Oaks on Religious Freedom

[hope_for_things]

34 minutes ago, rockpond said:

He's either being ignorant of history, disingenuous, or so biased that he can't see things as they really are (to borrow a phrase).  And I don't believe he is ignorant so that leaves the latter two.

He also said:  "The First Amendment is, in the long run, what's going to help us solve serious problems like racism and discrimination in our society."

That's funny coming from a leader of the church that used its First Amendment rights to attempt to discriminate against black people and gay couples.  While I do believe that the First Amendment will help us solve racism and discrimination, the Church is hardly standing on moral high ground with respect to this issue.

I totally agree, great points.  

[CV75]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

You seem to be trying to make an argument of presentism but that doesn't really work. While it's true that people are in many ways a product of their time and culture, it doesn't necessarily change the inherent rightness or wrongness of what they believed and did. The social and political climate in 1984 was very different than it is today. There's no doubt about that. But that doesn't mean that overt discrimination in 1984 was ok simply because it was 1984. I doubt you would argue that slavery is OK simply because people in 1850 believed it was.

The other difference is that Oaks seems to still believe what he said in 1984 despite the changes to time and culture. I doubt he would say it the same way today (I mean I sure hope he wouldn't) but I don't see any evidence that his position has changed.

 

No, I’m making an argument that individual’s politics and society’s mores change, but the central gospel message does not. In this instance, O’s parents evidently taught him the central gospel message without a political application, regardless of how they may have voted in 1984 vs. today. My argument is about political rhetoric, not an interpretation or reinterpretation of history.

I don’t know where I would have stood on slavery in 1600 vs. today, but I know where I stand on it and what to do about it today. The same with matters of morality: whether someone is more or less permissive today than they were in 1984 doesn’t affect their evolution, and when they say, “I feel it’s always been…,” it is their present rhetoric, not their presentism speaking.

The Church has not changed her moral position that some things have always been wrong, and now supports laws that protect classes of people to earn a living and live somewhere as a compromise to preserving constitutional protections for all.

The only position you can rightly count on is what Elder Oaks says today, otherwise you are simply second-guessing him for whatever purpose, political rhetoric being a convenient one. His moral message is the same. Politically, when undesired power and influence within a society have already been attained over a 35-year period, there is no more need to prevent it, hence his current support of compromises for the sake of protecting religious freedom. In my opinion, Old Testament and Book of Mormon prophets did the same thing.

[let’s roll]

9 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

This is laughable.

Yes, of course church leaders have the ability to decide what is acceptable behavior within the LDS church. I haven't seen anyone argue against that. But you seem to be saying that since they have the right to discriminate against others within the church that that means they are not mistreating the LGBTQ community. It's not an either/or proposition. They can have the right to discriminate within the church, then discriminate and harm others. That's what is happening. It's not about what they CAN do. It's about what they SHOULD do and how their choices impact on others.

https://youtu.be/kY-pUxKQMUE

Shouldn’t religious leaders follow what God asks them to do? Isn’t that the premise of their actions.  You can disagree that they’re being directed by God, but that’s their claim.  That’s the entire premise of religion, that a believer should follow God.  

So when you say it’s about what they should do, if they want to live their religion, they should follow God as they understand He wants them to act.  Following one who they believe is omniscient over what society might want them to do.

If you think they should be required to do something else, aren’t you arguing for something you say no one is arguing for?

[Ouagadougou]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

Then Elder Oaks taught the same thing as your parents. Your parents evidently didn’t broach the subject of advocating that people of minority sexual identity, orientation and behavior as a protected class, but rather of treating people who differ from the norm in any characteristic with humanity. Whenever it was that you starting developing and then changing your attitude politically, the Church’s spiritual message has not changed, and has actually compromised her message politically.

The subject being discussed isn't about how I came to my own personal conclusions or what my parents taught; rather, it is how Elder Oaks is hypocritical in what what said about discrimination and the 1st Amendment, when he is guilty of advocating for discrimination like "excluding homosexuals" from certain positions.  

I think what Oaks advocated for back in 1984 is 100% discrimination--just look at the definition:

discrimination:

treatment or consideration of, or making adistinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit:

racial and religious intolerance and discrimination

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/discrimination

Like I said, unless you currently agree with open discrimination, I see no way to justify or rationalize his words even today.   

[Ouagadougou]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

He's either being ignorant of history, disingenuous, or so biased that he can't see things as they really are (to borrow a phrase).  And I don't believe he is ignorant so that leaves the latter two.

He also said:  "The First Amendment is, in the long run, what's going to help us solve serious problems like racism and discrimination in our society."

That's funny coming from a leader of the church that used its First Amendment rights to attempt to discriminate against black people and gay couples.  While I do believe that the First Amendment will help us solve racism and discrimination, the Church is hardly standing on moral high ground with respect to this issue.

I agree with you 100%.. and made similar points.  Elder Oaks talks about the 1st Amendment and solving discrimination, when he himself has advocated to discriminate against those in the LGBTQ community; it highlights his and the church's hypocrisy, IMO.  

[rockpond]

36 minutes ago, let’s roll said:

Shouldn’t religious leaders follow what God asks them to do? Isn’t that the premise of their actions.  You can disagree that they’re being directed by God, but that’s their claim.  That’s the entire premise of religion, that a believer should follow God.  

So when you say it’s about what they should do, if they want to live their religion, they should follow God as they understand He wants them to act.  Following one who they believe is omniscient over what society might want them to do.

If you think they should be required to do something else, aren’t you arguing for something you say no one is arguing for?

The First Amendment protects the rights of church leaders to teach and do what they believe God wants. 

But, if God tells them to discriminate and have racist teachings/policies... they are still discriminating and acting in a racist manner regardless of what God may he telling them to do. 

[blueglass]

On 12/4/2018 at 2:58 PM, bluebell said:

I like his last paragraph-

"Listen to the First Amendment. It begins, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." That's the first thing said in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and it, along with the associated freedoms of speech and the press, is fundamental to our society. These rights are not negotiable. We can't stand still and see them weakened.

People of faith do need to be more sensitive to people with different points of view. They need to be talking expressly about how religion benefits not just believers, but all of society. The First Amendment is, in the long run, what's going to help us solve serious problems like racism and discrimination in our society."

Given his background as a lawyer and judge, it makes sense that he sees religious freedom from the First Amendment point of view, and how our founding fathers saw religion as being as much a benefit to society as free speech and free press is a benefit.  

And if we assume the First Amendment is right, then yes, freedom of religion is a really big deal.

The church does not really believe in religious freedom:

1)  otherwise it would have praised Waddoups ruling.  HB 99 passed by an overwhelming majority to re criminalize polygamy.  Consitutional law scholar Jonathan Turley took up the case.

https://jonathanturley.org/2017/01/23/supreme-court-turns-down-sister-wives-petition/

2) The BYU schools also go out of their way to kick out those who have faith transitions. http://www.freebyu.org

3) church IT surveillance systems spend money on Amazon deep learning AI to find and attack blogs like the Van Allen's who spoke our against sec 132.  Within days after posting the blog an area authority 70 asked the stake president to call them in and take it down.

https://www.mormonstories.org/podcast/kirk-and-lindsay-van-allen-facing-church-discipline-for-rejecting-polygamy-dc-132/

[california boy]

On 12/4/2018 at 2:23 PM, Ouagadougou said:

It said the following under Elder Oaks in the link you provided:

"The First Amendment is, in the long run, what's going to help us solve serious problems like racism and discrimination in our society."

But then Elder Oaks was advocating, IMO, to discriminate against homosexuales back in 1984.

 

You want to know why no religion is the fastest growing religious group in America by huge margins?  You want to know why people are fleeing organized religion in record numbers? You want to know why religion is becoming irrelevant?  You want to know why so many people think religion is evil?  You want to know why the Mormon church is the least liked Cristian religion in America?  IT IS THIS.  Claims that those who speak for God justifies their prejudices against others.  In the past it was Jews, blacks, Chinese etc that religion justified discrimination against.  Today it is LGBT that certain organized religions crusade against. People are no longer buying their prejudice as coming from God.  They have been tricked too many times before.

Every single young person who leaves the church because of how the church campaigns against the LGBT community, every faithful member who leaves over the church policies against gay families, every investigator that slams the door when the missionaries show up preaching the gospel of discrimination, everyone of these people that walk away from the church are walking away from a church that they can no longer support or believe that God is somehow involved.  And thank goodness so many are walking away from this kind of treatment towards other children of God.

If religion looses influence and good standing in the community, it is by their own immoral actions.

[california boy]

On 12/4/2018 at 3:42 PM, bluebell said:

If he's right, and leading a homosexual lifestyle is actually a serious sin, (and speaking from an eternal point of view) then he's got a point.  It would be desirable not to give any serious sin an influential voice in society.  

What he's saying isn't outrageous, the trouble comes with who he's saying it about.  The issue is that so many people disagree that SS relationships is a sin at all.  If he had said this exact same thing about white supremacists and racists, for example, everyone would applaud and very few would call it discrimination.  The moral voice in our society right now is very very comfortable with keeping people who hold views they don't like from having jobs.  They boycott places that employ them almost on a daily basis.

(and to clarify my own position, while I agree with the ideals behind his statement, I disagree that LGBTQ people should be kept from working in media, entertainment or literature.  What makes sense in theory often falls a part and isn't fair or right in practice).

This is NOT about sin.  This is about targeting the gay community.  If it was about sin then Elder Oaks remarks would have stated

":It would also be desirable to permit employers of all immoral people from influential positions in media, literature, and entertainment since those jobs influence the tone and ideas of society."

If you commit adultery, you are out of a job.  If you are an unwed mother, you are out of a job.  If you are living together without marriage, you are out of a job.  Has anyone ever heard any general authority make any statements of this kind?  Don't tell me it is not about attacking the gay community unless you can show that the church position on discriminating against immorality is universal.  What he is saying is outrageous.  What you are saying is outrageous.  Being attracted to the same sex is NOTHING LIKE being a white supremacists.  You make it so easy for me to dislike this church and what it stands for.  You make it easy for an entire generation to dislike this church and what it stands for.

[Robert F. Smith]

9 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

You can try and downplay how the church treated blacks all you want, but look at the facts:

- The church taught that a black skin was a curse
- Black members could not attend the temple
- The church taught that mixed-race marriages were wrong

The LDS Church did not teach that black skin was a curse or that mixed-race marriages were wrong.  Individuals such as Brigham Young and Orson Pratt strongly disagreed on such racial issues.  You make a general practice of exaggerating what the LDS Church stood for, obviously motivated by hate.

9 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

................................
So you are saying that Christ (center of the LDS religion) doesn't have to be all things to all people? 

Try reading the New Testament sometime to discover that Jesus had some very specific standards, rejected by his enemies, who got him crucified.  I know of no NT rule that Jesus is to be all things to all people.  That's just yammering foolishness.

9 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

Unfortunately, the LDS Church, IMO, is mistreating innocent children (who have gay parents) by denying them baptism.  ..................

You don't believe that LDS baptism is valid anyhow, so why would it matter to you that the LDS deny it to some people?  Hypocrisy is why.  Each religion sets its own rules, and they have a right to do so.  If you don't agree, then you join some other group more in keeping with your ethical ideals.  Or not.  Its called "freedom of religion," which you reject.

[Robert F. Smith]

14 hours ago, Amulek said:

............. There are definitely those in society who would like to see religion and religious views excised from the public square. Fortunately, the Constitution secures our right to participate. 

Even without the questionable rephrasing, you are correct.

[Yirgacheffe]

On 12/4/2018 at 2:03 PM, bluebell said:

 I think he's saying that without an absolute authority on what is right and what is wrong, nothing is absolutely right or absolutely wrong.  Under those circumstances, what is right and what is wrong depends on the beliefs of the people doing the judging.

Religion does not solve the problem of "what is right and what is wrong depends on the beliefs of the people doing the judging" .  Different people belong to different religions and believe all various religions teachings on what is right and what is wrong, so all you have is what is right or wrong depends on the people who are deciding what is right or wrong.

[Robert F. Smith]

15 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

This is laughable.

Yes, of course church leaders have the ability to decide what is acceptable behavior within the LDS church. I haven't seen anyone argue against that. But you seem to be saying that since they have the right to discriminate against others within the church that that means they are not mistreating the LGBTQ community. It's not an either/or proposition. They can have the right to discriminate within the church, then discriminate and harm others. That's what is happening. It's not about what they CAN do. It's about what they SHOULD do and how their choices impact on others.

https://youtu.be/kY-pUxKQMUE

Factual statements are always laughable to those who disagree.  It is a simple statement of fact that the First Amendment makes it possible for each religion to make its own boundaries or self-definition (you clearly don't like that).  Value judgments, on the other hand, vary infinitely, and each group wants to vaunt its own set of rules as the "best."  You are making your own value judgments ("should") absolute measures of right and wrong.  Perhaps God is on your side, and not on the side of your opponents, but how could we establish that as a fact?  Philosophers know that such is impossible.

One reason we need Constitutional rights is because we have many sorts of intolerant people (such as you and your opponents) who don't like Constitutional rights.  Those with whom you disagree deserve to be punished, or at least to get a good tongue-lashing.  Right?

Edited December 6, 2018 by Robert F. Smith

[rockpond]

49 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The LDS Church did not teach that black skin was a curse or that mixed-race marriages were wrong.  Individuals such as Brigham Young and Orson Pratt strongly disagreed on such racial issues.  You make a general practice of exaggerating what the LDS Church stood for, obviously motivated by hate.

20 Wherefore, the word of the Lord was fulfilled which he spake unto me, saying that: Inasmuch as they will not hearken unto thy words they shall be cut off from the presence of the Lord. And behold, they were cut off from his presence.
21 And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.
22 And thus saith the Lord God: I will cause that they shall be loathsome unto thy people, save they shall repent of their iniquities.
23 And cursed shall be the seed of him that mixeth with their seed; for they shall be cursed even with the same cursing. And the Lord spake it, and it was done.

[Yirgacheffe]

On 12/4/2018 at 5:42 PM, bluebell said:

(and to clarify my own position, while I agree with the ideals behind his statement, I disagree that LGBTQ people should be kept from working in media, entertainment or literature.

Not sure how this works, the ideal behind it is that LGBTQ people should not be allowed to influence society.

[Yirgacheffe]

On 12/4/2018 at 7:20 PM, stemelbow said:

Sorry I restricted from giving rep points,

Why is that?

[Yirgacheffe]

On 12/5/2018 at 12:14 AM, Robert F. Smith said:

The issue is always one of acceptable behaviors within the LDS Church, and every religion can have boundaries which fit its traditions and doctrines.  A religion does not have to be all things to all people.  That is an absurd demand.

Of course a religion does not have to be all things to all people and at the same time it can not declare what is absolutely right or wrong for anyone other than it's adherents.  Some religions find birth control absolutely wrong others see absolutely nothing wrong with it some find gay marriage absolutely wrong others find it perfectly okay.  Some religions say it is okay to kill non-believers and while voices say that's not what we teach it is what some adherents believe absolutely.

[Yirgacheffe]

On 12/4/2018 at 8:25 PM, Robert F. Smith said:

Since “the power to tax is the power to destroy,” the First Amendment protection of religion implies that it cannot be taxed.

Then why is the press taxed?

[Ouagadougou]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The LDS Church did not teach that black skin was a curse or that mixed-race marriages were wrong.  Individuals such as Brigham Young and Orson Pratt strongly disagreed on such racial issues.  You make a general practice of exaggerating what the LDS Church stood for, obviously motivated by hate.

Yes it did...you are wrong.  First of all, why would the church disavow it in its own essay if it didn't teach it?  

Second, this is not an exaggeration when you have numerous statements from various prophets, apostles, and church leaders, as listed below:

“From the days of the Prophet Joseph even until now, it has been the doctrine of the Church, never questioned by any of the Church leaders, that the Negroes are not entitled to the full blessings of the Gospel.”
(First Presidency letter to Lowry Nelson, 17 July 1947)

“Your ideas, as we understand them, appear to contemplate the intermarriage of the Negro and white races, a concept which has heretofore been most repugnant to most normal-minded people from the ancient patriarchs until now...there is a growing tendency, particularly among some educators, as it manifests itself in this area, toward the breaking down of race barriers in the matter of intermarriage between whites and blacks, but it does not have the sanction of the Church and is contrary to Church doctrine.”
- LDS First Presidency (George Albert Smith), letter to Virgil H. Sponberg (critic of the anti-black ban), May 5, 1947

“We must not inter-marry with the Negro. Why? If I were to marry a Negro woman and have children by her, my children would oil be cursed as to the priesthood. Do I want my children cursed as to the priesthood? If there is one drop of Negro blood in my children, as I have read to you, they receive the curse. There isn't any argument, therefore, as to inter-marriage with the Negro, is there?”
- Apostle Mark E. Peterson, “Race Problems – As They Effect the Church,” Address given at the Convention of Teachers of Religion on the College Level, delivered at BYU, August 27, 1954

"Negroes in this life are denied the priesthood; under no circumstances can they hold this delegation of authority from the Almighty. The gospel message of salvation is not carried affirmatively to them.... Negroes are not equal with other races where the receipt of certain spiritual blessings are concerned."
-Apostle Bruce R. McConkie
Mormon Doctrine, p. 477, 1958

“Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so” (Brigham Young, March 8, 1863, 
Journal of Discourses 10:110. 

“The descendants of Ham, besides a black skin which has ever been a curse that has followed an apostate of the holy priesthood, as well as a black heart, have been servants to both Shem and Jepheth, and the abolitionists are trying to make void the curse of God, but it will require more power than man possesses to counteract the decrees of eternal wisdom.”
(John Taylor, Times and Seasons, April 1, 1845, 6:857).

And the list of statements goes on and on until 1978, so yes, the church taught it...

BTW, I am not motivated by hate as you claim, which is an outlandish accusation.  
 

Edited December 6, 2018 by Ouagadougou

[california boy]

This is what one person thinks about how the church spends it's money and how it is taxed.  Not sure if he is accurate on what the church pays taxes on, but certainly what the church spends it's money on seems accurate.  

 

Quote

Salt Park

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldi2hiK84oo

[california boy]

On 12/4/2018 at 2:23 PM, Ouagadougou said:

It said the following under Elder Oaks in the link you provided:

"The First Amendment is, in the long run, what's going to help us solve serious problems like racism and discrimination in our society."

But then Elder Oaks was advocating, IMO, to discriminate against homosexuales back in 1984.

 

If Elder Oaks had his way, there would have never been a Michaelangelo or Leonardo Da Vinci or Andy Warhol, or a Rock Hudson or Oscar Wilde or Elton John or George Michael or Ralph Waldo Emerson or Gore Vidal or Truman Capote or Leonard Bernstine or Walt Whitman or Tennessee Williams or Jodie Foster or Noél Coward or, or, or,

Thank God that Elder Oaks and the church doesn't get to decide who should work and who should be silenced.

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

Yes it did...you are wrong.  First of all, why would the church disavow it in its own essay if it didn't teach it?  

People write essays.  Churches do not write essays.  A church is an organization.  A church may have various official positions and doctrines.  In the case of Pres David O. McKay, for example, he was unable to find any doctrinal backing for many of the idiotic claims made by various LDS Church members.  He had people pilfer through the LDS Archives.  Yet they could find no revelation justifying the practice of not ordaining negroes.  They did find that Joseph had no problem with ordaining negroes and sending them on missions.  Odd how carefully you neglect to mention that aspect of LDS history.  Only hate could motivate such an omission.

2 hours ago, Ouagadougou said:

Second, this is not an exaggeration when you have numerous statements from various prophets, apostles, and church leaders, as listed below:

“From the days of the Prophet Joseph even until now, it has been the doctrine of the Church, never questioned by any of the Church leaders, that the Negroes are not entitled to the full blessings of the Gospel.”
(First Presidency letter to Lowry Nelson, 17 July 1947)

“Your ideas, as we understand them, appear to contemplate the intermarriage of the Negro and white races, a concept which has heretofore been most repugnant to most normal-minded people from the ancient patriarchs until now...there is a growing tendency, particularly among some educators, as it manifests itself in this area, toward the breaking down of race barriers in the matter of intermarriage between whites and blacks, but it does not have the sanction of the Church and is contrary to Church doctrine.”
- LDS First Presidency (George Albert Smith), letter to Virgil H. Sponberg (critic of the anti-black ban), May 5, 1947

“We must not inter-marry with the Negro. Why? If I were to marry a Negro woman and have children by her, my children would oil be cursed as to the priesthood. Do I want my children cursed as to the priesthood? If there is one drop of Negro blood in my children, as I have read to you, they receive the curse. There isn't any argument, therefore, as to inter-marriage with the Negro, is there?”
- Apostle Mark E. Peterson, “Race Problems – As They Effect the Church,” Address given at the Convention of Teachers of Religion on the College Level, delivered at BYU, August 27, 1954

"Negroes in this life are denied the priesthood; under no circumstances can they hold this delegation of authority from the Almighty. The gospel message of salvation is not carried affirmatively to them.... Negroes are not equal with other races where the receipt of certain spiritual blessings are concerned."
-Apostle Bruce R. McConkie
Mormon Doctrine, p. 477, 1958

“Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so” (Brigham Young, March 8, 1863, 
Journal of Discourses 10:110. 

“The descendants of Ham, besides a black skin which has ever been a curse that has followed an apostate of the holy priesthood, as well as a black heart, have been servants to both Shem and Jepheth, and the abolitionists are trying to make void the curse of God, but it will require more power than man possesses to counteract the decrees of eternal wisdom.”
(John Taylor, Times and Seasons, April 1, 1845, 6:857).

And the list of statements goes on and on until 1978, so yes, the church taught it...

BTW, I am not motivated by hate as you claim, which is an outlandish accusation.  

Only hate could motivate you to make selective quotations, quotations which were opposed by others (such as Pratt), and fully denounced by Elder McConkie in 1978 -- when he fully realized the enormity of his and Brother Brigham's error.  The complete disregard of the doctrine and practices taught by Joseph Smith and by Orson Pratt was a major problem, as very human apostles and prophets reverted to their worst  instincts and impulses.  As with fallible St Peter having to be confronted by St Paul, these sorts of atavistic deviances are not all that uncommon.

You not only hate, but you lack perspective.  You make that a general practice.  In the end, you are accusing others of the very same foibles which you yourself exhibit.  And anonymously to boot.

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, Yirgacheffe said:

Then why is the press taxed?

A fair question.  The protection of religion is much broader: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" while it only prohibits abridging the rights of free press and free speech.

However, if a press organization is not a profit-making business, that is a non-profit which is tax exempt,then of course it would not have to pay taxes.  As for religions, any profit-making business portion of a religion must also pay taxes.

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, Yirgacheffe said:

Of course a religion does not have to be all things to all people and at the same time it can not declare what is absolutely right or wrong for anyone other than it's adherents.  Some religions find birth control absolutely wrong others see absolutely nothing wrong with it some find gay marriage absolutely wrong others find it perfectly okay.  Some religions say it is okay to kill non-believers and while voices say that's not what we teach it is what some adherents believe absolutely.

In a democracy, we decide by vote (directly, or through representatives) which matters will be prohibited and which permitted, but under judicial review by the U.S. Supreme Court and lower courts.  A religious group may, for example, try to impose its ethical and moral views on marriage on the entire population.  Thus, the LDS Church, the Roman Catholic Church, and Protestant evangelical and Black churches in America attempted to prevent same gender marriage, but were found to have acted unconstitutionally.  This sort of imposition of one religious view on the rest of society has and will continue to go on over birth control, abortion, polygamy/polyandry, sharia law, etc.

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, rockpond said:

20 Wherefore, the word of the Lord was fulfilled which he spake unto me, saying that: Inasmuch as they will not hearken unto thy words they shall be cut off from the presence of the Lord. And behold, they were cut off from his presence.
21 And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.
22 And thus saith the Lord God: I will cause that they shall be loathsome unto thy people, save they shall repent of their iniquities.
23 And cursed shall be the seed of him that mixeth with their seed; for they shall be cursed even with the same cursing. And the Lord spake it, and it was done.

This is not a text in any way related to negroes.  Moreover, the LDS Church began by baptizing and ordaining negroes during the life of Joseph Smith.  How can that be if your text is ironclad?

Furthermore, Black Saints from Melanesia, Fiji, etc., were ordained to the priesthood long before 1978.  How could that be possible?