'Mormon' set for spring: Musical from 'South Park' creators opens in April

Variety ^ | Sept. 13, 2010 | Gordon Cox

[lastchance]

Is the history of religious movements in the United States something you are not familiar with? I look at Smith as a con man. The goal of all con men is to get you hooked. The hook Smith used was the Book of Mormon and the bait he used was classic con man techniques such as:

1. Tell the people what they want to hear.
2. Avoid telling them what they don’t want to hear.
3. Confirm their opinon of themselves that they are special.
4. Play to your audience.
5. Take advantage of the opening act.
6. Make them believe only your product has the power to improve their lives.
7. Let them believe they are pulling a fast one and/or have some privleged knowledge.

Smith not being privy to divine revealation could not see that his racist writings would be woefully anachrostic in the next century. Fortunately LDS did have an out from these teachings in the convienance of a living Prophet who could gainsay or deny previous doctrines.

So given its orgins of course BOM has racist passages. That racism was not unique to LDS. But LDS no longer teaches such racism and to imply otherwise is wrong.

[Paragon Defender]

Your point is? This thread is about something that is being shown on Broadway making fun of a particular faith. I find that distasteful.

If you’d like to discuss Mormon teachings, start a thread and invite me to join. I’m sure we’d agree that Mormon doctrine is in error. I don’t have the hatred for them that you do, though.

---

Any thread the gang starts eventually shows why they REALLY started it. It doesn’t take long. They would twist a story about a donut shop being closed on Sunday in Provo into an attack on the LDS faith. Probably even a weather report. The obsession is quite deep and radical with a few of them.

[ansel12]

I just don’t know why you are posting such rambling posts to me of half Mormon history and half defense of the Mormon church.

A cult that poses as a Christian church and seduces and tricks Christians into leaving Christianity is something that we should all be working against.

Some Christians think that they have to take a stand on something that serious.

[greyfoxx39]

[Paragon Defender]

ooh that’s some extra classy propaganda. Good job.

[lastchance]

I am not defending LDS. I would object just as streneoulsy if someone claimed that the Methodist church was racist because during the late unpleasantness the church split over slavery.

But seeing your inability to grasp that I understand your concern with trickery.

[ansel12]

More gibberish.

[Colofornian]

As for the LDS: Sorry but they have a church down the street from me in our small town. They teach strict morality, charity, and hard work.

(Sounds like you would have been a good PR agent for the Pharisees...and perhaps rebuked a certain fella with the initials "JC" for His open critiques of them...A race for the "honor" of the Most Legalistic Sect would have been a photo-finish 'tween the Pharisees & Lds)

[lastchance]

Maybe I misunderstood. Are you not claiming LDS still officially teaches that Blacks are inferior?

If you want to argue against LDS doctrine you need to know what they actually teach.

[Colofornian]

At least the LDS tends to push positive stuff, not using lies to confuse folks and hate the rest of the folks.

What do you call all the Lds leaders' quotes from post #35...Mormon Compliments Unanimous? "Positive?" Does thy mind study before curing a patient or operating; or does it just flow into automatos?

[ansel12]

LOL, more gibberish, see post 55.

[lastchance]

Was the question too hard?

[ansel12]

Read post 73, and then go to post 55. Just start reading my prior posts for my answers rather than drifting around.

[lastchance]

Fair enough.

[Colofornian]

Smith not being privy to divine revealation could not see that his racist writings would be woefully anachrostic in the next century. Fortunately LDS did have an out from these teachings in the convienance of a living Prophet who could gainsay or deny previous doctrines. So given its orgins of course BOM has racist passages. That racism was not unique to LDS. But LDS no longer teaches such racism and to imply otherwise is wrong.

You operate on too many assumptions here...
#1 That Smith's canonized racist statements were limited to the BoM;
And #2...that Lds can simply shut off the flow of its "scripture" as a teaching like a faucet, especially when nothing revelational has come forth to directly rescind the previous revelation.

Let's set aside for just a moment the BoM produced by Smith in 1829-1830. I could also produce some racist statements made by Smith between 1836-1843, but then I'd have to also convince you that the Lds church often portrays Smith as a "prophet" on what he said beyond what is "canonized" as "scripture."

So I'll stick with just "canonized" Lds "scripture" beyond the BoM. Have you ever read Doctrine & Covenants 134:12?

It’s mid-1835. Smith is churning out new “Scripture.” Smith is taking aim at new converts. But in that time, did he believe the Mormon “gospel” to be aimed at slaves? (No, not unless express “permission” was granted by their “owners”).

Could you imagine a verse still applicable today—one similar to the Mormon scripture of Doctrine & Covenants 134:12—which would tell you in effect that yes, the gospel was for women who are sexually trafficked--but only if their Pimp-owner says "Yes?".

Well, that's what D&C 134:12 effectively says. Slavery may be dead in most of the world; but sexual trafficking-as-slavery is not.

I mean, imagine if you will, for a moment, that you are the God of the universe; God of every planet; God of the earth; Creator of every person. Imagine for a moment you are speaking forth universal eternal truth. And then imagine that someone claims you (as God) made the following “Scriptural” statement:

”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, 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.”

D&C 134:12 is LDS “Doctrine” that has never been removed or rescinded!!! This passages makes it quite clear – in contrast to the apostle Paul who vied for the religious freedom of Onesimus while treating him as a full Christian brother and encouraged Philemon to do the same--somehow, LDS think that "religious freedom" applies to everyone except slaves!

D&C 134:12, written in 1835 pro-slavery America, made it quite clear that instead of the Mormons having a universal god who issued eternal truth applicable to all cultures, he is instead an American-sounding god who speaks only in King James English & was beholden to the American slavery industry.

D&C 134:12 "settles" the issue for the Mormon: Are slaves & trafficking victims worthy of the "gospel?" LDS Answer? Nope! "neither preach the gospel to, nor baptize them..." says LDS "Scripture.

And why not? Well, says D&C 134:12: We don't want ya ta meddle with the Mastuhs' business “property,” or to say it as precisely as LDS "scripture" says it: nor to meddle with or influence them in the least to cause them to be dissatisfied with their situations in this life...

(Nah. We can't have unhappy slaves or trafficking victims now, can we? Too disturbing to their "stations" of life, eh?)

Now what are the ultimate reasons for this again? D&C 134:12 provides the answer:

Reason #1: ...such interference we believe to be unlawful and unjust... (There ya have it...wouldn't want to be "unjust" by giving slaves the gospel & baptizing them, would ya?)

Reason #2: ...and dangerous to the peace of every government allowing human beings to be held in servitude. (And, of course, the "closer": Wouldn't want to disturb the peace & quiet of slavery-sanctioning governments, now would ya?)

Bottom line: You would be operating on a bad assumption -- and an argument from silence -- to assume D&C 134:12 has been dismissed from the realm of "canonized scripture." It hasn't. No Lds leader has rejected that verse as canonized "scripture." It's still there. And no other revelation has trumped it!!!