I've never met a MORmON (Black or White) who can honestly answer this simple question,

"You don't need the priesthood to get into a temple, given the fact women have always been allowed in without it, so Why did the MORmONs deny blacks entry into their temples for over 130 years prior to 1978?"

I've asked MORmONs this numerous times and have only gotten lies instead of answers. Usually it's some version of, "Well, we don't understand why God commanded us to do that." which is nonsense, since nowhere in any scriptures or recorded revelation does it say anything about God commanding a prophet to discriminate against black people by denying them entry into temples. He did however command us to love our fellow man as ourselves, and discriminating against our fellow man, based upon the color of their skin, completely violates that commandment.

At which point it's easy to point out the fact that they are not being honest and THIS is exactly why I quit being MORmON, because you can't be honest AND MORmON.
You have to pick one or the other.

  

elderolddog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>   
Or you could just resort to ad hominem attacks, like you do, EVERY GD time!

There's no chance I'm just being honest?

Man, that hurts!

elderolddog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There's no chance I'm just being honest?
>
> Man, that hurts!

No chance.

Based on the logic you're applying, everybody either picks mormonism or honesty. Everyone is either one or the other?


You're declaring that there is no one out there in this almost 8 billion peopled world that operates outside of one of these two parameters...

Interesting view of the world.

elderolddog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Based on the logic you're applying, everybody
> either picks mormonism or honesty. Everyone is
> either one or the other?
>
>
> You're declaring that there is no one out there in
> this almost 8 billion peopled world that operates
> outside of one of these two parameters...
>
> Interesting view of the world.

I'm not saying all Mormons are liars. Most of them just avoid ExMormons like the plague so they don't have to answer serious questions we ask.
And I'm not saying that anybody who's not Mormon is automatically honest. Obviously that's not true.
I just found it impossible to be honest as a Mormon, knowing what I know.
There's no way I've heard to honestly answer the question I posed as a Mormon. The answer's I've gotten from the many Mormons I've asked, have all been lies.
These are the basic defenses of Mormon racism I've heard from Mormon missionaries and contained in the apologetic response the church published on LDS.org,

#1. Everybody was racist back then. It's not fair to judge people from 100 years ago based upon what's politically correct today.
A. No everybody wasn't racist back then. Abraham Lincoln lived back then and he didn't even claim to be a prophet.
B. You should be able to compare people's words and actions to the main commandment Christ gave us, to love our fellow men as ourselves, which is basically just a restatement of the Golden Rule, which isn't unique to Christianity. And if those words and actions completely violate that universal principle, that's bad and the fact you can't say so, is how racism is still alive and well in the 21st Century.

#2. "We don't know why God commanded us to discriminate against blacks, but it is not important to our salvation."

A. God didn't command us to discriminate against blacks. He commanded us in the Bible to do just the opposite, love them as ourselves, even if they are a slightly different shade than us. Discriminating against them based upon their skin color completly violates God's main commandment, not to mention the Golden Rule and common human decency.

B. How is completely violating Christ's main commandment not important to your salvation? I guess 'salvation' is completely worthless if treating others like they're sub-human has no bearing upon your salvation.

#3. If we're so racist, then why are there so many blacks joining the church in Africa?

A. Maybe because they don't have access to the internet and can't do research and find out they're joining an extremely racist doomsday CULT that still maintains racist scriptures today as the word of god, the same way we can in developed parts of the world, like America, where blacks make up 3% of the church's population, which is about 1/4 of rest of the overall population.

#4. If we're so racist then why doesn't Brother (insert black Mormon name) have a problem with the church?

A. How do you know he doesn't?

elderolddog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
“Based on the logic you're applying, everybody either picks mormonism or honesty. Everyone is either one or the other?”

==I think schrodingerscat is only talking about mormons. I think he is saying that if you are a mormon, then you are dishonest.

“You're declaring that there is no one out there in this almost 8 billion peopled world that operates outside of one of these two parameters...”

==I think schrodingerscat comment has a limited scope. It focuses on mormons. He is suggesting that mormons are dishonest.

When person X mentions racism, the mormon responds with
"Well, we don't understand why God commanded us to do that."

which is just another way of saying “I am not wrong. I don’t know how, but you are wrong and my god and religion is always right because he has special reasoning skills.”

~~~~iceman9090

Now you can lock scat in a logic loop by employing the liars paradox.

dogbloggernli Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Now you can lock scat in a logic loop by employing
> the liars paradox.

If there's no such thing as a 'sin' or 'evil' to nihilists, what is a 'lie' or 'truth' for that matter?

2+2 no longer necessarily equals 4, apparently.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_nDAkKRvaks

I'm not a nihilist

There it is again: the term "ad hominem" used without any sense of what it actually means.

No, EOD did not level against you an ad hominem attack. Grow up.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There it is again: the term "ad hominem" used
> without any sense of what it actually means.
>
> No, EOD did not level against you an ad hominem
> attack. Grow up.

Calling me a liar is a personal attack, aka, ad hominem.
Look it up.

You are telling me to look it up? I just schooled you on what the term means and you ignored it.

This is just like the rest of what you do: find some fancy names that you don't understand, assert bizarre things that do nothing but reveal the extent of your failure to comprehend, and then ignore any attempt by others to engage you in substantial conversation.*

And besides, we all know you kill kittens for fun and hence that nothing you say regarding cosmology makes any sense at all.**







*Not an ad hominem attack.

**An ad hominem attack.

Not to mention the false dilemma of the premise.

Yes, that too.

But if we started trying to disaggregate the various logical mistakes, we'd be here till the cat dies of old age.

There could be a culture, on a planet somewhere, where killing kittens was both ethical and utile.

I wouldn't want to live there, but I do feel the occasional need to be fair and balanced and to charge for commercial time...

Giggle, giggle. You said "utile."

How is this dishonest?

"Well, we don't understand why God commanded us to do that."

Elder Berry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> How is this dishonest?
>
> "Well, we don't understand why God commanded us to
> do that."


A. God didn't command us to discriminate against blacks. He commanded us in the Bible to do just the opposite, love them as ourselves, even if they are a slightly different shade than us. Discriminating against them based upon their skin color completely violates God's main commandment, not to mention the Golden Rule and common human decency.

B. How is completely violating Christ's main commandment not important to your salvation? I guess 'salvation' is completely worthless if treating others like they're sub-human has no bearing upon your salvation.

I guess you never gave "continuing revelation" much credence when you were a member.

The Bible talks about the proper way to beat your slave--now you're trying to say the Bible is an argument against racism?

Just because people believe things that don't add up, it doesn't make them liars.

Growing up in the 50s and 60s, I knew a number of mormons who I thought were honest and who probably also thought they were.

If "honesty" means that accepting mormonism creates 'dishonesty' in such a person, I suppose an argument exists for that proposition to be sustainable.

But it doesn't, for me, take away from the goodness and honesty of those people I knew back in those golden days of my youth.

But I suppose one can stimulate oneself into feeling good by getting off on blanket condemnations. "Ummmmmm, oh, the rush!"

elderolddog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If "honesty" means that accepting mormonism
> creates 'dishonesty' in such a person, I suppose
> an argument exists for that proposition to be
> sustainable.

I doubt it.

That Mormons who know about Joseph Smith's sexual predation (like my little family) and tacitly accept it is a much more tenable premise. They also think Abraham would have been justified in killing his son because God commanded him to do it.

Their honesty is genuine. The fact that one can't believe in a deity without faith belies the potential for dishonesty, at least with oneself if they know better than to trust feelings as facts. But then Scat and his nontheistic weird theism could be considered dishonest as well.

Elder Berry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> elderolddog Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > If "honesty" means that accepting mormonism
> > creates 'dishonesty' in such a person, I
> suppose
> > an argument exists for that proposition to be
> > sustainable.
>
> I doubt it.
>
> That Mormons who know about Joseph Smith's sexual
> predation (like my little family) and tacitly
> accept it is a much more tenable premise. They
> also think Abraham would have been justified in
> killing his son because God commanded him to do
> it.
>
> Their honesty is genuine. The fact that one can't
> believe in a deity without faith belies the
> potential for dishonesty, at least with oneself if
> they know better than to trust feelings as facts.
> But then Scat and his nontheistic weird theism
> could be considered dishonest as well.


I'm in good company, with Kaku and Einstein's "nontheistic weird theism".
I'd much rather share my world view with cosmologists than dolts.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KoGYObRNn6A&t=32s

I'd much rather share my world view with cosmetologists than scientists based upon their occupation than their metaphysical or philosophical critical thinking.

You only mention Benedict de Spinoza and only in passing. Your depth is lacking in my opinion so for you to proselyte your scientist mashup philosophy here is ridiculous as evinced in all the flack you get.

So there we have it. If you don't share his world view, you're a dolt.

DOLTS UNITE!!!

Dorothy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So there we have it. If you don't share his world
> view, you're a dolt.
>
> DOLTS UNITE!!!

Compared to Kaku and Einstein, we're all dolts.
Don't take it personally.

schrodingerscat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> I'm in good company, with Kaku and Einstein's
> "nontheistic weird theism".
> I'd much rather share my world view with
> cosmologists than dolts.

Well, with bias confirmed cherry picked cosmologists. You've not established a general worldview of cosmologists.

dogbloggernli Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> schrodingerscat Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > I'm in good company, with Kaku and Einstein's
> > "nontheistic weird theism".
> > I'd much rather share my world view with
> > cosmologists than dolts.
>
> Well, with bias confirmed cherry picked
> cosmologists. You've not established a general
> worldview of cosmologists.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oC_Zigft3k

It's only a 3 minute video and Kaku starts talking about the concept that there are two gods, the personal God you pray to. the God that gives you your bicycle for Christmas of Judeo Christianity. Einstein didn't believe in a personal God that would get you that perfect wagon for Christmas.
Einstein believed in another god. The god of Spinoza, the god of liveliness, order, harmony. The universe could have been random. It could have been messy. The universe is actually quite elegant. Quite simple and in fact is gorgeous. You can put the laws of physics, as we know them, on a single piece of paper."

Stephen Hawking said M-theory was the best candidate for a unified theory of everything, what Einstein called, "The Mind of God" in his final book, "Brief Answers to the Big Questions" in his first chapter. What those geniuses agree upon, I agree upon also.

I don't know about you, but I like to be in agreement with the greatest geniuses of cosmology in the 20th and 21st Century.

The common ground they share, I share, and we all share it.
To me that seems like a lot more well established general worldview of cosmologists/philosophers that I admire and respect, starting with Epicurus and ending with Kaku.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/03/2020 06:20PM by schrodingerscat.

So Brian Greene, Jürgen Ehlers, Lawrence Kraus, Edwin Hubble....

The list for great recent cosmologists is long and varied.

Just because they had an occupation doesn't make them worthy of a meditation on meta things like "God." You are a case study in the authority fallacy and yet base a religious zeal upon it.

Absurd. But intelligible. Your other ramblings on Mother Nature and all the other meta concepts you bandy about are much less intelligible.

schrodingerscat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> I don't know about you, but I like to be in
> agreement with the greatest geniuses of cosmology
> in the 20th and 21st Century.
>
> The common ground they share, I share, and we all
> share it.
> To me that seems like a lot more well established
> general worldview of cosmologists/philosophers
> that I admire and respect, starting with Epicurus
> and ending with Kaku.

Confirmation bias confirmed. It's about what you like, not what you can support with evidence or logic
False appeal to authority. Misapplying expertise in one field as applying to another unrelated field.

Do you also prefer their favorite color or preferred food? The same argument you've made repsatedly would apply just as well.

dogbloggernli Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> schrodingerscat Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> >
> > I don't know about you, but I like to be in
> > agreement with the greatest geniuses of
> cosmology
> > in the 20th and 21st Century.
> >
> > The common ground they share, I share, and we
> all
> > share it.
> > To me that seems like a lot more well
> established
> > general worldview of cosmologists/philosophers
> > that I admire and respect, starting with
> Epicurus
> > and ending with Kaku.
>
> Confirmation bias confirmed. It's about what you
> like, not what you can support with evidence or
> logic
> False appeal to authority. Misapplying expertise
> in one field as applying to another unrelated
> field.
>
> Do you also prefer their favorite color or
> preferred food? The same argument you've made
> repsatedly would apply just as well.

They're cosmologists. I agree with Kaku's M theory, which was the culmination of what Einstein tried to do for the last 30 years of his life, his theory of everything, but Einstein could not accept quantum weirdness. Kaku's M theory does. He could be totally wrong and if he is, then so be it. But as for now it's the cosmology that makes the most sense to me.
That's all.

"Einstein could not accept quantum weirdness."

That's it. He is out of the firmament for me.

"One reason for Einstein’s failure to discover a unified theory may be his rejection of quantum mechanics, which caused him to ignore new developments in physics and distance himself from the rest of the physics community. Einstein was aware of his position, and commented in 1954 that "I must seem like an ostrich who forever buries its head in the relativistic sand in order not to face the evil quanta." But the more he worked on unification, the farther away Einstein drifted from the rest of the physics community.

He also became more and more absorbed in formal mathematical arguments, rather than following the physical intuition that had guided him in his youth to his great discoveries.

Many people say that Einstein failed because he was simply ahead of his time. The knowledge and tools needed to complete a unified theory simply hadn’t been developed before Einstein died in 1955.

Today, many physicists are taking up his quest. The most promising approach appears to be string theory, which requires 10 or more dimensions and describes all elementary particles as vibrating strings, with different modes of vibration producing different particles.

String theory has not yet made any testable predictions, and some scientists worry that string theorists have, like Einstein in his later years, strayed too far from physical reality in their obsession with beautiful mathematics. But many others believe string theory does indeed hold the key to completing Einstein’s quest, and researchers are hoping to find ways to test some of the predictions of string theory.

Though his own work never produced a useful physical theory, Einstein established unification as an important goal of physics. Indeed a theory of everything is commonly called the “holy grail” of modern physics. Einstein would probably be pleased that so many physicists are enthusiastically devoting their careers to pursuing his dream."

https://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/200512/history.cfm#:~:text=One%20reason%20for%20Einstein's%20failure,rest%20of%20the%20physics%20community.

schrodingerscat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Many people say that Einstein failed because he
> was simply ahead of his time. The knowledge and
> tools needed to complete a unified theory simply
> hadn’t been developed before Einstein died in
> 1955.

Are those people cosmologists or dolts?

I don't think we have a unified theory yet. Just saying.

Elder Berry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> schrodingerscat Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Many people say that Einstein failed because he
> > was simply ahead of his time. The knowledge and
> > tools needed to complete a unified theory
> simply
> > hadn’t been developed before Einstein died in
> > 1955.
>
> Are those people cosmologists or dolts?
>
> I don't think we have a unified theory yet. Just
> saying.


Compared to a genius, everybody's a dolt.
Like I said before, Stephen Hawking's final analysis was that the best candidate for a theory of everything is M Theory.
I agree with Hawking, until a better theory comes along.

schrodingerscat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Compared to a genius, everybody's a dolt.

Once again proof of the bliss of ignorance. Human nature whores for vacuums.

It's not Kaku's M theory. He's only a contributor.

You can do your best to believe in honesty, but you eventually lie/fib at some point.

I believe Black African women were not allowed to attend temple (until 1978?)...

I haven't read an account of a Black African woman ASKING & being DENIED permission to attend temple, but until fairly recently, single women were discouraged from receiving their endowment....

? up until what age were females (childen of a couple being married - sealed) allowed to attend weddings / sealings of friends / relatives in the temple WithOut being endowed?

Were women other than temple workers allowed to be official witnesses of a marriage / sealing in the temple?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/03/2020 04:33PM by GNPE.

GNPE Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I believe Black African women were not allowed to
> attend temple (until 1978?)...
>
> I haven't read an account of a Black African woman
> ASKING & being DENIED permission to attend temple,
> but until fairly recently, single women were
> discouraged from receiving their endowment....
>
> ? up until what age were women allowed to attend
> weddings / sealings of friends / relatives in the
> temple WithOut being endowed?

Every Mormon missionary has been required to go through the temple, including the female ones, meaning they went through without their husbands, and in many cases, without their Fathers. So the question remains unanswered, why were blacks denied entry into the temple when Sister Missionaries never needed the priesthood to get into a temple?

It seems like it's impossible for Mormons to just admit that it was just plain old fashioned racism, which was far more important to institutionalize than it was to follow Christ's commandment to love our fellow men as ourselves, meaning, don't discriminate against them based upon the color of their skin.