The New York Times IS at it again.
Instead of celebrating an event worthy of celebration, their dog-in-the-manger cynicism and anti-western and anti-Christian venom shows itself by rubbing the sores of corrected past errors.
They would probably castigate America for slavery of centuries past instead of celebrating its racial tolerance of today.
They are insidious enemies who work from within like worms in a ripe apple.
Typical liberal hate--digging up something that was over with forty years ago [hinckley buzzard, post #3]
At least some random Christian denomination allows one to confess and make amends for being a racist. [morpheus2009, post #4]
Where’s the article about “Democrat Party’s Racist Past” with regard to blacks? [Protect our freedom, post #7]
As long as we are going to dig into the past... [E. Pluribus Unum, post #15]
My question to Zulu, Hinckley Buzzard, Morpheus, Protect our freedom, and e. Pluribus Unum, is: Why do you assume that overt Mormon racism went out the door in 1978? (And no Hinckley Buzzard, that wasn't 40 years ago.)
In fact, why are you seemingly defending the Mormon sacred-book verses below?
Do you think black skin is a "curse" and white skin color is "delightsome?"
There's five Book of Mormon verses below talking about how the "skin of blackness" is a "cursing" based upon their "iniquity" (2 Nephi 5:21; Alma 3:6; Jacob 3:5) and how when the curse would be removed, they would again become "white" (3 Nephi 2:15), which the Book of Mormon says is a "delightsome" color (2 Nephi 5:21; cf. older version of 2 Nephi 30:6):
* "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 exceeding 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)
* "...many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a white and delightsome people." (2 Nephi 30:6, pre-1981 versions...changed from unknown reasons in 1981 to "fair and delightsome")
* "And the skins of the Lamanites were dark, according to the mark which was set upon their fathers, which was a curse upon them because of their transgression and their rebellion against the their brethren..." (Alma 3:6)
* "Behold, the Lamanites your brethren, whom ye hate because of their filthiness and the cursing which hath come upon their skins..." (Jacob 3:5)
* "And their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites." (3 Nephi 2:15)
On the next post, I'll also highlight Mormon Doctrine & Covenants 134:12, also another racist Mormon sacred-book passage that hasn't been touched, revised, removed...
Typical liberal hate--digging up something that was over with forty years ago [hinckley buzzard, post #3]
At least some random Christian denomination allows one to confess and make amends for being a racist. [morpheus2009, post #4]
Where’s the article about “Democrat Party’s Racist Past” with regard to blacks? [Protect our freedom, post #7]
As long as we are going to dig into the past... [E. Pluribus Unum, post #15]
A question for Mr. Romney and those who defend him or the so-called Mormon "past": Do you believe that your peculiarly Mormon Scripture on proper consideration for the owners of slaves (D&C 134:12) still applies today?
Setting: Summer, 1835: Joseph Smith felt behooved to address slavery amongst the bigger umbrella of obeying laws, rulers, etc. Now D&C 134:1,3,5,8 all tell Mormons to obey laws, rulers & their government. But then we get to verse 12...note the highlighted words:
We believe it just to preach the gospel to the nations of the earth, and warn the righteous to save themselves from the corruption of the world; but we do NOT believe it right to...
...interfere with bond-servants,C
...neither preach the gospel to,
...nor baptize them contrary to the will and wish of their masters,
...nor to meddle with or influence them in the least to cause them to be dissatisfied with their situations in this life,
...thereby jeopardizing the lives of men; such interference we believe to be unlawful and unjust, and dangerous to the peace of every government allowing human beings to be held in servitude.
Questions:
* Is this "scripture" still on the record as standing canonized authority for the Mormon church? (Yes)
* Has any scripture statement superceded, trumped or "manifesto-ed" it out of authority? (No)
* Well how does the Mormon church then reconcile a statement made by its spokesman, Michael Purdy -- “The blessings of the church are available to anyone who qualifies for membership and accepts the gospel of Jesus Christ” -- with D&C 134:12?
* How can lds "scripture" say that it's not "right to...preach the gospel to...bond-servants [slaves] ...nor baptize them contrary to the will and wish of their masters?" -- while simultaneously claiming the gospel can be accepted by anyone and that anyone can become a member?
* Well, can slaves be baptized and become an LDS member if their master says "no?" (Not according to D&C 134:12)
* What about a girl who is being "trafficked" as a sex slave...can she be baptized & become a Mormon even if her "pimp" says no? (Not according to D&C 134:12)
* Does Joseph Smith have authority in the Mormon church or not?
And then, how can Lds agree with these pro-illegal immigration Mormon policies when their own "scripture" (D&C 134:8) says: all men should step forward and use their ability in bringing offenders against good laws to punishment??? Illegal immigration laws qualify as "good laws" do they not?
Why aren't Lds leaders & grassroots lds stepping forward to use their ability in bringing offenders to justice according to their own good book?
What? Are lds only for selective "continuing revelation?"
So true!
Christianity got a BIG worm back in the 1830's!