Guest Posted March 30, 2008 Posted March 30, 2008 In article <HgCHj.247$zb3.77@trnddc01>, "Diana" <dianaiad@noyoudont.com> wrote: > ".R. L. Measures" <2@vc.net> wrote in message > news:2-2903081415050001@10.0.1.198... > <snip to here> > >> > >> And the IRS hasn't enforced either one on churches. > > > > because the LdS church backed down in the Summer of 1978 by claiming > > that "God" had called off the supposed curse of dark skin. > > What were they supposed to have been backing down FROM, Rich? from prohibiting persons with African blood from holding the LdS high priesthood. > > >> >> It can, if the church has applied for one in the first place, revoke a > >> > tax exemption > >> >> letter. However, that revocation means nothing; the church still > >> >> doesn't > >> >> have to pay taxes, and the donors to it may still declare their > >> >> contributions on their income tax forms. > >> > > >> > Undiluted fiction. > >> > >> Absolute fact, Rich. But...feel free to show me where the IRS has revoked > >> the non-profit status of a church so that it has actually payed income > >> taxes, > > > > It didn't happen because "prophet" Woodruff supposedly got a timely > > revlation. > > Ah. I can always tell when Rich has lost the point and the debate; he throws > in a quick red herring change of subject, hoping that nobody notices. > So you see no connection between the revelation that the LdS God had called off the curse of dark skin and allowing black to hold the high LdS priesthood in 1978? > True, there was a revelation. True, the priesthood was extended to all > worthy male members of the church. However, since the IRS wasn't after the > church, would never BE after the church, and the church was in absolutely no > danger of having the IRS after it, (something that was settled in the > sixties) then you have a problem with cause and effect. You may as > accurately claim that the sun came up this morning because a mockingbird > sang two days ago. Post hoc, ergo propter hoc is a fallacy, Rich. It is > especially a fallacy when the "hoc" that the event is "post" wasn't real. > > <snip to> > > Yes. In the LdS church, mo' money is seen as having God's approval. > > Yep, you lost this one. What is it about you, Rich, that you can't just take > defeat well? You have to flounder? > Diana -- Do you believe that LdS prophet Woodruff got a revelation from God calling off the divine curse of dark skin? > It's not as if, by losing this and admitting to fact, you actually have to > go get baptised or anything. > <snip to end> -- R.L. Measures. 805-386-3734, http://www.somis.org Quote
Guest John Posted March 30, 2008 Posted March 30, 2008 On Mar 29, 8:07 pm, 2...@vc.net ( R. L. Measures) wrote: > > Diana -- Do you believe that LdS prophet Woodruff got a revelation > from God calling off the divine curse of dark skin? > > You can read the revelation yourself, and you will find no mention of the curse, or of black skin, so don't make too many false assumptions about what the Lord was doing. Oh heck, I'll spare you the trouble :-) Dear Brethren:As we have witnessed the expansion of the work of the Lord over the earth, we have been grateful that people of many nations have responded to the message of the restored gospel, and have joined the Church in ever-increasing numbers. This, in turn, has inspired us with a desire to extend to every worthy member of the Church all of the privileges and blessings which the gospel affords.Aware of the promises made by the prophets and presidents of the Church who have preceded us that at some time, in God's eternal plan, all of our brethren who are worthy may receive the priesthood, and witnessing the faithfulness of those from whom the priesthood has been withheld, we have pleaded long and earnestly in behalf of these, our faithful brethren, spending many hours in the Upper Room of the Temple supplicating the Lord for divine guidance.He has heard our prayers, and by revelation has confirmed that the long-promised day has come when every faithful, worthy man in the Church may receive the holy priesthood, with power to exercise its divine authority, and enjoy with his loved ones every blessing that flows therefrom, including the blessings of the temple. Accordingly, all worthy male members of the Church may be ordained to the priesthood without regard for race or color. Priesthood leaders are instructed to follow the policy of carefully interviewing all candidates for ordination to either the Aaronic or the Melchizedek Priesthood to insure that they meet the established standards for worthiness.We declare with soberness that the Lord has now made known his will for the blessing of all his children throughout the earth who will hearken to the voice of his authorized servants, and prepare themselves to receive every blessing of the gospel. All He said was that all worthy males, can receive the priesthood. You are the one who is adding words and meaning, curses and skin colors, that are simply not there. JohnB Quote
Guest Posted March 30, 2008 Posted March 30, 2008 In article <50777396-21d5-4606-a836-ee97b2994ea3@d4g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, John <ewsnet@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 29, 8:07 pm, 2...@vc.net ( R. L. Measures) wrote: > > > > > Diana -- Do you believe that LdS prophet Woodruff got a revelation > > from God calling off the divine curse of dark skin? > > > > > > You can read the revelation yourself, and you will find no mention of > the curse, or of black skin, Brigham Young and Joseph Smith, Jr. had plenty to say about the supposed divine curse of dark skin and the delightsomeness of white skin. At the time there were plenty of Southern Baptists who agreed with them. >so don't make too many false assumptions > about what the Lord was doing. In 1843 "The Lord" supposedly told Joseph that he should take ten virgins, but my guess is that Joseph's trouser snake was doing the talking. > > Oh heck, Mormons are so holy they don't use swear words, they use synonyms. >I'll spare you the trouble :-) > > Dear Brethren:As we have witnessed the expansion of the work of the > Lord over the earth, we have been grateful that people of many nations > have responded to the message of the restored gospel, and have joined > the Church in ever-increasing numbers. This, in turn, has inspired us > with a desire to extend to every worthy member of the Church all of > the privileges and blessings which the gospel affords.Aware of the > promises made by the prophets and presidents of the Church who have > preceded us that at some time, in God's eternal plan, all of our > brethren who are worthy may receive the priesthood, and witnessing the > faithfulness of those from whom the priesthood has been withheld, we > have pleaded long and earnestly in behalf of these, our faithful > brethren, spending many hours in the Upper Room of the Temple > supplicating the Lord for divine guidance.He has heard our prayers, > and by revelation has confirmed that the long-promised day has come > when every faithful, worthy man in the Church may receive the holy > priesthood, with power to exercise its divine authority, and enjoy > with his loved ones every blessing that flows therefrom, including the > blessings of the temple. Accordingly, all worthy male members of the > Church may be ordained to the priesthood without regard for race or > color. Priesthood leaders are instructed to follow the policy of > carefully interviewing all candidates for ordination to either the > Aaronic or the Melchizedek Priesthood to insure that they meet the > established standards for worthiness.We declare with soberness that > the Lord has now made known his will for the blessing of all his > children throughout the earth who will hearken to the voice of his > authorized servants, and prepare themselves to receive every blessing > of the gospel. > > All He said was that all worthy males, can receive the priesthood. You > are the one who is adding words and meaning, curses and skin colors, > that are simply not there. It was a rather lengthy tapdance. Joseph Smith's Book of Abraham talks about skin color. Brigham Young quite definitely had an opinion about skin color. > > 'Tis strange how "The Lord" timed his revelation to avoid the impending boycott of BYU's football team. John B____? You seem to be proud to be a LdSaint, so why do you conceal your surname? cheers JohnB -- R.L. Measures. 805-386-3734, http://www.somis.org Quote
Guest Posted March 30, 2008 Posted March 30, 2008 In article <Xns9A70DF5A71DDbrickwall@69.28.186.121>, "Guy R. Briggs" <netzach@GeoCities.com> wrote: > 2@vc.net ( Quote
Guest Posted March 30, 2008 Posted March 30, 2008 In article <Xns9A70E375E9B52brickwall@69.28.186.121>, "Guy R. Briggs" <netzach@GeoCities.com> wrote: > 2@vc.net ( Quote
Guest Posted March 30, 2008 Posted March 30, 2008 In article <Xns9A70E375E9B52brickwall@69.28.186.121>, "Guy R. Briggs" <netzach@GeoCities.com> wrote: > 2@vc.net ( Quote
Guest Diana Posted March 30, 2008 Posted March 30, 2008 ".R. L. Measures" <2@vc.net> wrote in message news:2-2903082007020001@10.0.1.198... > In article <HgCHj.247$zb3.77@trnddc01>, "Diana" <dianaiad@noyoudont.com> > wrote: > >> ".R. L. Measures" <2@vc.net> wrote in message >> news:2-2903081415050001@10.0.1.198... >> <snip to here> >> >> >> >> And the IRS hasn't enforced either one on churches. >> > >> > because the LdS church backed down in the Summer of 1978 by >> > claiming >> > that "God" had called off the supposed curse of dark skin. >> >> What were they supposed to have been backing down FROM, Rich? > > from prohibiting persons with African blood from holding the LdS high > priesthood. >> (grin) twisty, Rich. And here I thought you were claiming that the church was backing down from the IRS threat. >> >> >> It can, if the church has applied for one in the first place, >> >> >> revoke a >> >> > tax exemption >> >> >> letter. However, that revocation means nothing; the church still >> >> >> doesn't >> >> >> have to pay taxes, and the donors to it may still declare their >> >> >> contributions on their income tax forms. >> >> > >> >> > Undiluted fiction. >> >> >> >> Absolute fact, Rich. But...feel free to show me where the IRS has >> >> revoked >> >> the non-profit status of a church so that it has actually payed income >> >> taxes, >> > >> > It didn't happen because "prophet" Woodruff supposedly got a timely >> > revlation. >> >> Ah. I can always tell when Rich has lost the point and the debate; he >> throws >> in a quick red herring change of subject, hoping that nobody notices. >> > So you see no connection between the revelation that the LdS God had > called off the curse of dark skin and allowing black to hold the high LdS > priesthood in 1978? Equivocation, thy name is Rich. I see EVERY connection between revelation and extending the priesthood to all worthy male members. You are the one who is claiming that the connection was between the IRS threat (a non-existant threat, except in your own mind) and that action. <snip to end> Dang, man, you honestly believe that people can't read or anything, don't you? Quote
Guest Posted March 30, 2008 Posted March 30, 2008 In article <uxMHj.1724$Eq.1352@trnddc05>, "Diana" <dianaiad@noyoudont.com> wrote: > ".R. L. Measures" <2@vc.net> wrote in message > news:2-2903082007020001@10.0.1.198... > > In article <HgCHj.247$zb3.77@trnddc01>, "Diana" <dianaiad@noyoudont.com> > > wrote: > > > >> ".R. L. Measures" <2@vc.net> wrote in message > >> news:2-2903081415050001@10.0.1.198... > >> <snip to here> > >> >> > >> >> And the IRS hasn't enforced either one on churches. > >> > > >> > because the LdS church backed down in the Summer of 1978 by > >> > claiming > >> > that "God" had called off the supposed curse of dark skin. > >> > >> What were they supposed to have been backing down FROM, Rich? > > > > from prohibiting persons with African blood from holding the LdS high > > priesthood. > >> > > (grin) twisty, Rich. And here I thought you were claiming that the church > was backing down from the IRS threat. > Not just the $6-billion tax exemption, the planned boycott of BYU's football team. Another factor was bad press. > >> >> >> It can, if the church has applied for one in the first place, > >> >> >> revoke a > >> >> > tax exemption > >> >> >> letter. However, that revocation means nothing; the church still > >> >> >> doesn't > >> >> >> have to pay taxes, and the donors to it may still declare their > >> >> >> contributions on their income tax forms. > >> >> > > >> >> > Undiluted fiction. > >> >> > >> >> Absolute fact, Rich. But...feel free to show me where the IRS has > >> >> revoked > >> >> the non-profit status of a church so that it has actually payed income > >> >> taxes, > >> > > >> > It didn't happen because "prophet" Woodruff supposedly got a timely > >> > revlation. > >> Correction: It was LdS "prophet/seer/revelator" Spencer Kimball who supposedly got a divine revelation that God's curse of dark skin against the decendants of Cain had been called off -- not "prophet/seer/revelator" Wilford Woodruff (March 1, 1807 Quote
Guest \john p\ Posted March 30, 2008 Posted March 30, 2008 On Mar 30, 6:36 am, 2...@vc.net ( R. L. Measures) wrote: > In article <uxMHj.1724$Eq.1352@trnddc05>, "Diana" <diana...@noyoudont.com> > wrote: > > > > > ".R. L. Measures" <2...@vc.net> wrote in message > >news:2-2903082007020001@10.0.1.198... > > > In article <HgCHj.247$zb3.77@trnddc01>, "Diana" <diana...@noyoudont.com> > > > wrote: > > > >> ".R. L. Measures" <2...@vc.net> wrote in message > > >>news:2-2903081415050001@10.0.1.198... > > >> <snip to here> > > > >> >> And the IRS hasn't enforced either one on churches. > > > >> > because the LdS church backed down in the Summer of 1978 by > > >> > claiming > > >> > that "God" had called off the supposed curse of dark skin. > > > >> What were they supposed to have been backing down FROM, Rich? > > > > from prohibiting persons with African blood from holding the LdS high > > > priesthood. > > > (grin) twisty, Rich. And here I thought you were claiming that the church > > was backing down from the IRS threat. > > Not just the $6-billion tax exemption, the planned boycott of BYU's > football team. Another factor was bad press. > > > > > >> >> >> It can, if the church has applied for one in the first place, > > >> >> >> revoke a > > >> >> > tax exemption > > >> >> >> letter. However, that revocation means nothing; the church still > > >> >> >> doesn't > > >> >> >> have to pay taxes, and the donors to it may still declare their > > >> >> >> contributions on their income tax forms. > > > >> >> > Undiluted fiction. > > > >> >> Absolute fact, Rich. But...feel free to show me where the IRS has > > >> >> revoked > > >> >> the non-profit status of a church so that it has actually payed income > > >> >> taxes, > > > >> > It didn't happen because "prophet" Woodruff supposedly got a timely > > >> > revlation. > > Correction: It was LdS "prophet/seer/revelator" Spencer Kimball who > supposedly got a divine revelation that God's curse of dark skin against > the decendants of Cain had been called off -- not "prophet/seer/revelator" > Wilford Woodruff (March 1, 1807 - September 2, 1898). > > end > > > > > >> Ah. I can always tell when Rich has lost the point and the debate; he > > >> throws > > >> in a quick red herring change of subject, hoping that nobody notices. > > > > So you see no connection between the revelation that the LdS God had > > > called off the curse of dark skin and allowing black to hold the high LdS > > > priesthood in 1978? > > > Equivocation, thy name is Rich. I see EVERY connection between revelation > > and extending the priesthood to all worthy male members. You are the one who > > is claiming that the connection was between the IRS threat (a non-existant > > threat, except in your own mind) and that action. > > <snip to end> > > > Dang, man, you honestly believe that people can't read or anything, don't > > you? > > no > > -- > R.L. Measures. 805-386-3734,http://www.somis.org Money is a powerful motivator. Quote
Guest \john p\ Posted March 30, 2008 Posted March 30, 2008 On Mar 30, 9:28 am, "Guy R. Briggs" <netz...@GeoCities.com> wrote: > 2...@vc.net ( R. L. Measures) wrote: > > > > > netz...@GeoCities.com (Guy R. Briggs) wrote: > >> 2...@vc.net wrote: > >>> netz...@GeoCities.com wrote: > >>>> 2...@vc.net wrote: > > >> <snip> > > >>>>> The reality is that the LdS church is proud of its > >>>>> $30-billion portfolio. > > >>>> Alleged $30-billion portfolio. So if I'm understanding you > >>>> correctly, the Church is sitting on a $30-billion > >>>> portfolio - but was worried enough about loss of revenue > >>>> from disgruntled blacks boycotting the football team that > >>>> it changed its doctrine. > > >>> More correctly, the prophet/seer/revelator could see the > >>> handwriting on the wall, ... > > <snip> > > >> -- Daniel 5:25-31 > > >> The source of the "handwriting on the wall" expression. > >> Presented as a public service. > > > Much adoo about nothing. > > I'm merely noting the irony of a non-believer, using an expression > based upon a prophet (Daniel) receiving revelation, to pooh-pooh the > idea of a prophet (Kimball) receiving revelation. > > Good job. > > >>> ... so he said he got a revelation from God to the effect > >>> that He had decided to remove his curse of dark skin. The > >>> laugher is that nobody's skin color changed. > > >> What makes you think any color was supposed to change? > > > simple logic > > You wouldn't recognize logic if it came up and introduced itself. > > At least he doesn't believe in fairies and their gold plates. > > >> Are you going to tell me that Prophet Woodruff (hah!) said > >> that sub-Saharan blacks were supposed to change color? > > >> Consider this a call for references. > > > consider this a chortle. > > Translation: Rich cannot produce such a reference. > > He didn't need to--his point was clear. > > >>>> As I wrote ... this is your brain on anti-Mormonism. > > >> And I still want to know what you're smoking this evening. > > > I tried smoking in the 8th grade. It reminded me of > > being on the wrong side of a campfire in Boy Scouts. > > Not smoking, eh? In that case, what drug were you ingesting last > evening? You're generally a little sharper than this. Not much ... but > a little. > > bestRegards, Guy. I think he is having fun. john p -- Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione. Quote
Guest Diana Posted March 30, 2008 Posted March 30, 2008 ".R. L. Measures" <2@vc.net> wrote in message news:2-3003080736570001@10.0.1.198... > In article <uxMHj.1724$Eq.1352@trnddc05>, "Diana" <dianaiad@noyoudont.com> > wrote: > >> ".R. L. Measures" <2@vc.net> wrote in message >> news:2-2903082007020001@10.0.1.198... >> > In article <HgCHj.247$zb3.77@trnddc01>, "Diana" >> > <dianaiad@noyoudont.com> >> > wrote: >> > >> >> ".R. L. Measures" <2@vc.net> wrote in message >> >> news:2-2903081415050001@10.0.1.198... >> >> <snip to here> >> >> >> >> >> >> And the IRS hasn't enforced either one on churches. >> >> > >> >> > because the LdS church backed down in the Summer of 1978 by >> >> > claiming >> >> > that "God" had called off the supposed curse of dark skin. >> >> >> >> What were they supposed to have been backing down FROM, Rich? >> > >> > from prohibiting persons with African blood from holding the LdS >> > high >> > priesthood. >> >> >> >> (grin) twisty, Rich. And here I thought you were claiming that the church >> was backing down from the IRS threat. >> > > Not just the $6-billion tax exemption, the planned boycott of BYU's > football team. Another factor was bad press. Rich. The church has stood up to being shot at, being thrown out of states and the nation, having an ARMY sent after it---and you think we were going to be afraid of 'bad press?' Not to mention that the tax exemption, however large it might have been, was in no danger--a fact that I have proven and you have ignored. Ad to a boycott of BYU's football team---the church has stood up to being shot at, etc., and you think we were going to be afraid of a FOOTBALL BOYCOTT??? >> >> >> >> It can, if the church has applied for one in the first place, >> >> >> >> revoke a >> >> >> > tax exemption >> >> >> >> letter. However, that revocation means nothing; the church still >> >> >> >> doesn't >> >> >> >> have to pay taxes, and the donors to it may still declare their >> >> >> >> contributions on their income tax forms. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Undiluted fiction. >> >> >> >> >> >> Absolute fact, Rich. But...feel free to show me where the IRS has >> >> >> revoked >> >> >> the non-profit status of a church so that it has actually payed >> >> >> income >> >> >> taxes, >> >> > >> >> > It didn't happen because "prophet" Woodruff supposedly got a >> >> > timely >> >> > revlation. >> >> > > Correction: It was LdS "prophet/seer/revelator" Spencer Kimball who > supposedly got a divine revelation that God's curse of dark skin against > the decendants of Cain had been called off -- not "prophet/seer/revelator" > Wilford Woodruff (March 1, 1807 Quote
Guest Diana Posted March 30, 2008 Posted March 30, 2008 ""john p"" <john.phile@gmail.com> wrote in message news:ad8c6f91-d67e-4947-923a-aee32605f4dc@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com... <snip to> > Money is a powerful motivator. Can be. However, since there was no threat of tax consequences, this motivator is not an issue, is it? You'll have to find something else. Oh, like---truth, perhaps? If you don't like the idea that there was divine revelation involved, why not attribute the change to the leaders of the church wanting to do the right thing? I mean, if the IRS wasn't a threat (and it wasn't...) and the threatened boycott was not a threat (and c'mon, guys....you think that anybody would actually change church doctrine over the boycott of a school athletic team?), then why WOULD the situation change? I think it did because there was revelation saying so. You have to find another reason if you don't like that one, but you can't use the IRS. Sorry. Quote
Guest Posted March 30, 2008 Posted March 30, 2008 In article <ad8c6f91-d67e-4947-923a-aee32605f4dc@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, "\"john p\"" <john.phile@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 30, 6:36 am, 2...@vc.net ( R. L. Measures) wrote: > > In article <uxMHj.1724$Eq.1352@trnddc05>, "Diana" <diana...@noyoudont.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > ".R. L. Measures" <2...@vc.net> wrote in message > > >news:2-2903082007020001@10.0.1.198... > > > > In article <HgCHj.247$zb3.77@trnddc01>, "Diana" <diana...@noyoudont.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > >> ".R. L. Measures" <2...@vc.net> wrote in message > > > >>news:2-2903081415050001@10.0.1.198... > > > >> <snip to here> > > > > > >> >> And the IRS hasn't enforced either one on churches. > > > > > >> > because the LdS church backed down in the Summer of 1978 by > > > >> > claiming > > > >> > that "God" had called off the supposed curse of dark skin. > > > > > >> What were they supposed to have been backing down FROM, Rich? > > > > > > from prohibiting persons with African blood from holding the LdS high > > > > priesthood. > > > > > (grin) twisty, Rich. And here I thought you were claiming that the church > > > was backing down from the IRS threat. > > > > Not just the $6-billion tax exemption, the planned boycott of BYU's > > football team. Another factor was bad press. > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> It can, if the church has applied for one in the first place, > > > >> >> >> revoke a > > > >> >> > tax exemption > > > >> >> >> letter. However, that revocation means nothing; the church still > > > >> >> >> doesn't > > > >> >> >> have to pay taxes, and the donors to it may still declare their > > > >> >> >> contributions on their income tax forms. > > > > > >> >> > Undiluted fiction. > > > > > >> >> Absolute fact, Rich. But...feel free to show me where the IRS has > > > >> >> revoked > > > >> >> the non-profit status of a church so that it has actually payed income > > > >> >> taxes, > > > > > >> > It didn't happen because "prophet" Woodruff supposedly got a timely > > > >> > revlation. > > > > Correction: It was LdS "prophet/seer/revelator" Spencer Kimball who > > supposedly got a divine revelation that God's curse of dark skin against > > the decendants of Cain had been called off -- not "prophet/seer/revelator" > > Wilford Woodruff (March 1, 1807 - September 2, 1898). > > > > end...... .... > > Money is a powerful motivator. In the Ld$ church, especially. Cheers J.P. -- R.L. Measures. 805-386-3734, http://www.somis.org Quote
Guest Guy R. Briggs Posted March 30, 2008 Posted March 30, 2008 john.phile@gmail.com ("john p") wrote: > netzach@GeoCities.com (Guy R. Briggs) wrote: >> 2@vc.net ( R. L. Measures) wrote: >>> netzach@GeoCities.com wrote: >>>> 2@vc.net wrote: >>>>> netzach@GeoCities.com wrote: >>>>>> 2@vc.net wrote: >>>> >>>> <snip> >>>> >>>>>>> The reality is that the LdS church is proud of its >>>>>>> $30-billion portfolio. >>>>>> >>>>>> Alleged $30-billion portfolio. So if I'm understanding you >>>>>> correctly, the Church is sitting on a $30-billion >>>>>> portfolio - but was worried enough about loss of revenue >>>>>> from disgruntled blacks boycotting the football team that >>>>>> it changed its doctrine. >>>>> >>>>> More correctly, the prophet/seer/revelator could see the >>>>> handwriting on the wall, ... >> >> <snip> >> >>>> -- Daniel 5:25-31 >>>> >>>> The source of the "handwriting on the wall" expression. >>>> Presented as a public service. >>> >>> Much adoo about nothing. >> >> I'm merely noting the irony of a non-believer, using an >> expression based upon a prophet (Daniel) receiving >> revelation, to pooh-pooh the idea of a prophet (Kimball) >> receiving revelation. > > Good job. > Thanx. >>>>> >>>>> ... so he said he got a revelation from God to the effect >>>>> that He had decided to remove his curse of dark skin. The >>>>> laugher is that nobody's skin color changed. >>>> >>>> What makes you think any color was supposed to change? >>> >>> simple logic >> >> You wouldn't recognize logic if it came up and introduced >> itself. > > At least he doesn't believe in fairies and their gold plates. > Nor do we. >>>> >>>> Are you going to tell me that Prophet Woodruff (hah!) said >>>> that sub-Saharan blacks were supposed to change color? >>>> >>>> Consider this a call for references. >>> >>> consider this a chortle. >> >> Translation: Rich cannot produce such a reference. > > He didn't need to--his point was clear. > This is alt.religion.mormon - John, and we should, at least, be discussing Mormon doctrine. Not some red herring dragged across the trail by somebody who has only "it makes the Church look bad" as his sole standard of truth. Regardless of whether it's factual or logical. >>>>>> >>>>>> As I wrote ... this is your brain on anti-Mormonism. >>>> >>>> And I still want to know what you're smoking this evening. >>> >>> I tried smoking in the 8th grade. It reminded me of >>> being on the wrong side of a campfire in Boy Scouts. >> >> Not smoking, eh? In that case, what drug were you >> ingesting last evening? You're generally a little sharper >> than this. Not much ... but a little. > > I think he is having fun. > Undoubtedly. But that's the thing about drugs: what may seem uproariously funny (while under the influence) is generally anything but when sober. bestRegards, Guy. Quote
Guest Posted March 30, 2008 Posted March 30, 2008 In article <Xns9A716A7F717EDbrickwall@69.28.186.121>, "Guy R. Briggs" <netzach@GeoCities.com> wrote: > 2@vc.net ( Quote
Guest Posted March 30, 2008 Posted March 30, 2008 In article <OuQHj.5637$A87.959@trnddc06>, "Diana" <dianaiad@noyoudont.com> wrote: > ".R. L. Measures" <2@vc.net> wrote in message > news:2-3003080736570001@10.0.1.198... > > In article <uxMHj.1724$Eq.1352@trnddc05>, "Diana" <dianaiad@noyoudont.com> > > wrote: > > > >> ".R. L. Measures" <2@vc.net> wrote in message > >> news:2-2903082007020001@10.0.1.198... > >> > In article <HgCHj.247$zb3.77@trnddc01>, "Diana" > >> > <dianaiad@noyoudont.com> > >> > wrote: > >> > > >> >> ".R. L. Measures" <2@vc.net> wrote in message > >> >> news:2-2903081415050001@10.0.1.198... > >> >> <snip to here> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> And the IRS hasn't enforced either one on churches. > >> >> > > >> >> > because the LdS church backed down in the Summer of 1978 by > >> >> > claiming > >> >> > that "God" had called off the supposed curse of dark skin. > >> >> > >> >> What were they supposed to have been backing down FROM, Rich? > >> > > >> > from prohibiting persons with African blood from holding the LdS > >> > high > >> > priesthood. > >> >> > >> > >> (grin) twisty, Rich. And here I thought you were claiming that the church > >> was backing down from the IRS threat. > >> > > > > Not just the $6-billion tax exemption, the planned boycott of BYU's > > football team. Another factor was bad press. > > Rich. > The church has stood up to being shot at, being thrown out of states and the > nation, having an ARMY sent after it---and you think we were going to be > afraid of 'bad press?' The prospect of press coverage of victim testimony during well over 1000 individual trials was the reason why another God's one true decided to pay $2,000,000,000 to its butt-rammed altar-boys. > > Not to mention that the tax exemption, however large it might have been, was > in no danger--a fact that I have proven and you have ignored. I was not convinced that any church can bar blacks and retain its tax exemption. > > Ad to a boycott of BYU's football team---the church has stood up to being > shot at, etc., and you think we were going to be afraid of a FOOTBALL > BOYCOTT??? BYU has never faced a team whose players walked off. > > > >> >> >> >> It can, if the church has applied for one in the first place, > >> >> >> >> revoke a > >> >> >> > tax exemption > >> >> >> >> letter. However, that revocation means nothing; the church still > >> >> >> >> doesn't > >> >> >> >> have to pay taxes, and the donors to it may still declare their > >> >> >> >> contributions on their income tax forms. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > Undiluted fiction. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Absolute fact, Rich. But...feel free to show me where the IRS has > >> >> >> revoked > >> >> >> the non-profit status of a church so that it has actually payed > >> >> >> income > >> >> >> taxes, > >> >> > > >> >> > It didn't happen because "prophet" Woodruff supposedly got a > >> >> > timely > >> >> > revlation. > >> >> > > > > Correction: It was LdS "prophet/seer/revelator" Spencer Kimball who > > supposedly got a divine revelation that God's curse of dark skin against > > the decendants of Cain had been called off -- not "prophet/seer/revelator" > > Wilford Woodruff (March 1, 1807 Quote
Guest John Posted March 30, 2008 Posted March 30, 2008 On Mar 30, 2:49 am, 2...@vc.net ( R. L. Measures) wrote: > > John B____? You seem to be proud to be a LdSaint, so why do you conceal > your surname? > To avoid being confused with any other John on the list. How come you asked me that question, but you don't ask johnp? JohnB Quote
Guest John Posted March 30, 2008 Posted March 30, 2008 On Mar 30, 3:07 am, 2...@vc.net ( R. L. Measures) wrote: > Correction: "Prophet" Spencer Kimball supposedly got the revelation > shortly before BYU's 1978-1979 football season started. > So what good did that do for those seasons. It takes time to recruit players, and there were black players on the team before the revelation as given anyway. This dog just doesn't hunt RL. :-) Quote
Guest John Posted March 30, 2008 Posted March 30, 2008 On Mar 30, 7:36 am, 2...@vc.net ( R. L. Measures) wrote: > > Correction: It was LdS "prophet/seer/revelator" Spencer Kimball who > supposedly got a divine revelation that God's curse of dark skin against > the decendants of Cain had been called off -- not "prophet/seer/revelator" > Wilford Woodruff (March 1, 1807 - September 2, 1898). There is no mention of any curse being lifted, or any skin colors being changed, in the revelation given to President Kimball. Why do you keep repeating this lie? Its not in there, you can't find it, so don't keep saying it like its a fact. THere is nothing in that revelation about a curse being taken off, or implying that anyone's skin was going to change color. JohnB Quote
Guest John Manning Posted March 30, 2008 Posted March 30, 2008 John wrote: > On Mar 30, 7:36 am, 2...@vc.net ( R. L. Measures) wrote: > >> Correction: It was LdS "prophet/seer/revelator" Spencer Kimball who >> supposedly got a divine revelation that God's curse of dark skin against >> the decendants of Cain had been called off -- not "prophet/seer/revelator" >> Wilford Woodruff (March 1, 1807 - September 2, 1898). > > > There is no mention of any curse being lifted, or any skin colors > being changed, in the revelation given to President Kimball. Why do > you keep repeating this lie? > > Its not in there, you can't find it, so don't keep saying it like its > a fact. THere is nothing in that revelation about a curse being taken > off, or implying that anyone's skin was going to change color. > > > JohnB The fact remains that the LDS Church, God's 'one and only true church', implemented and institutionalized racist policies against black people for over 150 years. In my eyes there's nothing 'true' or 'godly' about racism. The fact that other people of that era were racists as well is no excuse. It only further shows that the LDS Church, weird as it is and was, was just as evil as other racists of the time. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.