Brethren knew reasons for priesthood ban in 1940s ....

[_karl61]

if man will be punished for his own sins and not adams trangression, then why are those of african descent punished for something they didn't do unless you justify it with some act or ommission they did for which they have no memory of which means they would need to be informed of the truth.

[_karl61]

Nobody likes a double standard. a majority of people can detect this immediately. It takes courage to speak up when when the double standard doesn't affect you, although double standards affect all in less than a positive way.

[_Shulem]

Then you have the Mormon ‘Patriarchal Blessings’ that focus on RACE and how some are so much more blessed than others, the WHITE RACE, of course being the ‘chosen’ one, where people were the MOST valiant, the MOST loyal, the MOST pure! In answering how some of different families could be from different TRIBES,

Yes. This is more proof just how racist the Mormon church is. One must be born or adopted into a particular house of Israel if they want to be saved in Mormonism. How utterly racist!

What's wrong with a black man being born black? Why can't he be from his house of African descent and be honored in that? But we see that Mormonism has put a curse upon the black race because they are a racist religion.

This is not going to go away for the church. The church is now hanging by a rope and Google-god is going to lynch The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Liars! Pretty soon the whole world will look at Mormonism as the real cult it is. It will lose any and all respect it had in the world.

The honor be to Google-god, forever. Amen.

Paul O

[_palerobber]

I am a libertarian and had an indifferent attitude towards Prop 8. I was asked to write a big fat check and I did, even though it was against my political principles.

i wouldn't call $5100 a fat check coming from someone at your income level. were you asked to give that specific amount?

[_Sethbag]

otherwise, so-called "experts" like Bott (and his BYU resume did state his expertise was "doctrine of the Church") will continue to say this kind of garbage.

If they do say that stuff, their claim expertise is flatly undermined.

Hold on, you are blaming Randy Bott because he's spent far more time reading the words of the Prophets, Seers, and Revelators, and hasn't kept up with the anonymous writings of web flunkies hired by the church to create its website, or the vague and PR-speak-bound non-announcements of President Newsroom?

[_Sethbag]

Get rid of them in what sense? The church's position over the last 30+ years has doctrinally gotten rid of them. They're no longer taught or supported. You're not talking about consistency, you're talking about atoning for transgressions. You want to see the church on its knees. You know as well as everyone else here that that's all you care about. Don't lie to me and pretend it has to do with being consistent.

I know you were talking to Rollo, but I'll speak to this too. I admit it, the church isn't true, and I know this now, and I don't think there's any way it can "become true" by any admitting to of error, apologies, by clarifying anything, by any change of doctrines, etc.

This isn't, to me, about the church being true or not. At this point it's simply about the church being a socially acceptable part of the current human experience. To those already in the church, it's sort of by definition already acceptable, except to some few who expect things to be different than they really are, or really were, and are disturbed when they discover this.

But to those outside the church, to whom the church is selling itself, the past racism of the church leaders stands as a serious obstacle. At least to many people. To racists, I suppose, the past doctrine would be just fine, but does the church really want to market itself to white supremacists? I don't think so. So they have to "deal with" this issue in a way that leaves them in a more socially acceptable position vis a vis their target audience. How do they deal with this? Rollo has his theories. I have mine.

My own theory is that the church is pretty much screwed on this issue, as it is with a lot of other things, like Joseph's rampant adultery, the made-up Book of Abraham, the non-existent Nephites and Lamanites, etc. There's literally nothing they can do to "deal with" these issues, except distraction, and hoping (and working toward) people not knowing about them.

And so it is with the priesthood. Time once was when the church leaders would look their congregations in the eye and say BS that we today think is horribly racist, like that black people are black because they were less valiant in the pre-existence. LDS from decades ago could see a tiny little black newborn infant in the hospital, as cute as could be, and know smugly that that little angel baby was in fact someone who'd been a fence sitter (or whatever) in the War in Heaven, unlike we mighty and valiant Saturday's Warrior types, ie: the White and Delightsome folks of the world. That's just horrible stuff. And the church knows it.

The church also relies on a chain of claimed authority and revelation going back to the founders, and perpetuated in turn by each succeeding generation. The fundamental problem is that it's just not credible to many people nowadays that the same loving God taught by Mormonism would use racist ass-clowns like Brigham Young in this way as his Viceroys on Earth. So the church either admits the racism and taints their claims of Prophets, Seers, and Revelators, or they throw these guys under the bus and taint their claims of Prophets, Seers, and Revelators.

The primary difference, as I see it, is that they either stand up and take it like a man, or they try to BS their way out of it and take it anyway, but as damned BS artists who got caught with their hand in the cookie jar instead.

So, is the church going to "stand for something" or not? Or are they going to stand for the principles of weasel words, slick PR whitewash jobs, and used car salesmanship?

[_sock puppet]

Get rid of them in what sense? The church's position over the last 30+ years has doctrinally gotten rid of them. They're no longer taught or supported. You're not talking about consistency, you're talking about atoning for transgressions. You want to see the church on its knees. You know as well as everyone else here that that's all you care about. Don't lie to me and pretend it has to do with being consistent.

I know you were talking to Rollo, but I'll speak to this too. I admit it, the church isn't true, and I know this now, and I don't think there's any way it can "become true" by any admitting to of error, apologies, by clarifying anything, by any change of doctrines, etc.

This isn't, to me, about the church being true or not. At this point it's simply about the church being a socially acceptable part of the current human experience. To those already in the church, it's sort of by definition already acceptable, except to some few who expect things to be different than they really are, or really were, and are disturbed when they discover this.

But to those outside the church, to whom the church is selling itself, the past racism of the church leaders stands as a serious obstacle. At least to many people. To racists, I suppose, the past doctrine would be just fine, but does the church really want to market itself to white supremacists? I don't think so. So they have to "deal with" this issue in a way that leaves them in a more socially acceptable position vis a vis their target audience. How do they deal with this? Rollo has his theories. I have mine.

My own theory is that the church is pretty much screwed on this issue, as it is with a lot of other things, like Joseph's rampant adultery, the made-up Book of Abraham, the non-existent Nephites and Lamanites, etc. There's literally nothing they can do to "deal with" these issues, except distraction, and hoping (and working toward) people not knowing about them.

And so it is with the priesthood. Time once was when the church leaders would look their congregations in the eye and say BS that we today think is horribly racist, like that black people are black because they were less valiant in the pre-existence. LDS from decades ago could see a tiny little black newborn infant in the hospital, as cute as could be, and know smugly that that little angel baby was in fact someone who'd been a fence sitter (or whatever) in the War in Heaven, unlike we mighty and valiant Saturday's Warrior types, ie: the White and Delightsome folks of the world. That's just horrible stuff. And the church knows it.

The church also relies on a chain of claimed authority and revelation going back to the founders, and perpetuated in turn by each succeeding generation. The fundamental problem is that it's just not credible to many people nowadays that the same loving God taught by Mormonism would use racist ass-clowns like Brigham Young in this way as his Viceroys on Earth. So the church either admits the racism and taints their claims of Prophets, Seers, and Revelators, or they throw these guys under the bus and taint their claims of Prophets, Seers, and Revelators.

The primary difference, as I see it, is that they either stand up and take it like a man, or they try to BS their way out of it and take it anyway, but as damned BS artists who got caught with their hand in the cookie jar instead.

So, is the church going to "stand for something" or not? Or are they going to stand for the principles of weasel words, slick PR whitewash jobs, and used car salesmanship?

I think that the LDS Church should just drop the divine pretenses, merge with Franklin Covey and sell day planners. I don't think it would be that drastic of a merger or change of operations.

[_Chap]

... You're not talking about consistency, you're talking about atoning for transgressions. You want to see the church on its knees. ...

"...atoning for transgressions"? Hmm, that sounds like a very, oh, I dunno, Christian thing to do. So why wouldn't a body of Christians want to do that? Goodness knows, the transgressions in relation to black people have been pretty bad, haven't they?

"... the church on its knees": well, I would have thought that 'on its knees' would be a very suitable position for an organization of redeemed sinners to adopt for at least a major part of the time.

[_sock puppet]

... You're not talking about consistency, you're talking about atoning for transgressions. You want to see the church on its knees. ...

"...atoning for transgressions"? Hmm, that sounds like a very, oh, I dunno, Christian thing to do. So why wouldn't a body of Christians want to do that? Goodness knows, the transgressions in relation to black people have been pretty bad, haven't they?

"... the church on its knees": well, I would have thought that 'on its knees' would be a very suitable position for an organization of redeemed sinners to adopt for at least a major part of the time.

I'd rather the church were on its knees than so many teenage girls on theirs in front of LDS bishops.

[Guest]

-