I put this together the last time Mormons told the press that their history of racism was "mere folklore"

http://i4m.com/think/history/mormon_racism.htm

As you can see, there are overwhelming citations in LDS scripture, official doctrine manuals and even a First Presidency Letter, that show racism in Mormon doctrine.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/01/2012 10:38AM by deconstructor.

Even its "scriptures."

Thanks, FB share to the TBM masses.

Folklore is the New Wastebasket for retired doctrine.

btw, 'doctrine' means teaching(s) if someone in ChurchCo taught something, then it was doctrine to the listeners.

When someone teaches something that was unauthorized, dis-avowing the PERSON doesn't disavow or repudiate what s/he SAID.


Bott (is) a BYU employee. For anyone connected with BYU to disavow racism (itself).... There's a stretch fer ya.

guynoirprivateeye Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Folklore is the New Wastebasket for retired
> doctrine.
>
> btw, 'doctrine' means teaching(s) if someone in
> ChurchCo taught something, then it was doctrine to
> the listeners.
>
> When someone teaches something that was
> unauthorized, dis-avowing the PERSON doesn't
> disavow or repudiate what s/he SAID.
>
When Mark E. Petersen gave his famous racist talk AGAINST integration in 1954 he wasn't some "unauthorized" loose cannon. He was an Apostle acting in his official capacity of expounding the Church's position. He quoted from a very popular but racist book by Joseph Fielding Smith (another apostle) and praised it for expounding the doctrine so well.

The Church is trying to get out from under over a century of official, racist teachings by blaming a few "individuals." What about the "individual" who wrote the racist passages in the Book of Mormon?

Thanks for sharing this, after reading it I can only say Wow.

I guess GBH was not following the doctrine then because on Larry King he said it was not doctrine only 'the way the brethern interpreted' the scriptures back then. Does that make him an apostate? =)

BTW, Deconstructor, I read many of your archived articles when I still believed, when I doubted and when I got deconverted. I often thought how the name was so well suited as you deconstructed the teachings of the lds church. THANK YOU so much.

D

Would it be possible for you to change my name back to my screen moniker on the great pumpkin essay? I know I asked you to put my real name to it initially, but am thinking it would be better to keep that anonymous.

Thanks!

Erin

So, we won't let a BYU religion professor talk about what is or is not doctrine, but we'll let a bunch of untrained internet yokels spew whatever they want and NOT stop it from being presented as doctrine/a legitimate interpretation? That's not FAIR.

ChurchCo:

They've Fallen, and they can't get up.

So the obvious explanation is...sometimes, the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants ----just speak as books.

+1 That is very funny!

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/02/2012 01:36PM by steve benson.

I have two children who are still involved in TSCC, so I try to stay current with its issues. You are one of the few whose scholarship I trust. Well, yes, I do verify before I cite, but I'm convinced you are entirely reliable.

Thank You.

S

The big problem the church has is that JS canonized fokelore.

Perfect timing too :0)

I don't really understand how the doctrine/not doctrine/folk doctrine/"it was just a policy" categorization game changes what we should think about the priesthood ban. I mean the church allowed instituationalized racism to take place long after the Civil Rights movement should have embarrassed them out of it. And regardless of whether the Bott type of rationale was or wasn't doctrine, or was or wasn't official, leaders and invidiauls in the church really did teach it. Whether it was or wasn't doctrine or was or wasn't folklore doesn't excuse or change the fact that the church did it and still refuses to accept responsibility for it.

Weasely Morons.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/02/2012 03:20PM by angsty.

+100

MoLeaders have so little confidence in their teachings... They Won't/Can't

- Delineate the "Official" from the unofficial.

- Publish their FP letters that are read in church.

"weasely" Doesn't Begin to cover it.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/02/2012 03:28PM by guynoirprivateeye.

+ another 100. Talking out of both sides of your mouth does not change the facts, or the consequences of the action.

It is time to be done with this nonsensical phrase, "speaking as a man", which is the same as the new political version of it, "misspoke", and call a lie a lie and as you say, a weasel a weasel.

The only thing that the so-called prophets talking out of both sides of their mouths proves, is that they are making it up as they go along.