BCSpace is my favorite mopologist

[_thews]

Thews, on the other hand, has always come across as an ass.

He does seem to be rather mean spirited.

Regards,
MG

Go ahead and jump on the :highfive: bandwagon as it's all you have and a diversionary tactic to divert the thread into anything but your supposed point. You claim to have made up your own mind, yet can't seem to put into words (or quote its link) how they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people, the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them can mean something other than what the English language would dictate. You are wrong and if one link down an LDS rabbit hole is all that you need to convince you what is, really isn't, then logic isn't required for you to jump through your mental hoop. What you have failed to explain away is why men of color were not allowed to hold the LDS priesthood until 1978.

Regarding your opinion of me ControlFreak, I could honestly give a rat's ass. These men may seem nice to you, but to me, inwardly they are ravaging wolves. Their intent is to deceive their students, which is why they don't answer questions. The people that are successfully deceived by them will live their lives by trusting their teachers. In order for the LDS apologists to succeed, they have to know the truth. David may cook a nice rack of ribs for you and be your BFF, and I'm sure Consig is a "nice guy" in real life, but it doesn't negate their intent. I'm not here to make friends, but rather to point out to the lurkers why these men should not be trusted.

To the lurkers... note that the apologists opinion in this thread have concluded the following:

bcspace - "There's no evidence for that whatsoever. For racism to be present, it must be said that black skin is the source of bad things happening or curses etc. Nothing like that is extant in LDS scripture or doctrine past and present."

Consig - Nothing of substance, just more diversionary flippant responses to avoid the questions asked.

mentalgymnast - A link to some LDS rabbit hole that explains nothing without any point being made (quoted).

If you have a reading comprehension level higher than third grade, I would assume you could clearly understand 2 Nephi 5:21, as it means exactly what it states. There isn't a left-hand metaphor that could be interpreted in different ways, but a very specific explanation regarding the Mormon God's disdain for black skin. This is why black men could not hold the LDS priesthood until the Mormon God changed his mind in 1978, but the previous 130 years excluded them. You may not know that "White and delightsome" has now been changed to "Pure and delightsome" in LDS doctrine, but if you care to know the truth I strongly suggest you read this link, because you can find the truth here:
http://mormonthink.com/blackweb.htm#full

2 Nephi 5: 21

'And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people, the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.'

[_mentalgymnast]

You claim to have made up your own mind...[and] what you have failed to explain away is why men of color were not allowed to hold the LDS priesthood until 1978.

I provided a link for one of the more common apologetics for this issue. I was clear that I, personally, have some problems with this apologetic explanation. So no, I have not made up my mind as you say. Why were men of color not able to receive the priesthood? You'd have to ask Brigham Young and others. If Joseph hadn't been killed would men of color have continued to receive the priesthood? Good question. I don't know. How much was the doctrine of man and how much was the doctrine of God? I don't know. Is it a thorny issue? Definitely. Are the Book of Mormon verses problematic. Yes they are. At least from our perspective/POV.

I have some personal speculations that I'm not willing to share here. But they're only that. Speculation.

I understand why this issue is a hard one for you.

But, you can be nice to others that have their own journey of faith to travel, just as you do.

Regards,
MG

[_Fence Sitter]

"You gettee in," he added, motioning to me with his tomahawk, and throwing the clothes to one side. He really did this in not only a civil but a really kind and charitable way. I stood looking at him a moment. For all his tattooings he was on the whole a clean, comely looking cannibal. What's all this fuss I have been making about, thought I to myself—the man's a human being just as I am: he has just as much reason to fear me, as I have to be afraid of him. Better sleep with a sober cannibal than a drunken Christian..

[_thews]

You claim to have made up your own mind...[and] what you have failed to explain away is why men of color were not allowed to hold the LDS priesthood until 1978.

I provided a link for one of the more common apologetics for this issue.

You provided a link to where I'm supposed to find your point for you, as you haven't made one. If you had a point to make, then you make it by quoting what it is. If you did that, I would know what it is and could address it, which is why I asked you what your point was. I've been down this path many times... here's how it works:

1) I ask a direct question.
2) You "answer" it by providing a link to where I can supposedly find it for you.
3) I read the entire thing and point out the obvious flaws.
4) You claim the point you were referring to was something other than what I addressed.
5) I asked you what your point is.
6) 10 posts later, you flee the thread (this is how bcspace operates).

If you have a point to make regarding a source, put it in quotes, then I'll know what it is. When you do that, you'll be held to it. Since you don't have a point to make, you won't, which is why you didn't, because if you could, you would. Note to those who read LDS apologetic material, its intent is to confuse you. There will be many paths down this rabbit hole which requires you agree with the writer's manufactured conclusions along the way. By the time you get the supposed point, there's so much conjecture involved the point is lost, but the conclusion is presented for you. If a manufactured conclusion is what you seek, you'll find it, because that's what the intent is.

I was clear that I, personally, have some problems with this apologetic explanation.

And you should have "problems" with 2 Nephi 5: 21, because its meaning is explicitly defined. bcspace can claim there is nothing in LDS doctrine to indicate the curse of Cain is based on skin color, but that's an outright lie. I believe bcspace is a sociopath who has found a way to internally believe his own lies. He doesn't addresses the questions asked, states things that are categorically false, then claims he's somehow victorious in a later post. This is evidenced in this thread, as there is clearly evidence that LDS doctrine is racist, as is the priesthood ban on men with black skin until 1978.

So no, I have not made up my mind as you say.

You have made a counter to my claim that LDS doctrine is in fact racist. If you have not made up your mind based on the evidence, what exactly do you have problems with?

Why were men of color not able to receive the priesthood? You'd have to ask Brigham Young and others.

Brigham Young was a racist. This is evidenced by the Journal of Discourses. Apologists will counter that the JOD is not doctrine, but it is historical fact. For example:

http://mormonthink.com/blackweb.htm#full

Brigham Young, 2nd President of the Church

"Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so." (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Volume 10, page 110.)

You see some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, un- comely, disagreeable and low in their habits, wild, and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind.

If Joseph hadn't been killed would men of color have continued to receive the priesthood? Good question. I don't know. How much was the doctrine of man and how much was the doctrine of God? I don't know. Is it a thorny issue? Definitely. Are the Book of Mormon verses problematic. Yes they are. At least from our perspective/POV.

Joseph Smith was killed... thank you for not using "martyred" in that sentence. When one understands that Joseph Smith couldn't proceed with the supposed "translation" of the golden plates unless the words were perfect, then the first version of the Book of Mormon is supposedly God's chosen words. Those words included "white and delightsome" which have since been changed (1981). You can theorize what if scenarios if he (Joseph Smith) hadn't been killed, but the Bible is specific on this:

Deuteronomy 18:20 ESV / 39 helpful votes

But the prophet who presumes to speak a word in my name that I have not commanded him to speak, or who speaks in the name of other gods, that same prophet shall die.’

I have some personal speculations that I'm not willing to share here. But they're only that. Speculation.

If you would care to elaborate at some point I'd appreciate it.

I understand why this issue is a hard one for you.

That's the point... it's not "hard" for anyone who can read. The Mormon God favors "White a delightsome" skin over "Dark and loathsome" skin, which is clearly defined in LDS doctrine. You may find me abrasive and uncool, but I've spent a lot of time in these discussions. My objective is to get to the point of the counter to my argument, which is why I ask that you be specific in making your point. I apologize if I offended you.

But, you can be nice to others that have their own journey of faith to travel, just as you do.

Regards,
MG

Being "nice" involves layers of responses. In my experience, the end result will be the counter argument isn't based on anything, I've wasted my time weeding through links that supposedly make the counter point, only to have the thread die. for what it's worth, I appreciate your honest responses.

To the OP, my favorite LDS apologist is Brant Gardner. Whether or not you agree with his conclusions, he's honest about it. He believes Joseph Smith could see things through his seer stones before the Book of Mormon, as well as other "seers" seeing things through theirs. While I don't agree with this magical thinking, it is honest, and I'm fine with that. Cut through the layers of distortion and the actual answer to the question asked is the objective of this board in my opinion.

[_ControlFreak]

Regarding your opinion of me ControlFreak, I could honestly give a rat's ass. These men may seem nice to you, but to me, inwardly they are ravaging wolves. Their intent is to deceive their students, which is why they don't answer questions. The people that are successfully deceived by them will live their lives by trusting their teachers. In order for the LDS apologists to succeed, they have to know the truth. David may cook a nice rack of ribs for you and be your BFF, and I'm sure Consig is a "nice guy" in real life, but it doesn't negate their intent. I'm not here to make friends, but rather to point out to the lurkers why these men should not be trusted.

You are quite the drama queen. And I hope you meant that could NOT give a rat's ass for my opinion, because honestly, I don't expect any payment.

But seriously, I don't see why you are unable to realize that very sincere people can hold different beliefs without being evil and conniving.

Just to be clear so you don't think I'm a ravaging wolf in sheep's clothing, I'm sure your brand of Christianity is just as screwed up as Mormonism. The Bible is easily as racist (or worse), and every bit as internally inconsistent as the Book of Mormon. Please apply the same standards of reason to all religions that you do to the Mormons.

[_thews]

Regarding your opinion of me ControlFreak, I could honestly give a rat's ass. These men may seem nice to you, but to me, inwardly they are ravaging wolves. Their intent is to deceive their students, which is why they don't answer questions. The people that are successfully deceived by them will live their lives by trusting their teachers. In order for the LDS apologists to succeed, they have to know the truth. David may cook a nice rack of ribs for you and be your BFF, and I'm sure Consig is a "nice guy" in real life, but it doesn't negate their intent. I'm not here to make friends, but rather to point out to the lurkers why these men should not be trusted.

You are quite the drama queen. And I hope you meant that could NOT give a rat's ass for my opinion, because honestly, I don't expect any payment.

But seriously, I don't see why you are unable to realize that very sincere people can hold different beliefs without being evil and conniving.

Just to be clear so you don't think I'm a ravaging wolf in sheep's clothing, I'm sure your brand of Christianity is just as f****d up as Mormonism. The Bible is easily as racist (or worse), and every bit as internally inconsistent as the Book of Mormon. Please apply the same standards of reason to all religions that you do to the Mormons.

Thanks for the diversion ControlFreak and you lack of anything substantial to the thread, other than prove you're a judgmental ignorant lemming with double standards.

[_ControlFreak]

Thanks for the diversion ControlFreak and you lack of anything substantial to the thread, other than prove you're a judgmental ignorant lemming with double standards.

You are complaining that I derailed your derail? You were discussing whether or not the Book of Mormon is racist. That's like arguing about whether or not the pope is Catholic. The whole point of the book is to explain where dark colored people in America came from and why they are filthy and loathsome. I don't think there's anything to discuss.

For what it's worth (apparently very little to you), I have no problem with your faith or probably even you as a person. I am judging your behavior towards the small minority of people in the discussion on Mormonism who actually try to be understanding and considerate (which, believe it or not is a lot more in line with the OP than Book of Mormon racism.) You behave like an ass. And no, that's not a double standard. I am more than happy to label my own response to you as ass-like. Sometimes I lose my patience. Similarly, I am equally harsh on the Bible as I am on the Book of Mormon, so no double standard there either.

If you want to have more success influencing people with your righteous cause of christianity, more of the supposed "Christ-like" behavior would probably be a lot more effective. But either way, I'm done now. I won't derail your derail any further.

[_moksha]

I often make unassailable assertions...

In this sentence, does unassailable mean not seaworthy?

[_Bazooka]

I don't care to read through the opinion of what you're told to believe.

Then don't. And, by the way, I'm not being told to believe anything. I expressed rather clearly that I'm hesitant about jumping on board with the apologetic I linked you to. No need to get all hot and bothered. I'm not attacking you.

Just trying to help.

Regards,
MG

Technically, as a member of the Church you do get told what to believe (even if you choose not to).

On the subject of the Priesthood ban, here is what you are now told to believe:

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.

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

You will note that the article makes it clear that what you have been told to believe on this subject has changed over time.
Race and the Priesthood

In 1850, the U.S. Congress created Utah Territory, and the U.S. president appointed Brigham Young to the position of territorial governor. Southerners who had converted to the Church and migrated to Utah with their slaves raised the question of slavery’s legal status in the territory. In two speeches delivered before the Utah territorial legislature in January and February 1852, Brigham Young announced a policy restricting men of black African descent from priesthood ordination. At the same time, President Young said that at some future day, black Church members would “have [all] the privilege and more” enjoyed by other members.8

The justifications for this restriction echoed the widespread ideas about racial inferiority that had been used to argue for the legalization of black “servitude” in the Territory of Utah.9 According to one view, which had been promulgated in the United States from at least the 1730s, blacks descended from the same lineage as the biblical Cain, who slew his brother Abel.10 Those who accepted this view believed that God’s “curse” on Cain was the mark of a dark skin. Black servitude was sometimes viewed as a second curse placed upon Noah’s grandson Canaan as a result of Ham’s indiscretion toward his father.11 Although slavery was not a significant factor in Utah’s economy and was soon abolished, the restriction on priesthood ordinations remained.

OD 2

Early in its history, Church leaders stopped conferring the priesthood on black males of African descent. Church records offer no clear insights into the origins of this practice.

Clearly, Church records do indeed offer clear insights into the origins of this practice [the Priesthood Ban].

What the Church tells you to believe today is subject to significant change as a result of either societal pressure or investigative disclosure.

The most troubling part of the apologetic "Race and the Priesthood" is this:

After praying for guidance, President McKay did not feel impressed to lift the ban.15

That sentence tells us a lot about either President McKay, the Church or God...none of it good.

[_mcjathan]

Thews, on the other hand, has always come across as an ass.

He does seem to be rather mean spirited.

Regards,
MG

Yep!