<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Full Court Press</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.rogerhansen.org/2010/01/full-court-press/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.rogerhansen.org/2010/01/full-court-press/</link>
	<description></description>
	<pubDate>Sat, 31 Jul 2010 04:50:32 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Roger Hansen</title>
		<link>http://www.rogerhansen.org/2010/01/full-court-press/#comment-8056</link>
		<dc:creator>Roger Hansen</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Feb 2010 18:05:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.rogerhansen.org/?p=699#comment-8056</guid>
		<description>Frances Lee Menlove wrote the following in Dialogue (December 2009, p. 7-8):

"Gene (England attending a fireside in Hyde Park, England, with recently baptized Black members of the church) talked candidly about racism in society, in the Church, and in himself.  He spoke of his own joy when the ban on blacks and the priesthood was lifted.  He spoke movingly of the need to both own and absorb our whole church history if we are to learn from it.  We can't disown whatever is embarrassing or whatever we don't approve of in that history.  The memory of the past is required for learning, for moral instruction.

That evening, Gene took ownership of not just the glories of the Church, but its shadows.  He didn't speak from a distance but from the center of the story.  He spoke with grace and dignity.  He listened carefully as several black members told stories of being blindsided by a history they didn't know before joining.

My memory is that when he was asked about some of the theological underpinnings of the ban on the priesthood  (e.g., blacks were less valiant in the war in heaven, or descendents of Cain), he gave them short shrift.  These theological rationales, he said, are themselves part of the racism."</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Frances Lee Menlove wrote the following in Dialogue (December 2009, p. 7-8):</p>
<p>&#8220;Gene (England attending a fireside in Hyde Park, England, with recently baptized Black members of the church) talked candidly about racism in society, in the Church, and in himself.  He spoke of his own joy when the ban on blacks and the priesthood was lifted.  He spoke movingly of the need to both own and absorb our whole church history if we are to learn from it.  We can&#8217;t disown whatever is embarrassing or whatever we don&#8217;t approve of in that history.  The memory of the past is required for learning, for moral instruction.</p>
<p>That evening, Gene took ownership of not just the glories of the Church, but its shadows.  He didn&#8217;t speak from a distance but from the center of the story.  He spoke with grace and dignity.  He listened carefully as several black members told stories of being blindsided by a history they didn&#8217;t know before joining.</p>
<p>My memory is that when he was asked about some of the theological underpinnings of the ban on the priesthood  (e.g., blacks were less valiant in the war in heaven, or descendents of Cain), he gave them short shrift.  These theological rationales, he said, are themselves part of the racism.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Roger Hansen</title>
		<link>http://www.rogerhansen.org/2010/01/full-court-press/#comment-8004</link>
		<dc:creator>Roger Hansen</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 30 Jan 2010 17:43:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.rogerhansen.org/?p=699#comment-8004</guid>
		<description>Another point of view to my last statement was presented by Mike Paulos in a letter to the editor in Sunstone (December 2009, p. 3.):

"I understand the surprise some life-long Church members feel when they discover problems in Church history.  However, I deplore the attitude of some who blame the Church and its leaders for their own previous intellectual incuriosity. . . . "

" . . . Church leaders will not and need not turn worship services into forums where historical controversies and theological discrepancies are explored and debated."</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Another point of view to my last statement was presented by Mike Paulos in a letter to the editor in Sunstone (December 2009, p. 3.):</p>
<p>&#8220;I understand the surprise some life-long Church members feel when they discover problems in Church history.  However, I deplore the attitude of some who blame the Church and its leaders for their own previous intellectual incuriosity. . . . &#8221;</p>
<p>&#8221; . . . Church leaders will not and need not turn worship services into forums where historical controversies and theological discrepancies are explored and debated.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
