DiscussMormonism.com

For your consideration:

Criticisms omit crucial context | MormonVoices.org

So the article starts out with:

Claims of Mormon racism that rely on repudiated notions and out-of-context quotes are evidence of religious bigotry that seeks to deny Mormons an equal standing in society. Bigoted attempts to label The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as racist often stem from political or theological motives, not a commitment to truth or equality. The attacks rely on dishonest tactics that distort or ignore the complete story.

Then ends admitting a racial past and policies:

This isn’t to deny that there have been racist Mormon members and leaders, and that past church policies have discriminated on the basis of race.

So would it be bigoted to point out that they are admitting bigotry?

And I suppose it would also be bigotry to point out that the current stance is "We don't know why it happened" or that certain members still believe that the ban was doctrinal. Wouldn't the charges of bigotry apply to those within the Church that continue to speculate that the ban was doctrinal? Until a clear explanation is given for the ban, one theory is just as bigoted as the next.

Fence Sitter wrote:So would it be bigoted to point out that they are admitting bigotry?

And I suppose it would also be bigotry to point out that the current stance is "We don't know why it happened" or that certain members still believe that the ban was doctrinal. Wouldn't the charges of bigotry apply to those within the Church that continue to speculate that the ban was doctrinal? Until a clear explanation is given for the ban, one theory is just as bigoted as the next.

You're just proof texting again.

Alma 3:6 wrote:And the skins of the Lamanites were dark, according to the mark which was set upon their fathers, which was a acurse upon them because of their transgression and their rebellion against their brethren, who consisted of Nephi, Jacob, and Joseph, and Sam, who were just and holy men.

To say this means the Lamanites were cursed with a dark skin would just be proof texting.

Fence Sitter wrote:And I suppose it would also be bigotry to point out that the current stance is "We don't know why it happened" or that certain members still believe that the ban was doctrinal. Wouldn't the charges of bigotry apply to those within the Church that continue to speculate that the ban was doctrinal? Until a clear explanation is given for the ban, one theory is just as bigoted as the next.

I think that's the problem they have. If they say publicly that ban was inspired of God, then they look like racists. If they repudiate it, they make it look like a prophet of God was not only a racist but was not inspired of God. So, they choose, "We don't know. It's in the past. Forget about it."

But as you say, as long as there's no clear statement, we see church members (such as Randy Bott and our resident doctrine expert) speculating and approving of the ban, which is of course embarrassing to the church.

I love sending Mormons to Apologetic sites. Cult approved sources? Yep. Will they see the arrogant apologists defending the Cult? Yep. Will they see what the apologists are defending against? Yep.

Will it plant the seed of what the core issues are?

Yep.

Such a great catalyst for opening eyes.