^I accept your apology, but I'm not offended. I just think that a little bit of opposition is healthy on this site. When I saw people saying things about how "spot on" this rant is, I thought to myself, "How do they know that something is spot on if they haven't a clue about the other side of this argument?"

Okay, okay, yes, I can see why you object to QM's comments. I don't quite agree with him myself. In fact, I think that many if not most people who oppose gay marriage don't really understand why they do it. But don't you think that it is hypocritical to call for reasons, and then dismiss every word that QM says as utter nonsense and drivel beneath your attention?

Another hypocritical practice is the call for sources and stats. I'm not singling you out on this; everybody does it. When someone agrees with you, you let them spew generalizations and shoddy facts all over the place, but when they disagree, all of a sudden you call for a research paper. For instance, the guy in this video did not cite the sources of all of his quotes (most of them are probably from anti-Mormon websites), but most of you seem to accept his statements as absolute fact. It's easy to believe every negative thing that you hear about a religion that you dislike, and it's also easy to hold them to a higher standard (i.e. being outraged by any reference to the civil rights movement from them, but not from the U.S. government, when both abolished racist practices years ago).

I can't say, "This organization may have been racist in the past, but it isn't now, and neither am I?" Ummm...why not? That's like Brits calling Americans racist because we abolished slavery after they did. It may have been a racist country in the past, but it isn't now, and neither am I.

*beg

Aww, I love this song.

I'm always reading about how there is no possible motivation behind supporting Prop 8 besides homophobia or religious insanity. Even if you disagree with QM, he's providing you with some motivations that you may not have considered that don't include homophobia. This doesn't mean he's crazy. It means that, unlike some of you, he has the ability to understand the other side of the argument.

^Of course I could. These quotes and records of church history are available all over the internet. But blacklds.org is a convenient source. I did in fact find some of those sources elsewhere, but I ultimately chose blacklds.org as a source because they had the most complete quotes, without portions paraphrased or left out.

I really was not trying to persuade anyone that Joseph Smith was a saint. I simply wished to explain that racism is not a doctrine of the church, as many have said. Smith did not organize a racist religion, but he did organize a tolerant religion in a racist country. When Mormons were baptizing blacks, other religions were preaching that they don't have souls. Of course that doesn't make up for all of the later intolerance and racism, but it is a cheap shot to single out Mormonism as an exceptionally racist or intolerant faith. Both religious and secular groups have the same kind of history in this country. It is unfortunate that the ban on blacks in the priesthood lasted as long as it did. I have no explanation for this. In fact, it especially perplexes me in view of how inclusive church members were toward blacks far before the ban was lifted.

Ultimately what I'm trying to say is that this guy's argument about the connection between Mormon racism and gay rights is flawed. Dallin Oaks has every right to cite the Civil Rights movement as an example without being called a hypocrite. He isn't racist, and neither is his church.

I don't even know what to think of this.

Don't talk about how "spot on" something is if you have no idea about it. If you really want to know something about the church's history regarding blacks, study this web site: http://www.blacklds.org/history

The government of the United States also has a history of racism and discrimination toward black people, but current members of government aren't accused of being racist just because their organization has a history of racist members. Members of U.S. government are welcome to cite examples from the Civil Rights movement in discussions of civil liberties, although they are part of the very entity that opposed that movement in the past. I don't see this as hypocrisy. I see this as progression.

I do not seek to justify the racist statements made by leaders of the church, but to explain that neither Joseph Smith nor the doctrines of the church were racist in any way, and that the church has long since left behind those policies. There is here an important distinction between policy and doctrine.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints was one of the first religions to baptize and ordain black people. Joseph Smith himself ordained Elijah Abel, a black man, who later became a member of the Quorum of the Seventy, a leadership position holding the High Priesthood, in 1936. Joseph Smith opposed slavery, but is often misunderstood on this subject. Like many religionists of his day, in 1936 he believed that slavery was a curse upon the seed of Canaan, but he did not use this as a justification for slavery. He stated that God would abolish slavery in his own time. In 1944, he ran for president on an anti-slavery platform. http://www.blacklds.org/Aprilma

In March 1842, Joseph Smith wrote the following in a letter on the subject of slavery, "I have just been perusing your correspondence with Doctor Dyer, on the subject of American slavery, and the students of the Quincy Mission Institute, and it makes my blood boil within me to reflect upon the injustice, cruelty, and oppression of the rulers of the people. When will these things cease to be, and the Constitution and the laws again bear rule? I fear for my beloved country mob violence, injustice and cruelty appear to be the darling attributes of Missouri, and no man taketh it to heart! O tempora! O mores! What think you should be done?"

In January 1843, on the "situation of the negro," Joseph Smith said:

"They came into the world slaves mentally and physically. Change their situation with the whites, and they would be like them. They have souls, and are subjects of salvation. Go into Cincinnati or any city, and find an educated negro, who rides in his carriage, and you will see a man who has risen by the powers of his own mind to his exalted state of respectability. The slaves in Washington are more refined than many in high places, and the black boys will take the shine of many of those they brush and wait on." http://www.blacklds.org/quotes#boil

While Joseph Smith was acting as mayor, "a colored man named Anthony was arrested for selling liquor on Sunday, contrary to law. He pleased that the reason he had done so was that he might raise the money to purchase the liberty of a dear child held as a slave in a Southern State. He had been able to purchase the liberty of himself and his wife and now wished to bring his little child to their new home. Joseph said, ‘I am sorry, Anthony, but the law must be observed and we will have to impose a fine.’ The next day Brother Joseph presented Anthony with a fine horse, directing him to sell it, and use the money obtained for the purchase of the child."

"The horse was Joseph’s prized white stallion, and was worth about $500; a huge sum at the time. With the money from the sale, Anthony was able to purchase his child out of slavery."

Concerning the ban on blacks from the priesthood, it would appear that following Joseph Smith's martyrdom, certain members claimed that Smith believed that blacks were not entitled to the priesthood, although the overwhelming flood of evidence suggests that Joseph Smith was not racist, that he was anti-slavery, and that he believed that blacks were entitled to all of the same blessings of the church as other members.

An account of how the priesthood ban on blacks falsely came into being:

1879, Abraham Smoot (the owner of 2 slaves) and Zebedee Coltrin claim Joseph Smith instituted the Priesthood ban in the 1830s (L. John Nuttal diary, May 31, 1879, pg. 170, Special Collections, BYU). The Smoot affidavit, attested to by L. John Nuttall, appears to refer only to a policy concerning slaves, rather than to all Blacks, since it deals with the question of baptism and ordination of Blacks who had "masters". This affidavit says that Smoot, "W.W. Patten, Warren Parish and Tomas B. Marsh were laboring in the Southern States in 1835 and 1836. There were Negroes who made application for baptism. And the question arose with them whether Negroes were entitled to hold the Priesthood. And…it was decided they would not confer the Priesthood until they had consulted with the Prophet Joseph; and subsequently they communicated with him. His decision was they were not entitled to the Priesthood, nor yet to be baptized without the consent of their Masters. In after years when I became acquainted with Joseph myself in Far West, about the year 1838, I received from Brother Joseph substantially the same instructions. It was on my application to him, what should be done with the Negro in the South, as I was preaching to them. He said I could baptize them by consent of their masters, but not to confer the Priesthood upon them" (quoted in Wm. E. Berret, Historian, BYU VP of CES, The Church and the Negroid People).

But Coltrin says the ban was to be universally applied to all blacks. In L. John Nuttal’s Journal (pages 290-293) we find, "Saturday, May 31st, 1879, at the house of President Abraham O. Smoot, Provo City, Utah, Utah County, at 5 O’Clock p.m. President John Taylor, Elders Brigham Young, Abraham O. Smoot, Zebedee Coltrin and L. John Nuttall met. Coltrin: I have heard him [Joseph Smith] say in public that no person having the least particle of Negro blood can hold the Priesthood." According to Coltrin, "…Brother Joseph kind of dropped his head and rested it on his hand for a minute, and then said, ‘Brother Zebedee is right, for the spirit of the Lord saith the Negro has no right nor cannot hold the Priesthood.’… Brother Coltrin further said: ‘Brother (Elijah) Abel was ordained a Seventy because he had labored on the Temple…and when the Prophet Joseph learned of his lineage he was dropped from the Quorum, and another was put in his place. I was one of the 1st Seven Presidents of the Quorum of Seventy at the time he was dropped.’" Coltrin claims that Abel was dropped from the quorum of Seventy sometime before or during 1837 when Joseph Smith Jr. learned that Abel was Black. Apostle Joseph F. Smith successfully argues against this point on the grounds of Abel’s two additional certificates of ordination to the office of Seventy, one dated 1841 and the other from some time in the 1850s after Abel arrived in Salt Lake City. Coltrin’s memory is shown to be unreliable in at least two specifics: His claimed date (1834) for Joseph Smith’s announcing the alleged ban is impossible, since Coltrin himself ordained Abel a Seventy in 1836. Also, he incorrectly identifies which of the quorums of Seventy Abel was ordained to. Abel, on the other hand, claims that "the prophet Joseph told him he was entitled to the priesthood." President John Taylor, on the other hand, said that Abel’s ordination as a Seventy "was allowed to remain". The other element that makes Coltrin’s story suspect is the claim that Joseph didn’t know Abel was black. Anyone who has looked at a picture of Abel has easily identified him as a black man.

From the Council meeting minutes of 4 June 1879 (Bennion papers as quoted in Neither White nor Black, Bush and Maas, Signature Books, pg. 101, note 29.)

Five days after Coltrin related his account: "Brother Joseph F. Smith said he thought brother Coltrin’s memory was incorrect as to Brother Abel being dropped from the quorum of the Seventies, to which he belonged, as brother Abel had in his possession, (which also he had shown brother J. F. S.) his certificate as a Seventy, given to him in 1841, and signed by Elder Joseph Young,Sen., and A.P. Rockwood, and a still a later one given in this city. Brother Abel’s account of the persons who washed and anointed him in the Kirtland Temple also disagreed with the statement of Brother Coltrin, whilst he stated that brother Coltrin ordained him a Seventy. Brother Abel also states that the Prophet Joseph told him that he was entitled to the priesthood."

Because this policy was never explained, many members of the church sought to explain the ban, and they turned out to be very misguided.

President David O. Mckay said in 1954 that “There is no doctrine in this church and there never was a doctrine in this church to the effect that the Negroes are under any kind of a divine curse. There is no doctrine in the church of any kind pertaining to the Negro...it is a practice, not a doctrine, and the doctrine some day will be changed."

In 1988, Elder Dallin Oaks, the man originally quoted in this rant, said "It is not the pattern of the Lord to give reasons...some people put reasons to [the ban], and they turned out to be spectacularly wrong. There is a lesson in that...I'm referring to reasons given by general authorities and elaborated on by others. The whole set of reasons seemed to be uneccessary risk-taking...The reasons turn out to be man-made to a great extent."

In 1981, Elder Bruce R Mckonkie said, "Forget everything I have said, or what … Brigham Young … or whomsoever has said … that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world."

I admire anyone who got through all of that. The same kind of misunderstandings occur on the topic of Native Americans.

I think that the church's past of racism is shameful and sad, but I feel strongly that it has no bearing on the current state of affairs. Many individual members of the church may be racist, but it is not a racist church.

I am very much in support of people who are gay, but I am slightly sick of hearing that when people make voting decisions based on their beliefs, they are somehow violating the "separation of church and state" doctrine, which I believe wholeheartedly in, but which is not an explicit part of the Constitution. Jefferson suggested that the doctrine is an inherent part of the Constitution, and nobody "sw[ears] to" it, but they misunderstand it on a regular basis.

People shouldn't vote on issues that they consider moral based on their religious beliefs? Well, maybe their religious beliefs are wrong, but it is completely unreasonable to suggest that they shouldn't vote based on their beliefs, and it is even more unreasonable to suggest that this is somehow a violation of the separation of church and state. It isn't. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills. All laws are enforcements of someone's concept of right and wrong. Granted, this particular issue is based less on ethics and more on faith that almost any other. Although the decisions themselves may be unconstitutional, there is nothing unconstitutional about making them based on religious beliefs. The separation of church and state is irrelevant.

>> ^raverman:
>>> ^xxovercastxx:
You can oppose gay marriage without being a homophobe.I actually agree with everything else in ^xxovercastxx's post except for this.

Most importantly the state is, constitutionally, in writing and sworn to = separated from the church.

Christian Marriage, Hindu Marriage, Buddist Marriage, Chinese Marriage, Muslim Marriage, Pagan, mother earth goddess - tree worshiping marriage... and Gay Marriage are all equal in law due to freedom of belief and religion.

Choosing to oppose Gay marriage based on Deuteronomy? That's using freedom of religion as a moral guidance to prejudge, and oppose equality.

You can't say, my god says you and your lifestyle is evil and you cannot be legally equal - but I'm not a homophobe, i don't hate you! You're just evil and you do not deserve freedoms.

Haha very funny.

I do like cookies. And I like to bake them, too.

In reply to this comment by rottenseed:
Don't bother, she taught me to never trust a mormon.

In reply to this comment by thepinky:
I came very close to trying to teach you what your mother failed to teach you about being a gentleman, but I decided against it.

I came very close to trying to teach you what your mother failed to teach you about being a gentleman, but I decided against it.

At the risk of BEING that psychobitch, I'm gonna say that I was surprised that five people upvoted this comment, but then I looked at who voted for it, and I thought, "Nah, it's okay. Only some douchebags."

Your sexist joke is so sexist that it is almost funny. It would actually be funny if I didn't think that you meant it.

>> ^rottenseed:
>>dude, we all know it was a "her" but if somebody says it's a "her" some psychobitch is going to make an account just to nag about how women aren't bad drivers and about how they something something something, i don't know I wasn't listening to the woman in my made up scenario...

...hopefully she's baking cookies though

I LUB Facebook! I lub taking the "How Many Musicals Can You Identify" quiz and being all like, "Take that, suckas! You'll never know Rodgers and Hammerstein like I do!" and posting 30-minute videos of my fiance proposing to me and tagging pictures of my friends and being all like, "OMG this is me with Cindy I love her SO MUCH!!!" and "OMG this is me totally crunk at Angie's party!!! LOL good times!"

And that's when people comment, like, reply, join, and reaffirm my existence.

I don't even know where to start replying to your many comments. Do you seriously want me to justify my claim that religion should promote tolerance and reason with scripture? I could do it, but it would take me hours to explain all of doctrine to you. I have indeed both read and studied The Bible on my own, in over five religious courses and one secular, and in two courses at the university level. I am traveling to Jerusalem in January to further study The Old and New Testaments. I am not one of those people who think that you can prove anything about The Bible by quoting a few scriptures. I have no desire to argue with a person who makes points that I have already made (as if I disagree with you about them), and who answers with essays that don't even seem to be a direct rebuttal for me, but for all of Christianity. It annoys me when people assume things about what I believe, and it further annoys me when you say things like, "That is the problem. Everybody gets to interpret scripture how they want to," and then proceed to interpret The Bible as you want, in order to make a point. You can't dismiss biblical interpretation as arbitrary and then make definitive statements about how it supports slavery, torture, forcing women to marry their brothers-in-law, etc. That's just ridiculous.

I hope that I don't sound too hostile. I have a very fiery temperament, but I assure you that it's all in good fun and that I do appreciate your comments and enjoy heated discussions. I think that you are an intelligent person and that you made good points, but what am I supposed to do with that quagmire that you gave me, honestly? I don't have that kind of time nor stamina.

^Oh, please.

To my most honorable fellow sifters,

Your ability to so easily lump all of Christianity into one great steaming pile of idiocy is amazing. It's as if you've figured it all out, and you're so sure that you're right that you delight in mocking people who don't agree with you. Humor is one thing, but people have repeatedly admitted that the point of this video is to deal a blow to Christians through mockery. Disdain and disrespect are not admirable traits, especially when you should just be admitting to yourself and everyone else that you know as little about the universe as the next idiot.

>> ^thinker247:
Yeah, because mockery denounces something for its idiocy, while reverence shows respect for its idiocy.
>> ^thepinky:
Call me crazy, but I think that there is a big difference between mockery and reverence.

Sorry. I think I sounded short. I DO enjoy discussions, and I don't feel any animosity toward you for disagreeing with me. It's just that I've gotten into this argument more than once on this website and it's sort of draining afer a while. I find that I waste a lot of time that way because I love arguing so much.

In reply to this comment by xxovercastxx:
I thought you enjoyed these debates. If not, just leave it at that. I'm not looking to stir up shit.

In reply to this comment by thepinky:
I don't have the time or desire to have this argument with you, but I have rebuttals for these points. Maybe if I take it bow by blow I can get through it eventually.

In reply to this comment by xxovercastxx:
If he's perfect then progress is not possible by definition.

He's perfect in that he possesses every godlike attribute. It's not a matter of self-improvement. He is not increasing in love, mercy, knowledge, etc., but his creations and dominions are increasing, and his children are progressing. I don't see how that's a contradiction at all.

In reply to this comment by thepinky

I don't have the time or desire to have this argument with you, but I have rebuttals for these points. Maybe if I take it bow by blow I can get through it eventually.

In reply to this comment by xxovercastxx:
If he's perfect then progress is not possible by definition.

He's perfect in that he possesses every godlike attribute. It's not a matter of self-improvement. He is not increasing in love, mercy, knowledge, etc., but his creations and dominions are increasing, and his children are progressing. I don't see how that's a contradiction at all.

In reply to this comment by thepinky