ChristianForums banned Christ.

[godrulz]

23 The land of Egypt being first discovered by a woman, who was the daughter of Ham, and the daughter of Egyptus, which in the Chaldean signifies Egypt, which signifies that which is forbidden;

24 When this woman discovered the land it was under water, who afterward settled her sons in it; and thus, from Ham, sprang that race which preserved the curse in the land.

25 Now the first government of Egypt was established by Pharaoh, the eldest son of Egyptus, the daughter of Ham, and it was after the manner of the government of Ham, which was patriarchal.

26 Pharaoh, being a righteous man, established his kingdom and judged his people wisely and justly all his days, seeking earnestly to imitate that aorder established by the fathers in the first generations, in the days of the first patriarchal reign, even in the reign of Adam, and also of Noah, his father, who blessed him with the bblessings of the earth, and with the blessings of wisdom, but cursed him as pertaining to the Priesthood.

27 Now, Pharaoh being of that lineage by which he could not have the right of Priesthood, notwithstanding the Pharaohs would fain claim it from Noah, through Ham, therefore my father was led away by their idolatry;

Abraham 1:23-27

Non-canonical, non-authoritative source.

http://www.utlm.org/topicalindexb.htm#Book of Abraham

 

[Mustard Seed]

Aside from the fact that no such thing really occurred......it seems that the Egyptians did pretty good for a cursed race. They created a civilization which had a high degree of sophistication; culturally, technologically and more. A civilization which lasted almost 4000 years and contributed substantially to all the later civilizations of the ANE.

Their first ruler was a righteous man. Also you seem to forget that the Egyptian empire spanned several different dynasties who's familial origins were not as homogenous as many imagine.

 

[Mustard Seed]

Non-canonical, non-authoritative source.

http://www.utlm.org/topicalindexb.htm#Book of Abraham

Ohh... it's sufficiently canonical. Not that you can really concretely define what is and is not the corrolaries and stipulations for determining canonocity.

 

[billwald]

LDS was officially racist until the Civil Rights Act of '64 (or was BYU losing basketball games?). I had a copy of the older BoM which bad mouthed black people.

 

[Mustard Seed]

I've always found it interesting how such a disproportionate number of fantasy and science fiction writers come from the Mormon faith. Guess maybe they're just following in ole Joey Smith's footsteps...

Nah... their just displaying the absurdity of those who would pretend God has said all he will ever say to man in the Bible. Nibley wrote several things where he either was comparing the titles of many of the ancient texts with current day titles to science fiction and he's also demonstrated the fact that there's no real line between much of science fiction and what is trumpeted by the scientific world.

Are you a fan of Orson Scott Card? Are you aware that there are people who think he couldn't have possibly written Ender's Game. It's funny how many of the same conspiracy theories surround a science fiction book. There's alot of hard core liberals that lament the fact that it was Orson Scott Card that wrote Ender's Game. Then again there are some people in the church that are overly critical of what he puts in his books.

Also curious as to if you find other Mormon vs. 'average person' disproportions to be odd or hard to explain.

 

[Mustard Seed]

LDS was officially racist until the Civil Rights Act of '64 (or was BYU losing basketball games?). I had a copy of the older BoM which bad mouthed black people.

Then you could quote for us where it does such. Are you refering to the "dark and loathsome" part? Cause it's still in there. Though it's not necesarily saying that all dark are loathsome.

 

[billwald]

Could be. Been 40 years since I read BoM.

 

[oftenbuzzard]

More Mormon Leader RACISM

More Mormon Leader RACISM

JOSEPH FIELDING SMITH

Doctrines of Salvation, p 61.

There were no neutrals in the war in heaven. All took sides either with Christ or with Satan. Every man had his agency there, and men receive rewards here based upon their actions there, just as they will receive rewards hereafter for deeds done in the body. The Negro, evidently, is receiving the reward he merits.

JOSEPH FIELDING SMITH
Juvenile Instructor, vol. 26, p. 635

There is a reason why one man is born black and with other disadvantages, while another is born white with great advantages. The reason is that we once had an estate before we came here, and were obedient, more or less, to the laws that were given us there. Those who were faithful in all things there received greater blessings here, and those who were not faithful received less.

 

[Mustard Seed]

buzzard,

You are lumping the whole thing in a distorted way. You care nothing for context. There's more to it then you know.

Look at the whole of history. Has having dark skin generaly been advantageous to those that have had it? This is not a question of beauty or lack thereof. I'm asking you straight up if you think those who've had dark skin have generaly had it better or worse, throughout history, than those who've had light complections? Who's been treated better, generaly through out history?

You see he's not strictly saying that just having black skin means that a person was less faithful previously than all other white people. This thing is cumulative. You may well have a black person, that, considering all their other advantages granted in this life, has a net advantage over a white person. So the whole "blacks were unfaithfull in the previous life," without the cumulative consideration of all advantages attending a specific person, is not an indicator that we are teaching that all whites were more faithfull than all blacks. Neither is it saying that black people cannot be, or are ultimately restricted in their access, to gaining Eternal life or being the best of people in this estate---in this life.

 

[oftenbuzzard]

Neither is it saying that black people cannot be, or are ultimately restricted in their access, to gaining Eternal life or being the best of people in this estate---in this life.<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->

Yeah they get to serve Massah White Mormon.


Elder MARK E. PETERSON Race Problems -- As They Affect The Church
Convention of Teachers of Religion on the College Level,
Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, August 27, 1954.

Now we are generous with the Negro. We are willing that the Negro have the highest education. I would be willing to let every Negro drive a Cadillac if they could afford it. I would be willing that they have all the advantages they can get out of life in the world. But let them enjoy these things among themselves. I think the Lord segregated the Negro and who is man to change that segregation? It reminds me of the scripture on marriage, "what God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." Only here we have the reverse of the thing -- what God hath separated, let not man bring together again."

Think of the Negro, cursed as to the priesthood.... This Negro, who, in the pre-existence lived the type of life which justified the Lord in sending him to the earth in their lineage of Cain with a black skin, and possibly being born in darkest Africa--if that Negro is willing when he hears the gospel to accept it, he may have many of the blessings of the gospel. In spite of all he did in the pre-existent life, the Lord is willing, if the Negro accepts the gospel with real, sincere faith, and is really converted, to give him the blessings of baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost. If that Negro is faithful all his days, he can and will enter the celestial kingdom. He will go there as a servant, but he will get celestial glory.

 

[Mustard Seed]

Yeah they get to serve Massah White Mormon.


Elder MARK E. PETERSON Race Problems -- As They Affect The Church
Convention of Teachers of Religion on the College Level,
Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, August 27, 1954.

The statements of a single Elder in the Quorum of the Twelve doesn't constitute doctrine or infallability. That's why there's fifteen apostles--one Presidency with three and a Quorum of the Twelve. If you took all the sayings of all the apostles Christ had chosen, if they were available, you'd have some really really wacked out Theology coming from the primative Church.

 

[oftenbuzzard]

The statements of a single Elder in the Quorum of the Twelve doesn't constitute doctrine or infallability. .

Damn Embarassing, ain't it ????

Is this guy a racist ???

 

[Mustard Seed]

Damn Embarassing, ain't it ????

Is this guy a racist ???

No more so than any other white Christian minister of his day. Or do you think the fact that many US Christian congregations are STILL very segregated with regard to race (to say nothing of the state of the vast majority of "Christian" congregations of the day of Elder Peterson) is something Christianity is to be proud of? This whole race card isn't any nicer on Christianity. In fact we accepted blacks into our congregations from the very begining. Compared to Christian tradition, either in the US or in European history, that's incredibly progressive for it's day. In fact one of the reasons Joseph was killed was because he advocated the abolition of slavery.

 

[oftenbuzzard]

No more so than any other white Christian minister of his day. Or do you think the fact that many US Christian congregations are STILL very segregated with regard to race (to say nothing of the state of the vast majority of "Christian" congregations of the day of Elder Peterson) is something Christianity is to be proud of? This whole race card isn't any nicer on Christianity. In fact we accepted blacks into our congregations from the very begining. Compared to Christian tradition, either in the US or in European history, that's incredibly progressive for it's day.

The difference between Christians in the 50s and you is that many of them renounced the racism of those days and you still excuse it 50 years later.

 

[Mustard Seed]

The difference between Christians in the 50s and you is that many of them renounced the racism of those days and you still excuse it 50 years later.

I've never excused it. I think it's reprehensible regardless who exercise it, be it a prophet of God or some unknown average Tajiki on the other side of the world. Does that mean that it's something that makes a person utterly unqualified fromo being a prophet of God? Or being a good man? Is Abraham Lincoln less of a hero because he held many of the racist sentiments of his day? You also are rather loose with your implicit definition of racism. Do you see Christ as racist for calling a woman and her ethnicity "dogs"?

But It's not likely you'll really answer or substantively reply to any of this.

This has utterly moved on from ever trying to reason with you. Now it's simply demonstrating your hypocritical stance and your dishonest tactics.

 

[billwald]

"White" is a recessive characteristic. Very few people in the world are "white" but a shade of non-white.

 

[Mustard Seed]

"White" is a recessive characteristic. Very few people in the world are "white" but a shade of non-white.

Excellent point.

 

[Sarcastikus]

Non-canonical, non-authoritative source.

Whether a source is canonical or authoritative, or not, is subjective and a matter of opinion. The texts in the New Testament were considered canonical because they tended to agree with the beliefs of the majority of the participants of whatever Council it was that met to decide the matter.

 

[godrulz]

Whether a source is canonical or authoritative, or not, is subjective and a matter of opinion. The texts in the New Testament were considered canonical because they tended to agree with the beliefs of the majority of the participants of whatever Council it was that met to decide the matter.

Simplistic ignorance of the formation of the Bible...

 

[Mustard Seed]

Simplistic ignorance of the formation of the Bible...

If his stance is what you say it is, then you've come to that conclusion on the edge of a fluke. For your view and take on the formation of a, and what constitutes a canonicaly acceptable, bible is so convolutedly ignorant, and arrogant, that it's rather hard to accept any attempted discernment on your part, with regard to the validity or tenability of other's statements on the subject, as having an ice cubes chance in a supercritical fluid of maintaining a solid state.