An "apologist", of course, is someone who defends or reconciles, not someone who apologizes. Gordon B. Hinckley was one, and so am I in some of my finer moments. Here is a transcript of an online dialogue I had with some guy in England via Facebook.
Guy in England says:
I got this from researching into mormonism, I obtained a copy of the Journal of Discourses, written by the 2nd "prophet" of your "church"It basically talks of those of African descent, (btw, do you still teach the mark of Cain in relation to blacks?)Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 10 v 110:'Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain [the seed of Cain being blacks], the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so. The nations of the earth have transgressed every law that God has given, they have changed the ordinances and broken every covenant made with the fathers, and they are like a hungry man that dreameth that he eateth, and he awaketh and behold he is empty.'How do you justify this? This is not a cool teaching is it?It really scuppers what you replied to me, i.e., '[it] is wrong and in no way do i believe that God would do that.' So rather you are Mormon, and believe mormon teachings, or you dismiss the racist teachings of the 2nd president,"prophet" of Mormonism, and therefore nullify the teachings all together...
TR replies:
Thanks for bringing this topic up. It causes no end of misunderstanding.First of all I want to say thanks for going into actual Mormon literature to discover what Mormons believe rather than believing every rumour that gets passed around without checking into it. That said, I would advise giving much more weight to what the current church president is teaching now than what was written 150 years ago. It is probably true that Brigham Young taught that, however, Mormons give more credence to some texts than to others.The Bible, The Book of Mormon, The Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price are the only thing accepted as scripture. The Church does publish official statements as well, but those are usually things to do with policy and practice and not with doctrine. Brigham Young's Journal of Discourses is not a church publication. It is a collection by others of his sermons and writings.Brigham Young may well have believed and even taught some strange things about blacks, but the thing about Cain is definitely not an official church doctrine, even if there are some backwoods type Mormons who still believe it.Anyway, I don't think it is my responsibility to defend or apologize for what Brigham Young said 150 years ago. Isn't it enough that nobody teaches it now?In my own mind, I can do this without having to "nullify the teachings all together". I don't believe in a perfect, infallible, or always correct prophet, but rather one who is led by inspiration from God despite making mistakes.So to answer your question, no. This is not a cool teaching.
--end--
Part 2 to be posted on Wednesday, Sept. 24 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Hey T.R.! I'm really excited about this one. What a good idea. And well done, well said to the English guy's question/comment. I'm also excited for your return to SLC.
Thanks Liz! Hey, can I get access to your blog so I can read it too?
Wow. That blog answered a bunch of questions I didn't even know I had.
This blog is totally "keeping us Mormons real".
A few responses from someone who has posed and fielded a lot of doctrinal questions:
1) I'm ok with not knowing the answer to every question. Not to say that I don't value honest research and sincere questions. I'm just saying a lot of confusion and contention can be avoided by being able to say, at times, "Yes, that's not a cool doctrine; coincidentally, it's not current doctrine. How 'bout that." There are too many examples of this in world and our own Mormon history to count. This is why we have a modern prophet and official sources of doctrine.
2) I agree that all or none stances are dangerous. A working relationship with the Savior and an honest attempt to maintain personal revelation go a long way toward avoiding deception and pacifying our questions when the answers may simply take more time to understand.
3) God loves His children. That said, His time and ways are not ours. I truly believe that one day we will understand why sometimes it may have seemed that we were waiting for Him to "catch up on the times," when maybe He was really waiting for us, the prime example being priesthood blessings for all worthy males. I am reassured, however, to know that all blessings are available to those that are worthy, within the eternal scope of the gospel plan; this has always been true, even when the specifics weren't clear to us.
Post a Comment