Why aren't there any African-American leaders of the LDS, and why won't there ever be? I mean, outside of that Mormon dogma that Africans are cursed forever, enternally irredeemable and therefore cursed with black skin as written in the Book Of Mormon?
Damn, you Mormons are fucked up.
The leader of the LDS church a while back decided, I mean had a revelation, that they needed to change it.. So you are a few years late..
But there is still their doctrine about why africans are black though, and the native indians too
Ron Pilot/Wildland Firefighter
"Garrison Hilliard" wrote in message news:[email]...
There are hundreds of LDS African leaders.
African Americans are not forever cursed, nor are they eternally irredeemable.
You're almost as outdated as people who think we still practice polygamy. :) Will the next South Park episode show how many doctrinal changes the LDS have made? That would be amusing as well.
Sprgtime
"Sprgtime" wrote in message news:...
According to the Book of Mormon they are.
Twenty-five years ago, dear, twenty-five years ago was the half-hearted
Such as the changing of the ban on caffeinated drinks after the LDS bought up huge shares of Pepsi (or was it Coke?)?
p.s. Care to know some LDS thoughts about African-Americans? Read on...
---Elder MARK E. PETERSON Race Problems -- As They Affect The Church Convention of Teachers of Religion on the College Level, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, August 27, 1954.
God has commanded Israel not to intermarry. To go against this commandment of God would be in sin. Those who willfully sin with their eyes open to this wrong will not be surprised to find that they will be separated from the presence of God in the world to come. This is spiritual death....
The reason that one would lose his blessings by marrying a Negro is due to the restriction placed upon them. "No person having the least particle of Negro blood can hold the Priesthood" (Brigham Young). It does not matter if they are one-sixth Negro or one-hundred and sixth, the curse of no Priesthood is the same. If an individual who is entitled to the Priesthood marries a Negro, the Lord has decreed that only spirits who are not eligible for the Priesthood will come to that marriage as children. To intermarry with a Negro is to forfeit a "Nation of Priesthood holders"....
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, and then, of course, they have been persuaded by some of the arguments that have been put forth....We who teach in the Church certainly must have our feet on the ground and not to be led astray by the philosophies of men on this subject....
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"....
Now let's talk about segregation again for a few moments. Was segregation a wrong principle? When the Lord chose the nations to which the spirits were to come, determining that some would be Japanese and some would be Chinese and some Negroes and some Americans, He engaged in an act of segregation....
When he told Enoch not preach the gospel to the descendants of Cain who were black, the Lord engaged in segregation. When He cursed the descendants of Cain as to the Priesthood, He engaged in segregation....
Who placed the Negroes originally in darkest Africa? Was it some man, or was it God? And when He placed them there, He segregated them....
The Lord segregated the people both as to blood and place of residence. At least in the cases of the Lamanites and the Negro we have the definite word of the Lord Himself that he placed a dark skin upon them as a curse -- as a punishment and as a sign to all others. He forbade intermarriage with them under threat of extension of the curse. And He certainly segregated the descendants of Cain when He cursed the Negro as to the Priesthood, and drew an absolute line. You may even say He dropped an Iron curtain there....
Now we are generous with the Negro. We are willing that the Negro have the highest education. I would be willing to let every Negro drive a Cadillac if they could afford it. I would be willing that they have all the advantages they can get out of life in the world. But let them enjoy these things among themselves. I think the Lord segregated the Negro and who is man to change that segregation? It reminds me of the scripture on marriage, "what God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." Only here we have the reverse of the thing -- what God hath separated, let not man bring together again."
Think of the Negro, cursed as to the priesthood.... This Negro, who, in the pre-existence lived the type of life which justified the Lord in sending him to the earth in their lineage of Cain with a black skin, and possibly being born in darkest Africa--if that Negro is willing when he hears the gospel to accept it, he may have many of the blessings of the gospel. In spite of all he did in the pre-existent life, the Lord is willing, 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. If that Negro is faithful all his days, he can and will enter the celestial kingdom. He will go there as a servant, but he will get celestial glory.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------ EZRA TAFT BENSON General Conference Report, October 1967, p. 38 The Communist program for revolution in America has been in progress for many years and is far advanced. While it can be thwarted in a fairly short period of time merely by sufficient exposure, the evil effects of what has already been accomplished cannot be removed overnight. The animosities, the hatred, the extension of government control into our daily lives -- all this will take time to repair. The already-inflicted wounds will be slow in healing. But they can be healed; that is the important point.
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. Not one in a thousand Americans -- black or white -- really understands the full implications of today's civil rights agitation. The planning, direction, and leadership come from the Communists, and most of those are white men who fully intend to destroy America by spilling Negro blood, rather than their own.
Next, we must not participate in any so-called "blacklash" activity which might tend to further intensify inter-racial friction. Anti-Negro vigilante action, or mob action, of any kind fits perfectly into the Communist plan. This is one of the best ways to force the decent Negro into cooperating with militant Negro groups. The Communists are just as anxious to spearhead such anti-Negro actions as they are to organize demonstrations that are calculated to irritate white people.
We must insist that duly authorized legislative investigating committees launch an even more exhaustive study and expose the degree to which secret Communists have penetrated into the civil rights movement. The same needs to be done with militant anti-Negro groups. This is an effective way for the American people of both races to find out who are the false leaders among them.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------ BRUCE R. MCCONKIE Mormon Doctrine, p. 114 In a broad general sense, caste systems have their root and origin in the gospel itself, and when they operate according to the divine decree, the resultant restrictions and segregation are right and proper and have the approval of the Lord. To illustrate: Cain, Ham, and the whole Negro race have been cursed with a black skin, the mark of Cain, so they can be identified as a caste apart, a people with whom the other descendants of Adam should not intermarry. (Gen. 4; Moses 5.) The whole house of Israel was chosen as a peculiar people, one set apart from all other nations (Ex. 19:5-6; Deut. 7:6; 14:2); and they were forbidden to marry outside their own caste. (Ex. 34:10-17; Deut. 7:1-5.) In effect the Lamanites belonged to one caste and the Nephites to another, and a mark was put upon the Lamanites to keep the Nephites from intermixing with and marrying them. (Alma 3:6-11.) All this is not to say that any race, creed, or caste should be denied any inalienable rights. But it is to say that Deity in his infinite wisdom, to carry out his inscrutable purposes, has a caste system of his own, a system of segregation of races and peoples. The justice of such a system is evident when life is considered in its true eternal perspective. It is only by a knowledge of pre-existence that it can be known why some persons are born in one race or caste and some in another. "However, in a broad general sense, caste systems have their origin in the gospel itself, and when they operate according to the divine decree, the resultant restrictions and segregation are right and proper and have the approval of the lord.
pp. 102.
Tough he was rebel and an associate of Lucifer in pre-existence, and though he was a liar from the beginning whose name was Perdition, Cain was cursed with a dark skin; he became the father of the Negroes, and those sprits who are not worthy to receive the priesthood are born though his lineage. He became the first mortal to be cursed as a son of perdition. As a result of his mortal birth he is assured of a tangible body of flesh and bones in eternity, a fact which will enable him to rule over Satan.
pg. 343
Through Ham (a name meaning black) the blood of the Canaanites was preserved through the flood, he having married Egyptus, a descendent of Cain.
Negroes in this life are denied the priesthood; under no circumstances can they hold this delegation of authority from the Almighty. The gospel message of salvation is not carried affirmatively to them... Negroes are not equal with other races where the receipt of certain spiritual blessings are concerned....
-------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------ 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.
And thus saith the Lord God: I will cause that they shall be loathsome unto thy people, save they shall repent of their iniquities.
And cursed shall be the seed of him that mixeth with their seed; for they shall be cursed even with the same cursing. And the Lord spake it, and it was done.
And because of their cursing which was upon them they did become an idle people, full of mischief and subtlety, and did seek in the wilderness for beasts of prey.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------ SPENCER W. KIMBALL General Conference Report, October, 1960. Improvement Era, December 1960, pp. 922-923. I saw a striking contrast in the progress of the Indian people today.... The day of the Lamanites is nigh. For years they have been growing delightsome, and they are now becoming white and delightsome, as they were promised. In this picture of the twenty Lamanite missionaries, fifteen of the twenty were as light as Anglos, five were darker but equally delightsome 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.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------ JOSPEH FIELDING SMITH Doctrines of Salvation, pp. 65-66. 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.
pg. 61.
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. Those who were faithful in all things there received greater blessings here, and those who were not faithful received less.
Juvenile Instructor, vol. 26, p. 635
It is very clear that the mark which was set upon the descendants of Cain was a skin of blackness...It has been noticed in our day that men who have lost the spirit of the Lord, and from whom His blessings have been withdrawn, have turned dark to such an extent as to excite the comments of all who have known them.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------ BRIGHAM YOUNG Journal of Discourses 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.
Vol. 7, pg. 290-291
Cain slew his brother. . . and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin.
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.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------ JOHN TAYLOR Journal of Discourses, Vol. 22, pg. 304. And after the flood we are told that the curse that had been pronounced upon Cain was continued through Hams' 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.
Millennial Star, Vol. 14, pg. 418.
For instance, the descendants of Cain cannot cast off their skin of blackness, at once, and immediately, although every soul of them should repent,....Cain and his posterity must wear the mark which God put upon them; and his white friends may wash the race of Cain with fuller's soap every day, they cannot wash away God's mark.
"Garrison Hilliard" wrote in message
You have obviously never read the book yourself, or you would know that the Book of Mormon does not now and never did even mention African Americans.
"Sprgtime" wrote in message news:...
Correct - the BOM doesn't say African Americans. It is, however, rife with references to "curses" that clearly equate skin color with righteousness. Why do Mormons have no problem with this doctrine - then act surprised when people accuse them of being racist?
On 26 Nov 2003 09:19:20 -0800, [email] (Garrison Hilliard) wrote:
Actually, slight correction, the Cain curse, through the lineage of Ham, doctrine is in the Book of Abraham, a book which has been so thoroughly debunked as a fraud, the Church would be smart to remove it from it's 'Standard Works'. They would receive a lot of heat for removing it, but it can't be much worse than the heat they constantly receive for leaving it in. They can just quietly remove it in the next version of the PofGP, then deny that they ever had a Book of Abraham. Any mention that a book called 'The Book of Abraham' existed as part of the PofGP can be denied as an 'anti-Mormon' lie. It would look rediculous to outsiders, but no more rediculous than denying the church was ever racist.
"Harry Palms" wrote in message news:[email]...
As you mentioned in your post the Book of Abraham is part of the Pearl Of Great Price not the Book of Mormon, so no correction needed. The BoM and PoGP are two seperate books.
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:30:03 -0800, ut-1069877716 wrote:
None. The African race and what to do with them is addressed in the Book of Abraham. The book of mormon deals with those 'dark and loathsome' Injuns.
All true, in fact Joseph Smith was progressive on the slavery issue for his time. Probably because of his New England upbringing. Many of his speeches are anti-slavery. He ordained Elijah Abel to the Priesthood. Unfortunately, he had to through the curse of Cain doctrine into the Book of Abraham. However progressive Joseph Smith was regarding race, he still had silly superstitions about skin color that were common among people in the early 1800s. This is evident in the racist teachings of the Book of Mormon (God 'cursing' lamanites with dark skin and promising they will turn 'white and delightsome' if they accept the gospel), and the racist teachings regarding the African race in the Book of Abraham. Unfortuanately, these scriptural teachings gave license to hard core racists like Brigham Young and Mark E. Peterson to spread racist propoganda from the pulpit right up until 1978.
"Garrison Hilliard" wrote...
I did some research on this previously and learned that it has never been caffeine that was prohibited by Mormonism. The actual prohibition was against "hot drink" which on the surface would seem to include hot chocolate. But Joseph Smith (or was it Brigham Young) soon clarified it to specifially mean coffee and tea; for some reason these two beverages can't be consumed even if they are chilled, or even if they are decaffeinated. I worked with a Mormon and he dutifully obeyed the prohibition but chugged several 1L bottles of Mountain Dew daily until he was bouncing off the walls. Last time I was in SLC I personally witnessed a Coca-Cola vending machine in the Mormon-owned ZCMI department store. My cousin told me this was because the Mormon church had purchased large amounts of Coca-Cola stock. I do wonder how Mormons reconcile the consumption of caffeine with their general prohibition of other mind altering drugs.
Poop Dogg wrote:
Probably don't give it a thought, any more than Jews wonder why they can eat the front half of a cow but not the rear.
On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 06:53:14 GMT, Gus wrote:
Ummm, I think you're mistaken. As far as I know, an observant Jew can eat any part of a cow, as long as it is slaughtered, butchered, and prepared under kosher supervision.
Jeremiah
Jeremiah Kristal wrote:
Jesus, talk about a timely response!
When I heard about this, I have asked some religious Jews what they do with the back half of the cow and was told "sell it to the Goyim". :)
Can any observant Jew(s) on the NG comment on this?
----------------------------------------------------------
A quick Google turned up the following:
-------------------------------------------------------------
Chowhound's Kosher Message Board
Subject: Re(1): Kosher Beef Name: baruch Posted: July 15, 2003 at 08:47:05
In Reply To: Kosher Beef Posted by Beerhound on July 14, 2003 at 15:31:26
Message:
There is nothing intrinsically unkosher about these cuts. However, the sciatic nerve and its related arteries are not permissible to eat. These are located in the hindquarters where the sirloin, T-bone, and filet mignon cuts come from.
Removal of this nerve/arteries is a labor and time intensive process which is why for the longest time you did not see these cuts available to kosher consumers. As the culinary demands of kosher consumers grow, you are beginning to see butchers taking the time to remove this nerve. I can find all these cuts of meat at glatt butchers in the Boston area. I also see it when I go home to NY and NJ. This was not the case growing up.
These cuts are even more expensive than regular kosher cuts due to the time and labor involved in making these cuts kosher.
http://www.chowhound.com/boards/kosher/messages/1843.html
-----------------------------------------------------------
The eating of animals, however, posed some problems, and those rules required careful distinctions. One may not eat any animal that eats other animals. One may only eat animals killed by a professional slaughterer in the most merciful way. Birds of prey are forbidden, as are pork, rabbit and horsemeat. Meat must also be inspected for disease, and certain portions of the animal � including the hindquarters (unless the sciatic nerve is removed) and the fat below the abdomen � cannot be consumed. "In a kosher kitchen, meat must be free of blood. This is a mark of respect to another living creature, a symbol of the regret with which we indulge our carnal natures. Flesh must be salted and soaked, to wash away the life fluid before cooking," writes Elizabeth Ehrlich in her book Miriam's Kitchen, A Memoir.
On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 23:37:55 GMT, Gus wrote:
Dammit! For some reason that message sat in my outbound queue for 24 damn days. I guess I should be more aware what I'm posting when Agent asks if I want to send queued messages.
And the below I didn't know. I'll have to ask my observant friends, I was actually out drinking with one last week, would have discussed this had I known.
Jeremiha
"Poop Dogg" wrote in message news:...
Couple of problems with your observations. First, the Mormons no longer own ZCMI. ZCMI is a publicly owned company with upwards of 1,400 stockholders. In 1988 the Mormon Church owned 51 percent of ZCMI's stock. In December 1999, an $8.5 million loss prompted the sale of ZCMI to Meier and Frank company.
Second, the "large purchase of Coca-Cola stock" is an urban legend dating back to the fifties when the Church liquidated some Coca-Cola stock a member bequeathed to the church.
It may be good to note that what your cousin tells you should not be considered one of the better sources of reliable information.
Steve Lowther
The rumors about Coke originate, as far as I can remember, with U&I Sugar having a sweetener contract with Fanta. Don or anyone else have a recollection of this?
Clovis Lark wrote:
I don't remember.
D1
In alt.religion.mormon Unruly Human wrote:
As a teen non-babe in Ootah, we were told that the proliferation of Coke product dispensing machines was a direct result of U&I having landed a sweetener contract for Fanta. It was claimed that following the signing of this contract, coke products (colas, in particular) were dropped from from the blacklist by the authorities and deemed appropriate for brethren to imbibe in. Any takers with documentation either way?
"Poop Dogg" wrote in message news:[email]...
LDS
I haven't done much research on this but I think there are some teas that are ok to drink. I think it depends on how the tea is made. For instance, I think it is ok to drink wheat tea, which is popular in Japan. They drink it both chilled and hot. As far as I am aware they cannot deny you a temple recommend for this.
I have heard different stories on this as well. One thing that has been mentioned is that the church bought stock in Coke so that they could get the company to produce the Caffeine-Free versions of their drinks. Caffeine-free versions of a lot of the Coke products are not available outside of Utah and the states surrounding Utah.
On 01 Dec 2003, "DWJ" posted this:
They're available in Washington state.
ut-1069877716 wrote:
(snip)
Eeeeewwwww! Golden showers!
On or about Thu, 27 Nov 2003 06:51:20 GMT, Gus made the sensational claim that:
You'd prefer hershey squirts?
LooseChanj wrote:
Double eeeewwwww! No.
Wow Garrison, you can call people "racists" and insult their religion. Does that make you feel smart? Do you feel smart? You watched a cartoon and now you think you know everything about a certain subject. LOL. You did a few minutes or hours worth of research on some anti-Mormon site and now you're cutting and pasting selected quotes to try to prove that people from this religion are as hateful as you are.
You've proved nothing to anybody who is the least bit open minded, except that you yourself are not open minded, and that you know how to cut and paste from some hippie website. The insanely ironic thing is that you're trying to prove, in large part, that religious people are not open minded while displaying blatantly close minded opinions yourself.
Too bad this type of stuff passes for "logic" these days on usenet. How about trying to write a balanced opinion about feeling the way you feel without resorting to using phrases such as "your group sure is fuked up."
I suppose you think that all Christians are anti gay and hate sex and like to start wars causing thousands of deaths. Or that Muslims all like to blow buildings up. Yup, come on, I want to hear you bash all the Christians now, Im starting to feel left out. Tell me how we're all homophobes because of a few mentions in the Bible or because you heard of some TV evangelists that condemned that behavior on TV. I guess they speak for all of us huh? And I guess all Mormons, past and present, are prejudiced against black people because of what a few Muslims might have said.
Oh no, but I'm sure you've "proved" that we are all taught these things and that we all feel this way just like you've proved below that Mormons are all "racists" and have held the Black man down for well over a hundred years now.
Too bad you don't actually know any Mormons or Christians or Muslims or you might actually find out that "hating everybody" is not a big part of our philosophy, in fact it's quite the opposite. Oh but you can't point out that 90% of what these people do and the values they have are positive. Oh no, I guess that doesn't matter to you. The only one I see hating here is you. You're the one who is displaying his ignorance and prejudices. Yet you're trying to come off as an "intellect." Unbelievable.
If you want unbiased people to listen to why you feel the way you do, try not to sound like an anti establishment hippie by calling everyone and their Mother a racist. But then again, maybe that's the only thing you can argue because you have no argument. That's too bad you have to sink that low though. You're going to cause more people to actually defend what you hate, than you will to hate it like you do.
People like you always whine about religious people who preach, yet it's people like you who I see preaching more than anybody anymore. If you choose not to believe in anything then you have chosen a belief system too you know. Some of us have heard your cliched rhetoric a thousand times before, thank you. It might have been interesting to hear in say, 1965, but now it's just old. Get off the bandwagon. It's easy to make fun of religion. I bet you make fun of people who don't sleep around and listen to whatever "hip" type of music you listen to either, right? Well, we all can't be on the cutting edge of society like you and your mushroom ingesting friends are. And some of us don't paint ourselves as being the saviors of the Black race and of other minorites the way you do, because we know that they are doing fine on their own merits and are able to overcome all the "evil Mormons" that you claim have been holding them back for all these years. I feel sorry that you believe a religious cult of white hillbillies living in Utah have had that much influence over the free African American.
Sorry, some of us actually give them (Blacks) more credit than that.
It does however seem to me that you just *might* enjoy pointing out the incorrect, detrimental things said about African American by the Mormons long ago. I feel bad for you if you really feel so many people still believe that garbage. I don't see how very many could possibly feel that way in modern history. But yet, you believe it. After all, you, and your friends, are the only ones pointing out these demeaning things. You're the one spreading these untruths around. Tell me, *are* you trying to hurt black people's feelings, or are you just that big of a flame war instigator that nothing else matters to you? It's just a big joke to you, I can see. It seems to me, that you *want* every Mormon to be a womanizing racist. You feel you have to project somebody else's thoughts and motivations onto Mormons. And just who's motivations are you projecting onto them? Think twice about that one.
Again, I'll point out that I didn't get any of this from the South Park episode. Just like I thought the episode about Catholics was very fair and not hateful. That's what that show is good at. Every institution should be laughed at and every group should be fair game. That's >satire<. That's what I like about the show. It actually *isn't* politically correct at all, in a world where just about everything else is. The shows politics are pretty moderate, socially at least. If it leans in any direction, I think it's pretty clear which way it is. But there's a big difference between leveling fair criticisms against a group and spouting antagonizing, insulting, even vulgar rhetoric the way you and your buddies do.
Im not blaming the show for the way idiots react to it. You can see what you want in it, even if you're missing the whole point.
On Wed 26 Nov 2003 03:30:03p, ut-1069877716 wrote in news:[email]:
Race is not a Biblical concept.
Right, just God's "Chosen People".
On 25 Nov 2003, "Sprgtime" posted this:
How many general authorities?
On 30 Nov 2003, "Dr. DOS" posted this:
That's a much smaller universe than "general authorities." Furthermore, the choosing of a president is a somewhat democratic process.
On Wed 26 Nov 2003 12:10:27a, "Sprgtime" wrote in news:[email]:
Many Mormons still do. It was one of Joseph Smith's important tenents. How very convienient that Mormons can just change their religious doctrine at will.
"Snubis" wrote in message news:[email]...
'Twas the only way to join the Union, dude.
On Wed 07 Jan 2004 05:02:50p, "Willie Westwood" wrote in news:em%Kb.1101$[email]:
Sounds like Mormons don't take their doctrine too seriously.
Snubis wrote in message news:...
Do you mean like other Religions who changed their doctrine of stoning people to death. ? eg their doctrine of punishment by death for not following every law of the Sabbath ? or for adultery, or other hundreds of doctrine changes.
Or do you mean like the Catholic Church & Pope who imprisoned Galilee Galileo and killed thousands during the inquisition for believing the Earth and Planets orbited the Sun not vice versa then changed their doctrine when science over whelmed them. ? or the thousand of other doctrinal changes.
One word suits you, hypocrite !
Greg
On Thu 08 Jan 2004 04:15:10a, [email] (Greg Randall) wrote in news:[email]:
I wouldn't know since I'm not Catholic. They need major reform anyway.
Imprisoned is a rather harsh term. Galileo was put under house arrest and lived well under that condition. He was allowed to pursue his interests but not teach them to anyone else. The Church had no problem with Galileo doing research. It had a problem with him teaching something unScriptural, recanting and going back on his recantation - it had a problem with him teaching something that went against Scripture, which reads that the Sun and Moon stopped in their tracks, a statement consistent with Earth-centered beliefs. The Earth-centered doctrine had to be dropped when, indeed, science proved beyond a doubt that the Earth goes around the Sun.
Because of this, the Church not only changed her doctrines concerning matters of science, it dropped them, limiting her doctrines to matters of faith and morals. She still teaches Genesis, but doesn't go into detail. That it leaves to science.
a
Oh yes it is... with the entire Old Testament mainly being about the creation and adventures of God's chosen people the Jews.
Plus, the entire division of races in the Bible is a MUCH narrower one than today's... a person from a few hundred miles away could and usually was deemed of a different race.
"Garrison Hilliard" wrote in message news:[email]...
Yep. The mormons officially at one time believed the black race to be flawed. the black skin and the broad noses were said to be the curse god laid upon them. Talk about racism.
I think unfortunatley, a large portion of Americans thought that way. Let's not go blaming it all on any particular group of white people. Even many of the religion hating hippies of the time were probably racist, sorry. Some of those teachings, if true, were just reflections of the world people lived in obviously.
But thanks Garrison for crossposting this to rec.arts.animation. I am sure you felt you needed to spew your misinformed hate to the largest audience possible. All you usenet hippies are the same. You act like you want to save the world, but all you do is smoke pot and smell bad.
Steven C. (Doktersteve) wrote:
Then again, so did most Americans and Europeans "at one time". Read some anthropology books from the turn of the last century - some of the claims in there are truly scary.
Ulrich Schreitmueller wrote in message news:...
Problem is - the Book of Mormon is rife with references that equate skin color with degree of righteousness - and Mormons still accept it as the "most correct Book on the face of the earth". So just because 100 years ago other people were racist too - doesn't excuse the fact the Mormons still accept this racist doctrine without any problem or hesitation.
Steven C. (Doktersteve) spoke thusly:
I believe the United Kingdom still does not recognize them as a religion... they view Mormons as a cult.
R
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 17:03:56 -0800, Randy wrote:
The only churches the UKoGBaNI officially recognizes is the Church of England (with a branch office, the Church in Wales) and the Church of Scotland. This is the Established Church. The reigning monarch is Head of the Church.
There is no body in the UK to 'recognize' churches that I know of. Anyone is free to practice any religion (or no religion) without needing anyone's approval, subject to obeying the law.
Lizz 'I've recognized hundreds of churches--the architecture usually is the first clue' Holmans
"Lizz Holmans" wrote in message news:[email]...
Mmmm... The Roman Catholic Church is semi-recognized. The Marriage Baans (?) are automatic with a CoE ceremony. The registrar sets up shop in the back of the church in a Roman Catholic ceremony. Marriages via other religions have to be registered at the registrar's office.
On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 03:30:46 GMT, "LawsonE" wrote:
There are many places in the UK where marriages are performed with the registrar coming along for the ride--hotels, stately homes, and even Roman Catholic (and other) churches. But the RC is probably the most unrecognized church Over Here--remember, the heir to the throne or the reigning monarch may marry anyone he wants, except a Roman Catholic, by law, or he/she loses his/her place in the succession. We're talking Henry VIII, The Old Pretender, and the Hanovers here. They'll do anything to keep a Catholic off the throne.
Whether or not a couple can marry in the C of E depends on many little decisions, some made by each priest. Needless to say, the couple have to belong to the C of E, which most Britons don't these days.
Lizz 'no longer The Tory Party At Prayer, since the Tories don't have a single one' Holmans
"Lizz Holmans" wrote in message news:[email]...
(?)
of
have
Huh. Either I misremembered what I was told, my source was wrong, or things have changed in the last 25 years (was married in Newmarket at the Registrar's Office in Jan 1979).
On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 05:59:55 GMT, "LawsonE" wrote:
A whole lot's changed since 1979.
Lizz 'Heck, that was back when I was *thin*' Holmans, a veteran of the Chelsea Registry Office
"LawsonE" wrote in message news:Gdexb.18893$[email]...
(?)
of
have
A registrar "sets up shop" at all weddings, wherever they are held. It just so happens that most (if not all) CoE priests are registrars. So, too are many LDS Bishops. If an LDS Bishop isn't a registrar it's a safe bet that someone in the ward will be. I was married in an LDS chapel in 1985, the resistrar was the wife of a members of the Stake Presidency. This was most useful since, when we lost our certificate she was able to produce a duplicate, for free!
In England it is a building that has to be registered as a place where marriages may be performed. I know of not a single LDS chaple that is not registered in this way. For this reason it is not possible to be married outside in England (that and the weather <G>).
Andrew R.
"Andrew R" wrote in message news:bq4irk$1ul93k$[email]...
back
just
Radical changes in the last 25 years then, or so I gather.
There was Helvetio Martins, a black Brazilian GA (General Authority) some years ago. Since the policy change of 1978 there could potentially be a black President of the church someday...maybe around 2078, to be optimistic.
In article , exmo wrote:
Thurl Bailey will only be about 120 years old then. About average for a CEO/Prophet in the church.
Cheers, Don Marchant Dangerous1 dot com UH at Dangerous1 etc. etc. Think global, act loco
And btw, you obviously missed the point of the whole show, one which was to illustrate that despite how silly it might seem to some, the Mormon religion was responsible for the boys family leading a very healthy existence. I hope your family was as close and as productive.
And the other point was of course that you shouldn't reject people and harshly insult them just because they might belong to a different group than you do. Believe it or not, most religious people are able to see past their religion. Unfortunatley some anti religion hippies like you, are not. Stan was not able to see past the boys religion. He could only see the negative side of it. Whereas the boy didn't care if Stan accepted his religion or not, he just wanted to make friends.
Again, a great example of South Parks complex satire. Yeah, it ragged on Mormons, but I think it really said even more about non religious types. That was the moral we were left with afterall. But maybe that went over your head. But leave it to a hateful, acid dropping hippie like you to just extract his own liberal ideas from the show.
Amazing, you call yourself a South Park fan, and yet you don't even seem to "get" the show. It's not a show about calling people "fuked up" and spitting on them. If you want that, watch Saturday Night Live or any other liberal mud slinging contest that passes for "comedy". Thank God South Park doesnt rely on cheap jabs the way you seem to want it to.
"LordofTheBidding" wrote in message news:[email]...
to
religion
hope
harshly
do.
religion.
able
That
head.
his
to
spitting
mud
rely
People thought the same way about "Cripple Fight." Most people saw that as SP ragging on the Boy Scouts of America, and seemed to completely ignore Big Gay Al's speech at the end where he states that people may feel that the BSA position on homosexuals is wrong, but it is their perogative to have that position. I think sometimes people change the channel and don't watch the last two minutes of certain episodes.
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 08:42:11 -0600, "Heavyarms" wrote:
I think the problem is that even though they often have a clearly defined 'moral' at the end of the episode, it's not presented with flashing lights and ringing bells, and kind of slips under the radar of less-observant viewers. I really think that one of the strengths of SouthPark is the way that it can poke fun at both sides of an issue, and not always have to be one-sided. Generally, even when they make fun of something, they don't attack people for believing it. (OK, the Ramsey/OJ/Gary Condit episode was an exception, but the Ramseys and OJ deserved it, and Condit probably deserved it, even though he likely had nothing to do with the murder.)
Jeremiah
[email] (LordofTheBidding) wrote in message news:...
Nope.
Bullshit... but you're just just spewing out your NAMBLA party line.
Since I have no religion, you have no idea what a piece of crap I think that statement is.
Since there is really no good side to it when you actually know something about Mormonism.
Or so he said, NAMBLA member.
And that is where you would be wrong.
That
Interesting... you claim to be non-judgemental, yet you make the statement above with absolutely no evidence to back it up. Yeah, I can tell that religion has really helped you.
So does this mean that I'm not getting an invitation to your birthday party this year? Aw, shucks!
LordofTheBidding wrote:
I didn't reach that conclusion at all.
Thankfully, we weren't full of that false "Up with People" public personna.
before making such brilliant posts, you should do 5 minutes of research. There are many black leaders.
"Garrison Hilliard" wrote in message news:[email]...
On 25 Nov 2003 19:19:15 -0800, [email] (Garrison Hilliard) wrote:
Oh come on that's not fair. There are lots of black leaders of the church. Sure, no one in the big 15 is black. Not sure about the seventy. But whenever the leaders can find a black guy they will try to find a leadership position for him. Lets see, the church has Thurl Bailey, that singer chick, and there was one black guy in my ward in the past 25 years. So the church is making progress. LOL.
The biggest problem is getting the old Mark E. Peterson and Bruce R. McConkie fans to accept a black guy as their church leader. The younger generation of mormons are mostly progressive on race issues, the older generation unfortunately were poisoned for decades by Peterson, McConkie and the racist teachings pre-1978. Even my parents, who are nice folks, have a difficult time shedding their racist views. They still believe black skin is the mark of Cain and a curse, 25 years after the doctrinal change.
What the church needs to do now is continue moving into the 20th century. It's the 21st century, but the church is just now emerging into the 20th century culturally. Here are some other changes that would help their image.
Allow women to say opening prayer in Sacrament meeting. In November 1978, the First Presidency sent out a letter to bishops and Stake Presidents allowing women to pray in sacrament meeting, but it is still a policy, maybe an 'unwritten order of things' to open sacrament meeting with prayer from a priesthood holder. Women, currently, only say the closing prayer, if they pray at all.
Allow women to give the final talk in sacrament. Currently, the final talk is given to the highest ranking priesthood authority. If a husnabd and wife are giving the talk, the man automatically goes last. It's the unwritten order of things for a priesthood holder to have the final say. (except for F&T meeting which is an entertaining and wacky free for all) It's a little thing, but maybe treat women equally when it comes to speaking to the congregation. (except for F&T meeting which is an entertaining and wacky free for all)
Allow women to be Sunday School president. Another little thing that bugs me. Women can teach sunday school but they can't be the Sunday School President. THere is nothing in the CHI that says the Sunday School PResident has to hold the priesthood.
Stop telling adults what movies they can watch and how many earrings they can have and otherwise treating them like little children who need help going potty. It's degrading and insulting to intelligent adults to have petty little decisions like that made for them by other adults.
"Harry Palms" wrote in message news:[email]...
This is utter nonsense. Sisters regularly say both opening and closing prayers in sacrament meetings all over the world.
Again, false. Women often give the final talk. It is usual for the "highest ranking" to go last, true. But that may be a sister.
If the talks were, let's say, a youth, a male who was say a Sunday School teacher or counsellor in a Elders' Quorum presidency and the Young Women or Relief Society president, then the President would speak last.
Yes there is. Unfortunately I do not have my copy to hand, however if you insist I will post the wording at another time.
Giving, and receiving advice, are an adult way to go about things.
The instruction relating to number of earings was given in a youth setting. It may well be applicable to adults, but there is no rule which members must abide by, nor any comeback if they do not.
Andrew R.
On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 10:30:52 -0000, "Andrew R" wrote:
Maybe it was just my ward. Just a couple years ago my wife and I were asked to give prayer in sacrament. We were told that I would open and she would close. She was in the Primary presidency and liked to sneak out during the last hymn to prepare the room and she asked if she could say opening. We were told that only priesthood holders can give opening prayer in sacrament meeting. Again, this may have only been our bishop, but we moved last year and I've notices women don't say opening prayers and I've noticed it in every ward I've visited. Since I've started watching for it, I've never seen a woman give opening prayer.
Again, this has just been my observation. I could be wrong, but I've never seen a woman give the last talk and when we were asked to give the talk in our new ward last summer, the bishop told us that my wife would give the first talk and I would give the last talk. It wasn't up to us and since the prayer thing I've watched talks and noticed the same thing.
I've been told that it is not a requirement but it is just tradition.
It is very much applicable to adults or at least GBH didn't clarify it because every TBM adult I know references this talk as a commandment to them. Women no longer wear multiple earrings and tatoos are a big no-no among adults based on this talk.
In article ,
In college I had a friend who was Mormon. Most considerate person I ever met. He never said or did anything against anyone not white, he never talked about Mormon dogma, he never proselytized to me or tried to lighten my dark skin. I appreciated his friendship, and I could do that without converting. By no means at all was he "fucked up", but blanket slurs like Garrison's don't make that distinction between decent people and the misanthropic idealogues that all followings generate.