thews wrote:Pahoran wrote:I presume that "This" is self-referential; as in, "This post written by Thews is an outright lie."
Because, as I wade through your handful of quote-mined note cards, I cannot find even one single instance of anything from any LDS source to the effect of "Blacks being evil in the pre-existence."
You have produced nothing, because there is nothing for you to produce.
Instead, you have relied upon the notorious anti-Mormon shell-game; you throw a handful of quote-mined snippets in our faces, and triumphantly pose as if your point was made -- but your quote-mined snippets have nothing to do with your point.
I suppose you feel justified in this kind of brazen deception because you suppose your "eternal security" blanket guarantees that you will go to heaven no matter how many times you bear false witness against your Mormon neighbours; is that right?
You are the one to bear a false witness. Once again, you ignore all the data and spout the same tired "is not" opinion. You said, "Blacks being evil in the pre-existence" has never been taught by the Church." Is this a true statement? Here's some more data you can attempt to ignore Pahoran... plenty more where it came from.
The leaders of the church up through the 1970s made it very clear why blacks were denied the priesthood. There are too many comments to list them all but here is a sample of the comments made by various LDS officials (emphasis added):
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.)
And where does it say anything equivalent to "Blacks were evil in the pre-existence?" Answer: Nowhere.
You are doing
exactly what I said you were doing: throwing quote-mined snippets in our faces, as if they supported your point.
This has nothing to do with your point.thews wrote: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)
And where does it say anything equivalent to "Blacks were evil in the pre-existence?" Answer: Nowhere.
You are doing
exactly what I said you were doing: throwing quote-mined snippets in our faces, as if they supported your point.
This has nothing to do with your point.thews wrote:"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).
And where does it say anything equivalent to "Blacks were evil in the pre-existence?" Answer: Nowhere.
You are doing
exactly what I said you were doing: throwing quote-mined snippets in our faces, as if they supported your point.
This has nothing to do with your point.thews wrote: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)
And where does it say anything equivalent to "Blacks were evil in the pre-existence?" Answer: Nowhere.
You are doing
exactly what I said you were doing: throwing quote-mined snippets in our faces, as if they supported your point.
This has nothing to do with your point.thews wrote:John Taylor, President of the Church
"And after the flood we are told that the curse that had been pronounced upon Cain was continued through Ham's wife, as he had married a wife of that seed. And why did it pass through the flood? because it was necessary that the devil should have a representation upon the earth as well as God;..." Journal of Discourses, Vol. 22, page 304
And where does it say anything equivalent to "Blacks were evil in the pre-existence?" Answer: Nowhere.
You are doing
exactly what I said you were doing: throwing quote-mined snippets in our faces, as if they supported your point.
This has nothing to do with your point.thews wrote:Wilford Woodruff, 4th President of the Church
Pardon me for interrupting your quote-mining, Thews, but the source you are mindlessly parrotting is deliberately misrepresenting both Elder Woodruff's status and the nature of the statement below. He was
not President of the Church at the time this journal entry was written; and it does not represent his thoughts at all. It is simply the notes he took of one of the Brigham Young sermons you already quoted.
thews wrote:"And if any man mingle his seed with the seed of Cain the only way he could get rid of it or have Salvation would be to come forward and have his head cut off and spill his blood upon the ground- it would also take the life of his children."
(Wilford Woodruff Journal)
And where does it say anything equivalent to "Blacks were evil in the pre-existence?" Answer: Nowhere.
You are doing
exactly what I said you were doing: throwing quote-mined snippets in our faces, as if they supported your point.
This has nothing to do with your point.thews wrote:Joseph Fielding Smith, 10th LDS President
"Not only was Cain called upon to suffer, but because of his wickedness he became the father of an inferior race. A curse placed upon him and that curse has been continued through his lineage and must do so while time endures. Millions of souls have come into this world cursed with a black skin and have been denied the privilege of Priesthood and the fullness of the blessings of the Gospel. These are the descendants of Cain. Moreover, they have been made to feel their inferiority and have been separated from the rest of mankind from the beginning.... we will also hope that blessings may eventually be given to our negro brethren, for they are our brethren-children of God-not withstanding their black covering emblematical of eternal darkness. " The Way to Perfection, pages 101-102.
And where does it say anything equivalent to "Blacks were evil in the pre-existence?" Answer: Nowhere.
You are doing
exactly what I said you were doing: throwing quote-mined snippets in our faces, as if they supported your point.
This has nothing to do with your point.Also, the source you are mindlessly parrotting is deliberately misrepresenting Elder Smith's status. He was
not President of the Church at the time he wrote
The Way to Perfection, but a rather junior apostle. Note that this book was written almost forty years before he became President of the Church, and was not published by the Church.
In 1962, a much older and wiser Joseph Fielding Smith said:
"The Latter-day Saints, commonly called 'Mormons', have no animosity toward the Negro. Neither have they described him as belonging to an 'INFERIOR' race." (Deseret News June 14, 1962, p.3)
When subsequently asked about his earlier statement, quoted above by you, he said:
"The Mormon Church does not believe, nor does it teach, that the Negro is an inferior being. Mentally, and physically, the Negro is capable of great achievement, as great or in some cases greater than the potentiality of the white race. The term 'inferior' is indeed unfortunate." (LOOK magazine, Oct. 22, 1963, p.79)
The fact is that President Smith repudiated his earlier statement. This is relevant data, not mere agenda-driven quote mining. If you had an honest bone in your body, you would contact your fellow anti-Mormons and ask them to update their hate site accordingly.
But of course you won't, and neither would they comply if you were to ask them.
thews wrote:Mormon historical documented fact is not "boilerplate anti-Mormon propaganda" but the truth you just can't seem to comprehend. Your statement that the Mormon church did not teach that black skin was a curse from preexistence is false. Either acknowledge the data presented is wrong (be specific) or you are once again just telling lies.
I acknowledge that the "data" you have quote-mined does not support your intentionally false accusation. As I have demonstrated, it is you who is telling lies.
But then, you love them so much, don't you?
thews wrote:Ohhh "hate based" opinion based on nothing while refusing to acknowledging the data presented that proves you wrong.
As we have seen, your quote mining does not support your lies.
thews wrote:Tell me one piece of data presented that's incorrect... just one.
See above. As I have demonstrated, the "data" you have quote mined does not support your lies.
thews wrote:Look at the lengths you need to go to in order to use "quote mining" as if it makes history change. You are clearly ignorant and have proven it many times. If the data presented in wrong, please address specifically what's wrong about it.
See above. As I have demonstrated, the "data" you have quote mined does not support your lies.
thews wrote:So you acknowledge "White and delightsome" was changed,
Yes, as you perfectly well know.
thews wrote:but continue it was never taught?
You are lying, as you habitually do.
thews wrote:What sort of argument are you making? Was God wrong on the first version, or the second, the third...?
My argument, unlike yours, does not rely upon deliberate straw man misrepresentations. I never said or implied that God was "wrong." Is lying such a habit with you now that you do it out of pure reflex?
thews wrote:You already acknowledged the facts, and the facts remain that the Book of Mormon used "White and delightsone" to differentiate the curse of black skin Bask in your ignorance if you need to, but you aren't making sense.
Speaking of ignorance, you evidently don't know that the Book of Mormon does not talk about "black," i.e. African, people
at all. Anywhere.thews wrote:Gordon Hinkley[sic] supposedly spoke with God... you believe this don't you? He stated that it was God's will to make the change.
Fixed it. You don't have to shout, Thews. It only draws attention to the fact that you have nothing to say.
thews wrote:Something doesn't need to change if it doesn't exist.
No-one ever said the Priesthood ban didn't exist. You are relying upon deliberate straw man misrepresentations again.
thews wrote: By the way, Gordon Hinkley was a Mormon. Christians don't believe in occult seer stones, incorrect translations from the pagan book of the dead, bizarre Masonic rituals, magic underwear, and all things Mormons do believe in. A Christian church has a cross on it and not Masonic symbols... do you understand the difference between a Christian and a Mormon?
A Mormon is a Christian. An anti-Mormon is a liar.
Regards,
Pahoran