BCSpace is my favorite mopologist

[_Themis]

It's never been done. If it were, you'd show it right now. And there's only a limited few on these boards who accept it despite all evidence to the contrary. I find that most people in real life, including blacks, when the actual verses and doctrine are shown to them as compared to your yellow journalism, agree it's not racism.

Only in your dreams. Everyone can look up the scripture and read it for themselves. Even members like consig admit what you cannot.You are known here for saying white is black and black is white. Like an idiot, I remember you always trying to say race is not lineage.

[Guest]

To Consig, please give us your take on 2 Nephi 5: 21. While you claim "some" LDS doctrine isn't racist, what you're insinuating is that "some" of it is. I contend the multiple references to dark/black skin in LDS doctrine is slam dunk cut and dry regarding its meaning, which would also explain why men with dark skin could not hold the priesthood until 1978. Please enlighten me with your knowledge of the subject.

I thought I had made it clear that I think Book of Mormon references to changing skin color appear to be intended to be understood literally.

Note the use of "appear to be intended to be understood literally" in the above. When you make the argument that "scales of darkness" are not a reference to skin color, you are intentionally inserting distortion. As I've stated many times, there is no question that the curse of Cain was dark/black skin. What is your conclusion, rather than a left-hand use of "appears to be" in your responses?

All I did was mention the one passage where it talks about "scales of darkness falling from their eyes," observe that this could not possibly be intended literally, and asked whether a similar thing might be happening with the dark skin descriptions.

No, that's not all you did. When I specifically asked you whether or not your teaching included the references I cited, you claimed something on the lines of I'm sure Mormons have read the Book of Mormon, to imply your target audience knew of the references. You didn't answer the question then, and you imply you answered it now.

It was a question, thews. A question. Not a conclusion.

What is your conclusion Consiglieri? That is what I'm asking you. Was the curse of Cain based on skin color?

Once again, while I think the majority of skin color references in the Book of Mormon appear to be intended to be understood literally, the question raised by the "scales of darkness" passage is nevertheless an important point to make if we are to take the Book of Mormon text as a whole rather than merely cherry picking sections that support our predispositions.

Once again you inject "appear to be intended to be understood" which leaves doubt. What is your conclusion Consiglieri? Not what might be or could be, or more relevant what "appears" to be, but what is it? I contend that multiple references that specifically define to be darkness/blackness of skin are all that's required to draw a conclusion. Are you on the fence? If so, why? What element would suggest 2 Nephi 5: 21 leaves any doubt?

I hope that disabuses you of your perennially false notions regarding my views in this regard.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

It doesn't, because you have not taken a stance, but rather implied the direction you appear to be leaning. Please Consig, what is your take on 2 Nephi 5: 21 specifically?

[_thews]

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.

Memo to Thews--It's "ravening" wolf.

Maybe you should spend more time in Bible study.

Thanks for the correction. While you can imply I'm the stereotypical Christian who buys into all of it, you would be wrong. I don't believe in hell and a lot of other things mainstream Christians believe, but I do believe in truth... it's what I'm asking of you... what is the truth?

[_ludwigm]

...
--Queequeglieri

It lasted two minute to grasp Your name paraphrase!
That book on the shelf is an old copy, from my childhood. As every edition for juniors, the names were transliterated according to Hungarian pronounciation (that was the practice in 50's).

Kvikveg...

[_bcspace]

Everyone can look up the scripture and read it for themselves.

They can indeed. Nowhere does it imply some type of inferiority or defect intrinsic to skin color.

[_Themis]

Everyone can look up the scripture and read it for themselves.

They can indeed. Nowhere does it imply some type of inferiority or defect intrinsic to skin color.

Another straw-man. They were cursed with dark skin as a sign of their wickedness and to keep the white people from getting it on with them.

[_Bazooka]

Well, let's see what options we have:
1. President McKay wasn't worthy of receiving an answer.
2. President McKay wasn't a Prophet and therefore wasn't communicating with God.
3. President McKay was told by God to lift the ban, but he ignored it.
4. President McKay was told by God to keep the ban in place.
5. President McKay prayed but no one was listening so he had to make his own mind up.

Can you think of other options that cannot be summarised by these 5 options?

President McKay was a prophet and was worthy to receive an answer from God, but didn't receive any "impression" one way or the other. He was left to himself or possibly told to remain in a 'holding pattern'.

President David O Mckay laid the foundation for change in the priesthood policy.

Prior to McKay’s tenure as President priesthood ordination was denied to all people who were considered Negroid in appearance. He narrowed the policy to a restriction on those of black African descent, thus opening priesthood ordination to Fijians, Australian aborigines, and Egyptians. He also eliminated a policy in South Africa that restricted the priesthood to only those who could prove they had no African ancestry (p. 80-81). The policy was changed so that ordination is withheld only in cases where black ancestry was certain. He also made it possible for black children adopted by white couples to be sealed to their new parents, and that the children could enter the temple for the ceremony.

Though President McKay was not especially friendly toward the civil rights movement there is some evidence that under the influence of Apostle Hugh B. Brown (who was strongly sympathetic towards civil rights) he theorized about altering the church’s policy on priesthood ordination. President McKay also had a special committee look into the history and scriptural basis for the priesthood ban. Leonard Arrington, who would later served as church historian, wrote “[the committee] concluded that there was no sound scriptural basis for the policy but that the church membership was not prepared for its reversal” (p. 80). President McKay also mentioned to others that he viewed the ordination issue as practice and not doctrine. A belief that was not universal among church leadership.

Chapter 4 of David O. McKay and the Rise of Modern Mormonism

In order to lay a foundation one would think that the structure (the revelation) would have to come later.

Regards,
MG

Your quote seems to suggest that McKay was a weak man who pandered to the racism of the people around him and the membership.

[_bcspace]

They were cursed with dark skin as a sign of their wickedness and to keep the white people from getting it on with them.

So you admit that the Church doesn't teach that their wickedness stems from skin color. Thanks for proving once again that LDS scripture and doctrine is not racist.

[_moksha]

So you admit that the Church doesn't teach that their wickedness stems from skin color. Thanks for proving once again that LDS scripture and doctrine is not racist.

That is truly a masterful display of apologetics. Are they still taking nominations for the Hugh Nibley Award at FAIRMormon Con 2014?

[_Bazooka]

They were cursed with dark skin as a sign of their wickedness and to keep the white people from getting it on with them.

So you admit that the Church doesn't teach that their wickedness stems from skin color. Thanks for proving once again that LDS scripture and doctrine is not racist.

Actually, the doctrine is racist.
The Book of Mormon teaches that, in order for people to understand who was unrighteous and therefore not to be mingled with, God made it easy by making the skin of the unrighteous dark. Therefore all members had to do was discriminate against the people who's skin colour and race matched with what God had done to identify them.

In other words dark skin = unrighteous.
That's racist.