BCSpace is my favorite mopologist

[_bcspace]

It only identifies those from an inferior lineage.

Doesn't say that either.

[_Chap]

It only identifies those from an inferior lineage.

Doesn't say that either.

Skin color identifies a lineage cursed by God, and disabled from holding the religious privileges open to white male members of the church.

I'd call that disadvantaged, to say the least. If someone did it to me, I'd feel pretty inferior to those not so identified. Not so bcspace evidently ...

[_Bazooka]

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.

Doctrinally skin colour was being used to identify the lineage of the unrighteous and inferior and to make them not enticing to the Nephites.
That's racist.

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.

22 And thus saith the Lord God: I will cause that they shall be loathsome unto thy people, save they shall repent of their iniquities.

[_Jason Bourne]

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.

It is racist. It targetes specifically Africans. Black or white or green when you restrict one group of people and then teach that they are restricted because they are:

1: THe race of Cain and bear a mark (black skin in this case)

2: That the less valiant in the pre earth life are born into the race

Well that is racist.

Only a fool argues otherwise. Oh yea.....

[_Themis]

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.

It still is raciest. The teaching that God curses some people and all their descendants with dark skin for disobedience is raciest at it's core. You really think people don't recognize your lies about what I said and didn't say?

[_bcspace]

Skin color identifies a lineage cursed by God

Yes. But now you're back to the question of whether or not He cursed them because of their skin color or perhaps because of their skin color they were intrinsically disobedient or their skin color otherwise somehow caused the curse to come upon them. In each case the answer is no. Hence, no racism.

[_Chap]

Skin color identifies a lineage cursed by God

Yes. But now you're back to the question of whether or not He cursed them because of their skin color or perhaps because of their skin color they were intrinsically disobedient or their skin color otherwise somehow caused the curse to come upon them. ...

No we're not. Everybody knows that the black skin was inflicted on a group of people because of bad stuff their ancestors did. So those black people and all their descendants deserved the disadvantage of being excluded from the priesthood and so on and so forth.

It is clear to us that you don't think that is racist, whereas most everybody else here does. No problem: everybody accepts that you are a bit weird in that regard, but that doesn't necessarily mean you eat babies.

[Guest]

Skin color identifies a lineage cursed by God

Yes.

On this we agree as is stated specifically in Mormon doctrine... black skin is a "sore" curse placed on them because of their iniquity. They were white, but the Mormon God cursed them with black skin which is not "delightsome" to the Mormon God.

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.'

But now you're back to the question of whether or not He cursed them because of their skin color or perhaps because of their skin color they were intrinsically disobedient or their skin color otherwise somehow caused the curse to come upon them.

They were cursed because of their iniquity. He did not curse them because of their skin color as you assert, but their cursed skin color was a result of their sins.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/iniquity

in·iq·ui·ty
[ih-nik-wi-tee] Show IPA
noun, plural in·iq·ui·ties.
1.
gross injustice or wickedness.
2.
a violation of right or duty; wicked act; sin.

In each case the answer is no. Hence, no racism.

As you continue to parrot the same tired tripe of ignorance, what you fail to understand is what racism entails.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism

Racism is actions, practices or beliefs, or social or political systems that consider different races to be ranked as inherently superior or inferior to each other, based on presumed shared inheritable traits, abilities, or qualities.

The "trait" of having black skin and therefore cursed as inferior to those with "white and delightsome" skin differentiates one group from another... based on race. As you continue to define yourself a fool for failing to understand that a curse which equals punishment resulting in black/dark skin is in fact racist, it's because it is in fact based on race. While you again continue to attempt to juxtapose lineage with race, what you are failing to acknowledge is that men with dark skin were withheld the supposedly glorious gift of holding the Mormon priesthood for over 130 years, because of their black skin. Why was the ban lifted in 1978 if it didn't exist... based on skin color?

[_Nightlion]

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.

Many times the Book of Mormon makes that point that the Lamanites are more righteous than the Nephites.....like they never took more than one wife....and when they were converted then never were known to backslide into apostasy.

They were given a darker skin so that the gene pool on the island was more robust from God having tweaked it to enhance the populations overall well being. God did the same for the world with the children of Cain. Not because they were the children of Cain but because they were the first to wage war for gain. That was just an excuse to tweak their DNA so that the world's population, which came from only one couple, would have a greater mix and and not dwindle in mental retardation.

I think the fact that there IS a wide spectrum of DNA proves evolution false. The only way to account for it is by purposeful manipulation of the gene pool. I think too that when the children of Noah had their languages confused that was a DNA manipulation again. The Jaredites went to establish China and the oriental races came down from them. Their camp followers, who remained behind and did not come to the land of promise eventually filled the East with tweaked DNA.

[_bcspace]

Yes. But now you're back to the question of whether or not He cursed them because of their skin color or perhaps because of their skin color they were intrinsically disobedient or their skin color otherwise somehow caused the curse to come upon them. ...

No we're not.

Yes we are.

So those black people and all their descendants deserved the disadvantage of being excluded from the priesthood and so on and so forth.

Which again had nothing to do with skin color. Hence, no racism.

It is clear to us that you don't think that is racist, whereas most everybody else here does. No problem: everybody accepts that you are a bit weird in that regard, but that doesn't necessarily mean you eat babies.

It's clear to me that you are well on your way to accepting my assertion. Logically, you have no other choice.