A formal apology...

[_why me]

Matthew 28:19

Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:


Does this answer your question Why me?

When Jesus was alive he showed no concern for others. He was concerned about the jews. Not the romans or barbarians. Now when he rose and came back to earth, he told his disciples to go throughout the world baptizing. But when he was alive, he showed only concern for the jews. I can only go by what he did when he was alive on the earth, having a physical body.

By the way, Mormons allowed all races to be baptized into their faith.

[_Drifting]

When Jesus was alive he showed no concern for others. He was concerned about the jews. Not the romans or barbarians. Now when he rose and came back to earth, he told his disciples to go throughout the world baptizing. But when he was alive, he showed only concern for the jews. I can only go by what he did when he was alive on the earth, having a physical body.

So when He said "forgive them for they know not what they do" He was speaking solely to the Jews who weren't there and didn't mean His Roman guards?

[_Darth J]

When Jesus was alive he showed no concern for others. He was concerned about the jews. Not the romans or barbarians. Now when he rose and came back to earth, he told his disciples to go throughout the world baptizing. But when he was alive, he showed only concern for the jews. I can only go by what he did when he was alive on the earth, having a physical body.

By the way, Mormons allowed all races to be baptized into their faith.

It's too bad that a more sophisticated algorithm could not be programmed into the Why Me chatbot. Matthew 8 and 15 have been quoted in this thread, but the chatbot still repeats the same rote imitation of dialogue.

And the program spat out a fatuous assertion about women have greater child custody rights than men in the American legal system, which it supported with the same rote dialogue simulation about Jesus not caring about Romans or "barbarians" (you know, because the Jews referred to non-Jews as "barbarians"). I guess Jesus of Nazareth was really running a family law practice, instead of being the carpenter we had previously been led to believe he was.

Although we still have not achieved truly sentient artificial intelligence, the Why Me chatbot at least shows that artificial stupidity is well within our grasp.

[_why me]

What I absolutely object to is the newsroom's attempts to cover a lie by continuing to be disingenuous and misleading about its past. What happened to the stages of repentance which involves recognition and restitution. Does it involve everyone but the church as an organisation itself.

I am disappointed that a church which held me, and rightfully so, to such high standards of conduct, is not conducting itself honestly in this particular matter.

The church did not hold you up to high standards. You held yourself up to high standards. The church was just your life coach. Nothing more. I don't think that the LDS church is being dishonest about its past. Maybe you should read this article:

https://byustudies.BYU.edu/PDFLibrary/4 ... 84dcd9.pdf

What are interesting are the patriarchal blessings that blacks were receiving in the early 1970's. I think that you will find the article interesting. You can also pass it along to Chis.

[_Chap]

...

Although we still have not achieved truly sentient artificial intelligence, the Why Me chatbot at least shows that artificial stupidity is well within our grasp.

I feel a modest pride in inventing the concept that made such a post possible.

Darth J. - il miglior fabbro.

Yeah, OK, this is just a discussion board, but all the same ... in the right hands, it can be an art form.

[_Mary]

I don't think that the LDS church is being dishonest about its past. Maybe you should read this article:

https://byustudies.BYU.edu/PDFLibrary/4 ... 84dcd9.pdf

Why me, I have tried to answer every one of your questions. You have answered none of mine.

I'll ask again.

Is there any evidence that the early christian church excluded the negro from the admonition to teach the gospel to all nations?

Is there any evidence that the negro was excluded from Peter's vision of the white sheet?


I can actually answer that for you. No. I'll write it again. No.no. no. no. no.


And since the church claims to be a restoration of that early church, then their answer should have been and should be the same.

Why are you continuing to defend the indefensible. It makes no sense.


You even have apologists who have been brave enough to say that they are not sure whether the curse of Cain doctrine, in associating it with the negro, was from God.





What is so difficult about saying they taught for doctrines the doctrines of men. They were imperfect. They got it wrong. They taught for doctrines the doctrines of men. I can say that Why me, because I am free to say that without fear of reprimand.

Your loyalty on this matter is misguided in my opinion.

[_Mary]

And as an aside, if we all came out of warm countries, specifically Africa, as genetic evidence appears to show in modern populations, then we all have negro blood in us. ALL of us, and if you follow that idea logically then there should not be one single person on this earth who should have ever held the priesthood, not in the Old Testament, not in the New Testament. Not Brigham Young, Not any prophet of the modern LDS church. No-one, not ever.

The whole idea is a farce. Modern day leaders of the church are being held to ransom by the misguided ideas of a 19th century literalist, fundamentalist and white supremacist approach to scripture.

Time to move on.

[_Drifting]

And as an aside, if we all came out of warm countries, specifically Africa, as genetic evidence appears to show in modern populations, then we all have negro blood in us. ALL of us, and if you follow that idea logically then there should not be one single person on this earth who should have ever held the priesthood, not in the Old Testament, not in the New Testament. Not Brigham Young, Not any prophet of the modern LDS church. No-one, not ever.

This would have presented a unique challenge in 1978.

All worthy males would have been eligible for the Priesthood without anyone being eligible to ordain them with it!

[_why me]

And since the church claims to be a restoration of that early church, then their answer should have been and should be the same.

Why are you continuing to defend the indefensible. It makes no sense.


You even have apologists who have been brave enough to say that they are not sure whether the curse of Cain doctrine, in associating it with the negro, was from God.

Mary.

The church of 1825 cannot be the same as the church in 50AD. The historical situations are different. We have very little knowledge of the early church. What we do have are the books in the new testament. But how they worshipped is very little known. We can assume but nothing more.

I gave you an article to read and it is a good article about the priesthood ban. Did you read it? Did you read about the patriarchal blessings and the meeting of the quorum at the time of the lifting of the ban?

Did you listen to the john dehlin podcast about the ban? It is a good podcast. What we know is that after fervent prayer in the temple, the answer was given to lift the ban. And all present said that the revelation came from god. And we know that the church allowed all people to join the LDS church and many of these people were people of color. And these people of color who were male got the priesthood. And all worshipped together.

[_why me]

Time to move on.

You need to follow your own advice.