I am embarrassed for the church

[_Drifting]

I think, as well as explaining that the Church doesn't believe the Priesthood ban is now wrong, they need to explain why it was also right previously. They can't, they won't, they will continue to look incompetent on the matter casting doubt on the integrity of all other policies, practices and doctrines.

A clear statement of why it was a correct policy in the past is required.
The 'we don't know' routine is hollow when it comes from an organisation with directly daily access God.

[_Shulem]

Look at bcspace!

What lies have I told?

"Not racist" -- You know better. It's all about race. And if we took a poll by nonMomorms of all walks of life asking if they think Mormons were racist I think you'd find they surely were. But would you deny that too? If 99.99 percent of the world says the Mormons were racist, then that would pretty much settle it. But then you have the Mormons squirming like little worms in self denial. It's very unhealthy, bcspace. You're living a lie.

Paul O

[_Shulem]

for reasons which we believe are known to God, but which He has not made fully known to man."

The Mormon god is a racist SOB. His followers are also racist. And just look at the attitudes and teachings of Brigham Young! So disgusting. The Mormon god is an insult to humanity.

Paul O

[_The Dude]

Once upon a time a respected academic and professor of the liberal arts realized that he had been wasting his life by playing World of Warcraft for most of his adult and teen life. So, he swore it off. And then, instead of immersing himself in the literature of his profession and the beautiful things of life, he registered anonymously on a World of Warcraft board to hurl insults at the way the game uses shotguns when it should haven been offering machine guns. Finally, his university demanded to know what he was spending his time on instead of publishing, and he was exposed for the silly fool that he was. A bitter, frivolous man.

Yeah, except that you post almost as much as I do, which isn't very often.

So in this fantasy of yours, how does the academic get exposed? I assume that is where you come in?

[_Yoda]

Dear Troll Bot,

Naturally if the church actually had a prophet, or a decent explanation for their racism, you would be using that as evidence to prove me wrong instead of exercising your outdated crusade against anonymity.

Cheers!
The Dude

Once upon a time a respected academic and professor of the liberal arts realized that he had been wasting his life by playing World of Warcraft for most of his adult and teen life. So, he swore it off. And then, instead of immersing himself in the literature of his profession and the beautiful things of life, he registered anonymously on a World of Warcraft board to hurl insults at the way the game uses shotguns when it should haven been offering machine guns. Finally, his university demanded to know what he was spending his time on instead of publishing, and he was exposed for the silly fool that he was. A bitter, frivolous man.

Once upon a time an attorney and former bishop of the LDS Church realized he was regarded by his law partners as merely a mediocre performer in the practice. His pride and need to feel important was all-consuming. While surfing the Internet in a moment of self-loathing despair, he happened upon a friendly little community website which openly discussed various aspects of his faith. Rather than immersing himself in the study of law, which would have truly enabled him to gain the respect of his law partners and associates, he chose to enter this happy little community, and cruelly, systematically belittle the participants. Although this belittling did give him the immediate rush of self importance he sought, it was, of course, short-lived. He, too, joined the ranks of the liberal arts professor as a bitter, frivolous man.

[_Buffalo]

Skin color or ethnicity is never given as a reason for the Ban. Therefore, the Ban cannot possibly have been racist.

http://www.LDS.org/scriptures/dc-testam ... 2?lang=eng

Accordingly, all worthy male members of the Church may be ordained to the priesthood without regard for race or color.

It's official doctrine that the ban was based on race.

[_harmony]

Indeed. Disobedience is the key here and ostensibly, that was before the black skin. No racism.

Absolutely could not be possible.

AoF 2: We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgression.

So how could any man be punished for Cain's sin?

[_consiglieri]

The doctrine, even prior to 1978 was still that we don't know why. For example, the 1969 FP statement:

From the beginning of this dispensation, Joseph Smith and all succeeding presidents of the Church have taught that Negroes, while spirit children of a common Father, and the progeny of our earthly parents Adam and Eve, were not yet to receive the priesthood, for reasons which we believe are known to God, but which He has not made fully known to man."

The 1949 statement didn't answer the question either.

I am glad you at least recognize this First Presidency statement as doctrine, BC.


But Joseph Smith never taught that Negroes were not yet to receive the priesthood.

Now, what do you do with the fact that a doctrinal statement has a bald faced lie in it?

Can doctrine contain a lie?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[_consiglieri]

AoF 2: We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam's transgression.

Exactly what I was going to quote in response to BC's insipid post.

Maybe it is inevitable that a TBM will ultimately reduce every issue to obedience.

It is the first law of heaven, after all . . .

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[_consiglieri]

Once upon a time an attorney and former bishop of the LDS Church realized he was regarded by his law partners as merely a mediocre performer in the practice. His pride and need to feel important was all-consuming. While surfing the Internet in a moment of self-loathing despair, he happened upon a friendly little community website which openly discussed various aspects of his faith. Rather than immersing himself in the study of law, which would have truly enabled him to gain the respect of his law partners and associates, he chose to enter this happy little community, and cruelly, systematically belittle the participants. Although this belittling did give him the immediate rush of self importance he sought, it was, of course, short-lived. He, too, joined the ranks of the liberal arts professor as a bitter, frivolous man.

Are we talking about real people here?

I am starting to get a little uncomfortable.



But keep it coming!