Passing the test

[_asbestosman]

Is it possible that BY overstepped his bounds and did create a policy which was abhorrent to God, even though God allowed it?

I don't know. I suppose it is possible although I would not think it would happen quite like that. I have wondered if it had more to do with the level of preparation the individual members at the time. Perhaps Mormons were still racist in their hearts and not ready. They would be held accountable for denying the blessings of the priesthood to others for so long if such were the case.

So your argument here is that some dark skinned people were allowed to have the priesthood, therefore it can't really be called racism?

No, my argument is that the mention of skin color in the Book of Moses is incidental, not a contributing factor to treatment unlike your following examples of anti-Semitism and racism.

For the priesthood ban I I don't fully understand all the issues there. I know, for example, that in the Old Testament only Levites held the priesthood, not the other tribes of Israel. Yet I don't consider that to be problematic even if in some respects it is like the other racist policies. I'm not defending the ancient policy of Israelites, but I am unaware of anyone who has complained about it or felt victimized by it. In this respect it differs from the relatively recent priesthood ban.

[_asbestosman]

but the skin color is given as an indication of the morality level of the group.

I disagree.

This, of course, is racism.

You're right, it would be.

Again, another possible interpretation I give is that black refers to the color of their deeds, not their skin at all. I didn't see the word "skin" in the Moses scripture.

[_JohnStuartMill]

Didn't you just agree that the "darkness" spoken of in Moses was a physical description? If not, then what was the point of your "police report" analogy?

Also, what was the pre-1978 priesthood ban if not an institutional interpretation by the Church of the Book of Moses? Are we only supposed to trust the Church's interpretation of its Scriptures when it's convenient to do so?

Why aren't you applying all of this pretzel-twisting apologia to the Church's current stance on homosexuality? The apologists will be doing that in twenty years anyway; might as well get a jump-start on it.

[_Scottie]

No, my argument is that the mention of skin color in the Book of Moses is incidental, not a contributing factor to treatment unlike your following examples of anti-Semitism and racism.

Help me out here. What does the Book of Moses have to do with the ban?

For the priesthood ban I I don't fully understand all the issues there. I know, for example, that in the Old Testament only Levites held the priesthood, not the other tribes of Israel. Yet I don't consider that to be problematic even if in some respects it is like the other racist policies. I'm not defending the ancient policy of Israelites, but I am unaware of anyone who has complained about it or felt victimized by it. In this respect it differs from the relatively recent priesthood ban.

Hmm... interesting point.

However, this goes back to my longstanding problem that there is no crime so vile that it can't be justified because it was done in the Bible.

[_JohnStuartMill]

However, this goes back to my longstanding problem that there is no crime so vile that it can't be justified because it was done in the Bible.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/art ... wD9A3I1O80

NASSAU, Bahamas --

Lawmakers are debating a bill that would make marital rape a crime in the Bahamas, overturning the current system in which consent to sexual intercourse is presumed in a legal marriage. [...]

The bill already has caused debate on radio talk shows, with some islanders saying women could file false rape charges as leverage for alimony, child support or custody. Others have said the bill contradicts traditional Christian values.

http://www.jonesbahamas.com/news/45/ART ... 08-06.html

[_asbestosman]

Didn't you just agree that the "darkness" spoken of in Moses was a physical description? If not, then what was the point of your "police report" analogy?

What I did was argue that darkness may have been a physical description and if so then it is not necessarily racist. However, if blackness really is given a reason for denying gospel blessings (as you claim), then I think the best interpretation is that it refers to actions, not skin (the word skin does not appear here).

Also, what was the pre-1978 priesthood ban if not an institutional interpretation by the Church of the Book of Moses?

I offored some speculation about the pre 1978 priesthood ban in my previous reply to Scottie. I don't think it was because of the Book of Moses. I think the ban influenced the oldinterpretation more than the interpretation influenced the ban.

Why aren't you applying all of this pretzel-twisting apologia to the Church's current stance on homosexuality? The apologists will be doing that in twenty years anyway; might as well get a jump-start on it.

I think you assume too much about homosexuality. You may as well think that the church will come to embrace living together outside of marriage since it's becoming more acceptable in the world. Maybe they'll embrace alcohol and taking God's name in vain too. Maybe they'll even accept elective abortions too.

Forgive me if I'm skeptical about your prophetic authority and / or abilities.

[_JohnStuartMill]

Didn't you just agree that the "darkness" spoken of in Moses was a physical description? If not, then what was the point of your "police report" analogy?

What I did was argue that darkness may have been a physical description and if so then it is not necessarily racist. However, if blackness really is given a reason for denying gospel blessings (as you claim), then I think the best interpretation is that it refers to actions, not skin (the word skin does not appear here).

Even though the mouthpieces of the Lord taught differently for upwards of a century, right? I don't think you're convincing yourself any more than you're convincing me.

Also, what was the pre-1978 priesthood ban if not an institutional interpretation by the Church of the Book of Moses?

I offored some speculation about the pre 1978 priesthood ban in my previous reply to Scottie. I don't think it was because of the Book of Moses. I think the ban influenced the oldinterpretation more than the interpretation influenced the ban.

The order of causation doesn't really matter. My point is that the Church apparently can't even be trusted to interpret its own Scripture.

Why aren't you applying all of this pretzel-twisting apologia to the Church's current stance on homosexuality? The apologists will be doing that in twenty years anyway; might as well get a jump-start on it.

I think you assume too much about homosexuality. You may as well think that the church will come to embrace living together outside of marriage since it's becoming more acceptable in the world. Maybe they'll embrace alcohol and taking God's name in vain too. Maybe they'll even accept elective abortions too.

Forgive me if I'm skeptical about your prophetic authority and / or abilities.

In the next thirty years, the Mormon Church will either drastically alter its stance toward homosexuality, or it will have less than half the membership it does today. Mark my words.