Tuesday, February 27, 2007

Spencer W. Kimball's View on American Indians

Here is a great view of Kimball's "Inspired Racism" and what Kimball really thought of "The Lamanites/American Indians" in this October 1960 Conference talk:

"The day of the Lamanites is nigh. For years they have been growing delightsome, and they are now becoming white and delightsome, as they were promised. In this picture of the twenty Lamanite missionaries, fifteen of the twenty were as light as AngIos; five were darker but equally delightsome. The children in the home placement program in Utah are often lighter than their brothers and sisters in the hogans on the reservation.

At one meeting a father and mother and their sixteen-year-old daughter were present, the little member girl-sixteen-sitting between the dark father and mother, and it was evident she was several shades lighter than her parents-on the same reservation, in the same hogan, subject to the same sun and wind and weather. There was the doctor in a Utah city who for two years had had an Indian boy in his home who stated that he was some shades lighter than the younger brother just coming into the program from the reservation. These young members of the Church are changing to whiteness and to delightsomeness. One white elder jokingly said that he and his companion were donating blood regularly to the hospital in the hope that the process might be accelerated.

[Anyone still think he is a prophet of God? Let's see what another one of the "Lord's Anointed" had to say about blacks:]


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

God has commanded Israel not to intermarry. To go against this commandment of God would be in sin. Those who willfully sin with their eyes open to this wrong will not be surprised to find that they will be separated from the presence of God in the world to come. This is spiritual death....

The reason that one would lose his blessings by marrying a Negro is due to the restriction placed upon them. "No person having the least particle of Negro blood can hold the Priesthood" (Brigham Young). It does not matter if they are one-sixth Negro or one-hundred and sixth, the curse of no Priesthood is the same. If an individual who is entitled to the Priesthood marries a Negro, the Lord has decreed that only spirits who are not eligible for the Priesthood will come to that marriage as children. To intermarry with a Negro is to forfeit a "Nation of Priesthood holders"....

The discussion on civil rights, especially over the last 20 years, has drawn some very sharp lines. It has blinded the thinking of some of our own people, I believe. They have allowed their political affiliations to color their thinking to some extent, and then, of course, they have been persuaded by some of the arguments that have been put forth....We who teach in the Church certainly must have our feet on the ground and not to be led astray by the philosophies of men on this subject....

I think I have read enough to give you an idea of what the Negro is after. He is not just seeking the opportunity of sitting down in a cafe where white people eat. He isn't just trying to ride on the same streetcar or the same Pullman car with white people. It isn't that he just desires to go to the same theater as the white people. From this, and other interviews I have read, it appears that the Negro seeks absorption with the white race. He will not be satisfied until he achieves it by intermarriage. That is his objective and we must face it. We must not allow our feelings to carry us away, nor must we feel so sorry for Negroes that we will open our arms and embrace them with everything we have. Remember the little statement that we used to say about sin, "First we pity, then endure, then embrace"....

Now let's talk about segregation again for a few moments. Was segregation a wrong principle? When the Lord chose the nations to which the spirits were to come, determining that some would be Japanese and some would be Chinese and some Negroes and some Americans, He engaged in an act of segregation....

When he told Enoch not preach the gospel to the descendants of Cain who were black, the Lord engaged in segregation. When He cursed the descendants of Cain as to the Priesthood, He engaged in segregation....

Who placed the Negroes originally in darkest Africa? Was it some man, or was it God? And when He placed them there, He segregated them....

The Lord segregated the people both as to blood and place of residence. At least in the cases of the Lamanites and the Negro we have the definite word of the Lord Himself that he placed a dark skin upon them as a curse -- as a punishment and as a sign to all others. He forbade intermarriage with them under threat of extension of the curse. And He certainly segregated the descendants of Cain when He cursed the Negro as to the Priesthood, and drew an absolute line. You may even say He dropped an Iron curtain there....

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.

[If this isn't enough to turn your stomach, try this one:]

Mormon Doctrine, p. 114

In a broad general sense, caste systems have their root and origin in the gospel itself, and when they operate according to the divine decree, the resultant restrictions and segregation are right and proper and have the approval of the Lord. To illustrate: Cain, Ham, and the whole Negro race have been cursed with a black skin, the mark of Cain, so they can be identified as a caste apart, a people with whom the other descendants of Adam should not intermarry. (Gen. 4; Moses 5.) The whole house of Israel was chosen as a peculiar people, one set apart from all other nations (Ex. 19:5-6; Deut. 7:6; 14:2); and they were forbidden to marry outside their own caste. (Ex. 34:10-17; Deut. 7:1-5.) In effect the Lamanites belonged to one caste and the Nephites to another, and a mark was put upon the Lamanites to keep the Nephites from intermixing with and marrying them. (Alma 3:6-11.) All this is not to say that any race, creed, or caste should be denied any inalienable rights. But it is to say that Deity in his infinite wisdom, to carry out his inscrutable purposes, has a caste system of his own, a system of segregation of races and peoples. The justice of such a system is evident when life is considered in its true eternal perspective. It is only by a knowledge of pre-existence that it can be known why some persons are born in one race or caste and some in another. "However, in a broad general sense, caste systems have their origin in the gospel itself, and when they operate according to the divine decree, the resultant restrictions and segregation are right and proper and have the approval of the lord.

pp. 102.

Tough he was rebel and an associate of Lucifer in pre-existence, and though he was a liar from the beginning whose name was Perdition, Cain was cursed with a dark skin; he became the father of the Negroes, and those sprits who are not worthy to receive the priesthood are born though his lineage. He became the first mortal to be cursed as a son of perdition. As a result of his mortal birth he is assured of a tangible body of flesh and bones in eternity, a fact which will enable him to rule over Satan.

pg. 343

Through Ham (a name meaning black) the blood of the Canaanites was preserved through the flood, he having married Egyptus, a descendent of Cain.

Negroes in this life are denied the priesthood; under no circumstances can they hold this delegation of authority from the Almighty. The gospel message of salvation is not carried affirmatively to them... Negroes are not equal with other races where the receipt of certain spiritual blessings are concerned....

[And the saga continues...]

Doctrines of Salvation, pp. 65-66.

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.

pg. 61.

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.

Juvenile Instructor, vol. 26, p. 635

It is very clear that the mark which was set upon the descendants of Cain was a skin of blackness...It has been noticed in our day that men who have lost the spirit of the Lord, and from whom His blessings have been withdrawn, have turned dark to such an extent as to excite the comments of all who have known them.

[Wow, these guys COULDN'T HAVE BEEN WRONG ABOUT THIS, could they?]

Journal of Discourses

Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African Race? If the White man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so.

Vol. 7, pg. 290-291

Cain slew his brother. . . and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin.

You see some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable and low in their habits, wild, and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind. The first man that committed the odious crime of killing one of his brethren will be cursed the longest of any one of the children of Adam. Cain slew his brother. Cain might have been killed, and that would have put a termination to that line of human beings. This was not to be, and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin. Trace mankind down to after the flood, and then another curse is pronounced upon the same race--that they should be the "servant of servants;" and they will be, until that curse is removed.

Journal of Discourses, Vol. 22, pg. 304.

And after the flood we are told that the curse that had been pronounced upon Cain was continued through Hams' wife, as he had married a wife of that seed. And why did it pass through the flood? Because it was necessary that the devil should have a representative upon the earth as well as God.

Millennial Star, Vol. 14, pg. 418.

For instance, the descendants of Cain cannot cast off their skin of blackness, at once, and immediately, although every soul of them should repent,....Cain and his posterity must wear the mark which God put upon them; and his white friends may wash the race of Cain with fuller's soap every day, they cannot wash away God's mark.

[think we have outgrown this teaching, and we've put it behind us? Wrong...]

Year 2001 update

"Racial degeneration, resulting in differences in appearance and spiritual aptitude, has arisen since the fall. We know the circumstances under which the posterity of Cain (and later of Ham) were born with the characteristics of the black race. (Moses 5:16-41; 7:8,12,22; Abra. 1:20-27.) The Book of Mormon explains why the Lamanites received dark skins and a degenerate status. (2 Ne. 5:21-23.) If we had a full and true history of all races and nations, we would know the origins of all their distinctive characteristics. In the absence of such detailed information, however, we know only the general principle that all these changes from the physical and spiritual perfections of our common parents have been brought about by departure from the gospel truths. (Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 1, pp. 148-151; vol. 3, pp. 313-326.)" (Mormon Doctrine 1999 printing, p. 616)

*My Thoughts*

This racist attitude is not tolerated in any AMERICAN social clubs, business and professional organizations, public gathering places, or schools. They would be boycotted, picketed, demonstrated against, and on the front pages of the news for their racist policies. Yet we are supposed to turn a blind eye to Mormonism's past, and pretend that they have put it all behind them. They have never once refuted these teachings, made any apologies for their obvious racism and segregation practices, or denied that these teachings came from their prophets 'called of God'. The best excuse I have heard is, "we don't know why God taught us these things."


White men in positions of power and authority, calling themselves prophets and apostles of God made these into 'teachings from God'. YOU DO NOT HAVE TO ACCEPT THEM! They are obviously false, slanderous, and full of hate towards men and women of races other than the 'white and delightsome' kind. IT DOESN'T MATTER THAT THEY DON'T ACTIVELY PROMOTE THESE IDEAS ANYMORE. The fact that they have NEVER denied these as "coming from God" shows that they do still believe in the curse of Cain, that the black man and the Lamanite (American Indian for those of us who believe in DNA) are 'mentally and spiritually INFERIOR to the white man'.

There is NO WAY I will ever go back to an organization that teaches you that as long as you have white skin, you were born pure, and were the most valiant of the pre-existant spirits, and those who are born with dark skin are loathsome and cursed, bearing the mark of their ancestors and doomed to eternal servitude in the Celestial Kingdom.

GIVE ME OUTER DARKNESS rather than make me live eternally with a bunch of RACIST, HOLIER-THAN-THOU, WHITE AND DELIGHTSOME MORMONS!!!

Monday, February 26, 2007

Will The Racist Mormon History Spell Big Trouble For Mitt Romney ?

By Samuel the Utahnite at his blog:

Excellent link here: an interracial couple on the Today show talks about Mormonism and the treatment of Blacks

William and Janet Langhart Cohen have written a new book entitled "Love In Black And White" discussing racism, religion, love and their marriage.

In any case, it most certainly isn't a good thing for the Mormon Hierarhcy to hear this being openly discussed, especially when Mitt Romney himself, the Mormon in question, refuses to discuss his religion and refers everyone to church headquarters, if they want answers about what Mormons believe.

Oh, he doesn't know yet what he believes and "it isn't his job" to explain why he calls himself a "devout Mormon" and to explain what that means and what he and his church believe?

Call me crazy, but the man was both a Bishop and Stake President and is very well versed in Mormon theology, teachings, doctrines and history. If he isn't, he's a complete idiot, with the callings and experience he's had. Don't let this slick snake-oil salesmen fool you.....as he knows exactly what he's saying and not saying and he isn't the clueless, bumbling idiot he pretends to be when asked about Mormonism.

The fact is, the Mormon Hierarchy can't continue to run from their racist teachings anymore, because that's all they've been doing since their beginning, and especially since 1978 and they are now being exposed. Thankfully, Mitt Romney's run for President, is helping to expose the Mormon cult and their evil, vile racism, along with many other horrific beliefs and teachings, for all the world to finally see, in all its shame.

It's funny to see how they've been trying so desperately to hide everything, especially in the new Internet age(which caught them completely by surprise), and they just keep getting exposed more and more everyday by me, other ex-Mormons and even "The Today Show." It's about time the world knew the truth!!

So, the best thing that happened for the world, is Mitt Romney running for President. The worst thing that could have happened to Mormonism and the Mormon Hierarchy and their cult, is Mitt Romney running for President. But, they are too dumb to realize that, in their overzealousness to get a Mormon in the Whitehouse, which dates back to Joseph Smith, when he ran for President and failed miserably.

After all, the "US Constitution will literally hang by a thread" and it will be the Mormons that rush in and save it, right? What better place to be, to make that happen, than in the Whitehouse, with Hinckley or Monson on speed dial, right? I always wondered how that was going to happen. Of course those of us that have escaped the Mormon cult, now realize that was just pure fantasy and bullshit and the Mormons are never gonna save anybody from anything, let alone the US Constitution.

In any case, I'm sure many current and future Mormon cult members and investigators, will now be taking a 2nd look at what exactly Mormonism has taught and believed since 1820, that otherwise wouldn't have and will they ever be surprised and shocked at what they find.

In this video clip, Janet Langhart Cohen, makes some great points about the history of Mormon racism and I want to go through them one by one, to show that what she said is exactly true. One thing she was wrong on though, is that it ended in 1978...which it clearly didn't. Just look at the November 2006 Ensign centerfold of GAs (pages 64 and 65) and you won't find one black man there anywhere, just like pre-1978. So, nothing has changed at all!! Like the old saying says; "the more things change, the more they stay the same."

Blacks may have been given the Priesthood in 1978, but all of the Mormon Hierarchy's racist teachings, regarding the origins of the black race and that they were cursed in the pre-existence, have stood and as I mentioned, are still sold and supported by the current Mormon Hierarchy, including Hinckley, The First Presidency and the Twelve Apostles.

Also, even if the Mormon racism had officially ended in 1978, some explanation, other than "God is this giant, raving, lunatic racist in the sky and we were just waiting on him to change his racist mind", is necessary, isn't it?

They really expect the world to believe that the world's "one and only true God" of "the one and only true church" , Mr. "all powerful of the Universe and all creation", that loves everyone equally, was just a big bad racist until 1978 and then came around, because they prayed and pleaded a lot?

Janet Langhart Cohen said:

"But if you understand the Mormon faith, up until 1978, an interracial marriage, the Mormons would have considered a sin, they would have considered me, as an African American cursed, that God didn't hear my prayers, that I was inferior."

So, up until 1978, was interracial marriage considered a sin? Well, Kimball claims it isn't "a sin", but "not expedient" and then goes on to list all the reasons why. As I quoted in the above video, Brigham Young not only believed it was a SIN, but promoted and taught "death on the spot" and said that "it will always be so" and Mark E. Peterson made it clear that his posterity would be "cursed", if there was even "ONE DROP OF NEGRO BLOOD" in his children.

So please allow me to share the following quotes, from former Mormon Prophets and Apostles, regrading interracial marriage and I'll then let you all decide where Mormonism stood on the issue and in my opinion, still stands on the issue, since once again, none of these statements have ever been repudiated, apologized for or corrected, in any way, shape or form and are still sold today, in Mormon Hierarchy owned and run bookstores:

Brigham Young:

Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so (Journal of Discourses, vol. 10, p. 110).

Mark E. Peterson:

We must not inter-marry with the Negro. Why? If I were to marry a Negro woman and have children by her, my children would all be cursed as to the priesthood. . .. If there is one drop of Negro blood in my children, as I have read to you, they receive the curse. (Race Problems—As They Affect the Church, speech by Mark E. Petersen, BYU, August 27, 1954).

Spencer W. Kimball:

Cultural differences pose dangers for marriage. When I said you must teach your people to overcome their prejudices and accept the Indians, I did not mean that you would encourage intermarriage. I mean that they should be brothers, to worship together and to work together and to play together; but we must discourage intermarriage, not because it is sin. I would like to make this very emphatic. A couple has not committed sin if an Indian boy and a white girl are married, or vice versa. It isn’t a transgression like the transgressions of which many are guilty. But it is not expedient. Marriage statistics and our general experience convince us that marriage is not easy. It is difficult when all factors are favorable. The divorces increase constantly, even where the spouses have the same general background of race, religion, finances, education, and otherwise. (58-08)

The interrace marriage problem is not one of inferiority or superiority. It may be that your son is better educated and may be superior in his culture, and yet it may be on the other hand that she is superior to him. It is a matter of backgrounds. The difficulties and hazards of marriage are greatly increased where backgrounds are different. For a wealthy person to marry a pauper promises difficulties. For an ignoramus to marry one with a doctor’s degree promises difficulties, heartaches, misunderstandings, and broken marriages.

When one considers marriage, it should be an unselfish thing, but there is not much selflessness when two people of different races plan marriage. They must be thinking selfishly of themselves. They certainly are not considering the problems that will beset each other and that will beset their children.

If your son thinks he loves this girl, he would not want to inflict upon her loneliness and unhappiness; and if he thinks that his affection for her will solve all her problems, he should do some more mature thinking.

We are unanimous, all of the Brethren, in feeling and recommending that Indians marry Indians, and Mexicans marry Mexicans; the Chinese marry Chinese and the Japanese marry Japanese; that the Caucasians marry the Caucasians, and the Arabs marry Arabs. (0/0/59) (Spencer W. Kimball, The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, edited by Edward L. Kimball [Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1982], 303.)

Boyd K. Packer says:

"Now, one other subject. It's been the policy of the Church--and it's been spoken on many occasions--that as the gathering of Israel is in Mexico for the Mexicans, in Tonga for the Tongans, in China for the Chinese, and so on, so has been our counsel as it relates to marriage."

"We've always counseled in the Church for our Mexican members to marry Mexicans, our Japanese members to marry Japanese, our Caucasians to marry Caucasians, our Polynesian members to marry Polynesians. The counsel has been wise. You may say again, "Well, I know of exceptions." I do, too, and they've been very successful marriages. I know some of them. You might even say, "I can show you local Church leaders or perhaps even general leaders who have married out of their race." I say, "Yes--exceptions." Then I would remind you of that Relief Society woman's near-scriptural statement, 'We'd like to follow the rule first, and then we'll take care of the exceptions.'"

"For every exception we can show you tens and hundreds, and I suppose thousands, who were not happy. Plan, young people, to marry into your own race. This counsel is good, and I hope our branch presidents are listening and paying attention. The counsel is good."

"Things are not always easy when we receive counsel, whether the counsel is to return to serve among our own people or whether it is counsel to marry among our own culture and racial backgrounds. Always there is a decision. Always we can say, "We're an exception." But I say, in the words of that Relief Society sister, 'As for me, I'm going to follow the rule first; and then, should there be an exception, perhaps that will be made known.'" (Follow The Rule, by Boyd K. Packer given on January 14, 1977.)

June 9,1978 - First Presidency announces "priesthood now available to all worthy male members." First Presidency secretary Francis M. Gibbons writes that this change "seemed to relieve them of a subtle sense of guilt they had felt over the years."

June 17,1978 - Church News headline "Interracial Marriage Discouraged" in the same issue which announces authorization of priesthood for those of black African descent. Sources at church headquarters indicate that Apostle Mark E. Petersen requires this emphasis.

So, at one time, according to Brigham Young, it required your life and you deserved "death on the spot", it was such a serious issue. Then Kimball strongly discourages it, as does the entire Mormon Hierarchy, but says that it isn't a sin. Boyd K. Packer says, "It's been the policy of the Church--and it's been spoken on many occasions--that as the gathering of Israel is in Mexico for the Mexicans, in Tonga for the Tongans, in China for the Chinese, and so on, so has been our counsel as it relates to marriage."

So, it's at least crystal clear that the Mormon Hierarchy was and still is against interracial marriage, but they tolerate it, only because they have to...but you've all been warned against it and know how they feel regarding the issue. Also, don't think that you are like Mormon leaders or the Mormon Hierarchy that have interracial marriages and that you are "an exception."

I do find it amazing, ironic and sad, as I noted above, that in the very same issue of the Church News, where they announced that Blacks could finally have the Priesthood, after 148 years of racism; that they had to throw on the headline of "Interracial Marriage Discouraged." I think that pretty much says it all and tells us how they really feel and that if it had really been up to them(and if they didn't have to cave to the pressures of society and the threat of losing their tax-exempt status); things never would have changed. Once again, in my opinion, giving blacks the Priesthood was a financial decision, just like every other thing they do.

So, once again, Janet Langhart Cohen said:

"But if you understand the Mormon faith, up until 1978, an interracial marriage, the Mormons would have considered a sin, they would have considered me, as an African American cursed, that God didn't hear my prayers, that I was inferior."

So, I've now covered the interracial marriage issue and what the Mormon Prophets and Apostles have taught regarding that and it's clear that official Mormon doctrine states, that all blacks are cursed with "black skin", a "flat nose", are the "seed of Cain", are an "inferior race" and "representative of Satan" himself, were "unworthy in the pre-existence/first estate", etc, etc, as I clearly show in the video. So, now what about the last part, where she commented that the Mormon Hierarchy taught that "God didn't hear my prayers, that I was inferior?"

Well, I've also covered the inferior part, but I haven't yet found anything specific in the Mormon doctrines or teachings, saying that God didn't hear the prayers of black people, but the circumstantial evidence is pretty damn powerful and overwhelming, showing that that would obviously have to be the case.

Considering that in July 1967, the Church-wide Priesthood Bulletin prohibited women from praying in sacrament meeting, and the ban stayed in effect until December 29, 1978, that would also have had to obviously include all black women and probably men too, since they couldn't have the Priesthood, which was obviously a requirement to pray in Sacrament meeting at that time. How many of you even knew about that one? So, it's official that God didn't hear the prayers of any women, including black women, in Sacrament meeting, since they were banned from even praying at all.

You can almost just stop at the racism and sexism, by God's supposed "anointed Prophets, Seers and Revelators" and have enough ammunition to know that it's all nothing but a crock of shit and a complete fraud, run by nothing by bigoted, racist men.

So, let's go into detail, what black people weren't able to do, in the Mormon church, before the 1978 so called "Priesthood revelation" and see if God was listening to their prayers or not:

1. Black men, women and children were banned from all the temples. Black men didn't have the Priesthood, Black women were banned just because of their skin color and black children couldn't do baptisms for the dead, because of their skin color and the fact that they were CURSED and the seed of Cain.

2. This temple banning of all blacks, also meant that black couples could not be sealed together in the temple, children couldn't be sealed to their parents and thus they couldn't be an "Eternal Family", which is the main marketing slogan of Mormonism. Why any blacks joined the Mormon church before 1978, I'll never know, but there certainly weren't very many.

3. Due to not having the Priesthood, black men(or boys), could not bless or pass the sacrament, they couldn't bless their children or wives when they were sick or needed comfort. Instead, they had to call on the white men of the church, to come to their house and do it, since they weren't worthy and were CURSED as the seed of Cain. They also couldn't bless their houses, or dedicate a grave at a funeral, serve missions(which was really a blessing), etc, etc.

4-Due to the Priesthood ban, black men couldn't ever have any type of leadership role in the Mormon church at all and they could only sit silently by and watch the white men run the church. When you look at todays Mormon Hierarchy, including the First Presidency, Apostles, Presiding Bishopric and Seventies, nothing has changed one iota, as there isn't one black man in any of those positions and there has been only one black Seventy since 1978, Helvécio Martins.

So, I would say that the racist, Mormon God wasn't listening to or answering the prayers of black folks in the Mormon church, for at least 148 years, since they couldn't have the Priesthood, go to the temple or even have the very basic "Mormon Eternal Family." Why would anyone subject themselves to this bigotry and racism?!! An even better question is how can anyone today, that is currently active in the Mormon church, even begin to excuse, justify and rationalize this bigoted and racist behavior and teachings, as if they are no big deal and don't matter.

If the current Mormon Hierarchy didn't still believe their past racist teachings, they would repudiate them and offer an "official apology" to the world and then stop printing and selling them, which they will never, EVER do. I guess better to be an inspired, RACIST Prophet or Apostle, of a RACIST Mormon God, than to apologize to the world and have to admit to the litany of mistakes, doctrines of bigotry and hate and false teachings that have been made and taught by the "we can't lead you astray or God will remove us Hierarchy", right?

Basically, an apology would be an admission of guilt, that the church and its members were severely misguided, led astray and that the Mormon church isn't led by inspiration, or Prophets or Apostles and therefore isn't the "one and only true church" that they claim it is, which would bring it to its knees.

So, the bottom line folks, is that they will never apologize for their racist past and teachings(even if they didn't truly believe them) because they can't and too much money and too many cult members, current and future, are riding on not apologizing. IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN!!

They are playing the odds very stupidly, that they can hide it all in the closet and keep it hidden there; but thanks to Mitt Romney and all of the ex-Mormons blogging, it is now taking center stage and out of the closet for all the world to finally see.

In the end, it will be their utter arrogance and pride, and refusal to apologize or repent(their refusal to follow the very same repentance process they hold members to) of their past sins, that will bring the church and the Mormon Hierarchy to its very knees.

So, thanks Mitt Romney, for running for President, so that the world can finally learn the real "Mormon Truth" and see the long hidden skeletons of Mormonism as they tumble and fall out of the closet, in a big, gigantic pile. The next couple of years will be amongst the most embarrassing in Mormon history, as people turn to the Internet in mass, all around the US and world, to learn the facts about Mormonism.

The question is; what will you do with that truth once you learn it? Will you become a disgusting, loathsome Mormon apologist, with no moral values, like Daniel C. Peterson and then begin to defend, excuse and justify all the Mormon Hierarchy's teachings of hate, racism, sexism, etc, or will you have the inner strength, to admit that these things are wrong and couldn't have possibly come from men of God and to walk away?

*My Thoughts*

I was considering attending the funeral of someone I used to know from my days as a Mormon teenager and young adult. It's being held at the Mormon chapel of my upbringing. I don't know if I can step foot inside a church that still secretly and privately believes that Blacks are the remnant of the seed of Cain, and that whites should marry whites only, and blacks should stick to their own kind.

Even within the whites of the church, there is a difference between BIC and Converts. I have heard it mentioned more than once that the truest most valiant and choice spirits were those born to Mormon families, without having to be converted, and certainly without having to be born in deepest darkest Africa...

I don't know if I can sit through a Mormon church service masquerading as a funeral with this knowledge swimming around in my head, and not ONE LDS MEMBER willing to publicly refute it or stand up and defend it!!!!

If you are lurking, reading and privately condemning me for posting all these 'hateful' posts against Mormons, then by all means, just TRY to defend your faith....I dare you to justify even half of what I have posted here. It's not up to me to just blindly accept it, It's up to you Mormons to justify your beliefs and really convince others that you are Christian!! Everything about your church and your beliefs and your culture and your teachings and your loyalty screams CULT to the rest of the world....HOW can you just sit there and deny that we have any basis for our condemnation of the church?

If you are too scared to check out your own church against the facts, too afraid that you'll loose your testimony and be in Satan's power if you let your faith waiver, then you deserve the cage you force yourself to live in.

Saturday, February 24, 2007

Romney family tree has polygamy branch


Associated Press Writers
Sat Feb 24, 6:02 PM ET

SALT LAKE CITY - While Mitt Romney condemns polygamy and its prior practice by his Mormon church, the Republican presidential candidate's great-grandfather had five wives and at least one of his great-great grandfathers had 12.

Polygamy was not just a historical footnote, but a prominent element in the family tree of the former Massachusetts governor now seeking to become the first Mormon president.

Romney's great-grandfather, Miles Park Romney, married his fifth wife in 1897. That was more than six years after Mormon leaders banned polygamy and more than three decades after a federal law barred the practice.

Romney's great-grandmother, Hannah Hood Hill, was the daughter of polygamists. She wrote vividly in her autobiography about how she "used to walk the floor and shed tears of sorrow" over her own husband's multiple marriages.

Romney's great-great grandfather, Parley Pratt, an apostle in the church, had 12 wives. In an 1852 sermon, Parley Pratt's brother and fellow apostle, Orson Pratt, became the first church official to publicly proclaim and defend polygamy as a direct revelation from God.

Romney's father, former Michigan Gov. George Romney, was born in Chihuahua, Mexico, where Mormons fled in the 1800s to escape religious persecution and U.S. laws forbidding polygamy. He and his family did not return to the United States until 1912, more than two decades after the church issued "The Manifesto" banning polygamy.

"When you read the family's history, you realize how important polygamy was to them," said Todd Compton, a Mormon and independent historian who wrote a book about the polygamous life of the church's founder, Joseph Smith. "They left America and started again as pioneers, after they had done it over and over again previously."

B. Carmon Hardy, a polygamy expert and retired history professor at California State University-Fullerton, said polygamy was "a very important part of Miles Park Romney's family."

Hardy added: "Now, very gradually, as you moved farther away from it, it became less a part of it. But during the time of Miles Park Romney, it was an essential principle of the Romney family life."

Other Mormons have run for the White House, including Romney's father in 1968 and Sen. Orrin Hatch (news, bio, voting record), R-Utah, in 2000. But Mitt Romney's stature as a leading 2008 contender has renewed questions about his faith and its doctrines.

At the same time, polygamy remains a part of current events.

HBO is airing a television series, "Big Love," that features a man in Utah — where the Mormon church is based — with three wives. Self-proclaimed "Mormon fundamentalist" Warren Jeffs, formerly on the
FBI's 10 most wanted list, is facing multiple felony charges for sex crimes related to underage marriages among members of his breakaway church's 10,000 members in Utah and Arizona, who openly practice polygamy.

Romney has joked about polygamy, saying in various settings that to him, "marriage is between a man and a woman ... and a woman and a woman." But in serious moments he has called the practice "bizarre" and noted his church excommunicates those who engage in it.

An introductory film played at his fundraisers and campaign appearances features his wife, Ann, talking about their 37-year marriage. Romney himself notes they started as high school sweethearts.

This month, Ann Romney tried a different tack, taking a lighthearted jab at her husband's main Republican competitors, Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record), R-Ariz., and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, as she introduced Romney at a Missouri GOP dinner.

The biggest difference between her husband and the other candidates, Ann Romney said, is that "he's had only one wife."

McCain has been married twice; Giuliani three times.

The Romney campaign had no comment for this story.

Joseph Smith, who founded the Mormon church in 1830, quietly introduced polygamy. He believed it had roots in the Old Testament and was necessary to reach the highest salvation in heaven. Smith is believed to have had 33 wives.

Brigham Young expanded the practice after the church's migration from the Midwest to Utah, which began in 1846. He is said to have had 55 wives. Historical texts show Young also asked Orson Pratt to publicly proclaim the church's belief in polygamy in 1852.

In 1862, while Utah was a territory, President Abraham Lincoln signed the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act, banning plural marriage. In 1882, Congress also passed the Edmunds Act, an anti-polygamy law. That was followed in 1887 by the Edmunds-Tucker Act, which disincorporated the church and threatened to seize its nonreligious real estate as part of the crackdown on polygamy.

In 1890, Mormon President Wilford Woodruff issued "The Manifesto," in which he declared the church no longer taught or permitted plural marriages.

Nonetheless, the law of polygamy — Smith's revelation that God authorized polygamy — remains in Article 132 of the church's Doctrine and Covenants. In addition, Mormon widowers who remarry today believe they will live in eternity with their multiple wives.

Mormon genealogical records, among the most detailed and complete of any religion, show that two of Mitt Romney's great-great grandfathers, Miles Romney and Parley Pratt, had 12 wives each.

Compton, the polygamy scholar, disputes that. He believes Miles Romney only had one wife because the records do not show the dates for his other 11 marriages or any offspring from them.

Miles Romney and his one clearly documented wife, Elizabeth Gaskell, had 10 children. Among them was Miles Park Romney, one of Mitt Romney's great-grandfathers.

Miles Park Romney had five wives. With his first wife, Hannah Hood Hill, he had 11 children. Among them was Gaskell Romney, Mitt Romney's paternal grandfather.

Hannah Hood Hill's autobiography offers an eyewitness account of the Romney family's polygamous past. Hardy, the Cal-State historian, found it amid research for his upcoming book, "Doing the Works of Abraham: Mormon Polygamy."

Hood Hill wrote of Miles Park Romney: "I felt that was more than I could endure, to have him divide his time and affections from me. I used to walk the floor and shed tears of sorrow. If anything will make a woman's heart ache, it is for her husband to take another wife. ... But I put my trust in my heavenly father, and prayed and pleaded with him to give me strength to bear this great trial."

Miles Park Romney's final marriage, to Emily Eyring Smith, came in 1897, more than six years after "The Manifesto."

Gaskell Romney, Mitt Romney's grandfather, was not a polygamist. He married Anna Amelia Pratt, the daughter of polygamists and the granddaughter of Parley Pratt, the apostle with 12 wives. Their marriage took place Feb. 20, 1895, in Dublan, Mexico.

Gaskell Romney had moved to Mexico with his parents in 1884 amid the proliferation of U.S. laws prohibiting "unlawful cohabitation." Anna Pratt was born in Utah, but had emigrated to Mexico and lived in one of nine Mormon colonies established over the border.

Gaskell Romney and Anna Pratt had seven children, including George Wilcken Romney, the former Michigan governor. He lived with his parents in Mexico until 1912, when the family returned to the United States.

George Romney married Lenore LaFount, who does not appear to have polygamy in her family tree. The couple, now deceased, had four children, including Mitt Romney.

*My Thoughts*

So, now is the ASSOCIATED PRESS Anti-Mormon? WHY?

Just because they are stating things that are true, but 'not useful'?

Thankfully, they are not under the same constraints as those 'scholars' over at fairlds.com. They don't have to worry about "how to teach with the spirit". They can report the facts, and let each individual person use their OWN intellectual brain to draw their own conclusions. They don't prepare the reader by coming up with the final opinion first, and then describe how one carefully and "prayerfully' reaches the same conclusion...

I MUCH prefer to live in the real world, where information is freely exchanged and accumulated, nothing has to be cast aside simply because of its source. Even false information can be shared, critiqued and questioned and then rational decisions can be made on the remaining peices. Not so with the Mormons. They give you the conclusion they want, and the formula that you must use to arrive at the same agreement, thus proving you are a faithful and loyal member.

And Mormons think Scientology is weird? There are so many similarities, it isn't even funny.

Friday, February 23, 2007

Are Mormons Christians just because they SAY they are?

The LDS church has recently exerted great effort to portray itself as a Christian denomination:

  • All editions of the Book of Mormon were simply entitled the 'Book of Mormon' until 1982 when the subtitle "Another Testament of Jesus Christ" was added.
  • In 1995 the words 'Jesus Christ' on the official letterhead of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints were enlarged until they were three times the size of the rest of the text.
  • In Salt Lake City's Temple Square, the guides' patter, once full of proud references to Smith, is now almost entirely Christological. "We talk about Christ a lot more than we used to," says editor of the temple magazine. "We want to show the converts we are Christians".
  • A number of recent LDS books such as Stephen E. Robinson's 'Are Mormons Christian'? attempt to make Mormonism and Christianity appear to be the same.
  • The official name of the LDS Church has not always contained the name of 'Jesus Christ'. At its inception on April 6, 1830 until May 3, 1834, the name of 'Church of Christ' was adopted. But from May 3, 1834 to April 25, 1838, the name 'The Church of the Latter Day Saints' was adopted by unanimous vote at a conference of Elders moderated by Joseph Smith, Jr. (The Evening and Morning Star, 2(20): 160, May 1834; History of the Church 2:62). On April 26, 1838 the name was changed to 'The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' as named in a 'revelation' (Doctrine and Covenants 115:3) to Smith.

Yet LDS leaders seem to fall on both sides of this issue. For example, President Hinckley says:

  • "Am I Christian? Of course I am. I believe in Christ. I talk of Christ. I pray through Christ. I’m trying to follow Him and live His gospel in my life" (LDS Church News, 6/28/98).
  • However, in reference to whether he believes 'in the traditional Christ' Hinckley responds: "No, I don't. The traditional Christ of whom they [non-Mormons] speak is not the Christ of whom I speak. For the Christ of whom I speak has been revealed in this the Dispensation of the Fulness of Times. He together with His Father, appeared to the boy Joseph Smith in the year 1820, and when Joseph left the grove that day, he knew more of the nature of God than all the learned ministers of the gospel of the ages" (LDS Church News Week 6/20/98, p.7).

Of course, early Mormon prophets and leaders made VERY clear statements explaining that their church was NOT a Christian denomination (see: The Only True Church?). They claimed that there was a total apostasy of all Christendom after the death of the original apostles. Here are just a few quotes:

  • Joseph Smith stated: "This [LDS] Church...the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth" (Doctrine and Covenants 1:30). "What is it that inspires professors of Christianity generally with a hope of salvation? It is that smooth, sophisticated influence of the devil, by which he deceives the whole world" (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p.270);
  • Brigham Young stated: "Should you ask why we differ from other Christians, as they are called, it is simply because they are not Christians as the New Testament defines Christianity" (Journal of Discourses, 10:230);
  • Apostle Orson Pratt proclaimed: "Both Catholics and Protestants are nothing less than the 'whore of Babylon' whom the Lord denounces by the mouth of John the Revelator as having corrupted all the earth by their fornications and wickedness. Any person who shall be so corrupt as to receive a holy ordinance of the Gospel from the ministers of any of these apostate churches will be sent down to hell with them, unless they repent" (The Seer, p. 255).
  • Apostle Bruce McConkie is also very clear: "Apostasy was universal...And this darkness still prevails except among those who have come to a knowledge of the restored gospel" (Doctrines of Salvation, vol 3, p.265). "Virtually all the millions of apostate Christendom have abased themselves before the mythical throne of a mythical Christ" (LDS Apostle Bruce McConkie, in Mormon Doctrine, p.269).
  • President Ezra Taft Benson said: "This is not just another Church. This is not just one of a family of Christian churches. This is the Church and kingdom of God, the only true Church upon the face of the earth..." (Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, p.164-165).

The Mormon response to those who question whether they are Christians is to accuse them of being contentious and unloving. Mormons will proudly claim that the LDS church never criticizes other beliefs and therefore no one should criticize them. Based on the statements above, this obviously isn't true; the Mormon reaction is merely feigned indignation or reflects an ignorance of statements made by their own leaders.

Thursday, February 22, 2007

Romney's "Mormon Problem"

From: The American Spectator
By David Holman
Published 12/16/2005

While some reluctance toward a Mormon president may be reactionary, many Americans will have legitimate, rational questions about Mormonism that they have already answered about Catholicism. They'll want to know if Mormons are indeed Christians, as the LDS Church says. President Gordon B. Hinckley adamantly maintains Mormons' Christianity: "Are we Christians? Of course we are! No one can honestly deny that."

Yet beyond Christian-sounding platitudes, the Mormon version of Christianity is pretty novel. To Mormons, the Book of Mormon is equivalent to, if not preeminent over, the Bible. Joseph Smith said, "I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book." Mormons reject the Holy Trinity, instead believing God, Son, and Holy Spirit to be separate beings. People preexisted as God's "spirit children" until we assumed human bodies on Earth. Adam is the same person as Michael the Archangel. Married couples can become gods in the afterlife.

LDS moral teachings will likely displease social conservatives when they learn the church's position on abortion sounds more like a political compromise than a well-reasoned moral teaching. "There is seldom any excuse for abortion," LDS teaches, except when the pregnancy is the result of incest or rape, the "life or health" of the mother is in "jeopardy," or the child has "severe defects that will not allow the baby to survive beyond birth." In Romney's defense, though, Grover Norquist argues in our December/January issue that some social conservatives like Chuck Colson can back Romney because he supports the Defense of Marriage Act.

The church's policies on blacks and polygamy, while in the past, could rankle many conservatives and liberals alike. Brigham Young banned blacks from the priesthood in 1852. In his Journal of Discourses, Young affirmed the "curse of Cain," the Mormon doctrine that blacks bear the fallen brother's punishment: "The Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin." It wasn't until 1978 that LDS President Spencer W. Kimball (co-signing with counselors N. Eldon Tanner and Marion G. Romney, a second cousin of Gov. Romney) announced that God had revealed all "worthy male members" could now be ordained "without regard for race or color."

Polygamy was revealed as licit by God to Joseph Smith in the early days of the Church, and then revealed as illicit by God to President Wilford Woodruff in the 1890 "Manifesto." It thrives to this day in Utah -- some estimate there are as many as 50,000 -- and polygamists claim to be following the true, original teachings of the LDS. Their foremost historical figures and prophets were inexhaustible practitioners of "The Principle." Joseph Smith took dozens of wives, often claiming that he was commanded to do so by the Almighty Himself. Brigham Young followed suit, marrying as many as 27 women.

Forget about the press's old maxim, "Does it play well in Peoria?" This doesn't play well in Colorado Springs or in your local church. If there's any doubt, look at the 2004 National Day of Prayer, when Mormons asked to offer a prayer. Shirley Dobson, wife of Focus on the Family's Dr. James Dobson, said no. These aren't small matters, especially to evangelical Christians. The press will report them as soon they take Romney seriously. The country may not openly discuss the Mormon faith when it considers Romney's candidacy, but you can bet they'll be whispering about it. And it will play a role.

If any Mormon can justify this, I would love to hear from you!

Today is my niece's thirteenth birthday. And she also happens to be Mormon. I am grateful that she didn't live during Joseph's Smith's day, or in the days before 1890, when The Manifesto was adopted by the LDS church (even though it took another 20 years or so for the practice to finally stop within the bounds of the church). When I think about her, or my own daughter, I can't help but think about another young teen girl named Helen Mar Kimball. She was only fourteen when she married 38-year-old Joseph Smith. At the time, she was neither orphaned or widowed, she was not in need of being looked after, she was taken from her parents home to be sealed to Joseph Smith for the express purpose of ensuring her family's place in the Celestial Kingdom. That's not even the worst of it. As a consequence, she had to give up her remaining childhood, and become a woman overnight. She couldn't even be allowed to attend social functions where Joseph would be, for fear that Emma would find out about the relationship. She became isolated from her peers, and hidden away as Joseph's "dirty little secret". She wasn't even the only young maiden Joseph had made his "wife".

Fanny Alger 16
Sarah Ann Whitney 17
Lucy Walker 17
Flora Ann Woodworth 16
Emily Dow Partridge 19
Sarah Lawrence 17
Maria Lawrence 19

Helen Mar Kimball 14
Melissa Lott 19
Nancy M. Winchester [14?]

Anyone still having doubts that any of these women were plural wives of Joseph Smith, take a look at your own familysearch.org under Joseph Smith, you will get a list of 33 wives. most sealed to him before his death in 1844. And don't delude yourselves into thinking that they were sealed in name only, There would be no reason for Emma to have cast the Partridge sisters from her home if she didn't have proof that Joseph was having sex with them.

This is Helen's story:

In 1843 Apostle Heber C. Kimball had an important talk with his only daughter, fourteen-year-old Helen Mar. She wrote: “Without any preliminaries [my Father] asked me if I would believe him if he told me that it was right for married men to take other wives...The first impulse was anger...my sensibilities were painfully touched. I felt such a sense of personal injury and displeasure; for to mention such a thing to me I thought altogether unworthy of my father, and as quick as he spoke, I replied to him, short and emphatically, ‘No I wouldn’t!’...This was the first time that I ever openly manifested anger towards him...Then he commenced talking seriously and reasoned and explained the principle, and why it was again to be established upon the earth. [This] had a similar effect to a sudden shock of a small earthquake.”

Then father “asked me if I would be sealed to Joseph...[and] left me to reflect upon it for the next twenty-four hours...I was sceptical-one minute believed, then doubted. I thought of the love and tenderness that he felt for his only daughter, and I knew that he would not cast her off, and this was the only convincing proof that I had of its being right. I knew that he loved me too well to teach me anything that was not strictly pure, virtuous and exalting in its tendencies; and no one else could have influenced me at that time or brought me to accept of a doctrine so utterly repugnant and so contrary to all of our former ideas and traditions.” Unknown to Helen Mar, Heber and Joseph had already discussed the prospect of Helen Mar becoming one of Joseph’s wives. Heber now sought her agreement. Helen recalls, “Having a great desire to be connected with the Prophet Joseph, he offered me to him; this I afterwards learned from the Prophet’s own mouth. My father had but one Ewe Lamb, but willingly laid her upon the alter”

Joseph promised Helen eternal salvation if she would agree to marry him:

"[He explained] the principle of Celestial marrage...After which he said to me, ‘If you will take this step, it will ensure your eternal salvation & exaltation and that of your father’s household & all of your kindred.[‘] This promise was so great that I willingly gave myself to purchase so glorious a reward. None but God & his angels could see my mother’s bleeding heart-when Joseph asked her if she was willing...She had witnessed the sufferings of others, who were older & who better understood the step they were taking, & to see her child, who had scarcely seen her fifteenth summer, following in the same thorny path, in her mind she saw the misery which was as sure to come...; but it was all hidden from me.”

During the winter of 1843-44, there were weekly parties at Joseph Smith’s Mansion House. Many of Helen’s friends attended, as well as her sixteen-year-old brother William. Disappointed, Helen wrote,

“my father had been warned by the Prophet to keep his daughter away...I felt quite sore over it, and thought it a very unkind act in father to allow [William] to go and enjoy the dance unrestrained with others of my companions, and fettered me down, for no girl loved dancing better than I did...and like a wild bird I longed for the freedom that was denied me; and thought myself an abused child, and that it was pardonable if I did murmur.”

Here is a fourteen-year old girl who lost her childhood, and then became a widow at fifteen when Joseph Smith was murdered. If you think it was an honor and a privilege for her to have been "chosen" as a wife, think hard about whether or not you would sacrifice your teenage daughter to a man who already had 15 wives in secret, all over town. Would you gladly hand over your daughter to a church authority figure, say the bishop of your ward or the stake president, who is sure to be at least 20 to 30 years older than your child, if not more, in order to "purchase so great a reward?"

Perhaps I'm being too harsh....

Should we judge Joseph Smith by today's standards? It seems that the argument presents itself time and time again when anyone wants to talk about the necessity of plural marriage. I know when I was raised in the Mormon church, and even through adulthood I was lead to believe that plural marriage was only practiced to ensure widows without a man to lead their families would be secured and provided for by having her married through polygamy. I was taught that it was for the benefit of the WOMAN. Now I have learned that this is a cover-up for Joseph's pedophilia, and Brigham Young was the biggest perpetuator of that false teaching. Most of the members found the practice to be abhorrent, and refused to follow Brigham Young out of Nauvoo, preferring to follow Joseph's son, or any one of a half-dozen other factions that refused the teaching of polygamy.

For those who think that Joseph Smith was a called man of God:

When has it ever been a "standard" in the history of the U.S. for a married man in his 30s, who is an alleged Christian minister, to engage in sexual relationships with women and teenage girls to whom he was not legally married? (Remember that polygamy WAS illegal, even in Joseph Smith's time, just as gay marriage is considered illegal even if a ceremony is performed)

Another question for those who claim to no longer believe in Mormonism, but still defend Smith's polygamous behavior:

Does not the fact that:

*polygamy was illegal in Smith's day

*Smith desperately tried to keep his polygamy teachings and practices secret, and denied them to his dying day

*Smith and his fellow polygamists viciously attacked and slandered people who tried to expose his secret polygamy practice

...tell us that Smith's sexual behavior was *anything* but "standard" for his time?

Some of Joseph's defenders claim that his modern critics are judging him unfairly by holding him to today's standards of behavior. In fact, the opposite is true, and that any adult could make such an assertion, is only testament to how deeply our capacity for rational thought can be corrupted by emotional attachment to ideology.

Mormon defenders cannot have it both ways.

EITHER, as say Mormon general authorities, society has fallen from a far superior moral state, and we now live in an era characterized by shockingly loose morals, where chastity is denigrated and mocked, where "traditional family units" are under threat "as never before", where sexual anarchy appears to be a possibility, etc. ad nauseam -

OR, our era is in no way superior in sexual restraint and order to past eras.

If it's the same now as it was back in Joseph's day, then Mormon GA's cannot be believed when they claim society has fallen from this far superior moral state. And if they cannot be believed, then they are in fact "leading the church astray", and if that is the case, a canonized item of official doctrine is not true (see the Manifesto page in the D&C), and if that is the case, then Joseph's church isn't the only true religion in the world.

But if is true (as the general authorities claim) that society HAS fallen, then illegitimacy, immodesty, sexual "looseness" and "experimentation", promiscuity, etc., were ALL far RARER in Joseph Smith's era, than now - meaning that his era was far stricter sexually, than ours is. But if that is the case, and as church defenders ask, we judge Joseph Smith according to the "standards of his time", then modern critics are NOT JUDGING HIM HARSHLY ENOUGH. And in fact, history suggests exactly this.

For, who do these genius church defenders think would best be in a position to judge Joseph according to the standards of his own time, other than THE PEOPLE WHO LIVED IN HIS OWN TIME? And how did THEY judge him?

THEY FINALLY ASSASSINATED HIM. They drove Joseph's treasonous band of cult fanatics OUT OF THE UNITED STATES. And before that, they chased Joseph out of area after area. And why?

"Because Joseph's church was the only true church, and Satan wanted to destroy it!"?

It's far more possible to believe that it was Joseph's ACTIONS, his lewd behavior, his craving of young girls to take on as plural wives and claim as his own, his use of power and authority, his claims of being visited by an angel with a flaming sword, THESE are the things that earned him his fate. It had nothing to do with persecuting the church and everything to do with punishing the man for his actions.

Frankly, given past experiences with pedophiles and acts of lewdness towards little children, I am shocked that this information doesn't disturb each and every female member of the church who has ever had to deal with this in their own lives. I know that I have met some men in my lifetime that I wouldn't DARE leave in a room alone with my daughter, let alone sign her over to be married to him in order to secure my place in the Celestial Kingdom. In my mind, Joseph Smith is no better than the pedophiles, child-molesters, and child-pornography freaks of this day and age, except that our society seems to try to 'rehabilitate' these offenders, when in Joseph Smith's time, they would get lynched, and justice would be served.

While I'm on that subject, I'll just say here that I think it is HIGHLY IMPROPER to allow your young pre-teen or teenage daughter to be interviewed secluded behind a locked door, so that some bishop can ask her if she is sexually pure, has ever masturbated or had improper thoughts, all of these questions are part of a temple recommend process in order to do baptisms for the dead in the Mormon temples, and it is an open invitation for a man of a lewd nature to take advantage of young girls and make them confide personal information to someone who is in a position of authority. Think about that the next time you allow your daughter to be interviewed by a man 20-30 years her senior, and ask yourself if you REALLY trust the man that she is with, locked up in there alone with, and if you will ALWAYS trust men you don't know personally, just because he has been chosen to be the bishop. It happens all over the country, folks. Men in positions of power take advantage of young children every day, and if you are a childhood survivor of any kind of improper action by a person of authority over you, then why would you voluntarily allow your child to be placed in situations where they could become subject to the same actions against them?

Just because someone higher up 'called' this man to be bishop doesn't mean he couldn't be capable of harming your child in some psychologically damaging way. I just don't understand the blind faith of people in the church, thinking everyone in it is perfectly trustworthy and incapable of harming others within the "hallowed" walls of the 'one true church'. Joseph Smith did it in his day---and he was supposedly the most 'chosen' of them all...

Is the INTERNET itself Anti-Mormon? Or all the news agencies that report these cases? Or just the people who repeat the information and publish it on the web?

What makes an Anti-Mormon? Is it someone who just doesn't agree with you? Or is it someone who tries their damndest to try and help you see what kind of organization you are putting your trust in?

Is it someone who has never been a member, and just wants to attack your faith? Or maybe it's someone who has been there, had similar experiences, and is now trying to point out things that are 'true, but not very useful'?

Why label people as Anti-Mormons? Aren't you, as a member of the "true church" Anti-Catholic? Don't you try to point out and reason with other people why their beliefs are wrong, or incomplete? Do you ever spend time trying to persuade people to see the logic of your arguments and sway their beliefs? So, what makes Anti-Mormons so different from YOU?

If I could accomplish one thing in my life, it would be to help someone, anyone, understand that there are things the Mormon church would have you live your whole life never knowing, that they will go to great lengths to lie about, cover up and deny in order to maintain the base. And I cannot stand around here letting that go unchecked and unnoticed. I see people in bondage, trapped in a faith-system that isn't honest with their members, that creates fear of outsiders, and encourages blind faith and loyalty to their leaders. My blog will continue, into infinity, until I can help my family understand what I have come to know about the church, and until someone rises to the challenge of answering each and every one of the charges I have brought against it, in a fair, balanced, logical manner. All I have received so far is excuses. That's not going to change what I know for a fact. Faith has NOTHING to do with facts. And no amount of faith can change the facts, no matter how hard you deny the truth- one day the facts expose the fraud.

Tuesday, February 20, 2007

Bill Maher talks about Mormonism's Beliefs on HBO's "Real Time"

here's the link

Basically, Mr. Maher laid it out for any rational person who has never heard of Mormonism. He first started speaking about how difficult it would be to get the presidential nomination, saying that you have to state publically that you are a person of faith, and you will depend on your faith to guide you in your life. In his opinion, (and mine as well) this is a problem, because it means you are willing to 'suspend critical thinking' in order to maintain your beliefs.

Hmm, don't we already have a president like that? Do you see Mr. Bush using critical thinking in any of his decision-making?

Then, Mr. Maher went on to state a couple of the teachings of the Mormons that people should make a note of and remember, the first one was that Mormons used to teach that the only way a black man would get to heaven is to be sealed to a white as a slave.

The next point he made was that Mormons believe in things that can (and have been) proven false. Joseph Smith started the church less than two centuries ago, and it's not difficult to prove that most of his teachings, if not all, are false. Case in point: The Mormons believe that the Native Americans are decendants of the lost tribes of Israel. DNA tests have proven that this is a false belief, no question about it. And the Mormon reaction is to try to discredit the research and call it "inconclusive", simply because it doesn't uphold their viewpoint YET. So, they will continue to hold out on the DNA question until it can be 100% conclusive, which will always be statistically impossible, and THEY KNOW THIS!

Even if I took myself and my children to the clinic and had DNA testing done, the tests would only show that I was 99.99% likely to be their mother, and that is the slim margin the LDS church is hanging on to in order to maintain the belief that the Native Americans are what Joseph Smith said they were, and the Book of Mormon was written by them, and for them, to bring them to "further light and knowledge", and to "restore the fullness of the gospel". The Book of Mormon cannot stand without the Native Americans being decended from Jews. And, to further complicate things, NO Native South American indiginous peoples have been connected to DNA similarities of the Jewish peoples. They have Asian markers, they are similar in features and bone structures to the Asian peoples.

But you can't convince Mormons that their whole foundation for their church is NOT TRUE!

Joseph Smith did not receive a golden book to translate, and he did not have any contact with a personage named Moroni, who was supposedly a Native American Lamanite that led him to the plates, nor did he have any basis for his claim that the Native American peoples were decended from the authors of that golden book, and lastly, there has been NO EVIDENCE whatsoever that any of the wars that were supposedly fought, weapons used, animals mentioned, or vast populations described EVER EXISTED. Here in the U.S. or in Central America, or in South America, or anywhere at all in this hemisphere. He LIED, plain and simple.

Why, why, why is it so damn difficult to believe that he made it up? All of the evidence available, all of the historical record, all of the various accounts of his life and teachings point to the conclusion that he could NOT have been a prophet, or even very knowledgeable about Egyptian writings, the use of steel or even basic Jewish customs, like keeping Kosher, or observing holy days, which are not mentioned anywhere in the Book of Mormon.

If it is a book about Jews, you would expect lots of description about their lives, and instead it's full of epic wars where thousands die about every 30 years, and more contention and strife is listed within its pages than in the Bible. Yet, we cannot find any swords, shields, armor, breastplates, curlemoms, curemoms, or any other fanciful things left behind to tell the story. The simplest explanation is that he made it all up. And he didn't even come up with an original concept at that.

News Conference Question for Mitt Romney:

Many thanks to Steve Benson from RfM

"Why is it that your Mormon Church has officially gone on record as teaching that Blacks will be servants to White people in Mormon heaven?"
That is a question deserving to be asked of Mormon presidential candidate Mitt Romney.

It is an eminently fair inquiry--one that deserves a direct and honest answer--because if Romney fails to denounce, reject and separate himself from this historically-stated, racist Mormon teaching and practice, Romney himself is guilty of perpetuating bigotry in the name of the Mormon God and the Church in which he proudly claims devoted membership.

If Romney doubts that the Mormon Church has viewed Blacks as servant material in the LDS hereafter, then he should be made aware of the fact that the Mormon Church's historical position on people of African descent has included this very teaching--as uttered from the highest levels of the LDS Church hierarchy.

Again, for Mr. Romney's benefit, that teaching is this:

Blacks, by the decree of your Church's highest leaders, have historically been assigned as servants to White people in the Mormon heaven.

The Case of the Black Woman Sealed to Joseph Smith as a Domestic Servant

In August 1908, then-Mormon Church president Joseph F. Smith recounted the situation of a devout Mormon African-American woman who was sealed to Joseph Smith--not as one of Smith's many plural wives--but, rather, as Smith's servant.

Her name was Jane Manning James and her demeaning, dehumanizing and ultimately futile struggle for equal rights at the hands of the Mormon Church's White ruling elite is summarized below:

"A free-born servant, Jane Elizabeth Manning was born in the late 1810s or early 1820s and grew up in Connecticut during the 1820s, earning her living as a domestic.

"When Mormon missionaries came to the area, she listened and along with other family members joined the Church.

"In 1843, eight members of the Manning family started toward Nauvoo but became separated at Buffalo, New York, when they were refused passage on a boat because they were Black. The Mannings set out on foot and, after experiencing illness, threatened imprisonment, and extreme cold, finally arrived in Nauvoo where Joseph Smith welcomed them into his home.

"Before the Latter-day Saints left Nauvoo, Jane Manning married another black Mormon, Isaac James. James, a native of New Jersey, had converted to Mormonism in 1839 at the age of nineteen and immigrated to Nauvoo.

"Their first son was born at Winter Quarters in 1846. The couple had six more children in Utah. In 1869 Isaac left the family, selling his property to Jane. He returned to Salt Lake City approximately twenty-one years later just before he passed away. When he died in 1891, Jane held his funeral in her home.

"Jane Manning James was a member of the female Relief Society and donated to the St. George, Manti, and Logan temple funds.

"She repeatedly petitioned the First Presidency to be endowed and to have her children sealed to her. . . .

"After Isaac died, Jane asked that they [her children] be given the ordination of adoption so they would be together in the next life.

"She explained in correspondence to Church leaders that Emma Smith had offered to have her sealed to the Smith family as a child. She reconsidered that decision and asked to be sealed to the Smiths.

"Permission for all of these requests was denied.

"Instead the First Presidency 'decided she might be adopted into the family of Joseph Smith as a servant, which was done, a special . . . ceremony having been prepared for the purpose.'

"The minutes of the Council of Twelve Apostles continued:

"'But Aunt Jane was not satisfied with this, and as a mark of dissatisfaction she applied again after this for sealing blessings, but of course in vain.' . . .

"Jane Manning James bore a testimony of Mormonism to the end of her life [as follows, in her own words]:

"'My faith in the gospel of Jesus Christ, as taught by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, is as strong today, nay, it is if possible stronger than it was the day I was first baptized. I pay my tithes and offerings, keep the word of wisdom, I go to bed early and rise early, I try in my feeble way to set a good example to all.'

"When she died in 1908, Church president Joseph F. Smith spoke at her funeral."

At her funeral, President Smith admitted that "Aunt Jane" (as she was known) had been relegated to eternal servanthood in the Mormon realms above, despite being a valiant, faithful Church member to the end:

". . . [E]fforts . . . had been made by Aunt Jane to receive her endowments and be sealed to her husband and have her children sealed to their parents and her appeal was made to all the Presidents from President Young down to the present First Presidency.

"But President Cannon conceived the idea that, under the circumstances, it would be proper to permit her to go to the temple to be adopted to the Prophet Joseph Smith as his servant and this was done.

"This seemed to ease her mind for a little while but did not satisfy her, and she still pleaded for her endowments."

("The LDS Church and African Americans THE PRIESTHOOD BAN," at http://www.ldshistory.net/1990/embry.htm and
("Excerpts From The Weekly Council Meetings Of The Quorum Of The Twelve Apostles," in Jerald and Sandra Tanner, "Mormonism--Shadow or Reality?," p. 584, at http://www.utlm.org/onlinebooks/changech10a.htm ).

Mormon Apostle Teaches That Even Baptized Blacks Can Do No Better Than Servanthood in the Mormon Hereafter

Mormon Church apostle Mark E. Petersen was even more explicit in peddling the patently patronizing and prejudicial notion that the highest degree to which Blacks could rise in post-mortal Mormon heaven was that of servant status.

Petersen declared in a sermon to BYU students that baptized Mormon Blacks would receive only qualified acceptance into Mormonism's highest degree of glory:

"In spite of all he [the Black person] 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."

(Mark E. Petersen, "Race Problems—As They Affect The Church," speech at the "Convention of Teachers of Religion at the College Level at Brigham Young University," Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, 27 August 1954, quoted in http://www.realmormonhistory.com/god&skin.htm#Mark E. Petersen's Racist Talk at BYU, and "Racist statements by LDS leaders during the 1950s," at http://www.religioustolerance.org/lds_race.htm and ).


So, Mr. Romney, again, "Why is it that your Mormon Church has officially gone on record as teaching that Blacks will be servants to White people in Mormon heaven?"

Mr. Romney? . . .

Um, Mr. Romney?

Please come back and answer the question, Mr. Romney.

Romney’s religion shouldn’t matter, but it does

Inside the First Amendment

By Charles C. Haynes
First Amendment senior scholar

Where Mitt Romney goes to church doesn’t disqualify him for public office: Article VI of the U.S. Constitution famously declares that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

But when the former Massachusetts governor declared his candidacy for president on Feb. 13, news coverage focused heavily on one issue: Romney’s Mormon faith. Officially we have no religious test — but unofficially, religious affiliation (or lack thereof) can determine the outcome of elections.

How big is Romney’s religion problem? In a Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg survey last year, a remarkable 37% of Americans said they would not vote for a Mormon presidential candidate.

The poll numbers probably don’t come as a shock to the Mormons themselves. After all, Mormons (members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) come out of a history of religious persecution. Shortly after their founder, Joseph Smith, announced his candidacy for president in 1844, he was killed by a mob.

Back then the most contentious issue was polygamy, a practice disavowed by the LDS Church in 1890. But today Romney stills faces ignorance and confusion about his faith — fueled in part by the “Mormon” label put on characters in HBO’s series “Big Love” and the trial of polygamist leader Warren Jeffs. Only last month, a Republican activist in South Carolina pressed Romney to answer questions about polygamy.

But Romney’s greater challenge may be to overcome the prejudices of people who actually do know what Mormons believe — and don’t like it. Many Christians, especially evangelicals, don’t accept the LDS Church as part of the Christian tradition. After years of being taught that Mormonism is heretical (and a cult), many conservative Christians will have a hard time getting beyond Romney’s religion.

Moreover, some of Romney’s critics have raised the issue of religious authority: Because the president of the LDS Church is a living prophet, who would be in charge under a President Romney? This concern resembles the familiar anti-Catholic canard from the 19th century that a Catholic elected official would be controlled by the Vatican.

Mormons, like everybody else in America, enjoy full religious freedom under the First Amendment. But constitutional protection doesn’t ensure acceptance in the public square. American Jews suffered decades of social discrimination (and anti-Semitic acts remain the No. 1 religious hate crime in the United States today). American Catholics were attacked as members of a dangerous cult for much of our history and were the target of nativist campaigns to limit Catholic citizenship and influence.

Against this backdrop of prejudice, the few candidates for president outside the Protestant mainstream have mostly tried to say as little as possible about their religion. Attacked as an unbeliever during his 1800 campaign for president, Thomas Jefferson refused to be drawn into a debate on his religious views. In the run-up to the 1908 election, William Howard Taft kept mum about his Unitarian convictions in the face of intense pressure to declare his views on the divinity of Christ.

John F. Kennedy, however, felt compelled to confront the “religion issue” head-on during his 1960 presidential campaign. In his now-famous address to the Houston Ministerial Association, Kennedy declared: “I am not the Catholic candidate for President. I am the Democratic Party’s candidate for President who happens also to be a Catholic. I do not speak for my church on public matters — and the church does not speak for me.”

Of course, what worked for Kennedy may not work for Romney, especially since the Christian Right isn’t looking for a president who believes as Kennedy did “in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute.” But political pundits generally agree: Given the poll numbers, Romney has little choice but to give a public address about the relationship of faith and politics in his life.

It won’t be easy. Kennedy, after all, could win votes by distancing himself from his church — and still count on a significant Roman Catholic vote (he won 71% of Catholics and only 32% of non-Catholics). In contrast, Romney faces Republican primary voters who are, in fact, looking for a candidate who wears his personal faith on his political sleeve. And there is no “Mormon base” since LDS members make up less than 2% of the U.S. population.

Nevertheless, if he declares that he doesn’t take orders from Salt Lake — and emphasizes his conservative position on social issues — Romney has a good shot at winning over many evangelicals. Ironically, the very evidence that demonstrates his independence from the LDS Church (his now-abandoned 1994 liberal positions on gay rights and abortion were contrary to LDS positions) may well be used against him as he attempts to position himself as a born-again social conservative.

It’s hard to believe that anyone seriously thinks Romney would be a puppet of the prophet in Salt Lake City any more than Kennedy was a mouthpiece for the pope in Rome. Nothing in his political career supports that fear. And the 15 Mormon members of Congress hardly march in lockstep with the church. If Mormon leaders are telling Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch and Democratic Sen. Harry Reid how to vote, they must be sending mixed signals.

There’s plenty to debate in Romney’s positions on public policy without getting distracted by the non-issue of where he goes to church. Unfortunately, prejudice against Mormons leaves Romney little choice. Echoing JFK, Romney must now persuade voters that his values are shaped by faith, but his policies aren’t dictated by church.

*My Thoughts*

As a former Mormon, I can tell you that there is going to be some 'splainin' to do...

Romney is sooner or later going to have to answer to journalists who do their homework.

In Kennedy's day, and even today, anyone can go into a Catholic Church and sit through a Mass, take up some religion classes, and find out exactly what the Catholics believe.

You can NOT do that with the Mormons. They don't teach that way. There is no admittance to their temples without a membership card (or 'recommend') and they have whitewashed their lds.org website to look as mainstream Christian as possible. This is not going to give an accurate picture of what Mormonism is all about.

However, there are TONS of websites out there that WILL explain what Mormons believe, many of them posted and run by former members of the church, who left after discovering the fraudulent nature of their historical background, and the omittance of information that is not 'faith-promoting'.

Any good, reasonable journalist worth their salt will be able to download an exact word-for-word copy of the temple endowment ceremony from the Internet, and be able to see the part where Mitt Romney swore an oath called the "law of consecration" to the Mormon church. This is reason enough to keep him and any other Mormon from becoming a National Leader.

It's not the same as being Catholic and subjecting yourself to the Pope. Mormons take an oath to uphold and sustain the Church, even if it means losing their life for it. Asking a Mormon what they believe in is going to result in obfuscation and 'milk before meat' philosophy. I say if you want to know anything at all about Mormons, ask someone who left it, and why they left.

Romney isn't about to come clean and admit that Mormons think God was once a man, or that men can become Gods in their own right, as rulers of their own planets someday. Romney isn't going to state matter-of-factly that he has gone up to the pulpit and announced that he knows the Mormon church is true and all others are false, like most members do on the first Sunday of every month. This is also good enough reason to keep a Mormon from rising to power, he will be threatened with ex-communication by his own church if he doesn't back up their agenda while in office. And I for one think we need someone who doesn't arrive in Washington with his hands already tied.