Prejudice Can Be Unlearned

John,

If you will notice, the doctrine that I was showing that is in the scriptures, taught by multiple prophets, etc, was that other churches are evil, not that the RCC is the GAC. And that doctrine was prevasive.

I have no problem with people wanting their grandkids raised with their beliefs. The problem is with some LDS people thinking less of the non-Mormon fiance because they are not Mormon. If you have not witnessed that you are lucky, because it happens quite often. I would share some experiences with you, but they are not mine to share.

James,

Thank you for your posts. I think I will some what answer your post in my response to Dave.

Mayan,

Thanks for your response.

I guess to the non-believer it sounds apologetic, to me, a believer, it is just exegesis. I believe Nephi really had this apocalyptic vision, and I want to understand its true meaning. The meaning I gave makes the most sense to me given what other scriptures say and what I understand about the nature of reality.

Every generation must interpret their religious writings in a way that is meaningful to them. Early Mormons felt they were under siege by what they saw as the Christian world, and they interpreted these scriptures in a way that made sense within the categories of thought they inherited and the social/political situation in which they found themselves.

Hi Dave,

Thank you also for your response. True, core Eternal Principles of Mormonism have remained relatively intact over the years. It is not surprising that there are loose ends however, I would expect nothing less. I think many get caught up in the frills, that is, the interpretations of Mormonism that were a product of the time. The association of the Great and Abominable with RC Church was a frill, and to be expected product of the time.

“Well, let's see. Was this doctrine taught by the mouth of two or three witnesses? Yes, I have already shown that. Is the doctrine contained in the scriptures? Yes, in Joseph Smith History and the Book of Mormon according to how the prophets interpreted it for us. Was it taught in the temple? Yes. Now tell me how do the opinions of men make it in the endowment. Was it taught in conference? Yes. Clearly this doctrine has met all the requirements to be considered the mind and will of God. Now policies and commandments can change, but doctrine is truth and can never change, for it is things as they really are, were and will be.”

The direct association between RCC and GAC was not made in the Temple.

True, in the sixties, (or 70s?) B.R. Mconkie put it in his book "Mormon Doctrine", but as has been pointed out, he was forced to change it. It demonstrates how out dated the belief was even then.

Besides, in your quotes, only two 19th century apostles make the direct association between RCC and GAC. Not solid grounds on which to base an extra-scriptural doctrine, at least according to the Mormon epistemology I know.

“Although this doctrine was last taught publicly by Bruce R. McConkie, and privately in the 1989 endowment, it is still in the LDS scriptures that Mormons use today.”

This is your interpretation of the endowment and scriptures, that is not the interpretation I give, nor the interpretation taught by the church.

I know this idea lives on in the minds of many members. I would stand with you and argue that it is not correct, doctrinal or scriptural (as I have).

I also think it can be argued that one can have this belief and not be prejudiced. I suppose you can place blame on the church for not doing enough to combat prejudice, but it would only be fair to also place blame on the church for all the good in the Mormon people (which I think substantially outweighs the bad).

“Most Mormons treat members of other denominations with respect and tolerance and aren't aware of any prejudice. But, if one of their kids want to marry a non-member, one can tell in their comments that they automatically think less of that person, and it is not solely because their child will not be marrying in the temple. Many members would prefer their children to marry a member even if it is outside the temple, than marry a non-member outside of the temple.”

Mormon endogamy is what it is, I suppose. As is Jewish endogamy, Catholic endogamy and the like. Many don’t like it, and many insist upon it. Its motivation is not necessarily a belief in the inferiority of outsiders, but a desire to pass one’s cultural and religious legacy to one’s descendents.

This is my last post on this thread. I bid you all adieu for now.

James said:

"Wonder which of today's teachings will turn out to be in the same category 100 years from Today?"

Exactly.

Mr. H Opines in Response to John

"he statements of the men believed to be the mouth piece of God is more significant than just reflecting the prejudices of the times."

Herewith some other examples of "reflecting the prejudices of the times"

Mormon Teachings from the 19th Century

These Teachings are
No Longer to Be Taken Seriously

-Joseph Smith had a Vision of God and Jesus (everyone thought they were having visions of God and Angels in those days)
-Heaven has 3 levels, Celestial the Highest (Swedenborg's scheme was the Da Vinci code of the time, a work of fiction that people like Smith copied for his eschatology)
-Holy rituals can seal you to your spouse(s) for Time and All Eternity (the Masons were big: everyone wanted their own secret rituals)
-Blacks sinned in the Preexistence and therefore were not worthy of the Priesthood (everyone knew that the Bible justified slavery)
-Homosexuality was no big deal, it didn't even have a name (most Farm boys had intimate knowledge of farm animals, so why pick on buggers).

Thank goodness we have outgrown all these prophecies and teachings.

Wonder which of today's teachings will turn out to be in the same category 100 years from Today?

John D,

I am fine with you calling me Dave. Changing slightly your words from an earlier post:

You minimize Prophetic declarations of the evilness of other churches by stating these quotes come mostly from the 19th century. I think it is much more significant than that considering the Prophets, Seers and Revelators of the church have made essentially the same declarations year after year before they started becoming more PR conscious.

The statements of the men believed to be the mouth piece of God is more significant than just reflecting the prejudices of the times.

But, of course the apologetic response is that these men were just speaking as men and not as the Lord's spokesmen at the time. So, how can we tell when a prophet is speaking for the Lord or when they are only speaking as a man? Is it simply a matter of convenience? That sounds suspiciously like the "cafeteria Mormonism" that Boyd K. Packer warned us about in which we can pick and choose the doctrines we agree with. The members at the time certainly believed it was doctrine that all other churches were evil. Were they justified in believing that or can we pass it off as the members just "believing too much" of what the prophets say?

Well, let's see. Was this doctrine taught by the mouth of two or three witnesses? Yes, I have already shown that. Is the doctrine contained in the scriptures? Yes, in Joseph Smith History and the Book of Mormon according to how the prophets interpreted it for us. Was it taught in the temple? Yes. Now tell me how do the opinions of men make it in the endowment. Was it taught in conference? Yes. Clearly this doctrine has met all the requirements to be considered the mind and will of God. Now policies and commandments can change, but doctrine is truth and can never change, for it is things as they really are, were and will be.

Although this doctrine was last taught publicly by Bruce R. McConkie, and privately in the 1989 endowment, it is still in the LDS scriptures that Mormons use today. Growing up LDS in Georgia, I was first taught that the "wh*re of all the earth" was the Catholic Church, then I was taught that it was all the Christian churches except Mormonism because there are two churches only, then when I went to BYU, I was taught the new interpretation similar to the one you gave earlier.

So, this doctrines lives on, in the minds of some high priests and other older stalwarts of the wards, especially in small Utah towns that are 95% LDS.

Now, you made a big deal about how the idea that the churches are corrupt or mistaken is not the same as prejudice against the members of those churches. I agree. I love Mormons the people, but I have serious issues with some of the Mormon doctrines and policies, such as discrimination against women and homosexuals.

However, it is almost a given, that if one rails against and demonizes a church or a country to one's followers, that a number of those followers will extend that prejudice to the people of that church or country. How do we see that today? Most Mormons treat members of other denominations with respect and tolerance and aren't aware of any prejudice. But, if one of their kids want to marry a non-member, one can tell in their comments that they automatically think less of that person, and it is not solely because their child will not be marrying in the temple. Many members would prefer their children to marry a member even if it is outside the temple, than marry a non-member outside of the temple.

Now who is responsible for that prejudice? A big portion resides in the prejudiced individual. But, not all of it. A portion of the blame also resides with the Church who in its scriptures and by the mouth of its prophets prejudice the mind against others.

typo above in 3rd paragraph

should be

"I always knew that the Catholic Church had LOST IT (the Priesthood)."

Catholicism: Madonna or W#$w%? (W word=lady of the night)

A biographical note:
when I was in 6th grade in my highly Catholic Massachusetts town,

my Catholic friend Bobby and I used to have intense arguments to convince the other that they were going to hell. Nevertheless, they were cordial arguments: not sure how afraid of Hell either of us were. The argument was more Jesuitical.

I always knew that the Catholic Church had "Loat it" (the Priesthood)
but it did not seem polite in most cases to point that out to them.
Except in the case of Bobby.
Nyah Nyah, You Lost It, We Have it Now.

But all the power in school and in town was Catholic, so it was hard to be prejudiced against them.

wow jd1, much of that stuff about nephi was some serious apologetic nuancing of stuff. yikes. thanks for taking the time, but i cant help but think that is some twisted mr. deity that would expect someone to go through all that to accept why a bunch of men, claiming to be prophets, would call another church a wh0re.

you said: "I am glad this has changed."

me too. i think every reasonable person is glad. though, i dont think that simply making the change, and pretending that the message of anti-catholicism was never part of the doctrine, is healthy. the doctrine, from the book of mormon to the pulpit of the tabernacle, was the source of the prejudice. while it is a wonderful and admirable change, it is also quite fine to acknowledge the origins, and there is no statute of limitations for citing the origins, as far as i know.

J D and others

While i am known to criticise The Church when I feel moved by the burning in my chest,

on this count of relations/feelings/prejudice towards other churches and peoples

I have always found The Church highly admirable.

They wouldn't let me in the temple so I don't know about the endowment issue

but all the mormons i've known including my 5,000 relatives have been quite Christian towards Catholics and other religions

which is nice concerning that the Mormons did have a reasonable amount of "persecution" from other faiths in their early days.

Abominable Platonic Deities…

Thank you for further info on the former endowment dialogue. I can see better where you are coming from. I still don’t think we were picking on the Catholics exclusively. It seems that the focus of the endowment dialogue was the Platonic God and paid ministries. Since it is the Christian world that trumpets Plato’s God via paid ministry, the two Christian categories (Catholic and Protestant) received mention.

I am glad this is changed. This kind of teaching can promulgate prejudice and does not represent the nuanced world I know. I do not think, however, that it is equivalent to prejudice. I have a close Evangelical friend who thinks my scriptures are of the devil. He also likely thought I was serving the devil for two years on my mission. I do not feel like he is prejudiced against me, or that he thinks I want to serve the devil. He rather thinks I am a good person who has been deceived. He does not demonize me, though he may demonize my beliefs. He may even vote for Mitt Romney!

In the endowment dialogue, it seems that Christian ministers were not portrayed as willful servants of Satan, but deceived persons of good will. When the source of the Minister’s teachings was revealed, he had serious second thoughts.

The line between strong disagreement and prejudice is a fine one. We all have to do the balancing act.

The Great W____ of all the earth….

As for the Great and Abominable Church reference in the Book of Mormon, given the cultural context of Mormon origins, it makes sense that great w_____ in Nephi's apocalyptic vision would be associated with the Catholic church by early Mormon leaders.

That is certainly not the only interpretation. Current interpretations by Mormon scholars look to the Greek root of the word church, which translates assembly. Churches as we know them now did not exist in Nephi's time, so it’s likely he was not signifying an exclusively religious body, but could be referring to any group of people.

Apocalyptic revelations communicate through Archetypes. The great and abominable is an archetype into which different bodies can be placed at different times. If I want to find the Great and Abominable Church today, I would look at who is actually fulfilling the different functions of the G & A Church, i.e. fighting against the Lamb of God, desiring "Harlots", exploiting the poor etc. I think different organizations fulfill different roles of the G & A church.

The international sex trade may fulfill some of these roles, for example.

Many of our conceptions of clearly identifiable bodies are cultural constructions, so I don't think any organizations demarcated and defined by our society can be easily identified with G & A church.

I think there are members of the “Church of the Lamb of God” and Members of the “Great and Abominable” in any organization. Membership is determined by the role one chooses to adopt for oneself.

The idea of the righteous and the wicked intermingled in every body of people is clearly taught in the parable of the wheat and the tares (D&C 86).

I anticipate you may point to what Nephi said was the role of the G & A church in removing “plain and precious” truths from the Bible. Though the RCC could have played the role of the G & A church during the time of Biblical compilation, its likely that whatever group of people were involved in Biblical distortions were pre-Catholic, carrying out their work around second century AD. I say this because history shows that the Bible remained pretty much intact following the official formation of the RCC. The role the Catholics with regards to the Biblical text was one of preservation, for which we Latter Day Saints should thank them.

Hi Dave (mind if I call you Dave?),

Anti-Catholicism is a large part of the Protestant legacy to be sure. American culture generally is highly influenced by Protestantism. It is no surprise, nor is it terribly interesting or significant to this discussion, that teachings that can be construed as anti-Catholic are found in Mormon *history*.

That you had to use mostly quotes from the 19th century’s the Journal of Discourses, and the Seer of all sources, demonstrates that you are digging deep to expose Mormonism’s supposed anti-Catholicism.

It is interesting that you use these outdated statements that find *no place* in current church publications to demonstrate what should be changed. These are historical vestiges, nothing more, and they are treated as such by the church. I do not see their relevance to a discussion about discrimination against Catholics *today*, unless we are talking about Mormons who are not up to date.

Health in the navel, marrow in the bones, strength in the loins and in the sinews, power in the priesthood be upon me and upon my posterity, through all generations of time and throughout all eternity.

http://www.concernedchristians.org/nocomparison_temple7.php

Its curious that at Church we can say the Catholic Church is the "Wh0re of all the Earth" and that the phrase is quoted many times by our leaders, but we can't say it at On Faith.

(continued, hopefully the first post made it through moderation)

“The MYSTERY of Babylon the great, is mother of h____s and abominations of the earth, and it needs no prophetic vision, to unravel such mysteries. The old church is the mother, and the protestants are the lewd daughters…There is none in all christendom that doeth good; no, not one.” (Apostle John Taylor, Times and Seasons, Vol.6, No.1, p.811)

"Both Catholics and Protestants are nothing less than the "w____ of Babylon" whom the Lord denounces... as having corrupted all the earth by their f________s and wickedness. And any person who shall be so wicked as to receive a holy ordinance of the gospel from the ministers of any of these apostate churches will be sent down to h_ll with them, unless they repent of the unholy and impious act.” (Apostle Orson Pratt The Seer, Vol.2, No.4, p.255)

"The Roman Catholic, Greek, and Protestant church is the great corrupt ecclesiastic power, represented by great Babylon which has made all nations d___k with her wickedness, and she must fall, after she has been warned with the sound of the everlasting gospel. Her overthrow will be by a series of the most terrible judgments which will quickly succeed each other, and sweep over the nations where she has her dominion, and at last she will be utterly burned by fire, for thus hath the Lord spoken. Great, and fearful, and most terrible judgments are decreed upon these corrupt powers, the nations of modern Christendom; for strong is the Lord God who shall execute His fierce wrath upon them, and He will not cease until He has made a full end, and until their names be blotted out from under heaven." (Apostle Orson Pratt, Divine Authenticity of the Book of Mormon, p.84 - p.85)

"And he [the angel of God] said unto me: Behold there are save two churches only; the one is the church of the Lamb of God, and the other is the church of the d____; wherefore, whoso belongeth not to the church of the Lamb of God belongeth to that great church, which is the mother of abominations; and she is the w____ of all the earth. And it came to pass that I looked and beheld the w_____ of all the earth, and she sat upon many waters; and she had dominion over all the earth, among all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people."
- Book of Mormon, 1 Nephi 14:10-11

"After the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was organized, there were only two churches upon the earth. They were known respectively as the Church of the Lamb of God and Babylon. The various organizations which are called churches throughout Christendom, though differing in their creeds and organizations, have one common origin. They all belong to Babylon"
- Apostle George Q. Cannon said, Gospel Truth, p.324

"Christians—those poor, miserable priests brother Brigham was speaking about—some of them are the biggest w_____masters there are on the earth, and at the same time preaching righteousness to the children of men...You may get a Methodist priest to pour water on you, or sprinkle it on you, and baptize you face foremost, or lay you down the other way, and whatever mode you please, and you will be d____ed with your priest."
- Apostle Heber C. Kimball, Journal of Discourses, 5:89

"Christianity...is a perfect pack of nonsense...the d___l could not invent a better engine to spread his work than the Christianity of the nineteenth century."
- Prophet Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 6, p.167

"...the Book of Mormon remains secure, unchanged and unchangeable, ...But with the Bible it was not and is not so....it was once in the sole and exclusive care and custody of an abominable organization (Christianity), founded by the d___l himself, likened prophetically unto a great w____, whose great aim and purpose was to destroy the souls of men in the name of religion. In these hands it ceased to be the book it once was."
- Apostle Bruce R. McConkie, The Joseph Smith Translation, pp. 12, 13

(Apparently this post did not go through originally due to some offensive language in the scriptures).

John D. the First:

The words "popes and priests" were replaced in 1990 with a more generic reference to "false priests who oppress and tyrants who destroy." Only Catholics have popes, therefore, Catholic clergy were directly targeted. The sectarian priest himself might be of any denomination.

You are correct that all the blame cannot be put on the endowment. But, teaching that popes are employed by Lucifer in what is supposed to be the ultimate teaching play in the pinnacle sacred ordinance within the House of the Lord repeatedly, giving the same lesson over and over, simply must create or add to prejudice in the hearts of the participants if they truly believe it is from God.

As I said, I am glad that the Church changed the endowment and that Pres. Hinckley is giving talks encouraging kindness to those who are different. But, let me show you what else needs to change if Hinckley is serious about rooting the prejudice many members have against others. In doing so I am referencing the work of others (I will not include the link because if I do, this post will not be published):

1) Joseph Smith said in his most recent rendition of his First Vision: "I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)—and which I should join.

"I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.” He again forbade me to join with any of them" (JS-H 1:18-20).

"What is it that inspires professors of Christianity generally with a hope of salvation? It is that smooth, sophisticated influence of the devil, by which he deceives the whole world"
- Prophet Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p.270

"...all the priests who adhere to the sectarian religions of the day with all their followers, without one exception, receive their portion with the devil and his angels."
- Prophet Joseph Smith , The Elders Journal, Joseph Smith Jr., editor, vol.1, no.4, p.60"

2) D&C 29:21:
"And the great and abominable church, which is the ***** of all the earth, shall be cast down by devouring fire, according as it is spoken by the mouth of Ezekiel the prophet, who spoke of these things, which have not come to pass but surely must, as I live, for abominations shall not reign."

D&C 88:94:
"And another angel shall sound his trump, saying: That great church, the mother of abominations, that made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her ***********, that persecuteth the saints of God, that shed their blood—she who sitteth upon many waters, and upon the islands of the sea—behold, she is the tares of the earth; she is bound in bundles".

The leaders of the Church have a history of identifying the Catholic Church as the great and abominable church. Only recently have they stopped teaching that and now say that it is any group that teaches falsehoods.

(To be continued)

That last post was me, sorry:)

Hi Dave,

You said:

"Do you not know why the prejudice exists in the first place and why it is difficult to get the people to follow a new injunction when for generations they were taught prejudice in their most sacred ordinance, the endowment in the temple?"

I think the atomistic cause and effect relationship you’ve established is too simplistic. I don’t think we have endowment A causing prejudice B. It would be more accurate to say that the pre-1990 endowment dialogue is a symptom of an already existing historical antagonism between Protestants and Mormons. The endowment change was a great move towards mending already broken relations.

Furthermore, I think Protestantism is the focus of the pre-1990 endowment dialogue, not Catholicism (insignificant overall, but significant to this discussion).

You minimize Prophetic calls for tolerance by stating they occur in “just a few conference talks.” I think it is much more significant than that considering the Prophet, Seer and Revelator of the church has made essentially the same exhortations for tolerance during his closing remarks conference after conference.

The closing remarks of the man believed to be the mouth piece of God is more significant than “just a few conference talks.”

As for the latest statement on Catholicism from the head of the church, in his opening remarks on the April 2005 General Conference, President Hinckley said:

“My beloved brothers and sisters, on behalf of the worldwide membership of this Church, I extend to our Catholic neighbors and friends our heartfelt sympathy at this time of great sorrow. Pope John Paul II has worked tirelessly to advance the cause of Christianity, to lift the burdens of the poor, and to speak fearlessly in behalf of moral values and human dignity. He will be greatly missed, particularly by the very many who have looked to him for leadership.”

I praise Pres. Hinckley for his April 2006 Priesthood session talk in which he encouraged the brethern to be kinder to those of other religions and races. This is a step in the right direction. John D. the First said:

"Many current General Conference talks by President Hinckley highly stress tolerance of people with other points of view; they are probably largely directed at Mormonism's Utah/Idaho base. Whether Mormons there follow his injunctions in this regard is a different story."

Do you not know why the prejudice exists in the first place and why it is difficult to get the people to follow a new injunction when for generations they were taught prejudice in their most sacred ordinance, the endowment in the temple?

I praise the LDS church for changing the endowment in 1990 to take out the character that represented a sectarian priest who was employed by Satan to teach the sons and daughters of Adam and Eve and the language that linked popes with false priests. Prejudice is taught. It was blatantly taught in the temple and from the pulpit and in the original "Mormon Doctrine", but that is changing and that is good. But, the church has a serious responsibility to undo the harm they caused by teaching prejudice for all those years, and it is going to take a lot more than the occasional GC talk.

The LDS Church certainly has adopted anti-Catholic traditions. Joseph Smith's ancestors were congregationalist and aspects of that tradition, including anti-Catholicism, have slipped into the Book of Mormon. One has to admit though that there has been progress.

John Paul II contributed more to liberty than the leaders of my church and I admire him. Having said that, it would be even better if the Catholic leadership would extent its wonderful ideas about human dignity to gays and women.

Jay B,

there is a lot 'o stuff in that post, that is fo shizzle.

"mutual respect as fellow christians"

again, i am most pleased with the progress the church has made related to comments and views of the roman catholic church. who cant be happy with it? though, please dont confuse the source of the initial animosity towards catholics, it had nothing to do with events in the midwest or activities that lead to the relocation of mormons. it had everything to do with the interpretation of the book of mormon scriptures and the assumption that the roman catholic church was in a state of apostasy.

additionally, part of the motivation in respecting other christians is to promote the acceptance and consideration of mormons as christians. mormons are, in my worlds-largest-earth-mammal opinion, christians. convincing others that mormons are christians has been a daunting task, i am sure otterson could opine on that.

"For a hundred years the Church lived an isolated life"

that is debatable. but, if it is true, that was by choice. isnt it ironic that the church that sent out a large percentage of its congregation on worldwide missions would also consider itself isolated?

"feared for their lives"

hmmm? my ancestors were at hauns mill. perhaps that is what you were referring to. brigham et al relocated for preservation, no doubt, but whether that was for the preservation of any individuals, or the preservation of the institution is probably something that would make for a very very interesting debate or study. i would love to hear jan shipp's take on that. you may be right, but i think it was more complex than a life-saving flee. some would argue that leaving the midwest was simply the right thing to do, after having conned so many of the locals, established a polygamous community and run roughshod over the law.

"As Utah and the world as a whole became less isolated, it became easier to learn that myths about the outsiders were not really true"

thanks man. this is exactly the point of ottersons final paragraph, or my interpretation of it at least. though, i dont think it was just the reduction of isolation. as i pointed out earlier, the church was thriving and sending missionaries out and doing commerce with the world. there wasnt much isolation. what changed? education and social pressure. there was never a wall around utah. it simply became clear that some long held beliefs were unfounded and impractical. i think we may be dealing with semantics here, you are right that something changed, why and how those changes happened could lead to long and interesting conversations and study.

"To that end the Church Leaders (the only people who can speak for the church as a whole) have made a concerted effort to teach tollerence and acceptance.
The individual members may be slower to catch up, but the official policy of the Church is spoken by it's current Prophets and Apostles."

sorry pal. we were on a roll of accord until this little bit. the members have led the leaders by generations. the pressure for change came from the ground up, and was met with a timely "revelation." sure, we can be proud of some of those revelations, but dont kid yourself, they were often responses to extreme pressure from within and without. i am referring specifically to statements about catholics, other religions, american indians, african americans, africans, chinese, women, etc. i am not discrediting the leaders for their changes. they still had to stand up and announce a reversal or change, but i am not giving them leadership credit simply because of titles. feel free to challenge me on this as i learned my history mostly from watching comedy central.

official announcements of and for the church may come from otterson and the fifteen apostles. that i will grant you. where i disagree though is that those men are not the only ones to speak 'about' the church. this may be what led to that isolation you refer to. when only those in charge were speaking about the church, it was often just convenient topics or portrayals that were shared. this is changing for the current generation. bushman and others have commented on the selective messages that are given about the church. there is some risk when the message is controlled and filtered. jan shipp, and now john hamer, are perhaps some of the most valuable resources for learning about the church in both contemporary and historical contexts. they are certainly not 'leaders', and in fact, jan as far as i know, has never been a member (i may be wrong).

learning more about the church would have, perhaps, resolved any confusion or myths about catholics generations earlier. or at least it would have resolved the perception that any animosity was the result of what a few catholics did in illinois and missouri. an improved education may have saved at least one catholic church's window. right?

I enjoyed most of these comments, some are enlightend some are merely throwing stones.
I grew up in Utah. And I did witness prejudice toward Catholics from some of my friends. I watched in great sadness one of my friends throw a rock at a Catholic Church's window. And he's not Mormon. He was just looking to be mean. Their church was an easy target.
I do know though, that none of my friends now treat Catholics with anything less than mutual respect as fellow Christians.
Why the change?
For a hundred years the Church lived an isolated life. To a Mormon in the early days, the rest of the world would easily have been viewed as outsiders, who forced them into the desert in fear of their lives.
And for all they knew it was Catholics and Protestants and Methodists who drove them there.
As Utah and the world as a whole became less isolated, it became easier to learn that myths about the outsiders were not really true. As the Church became more and more global, it's members "Un-Learned" the fears and prejudices they grew up with.
To that end the Church Leaders (the only people who can speak for the church as a whole) have made a concerted effort to teach tollerence and acceptance.
The individual members may be slower to catch up, but the official policy of the Church is spoken by it's current Prophets and Apostles.
The Church in Utah is so prevelant that it is societal on the region as a whole. It is easy to assume that everyone is a mormon. The store owner, the teacher, the politician. Especially someone in any position of power or authority.
And though this is not true, every time that poor "cat" gets stepped on, it thinks a mormon did it.

John D:

As Ghandi famously said:

"Become the change you seek in the world."

I agree with your mutually-reinforcing model of "otherizing." To oppose vigorously without hatred or violence requires enormous discipline, particularly when one group actively disadvantages another over time for inherent elements of otherness.

I know many mormons out here in Vegas and have gotten along well with all of them. You could substitute Bible Belt for Utah and Evangelicals for Mormons and get the same results. Bigotry is Bigotry...

Roy,

Sorry to hear about your experience.

I think Mormons outside of Utah are tolerant of difference because we are also a minority. Especially in Bible Belt Regions…no stranger to prejudice.

Tolerance is much more difficult for the majority where ever you go.

Many current General Conference talks by President Hinckley highly stress tolerance of people with other points of view; they are probably largely directed at Mormonism's Utah/Idaho base. Whether Mormons there follow his injunctions in this regard is a different story.

Mayan Elephant- good point. I know Mormon baiters use the ignorant comments of dead prophets to slam the Church. I don't know, though, if Mormons like Otterson are really making that much effort tot unlearn prejudice.
I'm not Catholic but I witnessed first hand the cruel bigotry they suffered in Utah. Raised Protestant there, I also suffered intolerance there. Teachers and potential employers automatically ask me what Ward I was in. My Utah History teacher in middle school gave me a "B" with a 94% average because "non-Mormons couldn't possibly grasp the history of the Church" Look at discussion forums in Utah and you still find the same prejudice. It seems Mormons outside of Utah are more tolerant but many in Utah are extremely ethnocentric.

Personally, I don't like the inherent exclusion in most religions and, even though I am trying (and should try more) to unlearn my aggravated prejudice against Mormons, I will never accept them for their treatment of their gay members. It's also interesting that few here have pointed out the discrimination non-Catholics have suffered from members of that Church as well.

There is no prejudging individual that is not also prejudged by someone else. Some of us may have more power than others, but there is still the internal ting that threatens our personal sense of dignity when we feel pigeon holed into a negative category by another.

The term "the other" is used in many contexts, to mean various things. Sometimes it is used to simply describe outsider/insider relations. I would use it to describe more than that--an internal ad-homineim that de-validates the experience and perspective of a person who is different.

It enables us to maintain our sense of dignity, in the face of negative evaluations of other people- the evaluations of the "other" does not matter only by virtue of the category under which they fall.

What I think frequently occurs is a "mutual otherizing" that makes implicit prejudice very difficult to unlearn.

Who could make oneself vulnerable enough to be "the other" without also being an otherizer?

Who has the courage to not fight fire with fire?

I think few of us, including myself, do.

It would require us to follow the injunction of the Savior when he said, "whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also."

MAYAN
It's not a metaphor. That's how animals think. Step on the cat's tail and it strikes out at the closest living creature. The same is true for people. An unsuccessful applicant for a job will strike out at someone - "if I were a Catholic I would have gotten that job" because he/she knows the interviewer was a Catholic. In reality, the one who rejected the candidate would have been h/er immediate supervisor that chose a more qualified candidate for the job.

When we lose we blame someone, anyone and usually the one closest. Illegal immigrants are blamed becuse Bubba didn't get the job at the saw mill yet there are no illegals working at the mill. He happened to be driving past a group looking for day labor jobs.

Roy and Doc,

You do not need to visit any towns in Utah. Previous generations of Mormons grew up hearing awful terms used to describe the Catholic Church. The references were from the Book of Mormon and were supported by several of the General Authorities.

This is a topic for which we can and should tip our hats to the leaders of the Church. They forced McConkie to republish an edited version of his book and they corrected, though subtly, many terrible things said about the Catholic Church. Granted, an apology would be nice too, but, ya know, baby steps. If Mormons still harbor ill-will towards Catholicism, that is out of neglect on their part to get up to speed on the topic.

Hey Doc, the only way you can find out is to go to a small town in Utah, like Brigham City, for example and ask.

Mr. Otterson, I think it will take more than just education to eradicate discrimination. I have been studying in John 3 where the natural human heart loves (agape) the darkness. Hate, jealousy, and rivalry in religion is the offspring.

Only Christ, the Prince of Peace, can remove the war raging in hearts.

Prejudice abounds in Europe, in America, and in the I-15 Idaho/Utah corridor. Sometimes education only solidifies unhealthy pride and intolerance in our pluralistic society.

Of course, I am leaving Mormon friends in Idaho for Muslim friends in Turkey, tomorrow. This should be an eye-opener.

bgone, are you implying that the catholics are the winners? or that discrimination is a mechanism for creating equality by knocking someone off of bunker hill? i am more than a bit confused by your metaphor.

discrimination of minorities is more common than discrimination of winners and majorities, wouldn't you agree?

i quoted a piece of ottersons response in a previous post, in it he mentions "a good deal of time." admittedly, all my social training was done in the boy scouts or i learned it from johnny cash lyrics, but i shall not let my extensive training prohibit me from sharing a thought on this time concept.

i tend to agree that time will make a difference in the prejudices that we see in the world, including those that are targeted at any specific religion. when i factor in the time, i simply imagine that my children will have a different experience and face different issues than we see today. the passing of time, by itself, doesnt do jack squat to resolve anything. prejudice eradication will not be instant, meaning, we cant make it go away in a flash as a society or as individuals. similarly, we cant procrastinate the work and study and application of what we learn with the expectation that the passing of time will make it all better.

it takes, as mr. otterson points out, education and interaction, among other things. the amount of time we spend educating ourselves and learning about others does need to be great, both in quantity and quality. this is not easy, admittedly. we dont have a lot of time to learn about other people and other stuff. we dont make time to learn about other temples, cathedrals and shelters when we are busy entering our own buildings (at least i dont, but thats not my fault, i blame that on johnny cash.)

when i was still mormon-ing on a regular basis, we attended our mormon sunday meetings in a jewish center. we rented the place for sunday services. that was a blast and it great for the kids in the primary to see other religious groups in the building and appreciate the different art and announcements on the walls. our branch president arranged for a seder dinner which was hosted by the local jewish leaders for our entire branch. now *that* was a great time.

in the *other* otterson thread, i posted a comment by former senator alan simpson. something he said in his wapost editorial stood out to me, he mentions having worked with many gay people since his senate vote in 1993. i suspect that is time that he cherishes, and it seems it was time spent doing something that changed a prejudice. good on simpson.

Maybe I can help you understand the roots of discrimination, all kinds. When a cat's tail is pinched it reacts striking out at whatever is nearest.

People are like cats, do the same thing, step on their tails and hiss and claw. If one loses or is at a loss in a given situation then there is a knee-jerk reaction to strike out. If the winner happens to be Catholic then that is attacked. If black then black is attacked. If none of the above then perhaps the winner wears glasses, red headed or balding, short or tall, male or female, fat or skinny. Everyone is something and some are Catholic and some are not. Winners are always something and must be attacked.

The cure is obvious. What the world needs is good losers. We can begin by training the cats to let people walk on their tails.

Tolerance of Catholics Is Easy

The Catholic Church is the largest denomination in America, and the richest.
They are good Christians.
They are mostly white.
They decry homosexuality,

We should concentrate our
Eliminate Immoral Discrimination Efforts
(It is ok to discriminate against Pedophiles)

on groups where it is an issue:
Gays, women in many parts of the world, Guatemalan Immigrants, Muslims, in general
The Powerless
not
The Most Powerful
like the Catholic Church.

Again, it is outrageously immoral to discriminate against someone because they are a Catholic (also very rare in the US).
It is a moral duty to criticise the Church when it acts immmorally.

Wow!!
Mr Otterson and the Mayan and Me
all agreeing (pretty much).
The Millenium must be approaching!!

I too think this is by far your best post so far Mr O.

I would only criticise it for not making a very original point, but I should criticise myself for that as well in that case.

Otherwise, a personal and humane view, with a reasonable and relevent historical perspective.

Take Away Point:
Prejudice is LEARNED.
It usually has a basis (the Hungarians hate the Romanians because they were always having wars with each other) that has a history.

The basis of Catholic-Protestant prejudice in England is a lot easier to understand than the

basis of anti-gay prejudice.
Not that there aren't plenty of explanations.
It is just that the sociology and psychology of Anti Gay prejudice has so many more layers.

But it, too, can be Un-learned.

Roy,
I guess I'm confused. Was Otterson one of the Mormons you grew up with in Utah? Ah, well no matter, their all the same, nasty lot now aren't they?

Hello pot, this is the kettle, your black.

Here's Otterson again with his hypocrisy. The Mormons I grew up with in the Utah called the Catholic church "the church of the Devil". If a classmate was *outed* as Catholic, he was beaten up. Where did they learn this? From thier parents or maybe in Primary? I'm sure none of them passed this idea along to their children and grandchildren. Go to Utah now. Ask people on the street in small Utah towns about the Catholic Church.

Evolutionary psychology tells us that man, as merely another species of animal, has an ingrained awareness of, and wariness of, the "other." Such qualities were advantageous in our environment of origin, where eating without being eaten oneself was a minute-to-minute endeavor. Prejudice is only one of the modern manifestations of this "vestigial psychological organ," but it may be the most threatening, to life and limb certainly, but also to the rendering of justice.

Man is seemingly unique in the ability to "over-write" evolution's programming through cognitive effort. Thus, I agree with Mr. Otterson's statement as to the "unlearning" of prejudicial attitudes. However, it is not necessary to rely on becoming more "comfortable" with the "other" in order to overcome our prejudice. By merely recognizing that we "are" prejudiced by nature, and that this is a threat to civil order and the concept of justice in our time, we can then cognitively overrule our "feelings" of discomfort and "act" in an egalitarian fashion. In so doing, we generally find that the "feeings" of prejudice then decline over time. If we merely wait for the feelings associated with prejudice and bigotry to subside before we act with fairness towards all, we will likely wait a long time.

I also second Mayan Elephant's sentiments as to the scope of the "conditions of otherness" (race, gender, sexual preference etc) towards which bigotry is typically directed. I challenge Mr. Otterson and the like-minded to extend the hand of egalitarianism to all of these "others," and not simply other Christians.

The Roman Catholic Church tries to spread the lie that opposition to its political agenda is the same as discrimination against the Church and its members because of their theological beliefs.

The Church and its members can believe anything they want and that's fine with me.

But when the Church tries to use governmental power to constrict my life and harm individual citizens, I'll speak out and oppose its designs.

That's not intolerance - it's self defense.

I can see the headline now, "Michael Otterson and Mayan Elephant find common bond--Go together for coffee..." :) (Otterson orders hot chocolate.)

I loved this post, and I REALLY loved Mayan Elephant's response. I hope you do become friends someday.

I grew up in a small Utah town where we had no Catholics, no Jews, no African Americans, and only a handful of families who were not Mormon or who were "inactive." I came from one of the latter.

I must have been about 7 when it dawned on me that I was considered "inferior" and probably "unsuitable" as a friend for kids whose fathers were in the bishopric or active tithe payers.

I have forgotten some of the pain that kind of rejection brought to my life, and I don't think for one minute that it compares in on any level to the Catholic-Protestant strife that has existed in the UK for hundreds of years. But it still shaped me...made me tough, and in some cases, unforgiving...and when I finished all my "wild" living by shortly after high school and "embraced" the predominant faith, I remember having to "unlearn" some of the attitudes and feelings I'd harbored against those neighbors and friends whom I had considered sanctimonious, self-absorbed bastions of Mormon exclusiveness. Alas, they still exist--have I become one of them?--but like Mr. Otterson, I find it hard to believe in this age that people still hate in the name of God.

I have been an "active" Mormon for about the last 35 years, and have lived in a predominantly Mormon community but with significant social and religious "mix" in my neighborhood. I like my Mormon neighbors, but I am still drawn to the "underdog" people around me who are "less active" Mormons or people of other or no faith. The deep wounds of exclusion based on religious belief (or perhaps better said, the lack of religious tolerance) have scarred me, but I'm healing. I'm tortured somewhat by the treatment I see being given in an otherwise enlightened society to people who are different...whether based in religion, socioeconomic status, "body style," sexual orientation, or still, alas, race.

But on a happier note...I think we are getting better. I think that people are becoming more aware of how treacherous it is to discriminate on the basis of some perceived difference. People will continue to hate Catholics, Mormons, Jews, Protestants, agnostics, atheists, gays, blacks, and Republicans and Democrats. It is inevitable that this kind of blind discrimination--of which the perpetrator is often even unaware--will ever be with us in some form, but I see evidence of gentleness and acceptance breaking out in small pockets around the world, and even in my own neighborhood. With such a critical shortage of love in the world, and with all of us...at least most of us...feeling a personal lack of true loyalty and love in our lives, I still hope for progress...even miracles. Look...Mayan Elephant and Michael Otterson are going for cocoa! :)

You said:

"The “why” is much more difficult to get at. There is a difference between discrimination and disagreement, but the line isn’t always a hard and fast one."

A good reminder. Thank you Brother Otterson.

What a perfect followup thread for those who may have been following and participating in the last thread. I speak to myself, but feel that I may not be alone in my thoughts?

But obviously its application is wide.

To personally feel such strong moral convictions that potentially cause individuals to feel that I have prejudice toward them, the person, is of great concern.

So I continue to express a love and interest that I might gain greater understanding and not become prejudice for lack of knowledge.

- to interact, communicate, inquire, be curious, search, engage, be uncomfortable, stand back, examine, ruminate, defend, ponder still, get ruffled, feel deeply, pray, seek to understand, forgive, love better, repent, ask why, listen, allowance, respond, validate, trust, care, compassion, tears,

try
again...

I appreciate the patience and willingness of many here to do so, that we may all eventually become un-learn-ed.

I look forward to many of your comments on this topic.
rtc

Good post, and it should be judging by the amount of venom that gets directed at your Church on a daily basis.

Bigotry is a learned behavior and it can be unlearned, but it is far harder to unlearn that to learn.

You write "Yet it still seems improbable to me that people can get agitated and vent hatred about someone else’s religious differences in a pluralistic society like ours."

Have you been living in a cave? Have you heard the comments on Fox News about Representative Keith Ellison being a Muslim? Do you recall that he was asked on that network to assure people is not a traitor to his country because of his religion? Certainly you can't be blind to the anti-LDS undercurrents surrounding Mitt Romney's candidacy? Or the horror at the thought that Senator Obama MIGHT have attended a Muslim grade school and/or whether his current (mainstream Christian) church is some sort of Afrocentric cult? Do you think there is no longer public anti-Semitism in America? Did you read what some of your fellow panelists have written in this forum about atheists?

I ask again, have you been living in a cave? Sheesh!

case and point of what I mean in the case of the pachyderm poster above.

oops, should read: "history and commentary regarding the catholic church"

Mr. Otterson,

this is perhaps the best answer you have offered. i appreciate the personal tone. i suspect that the lds church's history and commentary will come out in this thread and hopefully you will have the time and interest in providing more commentary on that specifically.

Thanks so much for this comment: "Prejudice is learned, after all. And whatever is learned can be unlearned through education, social interaction, a little effort – and often a good deal of time."

i couldnt agree with you more. this comment makes me want to sit at a coffee shop and sip hot chocolate with you and discuss it in depth. i think your stated approach to prejudice is applicable in many facets of one's life, including but not limited to prejudice regarding race, socio-economic status, religion or atheism, sexual preference, gender and age.

well done, cobber.

But it seems to me that prejudice will only be unlearned when we learn to differentiate our justifications for feeling ill will toward other groups and the humanity and goodness that exist in those other groups. This is sadly lacking in today's politics or the blogosphere. Hate reigns supreme.