*Spot on.

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by dystopianfuturetoday.

Don't forget that American Indians (or the "Lamanites," as they are called in the Book of Mormon) were also cursed by God, but once they convert to Mormonism their skin will become white and delightsome.

And don't forget that the American Indians/Lamanites rode horses as early as 600 BC, even though horses didn't exist in pre-Columbian America. To explain this fallacy the Mormons have tried to claim that the "horses" they rode must have actually been tapirs. The Indian warriors riding their tapir steeds must have looked something like this.

This is about 'dead on target' as it gets. Not even the US Military could land a smart bomb more squarely on target, then this presenation.

Oh, and just remeber boys and girls, Mitt Rommey, IS, a Mormon. As a resident of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, this guy should NEVER be taken seriously nor trusted. He's a political slut. He will say and do ANYTHING, if it gets him elected to office. But, he did get health care system into the legal system a few years ago. But then, as the saying goes, the road to Hell is paved in good intentions. Of course, the road goes right down the center of the church for LDS.

>> ^Nithern:
This is about 'dead on target' as it gets. Not even the US Military could land a smart bomb more squarely on target, then this presenation.
Oh, and just remeber boys and girls, Mitt Rommey, IS, a Mormon. As a resident of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, this guy should NEVER be taken seriously nor trusted. He's a political slut. He will say and do ANYTHING, if it gets him elected to office. But, he did get health care system into the legal system a few years ago. But then, as the saying goes, the road to Hell is paved in good intentions. Of course, the road goes right down the center of the church for LDS.


Glenn Beck is Mormon too.

But then so is Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

Fantastically well put position.

>> ^Ariane:
>> ^Nithern:
This is about 'dead on target' as it gets. Not even the US Military could land a smart bomb more squarely on target, then this presenation.
Oh, and just remeber boys and girls, Mitt Rommey, IS, a Mormon. As a resident of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, this guy should NEVER be taken seriously nor trusted. He's a political slut. He will say and do ANYTHING, if it gets him elected to office. But, he did get health care system into the legal system a few years ago. But then, as the saying goes, the road to Hell is paved in good intentions. Of course, the road goes right down the center of the church for LDS.

Glenn Beck is Mormon too.
But then so is Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.


OMFSM! It's true. http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,705307446,00.html

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.

Oh holy shit, are you telling me that religion is oppressive? Are you going to tell me that Fox News is political next??

Mormons have been on the receiving end of vicious assaults and limited genocide, essentially told by the US government that unless the practice of polygamy ceased, Utah would not be allowed into the Union, so I think they know a thing or two about religious persecution and having both a society and religion shaped by marriage laws.

As the secular humanists like to claim God was "made up", the same must be said about gays claiming the existence of an imaginary marriage "civil right".

I think I just figured out gay marriage rights. Invent a religion, have a gay god, and claim gay marriage to be a religious practice protected under the Bill of Rights.

We do not have a republic, because a republic protects the minority from the Popular Majority.

So to all you out there for Democracy! There it is in action.

The true evil of Popular Democracy is when a rampant majority runs free.

Pinky, it may not be be a racist church now, but it certainly was for most of its existence, until 1978. Its track record is shameful, and what they are doing to gays now is equally shameful. To be fair, most major faiths have shameful track records on race, gender, and homosexuality. Judaism is predicated on the belief that Jews are God's chosen people, with the gentiles being second class human beings in God's eyes. Christians looked to the Bible to condone the institution of slavery. Many Muslim women are forced to wear burqas, even if they don't want to. I could go on and on, but I don't want another wall of text here in the comments section.

Back to the topic at hand, the Mormons are now actively trying to deny the rights of gays, just like they once actively tried to deny the rights of blacks. All the testimonials about the "saintliness" of Joseph Smith doesn't change that fact. BTW, he sure did like amassing wives, even taking some from other men. But I'm sure God wanted him to break up marriages, just so he could have more wives. Because he's a latter day saint.

did anyone else expect a girl before he began to talk?

Fully.

>> ^thepinky:


Can you cite sources for your quotes and such from somewhere other than http://www.blacklds.org/ ?

^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.

^ ^lawl. kooky mormon apologist alert!^ ^

>> ^yourhydra:
did anyone else expect a girl before he began to talk?


Wait, that's a guy?

As for the mormons... meh, they are the scientologists of the 19th century. Some guy makes some stuff up, people who are impressionable join... meh.

MEH!

Edit: and Pinky, this whole argument aside, it doesn't change the fact that the mormon church chose a crusade to affect the rights of people who were in most cases not mormons. They are therefore douchebags and frankly I hope anyone who thinks that what they believe should be imposed on other people gets a taste of their own medicine.

The one point is this androgen makes which I do find quite compelling is that letting gay people marry in no way affects the freedom of people who want to impose rules within their on religion. The only people it really affects are those who are outside of it. And before anyone sites "studies" that show that it somehow "devalues" anything, please just stfu, it is all just a lable and I know plenty of "traditional" marriages which are a total and complete mess and have had zero influence on this gay marriage issue...

I believe "Zinnia Jones, Queen of Atheism" is a woman, people.

>> ^ponceleon:
>> ^yourhydra:
did anyone else expect a girl before he began to talk?

Wait, that's a guy?


looks like a chick (especially with the lipstick) but sounds like Topher Grace (Eric Forman from That 70's Show)

also, didn't the mormons murder an entire wagon-train of pilgrims (including women and children)? being racist/homophobic is small potatos after that.

While the information is important, the narrator could certainly use a class in speech and it's a effect on presentation.

I can talk in a monotone, robotic voice too. Watch: I.am.a.robot. I'm.a.robot (waggles arms up and down) dvvv dvvv dvvv Puny.earthling. dvvv dvvv

That man needs a haircut.

The one point is this androgen makes which I do find quite compelling is that letting gay people marry in no way affects the freedom of people who want to impose rules within their on religion. The only people it really affects are those who are outside of it. And before anyone sites "studies" that show that it somehow "devalues" anything, please just stfu, it is all just a lable and I know plenty of "traditional" marriages which are a total and complete mess and have had zero influence on this gay marriage issue...

On a purely libertarian level, the personal happiness of gays doesn't lessen others' happiness, but you're fooling yourselves with this line of "reasoning" that no one outside of gays themselves is affected by gay "marriage". Nothing happens in a vacuum.

Assaults on religious expression, freedom of worship, traditional marriage, freedom of speech and the efficacy of the military have negative effects, no matter which "activists" are perpetrating them. The 'hate police' in several countries have fined and arrested people for preaching against homosexuality and religious and charitable organizations that aid in adoptions are punished for refusing to participate in gay adoptions that go against their beliefs.

Most heterosexual parents, even those with a live-and-let-live philosophy, don't want their kids exposed (indoctrinated) to homosexuality at an early age, and there is a whole slew of additional medical costs and conditions unique to the gay community.

Gay activists are not arguing for a harmless add-on to the law here, but a radical restructuring of society with far-reaching, unknown consequences.

^You are seriously so fucked up in the head. I don't even bother trying to argue with you anymore.

>> ^nibiyabi:
^You are seriously so fucked up in the head. I don't even bother trying to argue with you anymore.


+1

will you excuse me? i have to go indoctrinate some kids and radically restructure society with far-reaching, unknown consequences (woooooo scary!)

>> ^NordlichReiter:
We do not have a republic, because a republic protects the minority from the Popular Majority.
So to all you out there for Democracy! There it is in action.
The true evil of Popular Democracy is when a rampant majority runs free.


You have a republic. A republic doesn't protect the minority, a republic requires the minority to fight and gain access on their own through deeds and actions. A democracy(or some variation), however does protect the minority, in order to allow them to continue with their heritage/etc within the social/economic fabric of that nation.

Canada/Most of Europe = Parliamentary democracy or some form of democracy
US = Dissolving republic to democracy.

Popular democracies(democracy of the people) give the people the freedom to do 'whatever' within the bounds of the countries law, short of a few basic things. Don't kill, don't rob, don't rape, don't pillage. In otherwords don't be a jackass and we won't have to kill you, or lock you up for the safety of everyone else.

Republics are the freest form of government you can have, providing that people can maintain it. It's the closest to anarchy, but still maintains laws for the benefit of the people and leaves general protection to city-states/states. Democracies you should be familiar with, and are one step above SDL(social democracies) like northern scandinavian countries(high taxes, moderate freedom), under them are the communist rules and dictatorships in that order.

Just to clarify: This person is a man.

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.

I think people are getting too worked up over a damn word. Marriage, civil union, whatever.. it should not matter.

>> ^gwiz665:
I think people are getting too worked up over a damn word. Marriage, civil union, whatever.. it should not matter.


You're right, of course, but there -are- reasons to care what word is used. There are some 1200(?) legal rights and privileges accorded to people who are married. If we choose to use a different word, each and every law that defines those rights would need to updated to include the new name, or else the "civil union" won't be equal. If gays get the right to "marriage", then they automatically get all those rights.

Remember, we decided decades ago that "separate but equal", isn't.

^Well then, instead let's just kill the word.. nobody wins, everyone is miserable, let's move on.

>> ^thepinky:
Even if you disagree with QM, he's providing you with some motivations that you may not have considered that don't include homophobia.

Where?

>> ^thepinky:
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.


The reasons QM gave are all nonsense based on homophobia and/or religious insanity. So wtf are you talking about?

<em>"The 'hate police' in several countries have fined and arrested people for preaching against homosexuality"</em>

Not a problem with supporting gay marriage, this is a problem with enforcement of free speech laws. In our great country, people are allowed to spout whatever nonsense they like. See QM's comments above.

<em>"Most heterosexual parents, even those with a live-and-let-live philosophy, don't want their kids exposed (indoctrinated) to homosexuality at an early age, and there is a whole slew of additional medical costs and conditions unique to the gay community."</em>

Most? Let's see figures. This kind of generalization just doesn't fly unless you can back it up.
Medical costs and conditions unique to the gay community? This is the textbook definition of homophobia.
There are also medical conditions unique to certain minorities, so what? We shouldn't let them marry either?

I'm sorry that you are offended because many folks consider your chosen religion to be racist homophobes. If you're offended because you will be characterized as a racist homophobe because of your affiliation with the Church of LDS, then maybe you should reconsider your affiliation.

Simply saying "The organization may be (or have been in the past) racist and homophobic, but I'm not one" is about as effective as saying "but I have plenty of gay/black friends."

^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.

>> ^thepinky:
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?

Not when every word is utter nonsense and drivel

The call was for non-homophobic and non-religious reasoning. So, again, where?

Re: Racism by affiliation: in certain circles I have to go far out of my way to prove that I'm not a bigoted redneck because I live in North Carolina. I deal with it.

>> ^thepinky:
^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.

*equality

Adding video to channels (Equality) - requested by burdturgler.