Mormons are ashamed of their own beliefs

[_Pahoran]

Brigham Young said, "The Lord had cursed Cain's seed with blackness and prohibited them the Priesthood." I believe there was something there about killing a woman on the spot if found having sex with a black man... I'd have to search the anti-Mormon Journal of Discourses to find the quote, though.

And you wouldn't find it.

"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." (Journal of Discourses, vol. 10, p. 110).

Anybody learned how to read yet?

Regards,
Pahoran

[Guest]

But the LDS church has done quite well financially

What makes you think that?
I would say that there are signs all around us showing just the opposite.
Mass layoffs at the COB and of the custodial staff just to name one.

[_Pahoran]

If he sold it, he'd have to find somewhere else to live. I'm sure you'd be happy for him to live in a trailer park somewhere; it's not as if he has any grandchildren or anything.

Regards,
Pahoran

So you're saying he's better than members who live in trailer parks,

No.

I'm saying that I don't know how much poverty and destitution on his part it would take to satisfy your obsessive vindictiveness against him.

If, indeed, your obsessive vindictiveness is not entirely insatiable.

But since you asked, I do think he is immeasurably better than alleged members who spitefully obsess about the house he lives in.

and pay their tithes so he can live in his million dollar house?

Three bare-faced lies in one sentence. My, my.

1: As has been repeatedly pointed out to you, "Tithing Trough" Harmony: there is no "tithing trough" for either President Packer, or any other Church leaders, to "wallow" in. Their stipends come from other sources.

2: It costs President Packer -- and therefore, the Church -- no more for him to live in his present home than it would in any other house that costs nothing in rent or mortgage payments.

3: And, yet again, he doesn't live in a "million dollar house." You really do love those bumper-sticker sound bites, don't you? He lives in a fairly old house, on a piece of land, the value of which has appreciated considerably since he bought it all those decades ago. Since, as you perfectly well know, the value of that land bears no relationship to its cost, it follows that it is an utter falsehood to pretend that his assets actually relate to what he has received from the Church.

When, if ever, do you plan to get over your miserable, miserly, resentful, hard-hearted attitude towards President Packer, whose only apparent "crime" is to have settled in an area that has been upgraded in the last half century?

Regards,
Pahoran

[_Themis]

But the LDS church has done quite well financially

What makes you think that?
I would say that there are signs all around us showing just the opposite.
Mass layoffs at the COB and of the custodial staff just to name one.
Without getting too specific I have quite a bit of insight into the Citycreek project and let's just say this is not panning out how the church thought it would when it committed to the project.

Whyme is known for making assertion after assertion after assertion, etc of things he either does not know, or cannot know, as fact.

[_Themis]

It's worth is not one would expect from such a church with a small membership, where many of these members are not so rich.

I think any religion that asks for over 10% of it's members incomes would amass a lot of money and wealth.

[_thews]

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

Have you read the Bible? The early church were not too enthusiastic about gentiles. And Christ didn't seem to be concerned about their fate since he did not spend any time among them. He stuck to a select group of people and soldiered on until they killed him. They were called the chosen people by god which is still being used today to imprison palestians on the west bank and gaza. The chosen people have a right to palestian land because god told them so. The Bible is not exactly fair to non-jews.

The Book of Mormon was mainly written in old testament times. When one compares the old testament with the Book of Mormon written during old testament times, one can find a far more gentler book when it comes to race than what one can find in the old testament. The old testament god was a strange god.

Typical... throw the Bible under the bus. Your man-love for Joseph Smith will do anything to cover for him. The Book of Mormon was written in 1830... do your homework. Mormon doctrine is racist cut and dry. There is no "White and delightsome" in any Christian doctrine.

[_Pahoran]

Hello Ms. Harmony,

Uh. What?

Sin.

Siiiiiiiiiiin.

There you go.

by the way, I really, really would love to have your daughter's phone #. She would love love love talking to your's truly. Just sayin'. I'm a smoothie.

V/R
Dr. Cam

Harmony,

I would hope that when it comes to your family, you would have the presence of mind not to allow an internet predator anywhere near them.

Regards,
Pahoran

[_thews]

I'm not really sure, but I'm fairly sure it was Brigham Young who made sure it was changed back.

In other words, you have no "data" (a.k.a. predigested and regurgitated anti-Mormon pabulum) to support your baseless accusation.

Got it.

Now for the real facts:

The 1840 revision of the Book of Mormon was made by Joseph Smith. At that time, the Book of Mormon was being published simultaneously in both England and America. The Nauvoo edition used Joseph Smith's 1840 revision, but the British edition used his 1837 revision. From 1844 to 1847, while the Church in the American Midwest struggled to survive the Christian lurve of its enTHEWSiastic neighbours, the printing presses pressed on in Preston. (Actually Liverpool, but Preston works better.) Only 2000 copies were printed of the 1840 Nauvoo edition; over 4000 copies were made in 1841 of the first British edition, and subsequent editions were made in 1849 and 1852.

By 1879, with all those converts coming from Europe with their British Book of Mormon's, the British editions had become the standard. So when Orson Pratt crafted a new edition with the chapters and verses we currently know, he used the British text as his source.

Why would one have to revise the word of God? Is it not true that God would prevent Joseph Smith from progressing to the next word if he got it wrong with his head in hat looking into an occult seer stone? Did Joseph Smith claim the Book of Mormon was the most perfect book ever written? Your rationalizations are typical spoon-fed parrot talk. One doesn't need to make the revisions in 1978 unless they were part of Mormonism. Care to address this fact Pahoran? Your blind ignorance of where "White and delightsome" came from is very typical of how you compartmentalize the aspects of Mormonism that make no sense. Should we all take your advice and just ignore them... hope they go away? ...pray for them to go away?

This whole doctrine changing thing is just a part of Mormonism that one must blindly accept.

Indeed. Since there is no actual evidence of doctrinal change, one must blindly accept, based upon the say-so of Thews and his ilk, that it happens.

Regards,
Pahoran

You are truly the most ignorant human I've ever come across. Here's some data you can ignore as the sand in your eyes prevents you from acknowledging the "change" in 1978.

http://20truths.information/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)

Care to acknowledge the change in 1978? ...didn't think so... parrot-speak doesn't allow critical thought.

[_Pahoran]

Typical... throw the Bible under the bus.

That is the obvious knee-jerk reaction we'd expect from a fanatical Bible-worshipper. However, to a rational person, all WhyMe is doing is asking you to allow us to judge the Book of Mormon and the Bible by a single consistent standard.

If that somehow equals "throw the Bible [sic] under the bus" to you, then that can only mean that your whole intent is to throw the Book of Mormon under the bus.

So you're not actually engaged in anything like a good faith discussion at all.

Why am I not surprised?

Your man-love for Joseph Smith will do anything to cover for him.

That's rather spiteful and unChristian, Thews.

You should also know that repressed homophobia is the worst kind. Stop being ashamed of who you are.

The Book of Mormon was written in 1830... do your homework. Mormon doctrine is racist cut and dry. There is no "White and delightsome" in any Christian doctrine.

The use of "white" as a synonym for "pure" is standard Book of Mormon usage and standard Bible usage. Of course, I don't expect you to be aware of that, as it is likely that the only thing white about your brand of "Christian" doctrine is the hoods you wear at night.

Regards,
Pahoran

[_Pahoran]

Why would one have to revise the word of God?

Wrong question.

As a fanatical Bible-worshipper, you naturally assume that "the word of God" = "published volume of scripture." Informed Latter-day Saints, however, do not.

Joseph didn't "revise the word of God." He revised his translation of the Book of Mormon, a volume that contains the word of God.

Is it not true that God would prevent Joseph Smith from progressing to the next word if he got it wrong

That's the trouble with getting all your "data" by mindlessly parroting anti-Mormon hate sites. Competent scholars who have studied the witness reports conclude that it was referring to the spelling of proper nouns, and only on their first appearance.

with his head in hat looking into an occult seer stone?

Oooh, "occult!" The word that's guaranteed to raise the hackles of all the fanatics!

Did Joseph Smith claim the Book of Mormon was the most perfect book ever written?

No.

If you want to embarrass me by mining quotes from dead Mormon leaders, you need to get them right.

Your rationalizations are typical spoon-fed parrot talk.

And your response is typical Protestant Mormon-bashing.

One doesn't need to make the revisions in 1978 unless they were part of Mormonism. Care to address this fact Pahoran?

What "fact?" The fact that your opinion is worthless? The fact that you've asserted nothing meaningful?

Your blind ignorance of where "White and delightsome" came from is very typical of how you compartmentalize the aspects of Mormonism that make no sense. Should we all take your advice and just ignore them... hope they go away? ...pray for them to go away?

What you dishonestly try to dismiss as "blind ignorance" contains more actual pertinent facts than your entire dump of "data" mined from anti-Mormon hate sites.

Indeed. Since there is no actual evidence of doctrinal change, one must blindly accept, based upon the say-so of Thews and his ilk, that it happens.

You are truly the most ignorant human I've ever come across.

Which is better than being the most dishonest one, like you.

Snip link to hate site.

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 [snip the rest.]

Care to acknowledge the change in 1978? ...didn't think so... parrot-speak doesn't allow critical thought.

You should know about parrot-speak, since all you do is parrot the hate-speak of other Protestants as worthless as yourself.

Why pretend to ask a question if you are going to try to pre-empt my answer with a lie?

Of course I acknowledge the change that took place in 1978.

The fact you are trying to conceal through your manipulative equivocation and brazen lies, is that not all change equals doctrinal change. Indeed, you know this to be the case, because you started off talking about doctrinal change, and now you are trying to pretend that the word "change" in any context supports you.

But of course, you know it does not.

The change that happened in 1978 had always been expected to happen at some time or other. It had been predicted as long ago as Brigham Young's time.

Yes, there was a change. No, there was not a doctrinal change.

Perhaps you wouldn't make such pervasive, embarrassing blunders if you stopped trying to expound LDS doctrine, something you are hopelessly unqualified to understand.

Regards,
Pahoran