This.
Just like I have a problem with Mormon missionaries thrusting their faith down peoples throats, I can't stand the segment of atheists who feel the need to force their stupid beliefs down mine/ours. Live and let live, FFS.
Another religious topic......
- Thread starter pickledXgrandma
- Start date
This.
Just like I have a problem with Mormon missionaries thrusting their faith down peoples throats, I can't stand the segment of atheists who feel the need to force their stupid beliefs down mine/ours. Live and let live, FFS.
To miss your point would require you to have much of a point to begin with. Sure, when it comes to religion black Christians are in the majority with the other Christians. When it comes to race they aren't, and they feel like they've been oppressed and use the venue of church to express their grievances. So what, people who feel like they have a beef express their grievances all the time, and many times they do it in an organized manner. In this case blacks use the church. That being said their churches are not significant enough to matter in this country. Nobody is cow towing to the Holy Trinity or whatever church Rev. Wright is the pastor at. He doesn't have an hour long tv show that airs on ABC Family to espouse his nutjob view points like Pat Robertson does.
I don't even know how powerful these guys forming churches like this is. Blacks tend to vote Democrat regardless of religious lines, and probably tend to feel they've been on the short end of the racism stick regardless of religious beliefs. I don't see that changing, though that belief has lessened over time since Jim Crow has went away. The crux of your argument is that these churches shape black beliefs. I don't buy that at all. They are just cashing in on beliefs that blacks have had in this country for decades, and in some instance their beliefs are justifiable though the Rev. Wrights/Jacksons/Sharptons of the world take this much too far.
And yes, the LDS church has a black market for not letting black men be priests before the 70s. IMO only a strong racist would deny that. And I don't give a pass to the black church for their racist views. I've called them a bunch of nubjobs numerous times. The difference is they have no political/cultural/etc. power whatsoever, while the LDS church does, at least out west and particularly in Utah. The Rev. Nutjob's church may have some political clout in South Chicago. Yippee.
asian_roger
Well-Known Member
Here's another question: How white would BYU be if there was no athletics whatsoever?
*mine just sayin'
PearlWatson
Well-Known Member
Wrong. Our president hails from his church. And these racists are constantly trotted out to pressure us into cow towing to their voting block:
Freudian slip?
I laugh at your denial that the racism (the strong focus on the color of the skin mattering above everything else) emanating from these churches have both a strong political and cultural power, as well as the other things I mentioned: NAACP, Black Caucus (<---gave us the housing crisis), BET. Rev. Wright is only one example of the racists running black churches, but our sitting president IS proof of this clout.
I don't deny the "black mark" I just thought your word choice was interesting considering...
****
Does the whole denial of priesthood stem from the skin cursing of Cain/ and or Lamanites? If so then isn't the Judeo Christian God the real racist?
Has their ever been a black pope?
Is it a black mark that Darwiniacs believe blacks are the closest thing to our ape-like ancestors?
Last edited:
*kowtowing
PearlWatson
Well-Known Member
This is amazing, Milsappa. Looks like Archie found the golden calf out in the Sinai last weekend. I'm still working on how this relates to the chip Nate has on his shoulder. I figure this cow probably does gold bricks for "chips". And I'm sure a lot of folks would think they're better than black "chips".
This is profound. We're all still racists in our pick of "chips".
Maybe we would overcome this bias if we were all rounded up and properly re-educated, say by starvation to the point where we would at least pretend to prefer black chips, or be ashamed to talk about, or dream of, yellow ones. It would probably make good public, that is "socialist" policy to get all kinds of political correctness laid out for us in everyday life as well.
This is profound. We're all still racists in our pick of "chips".
Maybe we would overcome this bias if we were all rounded up and properly re-educated, say by starvation to the point where we would at least pretend to prefer black chips, or be ashamed to talk about, or dream of, yellow ones. It would probably make good public, that is "socialist" policy to get all kinds of political correctness laid out for us in everyday life as well.
Yeah, Obama went to that church and it didn't take him much time to distance and abandon it when he was more than a Senator. I'm sure attending it made him look good the community that elected him, and that's about it. Then again I do find it shocking that a politician would do something for political reasons. All that being said, if that church was so powerful in daily life how come nobody outside of Chicago had ever heard of it before Obama ran for office? At least the other two nutjobs you listed had been heard of, though they are pretty much taken as a joke by the large majority of the populace.
Again, your assertion is that they are out there twisting black arms into voting Democrat. I don't buy that. Whether you like Democrat policies or not, blacks on the whole tend to and will vote for them, mostly because blacks on the whole tend to be poorer than most other groups in this country. It's a rather simple concept that people vote for who they feel represents their best interests, and the poor getting funding for the government is an interest for them.
Not much of a freduen slip, unless you can tell me how the word "market" really applies. Mostly just a continuation of one word to another that I type constantly.
You can laugh at whatever, it doesn't make it less true. What political power do these guys have? It's a bloc that has been voting Democrat regardless of religion for the past 30-40 years or so, ever since the end of the Civil Rights era and the southern Democrats died out and the GOP took their place. They don't need the pulpit. The pulpit capitalizes on their feelings and preaches to their constituents, which is pretty good if you want the collection plate to fill with money. And Obama is no proof of that clout whatsoever. Obama would have been the President if he would have went to the most white bread Presbyterian church in the world. He is a political genius, as most guys who win the Presidency are. He threw Jeremiah Wright under the bus so fast that you can still see tread marks on the guy's face.
I have no idea what religious reasoning the LDS used to deny blacks from the priesthood, and I don't care. People used to use religious reasoning to justify slavery, and they were wrong then. I don't think there has been a black pope, although the difference there is I don't think there is a stated prohibition against it. And frankly, I'm not fan of the Catholic church at all so I wouldn't defend them. And if "Dawiniacs" believe that blacks are the closest thing to apes in the human race, then yes, it is black mark on them, though I don't believe that's true for a second.
I have no idea what you're talking about. This all started with the simple statement that I believe that the LDS church denying blacks into the priesthood was a bad period in their history. It's really as simple as that. If that is having a chip on my shoulder than, hm, well, you must have an amazingly low standard as to what defines that.
Mormon doctrine with regard to blacks was never very well-developed, and there were always facts within the Mormon community that ran in opposite directions . Mormons were mostly "Christian" prior to their becoming Mormons, mostly northern and abolitionist. . . . and later mostly British, in the period where "No sugar in my tea" was a civil protest against the slave trade, which was taking blacks to the Carribean sugar plantations owned by Brits.
Southern converts were required to give their slaves their freedom as a necessary step into Mormonism, because "It is not right that any man should be held in bondage."
Mormon teachings contained diverse statements about curses causing God to "change" some people's skin color, while later in the same Book of Mormon related how some dark-skinned "Lamanites" were more righteous than the "Nephites", or treated their wives and families better. Common Mormons used to believe the Lamanites would become white again, and open statements about the justice of God plainly claimed that blacks who faithfully served the Lord, though lacking the Priesthood in this life, would receive all God has to offer in God's due time.
While ignorance is universal, and human prejudice the common lot. . . . and can really only be treated with patience and effort to advance understanding of others. . . . the argument to show actual Mormon doctrine on the subject of blacks to be related to scriptural beliefs arising from the Abrahamic covenant originally, with references to lore pre-dating even that, is sometimes not allowed into the discussion. The Mormon idea of a "universal priesthood" is quite unique and distinct from Christian and Jewish origins, though. In the chapters of the Bible where it is written that God wants a "nation of priests", the scriptural origin of LDS "universal" priesthood ideas, also contains specific restrictions on marriages and acceptance of named tribes listed as descendants of Ham in the same "Law of Moses". Some dispassionate, objective erudite historian might call this mere tribalism, and note that the tribes named were so "judged" on an issues of their behavior, not their skin, and that anyway they are not known today, etc etc etc, but the Bible goes on several hundreds of years later to deal with the same issue again. And decries Solomon for not observing the distinctions.
But Christians early on dropped those ideas in the crush of believing Jesus' atonement was universal, and there is no "known to me" evidence of Christians having restrictions on blacks in regard to holding office in the early Church. However Mormonism arose, it did so in a context where there was a lot of contention in regard to race. We were doing genocide against the natives, and holding humans as slaves, and politically fighting to maintain/abolish slavery. We even went through a civil war on the subject. Mormons supported the North.
In the mix of all that, the main appeal of Mormonism was "restoration", of the Biblical covenant people, and they read the Bible, and got their doctrine from the Bible on that subject. And did not "hate" blacks or exclude them from membership or meetings, and made some exceptions to their rules, and carried divided ideals all the way.
What I am saying is that people, like Nate, who make statements about Mormon "racism", are ignorant of the history, the angst within Mormonism, and the compassion most Mormons have always had for all people. It seems to me that Mormons deserve to be understood in better terms, and that sentiments promoting throwing out hate-laden vitriol like "racist" are actually just as ignorant as any Mormon ever was.
We're a long way from being perfect, as humans of any kind. Understanding and tolerance are necessary conditions for people to have their inalienable human rights. I think it is worthwhile to make the effort.
The right to speech and belief is just as sacred as the right to go to the nearest toilet. The Mormons deserve that.