DiscussMormonism.com

I thought this was fairly interesting:

http://dcpsicetnon.blogspot.com/2012/03 ... l?spref=Facebook

Should the Church apologize for the ban? Its leaders will do what they believe is wise, under the inspiration (as I believe) of heaven. From my vantage point, though, right now, I don't see precisely how they can. I, at least, don't know that the ban wasn't the Lord's will. Maybe it wasn't. Maybe, though, it was. He seems to work through lineages in a way that seems quite foreign to me -- but then, if God always did things the way I think they ought to be done, he would appear to be quite redundant, and maybe only a projection of Me. Which would be, to put it mildly, disappointing.

From among all the nations, he chose Israel. From among Israel, he chose the descendents of Levi to bear the priesthood. He assigned very different blessings to the various tribes of the Hebrews, and he doesn't seem to have been overly fond of the Canaanites. During his earthly ministry, Jesus largely restricted his teaching to fellow Jews.

Forgive me for saying so, Dan, but you're basically suggesting here that the God of the Jewish/Christian/Mormon scriptures is such a racist that modern-day Mormons can't tell whether the priesthood ban was a product of God's racism or their leaders'. To borrow your phrase, such a God "would appear to be quite redundant, and maybe only a projection of [racist scripture writers]." Projection or no, I think it's well worth asking whether such a God deserves to be followed.

Yep, the apologist reaching back for the old standby.

When it comes time to stand up and defend Mormonism with Mormonism and their Book of Mormon, they cower and reach for the Bible billy club.

Defending the only true church, their leaders, and their most correct book with what they deem the lesser correct book, or as far as it was translated correctly.

That made me sick.

he has become dangerous.

i hope it gets archived and trapped and copied somewhere before he takes it down tomorrow.

he proves my point made in another thread - the doctrine and history is bad, the behavior of the followers (and apologists) is what makes this a dangerous institution.

he cannot bring himself to say that a prophet was wrong. he was racist, but he wasn't wrong. and just so you know, daniel, lincoln was really living in some odd times and despite the quote you shared, he busted his ass to do everything he could for people that he may have even perceived to be less than him. compare that to your so-called prophets of god, who did everything they could to abuse and step on the throat of other races and now women and homosexuals.

CaliforniaKid wrote:
Forgive me for saying so, Dan, but you're basically suggesting here that the God of the Jewish/Christian/Mormon scriptures is such a racist that modern-day Mormons can't tell whether the priesthood ban was a product of God's racism or their leaders'. To borrow your phrase, such a God "would appear to be quite redundant, and maybe only a projection of [racist scripture writers]." Projection or no, I think it's well worth asking whether such a God deserves to be followed.

He is basing his opinions on the Bible. What else should he do?

Mayan Elephant wrote: and just so you know, daniel, lincoln was really living in some odd times and despite the quote you shared, he busted his ass to do everything he could for people that he may have even perceived to be less than him. compare that to your so-called prophets of god, who did everything they could to abuse and step on the throat of other races and now women and homosexuals.

go to hell, dan.

Lincoln would not have done much if the south did not break away from the union. The states had certain rights that needed to be respected. Dan was basing his opinion from the Bible. What more can he do? The priesthood ban ended long ago and it wasn't an issue until Romney and the Mormons began to make the spotlight. Now it has become an issue for exmormons with their own hatred for Mormonism. Maybe the issue is now a stress release for exmormons. All the vile can come out now on the internet as a point scorer.

why me wrote:

CaliforniaKid wrote:
Forgive me for saying so, Dan, but you're basically suggesting here that the God of the Jewish/Christian/Mormon scriptures is such a racist that modern-day Mormons can't tell whether the priesthood ban was a product of God's racism or their leaders'. To borrow your phrase, such a God "would appear to be quite redundant, and maybe only a projection of [racist scripture writers]." Projection or no, I think it's well worth asking whether such a God deserves to be followed.

He is basing his opinions on the Bible. What else should he do?

He could use reason.

Morley wrote:
He could use reason.

At times the use of reason and religion do not mix. How can we explain the couple who died for their dishonest tithe? Was it fair? I don't think that god is fair and the Bible shows a rather unfair god. Did god consider the families of the soldiers who were swallowed by the red sea? His people were special and many suffered because of it. What to do? And what about the barbarians in Europe? Christ visited his people both in the old world and in the new. But I don't see him visiting the people in asia, europe or africa.

I used reason and became a Mormon over all other religions that clearly were false.
I used reason and became anti-mormon and anti-religion.
I used reason and became a Mormon again after learning that my "reason" as an anti-mormon was completely ignorant of the issues, such as the Priesthood ban, Polygamy, Woman & Priesthood, etc.

You shouldn't confuse Reason with Truth.....

People make judgments according to what they know, their experience, and their morality.

I now know more than all my previous stages of learning.
The Priesthood Ban WAS NOT something to be "sick" over, as the (Moderator Note)Personal attack removed.claimed of Dan's statements. But, just look at his morality. He claims it's immoral to be against Homosexuality. Yet eon's of time have always said Homosexuality was immoral.

See, that anti-mormons judgments are not the truth, nor are they moral. He thinks they are, but they are the ramblings of an immoral child brainwashed by modern social convention rather than an understanding of moral foundations and what is really right and wrong.

why me wrote:He is basing his opinions on the Bible. What else should he do?

Well, he could start by reasoning out what's right, and then repudiating the bits of the Bible (or any other book) that blatantly contradict that standard.

I don't think that god is fair and the Bible shows a rather unfair god.

In case you missed this portion of the OP: "Such a God 'would appear to be quite redundant, and maybe only a projection of [racist scripture writers].' Projection or no, I think it's well worth asking whether such a God deserves to be followed."

CaliforniaKid wrote:I thought this was fairly interesting:

http://dcpsicetnon.blogspot.com/2012/03 ... l?spref=Facebook

Should the Church apologize for the ban? Its leaders will do what they believe is wise, under the inspiration (as I believe) of heaven. From my vantage point, though, right now, I don't see precisely how they can. I, at least, don't know that the ban wasn't the Lord's will. Maybe it wasn't. Maybe, though, it was. He seems to work through lineages in a way that seems quite foreign to me -- but then, if God always did things the way I think they ought to be done, he would appear to be quite redundant, and maybe only a projection of Me. Which would be, to put it mildly, disappointing.

From among all the nations, he chose Israel. From among Israel, he chose the descendents of Levi to bear the priesthood. He assigned very different blessings to the various tribes of the Hebrews, and he doesn't seem to have been overly fond of the Canaanites. During his earthly ministry, Jesus largely restricted his teaching to fellow Jews.

Forgive me for saying so, Dan, but you're basically suggesting here that the God of the Jewish/Christian/Mormon scriptures is such a racist that modern-day Mormons can't tell whether the priesthood ban was a product of God's racism or their leaders'. To borrow your phrase, such a God "would appear to be quite redundant, and maybe only a projection of [racist scripture writers]." Projection or no, I think it's well worth asking whether such a God deserves to be followed.

DCP tries to make a virtue out of the possibility that his deity might be, in modern terms, racist, since "if God always did things the way I think they ought to be done, he would appear to be quite redundant, and maybe only a projection of Me. Which would be, to put it mildly, disappointing."

DCP has disabled comments on his site. Had he not done so, someone might have pointed out to him one glaringly obvious point: during most of the 19th and 20th centuries, the Mormon deity was, in the point of racism, an entity who did things precisely the way that the men in the leadership of the CoJCoLDS thought they ought to be done - that is, he was a racist who thought that 'the negro' was inferior to the white.

This deity was 'only a projection of [Them]'.

And that was 'to put it mildly, disappointing'.