A formal apology...

[_why me]

Non-Jews could convert and become part of the "chosen people."

Maybe. But maybe not. Try converting and moving to Israel and see just how well you will be accepted as jewish. Christ visited one group of people, the chosen people. Was he racist?

[_Buffalo]

Maybe. But maybe not. Try converting and moving to Israel and see just how well you will be accepted as jewish.

I'm talking about anciently. Not that moving to Israel has anything to do with anything.

Nowadays all you need to do is have a Jewish mother. You can be an atheist and you're still considered Jewish.

Christ visited one group of people, the chosen people. Was he racist?

Well, he was born Jewish, so that's where he ended up starting his little cult.

He may have been racist, but it had nothing to do with being born the middle east.

[_Mary]

Why me, I don't honestly believe that your arguments are valid.

Acts 10: 9 - 16

About noon the next day, as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. 10He became hungry and wanted something to eat; and while it was being prepared, he fell into a trance. 11He saw the heaven opened and something like a large sheet coming down, being lowered to the ground by its four corners. 12In it were all kinds of four-footed creatures and reptiles and birds of the air. 13Then he heard a voice saying, “Get up, Peter; kill and eat.” 14But Peter said, “By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is profane or unclean.” 15The voice said to him again, a second time, “What God has made clean, you must not call profane.” 16This happened three times, and the thing was suddenly taken up to heaven.

If you want to use the Bible to justify the church ban on Blacks, then you are going to have a hard time.

In no way do the writers portray Peter as including everyone but the negro. It just isn't there Why me. The fullness of the gospel was to go to all. ALL.

Brigham, Joseph, whoever espoused it as doctrine, got it wrong. Plain and Simple... They were men, fallible men.

[_Blixa]

I don't know, hence the question.

You didn't (and still don't) need a Patriarchal blessing as a prerequisite for either the Priesthood or Temple admittance. So they must have used a different screening method.

If I was to guess I'd say Bishops used skin colour, but that would be a guess.
Anyone who was a Bishop in 1977 or earlier care to offer an answer?

Why Drifting, don't you know? It was the promptings of the Holy Ghost. At least that's what I was taught over and over in church usually in relation to some anecdote about two people getting married in the temple when the officiator has an "impression" that something is wrong. After stopping the ceremony and revealing his discomfort, one of the couple breaks down and admits to having black ancestry. The moral being that "even drop of black blood, etc."

The ban was based on race, which as any educated person who has read even a few books of history would know, encompasses more than just "skin colour." However, I'm happy to see current apologetic attempts to remove racism from the ban because they quite openly give the lie to the Church's own avoidance of such in its recent "explanations."

[_SteelHead]

Patriarchal blessing were used to determine if some one was black in Brazil. Problem is many Brazilians who were declared to be of the lineage of Ephraim later found black ancestors doing their genealogy. Produced quite the conundrum. It became so common that the brethren just decided to let is slide, with the pending temple opening and all that.

[_Mary]

The apology, with the passage about the book of Abraham amended, is now here:

http://www.petitionbuzz.com/petitions/apology

Many thanks to Chap for the suggestion.

[_Chap]

The apology, with the passage about the book of Abraham amended, is now here:

http://www.petitionbuzz.com/petitions/apology

Many thanks to Chap for the suggestion.

Please can we spread news of this link in all possible directions by cross-posting it on other boards that we know of?

The nice thing is that now the petition is on petitionbuzz one can sign it without revealing that one has any connection with one's anonymous posting identity, if one prefers not to.

[_Drifting]

The apology, with the passage about the book of Abraham amended, is now here:

http://www.petitionbuzz.com/petitions/apology

Many thanks to Chap for the suggestion.

Please can we spread news of this link in all possible directions by cross-posting it on other boards that we know of?

The nice thing is that now the petition is on petitionbuzz one can sign it without revealing that one has any connection with one's anonymous posting identity, if one prefers not to.

Can one sign it using ones online posting identity or does that really defeat the purpose?

[_Mary]

Drifting, I was a little nervous about putting my real name online, but bit the bullet so to speak. There are already a lot of signatures in, but they now have to be transferred to the site.

Here is Chris' response which I thought was quite reasonable..

My view is that that is perfectly acceptable as long as they agree with the sentiments being expressed.

[_Drifting]

Drifting, I was a little nervous about putting my real name online, but bit the bullet so to speak. There are already a lot of signatures in, but they now have to be transferred to the site.

Here is Chris' response which I thought was quite reasonable..

My view is that that is perfectly acceptable as long as they agree with the sentiments being expressed.

Thanks Mary,

I do agree with the sentiments but I know how the Church is capable of working and I, as yet, have no desire to 'draw fire' upon myself.