A formal apology...

[_Mary]

Time to move on.

You need to follow your own advice.

Why me. I read the article. So you think that the 4 steps of repentance that I taught as a missionary do not apply to the church... I've said sorry (see the petition). I've moved on. The church has not yet fully. Randy Bott's comments are proof of that.

You are also saying that indeed Jesus excluded negroes from his admonition to teach ALL nations, and Peter's vision of the white sheet also excluded them. Grief.... You are trying to justify something that even most members wouldn't want to justify..

[_Mary]

Rather than explicitly denouncing such racialist theology, the LDS Church has insisted that Kimball’s 1978 revelation, known as Official Declaration 2, stands on its own, hoping that time—and the church’s humanitarian and missionary efforts in Africa and around the world—would help to bury its racist past. Bott’s comments only highlight how this strategy has failed. The 1978 revelation itself does not address why the ban was instituted in the first place, and the lack of answers from today’s Mormon leaders creates a theological vacuum. To fill this vacuum, Mormons turn to the reams of answers provided by past prophets, who led a church in which blacks were not welcome.

My bold.

http://www.slate.com/articles/life/fait ... ings_.html

[_Mary]

Just to give an update on the petition....

http://www.petitionbuzz.com/petitions/apology

It's now up to 70 signatures.

In a way, it is a pity that the statement was written by a post-mormon as I am sure that an active Mormon would have been able to word it differently and perhaps the tone would have been more agreeable to active LDS ears..



It's got a lot of people talking on Facebook, and dialogue surely cannot be a bad thing.

Also, Channel 4 over here in the UK 'may' be picking it up in a documentary on the LDS church to air in the next week or so.

Shaun McCraney (I don't know who he is) may also be discussing it in his show.

[_consiglieri]

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

Hello! McFly! It was a white sheet.

How obvious does it have to be?


All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[_Mary]

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

Hello! McFly! It was a white sheet.

How obvious does it have to be?


All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Oh stop it..But Thankyou for adding some much needed humour!

[_why me]

Why me. I read the article. So you think that the 4 steps of repentance that I taught as a missionary do not apply to the church... I've said sorry (see the petition). I've moved on. The church has not yet fully. Randy Bott's comments are proof of that.

You are also saying that indeed Jesus excluded negroes from his admonition to teach ALL nations, and Peter's vision of the white sheet also excluded them. Grief.... You are trying to justify something that even most members wouldn't want to justify..

I am saying that an apology isn't necessary. I see no reason for the LDS church to apologize. Lets take it further: all churches who deny women the priesthood should apologize to all women. All churches who do not sanction same sex marriage should apologize to the gay/lesbian community. Where does it end?

I never said that Jesus excluded africans. I am saying that he wasn't preaching among them, attempting to convert them. But then again, he also wasn't in europe or in asia. He located himself with a certain group that became the chosen people. Was that racist? Maybe Jesus owes the English an apology for excluding them during his lifetime.

[_consiglieri]

Oh stop it..But Thankyou for adding some much needed humour!

Hey. It's what I do.

Best of luck in making so much as a dent in Why Me.


All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[_why me]

Hey. It's what I do.

Best of luck in making so much as a dent in Why Me.


All the Best!

--Consiglieri

I have known Mary for years now. I am just a little surprised with her passion about the ban. It is now decades since the ban was lifted and now suddenly every exmo in exmotown has a itch in their pants about it.

I sense an agenda.

[_Mary]

I have known Mary for years now. I am just a little surprised with her passion about the ban. It is now decades since the ban was lifted and now suddenly every exmo in exmotown has a itch in their pants about it.

I sense an agenda.

This isn't about the ban being lifted. I'm glad the church did it, and can honestly say that in the multi-cultural society that I grew up in, most members were absolutely thrilled and relieved in 1978 to say the least.

Why me, my own personal approach to religion is that it is mans search for truth. In that search do men/women put their own interpretations on God and his/her will. I'm absolutely certain, if of nothing else, that they do. That includes the LDS church.

I would not be giving them their due credit, by the way, if I were to say that the early LDS leaders were not searching for God's truth. Joseph Smith absolutely included. But that aside, let me ask you a couple of questions, and I would really appreciate an honest answer.

1) Do you accept the DNA evidence that suggests that the human family as we know it today came out of a small group of (black) humans that left Africa about 70,000 years ago.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/scie ... world.html

2) If yes, do you accept that all modern populations outside of Africa have 'black' or 'negro' blood in them?

3) If no, what is the alternative?

3) Do you accept that any theology that states a person cannot hold the priesthood if they have 'one drop' of black or negro blood in them, is theologically absurd? If not, why not.

4) Do you accept that Brigham Young and Joseph Smith had negro blood in them? If not, why not.

5) Do you believe in saying sorry if you got something theologically wrong? If not, why not.

[_Jersey Girl]

Another suggestion, Miss...

could it read brothers and sisters of color?

Applaud the gesture!

I really hope your joking.

You hope I'm joking about what part of that post?