moksha wrote:Therefore, such claims were the policies of Men rather than a doctrine of God.
every words of men of high fifty are doctrines
until they are living
not much of time, based on their age, by the way
edited to add a missing "]"
moksha wrote:Therefore, such claims were the policies of Men rather than a doctrine of God.
I feel to state some of the reasons why I cannot be a practicing Mormon in full fellowship:
1) The Church is out of sympathy with people whose views on social and political questions might be described as “liberal” … Said my friend, “I’ve never met a Mormon who was pro-Labor.”
2) The economic views its leaders espouse — views contrary to the traditional cooperative spirit of the Mormon people — award the bread of the world to him who can get it;
3) While playing lip-service to knowledge and “truth” its hierarchy has consciously and aggressively been obscurantist in thot [sic] and act;
4) The Church has been so busy proving to itself that it has all truth that it has entirely neglected the life-illuminating insights of most secular poets, prophets, and students;
5) By subtle endorsement, unconsciously given, its leaders (who are for the most part successful businessmen) underwrite the proposition that man can serve two masters…. on going to the marketplace too often its adherents leave their Christian principles at home;
6) The Church places its whole emphasis on ”obeying commandments” — commandments which are superimposed over all other experience and learning; and correspondingly it has neglected the paramount truth that man’s first duty is to be true to himself…. for after all, men should find in the prosecution of their daily tasks fulfillment and not frustration of their
human natures;
7) Its followers have erected a “health code” into a super-religion which itself overrides whatever real content the worship and religious activities of the Church have: anticipated outward behavior has obscured the vital inner man; the letter has killed the spirit;
8) Its absorption in “personal religion” — which at times is much too personal — borders on irreligion ;
9) The believers view themselves self-righteously and society complacently; their obsession with personal piety to often is a form of social impiety;
10) fellowship is made difficult because too many members find it easy to be simultaneously devout Mormons and devout anti-Semites, lovers of their fellowmen in public and Negrophobes in private;
11) It is a dangerous half-truth to say, as the Church has said, that if we change the individual we will of necessity change the social order – more dangerous yet when its companion half-truth is forgotten and unspoken;
12) In their preoccupation with a future life its worshipers adopt attitudes of unconcern, and policies of inaction, which are insensitive to the press of the present;
13) The Church has recoiled so far from traditional religion that it has created, in its services, an esthetic wasteland, and has allowed the true mystical impulses go unfed;
14) There is only a place in its rooms for the orthodox : the sensitive conscience which would avoid hypocrisy must choose between 100% regularity and 100% non-participation ;
All this is said respectfully, in the realization that the Church contains much that is good, true, and beautiful …. and that it fills a felt need for most of its adherents. I nevertheless feel that I cannot enter into full communion with the church, indeed cannot commune with it at all in good conscience, as long as these attitudes, ideas and principles — and the men who further them — dominate the church.
Stem wrote:I feel to state some of the reasons why I cannot be a practicing Mormon in full fellowship:
1) The Church is out of sympathy with people whose views on social and political questions might be described as “liberal” … Said my friend, “I’ve never met a Mormon who was pro-Labor.”
2) The economic views its leaders espouse — views contrary to the traditional cooperative spirit of the Mormon people — award the bread of the world to him who can get it;
3) While playing lip-service to knowledge and “truth” its hierarchy has consciously and aggressively been obscurantist in thot [sic] and act;
4) The Church has been so busy proving to itself that it has all truth that it has entirely neglected the life-illuminating insights of most secular poets, prophets, and students;
5) By subtle endorsement, unconsciously given, its leaders (who are for the most part successful businessmen) underwrite the proposition that man can serve two masters…. on going to the marketplace too often its adherents leave their Christian principles at home;
6) The Church places its whole emphasis on ”obeying commandments” — commandments which are superimposed over all other experience and learning; and correspondingly it has neglected the paramount truth that man’s first duty is to be true to himself…. for after all, men should find in the prosecution of their daily tasks fulfillment and not frustration of their
human natures;
7) Its followers have erected a “health code” into a super-religion which itself overrides whatever real content the worship and religious activities of the Church have: anticipated outward behavior has obscured the vital inner man; the letter has killed the spirit;
8) Its absorption in “personal religion” — which at times is much too personal — borders on irreligion ;
9) The believers view themselves self-righteously and society complacently; their obsession with personal piety to often is a form of social impiety;
10) fellowship is made difficult because too many members find it easy to be simultaneously devout Mormons and devout anti-Semites, lovers of their fellowmen in public and Negrophobes in private;
11) It is a dangerous half-truth to say, as the Church has said, that if we change the individual we will of necessity change the social order – more dangerous yet when its companion half-truth is forgotten and unspoken;
12) In their preoccupation with a future life its worshipers adopt attitudes of unconcern, and policies of inaction, which are insensitive to the press of the present;
13) The Church has recoiled so far from traditional religion that it has created, in its services, an esthetic wasteland, and has allowed the true mystical impulses go unfed;
14) There is only a place in its rooms for the orthodox : the sensitive conscience which would avoid hypocrisy must choose between 100% regularity and 100% non-participation ;
All this is said respectfully, in the realization that the Church contains much that is good, true, and beautiful …. and that it fills a felt need for most of its adherents. I nevertheless feel that I cannot enter into full communion with the church, indeed cannot commune with it at all in good conscience, as long as these attitudes, ideas and principles — and the men who further them — dominate the church.
I'm struck by how well these 14 points resonate for me today. This list was written in 1947 and we like to think we've grown/evolved/changed (granted there is some of that, like lifting the ban) but I'm particularly struck by how well this list speaks to my own list of grievances with the Church.
RockSlider wrote:I assume all of us are aware of Lowry Nelson's work in Cuba and his letter to the first presidency in which their response strongly stated the 'doctrine' concerning blacks and the Priesthood.
However, I personally was unaware of another great man that followed him: Stewart Udall. Stewart also wrote the first presidency in 1961 and received the same strongly stated reply, it's doctrine.
I've also stumbled across another great resource where I learned of Stewart Udall. "Thoughts on Things and Stuff". Who is this 'Jonathan Streeter'? Pretty impressive stuff!
Blog on Lowry Nelson
Blog series on Stewart Udall
Unfortunately, the site is super slow for me, be patient on page loading.
deacon blues wrote:Thanks, R.S.
The priesthood ban was part of several other doctrines: pre-mortal existence, obedience, the leaders are always right, law of the harvest, etc. It’s hard to look back and see harm this doctrine caused, and still causes to a lesser degree. Imagine how different the church would be if there had never been a priesthood ban. It would have saved the Church from having to write a very incriminating essay.
RockSlider wrote:huckelberry wrote:Is there any question that it was doctrine?
Unfortunately there is a very disturbing group that declares it was never doctrine... young millinials.
https://youtu.be/2c6gY7QfT8k
mentalgymnast wrote:
This guy sort of lost me when he said, in essence, "Well, what God should have done..."
I've heard this so many times. As though we can read God's mind and know why He does what He does. Or dictating the when.
Regards,
MG