Special Report: Mormonism Besieged by the Modern Age

[Cow Poke]

I agree with that comment on cultures. Now back to the issue of racial differences: What if you were to notice that one race tends to be better or worse at something than other races? Would that realization make you a racist? Or is there an additional element or criterion you'd have to meet in order for you to be a racist?

May I ask what that has to do with being "cursed with a black skin, flat nose, kinky hair, because they were "less valiant" in the pre-existant War in Heaven where Jesus and human spirits fought and defeated Lucifer and his hosts"?

According to Mormon Professor Smith... (bolding mine, thought it was his, as well)

In an official statement issued in August, 1949, by The First Presidency of the LDS Church, they state that the Curse of Cain doctrine is not speculation or personal opinion but "a doctrine of the Church":

"The attitude of the Church with reference to Negreos remain as it has alwasy stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the priesthood at the present time.

The position of the Church regarding the Negro may be understand when another doctrine of the Church is kept in mind, that of the conduct of spirits in the premortal existence...." (First Presidency on the Negro Question, August 17, 1949, signed by the entire First Presidency)

Was it actually something about the "negro race" that the First Presidency noticed, or was it a "commandment from God"?

[Hamster]

What's an example of something one race can do that another race can't do (or can't do as well)?

There are some biological differences between races just as there are biological differences between families. White women are more prone to get osteoporosis than black men. Black men are more likely to get heart disease. There are differences in skull shape, average height, bone density, etc. but they are not major enough to make invisible walls segregating racial groups in terms of skill, talent, intelligence, etc. Most perceived differences are because of cultural practice and preference. And in Christianity, it's something that's not worth considering when judging someone's spiritual fitness or place on earth and in heaven

[nrajeff]

What's an example of something one race can do that another race can't do (or can't do as well)?

The vertical jump. Apparently, it tends to be something that Caucasians can't do as well as Negroids.

[One Bad Pig]

Just a comment or two. Data gathered over time has shown that Blacks in general have a lower IQ than whites. But Asians have a higher IQ over whites. But while this is true for large groups it means nothing for an individual. The overlap is so extensive that no single case can be made from the general. I think this whole discussion is talking about issues where much of the data is opinion.

IMO this can be explained by education and cultural study habits.

[onefour1]

Regarding the teaching of polygamy, D&C 132 shows us that at times the Lord has approved of this practice. This is verified by the fact that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, who are the righteous fathers, partook of this practice. But Jacob 2 in the Book of Mormon also shows us that at times this practice was not to be had among the people of God. LDS belief is that if God commands us to live the law of plural marriage, then we must obey it. If he commands us to cease from practicing this law, then we are to cease from practicing it. Jacob 2:30 says:

Jacob 2:30
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.

Here the Lord tells us that if he commands it, then we should obey it, otherwise we should adhere to a monogamous relationship in marriage.

[One Bad Pig]

Regarding the teaching of polygamy, D&C 132 shows us that at times the Lord has approved of this practice. This is verified by the fact that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, who are the righteous fathers, partook of this practice.

You're confusing reporting with approval, I'm afraid. Both Abraham and Jacob (and their descendants) came to grief over having more than one wife; IIRC Abraham got at least an implied rebuke over Hagar, and Jacob was tricked into marrying the first. Unless I'm forgetting something, Isaac only ever married Rebekah, and was not happy with Esau taking two wives.

[Cow Poke]

Regarding the teaching of polygamy, D&C 132 shows us that at times the Lord has approved of this practice. This is verified by the fact that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, who are the righteous fathers, partook of this practice. But Jacob 2 in the Book of Mormon also shows us that at times this practice was not to be had among the people of God. LDS belief is that if God commands us to live the law of plural marriage, then we must obey it. If he commands us to cease from practicing this law, then we are to cease from practicing it. Jacob 2:30 says:

Jacob 2:30
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.

Here the Lord tells us that if he commands it, then we should obey it, otherwise we should adhere to a monogamous relationship in marriage.

According to your scripture, God pretty well blasts anything OTHER than a monogamous relationship. And it says IF he will --- it doesn't say that he does or will or did.

AND, it says 24 Behold, David and aSolomon truly had many bwives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.

Why would the Lord command them to do something which was abominable to Him?

[onefour1]

Regarding priesthood being withheld from blacks, Moses 7:7-8 tells us that a blackness had come upon all the children of Canaan. Abraham 1:26-27 tells us that there was curse on Canaan that was received through Ham the son of Noah. The curse was to not be able to have the right of priiesthood. We read in Genesis 9:25 that Canaan was cursed because of the actions of Ham. Whether Genesis 9 is a parable or not, it shows that Canaan was cursed. From these teachings in our standard works, we have believed that blacks were not to hold the priesthood until President Kimball received the revelation that this was to change.

It is worth noting that at some future time, the blessings of the priesthood were to be had among all God's children. It is LDS belief that one cannot attain to the blessing of eternal life without the priesthood. But the follow verse shows us that at some time all God's children would receive the blessing of having the opportunity to receive eternal life.

Abraham 2:11
11 And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse them that curse thee; and in thee (that is, in thy Priesthood) and in thy seed (that is, thy Priesthood), for I give unto thee a promise that this right shall continue in thee, and in thy seed after thee (that is to say, the literal seed, or the seed of the body) shall all the families of the earth be blessed, even with the blessings of the Gospel, which are the blessings of salvation, even of life eternal.

If all the families of the earth are to blessed with all the blessings of the gospel, this would of necessity include the black peoples of the earth, who should receive even the blessings of life eternal which would necessitate that they receive the blesings of the priesthood.
So for whatever reason the children of Canaan were cursed, God would not leave them in this condition but promised them through the blessing of Abraham that some day they too would receive the fullness of the gospel.

I think Bruce R. McConkie makes a good comparison with the Gentiles. For 3,500 years or more, the Gentiles also were not allowed to receive the fullness of the Gospel. In fact the children of Israel From the days of Moses until the days of Christ did not have all the priesthood blessings to attain eternal life. So for whatever reasons God has for holding some of us back, it is a blblical fact that the Gentiles were not a part of the house of Israel for several thousands of years. We can take on a self righteous attitude and call God a bigot for doing so, but it is a biblical truth. Today, we cannot believe that God would withhold his blessings from any of his children, but the truth of the matter is that he has done it in the bible and it cannot be denied. God has his reasons, and it doesn't matter whether or not we attached to God our own definitions, he is still God and will do according to his will. If the blacks were not to receive the priesthood until the 20th century, then that is God's decision not a decision of ours based on our current concept of political correctness.

[onefour1]

In reply to one bad pig. So what you are teilling me is that Abraham, aka the Father of the faithful, was not so faithful after all but was an adulterer. Is that correct? Also, Jacob, who became Israel, was the father of the chosen lineage, this lineage made being made of several adulterous relationships and illegitiate children?

[Cow Poke]

I think Bruce R. McConkie makes a good comparison with the Gentiles. For 3,500 years or more, the Gentiles also were not allowed to receive the fullness of the Gospel.

The GOSPEL? You mean the GOOD NEWS of Jesus Christ? How long do you think it was after Christ died for our sins that the Gospel was given to the Gentiles? Where do you get 3,500 years?

And the problem with McConkie is that he says things CONTRARY to what you quote, as do your other "prophets".

The withholding of the "priesthood" from blacks STARTED and ENDED after Smith "restored" the Church.

[onefour1]

According to your scripture, God pretty well blasts anything OTHER than a monogamous relationship. And it says IF he will --- it doesn't say that he does or will or did.

AND, it says 24 Behold, David and aSolomon truly had many bwives and concubines, which thing was abominable before me, saith the Lord.

Why would the Lord command them to do something which was abominable to Him?

Why would God mention, " For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people...." if he never has and never intended to do so. Why not simply tell them not to do and that be the end of it?

In the case of David and Solomon, they had wives that were not commanded by the Lord for them to have.

D&C 132:38-39
38 David also received many wives and concubines, and also Solomon and Moses my servants, as also many others of my servants, from the beginning of creation until this time; and in nothing did they sin save in those things which they received not of me.

39 David’s wives and concubines were given unto him of me, by the hand of Nathan, my servant, and others of the prophets who had the keys of this power; and in none of these things did he sin against me save in the case of Uriah and his wife; and, therefore he hath fallen from his exaltation, and received his portion; and he shall not inherit them out of the world, for I gave them unto another, saith the Lord.

[Cow Poke]

Why would God mention, " For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people...." if he never has and never intended to do so. Why not simply tell them not to do and that be the end of it?

Well, first of all, I don't believe God said that. I don't believe the book of Mormon is true. But if He DID say it, He could have been saying it to assert his sovereignty --- He can do whatever He wants.

Now, please answer why He would want to do something that is abominable.

What is the Mormon definition of abominable.

The rest of what you post is not recognized by non-Mormons as "scripture".

Let's deal with abominable, OK?

[nrajeff]

Now, please answer why He would want to do something that is abominable.

Is genocide abominable? Is infanticide abominable?

[Cow Poke]

Is genocide abominable? Is infanticide abominable?

You are referring, of course, to God clearly commanded killing, yes? And you use terminology to make it sound nefarious. God is a sovereign God, and can do what He wants, Jeff.

In the very passage 141 referenced, the Lord supposedly condemns the practice of multiple wives, then, as 141 says, God supposedly "mentions" "IF I will...." -- and you might help me out with context, too, Jeff, because the sentence is...

"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."

The Lord supposedly had condemned multiple wives, then he says "IF I will ... raise up seed unto me, I will command my people" - then the "otherwise they shall hearken unto these things". What does that even MEAN -- "hearken unto these things".

Why would "the Lord" be so very specific in the run-up to this....

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 bone 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.

...then so vague in 141's "proof text"?









We are already aware that God can command whatever He wishes -- or He would not be God.

[onefour1]

Well, first of all, I don't believe God said that. I don't believe the book of Mormon is true. But if He DID say it, He could have been saying it to assert his sovereignty --- He can do whatever He wants.

Now, please answer why He would want to do something that is abominable.

What is the Mormon definition of abominable.

The rest of what you post is not recognized by non-Mormons as "scripture".

Let's deal with abominable, OK?

2 Samuel 12:7-9
7 And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man. Thus saith theLord God of Israel, I anointed thee king over Israel, and I delivered thee out of the hand of Saul;

8 And I gave thee thy master’s house, and thy master’s wives into thy bosom, and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah; and if that had been too little, I would moreover have given unto thee such and such things.

9 Wherefore hast thou despised the commandment of the Lord, to do evil in his sight? thou hast killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword, and hast taken his wife to be thy wife, and hast slain him with the sword of the children of Ammon.

Here we see that Nathan the Prophet gave David many wives as the D&C also tells us. We also see that he did evil in the case of Uriah's wife.

1 Kings 11:1-4

1 But king Solomon loved many strange women, together with the daughter of Pharaoh, women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Zidonians, and Hittites;

2 Of the nations concerning which the Lord said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall not go in to them, neither shall they come in unto you: for surely they will turn away your heart after their gods: Solomon clave unto these in love.

3 And he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines: and his wives turned away his heart.

4 For it came to pass, when Solomon was old, that his wives turned away his heart after other gods: and his heart was not perfect with the Lord his God, as was the heart of David his father.

Here we see that Solomon took to himself strange wives that were not approved of by God.

The abomination that David and Solomon did were in the case of Uriah's wife and in the case of taking strange women not approved by the Lord. Thus D&C132:38 is true:


38 David also received many wives and concubines, and also Solomon and Moses my servants, as also many others of my servants, from the beginning of creation until this time; and in nothing did they sin save in those things which they received not of me.


If the Lord wants his people to live the law of plural marriage, then he will command them to do so and this would not be an abomination or a sin at all, for the Lord commands it. However, if man takes upon himself to live this law without being commanded of the Lord, then it is an abomination in the eyes of God. This is what is meant by Jacob 2:30.