fatguy

I agree. However, what I'm getting at is that the mainstream modern LDS church is the one that pick and chose. Evidence shows that the FLDS church is actually following the teachings of early prophets to the letter, whereas the mainstream church has conveniently changed revelation and ignored historical insinuations to suit social tastes. This may or may not be a bad thing, but it is something that needs to be recognized.

Interesting. However, I am intimidated to respond to you. As a moderator, you jumped in and opined on the subject. I respond respectfully, and you threaten me with the acute possibility of banning me for breaking the rules, which I haven't done. I tried to make it graciously clear that I am not here to spew derogatory remarks and I am not an anti-Mormon propagandist. Once again, I say if this conversation doesn't belong in the gospel discussion forum, you should delete its entirety now and I'll seek answers elsewhere from non-Mormons. Will you show evidence that the ban was based on lineage rather than skin color? That's a hefty statement and could answer the question fully for me. Much I have found shows that black skin or color was the mark of Cain, not lineage:

Thanks for responding, Kukui. I looked this up and you're right. It's a surprise to me and something to think about. Here is a quote I found explaining the original revelation: So, until all white men (posterity of Abel) had received the priesthood, blacks were not to receive the priesthood. It's baffling how this can be undermined later on simply because it's culturally demanded; this prophet was very clear. Do Mormons still believe that all black people carry the mark of Cain or not? If so, it's a racist belief demanded by the scriptures. If not, the prophets are fallible.

Thanks again for responding. I'll try to respond in form. 1. I never thought of that, and it makes sense. I'm on the verge of agreeing. However, learning about the early church shows that it was a close, hierarchical organization. Not only was Joseph Smith demanded by God to have plural wives, but the newly written scriptures allowed all the men of the priesthood to participate in polygamy. It's much easier for a large group of men to marry women in the name of God if they are card-carrying members of an organization that demands it. This makes the act socially acceptable and common, especially if relocated away from the rest of society (Utah). It's large-scale group polygamy rather than one man's womanizing, in the name of replenishing the earth. 2. I agree. Imagine the context of the times. A new frontier, Manifest Destiny. A new land to try new things. The very ideas of family were probably going through turbulent changes. This, however, does not justify some of the historical insinuations of pedophilia contained in Mormon scriptures themselves. See D&C quote below. 3. Makes sense. Why would the church need to change its posture on families over the years, though? The FLDS have remained true and devoted to Joseph Smith. Has the modern mainstream Mormon church, then, in effect discarded Joseph Smith's core teachings in favor of social acceptance? 4. The Doctrine and Covenants 132 clearly states that the entire idea behind polygamy was to multiply and replenish the earth. As I study this, it becomes apparent that women were Mormon possessions, to be destroyed if they committed adultery, and passed around for sex. The following makes this abundantly crystal clear: 5. I'm unclear on how God can possibly be a pragmatist, having supposedly created the imperfect cosmos in the first place. Regardless, I fail to see how polygamy can solve problems. It seems possessive and hurtful to the individuality of young women. What kinds of problems are you proposing that it solves?

Thanks for responding. Had you read my entire post in the first place, you would have found this: Not only that, you would have found this: I utterly agree with you in these responses. The Bible contains heinous racism, sexism, and violence throughout, and Christians are likely guilty of as much racism as anyone else in historical America and beyond. Please realize I'm agnostic and secular. I do not believe the Bible, nor the Quran, nor Dianetics or anything else to the be the word of God. I will not participate in sparring matches between faiths. I have no place in that conversation. These responses do not explain away the historical evidence of racism in the early Mormon church, rather they try to shift the blame to others. This same question, in varied form, should doubtlessly be in all the other religions' forums as well: I am not interested in calling out Mormons as racists. Logically, the historically validated presence of racism in early Mormonism begs the question: How can a true prophet of Jesus prescribe to racism in the first place? Are the book and the word the pure voice of God, or are they fallible to the evolution of our culture?

Hopefully there are people who would join this thread, like myself, who have never asked these questions. I wonder whether common believers actually care about these simple questions and their huge, glaring insinuations. Believing Mormons should be proud and willing to debate these issues from their own personal perception, representing the strength of faith with knowledge. At worst, talking things through should be fun and interesting. "Ad nauseam arguments are logical fallacies relying on the repetition of a single argument to the exclusion of all else." This is a backhanded insult to a relevant question on gospel study, not a proper answer. Not applicable. Regardless of how long the debate has been going, these questions are still important, given they are massive obstacles in the way of understanding the church's history. Asking them again is indeed digging up old stones, and I apologize for annoying veteran debaters. These questions, however, do have a place in a Gospel Discussion forum, and a new thread allows me to participate, rather than dusting off old conversations. Remember that missionaries came to my door very recently and prescribed the one holy truth. I have the right to ask questions here. Rather than insulting the conversation, participate with your own unique perceptions.

I won't have you saying such things about my Bessie.

Oh, and just to lighten the mood after all this, here's a hippo in a bikini.

This was not a ghost thread meant to "stump Mormons" and fish for hate. It's an honest inquiry about how believing Mormons justify certain insinuations. Having been visited by missionaries, I have been trying to wrap my head around the religion from a non-bias historical perspective. I doubt most of the information from these "anti-ex-mormon" websites and forums is acceptably neutral, so I dared to post here to see what actual Mormons would say instead, because your responses deserve as much respect. The FAIR wiki is an excellent source of information. I've been reading its articles all about this. Also I was impressed by its amazing page on philosophical fallacy. I honestly hope to avoid tension. If this thread doesn't suit your tastes for debate, just leave it alone. If it doesn't belong in this forum, I apologize and hope a moderator deletes it before it causes any trouble. The insinuations behind these questions need to be addressed. So far responses have been somewhat empty and inadequate. I have read explanations on non-mormon websites citing quotes from Brigham Young and other Prophets. However, I understand the validity of these is up to speculation due to anti-mormon bias, which is why I prefer a personal rebuttal from actual Mormons. For the first question (why blacks weren't allowed the Priesthood until 1978)... This seems to mean people with dark skin were inherently evil from birth? This quote may possibly be in the black man's favor, as a proposal against a popularly violent country in favor of equality, but it doesn't seem likely. Why restrict them to their own "species"? Once again, black people are inherently evil from before birth, and slavery is their own fault? The FAIR wiki proposes that Brigham Young was actually defending black women who were raped by white men. I can understand this approach, but it seems insufficient due to the blatant nature of the quote. The statement is very clear that any white man from the priesthood who has sex with any black person has committed an atrocious crime in God's eyes. I realize that most non-LDS critics hold a double-standard. Mormons were probably equally or less racist than many of their counterpart religions during the Civil War era, and even throughout the 20th century. Racism was very common and very popular among all groups of people in those times, so there's little foundation for a fair racist argument particularly against Mormons. I'll note here that I do not belong to another religion that seeks to discredit Mormons in favor of itself. This question belongs in all the historical debates of all the religions that claim they followed the true prophet of peace through turbulent times. However, it begs the questions: :confused:Why would a true prophet of God make these remarks in the first place? Why would the pure voice of a peace-loving God play by the racial currents of his environment? :confused:Wouldn't a prophet with access to the pure voice of God have heard long before then, that this racism was one of the most abhorrent things? :confused:If the Book of Mormon is completely the true voice of God, Joseph Smith and Brigham Young were utterly his true prophets, why would the church ever need to change its doctrines based on current political atmospheres? This is a double standard on the opposite side: the book and word are utterly true, but fallible? Thanks to anyone willing to debate.

I am researching the LDS religion and would highly appreciate straightforward answers to these questions. I am not fishing for hate, nor am I attempting to insult anyone's beliefs. These are honest questions that demand answers. 1) Until 1978, the Mormon church forbid black people to hold the priesthood. Why? 2) Joseph Smith practiced polygamy. Why? 3) No DNA or archeological study shows any evidence of the huge populations the Book of Mormon claims lived in North America. Why? 4) The Fundamentalist LDS church behaves in radically perverted ways, yet still worships the same book and religious leaders. Why? Thanks in advance to anyone who can clear things up.