Posted on 12/21/2007 4:20:24 AM PST by RCFlyer
No but I have heard of admitting wrong.
I think a more likely explanation is that they lack major cities. The black population in America is historically based in the South, for the obvious reason that they were imported there as slaves. After WWI, many blacks (and also poor whites) migrated to other parts of the country seeking industrial jobs. Such jobs were generally more available in large cities, so outside the South that's usually where you find blacks. That's why Detroit became so heavily black. They migrated there to take jobs in the auto industry.
States without large cities and large industrial bases generally remained white, and many are still white to this day. That includes Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, the Dakotas, Wyoming, and Utah. It also includes regions within states. For example, much of Michigan is nearly all white. Outside of the industrial cities such as Detroit and Flint, you rarely see a black person, particularly in the rural and small town areas to the north.
You’re correct, and the percentage of Nevada’s population that is Mormon was actually larger two decades ago. The state has seen an influx in recent years of Hispanics and leftist Californians, boosting the state’s population but reducing the Mormon percentage.
The decion process was a revelation to Kimball. If you think that Marion and George Romney were not part of the reason for the revelation, then I have a bridge in Brooklyn for you. By definition they could not have part in the revelation. That’s the Mormon answer.
But I’m not a Mormon. I don’t believe that the decision came by revelation. If you do, then you accept the other things about Mormonism that I do not. Commonsense tells you that George Romney being the most high profile Mormon in the general culture at the time and his brother signing the announcement means they were involved.
But if you truly believe the change came about as part of a revelation to Spencer Kimball, okay. You win.
I make no brief for Mormon beliefs about revelations to Joseph Smith or Spencer Kimball. But I will defend Mitt Romney’s right to be judged on his own political actions, not on guilt by association. And I defend his right to be free of a religious test for holding office. Mormons deserve the same rights to participate in the culture that any other lawabiding, decent citizen enjoys, no more, no less. As a Catholic I’ve “seen” (figuratively, through the lens of history) too many lynchings of “dirty, superstitious” Irish or Italian Catholics to sit silently by when Mormons are treated the same way.
“By your own definition you should distance yourself from the LDS Church before you enter into genuine conversation about it. Hypocritical much?”
So you assume, in your prejudice (pre-judgment), that only Mormons would ever defend Mormons? You are so bigoted as to believe that only a Mormon would defend a Mormon
As I pointed out in a previous posting on this thread and is more than evident from years of postings on the Religion threads of FR, I am a traditionalist Catholic. I think any number of Mormon beliefs are incredible. But I defend individual Mormons running for office from the sort of calumny that you throw at them. What you are doing is un-American.
By your criteria, unless Mitt Romney becomes an ex-Mormon, he is unqualified for office. That’s just plain un-American. His speech on the complex interaction between one’s religious faith and one’s role as a holder of public office was precisely in the middle of a long American tradition that has permitted us to avoid religious wars and enjoy religious pluralism. You are doing exactly the same thing that the secularists who would hound all conservative, believing Christians from office as well.
One can leave behind one religious faith and adopt another without being consumed with hatred for what one has left behind. I was once an Evangelical Protestant. I became a Catholic. I believe Evangelicals are misguided theologically or else I would still be one. But I have defended them again and again against secularists who hate their guts and against some of my fellow Catholics who simply don’t understand them and think ill of them.
For instance, I have nothing against Mike Huckabee as an Evangelical. I just think he DOESNT” understand the difficult task of governing in a pluralist America while remaining firmly committed to one’s religious faith. Some people do. George W. Bush does, even if the secularists pillory him as not understanding that. Mitt Romney does—that’s what his speech was about. JFK did not—he threw his faith overboard in order to get elected. I will defend any politician who refuses to abandon his faith, however misguided that faith may be, as long as he is committed to the naturally knowable principles of justice and truth, to fundamental morality (Ten Commmandments etc.) and understands that his task as a leader of a society is to find and cultivate the moral principles of justice and equity for all in such a way that all men and women of good faith, that is, of decency and commitment to truth and justice, can join him in that endeavor. I don’t think Huckabee is there yet. I could be wrong, but that’s my assessment of him and on this point, precisely Mitt Romney does understand the issues.
But you don’t. Attack Mitt Romney for some specific racist thing he has said or done. Let him be the one to figure out how he explains his own genuine anti-racism with Mormon teachings. After all, he’s the one sticking with the Mormon faith. You left it. For you—an ex-Mormon—to tell him that he has to believe X because he is a Mormon is just a bit of a stretch.
Your second premise is a fallacy. Romney has not gone there—he reaffirmed the fact that he is a Mormon. He left the rest alone—AS HE SHOULD DO IN HIS ROLE OF RUNNING FOR OFFICE. The “openly and strongly” part of your second premise is patently false. You had to attribute something to him that he has not done in order to get your syllogism to work.
Let’s try a syllogism for you:
1. Zakeet believes Mormon teachings are irreducibly racist
2. X number of Mormons de facto are and were not racist, including George Romney
3. A disconnect exists between Mormon teachings and individual Mormons
but no, Zakeet knows better—no such disconnect can exist. Which makes one wonder just how true premise no. 1 is.
But Zakeet knows all.
A better set of christians correcting a lesser set of christians. And a great job they did!
LOL! I've only heard of one cure....becoming a Mormon. :-)
I didn't realize it was as late as 1995. Some WASPs definitely came up wrong interpreting the Bible regarding slavery, but they have seen the error of their ways, or at least their children have. It seems to get better with each generation. It is a good trend for the future.
Actually I meant "you", and "your" in a figurative way....like y'all ; )
By your criteria, unless Mitt Romney becomes an ex-Mormon, he is unqualified for office. That’s just plain un-American.
No, he should flat out denounce the bigoted, unAmerican, racial statements, teachings, doctrine and SCRIPTURE of Mormonism, to show us all he has distanced himself from the disgusting teachings of the "Prophets of God." He can't do that and still be a Mormon, can he?
Actually, the teaching you mention is well founded in WASP beliefs long before the Mormon church.
Yes, that was Anthony Johnson, who was on the first group of Blacks to arrive in Virginia as an indentured servant (in the beginning, servants became free after 7 years).
As a free Black, Johnson successfully argued in court that his black servant, John Casor, should be deemed a slave for life, thus instituting chattel slavery in Virginia
Actually, the teaching you mention is well founded in WASP beliefs long before the Mormon church.
You aren't quoting me.
The LDS church never precluded blacks from joining the church, they just couldn’t hold the priesthood until ‘79. Missionary work was taken to the blacks & to Africa for that matter long before the ‘79 revelation.
Many “Christian” churches still don’t allow women to hold the priesthood, does that mean their sexist?
Lastly, the church has had much success amongst the African nations & has sent missionaries there for decades. Does that sound like the “racist” church Colorcountry describes? I have/have had many black members of the church in my ward. I consider them brothers & amongst my close friends. There is no delineation of race. Nobody cares or even talks about it.
It would seem Colorcountry’s hatred has not only clouded her judgment but her credibility as well. Talk to me about the church’s racism in Africa CC. The scriptures talk about the hatred that would come from the apostates. They were always far worse than the Lamanites. I think we’re having a better understanding now of what that meant. Carry on CC, you’re fulfilling prophecy, although I sincerely wish you weren't.
What a charge to make. I've followed these threads closely and haven't seen hatred from colorcountry. Show me the hatred.
She's supposedly an ex active longtime member of the church. Either she has deliberately misled, or not been forthright about her membership. Frankly, I'm not sure.
Go back & look at her posting history & tell me about the lack of passion. C'mon, you're kidding me right? Although, perhaps you're right, maybe hatred is too harsh. Would extreme dislike suit you better?
You didn't say "lack of passion', originally. Hatred was the word you used. No, I see no hatred but passion, yes.
Definition: Hatred - Intense dislike or ill will. One of the synonyms for intense is passion.
Do you feel CC has an intense dislike for the church based upon her posts? My opinion is yes. I think that opinion would be shared by many here.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.