A formal apology...

[_Mary]

The writer is trying to register on the site, but is being told that people are being registered manually.. Is there anything that can be done to get them on here...

Gotta email Shades.

Thanks Just me...

[_Chap]

The writer is trying to register on the site, but is being told that people are being registered manually.. Is there anything that can be done to get them on here...

Have you warned your friend that he or she may find this place a little rough and ready? They seem to be nice people, and I would not like to see them hurt by some of the things people may say.

Maybe suggest they post in the Celestial Forum to start with? But let us know here that they have done it, 'cos some of us don't often bother looking up there.

[_Mary]

The writer is trying to register on the site, but is being told that people are being registered manually.. Is there anything that can be done to get them on here...

Have you warned your friend that he or she may find this place a little rough and ready? They seem to be nice people, and I would not like to see them hurt by some of the things people may say.

Maybe suggest they post in the Celestial Forum to start with? But let us know here that they have done it, 'cos some of us don't often bother looking up there.

I've warned them Chap... Would love them to come over though... They want to get 100 signatures to begin with...

(If they are reading this, they need to check their pm's on Facebook)

[_Droopy]

A PUBLIC APOLOGY

If this was coming from the Democratic party, ACORN, and the parasitic poverty industry that has festered and grown upon the bloated, government program egg laying sack of the welfare state that has fattened itself upon the decomposing corpse of the black family, this would really be something. A long delayed admission of guilt and penance for deep and, for many, permanent scars and blight on lives and souls.

In 2012, we the undersigned, as a matter of conscience, make the following formal declaration, independent of the church with which we are or were formerly associated,

Well, since this is coming from apostates, its of no real value whatsoever. especially if excommunicated (as excommunicated members are as if they had never been members of the church at all). Hence, they speak for themselves and only themselves as non-members.

...that we in no way subscribe to that the Democratic party's historical stance towards our brothers and sisters of the negro race.

Just a little re translation for accuracy...

We do so because in the 34 years since 1978, when our church, (for political and logistical reasons which are now becoming more apparent), permitted the same rights to all races, there has been no formal apology forthcoming from it to that race;

1. Holding the priesthood is not a "right." It is a privilege and responsibility based upon worthiness.

2. The ban was not about race. The author of this confused, self serving moral self congratulation doesn't understand the doctrine.

this, despite the fact that the negro race had been disparaged by it, frequently in the meanest terms, for over a century.

Pompous liberal Blather. The actual doctrine was that righteous blacks would eventually obtain all the blessings of exhalation, regardless.

We consider that the time is now long overdue for that regrettable deficiency to be redressed, if not by the institution which created it, then by the individual members, whose tacit support has enabled an injurious silence to prevail.

Standard Postmodern/Critical Theory rhetoric. The traditional language of collective guilt.

Specifically, we denounce the teachings of former spokespersons for the church, sustained by us or by our predecessors, as prophets, seers and revelators, which taught that negroes were:

• “uncouth, un-comely, disagreeable and low in their habits, wild, and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind.” (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 7:290-291, [1859])

This sounds suspiciously like the typical Occupy Wall Street protestor. Perhaps Brigham was a seer after all...

• “placed under restrictions because of their attitude in the world of spirits… it being a punishment for some act, or acts, performed before they were born.” (Joseph Fielding Smith, The Way to Perfection, : Short Discourses on Gospel Themes, 43. [1931])

Could very well be the case. The author has no way of knowing, one way or the other. All of us were, to some degree or another, placed under various restrictions and or/conditions grounded in our level of development and exercise of agency in the preexistence and the widely varying conditions of mortality itself. Nothing to see here, doctrinally speaking.

• “not equal with other races where the receipt of certain spiritual blessings are concerned, particularly the priesthood and the temple blessings that flow there from…. It is the Lord's doing.” (Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 527-528, [1966])

No people on this earth, according to the Church's own doctrines, have ever been equal regarding receipt of the blessings of the gospel, either because of time and place of their mortal life, specific conditions based upon lineage, or behavior. The only time, in the history of the world, in which all are, indeed equal, is now, in the Dispensation of the Fullness of Times (which, it just so happens, in the dispensation in which blacks received the full blessings of the gospel).

And we further denounce deliberate attempts to cover up and misrepresent these facts to the present generation, especially as those misrepresentations relate to the many thousands of negro converts who are currently members of the church. There are recent statements such as:

"We denounce..." blah, blah, blah. Rinse, repeat. Just the same old boilerplate lifted from the secular leftist activist/protest world.

• “I don’t know what the reason was.” (Gordon B. Hinckley, church president, when asked in a Compass interview in 1997 what the reason had been for the pre-1978 inequality).

He said this because he actually doesn't know. Neither do I, and neither does the author of this pious twaddle.

• “It is not known precisely why, how, or when this restriction began but what is clear is that it ended decades ago.” (Formal church response to article on racism, run by The Washington Post, 2012.)

Simply a statement of truth that is anathema to liberal moral prigs who need demons to exorcise and who must constantly be congratulating each other in public for their moral superiority.

In our view such statements are calculated to misrepresent the historical reality, and are an affront to decency, impugning the reputations of all whose names, even by inference, may be associated with them. We unequivocally denounce this pretended institutional amnesia as politically motivated, and immoral.

Sounds like the typical anti-war protest of the late sixties era. All we're missing is Pete Seegar and a good contact high.

We further denounce the racist verses contained in The Book of Abraham, which, despite having been thoroughly discredited by Egyptologists in the 20th Century, remain to this day an integral part of church canon. The verses in question, (Abraham 1:21-24,27), support the teaching that negroes were cursed, and were always inferior in their rights. We find no value in them, and reject them.

And now the inevitable descent into abject stupefaction. This goof troop isn't even marginally aware of the substance of the issues they're pretending some expertise on.

Here is the very problem, and a deep and crippling social, political, and cultural problem it is, I was speaking to in my original MDD thread.

So long as people like this are allowed to control the discourse and dominate the institutions of society, all the social pathologies that are so disproportionately concentrated among black Americans will continue, without possible resolution, into the foreseeable future.

[_Chap]

I am sure those of your friends who have left the church will really regret it when they realize that they have cut themselves off from all chance of fellowship from Droopy.

[_Mary]

I am sure those of your friends who have left the church will really regret it when they realize that they have cut themselves off from all chance of fellowship from Droopy.

Indeed!

[_Themis]

Another suggestion, Miss...

could it read brothers and sisters of color?

Applaud the gesture!

I really hope your joking.

[_Droopy]

I am sure those of your friends who have left the church will really regret it when they realize that they have cut themselves off from all chance of fellowship from Droopy.

Indeed!

Indeed. I'm not all that hot on fellowship with people who lack this kind of basic intellectual integrity and who treat black people as their mascots (as does the Left generally).

Black people are not mascots who serve as ideological props for leftist moral pomposity. They are human beings, equal in their unalienable rights to everyone else, and in no need of protection from Whitey and other mythical external forces of oppression from the likes of the author of this "apology."

[Schreech]

Droopy I disagree with a lot of what you say, but for some unfathomable reason, I respect you, and your right to say it.

[_Chap]

Black people are ... in no need of protection from Whitey ...

Some black people going peaceably to school in Little Rock, not in need of protection from white people.