Some things that have occurred to me….

Wouldn’t an all-knowing God speak to his LIVING prophet, telling him that things were going to get dicey in the future, and maybe they ought to reconsider that whole “blacks bear the mark of Cain and can’t hold the Priesthood” thingie?

Wouldn’t this LOVING God make sure that EVERYONE knew he loved all his creations and children equally?

If he really wanted his children to follow ONE SPECIFIC RELIGION, wouldn’t he give SAME SAID SPECIFIC RELIGION the proper info to keep the peeps happy?

I mean, surely this ALL KNOWING God, the same guy who created the world in seven days, and his mouthpiece, the prophet (whoever HAPPENED to be prophet at the time, of course) would have a little sit down and discuss possible repercussions of the civil rights movement, and the anger of the African American people at being treated as “lesser thans?”

And if this DIDN’T happen, which we all know it didn’t, then does God REALLY favor the Mormons over other religions?

Just wondering.

FYI, I’ve attached a link to a letter sent to George Romney, Mitt’s father, in which he was encouraged to step back from his civil rights activity and keep those darned “negroes” in their proper place. Kudos to George Romney for IGNORING this letter. If Mitt is half the man his father was, he’d make a pretty good president. Of course, HE ISN’T GOING TO GET ELECTED. There’s that whole pesky “Mormon” thing standing in his way.

The Mormon Church has an EXTREMELY racist past. This very sticky issue is one that you simply CAN’T ignore, and if you manage to, you are a “head in the sand” kinda Mormon. You just can’t get past it. What is wrong with Gladys Knight? Will someone please shake her? Or at least show her this letter….

Advertisements

About Natalie R. Collins

Natalie has more than 30 years writing, editing, proofreading and design experience. She has written 20 books (and counting), has worked for the Sundance Film Festival, and as an investigative journalist, editor, and proofreader. She embraces her gypsy-heart and is following her new free-thinking journey through life. Follow her as she starts over and learns a bunch of life's lessons--some the hard way.
This entry was posted in Natalie's Posts. Bookmark the permalink.

25 Responses to Some things that have occurred to me….

  1. Erin says:

    I can’t believe that letter! Bad things happen to people who are for Civil Rights? That sounds like one of those e-mail chain letters you see nowadays. So and so didn’t forward this letter and got hit by an 18 wheeler the very same night…LOL! I also love how he basically cautions him against sharing the letter with anyone except his wife.

    Like

  2. Caryn says:

    Once again, nicely said. I’ve wondered the same things.

    Like

  3. Pingback: Green Oasis » To George with Love

  4. azteclady says:

    That letter is unfreakinbelievable!

    Talk about using religion to justify privilege!

    Wanna bet you’ll have people coming here to tell you that the letter is a hoax? That of course a true mormon wouldn’t have written that? ugh.

    Like

  5. Renee says:

    Mitt isn’t even 10% of the guy his dad was. His dad must have been a very strong man to keep his stand against all this. Hell, Mitt couldn’t even stay pro choice or pro civil unions.

    Like

  6. tex841 says:

    But Mitt DID let the dogs out.

    Like

  7. Kitty says:

    I would bet a whole bunch of money that Gladys Knight does not know the black history of the church. Why should she when most of the membership is in the same La La land she in in. It would seem to me that she is caught up in the admiration of these seemingly innocent white folk. She is a rebel of sorts, attaching herself to this hughly dominant white church. The church is also using her “star-ship” for converts. When she has an appearance for the Mormons, you can only go if you bring a non-member or an inactive. I live in Vegas and that was how it worked. When my UMF (uppity mormon friends) asked me to go…… oh well, I won’t say what I said. Thanks Natalie for helping keep us informed. I shake my head. Just when I think nothing more can shock me, along comes that letter.

    Like

  8. rainey says:

    That’s an interesting letter.

    Clearly, the church’s statements on the position of Blacks within the church have changed but their clear intent to insert themselves into public policy by surreptitious means is chilling.

    Like

  9. Erin says:

    Their statements about blacks in the church may have changed, but I’d be willing to bet that the higher ups abhor the fact that blacks have been allowed to take the priesthood.

    Like

  10. Glo says:

    their statments may have changed, they may ignor some of the things that thier founds said about them. but i am pretty sure that they haven’t changed their doctrine which says that those with dark colored skin are those that in the prelife didn’t take a side inthe celestial war.

    Like

  11. Tracy says:

    Natalie, if you have an hour to spare, watch this.

    I, not being Mormon, don’t know much about the history, but this guy seems very even keeled, and he’s a Mormon.

    Like

  12. Renee says:

    I just watched the presentation Tracy posted. I skipped through some of it, but I tell you this, if more Mormons were like this guy from what I’ve seen the world would be a better place. But perhaps all is not what it seems here.

    Like

  13. I don’t know why Gladys Knight even associates with the Mormons. It was unbelievable to me. As for the other stuff, I am not surprised.

    Cyn

    Like

  14. martin says:

    It not for us to know the times or the seasons . . . . first chapter of acts.

    Of course god loves all his children, however there is a time and place for blessings, including the priest hood to be given. A man’s lineage was important for men to hold the priest hood from the earliest days.

    In the the book of genesis only the patriarchs sons could hold the priest hood.
    Then in the days of Israel only those in the trible of Levi? Didn’t god love his sons in the other tribles?

    Then the priest hood went out to all the seed of Abraham.
    And finally in modern times to ever worth man regarless of his lineage.

    And at the end of the world and final judgement then women will hold the priest hood.

    Like

  15. Cal says:

    Now, I don’t claim to be an expert on all anti-mormon literature, but allow me to make a couple small points. First, the letter from Delbert Stapley was written as a personal letter, “not in my official church position.” Let’s not forget, these are still mortal men, with plenty of imperfections. Also, this was in 1964, 14 years before the revelation was received to end that issue. Also, don’t forget that in the old testament, only the tribe of Levi was allowed to hold the priesthood. What about the rest of the tribes of Israel? Did Levi oppress them, too? I don’t mean to offend, merely to provoke additional thought.

    Like

  16. azteclady says:

    Lets provoke some thought…

    If we are following the Old Testament, then lets not pick and chose, okay? So unless you are gonna live by ALL the rules (yeah, including those that contradict each other), please don’t trot out whatever verse suits your purpose for any particular discussion.

    Though, as far as I’m concerned, there are only two commandments worth paying attention to, and both were handed down by Jesus: Love the Lord, Thy Father, and Love thy neighbor.

    Everything that came before that, and most of the babble that came after, is mostly noise to me.

    Like

  17. Kitty says:

    One word for azteclady. AMEN!

    Like

  18. Natalie says:

    Cal, I won’t disagree with the fact that this letter WAS written in a different era, and I never said it was sent with the authority of the Church. It does, however, show the MINDSET of the church and its leaders at that time, and it WAS a Mormon Church apostle who sent it.

    So here’s my problem with your statement about the prophets.
    “Let’s not forget, these are still mortal men, with plenty of imperfections.”

    I do not agree. You don’t get to pick and choose. If they did something wrong, or said something unpopular, they were “just being human.” But if it was right, it was of God. No way. You EITHER SPEAK FOR GOD or you don’t. That is nothing but a cop out.

    Like

  19. Natalie says:

    Martin, why on EARTH would women get the “priest hood” after the end of the world? Your comment just makes no sense to me.

    Like

  20. Natalie says:

    Hey, and FURTHERMORE Cal, what “anti-Mormon” literature are you talking about? I posted a LETTER from Delbert Stapley. Nothing “anti-Mormon” about it. An APOSTLE wrote it….

    Like

  21. Cal says:

    First, I wasn’t claiming the letter itself was anti, but that the spin on it was. Before you burn that sentence, please finish reading. The word of God, or holy scripture, is that which is spoken or written when under the influence of the Holy Ghost. i.e. – The prophet is only the prophet when he is acting in that office, and through the Holy Ghost. Thus, it wasn’t an apostle writing the letter, because he wasn’t writing it as an apostle, but his own personal opinion “as a friend.” Thus it was not church policy, or even a reflection of the opinion of the majority of the quorum of the twelve, as it wasn’t written or signed by said majority, or published with backing by the church. It shows the personal opinion of one man, even if that man was a leader of the church. I’m not picking and choosing, but following the scriptures. Man is fallible, the Holy Ghost is not.
    As for another comment, the comment on “Love the Lord thy God,” and “Love thy neighbor,” Christ followed that comment with “on this hang all the law and the prophets.” Thus, if you love God, and love your neighbor, it prepares the way for following the other commandments given. Now, just what commandments are you referring to that contradict each other?

    Like

  22. Cal says:

    Note on last, and sorry for double-post, but I am writing genuinely, if you respond, please don’t use sarcasm. I’m not.

    Like

  23. azteclady says:

    Cal, I’m not being sarcastic. I am sincerely telling you that, having those two commandments is perfectly fine and dandy for me. I don’t follow any other commandments, particularly none from any religion or church that inherently places me as inferior to some simply because I can get pregnant.

    God made me, and respecting and loving Him to the best of my (human and therefore imperfect) ability satisfied my God-given mind on the topic of religion.

    I don’t need a book–nor a series of books–nor the interpretation of MEN (and yes, study history, it’s always been the male of the species doing the interpreting–and this in all religions. Sexism, much?)–I don’t need any of those to tell me how to behave to ‘be worthy’.

    I know that my soul is just as precious, just as worthy as that of any male soul.

    On picking and choosing, gee, you aren’t? You are honest to goodness telling me that you abide by every single rule handed down in the Old Testament, New Testament, and the Book of Mormon? Really? Seriously?

    In that case, perhaps you could answer a few questions for me.

    1) Leviticus 1: 9 Do you burn bulls in the altar to please the Lord your God?
    2) Exodus 21:7 Would you sell/have you sold/are you going to sell your daughter into slavery, or would you/have you/will you buy someone else’s daughter as a slave?
    3) Leviticus 15:19-24 Do you avoid all women during their menses? And if you do, how do you KNOW they are having their menses?
    4) Exodus 35:2 Do you kill those of your neighbors who don’t ‘observe’ the Sabbath?
    5) Leviticus 11:10 Do you consider eating shellfish an equal ‘abomination’ as being homosexual?
    6) Leviticus 21:20 If you do not have perfect vision, do you refrain from approaching the Lord’s altar?
    7) Leviticus 19:27 You’ve never cut your hair, right?
    8) Leviticus 11:6-8 You’ve never played with any ball or sport glove made out of pig hide, right?
    9) Leviticus 24:10-16 Do you go around stoning people who wear blended of threads or swear (blaspheme) to death?
    10) Leviticus 24:14 Do you burn people who sleep with their in-laws?

    If you answer in the negative to ANY of these questions, you ARE picking and choosing.

    (from the infamous “Letter to Dr Laura” at snopes.com)

    Like

  24. Pingback: Trapped by the Mormons » Blog Archive » Mitt Pulls Out…

  25. Cal says:

    First, I’m glad that you realize that every soul, male or female, has equal worth. I don’t know many who would disagree with you in any church. I’m sure, though, that you realize that, being a woman, there are a few fundamental differences (not inequalities) between you and any men you know.
    Next, I did not claim to follow EVERY commandment, I merely asked you to identify contradictory ones, for I do not believe the commandments to be contradictory, though they will alter slightly based on the preparedness of the people to receive more.
    1) The law of sacrifice was given to look to Christ as THE sacrifice. His sacrifice fulfilled that law, and thus it was changed to more like offering up your will to His. I saw many verses to support parts of that, but the clearest was 3 Nephi 9:19-20 “And ye shall offer up unto me no more the shedding of blood; yea, your sacrifices and your burnt offerings shall be done away, for I will accept none of your sacrifices and your burnt offerings. And ye shall offer for a sacrifice unto me a broken heart and a contrite spirit. And whoso cometh unto me with a broken heart and a contrite spirit, him will I baptize with fire and with the Holy Ghost, even as the Lamanites, because of their faith in me at the time of their conversion, were baptized with fire and with the Holy Ghost, and they knew it not.” Normally in answering concerns like this, I try to use the Bible, as it’s accepted more readily, but if the Book of Mormon is considerably clearer, I use it, especially when it’s the words of Christ Himself.
    Anyway, as you can see in these verses, we don’t claim the law of sacrifice abolished, but Christ declared a change. If the sacrifice of blood of a bull was still required, I would find a way to fulfill the ends of that law, but it’s not.
    2) Have you read the verse you gave? It says “And IF a man sell his daughter. . . .” It doesn’t COMMAND anyone to sell his/her family. Please read it first.
    3) I think you know very well that I can’t avoid all women when having their menses, and I cannot offer an explanation that would satisfy you on this point. I intend to just leave it at this. The law of Moses was a lesser law, with the moral laws being a guide to us in these days. The laws for strict procedures, such as the sacrifice of animals, periods of uncleanness, etc. are interesting, and worth reading, some of which mirror common health practices today, but the procedures were for specific occurrences, and the atonement of Christ fulfilled the law of Moses, and so many parts of it were rendered unnecessary. Don’t ask me for a guideline to determine what parts are necessary and what are not, pray and ask God. He is the source of truth, and if you pray with sincerity, He will answer you as easily as me.
    4) I read this scripture differently. When you break the sabbath, you are committing sin, sin separates you from God, and while we normally see death as physical – body from spirit – it can also be spiritual, a separation between us and God, as when Adam was cast out of the garden of Eden. (“for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.” Did he die that day? Yes, spiritually, as he was cut off from God’s presence.) Does that mean it wasn’t physical death in Moses’ day? No, but this is one of those many facets of the law of Moses that saw a change with Christ’s atonement. We injure/kill ourselves spiritually in committing sin, and thus need to repent to reenter the presence of God, by forgiveness through Christ.
    5) First off, shellfish are much harder to clean than the “scaled”variety, and so far easier to get sick and die by. This is one of those examples where the Lord was giving a commandment specific to the needs of the people He was giving it to. Like when you tell a child “Don’t touch the stove, you will burn yourself.” Eventually, they are old enough to teach them how to cook. Such a rule then would be ludicrous.
    6) The law of sacrifice has changed, and thus the purpose of the altar is different, and the one at the altar is not the same symbol as was true under the law of Moses.
    As the sacrifice was to be without blemish, representing Christ, the priest was also representing God, and so had certain guidelines, not just in physical characteristics, but also in behavior.
    7) The cutting of hair is not prohibited in this verse, as such, but rather certain WAYS of cutting your hair, as was commonly done in those days as some sort of symbol in various pagan rituals. For a parallel today, think more of how parents look on their children getting tattoos and excessive piercings, or mohawks. That’s closer to what the Lord was telling them, though the Lord had deeper meaning, as it was of religious significance, and not just “fashion.”
    8) My answer here is very similar to #5, change the first sentence to “Pigs were difficult to clean with the methods they had, and thus the people could easily get sick and die.” The rest reads accurately as is.
    9)My answer here is similar to #4. Sin separates us from God, which is spiritual death. Thus, the penalty is met, though not in the method of old. (Also, I don’t see the reference to blending of threads.)
    10) I think you gave the wrong reference here, but sleeping with a persons in-laws is disgusting, if you’re talking in terms of sexually, and rather odd otherwise. Sex is something that should only be between husband and wife. As for penalty, I’m just going to use the common thread throughout my reply here:

    Sin separates us from God. When we commit sin, we cut ourselves off from His positive influence in our lives. If we desire the guidance of the Holy Ghost, we must purge ourselves of sin, or it’s like light through a dirty window. The more sin, the less light makes it through. The method of removal is Faith in Christ, repentance, baptism by immersion (by one with authority from God to perform the ordinance) for the remission of sins, laying on of hands (again by those with authority from God) for the Gift of the Holy Ghost. After this, we are still human, and thus imperfect, but if we continually increase our faith and strive to remain clean, we can be free from sin, through the atonement of Christ, when we stand before God at the final judgment.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s