a Mormon who understands the theology. The very point of Mormonism is that there is continued revelation and there has been from the beginning of time. While the principles of the gospel don’t change, the specifics do. That is why Mormonism is so successful; it adapts to the needs of the day. Ordinances, including those in the temple, are merely symbols of the eternal truth. Therefore, when the ordinances stop being useful or become viewed as strange, they are altered. From the weekly sacrament to the temple endowment, no Mormon ordinance is imune to change. Non-believers see this as a sign of the Church’s human leadership, and that’s understandable. But believers see this as the Lord adjusting his religion for his people because the Church is for the people and not the other way around. Are the ordinances reflective of the society in which the originated? Sure. Does that mean that there is no way they are from God or that they aren’t inspired? No.
To answer the question about Jesus saying there is no marriage in the afterlife, the standard Mormon response is that for many (perhaps most?) there is no marriage in the afterlife because it is only for the very righteous who have married in the temple. Because the full temple ordinances were not on the earth at the time and these were wicked man, Jesus’ response makes sense in context. Perhaps those enquiring were swine before which Jesus was not willing to cast pearls. I’m sure there are alternate takes as well.
In related news about racism, President Hinkley in the ongoing conference has now blasted racism:desnews
“I remind you that no man who makes disparaging remarks concerning those of another race can consider himself a true disciple of Christ,” said President Hinckley. “How can any man holding the Melchizedek Priesthood arrogantly assume that he is eligible for the priesthood whereas another who lives a righteous life but whose skin is of a different color, is ineligible?”
This may seem laughable to those who might respond, “Well, the man would say that because it was the practice of the Church for most of its existence.” But President Hinkley is in my mind supporting my belief that the racism of today is wrong and the racism of the past was also wrong - of course without actually admitting error but that is not uncommon in religion or politics.
This is what I mean when I said in an earlier post that it is becoming easier for a Mormon to be President, or anything else for that matter, because the Church is continuing to evolve and adapt.
Seems to me this has already been answered in the contrary by history. Romney was, after all, elected governor of a state with a 1% Mormon population.
Religion plays a more important political role in some states than others. Massachusetts has a very secular political culture. But to get elected president you would need at least some electoral votes from the South, which has . . . not.
Oh, I think I misinterpreted Askia’s comment. I thought he was saying a practicing Mormon couldn’t be successful in current American politics. Now that I check again it seems that he was directly answering the OP.
The other reading of this, of course, is that when Joseph Smith wrote (you can say “translate” during your turn) the Book of Mormon, he didn’t like polygamy, but changed his mind over time. While I was a practicing Mormon I didn’t realize how much mental gymnastics it required to keep up with the contradictions found within the doctrine, assuming that the scriptures all came from God.
I wouldn’t have as much of an issue with the large doctrinal changes except (among other reasons) that the Church always seems to be lagging social changes and never leading society. If God thought that racism was wrong and respected blacks’ rights then why did it take until 1978 for them to be given full rights and then wait until now to strongly condemn it? Why would God allow his representatives to stray so far from his thoughts? What have been traditional Mormon doctrine concerning blacks?
Brigham Young, the second president of the Church, and the great leader who colonized Utah, taught that blacks would never hold the priesthood until after all of God’s chosen had received it. Link
Bruce R. McConkie, a predominate Apostle when I was growing up, and author of Mormon Doctrine, one of the most widely read texts among Mormons, writes about blacks:
A similar tendency is seen in women’s issues. Back when Father Knows Best was mainstream American culture, the Mormon father was to rule the house (in righteousness of course). He was to be priesthood leader and the wife took a solemn vow before God in the temple to obey her husband. It took until 1990 for this to be changed. This portion of the ceremony was eliminated:
The temple ceremony continues and the wife was required to solemnly covenant before God that she would obey her husband. In this quote, the pre1990 words which have been deleted are shown with a [del] del [/del] and new wording is shown in bold
My father used to tell me that one of his greatest regrets was marrying a woman who didn’t “obey” him. This, of course, concerned my mother, a deeply religious person who I never saw ever talk back to my father.
Naturally, the advice from the President of the Church while I was a teenager was keeping with the times:Link
Congratulations on having a Prophet of God, a personal, living witness to and representative of the Lord, who lives up to the standards of politicians.
Here is one of my fundamental problems with Mormonism – it doesn’t claim to be just a good idea. The Church doesn’t say that it’s built on reasonable principles. No, Mormonism’s claim to fame is that it is God’s true and only church on Earth. The Prophet leads the faithful under the direct guidance of God. Mormons are told to [del]blindly[/del] unquestioningly follow the guidance of The Brethren, and are given scriptures and guidance with literal instructions down to the most mundane details (e.g., God says it’s OK for women to have one piercing in each ear, but two is wrong and three is right out)*, yet when something as clearly wrong as Brigham Young’s preaching that Adam was God, the Church does everything it can to hide the evidence of this infallibility.
*OK, I lied about three.
In fairness, there aren’t many other religions that don’t make similar claims, with varying degrees of politeness. If you’re asking followers to have faith in your teachings as the truest path to whatever you’re looking for, what else can you say?