Mormons are ashamed of their own beliefs

[_jon]

There's nothing more official than that which is widely believed and taught as fact all over the church. :)

And there's nothing more obviously fabricated than the claim that something is "widely believed and taught as fact all over the church" except in General Conference.

Regards,
Pahoran

Pahoran, has there ever been anything, any item, any reference, that has caused you to rethink your view/opinion on Mormonism, that didn't come from General Conference or the scriptures?

[_Buffalo]

There's nothing more official than that which is widely believed and taught as fact all over the church. :)

And there's nothing more obviously fabricated than the claim that something is "widely believed and taught as fact all over the church" except in General Conference.

Regards,
Pahoran

I guess you've never gone through the temple.

[_schreech]

blah, blah, blah, dodge, redirect, make excuses, blah...so surprising.

So, lets make this as simple for you as possible...What context or "source" would make this quote ok?:

"This Negro, who, in the pre-existence lived the type of life which justified the Lord in sending him to the earth in their lineage of Cain with a black skin, and possibly being born in darkest Africa--if that Negro is willing when he hears the gospel to accept it, he may have many of the blessings of the gospel. In spite of all he did in the pre-existent life, the Lord is willing, if the Negro accepts the gospel with real, sincere faith, and is really converted, to give him the blessings of baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost. If that Negro is faithful all his days, he can and will enter the celestial kingdom. He will go there as a servant, but he will get celestial glory"

According to Mormon teachings, was this person correct or not?

I also find it humorous that both you and Joseph are pretty much the only posters who think changing peoples screen names around is cleaver....Great minds think alike i suppose...

[_Pahoran]

blah, blah, blah, dodge, redirect, make excuses, blah...so surprising.

In other words, you cannot deal with my arguments, so you make spiteful adolescent schreeeeeeeeeeeeeeches about them.

Understood.

So, lets make this as simple for you as possible...What context or "source" would make this quote ok?:

What quote? I see a bit of text. Where did it come from, who said it and when?

I realise they probably don't teach this in elementary school, but for scholarly purposes it's not a quote until it cites a source.

Are you capable of even trying to discuss anything in good faith?

Regards,
Pahoran

[_Pahoran]

I guess you've never gone through the temple.

Many times.

And the old bit of folklore that you blatantly lied about being an "official doctrinal reason" was never "taught openly over the pulpit" there, either.

I'm not denying that a lot of Mormons had heard about it, or that many of them believed it. But your claim that it was nothing less than the "official doctrinal reason" that was "taught openly over the pulpit" is an out-and-out lie.

Because if it had been the "official doctrinal reason" then it certainly would have been "taught openly over the pulpit" of General Conference.

And you know it as well as I do.

Regards,
Pahoran

[_thews]

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?

No, this is not right. Loading questions based on your lack of acknowledging the facts and injecting your opinion (based on nothing) while claiming truth is something to be ignored is your game. Once again, your game is to blather on continuously and toss out "anti" to shied you from the facts is transparent. If you wish to back up your claims, quit snipping the data and acknowledge it. "Quote mining" as you call is simply presentive evidence in support of my argument to prove you wrong. Here's the main points:

1) The "change" in 1978 changed the option for black males to hold the priesthood. This is a fact, and ignoring it with your manufactured reasons to question the sources is ridiculous. For example:

http://mormonthink.com/blackweb.htm

From Gordon B. Hinckley's interview with Mike Wallace on 60 Minutes:

Mike Wallace: From 1830 to 1978, blacks could not become priests in the Mormon church. Right?

Gordon B. Hinckley: That's correct.

Mike Wallace: Why?

Gordon B. Hinckley: Because the leaders of the church at that time interpreted that doctrine that way. [cut]

Mike Wallace: Church policy had it that blacks had the mark of Cain. Brigham Young said, "Cain slew his brother, and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin."

Gordon B. Hinckley: It's behind us. Look, that's behind us. Don't worry about those little flecks of history.

Mike Wallace: Skeptics will suggest, "Well, look, if we're going to expand, we can't keep the blacks out."

Gordon B. Hinckley: Pure speculation. [Laughs.]

The "60 Minutes" program on the LDS Church Broadcast on CBS TV, April 7, 1996

IS that your answer too Pahoran? Are these "little flecks" as Gordon Hinkley suggested? Does the fact that he answered "That's correct" bode well for your ignorance?

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.

So you pick one quote to claim that death is a warranted penalty for mixing with the seed of Cain beneficial to your supposed point? What point are you attempting to make? A white human mixing with a black human is punishable by "death on the spot" and just because this statement doesn't specifically state that blacks are punished in the preexistence scores one for you? More data Pahoran:

2) Mormon doctrine supporting the "curse" of Cain which was set upon their fathers.

http://mormonthink.com/blackweb.htm

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.'

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.

It has everything to do with the point, which you have none as you choose to continue to claim the data is somehow invalid. You must acknowledge why a "change" was needed and acknowledge the data in order to make a point... which you have failed to do, but instead tossed out ignorance and play the persecution card.

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.

More ignorance. What part of "curse" and "black skin" and "the Lord put a mark on him" explaining why black men couldn't hold the priesthood did you miss? Please explain your point, as you clearly have no point to make except to ignore the facts and state the same opinion based on nothing.

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.

What you continue to call "quote mining" is factual data you choose to ignore. Truth is supported by data in my argument while your manufactured ignorance is supported on your opinion without an explanation. Please interpret the above and explain what "cursed" supposedly means.

"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.

And here we have yet another blatantly ignorant claim that what was said doesn't support black being cursed with black skin. What part of "White and delightsome" don't you understand?

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.

Then explain what is meant by "White and delightsome" vs. "Dark and loathsome". You can't, because you are 100% wrong.

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.

In this particular snippet, you have made a point. Slavery as an issue is a stain on American history.

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.

OK, I'll give you this one.

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.

And again we have more ignorance to the data. Please explain the part of what constitutes "devil should have a representation upon the earth as well as God" in the above. What exactly does this curse entail? Can't answer the question... didn't think so, and it's because you are 100% wrong.

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.

I've made my point very clearly with a lot of data. This continued blather based on ignorance is your only retort, because you never actually acknowledge the truth.

"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.

What "seed" is being "mingled" in the above?

I'm going to cut your continued ignorance as not to play your childish game of ignorance in making responding to your lack of a response validated, as you goal is to make responding to you continued ignorance too lengthy. The above clearly shows how wrong you are, and you have addressed none of it in your ignorant responses. .

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

There is nothing "Christian" about the "Mormon" doctrine of Joseph Smith. Christians do not believe Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, but "Christians" believe Joseph Smith was a false prophet of God and the doctrine of Joseph Smith is false. You are entitled to your opinion regarding whether or not the "restored" version of Jesus Christ is true, but it's something "Christians" all reject. Only an LDS member believes this. I understand your need to distance yourself from being labeled as "LDS" in a ruse to paint "Christians" as accepting of Mormon doctrine, but the fact remains Christians reject Mormon doctrine. In your opinion, what is the difference between Christians and members of the LDS church?

In conclusion Pahoran, you are completely wrong. The Mormon doctrine of Joseph Smith teaches that the curse of Cain is black skin as punishment for actions in the preexistence. If you choose to address the data instead of responding to it with the same cut and paste response, someone might take you seriously at some point, but as it stands you are just being ignorant of the truth.

[_schreech]

What quote? I see a bit of text. Where did it come from, who said it and when?

Lol...lets try to make this even simpler for you, simpleton....

What context or "source" would make this "bit of text" ok?:

"This Negro, who, in the pre-existence lived the type of life which justified the Lord in sending him to the earth in their lineage of Cain with a black skin, and possibly being born in darkest Africa--if that Negro is willing when he hears the gospel to accept it, he may have many of the blessings of the gospel. In spite of all he did in the pre-existent life, the Lord is willing, if the Negro accepts the gospel with real, sincere faith, and is really converted, to give him the blessings of baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost. If that Negro is faithful all his days, he can and will enter the celestial kingdom. He will go there as a servant, but he will get celestial glory"

You are welcome to just say "sorry, schreech, I don't have the balls to answer that question as I am ashamed of things that LDS leaders have taught regarding "Negros" and, being the gutless-blind-faith-lds-"yes"-man that I am, I feel the best course of action would be to continue to make lame excuses, dodge and make weak jokes about your name"...You can just copy and paste that into your post if you don't feel like retyping it....

[_Ceeboo]

"This Negro, who, in the pre-existence lived the type of life which justified the Lord in sending him to the earth in their lineage of Cain with a black skin, and possibly being born in darkest Africa--if that Negro is willing when he hears the gospel to accept it, he may have many of the blessings of the gospel. In spite of all he did in the pre-existent life, the Lord is willing, if the Negro accepts the gospel with real, sincere faith, and is really converted, to give him the blessings of baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost. If that Negro is faithful all his days, he can and will enter the celestial kingdom. He will go there as a servant, but he will get celestial glory"

Hey schreech,

I know you were offering this to Pahoran, but the quote you gave made me a little curious.

Who is this quote from?


Thanks and peace,
Ceeboo

[_Pahoran]

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?

No, this is not right. Loading questions based on your lack of acknowledging the facts and injecting your opinion (based on nothing) while claiming truth is something to be ignored is your game. Once again, your game is to blather on continuously and toss out "anti" to shied you from the facts is transparent. If you wish to back up your claims, quit snipping the data and acknowledge it. "Quote mining" as you call is simply presentive evidence in support of my argument to prove you wrong. Here's the main points:

1) The "change" in 1978 changed the option for black males to hold the priesthood. This is a fact, and ignoring it with your manufactured reasons to question the sources is ridiculous.

And you are still at it.

It is not disputed that the 1978 revelation enabled black men to hold the Priesthood. Nor is it disputed that they previously could not.

You know this to be true.

Therefore, proving that this was a "change" proves nothing that was ever disputed.

What is disputed is your pig-ignorant, and still unsupported, assertion that doctrine was changed.

It was not.

The doctrine as of May 31, 1978 was that people of "Black," i,e. sub-Saharan African extraction, could not receive the Priesthood, but at some future time they would be able to.

The change that happened on June 1, 1978 was that that time had arrived.

This is no more a change of doctrine than New Years' Day is a change of doctrine; because, as of next January, we will no longer "believe and teach" that the year is 2011.

For example:

[Link to hate site snipped.]
From Gordon B. Hinckley's interview with Mike Wallace on 60 Minutes:

Mike Wallace: From 1830 to 1978, blacks could not become priests in the Mormon church. Right?

Gordon B. Hinckley: That's correct.

Incidentally, Thews, I realise your coreligionists are really stupid and need huge fonts for them to be able to read anything, but I don't need those kinds of assistance.

I already know that is correct. This is not in dispute.

This has never been in dispute.

Once again, you are doing what you always do: producing "data" that has no relevance at all to your point, and pretending that it somehow supports you.

It does not.

Mike Wallace: Why?

Gordon B. Hinckley: Because the leaders of the church at that time interpreted that doctrine that way.

For your convenience, Thews, I have highlighted the key word for you.

According to President Hinckley, it is not the doctrine that has changed, but how it was interpreted.

IS that your answer too Pahoran? Are these "little flecks" as Gordon Hinkley suggested? Does the fact that he answered "That's correct" bode well for your ignorance?

Whose ignorance, Thews?

And where does it say anything equivalent to "Blacks were evil in the pre-existence?" Answer: Nowhere.

So you pick one quote to claim that death is a warranted penalty for mixing with the seed of Cain beneficial to your supposed point? What point are you attempting to make? A white human mixing with a black human is punishable by "death on the spot" and just because this statement doesn't specifically state that blacks are punished in the preexistence scores one for you?

Exactly. The "data" does not support your point. The "data" has nothing to do with your point.

For the purposes of the point at dispute, it wouldn't matter whether Brigham thought white people should be shot for teaching black people to count (he didn't, of course) because the falsehood you are trying to support is the false claim that "blacks were evil in the pre-existence." Brigham's hypothetical does not support that chestnut.

Perhaps what is happening is that you are simply having your usual "Mormon racism" pavlovian response and unthinkingly producing the standard anti-Mormon prooftexts, without bothering to stop and think about how they relate to the actual point under discussion. Is that it?

More data Pahoran:

2) Mormon doctrine supporting the "curse" of Cain which was set upon their fathers.

Which is unrelated to the libel of "Blacks were evil in the pre-existence."

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.

Snip link to hate site.

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.'

You really are the living embodiment of pig-ignorance, aren't you Thews? From this point on I'm going with "pignorance," just for you.

The Lamanites have nothing to do with the Curse of Cain. The Lamanites have nothing to do with African Blacks or the Priesthood ban. Their modern descendants were never under any Priesthood ban.

It would be trivially easy for me to go through the rest of your ridiculous post and demonstrate what a complete fool you've made of yourself, Thews. But I'm going to give you an opportunity to withdraw with what little dignity you've got left and go and read a book. You might learn something.

Regards,
Pahoran

[_Pahoran]

What quote? I see a bit of text. Where did it come from, who said it and when?

Lol...lets try to make this even simpler for you, simpleton....

Ooooh, "simpleton?" So I'm being patronised by the genius who never heard of British spelling and who thinks a line can be "towed," am I?

What context or "source" would make this "bit of text" ok?:

So, instead of providing a source for any of the cut and pasted prooftexts you've regurgitated so far, you're trying to get away with providing another one? Without citing a source, of course.

Incidentally, I've figured out what schreeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeech is; it's the sound a rat makes when it's in trouble, as you are here. So Schreeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeech, I'm giving you one last chance to provide sources for your prooftexts. Until you do, you've provided nothing I need to respond to. You have cited not one LDS leader of any standing at all.

None.

Not even any.

Regards,
Pahoran