Mitt's Mormon Problem Explained

[_MsJack]

No it's not....

Dur, yes it is.

The Girl Scouts being exclusionary is not sexist.

Actually, it is sexist. But as I explained to you back in February, "It's just the sort of sexism most people don't mind because they think same-gender socialization is a desirable commodity to offer, so long as it's on a limited basis."

You never replied.

Black Clubs being exclusionary is not racist.

As I asked you back in February (you never answered), which "black clubs" are you talking about? They sound pretty racist to me.

Thanks. But again, God wasn't the author of Racism, man was

Agree.

outside of the Church.

Disagree. Mormons certainly did not invent racism, but they did their part to carry the torch.

An exclusionary policy no matter what type or what group it is applied to is not automatically a bad thing or some bad thing.

I completely agree. But in this case, the exclusionary policy in question led to an entire group of people being unable to enter LDS temples and receive the highest ordinances of salvation. In the Mormon worldview, being unable to enter a temple and receive the highest ordinances of salvation is a very bad thing. It also produced a harmful subculture of folklore about how blacks weren't valiant in the pre-existence and therefore deserved to not hold the priesthood. It indirectly promoted the idea that blacks were inferior to other races (in the pre-existence, at least).

So, this exclusionary policy was a very bad thing no matter how you look at it.

Racism has SPECIFIC PARAMETERS that must be met in order to qualify as racism. So does sexism and otherwise.

I agree. And the LDS church's historic policies on race and present policies on sex would meet any modern-day court's definition of "racism" and "sexism."

I was a moron like you once myself.

This is the only warning I'm giving you: this is the Celestial Forum. The rules of the Celestial Forum state:

No personal attacks allowed whatsoever.

And:

No disrespectful communications allowed. Address the ideas, not the person who posts them.

If you can't keep the rules of the Celestial Forum, don't post here. You know the rules now, so next time you attack me personally, I won't even reply to you. I'll simply report your post and the entire thing will be removed from the thread and sent to a lower forum.

You may not care about keeping the Celestial Forum "celestial," but I do. And I would prefer it if you would practice a little self-discipline and not create more work for our moderators.

[_ldsfaqs]

1. Believe what you will. I wouldn't have returned to the Church if it actually was racist in the final and full truth analysis. Human failings do not make an organization racist.

2. You guys personally attack every post no matter the forum. So, spare me the lecture.
But, since you seem to "think" this is actually a "Celestial" forum when it's a million years from it given peoples responses, I'll pretend to comply with your wishes for this forum, even though none of the non-LDS do so.

[_MsJack]

1. Believe what you will. I wouldn't have returned to the Church if it actually was racist in the final and full truth analysis. Human failings do not make an organization racist.

The church's policy on blacks and the priesthood was racist. Your argument to the contrary was and is dependent on a tortured definition of the term that has no basis in reality. So do us all a favor and quit spamming that angry little 16-point beehive around the Internet.

2. You guys personally attack every post no matter the forum. So, spare me the lecture.

I am not "you guys," I'm an individual who is only responsible for her own actions, not those of the other members of this forum, and I have never attacked you personally.

Well, okay. I did suggest that you were a candidate for the "Jerkhood of the Year" award after you called a Protestant friend of mine "bigot," "wicked," "friend of the devil," and asserted that he would like to burn Mormons at the stake, all in the span of a single post.

But that was in the Terrestrial forum. I haven't attacked you personally in the Celestial forum, and if other people do, do us all a favor and report them.

[_Morley]

1. Believe what you will. I wouldn't have returned to the Church if it actually was racist in the final and full truth analysis. Human failings do not make an organization racist.

2. You guys personally attack every post no matter the forum. So, spare me the lecture.
But, since you seem to "think" this is actually a "Celestial" forum when it's a million years from it given peoples responses, I'll pretend to comply with your wishes for this forum, even though none of the non-LDS do so.

Emphasis mine.

Help me out, FAQ. If, as you say, "[h]uman failings do not make an organization racist," then what does?

[_Droopy]

The church's policy on blacks and the priesthood was racist.

Very difficult to say, at best, as the ban was in force only on those of African descent, and not in any sense on those of dark or "black" skin color, per se. No doubt, for many members in generations past, a racial component was felt to exist, but as to the reason for the policy, and especially as no record of the "ban" coming into official effect exists, that has to do with lineage, not "race."

Your argument to the contrary was and is dependent on a tortured definition of the term that has no basis in reality. So do us all a favor and quit spamming that angry little 16-point beehive around the Internet.

In any case, the Book of Abraham makes the argument that a certain linage did not have the right to the Priesthood. It is the case that while some people under the curse as to priesthood were black (Africans), not all people with black or dark skin were understood to be under the curse. This doesn't look like traditional Caucasian racism at all, as that has always been indiscriminate, not stopping a black people but encompassing any and all people of darker skin of different appearance (as to all forms of non-while racism).

In the Bible and Book of Mormon we see that the Lord has used morphological changes (skin color), cultural norms and practices, and religious conceptions to delineate the differences between his people and those outside his Kingdom. In each case, those differences and demarcation lines are conditional and can be altered either by the actions of the people themselves, or according to the Lord's on timetable and plan.

[_MsJack]

The church's policy on blacks and the priesthood was racist.

Very difficult to say, at best, as the ban was in force only on those of African descent, and not in any sense on those of dark or "black" skin color, per se.

This has already been addressed in this thread. Creating a policy that targets members of a certain "lineage" is just as racist as creating a policy that targets those with a certain level of skin pigmentation. I'm amazed that anyone would think otherwise.

In any case, the Book of Abraham makes the argument that a certain linage did not have the right to the Priesthood. It is the case that while some people under the curse as to priesthood were black (Africans), not all people with black or dark skin were understood to be under the curse. This doesn't look like traditional Caucasian racism at all, as that has always been indiscriminate, not stopping a black people but encompassing any and all people of darker skin of different appearance (as to all forms of non-while racism).

I disagree, but whether or not Mormon racism has looked exactly like "traditional Caucasian racism" has never been at issue in this thread, and at this moment I don't much care to round up the historical references showing otherwise. Whether or not it was racism at all has been the main focus of discussion, and that is undeniable.

In the Bible and Book of Mormon we see that the Lord has used morphological changes (skin color) [SNIP] to delineate the differences between his people and those outside his Kingdom

I know what the Book of Mormon says, but I'm not aware of any examples in the Bible where God uses skin color to delineate his chosen people from outsider kingdoms. At one point he afflicts Miriam with leprosy (Numbers 12:1-16), but in that case, it's white skin that signifies punishment from God (!). I don't claim that my knowledge of the Bible is encyclopedic though. Do you have other references in mind?

[_Buffalo]

The church's policy on blacks and the priesthood was racist.

Very difficult to say, at best, as the ban was in force only on those of African descent, and not in any sense on those of dark or "black" skin color, per se.

Very difficult to say if American slavery was racist too, as slavery was in force only on those of African descent, and not in any sense on those of dark or "black" skin color, per se.