Mormons want to be a mainstream faith but its based on lies.

[_sock puppet]

Now, Mormonism is trying to smooth over its rough edges, shuck off the difficult (like elohim was once a man as we are), and just be another do-right, feel-good Christian sect.

Doesn't seem to be the case. Plural marriage is still a doctrine and a practice we don't apologize for and the Preisthood ban we don't apologize for either. At most, the Church is putting on a nice face (which is not a lie), but no doctrines are being changed or gotten rid of. Heck, even homosexuality is still a deep, dark sin.

How many wives do you have, bcspace?

Why does the Mormon Church claim it is not racist if it isn't apologizing for the Priesthood ban?

Homosexuality will be next on the hit parade as it becomes less and less popular to oppose it. Just as the Mormon Church cracked on the Priesthood ban in 1978 to societal pressures, it will relent on homosexuality too.

The COB is more interested in being seated at the table of respectability than maintaining that which made Mormons a 'peculiar people'.

[_bcspace]

How many wives do you have, bcspace?

One.

Why does the Mormon Church claim it is not racist if it isn't apologizing for the Priesthood ban?

The ban was not based on skin color. It was based on descent.

Homosexuality will be next on the hit parade as it becomes less and less popular to oppose it. Just as the Mormon Church cracked on the Priesthood ban in 1978 to societal pressures, it will relent on homosexuality too.

I'll bet it doesn't.

The COB is more interested in being seated at the table of respectability than maintaining that which made Mormons a 'peculiar people'.

Doesn't seem to be the case. Sure, we'd like to be well thought of, but we haven't compromised anything yet.

[_sunstoned]

Now, Mormonism is trying to smooth over its rough edges, shuck off the difficult (like elohim was once a man as we are), and just be another do-right, feel-good Christian sect.

Doesn't seem to be the case. Plural marriage is still a doctrine and a practice we don't apologize for and the Preisthood ban we don't apologize for either. At most, the Church is putting on a nice face (which is not a lie), but no doctrines are being changed or gotten rid of. Heck, even homosexuality is still a deep, dark sin.

The modern church has always been more than happy to through any long held doctrine under the bus to further its PR and bid to go mainstream. Here are some examples:
• Plural marriage is an embarrassment to the current leadership, and that is why its hidden and its history whitewashed. Imagine, the new and everlasting convent shut down by the congress of the United States. USA 1, God 0.
• Laminates are the principle ancestors of the American Indians. Well, not any more since DNA testing became available (damned science, screwing up a perfectly good belief system).
• Blacks denied the priesthood until all the other descendants of Adam have received the promises and enjoyed the blessings of the Priesthood. Well, not really, see BY, JFS, BRM and all the other “prophets” were just speaking as men.
• Book of Abraham written by his own hand. Don’t even go there. What an embarrassment, and all the apologetic gyrations are just making things worse.
• As Man is, God once was. Well, GBH the great PR spinster took care of that one.
I’m getting tired of typing, but her are a few more teachings you don’t hear about anymore: Counsel of 50, Law of Adoption (sealing men to men), blood temple oaths, blood atonement, united order, Indians turning white (thank you SWK), and naked touching in the Temple.

[_Themis]

The ban was not based on skin color. It was based on descent.

LOL Who said skin color? Race is based on decent. African blacks were considered to be descended from Cain and were banned from receiving the priesthood. Thus raciest by definition.

[_ludwigm]

No one's been able to find a lie in LDS doctrine.

That's because very little is considered doctine.

The correct word is nothing.

[_DrW]

It seems that's what the Mormons do best is implementing lies as doctrine.

No one's been able to find a lie in LDS doctrine.

If this were true, it would be because whenever a a doctrine is proven to be a lie, every attempt is made to drop it as doctrine and reassign it to the status of lore.

Similar criteria are applied to the "speaking as a man" vs. "speaking as a prophet" issue. The fact that these assignments are made post facto seems to be of little concern to those inside the Church.

Trouble is that, while this might work for pronouncements of prophets, it does not work for LDS scripture, which even bcspace will admit, automatically falls into the doctrine category.

Thus, Mormons must accept the lie of Kolob as set forth in scripture as doctrine and the lie of the parting of the continents of the eastern and western hemispheres less than 10,00 years ago as doctrine, as well as the other lies and false prophecies as contained in the Book of Mormon and D&C.

If bcspace is unfamiliar with these scriptural (and hence doctrinal) lies, I would be glad to provide a list of examples.

[_Themis]

If this were true, it would be because whenever a a doctrine is proven to be a lie, every attempt is made to drop it as doctrine and reassign it to the status of lore.

Similar criteria are applied to the "speaking as a man" vs. "speaking as a prophet" issue. The fact that these assignments are made post facto seems to be of little concern to those inside the Church.

Trouble is that, while this might work for pronouncements of prophets, it does not work for LDS scripture, which even bcspace will admit, automatically falls into the doctrine category.

Thus, Mormons must accept the lie of Kolob as set forth in scripture as doctrine and the lie of the parting of the continents of the eastern and western hemispheres less than 10,00 years ago as doctrine, as well as the other lies and false prophecies as contained in the Book of Mormon and D&C.

If bcspace is unfamiliar with these scriptural (and hence doctrinal) lies, I would be glad to provide a list of examples.

While I agree with most of what you say, I think lie is used to much when we don't really know Intent. Falsehoods would be better. The church teaching a world wide flood is not a lie but a falsehood. :)

[_Buffalo]

The ban was not based on skin color. It was based on descent.

Which means it was especially racist - following the Southern "one drop rule."

[_DrW]

If this were true, it would be because whenever a a doctrine is proven to be a lie, every attempt is made to drop it as doctrine and reassign it to the status of lore.

Similar criteria are applied to the "speaking as a man" vs. "speaking as a prophet" issue. The fact that these assignments are made post facto seems to be of little concern to those inside the Church.

Trouble is that, while this might work for pronouncements of prophets, it does not work for LDS scripture, which even bcspace will admit, automatically falls into the doctrine category.

Thus, Mormons must accept the lie of Kolob as set forth in scripture as doctrine and the lie of the parting of the continents of the eastern and western hemispheres less than 10,00 years ago as doctrine, as well as the other lies and false prophecies as contained in the Book of Mormon and D&C.

If bcspace is unfamiliar with these scriptural (and hence doctrinal) lies, I would be glad to provide a list of examples.

While I agree with most of what you say, I think lie is used to much when we don't really know Intent. Falsehoods would be better. The church teaching a world wide flood is not a lie but a falsehood. :)

When a Yale educated adult (Jeffrey Holland, for example) with free and ready access to all of the relevant information, and with the responsibility to provide leadership and guidance to millions of people who believe and trust in him, stands up in front of these people and solemnly delivers considered descriptions of past events that clearly did not take place, then this individual is a liar.

Such people (Holland is an example) expect their audience to believe them. Thus they are claiming facts that they know, or should know, are falsehoods with the intent of being believed by the audience. I call that a lie.

If this individual did not know better, or could not have known better, then one could excuse the act as recounting of a falsehood. If you would rather call it a falsehood - fine. In this case it is a distinction without a difference.

At the same time, however, you would have to concede that such people do not have the judgement and decision making skills to be credible leaders.

So, in the final analysis folks like Holland are either liars or idiots. Neither characteristic makes them individuals who deserve the trust and confidence that is placed in them by so many.

In their partial defense, the GA's sometimes preface their descriptions of these fictional events by phrases such as "the scriptures tell us" or "according to scripture". However, as Holland did, they quickly leave this caveat behind and continue relating the fairy tales as if they were real. If, in their minds, this little caveat technically absolves them of lying, then they are intellectually dishonest as well as being liars, or idiots, or both.

[_Neginoth]

The ban was not based on skin color. It was based on descent.

Which means it was especially racist - following the Southern "one drop rule."

I need help understanding the racist connection here.

I understand racism to be a claim of ethnic superiority over another?

The Bible Dictionary says that the Aaronic priesthood is, '...conferred without restriction......' until, 'in the restoration of all things the office of Bishop will once again be conferred on one of that lineage.'

If one is descended from Cain, whose descendants lived seperately from Adams' (Moses 7.22), it seems a case can be made as to spiritual purity? Keeping in mind Cains' covenant with Satan?