Democrats' Horrible Racist Past..... Pin tale on the Donkey

[_subgenius]

Never at all supported a ban on "skin color"..... Never said anything of the sort.

If you were a member of the Church prior to 1978 then you supported the Priesthood ban which was based on skin colour (racism).

It is possible to have been a member and not to have supported the ban...just like how today it is possible to be a member of the church and not support the priesthood ban for women. The church has a member supported doctrine of free will.

[_ldsfaqs]

Never at all supported a ban on "skin color"..... Never said anything of the sort.

If you were a member of the Church prior to 1978 then you supported the Priesthood ban which was based on skin colour (racism).

In fact, I said the complete opposite, that the ban WAS NOT based on skin color.

The Church doesn't agree with you. The Church has disavowed the Priesthood Ban as racism.

See you're still a liar.

I see that one of us is...

Further, what I have said on the subject is in explaination not "support".

You are in no position to explain anything about racism or the Church, you clearly don't know squat and seemingly are unable to substantiate any baseless assertion you make on any thread....ever.

God is much more moral and right than YOU and your racist ideological and behavior brothers Dem's of the past.

So now you're speaking on behalf of God? You're not even a half-wit.

IHQ..... All these years and the MANY times I've addressed this issue, and yet you still LIE about the issue and me.

The Churches "ban" was based on LINEAGE, not skin color. The church says NOWHERE that the ban was based on skin color utter moron.
There were black men (just as black as any black man) in the Islands, parts of Central/South America, India, and many other places that WERE given the Priesthood because they were not considered by Lineage (which was determined by Patriarcal Blessing and Geneology) to be "African".

Further, there were WHITE MEN who were denied the Priesthood because of their direct African Lineage.
So stop being an ignorant lying slimeball! Clearly the ban wasn't based on "skin color" at all.... That is lying anti-mormon/liberal revisionist history.

The Church has never said any such thing.
The Church has only said that some "theorys" for trying to explain the ban were racist.
And that is true.

Speak for yourself.

[_Brackite]

The Churches "ban" was based on LINEAGE, not skin color. The church says NOWHERE that the ban was based on skin color utter moron.

"He has heard our prayers, and by revelation has confirmed that the long-promised day has come when every faithful, worthy man in the Church may receive the holy priesthood, with power to exercise its divine authority, and enjoy with his loved ones every blessing that flows therefrom, including the blessings of the temple. Accordingly, all worthy male members of the Church may be ordained to the priesthood without regard for race or color."

http://classic.scriptures.lds.org/en/od/2

Further, there were WHITE MEN who were denied the Priesthood because of their direct African Lineage.

"If the Gospel is totally compatible with science, including evolution, and science overwhelmingly demonstrates that H. sapiens evolved in Africa, and the priesthood ban was imposed on those of African lineage, and science tells us that every single human being is of African lineage, then why wasn't the entire human race banned from holding the priesthood?"

viewtopic.php?p=720720#p720720

[_ldsfaqs]

The Churches "ban" was based on LINEAGE, not skin color. The church says NOWHERE that the ban was based on skin color utter moron.

"He has heard our prayers, and by revelation has confirmed that the long-promised day has come when every faithful, worthy man in the Church may receive the holy priesthood, with power to exercise its divine authority, and enjoy with his loved ones every blessing that flows therefrom, including the blessings of the temple. Accordingly, all worthy male members of the Church may be ordained to the priesthood without regard for race or color."

http://classic.scriptures.lds.org/en/od/2

Further, there were WHITE MEN who were denied the Priesthood because of their direct African Lineage.

"If the Gospel is totally compatible with science, including evolution, and science overwhelmingly demonstrates that H. sapiens evolved in Africa, and the priesthood ban was imposed on those of African lineage, and science tells us that every single human being is of African lineage, then why wasn't the entire human race banned from holding the priesthood?"

http://www.mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3 ... 20#p720720

Man you people are stupid.....

1. It say's "or". If your claim was correct, it would say "and". It was covering it's bases, not that color was the actual policy. Further, skin color was a "sign", not the determining factors. Yes, it was "related" which is why it was mentioned, but it was not the policy.
Thus, you again falsely interpret.

Further, you stilll don't address the absolute FACT, that Black men just as black as any African black of the Islands, parts of Central/South America, India, and many other places WERE given the Priesthood always, or until their Lineage was officially determined as a people.

So, that debunks your interpretation...... Actual REALITY compared to your interpretive fantasy.
If your view was true, ZERO or "little" of those blacks would have been ordained. They were not some sort of "exceptions", they were entire races/cultures/peoples.

2. Ugh.....
The believed "interpretation" of why the ban was in place was because it was put in place for the peoples of the African area.
This likely was the understanding from the beginning, but I through my own study's of the issue (why I stopped being an anti-mormon on this and other issues) believe the actual reason for the ban was Racism, not by the Church, but by the world/America. Thus, until that racism was removed as a Mark against the African people, those peoples of the African Nations could not have the Priesthood yet.

Anyway, irrespective of my study and inspiration from God, if we take the original reasonings, there were already Peoples around the world when the African Peoples ban was put in place according to the scriptures. Thus, this idea that the ban should apply to everyone because we all are from Africa is just stupid.
It's further stupid because it's only science which is "assuming" everyone is from Africa, rather than simply that is where the "oldest" bones have been found. For all we know, we all could be from somewhere else, but changes to the earth through time has covered it all.

[_huckelberry]

the meaning of race is lineage not skin color.

[_Brackite]

Further, you stilll don't address the absolute FACT, that Black men just as black as any African black of the Islands, parts of Central/South America, India, and many other places WERE given the Priesthood always, or until their Lineage was officially determined as a people.

I already have addressed this several times around here.

See For Example:

viewtopic.php?p=881451#p881451

viewtopic.php?p=883734#p883734

viewtopic.php?p=891061#p891061

[_moksha]

Further, there were WHITE MEN who were denied the Priesthood because of their direct African Lineage.

Proof that racism can be built upon utter nonsense. The "not one drop of negro blood" policy had to be one of the most unholy utterances ever. Just think of it LDSfaqs, a "white man" is denied because of an intense hatred of a miniscule part of his genetic makeup.

Such hatred should never be part of a religion, let alone an institutionalized and defining characteristic of its practitioners.

[_ldsfaqs]

Proof that racism can be built upon utter nonsense. The "not one drop of negro blood" policy had to be one of the most unholy utterances ever. Just think of it LDSfaqs, a "white man" is denied because of an intense hatred of a miniscule part of his genetic makeup.

Such hatred should never be part of a religion, let alone an institutionalized and defining characteristic of its practitioners.

So God was a racist too when he banned other races from having the Priesthood, only the Tribe of Levi (a.k.a. Genetic race) could have it?

Was Christ a racist when he said the Gospel was not to be taught to the Gentile, only the Jew (a race), and it taking Peter getting a Revelation AFTER Christ's death to finally take the Gospel also to the Gentile?

This has ZERO to do with "hatred". Are you not getting it. Did Christ "hate"?

Have you also forgotten that I left the Church in my late teens the biggest of all reasons was because of the Priesthood ban?
You think I don't know what racism is, you think I haven't read many books on the subject, watched every single movie made on the subject, been around all kinds of races in life, and thus don't know what racism is??? When I first joined the church (before the ban lifting), I had by that time been a part of some 8 religions, most major, and guess which two I saw almost ZERO racism in? The LDS Church and the Catholic Church. The Church was so not racist, I didn't even know of the ban until later. So, clearly the ban wasn't based in "bigotry" by the Church. One of those other churches I went to was a black church, and it was more racist against whites that anything even close to what Mormons or Mormonism was against blacks.

Listen, I understand how it "seems"..... But, I also in time learned more, learned for myself what was really going on.
You falsely attribute "bigotry" to the lineage ban. God had his reasons, whatever they were. And yes, Mormons sometimes to try to find the reasons said some bigoted things, but whatever the reason, one thing IS clear, the Church and it's people for the vast high degree never was racist.
The Church taught against bigotry..... Hell, we don't even have teachings against other religions we believe in being brothers, tolerant, and friends with those who aren't the same as us.

Look at what the church IS, not what you "think" it seems to be.
Many of those people you all think were such racists are still alive. So many wonderful good old people in the church.
They were not racist..... then either.

[_I have a question]

IHQ..... All these years and the MANY times I've addressed this issue, and yet you still LIE about the issue and me.

The Churches "ban" was based on LINEAGE, not skin color. The church says NOWHERE that the ban was based on skin color utter moron.
There were black men (just as black as any black man) in the Islands, parts of Central/South America, India, and many other places that WERE given the Priesthood because they were not considered by Lineage (which was determined by Patriarcal Blessing and Geneology) to be "African".

Further, there were WHITE MEN who were denied the Priesthood because of their direct African Lineage.
So stop being an ignorant lying slimeball! Clearly the ban wasn't based on "skin color" at all.... That is lying anti-mormon/liberal revisionist history.

The Church has never said any such thing.
The Church has only said that some "theorys" for trying to explain the ban were racist.
And that is true.

Speak for yourself.

And yet....

In 1852, President Brigham Young publicly announced that men of black African descent could no longer be ordained to the priesthood, though thereafter blacks continued to join the Church through baptism and receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost. Following the death of Brigham Young, subsequent Church presidents restricted blacks from receiving the temple endowment or being married in the temple. Over time, Church leaders and members advanced many theories to explain the priesthood and temple restrictions. None of these explanations is accepted today as the official doctrine of the Church.

To what is the word 'black' referring?

Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse, or that it reflects unrighteous actions in a premortal life; that mixed-race marriages are a sin; or that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form.24

https://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the ... d?lang=eng

I note that this disavows part of the Book of Mormon too.

[_Darth J]

Anyway, irrespective of my study and inspiration from God, if we take the original reasonings, there were already Peoples around the world when the African Peoples ban was put in place according to the scriptures. Thus, this idea that the ban should apply to everyone because we all are from Africa is just stupid.

Yes, there were people around the world. People who in every single instance evolved from common ancestors in Africa.

It's further stupid because it's only science which is "assuming" everyone is from Africa, rather than simply that is where the "oldest" bones have been found. For all we know, we all could be from somewhere else, but changes to the earth through time has covered it all.

Or, alternatively, the way anthropology works is that the oldest bones were found there because that's where our species originated. But since you're conceding that human remains from hundreds of thousands of years ago have been found in Africa, there's perhaps a small problem with Mormon truth claims when the LDS Church asserts that the human race originated six thousand years ago in Missouri.