mormonism racist?

[maklelan]

If you can't stop making personal attacks and address the substance of my posts, I will have to report you to the moderators.

You still haven't addressed the substance of the very first post I directed toward you in a perfectly respectful manner. When you can respond to that honestly I'll be happy to care about what you think. Until then you're just using juvenile evasion methods.

I have not evaded anything, and I'll thank you to stop falsely asserting that I am.

Again:

I think the point was that there was a working ban that really had no indication of ever having been formally accepted as revelation or as doctrine. Thus it was not official, despite the assumptions of those in the church who espouse the idea that if a church authority said it, it's official.

Did that make the slightest difference to the Black Mormons who were denied the priesthood for 100 years?

I made a perfectly valid point and rather than engage it, you changed the subject to a rather juvenile little jab. Stop pretending you're taking a moral high road.

 

[Autodidact]

Don't talk down to me as if you're being the least bit honest in this discussion.



When you begin to address the substance of mine I will return the favor, but as you've shown in the following exchange, you're not interested in engaging anything honestly:

I think the point was that there was a working ban that really had no indication of ever having been formally accepted as revelation or as doctrine. Thus it was not official, despite the assumptions of those in the church who espouse the idea that if a church authority said it, it's official.

Did that make the slightest difference to the Black Mormons who were denied the priesthood for 100 years?[/quote]

You're only interested in slinging bigotry and evading points you can't deal with.



I've stated so unequivocally. You didn't respond. Remember?



See the official church website's explanation of what constitutes doctrine here. The relevant quotes are the following:





This is as I have explained already more than once. You have yet to directly engage those statements, you've only childishly changed the subject. You're not an expert on this. Grow up and stop wasting yours and everyone else's time with this ridiculous crusade.[/quote]

*sigh* So no, you can't respond to substance, you have to stamp your virtual feet and call me names instead. So noted.

I didn't say it was doctrine. We're not arguing about doctrine. It's not about doctrine.
I hope I've made that clear.

What I said was, there was a ban. Deep Shadow responded by asserting that the ban was never official. I have cited several primary sources stating that it was. The sources cited are Mormon scholars and Mormon documents. If you want to assert that these sources are incorrect, and there was never any official Mormon ban on black men holding the priesthood, I'd say the onus is on you at this point to provide some evidence of that. In particular, if you want to assert that a respected, published, Mormon scholar, citing specific official church documents, is factually mistaken, you have an uphill battle.

 

[Autodidact]

You still haven't addressed the substance of the very first post I directed toward you in a perfectly respectful manner. When you can respond to that honestly I'll be happy to care about what you think. Until then you're just using juvenile evasion methods.

I'm sorry, which post did I miss?

I made a perfectly valid point and rather than engage it, you changed the subject to a rather juvenile little jab. Stop pretending you're taking a moral high road.

Which point?

Did you notice how my response to people questioning my assertions has been to do research, and cite reputable sources in support of them? While yours has been to attack my character? I leave it to you to make a moral judgment about that.

 

[maklelan]

First Presidency Statement on The Negro Question, August 17, 1949.

This is a simple assertion that this policy was earlier made official, but the institution of that policy is nowhere found, and this assertion cannot produce it. As I said before, it was a working ban that was never formally made official. Statements to the effect that "it was previously made official" don't formally make it official, they just assert that it was done in the past. They say it was a direct commandment, but no such commandment can be produced.

 

[maklelan]

I'm sorry, which post did I miss?

The post that I've directly quoted to you twice now. I'm getting tired of your constant refusal to respond honestly to anything. Please respond honestly and directly to my statement in your response to this post or you will be put on ignore. I can't have my time wasted by people who just want to beliigerently harp about some pet gripe.

 

[Autodidact]

This is a simple assertion that this policy was earlier made official, but the institution of that policy is nowhere found, and this assertion cannot produce it. As I said before, it was a working ban that was never formally made official. Statements to the effect that "it was previously made official" don't formally make it official, they just assert that it was done in the past. They say it was a direct commandment, but no such commandment can be produced.

So when the First Presidency issues an official policy stating the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the priesthood at the present time, it is neither policy nor doctrine?

Are you saying that the First Presidency was mistaken in its official policy statement?

 

[Autodidact]

The post that I've directly quoted to you twice now. I'm getting tired of your constant refusal to respond honestly to anything. Please respond honestly and directly to my statement in your response to this post or you will be put on ignore. I can't have my time wasted by people who just want to beliigerently harp about some pet gripe.

I'm sorry, I can't find any post of yours that I have failed to respond to. I do find several responses that you didn't like.

I admit to a pet gripe. I'm hung up on the truth.

 

[maklelan]

*sigh* So no, you can't respond to substance, you have to stamp your virtual feet and call me names instead. So noted.

I didn't say it was doctrine. We're not arguing about doctrine. It's not about doctrine.
I hope I've made that clear.

If it's not about doctrine then why the quote with the bolded section here:

The attitude of the Church with reference to Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the priesthood at the present time.

You clearly want it to be about doctrine. I'm not going to ask you again to stop being dishonest.

 

[tomasortega]

notice how condescending maklelan is. every post he disagrees with is automatically immature, childish, pubescent, infantile and whatever other word he can come up with. first, he introduces his reply with "first, let me humbly state how extremely immature you are" then he ends with "did i mention? you are pubescent"

apparently maklelan is frustrated because every other average schmo off the street can spend 2 minutes googling mormonism and completely blow holes through his supposed authoritarian knowledge on the subject. doesnt sound like a terribly stable religion to me. with our ever-advancing politically correct times, watch out.

 

[maklelan]

I'm sorry, I can't find any post of yours that I have failed to respond to. I do find several responses that you didn't like.

I admit to a pet gripe. I'm hung up on the truth.

You're still refusing to be honest, and you're on ignore.

 

[maklelan]

notice how condescending maklelan is. every post he disagrees with is automatically immature, childish, pubescent, infantile and whatever other word he can come up with. first, he introduces his reply with "first, let me humbly state how extremely immature you are" then he ends with "did i mention? you are pubescent"

I've never called anyone "pubescent," but I did respond directly to some accusations of yours regarding the phrase "It came to pass" in the Book of Mormon. I showed quite conclusively that you were wrong. Do you have a response to that, or you only concerned with discussions you feel you can win? My instinct tells me you realize how far out of your league you are with that discussion and aren't going to risk any blows to your ego by admitting any actual weaknesses or mistakes. You're welcome to prove me wrong, but you can't.

apparently maklelan is frustrated because every other average schmo off the street can spend 2 minutes googling mormonism and completely blow holes through his supposed authoritarian knowledge on the subject. doesnt sound like a terribly stable religion to me. with our ever-advancing politically correct times, watch out.

Is that what you did to find that "It came to pass" argument? You spent 2 minutes googling Mormonism? If you don't care enough to put more than 2 minutes into your research, how can you expect (1) to be accurate, and (2) to be treated like a person who knows what they're doing?

 

[tomasortega]

You're still refusing to be honest, and you're on ignore.

why dont you stop wasting everyone's time and point it out to her?

 

[Autodidact]

If it's not about doctrine then why the quote with the bolded section here:

You clearly want it to be about doctrine. I'm not going to ask you again to stop being dishonest.

It's not about what I want, it's about the facts. In this thread, I simply stated that there was a ban. Deep Shadow responded that there never was an official ban. I did some research to show that it was. Clearly, it is. After citing several reputable Mormon scholars, a black Mormon website, and several primary sources, including private and public letters from the First Presidency and an official policy statement from the First Presidency. I submit that my sources cannot be improved upon.

For you to be right, The Black Mormon, Armand Mauss, Lester Bush, and The First Presidency would all have to be wrong.

 

[Autodidact]

You're still refusing to be honest, and you're on ignore.

Buh-bye.

 

[maklelan]

why dont you stop wasting everyone's time and point it out to her?

I did. I directly quoted it twice in responses directly to her. If you would read what we're saying instead of just reading anti-Mormon crap and buying it wholesale you might get a more objective perspective. By the way, you're welcome to respond to my discussion of your "It came to pass" accusation here. I'll refrain from responding to any of your further posts until you respond directly to that one.

By the way, I was wondering about your whole "pubescent" accusation, and then I remembered where you got it from. It's you who likes to insult people that way (see here):

very pubescent how you attempt to justify. . .

It's one thing to accuse someone of something they didn't do, but it's quite another to shake your head in disapproval when that accusation is actually something you do. Bad form.

 

[Autodidact]

*resists temptation to poke Maklelan from ignore position*

 

[Autodidact]

Maklelan and DeepShadow,

As time goes by, I am seeing more and more Latter-day Saints who are willing to accept the fact that the policy of denying the priesthood to Black men was never an official doctrine of the Church. It is so important that we admit this. While presumably well-meaning and perhaps believing that they had a scriptural precedent for instituting the ban, Brigham Young and those in authority who followed him were not acting under direction from God. God never authorized the ban. We have to acknowledge this. I'm so glad to see that the two of you do.

Sorry, missed this post in the flurry. So when the First Presidency said in its official statement in 1947 that it was doctrine, they were mistaken? Can First Presidency policies be mistaken?

 

[tomasortega]

i do find it interesting. if mormonism really has no ties to racism as ALL 2 or 3 of you mormons say. how is it that the vast majority of human population seems to be inclined to think so? was all of humanity brainwashed????

if blacks were never really banned. how is it that everyone(even including a good chunk of mormons) except for a select few LDS believe and accept it to be a HISTORICAL FACT???? IS EVERYONE except you an IDIOT??

its about as ridiculous as certain muslims denying the holocaust.

if mormonism is the ONE true flawless god inspired path/religion to eternal peace and happiness, why is it burdened with such controversy? sure doesnt sound like the inpiration of a good, perfect, supreme flawless god to me..... if you are so stong in your belief and know you hold the answer to life's mysteries. how is it that every putz out there can knock you off your high horse with ease, and get the best of you without even trying? i mean, if you have found your peace, and know you are right, there should be no reason in basing your arguments on irrelevant technicalities and clouding over facts in attempts to distort the truth. if you actually had any wise points to make you would never resort to ad hominem attacks. your insults only show your weakness and frustration.

 

[maklelan]

i do find it interesting. if mormonism really has no ties to racism as ALL 2 or 3 of you mormons say.

Actually if you had read what I said you'd see that's not what I'm claiming.

how is it that the vast majority of human population seems to be inclined to think so? was all of humanity brainwashed????

By "vast majority of humanity" do you mean all the anti-Mormons you run into on the internet, or ALL 2 of you on this thread? You're misrepresenting us and the context of this issue.

if blacks were never really banned.

I made it quite clear that there was a working ban. Please read what I say before you comment on it.

how is it that everyone(even including a good chunk of mormons) except for a select few LDS believe and accept it to be a HISTORICAL FACT???? IS EVERYONE except you an IDIOT??

I'll refrain from commenting on the caliber of person who criticizes a position he clearly hasn't read.

its about as ridiculous as certain muslims denying the holocaust.

if mormonism is the ONE true flawless god inspired path/religion to eternal peace and happiness, why is it burdened with such controversy?

First, not a single member of the church is perfect, and so mistakes happen. The only promise we have regarding the permanency of the church is that the church will never be led to destruction. Second, the church happens to have a rather clever adversary, and controversy is not a tool he's unwilling to use. There's an old story about a guy travelling to a city. He meets a guy outside the city and they're looking over the city talking about how good it is. They see a man walking down a street with a dozen demons circling around him, and another guy sitting under a tree reading with one demon circling around above his head. The guy says to the traveler, "That guy under the tree must be very righteous, while the man walking down the street must be very evil." The traveler responds, "No, the man under the tree does not require much effort from the adversary to fulfill his goals, while the man walking down the street must be relentlessly bombarded by demons in order for the devil to have a chance against him. He is the more righteous." Tomas, you're the guy who gets it wrong in that story.

sure doesnt sound like the inpiration of a good, perfect, supreme flawless god to me.....

And it's a good thing that truth isn't determined by how things "sound" to you.

if you are so stong in your belief and know you hold the answer to life's mysteries. how is it that every putz out there can knock you off your high horse with ease, and get the best of you without even trying?

You mean like with that crap about the phrase "It came to pass"? Is that what "not even trying" is for you? By all means, then, please try, because that was an atrocious point.

i mean, if you have found your peace, and know you are right, there should be no reason in basing your arguments on irrelevant technicalities and clouding over facts in attempts to distort the truth. if you actually had any wise points to make you would never resort to ad hominem attacks. your insults only show your weakness and frustration.

And so you argue that ad hominem is an illegitimate argument and conclude with ad hominem ("your weakness and frustration")? I liked it better when you showed you didn't know what you were talking about by simply refusing to respond. At least that way you keep your mouth shut and don't "remove all doubt" as the old maxim goes.

By the way, I asked you several times to respond to the "It came to pass" discussion, but you'd rather whine about how mean we all are and how we must be wrong, because if we were right we wouldn't be mean (what salient logic). Since you're obviously not willing to be honest and forthcoming about that discussion, I see no reason you'll be either of those things at any point in the future, and so you're on ignore.

 

[Katzpur]

i do find it interesting. if mormonism really has no ties to racism as ALL 2 or 3 of you mormons say. how is it that the vast majority of human population seems to be inclined to think so? was all of humanity brainwashed????

There is not a Latter-day Saint on this forum who has said there was never any racism in the Church. There was certainly racism, as there is racism in all cultures, societies and religions. The question is, does (or did) the official doctrines of the Church condone or even encourage racism or is it merely that the LDS people are products of not only their religion but of their culture as well? As for what the "majority of the human population seems inclined to think," don't you think it's just a little bit presumptuous for you to assume that you know or could possible prove such a statement?

if blacks were never really banned. how is it that everyone(even including a good chunk of mormons) except for a select few LDS believe and accept it to be a HISTORICAL FACT???? IS EVERYONE except you an IDIOT??

Again, nobody has ever stated that a ban did not exist. You are either reading a whole lot into what we've said or else you're not reading what we've said at all. The more you point fingers at us and imply that we're idiots, the more ridiculous you make yourself look. Of course there was a ban. Every single Latter-day Saint who has posted on this thread has acknowledged that. What we've been saying, but what you have been ignoring, is that the ban was never part of the official doctrine of the Church. Doctrine is unchanging. It is determined by God and revealed by God to men through the power of the Holy Ghost. Policies, on the other hand, may be revealed, but oftentimes merely reflect the decisions made by human beings who have not consulted God on the subject. LDS leaders are fallible. They have never claimed to be otherwise. What you don't understand and apparently have no desire to understand is that there is a very specific procedure by which a teaching becomes official doctrine. The ban against Blacks holding the priesthood was never established as official doctrine. It was not a policy that God authorized. It was a policy established by our leaders. Many of us today find that policy and the effect it had on the many Black men who would have been faithful priesthood holders had they been given that opportunity, tragic. We don't deny it happened. We're just trying to explain the context in which it happened. Unfortunately, you and others just don't seem to be listening to what we're saying.

its about as ridiculous as certain muslims denying the holocaust.

Yes, if it were true that we were denying it, it would be just that ridiculous.

i mean, if you have found your peace, and know you are right, there should be no reason in basing your arguments on irrelevant technicalities and clouding over facts in attempts to distort the truth. if you actually had any wise points to make you would never resort to ad hominem attacks. your insults only show your weakness and frustration.

Clearly it's you who is guilty of these charges, not us.