Classic Apologetic Lives on

[_ldsfaqs]

1. The Webpage IS still there..... This website changes lower case word "m" ormon to Mormon.

2. The linked two "priesthood" pages is actually a quote I believe from our resident "nut" DAHEHIST (however he spells that) from his old blacks and the Mormon priesthood pages, in which he was pro-LDS. Of course, maybe he was simply quoting lightplanet, I don't know. But looking at the FORMATING of the two pages, it seems clear it was "copied" from DAHEHIST's old pages.

Further, this statement:
"Those Mormons who tell you it was never taught, or never doctrine, or merely 'personal opinion' are not accurately describing the truth about the matter. Most Mormons today are not that aware of the history of the doctrine or the Priesthood-ban. These are things NOT taught to them in Sunday School. Many of them merely repeat what they have 'heard' from others, and unfortunately repeat inaccuracies."

Is definitely I believe his.....

Anyway, there is nothing "offensive" or problematic about what said in the page that I recall other than statements like the above. It makes clear that the Church wasn't racist, and it explained the basic reasonings of how the Church and it's members generally interpreted the "reasons" for the ban.

Of course, we now know that those reasons were mainly "assumptions", whether true or not.

Anyway, what's the problem? We've always known that the Church in the past believed the reasons for the ban was because of a lineage being denied the Priesthood. What's new???

Oh, Pahoran has nothing to do with these pages.....

Lightplanet has become more of an "archive" of old sites on Mormonism. And these two priesthood pages are examples of that.

[_MsJack]

1. The Webpage IS still there..... This website changes lower case word "m" ormon to Mormon.

Yes. The Web site was never nuked; Shades' autocorrect software just ruined the URL by capitalizing the "M" in Mormon.

The correct URL.

[_Kevin Graham]

Anyway, what's the problem? We've always known that the Church in the past believed the reasons for the ban was because of a lineage being denied the Priesthood. What's new???

What's new is the Church is contradicting itself. Now it says they never had any inkling why the ban was enforced. And instead of encouraging people to study the history, they just want people to close their mind and move along. "Forget everything we ever said, we changed our minds and don't have to explain why." You wish!

This is because they know it will be shown quite easily, that they're talking out of both sides of their mouth. So what if there is no detailed documented revelation explaining WHY the ban exists? Since when do revelation have to explain the WHY of anything to be considered official doctrine? Brigham Young called it the LAW of God, so that makes it perfectly clear.

The Church stated quite emphatically in 1949 in an official release, that this was a doctrine and position of the Church.

Now, after the ban has been lifted for political correct reasons, the apologists and "scholars" have been banging their heads to figure a way out of this mess. So they came up with this lame argument that the original ban was never really a revelation, therefore "we don't know" enough about it to make a judgment call one way or the other.

I've been reading blog comments and articles written by Mauss, Sam Brown and others attacking Bott. One thing that strikes me as hysterical is the way all these Mormons are saying things like, "Bott is ignorant of twenty years of scholarship that has refuted these teachings." Well excuse me, but since when do apologists and scholars have authority over the Lord's anointed apostles and prophets? If we can dismiss Brigham Young or Spencer Kimball's official statements as "opinion," then it should be much easier to dismiss these "scholars."

The biggest myth I see being passed around lately is the myth that the Church's recent remarks have in any way refuted Bott's "speculation." It did no such thing. All it did is say they opposed racism, but if you look at the article I linked to you'll notice the apologist defending everything the Church has ever said about the priesthood ban, while at the same time concluding that this has absolutely nothing to do with racism. bcspace and other apologists have made this same exact argument for years. So just because the Church recently denounced racism, isn't necessarily proof that they've denounced Bott or any of the previous "speculations" about why the ban was implemented.

[_Buffalo]

1. The Webpage IS still there..... This website changes lower case word "m" ormon to Mormon.

Yes. The Web site was never nuked; Shades' autocorrect software just ruined the URL by capitalizing the "M" in Mormon.

The correct URL.

SHADES!!!!!

[_bcspace]

What's new is the Church is contradicting itself. Now it says they never had any inkling why the ban was enforced.

Haven't seen that one yet. They're merely being very broad and have not given any specifics. While the overall reason for the ban is not known, the Church nevertheless still doctrinally publishes things like reasons why the ban is Divinely appointed:

http://www.LDS.org/study/topics/priesthood-ordination-before-1978?lang=eng

[_bcspace]

1. The Webpage IS still there..... This website changes lower case word "m" ormon to Mormon.

It's good stuff showing it's not possible for the ban to have been racist in origin.

[Guest]

What I find funny is how anti's accuse me of "low intelligence" and yet I see DETAILS several of them did not, such as the wrong URL.

Notice also how they had no clue the 2 pages came from Daheshist's website?(http://www.angelfire.com/mo2/blackmormon/BMPB1.htm)
Notice how they thought it was "Pahoran's" work..... and Kevin G. changing the Title of the Thread and his post when he realized he was wrong, trying to cover-up his error?

They don't realize how ignorant and immoral they are. I know for sure because I was them once.

[_ldsfaqs]

Anyway, what's the problem? We've always known that the Church in the past believed the reasons for the ban was because of a lineage being denied the Priesthood. What's new???

What's new is the Church is contradicting itself. Now it says they never had any inkling why the ban was enforced. And instead of encouraging people to study the history, they just want people to close their mind and move along. "Forget everything we ever said, we changed our minds and don't have to explain why." You wish!

This is because they know it will be shown quite easily, that they're talking out of both sides of their mouth. So what if there is no detailed documented revelation explaining WHY the ban exists? Since when do revelation have to explain the WHY of anything to be considered official doctrine? Brigham Young called it the LAW of God, so that makes it perfectly clear.

The Church stated quite emphatically in 1949 in an official release, that this was a doctrine and position of the Church.

Now, after the ban has been lifted for political correct reasons, the apologists and "scholars" have been banging their heads to figure a way out of this mess. So they came up with this lame argument that the original ban was never really a revelation, therefore "we don't know" enough about it to make a judgment call one way or the other.

I've been reading blog comments and articles written by Mauss, Sam Brown and others attacking Bott. One thing that strikes me as hysterical is the way all these Mormons are saying things like, "Bott is ignorant of twenty years of scholarship that has refuted these teachings." Well excuse me, but since when do apologists and scholars have authority over the Lord's anointed apostles and prophets? If we can dismiss Brigham Young or Spencer Kimball's official statements as "opinion," then it should be much easier to dismiss these "scholars."

The biggest myth I see being passed around lately is the myth that the Church's recent remarks have in any way refuted Bott's "speculation." It did no such thing. All it did is say they opposed racism, but if you look at the article I linked to you'll notice the apologist defending everything the Church has ever said about the priesthood ban, while at the same time concluding that this has absolutely nothing to do with racism. bcspace and other apologists have made this same exact argument for years. So just because the Church recently denounced racism, isn't necessarily proof that they've denounced Bott or any of the previous "speculations" about why the ban was implemented.

The problem every anti-mormon suffers from is that they don't know how to differentiate the opinions of men which do eb and flow with the RESTORED GOSPEL OF Jesus Christ.

BOTH are being honest to the best of their abilities. In the past many believed the ban was because of what the scriptures stated. That was their best judgment. Today, they/we don't know for SURE the reason for the ban because those scriptures don't actually FIT as being related to the ban.

Thus, all we can so is "we don't know", and state that the past teachings on the issue, true or false, good or bad ones, don't seem to be an accurate reason for the ban. There is no dishonesty here, or anything else immoral.
It's being entirely TRUTHFUL. Of course, what is truth is something you and other anti-mormons and liberals have serious problems with, so it's not surprising you can't understand.

What you don't understand is that the "reasons" for the ban were ALWAYS VAGUE..... Some believed this, some believed that, some believed things entirely non racist based or implied. There was no "uniform" understanding, other than, there must have been something related to the pre-mortal life, and the banning of the Priesthood with Cain/Ham whatever.

This issue is not like the "gay" issue. Homosexuality is clear being wrong.
This issue is not like the "women and priesthood" because there is no "inequality" basis there, it's simply the current policy because of the roles of man and woman. I cracks me up how I used to believe the same stupid things. Putting my own modern social conventions onto the Church, being ignorant of the Church and scriptures on the issue.

[_Equality]

Today, they/we don't know for SURE the reason for the ban because those scriptures don't actually FIT as being related to the ban.

Yeah, it's too bad there isn't someone in the organization that supposedly has a direct line to Jeebus who could shed some light on the subject. Guess Mormons will just have to do the best on their own light til Jeebus comes back (any day now, right?). Like the Protestants and Catholics do.

[_ldsfaqs]

That's the nature of life...... God doesn't reveal everything. He expects us to grow in Faith, ever learning coming unto a knowledge of the truth.

Sorry you all feel every answer should be "perfectly FED" you. You all and Satan would love each other. He also wanted all the answers to be given. Hell with actually WORKING for something to know it.

I know the reason for the ban, but you all ignore it.
It was because of the Racism in the world itself. God ended the ban the moment that racism ended. It's as simple as that. I worked that out through my OWN study, faith, trails, etc.

Anyone else can do the SAME if it's so important for you to know the truth about the issue.
But I know, it's easier to be intellectually lazy and just judge the Church and religion falsely.
I know it feels good to feel superior and put down religious folks whom you deem so ignorant and blind sheep. The irony is that it is YOU who are the ignorant and blind sheep, falsely believing you are wise and more learned when you are only just beginning, but worse choose wickedness over righteousness as the path you should follow instead of enlightened faith.