Was the Priesthood Ban a "Good Idea"?

[paulpatter]

Yes, that has some relationship to it. It appears to be the first one that does, unless I've missed something.

Yes, you've missed something, including this: "Until the last ones of the residue of Adam's children are brought up to that favorable position, the children of Cain cannot receive the first ordinances of the Priesthood" (Journal of Discourses, Oct. 9, 1859)." I didn't post this, but it's relevant in answering your claim: "Asked what 'chance of redemption there was for the Africans,' Young answered that 'the curse remained upon them because Cain cut off the life of Abel. . . . The Lord had cursed Cain's seed with blackness and prohibited them the Priesthood'" (Bush and Mauss, Neither White nor Black).

In Post 132, you go ballistic over my statement that ". . .[bY] didn't meet even the rudimentary requirements of his day for civil speech and humane discourse." Perhaps you can provide some statements from his nationally known non-LDS contemporaries in which they use mordant language comparable to that of BY. BTW, are you aware that Young referred to Mulattoes as "mules"? (I can find the source if you're interested.)

: You accuse falsely, as you habitually do."

Is that so? Well, let's look at a sampling of your misrepresentations/distortions re. my statements: In Post 110, you write: "You [me] insisted Brigham Young was more racist than his contemporaries. . . " What I actually said is posted above (regarding the language he used to characterize blacks). In Post 116 you claim that BY's statements are never (yes, "never') presented in context because they would lose "most of their edge." BY's message to the territorial legislature, a substantial portion of which I posted, certainly provides context. So does his letter to Horace Greely, which I posted in its entirety. In Post 106 you write: "You obviously [emphasis added] think genocide is just the way things were done." You obviously didn't know what you were writing about. My point was that genocide wasn't relevant in responding to the question posed by the thread's title. In Post 150 you announce [fanfare here] that you have accepted my "apology." The notion that I apologized to you in some way is a sheer, sinister fabrication. You also manage, in the same paragraph, to suggest that I am a "disreputable scoundrel"--a personal, vicious attack, which, I hasten to add, doesn't come as a surprise.

Re. "quote mining": I continue to be amused that you have yet to disprove or discredit the accuracy of the quotes I have posted. Thus, you are left--with some embarrassment, I should think--to attacking format rather than content. The aphorism holds true: If you can't attack the message, attack the messenger. I am pleased, however, to see that you have finally learned that "proof text" means something entirely different than "quote mining."

And then this:

: In the meantime, I would advise you against trying to pretend that I have misrepresented your statements. Not only do you and I both know that your accusation is false, but I've just proven that it is.

Hilarious! A tad worried, were you, that I would do precisely what I have just done; i.e., expose your lies and duplicity? Thought you should issue a pre-emptive warning, eh? Alas, too late (and too funny).

[Pahoran]

I am having to break this post in two, due to quoting restrictions.

Yes, you've missed something, including this: "Until the last ones of the residue of Adam's children are brought up to that favorable position, the children of Cain cannot receive the first ordinances of the Priesthood" (Journal of Discourses, Oct. 9, 1859)." I didn't post this, but it's relevant in answering your claim: "Asked what 'chance of redemption there was for the Africans,' Young answered that 'the curse remained upon them because Cain cut off the life of Abel. . . . The Lord had cursed Cain's seed with blackness and prohibited them the Priesthood'" (Bush and Mauss, Neither White nor Black).

Since my claim is that many or most of your "Racist Brigham" prooftexts are irrelevant to the Priesthood question, the fact that you didn't post it makes it entirely irrelevant to my claim; and you know it.

In Post 132, you go ballistic over my statement that ". . .[bY] didn't meet even the rudimentary requirements of his day for civil speech and humane discourse." Perhaps you can provide some statements from his nationally known non-LDS contemporaries in which they use mordant language comparable to that of BY.

As you know, that question has been asked and answered. "The only good injun is a dead injun" is vastly more "mordant" than remarks about anyone being "uncomely."

BTW, are you aware that Young referred to Mulattoes as "mules"? (I can find the source if you're interested.)

Yes, I am interested. Call for references, please.

Is that so?

Yes, that is so.

And once again, you have demonstrated your technique of deliberately presenting quote stripped of their context in order to deliberately misrepresent what is going on.

I suspect the reason you omit my quotations is to facilitate misrepresenting them in your responses. That aside, MormonThink has an extensive section (eight single-spaced pages) entitled "Blacks and the Priesthood." No mention is made of Native Americans (yet another misrepresentation).

You accuse falsely, as you habitually do. For your convenience, I reproduce the second item from your first handful of note-cards:

"You may inquire of the intelligent of the world whether they can tell why the aborigines of this country are dark, loathsome, ignorant, and sunken into the depths of degradation [emphasis fixed]. (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, 7:336)

Who are the "aborigines of this country," Paul?

Thus, I have proven that mention was made of Native Americans, in the very set you quoted. Your "yet another misrepresentation" was nothing but a brazen, barefaced lie.

Well, let's look at a sampling of your misrepresentations/distortions re. my statements: In Post 110, you write: "You [me] insisted Brigham Young was more racist than his contemporaries. . . " What I actually said is posted above (regarding the language he used to characterize blacks).

So it is, and I shall post it again, with my comments.

Not only did he not meet today's political correctness requirements, he didn't meet even the rudimentary requirements of his day for civil speech and humane discourse. Can you imagine that President James Buchanan (or any responsible American leader) would say anything even remotely as racist as Brigham Young's deplorable "some members of the human family that are black, uncouth, uncomely. . .low in their habits." etc?

Emphasis per me. You don't mind me changing the emphasis to highlight what you are missing, do you?

So, according to you, no "responsible American leader" did or "would say anything even remotely as racist as Brigham Young's" little snippets that constitute your favourite quotes. Please explain why that doesn't mean he was more racist than his contemporaries? Personally I can't wait; this has got to be good.

Why didn't you answer, Paul? Why, instead of explaining how your statement doesn't mean that Brigham was more racist than his contemporaries, did you immediately launch into a counterattack?

Was it because you can't explain how your statement doesn't mean that Brigham was more racist than his contemporaries?

And so you resorted to your "aphorism" cited near the end of your post, which really describes your own approach?

In Post 116 you claim that BY's statements are never (yes, "never') presented in context because they would lose "most of their edge." BY's message to the territorial legislature, a substantial portion of which I posted, certainly provides context. So does his letter to Horace Greely, which I posted in its entirety.

Did you? I have searched the thread, using both "Greely" and "Greeley," and cannot find it.

I did find an excerpt from a letter from Lincoln to Greeley, which you posted; and I found an excerpt from an interview between Brigham and Greeley, which was posted not by you, but by Zelder, in Post 138. Of course you wouldn't have posted that, because it doesn't support your position. So where is the letter you claim to have "posted in its entirety?"

I have also searched the thread for your "substantial portion" of Brigham's address to the territorial legislature. You posted 60 words (with an ellipsis in the middle) in Post 75, and 11 words, five of which were repeated from the earlier snippet, in Post 102.

Very "substantial," I don't think. Actually, it looks rather like your usual attempt at prooftexting.

End of part 1.

[Pahoran]

Post part 2:

In Post 106 you write: "You obviously [emphasis added] think genocide is just the way things were done." You obviously didn't know what you were writing about. My point was that genocide wasn't relevant in responding to the question posed by the thread's title.

It was, however, relevant to that strand of the thread, which started in Post 77, when you posted the standard anti-Mormon "death on the spot" prooftext. In response to that, at Post 82, TSS wrote:

Presidents of the US have done and said much worse.

Then you responded, in Post 83:

If "Presidents of the US have done and said much worse," please document your claim in the form of a list . Provide the names of the guilty presidents, and summarize the racist statements they made--in a public setting--against black people.

Good luck with that.

Good luck, indeed! The clear inference was that the only way for anything to be "worse" than what Brigham said was that it had to be a spoken statement "made--in a public setting--against black people." What they had "done" -- i.e their actions -- you tried to exclude from the discussion. Actions could not be worse, let alone "much worse," only words; and only words directed against black people; no other words -- including "Fire at will" -- could be "worse" if they were directed at any other targets.

Then, in Post 92, you responded to descriptions of words and deeds of US presidents -- including acts of genocide against Native Americans -- with:

Be careful about what you find at the top of your head. In Post 83, I wrote: "If 'Presidents of the US have done and said much worse,' please document your claim in the form of a list. Provide the names of the guilty presidents, and summarize the racist statements they made--in a public setting--against black people [emphases added]."

Perhaps you turned in late. I have cited racist statements made by Brigham Young (and others) against blacks in response to the thread's title-question: "Was the Priesthood Ban a 'Good Idea'"?

Do try to stay focused.

But that particular strand is about the fact that "Presidents of the US have done and said much worse." Artificially limiting it to only words and only about black people means one of two things:

1. Either you are attempting to load the dice by narrowly focusing on spoken words about blacks, because that's the very worst you've got against Brigham;
   
2. Or you genuinely believe that acts of genocide against Native Americans can't be "worse" than "uncomely" remarks about black people.
   

Which is it?

In Post 150 you announce [fanfare here] that you have accepted my "apology." The notion that I apologized to you in some way is a sheer, sinister fabrication.

Is it?

Here is what I was responding to:

You are, of course, free to discredit MT. Tellingly, however, you are unable to challenge the accuracy of the quotations it presents, ranging from BY to John Taylor to Wilford Woodruff, to Joseph Fielding Smith to Mark E. Petersen to George F. Richards to William Phelps to The Juvenile Instructor. Puts you in a tough spot, doesn't it. Sorry about that.

What do the highlighted words mean, Paul?

I admit that it is unlikely that you would sincerely do anything as decent as apologise for your vicious accusations, but that's what most people take the words to mean.

Re. "quote mining": I continue to be amused that you have yet to disprove or discredit the accuracy of the quotes I have posted.

As I pointed out earlier: a quote may be "accurate" in what it reproduces, but highly misleading in what it suppresses. That is the whole point of quote mining.

Thus, you are left--with some embarrassment, I should think--to attacking format rather than content. The aphorism holds true: If you can't attack the message, attack the messenger.

Which, as we have seen, describes your own technique exactly.

I am pleased, however, to see that you have finally learned that "proof text" means something entirely different than "quote mining."

You know, you really ought not to crow too loudly about things you know nothing about. Note the following:

Prooftexting is the practice of using quotations from a document (often, but not always, a book of the Bible) to establish a proposition. Using discrete quotations is generally seen as decontextualised. Critics of the technique note that often a document quoted in such a manner, when read as a whole, may not in fact support the proposition for which it was cited.

This taken from Wikipedia. Evidently they think I'm using the term correctly.

Hilarious! A tad worried, were you, that I would do precisely what I have just done; i.e., expose your lies and duplicity? Thought you should issue a pre-emptive warning, eh? Alas, too late (and too funny).

Again, you crow too soon. Whose "lies and duplicity" have been exposed, Paul?

Regards,

Pahoran

[paulpatter]

I am having to break this post in two, due to quoting restrictions.

Are you familiar with the country western song Desperado? That song came to my mind as I read your two-part, breathless, chest-thumping, self-justifying tirade. Spent most of the day on it, did you? Such a waste.

Despite all your labored, tendentious verbiage (needed a nap afterwards, did you?) you fail to refute the accuracy of the unfortunate (I'm being charitable) statements made by Brigham Young and his associates, as well as those published in entities such as The Juvenile Instructor. Thus your only recourse has been to attack format rather than content (hence your obsession with "prooftexting" and "quote mining"). Wait--you did employ another tactic, stating--in effect--that everybody used such language, and so it was entirely acceptable for a prophet of God to follow suit. Uh-huh--Brigham Young, Man of the World.

So there you have it, Pahoran: Brigham Young said what he said; John Taylor said what he said; Wilford Woodruff said what he said; Joseph Fielding Smith said what he said; Mark E. Petersen said what he said; George F. Richards said what he said; The Juvenile Instructor published what it published; the Times and Seasons published what it published--all designed to justify, based on the utterly indefensible, idiotic assumption that the curse of Cain extended to all black people. And because of your legendary "blinders on" approach to analyzing Church history, you find yourself accepting/defending all of it, and unable to refute any of it.

I am reminded of a line from the movie On The Waterfront, spoken by Marlon Brando (paraphrasing): And to think I cudda been a contender.

[Pahoran]

Are you familiar with the country western song Desperado? That song came to my mind as I read your two-part, breathless, chest-thumping, self-justifying tirade.

While what comes to my mind, as I read your arrogant swaggering and absurd claims of victory is the "knight at the bridge" sketch from Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

Spent most of the day on it, did you?

No.

Such a waste.

Only if I had been looking for a substantive response from you. Which I wasn't.

Despite all your labored, tendentious verbiage (needed a nap afterwards, did you?) you fail to refute the accuracy of the unfortunate (I'm being charitable) statements made by Brigham Young and his associates, as well as those published in entities such as The Juvenile Instructor. Thus your only recourse has been to attack format rather than content (hence your obsession with "prooftexting" and "quote mining"). Wait--you did employ another tactic, stating--in effect--that everybody used such language, and so it was entirely acceptable for a prophet of God to follow suit. Uh-huh--Brigham Young, Man of the World.

And yet, he was immeasurably better than you are.

Even if he had been as "racist" as you try to pretend by your carefully selected prooftexts, and even if we insist on judging him by today's standards, he is still immeasurably better than you are.

So, since you have no substantive response, these facts are established:

1. There were indeed presidents of the US who did far worse than Brigham.
   
2. You did indeed argue from the position that saying "uncomely" things about black people was worse than genocide against Native Americans.
   
3. You did indeed attempt to argue that Brigham was more racist than his contemporaries.
   
4. I did not make any "sheer, sinister fabrication" when I accepted your "Sorry about that" as an apology.
   
5. Your accusation that I misrepresented your arguments has been comprehensively refuted.
   
6. Someone's "lies and duplicity" have been exposed; either mine or yours. And it wasn't mine.
   

If you could refute any of these points, you would have done so; but you didn't. You didn't even try.

So there you have it, Pahoran: Brigham Young said what he said; John Taylor said what he said; Wilford Woodruff said what he said; Joseph Fielding Smith said what he said; Mark E. Petersen said what he said; George F. Richards said what he said; The Juvenile Instructor published what it published; the Times and Seasons published what it published--all designed to justify, based on the utterly indefensible, idiotic assumption that the curse of Cain extended to all black people.

And none of it was worse than what you said.

And because of your legendary "blinders on" approach to analyzing Church history, you find yourself accepting/defending all of it, and unable to refute any of it.

I could issue a call for references here, but you'd default on it, as you invariably do.

If you'd bothered to read my first post in this thread -- it's Post 9 on the first page -- you'd realise how firmly you just stuck your foot in your mouth.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Bernard Gui]

Just to give Brigham a little credit,

JD 10:250, Brigham Young, October 6, 1863

Ham will continue to be the servant of servants, as the Lord has decreed, until the curse is removed. Will the

present struggle free the slave? No; but they are now wasting away the black race by thousands. Many of the

blacks are treated worse than we treat our dumb brutes; and men will be called to judgment for the way they

have treated the negro, and they will receive the condemnation of a guilty conscience, by the just Judge whose

attributes are justice and truth.

Treat the slaves kindly and let them live, for Ham must be the servant of servants until the curse is removed.

Can you destroy the decrees of the Almighty? You cannot. Yet our Christian brethren think that they are

going to overthrow the sentence of the Almighty upon the seed of Ham. They cannot do that, though they may

kill them by thousands and tens of thousands.

Bernard

[AmorLibertas]

Just to give Brigham a little credit

A little credit in the matter is all he deserves. He was quite clearly a White supremacist who believed and taught that the "seed of Ham" or "seed of Cain" were an inferior race under divine condemnation to be slaves and any attempts to change this were not only futile, but in opposition to the decrees God. Yes, like many who shared his beliefs in the divine institution of slavery of the Black "race", he believed that they should be treated with kindness, but never as equals, and most certainly never as husbands or wives or brothers-in-law or sisters-in-law. So yes, he deserves a very little amount of credit for not being the worst kind of racist, but for someone who was supposed to have been a prophet of God, he was certainly not leading the World in how mankind ought to treat their fellow human beings.

[Jaybear]

What matters is that Brigham Young believed in treating blacks with decency, he believed they were the children of god, he believed in helping them and that they would eventually get the priesthood. Its not fair to describe him as racist or evil in his views. He was a good christian and treated blacks and indians far better than the typical american of his time. Brigham Young is a very much misunderstood mischaracterized person.

I disagree. While that does count, I think it matters a great deal that he asserted that slavery was a divine institution. The morality of slavery was the most relevant moral issue of the day, even more so than gay marriage is today.

What is the point of having a Prophet if not to offer guidance on such weighty moral issues.

I am confident that if he had come out at the time and proclaimed that slavery was immoral and ought to be abolished, as many other did, he would honored, and rightly so, for his position.

Furthermore, I dont think the church had a position on whether or not slavery should be abolished.

You must have missed this question and answer from the interview you cited:

H.G.

[paulpatter]

Pahoran writes:

: Since my claim is that many or most of your "Racist Brigham" prooftexts are irrelevant to the Priesthood question, the fact that you didn't post it makes it entirely irrelevant to my claim; and you know it.

You're light years off base here (true to form). The "curse" placed on Cain, which BY references frequently, was the rationale for denying Negroes the priesthood.

Too bad you didn't comprehend the linkage.

: As you know, that question has been asked and answered. "The only good injun is a dead injun" is vastly more "mordant" than remarks about anyone being "uncomely."

One egregious comment hardly makes up for multiple egregious comments made by BY about black people. Is that the best you can muster? Pathetic.

: Yes, I am interested. Call for references, please.

I will post it shortly. But, of course, you will dismiss it, characterizing it as quote mining.

: And once again, you have demonstrated your technique of deliberately presenting quote stripped of their context in order to deliberately misrepresent what is going on.

And once again you use a diversionary tactic to draw attention from the embarrassing fact that you are unable to challenge the accuracy of the quotations I have posted.

: Thus, I have proven that mention was made of Native Americans, in the very set you quoted. Your "yet another misrepresentation" was nothing but a brazen, barefaced lie.

If I did, in fact, overlook that (can't find the printout at the moment), your hysterical characterization of my error ("brazen, barefaced lie") is quintessential, huff-and-puff polemical hypebole-- the sort of thing for which you are infamous.

: Why didn't you answer, Paul? Why, instead of explaining how your statement doesn't mean that Brigham was more racist than his contemporaries, did you immediately launch into a counterattack?

Probably because I was "aping" you.

: Was it because you can't explain how your statement doesn't mean that Brigham was more racist than his contemporaries?

In the context of being a prophet of God of the one true church--a person viewed by his followers as being divinely inspired--BY was more racist than at least many of his contemporaries. There, I have softened it a bit. Does that lower your blood pressure?

: Did you? I have searched the thread, using both "Greely" and "Greeley," and cannot find it.

Still having a reading comprehension problem, eh? Check Post #118.

: I did find an excerpt from a letter from Lincoln to Greeley, which you posted; and I found an excerpt from an interview between Brigham and Greeley, which was posted not by you, but by Zelder, in Post 138. Of course you wouldn't have posted that, because it doesn't support your position. So where is the letter you claim to have "posted in its entirety?"

I have taken the liberty of boldfacing your last sentence, which I have just proved to be still another (have they no end?) of your misrepresentations and wild-eyed speculations.

: I have also searched the thread for your "substantial portion" of Brigham's address to the territorial legislature. You posted 60 words (with an ellipsis in the middle) in Post 75, and 11 words, five of which were repeated from the earlier snippet, in Post 102.

Now if that wasn't a criminal act by me, I don't know what was. I stand condemned, and no forgiveness is possible.

: End of part 1.

Thank the Lord.

[Pahoran]

One egregious comment hardly makes up for multiple egregious comments made by BY about black people. Is that the best you can muster? Pathetic.

Brigham was frequently given to hyperbole; many of his comments were "egregious." But, as you perfectly well know but prefer to misrepresent, it is not merely a case of one egregious comment versus several; it is a case of one example of a commonly used egregious comment, together with a systematic policy of genocide, versus Brigham's remarks, in connection with which there were no violent acts.

If I did, in fact, overlook that (can't find the printout at the moment), your hysterical characterization of my error ("brazen, barefaced lie") is quintessential, huff-and-puff polemical hypebole-- the sort of thing for which you are infamous.

You are consciously misrepresenting the discussion. As you perfectly well know, your brazen, barefaced lie was not the inclusion of a remark about Native Americans in your handful of "racist Brigham" prooftexts. As you perfectly well know, your brazen, barefaced lie was to accuse me of "yet another misrepresentation" when I pointed out that a remark about Native Americans was included.

In the context of being a prophet of God of the one true church--a person viewed by his followers as being divinely inspired--BY was more racist than at least many of his contemporaries. There, I have softened it a bit. Does that lower your blood pressure?

Ah, yes. The usual attempt to argue for a double standard.

Still having a reading comprehension problem, eh? Check Post #118.

Certainly. But first, let us look again at the context of what is being said. In Post 151 you wrote:

In Post 116 you claim that BY's statements are never (yes, "never') presented in context because they would lose "most of their edge." BY's message to the territorial legislature, a substantial portion of which I posted, certainly provides context. So does his letter to Horace Greely, which I posted in its entirety.

To which I responded, in Post 152:

I did find an excerpt from a letter from Lincoln to Greeley, which you posted; and I found an excerpt from an interview between Brigham and Greeley, which was posted not by you, but by Zelder, in Post 138. Of course you wouldn't have posted that, because it doesn't support your position. So where is the letter you claim to have "posted in its entirety?"

So now you say:

Still having a reading comprehension problem, eh? Check Post #118.

And here is every word you wrote in Post 118:

Find me anything Lincoln said about black people that compares--that even comes close--in mordancy to what BY said about black people. I have posted on this thread only some of BY's deplorable statements about blacks; there are more virtually as harsh.

Whether you want to admit it or not, Lincoln's directive resulted in freeing 3.1 million slaves (I have cited the source previously). Was freeing the slaves his primary objective? No. You might find the following enlightening (in addition to what he said in his first inaugural address, March 4, 1861): "I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be 'the Union it was.' If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that" (Letter to Horace Greeley, Aug. 22, 1862).

I see here an excerpt of a letter from Lincoln to Greeley; so where is this supposed letter from Brigham to Greeley, which you claim to have posted "in its entirety?"

Evidently my "reading comprehension" is doing just fine, Paul.

I have taken the liberty of boldfacing your last sentence, which I have just proved to be still another (have they no end?) of your misrepresentations and wild-eyed speculations.

Umm, Paul? No. You haven't.

Open mouth, change feet.

Regards,

Pahoran

[paulpatter]

Pahoran writes:

: . . . . And yet, he was immeasurably better than you are.

By what stretch of tortured logic had you supposed that I thought otherwise? In my first post on this thread I called BY a great man.

: Even if he had been as "racist" as you try to pretend by your carefully selected prooftexts, and even if we insist on judging him by today's standards, he is still immeasurably better than you are.

Oh, yes, those ever-present prooftexts: You disparage them ceaselessly but cannot summon a single instance in which they are flawed or inaccurate. As for judging BY by "today's standards," you witlessly suggest that the Church's leaders have accommodated themselves to the world's values. Finally (I'll refer to it again), your claim that BY was "immeasurably better than [i am]," also means that he was "immeasurably better than you are." Or will your ego permit you to agree?

: So, since you have no substantive response, these facts are established: 1) There were indeed presidents of the US who did far worse than Brigham.

Doubtful, particularly in terms of how they regarded blacks and the language they used to describe them. (You would do well to explain what you mean by "far worse.")

: You did indeed argue from the position that saying "uncomely" things about black people was worse than genocide against Native Americans.

Dead wrong (for the "zillionth" time). I said that genocide against Native Americans was not relevant to the question posed in the thread's title.

: You did indeed attempt to argue that Brigham was more racist than his contemporaries.

I said that in the context that as the prophet of the one true church on the earth--a man entitled to divine inspiration--he was more racist than his contemporaries. Who among his contemporaries claimed to be receiving counsel from God?

: I did not make any "sheer, sinister fabrication" when I accepted your "Sorry about that" as an apology.

In other words, my sarcasm went right over your head.

: Your accusation that I misrepresented your arguments has been comprehensively refuted.

I take that claim as a product of your rich imagination-- or your dreams.

: Someone's "lies and duplicity" have been exposed; either mine or yours. And it wasn't mine.

And still, after being repeatedly challenged, you were/are unable to find any error in the quotations I cited. Result: You used, at a minimum, duplicity to avoid answering that challenge.

: If you could refute any of these points, you would have done so; but you didn't. You didn't even try.

I just did--again. But thanks for giving me yet another opportunity.

: I could issue a call for references here, but you'd default on it, as you invariably do.

Malformed logic is evident here. You haven't issued any call for references; hence, how could I "invariably" default on them? (I will provide the source for the statement that BY referred to Mulatoes as "mules"--something I volunteered to do.)

: If you'd bothered to read my first post in this thread -- it's Post 9 on the first page -- you'd realise how firmly you just stuck your foot in your mouth.

Hmmm. . .Post 9, truly a masterpiece worthy of (and I hesitate to say this lest I sound insincere) Sir William Blackstone or perhaps Oliver Wendell Holmes. Have you considered having it etched in granite and posted in a nearby public square? It's awesome, just flat-out awesome. Do you give autographs?

[Minos]

Automatic generated message

This topic has been closed by a moderator.

Reason: Race baiting

Thank you,

Mormon Dialogue & Discussion Board Staff