In a closed thread EOD asked,

“what does this all have to do with Recovery from Mormonism?
I think you're just showing off, and it's a dreadful show!”

Posted by: schrodingerscat
Date: March 09, 2021 11:08PM
Re: Who knew the British royals were still racist AF?

What does it NOT have to do with the racist CULT we were born into and indoctrinated to believe?
We grew up in a church that actively discriminated against black people by denying them entry into the temple, just because they were black. And we were ok with that. Our whole families didn't see any problem with that.
Women were never required to have the priesthood to enter a temple, so why deny black women entry? What's the ONLY difference?
The color of their skin.
That's the definition of racial discrimination, pure racism and if you press Mormons on it, they are usually quite proud of the blatant racism practiced by their forefathers.
That's the exact opposite of Christ's main commandment, to love our fellow man as ourselves. That constitutes a sin, right?
So the most of the so-called Mormon "Prophets" sinned against Christ and God, by leading 5 generations astray, away from keeping God's main commandment and continue to do so today.
By keeping the most racist white supremacist books ever to be confused for 'revelation' in print and distributed daily around the world by the world's biggest standing army of missionaries over the past 180 years.
Kind of a huge admission to make, which is why Mormons can't answer that question honestly.
Which is what makes it so great to ask them and watch them lie through their teeth to defend sinning against Christ's main commandment.
At that point, they lose the moral high ground and have no place telling anybody they're better than them because of their fake 'morals' and 'family values'.
And that's without even getting into the sexism, the homophobia or the sexual abuse that's still alive and well in Mormonism.

What does Royal Racism have to do with RfM?

Hahahahaha! Nothing. It really is dark matter. Bits of nothing. Vaguely relational current affair stuff that is a trigger apparently for anti-racist rant.

Nowhere did you couch your thread in terms of Mormonism but from my perspective only as an assault on an institution that you fail to understand within a foreign social structure and because it somehow fit your preconceived thinking and your seemingly daily need to be noticed. The very title you used assumes that such an attitude exists without even considering the veracity of the charge or the context or tone in which it was said even if it was said in the first place.

Bullshit.
Like I said in my OP,
“It reminds me of the abusive MORmON CULT I was born into, that I witnessed in numerous cases, where victims were blamed, shamed and silenced, while child rapist were protected, in the interest of ‘Protecting the good name of the church’. I’ve seen MORmON parents disown their own kids to protect the abusive CULT they were born into, and protect the rapists who raped their own children. I gave deposition in one of those cases and told the attorney representing my childhood friends my experience with witnessing this with my own eyes and he said he has won numerous lawsuits against the Catholic Church and the Mormon church and he’s seen a real difference between the two. When a Catholic comes forward with allegations of sexual abuse they suffered as a child at the hands of a Priest, their families rally around them and turn against the church. Just the opposite is true in almost every case with Mormons, who turn on their own children and defend the church tooth and nail.
My best friend and his Brother were both raped over a 4year period by our Mormon Scout Master, who was a known pedophile before they made him our scout master for 4yrs. When they both came forward with their own stories of having been raped as children, their parents threatened them with being disowned if they participated in the massive lawsuit our mutual friend brought against the church. LDS INC flew a team of lawyers out to WA State to silence anybody involved with the suit or contemplating joining it. It worked in my best friend’s case. He refused to cooperate and turned on our mutual friend. As a result, our mutual friend has been a retired multi millionaire for the past 20yrs and my best friend is still a broke working stiff.”

Americans see themselves in this story.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/03/09/royal-family-saga-is-mirror-america/

America is going through a vast social change right now.

White Protestant Christians are no longer the majority of the population and in less than twenty years, white people will no longer the majority population.


The Meghan and Harry story is happening in many American families. There are no any longer institutional social barriers to interracial marriage. There are more and more mixed-race people and the racial binary concept -- that there are "white" people and then everyone else -- just doesn't work anymore.

As I said before, all of the history, court protocol, and aristocracy stuff is lost on Americans. What they see is a glamour power couple dealing with a racist or insensitive family that rejected them.


Back to the Mormon thing. Mormonism is racist. You simply can't get around that. It doesn't matter if individual Mormons are not racist. The institution, the concept is racist. The mistake that the "Book Of Mormon" authors made was trying to theologically justify and explain all of the questions of their era and that included racism and white supremacy. It's been a selling point and recruiting tool in the modern era.


LD$, Inc. can't abandon racism without abandoning "The Book Of Mormon."



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 03/10/2021 12:22PM by anybody.

Exactly. Good point.
Anything the abusive CULT does or says about racism is just lip service until they edit out the white supremacy and dehumanization of black and dark skinned people that litters both the BoM and BoA, two of the most racist narratives ever to be considered ‘revelation from God’.
Obviously that will never happen because admitting Joseph’s Myth is just a lame 19th C excuse for slavery and genocide would be the end of MORmONism.
Like Grant Palmer said in ISVoMO, “The Book of Mormon was an answer to the big question of the 19th Century, where did these huge civilizations come from and why didn’t God bother mentioning them in the Bible?”
MORmONism is built on that white supremacist, patriarchal answer. The BoM is the keystone of the religion and it’s a bogus myth that has been thoroughly debunked by DNA evidence.

But every post's like
Gold plates, Black Universe, trippin' on the Mormon
Bloodstains, media clowns, trashin' the RfM tunes
He don't care
He's driving Cadillacs in his dreams
But every posts like
Atheists, Mayer, God's trust on your coins please
hot heads, fire brands, liars with a gold lease
He don't care
He aren't caught up in your family affairs

I don't hate the monarchy at all. As I wrote elsewhere, I think it has served immensely important functions historically and in ways is superior to the US system.

But I do think, as a practical matter, that the institution is in serious jeopardy. That is not, I think, hatred; it's just political and sociological judgment.

kentish Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> an institution that you fail to
> understand within a foreign social structure

This is a major part of the disconnect I hear within the various debates on the topic (especially talking heads on TV).

I don't usually watch the daytime chat shows - no time/low interest - but saw a few discussions this week because I am interested in Britain and its monarchy and also due to my memory of the tragedy of Princess Diana which is why Harry's stated reasons for leaving England and his slated role resonated with me (being afraid of "history repeating itself" - a reference to his mom's battle with a relentless press pack and her untimely death). Many of the comments by US folks indicate a low level of knowledge of the British monarchy and British history and society. That is not a criticism but rather an observation, only made because I am familiar with both countries, as well as Canada of course, which has elements in common with the US, not to mention the deluge of US news and TV we get. The familiarity comes from being born in England, therefore having an abiding interest in the place, and with my entire extended family still living there, with whom we keep in close touch. Also, due to living in North America for most of my life, therefore being familiar with the US, where close family also lives.

Just this a.m., after the Queen's response to the interview, which came out yesterday, I heard comments from TV commentators that the Queen's response is inadequate and worse, perpetuates the issues that Harry and Meghan revealed. Some self-admittedly ultra-opinionated commentators called for the abolition of the monarchy, which to them is an outdated, useless, unjust institution.

I would think more of their opinions if somewhere in their comments they revealed any tiny bit of knowledge along with their outrage. One person said it is not believable that the Queen wouldn't know the extent of what was going on with her grandson and his wife. You cannot take your own example of family life and extrapolate it to include another situation of which you are entirely without inside knowledge or experience.

One clue is in the story of the curtsy (that I outlined in another post/different thread). The fact that Meghan was not aware that she was required to curtsy when meeting the Queen. I realize this is outside Meghan's realm of life experience but the fact that Harry apparently had to explain it to her and then demonstrate what a curtsy was seems like a good indicator of Meghan's extreme lack of knowledge about the situation she was entering. The Queen's own close relatives, as well as all other people, including government officials, are expected to curtsy upon encountering her, every time. Even her son, Charles, who himself will become king (if still alive when his mother dies).

The Queen, despite her age, still has a full, heavy schedule of events (except during COVID times, so for once in her life she is getting a long - and well deserved - break). She is all about the pageantry of the institution and its historical and current significance to the UK and the Commonwealth. The Prime Minister meets with her regularly but the government is a separate entity - she has no political power. She has a large extended family, many of whom do service and appearances in her name. The family lends its support to many charities which helps them prosper and do much good. Too, the monarchy and its trappings are a big part of Britain's thriving tourism industry. Many people have jobs because of the existence of the monarchy. Even the opinionators who speak out vociferously against the institution.

None of this makes for frequent intimate family get-togethers. How can anyone expect that the Queen knows the details of anyone's day-to-day existence? That is why it clanged when the commentator I referenced above said of course the Queen would know how Meghan felt. If you start with unlearned assumptions like that you are likely to come up with incorrect impressions, as so many reveal they have in the comments they make about this situation.

Too, the Queen is 94 years old. She has lived a life of duty, fulfilling the role she was born into, in a way that countless people have admired through the years and one that has brought innumerable benefits to the UK. What experience of everyday life does she have? How involved would she be with a newcomer to the family? Did anyone mention any of the issues to her at all?

I understand that Americans extol their first amendment rights and stress the extreme importance to them of their break from a monarch's reign back in the day and their freedom in general. But one's distaste for the institutions of another does not automatically make you right and others wrong.

I would not defend oppression or racism or any other grievous wrong, of course. Just saying that it's obvious that many commentators and others are expressing opinions that obviously demonstrate they are unfamiliar with a lot of the events and issues. That is what grates when they proclaim their disgust and state strong opinions about things of which they are exceptionally and obviously uninformed.

Just as Americans bristle when encountering criticism of their country and its quirks, so do citizens of other countries when outsiders criticize and condemn, especially without adequate knowledge.

I'm not saying you can't have an opinion about anything outside your own sphere. But if you're going to loudly proclaim the only true way, please at least develop some knowledge to bolster your position.

As for the question what does this topic have to do with Mormonism. I have long said that absolutely everything can be applicable. In that way, Mormonism does indeed have a wide reach. But that's not a positive attribute in its case.

PS: I have heard a lot of sniping about how unacceptable and insulting it is that the Royal Family took "so long" to respond to the Oprah interview. Again - can we expect a modicum of rational thought. The interview aired in the UK a full day after it was shown first in North America. I believe the statement from the Queen came out the day following its showing in the UK. If not, then it was the day after that, within two days. It is not unreasonable that it could take that length of time for the Queen to speak to other members of the family (as it sounds like she did) and to take a bit of time to think over what to say. To criticize her for taking too long is another example of how easy it is to let preconceived opinions guide people to their conclusions, meaning letting judgementalism creep in. That certainly is on display with some of the loudest voices on this matter.

Again, I am not defending negative things that might have gone on with Meghan and Harry. I just ask for knowledgeable debate. I certainly understand and sympathize with Meghan's extreme culture shock and her difficulties in dealing with her new situation, up to and including her expressed suicidal thoughts, for which I feel so badly for her. I am very sorry about how this all went and admire Harry for doing what he felt he had to in order to protect his family. It certainly could not have been easy, any of it.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 03/10/2021 02:36PM by Nightingale.

As I've said, I've never been a monarchist, but I basically agree with Kentish, Lot's Wife and Nightingale. And, for Kentish, my attitude towards them is close to the attitude I intend to follow if I am ever approached again by mishies : compassion, because they've been dealt weird and pretty crappy lives. OK, the royals are rich, but they're not even megarich and they're not really allowed to have fun.

Although I would love to see the British try something different, I also have to observe that I'm in a pretty small minority of Brits overall. And any change in the current system could only come after a period of - at least - constitutional chaos, which I would not wish upon the UK (or anywhere), particularly as I still have all my family there. The royal family is as good a way as any to paper over the cracks ;-)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/11/2021 02:20AM by Soft Machine.

"and they're not really allowed to have fun"

I dunno, from what I hear, the queen has a pretty sweet stamp collection.

Soft Machine Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And any change in the current system could only
> come after a period of - at least -
> constitutional chaos

That is an excellent point. The United Kingdom is a voluntary association of four entities: England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. The Brexit fiasco has strained the ties between two or three of those entities to the point where one cannot assume the survival of the union.

The monarchy is one of the few institutions holding the union (and the commonwealth) together. If it toppled now, the UK could fragment, which would be terrible news for the constituent peoples, for Nato and Europe, and by extension for the United States. Russia and China would be the main beneficiaries.

Just something to bear in mind when discussing the potential demise of the Crown.

I think in retrospect Meghan was a poor fit for the "job" of being a working royal. I don't think she ever would have been a good fit. It happens. I have no objection to Harry and Meghan giving up royal life and moving to California. All I ask is that they try to maintain some sense of dignity about it. Hopefully they've said what they need to say and are done with it.

The royal family has endured worse. The abdication of King Edward VIII was very damaging. The divorce of Charles and Diana was awful, especially in light of her subsequent death. To me, this current situation is a blip on the radar by comparison. The royal family will learn from it and move on.

summer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think in retrospect Meghan was a poor fit for
> the "job" of being a working royal. I don't think
> she ever would have been a good fit. It happens. I
> have no objection to Harry and Meghan giving up
> royal life and moving to California. All I ask is
> that they try to maintain some sense of dignity
> about it. Hopefully they've said what they need to
> say and are done with it.

Agreed.

This has not been dignified. I am concerned, however, that Andrew's behavior has been considerably less dignified. The problem isn't whether Meghan doesn't fit the mold, it is increasingly whether any of the Royals do. William seems solid enough but the others have caused significant problems, and the media has made the most of those problems, to the point where the whole edifice is in question.


-----------------
> The royal family has endured worse. The abdication
> of King Edward VIII was very damaging. The divorce
> of Charles and Diana was awful, especially in
> light of her subsequent death. To me, this current
> situation is a blip on the radar by comparison.
> The royal family will learn from it and move on.

I don't think the RF "learns" much. When Harry calls his mother, is he doing so for personal matters or for business reasons? When her handlers refuse to put him through, is that a family problem or a business issue? In fact, why is the bureaucracy so much stronger now than it was in the past and what happens when a troubled child calls his parents and is barred from speaking to them?

Also, why didn't the RF learn from Diana and create a quiet but readily-available psychiatric process? It's naive to assume that any family will be free of such problems, and the RF operates under enormous pressures. The absence of such a system gives the media abundant opportunity to make trouble.

I don't see how any of the Royals can match what QE2 has managed to do.

While Meghan, as an American from L.A., knew nothing of royal protocol, she was a natural at meeting and greeting people. The formal stuff she seemed to learn fairly quickly. From what I've read about this, there was some jealousy and envy involved.

It will be decades before we find out what exactly happened.

I think if that's all that the job involved, meeting and greeting, any number of people would be good at it. Sophie, Countess of Wessex (Prince Edward's wife,) mentioned that the long adjustment period she took (five years prior to her marriage,) was helpful in adapting to royal life. She also lived in Buckingham Palace for six months. For Kate, it was something like ten years.

Meghan had no idea at all. She was an independent, working American woman, used to coming and going as she pleases. You can't just do whatever you want as a royal. It's very scheduled. It's very isolating. There are tons of rules and protocols. I'm disappointed it didn't work out for Meghan, but not entirely surprised.

summer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Meghan had no idea at all. She was an independent,
> working American woman, used to coming and going
> as she pleases. You can't just do whatever you
> want as a royal. It's very scheduled. It's very
> isolating. There are tons of rules and protocols.

I agree this is likely a huge component of the shock and troubles she obviously experienced. The huge crowds and multitudes of press photographers everywhere you go. The fact that your schedule is not your own to choose. The existence of the machinery behind the monarchy that dictates your behaviour and choices. The 1000+ years of protocol governing the entire enterprise. For a 30+ year old woman to suddenly find herself living in a foreign country and having her commitments and schedule essentially chosen for her or at least having her preferences subject to oversight and perhaps denial would no doubt be challenging indeed and unwelcome. As a "working royal" she would have to get in line with the calendar of events largely chosen for her by representatives of the Queen, who wield considerable power when it comes to ensuring that protocol and others' expectations are followed. I'm not sure how much choice even the lesser royals have over their own schedules, the charities they adopt and the events they attend.

I forget if I mentioned this already but one of the biggest surprises I got when listening to the interview with Meghan and Harry was his disclosure that they got married in private three days before the public wedding. Just Meghan, Harry and oh, only the Archbishop of Canterbury. I'm surprised they were "allowed" to do that. But doing so perhaps indicates that even that early on they were chafing at their bonds already. Why would they find it necessary to have a private ceremony ahead of their public wedding? Meghan stated that their private first wedding was "for us" and the public spectacle was "for the world". That remark seemed somewhat dismissive and likely even rude to some. And it was a hell of a lot of money to spend on what was essentially an empty spectacle as they were in fact already married, although not many, if anyone, knew it at the time.

When two worlds collide it's never pretty. I think that's a huge part of what happened with Meghan, as summer says. It can be that simple. The fact that it brought her to thoughts of suicide, even while pregnant if I understood her correctly, is tragic. Thank goodness they did what they felt they needed to do in order to escape all the unbearable pressures.

As for Kate and her taking so long to agree to marry Prince William, the dilemma must have been huge as well as his wife would be in line to be Queen consort one day when he becomes king after his grandmother the Queen and his father Prince Charles pass away. That must surely be a daunting and confining prospect. At least Kate, being English, knew what she faced before she agreed, although I doubt many really know before they get into it. Then, as Harry stated, they're "trapped", unless they want to create a crisis by stepping aside. But by marrying in, it is generally expected that a person knows and understands what they are agreeing to undertake.

Crisis of communication occurs though, as Meghan and Harry illustrate. Perhaps he was so in love he just hoped for the best. That is often not the best approach. But now they know, as does "The Firm".

A direct reply to SC's OP title query just hit me as I was thinking about Meghan getting in deep due to lack of knowledge or understanding about what marriage to Prince Harry would entail inside the British Royal Family.

This is what happens to countless "converts" inside the Mormon Church. I personally witnessed many prospective members being fed a false narrative by over-eager missionaries beholden to their master, the church and its authorities. Potential converts are told as little as possible about Mormonism, which is counter-intuitive, given that they go through the "discussions" which supposedly enlighten them about the BoM and the church. During and immediately after which they are pushed, cajoled, rushed and even lied to in order to get them to agree to baptism. Following which they are pressured without let-up to jump into the font asap. And both before baptism and after it the pressure is unrelenting so they feel as though they made a one-way commitment and can't just walk away from it. If they can keep up that pressure and make you believe it's an unbreakable commitment, either before or after baptism, it is extremely difficult to just leave.

I can't even remember now why I would allow such a thing to happen to myself. A big part of it was having (apparently) good friends who encouraged me in (who I never saw again after I jumped ship so yeah, "good" friends) and a bigger part was having the missionaries relentlessly drone on about how spiritual I was and how special the whole thing would be. I am embarrassed that I could fall for such obvious fakery as flattery and the BOM itself which I should have recognized for what it is upon first perusal. Instead, I never looked at it objectively at all.

So yeah. As I have long said, no matter the topic, there is some way to connect it to the entire enterprise of Mormonism and the harm it does to so many.

That doesn't mean though that CZ wants the board to be deluged with a bunch of off-topic-ness 24/7.

I have made several posts on this largely OT main subject as I am especially interested in it. Sorry!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/11/2021 03:20PM by Nightingale.

Always a square peg in a round hole....but you'll make it fit....even if it doesn't!

Lots Wife: I have no problem with your assessment. If jeopardy exists it will be driven by the younger generation who perhaps have less regard for tradition (certainly while they are young) and a wave of new Britons who are born there but who do not c arry hundreds of years of ingrained British values.

In the meantime I see the monarchy as the essence of things British and while it exists I will see such automatic assumptions as contained in the thread title as pejorative bias.

The OP sees himself as an agent of change. A not unworthy title to which to aspire.

But to come here to RfM preaching to us that the mormon church is racist and ought to be abandoned is the same as marching outside McDonald's headquarters with a placard that says

DOWN WITH BURGER KING!
  DON'T EAT THERE!

People be scratching their heads...

There is definitely a generational dynamic at play. I think that applies even to the Royals themselves. I'd add that the nature of the media has changed dramatically, and that that renders the old-style monarchy a lot more difficult. That matters a lot.

Regarding the title of the thread, I agree it is both shallow and incendiary. But that's what OPie brings daily to the table to our unanimous delight.

Your final note suggests clearly that a British sense of humor still resides in your genes.

Something I read today on British humor and which might have some bearing on the difference on what was said and what MM heard. Under the title of Don't take what we say seriously:

"Combine self deprecation with a dose of understated sarcasm and you have the key ingredients of British humor. Sarcasm, and irony are ingrained in our DNA


"Sarcasm can be hard to spot in a new language and a new culture, and in Britain the usual clues of hyperbole and an overemphasis on adjectives are stressed even less, making it harder to pick up."

I find that often here in the US my British humor is not understood and I am required to explain what other Brits would take in their stride. For instance, visiting the home of an American friend a Brit might sit there in conversation for an hour or more before saying something like "Is your coffee pot (kettle in the UK) broken then?" Any Brit would immediately pick up on the intent. Americans in my experience not so much.

I've seen that in the UK. I was once in a group of Britons who were making fun of an American interlocutor, a newcomer who had no clue what they were doing. I replied to one quip, which I found cruel, in kind and the Brits immediately desisted.

In my experience, the subtlety of language and humor depends upon the homogeneity of the society. Countries like the UK, Japan, Iran, and France, where there is popular homogeneity or at least elite homogeneity, people share enough common experience to speak in a nuanced way. Countries which, like the US or even China, have more ethnic and cultural mixing (in China's case regional cultures and dialects) are generally more straightforward. Try cracking a subtle joke in such places and you likely won't be understood. Mixed populaces need clarity and direction, so they don't learn irony.

kentish Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> I find that often here in the US my British humor
> is not understood and I am required to explain
> what other Brits would take in their stride. For
> instance, visiting the home of an American friend
> a Brit might sit there in conversation for an hour
> or more before saying something like "Is your
> coffee pot (kettle in the UK) broken then?" Any
> Brit would immediately pick up on the intent.
> Americans in my experience not so much.

Very true, kentish.

My mum was British (E. Yorkshire) and my ex-wife’s mum and dad were also British (Midlands); so with all the visiting with them, family and friends, and Faulty Towers to boot, you’d think my ear would be better attuned to the silent parts of British speech, which is large. Yet, I’m still troubled by Evelyn Waugh and especially Henry Green. The trouble is a pleasant one, however.

When you become the subject of the sarcasm/irony you know you are liked and included.

Yes, if you know that is what's going on. I have, however, seen groups of pretentious Britons at pretentious institutions use it on foreigners whom they have never seen before and will never see again. My being able to discern that reflects what you say--a long history of interaction with British and their language--but there are Brits who use their sense of sarcasm and irony as an inside joke at the expense of others.

I'm so Britified that I'm currently washing down my buttered cornbread with Black tea, w/ milk 'n sugar.

ARRIBA los Brits!!!

Ms. Sayers would be deeply gratified!

Cornbread and tea? Must be a Canadian thing but you can get therapy.

Hah!

Kentish, me and you, 50/50!!!

      TheraTea!!


I Googled it, and it doesn't exist!! Can you believe that?

The beautiful part is that it doesn't matter what we put in it!

            The name sells it!!!

We'll get the appropriate endorsements, you know, Kaku and that crowd, and make up endorsements from dead internet stars, Abraham Lincoln and Meyer Lansky...

...And whoosh, we're billionaires!!!

What could possibly go wrong.

Atta boy!

My people will get in touch with your people!

I guess the take away is theoretical physicists don’t agree, because it’s all theoretical. I agree with Mtheory, which Hawking even wrote was our best candidate for a unified theory of everything, what Einstein called, “the mind of god”.

schrodingerscat Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I guess the take away is theoretical physicists
> don’t agree, because it’s all theoretical. I
> agree with Mtheory, which Hawking even wrote was
> our best candidate for a unified theory of
> everything, what Einstein called, “the mind of
> god”.


If only the Royals would take your words to heart!!

Wrong thread.

Maybe...


But he may see, sense, know and be in tune with things that are far beyond your ken, woman!

There is only one thread, with multiple manifestations. Have a nicea day.

Brother Of Jerry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There is only one creed, with multiple
> variations. Have a Nicea day!

Fixed that for you.

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

> What does it NOT have to do with the racist CULT
> we were born into and indoctrinated to believe?
> We grew up in a church that actively discriminated
> against black people by denying them entry into
> the temple, just because they were black. And we
> were ok with that. Our whole families didn't see
> any problem with that.
>
> Women were never required to have the priesthood
> to enter a temple, so why deny black women entry?
> What's the ONLY difference?

The church is a private entity, it (the management) can make whatever rules for membership, behavior, dress, etc. it wants to. Don't join or if you're in it and find out things you don't like, leave.

I was born into it, along with 4 generations before me and on after me and I did quit when I found out how deeply, unapologetically racist it was. I made all the lame excuses for the racism over the years, but when I found I couldn’t open my scriptures without seeing how racist and white supremacist they still are, I could no longer deny the blatant racism to myself or to my children.

You forgot the last part. Leave it alone. I knew you just forgot to put that in your reply.

Elder Berry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You forgot the last part. Leave it alone. I knew
> you just forgot to put that in your reply.

Exactly.
It’s like telling somebody who has escaped an abusive relationship, “hey it’s all your fault, you shoulda left before you got abused. Now you have no right to speak up about the abuse you suffered. Just let the abuser off the hook and don’t warn anybody about him so he’ll be free to continue abusing other innocent victims.’

That’s exactly the kind of attitude that enabled the rampant abuse I witnessed over my 40yrs in the abusive CULT I inherited, unfortunately.

I'm with you on this one.

That I could just leave it and leave it alone is beyond absurd. It is like saying I could just stop buying a brand of something because I found out it had bad ingredients in it.

Very myopic and corporate-led thinking. But that is our culture.

Queen Victoria and Queen Elizabeth were both given copies of the Book of Mormon.

And erm, that's it.