Federal Offices

Serving Angola

Serving Your Area
Angola, IN 46703

Main (260) 665-3211

First Prev
of 1600
Next Last
Osirica

Oak Park, MI

#5569 Mar 17, 2012
LISTEN AGAIN:

Your church teaches that black people were denied the priesthood for most of the history of Christianity and all of the history of the Jewish religion.

Their reasoning?

"We don't know why God does what he does".

http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispatches/...

But we all know... this entire teaching about blacks being denied the priesthood... it CAME FROM RACIST BAPTISTS.

So... as of TODAY

http://www.thebereancall.org/content/mormon-s...

READ...

While the scholar may face excommnication...

The MORMON CLERGY OFFICIALLY STAND ON THE NOTION THAT BLACKS WERE DENIED THE PRIESTHOOD.

This notion, obviously from Baptists and Methodists folk tales of the 1700s and 1800s did NOT COME FROM GOD.

AMAZING!!!!

Teaching that blacks were not cursed, as one Mormon scholar has tried,

GOT HIM ALMOST EXCOMMUNICATED

Thomas W. Murphy

Your religious books get changed anyway.

http://saintsalive.com/resourcelibrary/mormon...
not ashamed wrote:
<quoted text>you seem Like an intelligent person , however you are clueless about so much. We are not monsters who teach hate. Most of us are loving, kind and compassionate people. Yes that is a church teaching but it does not define us.
Osirica

Oak Park, MI

#5570 Mar 17, 2012
Stop teaching that black people were denied the priesthood.

They weren't.

Blacks were fully allowed to be in the priesthood from the time of Adam to the present day, with NO interruptions.

THAT fact should trump ANY notion otherwise, especially some notion that Mormon theologians COPIED from Baptists (whom they say they were correcting mistakes of? They sure failed to correct THAT one).
Osirica

Oak Park, MI

#5571 Mar 17, 2012
And the notion to on one hand to keep saying that you weren't racist

but then on the other

to keep saying that blacks were denied the priesthood for no reason at all... even so far as it to transcend Jesus atonement.

that's racism on YOUR part. Don't try to pass it off on God. The entire notion was already popularized in America before Smith had his revelation.

It was not taught in ancient Christian nor ancient Jewish theology.

AND we know there were Black Jewish priests.

“I will not keep calm”

Since: Mar 08

Raise hell...change the world

#5572 Mar 17, 2012
Osirica wrote:
And the notion to on one hand to keep saying that you weren't racist
but then on the other
to keep saying that blacks were denied the priesthood for no reason at all... even so far as it to transcend Jesus atonement.
that's racism on YOUR part. Don't try to pass it off on God. The entire notion was already popularized in America before Smith had his revelation.
It was not taught in ancient Christian nor ancient Jewish theology.
AND we know there were Black Jewish priests.
you seem to be putting a lot of words into my mouth.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#5573 Mar 17, 2012
Osirica wrote:
I do have an idea of what it is talking about.
In fact, in order for anyone to become a member, they should know what the organization they are joining is TALKING about.
Now, the issue here is about "racial" backgrounds. Here in America, Black people and White people are by and large are of the same cultural background.
Yes it's true.
IN other countries, where the "races" are different, they are also of the same cultural background.
But here's the bigger issue. You are avoiding. Your religion teaches racist stuff about blacks once being denied the priesthood by God.
That never happened.
It's as reprehensible as teaching that Jews were cursed by the NAZIs.
Why you still HAVE that kind of stuff in your scriptures? You know, Cain being marked with a skin of blackness, Native Americans being cursed with a skin of blackness...
Why you won't strike that stuff out as an error? ESPECIALLY considering your religion obviously borrowed it from other Christian heresies that were popular of the day.
Why you don't disavow it is BEYOND ME.
Maybe you really believe that natives and blacks were the result of a mark on cain and a curse.
<quoted text>
Again, you frame your argument based entirely upon your biased assessment of the LDS Church. And I like how, when challenged, you simply change the subject from that of marriage to overall racism.

Tell me, how was I avoiding the "bigger issue" of supposed racism, when you hadn't even brought it up yet?

And furthermore, why should I disavow my Church's scripture? Because YOU say I should? Atheists say that the flood and Noah's Ark are impossible, thus the story should be disavowed, and that the creation story should be disavowed as well, because humans evolved from something else. Well, I won't disavow those passages from scripture either, because I happen to believe them as truth, and some would call me an idiot for that.

Scripture is what scripture is. You don't have to like it. I happen to believe what the Church teaches. If you feel the need to label me based upon your terminology, so be it.

Acknowledging that there are differences in culture within the United States is not the same thing as expressing preference or superiority of one over the other.

But if you don't think there are great cultural differences between races within the U.S., then you simply haven't experienced much of the United States.

Osirica

Oak Park, MI

#5574 Mar 17, 2012
I am reminding you clearly of what the LDS church teaches:

And the notion to on one hand to keep saying that you weren't racist
but then on the other
to keep saying that blacks were denied the priesthood for no reason at all... even so far as it to transcend Jesus atonement.
that's racism on YOUR part. Don't try to pass it off on God. The entire notion was already popularized in America before Smith had his revelation.
It was not taught in ancient Christian nor ancient Jewish theology.
AND we know there were Black Jewish priests.

So if YOU personally want to deny this go right ahead.

YOU personally do not feel that blacks were denied the priesthood by God? Therefore the Mormon leaders made a mistake.
YOU personally believe that the mark of cain had nothing to do with black skin? Good, you acknowledge that mormon leaders erred when they copied THAT folk tale.
not ashamed wrote:
<quoted text> you seem to be putting a lot of words into my mouth.

“Too much LDS in the 60's”

Since: Sep 10

Marysville, CA

#5575 Mar 17, 2012
not ashamed wrote:
<quoted text> you seem to be putting a lot of words into my mouth.
That's not true. He is defining what Mormonism teaches and believes, not you personally.
Osirica

Oak Park, MI

#5576 Mar 17, 2012
See it comes down to this.

There are some things that are so reprehensible as to be just clearly false.

Any organization that calls itself a Christian church should NOT be teaching the following:

Holocaust Denial
Jews were devils
Blacks were cursed
Black skin came from the mark of cain

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#5577 Mar 17, 2012
Osirica wrote:
Thats not good enough.
The teaching that goes into one examining their roots, their heritage, the reason why things are as they are...
You notice on LDS websites they will talk about answering questions about "why were we put on this earth" and "why are we here" and the like...
Well for black people, the issue becomes one of sorrowfully saying "We dont know" or "you are black because of something bad that happened in the bible or the pearl of great price. Yes, I'm sorry Black man, but look it's right here... what else would "a mark" refer to? It refers to your skin color... but it's ok, God forgave your ancestors and he gave you permission to be a priest again in 1977. We don't know why God did what he did."
That's the same tired batch of responses I hear over and over.
<quoted text>
"That's not good enough"? That pretty arrogant of you.

I can assure you, at least speaking for me, that what is "good enough" for you is no concern of mine.
Osirica

Oak Park, MI

#5578 Mar 17, 2012
I quoted the LDS church, not biased.

the subject was of "INTERRACIAL" marriage, not just of marriage. The LDS church is not against MARRIAGE... they are against INTERRACIAL marriage.

I address the fact that they are speaking of RACE... not culture. You insist that it "must" be culture because of this and that. BALONEY. They said race, they could have easily said culture... ESPECIALLY in light of the ramifications... there is no good reason to choose the word "race" over "culture" if the idea you wanted to convey was about "culture".

Now you say "Well, I won't disavow those passages from scripture either, because I happen to believe them as truth, and some would call me an idiot for that."

Well guess what, those passages are copied from Baptist folk tales. And you are not just an idiot...

You are PROVING MY POINT... you are hung up on the race thing. Because you know beyond a shadow of doubt those scriptural things about blacks and their history... you know they are 100% false. But you hold on to it. Instead of honestly looking and saying "wait a minute, this is false, what else is false in Mormonism".

You want to cover your butt by saying "oh Mormon scripture is true no matter what it says" and even when you find falsehoods, you just insist that "its true because it's mormon scripture".

BALONEY.\

As far as cultural differences go... yes, there are, many whites have cultural differences between them, but since it said "RACE", I suppose your various white cultures will not understand that memo and marry without looking into that issue. SINCE IT WAS NOT MENTIONED!

See how distortions cause more problems?
Cary L Nickel wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, you frame your argument based entirely upon your biased assessment of the LDS Church. And I like how, when challenged, you simply change the subject from that of marriage to overall racism.
Tell me, how was I avoiding the "bigger issue" of supposed racism, when you hadn't even brought it up yet?
And furthermore, why should I disavow my Church's scripture? Because YOU say I should? Atheists say that the flood and Noah's Ark are impossible, thus the story should be disavowed, and that the creation story should be disavowed as well, because humans evolved from something else. Well, I won't disavow those passages from scripture either, because I happen to believe them as truth, and some would call me an idiot for that.
Scripture is what scripture is. You don't have to like it. I happen to believe what the Church teaches. If you feel the need to label me based upon your terminology, so be it.
Acknowledging that there are differences in culture within the United States is not the same thing as expressing preference or superiority of one over the other.
But if you don't think there are great cultural differences between races within the U.S., then you simply haven't experienced much of the United States.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#5579 Mar 17, 2012
Osirica wrote:
I am reminding you clearly of what the LDS church teaches:
And the notion to on one hand to keep saying that you weren't racist
but then on the other
to keep saying that blacks were denied the priesthood for no reason at all... even so far as it to transcend Jesus atonement.
that's racism on YOUR part. Don't try to pass it off on God. The entire notion was already popularized in America before Smith had his revelation.
It was not taught in ancient Christian nor ancient Jewish theology.
AND we know there were Black Jewish priests.
So if YOU personally want to deny this go right ahead.
YOU personally do not feel that blacks were denied the priesthood by God? Therefore the Mormon leaders made a mistake.
YOU personally believe that the mark of cain had nothing to do with black skin? Good, you acknowledge that mormon leaders erred when they copied THAT folk tale.
<quoted text>
Unless you are LDS, you simply do not know what the Church teaches. If you DID know what the LDS church teaches, you would BE LDS.

You want to know a little of what the LDS Church teaches? Then go to the source and quite believing your own twisted logic:

www.mormon.org

“I will not keep calm”

Since: Mar 08

Raise hell...change the world

#5580 Mar 17, 2012
Osirica wrote:
I am reminding you clearly of what the LDS church teaches:
And the notion to on one hand to keep saying that you weren't racist
but then on the other
to keep saying that blacks were denied the priesthood for no reason at all... even so far as it to transcend Jesus atonement.
that's racism on YOUR part. Don't try to pass it off on God. The entire notion was already popularized in America before Smith had his revelation.
It was not taught in ancient Christian nor ancient Jewish theology.
AND we know there were Black Jewish priests.
So if YOU personally want to deny this go right ahead.
YOU personally do not feel that blacks were denied the priesthood by God? Therefore the Mormon leaders made a mistake.
YOU personally believe that the mark of cain had nothing to do with black skin? Good, you acknowledge that mormon leaders erred when they copied THAT folk tale.
<quoted text>
I never stated what I personally thought about the teaching. You assumed and then made it my words.
Osirica

Oak Park, MI

#5581 Mar 17, 2012
Its not.

If it were whites being singled out, you would not take it seriously nor respect it.

And any president running for office, being a memebr of a church that historically and still currently maligns whites...

You'd be up in arms.

Look at how so many went after Obama for going to Pastor Wright's church.

And HIS alleged racism? Not nearly on the scale of mormonism, with it's "divine doctrine" about it, and their numerous numerous official comments by Mormon prophets and presidents.

Jeremiah Wright was a birthday party compared to the incessant racism in Mormon scripture.

Yet, Obama is villified for attending that church (Where no doctrine indicating whites were once cursed exist).

here with Mormonism... look at how you rationalize. Were the Mormon church run by blacks, calling whites cursed as they do and have about blacks...

There would BE NO WAY you'd be supporting Romney.
Cary L Nickel wrote:
<quoted text>
"That's not good enough"? That pretty arrogant of you.
I can assure you, at least speaking for me, that what is "good enough" for you is no concern of mine.
Osirica

Oak Park, MI

#5582 Mar 17, 2012
Who is this "WE" you refer to?

I'm talking about members that believe in the doctrine of the LDS church known as "Mormon" which includes the doctrinal components I listed.

Now, my replies, refer to "you" as in "we"...

If that is church teaching that you do not follow, you should update your Mormon bishop and ask him for further instruction.
not ashamed wrote:
<quoted text>you seem Like an intelligent person , however you are clueless about so much. We are not monsters who teach hate. Most of us are loving, kind and compassionate people. Yes that is a church teaching but it does not define us.

“I will not keep calm”

Since: Mar 08

Raise hell...change the world

#5583 Mar 17, 2012
Dana Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
That's not true. He is defining what Mormonism teaches and believes, not you personally.
when one uses the word YOU they mean you personally.

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#5584 Mar 17, 2012
Osirica wrote:
I quoted the LDS church, not biased.
the subject was of "INTERRACIAL" marriage, not just of marriage. The LDS church is not against MARRIAGE... they are against INTERRACIAL marriage.
I address the fact that they are speaking of RACE... not culture. You insist that it "must" be culture because of this and that. BALONEY. They said race, they could have easily said culture... ESPECIALLY in light of the ramifications... there is no good reason to choose the word "race" over "culture" if the idea you wanted to convey was about "culture".
Now you say "Well, I won't disavow those passages from scripture either, because I happen to believe them as truth, and some would call me an idiot for that."
Well guess what, those passages are copied from Baptist folk tales. And you are not just an idiot...
You are PROVING MY POINT... you are hung up on the race thing. Because you know beyond a shadow of doubt those scriptural things about blacks and their history... you know they are 100% false. But you hold on to it. Instead of honestly looking and saying "wait a minute, this is false, what else is false in Mormonism".
You want to cover your butt by saying "oh Mormon scripture is true no matter what it says" and even when you find falsehoods, you just insist that "its true because it's mormon scripture".
BALONEY.\
As far as cultural differences go... yes, there are, many whites have cultural differences between them, but since it said "RACE", I suppose your various white cultures will not understand that memo and marry without looking into that issue. SINCE IT WAS NOT MENTIONED!
See how distortions cause more problems?
<quoted text>
Now you are just outright lying. When pressed, opponents of the Church always must resort to lying. It's universal.

There is NOTHING in today's doctrine of the Church that teaches the Church is against interracial marriage. Nothing. Not one thing.

In fact, interracial marriages are officiated by LDS Clergy every day. EVERY DAY.

And again, you define the meanings of things based upon your own limited understanding of them. You frame everything upon shallow skin color issues, when the Church's teachings go much, much deeper than that. It is you who is overly concerned with race, NOT the Church.

Now you lie about what others are saying as well: How can you honestly say "now I say", as if I ever said anything different, when I never HAVE said anything different? Fact is, you are NOT being honest. Just as "not ashamed" stated, you are putting words in other peoples mouths.

And please clarify your statement concerning Baptist folk tales. You lost me there. The Holy Bible predates any churches that identified themselves as "baptist" by thousands of years..so how were the stories of the creation and the flood copied from Baptist folks tales?

Tell us, do YOU believe in the Holy Bible?

Osirica

Oak Park, MI

#5585 Mar 17, 2012
And when one uses the word "We", they are attaching themselves to a group previously discussed.

Figre it out instead of sidestepping. I'm not going to give any leverage on this.
not ashamed wrote:
<quoted text>when one uses the word YOU they mean you personally.
Osirica

Oak Park, MI

#5586 Mar 17, 2012
We already went over this:

You are not against A... you are for "not" A.

Yes, we get it.

As far as the baptist folk tales go....

Take ALL the teachings about black skin in Mormon doctrine (except the part about pre-existence).

Find any teachings about black skin in Baptist doctrine BEFORE 1830

Presto!

THEY ARE THE SAME!!!
Cary L Nickel wrote:
<quoted text>
Now you are just outright lying. When pressed, opponents of the Church always must resort to lying. It's universal.
There is NOTHING in today's doctrine of the Church that teaches the Church is against interracial marriage. Nothing. Not one thing.
In fact, interracial marriages are officiated by LDS Clergy every day. EVERY DAY.
And again, you define the meanings of things based upon your own limited understanding of them. You frame everything upon shallow skin color issues, when the Church's teachings go much, much deeper than that. It is you who is overly concerned with race, NOT the Church.
Now you lie about what others are saying as well: How can you honestly say "now I say", as if I ever said anything different, when I never HAVE said anything different? Fact is, you are NOT being honest. Just as "not ashamed" stated, you are putting words in other peoples mouths.
And please clarify your statement concerning Baptist folk tales. You lost me there. The Holy Bible predates any churches that identified themselves as "baptist" by thousands of years..so how were the stories of the creation and the flood copied from Baptist folks tales?
Tell us, do YOU believe in the Holy Bible?
Osirica

Oak Park, MI

#5587 Mar 17, 2012
Dictionary of African-American Slavery, p. 77

http://sbc.net/resolutions/amResolution.asp...

Where did the Southern Baptists get the notion from?

Not MORMONISM!

It's the SAME teaching!!!

LOL

Since: May 10

Location hidden

#5588 Mar 17, 2012
Osirica wrote:
Its not.
If it were whites being singled out, you would not take it seriously nor respect it.
And any president running for office, being a memebr of a church that historically and still currently maligns whites...
You'd be up in arms.
Look at how so many went after Obama for going to Pastor Wright's church.
And HIS alleged racism? Not nearly on the scale of mormonism, with it's "divine doctrine" about it, and their numerous numerous official comments by Mormon prophets and presidents.
Jeremiah Wright was a birthday party compared to the incessant racism in Mormon scripture.
Yet, Obama is villified for attending that church (Where no doctrine indicating whites were once cursed exist).
here with Mormonism... look at how you rationalize. Were the Mormon church run by blacks, calling whites cursed as they do and have about blacks...
There would BE NO WAY you'd be supporting Romney.
<quoted text>
To quote Ronald Reagan: "Well, there you go again..."

You like to decide for other folks what they would do given the circumstances you yourself lay out, along with telling everyone what they've said based upon your limited understanding of the subject. That's not the way it works, either way.

Please explain to us why you believe so many people of different cultures choose to become members of the LDS Church, despite your characterization of the Church as a racist organization?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 1600
Next Last

Add your review below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Angola Dating
Find my Match