|Subject:||Daniel Peterson returning to his ...|
|Date:||Aug 08 15:09 2004|
|"As a dog returneth to his vomit, so a fool
returneth to his folly."
- Proverbs 26:11
There Daniel Peterson goes again...
From the Deseret News article on the FAIR conference (Aug 2004):
"[Daniel Peterson] said it is possible to make any religious faith look stupid, and he offered three principles for fairly dealing with other religions: 1) Don't go to a faith's enemies for information. Go to its adherents. 2) Don't compare the best in your faith with the worst in the one you are criticizing. Keep a level playing field. 3) Always leave room for holy envy — what is it that this faith really does well? By following these principles, which Peterson adopted but did not invent, you can study other religions and really learn something beneficial, he said. He's also convinced that LDS religion is a good lens through which to view other religions."
So Peterson is "convinced" that the LDS religion is a good lens through which to view other religions.
Is this the LDS lens he is referring to?
1 Nephi 14:10-11:
"And he said unto me: Behold there are save two churches only; the one is the church of the Lamb of God, and the other is the church of the devil; wherefore, whoso belongeth not to the church of the Lamb of God belongeth to that great church, which is the mother of abominations; and she is the whore of all the earth. And it came to pass that I looked and beheld the whore of all the earth, and she sat upon many waters; and she had dominion over all the earth, among all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people."
2 Nephi 10:16:
"Wherefore, he that fighteth against Zion, both Jew and Gentile, both bond and free, both male and female, shall perish; for they are they who are the whore of all the earth; for they who are not for me are against me, saith our God."
"What is it that inspires professors of Christianity generally with a hope of salvation? It is that smooth, sophisticated influence of the devil, by which he deceives the whole world"
- The Prophet Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p.270
"...all the priests who adhere to the sectarian religions of the day with all their followers, without one exception, receive their portion with the devil and his angels."
- The Prophet Joseph Smith , The Elders Journal, Joseph Smith Jr., editor, vol.1, no.4, p.60
What a wondrous and marvelous LDS lens Daniel Petersen has to gaze through.
Daniel Peterson and FAIR do church members a great service. They make such ridiculous claims, they end up pushing a lot of smart people out of the church. Only the fools don't see right through Peterson's folly.
FAIR and Mr. Peterson are terrible embarrassments to the Mormon Church. The more they talk, the better.
|Subject:||It is funny|
|Date:||Aug 08 15:20|
|how Peterson and the other apologists seem to ignore the scriptures and the teachings of their own prophets. I have to wonder just how church leadership feels about these guys.|
|Subject:||Margaret Young had some interesting comments as well...|
|Date:||Aug 08 15:29|
|Margaret Young, a BYU writing instructor who also
teamed with Darius Gray to author the "Standing on the
Promises" trilogy, said Latter-day Saints need to get folklore
about blacks and the pre-earth life out of their thinking.
Sounds like a "Saturday's Warrior" bonfire where TBM's [True Believing Mormon] destroy all copies of the sappy show. (BTW, Margie's comment would hurt my TBM's mom heart.)
I am curious what other treasured TBM beliefs will become "folklore" in the coming years.
|Subject:||Peterson says "Don't go to a faith's enemies for information. Go to its adherents"|
|Date:||Aug 08 13:14|
|which probably seems like a reasonable thing to most casual observers, but what this really translates into is "only interest yourself in biased information which is pro the religion, not information which might be biased against it". Also, there's an implicit assumption about being able to easily define who a faith's "enemies" are. Neither of these provide a good lens for getting at the truth. Particularly since many of the so-called enemies of a Church have known more about the internal workings of the Church than the average adherent. It's like saying that one ought not listen to the "enemies" of Enron, or the "enemies" of Jim Jones.|
|Subject:||Research needs to be multi-faceted|
|Date:||Aug 08 13:29|
|Yeah, you can't only go to one source. So, you do go
to the faith you're examining but also to outside sources. In short, you
look at all the available information, keeping in mind the likely biases
of the various sources.
I understand what he is saying - I have read a lot of apologist material that loses its punch by making glaring misstatements, showing it has no understanding of the subject. Nothing could detract from its credibility more than that. To be of any value, the material's authors must do enough research to truly understand all sides. Otherwise, you get someone arguing a point against a faith's doctrine that they are misunderstanding - leaving the door wide open for the faith's adherents to say they don't know what they're talking about - which is true in that case, and makes all the rest of their information worse than useless.
I just read a very well written newspaper article about issues related to polygamy. The reporter interviewed plural wives, ex-plural wives and outsiders and gave some insight into the viewpoints from every side. THAT is good research and balanced reporting!
|One problem with Mormonism is that missionaries, and even regular members, are forced to withhold and distort information from those making decisions about the mormon church.|
|Subject:||Right. When buying a Ford....|
|Date:||Aug 08 16:34|
|.... you don't ask a Ford dealer about the car and
leave it at that. You look to Consumer Reports.
Warts and all. The *ONLY* fair way to view any subject.
|Subject:||I do not understand|
|Date:||Aug 08 13:17|
|Peterson's statement does not clarify his thoughts
for me. Is he saying that critics are bluffing or apologists are
And once we clear up that detail - I'd love to hear a fuller explanation of that statement. Who is bluffing, why and how? Is it an apologetic tool?
And while we're at it - how can you tell if someone sincerely wishes to debate the issues or if they're coming with an agenda? Seems to me it's mostly a case of everybody already having a strong opinion and trying to make each other look bad.
Peterson says he loves to debate - I would like to see that - maybe not on this board though. I'll check around on the Net.
Another thing I don't understand is this (quoting from the article linked above**):
"Margaret Young, a BYU writing instructor who also teamed with Darius Gray to author the "Standing on the Promises" trilogy, said Latter-day Saints need to get folklore about blacks and the pre-earth life out of their thinking.
"The basic truth is, we are all of one blood," she said, decrying the theory that blacks were in any way less valiant in the pre-earth life, and that their dark skin was a curse.
She said the Book of Mormon is a story about two races and that's one reason why it's a great book for our day."
This is most definitely contrary to teachings of Mormon prophets. Does this make this BYU teacher an apostate? Is she dissing the prophets? Does she know more than they do/did? (Is that possible - as she is female?) Are members guilty of succumbing to the lure of folklore? Have they not been reading their BoMs enough? Is she just mistaken or making it up or is the church changing its teaching on this? I really would like to know.
**This article and her quote have been referenced on a previous thread [See below]
The same BYU teacher also states:
"We need to come together as a body of Christ."
You can knock me over with a feather right now. There is great significance in this concept of the body of Christ to my evangelical friends (meaning "the worldwide body of believers). First time I have EVER heard a Mormon use this expression and meaning. WOW. Is this the birth of evangelical Mormonism? (That would be really something!!)
|Subject:||Yeah, that "Body of Christ" thing bowled me over also.|
|Date:||Aug 08 13:22|
|I hate absurdities. If I thought it would do any
good, I'd e-mail him and see what he thinks of my thoughts. With the
idea that it may generate discussion here, however, they are below.
>Don't go to a faith's enemies for information. Go to its adherents.
Any balanced view requires a look at both sides of the picture. Otherwise, there is no challenge to the veracity of any statement where such challenges are of paramount importance when you're investigating any idea, particularly when checking for facts.
>Don't compare the best in your faith with the worst in the one you are criticizing. Keep a level playing field.
A fair statement. However, with religion, you have a slightly different view that needs to be taken simply because religion claims to have the power to A) strain out the pond scum and B) change the scum into non-scum. In the secular world, you find that scum can exist very well within the walls of any organization and that it isn't necessarily a reflection of the organization itself. That includes religions. However, when you shine the religious light on religion, it constantly alludes to their power to overcome all of those human frailties. And this at the same time they assert that their churches are perfect even if their people aren't. A major contradiction.
>Always leave room for holy envy — what is it that this faith really does well?
ALL good organizations do good things. But they all step on some toes in the process. Again, Peterson's suggestion is an exclusionary thought, much like the thought of the first premise above. If you're going to consider the good of an organization, you also have to consider the bad. The scales ALWAYS have two sides. Why on earth would you ignore one of the two sides? It simply doesn't make sense. In fact, it's quite absurd. Here again there is a hypocrisy: The Morg repeatedly asserts growth and membership statistics but they continuously ignore depression med statistics, divorce rate statistics, suicide statistics, etc. etc. The bad things are ignored, per the advice of Peterson to the lifelong misery of its people.
The article states a belief of Peterson:
>He's also convinced that LDS religion is a good lens through which to view other religions.
A truly arrogant point of view. Aside from the assertion that Mormonism is The Only True Church ™, what's the reason to believe it could possibly serve as any kind of comparative research vehicle of their competitors, many of which have been around a LOT longer?
Margaret Young is quoted as saying:
>Latter-day Saints need to get folklore about blacks and the pre-earth life out of their thinking.
Here again, stop thinking about the "bad" things. Only consider the good! No wonder Mormons, et al are so disarmed when it comes to answering so many concerns about their faiths.
And, you're seeing it for yourselves, folks. A modification of Mormon belief. Young is again quoted and commented:
>"The basic truth is, we are all of one blood," she said, decrying the theory that blacks were in any way less valiant in the pre-earth life, and that their dark skin was a curse.
This was TAUGHT FROM THE PULPIT in the Mormon church while I was a child. Which raises the question we've all asked ourselves many times when researching historical Mormon beliefs: Were you wrong then or are you wrong now? Which is it?
Back to Peterson:
>He said it is possible to make any religious faith look stupid,
Actually, most faith's do that themselves. Which brings me full circle: Many or most religious adherents are good people, doing what they believe to be right. They are great people, great citizens, etc. etc. But if you start looking at many of the religious groups themselves, you find the discord and the problems. I submit to you that it isn't The Church ™ which is perfect but the people. The lie that the church is perfect and the people aren't has been perpetuated WAAAAAYYYYY too long.
|Subject:||Re: Holy Crap = "holy envy" This article is hilarious. I challenge|
|Date:||Aug 08 13:41|
|anybody to follow his act of bravado in the face of
I guess if they don't like the facts, they will take another look at the original BOM! Who does he think he is kidding?
Yup. It's possible to make any "faith look stupid."...
This is the funniest bunch of nonsense I have read in days!
|Subject:||Dark skin not a curse|
|Date:||Aug 08 14:29|
|How can you reconcile the following two statements:
1) "The basic truth is, we are all of one blood," she said, decrying the theory that blacks were in any way less valiant in the pre-earth life, and that their dark skin was a curse.
2) She said the Book of Mormon is a story about two races and that's one reason why it's a great book for our day.
Am I misquoting the Book of Mormon or doesn't it say:
And it came to pass that I beheld, after they had dwindled in unbelief they became a dark, and loathsome, and a filthy people, full of idleness and all manner of abominations. (1 Ne 12:23)
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. (2 Ne. 5:21, see all 22-24)
And also that the seed of this people may more fully believe his gospel, which shall go forth unto them from the Gentiles; for this people shall be scattered, and shall become a dark, a filthy, and a loathsome people, beyond the description of that which ever hath been amongst us, yea, even that which hath been among the Lamanites, and this because of their unbelief and idolatry. (Mormon 5:15)
How does the Book of Mormon then teach us how to deal effectively with race relations? Why is it a book for today? Because it very clearly teaches that the Americas had two races and that the righteous were white and the wicked were cursed with a dark skin, a "skin of blackness." In the Book of Mormon the races were definitely NOT equal and the dark skinned raced was consistently portrayed as cursed. And let's not forget that 2 Ne. 30:6 says:
And then shall they rejoice; for they shall know that it is a blessing unto them from the hand of God; and their scales of darkness shall begin to fall from their eyes; and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a pure and a delightsome people.
Note that the original said "white," not "pure." Compare this to 2 Ne 5:21 where they went from white to black. The change from "white" to "pure" isn't internally consistent with the earlier verse where the curse was from white to black.
No, the apologists are "not inventing things to save the church or make it look good." Yeah, right.
|Date:||Aug 08 14:50|
|Actually, this is open to question too - people have
different blood types, different genotypes, distinct DNA.
Have we got a new doctrine in the making here - that we're all "one blood" so DNA differences are not "true"? LOL
|Subject:||"according to an unofficial apologist for the church."|
|Date:||Aug 08 16:31|
|One question : How can he be an unofficial apologist for the church if he is paid by the church to write apologetic material?|
|Subject:||Official Mormon racism is NOT folklore!|
|Date:||Aug 08 15:41|
|More folly from the FAIR conference. Do these people
have any sense of integrity left?
From the Deseret News article on the FAIR conference:
"Margaret Young, a BYU writing instructor who also teamed with Darius Gray to author the "Standing on the Promises" trilogy, said Latter-day Saints need to get folklore about blacks and the pre-earth life out of their thinking. "The basic truth is, we are all of one blood," she said, decrying the theory that blacks were in any way less valiant in the pre-earth life, and that their dark skin was a curse."
Are these people professionals or just spin doctors?
Sorry, Ma'am, but Mormon racism is not folklore. It's scripture canon and divine teaching from the Prophets of the Lord. Take a look:
"And Enoch also beheld the residue of the people which were the sons of Adam; and they were a mixture of all the seed of Adam save it was the seed of Cain, for the seed of Cain were black, and had not place among them."
"It was well understood by the early elders of the Church that the mark which was placed on Cain and which his posterity inherited was the black skin. The Book of Moses informs us that Cain and his descendants were black."
- The Prophet Joseph Fielding Smith, The Way to Perfection, p. 107
“Cain slew his brother....and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin..."
- The Prophet Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 7, pages 290-291
“Their skin is quite black, their hair woolly and black, their intelligence stunted, and they appear never to have arisen from the most savage state of barbarism.”
- Official Church Publication, The Juvenile Instructor, Vol. 3, page 157
"Not only was Cain called upon to suffer, but because of his wickedness he became the father of an inferior race."
- The Prophet Joseph Fielding Smith, The Way to Perfection, p. 101
"There is a reason why one man is born black and with other disadvantages, while another is born white with great advantage. 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. Those who were faithful in all things there received greater blessings here, and those who were not faithful received less.... There were no neutrals in the war in heaven. All took sides either with Christ or with Satan. Every man had his agency there, and men receive rewards here based upon their actions there, just as they will receive rewards hereafter for deeds done in the body. The Negro, evidently, is receiving the reward he merits."
- The Prophet Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, Vol.1, pages 66-67
“The descendants of Ham, besides a back skin which has ever been a curse that has followed an apostate of the holy priesthood, as well as a black heart, have been servants to both Shem and Japheth, and the abolitionists are trying to make void the curse of God, but it will require more than man posseses to counteract the decree of Eternal wisdom.”
- The Apostle (later The Prophet) John Taylor, official Church Publication "Times and Seasons", Vol. 6, page 857
“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.”
- The Prophet Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 10, page 110
“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 representative upon the earth as well as God;...”
- The Prophet John Taylor, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 22, page 304
And there's more, many more Mormon prophetic teachings on this subject:
This isn't just some isolated quote from one or two church leaders. The racist teaching from the Mormon pulpit is prolific and consistent over time. If God didn't agree with his prophets teaching these things in His church, then why did they continue over generations?
Why is it that ordained church leaders don't come out and denounce these church teachings?
There's a big difference between folklore and Mormon scripture. When the president and prophet of the church stands at the pulpit and teaches the laws of God, that isn't folklore.
Smart Mormons know Margaret Young is lying. She is going against the teachings of church leaders and the scriptures. She should be ex-communicated for apostasy, along with the rest of those FAIR excuse-makers.
|Subject:||"Do these people have any sense of integrity left?" NO!|
|Subject:||I've said it before...they are just waiting for the older generation to die so they can implement the new mainstream doctrine without debate.|
|Date:||Aug 08 16:00|
|They have been calculating their moves and use all
possible avenues to persuade the new members that it isn't a part of lds
doctrine. It seems to be working. Those who aren't interested enough to
research are led carefully by the apologists.
Out with the old, in with the new. We see the pioneer generations fading into the sunset. The new frontier is regroup, evolve, enslave. That might be the new three objectives of the church.
You are right on Decon. The coffin is so full of nails now I'm surprised the entire operation is not buried.
|Subject:||Blacks/priesthood, polygamy, oath of vengance, endowment penalties, are gone, yet, members still continue as if in a trance. Awake and Arise is not being taken seriously!|
|Date:||Aug 08 16:12|
|Those who want to know will research their own
scriptures/books. The contradictions are endless.
Fair makes my hair stand up on end. I can't read/listen to them without wondering who is the jack*** that allows them to continue these absurd conclusions publicly.
|Subject:||You're giving her way too much credit...|
|Date:||Aug 08 16:11|
|From the Deseret News article, it's not clear
whether she meant the scriptures and teachings came from folklore, or
the racist ideas Mormons have today come from folklore and are not based
I'm assuming she is a True Believing Mormon and wouldn't deny that Mormon scriptures come from God, as do the words of the prophets.
It's more consistent with FAIR's tactics that she is simply denying that the church ever taught such things. FAIR and FARMs finds it much easier to simply deny or ignore what the church has been teaching all these years and instead just make up new teachings.
A good example of this is the BoM DNA problem. There are countless teachings from church leaders, as well as in the Book of Mormon itself that FAIR and FARM apologists simply ignore or deny in order to make their excuses work.
Same thing with the Book of Abraham. Never mind what the church teaches or the book actually says, just come up with something that works for people who are desperate for theories.
But they aren't fooling most smart Mormons. When smart people go to FAIR and FARMs for answers, they recognize them for what they are.
|Subject:||To exmo historians and other protectors of fact (re church rewriting history)|
|Date:||Aug 08 12:53|
|I hope Deconstructor, Randy J., Bob McCue, Langdon,
Helen, Steve Benson and all other exmos with a special interest in
doctrine and history are keeping hard copies of the texts and quotes
they use as back-up for the material they post here and on other sites.
With the fast-spin put on its past by the Mormon church in an attempt to whitewash and mainstream, I can imagine them claiming even more so that their own unpalatable history and troublesome doctrines are "anti-Mormon lies". They already say that quotes, clearly from the mouths of their own prophets, posted by people such as Decon, are taken out of context, misunderstood and/or incorrect and/or that such things can only be understood with the aid of The Spirit (which exmos obviously don't have as they're so busy trying to destroy Truth). (Well, it would take a big ol' dose of "Spirit" to "understand" the racist doctrine of the Mormons).
Another thread this morning raises the spectre of the church and its apologists continually rewriting doctrine to avoid accountability (and incidentally further mess with members' minds). I fear that it will be easier and easier for the church to claim that historians, exmos and others are "lying" as it spins around and around and around changing HISTORY to suit its needs of the moment. Certainly the members' collective memory will not be up to the task of distinguishing subtle or even major changes. Doctrine and history are obscure, muddied and confusing enough as it is (by design to be sure) without a member having to keep track of then vs now in the ever shifting sands of Mormonism. The church keeps its people mired in so much busywork that most don't have time for anything so "impractical" as doctrinal analysis. I have never attended a church where the majority of people are so disinterested in doctrine. From an outsider's view, that is a remarkable phenomenon. (Doesn't it matter what your church teaches and what you actually believe? In which case, isn't change a really big deal?)
For refutation of such jawdropping claims, see the archived quotes of Mormon prophets on Deconstructor's web site regarding the church's racism and other important issues. Surely it is not possible for Mormon leaders and apologists to spin their way out of their own muck without at least acknowledging they had to take a bath?
Posters were joking about Mormon doctrine being written with a pencil. That's funny in a macabre way....like so much of Mormonism.
It's one thing for the church to have taught and abided by racist and other unacceptable doctrine and practices. It's quite another to try and spin their way out of it by saying it never happened.
One of the first BIG RED FLAGS that flew right in my face was when I was meeting with the SP [stake president] once (I had no idea it wasn't considered proper protocol to just call him up and say I had questions. The bishop's facial veins were pulsating on that one). So I asked my questions about church doctrine etc and the SP, acting like it was a big special deal, unlocked the church library and lent me an old book by Joseph Fielding Smith (don't remember name of book). He told me not to tell anybody he had let me take the book out of the church. He apparently thought it would be such a "spiritual experience" for me that I would have no more questions.
Well, the book was full of the old-time "deep" doctrine of previous Mormon prophets, including man will become god (which the missionaries and other members swore blind to me was NOT doctrine but anti-Mormon lies). Needless to say, I did get something out of the book but not what the SP expected. I will never forget how creeped out I felt at seeing the SP sneaking into a dark empty locked church library to surreptitiously give me a book of doctrine. The symbolism of a church locking its libraries and restricting access to the words of its own prophets and teachers and leaders is very apt. Yet scary.
I hope you "historians" keep the books and articles that can provide the irrefutable proof of the way it was. We're gonna need it some day.
|Subject:||I'm glad there are people...|
|Date:||Aug 08 13:40|
|like the ones you mentioned, Nightingale, who are
exmo and willing to take on the mormon doctrinal challenge in a
scholarly manner. I could not possibly do so. I can no longer even look
at mormon scripture without wanting to claw my own eyes out. To me,
trying to argue with a TBM about doctrine would be akin to arguing with
a sociopath about his book on the best way to torture a kitten. In
trying to make my argument to him that torturing a kitten is wrong, I'd
have to read his book and basically go somewhere I don't want to go
I know that paints an ugly picture, but it is about the only way I can describe my true disdain for reading the unholy drivel that is the mormon standard works.
I can't even fathom mopologism (if that's a word).
I especially like the following quote from the linked article in Deseret News;
"The Book of Mormon stands up well in good company," [Peterson] said. "I'm dazzled by the book."
|Subject:||Well said zman|
|Date:||Aug 08 13:45|
|I relate to the scripture-clawing eyes part. I felt
like that for a long time. When I first came to this site, I could get
to feeling physically ill if I read a long passage of the BoM that
I used to really like learning about and debating doctrinal differences. Not so much now.
Some of us are historians, some are scholars, some are questioners, some just wanna play in the sunshine - like me, today!
|Subject:||Any more, I feel most peoples' "quest for truth"...|
|Date:||Aug 08 14:14|
|is just a way of proving their superiority.
The following quote is taken from the book "Return from Tomorrow" by George G. Ritchie. It is part of his vivid near-death experience. He (Ritchie) is on a sort of tour, with Jesus as his apparent tour guide. He is seeing and feeling a sort of hell inhabited by disembodied spirits whose every thought can be discerned by all without verbal communication;
"And the thoughts most frequently communicated had to do with the superior knowledge, or abilities, or background of the thinker. "I told you so!" 'I always knew!" "Didn't I warn you!" were shrieked into the echoing air over and over. With a feeling of sick familiarity I recognized here my own thinking. This was me, my very tone of voice--the righteous one, the award-winner, the churchgoer."
Oddly enough, this book came to my attention during a stake conference talk given by my then stake president.
I can't know if Ritchie's experience was genuine, but it sure hit home for me--more than any mormon scripture--except for maybe Jacob 4:14 "...which blindness came by looking beyond the mark..." But that is from my druggie days and using hallucinogens to "find truth". I must say, TSCC probably grounded me quite a bit more in "reality" after those strange days. But the morg has more than outgrown its usefulness. Their "reality" no longer works for me.
Good to see you too, Nightingale. Enjoy your fun in the sun.
|Subject:||I agree completely with this post.|
|Date:||Aug 08 17:22|
|Author:||D. P. Gumby|
|It is great that Decon, Randy J. and all the rest
keep the documentation of what TSCC [This so called
church] taught in the past, because it will
disappear from mormonism. Slowly, inexorably, like the rainfall eroding
the mountains, the past history and doctrine will be swept under the rug
and denied. [How was that for a mixed metaphor :)]
Your experience with the SP was creepy. I wonder how long it will take before COJCOLDS decides that members will not be allowed to possess any of those old writings. I have never encountered a church that made as much effort to obfuscate its basic doctrine or hide its past as the Mormon church does.
|Subject:||The re-invention of Mormon doctrine continues|
|Date:||Aug 08 04:06|
|Author:||D. P. Gumby|
|The mopologists continue their unrelenting effort to
redefine Mormon history and doctrine
Didn't this theory come from men who were sustained by the LDS church as prophets? When exactly does prophecy change into folklore? Does mormonism have any core doctrine that is immutable even if it becomes embarrassing?
Maybe FAIR will be so kind as to explain to us just what the Mormon church's fundamental beliefs really are.
|Date:||Aug 08 04:26|
|Was the Civil Rights movement "folklore" as well? How condescending can she possibly be? (You silly, stupid members, why did you believe what you were taught for decades? Take that silly doctrine out of your thinking! You are now only allowed to write with #2 pencil lead from now on-except during meetings...)|
|Subject:||You're right. about using a pencil...|
|Date:||Aug 08 11:31|
|Using a pen makes the paper looks so messy every time we have to change the doctrine! LOL!|
|Subject:||curiouser and curiouser!|
|Date:||Aug 08 04:31|
|Author:||Charles, Buddhist Punk|
|So, now the doctrine of Cain's seed and progeny of
Laman and Lemuel are folklore and not doctrine taught with passion from
the pulpit by JS, BY and the gang?
Don't hold your breath for her to be called into the SP's office over this. It's probably PR spin from COB [church office building] itself.
|Subject:||The preexistence and the Black Priesthood ban are both in the Book of Abraham|
|Date:||Aug 08 07:25|
|At least for now this is canonized in scripture. The highly insensitive comment in McConkie's, Mormon Doctrine makes reference to the BoA. Other gems from this long debunked piece of trash include that god lives on [or near] Kolob and that there was a council of the gods that created the planet. All of these are doctrines that the church would rather forget and could easily discard simply by coming clean about the bogus nature of the scripture that contained them. I imagine that they will and that their cover story will be something similar to the argument used now to cover for the Kinderhook Plates fiasco. "There is no evidence that Lt. Gen. Smith ever intended the BoA to be canonized in scripture. It is clear from the historical records that its publication in Times and Seasons was for entertainment value only." Or something along those lines. Some folks will buy it.|
|Subject:||more excellent scriptures|
|Date:||Aug 22 02:52|
|Nice job, Decon,
I am glad you included Moses 7:22 and quotes from the prophets, but let's not forget these other canonized scriptures:
Moses 7:8 says that Enoch converted many people, but not the descendants of Cain, because "there was a blackness that came upon the children of Canaan, that they were despised among all people".
Moses 7:22-23 tells of Enoch’s efforts to make a city so perfect was established that it was taken up into heaven. This perfect city contained “a mixture of all the seed of Adam” except the seed of Cain, "for the seed of Cain were black and had not place among them".
According to Mormon doctrine, the black races descended from Ham. Ham’s wife – Egyptus - was a descendant of Cain (Abraham 1:21-22), and “thus from Ham sprang that race which preserved the curse in the land” (Abraham 1:24). The curse refers to denial of the Priesthood (Abraham 1:26-27).
Also, according to the Book of Mormon, after the Lamanites had dwindled in unbelief, they became "dark and loathsome and a filthy people, full of idleness and all manner of abominations” (1 Nephi 12:23). They were “cut off from [God’s] presence”, and God cursed them with a “skin of blackness” (2 Nephi 5:20-21). Nephi says that the dark skin made it so that the Lamanites were no longer “enticing” to the Nephites who were “white and delightsome” (2 Nephi 5:21). And in 3 Nephi 2:14-15, we read about how when some of the Lamanites repented, they were "numbered among the Nephites; and their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites. And their young men and their duaghters were exceedingly fair, and they were numbered among the Nephites".