Romney on blacks and Priesthood--balancing act

Post by **_mms** » Sun Dec 16, 2007 4:36 pm

On Meet the Press this morning, moderator Tim Russert asked Mitt Romney if “it was wrong for your faith to exclude them [blacks] for as long as it did.”

“I told you exactly where I stand,” Romney said. “My view is that there’s no discrimination in the eyes of God. And I could not have been more pleased than to see the change that occurred.”

So was it wrong? It seems to me he was trying to get the audience to believe that he believes it was wrong, while at the same time not upsetting Church members who may be offended by a direct statement that it was wrong. Politics politics.

Post by **_Gazelam** » Sun Dec 16, 2007 5:52 pm

The interview is only available in pieces at the moment. I guess at 1:00 today they are going to put up the full interview in its entirety.

No, the blacks and the priesthood was not a mistake. They got the burden of the priesthood when it was time for them to receive it. Just like the gentiles did not receive it until it was their time.

Post by **_karl61** » Sun Dec 16, 2007 6:13 pm

1) Everyone or group seeks power in some type of evil way - and there are consequences. Discrimination is about power.
2)Mormons say that they believe man will be punished for his own sins and not adams (or the man's ancestors) transgression but this past practice turned that article of faith upside down. 3) the whole basis for denying blacks the priesthood was Joseph's imagination when he said he could read egyptian - which he couldn't; so the whole thing is based on fraud.

Post by **_truth dancer** » Sun Dec 16, 2007 8:29 pm

“I told you exactly where I stand,” Romney said. “My view is that there’s no discrimination in the eyes of God. And I could not have been more pleased than to see the change that occurred.”

This is a politicians (and actually some religious leaders') way of getting folks to assume he thinks it is wrong while believing it was of God.

Think about it... if anyone else (except Gaz, Paul, and Charity, and a few others, ;-)) from the board were asked this question they would say...

ABSOLUTELY IT WAS WRONG. Descrimination is wrong. It was a mistake. It was NOT of God. God was NOT part of the discrimination of any church.

Seriously... But instead, Romney says he was pleaced it was changed, and there is no (currently) discrimination in the eyes of God... neither statment has anything to do with the question.

Oh well...

It is just a couplet, we don't know much about that, we don't teach that, it is in the past, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.....

~dancer~

Post by **_beastie** » Sun Dec 16, 2007 8:50 pm

It was a weasel answer. Did Russert let him get away with it?

Post by **_Infymus** » Sun Dec 16, 2007 8:57 pm

Gazelam wrote:The interview is only available in pieces at the moment. I guess at 1:00 today they are going to put up the full interview in its entirety.

No, the blacks and the priesthood was not a mistake. They got the burden of the priesthood when it was time for them to receive it. Just like the gentiles did not receive it until it was their time.

THEY got...

THEIR time...

Just as I expected from you Gaz.

Jeeze, the next thing you know, the Negros are going to want to be driving Cadillacs and going to WHITE theaters.

Gone are the days where they would be our servants in heaven. Now they are going to be Gods themselves.

So when they get to heaven Gaz, does God change the color of the skin back from black to White?

You're such a fanatical Mormon.

Post by **_Gazelam** » Tue Dec 18, 2007 5:59 am

Well, I doubt my skin will remain blotchy pink. Luckily my kids didn't get my British skin, my daughter got my wifes nice olive complexion.

The short answer is that the burden of the priesthood was doled out according to the faithfulness of Noahs sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth, It escapes me at the moment which one the Jews came through, but they got it first, then the other (Acts chp 10) who were the Gentiles, and finally the decendents of Ham (The Negro).

Call it racist if you want, but you can't deny that Christ refused to teach the Gentiles. They werent ready to receive the gospel, the Jews barely were.

Blacks wre not accepted as equals in society until a few short years before they were allowed to bear the priesthood. When exactly do you believe would have been a more appropriate time?

Post by **_Sethbag** » Tue Dec 18, 2007 7:20 am

Personally, I don't think the blacks getting the priesthood was all that great, because the priesthood is a fraud. I'd prefer they got a dose of reality and avoided the fraud altogether. Denying the blacks the priesthood wasn't anything truly lamentable inasmuch as the priesthood is a fraud anyway, but it's denial to them was certainly racist and serves as evidence that this church wasn't really lead by the kind of God they teach about.

The example of Christ not teaching the gentiles doesn't impress, because Jesus wasn't really what you believe he is, ie: the literal son of a deity and savior of the world.

Shem, Ham, and Japheth are almost certainly fictional characters in a Bronze Age Goatherder evolution of a previously-known regional mythological tale. The bit about the Negro race being preserved through the Flood by Ham is cartoonish, and is utterly and totally false. The black race in Africa goes back many tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of years, and if I recall, the blacks are in fact the ancestors of us all. There was no global flood, Gaz, and the entire population of human beings did not die outside of Noah's family, etc.

This is called fiction. That means it's not really true. It means people made it up. It's invented. It is factually challenged.

Post by **_Rollo Tomasi** » Tue Dec 18, 2007 2:28 pm

Gazelam wrote:No, the blacks and the priesthood was not a mistake.

You're right, it was not a mistake ... it was intentional racism.

They got the burden of the priesthood when it was time for them to receive it.

Sadly, Gaz illustrates that the same racism continues today.

Post by **_ozemc** » Tue Dec 18, 2007 6:10 pm

Gazelam wrote:Well, I doubt my skin will remain blotchy pink. Luckily my kids didn't get my British skin, my daughter got my wifes nice olive complexion.

The short answer is that the burden of the priesthood was doled out according to the faithfulness of Noahs sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth, It escapes me at the moment which one the Jews came through, but they got it first, then the other (Acts chp 10) who were the Gentiles, and finally the decendents of Ham (The Negro).

Call it racist if you want, but you can't deny that Christ refused to teach the Gentiles. They werent ready to receive the gospel, the Jews barely were.

Blacks wre not accepted as equals in society until a few short years before they were allowed to bear the priesthood. When exactly do you believe would have been a more appropriate time?

Oh please, Gaz. Read a textbook.

We all came from Africa to begin with, so we're all black in a way.