One of these 16 people

[buckeye45_73]

Guy, this is what is actually in the Book of Mormon, and it was built into their doctrines for a very long time. Blacks were not given the Priesthood until 1978. (For comparison "Segergation forever Strom Thurmond had blacks on his staff by 1978).

I think we kind of deserve an answer to this, does Mitt Romney actually believe this stuff and the 500 other crazy things that are in the Book of Mormon.

Then we should demand to know if every Jewish politician believes in an eye for an eye.

but that's different

Yeah, pretty much, because everyone reads from that same bible, not just the Jews.

And because the whole "Eye for an eye" thing is taken out of context by believers and atheists alike.

The actual verse says that you should take no more than an eye for an eye. (Exodus 21:24) Not that you should go around seeking revenge.

AND your DEFENDING the Bible. wtf????? Are you a close right winger now?

 

[Foxfyre]

The Mormons officially and absolutely amended their doctrine decades ago and officially declared that the interpretation of the ancient text was in error. And the LDS have not discriminated against black people since currently having black bishops and other church leaders, and black students at Brigham Young U.

They were no better and no worse than any other religious groups who were using Scripture and various other reasonings to continue segregation. And these days, you have to really hunt to find the tiny groups who still believe in segregation and that would not apply to any LDS groups so far as I know.

A free people eventually gets around to correcting irrational cultural taboos and errors.

To condemn the LDS church for that and give all the others a pass seems unreasonably prejudicial to me.

"ancient text"? Really? You mean the text Joseph Smith made up in 1830 by badly plagarizing the format and text of the King James Bible.

I don't give any religion a pass for anything. But I will give then credit that it was certain churches that took a stand for civil rights while the Mormon Cult (I refuse to call it a church) dug in with all its might against it. Even after it stopped being fashionable.

But I do find your claim that the Church found those earlier interpretations were in "error" when

1) They haven't modified the scriptures that were translated in error"

and

2) Wouldn't that be admitting that Joseph Smith and Brigham Young - whom Mormons believe were talking directly to God- got it wrong? I mean, if you are on the Almighty's Fav-Five list, you'd think He'd correct such an obvious error.

And, based on anti-federalist papers you probably disagree with the Founders' concepts of unalienable rights and the defintiions of freedom. You have preached long and hard that it is good and right for people to be forced to join unions yes? And that it is okay to beat up people who try to work without forming a union?

Are we to conclude that your view on unions is all that JoeB is and that he should be forever condemned, excluded from running for public office, or is unsuitable for anything and we can justly trash his character and ban him from all important human activity because he belongs to or wants to belong to a union?

Who are you to criticize the religious faith of another who has never given any indication that he imposes or attempts to impose that faith into his business or political affairs? You do know that the U.S. Constitution forbids any religious test for holding public office at the federal level? There was a very good reason for that.

The way a person lives his life is pertinent to an evaluation of whether we want him or her as an elected leader. If he or she has misused religion or tried to use it as a basis for public policy, then that becomes suspect and it should. If he or she has condoned using religion as a basis for public policy, then that becomes suspect and it should. The people he or she surrounds himself/herself with and their views is also something that is legitimate to look at.

There is absolutely zero proof that Romney's friends, associates, or personal views are out of the American mainstream in any way. And we now have some decades of experience with him with which to evaluate that.

Condemning him just because he is a Mormon is simply wrong.

And using any similar criteria to judge his pick for VP will be just as wrong.

 

[JoeB131]

I read all kinds of material. Doesn't make it factual or me a believer. If YOU believe everything you read you deserve worse names than what I've used idiot.

Guy, this is what is actually in the Book of Mormon, and it was built into their doctrines for a very long time. Blacks were not given the Priesthood until 1978. (For comparison "Segergation forever Strom Thurmond had blacks on his staff by 1978).

I think we kind of deserve an answer to this, does Mitt Romney actually believe this stuff and the 500 other crazy things that are in the Book of Mormon.

WAit did you just praise Strom Thurmond on race relations?

Not praising or condemning. I think Strom is actually kind of a complex character. Yes, he was a racist asshole. He was also a hero in WWII. He stood against blacks getting equal rights, yet fathered a child on a black maid when he was a teen.

 

[JoeB131]

[

And, based on anti-federalist papers you probably disagree with the Founders' concepts of unalienable rights and the defintiions of freedom. You have preached long and hard that it is good and right for people to be forced to join unions yes? And that it is okay to beat up people who try to work without forming a union?

Umm... why are you changing the subject? Oh, wait, you must have lost the argument. That's it.

Are we to conclude that your view on unions is all that JoeB is and that he should be forever condemned, excluded from running for public office, or is unsuitable for anything and we can justly trash his character and ban him from all important human activity because he belongs to or wants to belong to a union?

Hey, I'm a pragmatist. I know I couldn't get elected. Getting elected largely involves blowing smoke up people's asses..

Who are you to criticize the religious faith of another who has never given any indication that he imposes or attempts to impose that faith into his business or political affairs? You do know that the U.S. Constitution forbids any religious test for holding public office at the federal level? There was a very good reason for that.

Yawn...

You see, I have my OWN religious test when I vote.

Question 1- Was your religion foundd by a child molesting con-artist?
Question 2- DO you believe in crazy shit (Examples being Space Lord Zenu, Magic Underwear, etc.)
Question 3- Does your religion have a history of racism, homophobia or misogyny?

If the answer is YES to any of these questions, you fail Joe's religion test.

The way a person lives his life is pertinent to an evaluation of whether we want him or her as an elected leader. If he or she has misused religion or tried to use it as a basis for public policy, then that becomes suspect and it should. If he or she has condoned using religion as a basis for public policy, then that becomes suspect and it should. The people he or she surrounds himself/herself with and their views is also something that is legitimate to look at.

That's like saying, "Well that Pit Bull hasn't mauled anyone as far as I know, so I should give it the benefit of the doubt..." My brother had a pit bull that was the nicest dog in the world. Until it tore his mother-in-law's face off and she needed 120 stitches to put it back together.

The Mormons have a shady history, I'd really, really like to know what Romney thinks about that history before I give him nuclear weapons. They have a history of trying to gain political power and impose their beliefs on people without leaving fingerprints...

There is absolutely zero proof that Romney's friends, associates, or personal views are out of the American mainstream in any way. And we now have some decades of experience with him with which to evaluate that.

The decades of history we have on this guy is screwing over working folks who weren't Mormons and lying his ass off to try to get political support. There's a reason this guy doesn't like to talk about his past.

Condemning him just because he is a Mormon is simply wrong.

And using any similar criteria to judge his pick for VP will be just as wrong.

Frankly, I've already decided not to vote for him, so who he picks for VP is kind of besides the point for me.