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

[_moksha]

They were not racist..... then either.

This is like an old phonograph record skipping around on the grooves. You do realize that the Church now freely admits that the ban policy was created and maintained by the racial prejudice of past LSD leaders and sustained by members who endorsed this racial prejudice. Granted there were those with the moral fortitude to speak out against that policy and I praise them for that fortitude.

[_Molok]

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.

Well actually, IHAQ, LDSFAQS said yesterday that the church is paying all his bills for him, so in a sense, his apologetics are officially sponsered by the Church.

[_ldsfaqs]

To what is the word 'black' referring?

Like I've said before, "black" was an "identifyer", not the actual Official Policy on who and who could not have the Priesthood.
That was entirely based on Geneology and Patriarcal Blessing and official pronouncement.

Or, are you telling me there haven't been lot's of BLACK Islanders, many in Central/South America that were black, those of India, etc.?
Common.... If reality doesn't fit your "racist narrative", then clearly your racist narrative toward the Church IS FALSE!

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

They don't say anything about the ban being racism. They stat various "theorys" ever said by the church were or may have been.

No it doesn't. Black skin (which is actually referring to spirit and countence, anyone that actually reads scriptures understands the concept) was not the curse, it was a SIGN of the curse. You clearly don't know what you're talking about.

[_ldsfaqs]

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.

1. What part of when the "curse" was indicated in the scriptures peoples were already spread out in the world, thus it doesn't apply to them, EVEN IF they were a Million years ago originally from Africa do you not understand?

2. Actually, the Church asserts that Adam/Eve originated from Missouri.
Further, every Christian knows that the 6000 years might not be "literal" in this particular case since some of the Bible IS symbolic not literal, OR that the "race" of Adam/Eve (a.k.a. the Jewish Race or Pre-Adamites) were a separate special race of God, inserted into an already existing world with people on it, which is where all the extra people came from from them and their seed to have family's, as well as where the idea of "children of men" came from compared with the children of god, or sons of god and daughters of men, etc. etc. I lean toward this later explaination.

by the way, the church has no "official" position on either of these threoy's. If you had read some of the "battles" within church leadership on the subject, you would know this.

We don't know the full details of things. That is one of the problems with people who become Atheist and anti-religious, is they take everything LITERAL, when certain things aren't fully clear and there are other possible answers. Yes, it's doctrine in that is what the scriptures say, and we teach various lessens related to it, but we ALL know that not all of it is literal.... How come you don't?

[_Brackite]

Or, are you telling me there haven't been lot's of BLACK Islanders, many in Central/South America that were black, those of India, etc.?

Oh Boy!! This again??
Nearly all of the Black People in Central and South America are of African Lineage. - Link
Another Example:

Colombia is ethnically diverse, its people descending from the original native inhabitants, Spanish colonists, Africans originally brought to the country as slaves, and 20th-century immigrants from Europe and the Middle East, all contributing to a diverse cultural heritage.[15]

...

The 2005 census reported that the "non-ethnic population", consisting of whites and mestizos (those of mixed white European and Amerindian ancestry), constituted 86% of the national population. 10.6% is of African ancestry. Indigenous Amerindians comprise 3.4% of the population. 0.01% of the population are Roma.

...

Black Africans were brought as slaves, mostly to the coastal lowlands, beginning early in the 16th century and continuing into the 19th century. Large Afro-Colombian communities are found today on the Caribbean and Pacific coasts. The population of the department of Chocó, running along the northern portion of Colombia's Pacific coast, is over 80% black.[203] British and Jamaicans migrated mainly to the islands of San Andres and Providencia. A number of other Europeans and North Americans migrated to the country in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, including people from the former USSR during and after the Second World War.[204][205]

Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colombia

Race and ethnicity in Colombia descends mainly from three racial groups—Amerindians, blacks, and whites—that have mingled throughout the last 500 years of the country's history. Some demographers describe Colombia as one of the most ethnically diverse countries in the Western Hemisphere and in the World, with 85 different ethnic groups. Most Colombians identify themselves and others according to ancestry, physical appearance, and sociocultural status. Social relations reflect the importance attached to certain characteristics associated with a given racial group. Although these characteristics no longer accurately differentiate social categories, they still contribute to one's rank in the social hierarchy.[1] Genetic research with over 60,000 blood tests and 25 variables, determined that the average Colombian has an admixture of 65% European, 22% native Amerindian and 13% African ancestry,[2] however these proportions vary widely from one region to another.

Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_ ... n_Colombia

[_I have a question]

To what is the word 'black' referring?

Like I've said before, "black" was an "identifyer", not the actual Official Policy on who and who could not have the Priesthood.
That was entirely based on Geneology and Patriarcal Blessing and official pronouncement.

Go on then, reference official Church material that backs you up...you won't, because you can't.

Or, are you telling me there haven't been lot's of BLACK Islanders, many in Central/South America that were black, those of India, etc.?
Common.... If reality doesn't fit your "racist narrative", then clearly your racist narrative toward the Church IS FALSE!

I quoted the Church's own essay, if you're seeing racism then it's not me you need to challenge.

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

They don't say anything about the ban being racism.

Read it again, it explicitly states the ban was racism.

They stat various "theorys" ever said by the church were or may have been.

No it doesn't. Black skin (which is actually referring to spirit and countence, anyone that actually reads scriptures understands the concept) was not the curse, it was a SIGN of the curse. You clearly don't know what you're talking about.

Again, please quote where the Church agrees that 2nd Nephi is referring to spiritual countenance rather than skin colour....you won't, because you can't.