The link leads to a look at an exchange of letters between a number of parties, with Lowrey Nelson, Ph.D. being the connecting figure.

Here's the prize in the CrackerJack box:

"From the days of the Prophet Joseph even until now, it has been the doctrine of the church, never questioned by any of the church leaders, that the Negroes are not entitled to the full blessings of the gospel.

"Furthermore, your ideas, as we understood them, appear to contemplate the intermarriage of the Negro and the White Races, a concept which has heretofore been most repugnant to most normal-minded people."

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Trzo7G5NEYpegCt5kxx9ycu2pY88gvte/view

“Repugnant” is very well chosen.

I’m ever grateful that racists were often honest and forthright with their hatred.

It makes things easier, doesn’t it.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It makes things easier, doesn’t it.

Sure does. It’s one of the reasons why I appreciate the American version of free speech and hope y’all have sense enough to keep it. :^)

Glenn Greenwald is a particular hero of mine on this score.

People think freedom of speech is a concession from government to people. It is the opposite: it is a means of checking stupidity to keep government from being overwhelmed by extremism.

As freedom of speech is the key to healthy democracy, so too is its stepchild, sardonic humor. If the emperor has no clothes, that fact should be trumpeted from the rooftops.

It is no coincidence that Mormonism wants to suppress laughter and light speaking of the Lord's anointed. That is a critical piece of any durable tyranny.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/19/2019 12:07AM by Lot's Wife.

Oh yeah, the Lowry Nelson letters. It goes on as the FP calls him to repentance for even daring to question:

"We feel very sure that you understand well the doctrines of the Church. They are either true or not true. Our testimony is that they are true. …we therefore prayerfully hope that you can reorient your thinking and bring it in line with the revealed word of God."

The doctrines are "either true or not true".

Riveting insight.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/18/2019 09:15PM by Nightingale.

doctrines. They simply rip off the "doctrine" label and, in its place, stick on a "policy" or "practice" label.

The use of veils by women in the temple has been relabeled as a "tradition" or "custom". Since it is not doctrinal, it can be changed whenever. (Let's not dwell on the question as to why generations of prophets treated the "tradition" or "custom" as being a mandatory and essential feature of the temple ceremony.)

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2019/01/29/heels-temple-changes/

Funny, as things have turned out, the priesthood ban enforced against black people of African descent was not really a doctrine. It was just a "policy". Policies come and go. Why just last week, the office policy required everyone to buy their own paper clips. But this week the policy has been changed and the office will now furnish paper clips upon request. The priesthood ban was the same thing, you know. Just a policy. I'm sure that in 1947 that's exactly what they told black people: "Hey, you can't have the priesthood because you're black. It's not doctrine. It's just policy."

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/manual/gospel-topics-essays/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng

I love this one:

----> "Over time, Church leaders and members advanced many theories to explain the priesthood and temple restrictions. None of these explanations is accepted today as the official doctrine of the Church."

Got it? None of those explanations that were regarded as doctrines by everyone back then is accepted TODAY as the official doctrine of the Church. (Apparently, it is not important that they were accepted YESTERDAY as the official doctrine of the Church.) So keep that in mind. TODAY is what's important. But if you're a forward thinking person who likes to get a head start on things, you may reasonably consider ignoring everything that is official doctrine today because TOMORROW it may no longer be official doctrine. Better just to save time and ignore it all.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/manual/gospel-topics-essays/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng


I put "clever" in quotes because the fraudulent relabeling doesn't work on people who are in the habit of thinking. But it does seem to work on people who are not in the habit of thinking, which unfortunately includes a sizable percentage of active adult Mormons for the time being. Talk to an active TBM zombie about the doctrines of the curse of Cain and lackluster performance in the pre-existence resulting in the priesthood/temple ban and they'll just tell you that the priesthood/temple ban was official doctrine because as of TODAY they have been relabeled as nothing but policies and unofficial "explanations".

The blatant dishonesty in their re-labeling operation is an amazing thing to witness. It's like watching someone in a contract dispute in court denying that they ever signed the contract and then when the opposing side shows them the original contract with their signature on it, they pull out a magic marker and blot out their signature with the magic marker...and then say: "Look! There's no signature there. That's just a black blob on the signature line!"

Just further proof that the chuch does not operate by

inspiration, just persperation produced by the white

racist elders and leaders who wamt to make it look "special"

to those of the white race.

Flattery is everything.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/19/2019 08:48PM by saucie.

Interesting to me that the First Presidency used the plural term “White races” in contrast to “the Negro.”

I like the part where it says the Cubans are "nominally catholic" and that they only "see the priest once a year when he comes to baptize the babies for $3.00 a head like branding the calves at round up!"

Now that's exactly true. Catholicism doesn't mean much for Latin Americans.

macaRomney Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I like the part where it says the Cubans are
> "nominally catholic" and that they only "see the
> priest once a year when he comes to baptize the
> babies for $3.00 a head like branding the calves
> at round up!"
>
> Now that's exactly true. Catholicism doesn't mean
> much for Latin Americans.

Cuba is a one party dictatorship which had to stop repressing RCism because a) there were too many Catholics and b) their Eurasian sponsor disintegrated at the turn of the nineties.

TODAY. THE AARONIC PRIESTHOOD MANUAL SAYS THAT PEOPLE SHOULD NOT DATE OR MARRY SOMEONE OF A DIFFERENT RACE.

Not social background, not culture, RACE.

TODAY. JUNE 19 2019, THE DOCTRINE IS RACISM.

Their new commercial about coming to Christ has a mixed race couple. See--they aren't racist!?!?!?