This dude is hilarious and hits the nail on the head!

The Way Of The Mister -
https://youtu.be/fUkFrn4RjSk

Despite the fact the racist CULT of Joseph's Myth wrote a PR piece, admitting their racist Priesthood Ban was just plain old fashioned racism and their leaders were not inspired by any doctrine, 66% of MORmONs STILL think the "Priesthood Ban" was inspired by their racist God.
And even more sad, 75% of MORmON People of Color, STILL believe the "Priesthood Ban" was inspired by their racist God.
#stockholmsyndrome anybody? lol

Despite the fact, calling it a "Priesthood Ban" is a misnomer, since it wasn't just Black Men who were banned from receiving the Priesthood, it was everybody, male and female of African descent, who were banned from the temple or from being married in the MORmON version of a Disney castle.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11/14/2019 09:35PM by schrodingerscat.

the fact that no MORmON can answer the question this question honestly,

Women have always been allowed into Mormon temples, despite the fact they never had the priesthood, so why did the church discriminate against black women by banning them from entering MORmON temples prior to 1978?

https://yourdream.liveyourdream.org/2017/03/history-of-womens-rights-america/

The early American colonies base their laws on the English common law, which said, “By marriage, the husband and wife are one person in the law. The very being and legal existence of the woman is suspended during the marriage, or at least is incorporated into that of her husband under whose wing and protection she performs everything.”

The above concept, coverture, is important to understand in the struggle for female equality, suffrage, and within mormonism, priesthood and the temple. It is no justification, but it explains a lot behavior in how the early Mormons viewed the world.

that logic completely breaks down when you stop to think that a black woman still would have been banned from a MORmON Temple prior to 1978, even if she was married to the most righteous MORmON white man on the planet.
There are still very well educated MORmONs, like my exwife's OB/Gyn, who still believe that the priesthood ban was inspired by God, which is totally racist which the MORmON crutch has even come right out and said was racist.
But MORmONs CANNOT believe that they themselves are personally racist, any more than any other white person in America. But they are, voting for a white supremacist more than any other demographic kind of establishes that fact.

I never said it was logical nor that it explained racism. But it had a lot to do with the set of women allowed in the temple historically.

Dogbloggernli Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I never said it was logical nor that it explained
> racism. But it had a lot to do with the set of
> women allowed in the temple historically.

Every Sister Missionary I knew had been admitted into a MORmON Temple, so why was it only blacks who were excluded from Mormon temples up until 14 years after passage of the Civil Rights Act? It obviously had nothing to do with the fact that they didn't have the Priesthood and EVERYthing to do with plain old fashioned racism.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/14/2019 10:55PM by schrodingerscat.

14 years after the civil rights legislation is the exact reason that it was done at that time. One of the legislation's that came in 1965 or 66 was integration of mixed racial families of adopted children. The earliest integration was for Korean refugees and war victims in 1953, and then it expanded to blacks. The very first integrated mormon families in Utah would have had kids turning 13 in 1978.

As for the priesthood ban being something racist, I have a hard time thinking Brigham Young was any more racist than anyone else. In fact I think he was rather quite open minded. What's important here is to go back in time to the 1840 and research why and what was going on at the time. To be called an Abolitionist was a volatile, threatening, ugly, and dangerous political view for anyone to have.

It would be akin to today looking at a weirdo and calling them a communist, suspecting them of being in favor of mass shootings, or making bombs in the basement to destroy society.

Brigham Young started out without any displeasure to Slaves, And even thought it fine to see interracial marriage, but something changed in 1846 that isn't talked about much. There was a particular run-away slave that came and behaved in a certain unrespectful uncooth way to everyone in the town, He had no schooling, was shiftless, crude, He was taking multiple white women and practicing indecent fondling in public, or bragging about white women. The Church got scared, really upset at what the product was going to be especially with polygamy, How America could change. It's the same thing the North and South were upset about and the real reason the South had segregation for 100 years after the Civil War. This fear that only recently Americans are beginning to begin to open to. Brigham had to act. He was pragmatic.

watch this clip to understand the pioneer point of view, it was the same fear the South had.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y8h80kEdrE4

macaRomney Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 14 years after the civil rights legislation is the
> exact reason that it was done at that time. One of
> the legislation's that came in 1965 or 66 was
> integration of mixed racial families of adopted
> children. The earliest integration was for Korean
> refugees and war victims in 1953, and then it
> expanded to blacks.

This is incorrect. There were (rare) interracial adoptions going back at least to the beginning of the 20th century, and the number rose significantly in the 1940s as social groups started agitating for it. I'm not sure what law you believe was passed in 1965-1966, but nothing major changed at that point.


----------------
> As for the priesthood ban being something racist,
> I have a hard time thinking Brigham Young was any
> more racist than anyone else.

BY was sure as hell more racist than Joseph Smith, for the latter gave the priesthood to black people and promised one that she would be part of his family in the Celestial Kingdom.


-----------------
> In fact I think he
> was rather quite open minded. What's important
> here is to go back in time to the 1840 and
> research why and what was going on at the time. To
> be called an Abolitionist was a volatile,
> threatening, ugly, and dangerous political view
> for anyone to have.

This is just bizarre. The various northern states abolished slavery between 1777 (Vermont) and 1800. The US government banned the international slave trade in 1808 and, in 1820, made the importation of slaves a capital offense. By 1850 most of the north wanted to abolish slavery in all US states; and by 1856 the Republican Party was organized as an explicitly abolitionist party. So how can you possibly characterize abolitionism in the 1840s as "a volatile, threatening, ugly, and dangerous political view for anyone to have?"


---------------
> It would be akin to today looking at a weirdo and
> calling them a communist, suspecting them of being
> in favor of mass shootings, or making bombs in the
> basement to destroy society.

That's just bizarre.


----------------
> Brigham Young started out without any displeasure
> to Slaves, And even thought it fine to see
> interracial marriage, but something changed in
> 1846 that isn't talked about much. There was a
> particular run-away slave that came and behaved in
> a certain unrespectful uncooth way to everyone in
> the town, He had no schooling, was shiftless,
> crude, He was taking multiple white women and
> practicing indecent fondling in public, or
> bragging about white women. The Church got scared,
> really upset at what the product was going to be
> especially with polygamy, How America could
> change. It's the same thing the North and South
> were upset about and the real reason the South had
> segregation for 100 years after the Civil War.
> This fear that only recently Americans are
> beginning to begin to open to. Brigham had to act.
> He was pragmatic.

That is utter bullshit.


-------------
> watch this clip to understand the pioneer point of
> view, it was the same fear the South had.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y8h80kEdrE4

Seriously? You belive a grad student speaking at FAIR is credible?

I blame the education system.

Education is a waste. People teach facts rather than Manifest Destiny and the cultural superiority of cowboys.

Bring salvation to those Lamanites, y'all. Ugh.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/14/2019 11:04PM by Beth.

Salvation?
http://www.timpanogostribe.com/

Even today, racism mandated by God is a prominent feature in their scriptures, doctrines and history. And it's not just in the bogus books of scripture created by Joe and friends. It's also in the Old Testament.

When the ban was in effect, Mormon leaders weren't like "We hope people won't think that this is a racist thing."

They were like: "This disparate treatment of people is based on skin color/ancestry ("race") and not only is it good, but it's what God wants."

Seed of Cain, cowardly spirits in the war in heaven, scriptures declaring that god curses evil people with dark skin.

It's all there. It's all still there.

The only difference is that they are working really hard to sweep it under the rug, ignore it and strain their brains in feeble attempts to make it seem like it isn't what it looks like.

Why do they do that? Maybe a little bit because they really don't have much faith in their past prophets and doctrines. But the biggest reason is that they're simply playing follow-the-leader with the larger society within which Mormons are only a tiny subset. The larger society has moved on from the mindset that prevailed in Joseph Smith's and Brigham Young's day. Mormons are always about 3 decades behind, but always eventually following.

Not what you would expect from an organization that claims to be led by God's one and only prophet and mouthpiece for the whole world. But exactly what you would expect if their claims are bogus.

I've always viewed this as one of the most overlooked proofs of the falseness and fraudulence of the Church's claims. What are the missionaries doing? They're basically trying to sell outsiders on the idea that they should join the LSD Church so that they can embrace beliefs, policies and practices that the LSD Church will likely abandon 30 years from now. "Hey, join our church and put yourself 30 years behind where you are now in your thinking, but will eventually cycle back to where you are now in your thinking because our church will 30 years from now catch up to where you are now. Good deal, right? YOLO, man! What you're thinking and doing now is wrong because our church condemns it, but 30 years from now it will be okay. You need to be in our church so that you will know when it becomes okay."

Obviously, if their claims of divine inspiration and leadership were true, Mormon doctrine, beliefs, practices and policies wouldn't have to be swept under the rug. The rest of the world would always eventually be compelled to follow the leadership of the Mormon church, lest they be smitten by Mormon God's mighty smitey things.

Polygamy would still be a thing. Racism would still be just fine. And Harvard would have a huge well-funded department devoted to Book of Mormon Archaeology and Lamanite Studies.