Mormon prejudice against blacks

[juliann]

You forgot to incorporate the part of the foundation of the churcch my friend. The American?european protestant segregations were not a part of the original church. They therefore do not impact on the truth of Christianity.

Have you informed them of their status or are you just sitting in for God with Mormons?

Mormon religion however incorporates "god inspired" doctrine to support segregation, for no other reason than to reinforce a circular argement that for some reason, Blacks were inferior spiritually!

You mean like this?

The clearest mandate for natal slavery was Leviticus 25:45-46, in which the Israelites were told they could will their human property to their children.

[Gordon]

So no answer to the question I gave, we are going to ignore it and assume that Cain was white and then cursed to be black? No I dont think so.

And see how we digress? You want to say, if Smith was false, then christianity as a whole is false. It's a basic training tactic of Mormonism. It is futile because the Old Testament was a series of propheies against idol worship, a testament of the orgin of man and of the presense of God. This amongst societies that believed in animal gods and superhero dieties. You think there is any doubt to the truth revealed in the Bible? Come on!

Then you say that he didn't give us the Bible. "He gave revelation... that was added together, not exempt from corruption." Well fine, point out the corrupted verses. But don't come with even grosser corruptions from the imagination of Joesph Smith as a way to 'correct'. Two wrongs don't make a right!

If there are false prophets then there must be true prophets? That's like saying, if there are false gods, then there must be true gods. If there are false christs, then there must be more "true" christs! 

If there are false prophets, that means there are false prophets, that open ended "interpretation" is weaker than taking the apporach "Beware of false prophets, because there will be no more true prophets." Why didn't he say it? You should ask yourself, why didn't he say "Beware of false prophets, but be ready for the true prophets that will come." After all, the danger in that interpretation of yours isn't following a false prophet but instead...the danger is of NOT following the true prophets that would come in Mormonism... Why oh why didn't God tell us? Because that would never happen.

Common sense indicates: Beweare of false prophets, and let discernment alone determine if any true prophets remain... if there be none, then there be none. Oh but then that's in Revelations now isn't it? So you are warned from ALL prophets.

YOu may not like how Jesus sounded, but that's your problem. To excuse all of that to allow a curse of cain to turn his descendants black, then to say "oh he didn't mean Black race, all of the prophets of mormonism had it wrong!" THEN to come back to me in here and talk about how God was referring to "true" prophets (of Mormonism) who could not follow the truth on this issue?

Discernment, as the Bible indicates that these guys are not prophets by God. If there are OTHER true prophets, the Mormons arent the ones, neither was smith.

O: So no answer to the question I gave, we are going to ignore it and assume that Cain was white and then cursed to be black? No I dont think so.

Well now, the scriptures say that the Lord put a 'mark' on cain, how many times do you see people making marks that are white and pure? Plus, the Lord made man in his image, so if you want to think that Cain was turned from black to white, then I guess the Lord is black. Also, when a mixed couple has children, which is the dominant color? Didn't the Lord say that those that mixed, or killed, with the seed of Cain receive that mark also - along with there generations?

O: If there are false prophets then there must be true prophets? That's like saying, if there are false gods, then there must be true gods. If there are false christs, then there must be more "true" christs!

If there are false prophets, that means there are false prophets, that open ended "interpretation" is weaker than taking the apporach "Beware of false prophets, because there will be no more true prophets." Why didn't he say it? You should ask yourself, why didn't he say "Beware of false prophets, but be ready for the true prophets that will come." After all, the danger in that interpretation of yours isn't following a false prophet but instead...the danger is of NOT following the true prophets that would come in Mormonism... Why oh why didn't God tell us? Because that would never happen.

Are you listening to yourself? Weren't there all kinds of false G-ds that the Lord forbad us from worshiping? There IS a true G-d, isn't there? Aren't we to watch out for the Anti-christ (or false Christ as you say)? Isn't there indeed a true Christ? Aren't you proving MY point? Wasn't the scripture warning us of false prophets - IN THE LATTER-DAYS? Wouldn't that mean there would be A LATTER-DAY PROPHET? Wasn't that scripture given AFTER all of the Biblical prophets called? Meaning that if there was not to be a latter-day prophet, YES, it would say beware of prophets only.

Now, I do have to go home - I'm at work. So, if you have more to say, I will respond to it later. I don't like to leave loose ends.

[osirica]

Now, I postulate, that if there was a curse on Cain to change his skin color.. it was to change it from the original Black color to white. As the curse on Mariam in exodus insuniates that.

Yikes. Do you win many black converts with that kind of overt racism? Or do you just not tell them what you really think?

And see how we digress? You want to say, if Smith was false, then christianity as a whole is false. It's a basic training tactic of Mormonism. It is futile because the Old Testament was a series of propheies against idol worship, a testament of the orgin of man and of the presense of God. This amongst societies that believed in animal gods and superhero dieties. You think there is any doubt to the truth revealed in the Bible? Come on!

Actually, what we are saying is that you are not going to be allowed to set up self-serving standards. All religion falls based on your standards. And you just demonstrated that again. Is there any doubt as to "truth" in the Bible? I hope you are following the truth and not letting your women speak in church and by golly...they better be covering their heads. And no one in your congregation has used a lawyer, I'm sure. I mean...you do believe the Bible...right?

You say Yikes?

I said yikes when I found out that Mormonism taught what they taught. Yes, Yikes! You follow along with what they teach. You don't say Yikes to that. Or maybe you do, which is why you and so many now are saying "oh smith never meant the black race was cursed, he just meant it metaphorically!"

This racism you say yikes about, scares you, not because it's racist, but btecause it turns upside down the faulty belief Mormons were raised in. That belief being that Adam was white, rosy cheeked and that Black people came from a mutation or curse on Cain or Ham!

Now getting to picking away at the Bible. I have no problem with debating issues of modernity that we disagree with the Bible, whether it be wearing wool&linen or women wearing a hat, or black women braiding their hair or getting a lawyer...

What I am saying is that has nothing to do with the idea that God (not Zeus, not Osiris, not Kolob) created the universe with nothing more than Word. Let there be light and we have the Big Bang...light...in all forms. Explain what other religion has any close match to reality?

Now lets look at America. There are no Nephite and Lamanite ruins. Not one. Finding a strateigically sawed tree stump or a piece of rock with some faulty scrawl of hebrew in it does not come close.

So yes I believe in the Bible, do I believe that Paul was referring to all people at all periods of time with all of his instructions... no. I can discern the difference between him saying "do not wear braids" in a period of history when braiding was a sign of expensive allure, compared to braids in a black woman's hair to manage it from an afro. I can see the fact that eating pork and wearing linen with wool is irrelevant after the ressurrection.

What does not add up is this: To go backwards. To say "lets reinforce and create a sinful activity, and make it "good" just because everyone else is doing it. There wasn't a slave trade justified by Christ. What slaves did Christ own? What wives did He have? What money did he hoard??? Where did Christ tell Philip to go to baptise? Where did Thomas end up going? Whose example will you follow? Christ's? Or a false prophet named Joseph Smith??

So the question is, do YOU believe the Bible, or is Mormonism just a nice way for you to avoid being athiest?

[juliann]

Come on. You said there is only the obedient and disobedient. Well, think about it. Many Black obedient souls were according to Mormonism denied the priesthoood... not because of disobedience, but because of their skin color!

Hmmm....good point! Many blacks were denied their freedom, families, countries and even their lives by Christians...not because of disobedience but because of their skin color!

And using the mentally handicapped as an insult is as disgraceful as proclaiming that God stepped in and got rid of all that black skin at the get-go.

[Gordon]

It's segregation according to the usage that 'onthepath' used it in.  If blacks are segregated in Heaven because they hadn't received their endowments/sealings yet, then by that logic, anyone who hadn't/hasn't received them would be segregated.  I'm arguing in response to HIS logic.

Your kind of going on a tangent with this one, slow down.

There isn't the halves and half-nots (stealing from GW are we?), in the LDS church in regards to the Temple, only the obedient and disobedient.  The Temple is the House of the Lord - a place where he can dwell.  No unclean thing can dwell in the presence of the Lord.  If you have issue with this, you need to take it up with him.

No, no tangent here. Just think about what I am saying before typing a response.

What Mormonism teaches is that all of those in the temple are white, in heaven (except one or two dozen non whites now?).

No. That's retarded. We know that many Israelites were Black. Not white with a tan, but Black. We know that the "priesthood" had nothign to do with getting into the temple, but was a responsibility by Christ alone. His priesthood was freely given to all men once he rose from the dead. He said so. Preach the gospel to all nations... He never said, "all shall enter into the temple, except the Blacks, and those of Cain's loins"

Come on. You said there is only the obedient and disobedient. Well, think about it. Many Black obedient souls were according to Mormonism denied the priesthoood... not because of disobedience, but because of their skin color!

Then you say "no unclean can dwell"... well that, in relation to this topic, implies that being a black person is being in some state of uncleanliness. Which is going back to the whole issue of blackness being a curse!

Now you can deny the uncleanliness of black people, then I will merely go back and say, since I agree, what then is the motivation to deny the black people "the priesthood"?

Because it's merely something that white's have, and they advertise, and they want blacks to "want it". it's control, and modern manipulation.

Totally unrelated to Jesus' ministry.

Again, were not talking about the current situation, or future, in Heaven. I responded to the remark that the blacks - AT THE TIME OF THEIR MORTAL EXISTENCE - who couldn't receive their endowments would have been segregated in Heaven. I responded to THAT logic. STAY ON TOPIC, OSIRICA! How many times do I have to explain that!? YES!, you ARE going on a tangent!

YES! it IS a matter of obedience vs. disobedience! If anyone accepts the Gospel, and receives their endowments and is faithful to the end, THEY WILL RECEIVE ETERNAL LIFE. Stop putting color as an issue in Heaven - IT WON'T MATTER. This thread was in regards to blacks in the past - ON EARTH!!

You keep straying off topic - STOP!!!!!!!!

Seriously, though, I must go.

[juliann]

Sorry, Os, you are going to have to redo that last post. It makes absolutely no sense. I think that you are doing too many backflips to avoid having to address your arrogant double standards.

Let me know when you get around to responding to much of anything. We already know that we are going to hell. Get on with the rest of it.

[osirica]

Well now, the scriptures say that the Lord put a 'mark' on cain, how many times do you see people making marks that are white and pure?  Plus, the Lord made man in his image, so if you want to think that Cain was turned from black to white, then I guess the Lord is black.  Also, when a mixed couple has children, which is the dominant color?  Didn't the Lord say that those that mixed, or killed, with the seed of Cain receive that mark also - along with there generations?

O: If there are false prophets then there must be true prophets? That's like saying, if there are false gods, then there must be true gods. If there are false christs, then there must be more "true" christs! 

If there are false prophets, that means there are false prophets, that open ended "interpretation" is weaker than taking the apporach "Beware of false prophets, because there will be no more true prophets." Why didn't he say it? You should ask yourself, why didn't he say "Beware of false prophets, but be ready for the true prophets that will come." After all, the danger in that interpretation of yours isn't following a false prophet but instead...the danger is of NOT following the true prophets that would come in Mormonism... Why oh why didn't God tell us? Because that would never happen.

Are you listening to yourself?  Weren't there all kinds of false G-ds that the Lord forbad us from worshiping?  There IS a true G-d, isn't there? Aren't we to watch out for the Anti-christ (or false Christ as you say)?  Isn't there indeed a true Christ? Aren't you proving MY point?  Wasn't the scripture warning us of false prophets - IN THE LATTER-DAYS?  Wouldn't that mean there would be A LATTER-DAY PROPHET? Wasn't that scripture given AFTER all of the Biblical prophets called?  Meaning that if there was not to be a latter-day prophet, YES, it would say beware of prophets only.

Now, I do have to go home - I'm at work.  So, if you have more to say, I will respond to it later.  I don't leave loose ends.

Finally, my favorite point to enage in:

You ask "Well now, the scriptures say that the Lord put a 'mark' on cain, how many times do you see people making marks that are white and pure? Plus, the Lord made man in his image, so if you want to think that Cain was turned from black to white, then I guess the Lord is black. Also, when a mixed couple has children, which is the dominant color? Didn't the Lord say that those that mixed, or killed, with the seed of Cain receive that mark also - along with there generations?"

I answer, "I see marks on Black faces that are white and pure. For example:

Ezekiel 9:4 - And the LORD said unto him, Go through the midst of the city, through the midst of Jerusalem, and set a mark upon the foreheads of the men that sigh and that cry for all the abominations that be done in the midst thereof. And to the others he said in mine hearing, Go ye after him through the city, and smite: let not your eye spare, neither have ye pity: 6 Slay utterly old and young, both maids, and little children, and women: but come not near any man upon whom is the mark...

Painful commandment on God regarding the children. But the mark, there you have it. A sign of innocence. Now was the mark WHITE and pure? I do not know. I do know that I see white marks on black faces during the time of the Christian holiday of Lent.

If YOU want to think that God turned Cain from White to Black, then I guess for you God is white, and I am SURE you have no discomfort with that assumption. but the idea (which is more supported by facts) that Adam was Black and thus if you accept that Cain was cursed with a change of skin color, it would be to white, (thus meaning that God was Black)... that's discomforting...isn't it?

Well, instead of accepting the Bible's testimony alone, you instead, thinking you are finding correction, see additives put into the testimony by Smith. And so instead of the curse merely being on the land, instead of the mark merely being a tattoo on his forehead... you add all of this extra stuff. Then you want to say "Oh maybe not"!!!

You ask "Also, when a mixed couple has children, which is the dominant color? Didn't the Lord say that those that mixed, or killed, with the seed of Cain receive that mark also - along with there generations?"

My answer is this "Black does not equal descendant of Cain.

Descendant of Cain does not equal African, nor African America, nor bi-racial."

You jump into assuming that Cain was Black, and thus you continue on in your faulty reasoning. Cain was black, his descendants were, so all of the interracial children in America should have been killed like they were doing in the south. Noooo.... The Lord said NOTHING in the Bible about Cain's seed being mixed, or any penalty for it. And even if He did, there, again I remind you, is no relationship between Cain (being white, black, or whatever) being related to the Black and thus mixed children you see running around today.

Your final question "Are you listening to yourself? Weren't there all kinds of false G-ds that the Lord forbad us from worshiping? There IS a true G-d, isn't there? Aren't we to watch out for the Anti-christ (or false Christ as you say)? Isn't there indeed a true Christ? Aren't you proving MY point? Wasn't the scripture warning us of false prophets - IN THE LATTER-DAYS? Wouldn't that mean there would be A LATTER-DAY PROPHET? Wasn't that scripture given AFTER all of the Biblical prophets called? Meaning that if there was not to be a latter-day prophet, YES, it would say beware of prophets only."

There were all kinds of Gods? Well I guess, if you believe that a swiss cheese sandwich, or a carved image is a god... Or I guess if you believe that a god is anything that any idiot bows down to. If you see some people bowing down to a stapler and worshipping it, will you believe that stapler is a god? This is similar to my question to you about believing everything that anyone says comes from god. You can't discern false prophets, no wonder, you can't discern God from idols!

A false christ is not a christ at all. That's why he is "false". You for some odd reasoning are taking the adjective "false" and applying it to Christ and thinking. "Oh this person is just as christly as Christ, but merely is a bad christ. This christ has all the power of Christ but he is just a kind of christ that I don't like. Just like the "gods". "

no, False Christ is a person that pretends to be something he is not to fool you. Just like false gods are gods that are designed to men to fool you. Both to fool you into thinking they have power (and thus influence in your life) that they do not have! Why wouldn't God be angry over his children worshipping a piece of wood, instead of Him. You don't see the reason and the aggrivation of that? You have a child? Imagine your child calling a computer program "daddy" and ignoring you. Or imagine your child calling a TV personality "dad" and believing that person is his father... but not you.

Don't play games. You know the justifiable anger that God has regarding this.

And going back to the racial issue here. THIS is also insulting to God. God never made any seperation between men based on skin color that had any meaning. And then to keep some of God's children segregated from Him on earth for what? For the self glorification of other men? insane!

[juliann]

You keep straying off topic - STOP!!!!!!!!

What other option does he have, Gordon? If he doesn't he will have to actually examine his double standards.

[osirica]

You keep straying off topic - STOP!!!!!!!!

What other option does he have, Gordon? If he doesn't he will have to actually examine his double standards.

Topic - Mormon prejudice against blacks

Usually when I am hitting the nail on the head, Mormons will say "oh he is doing this and that wrong" but of course you cannot quote nor clearly describe it.

Mormon prejudice against Blacks is based on Mormon scriptures. It is disgusting and wrong. The idea that Black people and Native American people are in any way spiritually distinguished from whites, is an abomination.

You want to stay on topic, then reply to the comments.

[Outshined]

So denying someone a priesthood in which you do not believe offends you?

That strikes me as odd.

[osirica]

I responded to the remark that the blacks - AT THE TIME OF THEIR MORTAL EXISTENCE - who couldn't receive their endowments would have been segregated in Heaven. I responded to THAT logic. STAY ON TOPIC, OSIRICA!

Seperated from who?

There is the question that you need to deal with.

What makes you think there is a segregation in heaven based on anything other than the person's faith on Earth? You think that corrupt racist white Mormon priests are going to be higher up in the line than Black leaders like Martin Luther King? Come on. yeah MLK wasn't perfect, but there is no WAY you can put Smith, or Cowdry, or McConckie above him.... that is if you believe IN a segregation. WHich i do not.

[osirica]

So denying someone a priesthood in which you do not believe offends you?

That strikes me as odd.

Deny?

Lets go to the Bible regarding the priesthood. You have to get an understanding of what the priesthood is from somewhere:

Read Hebrews 7 - " For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood. 15 And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest, 16 Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life. 17 For he testifieth, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec. 18 For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof. 19 For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God. 20 And inasmuch as not without an oath he was made priest: 21 (For those priests were made without an oath; but this with an oath by him that said unto him, The Lord sware and will not repent, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec:) 22 By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament. 23 And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death: 24 But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood. 25 Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them. 26 For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens; "

[osirica]

"Are you listening to yourself? Weren't there all kinds of false G-ds that the Lord forbad us from worshiping? There IS a true G-d, isn't there? Aren't we to watch out for the Anti-christ (or false Christ as you say)? Isn't there indeed a true Christ? Aren't you proving MY point? Wasn't the scripture warning us of false prophets - IN THE LATTER-DAYS? Wouldn't that mean there would be A LATTER-DAY PROPHET? Wasn't that scripture given AFTER all of the Biblical prophets called? Meaning that if there was not to be a latter-day prophet, YES, it would say beware of prophets only."

Did you know that "Jehovah's Witnesses, Messengers(Islam), Latter days(Mormon), and Submit (Islam)" are all in the Bible. And guess what that means. Nothing other than what the Bible says.

let me help you. Go to www.bible.com and do a keyword search if the keywords are where you find your strength. You should read the entire verses in their context.

[Outshined]

Deny?

Lets go to the Bible regarding the priesthood. You have to get an understanding blah blah blah

Sorry, but I fully understand the origins of the priesthood. Thanks for the attempt at "teaching", though.

Yes, you seem offended that the Church witheld the Priesthood from blacks, but from what I can tell you don't believe the Church has any Priesthood authority anyway.

As I said, it seems a bit odd.

[osirica]

Deny?

Lets go to the Bible regarding the priesthood. You have to get an understanding blah blah blah

Sorry, but I fully understand the origins of the priesthood. Thanks for the attempt at "teaching", though.

Yes, you seem offended that the Church witheld the Priesthood from blacks, but from what I can tell you don't believe the Church has any Priesthood authority anyway.

As I said, it seems a bit odd.

No what offends me is that there was never an issue regarding this for the thousand and a half years after the ressurrection. then some white people in America start making up a new story about Cain, and black skin. Your religion tags along, and then you say "I know all about the priesthood".

You know all about the priesthood according to Smith, not according to the Bible. And there is no effect on the position of those in history. In Ethiopia there were priests, teaching the word according to the Bible, that did not change in 1830, nor in 1970 nor in 2004. The Smith/Mormon additives to the priesthood are irrelevant in truth, and in actual practice in reality. They have had no effect on anything meaningful anywhere in time, except in the minds of Mormons who already were believing for 100 years that Blacks were inferior anyway!

What you are avoiding is the painful truth that all of this priesthood talk is a coverup for the racist attitudes of Mormonism's founder Smith. And you don't like the idea that Smith was a racist, so you want to magically discuss the possibility away by re-stating what "black" meant in the Book of Mormon and Pearl of Great Price. You want to explain away the differences between the word "black" in the Bible and "black" in the Book of Mormon. You want to make it so that Christians believe that Christianiy has an anti-black racist foundation, if Christians like myself are rock solid certain that Mormonism has anti-black racist foundations.

And you don't like the fact that I respond to each and every nuance of this, and you will continue to try to avoid the simple truth. Joseph Smith made it up so that he could keep his popularity with his white followers!

[Outshined]

You know all about the priesthood according to Smith, not according to the Bible.

Oops, how embarrassing for you. You've assumed I've been LDS all my life. Perhaps you should look before you leap to such convenient conclusions.

I was Evangelical for just over three decades, raised by a minister, attended seminary to become a minister. Converted to the LDS Church later in life. So much for your assumptions.

After reading your posts, I am confident that there is nothing you can teach me about the Bible. And it is rather funny actually that you rail about Mormons witholding a Priesthood in which you do not believe.

At least you are entertaining...

[osirica]

You know all about the priesthood according to Smith, not according to the Bible.

Oops, how embarrassing for you. You've assumed I've been LDS all my life. Perhaps you should look before you leap to such convenient conclusions.

I was Evangelical for just over three decades, raised by a minister, attended seminary to become a minister. Converted to the LDS Church later in life. So much for your assumptions.

After reading your posts, I am confident that there is nothing you can teach me about the Bible. And it is rather funny actually that you rail about Mormons witholding a Priesthood in which you do not believe.

At least you are entertaining...

It's not embarrrassing for me because I do not really care. I noticed your response, and it's ignorant and filled with self centeredness.

So the "oops" might make you feel good, but it has no effect on this discussion.

And for the record, I am not here to teach you really about the Bible, but to show the fundamental contradictory lies about Black people told by Smith and his ilk in their "scriptures".

Actually let me correct myself, my primary motivation is not to teach you about the Bible, but it is obvious that I did teach you something about the Bible:

For example, your saying I can teach you nothing, but you know now that in the Bible there is more than one hebrew word for "black" and each word has a different meaning.

That is something I have taught you, that you cannot obliterate from your ignorant and arrogant mind. You cannot erase it. From now on, when you say "the Bible used Black in the same way as the book of mormon," or something like that, you will remember our discussion forever.

Have a nice day

[D. Charles Pyle, 32]

I noticed that both mb20 and osirica have been avoiding my questions.

1. Was the long-dead priesthood ban as bad as the 'forever' ban against Moabites and Ammonites being permitted to enter the congregation of the Lord (Deuteronomy 23:3-4; Nehemiah 13:1-3)?

2. What do either of you think about Jesus' reference to Canaanites as dogs (Matthew 15:21-26)?

Please answer the questions I began asking pages ago. What say you? Was God a racist for forbidding two non-Jewish nations from entering the Lord's congregation forever? Was Jesus racist for referring to Canaanites as dogs?

[John Russell]

Osirica said:

You know all about the priesthood according to Smith, not according to the Bible. And there is no effect on the position of those in history. In Ethiopia there were priests, teaching the word according to the Bible, that did not change in 1830, nor in 1970 nor in 2004. The Smith/Mormon additives to the priesthood are irrelevant in truth, and in actual practice in reality. They have had no effect on anything meaningful anywhere in time, except in the minds of Mormons who already were believing for 100 years that Blacks were inferior anyway!

Interesting. If I didn't know better, I'd say the old Iraqi Information Minister has appeared on ther FAIR boards. ".... additives to the priesthood are irrelevant in truth, and in actual practice in reality"? What on earth does that mean? Not to be rude, but this is a very strange paragraph.

What you are avoiding is the painful truth that all of this priesthood talk is a coverup for the racist attitudes of Mormonism's founder Smith. And you don't like the idea that Smith was a racist, so you want to magically discuss the possibility away by re-stating what "black" meant in the Book of Mormon and Pearl of Great Price. You want to explain away the differences between the word "black" in the Bible and "black" in the Book of Mormon. You want to make it so that Christians believe that Christianiy has an anti-black racist foundation, if Christians like myself are rock solid certain that Mormonism has anti-black racist foundations.

Ummm. No. Not really. Indeed, one of the serious issues the Missourians had with the Saints in Missouri way back when was the tolerance the Saints had for blacks, and their antipathy for slavery. And the notion of blacks descending from Cain is not American, but goes back before the rise of the American nation, at least to old Europe. Not only was this idea of black inferiority not originated by Joseph Smith, he took flak for being tolerant of blacks. Are you suggesting that Joseph Smith and the LDS have an exclusive corner on racism? Are you further suggesting that the history of Christianity outside of Mormonism is devoid of racist activity? I would be interested in your response to those questions.

[D. Charles Pyle, 32]

Joseph Smith by no means believed that Blacks were inferior, osirica. He stated that the Blacks, if given the opportunity and education, would take the shine off many of those they waited on. Now, please do answer the questions I have asked. I know you are here reading posts so please do avail yourself of the opportunity to answer the questions I have been asking pages ago.

[osirica]

[quote name='D. Charles Pyle, 32

[Tanyan]

David, Refer mb20+osirica to your paper : "Blacks And The Priesthood".

Also see www.geocities.com/promormon/index html Then click the Topic of Blacks in the LDS Faith. Grace.

[osirica]

[quote name='D. Charles Pyle, 32

[osirica]

David, Refer mb20+osirica to your paper : "Blacks And The Priesthood".

Also see www.geocities.com/promormon/index html Then click the Topic of Blacks in the LDS Faith. Grace.

OK I actually read that article you posted a few months ago.

and you read up on

William Saunders Crowdy

Also learn more about the Jewish Priesthood and it's line of descent:

http://www.uoregon.edu/~jbloom/race/general/lemba.htm

See there is the LDS priesthood, which is unrelated to the Jewish priesthood tradition carried down from Moses. The LDS priesthood was started by Joseph Smith, who wrote a story that the descendants of Pharaoh were denied the Priesthood. That includes Joseph of Genesis children, (because he married an Egyptian). It includes Moses's descendants (because he married a Kushite). It includes any other Israelites who had any Egyptian parents, grandparents or ancestors, and over the past 3000 years, that ancestory is without a doubt present in much if not most of the accepted "white" population. It includes Jesus who by the way is the descendant of a Caananite, Rahab.

There is the Jewish priesthood, which, without any problem (until the European migrations and the times after Islam) accepted "blacks" or "negroes" or "Egyptians" into their congregation.

See the "racism" really began when Europeans, seeing themselves as the center of the world, noticed something. Everywhere else they went, they saw people that were not white (and that meant everywhere else out there in the world). They also saw that these people for the most part were not seafaring conquering $$$ driven economic dominators. Oh and they didn't invent the cannon first. So that meant to the European "they are inferior". Well unfortunately, ONE of Christianity's main hubs was in Europe, and because of that, it was a two fold ethnocentric idea. We have God, and we have technology... that must mean that God favorrs us over everyone else.

Well the rest is history. Instead of doing the right thing, white racists like Smith took their elevated unearned position and abused it. Creating self-aggrandizing stories about their greatness over history.

You guys all eat it up, because the "feel good" factor is so important and so potent in your subconscious that you can't let it go, without trying to take all of Christianity down with it. Without being first, or most important, you can't let the world run the way God wants it. So we hear silly comments about Ammonites, and about the use of the word "black" in the Old Testament. Oh Caanaites were called dogs. That means that anti-black racism is ok, since Smith made up a new story.

None of you care that his story is filled with holes against the Bible AND reality. The Bible has only its own testimony to compare to. Was there an Israel? Yes. Was there a Caeser? Yes. How many times has biblical testimony helped unearth arcaeological finds? thousands of times. How many times has doubts against biblical history been washed away by proof? hundreds of times! In the last 10 years, we found the Hittites, coins with Solomon's face on them, we found Jericho's walls, and the underground waterway that David used to invade Jerusalem.

Find any puff of evidence to support the Book of mormon, where the Book of Mormon's stories diverge from the Bible. There are FOUR, count 'em, FOUR solid pieces of "evidence" one is a tree stump that has some hebrew perfectly written on it. Suspicious, as the Hebrew is written in a blocky script format, never done in ancient history (but done by modern writers over the past few hundred years). You have a Aztec warrior wearing a star of David as an earring. As if that aztec warrior is worshipping God in the image, no, he is not. The symbol of David is not entirely uncommon, just like the swastika is not uncommon. We would not ignorantly assume every culture that uses a swastika is related to each other, esp when other cultural traits are not found between them. But there goes mormons "oh look look a Jew in America!" We know it, if you had talked to that Aztec, he would know nothing of Israel, God, or Jews. Then you have a rock with some more hebrew writing in it. Where did it come from? Who knows! The fourth was the papyrus that Smith used to "translate" the pearl.

but all in all, you have four totally totally unsubstantiated claims, isolated outside of the context of their origins, one dubiously written, one falsely translated...

and this is the legacy left by a near industrial civilization of the Book of Mormon? While the far less industrial Egyptian culture still has STONE monuments standing that are older than the metal structures left from the Book of Mormon "civiilizations"

Is this where you Mormon readers are feeling that sense of pride in your unwavering faith against incredible odds? The more I show you the irrefutable proof, the more you say "the greater the evidence against us, the more we know we are true because of our faith?"

You guys have no idea how brainwashed that training is. You don't rely on God to come through in the midst of a man's lying. Joseph Smith was a convicted con artist. Testimony has been preserved that shows he convinced a man that there was buried gold. The man dug for days, was convinced that Smith was telling the truth. Why? "Because Smith said so!".

Smith was a 19th century Benny Hinn. He was very good at persuasion and he used that "He must be right because said so" routine so well. He was a con artist. He trained himself on it since a teenager, His mom and dad were also in on it.

[Dunamis]

Osirica--you need to read the rules and fast. Improve your tone and stop the namecalling now. If we see anymore posts like this you are going to be escorted out of here.