Which Critic Will Be the Next to Go?

[_moksha]

That's just it, Gramps---there isn't anything to read. The ban has never been formally lifted. (Interracial couples have been sealed in the temples, of course, but it's unclear how this is doctrinally possible.)

Could this be a tacit admission that this ban never was doctrine, but was instead just a racist rant?

[_Mister Scratch]

That's just it, Gramps---there isn't anything to read. The ban has never been formally lifted. (Interracial couples have been sealed in the temples, of course, but it's unclear how this is doctrinally possible.)

Could this be a tacit admission that this ban never was doctrine, but was instead just a racist rant?

I guess so... The main problem is that (contrary to what most TBMs seem to think) the word "doctrine" literally means "a teaching." This is what BY taught. There's just no getting around that, I'm afraid. The "death on the spot" teaching was therefore doctrine, especially since it issued forth from the mouth of the President of the Church.

[_Alter Idem]

Bach and I are going at it with Pahoran as I write this. (A thread started by why me nearly at the top of first page. Something about Hinckley's 80's speech.) With Pahoran involved, there is always a chance of red moderator's warnings and bannings.

One of you needs to point out the fact that the ban on interracial marriage has never been publicly or "officially" lifted.

Well, I'd be happy to do that, if I were up to date on that stuff. However, it's not my area of concern right now. Why don't you point me to some things I should read? Thanks in advance.

That's just it, Gramps---there isn't anything to read. The ban has never been formally lifted. (Interracial couples have been sealed in the temples, of course, but it's unclear how this is doctrinally possible.)

"Ban"? As far as I know, there was no ban..just some church leaders who spoke out against it and in recent times, counseled against interracial marriages, which many others disagreed with and therefore chose to ignore. In California where I was raised, it was never an issue. It was here in Utah, among some of the old guard-especially towards asians, tongans and mexicans (since there were few blacks for it to come up much), but that's not surprising since many people, LDS and Non-LDS were prejudiced. You'll no doubt find some who still hold prejudiced views today, but they are not sanctioned or encouraged by church leaders.

[_cksalmon]

That's just it, Gramps---there isn't anything to read. The ban has never been formally lifted. (Interracial couples have been sealed in the temples, of course, but it's unclear how this is doctrinally possible.)

Could this be a tacit admission that this ban never was doctrine, but was instead just a racist rant?

I guess so... The main problem is that (contrary to what most TBMs seem to think) the word "doctrine" literally means "a teaching." This is what BY taught. There's just no getting around that, I'm afraid. The "death on the spot" teaching was therefore doctrine, especially since it issued forth from the mouth of the President of the Church.

Pahoran has now advocated a truly ingenious (not to say ingenuous) reading whereby BY was actually referring to the sexual abuse of black slaves by white masters. Apparently, the white (male) masters were due death on the spot for their abusive behavior toward their (female) black slaves.

I have suggested that this reading, while clever, doesn't explain BY's significant emphasis on radically unequal bloodlines in this particular ban.

If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot…

He hasn't responded yet.

But, I'm sure he will. And I'm fairly confident I will be painted as a race-baiting ignoramus.

CKS

[_beastie]

He hasn't responded yet.

But, I'm sure he will. And I'm fairly confident I will be painted as a race-baiting ignoramus.

Oh, say it ain't so!!! Our dear PAHORAN would actually paint you as a race-baiting ignoramus????

Shocking, I tell you, shocking!!

It's funny how they've worked that, isn't it? Anyone who brings up the LDS church's racist past is automatically a racist. Nifty trick.

[_cksalmon]

He hasn't responded yet.

But, I'm sure he will. And I'm fairly confident I will be painted as a race-baiting ignoramus.

Oh, say it ain't so!!! Our dear PAHORAN would actually paint you as a race-baiting ignoramus????

Shocking, I tell you, shocking!!

It's funny how they've worked that, isn't it? Anyone who brings up the LDS church's racist past is automatically a racist. Nifty trick.

Pahoran:

So what exactly is a "skin of blackness?" Casual and not very rigorous reading might lead one to suppose that "skin of blackness" simply equals "black skin," but that doesn't really work very well, does it? The only reasons anyone might have to cling to that construction is (1) they lack the imagination to consider an alternative possibility, or (2) it is useful for race-baiting purposes.

Pahoran to me:

No fence-sitters?

That's right, Celestial Kingdom. None.

Not even any.

There will be threads in the future--perhaps even today--that will give you an opportunity to trot out the standard race-baiting prooftexts. This, however, is not one of those threads.

I think the word you are looking for is "oops."

Regards,
Pahoran

Pahoran to Yong Xi:

So, you are prepared to take a thread that attempts to discredit The Book of Mormon and divert it into just general-purpose race-baiting.

Pahoran to Yong Xi:

Another race-baiting thread. Oh how surprising. I think I'm coming over all faint with surprise. And the arguments are so new and original too.

Pahoran to Moksha:

(Wiping my eyes.) I see you are branching out. Not content with race-baiting and smart-aleck one-line quips, you're now offering lessons in behaviour! That's funny!

Pahoran to Nauvoo Christian:

Demagoguery is the rather disgusting practice of attempting to create hatred by appealing to the lowest and basest manifestations of public opinion. In times past, the cheapest and most unscrupulous demagogues used anti-Semitic propaganda; today, those same creatures indulge in
race-baiting.

Pahoran to The Observer:

You don't want me to "argue" about anything. That is, you don't mind if AKS asserts nothing but spiteful drivel about how the entire conversation reflects badly upon "the 'church'," but you do mind if I contradict him. You don't mind if race-baiting scoundrels post the usual propaganda, just so long as neither I nor, presumably, anyone else, defends the Church against their attacks. You clearly don't want the basis for your doubts to be questioned, but you do want your doubts out there.

I'm just saying that it wouldn't be unexpected...

I got bored about halfway through searching the string "race-baiting."

CKS

[_beastie]

Do you think they all get emails with little talking points?


by the way, is moksha posting again on MAD?? They let him back in???? Oh, the humanity.

[_Bond...James Bond]

by the way, is moksha posting again on MAD?? They let him back in???? Oh, the humanity.

I haven't seen him posting, but he's back to being a member so he has the option I believe.

[_moksha]

by the way, is moksha posting again on MAD?? They let him back in???? Oh, the humanity.

I haven't seen him posting, but he's back to being a member so he has the option I believe.

Do you suppose if I posted there again, it would put me at the head of this poll?

[_Bond...James Bond]

by the way, is moksha posting again on MAD?? They let him back in???? Oh, the humanity.

I haven't seen him posting, but he's back to being a member so he has the option I believe.

Do you suppose if I posted there again, it would put me at the head of this poll?

You would certainly be in the top 5 ;)

What did you get banned for in the first place anyway? Has there ever been a decent theory for Nov 5?