I'm brown-skined because my daddy was bad
jack_the_mormon
blackness because they were bad. Now I, a descendant of Meso-American
Indians, have dark skin. My whole life, being raised Mormon, I
struggled with this tenant of Mormonism. Why is it that no one in the
church has a problem with this? Can't they see this blatant racism in
the "most correct book" on earth? Or are they afraid that if they see
it they have to ask hard questions and they are afraid of the answers?
Throughout Seminary I would ask my teachers the same question - they
told me to pray harder because my testimony was weak. Throughout my
mission I was told if I didn't believe in the church to go home -
whenever I asked this question. I JUST WANTED AN ANSWER! At BYU my
religion professors shied away from this topic and refused to give me
a direct answers. When I ask other active dark-skinned Mormons, if I
catch them in a truly sincere and introspective moment, they agree
that it bothers them but they say they try not to think about it too
hard. The whole thing makes me sick.
Mike W
> news:4f8f6ffd.02121...@posting.google.com...
Some day there might be revelation that the language is cruel, not to
mention ridiculous in this day and age. You'd think we hadn't landed a man
on the moon the way things are going.
Meanwhile... "meanwhile" takes on a whole new definition. Meanwhile, back
at cruel Moses & Jehovah. Well... too much is sickening when you take it at
face value.
Mike
grouch
>From: Jack_th...@yahoo.com (jack_the_mormon)
>Date: 12/18/2002 7:50 PM Central Standard Time
>Message-id: <4f8f6ffd.02121...@posting.google.com>
So, what does all this lead you to conclude? G
jack_the_mormon
It leads me to doubt the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. I hate
to say that because I have had many good experiences while pondering
and spending time in the BOM - but saying that God put more melanin in
my skin so that my people would be less attractive to white people -
it makes me sick.
dangerous1
You didn't "become white and delightsome"? None of my elementary school friends who were yanked
out of their homes by the Lamanite placement program did either.
The book is a fraud regardless of the good feelings it produced. Good fiction can do that.
I didn't turn dark and shriveled up like they said I would when I left the church either. You
know why your skin is the color it is. And it has nothing to do with your testimony or your
ancestor's sins. Throw the book away. It is worthless.
--
Best,
Dangerous1
D1 @ Dangerous1.com
Don Marchant
You step in the stream,
but the water has moved on.
This page is not here.
Haiku error message
€ R.L. Measures €
Jack_th...@yahoo.com (jack_the_mormon) wrote:
> The BOM says, in 2 NE 5:21, that Lamanites were cursed with a skin of
> blackness because they were bad. Now I, a descendant of Meso-American
> Indians, have dark skin. My whole life, being raised Mormon, I
> struggled with this tenant of Mormonism. Why is it that no one in the
> church has a problem with this? ...
** For the same reason that Thomas Jefferson and George Washington had no
problem with their owning slaves when the words "all men are created
equal" were boldly penned in the Declaration of Independance -- i.e.,
Denial of Reality, the greatest human Malady. - Why did it take over 2
centuries for the (white) Jeffersonian Society to admit that the love of
Jefferson's life was a slave woman who was half African? -- Sally
Hemings, whose male decendants carry a rare Jefferson-family DNA
sequence. When the results of the DNA testing were published, the
Jeffersonian Society caved in and invited Hemings' decendants to join.
So if "God" hates people with dark skin, howcome he gave niggah wimmen
such delightsome posteriors?
--
Rich Measures, 805-386-3734, www.vcnet.com/measures
^^ is a spam trap in adr
€ R.L. Measures €
<Circle_314...@hotmail.com> wrote:
** all of which suggests that organized religions were invented on Earth,
not way up yonder.
cheers, Mike
€ R.L. Measures €
** One survey of mormons showed that members value the social aspect of
the faith more than the doctrine. Next time you are visiting a mormon
home, remove some mormon books from the bookshelf and see if the spine has
ever been cracked by having been opened.
McSorley
<snip>
>
> So if "God" hates people with dark skin, howcome he gave niggah wimmen
> such delightsome posteriors?
Where does it say that "God hates people with dark skin"? They just say its
a curse, wouldn't you say for the most part it has been. Did you see the
Oscar's? Yes two Black or dark skinned people won but that not my point, it
is that even now we still make a big deal over the color of skin. I see
them as great actors, but to the world and to themselves they were great but
*black* actors. Who cares that they are black? everyone. That's the curse.
We cannot see past the color of peoples skin, at least as a whole.
Mike Riley
Duwayne Anderson
> > "jack_the_mormon" <Jack_th...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:4f8f6ffd.02121...@posting.google.com...
>
> > The BOM says, in 2 NE 5:21, that Lamanites were cursed with a skin of
> > blackness because they were bad. Now I, a descendant of Meso-American
> > Indians, have dark skin. My whole life, being raised Mormon, I
> > struggled with this tenant of Mormonism. Why is it that no one in the
> > church has a problem with this? Can't they see this blatant racism in
> > the "most correct book" on earth? Or are they afraid that if they see
> > it they have to ask hard questions and they are afraid of the answers?
> >
> > Throughout Seminary I would ask my teachers the same question - they
> > told me to pray harder because my testimony was weak. Throughout my
> > mission I was told if I didn't believe in the church to go home -
> > whenever I asked this question. I JUST WANTED AN ANSWER! At BYU my
> > religion professors shied away from this topic and refused to give me
> > a direct answers. When I ask other active dark-skinned Mormons, if I
> > catch them in a truly sincere and introspective moment, they agree
> > that it bothers them but they say they try not to think about it too
> > hard. The whole thing makes me sick.
>
> Some day there might be revelation that the language is cruel,
A revelation that the revelation was cruel? That's quite the house of
cards you have, Mike.
> not to
> mention ridiculous in this day and age. You'd think we hadn't landed a man
> on the moon the way things are going.
>
> Meanwhile... "meanwhile" takes on a whole new definition. Meanwhile, back
> at cruel Moses & Jehovah. Well... too much is sickening when you take it at
> face value.
Well, you can always hope for a revelation saying that revelation was
wrong, too.
Duwayne Anderson
American Quarter Horse: The ultimate all-terrain vehicle
Mike W
> news:^2^-1912020...@207.178.185.100...
Or that way up yonder has sunk in yet. We're still stuck here on Earth,
muddling through.
cheers, Rich!
--
Mike
Hold on - wait, maybe the answer's looking for you.
Mike W
> news:a42139e3.0212...@posting.google.com...
Always got to have a way to politely change one's mind. The world would
turn to chaos if that couldn't be done.
Mike
--
Atheism: Never having to ask forgiveness
Jack
This is antecdotal evidence but if it's such a curse, look at Denzel
Washington, the black guy (negro for those TBMs over 40) you mentioned
that one the oscar. He is a celebrity loved by millions of people,
and is financially secure despite not paying his tithing. He seems
sincerely happy in his marriage despite not being married in the
temple. Meanwhile, thousands of TBMs in Utah are filing for bankruptcy
or trying to get their friends and family into the latest pyramid
scheme before their trailer gets reposessed.
charles
> The BOM says, in 2 NE 5:21, that Lamanites were cursed with a skin of
> blackness because they were bad. Now I, a descendant of Meso-American
> Indians, have dark skin. My whole life, being raised Mormon, I
> struggled with this tenant of Mormonism. Why is it that no one in the
> church has a problem with this? Can't they see this blatant racism in
> the "most correct book" on earth? Or are they afraid that if they see
> it they have to ask hard questions and they are afraid of the answers?
>
> Throughout Seminary I would ask my teachers the same question - they
> told me to pray harder because my testimony was weak. Throughout my
> mission I was told if I didn't believe in the church to go home -
> whenever I asked this question. I JUST WANTED AN ANSWER!
What specifically is the question?
It appears that your question is: I think Mormons are racist, and why
don't they agree with me?
Perhaps the answer is that they do not agree with you, that you are
full of baloney, and you are just not willing to accept that answer.
McSorley
"Jack" <ja...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:f2040vgfhktjkikug...@4ax.com...
Denzel is great no matter what, but he will always be a "Black " actor and
the fact that people can't see passed that, is the curse. Despite his
celebrity, financial security, and/or how happily married (till dead do they
part) he is to his wife, that will always be an issue, first *black* this or
best *black* that. Again, *that* is the curse. Nice try but my point still
stands, you actually helped me define it. The rest of your Utah crap is
another issue of people with problems but not related directly to race and
personal in nature. My family members who live in Utah *do not* live in
trailers and are not on the brink of bankruptcy. Also you could *never* get
me to do any of those schemes. So the best you can do is shovel up
stereotypical bs or can you really provide a solid point.
Mike Riley
Jack
Oh come on. If I could show you how to become financially secure while
freeing up more time to spend with you family wouldn't you be
interested?;-) But seriously, I know I was offering negative
stereoptypes of white Utah mormons against a positive example of a
non-member black guy, but I was trying to point out how stupid the
churches racial policies are. Can the church think of an even less
sensitive way of telling black people why they are black? Actually it
used to tell them that it was because they were less valiant in the
pre-existence so at least they are making some progress. Maybe in
about 100 years the church (if it's still around) will finally declare
that black skin is not a curse from God and God doesn't care what
color our skin is.
Mike W
> Can the church think of an even less
> sensitive way of telling black people why they are black? Actually it
> used to tell them that it was because they were less valiant in the
> pre-existence so at least they are making some progress. Maybe in
> about 100 years the church (if it's still around) will finally declare
> that black skin is not a curse from God and God doesn't care what
> color our skin is.
Which leaves me wondering how it all started. Could it be Egyptian? Ra...
the sun god. Too much time buggin' Ra and look what happens?
I don't know... it's still crazy in this interconnected world but history...
history... it gets you wondering.
Mike
peacebeuponyou2000
give me one good reason why i should like you.
McSorley
Not anymore. I want to buy my stuff at the store, not from Bob.
But seriously, I know I was offering negative
> stereoptypes of white Utah mormons against a positive example of a
> non-member black guy, but I was trying to point out how stupid the
> churches racial policies are.
Church racial policies? - I think it is any Bible accepting church that
believes this.
Can the church think of an even less
> sensitive way of telling black people why they are black?
you are the one who says it insensitively.
Actually it
> used to tell them that it was because they were less valiant in the
> pre-existence so at least they are making some progress.
Stupid rumors.
Maybe in
> about 100 years the church (if it's still around) will finally declare
> that black skin is not a curse from God and God doesn't care what
> color our skin is.
God does not care what color are skin is, but some people on this planet are
born with different color skin and the bible and BOM teach that it has been
a curse from God in some instances. I think it is always a curse.
Mike Riley
Tommy
>> used to tell them that it was because they were less valiant in the
>> pre-existence so at least they are making some progress.
>
> Stupid rumors.
Heh...it always cracks me up when a member knows so little about their own
church. How long have you been a member?
TheJordan6
>Date: 12/18/2002 8:50 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <4f8f6ffd.02121...@posting.google.com>
It's good to see that there's at least one Amerind Mormon who is disgusted with
the racist doctrine (although I've corresponded with another mixed-race
Amerind/black Mormon, who is a columnist with a national publication, who
abandoned Mormonism in part over the issue).
A couple of weeks ago, a pro-Mormon poster on ARM cited an alleged publication
where 14 African-American Mormons stated that they had no problems with the
church's past teachings and policies concerning Negroes. The article was
designed to silence critics of such doctrines on the basis of "If black Mormons
don't have a problem with it, why are critics still bringing it up?"
And then Lee Paulson, a non-Mormon poster on ARM, recounted her experience with
some black Mormon friends who told her that when they learned about the actual
specific teachings and policies about Negroes, they were very disturbed and
were contemplating whether they should continue their involvement in Mormonism.
The reason I write this is that I will personally not believe that any black or
Amerind Mormon "doesn't have a problem" with the church's teachings about their
races until I know firsthand that those black and Amerind Mormons know exactly
what LDS leaders have taught about them. I highly suspect that such black and
Amerind Mormons are not even aware of those teachings, and I believe that
because I was born and raised Mormon, was very active in it until I was 35
years old, and I myself was not exposed to those teachings, because they are
not mentioned in the modern curriculum that church leaders publish for Mormons
to study. I had to go outside of modern church-published materials to learn
the facts. When I DID learn the facts, I was disgusted (even as a white
American Mormon), and learning those facts was part of why I resigned from the
LDS church.
So, I'll believe that black and Amerind Mormons have no problems with such
doctrines as soon as I know personally that they are aware of the doctrines in
the first place.
Randy J.
Chad Shaw
Ok D1 (Don) how many times am I supposed to hit my head on the sidewalk?
Can I use a brickwall or does it have to be a sidewalk?
Just kiddin' Mike -- but do you give out aspirin with your posts?
TheJordan6
>Date: 12/19/2002 11:17 AM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <ehmM9.64$W25....@news.uswest.net>
>
>
><snip>
>>
>> So if "God" hates people with dark skin, howcome he gave niggah wimmen
>> such delightsome posteriors?
>Where does it say that "God hates people with dark skin"?
It doesn't say God hates them, but since the god of Mormonism is supposedly
omnipotent, he should have been able to perceive that turning the Cainites' and
Lamanites' skins dark would cause them to be discriminated against by
lighter-skinned people, which it has. IOW, the god of Mormonism is an
incompetent fool for creating the conditions by which entire races of his own
children have been discriminated against, reviled, and persecuted, for
millenia.
>They just say its
>a curse, wouldn't you say for the most part it has been.
Dark skin has only been a "curse" to dark-skinned people because
lighter-skinner people have discriminated against them solely because of their
dark skin color.
Of course, the whole "god turned their skins dark" is just another silly Mormon
teaching to begin with. The fact is that Negroes' and Amerinds' skins have
been just as dark as they are today, for eons before the time of the "curses"
that the god of Mormonism allegedly placed upon them. That being the case, the
whole Mormon business about dark skin being a "curse from God" is merely a
man-made falsehood, which has been invented and perpetuated solely so that
light-skinned people can discriminate against dark-skinned people. And that,
my friend, is called "racism."
And it should go without saying that that also means that the alleged reason
for withholding the LDS priesthood from Negroes was bogus from the outset.
>Did you see the
>Oscar's? Yes two Black or dark skinned people won but that not my point, it
>is that even now we still make a big deal over the color of skin. I see
>them as great actors, but to the world and to themselves they were great but
>*black* actors. Who cares that they are black? everyone. That's the curse.
>We cannot see past the color of peoples skin, at least as a whole.
>
>Mike Riley
The reason it was noteworthy that two black actors won Oscars is that it shows
how far our nation has progressed in racial issues since the Civil Rights era.
IOW, the conversation about the winners' race is a *positive* thing.
On the flip side, the Mormon doctrines of how Negroes' and Amerinds' skin
became dark is factually false, offensive, and repugnant, and LDS church
leaders have never removed nor disavowed any of those racist teachings.
Thus, by continuing to perpetuate their false dogma concerning the origins of
that dark skin, as outlined in the Book of Mormon, Book of Moses, Book of
Abraham, and the many statements of LDS leaders on the subject, the LDS church
is perpetuating the 19th-century racism which our more enlightened (pardon the
pun) modern society is attempting to disavow and correct.
Therefore, the only way the LDS Church can align themselves with enlightened
21st-century society is to admit that their racist teachings are false, disavow
their past leaders who disseminated such dogma, and expunge all material from
their canon that perpetuates the false teachings.
Until the LDS church does that, they will continue to receive cricitism on the
subject until time immemorial. The ball is in LDS leaders' court. If they
don't want to be thought of as a racist religion, they need to remove and
disavow all vestiges of their racist dogma.
Randy J.
Duwayne Anderson
Not really. Lots of people manage to repent. But the fat heads in
SLC certainly seem to think that repentance will cause them to have
heart failure.
Duwayne Anderson
American Quarter Horse: The ultimate all-terrain vehicle.
TheJordan6
>Date: 12/19/2002 5:02 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <Xns92E9A47D57F54...@64.154.60.187>
Maybe he joined up in '79. :-)
Randy J.
TheJordan6
>Date: 12/19/2002 5:17 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <yOrM9.22492$K5.14241@fe01>
<chuckle> Now you know why I rarely respond to Mike.
Randy J.
jack_the_mormon
Good point. I was just stating my story and not really aking a
question. OK then, I will ask a question. What does 2 Nephi 5:21
mean? Don't Mormons consider it racist? Why or why not?
>
> It appears that your question is: I think Mormons are racist, and why
> don't they agree with me?
>
My frustration is that nobody would ever speak frankly about this
obvious hole in Mormon theology with me.
> Perhaps the answer is that they do not agree with you, that you are
> full of baloney, and you are just not willing to accept that answer.
>
Why am I full of baloney? Please respectfully explain why? The
problem is - Mormons cannot answer this race question - so they, 1)
avoid it or 2) the more mean-spirited ones, like you, revert to name
calling (baloney) instead of addressing the issue.
You say I am "not willing to accept the answer" - but you never say
what the answer is. Please tell me - I am sincerely interested. If
any Mormon can genuinely explain this verse in the BOM then I will
listen and give their answer honest introspection. BUT NOBODY CAN.
WHY NOT?!?!?
Manning Helper
White _and_ fair _and_ delightsome, vs. a skin of blackness.
Consider how the facial skin of a heavy smoker appears as opposed to
the facial skin of a non-smoker (who doesn't have to work in a
smoke-filled office).
If you've ever known a heavy smoker who quit, you might have noticed
the skin becoming lighter the longer they abstain.
(No Duwayne, I don't have surveys and numbers and glossies. Just
informal observation.)
The Nephites thought white and fair was delightsome apparently, so God
darkened the skin of the Lamanites, or perhaps allowed the skin to
darken through the natural effects of their lifestyle.
Jacob 3: 8, by the way, points out that the Nephites could lose their
precious whiteness by sinning, and that the Lamanites would become
whiter than the Nephites should they repent.
But, while 3 Nephi 2: 15, 16 does say that they became white and fair,
you should note that it doesn't say it happened overnight. The first
conversions, however, had occurred at least ninety years previous to
the mentioning that of the lifting of the curse. So the lifting of the
curse apparently took some time.
(Yes, Duwayne, more than ninety years have passed since the first
native Americans were converted to Christianity. I am aware of that.)
Now, if the Lehites had been an olive-skinned race, and thought olive
was cool, one might suppose that the curse could have been a curse of
paleness.
The important issue was not the skin color. Compare the number of
verses talking about skin color to the number of verses talking about
calling those stupid back-sliding Nephites to repentance.
Take it for what it costs you.
Joel, the sock puppet.
€ R.L. Measures €
<mizl...@netscape.com> wrote:
> <snip>
> >
> > So if "God" hates people with dark skin, howcome he gave niggah wimmen
> > such delightsome posteriors?
>
> Where does it say that "God hates people with dark skin"?
** according to "Prophet" Smith, God gave 'em dark skin as punishment for
some real bad stuff they did in the "preexistance".
>They just say its
> a curse, wouldn't you say for the most part it has been. Did you see the
> Oscar's? Yes two Black or dark skinned people won but that not my point, it
> is that even now we still make a big deal over the color of skin.
** I went to college with a number of foreign students from Africa. None
of 'em had skin like Halle Berry. 99% of us white guys would probably
crawl over Anna Nicole to get to Halle.
>I see
> them as great actors, but to the world and to themselves they were great but
> *black* actors. Who cares that they are black? everyone. That's the curse.
> We cannot see past the color of peoples skin, at least as a whole.
>
** During the Summer months in Africa, white skin carries a curse called
Melanoma.
cheers, Mike
€ R.L. Measures €
<Circle_314...@hotmail.com> wrote:
** Only the future will tell.
>
> --
> Mike
>
> Hold on - wait, maybe the answer's looking for you.
** I see it as significant that all of this planet's computer viruses and
99% of the $alvation plans were invented by guys.
€ R.L. Measures €
peacebeup...@yahoo.com (peacebeuponyou2000) wrote:
> so anyone who doesn't like you is bad??
>
> give me one good reason why i should like you.
Clueless
Duwayne Anderson
<snip>
> The Nephites thought white and fair was delightsome apparently, so God
> darkened the skin of the Lamanites, or perhaps allowed the skin to
> darken through the natural effects of their lifestyle.
<snip>
Instead of listening to Manning Helper tell you what he thinks the
Book of Mormon says, let's just quote the damned thing:
"And he [the evil LDS god] 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." [2 Nephi 5:21]
charles
>
> Good point. I was just stating my story and not really aking a
> question. OK then, I will ask a question. What does 2 Nephi 5:21
> mean? Don't Mormons consider it racist? Why or why not?
Give us your definition of racism.
> >
> > It appears that your question is: I think Mormons are racist, and why
> > don't they agree with me?
> >
> My frustration is that nobody would ever speak frankly about this
> obvious hole in Mormon theology with me.
>
> > Perhaps the answer is that they do not agree with you, that you are
> > full of baloney, and you are just not willing to accept that answer.
> >
> Why am I full of baloney? Please respectfully explain why?
I have two daughters married to Hispanics. We have missionaries going
throughout the world, to virtually every nation that will receive us.
Almost half of the LDS population is hispanic. We have General
Authorities who are of many races.
You are full of baloney.
€ R.L. Measures €
duwa...@hotmail.com (Duwayne Anderson) wrote:
** this is pretty damn delightsome, Duwayne. Thanks
McSorley
"Tommy" <to...@spiinc-tx.com> wrote in message
news:Xns92E9A47D57F54...@64.154.60.187...
> > Actually it
> >> used to tell them that it was because they were less valiant in the
> >> pre-existence so at least they are making some progress.
> >
> > Stupid rumors.
>
> Heh...it always cracks me up when a member knows so little about their own
> church.
You are lame. I am saying that people in the church we spreading rumors
when they taught that, unless you can quote a GA teaching that.
>How long have you been a member?
Forever.
>
It always cracks me up when you guys leave the church and become nothing.
Maybe I'm wrong. What do you believe? Are you Catholic, Jewish, maybe
Buddhist, probably Joe's Christian Church #4123.
McSorley
"TheJordan6" <thejo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20021219181812...@mb-ms.aol.com...
I was born in 76 - Do the math.
McSorley
> In article <ehmM9.64$W25....@news.uswest.net>, "McSorley"
> <mizl...@netscape.com> wrote:
>
> > <snip>
> > >
> > > So if "God" hates people with dark skin, howcome he gave niggah wimmen
> > > such delightsome posteriors?
> >
> > Where does it say that "God hates people with dark skin"?
>
> ** according to "Prophet" Smith, God gave 'em dark skin as punishment for
> some real bad stuff they did in the "preexistance".
Punishment <> Hate
How do you discipline *your* kids.
I'm not going to waste time with you half-cocked theories.
<snip more waste of newsgroup readers time>
McSorley
Why does it even matter, oh because the curse seems like its lifting.
>
> On the flip side, the Mormon doctrines
not *just* Mormon
of how Negroes' and Amerinds' skin
> became dark is factually false,
oh come on, is evolution factual?
> offensive,
Your offensive, but that doesn't stop you.
and repugnant, and LDS church
> leaders have never removed nor disavowed any of those racist teachings.
the would get flake from you for trying to change the Bible.
> Thus, by continuing to perpetuate their false dogma
prove its false or say I believe its false.
concerning the origins of
> that dark skin, as outlined in the Book of Mormon, Book of Moses, Book of
> Abraham, and the many statements of LDS leaders on the subject, the LDS
church
> is perpetuating the 19th-century racism which our more enlightened (pardon
the
> pun) modern society is attempting to disavow and correct.
>
> Therefore, the only way the LDS Church can align themselves with
enlightened
Doesn't work that way.
> 21st-century society is to admit that their racist teachings are false,
Maybe they are not, and what you can science, is really Gods work.
disavow
> their past leaders who disseminated such dogma, and expunge all material
from
> their canon that perpetuates the false teachings.
>
> Until the LDS church does that, they will continue to receive cricitism on
the
> subject until time immemorial.
from you, but who cares about that?
The ball is in LDS leaders' court. If they
> don't want to be thought of as a racist religion, they need to remove and
> disavow all vestiges of their racist dogma.
>
Fine, you *think* the Mormon church is some brainwashing Corp, out to rule
the world, like Cobra, and here you come, GI Joe to save the day. Whatever.
What church should I join. It would have to be a church that doesn't
believe Gen 4:15 I guess.
Mike Riley
wilbur
enlightened
> 21st-century society is to admit that their racist teachings are false,
disavow
> their past leaders who disseminated such dogma, and expunge all material
from
> their canon that perpetuates the false teachings.
>
I'm just curious about expunging the material from the canon... expunging
this material from the Book of Mormon would pretty much require dropping the
entire book, would it not? What about the bible? Do they edit out the
story of Cain?
Or, does it make more sense just to admit that these books are literature
and as such they contain errors and just leave the texts alone. I mean,
would you really like to see the church release its own edited versions of
the BoM and Bible? And call them what, the Non-Racist Version? It will
just never, never happen. The quorum of the twelve are either con men or
true believers. If they are con men, what would motivate them to make these
changes? They're making pretty good money now by slowly changing the
product to fit society while not making radical changes that scare off the
existing base. You want them to "do the right thing" and risk a negative
effect on the income stream? Hard to imagine. Yes, you could say that
doing the right thing now would be better for the long term, but most of
these guys won't be around for the long term, and they need secure income
for now. If the quorum of the twelve is made up of true believers, you are
asking them to change their true beliefs about the nature of scripture, are
you not. And it seems that once they make that change, and stay in the
church, they slip over into the con man category.
What advice would you give a general authority looking to repudiate racism
yet still have scriptures and tradition left to have a church left when he
was done? How would you sell a revision of the canon to the existing
membership base?
Tommy
>> >>> used to tell them that it was because they were less valiant in
the
>> >>> pre-existence so at least they are making some progress.
>> >>
>> >> Stupid rumors.
>> >
>> >Heh...it always cracks me up when a member knows so little about
their
> own
>> >church. How long have you been a member?
>>
>> Maybe he joined up in '79. :-)
>>
>> Randy J.
>
> I was born in 76 - Do the math.
>
>
>
Well...then that explains why you might know little beyond what the
church *currently* teaches. Believe me...I've been in many an Elders
Quorum meeting where the concept of blacks being less valient in the
pre-existance came up. I remember one specifically (would have been
right after my mission - maybe 1994) where this was discussed and the
only person in the room who disagreed (though not very loudly) was a
friend of mine who had served among the blacks in inner city Detroit.
""There is a reason why one man is born black and with other
disadvantages, while another is born white with great advantage. The
reason is that we once had an estate before we came here, and were
obedient, more or less, to the laws that were given us there. Those who
were faithful in all things there received greater blessings here, and
those who were not faithful received less.... There were no neutrals in
the war in heaven. All took sides either with Christ or with Satan.
Every man had his agency there, and men receive rewards here based upon
their actions there, just as they will receive rewards hereafter for
deeds done in the body. The Negro, evidently, is receiving the reward he
merits." -Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, Vol.1, pages
66-67"
Mormon Doctrine and other widely used (though some less so lately) LDS
books say much on this subject. I would do a wee bit o' research before
opining the obligatory "Stupid rumors" line.
Tommy
>> >> used to tell them that it was because they were less valiant in
>> >> the pre-existence so at least they are making some progress.
>> >
>> > Stupid rumors.
>>
>> Heh...it always cracks me up when a member knows so little about
>> their own church.
>
> You are lame. I am saying that people in the church we spreading
> rumors when they taught that, unless you can quote a GA teaching that.
I did in my other post to you. Let me know if you didn't see it and I'll
repost it here.
There are MANY references to find on this subject. I guess I shouldn't be
surprised that the church is now trying hard to cover up such remarks and
beliefs. Not very helpful to missionary efforts in African I would
imagine.
>>How long have you been a member?
>
> Forever.
Reminds me of the song "Forever is a long, long time..." in the very lame
Saturday's Warrior remake - Star Child.
> It always cracks me up when you guys leave the church and become
> nothing. Maybe I'm wrong. What do you believe? Are you Catholic,
> Jewish, maybe Buddhist, probably Joe's Christian Church #4123.
That's like saying "It cracks me up when one get's out of prison and
doesn't go find another prision...". Why in the world would I shackle
myself to another organized religion? I search for truth every day...but
just because I haven't jumped head first into the next God scam doesn't
mean I'm "nothing". Far from it.
jack_the_mormon
> Jack_th...@yahoo.com (jack_the_mormon) wrote in message news:<4f8f6ffd.02121...@posting.google.com>...
> > > What specifically is the question?
> >
> > Good point. I was just stating my story and not really aking a
> > question. OK then, I will ask a question. What does 2 Nephi 5:21
> > mean? Don't Mormons consider it racist? Why or why not?
>
> Give us your definition of racism.
>
(my comments are in parenthesis): Belief in the Superiority of a
particular race (ie. Nephites superior over Lamanites, white more
beautiful than dark skin); antagonism between people of different
races; the theory that human abilities are pre-determined by race."
> > >
> > > It appears that your question is: I think Mormons are racist, and why
> > > don't they agree with me?
> > >
> > My frustration is that nobody would ever speak frankly about this
> > obvious hole in Mormon theology with me.
> > Why am I full of baloney? Please respectfully explain why?
>
> I have two daughters married to Hispanics.
The fact that your daughters married Hispanic men makes my question
all the more relevant. How can you read 2 Nephi 5:21 and not be upset
by what it's implying.
We have missionaries going
> throughout the world, to virtually every nation that will receive us.
And this proves what?
>
> Almost half of the LDS population is hispanic.
Is their skin turning whiter? Do you believe they were given brown
skin so they would be unattractive to white people? If not, then do
you question what it says in the book that is the "cornerstone" of
your religion?
We have General
> Authorities who are of many races.
>
> You are full of baloney.
Why are you so hateful? Why does asking for an explanation in a
respectful manner make me full of baloney? My question is sincere,
please don't respond facetiously.
I believe, that you sincerely believe you are not racist. You are
probably not, in fact. But then why does that scripture not bother
you!?!?!? That is my question!!!! Why will no one answer
it!??!?!?!?!?
Duwayne Anderson
> > > What specifically is the question?
> >
> > Good point. I was just stating my story and not really aking a
> > question. OK then, I will ask a question. What does 2 Nephi 5:21
> > mean? Don't Mormons consider it racist? Why or why not?
>
> Give us your definition of racism.
>
>
> > >
> > > It appears that your question is: I think Mormons are racist, and why
> > > don't they agree with me?
> > >
> > My frustration is that nobody would ever speak frankly about this
> > obvious hole in Mormon theology with me.
> >
> > > Perhaps the answer is that they do not agree with you, that you are
> > > full of baloney, and you are just not willing to accept that answer.
> > >
> > Why am I full of baloney? Please respectfully explain why?
>
> I have two daughters married to Hispanics.
Even if that could be authenticated, beyond the obvious naked
assertion that it is, what's it got to do with the price of beans in
China?
> We have missionaries going
> throughout the world, to virtually every nation that will receive us.
This is an example of non-racism? You send missionaries out to
reclaim their lost souls, and that is an example of non-racism ....
how?
> Almost half of the LDS population is hispanic.
How does that fix the problem of the Book of Mormon claiming black
skin is used by god as a curse?
> We have General
> Authorities who are of many races.
What a bunch of baloney. LDS general authorities represent one of the
highest concentrations of white Anglo-Saxon old men a person is ever
likely to encounter.
> You are full of baloney.
No, Charles, you are ignoring the history and scriptures of your own
Church.
<snip to end>
McSorley
never heard of the "Doctrines of Salvation". You act like its straight from
the Bible or BOM. Both of which teach blackness is a curse. Either way,
why don't you explain what's going on here on earth then and let me laugh at
the holes in your story.
How is having dark skin a blessing on this earth? I think its not, its a
hurdle that people need to get past. What is that called if you don't call
it a curse? Do you disagree that it is a curse?
If it is a curse, do people get it undeservingly?
What is the story then Tom-boy? What does Pastor Joe teach you about it?
Mike Riley
McSorley
>
> > It always cracks me up when you guys leave the church and become
> > nothing. Maybe I'm wrong. What do you believe? Are you Catholic,
> > Jewish, maybe Buddhist, probably Joe's Christian Church #4123.
>
> That's like saying "It cracks me up when one get's out of prison and
> doesn't go find another prision...".
HAHAHA *PRISON*. Why is it prison Tommy. Cus ya can't drink coffee. You
can't swear. You can't have sex with whoever. Really! How is it prison...
here that should be enough room for you!
> Why in the world would I shackle
> myself to another organized religion?
Well I *have* gone to other churches too and noticed that there is something
special about the Mormon church and that all others are just not the same to
me but I know that is not what you mean.
> I search for truth every day...
Oh really, what % of the day are you searching and what % are you bashing?
>but
> just because I haven't jumped head first into the next God scam doesn't
> mean I'm "nothing". Far from it.
>
Far from anything though, you still a human being relying on faith. But
hey, maybe your on to something. Call every Church a scam and that way you
can make up your own rules. Yeah, cool... okay and then say na nana *na*
na... and laugh at people who choose to live a certain way and follow who
they believe is a prophet. It accomplishes nothing but sure is fun. Just
create the rule that you don't have to accomplish anything to go to heaven
or whatever *you* want to call it. I can see why you chose that life,
hopefully if you keep teasing the Mormons you will *really* convince
yourself that you are better off and finally leave us alone.
Mike
€ R.L. Measures €
<mizl...@netscape.com> wrote:
> "? R.L. Measures ?" <^2^@vc.net> wrote in message
> news:^2^-2012020...@207.178.185.100...
> > In article <ehmM9.64$W25....@news.uswest.net>, "McSorley"
> > <mizl...@netscape.com> wrote:
> >
> > > <snip>
> > > >
> > > > So if "God" hates people with dark skin, howcome he gave niggah wimmen
> > > > such delightsome posteriors?
> > >
> > > Where does it say that "God hates people with dark skin"?
> >
> > ** according to "Prophet" Smith, God gave 'em dark skin as punishment for
> > some real bad stuff they did in the "preexistance".
>
> Punishment <> Hate
>
> How do you discipline *your* kids.
>
** I have two DNA defects. I decided not to pass them on the the gene pool.
> I'm not going to waste time with you half-cocked theories.
>
** This is "Prophet" Smith's story, not mine.
RTBaird
"charles" <cdo...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:e877bb3f.0212...@posting.google.com...
> Jack_th...@yahoo.com (jack_the_mormon) wrote in message
news:<4f8f6ffd.02121...@posting.google.com>...
> > > What specifically is the question?
> >
> > Good point. I was just stating my story and not really aking a
> > question. OK then, I will ask a question. What does 2 Nephi 5:21
> > mean? Don't Mormons consider it racist? Why or why not?
>
> Give us your definition of racism.
>
>
> > >
> > > It appears that your question is: I think Mormons are racist, and why
> > > don't they agree with me?
> > >
> > My frustration is that nobody would ever speak frankly about this
> > obvious hole in Mormon theology with me.
> >
> > > Perhaps the answer is that they do not agree with you, that you are
> > > full of baloney, and you are just not willing to accept that answer.
> > >
> > Why am I full of baloney? Please respectfully explain why?
>
> I have two daughters married to Hispanics. We have missionaries going
> throughout the world, to virtually every nation that will receive us.
>
> Almost half of the LDS population is hispanic. We have General
> Authorities who are of many races.
>
> You are full of baloney.
>
Was the priesthood ban illegitimate and uninspired? Do I hear a "no"?
Anyone who claims that it *was* or was even *possibly* legitimate is
supporting a position of racial preference, and is therefore a racist.
You might as well be claiming that slavery was legitimate while considering
yourself exempt from criticism because it's no longer practiced.
The racism is in mormon *ideology* regardless of whether or not it is
actually practiced.
RTBaird
John Lemings
never heard of the "Doctrines of Salvation".<
>You act like its straight from the Bible or BOM. Both of which teach blackness is a curse.<
>What does Pastor Joe teach you about it?<
John Lemings
when they taught that, unless you can quote a GA teaching that.<
I observed that they were also among the noble and great ones who were chosen in the beginning to be rulers in the Church of God.
D & C 138:55
Based on those passages in LDS scripture we get these teachings from LDS leaders:
"I have already told you that the spirits of men and women, all had a previous existence, thousands of years ago, in the heavens, in the presence of God; and I have already told you that among them are many spirits that are more noble, more intelligent than others."
Journal of Discourses, vol. 1, p. 62
"We are, notwithstanding our weaknesses, the best people in the world. I do not say that boastingly, for I believe that this truth is evident to all who are willing to observe for themselves. We are morally clean, in every way equal, and in many ways superior to any other people."
Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 1, p. 236
"There is a reason why one man is born black and with other disadvantages, while another is born white with great advantages. The reason is that we once had an estate before we came here, and were obedient, more or less, to the laws that were given us there. Those who were faithful in all things there received greater blessings here, and those who were not faithful received less."
Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 1, p. 61
Tommy
>> disadvantages, while another is born white with great advantage. The
>> reason is that we once had an estate before we came here, and were
>> obedient, more or less, to the laws that were given us there. Those
>> who were faithful in all things there received greater blessings
>> here, and those who were not faithful received less.... There were no
>> neutrals in the war in heaven. All took sides either with Christ or
>> with Satan. Every man had his agency there, and men receive rewards
>> here based upon their actions there, just as they will receive
>> rewards hereafter for deeds done in the body. The Negro, evidently,
>> is receiving the reward he merits." -Joseph Fielding Smith,
>> Doctrines of Salvation, Vol.1, pages 66-67"
>>
>> Mormon Doctrine and other widely used (though some less so lately)
>> LDS books say much on this subject. I would do a wee bit o' research
>> before opining the obligatory "Stupid rumors" line.
>>
> Its so funny to me that you say that that is what the church teaches,
> I have never heard of the "Doctrines of Salvation". You act like its
> straight from the Bible or BOM. Both of which teach blackness is a
> curse. Either way, why don't you explain what's going on here on
> earth then and let me laugh at the holes in your story.
Heh...never heard of Doctrine's of Salvation....that says it all. Come
back and play when you have read a bit more about what you former
PROPHETS taught.
As for "what's going on here" - you lost me...
> How is having dark skin a blessing on this earth?
Never called it a blessing. Where'd ya get that?
> I think its not, its
> a hurdle that people need to get past. What is that called if you
> don't call it a curse? Do you disagree that it is a curse?
I absolutely disagree that it's a curse. You know what - why don't you
call the Salt Lake CES office and ask them if the Mormon church *still*
teaches that it's a curse. You may find you're standing on a lonely
platform even within the church these days.
What is it if not a curse? Um....dark skin.
> If it is a curse, do people get it undeservingly?
Not a curse. People get it from genetics just like I got my fathers
thin frame. I guess you could say I'm "cursed" in that my body was not
cut out for football...but that's a bit of a stretch eh?
> What is the story then Tom-boy? What does Pastor Joe teach you about
> it?
No story here Mike-boy. Only thing of note is that you were
*completely* wrong when you suggested that it's a "rumor" that the LDS
church taught that blacks were less valient in the pre-existance. Now
you're trying to branch the argument into something else...not sure
what. Bottom line - I just showed you a quote from a prophet. I could
show you others. What's your response?
Tommy
>> doesn't go find another prision...".
>
> HAHAHA *PRISON*. Why is it prison Tommy. Cus ya can't drink coffee.
> You can't swear. You can't have sex with whoever. Really! How is it
> prison...
Don't drink coffee. Never really thought swearing was attractive.
Don't bounce around in sex partners. Have had 2 in my life - the second
will be my last (and the first did not occur until marraige).
Swing your sword - you'll not find a hit. Prisons come in many forms.
> here that should be enough room for you!
*sigh* You're a funny guy~!
>> Why in the world would I shackle
>> myself to another organized religion?
>
> Well I *have* gone to other churches too and noticed that there is
> something special about the Mormon church and that all others are just
> not the same to me but I know that is not what you mean.
Lost me again....What's that have to do with anything?
>> I search for truth every day...
>
> Oh really, what % of the day are you searching and what % are you
> bashing?
"Bashing" is relative. To me - all Im doing is sharing truth with
others. I'm supplying the truth I wished I had had available to me when
I was younger. Of course...since you have never heard of Doctrines of
Salvation you obviously don't really care much about what your church
teaches beyond the 3 hours you get each week. So you're not the type to
dig into anything anyway...
>>but
> Far from anything though, you still a human being relying on faith.
> But hey, maybe your on to something. Call every Church a scam and
> that way you can make up your own rules. Yeah, cool... okay and then
> say na nana *na* na... and laugh at people who choose to live a
> certain way and follow who they believe is a prophet.
I never say "nana". I say..."hey....do you know what your church REALLY
teaches and what REALLY happened 150+ years ago?". That's it.
> It accomplishes
> nothing but sure is fun. Just create the rule that you don't have to
> accomplish anything to go to heaven or whatever *you* want to call it.
> I can see why you chose that life, hopefully if you keep teasing the
> Mormons you will *really* convince yourself that you are better off
> and finally leave us alone.
I AM better off. But people who learn something of value tend to want
to share it. I did when I was young and served a 2 year mission. Now
I have something of value that I again feel the need to share. Mock the
reasons I do so and you mock the very reasons missionaries serve for
your church.
Tim, Some call me
> You didn't "become white and delightsome"? None of my
> elementary school friends who were yanked out of their
> homes by the Lamanite placement program did either.
They just all received the nickname "Tom Trails" once they
reached high school.
--
"When Robert Kennedy ran for president, we supported him. We're
proud of it. And if he had lived and been elected, we wouldn't
have had all these problems over all these years."
--Bill Clinton
Tim, Some call me
> Where does it say that "God hates people with dark skin"?
> They just say its a curse
God curses because he loves. In that way, he's similar to Don
Rickles.
Tim, Some call me
> How is having dark skin a blessing on this earth?
Fewer skin cancers.
€ R.L. Measures €
<tim...@somecall.me> wrote:
> "McSorley" <mizl...@netscape.com> posted:
>
> > How is having dark skin a blessing on this earth?
>
> Fewer skin cancers.
>
** Melanoma is a fast-track to salvation.
Xan Du
"Tim, Some call me" <tim...@somecall.me> wrote in message
news:Xns92EB1A0E52...@216.168.3.44...
> dangerous1 <dange...@dangerous1.com> posted:
>
> > You didn't "become white and delightsome"? None of my
> > elementary school friends who were yanked out of their
> > homes by the Lamanite placement program did either.
>
> They just all received the nickname "Tom Trails" once they
> reached high school.
No silly, they didn't really convert to the Gospel, so their skin didn't
change. I baptized six "Lamanite" kids (the 9 year-old children of inactive
"Lamanite" adults on an Indian reservation) while on my mission. They
didn't turn white after we yanked them out of the baptismal waters. And
they didn't ever go to church again either -- so it's obvious they weren't
really converted.
But damn, our stats did look good that week. We even got a write-up in the
mission newsletter!
-Xan
Xan Du
> In article <4f8f6ffd.02121...@posting.google.com>,
> Jack_th...@yahoo.com (jack_the_mormon) wrote:
>
> > bak...@aol.com (grouch) wrote in message
> news:<20021218212146...@mb-cb.aol.com>...
> > > >Subject: I'm brown-skined because my daddy was bad
> > > >From: Jack_th...@yahoo.com (jack_the_mormon)
> > > >Date: 12/18/2002 7:50 PM Central Standard Time
> > > >Message-id: <4f8f6ffd.02121...@posting.google.com>
> > > >
> > > >The BOM says, in 2 NE 5:21, that Lamanites were cursed with a skin of
> > > >blackness because they were bad. Now I, a descendant of
Meso-American
> > > >Indians, have dark skin. My whole life, being raised Mormon, I
> > > >struggled with this tenant of Mormonism. Why is it that no one in
the
> > > >church has a problem with this? Can't they see this blatant racism
in
> > > >the "most correct book" on earth? Or are they afraid that if they
see
> > > >it they have to ask hard questions and they are afraid of the
answers?
> > > >
> > > >Throughout Seminary I would ask my teachers the same question - they
> > > >told me to pray harder because my testimony was weak. Throughout my
> > > >mission I was told if I didn't believe in the church to go home -
> > > >whenever I asked this question. I JUST WANTED AN ANSWER! At BYU my
> > > >religion professors shied away from this topic and refused to give me
> > > >a direct answers. When I ask other active dark-skinned Mormons, if I
> > > >catch them in a truly sincere and introspective moment, they agree
> > > >that it bothers them but they say they try not to think about it too
> > > >hard. The whole thing makes me sick.
> > >
> > > So, what does all this lead you to conclude? G
> >
> > It leads me to doubt the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. I hate
> > to say that because I have had many good experiences while pondering
> > and spending time in the BOM - but saying that God put more melanin in
> > my skin so that my people would be less attractive to white people -
> > it makes me sick.
>
> ** One survey of mormons showed that members value the social aspect of
> the faith more than the doctrine. Next time you are visiting a mormon
> home, remove some mormon books from the bookshelf and see if the spine has
> ever been cracked by having been opened.
I've read at least the first five pages of all of mine.
One that I did manage to get completely through was Talmage's _Jesus the
Christ_. That was as good a yarn as I've ever read. Way better than the
Hardy Boys.
-Xan
Xan Du
"? R.L. Measures ?" <^2^@vc.net> wrote in message
news:^2^-1912020...@207.178.185.100...
> In article <4f8f6ffd.02121...@posting.google.com>,
> Jack_th...@yahoo.com (jack_the_mormon) wrote:
>
> > The BOM says, in 2 NE 5:21, that Lamanites were cursed with a skin of
> > blackness because they were bad. Now I, a descendant of Meso-American
> > Indians, have dark skin. My whole life, being raised Mormon, I
> > struggled with this tenant of Mormonism. Why is it that no one in the
>
> ** For the same reason that Thomas Jefferson and George Washington had no
> problem with their owning slaves when the words "all men are created
> equal" were boldly penned in the Declaration of Independance -- i.e.,
> Denial of Reality, the greatest human Malady. -
Number two on the list has to be a talent for mangling straightforward
English syntax and grammar. For this rarified elite, the standard
definitions of the words "translate", "lies" [as in dishonest statements]
and "we" need not apply.
> Why did it take over 2
> centuries for the (white) Jeffersonian Society to admit that the love of
> Jefferson's life was a slave woman who was half African? --
Politicks -- the same reason that Monica Lewinsky's waxing of Willy's winkie
doesn't constitute "seck-shul relay-shuns."
> Sally
> Hemings, whose male decendants carry a rare Jefferson-family DNA
> sequence. When the results of the DNA testing were published, the
> Jeffersonian Society caved in and invited Hemings' decendants to join.
>
> So if "God" hates people with dark skin, howcome he gave niggah wimmen
> such delightsome posteriors?
To afford His Profits with ample booty call opportunities?
Xan Du
"McSorley" <mizl...@netscape.com> wrote in message
news:EerM9.131$W25....@news.uswest.net...
>
> "Jack" <ja...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:ps340vs5a7oq1v90c...@4ax.com...
> > On Thu, 19 Dec 2002 11:16:16 -0700, "McSorley"
> > <mizl...@netscape.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >"Jack" <ja...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > >news:f2040vgfhktjkikug...@4ax.com...
> > >> On Thu, 19 Dec 2002 09:17:25 -0700, "McSorley"
> > >> <mizl...@netscape.com> wrote:
<snip>
> But seriously, I know I was offering negative
> > stereoptypes of white Utah mormons against a positive example of a
> > non-member black guy, but I was trying to point out how stupid the
> > churches racial policies are.
>
> Church racial policies? - I think it is any Bible accepting church that
> believes this.
Another good reason to reject the Bible, and churches who adhere to it.
-Xan
<snip to end>
Mike W
> news:yOrM9.22492$K5.14241@fe01...
> > "Mike W" <Circle_314...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:v0475mo...@news.supernews.com...
> > > Can the church think of an even less
> > > sensitive way of telling black people why they are black? Actually it
> > > used to tell them that it was because they were less valiant in the
> > > pre-existence so at least they are making some progress. Maybe in
> > > about 100 years the church (if it's still around) will finally declare
> > > that black skin is not a curse from God and God doesn't care what
> > > color our skin is.
> > Which leaves me wondering how it all started. Could it be Egyptian?
> > Ra... the sun god. Too much time buggin' Ra and look what happens?
> >
> > I don't know... it's still crazy in this interconnected world but
> > history... history... it gets you wondering.
> Ok D1 (Don) how many times am I supposed to hit my head on the sidewalk?
> Can I use a brickwall or does it have to be a sidewalk?
>
> Just kiddin' Mike -- but do you give out aspirin with your posts?
Aye... the brutal hit... "What the &#$*% are you talking about?!?!" Maybe
as bad as those bangs from the sidewalk :-)
Anyrate, it was a stupid little thought. I'm certain the reason behind
racist tales, is much simpler. Many tribes likely once thought the enemy
tribe was full of witches. It doesn't get much simpler than that. Divide,
separate, conquer, survive.
Mike
--
Who's finally, just maybe, got Christmas prep behind him and is ready to
head off for the holidays.
TheJordan6
>But seriously, I know I was offering negative
>> stereoptypes of white Utah mormons against a positive example of a
>> non-member black guy, but I was trying to point out how stupid the
>> churches racial policies are.
McSorley wrote:
>Church racial policies? - I think it is any Bible accepting church that
>believes this.
Ah, there's your problem, McSorley---the Bible says nothing about Cain's skin
being turned black. It only says that God placed a "mark" upon him so no one
would kill him. It says nothing about the "mark" being placed upon Cain's
descendants, either.
The only reason any "Bible accepting churches" believe that the "mark of Cain"
was "the flat nose and the black skin", (to use Brigham Young's verbiage,) is
because white Europeans wanted to justify enslaving African Negroes, so they
misrepresented what the Bible states abut Cain to serve their own selfish
interests.
Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, and other Mormon leaders merely repeated those
false, racist notions when formulating and disseminating Mormon theology. And
since Mormonism's theology concerning Negroes is based on false notions of
their white forbears, then it should go without saying that Mormonism's
theology concerning Negroes is completely false as well.
> Can the church think of an even less
>> sensitive way of telling black people why they are black?
>you are the one who says it insensitively.
No, the actual statements of Mormon leaders which tell why Negroes' skins are
dark are far more insensitive, and outright racist, than anything you or Jack
could write.
>Actually it
>> used to tell them that it was because they were less valiant in the
>> pre-existence so at least they are making some progress.
>Stupid rumors.
Readers, here's another excellent example of how LDS leaders have kept the
"meatier" doctrines from younger Mormons like McSorley; McSorley is so
ignorant of the offensive teachings that he has to believe that they are merely
"stupid rumors," invented, I suppose he believes, by offbeat, unorthodox,
unauthoritative Mormons, or perhaps by "evil anti-Mormons."
Well, McSorley, below is a bit of education in Mormon theology for you. After
you have read the following statements of Mormon leaders, tell us if you still
believe the doctrine is "stupid rumors":
“At the time the devil was cast out of heaven, there were some spirits
that did not know who had authority, whether God or the devil. They
consequently did NOT TAKE A VERY ACTIVE PART ON EITHER
SIDE, BUT RATHER THOUGHT THE DEVIL HAD BEEN ABUSED,
AND CONSIDERED HE HAD RATHER THE BEST CLAIM TO THE
GOVERNMENT. These spirits were not considered bad enough to be cast
down to hell, and never have bodies; neither were they CONSIDERED
WORTHY OF AN HONOURABLE BODY on this earth: but it came to
pass that Ham, the son of Noah, saw the nakedness of his father while he
lay drunk in his tent, and he with 'wicked joy,' ran like Rigdon, and made
the wonderful disclosure to his brethren; while Shem and Japheth took a
garment, with pity and compassion, laid it upon their shoulders—went
backwards and covered their father,... The conduct of the former
BROUGHT THE CURSE OF SLAVERY upon him, while that of the latter
secured blessings, jurisdiction, power and dominion....Canaan, the son of
Ham, received the curse; for Noah wished to place the curse as remote
from himself as possible. He therefore placed it upon his grandson instead
of his son. Now, it would seem cruel to force PURE celestial spirits into
the world through the lineage of Canaan that had been cursed. This would
be ill appropriate, putting the PRECIOUS and VILE together. But those
spirits in heaven that rather LENT AN INFLUENCE to the DEVIL,
thinking he had a little the best right to govern, but did not take a very
active part any way were required to come into the world and take bodies
in the ACCURSED lineage of Canaan; and hence the NEGRO or African
race.” (Speech of Elder Orson Hyde, delivered before the High Priests'
Quorum, in Nauvoo. April 27th, 1845, printed in Liverpool, page 30)
“Only those, however, who wickedly rebelled
against God were adjudged to deserve banishment from heaven, and
become the devil and his angels. Others there were, who may not have
rebelled against God, and yet WERE SO INDIFFERENT IN THEIR
SUPPORT OF THE RIGHTEOUS CAUSE of our Redeemer, that they
forfeited certain privileges and powers granted to those who were more
valiant for God and correct principles. We have, I think, a demonstration of
this in the seed of Ham... I believe that race is the one through which it is
ordained those spirits that were not valiant in the great rebellion in heaven
should come; who through their INDIFFERENCE OR LACK OF
INTEGRITY TO RIGHTEOUSNESS, rendered themselves unworthy of
the Priesthood and its powers, and hence it is withheld from them to this
day.” (B. H. Roberts, "The Contributor", Vol. 6, pp. 296-297)
“Of the thousands of children born today, a certain proportion of them
went to Hottentots of South Africa; thousands went to Chinese mothers;
thousands went to Negro mothers; thousands to beautiful WHITE Latter-day
Saint mothers. Now you cannot tell me that all these spirits were just
arbitrarily designated, marked, to go where they did,...
“Why is it in this Church we do not grant the Priesthood to the
Negroes?... I am convinced it is because of some things they did before
they came into this life that they have been denied the privilege.” (Melvin
J. Ballard-Crusader for Righteousness, p. 218, as quoted in The Church
and the Negro, p. 98. Ballard was the father of current LDS apostle Russell
Ballard.)
“There is a reason why one man is BORN BLACK
and with OTHER DISADVANTAGES, while another is BORN WHITE
with great advantages. The reason is that we once had an estate before we
came here, and were obedient; more or less, to the laws that were given us
there.” (Joseph Fielding Smith, "Doctrines of Salvation", Vol. 1, page 61.
Joseph Fielding Smith was president of the LDS church in 1971-72.)
“Those who were LESS VALIANT in pre-existence and who thereby had
certain spiritual restrictions imposed upon them during mortality are
known to us as the NEGROES. Such spirits are sent to earth through the
lineage of Cain, the mark put upon him for his rebellion against God and
his murder of Abel being a BLACK SKIN.” (Bruce R. McConkie, "Mormon
Doctrine", pp. 476- 477. McConkie was an LDS apostle and one of the most
highly regarded LDS theologians up until his death around 1980. I personally
met McConkie at an area conference in Atlanta, GA in 1978.)
“Though he was a rebel and AN ASSOCIATE OF LUCIFER IN PRE-EXISTENCE,
and though he was a liar from the beginning whose name
was Perdition, CAIN MANAGED TO ATTAIN THE PRIVILEGE OF
MORTAL BIRTH. Under Adam's tutelage, he began in this life to serve
God....he came out in open rebellion, fought God, worshiped Lucifer, and
slew Abel....
“As a result of his rebellion, CAIN WAS CURSED WITH A DARK
SKIN; he became the father of the Negroes, and those spirits who ARE
NOT WORTHY to receive the priesthood are born through his lineage. He
became the first mortal to be cursed as a son of perdition. As a result of his
mortal birth he is assured of a tangible body of flesh and bones in eternity,
a fact which will enable him to RULE over SATAN.” (Mormon Doctrine,
p. 102)
“Is there reason then why the type of birth we receive in this life is not
a reflection of our WORTHINESS OR LACK OF IT in the pre-existent
life?...can we account in any other of way for the birth of some of the
children of God in darkest AFRICA, or in flood-ridden CHINA, or among
the starving hordes of INDIA, while some of the rest of us are born here in
the United States? We cannot escape the conclusion that because of
performance in our pre-existence some of us are born as Chinese, some as
Japanese, some as Indians, some as Negroes, some as Americans, some as
Latter-day Saints. THESE ARE REWARDS AND PUNISHMENTS, fully
in harmony with His established policy in dealing with SINNERS AND
SAINTS, rewarding all according to their deeds....
“Let us consider the great mercy of God for a moment. A Chinese,
born in China with A DARK SKIN, and with all the handicaps of that race
seems to have little opportunity. But think of the mercy of God to Chinese
people who are willing to accept the gospel. IN SPITE OF WHATEVER
THEY MIGHT HAVE DONE IN THE PRE-EXISTENCE TO JUSTIFY
BEING BORN OVER THERE AS CHINAMEN, if they now, in this life,
accept the gospel and live it the rest of their lives they can have the
Priesthood, go to the temple and receive endowments and sealings, and
that means they can have exaltation. Isn't the mercy of God marvelous?
“Think of the Negro, CURSED AS TO THE PRIESTHOOD.... This
negro, who, in the pre-existence lived the type of life which justified the
Lord in sending him to the earth in the 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.” (Race Problems—As They Affect The Church, Address by
Mark E. Petersen at the Convention of Teachers of Religion on the College
Level, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, August 27, 1954. Petersen was an
LDS apostle until his death in the early 1980's. I personally attended a stake
conference and training meetings conducted by him in 1977.)
"Why is it that you are white
and not colored? Have you ever asked yourself that question? Who had
anything to do with your being born into the Church and not born a
Chinese or a Hindu, or a Negro? Is God such an unjust person that He
would make you white and free and make a Negro CURSED under the
CURSING OF CAIN that he sould not hold the Priesthood of God?...
“I want to talk to you just briefly about this, not with any information
that you would convey to your investigators, but that you, yourselves, may
have a better understanding of what we are doing in the mission field
today... There were three divisions of mankind in the pre-existence, and
when you are born into this life, you are born into one of these three
divisions of people. There is an imposed judgment placed upon everyone
who leaves the Spirit World just the same as there will be when they leave
this life and go into one of three places. When they left the Spirit World,
they had already been judged by what they had done in the Spirit World
and in their previous life. From what judgment is determined how they
shall be born in this life? When you understand that, you know that God is
not unjust to cause a righteous spirit to be born as a CURSED member of
the BLACK RACE or to be CURSED as one of the other people who have
been CURSED. Everything is in order.
The procreation of man is orderly
and in accordance with the plan of life and salvation.
“In keeping with this thought, when Noah went into the Ark, here
again he took with him his three sons—one representing the CURSED
LINEAGE.... Those who have been cursed in the pre-existence were born
through this lineage of Ham.
“I suppose, and you may have often heard missionaries say it or have
asked the question: Why is a Negro a Negro?
And, you have heard this answer. 'Well, they must have been neutral in the
pre-existence or they must have straddled the fence. That is the most
common saying—they were neither hot nor cold, so the Lord made them
Negroes. This, of course, is not true. The reason that spirits are born into
Negro bodies is because those spirits rejected the Priesthood of God in the
pre-existence. This is the reason why you have Negroes upon the earth.
“You will observe that when Cain was influenced by the power of
Lucifer to follow him...Cain rejected the counsel of God. He rejected again
the Priesthood as his forebearers had done in the pre-existence. Therefore,
the curse of the pre-existence was made institute through the loins of Cain.
Consequently, you have the beginning of the race of men and women into
which would be born those in the pre-existence who had rejected the
Priesthood of God....Ham reinstated the curse of the pre-existence when he
rejected the Priesthood of Noah, and in consequence of that he preserved
the curse on the earth. Therefore, the Negroes to be born thereafter, or
those who were to become Negroes, were to be born through the loins of
Ham."
(“For What Purpose?,” a talk given by Alvin R. Dyer at the
Missionary Conference in Oslo, Norway, March 18, 1961, printed in The
Negro in Mormon Theology, pp. 48-58.
Dyer later became a counselor To LDS President David O. McKay in the late
1960's.)
Now, McSorley, after reading these teachings, do you still believe that the
concept of Negroes being "less valiant in the pre-existent" is merely "stupid
rumors"?
>Maybe in
>> about 100 years the church (if it's still around) will finally declare
>> that black skin is not a curse from God and God doesn't care what
>> color our skin is.
>God does not care what color are skin is, but some people on this planet are
>born with different color skin and the bible and BOM teach that it has been
>a curse from God in some instances.
Observe, readers, the ravings of the irrational fanatic: In the same sentence,
McSorley asserts that "God does not care what color are (sic) skin is," and
then he reverses himself 180 degrees and claims that skin color "has been a
curse from God in some instances."
Tell us, McSorley, if God doesn't care what color anyone's skin is, then why
did God "curse" certain people by darkening their skin color?
> I think it is always a curse.
>
>Mike Riley
Than that belief makes you a racist. Not surprising, since your church is a
racist organization, and has been from its inception. Of course, it is obvious
from your posts that you are far too stupid to comprehend that.
Randy J.
TheJordan6
>Date: 12/20/2002 10:45 AM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <e877bb3f.0212...@posting.google.com>
>
>Jack_th...@yahoo.com (jack_the_mormon) wrote in message
>news:<4f8f6ffd.02121...@posting.google.com>...
>> > What specifically is the question?
>>
>> Good point. I was just stating my story and not really aking a
>> question. OK then, I will ask a question. What does 2 Nephi 5:21
>> mean? Don't Mormons consider it racist? Why or why not?
>
>Give us your definition of racism.
Webster's on-line defines racism as:
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and
capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a
particular race
2 : racial prejudice or discrimination
Those definitions reflect the doctrines and teachings of Mormonism towards
Negroes and Amerinds to a tee.
>> > It appears that your question is: I think Mormons are racist, and why
>> > don't they agree with me?
>> >
>> My frustration is that nobody would ever speak frankly about this
>> obvious hole in Mormon theology with me.
>>
>> > Perhaps the answer is that they do not agree with you, that you are
>> > full of baloney, and you are just not willing to accept that answer.
>> >
>> Why am I full of baloney? Please respectfully explain why?
>I have two daughters married to Hispanics. We have missionaries going
>throughout the world, to virtually every nation that will receive us.
LDS doctrine teaches that Hispanics (Amerinds) have skin color which is the
result of a "curse from God," because of the alleged "wickedness" of their
forefathers. That is racist.
>Almost half of the LDS population is hispanic.
That does not negate the fact that LDS dogma and policies are racist.
>We have General
>Authorities who are of many races.
I remember one Negroid LDS general authority in the 24 years since the 1978
priesthood ban was lifted, one Amerind general authority, and perhaps a couple
more with Hispanic or Asian lineage. Nearly all the rest are white.
>You are full of baloney.
Nothing in your response even addressed the issues under discussion, so I
suggest you try again.
Randy J.
> The
>> problem is - Mormons cannot answer this race question - so they, 1)
>> avoid it or 2) the more mean-spirited ones, like you, revert to name
>> calling (baloney) instead of addressing the issue.
>>
>> You say I am "not willing to accept the answer" - but you never say
>> what the answer is. Please tell me - I am sincerely interested. If
>> any Mormon can genuinely explain this verse in the BOM then I will
>> listen and give their answer honest introspection. BUT NOBODY CAN.
>> WHY NOT?!?!?
>
>
>
>
>
>
TheJordan6
>Date: 12/20/2002 12:29 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <AqIM9.132$d17....@news.uswest.net>>news:20021219181812...@mb-ms.aol.com...
>> >From: Tommy to...@spiinc-tx.com
>> >Date: 12/19/2002 5:02 PM Eastern Standard Time
>> >Message-id: <Xns92E9A47D57F54...@64.154.60.187>
>> >
>> >> Actually it
>> >>> used to tell them that it was because they were less valiant in the
>> >>> pre-existence so at least they are making some progress.
>> >>
>> >> Stupid rumors.
>> >
>own
>> >church. How long have you been a member?
>>
>> Maybe he joined up in '79. :-)
>>
>> Randy J.
>I was born in 76 - Do the math.
Well, at least we now know that your ignorance is the result of youth. You
were born the year I returned from my LDS mission, which was incidentally two
years before the LDS church ended its ban on giving Negroes its priesthood.
Perhaps you should consider going and getting some education in Mormon history
and theology before you undertake to debate it with people who are 1000 times
more knowledgeable in the subject than you are.
Randy J.
TheJordan6
>Date: 12/20/2002 6:26 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <FFNM9.97$0D5....@news.uswest.net>
And with that statement, you further reveal your abject ignorance.
"Doctrines of Salvation" was a three-volume set of doctrinal expoundings
authored by Joseph Fielding Smith, who was an LDS apostle and official church
historian for several decades, and was the president of the LDS Church between
David O. McKay and Harold B. Lee in the early '70s.
I purchased my copy of DOS as part of a set of paperbacks published by Deseret
Book in the late '70s, as an institute student. The set also included
"Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith," "Discourses of Brigham Young," "Gospel
Doctrine" (by Joseph F. Smith, and other works by LDS leaders.
In other words, McSorley, "Doctrines of Salvation" is a well-known,
widely-distributed, oft-quoted volume authored by one of the most
well-respected leaders and theologians in Mormon history.
You will find DOS quoted as a reference in numerous current church-published
curriculum materials. I went to www.lds.org and did a search in the "Ensign"
magazine under "Doctrines of Salvation," and it showed me the first 100
citations.
The point being, that Joseph Fielding Smith's remarks on the pre-existent state
of "spirits" which are born into Negro bodies, and the reasons why, are
orthodox LDS doctrines. The fact that you are unfamiliar with the doctrines as
well as Smith's works merely demonstrates your personal ignorance.
>You act like its straight from
>the Bible or BOM. Both of which teach blackness is a curse.
Really? Exactly where does the Bible teach that?
>Either way,
>why don't you explain what's going on here on earth then and let me laugh at
>the holes in your story.
What holes?
>How is having dark skin a blessing on this earth?
Dark skin isn't a "blessing" or a "curse." It just *is*. If some people view
dark skin as a "curse," it is only because they are racists. Like you, for
instance.
>I think its not, its a
>hurdle that people need to get past.
Why? Why isn't the color of YOUR skin a "hurdle that you need to get past"?
>What is that called if you don't call
>it a curse?
It's only a "curse" in the small, racist minds of those who believe it is.
Like you, for instance.
>Do you disagree that it is a curse?
Nope. Since scientific research strongly suggests that all human life
originated in deep dark Africa, the first humans were likely Negroid. Thus,
dark skin could not possibly be a "curse."
>If it is a curse, do people get it undeservingly?
The only way any people "get" your alleged "curse" is because racist, ignorant
philosophers invented the idea that dark skin was a "curse" to begin with, and
you are stupid enough to believe it.
>What is the story then Tom-boy? What does Pastor Joe teach you about it?
>
>Mike Riley
Pastor Joe who? Pastor Joe Smith?
Randy J.
TheJordan6
>Date: 12/20/2002 1:17 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <T1JM9.23566$K5.19536@fe01>>news:20021219174853...@mb-ce.aol.com...
>>
>> Therefore, the only way the LDS Church can align themselves with
>enlightened
>> 21st-century society is to admit that their racist teachings are false,
>disavow
>> their past leaders who disseminated such dogma, and expunge all material
>from
>> their canon that perpetuates the false teachings.
>I'm just curious about expunging the material from the canon... expunging
>this material from the Book of Mormon would pretty much require dropping the
>entire book, would it not?
Bingo. That is the only honorable thing for the LDS church to do. They should
dump the BOM anyway, since it is a fake to begin with.
>What about the bible? Do they edit out the
>story of Cain?
The story of Cain in the Bible is merely a legend like many other ancient
legends. But, in the Bible's defense, it does not say that the "curse of Cain"
was a dark skin, was Mormon theology claims it was. There isn't a single word
in the Bible to make readers think that Negroes are the descendants of Cain.
>Or, does it make more sense just to admit that these books are literature
>and as such they contain errors and just leave the texts alone.
The LDS church has greater problems than that----its racist dogma extends far
beyond its "scriptures." It has been expounded upon by numerous of its leaders
spanning 150 years.
> I mean,
>would you really like to see the church release its own edited versions of
>the BoM and Bible? And call them what, the Non-Racist Version?
The BOM is a fake, so they need to just dump it. They don't need to edit the
Bible, because the Bible does not say what Mormon dogma tries to make it say
about Cain and Negroes.
> It will
>just never, never happen.
That's okay. It doesn't have to happen. LDS leaders can just keep the BOM,
BOA, and the Book of Moses, and keep right on being criticized for its racist
dogma. It's their choice. The question is, do LDS leaders want their
organization to remain in the 19th century, or move forward into the 21st?
>The quorum of the twelve are either con men or
>true believers.
I'd say they're a combination of both.
>If they are con men, what would motivate them to make these
>changes?
Every time LDS leaders have altered offensive doctrines or policies, the church
has experienced growth and improved public image as a result (ending polygamy,
ending the priesthood ban, removing occultic and Masonic imagery from the
temple endowment ceremony). IOW, every time LDS leaders have removed more of
the "Mormonism" from their church, and altered their dogma to appear more like
an orthodox Christian church, they have benefitted. That being the case, if
church leaders removed all vestiges of its racist dogma, it should experience
growth like never before.
They can dump the above books and dogma and few Mormons would miss a beat,
because being a Mormon is more about the social life and culture than it is the
beliefs.
> They're making pretty good money now by slowly changing the
>product to fit society while not making radical changes that scare off the
>existing base. You want them to "do the right thing" and risk a negative
>effect on the income stream? Hard to imagine.
It might produce a temporary downturn, but that would be followed by greater
growth; and the new growth would "stick" better, because new Mormons wouldn't
have problems or doubts about the wacky teachings and policies and want to
leave because of them.
>Yes, you could say that
>doing the right thing now would be better for the long term, but most of
>these guys won't be around for the long term, and they need secure income
>for now.
I don't think that's an issue. GAs receive pensions for life from the church.
> If the quorum of the twelve is made up of true believers, you are
>asking them to change their true beliefs about the nature of scripture, are
>you not.
No biggee. Mormon scripture has been in a constant state of change since the
inception of Mormonism. It was a mere two years before the original 1833 "Book
of Commandments" received drastic overhauls and re-published as the 1835
"Doctrine and Covenants."
> And it seems that once they make that change, and stay in the
>church, they slip over into the con man category.
>What advice would you give a general authority looking to repudiate racism
>yet still have scriptures and tradition left to have a church left when he
>was done? How would you sell a revision of the canon to the existing
>membership base?
I'd advise them to do what they expect all their rank-and-file members to do:
Be honest in their dealings with their fellow man. Tell the membership that
the BOM, BOA, Book of Moses, and past leaders' racist dogma are all bogus,
announce that they are repudiating all those things, and let the chips fall
where they may. That's a more honest and long-lasting approach than their
current stance, which is to try to claim that the racist dogma isn't really
racist, or simply remain close-mouthed on the subject, or as GBH said, "That's
all in the past, let's forget about it." Such remarks are like putting an
aspirin on an abcessed tooth. It may ease the pain temporarily, but sooner or
later, you're goona need a root canal. What LDS leaders need to decide is how
much aspirin they are willing to apply to their abcessed tooth of racism, and
for how long.
Randy J.
€ R.L. Measures €
<xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
** you are apparently the exception.
>
> One that I did manage to get completely through was Talmage's _Jesus the
> Christ_. That was as good a yarn as I've ever read. Way better than the
> Hardy Boys.
>
** I have not partaken of it.
cheers
€ R.L. Measures €
<xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
** prophets ?
TheJordan6
>Date: 12/20/2002 7:01 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <paOM9.98$0D5....@news.uswest.net>
>
><snip>
>>
>> > It always cracks me up when you guys leave the church and become
>> > nothing. Maybe I'm wrong. What do you believe? Are you Catholic,
>> > Jewish, maybe Buddhist, probably Joe's Christian Church #4123.
>>
>> That's like saying "It cracks me up when one get's out of prison and
>> doesn't go find another prision...".
>
>HAHAHA *PRISON*. Why is it prison Tommy. Cus ya can't drink coffee. You
>can't swear. You can't have sex with whoever. Really! How is it prison...
Mormonism is a prison of the mind, McSorley, and it appears that your sentence
is life without the possibility of parole.
Randy J.
jack_the_mormon
> "TheJordan6" <thejo...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20021219174853...@mb-ce.aol.com...
> >
> > Therefore, the only way the LDS Church can align themselves with
> enlightened
> > 21st-century society is to admit that their racist teachings are false,
> disavow
> > their past leaders who disseminated such dogma, and expunge all material
> from
> > their canon that perpetuates the false teachings.
> >
>
> I'm just curious about expunging the material from the canon... expunging
> this material from the Book of Mormon would pretty much require dropping the
> story of Cain?
> Or, does it make more sense just to admit that these books are literature
> would you really like to see the church release its own edited versions of
> just never, never happen. The quorum of the twelve are either con men or
> true believers. If they are con men, what would motivate them to make these
> changes? They're making pretty good money now by slowly changing the
> product to fit society while not making radical changes that scare off the
> existing base. You want them to "do the right thing" and risk a negative
> doing the right thing now would be better for the long term, but most of
> these guys won't be around for the long term, and they need secure income
> asking them to change their true beliefs about the nature of scripture, are
> church, they slip over into the con man category.
> What advice would you give a general authority looking to repudiate racism
> yet still have scriptures and tradition left to have a church left when he
> was done? How would you sell a revision of the canon to the existing
> membership base?
Spencer W. Kimball did it with his - Blacks can now have the
Priesthood - "revelation". There was also the polygamy fiasco that
was changed as well. Mormons will believe anything the church tells
them.
If they are true believers - an honest man would ask himself - how can
I be a member of this church and continue to ignore the racism in it?
But since relatively few of the GA's do this the only other option is
your scam scenario - good call.
Xan Du
Interesting.
> > One that I did manage to get completely through was Talmage's _Jesus the
> > Christ_. That was as good a yarn as I've ever read. Way better than
the
> > Hardy Boys.
> >
> ** I have not partaken of it.
I can't offer you my copy, since it belongs to my father. I don't recommend
it highly enough for you to go out and spend significant $$$ on, tho'. Too
bad you're not on speaking terms with the missionaries -- it was required
reading on my mission, and I wouldn't be surprised if your local Elders or
Sisters had a copy.
-Xan
Xan Du
Aren't they synonymous?
-Xan
€ R.L. Measures €
thejo...@aol.com (TheJordan6) wrote:
> >From: "McSorley" mizl...@netscape.com
> >Date: 12/20/2002 7:01 PM Eastern Standard Time
> >Message-id: <paOM9.98$0D5....@news.uswest.net>
> >
> ><snip>
> >>
> >> > It always cracks me up when you guys leave the church and become
> >> > nothing. Maybe I'm wrong. What do you believe? Are you Catholic,
> >> > Jewish, maybe Buddhist, probably Joe's Christian Church #4123.
> >>
> >> That's like saying "It cracks me up when one get's out of prison and
> >> doesn't go find another prision...".
> >
> >HAHAHA *PRISON*. Why is it prison Tommy. Cus ya can't drink coffee. You
> >can't swear. You can't have sex with whoever. Really! How is it prison...
>
> Mormonism is a prison of the mind, McSorley, and it appears that your sentence
> is life without the possibility of parole.
>
> Randy J.
>
** Listen not McSorley. Randy J. - like Fawn McKay Brodie - is obviously
under contract with The Devil to destroy Faith.
€ R.L. Measures €
<xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
** They seem to think I made a deal similar to Fawn Brodie's when she
wrote Smith's bio. in 1945.
€ R.L. Measures €
<xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
** with most prophets, profits are a divine sign, along with a fresh
supply of young stuff in estrus, of course.
george shewbart
Re: I'm brown-skined because my daddy was bad
Group: alt.religion.mormon Date: Tue, Dec 24, 2002, 3:04am (EST+5) From:
thejo...@aol.com (TheJordan6)
Randy my mind is blank on the name but this guy McSorlie sounds
suspiciously like the guy who started the My Conversion thread and then
showed his abominable ignorance when you challenged him on polygamy and
MMM. My memory suggests that he too said he was 26 and his writing
style and phraseology is strikingly similar "I never heard of the
Doctrines of Salvation" "I never heard of the Mountain Meadows
Massacre: "I never heard of polygamy" "It's just rumor"
I suppose it makes no difference. These ignorant apologists write a few
outlandish posts; you show them the errors of their ways and they are
soon gone, hopefully seeded with doubts.
Job 42:14:
He named the first (daughter) Jemimah.....
Evidence that Job had a weakness for pancakes.
Xan Du
> In article <auas4o$5pmaj$1...@ID-96328.news.dfncis.de>, "Xan Du"
> <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > "? R.L. Measures ?" <^2^@vc.net> wrote in message
> > news:^2^-2412020...@207.178.185.100...
> > > In article <au7qb1$54256$1...@ID-96328.news.dfncis.de>, "Xan Du"
> > > <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > "? R.L. Measures ?" <^2^@vc.net> wrote in message
> > > > news:^2^-1912020...@207.178.185.100...
> > > > > In article <4f8f6ffd.02121...@posting.google.com>,
> > > > > Jack_th...@yahoo.com (jack_the_mormon) wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > bak...@aol.com (grouch) wrote in message
> > > > > news:<20021218212146...@mb-cb.aol.com>...
> > > > > > > >Subject: I'm brown-skined because my daddy was bad
> > > > > > > >From: Jack_th...@yahoo.com (jack_the_mormon)
> > > > > > > >Date: 12/18/2002 7:50 PM Central Standard Time
> > > > > > > >Message-id: <4f8f6ffd.02121...@posting.google.com>
<snip>
> > I can't offer you my copy, since it belongs to my father. I don't
recommend
> > it highly enough for you to go out and spend significant $$$ on, tho'.
Too
> > bad you're not on speaking terms with the missionaries -- it was
required
> > reading on my mission, and I wouldn't be surprised if your local Elders
or
> > Sisters had a copy.
> >
> ** They seem to think I made a deal similar to Fawn Brodie's when she
> wrote Smith's bio. in 1945.
Obviously a false charge, since repeated requests on my part for you to have
your Master send some voluptuous, sumptuous, succulent Succubae my way have
gone unfulfilled. <frown>
-Xan
Xan Du
Curiously, though, small numbers are also a sign of truth. Which makes me
wonder why Art Bulla has called yet another person to his Quorum of Twelve
Apostles.
-Xan
€ R.L. Measures €
<xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "? R.L. Measures ?" <^2^@vc.net> wrote in message
> news:^2^-2612020...@207.178.185.100...
> > In article <auas4o$5pmaj$1...@ID-96328.news.dfncis.de>, "Xan Du"
> > <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > ...
> > >
> > ** They seem to think I made a deal similar to Fawn Brodie's when she
> > wrote Smith's bio. in 1945.
>
> Obviously a false charge, since repeated requests on my part for you to have
> your Master send some voluptuous, sumptuous, succulent Succubae my way have
> gone unfulfilled. <frown>
>
** Please be patient Xan, Since early March, there's been a outbreak of
STDs amoung the succubae. Rumour has it that it involves some nasty kind
of virus. From what I've heard, you should consider it a blessing that
you have not been recently visited. A tip: I have had more women flash
"bedroom eyes" at me in markets than anywhere else on this planet.
€ R.L. Measures €
<xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
** lust of dominion?
jack_the_mormon
>
> Consider how the facial skin of a heavy smoker appears as opposed to
> the facial skin of a non-smoker (who doesn't have to work in a
> smoke-filled office).
> If you've ever known a heavy smoker who quit, you might have noticed
> the skin becoming lighter the longer they abstain.
>
What I notice are pale, sickly white ghosts when shut-ins don't get
enough sun or when anorexics don't enough food; and everyone running
to tanning salons to look more like healthy, dark-skinned lamanites.
> The Nephites thought white and fair was delightsome apparently, so God
> darkened the skin of the Lamanites, or perhaps allowed the skin to
> darken through the natural effects of their lifestyle.
>
To you, the racist statement above probably makes perfect sense. That
is the sad part. Why weren't the Nephites "dark-skinned and
delightsome"? Why is the "curse" a skin of darkness? I'm sure you
believe God is white too.
> Jacob 3: 8, by the way, points out that the Nephites could lose their
> precious whiteness by sinning, and that the Lamanites would become
> whiter than the Nephites should they repent.
>
More racist quotes - great. Again - the Book of Mormon proves that
fair-skinned = righteous, dark skinned = sinner. Then Mormons turn
around and say, "that's not racist" as if they actually believed it.
> But, while 3 Nephi 2: 15, 16 does say that they became white and fair,
> you should note that it doesn't say it happened overnight. The first
> conversions, however, had occurred at least ninety years previous to
> the mentioning that of the lifting of the curse. So the lifting of the
> curse apparently took some time.
>
My whole point is that skin color has NOTHING to do with
righteousness. Any intelligent person who understands melanin and
genetics can see that. So why do honest Mormons not question the
whole Skin color indicates righteouessness bullcrap?!?!
> Now, if the Lehites had been an olive-skinned race, and thought olive
> was cool, one might suppose that the curse could have been a curse of
> paleness.
>
"If"? The Lehites, if they were truly of Jewish descent - should have
been olive-skinned.
> The important issue was not the skin color. Compare the number of
> verses talking about skin color to the number of verses talking about
> calling those stupid back-sliding Nephites to repentance.
>
No - the issue is skin color. Telling me my skin has more melanin in
it so I would be ugly to fair-skinned people is as racist as it gets.
Why can't Mormons see that? They ignore it, pretend it's not there,
and continually run away from the issue. That is what 2 Nephi 5:21
says - no matter how they spin it. Why can they not see it? More to
the point, how do the honest ones explain it?
TheJordan6
>it so I would be ugly to fair-skinned people is as racist as it gets.
>Why can't Mormons see that? They ignore it, pretend it's not there,
>and continually run away from the issue. That is what 2 Nephi 5:21
>says - no matter how they spin it. Why can they not see it? More to
>the point, how do the honest ones explain it?
There's your answer---an "honest Mormon" would recognize that the BOM is
racist, and would abandon Mormonism. The Mormons who defend the BOM and claim
that it isn't racist are not honest.
Randy J.
Guy R. Briggs
<snip>
>> The Nephites thought white and fair was delightsome
>> apparently, so God darkened the skin of the Lamanites, or
>> perhaps allowed the skin to darken through the natural
>> effects of their lifestyle.
>
> To you, the racist statement above probably makes perfect
> sense.
>
It makes sense to people of the desert, as well. These people were,
after all, supposed to have come from the middle east. Travelled in the
desert a good long time to get to Bountiful.
"Now this cursing. There's a great deal said about
this race business in the Book of Mormon. It's very
clear what it is - it's a cultural thing. It tells
us here in verse 21, 'Wherefore, as they were white,
and exceedingly fair and delightsome.' That doesn't
mean they had complexions of milk, that they were
pale white and ghostly. That's not healthy anyway.
Nor does it mean that the others were coal black.
Black is much too strong a word to use here, if you
are using it literally. But, as I've said before, it
applies just as much in /shahor/ and /laban/ as it
does in Hebrew and Aramaic, and also in Arabic.
Anything that's /abyad/ is good, delightful,
pleasant; and everything that's /aswad/ isn't. In
the paintings, whether it's Greek vase paintings or
wall paintings in Egypt, the people who live in the
/bayt al-shacar/, 'the houses of hair', out in the
desert are always painted with dark complexions. The
people who live in the /bayt al-hajar/, 'the houses
of stone,' are always depicted with light
complexions."
-- Nibley, Hugh _Teachings of
the BofM, Semester 1_
Doesn't matter if your native tongue is Hebrew, Aramaic, or Arabic -
it was accepted that if you lived in the wilderness, out in the sun all
day, you were dark-complected. Even folks with more melanin in their
skin are subject to the effects of the sun. And that distinction
becomes a part of common culture if you're from the desert.
WRT this being racist, it should be remembered that Nephites and
Lamanites were not only of the same *RACE* but also of the same
*FAMILY* - so the fact that Nephites and Lamanites didn't find each
other attractive cannot logically be a problem with race.
<snip>
> My whole point is that skin color has NOTHING to do with
> righteousness.
>
Absolutely. And the Book of Mormon teaches this:
"For none of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he
doeth that which is good among the children of men;
and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the
children of men; and he inviteth them all to come
unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth
none that come unto him, *BLACK AND WHITE*, bond and
free, male and female; and he remembereth the
heathen; and *ALL ARE ALIKE UNTO GOD*, both Jew and
Gentile."
-- 2 Nephi 26:33
(emphasis mine)
Same book you find the so-called "curse" in.
>
> Any intelligent person who understands melanin and genetics
> can see that. So why do honest Mormons not question the
> whole Skin color indicates righteouessness bullcrap?!?!
>
Probably for the same reason that humanity as a whole has a tendancy
to associate color with goodness. 'Tis a cultural thing, and won't go
away until we *ALL* come to realize that we're all brothers and
sisters, children of the same God - and, as the BofM teaches, color
doesn't matter to Him.
bestRegards, Guy.
Clovis Lark
> <snip>
Date of copyright please. We just need to affirm that this doesn't belong
to the corpus Nibley disavowed...
> Doesn't matter if your native tongue is Hebrew, Aramaic, or Arabic -
> it was accepted that if you lived in the wilderness, out in the sun all
> day, you were dark-complected. Even folks with more melanin in their
> skin are subject to the effects of the sun. And that distinction
> becomes a part of common culture if you're from the desert.
> WRT this being racist, it should be remembered that Nephites and
> Lamanites were not only of the same *RACE* but also of the same
> *FAMILY* - so the fact that Nephites and Lamanites didn't find each
> other attractive cannot logically be a problem with race.
Why not? Gawd made them thar lamanites butt ugly so's them whitey and
delightsome fokes would keep to their own kin. I read it in the good
book.
> <snip>
>> My whole point is that skin color has NOTHING to do with
>> righteousness.
>>
> Absolutely. And the Book of Mormon teaches this:
> "For none of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he
> doeth that which is good among the children of men;
> and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the
> children of men; and he inviteth them all to come
> unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth
> none that come unto him, *BLACK AND WHITE*, bond and
> free, male and female; and he remembereth the
> heathen; and *ALL ARE ALIKE UNTO GOD*, both Jew and
> Gentile."
> -- 2 Nephi 26:33
> (emphasis mine)
> Same book you find the so-called "curse" in.
>>
>> Any intelligent person who understands melanin and genetics
>> can see that. So why do honest Mormons not question the
>> whole Skin color indicates righteouessness bullcrap?!?!
>>
> Probably for the same reason that humanity as a whole has a tendancy
> to associate color with goodness. 'Tis a cultural thing, and won't go
> away until we *ALL* come to realize that we're all brothers and
> sisters, children of the same God - and, as the BofM teaches, color
> doesn't matter to Him.
Correct, once yer daid (sic), gawd takes you unto his bosom. Till then,
you get to suffer the abominations of the cursing...
> bestRegards, Guy.
Duwayne Anderson
<snip Hugh Nibley's asserted opinion>
<snip Guy R. Brigg's asserted opinion>
> > My whole point is that skin color has NOTHING to do with
> > righteousness.
> >
> Absolutely. And the Book of Mormon teaches this:
>
> "For none of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he
> doeth that which is good among the children of men;
> and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the
> children of men; and he inviteth them all to come
> unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth
> none that come unto him, *BLACK AND WHITE*, bond and
> free, male and female; and he remembereth the
> heathen; and *ALL ARE ALIKE UNTO GOD*, both Jew and
> Gentile."
> -- 2 Nephi 26:33
> (emphasis mine)
For over 100 years, the LDS Church denied Blacks the right to hold the
Prieshtood. That would have been in violation of 2 Nephi 26:33.
Right, Guy? For 100 years LDS prophets, seers, and revelators opposed
god's will. After all, 2 Nephi 26:33 says that god "denieth none
...." and yet the LDS Church denied blacks full activity in the
Church. They were denied the priesthood, the endowment, eternal
marriage, etc. They were only offered *part* of the blessings of
membership. Not the full shebang. So your prophets, seers, and
revelators were in violation of god's will.
Could we even say they were apostates?
Of course, you'd have no problem saying those prophets, seers, and
revelators were apostates, and led the Church astray. Right? After
all, you deny the Facsimiles in the Book of Abraham are scripture, so
admitting that your past leaders were racist men who denied the will
of god is no problem for you. Right?
> Same book you find the so-called "curse" in.
"So called?" You say it's just a "so-called" curse in the Book of
Mormon? That's not very honest of you, Guy. Here. Let's quote the
damned thing, so people can see for themselves what it actually says:
"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." [2 Nephi 5:21].
Don't try to pretend the curse was not a "skin of blackness," either.
The Book of Mormon describes Lamanties who joined with the Nephites,
who had the curse removed, and turned white. Here is the reference:
"And it came to pass that those Lamanites who had united with the
Nephites were numbered among the Nephites; And their curse was taken
from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites." [3
Nephi 2: 14-15].
Hey, Guy. Why doesn't that sort of thing happen anymore? Why don't
the Indians that join the LDS Church turn white, like they did in the
Book of Mormon, 3 Nephi 2: 14-15? Is it because your leaders are
apostates? That would make sense. Right? That might explain things.
Who knows. Maby Art fulla bulla is right, and you should join his
Church. At least he has no difficulty saying "thus saith the Lord."
When was the last time one of YOUR prophets said that?
<snip to end>
Duwayne Anderson
American Quarter Horse: The ultimate all-terrain vehicle.
jack_the_mormon
>
> <snip>
>
> >> The Nephites thought white and fair was delightsome
> >> apparently, so God darkened the skin of the Lamanites, or
> >> perhaps allowed the skin to darken through the natural
> >> effects of their lifestyle.
> >
> > To you, the racist statement above probably makes perfect
> > sense.
> >
> It makes sense to people of the desert, as well. These people were,
> after all, supposed to have come from the middle east. Travelled in the
> desert a good long time to get to Bountiful.
>
>
> it was accepted that if you lived in the wilderness, out in the sun all
> day, you were dark-complected. Even folks with more melanin in their
> skin are subject to the effects of the sun. And that distinction
> becomes a part of common culture if you're from the desert.
Good point. So why does 2 Nephi 5:21 equate the "curse" black with
sin. white with delightsome righteousness?
>
> WRT this being racist, it should be remembered that Nephites and
> Lamanites were not only of the same *RACE* but also of the same
> *FAMILY* - so the fact that Nephites and Lamanites didn't find each
> other attractive cannot logically be a problem with race.
But it says, in 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. "
That (which you happened to skip all together) verse is my question.
How do you explain that curse - which DIRECTLY ties righteousness (and
"enticing" beauty) to skin color?
>
> > My whole point is that skin color has NOTHING to do with
> > righteousness.
> >
> Absolutely. And the Book of Mormon teaches this:
>
> "For none of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he
> doeth that which is good among the children of men;
> and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the
> children of men; and he inviteth them all to come
> unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth
> none that come unto him, *BLACK AND WHITE*, bond and
> free, male and female; and he remembereth the
> heathen; and *ALL ARE ALIKE UNTO GOD*, both Jew and
> Gentile."
>
I love that verse, honestly. "God denieth none that come unto him,
Black and White...", it is beautiful, truly.
The problem is, that it deson't clarify or answer my first question -
how do you justify 2 Nephi 5:21?
> Same book you find the so-called "curse" in.
>
Why do you say "so-called"? The Book of Mormon itself calls it a
curse.
> >
> > Any intelligent person who understands melanin and genetics
> > can see that. So why do honest Mormons not question the
> > whole Skin color indicates righteouessness bullcrap?!?!
> >
> Probably for the same reason that humanity as a whole has a tendancy
> to associate color with goodness. 'Tis a cultural thing, and won't go
> away until we *ALL* come to realize that we're all brothers and
> sisters, children of the same God - and, as the BofM teaches, color
> doesn't matter to Him.
>
I disagree with you. Society, as a whole, is learning that color has
NOTHING to do with righteousness. Sure we have a long way to go, but
generally seaking, most intelligent people today would tell you that
melanin and righteousness are not related. Problem is, with Mormons,
2 Nephi 5:21 says the opposite, and not a single honest Mormon will
admit that the verse is racist and wrong. WHY NOT? Even you in your
attempt to answer the race question, which I appreciate, avoided the
whole 2 Nephi 5:21 verse entirely.
> bestRegards, Guy.
Thanks for your insight - but the question remains - 2 Nephi 5:21, why
do Mormons ignore that racist verse and pretend as if all is well in
zion?
Jack
Xan Du
> In article <aufm4e$6tq0u$1...@ID-96328.news.dfncis.de>, "Xan Du"
> <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > "? R.L. Measures ?" <^2^@vc.net> wrote in message
> > news:^2^-2612020...@207.178.185.100...
> > > In article <auas4o$5pmaj$1...@ID-96328.news.dfncis.de>, "Xan Du"
> > > <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > ...
> > > >
> > > ** They seem to think I made a deal similar to Fawn Brodie's when she
> > > wrote Smith's bio. in 1945.
> >
> > Obviously a false charge, since repeated requests on my part for you to
have
> > your Master send some voluptuous, sumptuous, succulent Succubae my way
have
> > gone unfulfilled. <frown>
> >
> ** Please be patient Xan, Since early March, there's been a outbreak of
> STDs amoung the succubae. Rumour has it that it involves some nasty kind
> of virus. From what I've heard, you should consider it a blessing that
> you have not been recently visited.
You always have an excuse. My patience wears thin. Have your boss cure
them immediately, and send two or three my way forthwith.
> A tip: I have had more women flash
> "bedroom eyes" at me in markets than anywhere else on this planet.
Hmm, I'll be more alert.
-Xan
Xan Du
Lack of credibility.
-Xan
€ R. L. Measures
<xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "? R.L. Measures ?" <^2^@vc.net> wrote in message
> news:^2^-2612022...@207.178.185.100...
> > In article <aufm4e$6tq0u$1...@ID-96328.news.dfncis.de>, "Xan Du"
> > <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > "? R.L. Measures ?" <^2^@vc.net> wrote in message
> > > news:^2^-2612020...@207.178.185.100...
> > > > In article <auas4o$5pmaj$1...@ID-96328.news.dfncis.de>, "Xan Du"
> > > > <xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > ** They seem to think I made a deal similar to Fawn Brodie's when she
> > > > wrote Smith's bio. in 1945.
> > >
> > > Obviously a false charge, since repeated requests on my part for you to
> have
> > > your Master send some voluptuous, sumptuous, succulent Succubae my way
> have
> > > gone unfulfilled. <frown>
> > >
> > ** Please be patient Xan, Since early March, there's been a outbreak of
> > STDs amoung the succubae. Rumour has it that it involves some nasty kind
> > of virus. From what I've heard, you should consider it a blessing that
> > you have not been recently visited.
>
> You always have an excuse. My patience wears thin. Have your boss cure
> them immediately, and send two or three my way forthwith.
>
** A cure is not going to be easy, Xan. This STD is a new strain of
flesh-eating bacteria that consumes phalli like a Nile crocodile consumes
Polish sausages.
> > A tip: I have had more women flash
> > "bedroom eyes" at me in markets than anywhere else on this planet.
>
> Hmm, I'll be more alert.
>
** would you like to receive a gratis copy of Miss Naura Hayden's little
red book? If I had but known of Naura's revelations back in 3rd grade,
___________________ .
--
Rich, 805-386-3734, www.vcnet.com/measures, remove ^ from adr.
TheJordan6
>Date: 12/28/2002 6:48 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <92F2A6C47netza...@199.45.49.11>
>
>Jack_th...@yahoo.com (jack_the_mormon) wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>>> The Nephites thought white and fair was delightsome
>>> apparently, so God darkened the skin of the Lamanites, or
>>> perhaps allowed the skin to darken through the natural
>>> effects of their lifestyle.
>> To you, the racist statement above probably makes perfect
>> sense.
> It makes sense to people of the desert, as well. These people were,
>after all, supposed to have come from the middle east. Travelled in the
>desert a good long time to get to Bountiful.
> "Now this cursing. There's a great deal said about
> this race business in the Book of Mormon. It's very
> clear what it is - it's a cultural thing.
Here, his Highness Nibley is lying, because the BOM clearly states that the god
of Mormonism turned the skins of the Lamanites dark because of their wickedness
and iniquity. IOW the skin-darkening was a punishment, and had nothing to do
with "culture."
>It tells
> us here in verse 21, 'Wherefore, as they were white,
> and exceedingly fair and delightsome.' That doesn't
> mean they had complexions of milk, that they were
> pale white and ghostly. That's not healthy anyway.
Nobody ever said that the Nephites were pale-white or ghostly, Guy. That's
just Nibley's strawman. They were ostensibly Semetic. The opposite of "fair
and delightsome" would be "dark and loathsome," as the BOM states the Lamanites
were. The god of Mormonism turned the skins of the Lamanites dark because of
their wickedness, and he perpetuated that curse down until today. That's why
modern American Indians are dark-skinned, Guy, just as LDS leaders have
preached innumerable times.
> Nor does it mean that the others were coal black.
> Black is much too strong a word to use here, if you
> are using it literally. But, as I've said before, it
> applies just as much in /shahor/ and /laban/ as it
> does in Hebrew and Aramaic, and also in Arabic.
> Anything that's /abyad/ is good, delightful,
> pleasant; and everything that's /aswad/ isn't. In
> the paintings, whether it's Greek vase paintings or
> wall paintings in Egypt, the people who live in the
> /bayt al-shacar/, 'the houses of hair', out in the
> desert are always painted with dark complexions. The
> people who live in the /bayt al-hajar/, 'the houses
> of stone,' are always depicted with light
> complexions."
> -- Nibley, Hugh _Teachings of
> the BofM, Semester 1_
Nobody ever said that the Lamanites' skins were coal-black, either, Guy.
That's just Nibley's strawman. The god of Mormonism turned the wicked
Lamanites' skins 'dark and loathsome' so that the righteous Nephites would be
repulsed by their sight, and wouldn't intermarry with them. The message here
is that the dark-skinned Lamanites were so ugly that the light-skinned Nephites
wouldn't have sex with them. And that's called "racism."
Since modern LDS leaders have taught innumerable times that modern-day American
Indians are the descendants of those accursed Lamanites, then the alleged
Lamanites' skins
were obviously near the color of modern-day American Indians, rather than
being "coal-black."
> Doesn't matter if your native tongue is Hebrew, Aramaic, or Arabic -
>it was accepted that if you lived in the wilderness, out in the sun all
>day, you were dark-complected. Even folks with more melanin in their
>skin are subject to the effects of the sun. And that distinction
>becomes a part of common culture if you're from the desert.
The BOM doesn't say a word about the Lamanites' skins being dark because they
lived in the desert. In fact, that premise would be ridiculous, since they
lived in the same region as the Nephites, whose skins were supposedly lighter.
The BOM clearly states that the Lamanites' skins were dark because the god of
Mormonism magically turned them dark because they were wicked, not because they
lived in some alleged desert.
> WRT this being racist, it should be remembered that Nephites and
>Lamanites were not only of the same *RACE* but also of the same
>*FAMILY* - so the fact that Nephites and Lamanites didn't find each
>other attractive cannot logically be a problem with race.
The BOM plainly states that the god of Mormonism turned the skins of the
Lamanites dark so they wouldn't be "enticing" to the Nephites. IOW, the
message is that the dark-skinned Lamanites were too ugly and repulsive for the
Nephites to have sex with and produce mixed-color children. And that is called
"racism."
><snip>
>
>> My whole point is that skin color has NOTHING to do with
>> righteousness.
> Absolutely. And the Book of Mormon teaches this:
>
> "For none of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he
> doeth that which is good among the children of men;
> and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the
> children of men; and he inviteth them all to come
> unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth
> none that come unto him, *BLACK AND WHITE*, bond and
> free, male and female; and he remembereth the
> heathen; and *ALL ARE ALIKE UNTO GOD*, both Jew and
> Gentile."
> -- 2 Nephi 26:33
> (emphasis mine)
>
> Same book you find the so-called "curse" in.
Right. The "so-called curse" being the one where the god of Mormonism turned
the skins of the Lamanites dark because of thie supposed wickedness. That's
the same reason American Indians are dark-skinned to this day, Guy---it's
because they are the descendants of those accursed Lamanites. And let's not
forget that the BOM also claims that the Lamanites who joined the Nephite
church had their skins magically turned light again by god. The message here
is that if you are a member of the wicked, accursed, dark-skinned "bad" race,
you can get your skin magically lightened by becoming righteous and joining the
light-skinned "good" peoples' church.
So where the BOM claims that "all are alike unto God," whether they be "black
or white," apparently the god of Mormonism forgot all about the millions and
millions of modern descendants of those Lamanites, because the god of Mormonism
continues to visit his curse of dark skin upon them to this day. And
apparently, the god of Mormonism is so serious about his curse that, in spite
of Spencer W. Kimball's wishful thinking, those lamanites who join the modern
LDS church are not having their accursed dark skins lightened. Maybe they're
just not righteous enough to have white and delightsome skins like you and I
do, Guy.
Oh yea, and let's not forget about those accursed black descendants of Cain,
either---the African Negroes.
>> Any intelligent person who understands melanin and genetics
>> can see that. So why do honest Mormons not question the
>> whole Skin color indicates righteoussness bullcrap?!?!
> Probably for the same reason that humanity as a whole has a tendancy
>to associate color with goodness.
You mean, like the god of Mormonism associates lighter skins with goodness and
righteousness, and darker-colored skins with wickedness and loathsomeness?
> 'Tis a cultural thing, and won't go
>away until we *ALL* come to realize that we're all brothers and
>sisters, children of the same God - and, as the BofM teaches, color
>doesn't matter to Him.
>
>
>bestRegards, Guy.
<chuckle> Your remarks might have a smidgen of relevance if the BOM actually
taught that. But it doesn't. The BOM clearly teaches that lighter-colored
people were more "righteous" and acceptable to god, and that god literally
turned some people dark because they were "wicked" or less acceptable. And
that line of thought has been repeated by Mormon leaders since Mormonism's
inception.
And since the BOM is a 19th-century fraud, and its racist dogma is the product
of its 19th-century authors, the only way the LDS church can disavow its racism
is to disavow the fraudulent BOM. The same goes for the racist BOA and Book of
Moses.
Randy J.
Xan Du
"? R. L. Measures" <^2...@vc.net> wrote in message
news:^2-3012021...@207.178.185.100...
Since Shaitan causes all evil in this world, he should be able to un-cause
it. Tell him to cut the lame explainations, and send several disease-free
Hell-Whores to my abode immediately.
> > > A tip: I have had more women flash
> > > "bedroom eyes" at me in markets than anywhere else on this planet.
> >
> > Hmm, I'll be more alert.
> >
> ** would you like to receive a gratis copy of Miss Naura Hayden's little
> red book?
I have not yet finished Spawn Brodie's Satanic Verses yet. After that, I
must needs read Will Bagley's compilation of lies, rumo(u)rs and blasphemes
regarding the MMM. Perhaps then I shall take you up on your generous offer.
> If I had but known of Naura's revelations back in 3rd grade,
> ___________________ .
If I had not been Mormon in 8th grade, I would have been *much* friendlier
to a certain well-endowed female in my English class. (This list is nearly
endless . . . )
-Xan
Guy R. Briggs
> net...@GeoCities.com (Guy R. Briggs) wrote:
<snip>
>> Doesn't matter if your native tongue is Hebrew, Aramaic,
>> or Arabic - it was accepted that if you lived in the
>> wilderness, out in the sun all day, you were dark-
>> complected. Even folks with more melanin in their skin are
>> subject to the effects of the sun. And that distinction
>> becomes a part of common culture if you're from the desert.
>
> Good point. So why does 2 Nephi 5:21 equate the "curse"
> black with sin. white with delightsome righteousness?
>
Look at the verses in front. In chapter 4, Lehi passes away. It
appears that Nephi will fill the ensuing vacumn of leadership - he's
teaching the people to work the land, build a temple, etc. - and
Laman, Lemuel and the sons of Ishmael are none too happy about him
being de facto king.
So they try to kill him.
This is happening, we are told, somewhere between 588 and 570 BC,
only a dozen or so years into the book. The internal dissension is
threatens to eradicate both groups, and God says, "That just ain't
gonna happen." So He separates the squabbling factions.
WRT to the curse, I do not believe that you can separate v.20 and
v.21. The former says, "... they [the Lamanites] were cut off from [the
presence of the Lord]." Why? Because they had quit listening the the
Spirit, were trying to kill the prophet, and had hardened their hearts
against the Lord to the extent that they had "become like a flint."
The Lord cut them off from his presence and *THAT* is the "sore
cursing" that came upon them because of their iniquity.
"Wherefore, the word of the Lord was fulfilled which
he spake unto me, saying that: Inasmuch as they will
NOT HEARKEN unto thy words THEY SHALL BE CUT OFF
from the presence of the Lord. And behold, they WERE
CUT OFF from his presence. 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;
Skin color has nothing to do with it, except that the Lord decided
to *KEEP* the groups separate by marking one group in such a way that
they were no longer appealing to the other group.
"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."
-- 2 Nephi 5:20-21
(emphasis mine, and
not split by verse)
>>
>> WRT this being racist, it should be remembered that Nephites and
>> Lamanites were not only of the same *RACE* but also of the same
>> *FAMILY* - so the fact that Nephites and Lamanites didn't find each
>> other attractive cannot logically be a problem with race.
>
> But it says, in 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;
>
Yes. And the curse is that they are cut off from the presence of the
Lord.
>
> ... 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. "
>
God marks one groups in such a way that they are not appealing to
the other group. He didn't want to endanger the whole project by
letting the groups - one of which wanted to kill the other -
intermarry.
>
> That (which you happened to skip all together) verse is my
> question. How do you explain that curse - which DIRECTLY
> ties righteousness (and "enticing" beauty) to skin color?
>
I hope that you can now see that it doesn't have anything to do with
skin color. God says a few chapters later that color doesn't matter to
/Him/.
>>>
>>> My whole point is that skin color has NOTHING to do with
>>> righteousness.
>>
>> Absolutely. And the Book of Mormon teaches this:
>>
>> "For none of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he
>> doeth that which is good among the children of men;
>> and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the
>> children of men; and he inviteth them all to come
>> unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth
>> none that come unto him, *BLACK AND WHITE*, bond and
>> free, male and female; and he remembereth the
>> heathen; and *ALL ARE ALIKE UNTO GOD*, both Jew and
>> Gentile."
>
> I love that verse, honestly. "God denieth none that come
> unto him, Black and White...", it is beautiful, truly.
>
Agreed.
>
> The problem is, that it deson't clarify or answer my first
> question - how do you justify 2 Nephi 5:21?
>
I /don't/ justify it in the way that it is commonly interpreted by
non-Mormons (and, to be perfectly honest, some Mormons).
>>
>> Same book you find the so-called "curse" in.
>
> Why do you say "so-called"? The Book of Mormon itself calls
> it a curse.
>
A "sore curse". I said "so-called" because I don't think the dark
skin was the curse.
>>>
>>> Any intelligent person who understands melanin and genetics
>>> can see that. So why do honest Mormons not question the
>>> whole Skin color indicates righteouessness bullcrap?!?!
>>
>> Probably for the same reason that humanity as a whole has a
>> tendancy to associate color with goodness. 'Tis a cultural
>> thing, and won't go away until we *ALL* come to realize
>> that we're all brothers and sisters, children of the same
>> God - and, as the BofM teaches, color doesn't matter to Him.
>
> I disagree with you. Society, as a whole, is learning that
> color has NOTHING to do with righteousness.
>
I think they're learing that in spite of natural tendency - not
because of it.
>
> Sure we have a long way to go, ...
>
Absolutely.
>
> ... but generally seaking, most intelligent people today
> would tell you that melanin and righteousness are not
> related. Problem is, with Mormons, 2 Nephi 5:21 says the
> opposite, ...
>
Or, at least, that's what our critics would have you believe.
<remainder snipped>
bestRegards, Guy.
€ R. L. Measures
<xan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
** should does not = could.
>Tell him to cut the lame explainations, and send several disease-free
> Hell-Whores to my abode immediately.
>
** He's been testing an experimental vaccine, but it has yet to be proven
conclusively. If you are willing to participate in the followup study, He
will send three succubi who have received the vaccine, and see what
happens.
> > > > A tip: I have had more women flash
> > > > "bedroom eyes" at me in markets than anywhere else on this planet.
> > >
> > > Hmm, I'll be more alert.
> > >
> > ** would you like to receive a gratis copy of Miss Naura Hayden's little
> > red book?
>
> I have not yet finished Spawn Brodie's Satanic Verses yet. After that, I
> must needs read Will Bagley's compilation of lies, rumo(u)rs and blasphemes
> regarding the MMM.
** good news. The MMM is like unto the RC altar-boy buggery scandal.
>Perhaps then I shall take you up on your generous offer.
>
> > If I had but known of Naura's revelations back in 3rd grade,
> > ___________________ .
>
> If I had not been Mormon in 8th grade, I would have been *much* friendlier
> to a certain well-endowed female in my English class. (This list is nearly
> endless . . . )
** she was not a Saint? // 'Tis strange that it was all to be seen
before me on the playing field at elementary school recess, yet I didn't
put the puzzle pieces together until Naura's book. Male brains clearly
do better in some areas with directions. Alas. Naura's book would quite
likely have given you the keys to the well-endowed one -- as well as many
other lasses with outstanding asses. // For me, the shocker is that so
many moms are affronted by Hayden's book. If this book was required
reading for Mormon 12-yr old boys, there would undoubtedly be way less
masturbation. // When you are ready for Naura's book, send adr and I
will deliver. // The next mormon missionaries that drop by will receive
my other used copy of the book. note -- used book stores sometimes have a
copy for c. $3. However, the book os small and has few pages. The meat
of the book is Chapter 3.
Duwayne Anderson
<snip>
> The Lord cut them off from his presence and *THAT* is the "sore
> cursing" that came upon them because of their iniquity.
>
> "Wherefore, the word of the Lord was fulfilled which
> he spake unto me, saying that: Inasmuch as they will
> NOT HEARKEN unto thy words THEY SHALL BE CUT OFF
> from the presence of the Lord. And behold, they WERE
> CUT OFF from his presence. 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;
Don't try to pretend the curse was not a "skin of blackness," Guy.
Don't ignore the very clear commentary in the rest of the Book of
Mormon. The Book of Mormon describes Lamanties who joined with the
Nephites, who had the curse removed, and turned white. Here is the
reference:
"And it came to pass that those Lamanites who had united with the
Nephites were numbered among the Nephites; And their curse was taken
from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites." [3
Nephi 2: 14-15].
Notice also, that the Book of Mormon says the curse of the evil Mormon
god applied also to the children. So the evil Mormon god cursed the
children for the sins of the parents.
TheJordan6
>Message-id: <92F4C91A1netza...@199.45.49.11>
>
>Jack_th...@yahoo.com (jack_the_mormon) wrote:
>> net...@GeoCities.com (Guy R. Briggs) wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>>> Doesn't matter if your native tongue is Hebrew, Aramaic,
>>> or Arabic - it was accepted that if you lived in the
>>> wilderness, out in the sun all day, you were dark-
>>> complected. Even folks with more melanin in their skin are
>>> subject to the effects of the sun. And that distinction
>>> becomes a part of common culture if you're from the desert.
>>
>> Good point. So why does 2 Nephi 5:21 equate the "curse"
>> black with sin. white with delightsome righteousness?
>>
> Look at the verses in front. In chapter 4, Lehi passes away. It
>appears that Nephi will fill the ensuing vacumn of leadership - he's
>teaching the people to work the land, build a temple, etc. - and
>Laman, Lemuel and the sons of Ishmael are none too happy about him
>being de facto king.
>
> So they try to kill him.
>
> This is happening, we are told, somewhere between 588 and 570 BC,
>only a dozen or so years into the book. The internal dissension is
>threatens to eradicate both groups, and God says, "That just ain't
>gonna happen." So He separates the squabbling factions.
>
> WRT to the curse, I do not believe that you can separate v.20 and
>v.21. The former says, "... they [the Lamanites] were cut off from [the
>against the Lord to the extent that they had "become like a flint."
>
> The Lord cut them off from his presence and *THAT* is the "sore
>cursing" that came upon them because of their iniquity.
>
> "Wherefore, the word of the Lord was fulfilled which
> he spake unto me, saying that: Inasmuch as they will
> NOT HEARKEN unto thy words THEY SHALL BE CUT OFF
> from the presence of the Lord. And behold, they WERE
> CUT OFF from his presence. 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;
>
> Skin color has nothing to do with it, except that the Lord decided
>to *KEEP* the groups separate by marking one group in such a way that
>they were no longer appealing to the other group.
Oh, okay, Guy. Well then, if "skin color has nothing to do with it," why
didn't the god of Mormonism turn the wicked Lamanites "white and loathsome,"
and make the righteous Nephites "dark and delightsome?"
Answer: Because the BOM is a fraud concocted in the 19th century, and in the
minds of its authors, light skin=good and dark skin=bad.
> "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."
> -- 2 Nephi 5:20-21
> (emphasis mine, and
> not split by verse)
Exactly, Guy. The message is that those dark-skinned Lamanites are ugly and
repulsive, and that those white-skinned Nephites wouldn't want to have sex with
them. Once again, dark skin=bad, or as we call it, "racism."
>>> WRT this being racist, it should be remembered that Nephites and
>>> Lamanites were not only of the same *RACE* but also of the same
>>> *FAMILY* - so the fact that Nephites and Lamanites didn't find each
>>> other attractive cannot logically be a problem with race.
>>
>> But it says, in 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;
> Yes. And the curse is that they are cut off from the presence of the
>Lord.
Exactly why would the god of Mormonism need to turn their skins dark and
loathsome in order to cut them off from the presence of the Lord, Guy?
Couldn't god just mark the wicked ones with a birthmark on their forearms or
something? Why would he perpetuate that dark skin curse among the descendants
of those wicked Lamanites for thousands of years, even down until today? Does
the dark skin of modern-day Lamanites mean that they are still "wicked," and
"cut off from the presence of the Lord"?
>> ... 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. "
> God marks one group in such a way that they are not appealing to
>the other group.
Right. God marked the "bad" group dark, and left the "good" group white.
Sorta like he did with those "bad" descendants of Cain, 'ceptin he made them
even darker.
What you obviously cannot intellectually perceive is that when you assert that
one group of people is "not appealing" to another group of people because of
the color of their skins, you are telling us that you are a racist. If you are
a believer in the BOM, your attitude is diametrically opposed to the ideal of
Martin Luther King's hope that all people should be judged not on the color of
their skin, but on the contents of their character. Does that make you feel
all warm inside, Guy?
>He didn't want to endanger the whole project by
>letting the groups - one of which wanted to kill the other -
>intermarry.
And God just happened to turn the "bad" group "dark and loathsome," and left
the "good" group "white and delightsome." And God has perpetuated that same
dark skin curse upon millions and millions of Lamanites down to this day, and
even if those dark-skinned Lamanites join the LDS church, God STILL doesn't
remove that nasty dark skin curse. The god of Mormonism sure holds a grudge,
doesn't he.
>> That (which you happened to skip all together) verse is my
>> question. How do you explain that curse - which DIRECTLY
>> ties righteousness (and "enticing" beauty) to skin color?
> I hope that you can now see that it doesn't have anything to do with
>skin color. God says a few chapters later that color doesn't matter to
>/Him/.
If skin color doesn't matter to the god of Mormonism, then why he does he allow
the descendants of those Cainites and Lamanites keep being born with dark and
loathsome skins today? Are modern-day Cainites and Lamanites responsible for
the sins of their alleged forefathers thousands of years ago?
>>>> My whole point is that skin color has NOTHING to do with
>>>> righteousness.
>>>
>>> Absolutely. And the Book of Mormon teaches this:
>>>
>>> "For none of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he
>>> doeth that which is good among the children of men;
>>> and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the
>>> children of men; and he inviteth them all to come
>>> unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth
>>> none that come unto him, *BLACK AND WHITE*, bond and
>>> free, male and female; and he remembereth the
>>> heathen; and *ALL ARE ALIKE UNTO GOD*, both Jew and
>>> Gentile."
>>
>> I love that verse, honestly. "God denieth none that come
>> unto him, Black and White...", it is beautiful, truly.
> Agreed.
Yes, it's beautiful, if it were only true. For example, for the first 150
years of the LDS Church's existence, its leaders declined to affirmatively
teach their gospel to Negroes. Its missionaries were instructed to not tract
in black neighborhoods, and if they accidentally knocked on a Negro's door,
they were instructed to tell the Negro to 'Have a nice day, and attend the
church of your choice.'
The LDS church also refused to allow what few Negro men who joined to be
ordained to their priesthood, or to receive their temple endowments, or to
marry 'for eternity' in their temples, because LDS theology held that Negroes
could not inherit the 'highest level of the celestial kingdom.' LDS leaders
only lifted those bans when political, social, and legal pressures forced them
to do so. And since the lifting of that ban inflated their conversion numbers
for the next few years, LDS leaders now proudly quote the verse you cite above,
and try to make the world forget all about the fact that they tried to "deny"
their gospel to an entire race of hundreds of millions of people for 150 years.
>> The problem is, that it deson't clarify or answer my first
>> question - how do you justify 2 Nephi 5:21?
> I /don't/ justify it in the way that it is commonly interpreted by
>non-Mormons (and, to be perfectly honest, some Mormons).
"Some Mormons" including LDS leaders like Spencer W. Kimball, right Guy?
2 Nephi 5:21 says what it says, no "interpretation" needed. It plainly says
that God magically turned the skins of the wicked Lamanites dark so they
wouldn't be enticing to the righteous Nephites. That's pretty much how
19th-century white Americans felt about Amerinds of thier day---that they were
dark, loathsome savages, to be avoided.
>>> Same book you find the so-called "curse" in.
>>
>> Why do you say "so-called"? The Book of Mormon itself calls
>> it a curse.
> A "sore curse". I said "so-called" because I don't think the dark
>skin was the curse.
Turning the 'wicked' people's skins dark was the Mormon god's way of letting
the 'righteous' white people know who the 'accursed' ones were. Since their
dark skins identified and stigmatized the entire tribe of 'Lamanites', their
skin color was a 'curse' to them as a race, whether they were individually
'righteous' or 'wicked.'
>>>> Any intelligent person who understands melanin and genetics
>>>> can see that. So why do honest Mormons not question the
>>>> whole Skin color indicates righteouessness bullcrap?!?!
>>>
>>> Probably for the same reason that humanity as a whole has a
>>> tendancy to associate color with goodness. 'Tis a cultural
>>> thing, and won't go away until we *ALL* come to realize
>>> that we're all brothers and sisters, children of the same
>>> God - and, as the BofM teaches, color doesn't matter to Him.
>>
>> I disagree with you. Society, as a whole, is learning that
>> color has NOTHING to do with righteousness.
> I think they're learing that in spite of natural tendency - not
>because of it.
The world in general is learning that in spite of the LDS church's racist,
offensive dogma. If the LDS church wishes to become enlightened along with the
rest of modern society, they should disavow their racist dogma.
>> Sure we have a long way to go, ...
>>
> Absolutely.
>
>>
>> ... but generally seaking, most intelligent people today
>> would tell you that melanin and righteousness are not
>> related. Problem is, with Mormons, 2 Nephi 5:21 says the
>> opposite, ...
> Or, at least, that's what our critics would have you believe.
>
><remainder snipped>
>
>
>bestRegards, Guy
As usual, you try to cast blame on "our critics" for your church's racist
dogma, but your efforts are rendered futile by the actual words of 2 Nephi
5:21, which are been repeated and interpreted literally by LDS leaders.
Guy, I wonder if you'll ever arrive at a point in your life when you'll stop
blaming "critics" for the offensive teachings of your religion? I mean, isn't
50 years of lying enough for you?
Randy J.
TheJordan6
>Date: 12/26/2002 10:44 AM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <14416-3E...@storefull-2172.public.lawson.webtv.net>
And some of them stay here for years, and remain just as ignorant as the day
they arrived.
Randy J.
Helen
"jack_the_mormon" <Jack_th...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4f8f6ffd.02121...@posting.google.com...
> The BOM says, in 2 NE 5:21, that Lamanites were cursed with a skin of
> blackness because they were bad. Now I, a descendant of Meso-American
> Indians, have dark skin. My whole life, being raised Mormon, I
> struggled with this tenant of Mormonism. Why is it that no one in the
> the "most correct book" on earth? Or are they afraid that if they see
> it they have to ask hard questions and they are afraid of the answers?
>
> Throughout Seminary I would ask my teachers the same question - they
> told me to pray harder because my testimony was weak. Throughout my
> mission I was told if I didn't believe in the church to go home -
> whenever I asked this question. I JUST WANTED AN ANSWER! At BYU my
> religion professors shied away from this topic and refused to give me
> a direct answers. When I ask other active dark-skinned Mormons, if I
> catch them in a truly sincere and introspective moment, they agree
> that it bothers them but they say they try not to think about it too
> hard. The whole thing makes me sick.
Yeah...I can understand..I think it is very disconcerting.
Why don't you ask women in the LDS faith how they feel about polygamy?
Good luck with how honest the good LDS women are when they answer
you........
€ R. L. Measures
<he...@nospam.optusnet.com.au> wrote:
** it don't matter no more because "God" has done and gone and changed
his mind about polygamy being the key to $alvation like it was when
"Prophet" Smith had a gaggle of gigglin' teenbabes living in the "Mansion
House".
Guy R. Briggs
> net...@GeoCities.com (Guy R. Briggs) wrote:
<snip>
>> Anything that's /abyad/ is good, delightful,
>> pleasant; and everything that's /aswad/ isn't. In
>> the paintings, whether it's Greek vase paintings or
>> wall paintings in Egypt, the people who live in the
>> /bayt al-shacar/, 'the houses of hair', out in the
>> desert are always painted with dark complexions. The
>> people who live in the /bayt al-hajar/, 'the houses
>> of stone,' are always depicted with light
>> complexions."
>> -- Nibley, Hugh _Teachings of
>> the BofM, Semester 1_
>
> Date of copyright please. We just need to affirm that this
> doesn't belong to the corpus Nibley disavowed...
>
Nibley, like any other serious scholar, is perfectly willing to let
new discoveries replace old assumptions. I am told that the current
half-life of medical knowledge is about 5 years: by 2008, half of
everything we think we know about the human body (today) will be proven
wrong or replaced by better understanding.
If that's good - even desired - behaviour for medical doctors, why
should it be seen as such a bad thing for LdS scholars?
<snip>
>> WRT this being racist, it should be remembered that
>> Nephites and Lamanites were not only of the same *RACE* but
>> also of the same *FAMILY* - so the fact that Nephites and
>> Lamanites didn't find each other attractive cannot
>> logically be a problem with race.
>
> Why not?
>
Seems self-evident. Because they are of the exact same race. Suppose
you thought your brother would be more attractive to the ladies if he
lost some weight and had a healthy tan - is that racist?
>
> Gawd made them thar lamanites butt ugly so's them whitey and
> delightsome fokes would keep to their own kin.
>
Lamanites & Nephites were the same "kin". That's the point.
Ever hear of the word "Rubenesque?" Do you consider Peter Paul
Rubens to be racist because he liked his women "well-nourished"?
<snip>
>> Probably for the same reason that humanity as a whole has a
>> tendancy to associate color with goodness. 'Tis a cultural
>> thing, and won't go away until we *ALL* come to realize
>> that we're all brothers and sisters, children of the same
>> God - and, as the BofM teaches, color doesn't matter to
>> Him.
>
> Correct, once yer daid (sic), gawd takes you unto his bosom.
> Till then, you get to suffer the abominations of the
> cursing...
>
The curse is being cut off from God. That comes about from your own
actions, and is not likely to go away in the next world. Look at the NT
parable of Lazarus & the Rich Man. Lazarus was the one taken to
"Abraham's Bosom". The rich man was suffering the abomination of the
cursing.
bestRegards, Guy.
ForWhatItsWorth
"Guy R. Briggs" <net...@GeoCities.com> wrote in message
news:92F6B0ADEnetza...@199.45.49.11...
> cl...@steel.ucs.indiana.edu (Clovis Lark) wrote:
> > net...@GeoCities.com (Guy R. Briggs) wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >> Anything that's /abyad/ is good, delightful,
> >> pleasant; and everything that's /aswad/ isn't. In
> >> the paintings, whether it's Greek vase paintings or
> >> wall paintings in Egypt, the people who live in the
> >> /bayt al-shacar/, 'the houses of hair', out in the
> >> desert are always painted with dark complexions. The
> >> people who live in the /bayt al-hajar/, 'the houses
> >> of stone,' are always depicted with light
> >> complexions."
> >> -- Nibley, Hugh _Teachings of
> >> the BofM, Semester 1_
> >
> > Date of copyright please. We just need to affirm that this
> > doesn't belong to the corpus Nibley disavowed...
> >
> Nibley, like any other serious scholar, is perfectly willing to let
> new discoveries replace old assumptions. I am told that the current
> half-life of medical knowledge is about 5 years: by 2008, half of
> everything we think we know about the human body (today) will be proven
> wrong or replaced by better understanding.
>
> If that's good - even desired - behaviour for medical doctors, why
> should it be seen as such a bad thing for LdS scholars?
Because, methinks, it tends to invalidate the Words of the Prophets. If a
Prophet x-number of years ago said one thing, and a more-latter-day Prophet
contradicts him, then one or both must be wrong. And Prophets really
shouldn't be wrong on doctrinal issues -- they talk to God, after all. You
can substitute Scripture for Prophet in the above, and it still holds true.
FWIW
Mark
Helen
> In article <3e128f84$0$7815$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au>, "Helen"
> <he...@nospam.optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
> > "jack_the_mormon" <Jack_th...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:4f8f6ffd.02121...@posting.google.com...
> >
> > Yeah...I can understand..I think it is very disconcerting.
> > Why don't you ask women in the LDS faith how they feel about polygamy?
> > Good luck with how honest the good LDS women are when they answer
> > you........
>
> ** it don't matter no more because "God" has done and gone and changed
> his mind about polygamy being the key to $alvation like it was when
> "Prophet" Smith had a gaggle of gigglin' teenbabes living in the "Mansion
> House".
>
>
There are still many male members who believe that it will make a
comeback..Polygamy, the new monogamy..( for women)