Quote:
Originally Posted by SeattleUte
I note that the church that Emma (JS?) founded is in many ways more enlightened and forthright than the big LDS movement (I hesitate to say mainstream in this context), and lacks many of the skeletons. Apparently they have repudiated the Book of Mormon's racism and any other racism in JS's writings. They are all but agnostic on the Book of Mormon's origins, forthrightly recognizing the absurdity of any claim to historicity. They are aggresively eccumenical. Am I correct that they were not polygamists? Did they have a priesthood ban? If so, they seem to have explicitly addressed and repudiated and condemned that too. Not a bad legacy for Emma (and Joseph?).
|
Interesting that of all my posts this one would set Dan off. I'm simply contrasting RLDS's history and doctine with big LDS's. He has not challenged the accuracy of my summary from a factual standpoint nor has anyone else. Jeff Lebowski confirmed that RLDS has women priesthood holders and Waters noted it has women apostles. Apparently what made Dan angry is that I said RLDS is more enlightened than big LDS and lacks big LDS's skeletons.
I submit that I have not gone out on a limb calling more enlightened no history of polygamy, repudiation of B of M racist passages, no priesthood ban or explicit repudiation and condemnation of it, allowing women to hold the priesthood, and agnosticism concerning the B of M origins. Clearly I not Dan have mainstream science and our national public virtue on my side.