Guest John Manning Posted March 30, 2008 Posted March 30, 2008 You see some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, un- comely, disagreeable and low in their habits, wild, and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind. The first man that committed the odious crime of killing one of his brethren will be cursed the longest of any one of the children of Adam. Cain slew his brother. Cain might have been killed, and that would have put a termination to that line of human beings. This was not to be, and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin. ~~ Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 7:290-291 (October 9, 1859) The fact remains that the LDS [Mormon] Church, God's 'one and only true church', implemented and institutionalized racist policies against black people for over 150 years up until 1978. 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 racist institutions of the time. Guy R. Briggs wrote: > 2@vc.net ( Quote
Guest Posted March 30, 2008 Posted March 30, 2008 In article <75661ba8-ba59-4888-bb84-b1e0e4b802f7@e10g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, John <ewsnet@gmail.com> wrote: > 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. Using your surname would do this. >How come you > asked me that question, but you don't ask johnp? Because he is not proud to be a LdSaint. > > JohnB -- R.L. Measures. 805-386-3734, http://www.somis.org Quote
Guest Posted March 30, 2008 Posted March 30, 2008 In article <1f97f602-86ed-4c0c-b10c-bbadc129feff@s8g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, John <ewsnet@gmail.com> wrote: > 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. :-) The boycott was not being planned by BYU's black players. the planners were black players on other teams. . -- R.L. Measures. 805-386-3734, http://www.somis.org Quote
Guest Posted March 30, 2008 Posted March 30, 2008 In article <e74aa527-6c4f-4e0e-8e75-7a752fcd0e88@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, John <ewsnet@gmail.com> 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? it was de facto lifted because after Kimball's revelation blacks can hold the high LdS priesthood. > > 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. > So the Curse of Cain is still on? > > JohnB -- R.L. Measures. 805-386-3734, http://www.somis.org Quote
Guest Posted March 30, 2008 Posted March 30, 2008 In article <Xns9A717CD126EC1brickwall@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 <6MmdnT4U0Oz4b3LanZ2dnUVZ_oCvnZ2d@giganews.com>, John Manning <jrobertm@terra.com.br> wrote: > 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
Guest John Posted March 30, 2008 Posted March 30, 2008 On Mar 30, 1:39 pm, 2...@vc.net ( R. L. Measures) wrote: > In article > > > 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? > > it was de facto lifted because after Kimball's revelation blacks can > hold the high LdS priesthood. The revelation never says anything specific about blacks. > > > 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. > > So the Curse of Cain is still on? If it makes you happy, and gives you reason to live, and despise the church, so be it. The problem is not mine to deal with. As far as I know, all worthy males are entitled to hold the Priesthood. Come join us here in the present. The past, is just that, and I can't do anything about it, neither can you. Maybe you can organize some sort of attack on the Mainstream Christian churches, since the Lord withheld His priesthood from a number of groups of people throughout history. The reasons are His. JohnB Quote
Guest Diana Posted March 30, 2008 Posted March 30, 2008 ".R. L. Measures" <2@vc.net> wrote in message news:2-3003081147460001@10.0.1.198... > 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. Rich, THAT was the result of some very real lawsuits. Something the LDS church wasn't ever threatened with. Not to mention that the situations weren't even remotely similar. >> >> 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. I don't care whether YOU were convinced. The Supreme Court and the IRS was. Besides which, Rich, we didn't 'bar blacks' from the church, from membership, or from any ultimate blessings. Certain men were restricted from holding the priesthood, something that every church of every denomination has the absolute right to do--to choose who will be members of their priesthood. >> 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. No, they never did. And they never would have, either. >> >> >> >> >> 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 ".R. L. Measures" <2@vc.net> wrote in message news:2-3003081353480001@10.0.1.198... > In article <6MmdnT4U0Oz4b3LanZ2dnUVZ_oCvnZ2d@giganews.com>, John Manning > <jrobertm@terra.com.br> wrote: <snip to> >> >> 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. > Rich, since you agreed with this, would you kindly tell me why you aren't over on, say...alt.religion.christian.baptist yelling at THEM? I mean, Babtists used to own slaves and were far more racist in the south than Mormons ever were. Yet I think that one could say that most of them have changed--and even they will admit that they did so because of far more pressure, political and moral, than has ever been leveled at the LDS church. Yet---all is praise for everybody who has changed their policies. All hail the racists who no longer are! How wonderful! Repentance is glorious, Forgiveness is universal... Unless of course one is a Mormon. Then of course no forgiveness is possible, and no matter what he or she does, it's evil. Should they extend the priesthood to all male members? Why, THEY CHANGED BECAUSE OF PRESSURE! and are evil. Should they NOT do so? WHY, the evil RACISTS! Rich? Go get a life and find another hobby. Quote
Guest Posted March 30, 2008 Posted March 30, 2008 In article <f6201bac-b711-4be0-8a3a-525e52419f86@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, John <ewsnet@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 30, 1:39 pm, 2...@vc.net ( R. L. Measures) wrote: > > In article > > > > > > 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? > > > > it was de facto lifted because after Kimball's revelation blacks can > > hold the high LdS priesthood. > > The revelation never says anything specific about blacks. tapdancing > > > > > 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. > > > > So the Curse of Cain is still on? > > If it makes you happy, and gives you reason to live, and despise the > church, so be it. The problem is not mine to deal with. As far as I > know, all worthy males are entitled to hold the Priesthood. why waso't this the case prior to 1978? > > Come join us here in the present. The past, is just that, and I can't > do anything about it, neither can you. Maybe you can organize some > sort of attack on the Mainstream Christian churches, since the Lord > withheld His priesthood from a number of groups of people throughout > history. The reasons are His. > > JohnB -- R.L. Measures. 805-386-3734, http://www.somis.org Quote
Guest John Manning Posted March 30, 2008 Posted March 30, 2008 Guy R. Briggs wrote: > 2@vc.net ( Quote
Guest Posted March 30, 2008 Posted March 30, 2008 In article <lDTHj.8276$gS1.838@trndny07>, "Diana" <dianaiad@noyoudont.com> wrote: > ".R. L. Measures" <2@vc.net> wrote in message > news:2-3003081147460001@10.0.1.198... > > 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 $2,000,000,000 to its butt-rammed altar-boys. > > Rich, THAT was the result of some very real lawsuits. Something the LDS > church wasn't ever threatened with. The subject is not lawsuits, it is bad press. >Not to mention that the situations > weren't even remotely similar. > >> > >> Not to mention that the tax exemption, however large it might have been, > >> was > >> in no danger--a fact that I have proven and you have ignored. > > > > I was not convinced that any church can bar blacks and retain its tax > > exemption. > > I don't care whether YOU were convinced. The Supreme Court and the IRS was. > Besides which, Rich, we didn't 'bar blacks' from the church, from > membership, or from any ultimate blessings. Certain men were restricted from > holding the priesthood, something that every church of every denomination > has the absolute right to do--to choose who will be members of their > priesthood. do this today and bad press is guaranteed to cause considerable public distress. > > >> Ad to a boycott of BYU's football team---the church has stood up to being > >> shot at, etc., and you think we were going to be afraid of a FOOTBALL > >> BOYCOTT??? > > > > BYU has never faced a team whose players walked off. > > No, they never did. And they never would have, either. you are clairvoyant? > > >> >> >> >> >> > ... ... ... -- R.L. Measures. 805-386-3734, http://www.somis.org Quote
Guest Posted March 30, 2008 Posted March 30, 2008 In article <kNTHj.9661$oE1.8988@trndny09>, "Diana" <dianaiad@noyoudont.com> wrote: > ".R. L. Measures" <2@vc.net> wrote in message > news:2-3003081353480001@10.0.1.198... > > In article <6MmdnT4U0Oz4b3LanZ2dnUVZ_oCvnZ2d@giganews.com>, John Manning > > <jrobertm@terra.com.br> wrote: > <snip to> > >> > >> 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. > > > Rich, since you agreed with this, would you kindly tell me why you aren't > over on, say...alt.religion.christian.baptist yelling at THEM? Two of my cousins are Baptist preachers. > I mean, > Babtists used to own slaves and were far more racist in the south than > Mormons ever were. Yet I think that one could say that most of them have > changed-- This happened over a century before the LdS church saw the light. >and even they will admit that they did so because of far more > pressure, political and moral, than has ever been leveled at the LDS church. > > Yet---all is praise for everybody who has changed their policies. All hail > the racists who no longer are! How wonderful! Repentance is glorious, > Forgiveness is universal... > > Unless of course one is a Mormon. Then of course no forgiveness is possible, > and no matter what he or she does, it's evil. The problem is that the LdS church never admitted error. >Should they extend the > priesthood to all male members? Why, THEY CHANGED BECAUSE OF PRESSURE! and > are evil. Should they NOT do so? WHY, the evil RACISTS! > Hubristic refusal to admit error was and is the one true church's nemesis. -- R.L. Measures. 805-386-3734, http://www.somis.org Quote
Guest Posted March 30, 2008 Posted March 30, 2008 In article <Xns9A71954A84290brickwall@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:2-3003081537130001@10.0.1.198... > In article <lDTHj.8276$gS1.838@trndny07>, "Diana" <dianaiad@noyoudont.com> > wrote: > >> ".R. L. Measures" <2@vc.net> wrote in message >> news:2-3003081147460001@10.0.1.198... >> > In article <OuQHj.5637$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 $2,000,000,000 to its butt-rammed altar-boys. >> >> Rich, THAT was the result of some very real lawsuits. Something the LDS >> church wasn't ever threatened with. > > The subject is not lawsuits, it is bad press. Then why are you talking about lawsuits? Because, Rich, it was the lawsuits, not the 'bad press,' that caused all those settlements. Rich, give it up. YOu lost. Quote
Guest Diana Posted March 30, 2008 Posted March 30, 2008 ".R. L. Measures" <2@vc.net> wrote in message news:2-3003081545320001@10.0.1.198... > In article <kNTHj.9661$oE1.8988@trndny09>, "Diana" > <dianaiad@noyoudont.com> wrote: > >> ".R. L. Measures" <2@vc.net> wrote in message >> news:2-3003081353480001@10.0.1.198... >> > In article <6MmdnT4U0Oz4b3LanZ2dnUVZ_oCvnZ2d@giganews.com>, John >> > Manning >> > <jrobertm@terra.com.br> wrote: >> <snip to> >> >> >> >> 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. >> > >> Rich, since you agreed with this, would you kindly tell me why you aren't >> over on, say...alt.religion.christian.baptist yelling at THEM? > > Two of my cousins are Baptist preachers. Ah. You are caving into pressure. I get it. > > >> I mean, >> Babtists used to own slaves and were far more racist in the south than >> Mormons ever were. Yet I think that one could say that most of them have >> changed-- > > This happened over a century before the LdS church saw the light. No, dear. They were forced to give up their SLAVES at gun point, but the Baptists in the south kept up their racist policies for a very long time indeed. But you lost. Get over it and get on to another topic. Quote
Guest John Manning Posted March 31, 2008 Posted March 31, 2008 Guy R. Briggs wrote: > 2@vc.net ( Quote
Guest \john p\ Posted March 31, 2008 Posted March 31, 2008 On Mar 30, 4:41 pm, "<<<~[A John 3:16 Whosoever]~>>>" <kaseybec...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 30, 2:29 pm, "Diana" <diana...@noyoudont.com> wrote: > > > Besides which, Rich, we didn't 'bar blacks' from the church, from > > membership, or from any ultimate blessings. > > Exactly what are "ultimate blessings" in the Mormon definition, Diana? > > > Certain men were restricted from > > holding the priesthood, something that every church of every denomination > > has the absolute right to do--to choose who will be members of their > > priesthood. > > What Christian denominations do you think have a "priesthood" that is > not pastoral, Diana? And which Christian denominations keep members > from doing anything based on their race? The racism that was written into the book of mormon and that became institutionalized into mormonism was a product of 19th century christian racism. Quote
Guest \john p\ Posted March 31, 2008 Posted March 31, 2008 On Mar 30, 1:02 pm, John <ews...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mar 30, 1:39 pm, 2...@vc.net ( R. L. Measures) wrote: > > > In article > > > > 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? > > > it was de facto lifted because after Kimball's revelation blacks can > > hold the high LdS priesthood. > > The revelation never says anything specific about blacks. > > > > > > 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. > > > So the Curse of Cain is still on? > > If it makes you happy, and gives you reason to live, and despise the > church, so be it. The problem is not mine to deal with. As far as I > know, all worthy males are entitled to hold the Priesthood. > > Come join us here in the present. The past, is just that, and I can't > do anything about it, neither can you. Maybe you can organize some > sort of attack on the Mainstream Christian churches, since the Lord > withheld His priesthood from a number of groups of people throughout > history. The reasons are His. > > JohnB We should learn from the past. Quote
Guest Posted March 31, 2008 Posted March 31, 2008 In article <pLCdnWvKR4ngiG3anZ2dnUVZ_sninZ2d@giganews.com>, John Manning <jrobertm@terra.com.br> wrote: > Guy R. Briggs wrote: > > 2@vc.net ( Quote
Guest Posted March 31, 2008 Posted March 31, 2008 In article <dUUHj.1049$s27.210@trnddc02>, "Diana" <dianaiad@noyoudont.com> wrote: > ".R. L. Measures" <2@vc.net> wrote in message > news:2-3003081537130001@10.0.1.198... > > In article <lDTHj.8276$gS1.838@trndny07>, "Diana" <dianaiad@noyoudont.com> > > wrote: > > > >> ".R. L. Measures" <2@vc.net> wrote in message > >> news:2-3003081147460001@10.0.1.198... > >> > 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. > >> > >> Rich, THAT was the result of some very real lawsuits. Something the LDS > >> church wasn't ever threatened with. > > > > The subject is not lawsuits, it is bad press. > > Then why are you talking about lawsuits? Because, Rich, it was the lawsuits, > not the 'bad press,' that caused all those settlements. > > Rich, give it up. YOu lost. The RCC settled in en masse to avoid going through c. 1000 individual trials and having the downtown pukesville testimony of sodomized altar-boys published in newspapers over a period of probably several years as the cases slowly made their way to trial. "The devil never harmed the church so much as when the church herself adopted the vow of celibacy." - - Peter Comestor (DOB ?, died c, AD1178 in Paris) -- R.L. Measures. 805-386-3734, http://www.somis.org 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.