resplin

Your demeaning tone and labels doesn't serve your supposedly tolerant position. I agree that everyone should be treated with respect and decency. But I also believe that there is a standard for morality that should be honored in order to promote the greatest mutual happiness.

Advocating a standard of public morality in marriage is the same as in drug control, pornography, hate speech, or any other area. We might have different opinions on what standard will bring the most happiness. We don't have to agree, but mutual respect smooths the democratic processes around reconciling those differences.

We are a bit off topic here, so I'll stop derailing the conversation.

Comment · 14 years ago

This isn't really the place for an in-depth discussion of Mormon doctrine (and I don't really have the time today), so feel free to email me if you would like to continue the conversation.

But I will quickly correct a few of the mistakes in this conversation:

* There were black members of the Church before the lifting of the ban on the priesthood.

* Though Brigham Young characterized the priesthood ban as a "cursing" he was very clear that the priesthood would be available to people of African decent at some point in the future.

* Not being ordained to the priesthood never meant that blacks would be excluded from salvation. Through the practice of proxy ordinances for the dead, Mormon doctrine has always made clear that all would have the chance at salvation even if denied the opportunity to have the priesthood during this life.

* Limiting the priesthood, or even the preaching of the gospel, to a specific family is part of the Biblical pattern in both the Old and New Testaments.

* Though there was clearly some racism in the Mormon Church before 1978 (and probably still is today), the people I know who were part of the church at that time say it was limited. The official position then, as it is now, was of love and acceptance within the limitations they felt the Lord had set.

Conversations such as this one are valuable, but be aware that they tend to oversimplify complex topics.

A great book on the topic written by a black Mormon who joined the Church before 1978 is this one:

http://www.amazon.com/Blacks-Mormon-Priesthood-Setting-Strai...

Comment · 14 years ago

Calling people bigots does nothing to promote civil discourse about important issues such as homosexual marriage.

The standard was drafted in 1984, long before efforts to redefine marriage. It isn't very fair of you to project your 21st century politics back on the creators of a 30 year old standard.

You apply the label of bigotry to exclude from the conversation those who differ in opinion from you. That isn't how democracies are designed to function. Nor does it recognize the complexity of the issue. Religious people can desire a standard of public morality without espousing hatred for those who don't share that standard. Calling that bigotry makes it harder to identify true prejudice.

Comment · 14 years ago

Understanding and appreciating are very different things.

Comment · 14 years ago

The LDS Church does employ many developers, but they also benefit from a lot of volunteer contributions.

They have a neat program for organizing volunteer efforts:

https://vineyard.lds.org/

Comment · 14 years ago

I don't think you are appreciating the world view of believing Mormons.

Comment · 14 years ago

Though Ancestry.com has some agreements to share resources with the Family History Department of the Church of Jesus Christ Latter-day Saints, it is a completely separate organization and a for profit company. It was founded by Mormons, many of the employees are Mormons, and lots of the customers are Mormons and driven by their religious interest; but it is distinct from the work you are discussing.

The efforts of the Church of Jesus Christ are all non-profit and publicly available at Family Search (http://familysearch.org).