The Question Raised By "bat"

[Guest K Anderson]

I'm not too familiar with these boards and the technology. But I am appalled at "bats" question in his article about calling the first presidency. Maybe my article is buried under six pages of replies, so I want to put my reply here.

Bat, YOU WILL BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR QUESTIONING THE LORD'S WAYS. Pharaoh lost his firstborn. You ought to be careful:

My article (in full, from bats article):

I haven't read all the posts. Apparently this discussion is quite old, so whatever I'm about to say may or may not be relevant.

Bat, are you LDS? You mention having been taught the doctrines of the restored gospel. Why do you doubt them?

But what I want to say here is that the answer to your question is simple -- IF YOU CAN ACCEPT IT. Do you accept that God's ways are higher than your ways? Do you accept that you don't know everything? CAN you accept God's principles and not fight against them (if that is indeed what you have done, and what I mean is "apostatize").

As I said, the answer to your question is simple and is available in the holy scriptures, or on the internet if you you have mis splaced yours:

Moses 7: 22

22 And Enoch also beheld the residue of the people which were the sons of Adam; and they were a mixture of all the seed of Adam save it was the seed of Cain, for the seed of Cain were black, and had not place among them.

Did the LDS church every teach that the descendants of Cain were black?

YES.

Can you handle that?

Obviously black people came from somewhere, right?

This verse shows us. And after the flood they were descended through Ham, the son of Noah and his black wife Egyptus.

(side track) Today, even though the blessings of heaven have been bestowed upon the negro (and they must work hard and strive to baptize all their ancestors) it is very clear from the teachings of the brethren that the seed of Cain (blacks) and the seed of Israel (whites -- or the seed of Ephraim) should not be mixed.

Joseph Smith taught that the tribe of Ephraim has the pure blood of Abraham, and that the negro and the non-Israelite must be PURIFIED through trials ans works, and then THE HOLY GHOST WILL MAKE THEIR BLOOD PURE.

The question is, CAN YOU HANDLE GOD'S WAYS, BAT?

[pushka]

CAN YOU HANDLE GOD'S WAYS BAT?

Apologies for swear word inside the picture!

[Snow]

Originally posted by K Anderson@Aug 13 2005, 11:54 PM

Moses 7: 22

22 And Enoch also beheld the residue of the people which were the sons of Adam; and they were a mixture of all the seed of Adam save it was the seed of Cain, for the seed of Cain were black, and had not place among them.

Did the LDS church every teach that the descendants of Cain were black?

YES.

Can you handle that?

Obviously black people came from somewhere, right?

This verse shows us. And after the flood they were descended through Ham, the son of Noah and his black wife Egyptus.

(side track) Today, even though the blessings of heaven have been bestowed upon the negro (and they must work hard and strive to baptize all their ancestors) it is very clear from the teachings of the brethren that the seed of Cain (blacks) and the seed of Israel (whites -- or the seed of Ephraim) should not be mixed.

Joseph Smith taught that the tribe of Ephraim has the pure blood of Abraham, and that the negro and the non-Israelite must be PURIFIED through trials ans works, and then THE HOLY GHOST WILL MAKE THEIR BLOOD PURE.

The question is, CAN YOU HANDLE GOD'S WAYS, BAT?

Just when you think that the light of Christ and enlightening influence of the gospel has cured members of their backwardness, something like this pops up to remind us that we must be ever vigilent in combating ugly bigotry.

K. Anderson, we invite you to abandon your distasteful ways and come unto Christ.

[Guest Devil\'s advocate]

Originally posted by Snow+Aug 14 2005, 05:39 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snow @ Aug 14 2005, 05:39 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--K Anderson@Aug 13 2005, 11:54 PM

Moses 7: 22

22 And Enoch also beheld the residue of the people which were the sons of Adam; and they were a mixture of all the seed of Adam save it was the seed of Cain, for the seed of Cain were black, and had not place among them.

Did the LDS church every teach that the descendants of Cain were black?

YES.

Can you handle that?

Obviously black people came from somewhere, right?

This verse shows us. And after the flood they were descended through Ham, the son of Noah and his black wife Egyptus.

(side track) Today, even though the blessings of heaven have been bestowed upon the negro (and they must work hard and strive to baptize all their ancestors) it is very clear from the teachings of the brethren that the seed of Cain (blacks) and the seed of Israel (whites -- or the seed of Ephraim) should not be mixed.

Joseph Smith taught that the tribe of Ephraim has the pure blood of Abraham, and that the negro and the non-Israelite must be PURIFIED through trials ans works, and then THE HOLY GHOST WILL MAKE THEIR BLOOD PURE.

The question is, CAN YOU HANDLE GOD\'S WAYS, BAT?

Just when you think that the light of Christ and enlightening influence of the gospel has cured members of their backwardness, something like this pops up to remind us that we must be ever vigilent in combating ugly bigotry.

K. Anderson, we invite you to abandon your distasteful ways and come unto Christ.

What was specifically was distasteful about his post? Is he wrong or lying about the lineage of black people or what the scriptures say about the matter? Wheres the beef?

[pushka]

Originally posted by K Anderson@Aug 14 2005, 12:54 AM

Bat, YOU WILL BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR QUESTIONING THE LORD'S WAYS. Pharaoh lost his firstborn. You ought to be careful:

(side track) Today, even though the blessings of heaven have been bestowed upon the negro (and they must work hard and strive to baptize all their ancestors) it is very clear from the teachings of the brethren that the seed of Cain (blacks) and the seed of Israel (whites -- or the seed of Ephraim) should not be mixed.

Joseph Smith taught that the tribe of Ephraim has the pure blood of Abraham, and that the negro and the non-Israelite must be PURIFIED through trials ans works, and then THE HOLY GHOST WILL MAKE THEIR BLOOD PURE.

The question is, CAN YOU HANDLE GOD'S WAYS, BAT?

Maybe I'm misunderstanding K Anderson's post a little...maybe because I don't believe in The Bible as Scripture anymore, and so don't believe in his explanation about where black people come from (I thought it was something to do with geography...being born closer to the equator makes your skin darker to protect you from the sun's higher rays?), if I'm not misunderstanding it then I am very uncomfortable with his statements regarding the 'mixing' of the seed of Israel (whites -- or the seed of Ephraim) and the seed of Cain (blacks), which smacks too much of the teachings of the White Supremacy Groups that exist in the USA and unfortunately in other parts of the world too...I think someone in another post about this issue mentioned about other 'blacks' whose skin is much darker than that of African-Americans/Negroes, and wondered why they were not treated in the same way? (just in case I've misunderstood someone else's post too...I'm assuming that the people the poster was referring to were given Priesthood positions within the church? Please correct me if my memory is failing me and making me misrepresent someone else's arguments...sorry I can't remember the name of the poster, but it was in a post made this week).

[Snow]

pushka,

I don't think that you are misunderstanding anything. K. Anderson's post was distasteful, racist, bigoted and smacks of ugly white supremacy... besides which, it's ignorant of what the scriptures actually say. Anderson's position is that African blacks are descended from Cain and are cursed with a dark skin. That perspective comes from the racist heritage of 19th century Europe and America, a perspective that seems to have been accepted in the Church post Joseph Smith.

What the scriptures actually DO say is"

...we see that the Book of Abraham says nothing about lineages set aside in the pre-existence, but only about distinguished individuals.4 The Book of Abraham is the only place, furthermore, that any scriptures speak of the priesthood being withheld from any lineage, but even then it is only the specific lineage of the pharoahs of Egypt, and there is no explanation as to why that lineage could not have the priesthood, or whether the proscription was temporary or permanent, or which other lineages, if any, especially in the modern world, would be covered by that proscription.5 At the same time, the passages in Genesis and Moses, for their part, do not refer to any priesthood proscription, and no color change occurs in either Cain or Ham, or even in Ham's son Canaan, who, for some unexplained reason, was the one actually cursed!6 There is no description of the mark on Cain, except that the mark was supposed to protect him from vengeance. It's true that in the seventh chapter of Moses, we learn that descendants of Cain became black,7 but not until the time of Enoch, six generations after Cain, and even then only in a vision of Enoch about an unspecified future time.8 There is no explanation for this blackness; it is not even clear that we are to take it literally.

Much of the conventional "explanation" for the priesthood restriction was simply borrowed from the racist heritage of nineteenth-century Europe and America, especially from the slavery justifications of the antebellum South.9 Understandable--even forgivable--as such a resort might have been for our LDS ancestors, it is neither understandable nor forgivable in the twenty-first century. It is an unnecessary burden of misplaced apologetics that has been imposed by our history upon the universal and global aspirations of the Church. Until we dispense with it once and for all, it will continue to encumber the efforts of today's Church leaders and public affairs spokespersons to convince the world, and especially the black people of America, that the Church is for all God's children, "black and white, bond and free, male and female."10 (Armand Mauss)

4 Abraham 3:22-24.

5 Abraham 1:25-27. Hugh Nibley, Abraham in Egypt (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1981), eventually offered the explanation that the denial of the priesthood to the pharaonic line had nothing to do with racial lineage but with the claim of the priesthood through the matriarchal rather than the patriarchal line. See esp. page 134. This explanation might have been more helpful if offered a decade earlier, before the lineage issue became moot.

6 See Genesis 9:18-25.

7 Moses 7:22.

8 See Moses 7:2-4.

9 See, for example, H. Shelton Smith, In His Image, But…: Racism in Southern Religion, 1780-1910 (Durham, North Carolina: Duke University Press, 1972), especially 129-136; and Forrest G. Wood, The Arrogance of Faith: Christianity and Race in American from the Colonial Era to the Twentieth Century (Boston: Northeastern University Press, 1990), 84-111. The survival of such racist biblical folklore even in modern Protestant churches is demonstrated in the brief study by Cain Hope Felder, Race, Racism, and the Biblical Narratives (Minneapolis, Minnesota: Fortress Press, 2002).

10 2 Nephi 26:33.

[Guest Devil\'s advocate]

Originally posted by Snow@Aug 14 2005, 10:50 PM

pushka,

I don\\\'t think that you are misunderstanding anything. K. Anderson\\\'s post was distasteful, racist, bigoted and smacks of ugly white supremacy... besides which, it\\\'s ignorant of what the scriptures actually say. Anderson\\\'s position is that African blacks are descended from Cain and are cursed with a dark skin. That perspective comes from the racist heritage of 19th century Europe and America, a perspective that seems to have been accepted in the Church post Joseph Smith.

What the scriptures actually DO say is\\\"

...we see that the Book of Abraham says nothing about lineages set aside in the pre-existence, but only about distinguished individuals.4 The Book of Abraham is the only place, furthermore, that any scriptures speak of the priesthood being withheld from any lineage, but even then it is only the specific lineage of the pharoahs of Egypt, and there is no explanation as to why that lineage could not have the priesthood, or whether the proscription was temporary or permanent, or which other lineages, if any, especially in the modern world, would be covered by that proscription.5 At the same time, the passages in Genesis and Moses, for their part, do not refer to any priesthood proscription, and no color change occurs in either Cain or Ham, or even in Ham\\\'s son Canaan, who, for some unexplained reason, was the one actually cursed!6 There is no description of the mark on Cain, except that the mark was supposed to protect him from vengeance. It\\\'s true that in the seventh chapter of Moses, we learn that descendants of Cain became black,7 but not until the time of Enoch, six generations after Cain, and even then only in a vision of Enoch about an unspecified future time.8 There is no explanation for this blackness; it is not even clear that we are to take it literally.

Much of the conventional \\\"explanation\\\" for the priesthood restriction was simply borrowed from the racist heritage of nineteenth-century Europe and America, especially from the slavery justifications of the antebellum South.9 Understandable--even forgivable--as such a resort might have been for our LDS ancestors, it is neither understandable nor forgivable in the twenty-first century. It is an unnecessary burden of misplaced apologetics that has been imposed by our history upon the universal and global aspirations of the Church. Until we dispense with it once and for all, it will continue to encumber the efforts of today\\\'s Church leaders and public affairs spokespersons to convince the world, and especially the black people of America, that the Church is for all God\\\'s children, \\\"black and white, bond and free, male and female.\\\"10 (Armand Mauss)

4 Abraham 3:22-24.

5 Abraham 1:25-27. Hugh Nibley, Abraham in Egypt (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1981), eventually offered the explanation that the denial of the priesthood to the pharaonic line had nothing to do with racial lineage but with the claim of the priesthood through the matriarchal rather than the patriarchal line. See esp. page 134. This explanation might have been more helpful if offered a decade earlier, before the lineage issue became moot.

6 See Genesis 9:18-25.

7 Moses 7:22.

8 See Moses 7:2-4.

9 See, for example, H. Shelton Smith, In His Image, But…: Racism in Southern Religion, 1780-1910 (Durham, North Carolina: Duke University Press, 1972), especially 129-136; and Forrest G. Wood, The Arrogance of Faith: Christianity and Race in American from the Colonial Era to the Twentieth Century (Boston: Northeastern University Press, 1990), 84-111. The survival of such racist biblical folklore even in modern Protestant churches is demonstrated in the brief study by Cain Hope Felder, Race, Racism, and the Biblical Narratives (Minneapolis, Minnesota: Fortress Press, 2002).

10 2 Nephi 26:33.

Is that what the scriptures say, or is that what Hugh Nibley said, using only scriptures that support his conclusion and ignoring the one from Moses 7:22?

Moses 7: 22

22 And Enoch also beheld the residue of the people which were the sons of Adam; and they were a mixture of all the seed of Adam save it was the seed of Cain, for the seed of Cain were black, and had not place among them.

That seems pretty straightforward and clear to me. Is this scripture wrong or incorrect somehow? Do we measure truth by comparing it to the scriptures? Or do we measure the scriptures by comparing them to what BYU professors have to say on certain issues?

What about Alma 3:6?

And the skins of the Lamanites were dark, according to the mark which was set upon their fathers, which was a curse upon them because of their transgression and their rebellion against their brethren, who consisted of Nephi, Jacob, and Joseph, and Sam, who were just and holy men.

Was the dark skin of the Lamanites from the racist heritage of 19th century Europe and America also?

[Guest K Anderson]

Except for his singful screen name, the "devil's advocate' seems to be the only one WILLING to understand the Lor'ds possition on this.

I'm not racist a bigot or "white supremacist." I know these folks all too well. I served my mission in the Southern states from 1950 to 1953 and my mission president was more racist than anyone i knew. He told us specifically not to preach to the blacks (at the time they didn't have their privliges as we whites enjoined). He said, "I would rather fill that font with concrete than put a black man inside it.' So I know racism and i am not one.

Look at what I said to "bat', CAN YOU ACCEPT IT? CAN YOU ACCEPT THE LORDS WILL?

The mind of man may say, "Oh, look at the privileges of the white man -- wow, he's so blessed'

But really, many nations and races in history have been favored of the lord, and he has his reasons for doing it: egypt, greece, rome, the NEPHITES... I think the only nation still in the dark are the Asian nations of China and other nations. The Arab nations are realy in a time of "dark ages" now -- and that is the true meaning of the curse: darkness of their minds... they won't accept THE TRUTH...

That is the true curse. AND WHY DID THE LORD CAUSE THEIR SKIN TO BE BLACKENED? So that the true servants of God would not marry and intermingle with them! This cannot be disputed!

It doesn't matter what Hugh Nibley said, or Ezra Taft Benson Said, or Mark E. Peterson said... THE TRUTH is in the scriptures (Book of Moses) and you cannot deny that it is there. "every knee shall bow and every tongue shall confess" what? That GOD'S WAYS ARE JUST. Everybody will confess this.

Maybe we are like a frog living in a well now, and we can't see outside and we say, "Oh, look at the negro and his challenges."

GOD IS IN CHARGE.

[Lindy]

K. Anderson~

Look at what I said to "bat', CAN YOU ACCEPT IT? CAN YOU ACCEPT THE LORDS WILL?

You don't know Bat at all do you?

[pushka]

Thanks for your supportive post Snow...I will leave you to argue the 'facts' about scriptual references etc. as I know you are more able to do so than I am...good luck!

[Jason]

Originally posted by K Anderson@Aug 15 2005, 12:15 AM

Except for his singful screen name, the "devil's advocate' seems to be the only one WILLING to understand the Lor'ds possition on this.

I'm not racist a bigot or "white supremacist." I know these folks all too well. I served my mission in the Southern states from 1950 to 1953 and my mission president was more racist than anyone i knew. He told us specifically not to preach to the blacks (at the time they didn't have their privliges as we whites enjoined). He said, "I would rather fill that font with concrete than put a black man inside it.' So I know racism and i am not one.

Look at what I said to "bat', CAN YOU ACCEPT IT? CAN YOU ACCEPT THE LORDS WILL?

The mind of man may say, "Oh, look at the privileges of the white man -- wow, he's so blessed'

But really, many nations and races in history have been favored of the lord, and he has his reasons for doing it: egypt, greece, rome, the NEPHITES... I think the only nation still in the dark are the Asian nations of China and other nations. The Arab nations are realy in a time of "dark ages" now -- and that is the true meaning of the curse: darkness of their minds... they won't accept THE TRUTH...

That is the true curse. AND WHY DID THE LORD CAUSE THEIR SKIN TO BE BLACKENED? So that the true servants of God would not marry and intermingle with them! This cannot be disputed!

It doesn't matter what Hugh Nibley said, or Ezra Taft Benson Said, or Mark E. Peterson said... THE TRUTH is in the scriptures (Book of Moses) and you cannot deny that it is there. "every knee shall bow and every tongue shall confess" what? That GOD'S WAYS ARE JUST. Everybody will confess this.

Maybe we are like a frog living in a well now, and we can't see outside and we say, "Oh, look at the negro and his challenges."

GOD IS IN CHARGE.

So which Mormon Fundamentalist group do you belong too?

My money's on the Allred Group. The TLC have abandoned computers, and the FLDS are too busy in Texas to care.

Course, you could be an Independent Fundamentalist.....hmm.....one of Bishop's disciples perhaps?

[Guest K Anderson]

Lindy said: You don't know bat do you?

"Bat" is the person who wrote the article about calling the first presidency about the issue with the blacks and the seed of cain. You can read that article on the other message.

I am not a FUNDIE, I belong to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and I believe in the true doctrines of this church and of Joseph Smith and of Brigham Young and all the prophets and apostles down to our current prophet, President Gordon B. Hinckely.

If I were alive during the old times of the church, I would support polygamy. Currently I do not support it. But if it came back to be taught as a doctrine, I would support it.

I do not know of any fundamentalist in person, though I am aware of the groups.

Thank you.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Devil\'s advocate@Aug 14 2005, 09:17 PM

Take

Is that what the scriptures say, or is that what Hugh Nibley said, using only scriptures that support his conclusion and ignoring the one from Moses 7:22?

Moses 7: 22

22 And Enoch also beheld the residue of the people which were the sons of Adam; and they were a mixture of all the seed of Adam save it was the seed of Cain, for the seed of Cain were black, and had not place among them.

That seems pretty straightforward and clear to me.  Is this scripture wrong or incorrect somehow?  Do we measure truth by comparing it to the scriptures? 

Take your ugly racist views out of it and read the scriptures - just the scriptures.

The scriptures in Moses say that Enoch saw, in a vison, in some unnamed time, that the progeny of Cain were black and were not found in the city of Enoch. That's what it says. All of your ignorant and bigoted complaining does not make the scriptures say anything about black Africans being cursed or not being favored of God. That black Africans are the seed of Cain is simply a product of 19th century racism.

[Snow]

Originally posted by K Anderson@Aug 14 2005, 10:15 PM

Except for his singful screen name, the "devil's advocate' seems to be the only one WILLING to understand the Lor'ds possition on this.

I'm not racist a bigot or "white supremacist." I know these folks all too well. I served my mission in the Southern states from 1950 to 1953 and my mission president was more racist than anyone i knew. He told us specifically not to preach to the blacks (at the time they didn't have their privliges as we whites enjoined). He said, "I would rather fill that font with concrete than put a black man inside it.' So I know racism and i am not one.

Look at what I said to "bat', CAN YOU ACCEPT IT? CAN YOU ACCEPT THE LORDS WILL?

... they won't accept THE TRUTH...

That is the true curse. AND WHY DID THE LORD CAUSE THEIR SKIN TO BE BLACKENED? So that the true servants of God would not marry and intermingle with them! This cannot be disputed!

Sometimes dontcha wish that there were some screening requirements and that the Church could keep out the crazies and the bigots, not so much for their sake but so that we could better represent the gospel and not look like bleeding idiots?

The point is not whether someone (bat) accepts the Lord's ways. The question you are trying to ask is 'will anyone accept your screwry interpretation of what you imagine to be God's ways?'

Of course it can be disputed and is all the time, by the Church itself, as so instructed by the prophet, namely, can a mixed couple be sealed in the temple, by church priesthood and authority? Yes! That means that partners in a mixedp temple marriage are eligible for the celestial kingdom and exaltation, which in LDS thought means deification meaning that while you're putzing around with ignorant, backwards views on mankind, you'll be lorded over God and mixed couples in exaltation.

[Guest Devil\'s advocate]

Originally posted by Snow+Aug 15 2005, 08:09 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Snow @ Aug 15 2005, 08:09 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Devil\\\\\\\'s advocate@Aug 14 2005, 09:17 PM

Take

Is that what the scriptures say, or is that what Hugh Nibley said, using only scriptures that support his conclusion and ignoring the one from Moses 7:22?

Moses 7: 22

22 And Enoch also beheld the residue of the people which were the sons of Adam; and they were a mixture of all the seed of Adam save it was the seed of Cain, for the seed of Cain were black, and had not place among them.

That seems pretty straightforward and clear to me.  Is this scripture wrong or incorrect somehow?  Do we measure truth by comparing it to the scriptures? 

Take your ugly racist views out of it and read the scriptures - just the scriptures.

The scriptures in Moses say that Enoch saw, in a vison, in some unnamed time, that the progeny of Cain were black and were not found in the city of Enoch. That\\\'s what it says. All of your ignorant and bigoted complaining does not make the scriptures say anything about black Africans being cursed or not being favored of God. That black Africans are the seed of Cain is simply a product of 19th century racism.

Your explanation and namecalling make absolute sense. Thank you for truncating my post in your quote. Avoiding the facts is a very good way to win an argument.

Since we are on the subject, what was that about the racist LDS doctrine of The Curse of Cain being post Joseph Smith? Are you sure? I am almost positive that Joseph Smith taught that black and or Native Americans\' skin was dark because they are cursed. Is he a racist and a bigot too, or do you reserve those titles for those that don\\\'t agree with you?

I\\\'ll go see what i can dig up. I\\\'m pretty sure it was in the History of the Church. Then you can chortle with glee while calling a prophet a racist and a bigot. I would like to see how fast you get banned from here after you do that.

[Guest Devil\'s advocate]

Moses Chapter 7

8 For behold, the Lord shall curse the land with much heat, and the barrenness thereof shall go forth forever; and there was a blackness came upon all the children of Canaan, that they were despised among all people.

Ouch.

[Snow]

Originally posted by Devil\'s advocate@Aug 15 2005, 07:40 PM

Your explanation and namecalling make absolute sense. Thank you for truncating my post in your quote. Avoiding the facts is a very good way to win an argument.

Since we are on the subject, what was that about the racist LDS doctrine of The Curse of Cain being post Joseph Smith? Are you sure? I am almost positive that Joseph Smith taught that black and or Native Americans\' skin was dark because they are cursed. Is he a racist and a bigot too, or do you reserve those titles for those that don\\\'t agree with you?

I\\\'ll go see what i can dig up. I\\\'m pretty sure it was in the History of the Church. Then you can chortle with glee while calling a prophet a racist and a bigot. I would like to see how fast you get banned from here after you do that.

Oh, do you not like it when I call ugly racist views, ugly and racist? Are there some warm and fuzzy synonyms you might find more appealing?

Personally, I doubt that your views are racist. I doubt you actually believe what you are arguing, which makes debating you only of slight interest. You'll just take the opposite point of view so you'll have something to say.

But to your question, yes, by today's standards, Joseph Smith was racist in the same way that Thomas Jefferson or Abraham Lincoln were racists in that they thought the black man inferior to the white man though Jospeph Smith seemed to think that the inferiority was due largely to the environment. However, hid views notwithstanding, Jospeh Smith didn't think that blacks ought be kept from the priesthood and in fact ordained them to the priesthood. The Church's institutional ban on blacks and the priesthood or views of racial equaltiy were, for the most part post JS, and the priesthood policy wasn't publically promulgated until 1852 by Brigham Young in his role as territorial govenor addressing the first Utah territorial legislature.

PS. Exactly what fact do you think that I have avoided?

[Lindy]

Originally posted by K Anderson@Aug 15 2005, 12:17 PM

Lindy said: You don't know bat do you?

"Bat" is the person who wrote the article about calling the first presidency about the issue with the blacks and the seed of cain. You can read that article on the other message.

I am not a FUNDIE, I belong to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and I believe in the true doctrines of this church and of Joseph Smith and of Brigham Young and all the prophets and apostles down to our current prophet, President Gordon B. Hinckely.

If I were alive during the old times of the church, I would support polygamy. Currently I do not support it. But if it came back to be taught as a doctrine, I would support it.

I do not know of any fundamentalist in person, though I am aware of the groups.

Thank you.

Lindy still says "You don't know Bat at all do you? "

I've read the article, I am fully aware of what it says, what he did, and who he is.

K. Anderson...you said "Look at what I said to "bat', CAN YOU ACCEPT IT? CAN YOU ACCEPT THE LORDS WILL?"

I'm just laughing, I'm sorry but I find this all quite funny.

I just want to thank you for the giggles....:)

[Snow]

Originally posted by Devil\'s advocate@Aug 15 2005, 08:49 PM

Moses Chapter 7

8 For behold, the Lord shall curse the land with much heat, and the barrenness thereof shall go forth forever; and there was a blackness came upon all the children of Canaan, that they were despised among all people.

Ouch.

Yeah, buy a clue Advocate.

Who had a blackness come on them? Who? The Tongans? Are the Samoan the progeny of Cain? African Americans? Exactly who?

Don't tell me, let me guess - you don't have any idea do you. What time frame was being discussed? Is it clear that Enoch's vision was literal? Was he seeing all earth or just the city of Enoch?

No idea? I didn't think so.

Why were they cursed? What was the cause? Any clue? No?

Here's a tiny little hint - we in the Church believe that all men are responsible for their own sins and not for their forebearer's trangressions.