In the spirit of MikeWaters' religious and political conspiracy theories

[JohnnyLingo]

This was a classic:

http://www.cougarboard.com/noframes/...tml?id=2606713

Merely an argument against "reparations for slavery".

Politically incorrect? Hell yes.

Racist? No.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

We have multiple accounts of various peoples in the scriptures that were prevented from receiving Gospel blessings (Mosaic Jews from the Melchizedek Priesthood, Gentiles from being preached the Gospel) or were distinguished by God based on their skin color (Lamanites vs Nephites).

I'm saying that given all the above, any reasonably open minded person could not possibly definitively conclude that God didn't have His own reasons to not allow blacks the priesthood.

If you think that stance is sufficient to characterize me as being a racist or defending racism, then I believe you're too close-minded on the subject and/or you're purposefully being intellectually disingenuous.

I just don't buy this bullshit.

In a vacuum, the logical premises can be stated as an argument but given the history of racism, and the fact we have people reporting their causes of exclusion for their own benefit, it's just people covering up for their own defeciencies and blaming God in the process.

I think you're taking the least probable scenario to defend institutional racism. Could one make the intellectual argument you're making? You just did. Is it very persuasive in light of social conditions and other events? Not to me. So in my mind, you're happy to defend a racist policy and blame God for it, when the most probable reason for it lies with the fallibity of men.

Whenever a problme arises, people are wont to blame God. Let's see, who is more likely to have been racist, Brigham Young, a nineteenth century man, or the perfect God who loves all of his children?

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Tex

Less of you is definitely more in my book.

Good one, Tex.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by JohnnyLingo

Merely an argument against "reparations for slavery".

Politically incorrect? Hell yes.

Racist? No.

Racist arguments are acceptable as long as they are only used against reparations for slavery-

Johnny Lingo.

[JohnnyLingo]

Not racist.

[non sequitur]

Originally Posted by JohnnyLingo

Not racist.

And I'm not an apostate. I'm just struggling with my testimony.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by Archaea

I just don't buy this bullshit.

In a vacuum, the logical premises can be stated as an argument but given the history of racism, and the fact we have people reporting their causes of exclusion for their own benefit, it's just people covering up for their own defeciencies and blaming God in the process.

I think you're taking the least probable scenario to defend institutional racism. Could one make the intellectual argument you're making? You just did. Is it very persuasive in light of social conditions and other events? Not to me. So in my mind, you're happy to defend a racist policy and blame God for it, when the most probable reason for it lies with the fallibity of men.

Whenever a problme arises, people are wont to blame God. Let's see, who is more likely to have been racist, Brigham Young, a nineteenth century man, or the perfect God who loves all of his children?

I'm saying you don't possess enough perspective or information to categorically state what God's stance was or wasn't on this doctrine/practice/whatever.

[JohnnyLingo]

Originally Posted by non sequitur

And I'm not an apostate. I'm just struggling with my testimony.

Fine. That's your call.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by non sequitur

And I'm not an apostate. I'm just struggling with my testimony.

It doesn't appear there is much of a struggle going on now. You look like you've comfortably settled into a very antagonistic view of the church and its leaders.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

I'm saying you don't possess enough perspective or information to categorically state what God's stance was or wasn't on this doctrine/practice/whatever.

Neither you nor I can categorically state the mind of God, but for you to take the least plausible logical premise, i.e., that God is a racist and God really wanted this artificial distinction of race to determine who could and who could not hold the priesthood and it's okay BY was, and to take it as a serious possibility is not acceptable to me. It seems you're looking for any reason to justify BY's racism. And as a mullah apologist, that's okay but don't be surprised when people perceive the defenders of a racist policy as racists.

You cannot defend racism without having some element of racism rub off on you.

You're also saying if God wanted to deny a class of individuals the priesthod based on a man-made designation with no logical or natural divisions, that it wouldn't be racism but it would be divine.

Well, if God really adhered to a man-made classification for determining eligibility to hold the priesthood, it would still be racist, i.e., a decision based on race, but perhaps one would not be sinning if God really ordained it. However, it begs reason that God's blessings are determined by an artificial non-natural class, race. That is a social designation, not a genetic or natural classification; hence, it seems impossible God would determine these blessings on that basis.