A formal apology...

[_Polygamy-Porter]

I'm curious how and why you think that essentially blind obedience to offensive teachings is in keeping with an "intellectually and philosophically" serious approach to life. You clearly find this stuff reprehensible, Droopy. Why go along with it? What's in it for you to be so mindlessly obedient?

Bye.

GTFO

[_Morley]

Yahoo Bot makes a comparison to the US government in hopes to... What? Justify the actions of the church?

Do I think that the Nazi party should have admitted Jews and Armenians to top leadership?

Do you think a cult which you find reprehensible, founded by a con artist, should have made it easier to bring blacks into the fold?

You're suggesting that the Church had the same kind of attitudes towards African-Americans as the Nazis had for Jews and Armenians.

[_MCB]

As much as I ignore Shulem for being repetitious about the papyri, I will have to be a one-note Nellie here.



They will NEVER apologize for D&C 121 and they will ALWAYS deny that it says what it says. beacuse anything else would amount to an admission that Joseph Smith was not a prophet.

[_Yahoo Bot]

You're suggesting that the Church had the same kind of attitudes towards African-Americans as the Nazis had for Jews and Armenians.

No. I could have made my point with any despised organization and you would have made the same little crack.

What do you think? Should the Nazis be condemned for barring Jews and Armenians from party leadership?

I'll bet you won't answer.

[_thews]

If its true, and came by revelation, then I support whatever it is, as difficult as that may be.

Translation - there is absolutely nothing, no matter how absurd and lacking in logic, that can sway me from Mormonism.

I also "support" the doctrine of plural marriage, but I wouldn't want to have anything to do with it on a personal level. Call someone else who can handle it, but not me, please.

Translation - By "support" in the above, again, there is absolutely nothing, no matter how absurd and lacking in logic, that can sway me from Mormonism.

I accept animal sacrifice as a part of a specific application of the gospel, but wouldn't want to be involved in it myself. I support Jesus not taking the gospel outside the House of Israel, even though he would have been tagged as an intolerant bigot by modern leftists for not so doing in his lifetime.

Translation - I support Joseph Smith slitting the throat of a black sheep and having it bleed to death in a circle to appease the suppose treasure guardian guarding the gold Joseph Smith sought.

I support the burning of the wicked as stubble and the cleansing of the earth by fire at his Second Coming, but wouldn't want anyone I know to be a part of said stubble, and think it tragic that this has to be the case.

Translation - I support suffering, because, since I have pledged absolute allegiance to Joseph Smith's truth claims (no matter how absurd), I am one of the chosen few who not suffer.

[_zeezrom]

Yahoo Bot makes a comparison to the US government in hopes to... What? Justify the actions of the church?

Do I think that the Nazi party should have admitted Jews and Armenians to top leadership?

Do you think a cult which you find reprehensible, founded by a con artist, should have made it easier to bring blacks into the fold?

I've thought about your justification some more.

I guess your comparison explains how the mistake might have seemed logical 100 years ago to some people. Certainly, enlightened men of the cloth would know better, right?

But this takes us back to God's prioritized list. Establishing a church in Utah among a group of European settlers was the most pressing need. God inspired BY to build cities in the deserts of the Great Basin, while allowing him to freely express elitist, discriminatory ideas on his own.

Then come later prophets who believed BY spoke all truth so they carried forward the elitist ideas. Finally, God realized the priority list had been rearranged so he sent forth his declaration in 1978.

It is quite obvious that God has not progressed nearly as much as we supposed. Adam was resurrected, took his seat on the throne in Kolob, and didn't really change. Well, his name was changed from Michael to Elohim. That's a pretty big change, I suppose.

[_Yahoo Bot]

I am making no comparison.

What is difficult about my question?

I will ask a different question.

Do you find it offensive that the Ku Klux Klan does not admit Catholics?


Why, oh why, if the LDS church is such a conniving cult would you want people you respect to be in its priesthood? Oh wait, you don't mind if the blacks get roped in to the con. White men, stay away.

[_zeezrom]

I am making no comparison.

What is difficult about my question?

I will ask a different question.

Do you find it offensive that the Ku Klux Klan does not admit Catholics?


Why, oh why, if the LDS church is such a conniving cult would you want people you respect to be in its priesthood? Oh wait, you don't mind if the blacks get roped in to the con. White men, stay away.

This is becoming strange. I don't think the church is a conniving cult nor do I hope white people stay away. My wife went to church today and I supported her.

I have no desire for my parents to leave their faith.

[_thews]

I am making no comparison.

What is difficult about my question?

I will ask a different question.

Do you find it offensive that the Ku Klux Klan does not admit Catholics?


Why, oh why, if the LDS church is such a conniving cult would you want people you respect to be in its priesthood? Oh wait, you don't mind if the blacks get roped in to the con. White men, stay away.

Not sure what this blathering nonsense is supposed to mean, but your failed attempts at parallel logic negating reality is tragically sad. You're supposed to know the difference between a fact vs. fiction, yet all you blather about is how nothing makes sense, so it makes sense (to you anyway) that Mormonism makes sense. What part of "White" and delightsome did you miss?

[_Morley]

You're suggesting that the Church had the same kind of attitudes towards African-Americans as the Nazis had for Jews and Armenians.

No. I could have made my point with any despised organization and you would have made the same little crack.

What do you think? Should the Nazis be condemned for barring Jews and Armenians from party leadership?

I'll bet you won't answer.

The Church is not a despised organization for me or many others, which is why your analogy sucks. If I cared about and respected Nazis, I would've said "Yes." What point are you trying to make?