The purpose of Blacks and the Priesthood ban

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Tex

"We do not expect the people of the world to understand such things, for they will always be quick to assign their own reasons or to discount the divine process of revelation.”

Let me counter with "we do not expect the Saints to understand where the Prophets call 'mulligan' and say that all talk is over."

Right now that's what the 1978 act was. Calling 'mulligan'.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Let me counter with "we do not expect the Saints to understand where the Prophets call 'mulligan' and say that all talk is over."

Right now that's what the 1978 act was. Calling 'mulligan'.

As this thread wears on, your posts get increasingly more nonsensical. It's like Mr. Magoo is posting.

[BYU71]

Originally Posted by Tex

As this thread wears on, your posts get increasingly more nonsensical. It's like Mr. Magoo is posting.

The longer this thread wears on I note the conflict between someone who wants to believe in a faith based God always being involved religion, can not reconcile their opinions with someone who wants a democracy based and reasoned religion.

Since I fall in the middle, I actually can see both sides of the argument. Because I fall in the middle, I don't see the zeal with which each side argues though.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Adam

Lying for the Lord is the oldest and noblest tradition of the Prophets. In this dispensation it started with Joseph lied to Oliver and Emma and took Fanny as his 15 year old bride. Such lying continued when Wilford Woodruff pretended to end plural marriage with the Manifesto. Elder Oaks was caught in a major lie only a few years ago by Steve Benson and a writer for the SLTrib who taped an interview with him. Interestingly Elder Oaks take on "Lying for the Lord" in a 1993 BYU talk. An excerpt:



All I can say is wow. Outline that argument and see if it makes any sense to you. If it does, please explain it to me.

From your own quote:

I will not judge them. That judgement belongs to the Lord, who knows all of the circumstances and the hearts of the actors, a level of comprehension and wisdom not approached by even the most knowledgeable historians.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Adam

Lying for the Lord is the oldest and noblest tradition of the Prophets. In this dispensation it started with Joseph lied to Oliver and Emma and took Fanny as his 15 year old bride. Such lying continued when Wilford Woodruff pretended to end plural marriage with the Manifesto. Elder Oaks was caught in a major lie only a few years ago by Steve Benson and a writer for the SLTrib who taped an interview with him. Interestingly Elder Oaks take on "Lying for the Lord" in a 1993 BYU talk. An excerpt:

All I can say is wow. Outline that argument and see if it makes any sense to you. If it does, please explain it to me.

This is old territory Adam. Been over it with you already. You don't have a free pass to retreat behind your "lying for the Lord" argument every time you don't want to face the facts.

[SoCalCoug]

Originally Posted by Tex

"Ready to accept them and put them into place." A hint, perhaps, as to why the Lord previously said no?

Who are you arguing with? As I understand the position opposing yours, it is that the delay in changing the policy (which you acknowledge in other posts was a policy rather than doctrine) was because the church leaders (because of anti-black sentiments) were not yet ready to accept the policy change.

You either don't understand what you're arguing against, or you're making points for the other side.

[K-dog]

The only interesting part in all of this for me is...who cares?

I would venture to say that any organization in this country dating back before the Civil War has a racist history. Why would there be any interest in pointing it out? The implication I have a problem with is the implication that we are still racist as a church. I admit that we are slow to change and, as a result, were racist for longer than many groups, but we are not currently racist. IMHO.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by K-dog

The only interesting part in all of this for me is...who cares?

I would venture to say that any organization in this country dating back before the Civil War has a racist history. Why would there be any interest in pointing it out? The implication I have a problem with is the implication that we are still racist as a church. I admit that we are slow to change and, as a result, were racist for longer than many groups, but we are not currently racist. IMHO.

There are many Mormons, like Tex, who would argue that the *church* has never been *racist*.

So your belief is not a consensus belief.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

There are many Mormons, like Tex, who would argue that the *church* has never been *racist*.

So your belief is not a consensus belief.

What, perchance, could all 13 million people reach a consensus belief on?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

There are many Mormons, like Tex, who would argue that the *church* has never been *racist*.

So your belief is not a consensus belief.

Draw whatever conclusion about the church's racism that you want ... my primary contention has always been that the ban did not exist sans God.

Your primary problem is that you cannot except a God that would do such thing which, in your mind, would make him a racist.