Mormons are ashamed of their own beliefs

[_jon]

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

Regards,
Pahoran

You're not seriously trying to maintain that the Lords divinely appointed spokesperson on Earth, with whom He is in regular contact, made a mistake about Doctrine which resulted in the institutional discrimination of an entire race of people....because that would mean the Prophet(s) lead the Church astray...

[_Pahoran]

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

Regards,
Pahoran

You're not seriously trying to maintain that the Lords divinely appointed spokesperson on Earth, with whom He is in regular contact, made a mistake about Doctrine which resulted in the institutional discrimination of an entire race of people....because that would mean the Prophet(s) lead the Church astray...

Have you ever tried to draw conclusions that actually have some connection with what is under discussion?

You might like to try it sometime.

Regards,
Pahoran

[_jon]

You're not seriously trying to maintain that the Lords divinely appointed spokesperson on Earth, with whom He is in regular contact, made a mistake about Doctrine which resulted in the institutional discrimination of an entire race of people....because that would mean the Prophet(s) lead the Church astray...

Have you ever tried to draw conclusions that actually have some connection with what is under discussion?

You might like to try it sometime.

Regards,
Pahoran

It's not my conclusion that's wrong, it's your interpretation of my conclusion that's in error....

[_Buffalo]

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

So, as someone who has been through the temple, you know that something can be doctrinal and yet not discussed in general conference. That's good.

Have you ever been to an LDS sacrament service before? Are you aware that the church owns pulpits outside the one in the conference center?

[_BartBurk]

I'm always amused by Mormons who won't talk about the things they believe in public. They will admit to being Christians, but if you bring up space gods, polygamous prophets, and blacks being evil in the pre-existence,they clam up and try to change the subject. That's why I love to talk to Mormons around non-Mormons; if you bring up one of these things they start to squirm and want to deny what you are saying, but no they can't because their bat**** insane church really does teach them all that nonsense.

I don't know why any Mormons would be ashamed of their beliefs. Mormons don't believe in space gods any more than other Christians do -- Father, Son and Holy Ghost might certainly be classified as "space gods" if you want to demean traditional Christians. I've never heard Mormons say they believe in "space gods". They believe there are other gods than Father, Son and Holy Ghost, but I don't know of Mormons who are ashamed of believing that -- most are actually proud of that doctrine. Moses was a polygamous prophet as was Abraham. There never was a doctrine that blacks were evil in the pre-existence. At most they were not as "valiant", but even that was never doctrine. You can make any belief seem crazy if you mis-characterize it. You can make almost any Christian doctrine look crazy if you want to do so. I think your premise is wrong.

[_schreech]

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

Fixed that for you...thanks for showing us that you such a cowardly-lds-lapdog that you are incapable answering this question which has nothing to do with any of the drivel you keep posting:

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"

[_Joseph]

So NO moronicpriesthood leading prophet til Spence 'the runt'(Mark E. Peterson's name for him) prayed about it?

If they had, it surely would have never happend or would have been changed sooner. After all, the holy goose would tell these jokers the truth of all things. Surely excluding these 'devils representatives on earth' would have been something the spook would have told the profit was not right, right?

[_Pahoran]

Sorry Pahoran, I don't have any balls at all and I'm far too cowardly to answer that question because I know I'll be caught masquerading irrelevant off-the-cuff remarks as if they represented Mormon doctrine and, being the gutless-hate-impaired-anti-Mormon-swine that I am, I feel the best course of action would be to continue to brazenly and illiterately misrepresent what you posted, because I just can't deal with the fact that sources matter like an honest debater would.

There, schreeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeech; fixed that for you.

You see, it takes no talent to play your game; if you can do it, anybody can.

Trust me on that.

Now, if anyone anywhere wants to provide properly attributed citations to actual statements by actual LDS leaders, I am entirely willing to discuss them.

Regards,
Pahoran

[_consiglieri]

It's not my conclusion that's wrong, it's your interpretation of my onclusion that's in error....

Okay.

Now THAT was funny!!!

I, too, have difficulty in finding a dime's worth of difference in prophets who cannot interpret doctrine correctly from prophets who get the doctrine wrong.

Form over substance.

And Gordon B. Hinckley was wrong that blacks could not hold the Priesthood from 1830 to 1978.

Blacks held the Priesthood with Joseph Smith's blessing well after 1830.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[_consiglieri]

"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"

Are you also ashamed of your leader's teachings? Feel free to not act like a tool and answer honestly, for once....

I don't know if Pahoran has finally conceded this to be a quote from Brigham Young, but I think that is where it comes from.

Let me tell you what I think about it.

I would not say I am "ashamed" of what Brigham Young said.

(I am "ashamed" of the Mountain Meadows Massacre, so I do have that emotion within me.) ;^)

But I think Brigham Young was simply expressing the common 19th century American white man's view on blacks.

It is possible to emphasize the "servant" part of the quote, which sounds racist (and likely is).

But it is also possible to emphasize the "celestial kingdom" part of the quote, and see Brigham Young as allowing for blacks to be exalted along with white Mormons (albeit as servants).

I think it would be wonderful if Brigham Young had continued the policy started by Joseph Smith of ordaining black men to the Priesthood and treating them equally with whites; and I think it would be wonderful if Brigham Young (and associates) had never given public expression to the racist sentiments of the times (as you quoted).

But while I think it would be wonderful, I doubt it is terribly realistic to expect.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri