The answer sadly, is YES he did!! I'm not sure how Mormon Apologists are gonna explain this one away, other than to say, once again that "he was just a product of the times" and he was "just speaking as a man", etc, etc, even though he was addressing the Saints in a General Conference in October of 1900, in the second day-afternoon session, right in front of the Prophet himself, who made no corrections.
To me, it doesn't matter if they said this in the year 1900 or 2007, it's equally wrong, offensive and a complete disgrace for the world to see and supposed "Prophets of God", should have known this, right? If they have no more insight than the average person, then what good are they? They should change their famous song to "We Thank Thee O God For An Average Man, Who Knows No More Than Any Other Man."(and in many cases, much less than the average, decent man)
Regarding the history of Mormonism, Hinckley said , "I knew a so-called intellectual who said the Church was trapped by its history. My response was that without that history we have nothing." And in many cases, WITH that history, you have NOTHING!!
Boyd K. Packer said, "Church history can he so interesting and so inspiring as to be a very powerful tool indeed for building faith. If not properly written or properly taught, it may be a faith destroyer." AMEN to that statement too!!
In the same speech, Boyd K. Packer also quotes Joseph F. Smith, who said:
It has not been by the wisdom of man that this people have been directed in their course until the present; it has been by the wisdom of Him who is above man and whose knowledge is greater than that of man, and whose power is above the power of man; for it is unto God, our Father, we are indebted for the mercies we have enjoyed and for the present prosperous condition of the people of God throughout this inter-mountain region and throughout the world. The hand of the Lord may not be visible to all. There may be many who can not discern the workings of God's will in the progress and development of this great latter-day work, but there are those who see in every hour and in every moment of the existence of the Church, from its beginning until now, the overruling, almighty hand of Him who sent His Only Begotten Son to the world to become a sacrifice for the sin of the world, that as He was lifted up so He, by reason of His righteousness and power and the sacrifice which He has made, might lift up unto God all the children of men who would hearken to His voice, receive His message and obey His law. (Conference Report April 1904-First Day Morning session.)
Boyd K. Packer then says, after quoting Joseph F. Smith:
"If we do not keep this constantly in mind-that the Lord directs this Church--we may lose our way in the world of intellectual and scholarly research."
I've had so many debates and downright nasty arguments with TBMs and Mormon apologists both, regarding the history of racism in Mormonism and the next 3 posts I do, should help put an end to any and all arguments and cement the Mormon racism as absolute FACT, that CANNOT BE DENIED, unless your completely lost in Cognitive Dissonance or just a racist yourself.
There really isn't any in between on this matter and even Gordon B. Hinckley says there's "no middle ground", when it comes to the church being true or false. Did you hear than everyone; NO MIDDLE GROUND.
Of course, we have to once again consider that they claim they can't ever lead you astray, in any way, or EVER teach false doctrines, or God will literally step in and REMOVE them, so I'm guessing that saying the word "nigger" from the pulpit in General Conference, is perfectly fine with the majority of the Mormon apologists, right? I can't say that I've ever seen these exact words addressed by any of the Mormon apologists and certainly not by any of the Mormon Hierarchy.
So, now that I've shown everyone that the Mormon church teaches that "every hour and in every moment of the existence of the Church, from its beginning until now", is inspired directly by their God, we can move onto to what I stated in the Title of this post.
Heber J. Grant, related the following story(I wish I could have been there for this one or that we had audio or video of it), I guess finding it rather humorous:
I went to a negro minstrel show once, and there were about ten or fifteen on the stage. One of them rushed in with his hat off and said. "which of these here niggers am lost two dollars?" holding up a two dollar bill. There hadn't any of them lost two dollars. "Well," he said, "if none of you have lost it, I found these two dollars right by the door here and it is my money."
They said all right, and he put it in his pocket. No sooner had he got it in his pocket than up jumped a nigger and said: "Look here, George Washington Jones, you owe me two dollars; pay your honest debts!" He handed the two dollars to him. Another nigger jumps up and says: "Look here, Julius C. Brown, you owes me two dollars; pay your debt."
He got it, and in this way it went clear round. When the last man got it, up jumps George Washington Jones, and says: "Here, give me back the two dollars; you owes me two dollar." No sooner had he got it in his pocket than a fellow rushes in and said "which of you niggers has found two dollars?" George Washington Jones took it out of his pocket and said: "Here, take your money and go home; we've all paid our debts."
I desire that the Latter-day Saints should all pay their debts. One reason why I desire this is, I am in debt myself and I want to pay my debts. I want to live to see the day when I shall owe no man anything. I want the Latter-day Saints to not only pray for me but to keep a little more money in the country so that I will stand a better chance to get some of it. If they will keep the commandments of God and do less praying, I will be obliged to them.
Wow, now that was truly inspiring, from a so called Apostle of God, wasn't it? Heber J. Grant wasn't the only one to use the term "nigger" in General Conference either. There was also Reed Smoot, who was an Apostle from from 1898 until his death in 1941.
He had the following words to say in the General Conference of 1907, third-day morning session:
I want to speak, for a short thee, upon fakes and fakirs. I am led to speak on this line because of the fact that, not long ago, in one of the counties adjoining this, in a town inhabited almost entirely by Latter-day Saints, there came in the midst of the people-heralded by newspapers-a man claiming that he was the greatest doctor in the world. He was a phenomenon. He had such great wisdom that he could cure all the ills that mankind is heir to. He was well dressed and looked like a gentleman.
One of the first things he did on arriving in the town was to hire the brass band, for the purpose of drawing a crowd and preceding his carriage to all meetings. He went to one of the business corners of the city, where a little stand was erected, and in order to hold the crowd until he could convince some of them that they had worms, or something worse, he had three or four niggers sing songs-by the way, I have been told that the niggers furnished the best part of the entertainment.
Let's just be honest; the Mormon church has been racist since day one and Joseph Smith supported Slavery, as did Brigham Young and John Taylor and many others, as they felt it was truly a "divine institution" of God, which explains why they hated the ABOLITIONISTS so much.
Joseph Smith, in regard to teaching the slaves, said:
"All men are to be taught to repent; but we have no right to interfere with slaves contrary to the mind and will of their masters. In fact, it would be much better and more prudent, not to preach at all to slaves, until after their masters are converted..." (Messenger and Advocate Volume 2, number 7, page 291)
In the same addition of the Messenger and Advocate I just mentioned, from April 1836, it has an entire section regarding the Abolitionists and says:
"If those who run through the free states, exciting their indignation against our brothers of the South, feel so much sympathy and kindness towards the blacks, were to go to the southern states, where the alleged evil exists, and warn those who are guilty of these enormous crimes, to repent and turn from their wickedness, or would purchase the slaves and then set them at liberty, we should have no objections to this provided they would place them upon some other continent than ours. Then we should begin to believe they were acting honestly; but till something of this is manifested, we shall think otherwise. What benefit can the slave derive from the long harangues."
And the following:
"Where can be the common sense of any wishing to see the slaves of the south set at liberty, is past our comprehension. Such a thing could not take place without corrupting all civil and wholesome society, of both the north and the south! Let the blacks of the south be free, and our community is overrun with paupers, and a reckless mass of human beings, uncultivated, untaught and unaccustomed to provide for themselves the necessaries of life-endangering the chastity of every female who might by chance be found in our streets-our prisons filled with convicts, and the hang-man wearied with executing the functions of his office! This must unavoidably be the case, every rational man must admit, who have ever travelled [traveled] in the slave states, or we must open our houses, unfold our arms, and bid these degraded and degrading sons of Canaan, a hearty welcome and a free admittance to all we possess! A society of this nature, to us, is so intolerably degrading, that the bare reflection causes our feelings to recoil, and our hearts to revolt.
We repeat, that we have long looked upon this subject with deep feeling, and till now have remained silent; but for this once we wash our hands of the matter.
We have travelled [traveled] in the south, and have seen the condition of both master and servant; and without the least disposition to deprive others of their liberty of thinking, we unhesitatingly say that if ever the condition of the slave is bettered, under our present form of government, it must be by converting the master to the faith of the gospel and then teaching him to be kind to his slave. The idea of transportation is folly, the project of emancipation is destructive to our government, and the notion of amalgamation is devilish!-And insensible to feeling must be the heart, and low indeed must be the mind, that would consent for a moment, to see his fair daughter, his sister, or perhaps, his bosom companion, in the embrace of a NEGRO!"
Were all of these words inspired by some God? Now, for those that aren't familiar with exactly what the "Messenger and Advocate" was; it was similar to the Ensign today and was the second periodical of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. It was published at Kirtland, Ohio, from October 1834 until September 1837. Each issue consisted of 16 pages, and it was published once a month. It was the "official opinions" and "beliefs" of the church and cannot be disputed.
It was decided to start the "Messenger and Advocate" at a meeting that was held on September 11, 1833, and consisted of F.G. Williams, Sidney Rigdon, Newel K. Whitney, Joseph Smith Jr., and Oliver Cowdery. At the time of the above printing, it was being edited by Oliver Cowdery, Joseph's Right hand man and the "Second Elder of the church", "Assistant President of the Church", which was the modern day equivalent of First Counselor in the First Presidency, which is the position Thomas S. Monson holds today. In other words, Oliver Cowdery was just a heartbeat away from being the head cheese and running Mormon Inc.
Of course, after he rejected polygamy and accused Joseph smith(rightfully so) of adultery(a dirty, nasty, filthy affair with his maid Fanny Alger-in secret behind Emma's back), he was excommunicated. He was later re-baptized about 10 years later, when Joseph was dead and gone.
Now, to help cement that the racism in Mormonism came from the very founder himself, Joseph Smith Jr., I want to end with the following quote, directly out of his very own teachings:
"Had I anything to do with the negro, I would confine them by strict law to their own species, and put them on a national equalization." (Teachings of Joseph Smith-Section Five 1842-43, p.269)
I could relate countless other examples of Mormon racism and how they felt toward blacks or anyone of "dark color" or of a "different race" other than Caucasian, but I've covered that in other posts already and I will cover it more in future posts. I think the evidence I've provided here is pretty compelling, thorough and shocking to the average person that wasn't aware of it and hasn't ever read it before and this will suffice for now.
I'll now ask the question I've already asked a thousand times and I'll probably have to ask a thousand more times; has the Mormon Hierarchy ever repudiated these awful racist teachings and statements and the fact that Heber J. Grant, the future Prophet, used the word "nigger" from the pulpit at General Conference, along with the Apostle Reed Smoot?
Mormon apologists out there reading this, please direct me and everyone else, to these repudiations that I can't seem to locate anywhere, so that we can set the record straight and be fair. Also, don't give me any of your bullshit excuses about "everyone was a racist back then" and "they were just men", etc. You know that's BS and just a pathetic excuse that you all use to defend the "one and only true church", because you can't accept the "other alternative"...which is that it's all a fraud and false, led by men that are nothing more then men and not directed by any God.
Hinckley summed it up perfectly(link for the audio) in the April 2006 Priesthood session when he said the following:
"I remind you that no man who makes disparaging remarks concerning those of another race can consider himself a true disciple of Christ, nor can he consider himself to be in harmony with the teachings of the Church of Christ. How can any man, holding the Melchizedek Priesthood, arrogantly assume that he is eligible for the Priesthood while another who lives a righteous life but whose skin is of a different color is ineligible."
Well, I know that the above statement, if true(and he wasn't just speaking as a man), cancels out Joseph Smith Jr., Brigham Young, John Taylor, Heber J. Grant, Joseph F. Smith, Joseph Fielding Smith, Spencer W. Kimball and many others from being "true disciples of Christ" or "eligible for the Priesthood", or "Prophets, Seers and Revelators" that can't lead the Saints astray, without God removing them.
Some argue that God did actually remove Joseph Smith, which would actually make a lot of sense, considering the awful things he was a part of, in addition to his racist attitudes. Of course, to those that revere him, the thought of God removing him is preposterous, because he never did anything wrong, was a "man of God" and they now sing "Praise To The Man."
So, even if God did remove Joseph Smith, it wouldn't explain everyone else on the above list of "ineligibles", as defined by Hinckley, especially the tyrant and disgrace of a man Brigham Young. The reality is; there wasn't any God that had anything to do with any of this and never has and never will, as it's all man made and run. It's not hard to figure out folks, if you have the courage to consider that alternative possibility.
So, in summary, either these men were racists, not inspired or called by any God or Hinckley is wrong now in degrading these beloved, racist Prophets. You can't have it both ways guys!! Hinckley also calls any man who thinks he's eligible for the Priesthood, despite being such clear racists, to be ARROGANT and "not in harmony with the teachings of the Church of Christ." Hard to argue with that, isn't it?
Finally, let's end with more of Gordon B. Hinckley's EXACT WORDS:
Each of us has to face the matter—either the Church is true, or it is a FRAUD. There is no middle ground. It is the Church and kingdom of God, or it is NOTHING.
It is indeed a FRAUD AND NOTHING!! Remember Mormon apologists, according to your current and beloved Prophet, who talks to and for God, "THERE IS NO MIDDLE GROUND!!" Gee, I wonder how FARMS and the Mormon apologists fit into the "NO MIDDLE GROUND" situation? I guess we'd have to ask "NO MIDDLE GROUND HINCKLEY", who made FARMS an official part of BYU in 1999 and was very excited about it and the future of FARMS.
So, what good reason or excuse are your Mormon apologists gonna try to use, to defend Heber J. Grant and Reed Smoot, using the term "nigger", in General Conference? Are you really okay with it? Are you actually gonna tell us it's no big deal and pull a Hinckley and just say "it's in the past" and this is just another example of the racist "little flicks of history." For your sake, I sure hope not.
I look forward to everyone's comments, as I'm sure many of you out there, are reading some of this stuff for the very first time.
Samuel the Utahnite
Mormonism is full of lies. The Book of Zelph, on the other hand, is absolutely true.
ReplyDelete^^^ OMG. That was just ingenius! Hilarious!!! The next time someone asks me to produce something like the Book of Mormon, I am definitely going to refer them to that website! Josh Anderson ... you are my hero! LMAO. Kudos.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteFor people who take pleasure in reading something that reinforces what they already want to believe, I supposed the content of this post is good enough, but if you are seeking for the truth this certainly isn't it. I'll just make two points:
ReplyDelete1. While it doesn't matter to the author of this blog whether the word "nigger" was used in 1900 or 2007, it will to any rational person with the intellectual ability and basic historical knowledge of language and culture. The word "nigger" was not always a bad word as it is today. There was a time in our country when it was considered completely harmless and inoffensive. To judge someone of another time and culture by the rules we use today is to rely on ignorance as the basis of argument.
2. A rhetorical question for you...if Joseph Smith was a racist and against the abolition of slaverly then why is one of the reasons given by those who wished his death and the extermination of the LDS Church that the Mormons were against slavery, would vote against Missouri being a slave state (when that was the state where most Mormons lived), and why, when Joseph Smith ran for President of the United States did he use the abolishment of slavery as part of his presidential platform?
Hey "Don",
ReplyDeleteYou missed the entire point of the post it appears. The fact that the term "nigger" was ever used by a Mormon Prophet or Apostle, proves that they certainly couldn't see into the future with any type of "prophesy", or they would have known that one day it would be highly offensive, right? Of course if they were just men, which they are, they couldn't have foreseen this, which they clearly didn't.
Now, when you couple this with the EXTENSIVE racist history of Mormonism and how much they really hated and cursed blacks as the "seed of Cain", it's no surprise at all that they would use the term nigger, whether it was socially acceptable back then or not.
Charles Dickens used the term in a book and Mark Twain also used the word, as spoken by his characters, although he never used the word himself, when speaking publicly. Apparently Mark Twain had more decency than Mormon Prophets and knew better than they did.
Now, depending on the source you use to study the term "nigger" and its origins, it was pretty well known and considered by the early 1800s, by many, a denigrating term for blacks. There are probably others here that know more about it than we do and I'd be interested in their opinions.
But of course, as a TBM apologist, you have to come up with some excuse as to why it doesn't matter that a past Apostle and Prophet, used the term in General Conference.
Let me share a little example, of how the term "nigger" was used to denigrate blacks are early as the 1800s:
Both American slavery and the Jim Crow caste system which followed were undergirded by anti-black images. The negative portrayals of blacks were both reflected in and shaped by everyday material objects: toys, postcards, ashtrays, detergent boxes, fishing lures, children's books. These items, and countless others, portrayed blacks with bulging, darting eyes, fire-red and oversized lips, jet black skin, and either naked or poorly clothed. The majority of these objects did not use the word nigger; however, many did. In 1874, the McLoughlin Brothers of New York manufactured a puzzle game called "Chopped Up Niggers."
Beginning in 1878, the B. Leidersdory Company of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, produced NiggerHair Smoking Tobacco – several decades later the name was changed to BiggerHair Smoking Tobacco. In 1917, the American Tobacco Company had a NiggerHair redemption promotion. NiggerHair coupons were redeemable for "cash, tobacco, S. & H. Green stamps, or presents."
A 1916 magazine advertisement, copyrighted by Morris & Bendien, showed a black child drinking ink. The caption read, "Nigger Milk."
You said, "There was a time in our country when it was considered completely harmless and inoffensive."
When was that time(maybe the 1700s?), that the term nigger "was considered completely harmless and inoffensive", since you are the expert and self proclaimed "rational person with the intellectual ability and basic historical knowledge of language and culture". If only I could have been as blessed as you are, right? Enlighten and marvel us all with your incredible intelligence.
Have you ever run this by a black person, and told them that you know their history so well, that you can pinpoint the exact time in history, when the term "Niger", "was considered completely harmless and inoffensive?"
I also want to say, that you most likely defend and excuse ALL the racism in Mormonism, all the horrific and derogatory teachings, cursings, the advocation's of death for mixing their seed with the white race, etc.
If I'm wrong, please let me know and set me straight. My point is, that if you defend and justify the entire history of racism in Mormonism, all the way back to Joseph Smith; then your argument here on this issue has ZERO credibility, since NONE of the racism is a big deal to you.
Whether it's using the term "NIGGER" or being against the Abolitionists or Brigham Young and others outright cursing black people and calling them the "seed of Cain", you're fine with it all, right?
Again, if you aren't, please correct me, as I'm just going by the stereotypical Mormon apologist approach, that nothing bad ever really happened and it can all be excused and justified, because your burning bosom tells you that "the church is true" and "the only true church on earth."
You said, "To judge someone of another time and culture by the rules we use today is to rely on ignorance as the basis of argument."
Oh, is that right? So, even when we are talking about Mormon Prophets, Seers and Revelators(that are supposed to walk and talk with God and are the only representatives on the entire earth that can speak for God) and this God knows the beginning from the end, is "relying on ignorance as the basis for the argument."
You can't compare these men I speak of, to any other men on earth, because they are supposed to be very special men, with special powers of discernment, and a divine connection to the sky, but you and all other Mormon apologists, want to dumb them down to average, mistake prone, imperfect men? Why is that? It's because you have to, if the church is really true, and the alternative terrifies you.
I have 2 other posts coming in the next day regarding the history of Mormon racism and so I'll be anxious to hear how you explain all of that away, just as you've done here in this post, making bogus, uneducated excuses, while talking down to everyone here, like we are idiots, that can only hope to one day have the insight and comprehension that you do.
You then said:
"A rhetorical question for you...if Joseph Smith was a racist and against the abolition of slaverly then why is one of the reasons given by those who wished his death and the extermination of the LDS Church that the Mormons were against slavery, would vote against Missouri being a slave state (when that was the state where most Mormons lived), and why, when Joseph Smith ran for President of the United States did he use the abolishment of slavery as part of his presidential platform?"
You tell me dude!! You have all the answers, right? I realize you wanted the question to be rhetorical, so that I wouldn't answer it, but I'm gonna respond anyway, as I can and have quoted the exact opposite of what you're quoting and telling me. It was 100% clear that the Mormon Hierarchy, including Joseph Smith, found black people to be evil, disgusting, stupid, etc, etc, and wanted to set them free, if they were sent to some other continent, so that they didn't come rape all the white women and cause havoc everywhere.
Have you never actually read the letter that Joseph Smith wrote in the "Advocate and Messenger", regarding the abolitionists and slavery? It was then re-printed in the "official History Of The Church volumes."(History of the Church, by Joseph Smith, Vol. 2, pages 436-438) Look it up!!
Here are some quotes, from Joseph Smith's letter, showing the exact opposite of what you are claiming:
"I do not believe that the people of the North have any more
right to say that the South shall not hold slaves, than the South have to say the North shall."
"How any community can ever be excited with the chatter of such
persons, boys and others, who are too indolent to obtain their living by honest industry, and are incapable of pursuing any occupation of a professional nature, is unaccountable to me; and when I see persons in the free states, signing documents against slavery, it is no less, in my mind, than an army of influence, and a declaration of hostilities against the people of the South. What course can sooner divide our union?"
"After having expressed myself so freely upon this subject, I do not
doubt, but those who have been forward in raising their voices against the South, will cry out against me as being uncharitable, unfeeling, unkind, and wholly unacquainted with the Gospel of Christ. It is my privilege then
to name certain passages from the Bible, and examine the teachings of the ancients upon the matter as the fact is uncontrovertible that the first mention we have of slavery is found in the Holy Bible, pronounced by a man who was perfect in his generation, and walked with God. And so far from
that prediction being averse to the mind of God, it remains as a lasting monument of the decree of Jehovah, to the shame and confusion of all who have cried out against the South, in consequence of their holding the sons of Ham in servitude. "And he said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren." "Blessed be the Lord God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant" (Gen. ix: 25, 26).
"Some may urge that the names man servant and maid-servant, only mean
hired persons, who were at liberty to leave their masters or employers at any time. But we can easily settle this pint, by turning to the history of Abraham's descendants, when governed by a law from the mouth of Jehovah Himself."
"Before closing this communication, I beg leave to drop a word to the traveling Elders. You know, brethren, that great responsibility rests upon you; and that you are accountable to God, for all you teach the world. In
my opinion, you will do well to search the Book of Covenants, in which you will see the belief of the Church, concerning masters and servants. All men are to be taught to repent; but we have no right to interfere with slaves, contrary to the mind and will of their masters. In fact it would
be much better, and more prudent, not to preach at all to slaves, until after their masters are converted, and then teach the masters to use them with kindness: remembering that they are accountable to God, and the
servants are bound to serve their masters with singleness of heart,
without murmuring."
=======
When I read the link you sent me, I see it as the possibility of two things only; complete bullshit and not what he really believed, or that he had changed his views completely, 180 degrees, including his lengthy explanation that slavery was a divine decree of Jehovah.
I'm guessing that he was just saying what he thought certain people wanted him to hear and it wouldn't be the first time a Mormon Prophet lied to the world; just look at Gordon B. Hinckley, as he's blatantly lied about one thing or another in about every interview he's every done.
Also, let's remember that it was Joseph Smith himself, that said:
"Had I anything to do with the negro, I would confine them by strict law to their own species, and put them on a national equalization."
I find it hard to believe that he suddenly changed his view completely, which would have even contradicted the POGP, the BIBLE and all of the stories he told to justify slavery.
So, I'll leave the burden of proof with you "Don." Show we why Joseph taught and preached one thing and then when running for President, preached and taught that he believed something entirely different. Hey, come to think of it, he sounds a bit like "Mitt Romney", doesn't he? Like the famous saying says, "the more things change, the more they stay the same."
All I can say, is that there is FAR more evidence showing that Joseph Smith was pro-slavery, anti-abolitionist and justified it all with stories from the Bible and POGP. Joseph Smith was a racist, just like all the rest. I think he changed his views just because he was running for President and the thought it would somehow give him the best shot. The fact that he actually thought he could become President and stated that he "was afraid that everyone would love him so much", shows how delusional he really was, in addition to all of his supposed visions, attacks by Satan, etc. They guy was insane, period!!
I'll say one thing; if the Mormon church back then really was ever anti-slavery(and I don't believe it for a second), then it didn't last long, and as soon as Joseph didn't win the Presidency and was then killed, it was back to the normal, everyday teachings of "Blacks are the seed of Cain" "down with the abolitionists", "slavery is a divine institution", etc.
Furthermore, if Joseph Smith was pro-slavery in 1836 and then suddenly anti-slavery in 1844, that's another instance of him teaching false doctrines, leading the Saints astray, and indeed proving that he wasn't inspired by or following any God that they claim is the "same yesterday, today and forever."
I'm gonna end with the words of Brigham Young(who signed 2 slavery bills into law), as recorded by Wilford Woodruff, in his journal:
"Governor B Young's address before the legislative assembly of the territory of Utah upon slavery:"
“He remarked that the whole world were slaves. Eve partook of the forbidden fruit and also Adam and it brought slavery upon all their posterity in some way or other and this will continue untill we become righteous enough to drive the devil and evil from the earth. Adam had two sons Kane and Abel. Cain was more given to evil than Abel. Adam was called to offer sacrifice also his sons. The sacrifice of Abel was more acceptable than Canes and Cane took it into his heart to put Abel out of the way so he killed Abel.
The Lord said I will not kill Cane but I will put a mark upon him and it is seen in the face of every Negro on the Earth and it is the decree of God that that mark shall remain upon the seed of Cain and the curse untill all the seed of Abel should be redeemed and Cane will not receive the Priesthood until or salvation untill all the seed of Abel are redeemed. Any man having one drop of the seed of Cane in him cannot hold the Priesthood and if no other Prophet ever spake it before I will say it now IN THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST. I KNOW IT IS TRUE AND THEY KNOW IT.
The Negro cannot hold one particle of the Government but the day will come when all the seed of Cane will be redeemed and have all the blessing we have now and a great deal more. But the seed of Abel will be ahead of the seed of Cane to all Eternity.
Let me consent to day to mingle my seed with the seed of Cane. It would bring the same curse upon me and it would upon any man. And if any man mingles his seed with the seed of Cane the ownly way he could get rid of it or have salvation would be to come forward and HAVE HIS HEAD CULT OFF AND SPILL HIS BLOOD UPON THE GROUND. IT WOULD ALSO TAKE THE LIFE OF HIS CHILDREN.”
Let's also remember that Brigham Young said:
"The time is coming when justice will be laid to the line and righteousness to the plummet; when we shall take the old broad sword and ask, "Are you for God?" and IF YOU ARE NOT HEARTILY ON THE LORD'S SIDE, YOU WILL BE HEWN DOWN. I feel like reproving you; you are like a wild ass that rears and almost breaks his neck before he will be tamed. It is so with this people."(A speech he gave at the Salt Lake City Tabernacle on March 2, 1856-JOD 3:221-226)
Now, go ahead and try to defend every word and quote and I just gave you. A form of this last quote appears in the upcoming Mountain Meadows Massacre movie, which you should check out. I've read some apologetic sites, that say Brigham Young never said what the movie says he said, "you will be hewn down." I guess we can put that one to rest, can't we, since I just proved that he did indeed say it.
Samuel
Why does the LDS church not have any hispanic or latino GAs? 2/3 of ther membership is hispanic or latino.
ReplyDeleteDemon of Kolob
You've obviously poured a lot of time and effort into your posting. And for that, I commend you.
ReplyDeleteBut your argument is weak. Back in the 1900's, and indeed a great many years after, it WAS in fact socially acceptable to use the N-word. Not that it was right, but that it was socially acceptable. Whether you choose to agree with that or not, well - that's just what the validity of your entire argument hangs on.
And please cut the "holier than thou" crap. Like you've never heard a Baptist or some other evangelical use the N-word -- and a whole lot more recently than 1900. Like you've never heard an N-word call another N-word the N-word.
Puh-leeeez.
Ken, there are actually quite a few hispanic/latino men who are LDS authorities:
ReplyDelete1st Quorum of the Seventy: Carlos H. Amado, Claudio R. M. Costa, Benjamin De Hoyos, Walter F. Gonzalez, Ulisses Soares, Francisco J. Vi�as
3rd Quorum of the Seventy: A. Ven�ncio Caleira, Francisco I. G�menez
4th Quorum of the Seventy: Nelson L. Altamirano, Jose E. Boza, Luis G. Chaverri, I. Poloski Cordon, Luis G. Duarte, Jos� A. Garc�a, Carlos F. Rivas, Jose L. Alonso, David R. Brown, Mario L. Carlos, S. Horacio Guzm�n, Miguel Hidalgo, Jorge Mendez, Jorge A. Rojas, Manuel Araiz, Jorge D. Arrevillaga, Marco A. Cardenas, Mosiah S. Delgado, Manuel Gonzalez, Glendon Lyons, Juan A. Machuca, Raymundo Morales, Juan M. Rodriguez, Jos� L. Torres, Fernando E. Calderon, C�sar A. D�vila, Jaime Ferreira, Jos� L. Gonzalez, Javier Iba�ez, B. Renato Maldonado, Rafael E. Pino, Vladimiro J. Campero, Hector A. D�valos, C�sar H. Hooker, F. Rene Loli, Alexander A. Nu�ez, A. Rolando Oyola, Alejandro M. Robles, Richard C. Zambrano, Willy F. Zuzunaga
5th Quorum of the Seventy: Carlos J. Garcia
6th Quorum of the Seventy: Jorge M. Alvarado, Jos� A. Castro, Miguel A. Lee
7th Quorum of the Seventy: Gutenberg G. Amor�m, Ronaldo da Costa, Luiz C. Fran�a, Domingos S. Linhares, Carlos S. Obata, Pedro J. Penha, Homero S. Amato, Marcelo Bolfarini, Ildefonso de Castro Deus, Fl�vio A. Cooper, Carlos A. Godoy, Paulo R. Grahl, Joni L. Koch, Alfredo Heliton de Lemos, Rodrigo Myrrha, Adilson de Paula Parrella, Gelson Pizzirani, Carlos A.C. Villanova, Gabriel A. Campos, Daniel M. Ca�oles, Oscar W. Chavez, Hernan I. Herrera, Dinar M. Reyes, Gerardo L. Rubio, M. Gonzalo Sep�lveda, Sergio E. Avila, Ernesto A. Da Silva, Heber O. Diaz, Juan A. Etchegaray, Carlos R. Fernandez, Daniel A. Moreno, Fernando D. Ortega, Carlos A. Perez
Visit http://mormonicity.blogspot.com
I don't care if it was socially acceptable or not... If he was a true prophet/apostle, he wouldn't have used those words. I've heard "socially acceptable" to explain away slavery, plygamy, young wives, racism, etc... It's B.S. It's okay if it's socially acceptable? So were using MAN to justify his acts now? And then I'm told to what? Be in the world but not of it, or something along those lines? I'd think an apostle would know better.
ReplyDeleteWhat makes a prophet a false prophet, Rich? Think about it.
I'm rambling on, dont' know how to explain myeslf well... It's 5 in the morning and I can't sleep. My brain is goin all funky. Hehehe.
Misfit Marie
Words change and the way they are viewed by the population. A good example is the word "gay". This word used to mean nothing more than "happy" but now it means "same-sex relations". If I had said, "I am gay" 50 years ago, no one would have thought anything of it other than "I am happy". If I say, "I am gay" today, I am looked at in a totally different way.
ReplyDeleteSo I can understand how the N-word might not have been offensive back then. However, even though this was pre-1978, it is and was a racial term. Let's look at some offensive terms used today and their "replacement" counterparts...
Fuck... fudge or fetch
Shit... shoot
Damn... darn
Hell... heck
Anyone who holds a high enough position in the church to speak in general conference should not be using either form of these words. So even if the N-word was used and was socially acceptable, it is still a racial, degrading term.
The church claims that it does not do things that are socially acceptable anyway. They proudly claim that they do not change no matter how much society wants them to. So even if the N-word is totally acceptable, church leaders should be setting an example and refrain from using such terms. Today, it is socially acceptable to have sex before marriage. So does that mean that the church suddenly allows it? It is socially acceptable to drink alcohol, so does the church suddenly allow it? If the church bases it's standards on what is socially acceptable, then something is wrong.
A true prophet or apostle of god should never have said anything like that. And once again, TBM's are willing to justify and excuse it all away just because the church is true no matter what. If you have to defend the church by defending racism, then you will never prevail.
I think when you look back at all the things those past 'self appointed' Mormon Prophets and Apostles said about blacks being cursed with a dark skin , blacks being representatives of the devil ,the more valiants being born into white mormon families etc , the more obvious it is that its all a sham .
ReplyDeleteThose excuses TBM's come up with are ridiculous ... "men of their time " is one I hear alot . How can Jesus Christ's supposedly chosen, be men of their time . The whole point is that they are supposed to be the light to the world if they were really Jesus's representatives .
Instead they gave us Darkness and utter stupidity . Its blasphemous to even suggest they were under the direction of Jesus Christ .
They were about 50/60 years behind the Evangelical William Wilberforce and the Shakers on the slavery issue . Then Brigham opposed the abolitionists and in the name of God he spoke .
Its a scam from the beginning . Unfortunately Religion attracts Con men who see opportunity to prey on people and Joseph Smith was a master at that ... Testing his followers by asking for their wives ???
The signs are all there from the beginning .
Figures for membership are Bogus , they keep going on about 12 million members , despite the fact that about 3 million are lost and another 4 million inactive .
Well the information age is here and The Mormon church can no longer hide its embarrassing past and there will eventually be more Ex Mormons than Mormons .
Elder Joseph
I was just over on Misfit Marie's blog and guess who is over there? Our old buddy, Jose. And guess what he has to say:
ReplyDelete"I won't risk getting a google ID and being traced."
Now isn't that interesting? How many times did he call Samuel a hypocrite for not using his real name? Now this guy not only posts with a dozen different names, but is afraid of being traced. What does he have to hide?
If he's telling the truth, which unfortunately is difficult to discern, he won't be around here any more.
Well Rich, I think you just did a great job of exposing who you really are and why you find no problem with Mormon racism or that 2 current Apostles, 1 a future Prophet of God, used the word "nigger" in General Conference. It’s just all in a days work, when working to defend the Mormon cult and your "burning bosom", right?
ReplyDeleteYou said, "And please cut the "holier than thou" crap. Like you've never heard a Baptist or some other evangelical use the N-word -- and a whole lot more recently than 1900. Like you've never heard an N-word call another N-word the N-word."
Wow, so you just basically called black people the "N-word(“Like you've never heard an ‘N-word’...”), in March of 2007, right? Pathetic!! Brigham Young and many others, past and present, must be so proud of you!! Why not just say the word Rich and call them what you feel they are....why back down and be timid and just abbreviate it, if you feel so strongly about it? Be strong and fearless in your racist attitudes and racism!! I mean hell, I’m sure there’s a KKK right here in Utah and I’m sure they’d love to have you and your support.
So, what it boils down to for you Rich, is that as long as others are doing it, whether it be a Baptist, Evangelical, or a Mormon or as you termed it, "'an N-word', using the N-word”; that completely justifies past Mormon Apostles and Prophets using the "the N-word?" Wow, you really are messed up and you call my argument weak? Get serious dude!!
You said:
"But your argument is weak. Back in the 1900's, and indeed a great many years after, it WAS in fact socially acceptable to use the N-word. Not that it was right, but that it was socially acceptable. Whether you choose to agree with that or not, well - that's just what the validity of your entire argument hangs on."
"It WAS in fact 'socially acceptable' to use the N-word in the 1900's and indeed a great many years after." It was "Socially acceptable" to whom? To the white folks who called the black folks “niggers?” Since you still refer to them that way, it should be no surprise that you support it being done back in the early 1900s, right?
So you're telling all of us, that blacks back then found it just fine for the white folks to go around calling them niggers, left and right and name products after them, like "chopped up nigger?" Did the black folks back in 1900, just laugh, high five them, thank them for it or what? What type of pathetic fantasy land are you living in Rich? Oh yeah, a MORMON fantasy land!!
Oh, but wait, you just contradicted yourself within the same statement, even with all of your amazing intelligence that you claim to have, when you said that “not that it was right, but that it was socially acceptable.” So, you admit that it was WRONG, but yet it was okay, because a certain part of society(the white part) found it “socially acceptable.” So being “socially acceptable” is more important to you than right or wrong? Do you see how absurd, ridiculous, callous, clueless and uneducated you seem?
Then again, you might be on to something since the Mormon Hierarchy strongly condemns alcohol and preaches about how evil it is, how it destroys individuals and families; yet a block away from the Hinckley Center and right across the street from their beloved temple square(which Hinckley claims they need to preserve-thus the entire reason for the downtown project and malls in the first place), they’ve decided to allow restaurants in their/Jesus’ new malls to serve alcohol, for a lot of money in return. I guess it’s all starting to make sense why you believe what you do, as you are just following these hypocrites leads in complete and utter hypocrisy and deceit!!
Frankly, you have your head firmly lodged up your ass Rich and you’re severely lacking in the research department, not to mention human decency, morals and values. But then again, to defend Mormonism, specifically the history of racism in Mormonism, doesn’t require someone to be humane or have any human decency, rather the complete opposite. In the early 1800s, the term "nigger" was being used as a denigrating term and you need to do some more research. I guess if you were basically a white supremacist like Brigham Young, there would be no issue with whatever you wanted to call black people back then or now, right?
I mean come on; they were pro-slavery, anti-abolitionists, called the black people “niggers”, wouldn’t give them the Priesthood, wouldn’t allow them in the temples(no eternal families), said they were the “seed of Cain” and cursed with “black skin and a flat nose”, that they could make it to Celestial glory, but as servants to everyone else and on and on and on. To claim this wasn’t or isn’t racist is beyond my comprehension. What type of pathetic scum do you have to be Rich, to find this all acceptable or justifiable?
You would think that the Mormon Hierarchy was the founder of the KKK, with their bullshit, hate-filled teachings regarding blacks and many other races, that they've taught throughout the years, since the very beginning, including the Book of Mormon, which they claim is "the most correct book on earth." I’m sure the KKK looks up to people like Brigham Young and think of them as modern day heroes. It is a disgrace Rich that people like you will defend the racism in Mormonism and I think you are despicable for it. I have no tolerance or patience for people like you that will justify anything and everything, in the history of Mormonism, just to make sure that flame in their bosom stays lit and on fire.
The bottom line, as I’ve already stated in these comments and in the original post, is that a Mormon Apostle, who is ordained as a “Prophet, Seer and Revelator”, would have known better and never used such a word, unless he was a racist(truly just a product of the times like any other racist back then), uninspired and just a man, with no special connection to some big man in the sky.
Then again, since the Mormon God is nothing but a massive racist, in every way, since day one; maybe it does make sense(to Mormons like yourself) that the racist Mormon Apostles and Prophets, would follow the teachings of their (fabricated) racist, hateful God, right? This proves that the Mormon God doesn’t exist, nor the God of the Bible, because why would a perfect, all knowing, all powerful God, be the biggest racist of all time and preach segregation from the very beginning, thus creating these horrible racist attitudes all around the world?
Oh, and Rich, how many black men are in the Mormon Hierarchy? I’m specifically speaking of the First Presidency, Apostles, Presiding Bishopric and the 1st and 2nd quorum of the Seventy, which are the only ones that actually appear in the centerfold of the General Conference additions, put out every May and November. But, since you are very informed on all of the members of all of the quorums of the Seventy, I’ll extend it to all of the quorums. Are there any black men that are in Area Presidencies or that are Mission Presidents and in the lower Quorums of the Seventy?
People always talk about how Joseph Smith called Elijah Abel to be a Seventy and gave him the Priesthood, but let's keep in mind that he was forbidden to enter the temple or receive his endowments or any temple blessings, so what good was that Priesthood to him or his family? He basically got sick on a mission and came home and died and he served mission after mission, for this damn Mormon cult...what a shame!! They didn't give a shit about him!!
The fact is, the only black man that has ever been called, in modern times(since 1978, when they first became eligible) to be a General Authority, was Helvécio Martins, who was released on Hinckley’s watch. Amazing isn’t it, that there isn’t one other black Mormon, on the entire planet earth, that is WORTHY to be a Mormon General Authority? That says everything that needs to be said!! Again, I challenge anyone reading this to follow this link, which links to the Ensign centerfold of GAs, which shows that there isn’t one black man there.
Let’s see, blacks were given the Priesthood in 1978(due to social pressures) and so in 29 years, only ONE black man has ever been called, or “worthy”, to rub shoulders with the other "worthy" GAs and he was promptly released after his 5 years of service, thanks to Hinckley himself. Why is that? I think we all know the answer, whether you want to admit or not, even you Rich!!
And Hinckley says that it's possible to have a black Mormon Prophet someday? Yeah, right, first they'd have to make it into at least the Seventies.
There's as much chance of a black man someday being an Apostle or gasp....the Prophet...as there is monkeys flying out of my ass or that Joseph Smith actually saw God the Father, Jesus Christ and a multitude of angels, one of which was gonna slay him with a flaming sword, if he didn't become a secret serial adulterer, behind Emma's back, having sex with little girls as young as 14 and other men's wives. In other words....the chance is ZERO!!
Samuel
I wanted to say thanks Christopher for sharing the link to your site. I had forgotten about that site and it's hilarious!! I found the book of Zelph at some point in my journey to the truth and had many good laughs, which I needed desperately. I'll link to it in under my favorites as everyone should read this.
ReplyDeleteI was actually researching Zelph a couple days ago, and getting ready to write a post on him and then you posted here. The whole Zelph thing is just another reminder of what a complete and total nutjob Joseph Smith was and how he could just make up shit on the spot and convince everyone that it was "revelation from God."(cue the dumb, dumb, dumb music from South Park) It also proves that the people were extremely gullible back then and must have believed every word the guy said. Sadly, here we are in the year 2007, 187 years after the "First Vision" didn't happen and people are just as gullible now, as they were then...now that's VERY SAD, isn't it?
Thanks again, as we all need some comedy relief here once in a while, to break up the monotony of speaking about the evils of the damn Mormon cult. I'm gonna do an entire podcast soon, with just funny shit about Mormons, so that we can all have a good laugh.
Samuel
First, you should probably take your own advice and do better research, Samuel the On-Crackinite. This comes from Wikipedia:
ReplyDeleteIn the United States, the word nigger was not always considered derogatory, but was instead used by some as merely denotative of black, as it was in other parts of the English-speaking world. In nineteenth-century literature, there are many uses of the word nigger with no intended negative connotation. Charles Dickens, and Joseph Conrad (who published The Nigger of the 'Narcissus' in 1897) used the word without racist intent. Mark Twain often put the word into the mouths of his Southern characters, white and black, but did not use the word when speaking in his own voice in his autobiographical Life on the Mississippi.
Second, your argument that he would never have used such a word if he was a true apostle is also flawed.
Consider Luke 22, in the last hours before his betrayal and arrest, Jesus told his disciples:
36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.
37 For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end.
38 And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough.
And just 13 verses later, Jesus scolds one of the disciples for cutting off the ear of one of the captors.
If I were to apply your logic, Jesus Christ couldn't possibly have been the Son of God because if he was, he wouldn't have told the disciples to buy swords. He should have known that one of them would be used just a little while later.
Yeah, nonsense, right? That's your logic just holding up -- unless you truly DON'T believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. And if that's the case, then you're not exactly the credible authority on apostleship that you purport to be.
And not that I need to justify my words to anyone else, but wouldn't you think that ANYONE who uses ANY racial epithet against another individual - whether of the same race or not - would themselves be subject to the same sort of denigration? Would you have prefered I said "Cracker calling another Cracker a Cracker?"
Rich the as(s)inineite,
ReplyDeleteGood to see that just looking at Wikipedia is what you consider to be "research." I read the same exact thing you did in preparing this post and you even repeated several of the same things that I stated in a previous comment, showing that you must not have even read my comments or you have short term memory loss.
However, I don't rely on just wikipedia as a scholarly or factual source of info like you do, since anyone can put anything they want on there and so I looked further and did some real research and found out additional facts. Also, I believe in that wikipedia you read, if it was the same one I read, it states that "nigger" was a denigrating term in the early 1800s and some other things.
Of course, if these other things were contained in the wikipedia you read, you wouldn't have included them, because they don't support your need to defend and justify racism, right?
Bottom line, it doesn't matter anyway, because you just ignored most of what I and others have said, most of what I said in the post and have again justified your need to call black people the "N-word", as you have, even in the year 2007. Hey, if others are doing it, why not, right? Isn't that your pathetic logic Rich? Yeah, now that's RICH!!
Also, what the hell does Jesus telling his Apostles to buy a sword, have to do with Heber J. Grant using the word "nigger" in the year 1900, in a Mormon General Conference, which is considered "scripture" and "modern day revelations?" A complete rebuke by Jesus, for using the sword later, is actually recorded in 3 out of the 4 gospels, proving that the Bible is ridiculously screwed up(just like all organized religion), or just very imperfect or only correct "as far as it is translated correctly", as you Mormons claim, thus needing Joseph Smith to step in, make all the corrections, which included predicting the coming of himself, in the old Testament.
Do you even know the history of the Bible Rich, or are you just speaking in ignorance again? Do you know when the Gospels were actually written, how long after Jesus' death it was and who actually wrote them, which wasn't Matthew, Mark, Luke or John and how they were selected to be in the Bible?
Luke 14:26 states: "If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple."
Do you hate your father, mother, wife, children(if you have any), brethren and sisters and your own life Rich, as Jesus commanded? If you don't, then you can't be his disciple. I had a die-hard, fanatical, nutjob Evangelical use this verse in my last Skypecast and he says that he is a disciple and hates all of those people in his life. Do you? I mean, hey, it's in the Bible, so it must be true, right? Need I go on?
Also, don't try to tell me that this statement of Jesus, wasn't meant to be taken literally, when Mormons are in the very small minority, in believing that the story of Abraham about to kill his son and give him as a burnt offering, at the command of God(Jesus Christ again), by putting a knife through him, was 100% literal and factual and not allegorical and speaking of God being willing to sacrifice his only Begotten Son Jesus Christ. You can't have it both ways pal...either it's all literal or not...as you can't cherry pick what is or isn't literal.
So, using an example from the Bible to justify Mormon racism is hideously absurd and flawed, as I could use the Bible to justify anything in the name of God(and many people do everyday), including slavery, rape, incest, human/animal sacrifice for God, murder(of even little innocent children), causing abortion, etc. But hey, if it makes your little bosom light up like an inferno, have it pal and enjoy yourself and keep making yourself look like a complete fool.
Here's are a few great and inspirational verses from the Bible:
Number, chapter 31:
6 And Moses sent them to the war, a thousand of every tribe, them and Phinehas the son of Eleazar the priest, to the war, with the holy instruments, and the trumpets to blow in his hand.
7 And they warred against the Midianites, as the LORD(Jesus Christ) COMMANDED MOSES; and they slew all the males.
8 And they slew the kings of Midian, beside the rest of them that were slain; namely, Evi, and Rekem, and Zur, and Hur, and Reba, five kings of Midian: Balaam also the son of Beor they slew with the SWORD.
9 And the children of Israel took all the women of Midian captives, and their little ones, and took the spoil of all their cattle, and all their flocks, and all their goods.
10 And they burnt all their cities wherein they dwelt, and all their goodly castles, with fire.
11 And they took all the spoil, and all the prey, both of men and of beasts.
12 And they brought the captives, and the prey, and the spoil, unto Moses, and Eleazar the priest, and unto the congregation of the children of Israel, unto the camp at the plains of Moab, which are by Jordan near Jericho.
13 And Moses, and Eleazar the priest, and all the princes of the congregation, went forth to meet them without the camp.
14 And Moses WAS WROTH with the officers of the host, with the captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, which came from the battle.
15 And Moses said unto them, HAVE YOU SAVED ALL THE WOMEN ALIVE?
16 Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD.
17 Now therefore KILL EVERY MALE AMONG THE LITTLE ONES AND KILL EVERY WOMAN THAT HATH KNOWN MAN BY LYING WITH HIM.
18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
19 And do ye abide without the camp seven days: whosoever hath killed any person, and whosoever hath touched any slain, purify both yourselves and your captives on the third day, and on the seventh day.
20 And purify all your raiment, and all that is made of skins, and all work of goats’ hair, and all things made of wood.
Wow, that Moses and Lord/Jehovah/God/Jesus Christ guy were quite the partnership in the Old Testament, weren't they? Whatever happened to "thou shalt not kill?" Oh yeah, unless your Jesus Christ that is and want to violate your own 10 commandments and slaughter innocent people for fun. It was just target practice man...no big deal, right Rich?
Ordering the slaughter of innocent men, women and children left and right...now that's inspiring!! I could go on all day long Rich, with one horrific example after another, showing your Prophets of old from the Bible and Jesus Christ(Jehovah/Lord) of the Old Testament as nothing but conspiring, brutal murderers, just like Stalin and Hitler in modern times. No wonder evil men use the Bible and other supposed holy books to justify their murder, slaughter, rape and racism...as it's all there, being commanded by Jesus Christ/God himself, depending on which end of the theological trinity you fall on.
So, was it right and all okay, because Jesus Christ himself ordered the slaughter of innocent men, women and children? Maybe Moses was just fucked in the head, like the Lafferty brothers here in Utah and other evil, vile people, dictators and terrorists that currently live and have lived throughout the history of this planet? What if you heard voices in your head Rich, that you thought came from Jesus Christ himself, telling you to go kill countless innocent people; would you do it, as many do every single day, for their "God?" I would hope not and that you wouldn't be like the murderer Moses.
The fact is nobody knows what Jesus really ever said, because he must have been a complete illiterate and never wrote a damn thing down, rather relied on others(whoever they were) to do it for him and then arranged for it not to be published for decades afterwards. Now, that's inspiring. Maybe someone that you don't even know now Rich, can publish your life story, 50-100 years + after your dead, going by stories that have been passed down from others.
Ever play that game at scout camp Rich, where you start a story at one end and tell it to the next person and the next person and then see how it ends up with the last person, or if it even resembles the original story a little bit? That would be the Bible folks!!
Come to think of it...that would explain Mormonism pretty well too, as we have GAs lying daily to the members, missionaries being indoctrinated with lies and fairy tales everyday at the MTC and in the mission field and they then pass all of this bullshit on to the innocent non-members and investigators, who then tell their friends about it, etc. Sad thing is, 90% of it is a lie and false...thus why Mormonism is nothing but a damn cult corporation.
Anyway, enough about the horrendous teachings of the Bible and back to the racism matter at hand, which you justify with said Bible; I mean hey, in your beloved BOM, people go from white to dark skin to white again, depending on their worthiness and Spencer W. Kimball was still preaching this doctrine in the 1960s(claiming that it was still happening), in General Conference. Do you believe that too Rich?
Do you know people whose skin lightens and darkens on a regular basis, depending on what sins they are currently committing? Well, Spencer W. Kimball did and even provided photographic evidence of it. Is it still happening Rich? Why don't the current GAs every talk about it anymore, as that seems pretty amazing, doesn't it? Please help us evil anti-Mormons out and I'll even post the pictures, okay?
"Would you have prefered I said 'Cracker calling another Cracker a Cracker?'" I'm guessing you now think you're actually funny, in a sick, twisted, racist way, that I can't relate to? Were we talking about racism in Mormonism toward Caucasians, by black Mormon General Authorities and Prophets? Were Caucasians once the minority here(and in Mormonism's Hierarchy) and other places around the world and sold as slaves, like the black people were? Was Heber J. Grant black and did he tell a story about "crackers" and "up jumped a cracker?" No, he was white and he told a story about what he called "niggers" and he said "up jumped a nigger."
He was also supposed to be an ordained "modern day Prophet, Seer, Revelator and Apostle of God" and later became "THE PROPHET", thus you can't possibly compare him to any other man or the common, everyday societal standards, unless you want to point out that he was indeed just a man and nothing more, which he clearly was, along with all of the Mormon Hierarchy, past and present. Hinckley is a CEO of a multi-billion dollar corporation/cult and nothing more!!
And no, you don't need to justify your words or racism to anyone here or anywhere else. Just own it, be who you are, be a racist and be happy. There are plenty of other racists and defenders of racism out there who would love to have you as a friend and they even form little groups, where they can openly share their racist views with each other.
In any case, your response was everything I thought it would be, which was NOTHING. Anyone that defends Mormon racism and justifies it as you have, is a racist, plain and simple and any rational person reading these comments will see you and anyone else that defends the Mormon racism, for who you really are.
Hey, I have an idea Rich, why don't you try to actually deal with and explain to all the blacks out there, why your Mormon Hierarchy, dating back to horny, racist Joe, have preached that blacks are cursed and the seed of Cain?
I look forward to your pathetic comments, justifications and excuses on my next post dealing with Mormon racism. At what point will you pathetic Mormon Apologists actually have the BALLS, to step up and openly condemn this evil shit? My guess is sadly never for most of you, which is why you're so pathetic!!
Now, go back to Sunday school Rich and start preaching your inspired bullshit, which is that all blacks are "cursed" and the "seed of Cain" and then bow your head and say yes, along with the rest of the Morgbots. Then have a closing prayer, thanking your racist God for all the racism in the world, especially in Mormonism, dating back to 1830. You really are proud of it all, aren't you Rich?
Isn't it all just wonderful?!!
Samuel
Samuel,
ReplyDeleteI can't help but notice that you've used the N-word more in this post and in your comments that there is record of any LDS authority using it.
One might infer that you are even fascinated with the N-word - a sort of obsession, really. So I must wonder if YOU are indeed more racist than those whose words you selectively choose to smith into incoherent drivel to support your feeble logic and hate-driven rhetoric.
You seem to pour a lot of time and effort into constructing your posts and comments - and for what? To spread your own brand of religious intolerance, racism, and hatred? Perhaps if you were to use that time and energy to contribute in a meaningful way to the community, you would be a happier person. So, why don't you get up from your computer in your mommy's basement and actually go outside for a while? Maybe take an evening and help serve meals at a rescue mission? Maybe go read books to terminally ill children at the hospital? Do something meaningful with your life?
We often hear "by their fruits shall ye know them." For all I know, you've probably used that to justify your hatred and religious intolerance on this blog - I really don't know for sure. I mostly just skim your posts and comments, anyway. But the fruit I've seen from you amounts to nothing more than (I've said it before and I'll say it again) hatred, intolerance, and racism.
You say that you "only want to help others to discover what I have found and to know the 'REAL TRUTH' and then be able to better deal with the pain of their discovery," and believe it or not, I respect what you're trying to do (kind of). You are very passionate about your beliefs, and you want to share them with others. But have you ever once stopped to consider that your hatefully intolerant tone may not be the most effective means of accomplishing that? Do you think it might be driving people away from your cause, rather than actually helping you or them - or anyone, for that matter?
To me, you seem very hurt, very angry, and very sad. Whether or not you want it, you have my pity.
OMG, I can't believe what I am reading! Rich, are you serious? First off all, I am sure we have all said the N-word from time to time, but then again, we are not claiming to be prophets, seers, and revelators are we? Like I said before, those men are bound to behave above the social norm, are they not?
ReplyDeleteWow, Samuel, you are obsessed with masturbating and now the the N-word too!
Sadly, this is the best defense Mormons can use. Samuel sits in his "mommy's basement" and does nothing but plot how to spread more lies, hatred, racism, and intolerance. Shame on you, Samuel!
Dude, rich, you are truly clueless. Why don't you "skim" a little deeper and see this blog for what it really is: exposing the lies of the Mormon church.
If intolerance is taught here, it is intolerance of men who pretend to be prophets.
If racism is taught here, it is only Samuel QUOTING your precious prophets.
If hatred is taught here, it is hatred of supression of our religious and free speech rights.
Give me one, ONE example of how Samuel is racist! Maybe you need new glasses, because Samuel fights racism and religious intolerance!
Samuel does give a great service and there are many people, myself included, who are very grateful for what he does. He has provided a place for people who have discovered the Mormon fraud to come and be a support to each other. It's really too bad, isn't it, that our own friends and family aren't there to support us. Samuel's blog exists because the Mormon system fails. If the church is all about family, why do so many ex-mos lose friends and valuable relationships? If anyone is intolerant it is the Mormon church. They can't stand to have anyone challenge them and they deal with it by shunning us and doing the best they can to keep us quiet.
And they brainwash the members, just like you, to come in here and do their dirty work for them, and then you have the nerve to talk about fruits! For some reason, TBMs think that if they call us enough names and insult us long enough that we might actually feel the spirit and want to return to the church! This is a delusion, just like all the rest of Mormon thinking.
While you are here stomping Samuel into the ground, he is out there defending YOU from the "real Christians" who believe you will burn in hell if you don't convert to their church. So instead of slam him, why don't you thank him? You are here using your freedom of speech to insult him, and he is out there fighting for your right to believe and say whatever you want.
You asked me for an example of how he defends Mormons; well here it is.
If you want to defend your church, do it in a way that should reflect your church. Because the way you are reflecting the church now only makes you and them look like a bunch of crazed cult members who will do and say anything to silence the opposition. (whisper: why don't you try the Christ way and be loving and understanding? That way, someone just might take you seriously.)
Really, if you defend a church that claims to own the patent on happiness and joy, then why not defend it that way? But if you defend it with insults and BS, what kind of an image are you putting on the church? (Intolerance, hatred, etc. Ironic, huh?)
Just something to think about...
If intolerance is taught here, it is intolerance of men who pretend to be prophets.
ReplyDeleteLet's not forget intolerance of anyone who would dare oppose you. We all must be "brainwashed" or mentally compromised in some way.
If hatred is taught here, it is hatred of supression of our religious and free speech rights.
It looks like you have a blog in which you are freely expressing your your religious beliefs without fear of the criminal prosecution by the government. That is, after all, what the first amendment is all about. Another civilian person exercising their right to free speech in no way suppresses your first amendment right to free speech.
But you must hate yourselves, though. It seems all Samuel wants to do is suppress anyone whose comments dare to disagree.
And they brainwash the members, just like you, to come in here and do their dirty work for them...
That whole brainwashing thing never gets old for you, does it? It's such an easy cop-out. It seems to me that you have brainwashed yourselves into believing that everyone else is brainwashed.
I can't speak for anyone else, but here's how brainwashed I am: my family converted to the Church when I was 3. I attended Baptist school through grade eight. Then I attended Evangelical high school were I fought for my right to run for student office. I am quite accustomed to the attacks, and am anything but "brainwashed." You people think you are so groundbreaking, but it's still the same crap every time.
Really, if you defend a church that claims to own the patent on happiness and joy, then why not defend it that way? But if you defend it with insults and BS, what kind of an image are you putting on the church?
Perhaps you should skim a little deeper through the comments. Samuel's are be far the most denigrating, insulting, and full of the most "BS." He was first to resort to profanity and ad-hominem fallacy. If that makes him feel better or superior in some way, then that's great for him. He has the right to be angry.
But it's pretty obvious that the only people that take him seriously are his own little group of 5 or so blog friends who all comment on each other's posts to help themselves feel all warm and fuzzy. I have not found any substantive consensus among comments from anyone outside his close-knit circle of haters.
Really, if you defend a church that claims to own the patent on happiness and joy, then why not defend it that way? But if you defend it with insults and BS, what kind of an image are you putting on the church?
I'm not defending the Church so much as defending common sense. I'm sure the Church can deal with whatever image problems my comments on this obscure little blog might cause (none). I am my own person. I think my own thoughts, and I will use my own words in whatever way I choose.
Hey Rich,
ReplyDeleteMy little blog has had over 12,000 hits this month, and it is the 6th straight month my readership has increased and this is the best month so far, up from 9,000 a month ago. We are now coming up on 112,000 hits alone on this blog and over 125,000 when including my other blogs.
When I had videos on YouTube(before they were suddenly deleted without any explanation), I'd had over 150,000 hits and 7,000 comments in about 6 months. Nobody noticed me though...no...not at all!! Even your personal hero Daniel C. Peterson filed a copyright infringement against me for posting his 20 second clip from the "More Good(shit) Foundation."
Oh yeah and BYU Emailed me and asked me to please take down the video I posted of Robert Millet, explaining to future missionaries how to deal with ex-Mormons(don't every answer the actual question, rather the question they should have asked). I can see that you've followed his advice and are a great Robert Millet Disciple.
The Mormon Hierarchy or their goons, are logged onto my blogs all the time from the church office building, but yeah, nobody cares about what I'm doing, right?
I have 31 podcasts out there on iTunes and they are currently being downloaded over 30,000 times a month. But who's listening, right?
I receive over 100+ Emails a week, mostly of support and thanking me for what I do, but I help nobody.
But yeah, nobody knows about me, or any of us ex-Mormons and we impact nobody. Keep telling yourself that and you might actually believe it, despite all the facts to the contrary. Then again, that's exactly what you do with your Mormon cult, isn't it?
Please direct us to your great and powerful body of work, blogs, podcasts, videos, etc, and show us what it is exactly that your doing, other than posting along with my "close-knit circle of 5 haters", on this obscure blog that nobody knows anything about.
Oh and how have I suppressed you dumbass?!! Have I been altering and deleting your comments? Get your facts straight and quit lying!! Strongly disagreeing with somebody on my own blog, isn't "SUPPRESSING", or do you now need me to define the word suppress for you? I guess I'm wasting my time anyway, since all you do is admittedly "skim my posts and comments", right?
By the way, I have well over 200 posts with all kinds of comments from a ton of different people, so do your homework and go through all my posts if you even care a little about accuracy in your statements, which you obviously don't. I only activated the comments last summer and I would say there have already been over 1,300 comments, if you bothered to even look or care.
So, why Rich have you decided to be a part of and comment on my little blog that only 5 or so haters even read or participate on? LOL!!
Maybe you should start a blog in the spirit of the KKK and use it defend, justify and rationalize every racist statement, doctrine and teaching, that any member of the Mormon Hierarchy has ever uttered. Sound good? I'm sure a lot of people would want to be your friends and supporters Rich.
Hey Rich, just for the record, were black people really cursed as the "seed of Cain", with a "flat nose and black skin?"
Me and my five haters will be awaiting your highly intelligent response!!
Samuel
Hi Rich,
ReplyDeleteYour last comment was much better than the previous one. At least you responded to most of my points without (mostly) name calling, which is more than most do.
Firstly, I really do not care if anyone opposses me or disagrees. Of course, we talk and debate with people of differing views, but I am not intolerant of other people or their religions or their opinions. Just wanted to clarify that. In fact, I think you will find that out of all the ex-mo's who post here, I am one of the more tolerant.
We are all brainwashed to a certain degree. The very fact that we speak the same language as our parents is proof that we are brainwashed and just copy what we see and hear. Our ability to read and write is another example. So there is no escaping brainwashing, BUT there are varying degrees.
Of course, as a TBM I did not consider myself brainwashed although I can look back now and see that I was. Perhaps I am now brainwashed in a different way. At least now I am open to the possibility.
Whether you agree or not with what we have to say, I think you can at least agree that we are sincere in our new beliefs. I wouldn't say there is no Jesus unless I really believed it. So please give us the benefit of the doubt.
I would hardly call it "groundbreaking" but sometimes a thing needs to be said many times before the human mind understands it. I consider anyone who believes in supernatural events as if they actually happened to be brainwashed because that kind of stuff just does not happen. Dead people don't come back to life and since the Bible says they do, I must conclude that the Bible is false.
Samuel has his own way of dealing with people and I admit that it is harsher and stronger than I care to be. I think he could tone it down a bit, but this is his blog and he can say whatever he wants. I can't control him and I'm not even going to try.
I must kindly ask you to stop referring to us as "haters". I have been called this many times recently and it not only isn't true, but is insulting. Leaving the church does not automatically make someone a hater. Samuel is passionate but far from a hater.
"...5 or so blog friends who all comment on each other's posts to help themselves feel all warm and fuzzy."
To be honest, I'm quite surprised that you said this. Isn't this exactly what the Mormons do every single fast sunday? Besides, haven't you ever heard the phrase, "Birds of a feather flock together"? We come here and talk to each other because no one else will listen.
So, first we are outcast by the Mormon community and basically turned into vegabonds, and then we are called haters when we come together to support each other. Can't you see how cruel TBM's are? It seem that they are the real haters because some of them actually threaten our lives. No matter how much I disagree with someone, I would never threaten to kill them. Now you tell me which group intolerant and full of hate.
"defending common sense" Well here is where we have something in common. I will explain common sense in my terms and you explain it in your terms.
Common sense is the most likely outcome of an event or the most likely result of a decision. When a person dies, what is the most likely event? That the person will stay dead. I have never seen a dead person come back to life and I'm pretty sure you haven't either (if a person dies in a hospital and is quickly revived does not count). I am talking about the person being dead, dead, dead. It just doesn't happen and common sense tells me that it never will. I can further conclude from this, that since dead people don't come back to life, and the Bible says they do, then common sense tells me that the Bible is false, like I shared before. And the only way you can prove me wrong is to bring a dead person back to life right in front of my eyes, which you can't and which no one can.
What does common sense mean to you?
Thanks Ray for your comments and I realize you have more patience with these Mormon apologist scumbags than I do. Maybe I've just been called more names and threatened more than you have, I don't know. I have zero tolerance for them and I've heard all of their pathetic excuses a thousand times and so I just tell it like it is, as they are all PATHETIC!!
ReplyDeleteAnyone that justifies the racism, the serial adultery of Joseph Smith with other men's wives and little girls, along with "blood atonement" and MMM, is not somebody that I want to give the time of day to or even try to understand. They are all mentally ill, with no morals or values and they are repulsive and repugnant to me.
Furthermore, we don't invite these people here or force them to comment, as that is their choice. Do I go over to the MAD boards and purposely stir things up and tell them all how fucked in the head they are and start calling them every name in the book and threatening them?
If you enter the Lion's den, you'd better expect to get attacked. It is no secret what I do here or how I feel and they shouldn't be surprised by my response to them.
Hey Rich, remember this verse?
Matthew 5:44:
"But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;"
So there you go man, if you are a true believer and true disciple of Jesus Christ and consider yourself to be a real Christian/Mormon in good standing; you have no choice but to follow these teachings and words, unless you are a hypocrite. I don't see that happening and you appear to be one of those phony Christian/Mormon types to me.
But Rich, you should love us man, since we are your enemies and "haters"(as defined by you) and Christ teaches you to "love your enemies", right?
Start living your religion man and quit being such a hypocrite. You should enjoy being persecuted, if you really love Jesus, because it's just part of it man.
You poor ol' persecuted Mormons...get over your "persecution complex" already.
Samuel
Ray said...
ReplyDeletecommon sense tells me that the Bible is false, like I shared before.
Then why quote the Bible in your Quixotic quest to prove Mormonism false? To me, that's kind of like using Star Trek to prove Star Wars false. :-)
We don't quote the Bible because we believe it... we quote it because you believe it. Pretty sad when we can use your scriptures to put you in your place. :-)
ReplyDelete