Racist Book of Mormon Stories - Refuting the Mopologists

[_Darth J]

Yeah, there sure is BIG MONEY in civil rights litigation!!!

Just ask Brother Jesse.

Yes, Jesse Jackson gets all his money from jury verdicts. How's it going with your demonstrating, from my posts on this board, what my political views are?

Apparently, if someone disagrees with Ron Lafferty, he or she is per se a leftist. So from now on, whenever Ron Lafferty disagrees with me, I'm going to say he's fan of Antiques Roadshow. I have no factual basis for making that statement, but it just stands to reason that people of his ilk all like Antiques Roadshow.

Anyway, how is this in any way relevant to prophets and apostles in the LDS Church specifically classifying people according to "race"?

Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Volume 10, page 110:

Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so.

Try finding a source of official, settled doctrine that could be remotely understood as something "the Church" teaches, Johnnie.

Same bat time, same bat channel.

Brigham Young was speaking to the Church when he said that, Ron. Nevertheless, the issue is not "official church doctrine," but what the thinking of the Bretheren was.

Are you now ready to concede that they talked about "race" a lot?

[_Darth J]

There is something about the linage that came through Ham and entered into the DNA of the Canaanites (Phoenicians), Egyptians, and other associated ethnic groups.

I know you want to sound all sciency and stuff by mentioning DNA, but when you are talking about the lineage of Ham being the origin of Negroes, you have forfeited the appeal to science.

[_Droopy]

Then please show me how the verses in the Book of Abraham have anything to do with black Africans.

Nothing in particular, except that black Africans, Egyptians, and the Canaanites all shared a portion of the same DNA (lineage) and hence, partook of the restriction of priesthood through that lineage.

[_Droopy]

There is something about the linage that came through Ham and entered into the DNA of the Canaanites (Phoenicians), Egyptians, and other associated ethnic groups.

I know you want to sound all sciency and stuff by mentioning DNA, but when you are talking about the lineage of Ham being the origin of Negroes, you have forfeited the appeal to science.

I'm sure you know all about it.

Lawyers are so smart. Too bad they're aren't more of them.

[_Droopy]

Yes, Jesse Jackson gets all his money from jury verdicts.

Jesse has made most of his money from public racial shakedowns (and community organizing), but he's part and parcel of the legal race hustle, of which much has been written.

How's it going with your demonstrating, from my posts on this board, what my political views are?

Once you provide a clear and concise description of them, as I have done so many times over, I'll let you know. However, I suspect that you are what I would call a "Bill Maher Libertarian," strongly pro-free market and limited government in some senses, but also strongly secularist, anti-religious, and well to the left of center on social issues and certain issues in the area of national defense and IR, making common cause with the Left, and for some of the same reasons the Left supports those same positions (you might think "Ron Paul" here).

[Guest]

Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Volume 10, page 110:

Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so.

Brigham Young was speaking to the Church when he said that, Ron. Nevertheless, the issue is not "official church doctrine," but what the thinking of the Bretheren was.

Are you now ready to concede that they talked about "race" a lot?

I've never argued that they didn't. The problem is that while President Young was here speaking to the Church, he was not speaking for it, and could not have been unless his positions here had been placed before the Brethren and confirmed by their united consent and upheld by them as doctrine, and then placed before the membership as such. This never occurred, nor is the JoD a source of official church teaching.

[cacheman]

Then I'm sure you can provide a CFR for this, in which "race," and not lineage, is clarified as the basis for the restriction of priesthood. This will probably be a rather simple matter for a determined apostate critic, as all you need to do is point out the association of ethnicity and lineage and conflate the two, to make your case. I'm ahead of you, John.

The First Presidency statement says it had to do with their "fathers rejecting the power of the priesthood," not a curse.

http://bycommonconsent.com/2004/04/21/a ... residency/

Being one of the group denied the priesthood is explained in this statement as a "handicap" based on "the kind of bodies" different humans have. In other words, morphological differences (i.e., race as you defined it) are the determining factors. And of course, we know what "kind of bodies" were denied the priesthood. That's why the 1978 revelation was about race and color, not lineage.

They never struggled for a doctrinal basis. There is something about the linage that came through Ham and entered into the DNA of the Canaanites (Phoenicians), Egyptians, and other associated ethnic groups. What they struggled with was why the restriction, not that it had occurred, and why it had lasted so long.

So, Canaanites and Egyptians were denied the priesthood until 1978? Really? CFR.

Your problem, John, is that you are looking at this issue, like so many others, through purely secular eyes, without the Holy Ghost and the Spirit of the Lord to guide and enlighten your thinking and intellectual creativity on the matter.

Someone once told me, "It isn't racist if Heavenly Father did it." That you can't find clear doctrinal support for the ban doesn't mean I have lost the spirit.

So long as that is the case, your kicking of and against the pricks will continue.

I dunno. Kicking against the pricks is probably better than mocking someone's depression. Just saying.

[_MCB]

Kicking against the pricks is better than dying every day because of depression caused by repressed anger.

[_Runtu]

Kicking against the pricks is better than dying every day because of depression caused by repressed anger.

No kidding. I'm really glad I got help for my depression. I'm at a point at which I can hardly remember what it was like to be depressed. Life is good. So, Droopy can mock all he wants. I'm in a good place.

[_Sethbag]

The Priesthood ban was a matter of lineage, not "race" in the modern sense. All theological theories and speculations as to its origin have never had the imprimatur of established church doctrine, and have fallen by the wayside on that basis.

Pure BS. If you were dark-skinned and from Africa, you were banned. If you disagree, then show us where the church actually investigated a person's lineage, and determined which group of Africans the person descended from.

Was a Khoisan person banned from the priesthood? Genetics have shown that the Khoisan are probably the most ancient distinct branch to break off since the genetic Adam, many tens of thousands of years ago. In other words, the Khoisan were not the descendants of anyone who did anything in Biblical timeframes, such as, ahem, Cain, or Ham, or Egyptus, or any other figure from Mormon mythology.

You keep trying to defend the church by resorting to modern science, but it is this modern science that demonstrates that the "lineage of Cain" is just pure BS, and moreover, that there is not a single "African" lineage at all, which could be said to be cursed by God over whatever stupid reason you think makes more sense than simple racism.

The bottom line is that the Church was spouting off in their ignorance, and said some pretty stupid, and offensive things, and were apparently motivated by racism. And what's worse, they blamed all this racism on God.

I don't believe that God exists, but if he/she/it does, then that 1949 statement from the First Presidency sounds like friggin blasphemy to me.