NationStates Jolt Archive

I wish they were Christians, but I really don't think the teachings of the CJCLDS can be described as Christian.
Like the bit where they say that Jesus and Satan both presented their salvation plans to God, and God chose Jesus's plan, so Jesus became God's Son.
Things like that don't agree with the New Testament.
Since when did literal following if the new testament define christian? They think Christ is the son of God, they're Christians.

Since when did literal following if the new testament define christian? They think Christ is the son of God, they're Christians.

if they believe that, then how can they believe there is more than one God?

One word the Trinity. Its one of the mysteries of the Christian faith. The 3 make one God. The 3 being God the Father, God the Holy Spirit and God the Son. Christians only believe in One God. It is integral to their religion. One can begin to understand the Trinity starting with the idea that God is Love. This is written in the Bible (John 15 I think, I'm not a Christian so I dont have intimate knowledge of the bible). If God is Love and were a single enitity i.e. God the Father, then God would only represent self Love. So obviosly there must be another within the concept of God, so that Love is shared, thus representing Love more fully, this is God the Son. God the father Loves God the Son and vica verca. Finally One cannot fully represent Love with a pair, since this would be exclusive Love. Thus one must involve a thrid party i.e. God the Holy Spirit. In this way love is inclusive. In conclusion all the facets of Love are represented by these 3 entities, without the 3 one cannot explain love fully, yet they are all Love and thus all God. I hope this helps you to more fully understand the concepts of the Christian faith.

trinity was never used in the original text of the bible :p :cool:

I never said it was! Its merely a concept which was derived from an understanding of the bible.

mmm..I'll give you a 78% on that. hehehe

I am Christian that believes in the trinity :). I just wanted to see how you were going to explain it to me.

Hey, has anyone on this thread read "Riders of the Purple Sage"?

Nah, you guys are great. I'm just messing with you.

But seriously, has anyone mentioned the breeding thing as one of major problems with LDS? That's what bothers me most. I think it's a reckless and irresponsible way to approach the world. And it's social engineering cloaked as faith. This isn't anti-Mormon in particular. I bitch about the Catholics too.

It is true that the quotes in question come from the 50s, 60s, and 70s. If that was deceptive, I apologize.

-snip-

(BTW, can you cite an official revelation saying interracial marriage is now fine?)

That's what I was tagging as "disingenuous". You stated that Walsh's article signified the church's current position on interracial marriage. The church's position in the 50s and 60s was that interracial marriage was "discouraged" due to the difficulty of making the marriage last (mainly from societal pressures, but also related to the hardships encountered in bridging cultures day in and day out). I'm pretty sure that the church's position on interracial marriage is different today.

Today, as the societal taboos against interracial relationships have cooled somewhat, it would seem that the discouragements by LDS-authority toward interracial relationships have cooled in their applicability. I think what the LDS authorities wanted most out of the membership in the first place was thought before action. They still want that, and if the couple thinks they can't make the interracial marriage work (either due to their own prejudices or too many from their family), then it would I think LDS authorities would advise that they not marry. I think the reasons behind interracial marriage being discouraged still stand (“make sure marriage is thought-out, selfless”), but I don’t think they really apply to interracial marriage anymore.

The official CJCLDS sources have nothing regarding either the Church's past or present attitudes towards interracial marriage.

I have no sources of church leaders directly come out in favor of interracial marriage, either. But, as the outright discouragement has been dropped for decades, I think it's safe to assume that the church doesn't discourage it anymore. Even if it isn't safe to assume, it seems the mainstream LDS community does so, regardless. If you want the LDS authorities to clarify their position more, perhaps you should contact them directly. I'm sure that would get much response, but it might be worth a shot.


...your assertion that racist attitudes and teachings simply vanished in 1978 is false. Your own comparison of the ending of an expressly racist Church policy in 1978 ( a mere 27 years ago) with the end of slavery in the US in 1865 (140 years ago) is truly disingenuous.

First, there appears to be a misunderstanding. I meant that in the 50s and 60s the LDS interracial doctrine (of discouraging interracial marriage due to possible rejection from extended family and possible persecution) was not an uncommonly held view in all of America--just as blacks being only worthwhile as slaves was a not uncommon view at a time before (and after, to a somewhat lesser degree) the Civil War.

I was trying to point out what I felt was misleading about the way you couched the John Walsh's article. To prosecute the congress today for arguments doubtless allowed in the 1860s would be insincere and deceitful. I was comparing that with marking the mid-century remarks as "current". I admit there is a lack of more current direct information regarding this, but I don’t think that’s enough to conclude the quotes gathered by John Walsh are “current” doctrine.

Second, I think racist teachings did stop in 1978. If the attitudes prevailed, then that's those individual members' faults. There'll always be some hard-liners and sticks-in the-mud. But I can’t find any teachings in the “lds.org” archives (which reach back to 1971) which come off as racist.

I applaud the efforts of the Church to shed itself of racism.

In searching for information on this, here's a source I found supporting the idea that any in the church maintaining older, more-racist sentiments are not following current LDS teachings--and are out-of-step with the LDS mainstream. The "official" church has definitely denounced racism. It'd be just a matter of waiting for a more complete societal change--for the older, fogey-er members to stop clinging to past doctrine.

http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/2000... (http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/2000.htm/ensign%20september%202000.htm/no%20more%20strangers.htm)

So what does the LDS church teach about the punishment of the Levites now?

So what does the LDS church teach about the punishment of the Levites now?

"Punishment of the Levites"? For what?

"Punishment of the Levites"? For what?
I'm just interested in hearing what I heard at the Temple here outside of DC when I took a tour.

I was told how Levites were "burned black" - and that was where "black people" came from.

One of the most shocking things I had ever heard in my life.

I guess the tour guide was a jack mormon.

I'm just interested in hearing what I heard at the Temple here outside of DC when I took a tour.

I was told how Levites were "burned black" - and that was where "black people" came from.

One of the most shocking things I had ever heard in my life.

I guess the tour guide was a jack mormon.

I thought the Levites we're supposed to be today's Navite American's. God supposedly punished them for killing off the Nephites (am I getting this right?) and "cursed" them with red skin.

I'm just interested in hearing what I heard at the Temple here outside of DC when I took a tour.

I was told how Levites were "burned black" - and that was where "black people" came from.

One of the most shocking things I had ever heard in my life.

I guess the tour guide was a jack mormon.

My understanding is that there're a lot of speculations, a lot of lore, and a lot of misconceptions about church history and teachings, even among members. Many members are limited in their knowledge of church doctrine from the ages. And it isn't surprising. For one thing, there are multitudes of anti-mormons trying to tear down members' faith in the church, many members likely wouldn't be confident in their abilities to differentiate between an honest and plausible historical source or account and a malicious, deceptive one.

If the tour guide was mistaken, that doesn't mean he or she was "jack" or unfaithful to the church. It just means that he or she lacked adequate knowledge or understanding and wasn't a good tour guide. For some reason, though, I think you knew that already.

I, personally, don't now quite a few specifics about LDS teachings on Levites or blacks. Doing some investigation, I've come across a site which could answer a few questions and possibly raise better ones, here (http://www.angelfire.com/mo2/blackmormon/mainpage.htm). Granted, the page tends toward a pro-mormon slant, but, I think it references some arguments which might be helpful. I'd personally look up the most pertinent information right now, but I have to run.

To my knowledge, the Levites are taught in the LDS church to not be blacks. I have heard specualtion about Cainites or Hamites being blacks, but that's a lot different from "Levites".

That's what I was tagging as "disingenuous". You stated that Walsh's article signified the church's current position on interracial marriage. The church's position in the 50s and 60s was that interracial marriage was "discouraged" due to the difficulty of making the marriage last (mainly from societal pressures, but also related to the hardships encountered in bridging cultures day in and day out). I'm pretty sure that the church's position on interracial marriage is different today.

Today, as the societal taboos against interracial relationships have cooled somewhat, it would seem that the discouragements by LDS-authority toward interracial relationships have cooled in their applicability. I think what the LDS authorities wanted most out of the membership in the first place was thought before action. They still want that, and if the couple thinks they can't make the interracial marriage work (either due to their own prejudices or too many from their family), then it would I think LDS authorities would advise that they not marry. I think the reasons behind interracial marriage being discouraged still stand (“make sure marriage is thought-out, selfless”), but I don’t think they really apply to interracial marriage anymore.



I have no sources of church leaders directly come out in favor of interracial marriage, either. But, as the outright discouragement has been dropped for decades, I think it's safe to assume that the church doesn't discourage it anymore. Even if it isn't safe to assume, it seems the mainstream LDS community does so, regardless. If you want the LDS authorities to clarify their position more, perhaps you should contact them directly. I'm sure that would get much response, but it might be worth a shot.



First, there appears to be a misunderstanding. I meant that in the 50s and 60s the LDS interracial doctrine (of discouraging interracial marriage due to possible rejection from extended family and possible persecution) was not an uncommonly held view in all of America--just as blacks being only worthwhile as slaves was a not uncommon view at a time before (and after, to a somewhat lesser degree) the Civil War.

I was trying to point out what I felt was misleading about the way you couched the John Walsh's article. To prosecute the congress today for arguments doubtless allowed in the 1860s would be insincere and deceitful. I was comparing that with marking the mid-century remarks as "current". I admit there is a lack of more current direct information regarding this, but I don’t think that’s enough to conclude the quotes gathered by John Walsh are “current” doctrine.

Second, I think racist teachings did stop in 1978. If the attitudes prevailed, then that's those individual members' faults. There'll always be some hard-liners and sticks-in the-mud. But I can’t find any teachings in the “lds.org” archives (which reach back to 1971) which come off as racist.



In searching for information on this, here's a source I found supporting the idea that any in the church maintaining older, more-racist sentiments are not following current LDS teachings--and are out-of-step with the LDS mainstream. The "official" church has definitely denounced racism. It'd be just a matter of waiting for a more complete societal change--for the older, fogey-er members to stop clinging to past doctrine.

http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/2000... (http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Magazines/Ensign/2000.htm/ensign%20september%202000.htm/no%20more%20strangers.htm)

I really am trying to hold my tongue here. I did not want to pile on the Mormon-bashing, but your continued attempts whitewash the issue of racism sticks in my craw.

I apologized for the fact the quotes in the Walsh article were from the 50s, 60s and 70s. (Not just the 50s and 60s, as you keep stating it.) The Walsh article itself, however, does profess to explain the current attitude of the CJCLDS. Walsh, not I, relied on those quotes. Moreover, you conveniently forgot that the sources of the quotes -- The Teachings of Spencer Kimball and Bruce McConkie's Mormon Doctrine -- are both actively promoted by the Church. Both contain a great deal of racism, particularly Mormon Doctrine.

I note, by the way, that the article you cited quotes from The Teachings of Spencer Kimball for "the Church's position" on racism. I thought that was being "disingenuous."

Beyond the fact that you wish to push events as recent as 1978 back to the "mid-century," you are being less than candid about the Church's history regarding racism. For one thing, the Walsh article was already an attempt to spin the Church's position on interracial marriage. Your attempt to futher spin is uncalled for.

The fact that the Church actively "discouraged" interracial marriage until at least 1978, but has never open said it is acceptable speaks volumes.

I'm sure you do not actually want me to catalogue the racist statements that can be found in CJCLDS teachings. I believe you know they are there.

I am willing to accept the Church is moving away from racism. I hope you are willing to admit, at least to yourself, that the Church has a long way to go.

I'm sure you do not actually want me to catalogue the racist statements that can be found in CJCLDS teachings. I believe you know they are there.

I am willing to accept the Church is moving away from racism. I hope you are willing to admit, at least to yourself, that the Church has a long way to go.

I am convinced that someone taught a large number of LDS members something terribly racist - and it's going to take a generation or more to erase it. Kudos for trying to change it.

I am convinced that someone taught a large number of LDS members something terribly racist - and it's going to take a generation or more to erase it. Kudos for trying to change it.


Thanks, WL. I should be clear, I am not LDS. And I am afraid I agree with you about what many have been taught -- although I haven't wanted to go into those details here.

Among other things, however, I know enough members of the Church with good hearts that I am willing to give change the benefit of the doubt.

I'm not a christian! So I'm not too sure whether my explanations are any good. Take what you will from them. That description of the trinity makes sense to me. However it should be noted that by definition one cannot fully understand God. The idea I presented was merely an idea and nothing more. Such ideas allow one to tend towards the truth but never reach it. Thats where faith comes in!

the idea of some guy finding gold plates in missouri that have lost parts of the bible sounds like something out of a bad movie.



And where exactly were these plates? :D I mean.. nevermind *puts away shovel*

Just like the title says. And where the devil do people here half this phsyco stuff about them.Mor(m)ons are human trash. Just that. Now they are coming over to Europe to convert folks into the same braindead educationless country bumpkins they are themselves. They do not speak a clean English and they do not speak the languages of those countries they go to. They only talk about chicks and think people in Germany, France, or Spain do not know what they talk about and they have no whatsoever knowledge of what the basics of Christianity are. They are just goddam retarded. They should all be drowned in some salt lake.

Mor(m)ons are human trash. Just that. Now they are coming over to Europe to convert folks into the same braindead educationless country bumpkins they are themselves. They do not speak a clean English and they do not speak the languages of those countries they go to. They only talk about chicks and think people in Germany, France, or Spain do not know what they talk about and they have no whatsoever knowledge of what the basics of Christianity are. They are just goddam retarded. They should all be drowned in some salt lake.


This is simply slanderous hate. No better than what some spew re races.

You should be ashamed.

And if you know "the basics of Christianity," you are not following them by espousing such attitudes.

This is not hate, this is disgust. Fanatics like Mormons make me sick. And they must not be given the opportunity to spread their stupid teachings.

This is not hate, this is disgust. Fanatics like Mormons make me sick. And they must not be given the opportunity to spread their stupid teachings.

Unlike you?

People hate mormons because mormons are idiots.

People hate mormons because mormons are idiots.

That must mean I hate you! ^_^

hahahahaha!!!! ^_^






idiot...

hahahahaha!!!! ^_^






idiot...

*pats you on the head*

Don't feel bad.

i dont like mormans because they come to the retirement home that i work at and sing songs to old people and i have to turn my music down

i dont dislike mormons but i always pretend i am def or foreign or something when they come to my house or stop me in the street...why is it that they want to go into your house anyway

This is not hate, this is disgust. Fanatics like Mormons make me sick. And they must not be given the opportunity to spread their stupid teachings.

First Amendment, at least here in the US.

I don't like running into Hare Krishnas at the airport, but that's their right.

I find that if you believe in your own beliefs, it doesn't matter what they say. So far, none of them have been able to convert me, and I've converted several of them. It's dangerous to send young impressionable men to the homes of people - some of the people may be more articulate and intelligent than the people who sent them.

They're probably trying to figure out how to make it illegal to convert their missionaries.

I really am trying to hold my tongue here. I did not want to pile on the Mormon-bashing, but your continued attempts whitewash the issue of racism sticks in my craw.

I apologized for the fact the quotes in the Walsh article were from the 50s, 60s and 70s. (Not just the 50s and 60s, as you keep stating it.) The Walsh article itself, however, does profess to explain the current attitude of the CJCLDS. Walsh, not I, relied on those quotes. Moreover, you conveniently forgot that the sources of the quotes -- The Teachings of Spencer Kimball and Bruce McConkie's Mormon Doctrine -- are both actively promoted by the Church. Both contain a great deal of racism, particularly Mormon Doctrine.

Yeah saee once you said Bruce McConkie I knew you were full of it.
Bruce made up his own beliefs and said they were "our" doctrine.
They are not promoted by the church, you are deluding yourself. After writing that he was excommunicated for a while. Not a good thing to make up lies for power.


I note, by the way, that the article you cited quotes from The Teachings of Spencer Kimball for "the Church's position" on racism. I thought that was being "disingenuous."

Beyond the fact that you wish to push events as recent as 1978 back to the "mid-century," you are being less than candid about the Church's history regarding racism. For one thing, the Walsh article was already an attempt to spin the Church's position on interracial marriage. Your attempt to futher spin is uncalled for.

The fact that the Church actively "discouraged" interracial marriage until at least 1978, but has never open said it is acceptable speaks volumes.

I'm sure you do not actually want me to catalogue the racist statements that can be found in CJCLDS teachings. I believe you know they are there.

I am willing to accept the Church is moving away from racism. I hope you are willing to admit, at least to yourself, that the Church has a long way to go.
Nope, if people didn't read excommunicated rubble, there wouldn't be this belief in lies.

It is like someone leaving the church joining Satanism and you expect them to be truthful on subject lol. They would be angry and upset that they were pubnished for being bad.

if they believe that, then how can they believe there is more than one God?
Well in the Old Testament, one prophet said we are all Gods because we are the son of God.
You see how that works, same as if our father is a King than we would all be royal blood and therefore Royalty and be princes.
So having multiple gods is actually logical.
Worshipping Mutiple gods is wrong however. Believing that others exist is true Judiasm. After all for the longestr time the Hebrew Faith was Henotheistic: Omne God above all overs. Heavenly Father above all others. You worship him alone.
Later Christ edited that to be through him, but still just worshipping Heavenly Father.

Same way Muslims worship through Mecca, but aren't actually worshipping Mecca. They feel God hears them best when praying through through that area for some reason.

They're quite reactionary, but I can't say I hate them, really.

When I was in Middle and High School my best friend was a member of the LDS. Even though I was a Lutheran they were always welcoming and kind. My friend had seven brothers and sisters and since I didn't I always thought that was neat. They were so nice to each other and I never saw them argue or disagree, unlike my family. Their father was a bishop and he even made their own clothes and undergarments by hand... That takes some talent! They never tried to pressure me with conversion, but they gave me a copy of the Book of Mormon and their two other holy books The Doctrine and Covenants and The Pearl of Great Price. I studied their books and they were happy to help me understand what the "True Church" taught. They even answered the big question I had... If Joesph Smith practiced polygamy and said it was from God how come it isn't anymore? Their answer was basically that when Joseph Smith practiced polygamy he was misguided and new truths have been revealed since that time making polygamy wrong. My friend eventually moved back to Utah to prepare for his mission, but I studied enough LDS materials with him to summarize some of their basic beliefs.

-The true gospel was lost from the earth. Mormonism is its restoration.
We need prophets today, the same as in the Old Testament.
-The Book of Mormon is more correct than the Bible.
-If it had not been for Joseph Smith and the restoration, there would be no salvation. There is no salvation outside The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
-There are many gods.
-There is a mother goddess.
-God used to be a man on another planet.
-After you become a good Mormon, you have the potential of becoming a god.
-God the Father had a Father.
-God resides near a star called Kolob, Pearl of Great Price, pages 34-35.
-God the Father has a body of flesh and bones, Doctrine and Covenants, 130:22.
-God is in the form of a man.
-God is married to his goddess wife and has spirit children.
-We were first born as spirit children in heaven and then born naturally on earth.
-The first spirit to be born in heaven was Jesus.
-The Devil was born as a spirit after Jesus "in the morning of pre-existence,".
Jesus and Satan are spirit brothers and we were all born as siblings in heaven to them both.
-A plan of salvation was needed for the people of earth so Jesus offered a plan to the father and Satan offered a plan to the father but Jesus' plan was accepted. In effect the Devil wanted to be the Savior of all Mankind and to "deny men their agency and to dethrone god."
-God had sexual relations with Mary to make the body of Jesus.
- This one is disputed among many Mormons and not always 'officially' taught and believed. Nevertheless, Brigham Young, the 2nd prophet of the Mormon church taught it.
-Jesus' sacrifice was not able to cleanse us from all our sins.
-Good works are necessary for salvation.
-There is no salvation without accepting Joseph Smith as a prophet of God.
-Baptism for the dead. - This is a practice of baptizing each other in place of non-Mormons who are now dead. Their belief is that in the afterlife, the "newly baptized" person will be able to enter into a higher level of Mormon heaven.
-There are three levels of heaven: telestial, terrestrial, and celestial.
-The Holy Spirit is a male person.

This is just a portion of what I learned from my friend and his family. There were more truths that I was not taught because I would not attend their church (I couldn't sit in a church for 2 hours or more). Since I am not LDS I may not understand the complexities of their faith or how it relates to their bigger picture, but I wanted to share what they taught me. My friend and his family were very nice people and definitely more righteous than I am. However, from what I studied during my upbringing in the Lutheran Church; LDS teachings conflict with modern Protestant Christianity on almost every biblical issue. When you read the Book of Mormon you will see that the LDS are not Christian in the sense they would like to be thought of or tell others that they are.

Looking at this with the guide of the Bible.

"True Gospel lost from earth. Mormonism is it's restoration"... Hmm, we'll see.

"We need prophets today, just like in the Old Testament" - no argument there.

"The Book of Mormon is more Correct than the Bible" - no. God's word (the Bible) is the only truth.

"If it had not been for Joseph Smith and the restoration, there would be no salvation. There is no salvation outside The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." - load of poppycock. This one is dispelled by a well-known Biblical verse:

I am the way, the truth and the life. None comes to the father except through me

"There are many gods" - only if you're referring to the heavenly hosts (in essence, angels). Otherwise, no.

"There is a mother goddess" - No. The Bible does not mention this. Something so fundamentally important WOULD have been mentioned if it were true.

"God used to be a man on another planet" - No. God is a spiritual being, and always has been.

"God resides near a star called Kolob" - Now this is starting to sound ridiculous. God is everywhere, in everything, as He is a spirit being.

"God the Father has a body of flesh and bones" - I'm starting to get sick of repeating myself here!

"God the Father has a body of flesh and bones" - I don't believe this to be so. It's possible, but see the answers to the last three questions. While the Bible says that man is made in God's image, I believe it is referring more to giftings and our spirit and soul moreso than anything else.

"God is married to his goddess wife and has spirit children." - True that God has spiritual children (ie Christians) but the goddess part is a little shaky.

"We were first born as spirit children in heaven and then born naturally on earth." - Possible. It's possible. I just don't think it's the way it works in reality.

"The first spirit to be born in heaven was Jesus." - Again, possible.

"A plan of salvation was needed for the people of earth so Jesus offered a plan to the father and Satan offered a plan to the father but Jesus' plan was accepted. In effect the Devil wanted to be the Savior of all Mankind and to "deny men their agency and to dethrone god." " - No. The plan was God's. This is mentioned in the Bible.

"God had sexual relations with Mary to make the body of Jesus." - No. Jesus was believed to have been brought to earth through immaculate conception (although the "virgin" mary wasn't so - the term "virgin" here probably refers to a term used at the time with a different meaning - probably "young".

"Jesus' sacrifice was not able to cleanse us from all our sins." - Definitely wrong. We have to continue repentance, certainly, but the Blood of the Lamb was the sacrifice for ALL our sins. Not just some of them.

"Good works are necessary for salvation." - For salvation? no. To evidence your faith, yes.

"There is no salvation without accepting Joseph Smith as a prophet of God." - *Ahem*. Wrong.

I am the way, the truth and the life. None comes to the father except through me

"Baptism for the dead" - This is an un-christian concept. TRUE Baptism occurs when the person chooses, of their own free will, to go under the waters. At any rate, Baptism is merely an outward sign, an "evidence of faith" if you will. It is not a means of salvation.

"There are three levels of heaven: telestial, terrestrial, and celestial." - Not as far as we know. God has revealed nothing of the structure of Heaven.

"The Holy Spirit is a male person." The Holy Spirit is probably better described as God's "active force" if you will. He uses it to guide us and instruct us, though it is very much like there being another person living inside of you. But if it was a person, it probably would be male, yes, as God is a male spirit.

This "prophet" - Joseph Smith - sounds like a false prophet to me. See this this page (http://www.bible.com/answers/afalse.html) to see why I think this is so.

Note that this is my opinion (the last part - the rest of it was challenged using the principles of the Holy Scriptures).

All things aside, the whole "sacred underpants" thing is just wrong.

As for the question: I don't hate Mormons. My only hate is sin (and possibly annoying ads :p )

I don't hate mormons.
I met some on the way home from school yesterday, they tried to get me to come to church with them and I said that I had to work. They said that they wanted to talk about Jesus and I basically said that I wasn't interested and that their beliefs are theirs, I just don't happen to share the same beliefs. They seemed ok with that and the one guy just asked if I would take a card and I did, then I shook both their hands and was on my way.

"We need prophets today, just like in the Old Testament" - no argument there.

"The Book of Mormon is more Correct than the Bible" - no. God's word (the Bible) is the only truth.
It's funny that you say there are more prophets needed, but that the Bible is the only truth. So what happens when more prophets come along and want to revise the things in the bible? You turn them down and that's it?

Brandon flowers, the lead singer from the killers is a mormon.

It is my belief that humans are of a nature to hate or dispise what they don't understand or what is different from themselves. Example... whites hated african americans because they were of a DIFFERENT skin color than themselves, and so whites took it upon themselves to control what they did not understand. there are a number of incidences like that that have occured throughout history... but that is one that first springs to mind.

I don't hate Mormons. The only ones I've met are the ones that hang around the town and try to talk to people about the religion. And if you say no they quite happily let you on your way. How can I hate them when they're trying their darndest to save my heathen soul from burning in hell. It's quite sweet really.

Course, since the jury's still out on whether I have a soul to save or not I can't help but feel the poor lambs are little misguided. But it's the thought that counts. And their website has been brilliant for my dad trying to research our family tree.

I tried to research the Mormons for my religion class, but the teacher wouldn't let me, claiming it was a cult rather than a proper branch of Christianity. But she was a bitch so I don't let her opinions cloud my judgement of them.

Yeah saee once you said Bruce McConkie I knew you were full of it.
Bruce made up his own beliefs and said they were "our" doctrine.
They are not promoted by the church, you are deluding yourself. After writing that he was excommunicated for a while. Not a good thing to make up lies for power.

Nope, if people didn't read excommunicated rubble, there wouldn't be this belief in lies.

You, sir, are either ignorant of your own religion or a liar.

Run a search, as I did, for "Bruce McConkie" at The Official Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints website (http://www.lds.org)

You will find the following 456 hits (http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll?f=templates$fn=default.htm$xhitlist_q=McConkie$xhitlist_x=Simple$xhitlist_s=relevance-weight$xhitlist_d=$xhitlist_hc=%5BXML%5D%5Bkwic%2C0%5D$xhitlist_xsl=xhitlist.xsl$xhitlist_vpc=first$ xhitlist_sel=title%3Bpath%3Bcontent-type%3Bhome-title%3Bhit-context%3Bfield%3Azr%3Bfield%3ARef), including:
Bruce McConkie was appointed a member of Quorum of the Twelve Apostles in 1973
In other words, he was an Apostle - long after he wrote and published Mormon Doctrine. (Prior to that he was a member of the First Council of the Seventy for 27 years.)
From the Church's official eulogy: "Elder McConkie is best known and loved among Church members for his sermons and writings on doctrinal subjects—his encyclopedic work, Mormon Doctrine, covering over 1,100 gospel subjects; his three-volume New Testament commentary; his six-volume series on the life and mission of Jesus Christ."


If you do an advanced search the library for "Mormon Doctrine," you get 262 citations to McConkie's Mormon Doctrine. (I tried to provide a link, but it wouldn't work. Try the search yourself.) I'd say that qualifies as teachings being promoted by the Church.

Also, McConkie's, Mormon Doctrine is sold (with special Conference sale prices!) by Deseret Books (http://deseretbook.com/store/product?product_id=100000388), which is owned by the CJCLDS (link (http://www.answers.com/topic/deseret-book)).

If Bruce McConkie was ever excommunicated -- of which I can find no evidence online -- it has been erased from Church history and he was fully embraced (and promoted to being an Apostle) thereafter. Mormon Doctrine is actively taught by the Church. You are the one that is deluded.

Finally, you conveniently ignore The Teachings of Spencer Kimball and the articles I cited from LDS members about racism in the Church. Once again, if you truly wish to deny the Church's struggles with racism, I can go into the details. I have not wished to do so. I have tried to merely (a) discredit false statements made about the Church and (b) defend myself.

If you paid attention to this thread, you would know I have tried to defend the CJCLDS against ignorant prejudice despite my own misgivings about its teachings.

Insulting me with lies is, unfortunately, an example of the type of overzealousness that gives the CJCLDS and any other religion a bad name.

I really am trying to hold my tongue here. I did not want to pile on the Mormon-bashing, but your continued attempts whitewash the issue of racism sticks in my craw.

Congratulations on holding your tongue, you've taken your first steps toward more mature debate. That's why I didn't quote your entire post when I responded to it. I had no positive responses to the more aggressive statements you made. To respond to such would've only made this move closer and closer to a flame war (which calling Bastardsword "ignorant" or a "liar" isn't helping avoid). I'm sorry if my understanding of the church's history and its current view on racism bothers you. I'm not here to "spin" the church's racism into dolls and flowers. I just don't understand it to be as harsh as you seem to see it.


I apologized for the fact the quotes in the Walsh article were from the 50s, 60s and 70s. (Not just the 50s and 60s, as you keep stating it.) The Walsh article itself, however, does profess to explain the current attitude of the CJCLDS. Walsh, not I, relied on those quotes. Moreover, you conveniently forgot that the sources of the quotes -- The Teachings of Spencer Kimball and Bruce McConkie's Mormon Doctrine -- are both actively promoted by the Church. Both contain a great deal of racism, particularly Mormon Doctrine.

I didn't see any quotations from the 70s. Thus, using my vast skills of analysis (heh) I didn't include them. If there were sources I forgot, I didn't "conveniently" forget them. I simply forgot them. If one stuck to what I did, rather than why one thought I did it, I'm pretty sure our conversation would be better.

I'm not so sure that Mormon Doctrine contains "a great deal" of racism. But, it has been a while since I've perused it for information. Perhaps if you could direct me to specific areas I can understand why you think it's so racist.


I note, by the way, that the article you cited quotes from The Teachings of Spencer Kimball for "the Church's position" on racism. I thought that was being "disingenuous."


Then call up the author of the article and tell him. I didn't write the talk, any misleading done by the article is not my fault. The article, according to my understanding, is the modern position on racism. Yes, the fact that it quotes The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball means the book can be a viable source for church position in some cases. My understanding of mormon policy is that as Spencer W. Kimball isn't the current President of the church, any of his words (or other words from church authorities from his time) which might contradict the modern president's words (or other current church authorities' word) are overruled by the current church authorities and presidency. I didn't pledge that it would clear up all of our disagreements over past racism in the LDS church, merely that it supported that "the "official" church [had] definitely denounced racism". I still think it does.


Beyond the fact that you wish to push events as recent as 1978 back to the "mid-century," you are being less than candid about the Church's history regarding racism.

I only pushed the quotes of John Walsh back to "mid-century" because I believed they only came from the 50s and 60s. Again, if there's a quotation in the Walsh article from the 70s I missed, please point them out. If I made a mistake, it wasn't malicious.


The fact that the Church actively "discouraged" interracial marriage until at least 1978, but has never open said it is acceptable speaks volumes.


Also speaking volumes, is that the church "discouraged" interracial marriage, but they allowed it performed in their temples, the most holy places on the Earth to LDS. The presidency distributed what it felt as wisdom for the time, and allowed the members to decide on their own. I still think the church's past position on interracial marriage was more logic-based than superiority-based.


I am willing to accept the Church is moving away from racism. I hope you are willing to admit, at least to yourself, that the Church has a long way to go.

As does the entire world.


It's dangerous to send young impressionable men to the homes of people - some of the people may be more articulate and intelligent than the people who sent them.

The principle behind conversion is not intellectual superiority, but spiritual prowess. Just because you can talk circles around a missionary doesn't mean you can shake him from his beliefs. Missionaries' faith are built on spiritual experiences from following church teachings. As long as missionaries sent out have a strong spiritual conversion to the LDS teachings, there's no "danger".

People " hate " Mormons because of many things, because of the Book of Mormon and interesting circumstances that surround the making and finding of that book, because of the baptism of the dead (especially of dead Holocaust victims, yes, it is true believe it or not), because of their temple practices, restrictive diets, and they're view of women. Mainstream Mormons now do not practice polygamy ie. taking multiple wives, but some of their founders did. It is important to state that Mormons are not Christians and Christians cannot be Mormon. Totally different ideas, they don't believe in the same God, the same Jesus, or the same eternity. Mormons think that they can become like Jesus, that Jesus is simply a " brother " if you will.

Family is very important to Mormons as is connection with their church and/or temple. On another note, it is mandatory for male Mormons to go on missions or what not for a year, while it is not for females. It is also important to note that African Americans were not allowed in the Mormon church until just recently.

This post is not a " hate " article on Mormons, just facts.

People " hate " Mormons because of many things, because of the Book of Mormon and interesting circumstances that surround the making and finding of that book, because of the baptism of the dead (especially of dead Holocaust victims, yes, it is true believe it or not), because of their temple practices, restrictive diets, and they're view of women. Mainstream Mormons now do not practice polygamy ie. taking multiple wives, but some of their founders did. It is important to state that Mormons are not Christians and Christians cannot be Mormon. Totally different ideas, they don't believe in the same God, the same Jesus, or the same eternity. Mormons think that they can become like Jesus, that Jesus is simply a " brother " if you will.

Family is very important to Mormons as is connection with their church and/or temple. On another note, it is mandatory for male Mormons to go on missions or what not for a year, while it is not for females. It is also important to note that African Americans were not allowed in the Mormon church until just recently.

This post is not a " hate " article on Mormons, just facts.

Sop you are you deny Jesus is the son of God? And than denying God is our Father?
Thus we are all brothers ( and sisters) with Jesus with the same father Heavenenly Father.
Thus Jesus is our brother.

Nope, it is not mandatory for males to go on missions, but it is recommended. It isd a special time and a learning expereince that you can only do twice (once before 25 and again when married and kids are gone). For example I have yet to go on one. I am preparing myself (21 right now), but I am not yet ready till around this summer.

Well Christians sometimes believe God has a multiple personality disorder (after all three in one, Heavenly Father is same person as Jesus? What!.)
Again when Jesus spoke to God on earth than it would mean if they were not different people that he was crazy or egotistical.


because of the baptism of the dead (especially of dead Holocaust victims, yes, it is true believe it or not),

With permission from family. Obviously if that happened than a part of family was okay with it.

Ok I would like to point out we baptize by proxy (aka in their place) but it ultimately the dead person's choice whether to accept the act done for them or not. Yes, the dead still get to make choices for themselves. My mother died when I was five, when I twelve I baptized her (long story short she was LDS, but got excommunicate because she wanted to show off for my step-dad's Catholic fam). Its my mom's choice if she wishes to accept the act I did for her.


Question. Did you dig your mom up and ask her? Does she speak to you? This is just natural law, but I've heard that dead people can't talk. Its just common sense. I had a fish that died and he doesn't talk to me.

Now if that isn't contracdictory, I dunno what is.
The mormons posthumously baptising some one that was excommunicated by the church itself. That doesn't make logical sense, not that the LDS church is that logical anyway..

Sop you are you deny Jesus is the son of God? And than denying God is our Father?
Thus we are all brothers ( and sisters) with Jesus with the same father Heavenenly Father.
Thus Jesus is our brother.

Nope, it is not mandatory for males to go on missions, but it is recommended. It isd a special time and a learning expereince that you can only do twice (once before 25 and again when married and kids are gone). For example I have yet to go on one. I am preparing myself (21 right now), but I am not yet ready till around this summer.

Well Christians sometimes believe God has a multiple personality disorder (after all three in one, Heavenly Father is same person as Jesus? What!.)
Again when Jesus spoke to God on earth than it would mean if they were not different people that he was crazy or egotistical.


With permission from family. Obviously if that happened than a part of family was okay with it.


First of all, Jesus is the son of god. There is no denying that. But I am just saying he is not my brother, I cannot be like him. He was pure in which I can never be, I will always be sinful, not because I am a mean and evil person, but because of human nature. But because of his sacrifice on the cross, I am saved, not by how many children I have. I am saved by faith but I will naturally try to be good to please Jesus, my father in Heaven.

About the multiple personality thing, it's God the Father, Jesus the son, and the Holy Ghost. It's not a disorder or crazy, its pretty clear to me. It's one concept with three ways of revealing and empowering people to understand the power of God. Mormons believe that God physically came down and had sexual relations with Mary to conceive Jesus, talk about crazy. That is unrealistic and sacreligious considering that God isn't made of flesh, he wasn't formally a man on another planet, God is the supreme being and always has been. He is the one and only God. Jesus was sent down by God and was never married regardless of your faulty church records.

On baptism of the dead: So you are saying that if I am dead and half of my family happens to be Mormon, they can dig me up and baptise me? I am putting my order in now, I never want Mormons touching my dead body. I'm dead, leave me alone. Maybe I'll say " I don't want to be dead anymore, bring me back to life". Yeah, that's realistic alright.