There are a number of things going on right now in the news that don't have blogs (or blog comment threads) dedicated to them, so this is a free-for-all comment thread - if it works, we'll do them regularly. Some possible topics of discussion:
--Barack Obama's relationship with Jeremiah Wright
--Economic problems, including the collapse of Bear Stearns
--Osama bin Laden's recent tape
--Michigan deciding against a revote in the Democratic primary
Here's your place to vent!
Catch-All!
Posted by Unknown on 3/20/2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
56 comments:
Count me in the category of Obama supporters who are concerned about the Jeremiah Wright relationship (and yes, I watched Obama's race speech, and yes, I thought it was brilliant). I haven't made a decision one way or another about how I feel about this, for sure, but I haven't quite drunk enough of the Obama Kool-Aid that I can't be open enough to have concerns about the guy. My wife is pretty upset about it, too. I think it's gonna cost him -- big. He's still a pretty solid bet for the Democratic nomination, though.
Okay, Bear Stearns. Get ready - this is just the beginning.
Meh, personally, I'm pretty indifferent toward the Jeremiah Wright thing. I'll bet McCain's Pastor/preacher/bishop/whatever has said way crazier stuff. Very few occurrences could give my vote to Hillary.
Jackson Howa, back that statement up please "I'll bet McCain's Pastor/preacher/bishop/whatever has said way crazier stuff." Given the severity of the things Jeremiah Wright has said, that is completely unfair to throw a statement smearing McCain or his religious leader out there. I know of very few religious leaders who say things like Jeremiah Wright has said.
Someone on another board I'm on made an interesting point, from the perspective of a non-religious person. From her vantage point, *any* Christian candidate is very seriously flawed, because they believe she is going to Hell, basically. Her point was, almost all religions profess things that are pretty shocking if you don't belong to them.
I'm not saying that makes it right to espouse homophobic/xenophobic/racist/whatever positions and use the pulpit specifically to move those ideals forward (that's one thing I couldn't stand, personally - I love my church being a haven from political dissension rather than a forum for it) but it just gave me a perspective that I hadn't though t of before.
Oh, and thanks for doing this, Mike - that chat box was seriously cramping my style!
Does anyone besides steph understand why bear stearns going under is such a bad omen? This is not like a company purchasing another company. When major banks collapse it means that all of the instability is more than just volatile markets.
Thanks mike...much easier to type and edit here.
Ok, as if you all didn't already know, I'm pretty "Obama Obrother!" The guy simply doesn't have any substance.
This is how I see it:
He's all about "change"
(Voting present 150+ times, most liberal seat on the senate) not change I want.
All about uniting the nation. (Attends one of the most racist anti-American churches in America) not the change I want.
Speaks so well in public and inspires people. (that's great but he does it all without saying anything with substance.)
His wife has never been proud before now to be American. (Not the kind of person I would want a president married to.)
Says he is the most qualified. (with only six years and being the most liberal...really?)
"The only one that had judgement to vote against the war". (Too afraid to defend our freedom and with recent issues arising, I would say he has anything but good judgement.)
I know I sound harsh, but we are looking for a future president of the most powerful nation in the world. It can't be taken lightly.
One last thing, Jackson, your comment about McCain's pastor/preacher, you really don't think that is a valid arguement do you?
Has
Is anyone sick of the fact that white people are consistently being blamed and called racist, yet "minorities" specifically blacks refuse to take any responsibility for their problems and can be racist toward whites...but white people can't call them on it. Look at asians. Their history in this country is heartbreaking but you don't hear them complaining or using their great-grandparents' hardships as an excuse.
Obama has specifically spoken out, to other Blacks, about taking responsibility for their own share of their problems. I agree that that kind of "blame someone else" attitude does no one any good, not Blacks or Whites or anyone.
And to carry over from the chat column - I don't know exactly what the correlation is, whether there's a causal relationship or whether it's a symptom of something else, but the ratio of Blacks to Whites in prison, for example...tends to suggest that while there isn't "slavery" any more, there is some very very serious inequality happening on some level still.
Unless we believe that Blacks are biologically predisposed to commit crimes or live in poverty, then there must be another cause. The numbers are not in their favor, so I can see why they would be approaching life from the defensive if you can see what I mean.
And I'm very sorry, I do not buy that Rev. Wright's church is "one of the most racist, anti-American churches in the country". I haven't seen nearly enough churches in this great nation to make that kind of statement. I've been hearing from lots of friends from Chicago over the last few days that these comments are being blown out of proportion and do not represent an accurate picture of what goes on at that church, etc. I'm still trying to gather as much information as I can about it, which I guess isn't worth your time if you have no intention of ever voting for Obama anyway. I probably wouldn't, everyone has to prioritize since we don't do this as a full-time job!
I just think harping on and on about it isn't helping clear the air about the whole situation, which is what I personally would like to do. Of course, all the information I can get is secondhand at best so it isn't easy. But I am trying. I don't like being made to feel that I am "giving someone a pass" because I haven't immediately condemned him based on a news report. Sorry! That's not how I work.
And the economy really, really does not look good, I gotta say. The Fed can't go much lower with the rates, or there won't be any rate, so he's got to start making other steps. And since the country is in such a tremendous deficit as it is, and the war and all, it's not like we have buckets of money laying around to address this with - we're just pushing off the consequences, at best I think.
I think I'm just going to hole up in my non-sub-prime-mortgaged house, hope my husband's job is safe, and wait for it to blow over. It's pretty scary, but I don't know what to do! The only thing *I* can do is "spend money!" which is maybe good for the economy but not so good for my bank account...
I can't remember if someone here pointed me to this article or not, but it is useful to look at. Japan had a commercial real estate bubble that burst in the mid 90s. Interestingly, after over ten years, the interest rate in Japan is still near zero, the stock market is at an 18 year low. In some ways, the U.S. is in a better position than Japan was, in other ways we are in a worse position. "It is the debt load of consumers in the U.S. that makes U.S. problems much worse than what happened in Japan". Be scared, be very scared. (just a little drama to liven it up)
There are plenty of reasons for a conservative to oppose Obama, but at least a couple of the ones listed by Matt seem pretty dubious. For example, there's this:
"All about uniting the nation. (Attends one of the most racist anti-American churches in America) not the change I want."
Let's think for a second about what it might mean to "unite the nation." To do that, do we have to wait until everyone in the nation agrees on things like race and politics, or does it mean finding whatever common ground we can and working together despite the many remaining differences? Obama's membership in Wright's church, DESPITE his obvious disagreement with Wright on many issues, indicates to me that Obama understands how to work toward unity, and Matt does not.
And need I remind anyone in this forum of how racist and anti-Catholic the LDS Church once was? Do I need to pull up quotes of LDS leaders from the old days to remind everyone that this church has also said some pretty awful things? And do I really have to ask whether that meant that, say, Orrin Hatch, early in his career, should have had to answer for views expressed by Bruce McConkie? Should people have demanded that he repudiate the views of Brigham Young or Ezra Taft Benson? Or should he have been judged (as I believe he was) solely on the basis of his own views and character?
I believe we can all understand why someone would remain a member of a church even when that person strongly disagrees with the beliefs of some of its leaders. It amazes me that such a point needs to be made on this of all sites.
Remember too that the LDS Church was for a time itself anti-American, and for good reason, too. America had utterly failed the LDS Church, winking at the ethnic cleansing it suffered in Missouri, and failing utterly to pursue justice after the murder of its leader in Carthage, and so on. The LDS Church at the time had every reason to withhold its allegiance to a nation that had repeatedly spit in its face, and perhaps Wright's experience justifies his anti-Americanism in a similar way. Check out the photos here, remember that this kind of activity took place in full public view right on up to the 30s, and was never prosecuted by the federal government, and tell me how proud it makes you feel about your country: http://www.withoutsanctuary.org/main.html. Then reconsider your criticism of Jeremiah Wright.
Again, it amazes me that such an elemental point needs to be made on this of all sites.
And there's this: "His wife has never been proud before now to be American. (Not the kind of person I would want a president married to.)"
Well, I guess some of us just have higher standards for America. Some people swell with pride no matter what their nation does. Others actually expect their nation's actions to match up with its ideals before extending their approbation.
Finally: "your comment about McCain's pastor/preacher, you really don't think that is a valid argument do you?"
Jeepers. We're talking here about people (Hagee, Parsley) who believe the Catholic Church is the Church of the Devil and who believe that America's foreign policy should be shaped in accordance with a nutty end-times theology. They look forward to the day when Jesus returns on clouds of glory and destroys all of the planet's remaining Jews. How much difference is there between the guy who says the government deliberately infected black people with HIV, and the guy who believes the Antichrist is about to lead a huge army against Israel and be defeated by a God on a flying white horse?
I'm a white person and a Jew, and to me there's not a dime's worth of difference between Jeremiah Wright and Rod Parsley. FWIW, I'm also not too happy with the idea that my dead ancestors need to be baptized in order to give them that one last opportunity to abandon the faith they fought for at Masada and in the Warsaw ghetto. Yet I also understand the need to get along with those whom I disagree with so profoundly, the need to work together with them toward whatever goals we do happen to share. There are Mormons and Pentecostals with whom I have relationships kinda like the relationship Obama has with Wright. Many of you no doubt have similar relationships with people in churches that propound beliefs you believe quite strongly to be false. Some of you probably disagree rather strongly with some of your own church's tenets.
Yet oddly enough the only candidate who is being crucified on this particular cross is the one who has had the decency to honestly acknowledge and repudiate the obnoxious beliefs of his supporters. And it just happens to be the black guy.
Go figure.
Obama makes me proud of my country. Romney and McCain, politically calculating cowards that they are, make me ashamed. Or rather I am ashamed to think that so many of my countrymen cannot see their essential dishonesty and cowardice--in many cases, because they share it.
--David
David, can I ask you a question? Since you are a Jew and know a lot about Mormon doctrine, what do you think about the fact that Mormons believe Jews will accept Christ as the Savior?
Whoa, David, I just reread your comments and saw this: "They look forward to the day when Jesus returns on clouds of glory and destroys all of the planet's remaining Jews." No way! That is not what we believe. We believe we are going to CONVERT all you Jews! :) We believe that we will unite together as the house of Israel, both the Jews who are born into the house, and the LDS, who are adopted in through faithfulness. No, no way do we believe Christ is going to destroy the Jews.
Stephanie, I wanted to say that it's the Hagee and Parsley types, not the Mormons, who "look forward to the day when Jesus returns on clouds of glory and destroys all of the planet's remaining Jews." If I suggested otherwise I apologize.
What do I think about the belief that "Jews will accept Christ as the Savior"? It's kind of complex, because on the one hand the belief seems pretty presumptuous, while on the other hand, if one considers the belief to be false it pretty much becomes a moot point. Yet it still feels vaguely wrong. Kinda like I feel about Leonard Jeffries thinking of me a one of the Ice People.
On one hand, it strikes me as pretty presumptuous for a New England farm boy to rewrite significant parts of the history of my people--first by inventing a whole new chapter in which we become the ancestors of the Native Americans, whom we have not exactly been used to thinking of as part of our story, and second by prophesying a future in which we all finally see things Joseph Smith's way and, from the Jewish perspective, cease to actually be Jews.
On the other hand, Smith seems to have sincerely believed he was getting it all straight from the horse's mouth, so what am I supposed to do? About all I can say is "Well, I disagree." I guess I would prefer not to have other religions telling my own religion's story, but it's a free country. In fact, the freedom that allows Joseph Smith to re-characterize my religion and history as just one part of the Mormon salvation story is the same freedom that allows me to characterize the Mormons as the product of late-Puritan zealotry and the discourses of Masonry Native American origins.
Let me ask you how you would feel about a religion (let's say it gets started in the year 2930) which holds the following: Long ago an African-American Mormon family was warned by God to leave Salt Lake City because He is about to destroy it. With God's aid, the family survives a perilous voyage to some empty region of, say, Belgium, and spends several generations being fruitful and multiplying. Then a group of apostates breaks away, only to have God punish them by giving them skins of whiteness. The apostate whites eventually wipe out the truth-loving blacks and become the principal ancestors of the depraved Europeans who would go on to so savagely rape the Congo.
Centuries later, in 2930, a black man of no particular distinction named Joseph Jackson claims to have found ancient records written on platinum plates that detail the whole story. He shows the records to a few close associates and then they disappear. He founds a church, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-er Day Saints, or LerDS for short, that reaches out to white people and suggests that fidelity to the new theology will gradually release them from their curse and darken their skin. This new LerDS Church stresses that the old LDS Church, whose members continue to be known as "Mormons," fell away from the true Church, but nonetheless welcomes Mormons to get with the program already. Secular-minded skeptics and Mormons alike maintain that the story of the platinum plates sounds awfully fishy, and that in any event the story told in the Book of LerDS does not accord very well with the known historical and scientific evidence. The LerDS Church grows rapidly, and eventually moves away from a literal interpretation of the stuff about white skin being a curse, but still manages to convert very few Mormons. Not to worry, however: the LerDS scripture holds that eventually, perhaps after death, every single Mormon will unite with the LerDS as the house of Jackson, both the LerDS who are born into the house, and the Mormons, who are adopted in through faithfulness. Believing in that eventuality, LerDerS continue to raise fine families, eat lots of Jello, and posthumously baptize as many Mormons as they can.
OK, my attempt to defamiliarize LDS beliefs might not be entirely accurate or fair, but you get the idea. How would you feel about the idea that you will eventually see the light and become part of the House of Jackson?
--David
David I appreciate your comments.
The thing that really got to me with the recent Obama dirt is that people acted like it was no big deal and didn't even bother to question any of it(I know some did here).
David you suggested that Obama has "obvious disagreement with Wright". Of course he does, he HAD to say those things if had wanted to have a chance. If it was "obvious" he would have brought it up before it became an issue.
I know the church leaders have said racist and anti American things, and like you said, many did with good reason as they were being attacked. I understand people have racist & anti American feelings today, and that is fine as they have the right to do so. I just don't like that hate is being shared at church of all places and more so that an American presidential nominee is listening to it at a time when we are supposed to "untie". If Obama stood up at church and denounced the things Wright said in his services I would respect Obama, but if he just sits there and cheers with the rest of them, that scares me.
Michelle doesn't have to be proud of everything in America, but NOTHING? That is a pretty negative way of looking at things for a hopeful first lady. Or maybe it's just Wright's sermons rubbing off on her.
McCain has not had Hagee as a main spiritual adviser for 20 years. McCain isn't even religious. He only pretends to be to get the religious vote.
David, you can say whatever you think justifies your viewpoint. However, ultimately your comments can be condensed to simply say this: either a person receives knowledge and direction from God or else he receives it from man. The difference is faith, and then confirmation by the Holy Ghost. Since you have said in previous comments that you were agnostic/atheist, I am assuming you haven't received any knowledge about your life from God. Therefore it is reasonable to assume you are dubious about anyone, regardless of religion, who believes they have.
About Obama and his pastor: this pastor has been his "friend" for over 20 years. He's taken his children to listen to him preach for years and years. This man has baptized, etc his family. Regardless of whether Obama was there on the day that Wright said America was damned by the bible, people at church would have talked about that and Obama would have heard about it. That is just normal community conversation. People are outraged because most people go to church to hear about morality, religion, how to be a better person...not political raving. And other churches are NOT like ours: people shop around to find a spiritual leader they like regardless of proximity so the fact that Obama has continued to take his family to hear Wright preach is just overwhelming and confusing and scandalous, when Wright has said Anti-American comments and this man is potentially the next leader of damned America. What does that say about B. Hussein Obama? I am concerned myself.
Amy, I agree that that "either a person receives knowledge and direction from God or else he receives it from man." From your perspective, you receive knowledge and direction from God. From my perspective, you *claim to* receive knowledge and direction from God. The thing is, so do Jeremiah Wright, Rod Parsley, and for that matter Osama bin Laden. From my perspective, you're all equally mistaken on the basic claim. So what should I do? Refuse to have anything at all to do with any of you? No--I choose instead to judge and affiliate on the basis of actions rather than beliefs. And on that basis, I see every reason to repudiate bin Laden, but none to repudiate you or Obama.
As for it being "scandalous" for Obama to continue attending Wright's church, I agree! Of course, I would go further and say he's no more scandalous than the millions of Americans who attend Southern Baptist or Pentecostal churches, or who continue to listen to The 700 Club after Pat Robertson said God punished New Orleans for its sins, etc., etc.--which strikes me as just another variant on the idea of God damning America for its sins, with the exception that Robertson's rhetoric is less honest than Wright's. Anyway, from my perspective there's plenty of that kind of obnoxiousness to go around. That said, McCain strikes me as a bit more odious than Obama, because McCain seems to have swapped his benign Episcopalianism for his bigoted Southern Baptism for political reasons, whereas Obama, like George W. Bush, can at least claim a certain dogged consistency in his own mistake.
If I had to apply to every major candidate the same standard you're applying to Obama, I'd just as well stay home on election day.
Anon David--- by their fruits shall ye know them.
Hence people's concern in this instance.
Yes--by THEIR fruits shall ye know them. Not "by THEIR PASTOR'S fruits shall ye know them." It's a strange conception of agency that holds people accountable for the actions of others. Or that holds people accountable for continuing to admire and associate with flawed leaders (see below).
I'm wondering--is it not at least PLAUSIBLE that, by the moral standards of Wright's God, by the God of his own brand of Christianity, this country DESERVES damnation? Is it not at least plausible that, in the moral calculus of Wright's theology, America comes up severely short? Is it not plausible that Wright is as right today as Isaiah was in his own time? (I would hold that Wright understands Isaiah far better than Joseph Smith ever did. You don't have to agree, but I'd like to think you could at least acknowledge Wright's reading as an honestly-arrived-at theological conclusion. I mean, what was Isaiah's Jerusalem doing that was so much worse than what our own America is doing? It's certainly easier to dismiss Wright as a crank than to take him seriously and try to honestly understand and evaluate his theology. It's easy to dismiss him because, to the knee-jerk patriot, his conclusions seem so self-evidently wrong. After all, America is the greatest country on earth! My country, right or wrong! I see the condemnation of Wright as totally unearned jingoism, not serious thinking rooted in an honest attempt at understanding of the Bible.)
Anyway, is it possible that Wright's "God damn America" statement is a purely religious statement and ought to be treated as such? That is, does it fall into the category of statements like "The Mormon church is a cult" or "9-11 was God's judgment on America"? If it is such a theological statement, and you insist on invoking it to question Obama's fitness for office, then would it not have made sense for the press to go out and dig up as many offensive statements as they could about Romney's spiritual mentor and then hold Romney himself accountable for them? Is that the way we want to do politics in this country?
I'm still wondering why anyone should be more concerned about Wright than about all those preachers out there who keep saying things that strike me as just as obnoxious as Wright's statements. Why aren't we all digging up video clips of what these people say in their churches? Well a certain amount of that has been done--but why aren't the media discussing the possible impact of such beliefs on the character and policies John McCain, who after all is now a Baptist? Why isn't the media in Utah digging up anti-Mormon quotes by prominent Baptists and expecting McCain to publicly repudiate them?
Why the double standard? We are told it's because the relationship between Wright and Obama is so close. I don't buy that. Let me explain. Because of her experiences during WWII, my grandmother hated the Japanese until the day she died. I was very close to her, yet I do not share her prejudices. But I hope that at least some of her many good qualities have rubbed off on me. Why can't the same be true for Obama? If I publicly avow that I don't share my grandmother's prejudice against the Japanese, and my actions have never suggested otherwise, shouldn't that be enough? Why should I continue to be hounded about the fact that I continued to be close to her? It should be pretty easy to understand that my continued admiration for her stems from her good qualities and overrides her bad qualities. Ditto for Obama and Wright. Do you think I should perpetually throw unsavory facts about Brigham Young in your face and suggest you're unfit for public office because you continue to admire a man who took up arms against the United States and obstructed justice after the mass murder at Mountain Meadows? Of course not--I'm capable of understanding that Young had plenty of outstandingly good qualities to outweigh the bad (and they certainly were bad). I'm capable of understanding his questionable actions (and your continued admiration) in terms of their historical context. Not having been schooled in the George W. Bush fantasy of "moral clarity," I'm capable of understanding that great leaders can be deeply flawed, but nonetheless deserving of our respect. I'm capable of understanding how deeply such figures can figure in a person's identity. And I can do the same for Obama. Others apparently can't. Why is that?
I doubt that John McCain shares the delusions and bigotries of Hagee and Parsley, and it's true that he is not as close to them as Obama is to Wright--yet McCain needs these guys to turn out a key voting bloc for him. And if that bloc does help him get elected, it will want to cash in. McCain will be indebted to a bunch of loonies, every bit as much as Obama would be indebted to Wright's loonies if they help Obama get elected.
In other words, the relative "closeness" of the controversial characters to the candidates is a red herring, and it's allowing McCain to get off the hook too easily.
Happy Easter to all the believers out there!
--David
Yes, Anonymous Dave, that was my point that I made regarding my friend on the other message board - that for atheist or agnostic Americans, or Buddhists I suppose too, or pagans - any Christian candidate who believes "non-believers" are going to be damned in one way or another is problematic. The particular brand of Christianity is less of an issue than how much that candidate is being influenced by his specific religious beliefs, and by how indebted he will be as a *candidate* to those people.
The Republican party, in the last years particularly, is controlled in part by these religious factions - hence why McCain and others have to suck up to them to get elected. From what I can tell, although I have heard of people who are not bothered on any level by Obama's association with Rev. Wright, most people find it somewhat problematic. So rather than being as asset to him, it is causing people to evaluate him more closely (which is a good thing).
People are never happy. Huckabee was perfect for some and too kooky for everyone else. Romney was perfect for Mormons and a cult member who wears magic underwear to everyone else. Obama is either a Muslim or an Anti-American racist by association. God forbid (pun intended) we ever have an atheist in the running! People just seem to want someone who espouses vague belief in "God" or "Jesus" but don't do much about it, just bring it up very occasionally when making speeches to the interested parties.
Now *THAT* I have no respect for.
Despite l'affaire Wright, Obama picked up yet another endorsement yesterday from a conservative Republican, Doug Kmiec. According to his bio, Kmiec was "head of the Office of Legal Counsel (U.S. Assistant Attorney General) for Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush" as well as "former Dean of the law school at The Catholic University of America."
Here's part of Kmiec's explanation of his endorsement:
"No doubt some of my friends will see this as a matter of party or intellectual treachery. I regret that and I respect their disagreement. But they will readily agree that as Republicans, we are first Americans. As Americans, we must voice our concerns for the well-being of our nation without partisanship when decisions that have been made endanger the body politic. Our president has involved our nation in a military engagement without sufficient justification or clear objective. In so doing, he has incurred both tragic loss of life and extraordinary debt jeopardizing the economy and the well-being of the average American citizen. In pursuit of these fatally flawed purposes, the office of the presidency, which it was once my privilege to defend in public office formally, has been distorted beyond its constitutional assignment. Today, I do no more than raise the defense of that important office anew, but as private citizen."
For the rest, see here.
--David
I actually think the timing of this slew of Obama endorsements recently is to deflect attention away from the Wright issue.
Wizzle, "People just seem to want someone who espouses vague belief in "God" or "Jesus" but don't do much about it, just bring it up very occasionally when making speeches to the interested parties." I wholeheartedly agree. Hillary Clinton panders to this. On the conservative side, I have a hard time understanding the "kooky" religious right Anon Dave refers to. I would think that they would want me in their corner, considering that we share a lot of the same values and all, but they reject me (and Romney) because we are Mormon. Hence, the right gets split, and we end up with McCain. Yuck.
Anon Dave, with regard to your hypothetical story, to be honest, considering that I believe Joseph Smith was a true prophet and that I see the gospel as an entire earthly event from pre-mortal life to creation to the after-life, so our time as Latter-Day saints is just the final act to all of history, I don’t think I would have too hard of a time believing that story. :) There are a few reasons why:
1. Throughout all the scriptures, the Lord warns His people to flee. When He needs to preserve them, he prepares a way for them to escape.
2. We believe in continuing revelation and that there are scriptures that have been written that we have not seen yet. There are people who God has given His gospel to that we just don’t have the record for right now.
3. An African-American could have restored the gospel just as easily – the Lord is no respecter of persons (you might argue that men of African descent not being able to hold the priesthood before 1978 says otherwise, but I think it shows more about men on earth than about God in heaven)
4. The same basic storyline is told twice in the Book of Mormon: once with Lehi’s family and once with the Jaredites
5. You know what I believe about the golden plates? I have been taught that they were taken up by the angel Moroni, but I don’t know. I think that is what is taught so that people won’t look for them. I believe they are somewhere on the earth, waiting for the Lord to allow the sealed portion to be unsealed.
6. I think we don’t have much historical and scientific evidence in general. Good scientists know how much we don’t know. If we had all the evidence, faith wouldn’t be required. But, faith is the first principle and ordinance of the gospel.
There are a few reasons why I wouldn’t believe your story.
1. I think Christ will come before 2930.
2. I don’t think our religion tells black people that by being Mormon, their skin will get whiter. That does sound crazy. I would assume that comes from a quote taken out of context?
3. I believe in absolute truth, and I believe I have found it. I believe the gospel explains the world and eternity in ways that make sense to me, and I have a testimony that it is true.
I do agree with your later comment. The Book of Mormon says that this is a promised land and that we will be blessed if we keep the commandments. If we don’t, we won’t. The Nephites and Jaredites were both wiped out for wickedness. In that context, I think you are right, it is plausible that by the moral standards of God, America is in trouble.
I disagree that Wright knows Isaiah better than Joseph Smith did. He might, but the Book of Mormon prophets quote Isaiah regularly. Isaiah seems to be a standard for the last days.
I agree that “God Da*n America” in the context Wright uses is not enough to condemn his words (from a religious perspective). It is what he says after that, that the government used AIDS to try to wipe out the black community and other conspiracy theory stuff. That is where he loses me.
David, let me make sure I understand. Are you Jewish by ethnicity, but agnostic by religious choice?
Stephanie--yes, Jewish by "birth" or ethnicity but agnostic by choice.
There's a classic thought experiment sometimes half-seriously used to define who's a Jew and who's not: If you'd been in Germany in 1942, and Hitler would have considered you a Jew, then you're a Jew. (I'm not sure if Hitler would have considered gentile converts to Judaism to be Jews or not.)
FWIW, I think there's abundant biblical evidence that God is indeed a "respecter of persons." But then, perhaps you consider that evidence to come from parts of the Bible that have been corrupted.
re the notion that "our religion tells black people that by being Mormon, their skin will get whiter"--that might not be part of the religion itself. But it was widely believed by 19th century Mormons that the skins of Native American converts would get lighter over time so long as they obeyed the rules. This might better be characterized as a folk belief, though it obviously has roots in the Book of Mormon. And as late as 1958, Bruce McConkie is still repeating the idea in "Mormon Doctrine."
And I disagree (on Mormon grounds!) that the exclusion of black people from the Melchizedek priesthood "shows more about men on earth than about God in heaven." The documentary record makes it abundantly clear that the exclusion was based on black people's behavior, not in mortality, but in their premortal state. Their spirits remained neutral in the War in Heaven, and as punishment they were consigned to black bodies on earth and to suffer all kinds of prejudices. This belief was widespread for generations, and is still fairly widespread today, at least in my region.
Or perhaps you meant that this belief was wrong, an incorrect interpretation of the scripture, and in THAT sense it shows us more about men than about God. That makes sense to me--though I would ask whether it doesn't call into question the authority of the Church, if so many of its prophets can get such an important point so completely wrong....
But my main point was simply that Wright's ideas are not really that far out of the Christian mainstream. It's just that he applies the notion of God's fearsome judgment to racism, whereas his white counterparts apply it to homosexuality, abortion, etc. Pat Robertson is in this sense no more patriotic than Wright--just less blunt in his phrasing.
--David
As much as “Mormon Doctrine” is quoted and used, it is not actual doctrine. I also don’t have much use for “folk beliefs” – I prefer to base my beliefs on actual doctrine. I have honestly never heard that belief about premortality, and I do not believe it. 2/3 of the people in heaven chose to follow Christ and 1/3 followed Satan. There is no possible way I believe that statement about black people. That may be more “folk belief”. You are right about what I meant: “that this belief was wrong, an incorrect interpretation of the scripture, and in THAT sense it shows us more about men than about God”. I also meant that a lot of the things that have happened in the church show us more about men and our own weaknesses and sins than about God. We are imperfect, so we cannot live a perfect law yet. I think that just like the Israelites had Mosaic law as a temporary law to help teach them and keep them in line, we have certain structures (whatever the word is) in church to deal with the weaknesses of people (cultures, countries, individual weaknesses, etc.).
Wow, this is fun. David, are you a member of any other forums that discuss religious beliefs? That's kind of my specialty and I ussually refrain from discussing it here, just cause I don't like ruffling feathers. It is not a folk belief - however, it has been relegated as such in recent decades. The belief that black people were less valiant in the PML and the belief that native americans would get "whiter" were both widely preached in the 19th century by the prophets and the 12 - by "the prophets" I mean Brigham Young.
Don't believe me? Check the Journal of Discourses. Can't find the Journal of Discourses? not surprising - that's because the church currently likes to hide it because it contains all of the embarassing stuff that our LDS preachers have said in the past. Stuff that 99% of the church would say is not revealed truth (even though it was preached from the pulpit by the majority of the bretheren back then). We hide it because it doesn't fit with Joseph Fielding Smith and Uncle Bruce's agenda. Anyways, that's where it's to be found. It's a pain in the butt to find actual references for you, but I assure you they are there - how does that work with absolute truth? what do you do about that? Could we say that Romney's close confidants preached such stuff - I believe we could. Is that scary? Not for me. Because I believe that people of character will come to their own understanding of God and right and wrong no matter what a preacher, who is more like a zany uncle than anything else, says. Therefore, the Obama/Wright thing is rediculous. - Because I believe strongly that Obama is a person with character.
David - can I adopt you as my thought provoking Uncle or something? I loved your attempt to defamiliarize us. Trust me, not something I haven't thought of before, and I think it is healthy and necessary for all religionists to undergo such evlauations of their religious traditions. Faith is good and important -but faith without critical scrutiny is not faith - it's turning a blind eye.
Just remember, we all have had preachers that have taught stupid stuff - and teaching the concept that America is wicked and corrupt and ripe for destruction is not something that should "disgust" you - it's something you SHOULD be familiar with and ready to hear. Wright just happened to preach it in a way that is unique to his culture.
Well, Rick, I still don't believe it is doctrine, even if Brigham Young said it over a pulpit. Scripture is doctrine, and it takes a lot for a revelation to become scripture. The Family Proclamation and "The Living Christ" aren't even scripture yet.
But if it's not "doctrine", then how do we reconcile the idea that "by my voice or the voice of my servant (meaning the prophet) it is the same?" And the idea that a prophet would never be permitted to lead the people astray? Or is that just a folk belief too?
This is some of the stuff I really, really would like to get answers too but unfortunately it seems there is no one to ask. I'm reduced to googling it and that's not very effective or reliable...
Wizzle, I don't think that everything that comes out of a prophet's mouth is scripture or doctrine. They are entitled to their own opinion, just like we are. And, I don't think they are infallible. Prophets are very righteous men, but they are not perfect. Only Christ is perfect. Even if BY said this, and this particular opinion of his is wrong, that doesn't necessarily believe that the whole church is led astray. The whole church isn't on that track today.
You can always ask questions. Ask your Bishop or stake president. Or write a letter to Salt Lake. I doubt you'll find any answers googling. In the past when I have had questions that have bothered me (two in particular), I had to go on faith for a while. I ended up finding the answers a few years later. They were always there - it just took me a while to get to them.
Anon Dave, I have been thinking about what you said about dark skin in the Book of Mormon (specifically, 3 Nephi 2:14-16), which says, “And it came to pass that those Lamanites who had united with the Nephites were numbered among the Nephites. And their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites; And their young men and their daughters became exceedingly fair, and they were numbered among the Nephites, and were called Nephites”.
I have always read this as a genetic thing. The Lamanites had dark skin. As they united with the Nephites and were numbered among them, they began to intermarry, and their children were more fair. I doubt Nephi had knowledge of genetics to explain it this way. And, although Mendel first published his theories on genetics in 1866, they weren’t widely accepted until the early 1900s. So, is it plausible that Brigham Young and others could have read those verses in the Book of Mormon, not understanding their genetic significance, taken them literally? I think so. And that he could have preached it over the pulpit? Is it also plausible that he was privately rebuked from the Lord? I think it is possible. Or that other prophets after him were. Public rebukes from the Lord were few, and were concentrated in Joseph Smith’s time (D&C).
Stephanie, I'm a little surprised to learn that you "never heard that belief about premortality." Like Rick said, this stuff was widely believed and preached in the past. It's not some weird thing that was believed only by a small minority. It might not have been official doctrine, but it was the normative, mainstream belief of the majority of the church.
But then again I'm not so surprised. I remember that as I grew older and my sources of knowledge broadened, I learned a great deal about Judaism and Zionism that they never mentioned in Sunday school. Every group constantly rewrites its own history in self-flattering ways. No group wants its history told; every group wants a faith-affirming history told. They are not the same thing.
Perhaps in the future young members of the church will say "What? I never heard heard that the church opposed gay marriage! Must have been some folk belief. Just because Spencer Kimball said it doesn't mean it was doctrine...."
OK, pretty far in the future.
Anyway, Stephanie, I appreciate what you (and most other Mormons I know) say about the fact that "a lot of the things that have happened in the church show us more about men and our own weaknesses and sins than about God. We are imperfect...." Not all religious people are so willing to acknowledge such a thing.
I'm wondering what your thoughts are about the explanation for the priesthood exclusion that draws on the Book of Abraham (1:21-27), along with Moses 7:8, which adds in the bit about the black skin. Not surprisingly, non-Mormons (and perhaps theologically liberal Mormons as well) read this as Joseph Smith sharing the widespread 19th-century folk belief of black people as the "descendants of Ham" and falsely elevating it to the status of Revealed Truth. These passages certainly seem to encode 19th-century racism as scripture, though they don't mention the part about black people being less valiant in the war in heaven. (FWIW, Joseph Fielding Smith may have been moving away from the older folk belief. In the Collection of his writings called Doctrines of Salvation (Vol. 1), he writes that in the war in heaven, "All took sides either with Christ or with Satan," so he did not at this point believe there were "neutrals" in that war. Black people (in their preexistence, of course) clearly did not side with Satan, so what's up? Joseph Fielding Smith continues: "Every man had his agency there, and men receive rewards here based upon their actions there, just as they will receive rewards hereafter for deeds done in the body. The Negro, evidently, is receiving the reward he merits" (pg. 66).
Rick suggested that "faith without critical scrutiny is not faith - it's turning a blind eye," so let me engage in a bit of critical scrutiny of Smith's statement above. Think about the horrors experienced by black people during the Middle Passage. Think about all that they suffered under slavery--the families split up, the legions of women raped--and under Jim Crow (find a copy of the book Without Sanctuary and look at all the lynching photos taken by folks who were proud of having hanged or burned some poor guy). If we are to believe Joseph Fielding Smith, all those people suffered all those horrors BECAUSE THEY DESERVED IT. They didn't deserve it because of anything they did in this life, because of anything we can actually observe, but because of things some white man says they did before they were even born. I like to imagine Joseph Fielding Smith witnessing the slow torture-by-burning of some poor black guy, and looking that doomed and tortured man in the eye and telling him, "You deserve what's happening to you right now. It's YOUR FAULT. I don't know exactly what it was that you did, but before you were born you did something very, very bad, and you are now receiving the reward you merit."
I like to think that Joseph Fielding Smith could not have made such a monstrous statement in a situation like I've just outlined, a situation that would make the statement's monstrosity explicit. It's one thing to write such things down in the privacy of one's study, and to have it published and read by a bunch of white folks--but quite another thing to look a tortured black man in the eye and say such things to his face.
I'm not necessarily questioning anyone's faith. But I am asking people to be as clear as possible about just what it is they have faith in. (In this case, a very primitive notion of individual agency and compensatory justice that does a much better job of legitimizing rank prejudice than of explaining the existence of human suffering and evil.)
Nor do I want to hide the fact that it was thinking such as I am engaging in here that led me to see the monstrosity woven into my own former religion, and led me ultimately to my present skepticism and agnosticism. (Actually, it wasn't just the questions I had, but the fact that I found it so hard to get straight answers to them, that brought me where I am today. Unlike Stephanie, I was not willing simply to go "on faith." At some point I realized that what that actually meant was to continue to trust the authorities that had lied to me, or, to be more gentle, that had given me only a faith-affirming history and then hindered my efforts to fill in that history's blanks. It occurred to me that I wasn't being asked so much to have faith in God as to have faith in fallible people--the very people who had already lied to me.)
Anyway, to all who would search--Rick, Wizzle, Stephanie, Big Bald Dave everyone else--be honest with yourself, but proceed with caution.
--David
I think the principal that JFS (whom I have more than a few personal issues with) was mistakenly trying to expound upon was the principal of Karma - that is, you reap what you sow (in Christian Terms). Any religious system that espouses the belief that the soul of man was existant and self aware before physical birth basically espouses this principal - from Hindu to LDS. This is not meant to be a one-to-one correlation, basically stating, "you screwed up in your prior existance, so now I'm going to get you back for everything you did wrong" - but rather, the concept is that the strenghts and weaknesses of a certian individual are resultant of the strenghts and weaknesses of that individual in his pre-mortal life. (and when I say pre-mortal, I mean before this current life." This principal does NOT explain the lynchings you refered to, David - that is explained by the concept of Agency - that people have the ability to choose what they will make of the their own lives. That's a beautiful and sometimes tragic aspect of humanity, and not something that one could call just or fair. no, often the result of agency is tragic and beyond regrettable. But it is still a central aspect of our human experience. Even though I personally feel that JFS was more than mistaken in what he said (as was Brigham Young), I think the concept he was trying to explain is the concept we can now call Karma.
Okay Dave, before I read your comment,I just have to say that it is the LONGEST comment ever! :)
David, If, in the future, young members of the church don’t know that the church was opposed to gay marriage, it would be because of a revelation. We believe in on-going revelation, which means that things can change. I don’t know if that would or would not happen, but it is not my church. It is Christ’s.
Considering that Lamanites were “cursed” with dark skin (I hesitate using the word “cursed” because of the connotation it has in our modern English language – maybe the original word used in the Book of Mormon was closer to something like “covered”?), I think it is entirely possible that the Lord did the same thing in other areas like Canaan. In reading the different books of scripture, the Lord usually does do the same things in multiple places amongst multiple people. With regard to Moses 7:8 and the despised part, again, I think that says more about the people than about God. It is sad that racism has existed for so long. Perhaps it was existent in the early church by some, but that doesn’t make it doctrine by the church.
I don’t agree with your interpretation of JFS’s quote. It sounds to me like he is actually refuting the former folk belief, saying “All men took sides with either Christ or Satan, so the fact that black people are on the earth is evidence that they sided with Christ”. That’s how I read the quote. Is there something in the context it was given that I am missing?
David, did you read that I said I had to go “on faith” for a couple of years and then found the answers? Two very specific things I didn’t understand. I fretted over them for about a year each, decided to go on faith, and then came across the answers a year or two later. I know that the answers to our questions are there – just because I haven’t found them yet (I’m only 30, by golly) doesn’t mean they aren’t there. In fact, today I was driving to my kids’ doctor. On the way, I passed an LDS church. I thought, “That’s odd. I have never noticed that church before. In all the times that I have driven down this road, I have never seen it”. I think truth is like that, too. Sometimes it is out there, we just haven’t noticed it, or we haven’t driven down that road yet.
Sorry for going on at such length, Stephanie. At some point in my life I became as one with my keyboard and found I could type almost as fast as I could think--sad testimony, I suppose, to a life wasted at the computer!
You wrote that you "hesitate using the word 'cursed' because of the connotation it has in our modern English language – maybe the original word used in the Book of Mormon was closer to something like 'covered'?" Well, sure--I suppose one could make that argument. But if "cursed" can be interpreted to mean "covered," aren't we opening scripture up to all sorts of divergent interpretations? And, to bring this back around to the original topic, it seems to me that if one is willing to make that sort of allowance when confronted with potentially embarrassing words in the Book of Mormon, one should be equally open when confronting the potentially embarrassing words of Jeremiah Wright. Maybe "God damn America" doesn't mean "I personally hate my country" but rather "This nation is as deserving of damnation as Isaiah's Israel was, and I am merely pointing out (albeit with considerable disappointment and anger) that regrettable fact."
It just seems a bit uncharitable to read one text leniently but the other more harshly.
You also said that "With regard to Moses 7:8 and the despised part, again, I think that says more about the people than about God. It is sad that racism has existed for so long. Perhaps it was existent in the early church by some, but that doesn’t make it doctrine by the church."
But I cited the Pearl of Great Price precisely because I wanted to give an example that was not merely a folk belief--an example that came straight out of the scripture. If it's right there in scripture, doesn't that mean it's about God, not man? Obviously, scripture is always open to interpretation, and interpretations can make the text look better or worse--but again, the same is true of Wright's words.
That, combined with the fact that Obama is not Wright and obviously does not agree with Wright's more extreme views, is what I want to reiterate here.
--David
David, your point about Obama, Wright and interpretation is a good one. I did say in a previous comment that I agree with you on the whole "God Da*n America" part. But, the thing Wright said that totally lost me is that the U.S. government introduced AIDS to kill black people.
When I read Moses 7:8, I still see that it is a weakness on the part of man. God gave the "curse" but it was the men who despised, not God.
I definitely think we are all entitled to personal interpretation of the scriptures, and to share our interpretations with others as opinions. That is what my comments are. I am not saying my interpretations are doctrine, but they make sense to me.
I didn't have time to read all the posts but heres more of my feelings on the Obama dirt.
First, I feel whites are tired of blacks getting away with anything. Blacks can say nigger but whites can't etc. This is a chance to show that blacks need to be held accountable just as well as whites.
Second, Obama is the front runner so naturally he is in the "spotlight" more so than McCain. Most republicans disagree with McCain on many issues and have somewhat written him off. Obama on the other hand is a serious contender, therefore more reason to bring up any dirt on him.
Third, usually racist remarks are just "said" and not "preached" in the way Wright's comments were and so they seem more intense.
Fourth, I disagree that Wright's sermons haven't effected the Obama's. 20 years of playing violent video games would cause one to become more violent even if "happy" games were mixed in. It's been proven. The Obama's have most definately been affected.
Fifth, David, I think you mentioned that maybe we wouldn't be so critical if we understood Wrights "theology". As learned as you seem to be in different theologies, please explain "Black Liberation Theology" to me in a way that makes it not so hateful. To me it is based on hating the white man regardless of the white man's character. It is based on hating America (I know some blacks have good reason to hate America, but MOST do not). If this is part of the "theology" of Obama's church (which is on the church's website) I have very good reason to be alarmed and afraid.
Well, Matt, now that Clinton has clarified that SHE would have walked out of Wright's church, the question of who to vote for is so much clearer . . . of course, there's still the whole Bosnia issue . . . so who knows if she's really telling the truth.
Scratch a "Christian," find a Pharisee.
Matt, maybe I should just ask why millions of Mormons didn't leave their own church in disgust after the Mountain Meadows Massacre, or at least after their own leader spent 14 years obstructing justice in that case? Why didn't millions of Mormons leave their church in disgust in all those decades when it was racist and virulently anti-Catholic? (And yes, this stuff was preached. And this stuff was preached right on into your father's generation, if not into your own.) The answer, of course, is that the church as a whole was not reducible to its wackiest beliefs. The church as a whole continued to provide its members with many, many benefits that far outweighed the wackiness--so much so that even members who opposed the obnoxious ideas remained in the church, just as Obama remained in Wright's church.
And tell me how a statement like "Black people are now getting the bigoted treatment they deserve" is not hateful theology. (Imagine Lilburn Boggs, after Haun's Mill, saying, "The Mormons are now getting what they deserve....") Tell me how a statement like "The Roman Catholic Church is the Church of the Devil, the Great and Abominable Church, the Whore of All the Earth, created by Satan to lead humans away from the truth of the gospel" is not a hateful theology. (Sounds kinda like Southern Baptists insisting the LDS Church is a "cult," only with extra hate.) This stuff was preached all the time, regardless of whether it was official doctrine. By remaining in the LDS Church despite such racism and bigotry, millions of Mormons did exactly what you are now criticizing Obama for doing.
It's not that Wright and his theology are not hateful. It's that the hate in them is no more hateful than the hate in many other theologies--including, at one time, the hate in Mormon theology. Ditto for the anti-Americanism. Maybe Wright hates America, though I don't think he hates America any more than Isaiah hated Israel. (Given that Wright is a preacher, I think the best context in which to interpret his remarks is that of the prophet excoriating his own society.) But at least Wright has never actually committed full-on treason by raising up an army against America, like Brigham Young did. Did Brigham Young hate America, or did he merely stand up for a set of ideals that transcended America? Should I go around being "alarmed and afraid" of any Mormon who admires Brigham Young? Or should I judge that Mormon individually, solely on the basis of his or her own actions?
It still seems to me that Mormons, as a people with a recent history of suffering oppression and of preaching hate, should pause a bit before condemning Wright. They should also pause a bit before arguing that Obama must inevitably have been corrupted by Wright's beliefs. I mean, would you accept my arguing that Mitt Romney must inevitably have been corrupted by the polygamy in his own family tree? Or would suspect me of trying to stir up anti-Mormon prejudice by tarring Romney with behavior and beliefs not his own?
Somewhere in the gospel there's a little thingie about a beam and a mote. Somewhere else there's something about not doing unto others as you would not have done unto you (or perhaps not having a Romney judged as you are judging Obama). To each and all I would ask, are you a follower of Christ, or a Pharisee? It's your choice.
--David
Well David...not to go into a slew of things, but there are many people who believe BY didn't know about prior to or endorse the meadow massacre. Keep in mind there were no telephones, telegraphs, it was several days by horseback one-way....
So it isn't about the people saying "we are ignoring this because of the beneifts" it is about people not believing it was a church-sanctioned affair. As opposed to Wright, who is the leader sanctioning government conspiracy theories against the blacks, etc.
David, according to your logic, no white man with ancestors that may have participated in slavery has any right to argue that Wright's beliefs are wrong. We are not living in the past. Yes, slavery was very bad but I don't think Wright has ever been a slave.
I know there have been church members with hateful views but I am not influenced now by what they said 100+ years ago. Obama is currently under Wrights influence and therefore much more likely to be influenced by his views.
The church never taught to hate anyone. Maybe the member at the time of the M.M.M. felt hate because they had an extermination order against them. They never taught to hate Catholics for being Catholic, many just believed Catholic theology was not of God and therefore, of the devil.
What I am saying is that the church never taught to hate just for the sake of hating. Some members may have felt justified in their personal hate but it was never taught to hate you fellow man just because you can. Black liberation theology on the other hand teaches to hate the white man regardless of their actions, ditto to America.
You still haven't explained his theology in a justified way (the actual content).
You keep trying to correlate past with present to Romney, and not realizing that Obama and wright are present to present. Much more influential I would say. If all we go by is past, no religion, culture, gender or race would have any ground to argue any point today as all have has "bad" doing in the past.
One more thing, yes I am Mormon and yes this is an LDS site, but in know way am I speaking for the church. I am speaking as a man that is not yet perfect, and yes I have motes in my own eyes.
And the Catholic stuff?
I don't buy Matt's argument at all.
Let's see. Jeremiah Wright believes (present tense) in crazy conspiracies and has preached hatred against white people.
Brigham Young preached (past tense) that the Catholic Church was "the great and abominable church, the whore of all the earth." He committed treason against the United States and was an accessory after the fact to mass murder.
Barack Obama IS required to denounce Wright, because Wright said those things recently and therefore Obama is still under Wright's influence.
Mitt Romney is NOT required to denounce Young, because Young said and did those things long ago and therefore Romney is no longer under Young's influence.
To believe this, one has to believe that a person's influence doesn't outlive the person, even if the person is considered a prophet of God and the oracle of Timeless Truth.
Obviously, that's false.
If Mitt Romney is indeed Mormon, then Brigham Young has indeed influenced him tremendously. Young might be many years dead, but I'll bet Romney admires him. I'll bet that, if pressed about Young's failings, Romney would say, "Look, I know Young was flawed. I totally disagree with some of what he said and did. But I'm not going to throw out the good along with the bad."
In other words, Romney would say about the bigoted racist traitor Young precisely what Obama has said about the bigoted racist traitor Wright.
And Romney would be just as justified as Obama in doing so.
I suspect that if Romney HAD said talked about Young as Obama has talked about Wright, it would have been accepted by all but the diehard Mormon-bashers and everyone else would have moved on.
I see this as a blatant double standard. Matt does not. Why? Because Obama is still "much more" influenced by Wright than Mormons are influenced by Young.
Well forget the past and focus on the present. Mormons to this day teach their children to love and admire Brigham Young, and to attend the university named after him, and to overlook his flaws--yet we are to believe he has no significant "influence" comparable to that of Jeremiah Wright?
Whatever.
Don't get me wrong here. I'm NOT saying Mormons are wrong to continue to admire Brigham Young. I'm not even a Mormon, and yet I believe Young was a great man. I also understand perfectly well that a great man can simultaneously be an evil man. What I AM saying is that Obama's admiration for Wright is just as legitimate as any Mormon's admiration for Young. I'm arguing against what I see as a double standard, and I'm arguing that Matt has failed to justify that double standard. I'm also arguing that the Mormon historical experience, and the checkered morality of the LDS Church's own (still highly influential!) heroes, ought to give Mormons pause before thoughtlessly holding Obama responsible for Wright's excesses.
I'm arguing finally that judging Obama's relationship to Wright as charitably as Matt judges his own relationship to Young is, well, the Christian thing to do.
--David
P.S. Rick, I'd be happy to be your "thought-provoking uncle." As long as I don't have babysit or anything.
Anon David, that makes sense. It's a good argument. And yet, I still feel uneasy about Obama - just that I don't know enough about him and his motives. The Wright issue is the first issue that has come up to cause any questioning of Obama.
I feel like I know enough about Clinton to not want to vote for her. And enough about McCain (and Clinton and Obama based on that platform thing) to hold my nose and vote for McCain. But, I still don't feel like I know that much about Obama. I think that putting him in the White House is a gamble. I know what we'll get with McCain - four more years of Bush. I know what we'll get with Clinton - four more years of Clinton (or worse). But, I really don't know with Obama. At best, I can see more liberal laws passed to increase my taxes and redistribute more wealth. At worse??? I don't know. That makes me uneasy.
This article pretty much sums up why I am going to vote for McCain over either of the two Democrat nominees.
On Tuesday, McCain derided government intervention to save and reward banks or small borrowers who behave irresponsibly
Even before the Democrats delivered their speeches, McCain said in a statement, "There is a tendency for liberals to seek big government programs that sock it to American taxpayers while failing to solve the very real problems we face."
Clinton's and Obama's solutions? More big government regulation and more government spending.
What has happened to personal responsibility and personal accountability?
Stephanie, I agree with you (and McCain) about the bailout. (I don't think Mr. Bush agrees, but we all know he's not a conservative.)
I really got a laugh out of McCain saying this:
"There is a tendency for liberals to seek big government programs that sock it to American taxpayers while failing to solve the very real problems we face."
Except for the "liberal" part, I couldn't think of a better description of the Iraq war.
"Obviously, that's false." So condescending!
On a different point, I don't appreciate you or anyone else making unsubstantiated allegations about Brigham Young. Throwing around words like "treason" and "mass murder," even with actual support for those claims, is not conducive to the civilized type of discussion I am looking for in a blog. Unfortunately, your claims, stated as unequivocal facts, are not even founded in proven historical fact. This makes them doubly offensive.
Let's define treason as "the offense of acting to overthrow one's government or to harm or kill its sovereign" (dictionary.com). A. Last time I checked, in the year 1857, Brigham Young and all with him had left the United States ten years earlier with the intent of never returning. The U.S. government was no longer their government. B. They had no interest in overthrowing the government of the United States, even if you ignore point A above. C. There was no attempt by Brigham Young or the Mormons to harm or kill the sovereign of any government. So, in a lot of ways, no one can make accusations of treason.
I haven't figured out everything about Mountain Meadows (which I assume is what you're basing the "accessory... to mass murder" comment on), but I've learned enough to know that you don't have the evidence to make such an inflammatory claim. The historical fact, even if it is fact, just hasn't been shown. Maybe I'm wrong, after all, you're the history expert. But please, show me! Man, wouldn't it be great to show all those Mormons once and for all how much blood is on Brigham Young's hands? If you had that, I would think you'd be more than happy to share it. So let's have it, and then we will be forced to accept and deal with it. Until you've done so, I denounce your disingenuous rhetoric.
I also don't buy into the argument that calling the Catholic Church "the great and abominable church, the whore of all the earth" is an equal counter to Reverend Wright's hate-mongering. You know as well as the rest of us that that phrase appears in Mormon scripture; the statements you refer to are more identificative than incitive. In any event, there were no Catholics in Utah to do hateful things to, so why try to rile up the congregation against them? I believe that Brigham Young was just talking doctrine, and not looking to start a riot.
As a side note, I don't care all that much about Reverend Wright or Obama'a affiliation/nonaffiliation with him.
KWS, phrases such as, "last I checked," "I denounce your disingenous rhetoric," and "after all, you're the history expert," are, in my estimation, much more condecending than the word "obviously."
Treason can be verbal, not just physical. Brigham, great man that he was, was quite treasonous and biggoted in much of his preaching from the pulpit - I point you again to the Journal of Discourses - I don't provide a reference, but his speeches were rife with such verbage.
I find nothing inflamatory or offensive in what David has pointed out. I have found alot of offense in the things some other people have said on this blog, but I haven't pointed it out to them, because that also is not condusive to the kind of discussion that I want to have here. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and their post.
Sometimes there is the offense that is given (intended), and sometimes there is the offense that is taken (perceived). Perhaps it would be helpful to point it out if someone is intentionally being offensive. It is possible to have a robust debate/discussion without offending each other if everyone both 1. tries not to offend and 2. tries not to be offended.
Quite honestly, I am not going to "take it at your word" that BY was treasonous and bigoted. I would need some evidence to back up the claim. I don't think that the church is hiding the Discourses. The church is releasing more old documents each month. I just read a blog about how much has been released and what they are working on.
I tried to get a copy of the YW Personal Progress goals from 1916 from the YW Resource Room in Salt Lake. They couldn't find it. I would have thought that an old PP book would be top of the list of resources to keep around (I did get one from the 1940s). In fact, I would have thought that the book would have been on some other form of readily accessible media by now. I think the church is just getting caught up on all of this. I suspect that if the Discourses are not available for public use yet that they will be in the near future.
You're right, Rick. I apologize.
David, you can justify your reasoning about obama not being influenced by Wright all you want.
True, Brigham has had some influence on members today, but in no way can a dead man influence someone as powerfully as a living man (this is still the arguement we are talking about). You can tell me all the evil things B.Y. did but you cannot logically argue that I have been influenced by evil speeches I (or Romney) never heard.
I have never heard someone say in a church meeting, "Let us remember the hatered our great leader B.Y. had for Catholics."
Sure, I always hear about the good he did, but I am not influenced by teachings I am not taught.
Like it or not, Obama IS more influenced and more accountable for sermons he personally sat through at Wright's church than Romney is for B.Y.'s sermons he only may have read.
Maybe if Romney showed signs of the evil beliefs of B.Y. or the early church teachings we would have reason to be alarmed. I haven't seen any so far. The Obama's on the other hand, have showed some signs of being influenced by Wright's sermons.
Like Amy has recently posted, take all of the religion, race and gender out of the equation and Obama still in not who I could vote for. I know the choices suck, but 4 or less years of McCain is better than a high risk gamble.
Matt writes, "no way can a dead man influence someone as powerfully as a living man."
Wow.
My biggest issue with the JW thing is that He still believes in the Liberation Theology, and BO has been agreeing with this theology of hatred and scorn for the past 20 years. I see Obama as a white hating racist
I totally agree that dead men can have a huge influence on people today (ie. founding fathers) but I do not agree that dead men such as Brigham Youngs have the same influence with "hateful" teachings that are not taught. Sure he may have held these views in his time but the church does not teach them and therefor I am not influenced by his hateful views. Obama, on the other hand has listen to Wright's hateful views and is therefore more influenced by his living pastors hateful views.
Post a Comment