BCSpace is my favorite mopologist

[_bcspace]

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.

Thank you.

[_bcspace]

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.

It's not racist because doctrinally skin color was being use to identify lineage and not to say skin color automatically makes one inferior.

[_Chap]

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.

It's not racist because doctrinally skin color was being use to identify lineage and not to say skin color automatically makes one inferior.

See?

Skin color -> Lineage -> cursed because of wickedness of ancestor(s) -> should not be allowed religious privileges to be enjoyed by white males.

"You're black? Can't come to our Temple stuff. On your way. Naw, that ain't racist. What IS it with you people?"

[_bcspace]

See?

Lineage -> Skin color --> cursed because of wickedness of ancestor(s) ->

FIFY. Not racist.

[_Chap]

See?

Skin color -> Lineage -> cursed because of wickedness of ancestor(s) -> should not be allowed religious privileges to be enjoyed by white males.

FIFY. Not racist.

Fixed it back. We are talking about the chain of deduction that is started when you see a person. You have to start with the skin color, since lineage cannot be directly perceived.

So you are still stuck with it:

"You're black? Can't come to our Temple stuff. On your way. Naw, that ain't racist. What IS it with you people?"

[_bcspace]

Fixed it back. We are talking about the chain of deduction that is started when you see a person. You have to start with the skin color, since lineage cannot be directly perceived.

You didn't fix it because now you remain inaccurate. It's impossible to equate punishment for the wickedness of ancestors (a Biblical principle) with racism. It wasn't skin color that caused or was the source of the wickedness or the punishment.

[_Chap]

Fixed it back. We are talking about the chain of deduction that is started when you see a person. You have to start with the skin color, since lineage cannot be directly perceived.

You didn't fix it because now you remain inaccurate. It's impossible to equate punishment for the wickedness of ancestors (a Biblical principle) with racism. It wasn't skin color that caused or was the source of the wickedness or the punishment.

I'll stick with what I posted.

See?

Skin color -> Lineage -> cursed because of wickedness of ancestor(s) -> should not be allowed religious privileges to be enjoyed by white males.

"You're black? Can't come to our Temple stuff. On your way. Naw, that ain't racist. What IS it with you people?"

Maybe you are convincing someone. Anyone watching like to say they are convinced?

[_bcspace]

I'll stick with what I posted.

I'll let my words stand.

Maybe you are convincing someone.

Maybe. But I don't expect much in the land of the AMDC where there is an agenda to uphold even at the cost one's intellectual honesty.

[_Chap]

...

Maybe. But I don't expect much in the land of the AMDC where there is an agenda to uphold even at the cost one's intellectual honesty.

Gentlemen: hats off! (Ladies may react as they please.)

We are in the presence of one of the great masters of irony.

[_suniluni2]

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.

It's not racist because doctrinally skin color was being use to identify lineage and not to say skin color automatically makes one inferior.

Yes, skin color does not automatically make one inferior. It only identifies those from an inferior lineage.