Seriously? Dark skin was a metaphor?

[_lulu]

Take the Jews in your example. You can trace their lineage to Abraham

Well, actually you can't bcspace.

That said, you've never dealt with your blatant contradiction of what, in your opinion, is Official Church Doctrine, it having been Officially Published by the Church, that being the standard:

Church: We don't know the reason for the ban.

bcspace: The ban was because of disobediance.

My prior post on your contradiction was hard to miss.

Please respond at your earliest convenience.

[_Themis]

Racism is not always about theoretical inferiority.

Jews are a lineage. Not a race. Antisemitism is still a form of racism.

Incorrect. Lineage transcends race. Take the Jews in your example. You can trace their lineage to Abraham, but were there any Jews before Abraham (or Jacob if you prefer)? Of course not. Yet we see from LDS doctrine that the ban was from the time of Adam. Therefore, the ban cannot possibly be racist.

Except that the ban the church instituted was towards a whole race of people. The only thing that disqualified them from receiving the priesthood was race. You can make all the excuses you want, but it will never change the fact that the church limited a certain race from receiving the priesthood until 1978. You can say white is black and black is white all you want. It will not change the facts.

[_Drifting]

The Church used to use racial purity as the deciding factor. If you had "one drop of Negro blood" it would disqualify you from the Priesthood.

That is correct. But never has "blood" been the reason or cause for the ban.

How do you know when the Church has publicly admitted it has no clue as to why the ban was introduced?

We're in the realms of personal speculation and opinion arent we bc...

[_beastie]

The fact is that some believers cannot bring themselves to admit that prophets could make a mistake on such a significant issue.

Sure, all LDS give lip-service to the idea that prophets are fallible, but there is a core group of believers who are only willing to extend that fallibility to minor issues. Extending that fallibility to significant, even major, issues, is too threatening for them, due to all the other questions it could raise. For that reason, this type of believer will engage in whatever mental gymnastics are required to avoid admitting what can't be admitted - that Mormon prophets have made and do make mistakes on significant, even major, issues.
It doesn't matter how awkward, strained, or even offensive these mental gymnastics are - it's still preferable to the alternative.

It's an utter waste of time to try and reason with this type of believer.

Other believers are able to admit that leaders have and do make mistakes on significant issues, without feeling that such admission threatens the whole ball of wax. I think the younger generation is more comfortable with this idea. Perhaps it's due to being exposed to obvious examples of the mistakes of their leaders from a young age due to the internet.

[_lulu]

Take the Jews in your example. You can trace their lineage to Abraham

Well, actually you can't bcspace.

That said, you've never dealt with your blatant contradiction of what, in your opinion, is Official Church Doctrine, it having been Officially Published by the Church, that being the standard:

Church: We don't know the reason for the ban.

bcspace: The ban was because of disobediance.

My prior post on your contradiction was hard to miss.

Please respond at your earliest convenience.

Are you hidding again bcspace?

[_Buffalo]

Now you can get back to watching Ilsa, She Wolf of the SS between postings.

You have curiously specific knowledge about these kinds of things.

He also has curiously specific knowledge about gay sex practices. Funny, huh?

[_DarkHelmet]

The feeble attempts at rationalizations made by defenders of the faith, such as on this thread, only make matters worse, because they make it look like LDS are still racist.

Exactly. As much as we like to poke fun at the church's racist past, the fact is it is no longer racist. It's super conservative, but it is not blatantly racist anymore, even with remnants of the old racist doctrines still floating around in lesson manuals. Even though the official YM manual counsels against interracial dating by using a SWK quote from the 70s, the vast majority of bishops and youth leaders ignore it and don't look twice at an interracial couple. The church is still as white as wonder bread, but every now and then you see a black guy in a ward with full priesthood authority. You see interracial couples in full membership and they are welcomed by all. I'm sure some of the old-timers don't approve, but they are now the silent minority. The church has moved past it's racist past in action, yet they continue to defend that racist past, which keeps the issue alive. Unfortunately, members like BC Space and Droopy aren't helping.

[_lulu]

You can dress a pig up any way you want and even put lip stick on it but it will never be a rose.

Use any noun or adjective you want to but the practice of the LDS from approx 1846 to 1978 regarding which men it would not ordain regardless of their personal worthiness, was morally wrong.

Droopy, in the interest of intellectual seriousness, to borrow a phrase, what's your response?

[_consiglieri]

Although I have traditionally thought that the Book of Mormon is speaking literally and not symbolically about the skin color issue, I tripped to something yesterday in 2 Nephi 30 that does indicate a symbolic meaning may be intended.

2 Nephi 30:6--"And then shall they (the latter-day converted Lamanites) rejoice; for they shall know that it is a blessing unto them from the hand of God; and their scales of darkness shall begin to fall from their eyes; and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a white and delightsome people."

(Note that "white" was changed to "pure" in the 1981 edition of the Book of Mormon, but it is my understanding that the original manuscript had "pure" before it was subsequently changed to "white." This alone may suggest a perceived equivalence of the two adjectives on the part of the editor.)

It is clear from the passage that "scales of darkness" falling "from their eyes" is not meant to be taken literally, which lends credence to the idea that the following description of converted Lamanites becoming "white and delightsome" was intended figuratively, as well.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[_Drifting]

Although I have traditionally thought that the Book of Mormon is speaking literally and not symbolically about the skin color issue, I tripped to something yesterday in 2 Nephi 30 that does indicate a symbolic meaning may be intended.

2 Nephi 30:6--"And then shall they (the latter-day converted Lamanites) rejoice; for they shall know that it is a blessing unto them from the hand of God; and their scales of darkness shall begin to fall from their eyes; and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a white and delightsome people."

(Note that "white" was changed to "pure" in the 1981 edition of the Book of Mormon, but it is my understanding that the original manuscript had "pure" before it was subsequently changed to "white." This alone may suggest a perceived equivalence of the two adjectives on the part of the editor.)

It is clear from the passage that "scales of darkness" falling "from their eyes" is not meant to be taken literally, which lends credence to the idea that the following description of converted Lamanites becoming "white and delightsome" was intended figuratively, as well.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Unfortunately yesterday's lesson contained this non symbolic scripture...

8 O my brethren, I fear that unless ye shall repent of your sins that their skins will be whiter than yours, when ye shall be brought with them before the throne of God. (Book of Mormon, Jacob, Chapter 3)