I wish mormonism would be the dominant religion

[Skwim]

The argument that says "science improves with time, why not religion?" is not an unreasonable one, save the fact that God is usually omnipotent and the head of most religions is usually infallible, concepts that make rapid about-faces some what strange.

Outside of addressing purely internal functions within a religion, from what I've seen, the improvements in a religion have mostly come about from outside pressures. I can't think of any instance where a religion has sought to improve itself (in the sense of becoming more moral or upstanding) on its own initiative.

 

[Norman]

Own a Mormon underwear store, do you.

​

Skwim, I do not understand why you are so disrespectful, ignorant and arrogant of those things that other’s hold to be sacred? I do not know why you posted that photo? Are you trying to gain Disciples to follow you? What you posted is disparaging and evidence of incipient intolerance for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. You were quick to decry the claims of sacred clothing of the LDS church. You definitely missed the omphalos of what sacred clothing is and why it is important to us and others. It seems to me in posting that photo you reacted to a breach of etiquette with a supercilious grin on your face. Skwim, do you always use devious behavior to dissent yourself from reality at the expense of others?
Skwim I will try to explain to you in regards to sacred clothing. Too many religious organizations, ecclesiastical dress is an important symbol of religious identification of an outward appearance. Some religions have sacred garments that are not visible to outsiders, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints sacred clothing is worn under rather than outside of our street clothes. To the Latter Day Saint the under garment represents sacred covenants. It fosters modesty and becomes a shield and protection to the wearer.
Religions create dress codes to overtly define morality and modesty. Jews wore girdles to make the division between pure and impure visibly clear. Ecclesiastical clothing represents a level of religious involvement. Symbols such as clothing are used as evidence that the member of the religious group is on the "right and true path."
Sacred clothing will be worn in the hereafter and will be so important that, "He that overcomes, the same shall be clothed in white raiment and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels" (Rev. 3:4-5).
In Luke 8: 43 the woman with the issue of blood for twelve years, came and touched THE BORDER OF HIS GARMENT and was healed. That word BORDER comes from the Hebrew word tzit tzit meaning twisted coils, fringe, or tassel. Remember the commandment of the Lord from Deuteronomy 22: 12 to wear the twisted coils? What did she touch? The twisted coils on the border of the garment (His Prayer Shawl) that Jesus being Jewish, was wearing. Jesus did wear clothing that was sacred to him like any other practicing Jew in his day. The Jews including Jesus wore a tallith, the garment that reminds a Jew of the covenants and commandments he has bound to himself.
Why do people wear clothes and shoes? The answer seems obvious; to hide their nakedness. Clothing is important whether it is religious clothing or street clothes. Latter Day Saint sacred clothing is just that ‘sacred’ Period.

We cannot afford to be arrogant or self-righteous. It is our obligation to reach out in helpfulness, not only to our own but to all others as well. (Gordon B. Hinckley; President and Prophet of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.)

 

[Scott C.]

Does no one find it the least bit coincidental that God's mind seems to change with the times? Whenever the culture hates black people, then God hates black people. Then whenever the people start to change their attitude on race, just like magic, God changes his mind too, makes a complete 180, and says "Okay okay, looks like I got that whole 'hating black people' thing wrong. Whoops, My bad."

My church doesn't teach that God ever hated black people and then changed his mind. I do believe that God told the leaders of my church in 1978 to stop the ban on priesthood for blacks. Certainly, my church was unpopular for the race issue and there were social pressures to change. My church leaders were also motivated by the goodness of their own hearts, there respect for blacks, and their desire to see all peoples to progress equally in the church. Many factors prompted President Spencer W. Kimball to make this a matter of serious prayer and to take the issue to the presiding church leaders. This all resulted in a revelation from heaven which lifted the priesthood ban.

 

[psychoslice]

I wish mormonism would be the dominant religion, I see this question as being arrogant, all religions think that their religion is the best, all religions are full of ridiculers beliefs, that only make sense to the believer of that religion.

 

[outhouse]

Skwim, I do not understand why you are so disrespectful, ignorant and arrogant of those things that other’s hold to be sacred?


.

Im guessing its viewed as primitive beliefs based on severe willful historical biblical ignorance, lack of education and knowledge, with no contribution to advancing humanity.

Basically, they choose to go backwards, not forwards. Favoring fanaticism and fundamentalism over reality.


But me? Your not violent so as long as I don't see you or hear you, I ignore you. Carry on but please stay at least a 1/4 mile away from my child on any given day or we have problems.

 

[Skwim]

Skwim, I do not understand why you are so disrespectful, ignorant and arrogant of those things that other’s hold to be sacred? I do not know why you posted that photo? Are you trying to gain Disciples to follow you? What you posted is disparaging and evidence of incipient intolerance for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. You were quick to decry the claims of sacred clothing of the LDS church. You definitely missed the omphalos of what sacred clothing is and why it is important to us and others. It seems to me in posting that photo you reacted to a breach of etiquette with a supercilious grin on your face. Skwim, do you always use devious behavior to dissent yourself from reality at the expense of others?
Skwim I will try to explain to you in regards to sacred clothing. Too many religious organizations, ecclesiastical dress is an important symbol of religious identification of an outward appearance. Some religions have sacred garments that are not visible to outsiders, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints sacred clothing is worn under rather than outside of our street clothes. To the Latter Day Saint the under garment represents sacred covenants. It fosters modesty and becomes a shield and protection to the wearer.
Religions create dress codes to overtly define morality and modesty. Jews wore girdles to make the division between pure and impure visibly clear. Ecclesiastical clothing represents a level of religious involvement. Symbols such as clothing are used as evidence that the member of the religious group is on the "right and true path."
Sacred clothing will be worn in the hereafter and will be so important that, "He that overcomes, the same shall be clothed in white raiment and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels" (Rev. 3:4-5).
In Luke 8: 43 the woman with the issue of blood for twelve years, came and touched THE BORDER OF HIS GARMENT and was healed. That word BORDER comes from the Hebrew word tzit tzit meaning twisted coils, fringe, or tassel. Remember the commandment of the Lord from Deuteronomy 22: 12 to wear the twisted coils? What did she touch? The twisted coils on the border of the garment (His Prayer Shawl) that Jesus being Jewish, was wearing. Jesus did wear clothing that was sacred to him like any other practicing Jew in his day. The Jews including Jesus wore a tallith, the garment that reminds a Jew of the covenants and commandments he has bound to himself.
Why do people wear clothes and shoes? The answer seems obvious; to hide their nakedness. Clothing is important whether it is religious clothing or street clothes. Latter Day Saint sacred clothing is just that ‘sacred’ Period.

Normally I'd make an effort to address such points, but in as much as you seem to enjoy jumping to conclusions of all colors, and I'm in no mood to prob your questionable indignity, and am already gagging on your irrelevant tidbits of "learning," I'm just going to ignore it all. Have a good day.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

My church doesn't teach that God ever hated black people and then changed his mind. I do believe that God told the leaders of my church in 1978 to stop the ban on priesthood for blacks. Certainly, my church was unpopular for the race issue and there were social pressures to change. My church leaders were also motivated by the goodness of their own hearts, there respect for blacks, and their desire to see all peoples to progress equally in the church. Many factors prompted President Spencer W. Kimball to make this a matter of serious prayer and to take the issue to the presiding church leaders. This all resulted in a revelation from heaven which lifted the priesthood ban.

It does seem strange that LDS doctrine would make these kind of about-faces... not just on the issue of blacks in the priesthood but also plural marriage. In both cases, the LDS Church was intransigent for a long time until the Church's business model is threatened and then suddenly the doctrine changed.

Don't get me wrong - I'm glad the LDS Church decided to get rid of the policy. However, the implications of the fact that it was ever instituted in the first place and the circumstances of its repeal (i.e. that, presumably, it took the Church's problems finding non-African-descended men in very-mixed-race Brazil for God to decide that racism is a bad idea) speaks against the truth claims of the LDS Church.

I'm curious, though: you say that the change was motivated by goodness in their hearts and respect for black people. Can I take it to mean that you think the previous policy was less than good, and that it expressed at least a measure of disrespect to black people?

If so, that puzzles me, because the ban on the priesthood was also supposedly a divine revelation. While the LDS Church may now say that the ban was only temporary and was meant to expire, it does still maintain that while the ban on black priests was in effect, it was good, proper, and appropriate for the time... no?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Normally I would make an effort to address such points, but in as much as you seem to enjoy jumping to conclusions of all colors, and I'm in no mood to prob your questionable injuries, and am already gagging on your irrelevant tidbits of "learning," I'm just going to ignore it all. Have a good day.

Ah, irony.

 

[Scott C.]

I'm curious, though: you say that the change was motivated by goodness in their hearts and respect for black people. Can I take it to mean that you think the previous policy was less than good, and that it expressed at least a measure of disrespect to black people?

This has been discussed ad infinitum in and out of my church. My view has changed over time.

I believe the early church leaders were influenced by cultural bias to deny the priesthood to blacks. Does it bother me that the men I consider prophets and apostles would be subject to such bias? Yes, it does. But, I accept that they are fallible.

This policy was well entrenched in the church. Our doctrine requires complete unanimity among the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve to make a change such as this.

I believe that good men, ordained of God, went to the Lord because they wanted to do the right thing. They did receive a profound revelation, a clear revelations, they all acknowledged it, they all got immediately on-board. The announcement was made and the ban was lifted immediately.

Men who may have thought the ban would never be lifted, men who may have thought it should not be lifted yet, changed their minds on the spot. God spoke to them. End of debate.

I don't have the answer as to why this didn't happen earlier in history.

Read this statement on LDS.org. I see admission of cultural bias in the early church leaders.

https://www.lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This has been discussed ad infinitum in and out of my church. My view has changed over time.

I believe the early church leaders were influenced by cultural bias to deny the priesthood to blacks. Does it bother me that the men I consider prophets and apostles would be subject to such bias? Yes, it does. But, I accept that they are fallible.

This implies one of two things:

- if the policy came from God, then it implies that God also has racial bias. (Edit: or that he did when the policy was enacted)

- if the policy did not come from God, then it raises the possibility that other policies did not come from God either. Which other doctrines might not be inspired by God? The ban on female priests? The ban on same-sex marriage?

Edit: I see just as much cultural bias in the 19th Century based on gender as I do based on race. Doesn't this make the ban on women from the priesthood just as suspect as the ban on African-Americans?

 

[Scott C.]

This implies one of two things:

- if the policy came from God, then it implies that God also has racial bias.

- if the policy did not come from God, then it raises the possibility that other policies did not come from God either. Which other doctrines might not be inspired by God? The ban on female priests? The ban on same-sex marriage?

If the policy came from the God in whom I believe, then it was motivated by just and holy principles that acknowledge that God loves all of his children equally without regard to race or color. The ban could have nothing to do with God's lack of love for his children, since such would contradict the nature of God. We would be left to trust in the wisdom and infallibility of God, and accept the policy. (This, by the way, is how I saw this issue for many, many years.)

If the ban was a mistake, then yes, it shows that God allows church leaders to make mistakes, including one of this magnitude.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Mormonism on forums creates a paradise for Trolls.
Qed.

 

[Katzpur]

Mormonism on forums creates a paradise for Trolls.
Qed.

It definitely does. As a lifelong Mormon, but (as my title says) not really your "average Mormon," I don't always feel as if I fit in that well into the Mormon culture. I'm actually more comfortable in the company of non-Mormons, for the simple reason that I can be myself and not have to worry about saying something that many Mormons would see as disrespectful or even heretical. On the other hand, on an almost daily basis, I am reminded of the many reasons why I am so glad to have been raised Mormon and to be a Mormon today. I know I am a better person because of my religious beliefs and my experiences as a Mormon.

It really hurts to be ridiculed and Mormons do seem to be fair game. Most people wouldn't think of slandering Jews the way they do Mormons. When I see the truth about our doctrines intentionally distorted and our culture charicatured, it bothers me more than I really have words to explain. And the reason for this is that I know the truth. I know when people are lying about us, but I don't understand why they are lying about us. I've been out of town for several days, which is why I haven't participated on this thread until now. But having read some of the mocking and malicious comments, it clear to me that there is nothing I could possibly say to make a difference to the people who have made the comments.

So all I'm going to say (and then I am going to try my best not to get sucked further into this ugly thread) is that Mormonism doesn't have to be the dominant religion in order to be a force for good in this world. Mormon doctrines, when properly understood, are compelling and beautiful. In my opinion, LDS theology with respect to who God is, what our relationship to Him is, and what His plan of salvation for all of His children is, is without equal in any other religion. Is the LDS Church perfect? No, it's not, because despite the fact that we believe that it is guided and directed by Jesus Christ himself, it is still run by human beings, and human beings are fallible. LDS leaders have made mistakes in the past. They are still making mistakes today, and they will undoubtedly continue to make mistakes in the future. Can any other religion claim otherwise?

I'm baffled by the hostility. I guess people just need someone to ridicule.

 

[Triumphant_Loser]

It truly does. As a lifelong Mormon, but (as my title says) not really your average Mormon, I don't always feel as if I fit in that well with cultural Mormonism. I'm actually more comfortable in the company of non-Mormons, for the simple reason that I can be myself and not have to worry about saying something that many Mormons would see as disrespectful or even heretical. On the other hand, on an almost daily basis, I am reminded of the many reasons why I am so glad to have been raised Mormon and to be a Mormon today. I know I am a better person because of my religious beliefs and my experiences as a Mormon.

It really hurts to be ridiculed and Mormons do seem to be fair game. Most people wouldn't think of slandering Jews the way they do Mormons. When I see the truth about our doctrines intentionally distorted and our culture charicatured, it bothers me more than I really have words to explain. And the reason for this is that I know the truth. I know when people are lying about us, but I don't understand why they are lying about us. I've been out of town for several days, which is why I haven't participated on this thread until now. But having read some of the mocking and malicious comments, it clear to me that there is nothing I could possibly say to make a difference to the people who have made the comments.

So all I'm going to say (and then I am going to try my best not to get sucked further into this ugly thread) is that Mormonism doesn't have to be the dominant religion in order to be a force for good in this world. Mormon doctrines, when properly understood are compelling and beautiful. In my opinion, LDS theology with respect to who God is, what our relationship to Him is, and what His plan of salvation for all of His children is without equal in any other religion. Is the LDS perfect? No, it's not, because despite the fact that we believe that it is guided and directed by Jesus Christ himself, it is still run by human beings, and human beings are fallible. LDS leaders have made mistakes in the past. They are still making mistakes today, and they will undoubtedly continue to make mistakes in the future. Can any other religion claim otherwise?

I'm baffled by the hostility. I guess people just need someone to ridicule.

Quite a large portion of my Mom's side of the family is Mormon. I've always found them to be a bit more tolerant than your standard southern Protestant.

 

[Katzpur]

I wish mormonism would be the dominant religion, I see this question as being arrogant...

Well, since the OP was started by a non-Mormon and was entirely sarcastic, I'd say "arrogant" is hardly the best word to describe it.

 

[Skwim]

Ah, irony.

Irony, schmiorny. :slap:

 

[Katzpur]

How it treats modern education and knowledge Is still pretty pathetic IMHO

Just curious... Who are you referring to -- the Bible or Mormonism?

 

[Katzpur]

From LDS Honesty: Lying for the Lord :

The church's official position on blacks and the priesthood was that it was a doctrine revealed to Joseph Smith by the Lord. For decades missionaries issued this standard message when answering investigators' questions. There is no evidence that Joseph Smith ever received a revelation denying black Africans the priesthood. On the contrary, Elijah Abel, a black man, was ordained a Seventy, and Joseph likely permitted the ordination of at least one other black member to the Mormon priesthood. (Lester E. Bush Jr. Mormonism's Negro Doctrine: An Historical View, Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Volume 8, No. 1, Spring 1973)


Brigham Young formally instituted the ban on priesthood to males with African blood. In an address before the territorial legislature on January 16, 1852, Wilford Woodruff recorded that Brigham said that persons having "one drop of the seed of [Cain] ... in him cannot hold the priesthood and if no other Prophet ever spake it before I will say it now..."
Young also went further and declared that if a white person should marry a black person, they would both be required to give their lives in blood atonement (including any offspring that resulted in the union) in order to be forgiven by God for their sin (equal to murder in seriousness). (Lester E. Bush Jr. Mormonism's Negro Doctrine: An Historical View, Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Volume 8, No. 1, Spring 1973 and Lester E. Bush Jr. and Armand L. Mauss Editors, Neither White nor Black, "Mormonism's Negro Doctrine: An Historical Overview," Signature Books, Midvale, UT, 1984. pp. 68, 89-90)
The church has never admitted that Brigham Young invented the policy based on Young and others' personal prejudices, common to that era. In fact current leaders and apologists try to convince those ignorant of Mormon historical practices, that the church has always been sensitive to those with brown skin.

The church's doctrine and practice of denying those with African blood the priesthood until 1978 resulted in a negative public image for the church and its members. To defend themselves, church leaders claimed that the doctrine was never the result of racial prejudice. This is contradicted by numerous statements of its leaders. Brigham Young taught that blacks were created to be slaves, they "were naturally designed for that purpose, and [their] capacities are more befitting that, than any other station in society." He reiterated that they "are naturally designed to occupy the position of 'servant of servants'." He cautioned that members should not "elevate them, as some seem disposed, to an equality with those who Nature and Nature's God has indicated to be their masters, their superiors ..." (Lester E. Bush Jr. Mormonism's Negro Doctrine: An Historical View, Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Volume 8, No. 1, Spring 1973)

Brigham Young signed into law acts legalizing Negro and Indian slavery, in his capacity as Territorial governor. While it can be argued that many whites felt this way during the 1800's, one is reminded that the Mormons claim that God engages in direct communication and inspires their leaders. (Lester E. Bush Jr. Mormonism's Negro Doctrine: An Historical View, Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Volume 8, No. 1, Spring 1973)
When LDS leaders spoke, it was the equivalent of God speaking (Doctrine and Covenants 1:38). Brigham Young's statements do not reflect ideals that are more equitable and compassionate than the ignorant, prejudice demonstrated by other ordinary 19th century humans. In fact Young's/God's statements do not rise to the level of the enlightened few who sought equal rights and social justice for all.

Further evidence of Mormon prejudice against African Americans can be found in the Utah legislature's refusal to pass public accommodation and fair employment bills on at least four occasions between 1945 and 1951. Utah joined the nation in discriminating against blacks in hotels, restaurants, movie theaters and bowling alleys-they were not allowed to associate with whites. (Lester E. Bush Jr. Mormonism's Negro Doctrine: An Historical View, Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought, Volume 8, No. 1, Spring 1973)

In Washington DC some church Relief Society women objected to sitting beside "two colored sisters who are apparently faithful members of the church." The First Presidency responded to the situation by suggesting that the two "colored sisters" be "discretely approached" and told to sit in the rear of the chapel or far on the other side away from others. (Neither White nor Black, edited by Lester Bush and Armand Mauss, pp. 68, 89-90) It could be argued that the god Mormons worshipped was racist, if they insist it was god who instituted the priesthood ban.

Apostle Mark E. Petersen made these racist statements. "It isn't that he [the Negro] just desires to go to the same theater as the white people. From this, and other interviews I have read, it appears that the negro seeks absorption with the white race. He will not be satisfied until he achieves it by intermarriage. That is his objective and we must face it. We must not allow our feeling to carry us away, nor must we feel so sorry for negroes that we will open our arms and embrace them with everything we have. Remember the little statement that we used to say about sin, 'First we pity, then endure, then embrace'." (Convention of Teachers of Religion on the College Level, Brigham Young University, August 27, 1954. Found in Shadow or Reality? p. 279.) LDS apologists insist that Petersen was not offering official views of the LDS leadership. However, LDS leaders have never offered an official repudiation of Petersen's statement.

Not that people from other religions, except perhaps Islam, or with no religious affiliation were any better through history.

One big long post lifted from an anti-Mormon website, and not one single solitary reference to actual LDS doctrine. Yup, that's what I call rational, objective and accurate.

 

[Sapiens]

One big long post lifted from an anti-Mormon website, and not one single solitary reference to actual LDS doctrine. Yup, that's what I call rational, objective and accurate.

The source is irrelevant unless you want to claim that the admitted bias of the site has led them into prevarication. If you do not make that claim, up front, it makes me wonder why you would even mention it.

As far as reference to LDS doctrine, true or false:

1. Brigham Young formally instituted the ban on priesthood to males with African blood.

2. The church's official position was that it was a doctrine revealed to Joseph Smith by the Lord. (making the idea that Brigham Young formally instituted the ban on priesthood to males with African blood of questionable veracity).

3. It is a historical truth that until 1978, Latter-day Saints' ecclesiastical policy prohibited black men from being ordained to the priesthood. In that year, a revelation received by the Prophet Spencer W. Kimball reversed this ban.

Today, Church leaders rely on scriptural authority to proclaim that all humans, regardless of race or sex, are equal in the eyes of God: The gospel of Jesus Christ is for everyone. The Book of Mormon states, 'black and white, bond and free, male and female; … all are alike unto God' (2 Nephi 26:33). This is the Church's current official teaching.

Frankly the Mormons have, as far as I can see, done a pretty good job of cleaning up their act. The point here is less one of racial bias, but rather is one of transparency in the church, especially since it mirrored much of American racism and what was going on in many other churches, Mormon racism just hung on a bit longer. One point is a matter of historical honesty. The complained about anti-Mormon web site indicates that today's church leaders hedge and equivocate on this issue (not racism, rather historical honesty), at times making contradictory and misleading statements that belie Church history. Is this not true?

There are, on the record, hundreds of blatantly racist statements made by past Church prophets and leaders, including Joseph Smith ("Had I anything to do with the negro, I would confine them by strict law to their own species and put them on a national equalization." History of the Church, Volume 5, pages 218 ‑ 219), Brigham Young ("You must not think, from what I say, that I am opposed to slavery. No! The negro is damned, and is to serve his master till God chooses to remove the curse of Ham." New York Herald, May 4, 1855), Wilford Woodruff ("What was that mark? It was a mark of blackness. That mark rested upon Cain, and descended upon his posterity from that time until the present. Today there are millions of descendants of Cain, through the lineage of Ham, in the world, and that mark of darkness still rests upon them." General Conference, April 7, 1889; Millennial Star 51:339), and John Taylor ("This Greeley is one of their popular characters in the East, and one that supports the stealing of (insert the "N" word here)..." Journal of Discourses 5:119).

In many cases, statements were grounded in scripture. Taken together, critics maintain the historical record reveals a systematic, intentional, deeply entrenched policy of racial discrimination that was based in scripture and endorsed at the highest levels. These leaves two highly rational and critical fundamental questions (outside of the question of historic racism, that by all appearances has been fixed) to be addressed:

1. What moral authority does Mormon scripture have concerning other matters if it contains oppositional ideas such as race, sexism, gay rights, etc.?

2. Upon what moral authority does the current prophet speak if revelations made by past prophets are no longer valid?

 

[Katzpur]

The source is irrelevant unless you want to claim that the admitted bias of the site has led them into prevarication.

And I do claim that to be the case. There is often a pretty good sized gap between the truth and "the whole truth and nothing but the truth." People on both sides are guilty of filtering what they want their readers to know. I once heard a sermon (we don't typically use that word, but I will do so for the sake of making myself clear) in church where the speaker said that when a person intentionally makes a misleading statement, it's lying. Intentionally either leaving out part of the truth or embellishing the truth are lying, as far as I'm concerned.

As far as reference to LDS doctrine, true or false:

1. Brigham Young formally instituted the ban on priesthood to males with African blood.

True.

2. The church's official position was that it was a doctrine revealed to Joseph Smith by the Lord. (making the idea that Brigham Young formally instituted the ban on priesthood to males with African blood of questionable veracity).

False.

3. It is a historical truth that until 1978, Latter-day Saints' ecclesiastical policy prohibited black men from being ordained to the priesthood. In that year, a revelation received by the Prophet Spencer W. Kimball reversed this ban.

True.

Frankly the Mormons have, as far as I can see, done a pretty good job of cleaning up their act. The point here is less one of racial bias, but rather is one of transparency in the church, especially since it mirrored much of American racism and what was going on in many other churches, Mormon racism just hung on a bit longer. One point is a matter of historical honesty. The complained about anti-Mormon web site indicates that today's church leaders hedge and equivocate on this issue (not racism, rather historical honesty), at times making contradictory and misleading statements that belie Church history. Is this not true?

It is. Believe me, I am 100% for transparency and hedging does not go over well with me. I believe that sooner or later, it always backfires.

There are, on the record, hundreds of blatantly racist statements made by past Church prophets and leaders, including Joseph Smith ("Had I anything to do with the negro, I would confine them by strict law to their own species and put them on a national equalization." History of the Church, Volume 5, pages 218 ‑ 219), Brigham Young ("You must not think, from what I say, that I am opposed to slavery. No! The negro is damned, and is to serve his master till God chooses to remove the curse of Ham." New York Herald, May 4, 1855), Wilford Woodruff ("What was that mark? It was a mark of blackness. That mark rested upon Cain, and descended upon his posterity from that time until the present. Today there are millions of descendants of Cain, through the lineage of Ham, in the world, and that mark of darkness still rests upon them." General Conference, April 7, 1889; Millennial Star 51:339), and John Taylor ("This Greeley is one of their popular characters in the East, and one that supports the stealing of (insert the "N" word here)..." Journal of Discourses 5:119).

I am well-aware of all of these statements, and I have never, ever said that the Church's policy of withholding the priesthood from men of African descent was anything other than racist.

In many cases, statements were grounded in scripture.

And this is where you're wrong. LDS scripture actually teaches the opposite. I don't have time right now to dig in and find the passages I'm thinking of, but I would certainly be happy to do so tomorrow.

1. What moral authority does Mormon scripture have concerning other matters if it contains oppositional ideas about race?

This is a moot point, since Mormon scripture itself does not contain "oppositional ideas about race."

2. Upon what moral authority does the current prophet speak if revelations made by past prophets are no longer valid?

That's just it... There was no revelation instituting the priesthood ban. It was an entirely man-made policy.