Rev. Sharpton Finds "Common Ground" With LDS Officials

2. RK said:

Count me as Mormon conservative, too. I have learned (the hard way) that my feelings usually represent recognition of my own faults or virtues. (The taste of feet will often induce humility!)I am proud that Rev. Sharpton came to SLC to check us out. I hope he was impressed.

4. SF said:

Well said Debra!

6. Alienated Wannabe said:

I hope that we, as Mormons, can continue to build friendships and understanding with the Reverend Sharptons of this world. It's the Christian thing to do.

I remember years ago when Reverend Jesse Jackson had contact with the Tabernacle Choir and discovered with wonder that an old friend and colleague of his (a beautiful African American sister) was a now member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and singing with the choir. That experience melted my heart.

Beyond that, I personally have foolishly said more than a few insensitive things about other people's religions during my life. Thus, I can certainly find it in my heart to forgive any perceived slight on the part of Reverend Al Sharpton toward my religion -- I don't think any of us want to be made an "offender for a word." So, I accept his apology. A person doesn't have to be perfect in order for me to forgive them.

* * *

As for you, A McClain, my friend, with all do respect, you have misrepresented the Church to which you say you once served as a missionary:

David O. McKay was truly a liberal in the sense that Jesus was a liberal, and all of us who seek to follow him are liberals. But, politically, he was very much a Conservative, outspokenly opposed to Communism, and aligned with his dear friend, Ezra Taft Benson.

And, that "cute" little square you reference has indeed picketed, by bus loads of people, on more than one occasion. The wonderful change of 1978 didn't come until the major pressure was off the Church, many years later. And, it came about because of the righteousness and spiritual sensitivity of the Lord's prophet, Spencer W. Kimball, not because of fear of being picketed. Trust me, President Kimball was not afraid of the opinions of men. He did what he did only because it was the right thing to do.

As for when the US Army was approaching this territory during the "Utah War," you have your history wrong. The Mormons did not abandon Polygamy out of fear of that army. Rather, in a horrid nightmare, we massacred an entire wagon train full of civilians, and then waited for over three decades before even entertaining the notion of abandoning polygamy. And, that didn't happen until well after Brigham Young, and his successor, John Taylor, had both passed away. Remember?

History and people are always more complicated than any of us want to acknowledge. We all prefer to draw overly simplistic caricatures of those whom we see as being our enemies. As a former member, it is obviously in your interest to see the Church as being "a joke," because it would be too painful for you to see it otherwise.

My hope, however, is that each of us reach down deep within our souls and find the courage to take responsibly for what we choose to believe. Eventually, it all comes down to choice, and what we choose to believe ultimately reveals who we are at our core. I, for one, my dear friend, choose to believe.

8. Alienated Wannabe said:

Dear A McClain:

If I understand you correctly, your contention that David O. McKay was a political liberal is based upon your witnessing him attend a parade that featured John F. Kennedy. It is understandable that such a cherished memory has had a strong impact upon you. But, I am sorry, having attended numerous parades that featured liberals and/or Democrats, myself, I can assure you that witnessing such an event does not constitute a sound basis for deducing the political leanings of anyone. Thus, I would urge you instead to search the historical record, read the prophet's writings, and listen to the testimony of those who knew him best. If you do that, I believe you will find what President McKay's most celebrated biographer, Gregory A. Prince, has found:

". . . The year 1952 had dual significance for McKay's confrontation with Communism. . . . during that year, the apostle destined to become McKay's staunchest ally in the battle, Ezra Taft Benson, began his political ascendancy. . . . It would not be long . . . before Benson received permission without restriction for . . . [a] prestigious position in the cabinet of the newly elected U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower.

"The latitude McKay allowed Benson in this position is explained by his fervor for Eisenhower. That McKay was a Republican was not widely known. . . . Nonetheless, McKay was a Republican and privately rejoiced when Dwight Eisenhower won the election. The morning after the election he noted, 'We were all thrilled with the News. In my opinion, it is the greatest thing that has happened in a hundred years for our country.' [McKay Diary, November 5, 1952] It was not surprising, then, that McKay reacted favorably to Eisenhower's request two weeks later, transmitted through newly reelected Senator Arthur V. Watkins (R-Utah), who 'told me that Elder Ezra Taft Benson is being considered by General Eisenhower for the position of Secretary of Agriculture, and wondered if he would be permitted to accept the position should it be offered to him. I said yes that I thought he would be permitted to accept.' [McKay Diary, November 20, 1952]" (Please see "Dialogue, A Journal of Mormon Thought" https://www.dialoguejournal.com/excerpts/37-2a.asp)

Having quoted the material above, I should hasten to acknowledge that you are correct. There is no evidence that President McKay ever belonged to, or sympathized with every position of, the John Birch Society (I did not mean to imply that he did.) despite the fact that he shared that organization's strong opposition to Communism. But, it is interesting to note that at least one reviewer of the McKay biography quoted above, Mark E. Baxter, claims that the author did not sufficiently draw upon the writings of McKay's personal secretary while dealing with this subject:

"I was puzzled by this purposeful exclusion of the person and materials most likely to know the truth about the discussed events until I got several chapters into the book. Then it became clear that [Clare Middlemiss, McKay's personal secretary] was a conservative John Bircher and the authors are not, so they could not include her thoughts on matters because they would contradict the author's thoughts." (Please see Amazon book reviews: http://www.amazon.com/David-McKay-Rise-Modern-Mormonism/dp/0874808227)

So, there does not appear to be consensus on that point. Perhaps President McKay actually did sympathize with the John Birch Society more than his biographers currently reveal. We just don't know. But, this much we do know: He was staunchly anti-Communist, he gave great freedom to Ezra Taft Benson to pursue his political objectives, he was extremely supportive of Dwight D. Eisenhower, and he was very much a Republican.

* * *

Dear brother, even though I choose to see the world differently than you do, I have lived long enough to know that I do not have all the answers -- far from it. I suspect that on more than one issue I will eventually come to see things very differently than I do now. Further, I suspect that I may actually come to see some things the same way that you do. (You right, me wrong.) But, on the points we have discussed here and now, I have detected some intellectual sloppiness on your part. You have misstated history. I do you no service by patronizing you and pretending that it is otherwise, thus I have chosen to be frank with you. If I have offended or embarrassed you, it was unintentional.

As I have gotten older, and gained experience interacting with other human beings, I have come to put less stock in the notion of a "material objective reality" in which we all share, and more focus upon the "ethereal subjective world" in which each of us individually live as conscious beings. It is in this sense that I have come to recognize that each of us creates our own private world by what we choose to believe.

The most famous example of this principle I can share with you is that of the "placebo effect." In the material objective reality of science, a sugar pill should not be able to cure a particular ailment, and yet, in certain scientific experiments where a participant believes he or she is receiving medication, the sugar pill will often do just that. Impossible? Apparently, not.

What I am getting at, my dear brother (who finds it so unlikely that I could actually love him), is that each of us chooses what it is we believe, and in a real sense, what kind of world we live in. I find this concept to fit nicely with the Mormon doctrine of there being many different kingdoms -- not just one Heaven or Hell -- where people go to rest after this life.

The fact is that we can choose to be merely materialists, people who live only in a world that we can apprehend with our five senses. Or, we can choose to live in a more complicated world that also takes into account the reality of forces that we can only discern spiritually. It is our choice. It is up to us.

You say you were once a missionary. If this is true, as I believe it is, then you should have also experienced a spiritual manifestation that witnessed to the core of your being that what you were teaching was true. But now, for some reason, you have turned your back upon that reality -- a world in which you once chose to exist -- in favor of another reality where the Church is now merely "a joke."

Why have you chosen this? Whatever the answer might be, it isn't because you were forced to do so by science or history. As I have already demonstrated, all the historical facts you have referenced have been misstated. Thus, what it really comes down to is that you currently choose to believe differently. Something inside of you now wants to live in a world where the Church is not true, and thus you do.

But, things change.

If you are happy where you are, then there is no need for you to change a thing. Enjoy what you have chosen. But, if you are not happy in your current world, then I humbly invite you to come back home. I am not your enemy. I am not fighting against you. Rather, I am fighting for you, because you are worth fight for -- you are beloved, and precious. Believe it.

Sincerely,Alienated Wannabehttp://www.alienatedwannabe.blogspot.com

10. A Mcclain said:

Teha, the truth is the same today, yesterday and tomorrow. If you wish to forget the yesterday "part" than so be it...and you have a nice day today...and by the way, what part was slander and I loved that "reason" part of yours. You sound like a lawyer (now that could be slander) alienatedwannabe.blogspot.com Why do you always tag a liberal american as being pro-communist. Everytime you say liberal you insert that (which of course is not true) and nothing else, like human rights,anti- war,pro-union,abortion rights,gay rights,global warming,business responsibility and much more..no you just mention communism..almost like a talking point strategy... liberal bash as your ilk always does. (You think I'm saying that McKay was pro-communist?) I don't think your that simple..could it be you have your own political agenda. Would love to go through your house and see everything you use from "communist" China....yes wannabe there still is communism, which Im sure your fighting by boycotting all chinese goods....lets see your anti-communist church starting that boycott...you know how anti-communist they are...as you have reminded me numerious times. Wannabe,if you respond again, please address my chruch points....and by the way do you know the secret handshake, the curtain going into the highest kingdom (which I thought was so ugle with all that danish modern furniture) and of course the thumb to the neck with "suffer my life to give" is part of that other group that they all belonged to. Why do you think it was secret? Please not so wordy...just the facts please...not so much religious fluff...it clouds the facts.

12. Rob said:

You may make your choice of which path to follow towards Heaven or Hell. It is the consequences of your choices that are not yours to claim. If one is willing to "listen", and follow God, He should not be condemned or criticized by those who might call or esteem themselves righteous. For in and of these very actions they are not. Perhaps , just perhaps, God has a hand with what some might consider of themselves a misguided Mr. Sharpton. Hateful words and actions come from those who live with misery, for misery and hell do love company. Those that know them well , know this to be true. For me, Hell and Misery have had too much of my life to claim already. It is not enough to say you believe in God for Satan also believes in God. It is the path toward each you must choose to follow or not. Which path do you think you are following?

14. Lynn said:

I stand corrected. According to Catholic News, there was an apology. But, how could this have happened without someone stopping it? There is no explanation for something so vile and obviously well planned, to be aired on a station supported by listeners.