Will Any Mormons Have the Integrity To Renounce These Racial Slurs?

[Apologette]

Mormon "prophet," Brigham Young, stated:

"You see some cl***es 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. . . . Cain slew his brother. Cain might have been killed, and that would put a termination to that line of human beings. This was not to be, and the Lord put a mark upon him, which was the flat nose and black skin. Trace mankind down to after the flood, and then another cursed is pronounced upon the same race--that they should be the "servants of servants;" and they will be until that curse is removed; and the Abolitionists cannot help it, nor in the least alter that decree (Journal of Discourses, 7:290; emphasis added)

AND


"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." (Journal of Discourses, 10:110, Brigham Young)

(Question: Who does the execution?)


HOW ABOUT THIS STATEMENT BY THE MORMON FIRST PRESIDENCY?

July 17th, 1947, statement:

"From the days of the Prophet Joseph Smith even until now, it is has been the doctrine of the Church, never questioned by any of the Church leaders, that the Negroes are not enti tled to the full blessings of the Gospel.
"Furthermore, your ideas, as we understand them, appear to contemplate the intermarriage of the Negro and White races, a concept which has heretofore been most repugnant to most normal-minded people from the ancient partiarchs till now. God's rule for Israel, His Chosen People, has been endogamous. Modern Israel has been similarly directed.

"We are not unmindful of the fact that there is a growing tendency, particularly among some educators, as it manifests itself in this are, toward the breaking down of race barriers in the matter of intermarriage between whites and blacks, but it does not have the sanction of the Church and is contrary to Church doctrine.

"Faithfully yours,

[signed] George Albert Smith J. Reuben Clark, Jr. David O. McKay
The First Presidency"

So, which brave Mormons here are going to renounce these statements as racial slurs? Have any subsequent "prophets" renounced these statements? Are these statements made by the power of God, or the promptings of the Devil?

[RealFakeHair]

Originally Posted by Apologette

Mormon "prophet," Brigham Young, stated:

"You see some cl***es 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. . . . Cain slew his brother. Cain might have been killed, and that would put a termination to that line of human beings. This was not to be, and the Lord put a mark upon him, which was the flat nose and black skin. Trace mankind down to after the flood, and then another cursed is pronounced upon the same race--that they should be the "servants of servants;" and they will be until that curse is removed; and the Abolitionists cannot help it, nor in the least alter that decree (Journal of Discourses, 7:290; emphasis added)

AND


"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." (Journal of Discourses, 10:110, Brigham Young)

(Question: Who does the execution?)


HOW ABOUT THIS STATEMENT BY THE MORMON FIRST PRESIDENCY?

July 17th, 1947, statement:

"From the days of the Prophet Joseph Smith even until now, it is has been the doctrine of the Church, never questioned by any of the Church leaders, that the Negroes are not enti tled to the full blessings of the Gospel.
"Furthermore, your ideas, as we understand them, appear to contemplate the intermarriage of the Negro and White races, a concept which has heretofore been most repugnant to most normal-minded people from the ancient partiarchs till now. God's rule for Israel, His Chosen People, has been endogamous. Modern Israel has been similarly directed.

"We are not unmindful of the fact that there is a growing tendency, particularly among some educators, as it manifests itself in this are, toward the breaking down of race barriers in the matter of intermarriage between whites and blacks, but it does not have the sanction of the Church and is contrary to Church doctrine.

"Faithfully yours,

[signed] George Albert Smith J. Reuben Clark, Jr. David O. McKay
The First Presidency"

So, which brave Mormons here are going to renounce these statements as racial slurs? Have any subsequent "prophets" renounced these statements? Are these statements made by the power of God, or the promptings of the Devil?

It's easy for the LDSinc. They just use the photoshop technic. Printed today, exed out tomorrow.

[Apologette]

Originally Posted by RealFakeHair

It's easy for the LDSinc. They just use the photoshop technic. Printed today, exed out tomorrow.

They are something! Use blacks in their "I'm a Mormon" ads, but don't have the decency to condemn these slurs! Where's the backbone?

[RealFakeHair]

Originally Posted by Apologette

They are something! Use blacks in their "I'm a Mormon" ads, but don't have the decency to condemn these slurs! Where's the backbone?

Remember, in the back of their minds non-whites will become white and delightsome. They my not look upon a non-white as anything other than a person working on less color as in working on their exaltation, who knows?

[BigJulie]

Here is from the mouth of a modern day apostle: Jeffrey Holland answering your questions. (He was answering a question answer session)

Q: I've talked to many blacks and many whites as well about the lingering folklore [about why blacks couldn't have the priesthood]. These are faithful Mormons who are delighted about this revelation, and yet who feel something more should be said about the folklore and even possibly about the mysterious reasons for the ban itself, which was not a revelation; it was a practice. So if you could, briefly address the concerns Mormons have about this folklore and what should be done.

A: One clear-cut position is that the folklore must never be perpetuated. ... I have to concede to my earlier colleagues. ... They, I'm sure, in their own way, were doing the best they knew to give shape to [the policy], to give context for it, to give even history to it. All I can say is however well intended the explanations were, I think almost all of them were inadequate and/or wrong. ...

It probably would have been advantageous to say nothing, to say we just don't know, and, [as] with many religious matters, whatever was being done was done on the basis of faith at that time. But some explanations were given and had been given for a lot of years. ... At the very least, there should be no effort to perpetuate those efforts to explain why that doctrine existed. I think, to the extent that I know anything about it, as one of the newer and younger ones to come along, ... we simply do not know why that practice, that policy, that doctrine was in place.

[James Banta]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

Here is from the mouth of a modern day apostle: Jeffrey Holland answering your questions. (He was answering a question answer session)

Sounds like Holland just added confusion to the mixture of beliefs that is mormonism.. Here is what another modern day apostle said:

Now says the grand father I will not distroy the seed of michal and his wife; and cain I will not kill you, nor suffer any one to kill you, but I will put a mark upon you. What is that mark? you will see it on the countenance of every African you ever did see upon the face of the earth, or ever will see. Now I tell you what I know; when the mark was put upon Cain, Abels children was in all probability young; the Lord told Cain that he should not receive the blessings of the preisthood nor his seed, until the last of the posterity of Able had received the preisthood, until the redemtion of the earth. If there never was a prophet, or apostle of Jesus Christ spoke it before, I tell you, this people that are commonly called negroes are the children of old Cain. I know they are, I know that they cannot bear rule in the preisthood, for the curse on them was to remain upon them, until the resedue of the posterity of Michal and his wife receive the blessings, the seed of Cain would have received had they not been cursed; and hold the keys of the preisthood, until the times of the res***ution shall come, and the curse be wiped off from the earth, and from michals seed. (Speach by Gov. Young in Joint Session of the Legeslature.Feb 5th 1852 giving his veiws on slavery.) (Spelling and grammar is that of the scribe.. )

It would seem to me that Young answered the question much better than Holland did.. Young wasn't afraid to say that the mark of Cain was a black skin and that the black race is carrying Cain's guilt.. Why their spirits were included in that curse is the only part of the question he leaves unanswered.. IHS jim

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by James Banta

Sounds like Holland just added confusion to the mixture of beliefs that is mormonism.. Here is what another modern day apostle said:

Now says the grand father I will not distroy the seed of michal and his wife; and cain I will not kill you, nor suffer any one to kill you, but I will put a mark upon you. What is that mark? you will see it on the countenance of every African you ever did see upon the face of the earth, or ever will see. Now I tell you what I know; when the mark was put upon Cain, Abels children was in all probability young; the Lord told Cain that he should not receive the blessings of the preisthood nor his seed, until the last of the posterity of Able had received the preisthood, until the redemtion of the earth. If there never was a prophet, or apostle of Jesus Christ spoke it before, I tell you, this people that are commonly called negroes are the children of old Cain. I know they are, I know that they cannot bear rule in the preisthood, for the curse on them was to remain upon them, until the resedue of the posterity of Michal and his wife receive the blessings, the seed of Cain would have received had they not been cursed; and hold the keys of the preisthood, until the times of the res***ution shall come, and the curse be wiped off from the earth, and from michals seed. (Speach by Gov. Young in Joint Session of the Legeslature.Feb 5th 1852 giving his veiws on slavery.) (Spelling and grammar is that of the scribe.. )

It would seem to me that Young answered the question much better than Holland did.. Young wasn't afraid to say that the mark of Cain was a black skin and that the black race is carrying Cain's guilt.. Why their spirits were included in that curse is the only part of the question he leaves unanswered.. IHS jim

So, I give you a quote from a couple years ago and you give me something from over 100 years ago?

Clearly, Jeffrey Holland was explaining some of these non-prophetic statements. As noted, a prophet can and does speak his opinion at times. Brigham Young must have forgotten that Joseph Smith ordained a black man to the priesthood. And clearly blacks hold the priesthood today. This is precisely why it is understood that when something is given by revelation to a prophet, it is canonized and becomes scripture. This speech is not in any of our scriptures and is not part of our religion today.

It is only those who seek to discredit the church (such as yourself) who dig up things of old and then try to argue our beliefs with them. I guess, then, that I could use the Apocrypha to argue your beliefs with you and then have you try to defend them. I think the first thing you would say is that they are not part of your belief system even though they were attributed to leaders of old.

[RealFakeHair]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

Here is from the mouth of a modern day apostle: Jeffrey Holland answering your questions. (He was answering a question answer session)

I didn' see the 19th centry white and delightsome in his quote. The fact is when Joseph Smith jr. Book of Mormon god came to his imaginary mind, Joseph didn't have the forethought to think the world might change it's opinion of Black or color people. Just one more nail in the coffin of the lie mormonism is all about.

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by RealFakeHair

I didn' see the 19th centry white and delightsome in his quote. The fact is when Joseph Smith jr. Book of Mormon god came to his imaginary mind, Joseph didn't have the forethought to think the world might change it's opinion of Black or color people. Just one more nail in the coffin of the lie mormonism is all about.

You also overlook the fact that Joseph Smith ordained a black man to the priesthood. Okay.

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

You also overlook the fact that Joseph Smith ordained a black man to the priesthood. Okay.

Why was only one man allowed to hold the priesthood and banned for every other black man until 1978?

[nrajeffreturns]

Originally Posted by Billyray

Why was only one man allowed to hold the priesthood and banned for every other black man until 1978?

It wasn't skin color that was the barrier, since Polynesians and South Americans with black skin weren't kept from the responsibilities of priesthood service. It was lineage, just like it was in OT Israel.

[James Banta]

[BigJulie;150063]So, I give you a quote from a couple years ago and you give me something from over 100 years ago?

Did God change in 100 years? Maybe if we make it 200, how about 10,000 years? Has God change at all.. Are not the 10 commandments still there ready to condemn all who are not in Jesus? Have they changed? And just because it is not fashionable to keep the feasts like the Ingathering, and the P***over, are these still not required of God's people? How about the Sabbath, how is it that God has kept it on the seventh day but mormonism keeps it on the first day? Sunday is the Lord's day. The day Christian celebrate His resurrection. It is NOT the Sabbath.. The Sabbath was and is the seventh day.. God hasn't changed at all.. All He has required He still requires..

Clearly, Jeffrey Holland was explaining some of these non-prophetic statements. As noted, a prophet can and does speak his opinion at times. Brigham Young must have forgotten that Joseph Smith ordained a black man to the priesthood. And clearly blacks hold the priesthood today. This is precisely why it is understood that when something is given by revelation to a prophet, it is canonized and becomes scripture. This speech is not in any of our scriptures and is not part of our religion today.

It was the statement of a prophet to God's people ***embled in conference. By what you are telling me here the semiannual conferences of the church are waste of time.. You should study and teach only the scriptures.. That would go for all teachings that the Lord didn't actually give, instead of being announced by "Thus saith the Lord" ARE part of the body of the Book of Doctrine and Covenants; the Official Declarations are tucked away in the back of that volume and are addressed "To Whom It May Concern".. Authoritative? You can tell me if the prophets address over the pulpit in conference is more or less authoritative that those Official Declarations.. You can also tell me why suddenly the Black people are now more worthy then they were before.. Seems in Young's day a black man was an obedient servant, Today they have been known to be disruptive and ever riotous law breakers.. Are they now more obedient to God than in the 19th century?

It is only those who seek to discredit the church (such as yourself) who dig up things of old and then try to argue our beliefs with them. I guess, then, that I could use the Apocrypha to argue your beliefs with you and then have you try to defend them. I think the first thing you would say is that they are not part of your belief system even though they were attributed to leaders of old.

If the church can be discredited by comments made before the world by it's foundational teachers. Then it should abandon ALL it's old teaching and reorganize it's self based only on the Bible.. Seems anything else leads to men thinking that they are Gods in embryo.. I have seem the LDS here pull up some wild remarks from teachers of the reformation. I applaud them. But they are not the final law for the Church.. That final authority is the unchanging God. He has given us His word and that word is our final word on salvation and operation of His Church.. To attack us you have to attack His word and through His word, Him.

The Apocrypha attributed to leaders of old? The Gospel of Judas written by who in what year? The Gnostic, those that denied that Jesus had come in the flesh, in the second century.. If you want me to be responsible for what they wrote, I would like to make MORMONISM responsible for the Kama Sutra. Actually I would just like you to see the nonsense doctrine taught by your foundational leaders and explain to me how truth can spring from Error.. What a LDS leader wrote less than 200 years ago , should be what the church teaches today. Tell you what why not make me responsible for what Christian leaders have taught to their congregants over the past 200 years.. That seems fair.. I am willing to stand by that.. Apples to apples.. That isn't anything like a LDS asking me to prove the exodus of the children of Israel, because I questioned whether there was an unusual excitement on the subject of religion in or near Manchester NY in 1820.. Apples to apples, ok? IHS jim

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

It wasn't skin color that was the barrier, since Polynesians and South Americans with black skin weren't kept from the responsibilities of priesthood service. It was lineage, just like it was in OT Israel.

And that is where you get to do some research into what happened, when, and why. I did. Clearly---when you understand this and can articulate it well, then you can give the reader an impartial look at the truth of the matter.

[BigJulie]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by James Banta

Did God change in 100 years?

No, but clearly our understanding of God grows over time which is why we don't practice slavery and yet Christ never condemned it.

[James Banta]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

It wasn't skin color that was the barrier, since Polynesians and South Americans with black skin weren't kept from the responsibilities of priesthood service. It was lineage, just like it was in OT Israel.

Can you show by genealogy that the Black race came from Cain? All you have to prove this is what Smith and Young taught about the black race.. There is nothing about that which is based anyway in reality.. The prejudice of mormonism was based on race and only in race. That prejudice was not of God it was based in evil.. IHS jim

[Apologette]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

It wasn't skin color that was the barrier, since Polynesians and South Americans with black skin weren't kept from the responsibilities of priesthood service. It was lineage, just like it was in OT Israel.

Your cult thinks that Polynesians and South American Indians are Lamanites. You think that blacks are from the lineage of CAIN! Different lineages there Jeff.

[James Banta]

[QUOTE=BigJulie;150092]

No, but clearly our understanding of God grows over time which is why we don't practice slavery and yet Christ never condemned it.

But Julie according to the LDS scripture God did change.. In the BofM David's polygamy was an abomination (Jacob 2:24). But is the D&C we are told that He didn't sin at all except in the case of Bathsheba (D&C 132:38-39). And then you come along and say that there was no change? Julie the change is screaming at us.. IHS jim

[Billyray]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

It wasn't skin color that was the barrier, since Polynesians and South Americans with black skin weren't kept from the responsibilities of priesthood service. It was lineage, just like it was in OT Israel.

So you are saying that the early "black" mormon who held the priesthood was South American or Polynesian and not really "black"?

[Apologette]

[QUOTE=BigJulie;150092]

No, but clearly our understanding of God grows over time which is why we don't practice slavery and yet Christ never condemned it.

Neither did He make racial slurs like the early Mormon leaders, Julie. Don't try to compare Jesus to anything Mormon!

[nrajeffreturns]

[QUOTE=Apologette;150126]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

Neither did He make racial slurs like the early Mormon leaders, Julie. Don't try to compare Jesus to anything Mormon!

"The story of the woman at the well...."

Does that ring a bell?

[nrajeffreturns]

Originally Posted by Apologette

Your cult thinks that Polynesians and South American Indians are Lamanites. You think that blacks are from the lineage of CAIN! Different lineages there Jeff.

Thanks for supporting my point that the policy was based on lineage, not skin color.

See? Every once in a while, you actually say something that I can agree to be the truth!


Now excuse me while go to the window to see if the moon happens to be blue tonight...

[James Banta]

Originally Posted by nrajeffreturns

Thanks for supporting my point that the policy was based on lineage, not skin color.

See? Every once in a while, you actually say something that I can agree to be the truth!


Now excuse me while go to the window to see if the moon happens to be blue tonight...

Blacks are a race.. To exclude someone from God's blessing is religious racism.. The churches from the south did that same thing for over 100 years.. Mormonism did it for 100 years all saying the same thing.. Blacks are the seed of Cain.. Like it or not mormonism like the most all the churches in America in it's first 150 years all raciest.. At least most of those churches have seen that racism and repented.. The LDS church never has repented of this and still shows their insti tutional racism in their standard works.. IHS jim

[BigJulie]

Originally Posted by James Banta

Blacks are a race.. To exclude someone from God's blessing is religious racism.. The churches from the south did that same thing for over 100 years.. Mormonism did it for 100 years all saying the same thing.. Blacks are the seed of Cain.. Like it or not mormonism like the most all the churches in America in it's first 150 years all raciest.. At least most of those churches have seen that racism and repented.. The LDS church never has repented of this and still shows their insti tutional racism in their standard works.. IHS jim

What about when God excludes just about the whole planet based on lineage? Such as when only the tribe of Levi could do certain things in the gospel.

[Apologette]

Originally Posted by BigJulie

What about when God excludes just about the whole planet based on lineage? Such as when only the tribe of Levi could do certain things in the gospel.

Oh, really. How about citing for us some Scripture for that claim? What kind of Bible are you reading? The Joseph Smith Distortion?

[RealFakeHair]

Originally Posted by James Banta

Blacks are a race.. To exclude someone from God's blessing is religious racism.. The churches from the south did that same thing for over 100 years.. Mormonism did it for 100 years all saying the same thing.. Blacks are the seed of Cain.. Like it or not mormonism like the most all the churches in America in it's first 150 years all raciest.. At least most of those churches have seen that racism and repented.. The LDS church never has repented of this and still shows their insti tutional racism in their standard works.. IHS jim

No, the South did not exclude Blacks from the christian faith. If that were true there would not be so many black baptist churches here in the south. Even during the height of Slavery most white christians did not look upon a black christian as less of a christian.