A formal apology...

[_Darth J]

Oh, of course. I'm sure that that limited liability partnership wrote its own statements. I imagine that a limited liability partnership has a strong courtroom presence when it personally appears before a judge.

I'm really surprised at your statements. It kind of reminds me of Sock Puppet's claims about federal and state relations; it is as if he had a sort of TV lawyer's view of what the law ought to be.

You mean Sock Puppet's observation that the Nauvoo city charter incorporated the rights in the federal constitution by reference, so he was saying that under Nauvoo municipal law residents were entitled to freedom of the press, and you ridiculously kept trying to characterize that as an anachronistic 14th Amendment argument?

Posts from institutions are not anonymous. Indeed, when made under the name of the institution, they are considered more authoritative than if made by an individual. Like an editorial from the NY Times. Unsigned ones are statements by the newspaper institution, signed ones are not. Statements 10K from GM are statements of the institution, statements by the CEO are not. Statements by a Vatican Council are statements by the Church, statements by the Pope are not necessarily, although Bulls would qualify. Statements by the Methodist General Conference are statements by the entity; by its president, not.

Thus confirming that rather than having a living prophet who speaks for God, Mormons have a corporate entity that speaks for itself.

Of course, there are exceptions. Statements by the Pope or Pres. Monson saying: "This is the Church's official position" could be more effective, perhaps, than a church website pronouncement.

Unless that statement later seems socially uncomfortable or is falsifiable, in which case any number of apologists will tell us why the prophet is not a prophet even when acting as such.

And, your reference to lawyers appearing in court is, of course, bogus. Lawyers, not law firms, appear before courts -- at least in federal practice. A lawyer speaking in court is not speaking for his law firm, but for himself and his client. Thus, the example of my firm's website is quite apt. If I were to speak about my firm, even though I am a full partner, I would not have the authority the same as a website.

But, carry on. You're funny.

And now that you have mentioned a lawyer speaking for his client, not his law firm, I'll let the analogy sink in about a prophet speaking for God rather than a corporate entity speaking for itself through press releases.

P.S. I appreciate your frank admissions that you're a troll. Few internet Mormon crusaders have such candor.

[_Mary]

Where in the first presidency message issued in 1978 do they say that the ban was NOT because of the Curse or Mark of Cain?

Based on what I know of Spencer W. Kimball (and I contributed in a small way to one of his bios by his son and my former law professor, Edward), he couldn't find the reason for the ban when he was undertaking the diligence to propose a change to the Lord.

I can only take from that statement that what reasons were offered him were somehow deficient. Perhaps there was no verified basis for them. Perhaps the people advancing the doctrine were just speculation. I don't know. But, for whatever reason, the reason for the ban just wasn't known well enough to say, here is the reason for the ban.

Of course, I heard all the same garbage you heard about the reason the blacks were excluded. To me, it had achieved the level of "doctrine," in that it was taught in church and advanced by official sources.

But, my own research has caused me to conclude that Brigham Young imposed the ban to try and improve chances for Utah's admission as a state, in the wake of the Missouri Compromise. Brigham Young didn't want the Church to be seen as a haven for abolitionists. Further, the Republican party in the 1850s was extremely anti-Mormon (twin relics of barbarism, etc.) and Pres. Young probably had discussions with the South. After all, Albert Sydney Johnston went on to be a top Confederate General.

During them days, it was easy to be an anti-abolitionist. Lincoln was one.

Thanks for the insights on that.

I was active all the way from 1974 to 1990, and not once in that time did I ever hear anyone refute the idea that the reason for the ban was because of the curse/mark of Cain. Not once in any General Conference, Stake Conference, Ward Meeting and so on. Not once in that whole time. Conversely, I heard, more than once, many leaders support the idea. I remember on my Mission having to sit through a person from the HC telling the congregation that the only part of a Negro that wasn't cursed was his hands, and that was in 1982, a full four years post ban.

So, the message, if there was one, wasn't getting through to the membership.

Which is sad if it really is the case that the leaders had meant to distance themselves from the doctrine of linking the Mark of Cain with Black people.

Really sad, not only for the membership, but also for the church.

[_Jersey Girl]

To whom is it "just as bad as negro"?

The term people of color is no better then negro. Is it really that hard to see that?

Please answer the question. To whom is it "just as bad as negro"?

[_Morley]

To whom is it "just as bad as negro"?

The term people of color is no better then negro. Is it really that hard to see that?

Please answer the question. To whom is it "just as bad as negro"?

Themis, the term "people of color" is different from "colored people."

[_Jersey Girl]

Aw come on, Morley!!!

[_Morley]

Aw come on, Morley!!!

So sorry. It was killing me.

[_Themis]

Are you an American? The term 'People of Color' is a multicultural expression for all those who aren't white. In fact, it is the whites that should be offended since it implies whites have no color. You need to go back to the nineties to see the use of that expression.

That is the point, and it is derogatory since it puts white people in some elite category.

[_Jersey Girl]

Aw come on, Morley!!!

So sorry. It was killing me.

Yeah, but you're killin' my good time.

:-P

[_Morley]

Aw come on, Morley!!!

So sorry. It was killing me.

Yeah, but you're killin' my good time.

:-P

I could smell his roasting flesh.

[_harmony]

Are you an American? The term 'People of Color' is a multicultural expression for all those who aren't white. In fact, it is the whites that should be offended since it implies whites have no color. You need to go back to the nineties to see the use of that expression.

That is the point, and it is derogatory since it puts white people in some elite category.

You need to watch Robin Hood again. And a textbook for anthropology 101.