-

[_Quasimodo]

Derail alert!!!!!!!

Is that the real Blixa? What camera is that that she is holding? Something vintage, I would guess.

Nope sorry, just a lovely found photo I found in a friend's collection.

I'm sad. I had my hopes up. Especially with that viewfinder camera in hand (I have more than a few vintage cameras on my shelf). Maybe someday...

[Guest]

-

[_bcspace]

Does anyone think ldsfaqs understands that skin color and "race" are not the same thing?

Thank you for pointing out that the ban was not racism.

I'm going to go with no. Ldsfaqs does not understand that "race" and skin color are not the same thing. Nor does he understand that denying the priesthood to men based on nothing other than their perceived ethnic heritage is, by definition, racism.

There is no such definition.

[_Sethbag]

After that, you could get rid of the exclamation points. Then you would be in pretty good shape in terms of style and start to work on your content.

No, he's gotta stop using so many freaking scare quotes too.

[_Quasimodo]

What does everyone think?

Since it did not air on broadcast TV and just on youtube it could have been made by anyone. No need to look for a candidate's involvement. Probably just a joke by some prankster.

[_Sethbag]

There weren't all that many blacks in the church when Romney was young, and the church wasn't exactly out proselytizing them. I am willing to believe that to Romney, as bad as the ban might be, it simply wasn't his problem, and not something he could do anything about. He probably had so many other things vying for his attention within the church that he simply never decided to make agitating about the black priesthood ban a priority.

That's pretty much the way it was for my own family growing up. The whole black thing simply didn't have much to do with us personally. I can condemn the church itself over this, but I'm unwilling to tar Romney with this one just because he happened to be born into a racist church, and wasn't inspired to become an agitator against it on principle.

[_moksha]

I suspect the video poster NH4HuntsmanJr is doing his political dynamiting with the name Huntsman as a front. This smacks of Newt Gingrich. In truth, the Romney family starting with Mitt's Dad has been out of sync with the Church in their support of civil rights. Thankfully they are now on the same page.

[_ldsfaqs]

Many are just as black as African blacks...... So yes, they are black.

ldsfaqs,

After acknowledging that your statement above is one of the most misinformed and ignorant I have seen on this board, I have to ask if you have ever been to Central and South America, the Pacific Islands or India. I would assume not or you would know better than to say something like this.

I have, many times, and you will just have to believe me that there is a very wide range of skin melanin content and dispersion in the populations that live in these countries. Many of these countries are ethnically and racially diverse. Most of the nationals in these countries are not considered "black" by others, and more importantly, do not consider or refer to themselves as "black".

Your statement that the Mormons in these areas are "black Mormons", regardless of whether or not they are of African descent, (which the overwhelming majority are not) is ignorant, ill-informed, and wholly inappropriate.

Sorry, but it is YOU who are ignorant etc.....

Yes, I HAVE been to several of those country's, Mexico and Hawaii. I even graduated from BYU-Hawaii, and knew MANY "blacks" from all kinds of races, and they classified and thought of themselves as others as "black". They WERE after all "black".

Yes, they were "black Polynesian", "black Indian", etc. etc. but they were still black.
Yes, they foremost identified themselves as a part of their culture, not their skin color, same as I'm an American, and not my skin color, but they were black, and I'm white.
Yes, they are "racially" diverse, but they still have blacks in that diversity. And all these blacks WERE given the Priesthood.

When are you going to learn that the fantasy's of your warped anti-mormon mind are not reality?

[_ldsfaqs]

Does anyone think ldsfaqs understands that skin color and "race" are not the same thing?

Kind of like how the Nazis were killing off Jews who were the same skin tone?

Then you've got Croatians ethnically cleansing Serbians, and I bet less than three people on this board could tell a Croatian from a Serbian based on skin color. And of course you have black people of varying ethnicities in Africa ethnically cleansing one another.

Since ldsfaqs likes Wikipedia, except when it does not support his assertions (i.e., frequently): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_cleansing

And despite the pre-1978 teachings of The One True Church, "black African" is not a single ethnic group. Talking about "black Africans" in the context of the LDS priesthood ban is just perpetuating the lineage of Ham myth, and therefore the global flood/Noah's ark myth.

I'm going to go with no. Ldsfaqs does not understand that "race" and skin color are not the same thing. Nor does he understand that denying the priesthood to men based on nothing other than their perceived ethnic heritage is, by definition, racism.

And yes, the Church did segregate blacks. A black man trying to get a temple recommend so he could get his endowment in, say, 1976, would not have been especially successful, even if he was determined to be worthy on the basis of his conduct and professed beliefs.

You guys are simply so dumb......

That's what I've been saying all along, that race is not skin color. That the ban was based on race not skin color.
Racism had little to do with race, it had to do with skin color.
A black man from India or Polynesia would recieve the same EXACT racism as a black man from Africa. Thus, you idiots trying to claim that racism was only directed toward African blacks is stupid.

And no.... Racism isn't based on ones "lineage" or "race", it's based on PREJUDICE....!
Do you understand what PREJUDICE IS.....???
Prejudice in relation to race, skin color etc. is RACISM....

Also, you are wrong about segregation.....
There was no segregation in the Church. Segregation is segregation. It's the Worship, going to the Toilet, going to Restaurants, using cabs, BOTH SIDES, but separate, "segregated".
Those of African Lineage "black or white" not using the Temple is simply a "restriction", a policy.

If it was segregation they would have had "their own" Temple, their OWN Churches, etc.

Anti-mormons proven liars once again.

by the way, I just watched the movie "The Help".... You people don't know squat when it comes to racism and the Church.

[_Darth J]

Does anyone think ldsfaqs understands that skin color and "race" are not the same thing?

Thank you for pointing out that the ban was not racism.

race

a group of persons related by common descent or heredity

racism

a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.

I'm going to go with no. Ldsfaqs does not understand that "race" and skin color are not the same thing. Nor does he understand that denying the priesthood to men based on nothing other than their perceived ethnic heritage is, by definition, racism.

There is no such definition.

race

a group of persons related by common descent or heredity

racism

a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.