Anti LDS and anti types and shadows in scripture (Long)

[Maya]

One thing that ticks me is that there is so little stuff in Finnish that is not negative on Church. Funny how much of the negative IS translated in to Finnish!

Many finns dont read english and the linking dont help them. But now we got the forum at least and a group of CMs that are interested in defending the church and learning about the truths so they know what to say. How ever we do realise (and try to tell it to those we write to) it will be only our opinions and then we link people to the official finnish sites for more information.

It has come in to my mind to find the most important scolastic answers to the questions that arrise the most terrible discusitions and translate them. We were already in good spead with that with Kim, but then he strted to study hard and the translations were forgotten. I am not sure where the translations are at the moment.

For me Anti is an anti and I have no feelings for the word Anagonist, dont really kind of know what it means. Critic can keep his temper and words in controll.

I wonder if I would start calling them Anagoniste would they start calling me a Christian??

[jimuk]

I would agree that we are not Christian in the traditional sense. Historically, we are very much Christian, as our views were believed prior to the Nicene Council. To say that we are new on the scene is like stating that Jesus was new on the Jewish Messianic scene in 30AD. After all, several others had claimed already to be the Messiah by the time he arrived. Those who really DO study early Christianity, must admit that our views on the Godhead, temple, baptism, priesthood, etc., are all very much historical. It is only when a cursory glance is done, and history ignored, that one sees otherwise. Scholar Harold Bloom stated that many in the current Southern Baptist Convention are ignorant, as they take a few verses and build a religion around it, meanwhile he was amazed at how many things Joseph Smith got right in his modern/ancient religion

rameumptom, Thank you for putting the above into such simple words, its what i was trying to say earlier in the thread basicly, i do not need to be a Christian as the world defines "Christian" The church if you like are of the original stamp of what a Christian is/should be, in which case it is us that are "Christians" and not indeed the rest of the world (Oh am i allowed to say such a thing) lol, i will be in trouble again for daring to speak my mind.

So we can indeed hold our heads high and be the Christians that were about before some old men got together and defined what a christian "is to be".

[justamere10]

rameumptom, Thank you for putting the above into such simple words, its what i was trying to say earlier in the thread basicly, i do not need to be a Christian as the world defines "Christian" The church if you like are of the original stamp of what a Christian is/should be, in which case it is us that are "Christians" and not indeed the rest of the world (Oh am i allowed to say such a thing) lol, i will be in trouble again for daring to speak my mind.

So we can indeed hold our heads high and be the Christians that were about before some old men got together and defined what a christian "is to be".

Please provide evidence that the men in the Nicene councils were "old". (Just kidding.) :)

[rameumptom]

Please provide evidence that the men in the Nicene councils were "old". (Just kidding.) :)

Well, if they were alive today, they'd all be pushing 1900 years or so. In my book, that's older than Methuselah!

[justamere10]

Well, if they were alive today, they'd all be pushing 1900 years or so. In my book, that's older than Methuselah!

Where can I get a copy of your book? :)

[hordak]

Ram: The JoD is a reliable record, but not all of it is doctrine. Why? Because doctrine is described as things that the Church currently teaches us is doctrine. The reality is, most of the JoD agrees with our modern prophet's teachings, and so would be good to use. The problem is that the antis use outliers and teachings we no longer believe, and then attempt to impose them on the current Church. It would be like me taking a statement from a 19th century, or even 1950s Southern Baptist minister supporting

slavery/racism, and imputing it upon Southern Baptists today.

There in lies the problem. Southern baptist ministers have never claimed to speak for God.(at least in the LDS Prophecy sense.) This means that anything preached by a minister (past or present)can be interpreted by member as right or wrong and has know bearing on their "worthiness" If we look back and see the church taught or practiced something that is no longer taught (without a reasonable explanation) it causes many to question new doctrine.

e.g. If Brigham Young , Bruce R. McConkie ,John Taylor,Joesph F Smith,Orson Pratt,Spencer w. Kimball were wrong about blacks ( death for mixing races, Cains curse, less valiant pre life, inferior race,no priesthood etc) none of which taught today(To my knowledge).Then why should members take things like no earrings or tattoos, or vote yes on prop 8 as doctrine?

[bytor2112]

If Brigham Young , Bruce R. McConkie ,John Taylor,Joesph F Smith,Orson Pratt,Spencer w. Kimball were wrong about blacks ( death for mixing races, Cains curse, less valiant pre life, inferior race,no priesthood etc) none of which taught today(To my knowledge).Then why should members take things like no earrings or tattoos, or vote yes on prop 8 as doctrine?

I am unaware of any statements by the church claiming that these brethren or church policy was wrong in regard to the issues that you mentioned. New light and direction was given regarding these issues, that doesn't mean that the church or these brethren were in error prior to receiving the new light and instruction.

Why should members follow the council to not sport tatoos and body piercings or vote yes on 8????? Because we sustain the leaders of our church as Prophets, Seers and Revelators. Until the Lord reveals any new light to the brethren regarding these or any other issues regarding the salvation of humankind, we should conduct ourselves as though the Lord himself had spoken.

[Fiannan]

There in lies the problem. Southern baptist ministers have never claimed to speak for God.(at least in the LDS Prophecy sense.) This means that anything preached by a minister (past or present)can be interpreted by member as right or wrong and has know bearing on their "worthiness" If we look back and see the church taught or practiced something that is no longer taught (without a reasonable explanation) it causes many to question new doctrine.

e.g. If Brigham Young , Bruce R. McConkie ,John Taylor,Joesph F Smith,Orson Pratt,Spencer w. Kimball were wrong about blacks ( death for mixing races, Cains curse, less valiant pre life, inferior race,no priesthood etc) none of which taught today(To my knowledge).Then why should members take things like no earrings or tattoos, or vote yes on prop 8 as doctrine?

Actually, that is not exactly what Church leaders taught in essence about blacks. True, they did teach, and I suppose still do, that Ham was cursed and that blacks are descendants of Ham but from my understanding that pre-dates the restoration by centuries. In the Book of Ezra anyone that was not pure Hebrew was cast out of the congregation and many see this as saying races should not mix -- although the reason given by Church leaders for not marrying outside of the races after the revelation for giving blacks the priesthood was that it places a huge burden on the couple from day one. One could note that the priesthood used to only be allowed to be given to those descended of Levi and even Jesus said His earthly mission was intended only for Jews.

As for present teachings one could cite things like birth control as rather confusing for members. In the past leaders (yes, inspired leaders) said that family limitation was a violation of the temple covenant and could jeapordize your place in the next life. Birth control was discouraged as late as the 1990s yet one can see that todays politically correct PR way of dealing with the issue leaves the impression that leaders have changed their mind when in reality what they seem to want is for people to read the real message between the lines.

And judging from how many people in the Church of all ages continue to get body piercings and tatoos and shrug off as relatively unimportant the urgings against it (it is after all pretty unimportnat in the grand scheme of things) maybe LDS people aren't all that different from those who feel that questioning of authority is okay. We just feel you shouldn't question for the sake of questioning -- and yes, LDS people do believe their leaders are inspired, but that they can be human as well and that some ideas (i.e. white shirts for Church occasions) are more a factor of cultural factors.

[hordak]

I am unaware of any statements by the church claiming that these brethren or church policy was wrong in regard to the issues that you mentioned. New light and direction was given regarding these issues, that doesn't mean that the church or these brethren were in error prior to receiving the new light and instruction.

If the church never issued statements saying they were wrong then because they are sustained as Prophets, Seers and Revelaters we should assume what they said was true.

So when did blacks become equal in God eyes? When did God decide to not bring death to interracial couples? How many "died on the spot" as BY taught the law of God?

Why should members follow the council to not sport tatoos and body piercings or vote yes on 8????? Because we sustain the leaders of our church as Prophets, Seers and Revelators. Until the Lord reveals any new light to the brethren regarding these or any other issues regarding the salvation of humankind, we should conduct ourselves as though the Lord himself had spoken.

Prophets speak not only as Prophets but as men as well. We acknowledge this with past statements(even some taught as "the law of God", I know of no white man who died upon impregnating a black women like BY taught) but no one can even fathom that what the current Prophet and apostles teach could just be good advice or opinion. This is what some of the "antis" are trying to get across by quoting JoD. The only difference between the Saints now who say "It isn't scripture" when confronted by a JoD quote and the ones who taught that quote in Sunday school is a few 100 years.

[bytor2112]

So when did blacks become equal in God eyes? When did God decide to not bring death to interracial couples? How many "died on the spot" as BY taught the law of God?

Scripture is full of instances were God showed preferential treatment of one group over another and many Old Testament occurrences seem outlandish or even brutal and were endorsed by God. I don't think God is a racist, but he does things for specific purposes and in his own time. In the Eternal scheme of things, all worthy males may enjoy the blessings of the Priesthood. Our time here in mortality is soooooo short when compared to eternity. My favorite scripture illustrating this is found in Alma 34:

33 And now, as I said unto you before, as ye have had so many witnesses, therefore, I beseech of you that ye do not procrastinate the day of your repentance until the end; for after this day of life, which is given us to prepare for eternity, behold, if we do not improve our time while in this life, then cometh the night of darkness wherein there can be no labor performed.

Prophets speak not only as Prophets but as men as well. We acknowledge this with past statements(even some taught as "the law of God", I know of no white man who died upon impregnating a black women like BY taught) but no one can even fathom that what the current Prophet and apostles teach could just be good advice or opinion. This is what some of the "antis" are trying to get across by quoting JoD. The only difference between the Saints now who say "It isn't scripture" when confronted by a JoD quote and the ones who taught that quote in Sunday school is a few 100 years.

No disagreement here, however, the JoD is not an official church publication. I wonder how many nutty sounding things Moses may have said or Samuel that was taken out of context or was just plain odd? Never the less, the Priesthood blessings were not available to all men for a very SHORT period of time following the restoration of the Priesthood to the earth. As for things like Prop. 8, well, that is an obvious sin and as the scriptures make very clear in D & C Section 1:

31 For I the Lord cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance;

and direction to not get tatoos or body piercings,etc is found in official church publications.

[hordak]

Actually, that is not exactly what Church leaders taught in essence about blacks. True, they did teach, and I suppose still do, that Ham was cursed and that blacks are descendants of Ham but from my understanding that pre-dates the restoration by centuries. In the Book of Ezra anyone that was not pure Hebrew was cast out of the congregation and many see this as saying races should not mix -- although the reason given by Church leaders for not marrying outside of the races after the revelation for giving blacks the priesthood was that it places a huge burden on the couple from day one. One could note that the priesthood used to only be allowed to be given to those descended of Levi and even Jesus said His earthly mission was intended only for Jews.

I understand the bible has been used to justify racism for a long time. But other churches have the advantage of being able to write it off as the influence of society. Since LDS have a direct line to God we must either admit our leaders can be wrong and be influenced by their day and own opinions(Which means this could be happening as we speak and many are afraid to believe) or come up with some sort of excuse to justify it as Gods will. While this can explain certain things there are some instances that can't be explained by this I.E. death on the spot for mixing races.

As for present teachings one could cite things like birth control as rather confusing for members. In the past leaders (yes, inspired leaders) said that family limitation was a violation of the temple covenant and could jeapordize your place in the next life. Birth control was discouraged as late as the 1990s yet one can see that todays politically correct PR way of dealing with the issue leaves the impression that leaders have changed their mind when in reality what they seem to want is for people to read the real message between the lines.

That is an interesting way to look at it.Though I don't believe many members would accept the idea that the church tries to be P.C. instead of being direct with Gods will.

And judging from how many people in the Church of all ages continue to get body piercings and tatoos and shrug off as relatively unimportant the urgings against it (it is after all pretty unimportnat in the grand scheme of things) maybe LDS people aren't all that different from those who feel that questioning of authority is okay. We just feel you shouldn't question for the sake of questioning -- and yes, LDS people do believe their leaders are inspired, but that they can be human as well and that some ideas (i.e. white shirts for Church occasions) are more a factor of cultural factors.

I don't think many are questioning. I believe questioning for the sake of questioning is important and should be more common in the church(and everywhere for that matter) This is what brought about the restoration, the WoW and priesthood ban reversal IMO.

7 ¶ Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:

8 For every one that sketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.

[Mormonatalie]

From time to time as members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints we encounter anti-LDS. I thought I would start this thread as a means of warning and clarification. To begin with I would like to point to scripture; in particular the gospel of John. John records several encounters between Jesus Christ and Scribes and Pharisees. I find these encounters to be very similar to methods used by modern day anti’s. Since from time to time a anti will appear in the forum I will summarize these ancient methods as the types and shadows of modern day anti-LDS:

. Often the encounter is begun by a question intended to entrap in order that they may accuse us (see John 8:3-6). The anti-LDS seek to ensnare and trap – not to enlighten or deliver. Such encounters are the result of preconceived planning with intended accusations planned for various responses.

. They have already judged us or categorized us (for example as non-Christians) based on information they manufacture before they even talk to us. (see John 7:49-51). In this example that the Scribes and Pharisees accused Jesus of deceiving those that are not “expert” in the knowledge of the scriptures or law.

. They accuse us of not being Christian. This is the same as the Scribes and Pharisees calling Jesus a Samaritan (see John 8:48). Samaritans were the non-Jews of the time.

. The distortion of our doctrine and claim that it is blasphemous (see John 10:33). This is a most important example particular to a man becoming a g-d. Note how the Scribes and Pharisees twist the concept so that as it passes from them it is unbelievable.

In addition I would like to add some things I have seen over the years on the internet.

. Anti’s do not do research. This is apparent by the sources they claim for their information. For example they quote from the Journal of Discourses or from some long out of print manual. In all my life I have meet about 3 people that have actually read the Journal of Discourses. Most members have not read the volumes because it is a ton of stuff and would take most more than a year to read. If someone has done real research and studied “Mormonism” that extensively they are far beyond asking questions on the internet. The truth is their research is nothing more than a regurgitating of anti material and void of even considering the LDS point of view. It is not research into a religion when the point of view of that religion is not considered, and any conclusions based on such faulty research must be considered false.

. Answering an anti does no good to anyone. Anciently Jesus himself was not able to convince the Scribes and Pharisees of their errors through his teachings. I am convinced that one purpose of anti’s seeking an exchange is to create contention which will draw a Saint from the fold of G-d. So - DO NOT GET ANGRY!! With anti’s – do not respond if they are getting to you. I have been involved with the conversion of just one anti my entire life and it had nothing to do with anything I ever said. He was converted to what LDS did.

The Traveler

From its beginnings, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and its members have been targets of persecution and criticism.

[bytor2112]

I understand the bible has been used to justify racism for a long time. But other churches have the advantage of being able to write it off as the influence of society. Since LDS have a direct line to God we must either admit our leaders can be wrong and be influenced by their day and own opinions(Which means this could be happening as we speak and many are afraid to believe) or come up with some sort of excuse to justify it as Gods will. While this can explain certain things there are some instances that can't be explained by this I.E. death on the spot for mixing races.

I wonder if Heavenly Father sees race or skin color or if that is just something that he knew we would respond to because of our fallen state. It is interesting to me that we are here to master the physical and live by the Spirit and that the Holy Spirit communes with us in ways that are only understood spiritually.

No doubt, that Brigham Young was influenced by the culture of the times and certainly that helped to form his opinions. During the 19th century much was debated about blacks and slavery and whether or not the black man had a soul and could receive salvation. I lifted this from FAIR:

It also important to give credit to Church members' strengths in the pre-1978 period:

Church doctrine never held that blacks were less than human or without souls, as some denominations did

Joseph Smith taught that any mental or economic weakness suffered by blacks was not due to any in-born defect, but simply due to not having ample opportunity to advance and receive the same education as whites

Church members were overwhelmingly abolitionist and were even persecuted and driven out because of their anti-slavery leanings

the Church never had segregated congregations; all members worshipped together

the Church supported equal civil rights for many years before the 1978 revelation: to the Church, the issue of priesthood was not one of civil rights or granting status, but of revelation.

sociologic studies demonstrated that pre-1978 Mormons were no more or less racist than their contemporaries

[hordak]

Scripture is full of instances were God showed preferential treatment of one group over another and many Old Testament occurrences seem outlandish or even brutal and were endorsed by God. I don't think God is a racist, but he does things for specific purposes and in his own time. In the Eternal scheme of things, all worthy males may enjoy the blessings of the Priesthood. Our time here in mortality is soooooo short when compared to eternity. My favorite scripture illustrating this is found in Alma 34:

33 And now, as I said unto you before, as ye have had so many witnesses, therefore, I beseech of you that ye do not procrastinate the day of your repentance until the end; for after this day of life, which is given us to prepare for eternity, behold, if we do not improve our time while in this life, then cometh the night of darkness wherein there can be no labor performed.

I don't doubt God has a different set of rules then we have. The point is Gods Prophet proclamed Gods law and it was incorrect.

"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."

This isn't some off hand remark he made to a friend but an address to the church at the tabernacle. This is no different then President Monson speaking from the pupate at General conference.

No disagreement here, however, the JoD is not an official church publication. I wonder how many nutty sounding things Moses may have said or Samuel that was taken out of context or was just plain odd? Never the less, the Priesthood blessings were not available to all men for a very SHORT period of time following the restoration of the Priesthood to the earth. As for things like Prop. 8, well, that is an obvious sin and as the scriptures make very clear in D & C Section 1:

31 For I the Lord cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance;

and direction to not get tatoos or body piercings,etc is found in official church publications.

Actually while it isn't an official publication many of it is sermons and talks given by the Prophets at official meetings like general conference. Therefore the info they gave would have been considered just as accurate and "binding" as what we get.

BY teaching the church the dangers of mixing races the same as President Hinkley warning us of the dangers of worldly tattoos and piercings. If BY could have been inaccurate then President Hinkley or Monson could have been as well.

[hordak]

I wonder if Heavenly Father sees race or skin color or if that is just something that he knew we would respond to because of our fallen state. It is interesting to me that we are here to master the physical and live by the Spirit and that the Holy Spirit communes with us in ways that are only understood spiritually.

No doubt, that Brigham Young was influenced by the culture of the times and certainly that helped to form his opinions. During the 19th century much was debated about blacks and slavery and whether or not the black man had a soul and could receive salvation. I lifted this from FAIR:

It also important to give credit to Church members' strengths in the pre-1978 period:

Church doctrine never held that blacks were less than human or without souls, as some denominations did

Joseph Smith taught that any mental or economic weakness suffered by blacks was not due to any in-born defect, but simply due to not having ample opportunity to advance and receive the same education as whites

Church members were overwhelmingly abolitionist and were even persecuted and driven out because of their anti-slavery leanings

the Church never had segregated congregations; all members worshipped together

the Church supported equal civil rights for many years before the 1978 revelation: to the Church, the issue of priesthood was not one of civil rights or granting status, but of revelation.

sociologic studies demonstrated that pre-1978 Mormons were no more or less racist than their contemporaries

I doubt he sees skin color.(at least they way we do) I do agree it is important to give the church credit. There has never been a need (to my knowledge) for them to make a "black ward" in the same way that many southern churches were and still are segregated because they couldn't worship with the whites. The point is not to argue that the church is or was racist but to show why "antis" like the JoD. It shows our leaders (as inspired as they are and were) can be wrong.

[bytor2112]

Hordak, I am no fan of Brigham Young. His comments doubtless reflect the sentiment of the time and he spoke with the light that was currently available to him. But that does not mean that the church was in error for denying the Priesthood to some. It was a bit less than 150 years since the restoration of the Priesthood that all worthy males were able to receive the blessings of the Priesthood. In the eternities.....just a blip.

It is fairly obvious while defiling our bodies with tattoos or piercings is warned against, no?And Prop.8, also?

[hordak]

Hordak, I am no fan of Brigham Young. His comments doubtless reflect the sentiment of the time and he spoke with the light that was currently available to him. But that does not mean that the church was in error for denying the Priesthood to some. It was a bit less than 150 years since the restoration of the Priesthood that all worthy males were able to receive the blessings of the Priesthood. In the eternities.....just a blip.

It is fairly obvious while defiling our bodies with tattoos or piercings is warned against, no?And Prop.8, also?

That very well could be. And I'm not trying to imply the priesthood ban was wrong. The BY statement I believe to be wrong is the "death on the spot law of God for mixing races". This isn't true and i don't believe it was ever was. I agree he was speaking based on the sediment of the time and with limited knowledge.If this is the case then our current leader could also speaking with limited knowledge and the sediment of the time.

Back to the topic at hand

This is why "antis" like the JoD. It shows this can and does happen.

[Traveler]

That very well could be. And I'm not trying to imply the priesthood ban was wrong. The BY statement I believe to be wrong is the "death on the spot law of God for mixing races". This isn't true and i don't believe it was ever was. I agree he was speaking based on the sediment of the time and with limited knowledge.If this is the case then our current leader could also speaking with limited knowledge and the sediment of the time.

Back to the topic at hand

This is why "antis" like the JoD. It shows this can and does happen.

The reason I brought up anti's and the Journal of Discourses is because almost nobody is studying the JoD when they come up with a question. They are getting their quote from another indirect secondary source. When they do this they will not give the primary source because everyone will know that they have not done any research on their own. They are pretending to be and know something that they are not. They are in a sense lying about their very biased research - if pressed they will not give their real source which tells me they are fully aware of the flaws in their research.

I stated in another thread to one such person on their credibility when they claim research but that they are quoting from sources they have never read and in some cases never verified nor can they verify. Their true source had to be something else but they would not admit to their flaw. Such shoddy research practices should never be considered credible and if they insist they are justified then we can all know such posters as beyond ignorant. Logic and reason is not likely to be useful in such circumstances.

The Traveler

Edited January 6, 2009 by Traveler

[Maya]

IMHO:

God is very wise... I dont think I get any oppostition to that

So IF Good is so wise WHY is it so difficult to understand/believe that He can se lifetimes as a whole. He can see and knows us beter than we do ourselves. What are we to question His ways?

I given some tought to all of this what is discussed here. I believe that profet Monson or any other LDSprofet is a man of God, but he is also a man, and men make mistakes. If a profet would make a mistake, God would make him or someone after him to see it. And it would be dealed with. Only Jesus did not make mistakes!

So maybe God saw that we, as LDS, were NOT ready to have the blacks with us from the beginning. Sorry to say but the teachings of all other churches at that time were agaisnt blacks, and where did the new members come from? LDS at least opened the doors to blacks, while others told them to go and make their own Church. It is sad, but we have to see that as a matter of the whole America, world, not just LDS leaders. Also we need to consider the readyness of the members to welcome blacks as equals as everywhere else they were taught to be minor. OK maybe there were some other religious groups that managed that but LDS did not, not yet.

Why could it not be that Abels decendants should have the priesthood first?

I trust that God knows what is best for us as HIS people and I think He has a right to lead us the way that He knows will make us stronger and better. I doubt opening the church for blacks would have made us stronger today. There was soo many years before blacks were seen as equals by other people. It had been too early. Maybe many today had tought that it was pretty cool of us to have equality today. Probably most members in teh church ahd been black. How would they ahve been taken in all over the world as misionaries? Had Englishmen litened to them more than the white missionaries? I doubt that. I know there still are countries, where it is wiser to send white young me, than black.

No matter how much I personallly hate unequality, it is a fact, and it stil excists.

Families : Big families could survive in the old times, what about today. Big families are not popular, they are seen as a terrible thing by many. I also believe, that what now is taught is right: Dont make more kids than you can take care of. To take care of the family both fysically and psyhologically is important and today it is more difficult to manage and in the future it may even get worse and more unforseen, how the family will be doing in a few years or so. A big family might even be difficult to keep alive in future, no matter if you owned your own farm.

Gods commendments can sometimes sound weird to us, but they all will show and have shown to have been the right decitions in the circumstances they were given.

IMHO

[rameumptom]

Where can I get a copy of your book? :)

It's a very large volume, and it is out of print. I suppose I could rent/lease you one of the copies I have for about $500 per month?

[rameumptom]

There in lies the problem. Southern baptist ministers have never claimed to speak for God.(at least in the LDS Prophecy sense.) This means that anything preached by a minister (past or present)can be interpreted by member as right or wrong and has know bearing on their "worthiness" If we look back and see the church taught or practiced something that is no longer taught (without a reasonable explanation) it causes many to question new doctrine.

e.g. If Brigham Young , Bruce R. McConkie ,John Taylor,Joesph F Smith,Orson Pratt,Spencer w. Kimball were wrong about blacks ( death for mixing races, Cains curse, less valiant pre life, inferior race,no priesthood etc) none of which taught today(To my knowledge).Then why should members take things like no earrings or tattoos, or vote yes on prop 8 as doctrine?

It isn't a problem for these two reasons:

First, we do not consider our prophets and apostles to be infallible. Rather, they are welcome to their opinions, and in the past were encouraged to teach their opinions. This is no longer the case, as they are now mandated to teach the actual doctrines.

Second, I know several Baptist preachers who believe that their view is the only correct one, and those who disagree will burn in hell. For example, how many are insistent that Mormons are not Christian and will burn in hell? They do not tell their congregants that they are welcome to their own opinion on it, but preach their own philosophy as gospel.