This is a Mormonism post. Id REALLY like my believing LDS friends and family to read it—you have my word that I will refrain from rants or overt criticism of the church, and that I will keep the post free of swear words. =) Two parallel movements have gained traction among members of the LDS church: A call to extend full fellowship to gay members without burdening them with a requirement of lifelong celibacy and loneliness, and a push for gender equality that would see women in positions of authority equal to those that are currently held exclusively by men. Though each movement has its own issues and faces its own challenges, they are also closely linked. Each questions the churchs current understanding of the nature of gender. Each reflects a social zeitgeist that is seen by many (outside the church) as progressive and positive, but that is—by virtue of its contradiction of long-held beliefs—generally seen by conservative religionists (including most Mormons) as misguided and detrimental to the social good. And each has been lambasted by more orthodox members of the church as steadying the ark—as questioning or directly contradicting policies that GOD put in place through his chosen representatives (and therefore as a product of, at best, poor souls who have allowed themselves to be misled by Satan or, at worst, his knowing disciples who are hell-bent on destroying gods church from within). With that introduction, please read the linked article, including the sections which have been hidden as controversial editorial perspective. Though I wont be able to do it justice (and I *strongly* encourage you to read it in its entirety), I do recognize that its long, so Ill summarize here: Dr. Nelson was an LDS sociologist who had extensively studied the interactions of societies of different races. He considered the LDS churchs treatment of its black members uninspired and harmful—concluding, even, that the churchs anticipated expansion into Cuba in the 1940s would introduce racism to a society where it had not, up to that point, existed. He felt strongly enough about the issue that he wrote the First Presidency about it. The response he received (signed by George Albert Smith, J. Reuben Clark, Jr., and David O. McKay) called him to task for [losing] sight of the revelations of the Lord. He was told that it has been the doctrine of the church, never questioned by any of the Church leaders, that the Negroes are not entitled to the full blessings of the Gospel, and that the concept of interracial marriage was most repugnant to most normal-minded people from the ancient patriarchs till now. Rather than buckling under the pressure of a reprimant from a prophet, Nelson replied with a logical case for the abolishment of the churchs policy of racial inequality. The First Presidency responded that these *doctrines* are either true or not true. Our testimony is that they are true... we therefore prayerfully hope that you can reorient your thinking and bring it in line with the revealed word of God. Twenty-six years later the true doctrines that reflected the revealed word of God were downgraded to policy and summarily abandoned. Whether in response to social pressure or at the explicit direction of deity, Dr. Nelsons case for racial equality was finally vindicated. (Dr. Nelson himself had, sadly, passed away four years before the 1978 policy change). Given this story, I hope that at the very least, every believing member of the LDS church will demonstrate EXTREME reluctance in denouncing those who call for more inclusive approach to gay- or gender-related issues within the church. History has very clearly demonstrated that those who advocate for social change may ultimately prove better at prophesying, seeing, and revealing what is GOOD and RIGHT than the prophets, seers, and revelators who lead the LDS church.
Posted on: Mon, 02 Dec 2013 07:42:47 +0000
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015