Who do you support for U.S. Senate in...

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#29761 Dec 5, 2012
emlu wrote:
<quoted text>During the early years of the LDS movement, black people were admitted to the church, and there was no record of a racial policy on denying priesthood, since at least two black men became priests, Elijah Abel and Walker Lewis.[11] When the Mormons migrated to Missouri they encountered the pro-slavery sentiments of their neighbors. Joseph Smith upheld the laws regarding slaves and slaveholders, but remained abolitionist in his actions and doctrines.[12]
Beginning in 1842, after he had moved to free-state Illinois, Smith made known his increasingly strong anti-slavery position. In 1842 he began studying some abolitionist literature, and stated, "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?"[13] In 1844 Joseph Smith wrote his views as a candidate for President of the United States. The anti-slavery plank of his platform called for a gradual end to slavery by the year 1850. His plan called for the government to buy the freedom of slaves using money from the sale of public lands
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_people_and...
Well, you are party correct. But their was a policy in the church prohibiting blacks from the priesthood.
You cherry picked what was the policy of the 'early church' and deceptively applied it to the entire history of the church.

I cut and pasted this from the same site you posted.

After Smith's death in 1844, Brigham Young became president of the main body of the church, and led the Mormon Pioneers to what would become the Utah territory. Like the majority of Americans at the time, Young (who was also the territorial governor) promoted discriminatory views about black people.[4] On January 16, 1852 Young made a pronouncement to the Utah Territorial Legislature stating that "any man having one drop of the seed of [Cain]... in him cannot hold the priesthood and if no other Prophet ever spake it before I will say it now in the name of Jesus Christ I know it is true and others know it."[14]
A similar statement by Young was recorded on February 13, 1849. The statement — which refers to the Curse of Cain — was given in response to a question asking about the African's chances for redemption. Young responded, "The Lord had cursed Cain’s seed with blackness and prohibited them the Priesthood."[14]

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#29762 Dec 5, 2012
emlu wrote:
<quoted text>During the early years of the LDS movement, black people were admitted to the church, and there was no record of a racial policy on denying priesthood, since at least two black men became priests, Elijah Abel and Walker Lewis.[11] When the Mormons migrated to Missouri they encountered the pro-slavery sentiments of their neighbors. Joseph Smith upheld the laws regarding slaves and slaveholders, but remained abolitionist in his actions and doctrines.[12]
Beginning in 1842, after he had moved to free-state Illinois, Smith made known his increasingly strong anti-slavery position. In 1842 he began studying some abolitionist literature, and stated, "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?"[13] In 1844 Joseph Smith wrote his views as a candidate for President of the United States. The anti-slavery plank of his platform called for a gradual end to slavery by the year 1850. His plan called for the government to buy the freedom of slaves using money from the sale of public lands
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_people_and...
BTW, I was a Mormon as a kid in the seventies. I never witnessed a single black person in the church.
Funny how even I being a former Mormon was confused on the policy, as it was thought even by my mother at the time, blacks were prohibited from even joining. I remember asking her about it, and she disagreed with the policy, or what she thought was the policy.

Yes, the 'official' policy was just prohibiting blacks from the priesthood, but be sure, no missionaries locally were trying to convert black persons.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#29763 Dec 5, 2012
emlu wrote:
<quoted text>During the early years of the LDS movement, black people were admitted to the church, and there was no record of a racial policy on denying priesthood, since at least two black men became priests, Elijah Abel and Walker Lewis.[11] When the Mormons migrated to Missouri they encountered the pro-slavery sentiments of their neighbors. Joseph Smith upheld the laws regarding slaves and slaveholders, but remained abolitionist in his actions and doctrines.[12]
Beginning in 1842, after he had moved to free-state Illinois, Smith made known his increasingly strong anti-slavery position. In 1842 he began studying some abolitionist literature, and stated, "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?"[13] In 1844 Joseph Smith wrote his views as a candidate for President of the United States. The anti-slavery plank of his platform called for a gradual end to slavery by the year 1850. His plan called for the government to buy the freedom of slaves using money from the sale of public lands
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_people_and...
So two black persons were Mormon priests? Does the math show equality? Clearly not. BTW, Mormons do not have "priests", they have bishops, wards, Apostles,"elders", and "prophets".

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#29764 Dec 5, 2012
TSF wrote:
For those with faith, no explaination is necessary, for those without faith, no explaination is possible.
St Thomas Aquinas
Of course in the dark ages, no one had scientific explanations for most natural events, so I can see why Tom thought this.

Any statement pre-Darwin, must be looked at in this perspective.
And even after that, one should look at the known science of the day for full perspective.
BTW, all founding fathers were pre-Darwin.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#29765 Dec 5, 2012
TSF wrote:
For those with faith, no explaination is necessary, for those without faith, no explaination is possible.
St Thomas Aquinas
This quote typifies the lack of science of the religious.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#29766 Dec 5, 2012
emlu wrote:
<quoted text>Communism is the all freeing emancipating revolution that will bring and end to exploitation of human beings by others.
Fascism is the anti revolution, a right wing dictatorship usually thrown up against the working class as a last defense of capitalism and characterized by deceitful tactics to win (misguided) working class support
Is this your opinion, or are you quote mining?
These are clearly not definitions of the terms.

Can you see how posting this without clear articulation is confusing?
It looks like plagiarism gone wrong.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#29767 Dec 5, 2012
emlu wrote:
I'm trying to figure out what "most Christians" read or didn't read. I thought you started at page one and went from there. Maybe some people "cherry pick" what they want to read and apply it to a discussion.
You mean the way you cherry picked the one passage in the bible that eludes to equality?

The reason I showed many passages to support my position, is to show a common theme of the bible. Not just one, out of the norm passage, that is not explicit about treating women as equals.

Any god should surely know it is human nature to look at the common theme over a single passage. This is why I say Jesus should have been more explicit about equal rights.

My opinion is, secularism is what pushed the equal rights of women forward, not religion.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#29768 Dec 5, 2012
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>Well, you are party correct. But their was a policy in the church prohibiting blacks from the priesthood.
You cherry picked what was the policy of the 'early church' and deceptively applied it to the entire history of the church.
I cut and pasted this from the same site you posted.
After Smith's death in 1844, Brigham Young became president of the main body of the church, and led the Mormon Pioneers to what would become the Utah territory. Like the majority of Americans at the time, Young (who was also the territorial governor) promoted discriminatory views about black people.[4] On January 16, 1852 Young made a pronouncement to the Utah Territorial Legislature stating that "any man having one drop of the seed of [Cain]... in him cannot hold the priesthood and if no other Prophet ever spake it before I will say it now in the name of Jesus Christ I know it is true and others know it."[14]
A similar statement by Young was recorded on February 13, 1849. The statement — which refers to the Curse of Cain — was given in response to a question asking about the African's chances for redemption. Young responded, "The Lord had cursed Cain’s seed with blackness and prohibited them the Priesthood."[14]
Partly, not party.

Since: Sep 12

Location hidden

#29769 Dec 5, 2012
Sounds like someone is pissed at their childhood religion.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#29770 Dec 5, 2012
emlu wrote:
According to the New Testament, Christ appointed only male apostles.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_roles_in_...

the Catholic and Orthodox churches, where men may serve as priests and women may serve as nuns or sisters, and where women may hold senior positions such as abbess, but not bishop, patriarch or pope. While various conservative Protestant denominations also hold that only men can be ordained as clergy, ordination of women is becoming increasingly common in some Protestant churches.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#29771 Dec 5, 2012
emlu wrote:
Sounds like someone is pissed at their childhood religion.
Of course believers often think atheists are just bitter about some personal event religion caused in their life. Is it so hard to fathom some just looked at the evidence and arguments and made an alternative conclusion?
The Mormon religion did nothing wrong to me. I do think their views on race are twisted and immoral though. I mean, they really think a god branded dark skin on those who were the enemy.

Interestingly, I do follow the idea of not drinking, smoking, or doing drugs. I do drink coffee and consume other caffeinated products. Although I am careful to take in moderation.
Not sure if I do this due to any Mormon influence or not.

You guys just love to speculate on my personal life.

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#29772 Dec 5, 2012
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>How many times must I explain this? If you give no opinion, the article is pointless. The article is supposed to be a source of evidence for your claims or position.
I explained why I do not post links for each and every claim I make. It would take way to long for one. Second, many do not doubt some of my claims, so why bother posting evidence to the claim?
I have stated several times, if you doubt a claim I make, I will try to provide evidence if you request it.
In the case of this post, I even acknowledged the claim may not be true. The claim was not integral to the major point anyway.
This is an opinion forum, so I expect your opinion. How is that not clear? My mind is boggled that this opinion forum concept is beyond your understanding.
If you post several places for me to read something, if you give no opinion, I have no idea what I am supposed to be looking for in the article. I am not going to waste my time reading it, trying to wonder just what the republican/Christian mind is thinking about it.
So far in this debate about female equality in religion, I have seen your side offering very little opinion or evidence of equality. I am inclined to think you do not really believe that religion is a good promoter of equality.
In fact, the entire idea of religious faith is centered upon the concept of joining the team or being outcasts. There is no equality in that concept.
This typifies all that I have a problem with in religion. It is not the best formula for what is good or moral.
Your team likes to think it is the only way to morality, but I challenge that claim. The example of female equality is great for this debate. Yet I am hearing very little effort from your team to defend equality.
You claim Emlu can articulate her own defense of the issues. How can you know, as she never even tries?
Mike, let's take your first paragraph; maybe the article is their point/opinion and the link posted can go into greater depth than we have time on here to do. I try to post the link, versus the link verbatim in its' entirety(?) due to space. From now on, so you won't be confused, we should post "Mike this link/site coincides with my opinion" and you'll be less confused. We don't mind helping you out a little :)

As far as Emlu articulating the defense of issues on here, AGAIN, Mike you're the only one that doesn't understand her stance. As I stated the other day, maybe it's you, not everyone else. I never read where anyone else has problems with her "articulation" of her opinion.

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#29773 Dec 5, 2012
Makin bacon wrote:
<quoted text>
Mike, let's take your first paragraph; maybe the article is their point/opinion and the link posted can go into greater depth than we have time on here to do. I try to post the link, versus the link verbatim in its' entirety(?) due to space. From now on, so you won't be confused, we should post "Mike this link/site coincides with my opinion" and you'll be less confused. We don't mind helping you out a little :)
As far as Emlu articulating the defense of issues on here, AGAIN, Mike you're the only one that doesn't understand her stance. As I stated the other day, maybe it's you, not everyone else. I never read where anyone else has problems with her "articulation" of her opinion.
So now you speak for all on this forum? Wow. Ever think others just do not wish to make note of her lack of articulation?

Note how Emlu posted a quote about communism but did not explain if it was her opinion? I doubt it was, so what was the point of the quote? You seem to know what see meant, so maybe you can explain it?

If you cannot fit your paste job and opinion on the same post, fine. Write your opinion on the preceding post or something. At the least, tell us if the article reflects your views perfectly or not. I cannot imagine someone speaking for me like that, but maybe you do, who knows?

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

#29774 Dec 5, 2012
Mike Duquette wrote:
<quoted text>So now you speak for all on this forum? Wow. Ever think others just do not wish to make note of her lack of articulation?
Note how Emlu posted a quote about communism but did not explain if it was her opinion? I doubt it was, so what was the point of the quote? You seem to know what see meant, so maybe you can explain it?
If you cannot fit your paste job and opinion on the same post, fine. Write your opinion on the preceding post or something. At the least, tell us if the article reflects your views perfectly or not. I cannot imagine someone speaking for me like that, but maybe you do, who knows?
There you go again double standard Mike. Remember when you always used the term "we"? I did call you out on it and you have every right to call me out on using it; however, no one ever backed you up on the "we" and I believe I've seen more than one poster agree with Lu. So which is it, you can use the term "we" and that's okey dokey but I can't? Make up your mind and as I said, we'll try to help you with your chronic state of confusion.

BTW, I've been reading the posts between you guys on religion not communism. However, if you want my opinion, I'll give it. Communism is the ownership of all property, the rich, the middle and the lower class and is given to everyone on a needs basis. Well buddy, we're headed there. What can you or I give to a millionaire/billionaire? We know what our government wants to do is to tax them more and you and I will also feel the pinch, or I will anyway, and give away the money on a needs basis for people that haven't hit a lick at a black snake. To you, that may seem to be a fair deal; however, we've worked too hard at our house to hand over money to people that never have and never will work because it's handed to them.

“Seek Light”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#29775 Dec 5, 2012
Mike your constant harping to emlu is beginning to sound strident and a bit desperate.You sound like the most bitter man on earth.So far you've lost every"debate"you've gotten into.I wanted to debate about crime, you changed it to religion! The religion thing is driving you nuts.(IMO).........

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#29776 Dec 5, 2012
Makin bacon wrote:
<quoted text>
There you go again double standard Mike. Remember when you always used the term "we"? I did call you out on it and you have every right to call me out on using it; however, no one ever backed you up on the "we" and I believe I've seen more than one poster agree with Lu. So which is it, you can use the term "we" and that's okey dokey but I can't? Make up your mind and as I said, we'll try to help you with your chronic state of confusion.
I was referring to general groups like scientists, or liberals, and I could back up my claims with stats to prove the general consensus.
Now can you show evidence anyone knows what Emlu's opinion is?
I ask again, what is her opinion of the statement she posted about communism? Please help me in this confusion. So far, you are just making excuses for her and yourself.
How can anyone agree with Emlu, when she never really gives an opinion?

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#29777 Dec 5, 2012
Makin bacon wrote:
<quoted text>
There you go again double standard Mike. Remember when you always used the term "we"? I did call you out on it and you have every right to call me out on using it; however, no one ever backed you up on the "we" and I believe I've seen more than one poster agree with Lu. So which is it, you can use the term "we" and that's okey dokey but I can't? Make up your mind and as I said, we'll try to help you with your chronic state of confusion.
BTW, I've been reading the posts between you guys on religion not communism. However, if you want my opinion, I'll give it. Communism is the ownership of all property, the rich, the middle and the lower class and is given to everyone on a needs basis. Well buddy, we're headed there. What can you or I give to a millionaire/billionaire? We know what our government wants to do is to tax them more and you and I will also feel the pinch, or I will anyway, and give away the money on a needs basis for people that haven't hit a lick at a black snake. To you, that may seem to be a fair deal; however, we've worked too hard at our house to hand over money to people that never have and never will work because it's handed to them.
If you call taxing the same as ownership, please be clear about that. It is not what the definition of communism is though. By such standards, most every country on the planet is communist.
Taxpayer thinks America is already communist, but I have yet to hear you tell him you disagree with his opinion. I have yet to hear one conservative here disagree with him.
He claims he is not a republican, so why protect him if he is not on your team?
Do you only call out liberals?

“Seek Light”

Since: May 12

Location hidden

#29778 Dec 5, 2012
Emlu backs her opinions up with links Mike you ignorant slut.(I doubt you remember that"line"from Saturday Night Live).

“Breaking the spell ”

Since: Dec 10

of the puppet master

#29779 Dec 5, 2012
waco1909 wrote:
Mike your constant harping to emlu is beginning to sound strident and a bit desperate.You sound like the most bitter man on earth.So far you've lost every"debate"you've gotten into.I wanted to debate about crime, you changed it to religion! The religion thing is driving you nuts.(IMO).........
I tried to ask you why the crime rate was low, and you refused to give an opinion, so I did. Lack of blind faith. No one has rebutted my claim so far. So who is diverting? Seems it is you. Seems no one wants to debate it, everyone just wants to whine that I complain no one wants to debate. It is a vicious circle.
Now are you ready to debate? If so, I would love to hear why you think the crime rate is low?

Since: Sep 12

Location hidden

#29780 Dec 5, 2012
waco1909 wrote:
Mike your constant harping to emlu is beginning to sound strident and a bit desperate.You sound like the most bitter man on earth.So far you've lost every"debate"you've gotten into.I wanted to debate about crime, you changed it to religion! The religion thing is driving you nuts.(IMO).........
It's OK waco, before the election, I was told to post links to support my opinion, now it's give an opinion on my links. So, I have decided to post links that support my opinion. I find it less repetitive.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Goldsboro Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Muslim cemetery questioned by neighbors Aug 9 Mustafa 3
Hair Salon Aug 5 New To Goldsboro 1
NSA clean and discreet Aug '15 funonly777 1
Review: Forward Worship Center Jul '15 tina ingram 1
Should I move to Goldsboro? Is it a safe place ... (Dec '09) May '15 gilsburough 112
A Hate Crime On Goldsboro Community Campus ?? ... Apr '15 American_Sons 2
Our Society is Headed to Lockdown in The War on... Apr '15 Culture Auditor 1
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Goldsboro Mortgages