Antley: Book of Mormon and Racism

[_Fence Sitter]

How does the Church escape the sanction of having to remove the racism from the Book of Mormon or litigation by anti-racism groups?

It escapes it because under the Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment, a court cannot adjudicate the truth value of religious teachings or interpret religious doctrines.

Why doesn't polygamy fall under this protection?

[_Fence Sitter]

Mr Antley,

What color skin will the American Indians have in the resurrection?

What color skin will the blacks barred from the priesthood pre 1978 have in the resurrection?

If your answer to either is white and delight some or something similar please explain how this is not racist.

If you answer is it will not change please explain how this does not conflict with LDS doctrine.

[_Themis]

http://trevorantley.com/2012/01/12/damn-racist-mormons-and-their-racist-book-of-mormons/

Antley, this blog post doesn't actually address what Hendricks says in his Huffington Post piece, nor does it address the passages found in The Book of Mormon that support Hendricks' viewpoint. Nay, this blog post is a bunch of hand-waving, sloppy misdirection and third-rate editorializing.

Please take the time to write a proper response to Hendricks; this sophomoric drivel is unbecoming of a future defender of the faith.

F-

H.

Is that not classic LDS apologia? Is he not doing the same as those who focus on Grant Palmer and his golden pot idea to attack his other works and to misdirect away from more important issues he brings up?

[_Morley]

If the KKK was a religion, they would be legally able to promote their beliefs about black people?

They can legally promote their beliefs, now. There are some behaviors they can't engage in.

[_Buffalo]

Why doesn't polygamy fall under this protection?

Because you can practice your religion as long as you don't actually break the law. For instance, you can worship any God you choose, but you're not allowed to sacrifice virgins even if your faith dictates that you do.

[_Fence Sitter]

Why doesn't polygamy fall under this protection?

Because you can practice your religion as long as you don't actually break the law. For instance, you can worship any God you choose, but you're not allowed to sacrifice virgins even if your faith dictates that you do.

At what point does the law take precedence over religious freedom and why? You can be racist but not polygamous? Buffalo I understand there are laws against polygamy but I wonder why the line is drawn at polygamy and not at racism.

[_Morley]

At what point does the law take precedence over religious freedom and why? You can be racist but not polygamous? Buffalo I understand there are laws against polygamy but I wonder why the line is drawn at polygamy and not at racism.

You can believe anything you want. You can't do anything you want.

[_Buffalo]

At what point does the law take precedence over religious freedom and why? You can be racist but not polygamous? Buffalo I understand there are laws against polygamy but I wonder why the line is drawn at polygamy and not at racism.

It's a good question. I can understand why racist speech would be protected under the first amendment, but I don't see why racist practices are protected. As a for-profit business, you cannot discriminate based on race, but a non profit or a church can do it.

[_MsJack]

At what point does the law take precedence over religious freedom and why?

When religious freedom becomes excessively harmful to others.

The LDS church's racist treatment of black men and women was essentially only harmful to Mormons, and those who didn't like it could simply leave the Mormon church. It was problematic but it was relatively contained.

Polygamy, on the other hand, has far-reaching consequences for all of society, and not just the people who actually practice it.

The U. S. government tries to practice freedom of religion and freedom of speech. It has failed on this in so many ways and in so many places, but it tries. Part of freedom of religion and freedom of speech is, as much as possible, giving people the freedom to be wrong. That is why the government tends to only intervene when that "freedom to be wrong" crosses into harming others, especially those outside the religious movement.

[_Morley]

Well said, MsJack.