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

[_Buffalo]

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?

A better definition is: "Racism is the belief that inherent different traits in human racial groups justify discrimination."

That exactly describes the priesthood ban.

Regarding Cain, even ignoring for a moment that he is a fictional character, there is no valid basis for connecting Cain to Africans. And even if there was, withholding the priesthood on that basis violates canonized LDS scripture:

We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression.

[_keithb]

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

So, the black people for whom the priesthood was banned all changed lineage in 1978 to NOT include Cain anymore?

Lineage (at least as determined by DNA), doesn't change anymore than the derived property of how much melatonin is produced by the individual in question, which leads to different colors of skin.

[_Jason Bourne]

Doesn't seem to be the case.

Of course not, not in your odd world at least.

Plural marriage is still a doctrine

Not according to Gordon Hinckley and Elder Ballard both of whom stated Polygamy is not doctrinal. Even Elder Oaks who is sealed to two women will back peddle about what the eternities hold. Does not seem very doctrinal. I think their words mean more than yours.

and a practice we don't apologize

You are wrong. The LDS Church is absolutely embarrassed by it, wants nothing to do with it and is quick to point out that those sects who claim LDS roots and do practice it have nothing to do with the SLC branch of Mormonism. I have no doubt the current leaders wish it never existed. But I will grant you that temple policies still have vestiges of it. Yet even that is back peddled from. If it is doctrinal why not say so and why not be more honest about its history in the manuals. But nope, the Church sweeps it under the rug in their official manuals.

for and the Preisthood ban we don't apologize for either.

Too bad. We should. It was an obvious mistake and debacle instituted due to the racism of BY and others. And while we don't apologize we sure back peddle over the obvious doctrinal teachings that were used to justify it be calling those folklore, opinions, unofficial and so on.

At most, the Church is putting on a nice face (which is not a lie),

The Church is being disingenuous about some of this at best. Are you ok with Jesus one true church acting like that?

but no doctrines are being changed or gotten rid of. Heck, even homosexuality is still a deep, dark sin

Keep telling yourself this. I know you need to to stay intact.

[_DrW]

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

So, the black people for whom the priesthood was banned all changed lineage in 1978 to NOT include Cain anymore?

Lineage (at least as determined by DNA), doesn't change anymore than the derived property of how much melatonin is produced by the individual in question, which leads to different colors of skin.

Just a small correction to be made here. The skin pigment melanin, the quantity and dispersion of which mainly determine skin tone, is different from the hormone melatonin, which is produced in the pineal gland.

While the hormone melatonin does help regulate the dispersal (skin darkening effect) or aggregation (skin lightning effect) of the pigment melanin in some fish and amphibians (thus its name), it has no detectable effect on skin tone in humans.

In humans, melatonin helps determine onset of puberty, helps regulate biorhythms (especially the diurnal cycle), and initiates the neurotransmitter release cascade that leads to sleep at night.

Sorry for the sidetrack.

Now back to you regularly scheduled thread.

[_Themis]

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.

Very educated people can still believe things that most would see as false. If Holland believes, and I think he does, it is not a lie, but a falsehood.

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.

Should know, but then it is far more complicated as to why very smart people believe dumb things. Why can't defenders here see that the church is not true, when I think they have looked at much the same material I have? I think bias and a desire to maintain belief over wanting the truth regardless can effect how we view evidence, and the spiritual/emotional is probably the biggest road block in seeing things as they really are.

So, in the final analysis folks like Holland are either liars or idiots.

I don't think he is either. It is more complicated then that.

[_DrW]

So, in the final analysis folks like Holland are either liars or idiots, or both.

I don't think he is either. It is more complicated then that.

Okay, let's go with your definitions and position on this and think about a few examples to see where your view of the situation might lead.

While I would not agree that Holland does not know better, I would agree that someone like David Karesh may have not known better and really believed what he was preaching.

Setting aside for a moment the issue of prescriptive vs. descriptive assertions, and focusing on the descriptive as a foundation for the prescriptive, does the fact that someone like Karesh believes what he is saying make it okay for him to continue preaching his "falsehoods"?.

In general, is it okay for someone to entice or encourage others to act against their own self interest because of that someone's willful ignorance?

Here is an example. I am an instrument rated commercial pilot (currently inactive). If I were to fly into weather conditions that I believed to be safe for my aircraft and my passengers, and ended up damaging the aircraft or harming passengers because of a weather related inability to maintain proper control of the aircraft, I had damn well better be able to show that I had carefully and thoroughly checked the weather along the route before departure and while in the air.

Otherwise, I could lose my license and possibly face legal action as a result of failure to follow procedures and use due caution. And in such a case, I would deserve whatever punishment and sanctions came my way, if in fact, I had not taken every reasonable step to be aware of, and plan for, the forecast weather conditions along the route.

Listening to the local weather on the car radio on the way to the airport does not count. I am absolutely responsible for getting a detailed picture of the weather, including downloaded weather charts, synopses and forecasts. Not only that, I am responsible for understanding the weather both as it is, and as it may be developing, anywhere near the intended route. I also must be aware of the ability of my aircraft to safely handle various weather conditions.

It is my absolute legal, ethical and moral responsibility to know the facts before I undertake to practice in my role as a pilot (regardless of whether my passengers are paying for the flight or are along as guests).

Does one who presumes to lead and guide other people, and can bring harm to them if he fails to properly do so, not also have a responsibility to know the facts relative to his role and assignment? Is it okay for people like Jim Jones and David Karesh to do what they do simply because they really believe?

What about the harm done to Church members because of the ignorance of their leaders? Consig's wife's reaction to bad Church advice was classic, and probably more common than one would think.

Then there are the parents of the thousands of gay young men in the Church who have been damaged by the teachings of the Church, not to mention the gay men themselves, including more than a hundred who are known to have taken their own lives because of the incompetence and ignorance of Church leaders.

I could go on, but I am sure you get the point, so I won't.

[_hatersinmyward]

Preisthood ban was based on old testament doctrine.

Book of Mormon stories are not based on fact. They are fictional or plagiarized having no archaeological support while the Bible, Torah and Koran do.

They cannot be compared to those belief systems or cultures.

[Guest]

Not to mention they share a common ancestry.

The Mormons don't conduct an archaeological dig at Hill Comora because they are full of it.

They shouldn't be a contender as a mainstream faith when it's all bs.

[_moksha]

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."

This seems especially goofy when followed to the ridiculous lengths of denying 63/64 of the racial heritage to punish the 1/64 of African heritage. Of course the entire idea of such a separation, in not sharing the Gospel and Priesthood with all, was wrong to begin with and it seems a furtherance of that wrong to defend it now. Joseph Smith had the right idea in holding all worthy males as being eligible for membership and the Priesthood.

We got off track and President Kimball put us back on track.

[_sock puppet]

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."

This seems especially goofy when followed to the ridiculous lengths of denying 63/64 of the racial heritage to punish the 1/64 of African heritage. Of course the entire idea of such a separation, in not sharing the Gospel and Priesthood with all, was wrong to begin with and it seems a furtherance of that wrong to defend it now. Joseph Smith had the right idea in holding all worthy males as being eligible for membership and the Priesthood.

We got off track and President Kimball put us back on track.

The right idea would be holding all worthy people as being eligible for membership and the Priesthood.

In trying to prove JSJr was not racist, you've proved him sexist.