It must be true!

[_bcspace]

Cultural differentiation is not racism. Taxonomic differentiation is.

It's not cultural. My brother is raising his kids. He's white, like I am. My mom sees these traits as being a combination of the hispanic, Indian, and African blood in her grandchildren. That's not cultural differentiation.

Not racism either even by your own definition.

Yes. If I recall correctly that was published over his name. But that does not account or negate for Joseph Smith's antislavery views.

Like I said, that's another issue. I think Joseph's views were more complex than being pro- or anti-slavery. And the particular piece I referred to is in his name and certainly reads like his writing style.

It's pretty well established that he was anti-slavery. Ithink you'll find the going very tough here too.

Again, we disagree. Moses 7 shows black skin to be part of the curse so that the people would be despised.

KG refuses to CFR on this. Will you? I'm looking at it right now and it says the land was cursed with much heat and they, happening to live there, had their skin turn black because of it. So it is as I said, you need some broadening of definitions in order for your arguments to work. That black skin was the curse here, when all the scriptures say is that the land was cursed and then they were cursed pertaining to the priesthood, is quite a stretch. So much so it makes you look like an antiMormon and intellectually dishonest to boot. You see only what you want to see.

I think that's true. I don't appreciate your issuing a CFR to me and then ignoring my response,

I don't think I've ignored your responses. But I have discounted them when they miss the mark and I usually tell you how they miss.

[_Runtu]

Not racism either even by your own definition.

I don't know. When she says they have certain personality traits that come from their Indian and African blood, I'd say that qualifies as racism.

It's pretty well established that he was anti-slavery. Ithink you'll find the going very tough here too.

So we disagree. I don't think it's that cut and dried.

KG refuses to CFR on this. Will you? I'm looking at it right now and it says the land was cursed with much heat and they, happening to live there, had their skin turn black because of it. So it is as I said, you need some broadening of definitions in order for your arguments to work. That black skin was the curse here, when all the scriptures say is that the land was cursed and then they were cursed pertaining to the priesthood, is quite a stretch. So much so it makes you look like an antiMormon and intellectually dishonest to boot. You see only what you want to see.

I just think you read that verse differently than I do. I'm not sure how that makes me anti-Mormon and intellectually dishonest. There again you elevate a simple disagreement into a sign of moral and intellectual deficiency. I don't get it.

I don't think I've ignored your responses. But I have discounted them when they miss the mark and I usually tell you how they miss.

You issued a CFR, I provided the references, and you never responded. You never said word one about how my references missed the mark. And as I said, I thought it was bad form to respond to a direct question by referring to a debate tactic you were waiting to spring on me.

[Guest]

This is true because such must be officially published before that can happen.

Okay, let's go with that, just for fun. An official church publication, like.....oh, I don't know......Conference Reports.

Like one of the Twelve Apostles in Conference Reports.

Elder George F. Richards
Of the Council of the Twelve Apostles
Conference Reports, April 1939

Punishment of Those Not Valiant

The negro is an unfortunate man. He has been given a black skin.

But that is as nothing compared with that greater handicap that he is not permitted to receive the Priesthood and the ordinances of the temple, necessary to prepare men and women to enter into and enjoy a fulness of glory in the celestial kingdom.

What is the reason for this condition, we ask, and I find it to my satisfaction to think that as spirit children of our Eternal Father they were not valiant in the fight. We are told that Michael and his angels fought, and we understand that we stood with Christ our Lord, on the platform, "Father, thy will be done, and the glory be thine forever." I cannot conceive our Father consigning his children to a condition such as that of the negro race, if they had been valiant in the spirit world in that war in heaven. Neither could they have been a part of those who rebelled and were cast down, for the latter had not the privilege of tabernacling in the flesh. Somewhere along the line were these spirits, indifferent perhaps, and possibly neutral in the war. We have no definite knowledge concerning this. But I learn this lesson from it, brethren and sisters, and I believe we all should, that it does not pay in religious matters, matters that pertain to our eternal salvation, to be indifferent, neutral, or lukewarm. he Lord, through one of his servants, addressing the angel of the church of the Laodiceans, said:

I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot; I would thou were cold or hot.

So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spew thee out of my mouth.

To members of the Church I would ask, are any of us of that class today-lukewarm, indifferent and neutral-a lesson to be learned from the experiences of others who have gone before. I firmly believe that God had something to do with the recording of these events, and having them preserved and handed down to us from generation to generation, that we might read, and reading, profit thereby. We are under direct command of the Lord to search the scriptures, where these things are contained. We have been admonished in this conference so to do.

Let's look at some more Conference Reports.

Elder Melvin J. Ballard
Of the Council of the Twelve Apostles
Conference Reports, April 1939

It is written in our own revelations that only those that can abide the celestial law can endure celestial glory. As we sow so shall we reap. We are reaping now, here on the earth. Blessed and fortunate are we, the sons of Joseph, the descendants of Israel, for we are reaping the consequence of our righteousness before ever we lived on this earth. Just as Brother George F. Richards has indicated that our poor benighted negro brethren are suffering the consequence of their sowing at some other time and place, so as certainly shall we hereafter reap what we are sowing here and now.

President George F. Richards
President of the Council of the Twelve Apostles
Conference Reports, October 1947

The Negro race have been forbidden the priesthood, and the higher temple blessings, presumably because of their not having been valiant while in the spirit. It does not pay to be anything but valiant.

Elder Melvin J. Ballard.
(President of Northwestern States Mission.)
Conference Reports, April 1915


My brethren and sisters, we are here reaping the reward of our, former labors, and we are going hereafter to reap the consequences of our lives and works here. We know, from the doctrines that we have received, that men and women have existed before coming into this life, for countless ages, and that we have been developing certain qualities, and the reason we are separated into great classes, as the Negro race and the other races on the earth, is not a matter of caprice. God did not take three beautiful children yesterday morning, and say to one, You go to the Negro woman, and to another one, You go to that Chinese mother, and to another, You go down to that beautiful Christian home. In my opinion, there were classes and races, and separation into different groups and conditions before we came to this world, and all are getting what they are entitled to receive here. But this is as far as we will travel together, for after this life, some will get a celestial glory, and some a terrestrial glory, and some a telestial, and we will no longer journey in a great class, or in a great company, made up of all classes. I believe that, while there will be classes in the spheres to which we will belong, we shall be grouped on separate planets. If we comply with all requirements we will be prepared to go into the highest places for further advancement, and that is celestial glory, and it is gained by obedience to celestial law. The celestial abode will be upon this redeemed earth, for God has declared that it will fulfill the purpose for which He has created it, and it will no longer need to have the light of the sun by day nor moon and stars by night, but will have power to emit its own light. It shall be the home of those who overcome, and who have kept the law, and who have measured up to all the requirements.

Now, he did say "in my opinion." On the other hand, show me an official church publication that prints opinions that contradict church doctrine. I'll be looking for that Ensign article encouraging us to pray to Heavenly Mother any time now.

By the way, in case you're wondering whether the Book of Abraham priesthood ban was referring to the Negro race, here's Joseph Fielding Smith:

If Abraham, Joseph, and Moses had married Negro wives their descendants would have been denied the priesthood according to the word of the Lord to Abraham.(Abraham 1:21-27.) Had such a thing happened the Lord would not have called Israel as a chosen people, neither would he have chosen the Prophet Joseph Smith and given him the keys of authority for the Dispensation of the Fulness of Times, as he was a descendant of Joseph and of Abraham.

And:

A Negro may have a patriarchal blessing, but it would declare him to be of the lineage of Cain or Canaan.

Who is more authoritative for explaining the Church's teachings:
(a) Joseph Fielding Smith
(b) BSspace

[_Darth J]

No, it doesn't. This press release is not a proclamation by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve.

It's only published with their approval.

I didn't ask for an assumption. I asked for you to show me where the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve stated that an anonymous press release speaks for them in defining doctrine.

I didn't ask "who actually typed it out." I asked who composed the substance of it.

That doesn't matter either as the FP and Qo12 could simply trust someone to answer the question rightly and there stamp of approval is on it simply by virtue of publication.

I didn't ask for speculation about what could have happened. I didn't ask for a self-serving statement within the press release. I asked for you to show me where the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve approved this definition of doctrine.

Your inability to understand and accept the concepts that most other people do when dealing with what is and is not authoritative simply means that you'll always be spitting into the wind when trying to communicate with people.

No. The press release is official doctrine because it says it's official doctrine is circular reasoning. "The FP and Qo12 could have or must have approved this" is an assumption, and a self-serving one.

I want you to show me where the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve agreed that this press release, which by the website's own terms is meant for the general public and the media, was ever intended to define doctrine for the membership.

[_Sethbag]

Well, since the impetus for the ban wasn't skin color, how can it be racism?

oh.my.elohim....that is awesome...

i think my grandfather would kick you in your giant brass balls for suggesting that the priesthood ban on "those negros" wasn't based on their skin color...

It wasn't based on their skin color. It was based on their blood, ie: the blood of Cain. Of course, blood itself doesn't get passed down from person to person, but you couldn't expect God to know anything about genetics and embryology. Then, of course, Cain is just a fictitious character in a myth, so there's that little trouble too. Then there's the fact that Africans come from many different genetic groups that are far more ancient than any Biblical timeline for Cain, Abel, and the rest of the mythological crowd. I read somewhere that there are African genetic pools that are more different from each other than the average black person is from the average white person, or something like that. Yet they were all banned as part of the lineage of Cain.

What a stupid, pathetic crock of crap. The church banned people from having the fake Mormon priesthood over the fictitious claim that the blood of some character in a myth actually flowed in their veins. And that apparently meant they couldn't have the priesthood.

You know what BCspace? The Mormon church is not only not true - it's obviously not true. That it's not obvious to you is a really good symptom if some of the main problems with religion in general, and definitely of Mormonism.

[_Some Schmo]

Next thing you know bcspace will tell us the doctrine denying women the prieshood has nothing to do with gender.

LMAO!

Exactly.

[_OSWIT]

...you have got to be a sock puppet deliberately trying to make Mormon apologists look stupid.

That's what I'm thinking.

[_Leegrid]

As a bystander and infrequent visitor to this site I find this argument repulsive. To deny those who have been discriminated against even the right to say they have been discriminated against is morally repulsive. To say that the church's doctrine wasn't racist is to be as racist as the doctrine. To pretend that "lineage" isn't code for "race" (in fact, I'm not even quite sure what the difference is) is to pretend that "words" don't "mean" anything. This guy is employing the same deplorable tactics lawyers and politicians use to lie. Pretty soon we'll be arguing again what the definition of the word "is" is.

The Mormon church was racist and still struggles with racism. Most churches were and are. I don't expect the Mormon church to be any different. But to deny that fact, to deny past mistakes, to deny truth when it's staring you in the face is deplorable. I hope this guy enjoys his bitter razorwire logic. I would hate to live in that head. He'll throw anybody under the bus to keep the institution of Mormonism faultless. Past Prophets? Church Leaders? Family? Anybody. This has been my experience of hard core Momrons. They say love everybody, families are forever and all but in truth everybody is expendable except the church. Well, I hope they enjoy their institution. They've certainly earned it!

by the way, I would love to see the church itself promote this guy's defense against its racist ban to the greater public. I can tell you, nobody would give two s***s about what was or was not written in the Pearl of Great Price!

Anyway, that's all I have to say on this. I don't want to argue over obvious things with some stiff necker weilding agendas like they were broadswords. I think I'd rather sit in on a congressional hearing with the lawyers from BP.

[_Redefined]

Wow, I woke up this morning and this topic already has 5 pages. So I thought id add my two cents now. Bear with me though, im texting all this on a device apparently known as an iPhone (thanks for that information Mr. P.!)

If it were about lineage or blood then even white people would have been denied, because there is no way that anyone has a purebred line. But, it wasn't like that only BLACK people were denied.

[cacheman]

Elder George F. Richards
Of the Council of the Twelve Apostles
Conference Reports, April 1939

Punishment of Those Not Valiant

The negro is an unfortunate man. He has been given a black skin.

This man thinks black skin is a punishment. He must be an intellectually dishonest anti-Mormon.

We know, from the doctrines that we have received, that men and women have existed before coming into this life, for countless ages, and that we have been developing certain qualities, and the reason we are separated into great classes, as the Negro race and the other races on the earth, is not a matter of caprice.

This man describes the races as being "great classes" that were assigned based on faithfulness in the premortal life. He also must be one of those intellectually dishonest anti-Mormons.

And here's another intellectually dishonest anti-Mormon:

Cain, Ham, and the whole negro race have been cursed with a black skin, the mark of Cain, so they can be identified as a caste apart, a people with whom the other descendants of Adam should not intermarry” (Bruce McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 1958 edition, p.114.)