Wow, that was an amazing display of apologism. Truly stunning. All of which does absolutely nothing to refute that the LDS church had restrictions that were racially based. But great job of trying to excuse it, that's like wonderful.
So the early days of the LDS were people who were abolitionists. That's great, and something they should be proud of. They treated natives good as well. Again, that's good. I knew all that. I was not ignorant of that history. That does not excuse a near century of racism after it. And frankly, I doubt this would have been an issue if they were excluding blacks from the priesthood until the 40s or 50s or whatever. The US was a pretty racist place in those times. However, they kept the exclusion up until 1978, well after Jim Crow had been abolished. When you're slow to change with your racist beliefs that's not a good thing. Imagine if they still held these beliefs today. They would be getting roasted over the coals, and rightfully so, because civil rights in this country have made great progress since the 60s, and most groups who practice any sort of exclusionary ideas based on race are way behind the times.
The last sentence is just a pathetic strawman. Nobody is denying Mormons their right to speech or belief, and nobody has never made that claim. They are protected under the First Amendment like everyone else. Not to mention you're acting like I'm painting the LDS church with some sort of horrible brush. I have nothing against the LDS church. They have a bad period of their history like damn near any group that has been around forever has, and my biggest criticism of it is that it took them too long to get past it and that's why it looks so bad. This isn't just limited to the LDS church. My family is Methodist and I love that church to death, despite being an agnostic. However the Methodist church to this day does not allow gay pastors, and I believe it is a dark mark on the church that still stands. Doesn't mean I hate the Methodist church and don't understand or tolerate members of the church or people who agree with that view. But IMO, it's wrong, and I believe in the future people will be looking at it as an intolerant time in the church's history. Now if in 20-30 years there are other mainstream Protestant denominations that allow gay priests and gay rights are more concrete in this country (like their right to marry) and the Methodist church still doesn't allow it, that will look much worse on them.
So the early days of the LDS were people who were abolitionists. That's great, and something they should be proud of. They treated natives good as well. Again, that's good. I knew all that. I was not ignorant of that history. That does not excuse a near century of racism after it. And frankly, I doubt this would have been an issue if they were excluding blacks from the priesthood until the 40s or 50s or whatever. The US was a pretty racist place in those times. However, they kept the exclusion up until 1978, well after Jim Crow had been abolished. When you're slow to change with your racist beliefs that's not a good thing. Imagine if they still held these beliefs today. They would be getting roasted over the coals, and rightfully so, because civil rights in this country have made great progress since the 60s, and most groups who practice any sort of exclusionary ideas based on race are way behind the times.
The last sentence is just a pathetic strawman. Nobody is denying Mormons their right to speech or belief, and nobody has never made that claim. They are protected under the First Amendment like everyone else. Not to mention you're acting like I'm painting the LDS church with some sort of horrible brush. I have nothing against the LDS church. They have a bad period of their history like damn near any group that has been around forever has, and my biggest criticism of it is that it took them too long to get past it and that's why it looks so bad. This isn't just limited to the LDS church. My family is Methodist and I love that church to death, despite being an agnostic. However the Methodist church to this day does not allow gay pastors, and I believe it is a dark mark on the church that still stands. Doesn't mean I hate the Methodist church and don't understand or tolerate members of the church or people who agree with that view. But IMO, it's wrong, and I believe in the future people will be looking at it as an intolerant time in the church's history. Now if in 20-30 years there are other mainstream Protestant denominations that allow gay priests and gay rights are more concrete in this country (like their right to marry) and the Methodist church still doesn't allow it, that will look much worse on them.
