The Great Church History Cover-up

[cinepro]

View PostDroopy, on 06 October 2009 - 08:57 AM, said:

And since when does the responsibility for ignorance fall upon the Church?

The onus of responsibility for this state of affairs still falls upon the ignorant, not upon the Church.

This is actually a very good point. Why do people expect the Church to be upfront about controversial or possibly disturbing aspects of its history?

Perhaps the best response to the accusation that the Church "covers up" its history is "So what?"

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

This is actually a very good point. Why do people expect the Church to be upfront about controversial or possibly disturbing aspects of its history?

Perhaps the best response to the accusation that the Church "covers up" its history is "So what?"

I have started to take that approuch on some "issues". I just can't for the life of me see how some of this stuff matters in regards to the truth claims of the church.

[Pahoran]

I was banned for a few days (not sure why?).

I'm sorry, I didn't know you'd been suspended. I make it a point not to taunt people who can't respond.

Anyway, I'll respond in full detail when I have time (I have another paper to write on Descartes). But, when I respond, please reposnd to the post... it's all I ask.

Oh, I will. When and if you do respond.

Cogito ergo sum.

Regards,

Pahoran

[thews]

The 'white' to 'pure' is a no go. It was initially White in the original manuscripts and 1830 edition, Joseph changed it to pure in the 1837 edition (hardly for racial reasons). Later editions used the un-edited version as their source, and thus many of the changes by Joseph were not incorporated until the 1981 edition, where it states clearly, "About this edition: Some minor errors in the text have been perpetuated in past editions of the Book of Mormon. This edition contains corrections that seem appropriate to bring the material into conformity with prepublication manuscripts and early editions edited by the Prophet Joseph Smith. "

This is a typical LDS opinion that fails to acknowledge the truth. The

[thews]

I'm sorry, I didn't know you'd been suspended. I make it a point not to taunt people who can't respond.

Oh, I will. When and if you do respond.

Cogito ergo sum.

Regards,

Pahoran

Ok... I hope I don't again get banned for stating an opinion.

Regarding the letter written by Joseph Smith to Sarah Ann Whitney, one need only look at what it says to know that Emma is being deceived. Joseph Smith instructs the Whitney

[Doctor Steuss]

[...] Do you deny that blacks were denied the priesthood from 1842 to 1978?

[...]

Hi Thews,

Do you mind posting the revelation (or the official declaration) that was received/made in 1842 enacting this policy and/or doctrine, and the related data that dates it to 1842?

Thanks.

[Wiki Wonka]

Ok, so let

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Since you included all of the edited versions of the letter from the wiki article, we might as well show the rest of the material from the article that you did not mention. I don't need to quote the following since I'm the one that wrote that wiki article:

I cannot believe that you are trying to cover up church history.

[thews]

Hi Thews,

Do you mind posting the revelation (or the official declaration) that was received/made in 1842 enacting this policy and/or doctrine, and the related data that dates it to 1842?

Thanks.

I assume you're trying to imply that blacks were not denied the priesthood. Well, let me ask you then, if then were not, why did Spencer W. Kimball decide to change the policy and bestow the priesthood to black people? Here's some data for you:

http://trialsofascension.net/mormon/prejudice.html

President Spencer W. Kimball described the process through which the church decided to bestow all church privileges upon African-Americans:

"It went on for some time as I was searching for this, because I wanted to be sure. We held a meeting of the Council of the Twelve in the temple on the regular day. We considered this very seriously and thoughtfully and prayerfully.

"I asked the Twelve not to go home when the time came. I said, 'now would you be willing to remain in the temple with us?' And they were. I offered the final prayer and I told the Lord if it wasn't right, if He didn't want this change to come in the Church that I would he true to it all the rest of my life, and I'd fight the world against it if that's what He wanted.

"We had this special prayer circle, then I knew that the time had come. I had a great deal to fight, of course, myself largely, because I had grown up with this thought that Negroes should not have the priesthood and I was prepared to go all the rest of my life till my death and fight for it and defend it as it was. But this revelation and assurance came to me so clearly that there was no question about it." (President Spencer W. Kimball, Deseret News, Church Section, January 6, 1979, p. 19)

According to President Gordon B. Hinckley, he simply doesn't know why Blacks were denied the priesthood until 1978:

"HN: Until 1978 no person of color attained the priesthood in your church. Why did it take so long to overcome the racism?

"GBH: I don't know. I don't know. I can only say that. (long pause) But it's here now. We're carrying on a very substantial work on Africa for instance and in Brazil. We're working among their people developing them. We've had them among the leadership of the Church and they're able to do a great work and we love them and appreciate them and we respect them and we are trying to help them." (Gordon B. Hinckley Interview, ZDF German Television, Salt Lake City, Utah, January 29, 2002, Conducted by Helmut Nemetschek)

http://mormonthink.com/blackweb.htm#doctrine

Official LDS Church Publications Explain Racist LDS Scriptures:

"The Book of Abraham is rich both in doctrine and in historical incidents. Of the latter the fact of the large influence (if not identity) of Egyptian religious ideas in Chaldea in the days of Abraham is established; the descent of the black race (Negro) from Cain, the first murderer; the preservation of that race through the flood by the wife of Ham--"Egyptus," which in the Chaldean signifies "Egypt," "which signifies that which is forbidden"--the descendants of "Egyptus" were cursed as pertaining to the priesthood--that is, they were barred from holding that divine power; the origin also of the Egyptians--these things, together with the account of Abraham migrating from Chaldea to Egypt, constitute the chief historical items that are contained in the book.

- Comprehensive History of the Church, Vol.2, Ch.47, Pg.128

Doctrine supported by LDS Scriptures.

2 Nephi 5: 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.'

Alma 3: 6

'And the skins of the Lamanites were dark, according to the mark which was set upon their fathers, which was a curse upon them because of their transgression and their rebellion against their brethren, who consisted of Nephi, Jacob and Joseph, and Sam, who were just and holy men.'

2 Nephi 30: 6

"...their scales of darkness shall begin to fall from their eyes; and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a white and a delightsome people."

NOTE: THE TERM 'WHITE' WAS CHANGED TO 'PURE' IN 1981.

3 Nephi 2:15

"And their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites."

Moses 7:22

And Enoch also beheld the residue of the people which were the sons of Adam; and they were a mixture of all the seed of Adam save it was the seed of Cain, for the seed of Cain were black, and had not place among them.

Abraham 1:21-24,27

Now this king of Egypt was a descendant from the loins of Ham, and was a partaker of the blood of the Canaanites by birth.

From this descent sprang all the Egyptians, and thus the blood of the Canaanites was preserved in the land.

The land of Egypt being first discovered by a woman, who was the daughter of Ham, and the daughter of Egyptus, which in the Chaldean signifies Egypt, which signifies that which is forbidden;

When this woman discovered the land it was under water, who afterward settled her sons in it; and thus, from Ham, sprang that race which preserved the curse in the land.

Now, Pharaoh being of that lineage by which he could not have the right of Priesthood, notwithstanding the Pharaohs would fain claim it from Noah, through Ham, therefore my father was led away by their idolatry;

[Doctor Steuss]

<snip red herring>

Hi Thews,

I live in the desert, and I don't like fish much. I do like balloons. Do you like balloons?

By the way, do you mind posting the revelation (or the official declaration) that was received/made in 1842 enacting this policy and/or doctrine, and the related data that dates it to 1842?

Thanks.

[thews]

Since you included all of the edited versions of the letter from the wiki article, we might as well show the rest of the material from the article that you did not mention. I don't need to quote the following since I'm the one that wrote that wiki article:

I appreciate you letting me state my opinion without banning me.

What parts of the letter do the critics not tell you about?

As always, it is helpful to view the entire set of statements in content

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I assume you're trying to imply that blacks were not denied the priesthood. Well, let me ask you then, if then were not, why did Spencer W. Kimball decide to change the policy and bestow the priesthood to black people? Here's some data for you:

It is a pretty simple question. Answering the question of "why did Spencer W. Kimball decide to change the policy and bestow the priesthood to black people", has nothing to do with what Dr Stuess is getting at.

You act like Thews, that you have some startling new revelation. We are well aware of were the idea may have come from. What we are asking is

"Do you mind posting the revelation (or the official declaration) that was received/made in 1842 enacting this policy and/or doctrine, and the related data that dates it to 1842?"

You claimed

Do you deny that blacks were denied the priesthood from 1842 to 1978?

Which if you want to know what the real red herring is, it is your asserstion. Unless of course you can produce a relvation that states that "blacks were denied the priesthood starting in 1842 "

Also it had previously been shown that black people held the preisthood before and after 1842 and 1978 respectivly. What you are missing is that only those that have cannanite blood could not hold the preisthood. What is a cannanite? Are all cannanites black? Were is your evidence for that?

[Doctor Steuss]

Which if you want to know what the real red herring is, it is your asserstion.

I'm not exactly an expert on all of the ins and outs of logical fallacies, but can an initial assertion be a red herring?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I'm not exactly an expert on all of the ins and outs of logical fallacies, but can an initial assertion be a red herring?

I think so, but hey I am not as smart as you. If I understand a red herring correclty it would seem waht THews asserted is a red herring. Maybe I am wrong.

[Doctor Steuss]

I think so, but hey I am not as smart as you. If I understand a red herring correclty it would seem waht THews asserted is a red herring. Maybe I am wrong.

Pssssssst...

[thews]

It is a pretty simple question. Answering the question of "why did Spencer W. Kimball decide to change the policy and bestow the priesthood to black people", has nothing to do with what Dr Stuess is getting at.

Yes it does, as what I believe he's implying is that black people were not discriminated against by being withheld the priesthood... which they were.

You act like Thews, that you have some startling new revelation. We are well aware of were the idea may have come from. What we are asking is

"Do you mind posting the revelation (or the official declaration) that was received/made in 1842 enacting this policy and/or doctrine, and the related data that dates it to 1842?"

And again you claim that a lack of a "declaration" is supposed to absolve the fact that the Mormon church denied blacks the priesthood until 1978 When Spences Kimbal changed the policy. I've posted a lot of data. if you wish to refute it, please quote exactly what you disagree with.

You claimed

Which if you want to know what the real red herring is, it is your asserstion. Unless of course you can produce a relvation that states that "blacks were denied the priesthood starting in 1842 "

Also it had previously been shown that black people held the preisthood before and after 1842 and 1978 respectivly. What you are missing is that only those that have cannanite blood could not hold the preisthood. What is a cannanite? Are all cannanites black? Were is your evidence for that?

And again you post the specific cases where people of color could hold the priesthood. Unless all people of color had this right, the fact that there were a few exceptions means nothing. Missionaries were taught to define the color lines on people's palms to decide whether or not they were worthy. Do you deny this? Your manufactured argument is so weak it hardly warrants a reply. Are you actually claiming that the Mormon church didn't deny people of color the priesthood?

Please comment on Brighman Young's statements here:

http://mormonthink.com/blackweb.htm

Brigham Young

"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, Journal of Discourses, Volume 10, page 110.)

You see some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, un- comely, disagreeable and low in their habits, wild, and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind. The first man that committed the odious crime of killing one of his brethren will be cursed the longest of any one of the children of Adam. Cain slew his brother. Cain might have been killed, and that would have put a termination to that line of human beings. This was not to be, and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin. Trace mankind down to after the flood, and then another curse is pronounced upon the same race - that they should be the "servant of servants;" and they will be, until that curse is removed; and the Abolitionists cannot help it, nor in the least alter that decree. How long is that race to endure the dreadful curse that is upon them? That curse will remain upon them, [p.291] and they never can hold the Priesthood or share in it until all the other descendants of Adam have received the promises and enjoyed the blessings of the Priesthood and the keys thereof. Until the last ones of the residue of Adam's children are brought up to that favourable position, the children of Cain cannot receive the first ordinances of the Priesthood. They were the first that were cursed, and they will be the last from whom the curse will be removed. When the residue of the family of Adam come up and receive their blessings, then the curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will receive blessings in like proportion. - (Journal of Discourses 7:290-291, October 9, 1859)

"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 ...When the Lord has a people, he makes covenants with them and gives unto them promises: then, if they transgress his law, change his ordinances, and break his covenants he has made with them, he will put a mark upon them, as in the case of the Lamanites and other portions of the house of Israel; but by-and-by they will become a white and delightsome people" (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 7:336).

It is not the prerogative of the President of the United States to meddle with this matter, and Congress is not allowed, according to the [p.40] Constitution, to legislate upon it. If Utah was admitted into the Union as a sovereign State, and we chose to introduce slavery here, it is not their business to meddle with it; and even if we treated our slaves in an oppressive manner, it is still none of their business and they ought not to meddle with it. Journal of Discourses 4:39-40 (Aug 31, 1856)

[Doctor Steuss]

Hi Thews,

I live in the desert, and I don't like fish much. I do like balloons. Do you like balloons?

By the way, do you mind posting the revelation (or the official declaration) that was received/made in 1842 enacting this policy and/or doctrine, and the related data that dates it to 1842?

Thanks.

Maybe just the informal statement in 1842 that initiated the ban?

Hugs.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Pssssssst...

I will just say that THews assertions is not true. How is that?

[thesometimesaint]

thews:

You are missing the point. The point is that David O McKay(long before Spencer W. Kimball) extended the Priesthood to Polynesians who were/are very much black.

[Doctor Steuss]

I will just say that THews assertions is not true. How is that?

How is that?

Well, not as good as balloons, I tell you.

But I like balloons, a lot. More than puppies, but a little less than ninjas in pajamas.

I also like pudding cups.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

How is that?

Well, not as good as balloons, I tell you.

But I like balloons, a lot. More than puppies, but a little less than ninjas in pajamas.

I also like pudding cups.

Is there a revelations that initiates the preisthood ban in 1842?

I like the pudding in the pudding cups. I will one up you.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Yes it does, as what I believe he's implying is that black people were not discriminated against by being withheld the priesthood... which they were.

And again you claim that a lack of a "declaration" is supposed to absolve the fact that the Mormon church denied blacks the priesthood until 1978 When Spences Kimbal changed the policy. I've posted a lot of data. if you wish to refute it, please quote exactly what you disagree with.

And again you post the specific cases where people of color could hold the priesthood. Unless all people of color had this right, the fact that there were a few exceptions means nothing. Missionaries were taught to define the color lines on people's palms to decide whether or not they were worthy. Do you deny this? Your manufactured argument is so weak it hardly warrants a reply. Are you actually claiming that the Mormon church didn't deny people of color the priesthood?

Please comment on Brighman Young's statements here:

What the problem is is your assertions that the preisthood ban started in 1842. Were is your evidence for that?

There was a preisthood ban. What was it for? Do you know?

[thews]

thews:

You are missing the point. The point is that David O McKay(long before Spencer W. Kimball) extended the Priesthood to Polynesians who were/are very much black.

What is your point? Are you saying the Mormon church didn't discriminate against black people?

[Doctor Steuss]

Is there a revelations that initiates the preisthood ban in 1842?

I would comment, but I have a penchant for being 100% wrong.

As Thews has established the date (after considerable research, as the previous date he was utilizing was 1840) as the inauguration of the Mormon church not allowing any blacks to have the priesthood because of melanin concentration, I'm sure he can help you out.

PS.

No.

[thews]

What the problem is is your assertions that the preisthood ban started in 1842. Were is your evidence for that?

Does it matter than the Mormon started banning blacks from holding the priesthood in 1842 vs. 1843? What is your point? Are you attempting to deny the Mormon church denied black people the priesthood based on their skin color? Is that your point?

There was a preisthood ban. What was it for? Do you know?

Yes I do know what the ban was for, and the ban was to deny black men the right to hold the Mormon priesthood based on their skin color. This was overturned in 1978... do you deny this? Please comment on the quotes by Brigham Young, before answering my questions with questions.