Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

BYU Professor makes controversial statements about Blacks & LDS Church
ABC4.com ^ | Feb. 28, 2012 | Reported by Kimberly Nelson

Posted on 02/29/2012 11:51:22 AM PST by Colofornian

SALT LAKE CITY (ABC 4 News) – Comments made by a BYU Theology professor opening up old wounds about the LDS church’s policy on African Americans and priesthood.

It was June 9th, 1978 when LDS President Spencer Kimball announced the church was opening its priesthood ranks to all worthy men. Some 30 years later the question why the church denied African Americans priesthood once again taking center stage because a Mormon is running for President.

During an interview with The Washington Post BYU Professor Randy Bott’s explains the denial of priesthood to blacks as saving them from “the lowest rungs of hell reserved for people who abuse their priesthood powers.”

Bott quoted as saying, "You couldn't fall off the top of the ladder because you weren't on the top of the ladder. So, in reality the blacks not having the priesthood was the greatest blessing god could give them."

Don Harwell is the president of the Genesis group for African American Mormons. “How do people come up with this stuff?” asked Harwell. "I get confused and a little discouraged that people still think this way."

Even more disappointing to Harwell is Bott had served in local leadership positions within the church such as a bishop, high councilor and mission president.

Harwell said, "I have yet to read in the scriptures that says the Lord denied us the priesthood. I could be wrong but I read my scriptures every night."

The LDS church had no comment on Bott’s recent interview, but LDS apostle Jeffrey Holland had this to say during an interview with PBS in 2006. "We simply do not know why that practice, that policy, that doctrine was in place,” said Holland.

This much is clear to Harwell. "If it was a commandment believe me it would be written down there would be no mistaking it.”


TOPICS: Current Events; Other non-Christian; Religion & Culture; Theology
KEYWORDS: blacks; lds; mormon; priesthood
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-61 next last
From the article: ...BYU Professor Randy Bott’s explains the denial of priesthood to blacks as...'blacks not having the priesthood was the greatest blessing god could give them...'

Let me get this straight...the Mormon god determines that who does and who doesn't have certain positions in the Mormon church by sheer reason of skin color alone. That's what the Mormon church did -- and that's what this BYU prof just reinforced.

Doesn't that make the Mormon god a racist?

There.

I said it. I accuse the false god of Mormonism -- the God that is NOT of the Bible -- of being a racist.

ALL: Watch this Andrew Rannells singing 'I believe' -- note the line where this Mormon "missionary" tries to proclaim the Mormon "gospel" to a black person.

Here's the quote in context...From the article: During an interview with The Washington Post BYU Professor Randy Bott’s explains the denial of priesthood to blacks as saving them from “the lowest rungs of hell reserved for people who abuse their priesthood powers.” Bott quoted as saying, "You couldn't fall off the top of the ladder because you weren't on the top of the ladder. So, in reality the blacks not having the priesthood was the greatest blessing god could give them." Don Harwell is the president of the Genesis group for African American MORMONS. “How do people come up with this stuff?” asked Harwell...Even more disappointing to Harwell is Bott had served in local leadership positions within the church such as a bishop, high councilor and mission president. Harwell said, "I have yet to read in the scriptures that says the Lord denied us the priesthood. I could be wrong but I read my scriptures every night."

Now...with BYU professors making these kind of comments, who doesn't think this kind of thing wouldn't be a daily drumbeat if it came down to Romney vs. Obama?

1 posted on 02/29/2012 11:51:32 AM PST by Colofornian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

The MSM must think Mitt has this thing wrapped to bringing this out now.


2 posted on 02/29/2012 11:55:16 AM PST by KansasGirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KansasGirl
My thoughts as well. They're giving us a sneak preview of the "issues" they plan on writing about during the general campaign.

Since the key issue of ObamaCare will be settled, the only other two issues relevant to the campaign will be "can a trust fund baby really understand the plight of the middle class?" and "just how much does Mitt Romney owe his wall street buddies?"

3 posted on 02/29/2012 12:01:16 PM PST by skeeter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

Well, yes.

Hasn’t this been obvious to anyone with half a brain since Romney first began running against the Mulatto?

Race, race, race. Obama has used the race card ever since he first came on the national scene, with no basis whatsoever.

So what does the braindead opposing party do? Hand him the ammo: Nominate a candidate with a long heritage of verifiable racist beliefs.

Just wrap that second term up in a big glittery bow right now and hand it to the Marxist.

I want to cry.

Will someone with clout PLEASE pull the cord on the Romney campaign?


4 posted on 02/29/2012 12:09:19 PM PST by Jedidah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

I thought there was something about the story of Cain and Able where God marked Cain. The belief was that the skin color of blacks was a sign of that mark as decendants- ergo, the different treatment.


5 posted on 02/29/2012 12:12:58 PM PST by marsh2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian
The bishop's argument shares a common foundation in racism with the arguments that were used by slaveholders to justify enslaving blacks, and with the arguments used to justify affirmative action.

All three share a base assumption that blacks are inherently inferior, and are therefore not able to:

1) fend for themselves in this cold, cruel world, in the case of slavery

2) succeed on their own merits, in the case of affirmative action

3) understand theological concepts, in the case of the Mormon bishop

All three arguments are disgraceful.

6 posted on 02/29/2012 12:22:42 PM PST by WayneS (Comments now include 25% more sarcasm for no additional charge...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian; Freeper; philman_36; Gvl_M3; Flotsam_Jetsome; Berlin_Freeper; Hotlanta Mike; ...
Image and video hosting by TinyPic
7 posted on 02/29/2012 12:23:51 PM PST by LucyT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WayneS

...my apologies: the man is a Mormon professor, NOT a Mormon bishop...


8 posted on 02/29/2012 12:24:41 PM PST by WayneS (Comments now include 25% more sarcasm for no additional charge...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: WayneS

“Bott had served in local leadership positions within the church such as a bishop, high councilor and mission president”


9 posted on 02/29/2012 12:31:39 PM PST by freedomlover (Make sure you're in love - before you move in the heavy stuff)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: marsh2
I thought there was something about the story of Cain and Able where God marked Cain

God marked Cain to protect him from vengeance for Cain killing Able. (Gen. 4:15) Therefore the mark wasn't skin-motivated -- nor was it in response to having committed murder...but was actually a sign of mercy that protected Cain...

God later established cities of refuge for manslaughterers to go live to protect them from vengeance by victims' relatives.

Jesus Christ then became the Ultimate Refuge who would save even manslaughterers and murderers from their sin.

Only some 19th century (and for Mormon, 20th century as well) people linked the "mark of Cain" as being skin-linked and a curse.

Gen. 4:11-12 shows the curse upon Cain was to be exiled...a vagabond...and unable to grow his own crops...not any mark put on him.

Cain's descendents came down thru Noah...so who is claiming that Noah was black?

10 posted on 02/29/2012 12:33:48 PM PST by Colofornian (An anti-FREEPER: That's a poster who says, "Let's elect one socialist to beat another!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: freedomlover

Cool. It looks like he is both a professor AND a bishop. And I have no doubt that he is equally racist in both roles.


11 posted on 02/29/2012 12:39:44 PM PST by WayneS (Comments now include 25% more sarcasm for no additional charge...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: LucyT
Not surprising to me. It's a cult, nothing more!
12 posted on 02/29/2012 12:52:30 PM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: LucyT

“How do people come up with this stuff?” asked Harwell


This kind of “logic” by Mormon apologists is truly remarkable.

Watch them try to explain Joseph Smith’s following prophecy of when Christ was coming again:

“I earnestly desired to know concerning the coming of the Son of Man & prayed, when a voice said to me, Joseph, my son, if thou livest until thou are 85 years old thou shalt see the face of the son of man. Therefore let this suffice & trouble me no more on this matter.”

This is supposedly either “opinion”, “too vague to understand”, or, my favorite - “Since the “if” was never satisfied, the rest is moot”. I guess the “voice” couldn’t forsee the future, unlike Joseph.


13 posted on 02/29/2012 12:53:23 PM PST by freedomlover (Make sure you're in love - before you move in the heavy stuff)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: marsh2

The origins of this belief go back much further than Joseph Smith and Mormons, and was a widespread interpretation of Biblical history in 19th century America.


14 posted on 02/29/2012 1:06:13 PM PST by Burkean (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Burkean; marsh2; Elsie
The origins of this belief go back much further than Joseph Smith and Mormons, and was a widespread interpretation of Biblical history in 19th century America.

One difference, I might add, is that though you can find, if you look hard enough, some 19th century Southern Baptists & a few other pastor-types who adhered to this view...these were usually local & regional views.

Plus they were mere "opinions."

That can't be said of Brigham Young's comments...nor of the Lds "prophets" and "apostles" which followed him...You see, the Mormon "prophets"...
(1)...supposedly give "revelations" directly from the Mormon god...those aren't mere opinions...if these were FALSE opinions, ensuing Mormon leaders would have told us that these men were speaking as false prophets (they haven't)
(2) plus it wasn't "localized" Mormonism...but represents (and STILL does...given that they have a university named after him) universal Mormonism! The Mormon "prophets" speak for the entire church. None of their previous leaders' words have been rescinded, rebuked, etc.

That can't be said of Protestants who HAVE and DO repudiate such regional 19th century opinions.

Let's look @ the lineup of Lds leadership views re: Cain:

Brigham Young:

*“Cain slew his brother....and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the FLAT NOSE AND BLACK SKIN...” (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 7, pages 290-291)

*“The rank, rabid ABOLITIONISTS, whom I call BLACK-HEARTED Republicans, have set the whole national fabric on fire.” (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 10, page 110)

* Per Young, Joseph Smith classified these people as The Seed of Cain. Young said that "Joseph Smith had declared that the Negroes were not neutral in heaven, for all the spirits took sides, but 'the posterity of Cain are black because he (Cain) committed murder. He killed Abel and God set a mark upon his posterity'" (The Way to Perfection, Joseph Fielding Smith, p.105).

Third Lds 'prophet' John Taylor:

Reacting to abolitionist Horace Greeley's visit of Utah:
* “... I WOULD NOT TALK TO HIM: I FELT MYSELF SUPERIOR TO SUCH A MEAN CONTEMPTIBLE CUR. I knew he was not after truth, but falsehood. “This Greeley is one of their popular characters in the East, and one that supports the stealing of NIGGERS and the underground railroad....he is one of the prominent newspaper editors in the Eastern country, and he is a POOR, MISERABLE CURSE.” (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 5, page 119)

* From Black Skin and the Seed of Cain (Mormonism Research Ministry): On two separate occasions, third LDS President John Taylor stated that it was God's plan to allow the seed of Cain to remain on the earth in order for the devil to be properly represented. On August 28, 1881, he declared, "And after the flood we are told that the curse that had been pronounced upon Cain was continued through Ham's wife, as he had married a wife of that seed. And why did it pass through the flood? Because it was necessary that the devil should have a representation upon the earth as well as God" (Journal of Discourses 22:304). The following year, Taylor reiterated his former comment when he said, "Why is it, in fact, that we should have a devil? Why did the Lord not kill him long ago? Because he could not do without him. He needed the devil and a great many of those who do his bidding to keep men straight, that we may learn to place our dependence on God, and trust in Him, and to observe his laws and keep his commandments. When he destroyed the inhabitants of the antediluvian world, he suffered a descendant of Cain to come through the flood in order that he might be properly represented upon the earth" (Journal of Discourses 23:336).

Lds 'prophet' Joseph Fielding Smith...an Lds 'apostle' for 60 years plus became the 'prophet' from 1970-1972:

* “Not only was Cain called upon to suffer, but because of his wickedness HE BECAME THE FATHER OF AN INFERIOR RACE.” (The Way to Perfection, page 101)

“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.” (Doctrines of Salvation, Vol. 1, page 61)

LDS 'apostle' Bruce McConkie:

McConkie was writing about those who "were more valiant than others…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...The present status of the negro rests purely and simply on the foundation of pre-existence" (Mormon Doctrine, p.527, 1966 ed.).

The fact that contemporary Mormons can't bring themselves to condemn these statements or these men tells us a LOT!

That tells me either they, too, are racists...or, that they harbor racism in their midst. Given that Utah Mormons have long fostered animosity vs. monogamy by harboring bigamy and polygamy...this problem shows how out of touch Mormons are socially and Biblically.

Unlike Mormons who weasel around the above statements, let me be unequivocably clear: The above comments stink to the highest heaven...and the stink is still found on the very clothes the Mormons wear today because they won't shed these clothes "odored" by Brigham Young, John Taylor, Joseph Fielding Smith, Bruce McConkie & many other Lds leaders!

15 posted on 02/29/2012 1:55:01 PM PST by Colofornian (An anti-FREEPER: That's a poster who says, "Let's elect one socialist to beat another!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

Oh oh.....the head Mormon is about to have another revelation to clear this up......depending on what the lawyers say.


16 posted on 02/29/2012 2:14:11 PM PST by blueunicorn6 ("A crack shot and a good dancer")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Burkean; marsh2

A big difference is that Presidential candidate (running against a black President), Mitt Romney, was teaching and following this theology while the rest of us were waiting for the second Star Wars movie, and watching Animal House with Jim Belushi, and eating microwave pizzas.


17 posted on 02/29/2012 2:34:03 PM PST by ansel12 (Romney is unquestionably the weakest party front-runner in contemporary political history.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: All
Here's another thread just posted where even Mormon writers are slapping around Mormon racist leaders past & present: Racist Remarks by popular BYU Religion Professor Spark Controversy

Boy, if the mormon grassroots are giving it to the Mormon hierarchical racists on the Eve of Super Tuesday...just wait til Obama & the MSM launch their SuperTuesday, their SuperWednesday, their SuperThursday, ... diatribes vs. Racist Mitt...

Way to go establishment Republicans...putting a good ole boy country club Repub in the lead ... a guy who's nailed the "no blacks allowed" on the outside of the club and gave 10% of his income to the club...and what? No peep about the racist policies the first 13 years of his adult life? Why not, Mitt?

18 posted on 02/29/2012 2:42:10 PM PST by Colofornian (An anti-FREEPER: That's a poster who says, "Let's elect one socialist to beat another!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

I understand the point, but I don’t see enough significant difference between the “opinions” you cite from the Mormon leaders, and the myriad of “opinions” that one could find from 19th and 20th century Souther Baptists. The idea that dark skin was the mark of Cain was cerrtainly not invented by Mormons, and they were hardly the only ones evoking it well into very recent history.

But we can celebrate the blessing that the idea has been discarded by most reasonable folk of either religious persuasion.


19 posted on 02/29/2012 2:46:54 PM PST by Burkean (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Burkean

See post 17, there is quite a difference.


20 posted on 02/29/2012 3:05:01 PM PST by ansel12 (Romney is unquestionably the weakest party front-runner in contemporary political history.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Burkean
I understand the point, but I don’t see enough significant difference between the “opinions” you cite from the Mormon leaders...

Per Lds D&C 68:1-4...when Mormon priesthood leaders speak, it's as good as "scripture."

Now that doesn't mean everything they say eventually winds up as Mormon "scripture"; but it's sure taken as that.

If the person upon whom the mormon religion names its most prominent universities after can't be taken as THE authoritative representation of mormonism...then who can?

By comparison, whatever sources you could come up with re: these Cain beliefs we're referencing -- positions held by some pastors & such -- it'd be difficult to claim any of them any post that would place them as THE representation of American Christianity in the 19th century.

This illustration might help: A snake-handler Christian pastor in West Virginia might not be taken as representing all of Christianity; but if the Pope says something from the Vatican, ya better believe it represents the Roman Catholic position on something.

21 posted on 02/29/2012 3:09:33 PM PST by Colofornian (An anti-FREEPER: That's a poster who says, "Let's elect one socialist to beat another!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: LucyT; Tennessee Nana

“I Will Be a Second Mohammed”

In the heat of the Missouri “Mormon War” of 1838, Joseph Smith made the following claim, “I will be to this generation a second Mohammed, whose motto in treating for peace was ‘the Alcoran [Koran] or the Sword.’ So shall it eventually be with us—‘Joseph Smith or the Sword!’ ”[1]

It is most interesting that a self-proclaimed Christian prophet would liken himself to Mohammed, the founder of Islam. His own comparison invites us to take a closer look as well. And when we do, we find some striking—and troubling—parallels. Consider the following.

Mohammed and Joseph Smith both had humble beginnings. Neither had formal religious connections or upbringing, and both were relatively uneducated. Both founded new religions by creating their own scriptures. In fact, followers of both prophets claim these scriptures are miracles since their authors were the most simple and uneducated of men.[2]

Both prophets claim of having angel visitations, and of receiving divine revelation to restore pure religion to the earth again. Mohammed was told that both Jews and Christians had long since corrupted their scriptures and religion. In like manner, Joseph Smith was told that all of Christianity had become corrupt, and that consequently the Bible itself was no longer reliable. In both cases, this corruption required a complete restoration of both scripture and religion. Nothing which preceded either prophet could be relied upon any longer. Both prophets claim they were used of God to restore eternal truths which once existed on earth, but had been lost due to human corruption.

Both prophets created new scripture which borrowed heavily from the Bible, but with a substantially new “spin.” In his Koran, Mohammed appropriates a number of Biblical themes and characters—but he changes the complete sense of many passages, claiming to “correct” the Bible. In so doing he changes many doctrines, introducing his own in their place. In like manner, Joseph Smith created the Book of Mormon, much of which is plagiarized directly from the King James Bible. Interestingly, the Book of Mormon claims that this same Bible has been substantially corrupted and is therefore unreliable. In addition, Joseph Smith went so far as to actually create his own version of the Bible itself, the “Inspired Version,” in which he both adds and deletes significant portions of text, claiming he is “correcting” it. In so doing he also changes many doctrines, introducing his own in their place.

As a part of their new scriptural “spin,” both prophets saw themselves as prophesied in scripture, and both saw themselves as a continuation of a long line of Biblical prophets. Mohammed saw himself as a continuation of the ministry of Moses and Jesus. Joseph Smith saw himself as a successor to Enoch, Melchizedek, Joseph and Moses. Joseph Smith actually wrote himself into his own version of the Bible—by name.

Both prophets held up their own scripture as superior to the Bible. Mohammed claimed that the Koran was a perfect copy of the original which was in heaven. The Koran is therefore held to be absolutely perfect, far superior to the Bible and superceding it. In like manner, Joseph Smith also made the following claim. “I told the Brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding its precepts, than by any other book.”[3]

Despite their claim that the Bible was corrupt, both prophets admonished their followers to adhere to its teachings. An obvious contradiction, this led to selective acceptance of some portions and wholesale rejection of others. As a result, the Bible is accepted by both groups of followers only to the extent that it agrees with their prophet’s own superior revelation.

Both Mohammed and Joseph Smith taught that true salvation was to be found only in their respective religions. Those who would not accept their message were considered “infidels,” pagans or Gentiles. In so doing, both prophets became the enemy of genuine Christianity, and have led many people away from the Christ of the Bible.

Both prophets encountered fierce opposition to their new religions and had to flee from town to town because of threats on their lives. Both retaliated to this opposition by forming their own militias. Both ultimately set up their own towns as model societies.

Both Mohammed and Joseph Smith left unclear instructions about their successors. The majority of Mohammed’s followers, Sunni Muslims, believe they were to elect their new leader, whereas the minority, Shiite Muslims, believe Mohammed’s son was to be their next leader. Similarly, the majority of Joseph Smith’s followers, Mormons, believed their next prophet should have been the existing leader of their quorum of twelve apostles, whereas the minority, RLDS, believed Joseph Smith’s own son should have been their next prophet. Differences on this issue, and many others, have created substantial tension between these rival groups of each prophet.

Mohammed taught that Jesus was just another of a long line of human prophets, of which he was the last. He taught that he was superior to Christ and superceded Him. In comparison, Joseph Smith also made the following claim.

“I have more to boast of than ever any man had. I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam. A large majority of the whole have stood by me. Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such a work as I. The followers of Jesus ran away from Him, but the Latter-day Saints never ran away from me yet.”[4] In light of these parallels, perhaps Joseph Smith’s claim to be a second Mohammed unwittingly became his most genuine prophecy of all.
________________________________________

[1] Joseph Smith made this statement at the conclusion of a speech in the public square at Far West, Missouri on October 14, 1838. This particular quote is documented in Fawn M. Brodie, No Man Knows My History, second edition, (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1971), p. 230–231. Fawn Brodie’s footnote regarding this speech contains valuable information, and follows. “Except where noted, all the details of this chapter [16] are taken from the History of the [Mormon] Church. This speech, however, was not recorded there, and the report given here is based upon the accounts of seven men. See the affidavits of T.B. Marsh, Orson Hyde, George M. Hinkle, John Corrill, W.W. Phelps, Samson Avard, and Reed Peck in Correspondence, Orders, etc., pp. 57–9, 97–129. The Marsh and Hyde account, which was made on October 24, is particularly important. Part of it was reproduced in History of the [Mormon] Church, Vol. III, p. 167. See also the Peck manuscript, p. 80. Joseph himself barely mentioned the speech in his history; see Vol. III, p. 162.”

[2] John Ankerberg & John Weldon, The Facts on Islam, (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers, 1998), pp.8–9. Eric Johnson, Joseph Smith & Muhammed, (El Cajon, CA: Mormonism Research Ministry, 1998), pp. 6–7.

[3] Documentary History of the [Mormon] Church, vol.4, pp.461.

[4] Documentary History of the [Mormon] Church, vol.6, pp.408–409.

(Decker, Ed, My Kingdom Come: The Mormon Quest for Godhood, Xulon Press, 2007)

23 posted on Monday, 27 December 2010 6:30:51 AM by Tennessee Nana


22 posted on 02/29/2012 4:26:42 PM PST by Fred Nerks (FAIR DINKUM!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Fred Nerks

G’day mate

:)


23 posted on 02/29/2012 4:27:46 PM PST by Tennessee Nana (Why should I vote for Bishop Romney when he hates me because I am a Christian)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: WayneS

Laminites - The new code word bigots can use in polite company.


24 posted on 02/29/2012 4:32:50 PM PST by Vendome (Don't take life so seriously, you won't live through it anyway)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

LOL

and don’t ask me why I think what you wrote is funny. It’s true and funny.


25 posted on 02/29/2012 4:39:17 PM PST by Vendome (Don't take life so seriously, you won't live through it anyway)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Tennessee Nana

hello...nod nod, wink wink...just couldn’t waste your brilliant comment, so I saved it - most people have absolutely no idea...

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2800093/posts?page=40#40


26 posted on 02/29/2012 4:39:32 PM PST by Fred Nerks (FAIR DINKUM!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Burkean; Colofornian

You don’t see a significant difference between Christians of 19th and 20th Century and LDS?

Collectively and Corporately Mormonism held the view that Blacks were absolutely inferior and not worthy.

That simply cannot be said to be the view of Christians in general or whole.

We were busy working against slavery and looking for opportunities to enforce their equality.

See 14th amendment, after a war fought to make whole the equality of blacks.

Then see Brown vs Board, Frederic Douglas, Horace Greeley, the history of the founding of the NAACP, Dr. King, Ceasar Chavez, All the white Christians who participated in their work and on the initiatives and legal actions above.

You will not find Christians denying Blacks becoming pastors or preachers.

You will find the LDS church enforcing their view totally and completely until they nearly forced by a lawsuit to open all their records, public and private, regarding their denial of Priesthood to Blacks in this country.


27 posted on 02/29/2012 4:56:48 PM PST by Vendome (Don't take life so seriously, you won't live through it anyway)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian

RINOmney is the PERFECT intersection of exactly what Obama wants in an opponent:

1. Has a history of firing people - and saying he likes to do so
2. Represents the rich, white, Wall Street target
3. Is the 1%
4. Belongs to a cult
5. Belongs to a cult that discriminated against blacks
6. Gives cover against Obamacare becoming an issue
7. White, stiff, no passion, milk toast
8. Former animal abuser
9. Can’t excite his own base
10. Doesn’t attract Reagan Democrats
11. No one in his family has served in the Armed Forces of the USA
12. Appointed Democrats as judges in MA
13. Can barely carry the state he grew up in, where his father was governor
14. Has been on the same side of every issue Obama is on - gay rights, abortion, government healthcare, government mandates
15. Continually demonstrates he is completely out of touch with the struggles of the ordinary working guy (blue or white collar)

He ain’t my candidate. He is Obama as a RINO - or worse. Not even remotely close to being conservative.


28 posted on 02/29/2012 6:03:10 PM PST by aMorePerfectUnion (I wouldnÂ’t vote for Romney for dog catcher if he was in a three way race against Lenin and Marx!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marsh2

“I thought there was something about the story of Cain and Able where God marked Cain. The belief was that the skin color of blacks was a sign of that mark as decendants- ergo, the different treatment.”

Which would be impossible, since the great flood would have killed all of Cain’s descendants as well as all those not in the immediate family circle around Noah.


29 posted on 02/29/2012 6:10:14 PM PST by Apollo5600
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian
The LDS church had no comment on Bott’s recent interview, but LDS apostle Jeffrey Holland had this to say during an interview with PBS in 2006. "We simply do not know why that practice, that policy, that doctrine was in place,” said Holland.

Now THERE's a fellow angling for Hinckley's job!!


"I Don't Know..."
 
In case you don't recognize the title of this post, it is part of President Hinckley's answer to a reporter's question that appeared in the August 4 1997 issue of Time magazine. The reporter referenced the King Follett discourse. The answer supplied and the manner in which it was delivered caused the reporter to draw some false conclusions about a very important doctrine.

In that discourse, the prophet Joseph Smith said, "If the veil were rent today, and the great God who holds this world in its orbit, and who upholds all worlds and all things by His power, was to make himself visible—I say, if you were to see him today, you would see him like a man in form—like yourselves in all the person, image, and very form as a man." (See also D&C 130:22)

The article referred to Lorenzo Snow's couplet, "As man is now, God once was; as God now is, man may become." The reporter said, "God the Father was once a man as we are. This is something that Christian writers are always addressing." President Hinckley was then asked, "Is this the teaching of the church today, that God the Father was once a man like we are?"

The bothersome reply

"I don't know that we teach it. I don't know that we emphasize it. I haven't heard it discussed for a long time in public discourse. I don't know. I don't know all the circumstances under which that statement was made. I understand the philosophical background behind it, but I don't know a lot about it, and I don't think others know a lot about it."

The reporter wrote, "On whether his church still holds that God the Father was once a man, he sounded uncertain." That's an unfortunate conclusion. Of course I wasn't at the interview and neither were you but I'll bet the reporter mistook careful thoughtfulness for uncertainty. This doctrine is indeed deep territory and not something that is taught outside the LDS Church.



An earlier and similar interview

The San Francisco Chronicle, published an interview with President Hinckley in April of 1997. The reporter asked, "There are some significant differences in your beliefs. For instance, don't Mormon's believe that God was once a man?" President Hinckley responded, "I wouldn't say that. There is a little couplet coined, 'As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become.'"

He then said, "Now that's more of a couplet than anything else. That gets into some pretty deep theology that we don't know very much about." The reporter pounced on this. "So you're saying that the church is still struggling to understand this? " President Hinckley responded, "Well, as God is, man may become. We believe in eternal progression. Very strongly."

President Hinckley's response

President Hinckley said in October 1997 General Conference: "I personally have been much quoted, and in a few instances misquoted and misunderstood. I think that's to be expected. None of you need worry because you read something that was incompletely reported. You need not worry that I do not understand some matters of doctrine.

"I think I understand them thoroughly, and it is unfortunate that the reporting may not make this clear. I hope you will never look to the public press as the authority on the doctrines of the Church." And there lies the whole point of my post today. Some members did indeed become a little concerned by the exchanges they read in the press reports of those interviews.

Does the Church still teach this?

I know this is old news but it still bothers some people when they discover the anti-Mormon attacks floating around on the Internet. President Hinckley was right. We really don't know much about how our Heavenly Father became a God. The idea that he passed through a mortal probationary state like you and me is certainly not documented in any scripture of which I know.

However, it is still taught. In the Gospel Principles manual in the chapter on exaltation we read, "Joseph Smith taught: "It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the character of God. . . . He was once a man like us; . . . God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did" (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 345-46)."

Summary and conclusion

I don't know why this should bother anyone. The doctrine is true. Joseph Smith knew a whole lot more about this than I do. President Hinckley also knew a whole lot more about this doctrine than he was willing to share with reporters who did not have the background to understand it. It must have been difficult for President Hinckley to hold back and not teach it in those interviews.

It didn't bother me when I read the interviews back in 1997 and it doesn't bother me today. However, I know it does bother some people. We each have trials of our faith. I have never depended on an intellectual understanding of the gospel in order to accept it and live it. There are some things that just can't be fully comprehended without the temple, prayer and faith.



There are some things that just can't be fully comprehended without the temple, prayer and faith.

30 posted on 02/29/2012 6:11:01 PM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian
Let me get this straight...the Mormon god determines that who does and who doesn't have certain positions in the Mormon church by sheer reason of skin color alone.

No!!

That CAN'T be right; CAN it??






"You see some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable and low in their habits, wild, and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind.

The first man that committed the odious crime of killing one of his brethren will be cursed the longest of any one of the children of Adam. Cain slew his brother. Cain might have been killed, and that would have put a termination to that line of human beings.

This was not to be, and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin. Trace mankind down to after the flood, and then another curse is pronounced upon the same race--that they should be the 'servant of servants', and they will be, until that curse is removed."

Brigham Young-President and second 'Prophet' of the Mormon Church, 1844-1877- Extract from Journal of Discourses.



Here are two examples from their 'other testament', the Book of Mormon.

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.'

Alma 3: 6 'And the skins of the Lamanites were dark, according to the mark which was set upon their fathers, which was a curse upon them because of their transgression and their rebellion against their brethren, who consisted of Nephi, Jacob and Joseph, and Sam, who were just and holy men.'



August 27, 1954 in an address at Brigham Young University (BYU), Mormon Elder, Mark E Peterson, in speaking to a convention of teachers of religion at the college level, said:

"The discussion on civil rights, especially over the last 20 years, has drawn some very sharp lines. It has blinded the thinking of some of our own people, I believe. They have allowed their political affiliations to color their thinking to some extent.I think I have read enough to give you an idea of what the Negro is after."

"He is not just seeking the opportunity of sitting down in a cafe where white people eat. He isn't just trying to ride on the same streetcar or the same Pullman car with white people. It isn't that he just desires to go to the same theater as the white people. From this, and other interviews I have read, it appears that the Negro seeks absorption with the white race. He will not be satisfied until he achieves it by intermarriage."

"That is his objective and we must face it. We must not allow our feelings to carry us away, nor must we feel so sorry for Negroes that we will open our arms and embrace them with everything we have. Remember the little statement that we used to say about sin, 'First we pity, then endure, then embrace'...."

(Rosa Parks would have probably told Petersen under which wheel of the bus he should go sit.)



1967, (then) Mormon President Ezra Taft Benson said,

"The Communist program for revolution in America has been in progress for many years and is far advanced. First of all, we must not place the blame upon Negroes. They are merely the unfortunate group that has been selected by professional Communist agitators to be used as the primary source of cannon fodder."



We are told that on June 8, 1978, it was 'revealed' to the then president, Spencer Kimball, that people of color could now gain entry into the priesthood.

According to the church, Kimball spent many long hours petitioning God, begging him to give worthy black people the priesthood. God finally relented.



Sometime before the 'revelation' came to chief 'Prophet' Spencer Kimball in June 1978, General Authority, Bruce R McConkie had said:

"The Blacks are denied the Priesthood; under no circumstances can they hold this delegation of authority from the Almighty.

The Negroes are not equal with other races where the receipt of certain blessings are concerned, particularly the priesthood and the temple blessings that flow there from, but this inequality is not of man's origin, it is the Lord's doings."

(Mormon Doctrine, pp. 526-527).



When Mormon 'Apostle' Mark E Petersen spoke on 'Race Problems- As they affect the Church' at the BYU campus in 1954, the following was also said:

"...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, he can and will enter the celestial kingdom. He will go there as a servant, but he will get celestial glory."



When Mormon 'Prophet' and second President of the Church, Brigham Young, spoke in 1863 the following was also said:

"Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God is death on the spot. This will always be so."

(Journal of Discourses, Vo. 10, p. 110)





Yeah; Native Americans are althroughout the Book of MORMON; too.

 

“I saw a striking contrast in the progress of the Indian people today ... they are fast becoming a white and delightsome people.... For years they have been growing delightsome, and they are now becoming white and delightsome, as they were promised.... The children in the home placement program in Utah are often lighter than their brothers and sisters in the hogans on the reservation.

At one meeting a father and mother and their sixteen-year-old daughter were present, the little member girl-sixteen-sitting between the dark father and mother, and it was evident she was several shades lighter than her parents—on the same reservation, in the same hogan, subject to the same sun and wind and weather.... These young members of the Church are changing to whiteness and to delightsomeness.

One white elder jokingly said that he and his companion were donating blood regularly to the hospital in the hope that the process might be accelerated.

 

(Improvement Era, December 1960, pp.922-23). (p. 209)

 



 


(At LEAST they didn't paint it on no steenkin' ROCK!)

31 posted on 02/29/2012 6:12:52 PM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian
Harwell said, "I have yet to read in the scriptures that says the Lord denied us the priesthood. I could be wrong but I read my scriptures every night."

NOw if we only knew WHICH of the volumes of 'scripture' he was talking about...

32 posted on 02/29/2012 6:14:34 PM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian
... WHICH of the volumes of 'scripture'...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Abraham

33 posted on 02/29/2012 6:16:46 PM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian
Now...with BYU professors making these kind of comments...

Another one??


 
 
Professor Robert Millet        teaching at the Mission Prep Club in 2004  http://newsnet.byu.edu/video/18773/  <-- Complete and uneditted

 
 
Timeline...    Subject...
 
0:59           "Anti-Mormons..."
1:16           "ATTACK the faith you have..."
2:02           "We really aren't obligated to answer everyone's questions..."
3:57           "You already know MORE about God and Christ and the plan of salvation than any who would ATTACK you."


34 posted on 02/29/2012 6:17:54 PM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jedidah
Will someone with clout PLEASE pull the cord on the Romney campaign?

Who will rid me of this terbulent priest?

35 posted on 02/29/2012 6:19:42 PM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: WayneS
...my apologies: the man is a Mormon professor, NOT a Mormon bishop...

Yeah...

Professors are suppose to actually KNOW something; while the OTHER positions in the church require NOTHING!!!


#5 - at BYU; of course!




In conclusion let us summarize this grand key, these “Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet”, for our salvation depends on them.


1. The prophet is the only man who speaks for the Lord in everything.
2. The living prophet is more vital to us than the standard works.
3. The living prophet is more important to us than a dead prophet.
4. The prophet will never lead the church astray.
5. The prophet is not required to have any particular earthly training or credentials to speak on any subject or act on any matter at any time.
6. The prophet does not have to say “Thus Saith the Lord,” to give us scripture.
7. The prophet tells us what we need to know, not always what we want to know.
8. The prophet is not limited by men’s reasoning.
9. The prophet can receive revelation on any matter, temporal or spiritual.
10. The prophet may advise on civic matters.
11. The two groups who have the greatest difficulty in following the prophet are the proud who are learned and the proud who are rich.
12. The prophet will not necessarily be popular with the world or the worldly.
13. The prophet and his counselors make up the First Presidency—the highest quorum in the Church.
14. The prophet and the presidency—the living prophet and the First Presidency—follow them and be blessed—reject them and suffer.

I testify that these fourteen fundamentals in following the living prophet are true. If we want to know how well we stand with the Lord then let us ask ourselves how well we stand with His mortal captain—how close do our lives harmonize with the Lord’s anointed—the living Prophet—President of the Church, and with the Quorum of the First Presidency.

Ezra Taft Benson

(Address given Tuesday, February 26, 1980 at Brigham Young University)

36 posted on 02/29/2012 6:22:33 PM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian
Sorry folks; but this is ALL the detail that is provided:

Gernesis 4:15 And the LORD said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the LORD set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him.

37 posted on 02/29/2012 6:25:14 PM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: freedomlover
I guess the “voice” couldn’t forsee the future, unlike Joseph.


 
"Joseph; I advise you not to go to that jail."
 
"Darn gnats!!"
 
 
"Joseph; I'm telling you to not to go to that jail."
 
"Flies are BAD today!!"
 
 
"Joseph; It ain't gonna be pretty if you ignore me and go to that jail!"
 
"Crummy mosquitos are EVERYWHERE!!!"
 
 
"Joseph!  Do NOT go to that jail!"
 
"And those bedbugs really savaged me last night, too!"
 
 
"JOSEPH!!  Wake up boy!   Do Not Go To That JAIL!!!"
 
"All right Sheriff - here I am, so give me a nice room while my Lawyer, my Advocate, my Comforter presents the LAW to the Judge and I am VINDICATED!!!"
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


38 posted on 02/29/2012 6:26:55 PM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Burkean
I understand the point, but I don’t see enough significant difference between the “opinions” you cite from the Mormon leaders, and the myriad of “opinions” that one could find from 19th and 20th century Souther Baptists.

Speaking of opinions; it is MINE that I sure would NOT want to be an SLC mormon; KNOWING that I'll face BY someday and have to explain just WHY I failed to follow SCRIPTURE!!


"Now if any of you will deny the plurality of wives, and continue to do so, I promise that you will be damned;

and I will go still further and say, take this revelation, or any other revelation that the Lord has given,

and deny it in your feelings, and I promise that you will be damned.

Brigham Young - JoD 3:266 (July 14, 1855)

39 posted on 02/29/2012 6:30:53 PM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Burkean
I understand the point, but I don’t see enough significant difference between the “opinions” you cite from the Mormon leaders, and the myriad of “opinions” that one could find from 19th and 20th century Souther Baptists.

Speaking of opinions; it is MINE that I sure would NOT want to be an SLC mormon; KNOWING that I'll face BY someday and have to explain just WHY I failed to follow SCRIPTURE!!


"Now if any of you will deny the plurality of wives, and continue to do so, I promise that you will be damned;

and I will go still further and say, take this revelation, or any other revelation that the Lord has given,

and deny it in your feelings, and I promise that you will be damned.

Brigham Young - JoD 3:266 (July 14, 1855)

40 posted on 02/29/2012 6:31:23 PM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Burkean
... WHY I failed to follow SCRIPTURE!!


The Doctrine and Covenants

Section 132

Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Nauvoo, Illinois, recorded 12 July 1843, relating to the new and everlasting covenant, including the eternity of the marriage covenant, and also the plurality of wives (see History of the Church, 5:501–7). Although the revelation was recorded in 1843, it is evident from the historical records that the doctrines and principles involved in this revelation had been known by the Prophet since 1831.
.
.
.
58–66, Laws governing the plurality of wives are set forth.


 

58 Now, as touching the law of the apriesthood, there are many things pertaining thereunto.

59 Verily, if a man be called of my Father, as was aAaron, by mine own voice, and by the voice of him that bsent me, and I have endowed him with the ckeys of the power of this priesthood, if he do anything in my name, and according to my law and by my word, he will not commit dsin, and I will justify him.

60 Let no one, therefore, set on my servant Joseph; for I will justify him; for he shall do the sacrifice which I require at his hands for his transgressions, saith the Lord your God.

61 And again, as pertaining to the law of the priesthood—if any man espouse a virgin, and desire to espouse aanother, and the first give her consent, and if he espouse the second, and they are virgins, and have vowed to no other man, then is he justified; he cannot commit adultery for they are given unto him; for he cannot commit adultery with that that belongeth unto him and to no one else.

62 And if he have aten virgins given unto him by this law, he cannot commit adultery, for they belong to him, and they are given unto him; therefore is he justified.

63 But if one or either of the ten virgins, after she is espoused, shall be with another man, she has committed adultery, and shall be destroyed; for they are given unto him to amultiply and replenish the earth, according to my commandment, and to fulfil the promise which was given by my Father before the foundation of the world, and for their exaltation in the eternal worlds, that they may bear the souls of men; for herein is the work of my Father continued, that he may be bglorified.

64 And again, verily, verily, I say unto you, if any man have a wife, who holds the keys of this power, and he teaches unto her the law of my priesthood, as pertaining to these things, then shall she believe and administer unto him, or she shall be destroyed, saith the Lord your God; for I will destroy her; for I will magnify my name upon all those who receive and abide in my law.

65 Therefore, it shall be lawful in me, if she receive not this law, for him to receive all things whatsoever I, the Lord his God, will give unto him, because she did not believe and administer unto him according to my word; and she then becomes the transgressor; and he is exempt from the law of Sarah, who administered unto Abraham according to the law when I commanded Abraham to take aHagar to wife.

66 And now, as pertaining to this law, verily, verily, I say unto you, I will reveal more unto you, hereafter; therefore, let this suffice for the present. Behold, I am Alpha and Omega. Amen.


41 posted on 02/29/2012 6:32:10 PM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Burkean
... SCRIPTURE!!


 

Polygamy: How it all got Started


 
 
 
Joe: Hey Emma!   Guess what!?
 
Emma: You KNOW I hate these guessing games! What is it, Dear?
 
Joe: I heard a voice, probably the Lord, tell me I must take other wives.
 
Emma: WHAT!?   You ding bat!  Don't you KNOW what our precious BOOK says?   After all; YOU are the one that translated it!
 
Joe: Books; schmooks.   All I know is I've been COMMANDED to take other wives and you are to OBEY ME!!!
 
 
Emma:      "Though shalt NOT commit ADULTERY!!!"
 
 
Joe: Silly Woman!  You KNOW better than to take things out of CONTEXT!!!
 
 
 
 
 

 
...and the rest is HISTORY...
 

 
 
 
 
 
THE BOOK OF JACOB
THE BROTHER OF NEPHI
CHAPTER 2
 
  24 Behold, David and Solomon truly had many wives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.
  25 Wherefore, thus saith the Lord, I have led this people forth out of the land of Jerusalem, by the power of mine arm, that I might raise up unto me a righteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph.
  26 Wherefore, I the Lord God will not suffer that this people shall do like unto them of old.
  27 Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none;
  28 For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts.
  29 Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes.
  30 For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.
  31 For behold, I, the Lord, have seen the sorrow, and heard the mourning of the daughters of my people in the land of Jerusalem, yea, and in all the lands of my people, because of the wickedness and abominations of their husbands.
  32 And I will not suffer, saith the Lord of Hosts, that the cries of the fair daughters of this people, which I have led out of the land of Jerusalem, shall come up unto me against the men of my people, saith the Lord of Hosts.
 

Or even HERE:
 

 1 Timothy 3:2-3
 2.  Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach,
 3.  not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money.
 
 
1 Timothy 3:12
   A deacon must be the husband of but one wife and must manage his children and his household well.
 
 
 Titus 1:6
   An elder must be blameless, the husband of but one wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient.



 
 
Emma: That's IT!   I'm LEAVING your sorry *!!!
 
Joe:  DARN you Emma; you were TOLD to accept this!!   Wait!!!   I hear a voice again!!!
 
 


 
THE
DOCTRINE AND COVENANTS
OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS
SECTION 132
 
  51–57, Emma Smith is counseled (commanded) to be faithful and true; 58–66, Laws governing the plurality of wives are set forth.
 
 
  51 Verily, I say unto you: A commandment I give unto mine handmaid, Emma Smith, your wife, whom I have given unto you, that she stay herself and partake not of that which I commanded you to offer unto her; for I did it, saith the Lord, to aprove you all, as I did Abraham, and that I might require an offering at your hand, by covenant and sacrifice.
  52 And let mine handmaid, Emma Smith, areceive all those that have been given unto my servant Joseph, and who are virtuous and pure before me; and those who are not pure, and have said they were pure, shall be destroyed, saith the Lord God.
  53 For I am the Lord thy God, and ye shall obey my voice; and I give unto my servant Joseph that he shall be made ruler over many things; for he hath been afaithful over a few things, and from henceforth I will strengthen him.
  54 And I command mine handmaid, Emma Smith, to abide and acleave unto my servant Joseph, and to none else. But if she will not abide this commandment she shall be bdestroyed, saith the Lord; for I am the Lord thy God, and will destroy her if she abide not in my law.
  55 But if she will not abide this commandment, then shall my servant Joseph do all things for her, even as he hath said; and I will bless him and multiply him and give unto him an ahundredfold in this world, of fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters, houses and lands, wives and children, and crowns of beternal lives in the eternal worlds.
  56 And again, verily I say, let mine handmaid aforgive my servant Joseph his trespasses; and then shall she be forgiven her trespasses, wherein she has trespassed against me; and I, the Lord thy God, will bless her, and multiply her, and make her heart to brejoice.


42 posted on 02/29/2012 6:32:48 PM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Burkean
The idea that dark skin was the mark of Cain was cerrtainly not invented by Mormons, and they were hardly the only ones evoking it well into very recent history.

For a group that REBUILT upon the ashes of Christianity, and had the 'most correct book' of any, and got REVELATIONS directly from GOD; how on Earth could they have POSSIBLY been so screwed up??

43 posted on 02/29/2012 6:35:12 PM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Burkean
But we can celebrate the blessing that the idea has been discarded by most reasonable folk of either religious persuasion.

The old 'ignore the man behind the curtain' ploy.

44 posted on 02/29/2012 6:36:14 PM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Burkean
Guess what would have happened to THIS dude; back in the day!


Watch this video on www.youtube.com
…and I'm a MormonWife, mother, and Mayor. My name
is Mia Love, and I'm a Mormon.
YouTube.com/Mormon
Oh oh!
45 posted on 02/29/2012 6:37:43 PM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Apollo5600
Which would be impossible, since the great flood would have killed all of Cain’s descendants as well as all those not in the immediate family circle around Noah.

MAYBE not; as we have NO idea where Noah's wife and 3 daughters-in-law were from!

46 posted on 02/29/2012 6:44:17 PM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Elsie

Ezra Taft Benson


Ezra Taft Benson (August 4, 1899 – May 30, 1994) was the thirteenth president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) from 1985 until his death and was United States Secretary of Agriculture for both terms of the presidency of Dwight D. Eisenhower.
 

In 1953, Benson was appointed U.S. Secretary of Agriculture by President Eisenhower. Benson accepted this position with the permission of Church President David O. McKay and therefore served simultaneously in the United States Cabinet and in the LDS Church's Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.
 
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ezra_Taft_Benson

47 posted on 02/29/2012 6:46:32 PM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Elsie

Grain of salt time:

http://www.bibleinfo.com/en/content/what-was-noahs-wifes-name


48 posted on 02/29/2012 6:50:05 PM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Elsie

but WAIT!

There’s MORE!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_of_Ham


49 posted on 02/29/2012 6:52:05 PM PST by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Colofornian; Pelham

I’m a white southerner.

My culture and my family and myself are or have been under literal and metaphorical attacks from blacks and other minorities for decades.

Ask me if I give a shite about this crap.

Yankees who never deal with minorities keep their panties in a wad over anything to do with crackers thinking or acting bad over the poor black man.

I could care less. My culture is the one under attack, the only thing attacking them is themselves and pandering.

Mormons are mostly irrelevant.

I despise Romney for being a liberal and a liar but race card playing by conservatives smells like runny fresh dog poop.


50 posted on 02/29/2012 6:55:32 PM PST by wardaddy (I am a social conservative. My political party left me(again). They can go to hell in a bucket.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-61 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson