Originally posted by dadudemon
He didn't. In fact, he urged members to NOT own slaves. He baptized 8 African Americans, himself, into the church. The idea that he was a racist is more anti-Mormon propganda.
Thanks for the straight clear answers.
Has the Mormon religion then changed since the cartoon was made, if so was it right now or before hand.
If the cartoon is wrong, where did it come from.?
Originally posted by Bicnarok
Thanks for the straight clear answers.
No prob. You'll find that most stuff that is purported as "common knowledge" is a tidbit of truth mixed with lies, when it comes to Mormonism.
Why do you think that is?
Originally posted by Bicnarok
Has the Mormon religion then changed since the cartoon was made, if so was it right now or before hand.
I'm not sure what you mean.
Originally posted by Bicnarok
If the cartoon is wrong, where did it come from.?
An anti-Mormon propaganda organization. I actually went through each point, step by step, somewhere at the beginning of the thread. I only made it past like, 1 minute or so because so much of it is just plain false. I'd say that about 10% of it's true...and even that is mixed and matched to fit humorous lies.
If it was produced to defame Mormonism, it is really sad. If it was created to be humorous, which I suspect, then it is quite funny.
Re: Disturbing Mormon Cartoon
Originally posted by Bicnarok
Accidentally found this on youtube, dunno if its been mentioned before. Very interesting, maybe some Mormon members can comment on it, whether it reflects Moromon beliefs for example.2:23 is an odd view explaining where blacks came from.
Possibly it came from the cult itself in it's teachings:
Mormon Plan to Disavow Racist Teachings Jeopardized by Publicity
Larry Stammer
Los Angeles Times
May 24, 1998
The president of the Mormon History Assn. said Saturday that it is less likely that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints will disavow 19th century teachings that linked African American skin color to Biblical curses because of publicity about that possibility.
Armand L. Mauss said he believes the top leadership of the 10-million member church may worry that they would be seen as bowing to public pressure if they made such a disavowal in the wake of news stories about secret deliberations on the issue. Mauss, who is among those who for several years have been privately seeking such a disavowal, said an article in The Times last week that reported on the efforts may thwart them.
Mauss said the church's Committee on Public Affairs, which is considering the issue, was going to make a recommendation to top church officials, known as the Frist Presidency.
Sources close to the sensitive deliberations told The Times that a statement would be issued as early as next month, the 20th anniversary of the landmark 1978 decision by the church to admit all worthy men to the priesthood, regardless of their race or color.
Mauss, who has written papers for church officials outlining the history of the teachings and offering a rationale for repudiating them while still upholding basic Mormon doctrine, said he would not have done so unless he was encouraged by church leaders.
A source told The Times that although the publicity had momentarily put discussions on hold, it was possible they would resume.
Keith Atkinson, a spokesman for the church in Los Angeles, said Saturday he could not comment on what the church may or may not do.
But he said he believed the church had already disavowed the teachings when it admitted men with black African ancestry to the priesthood in 1978.
Also Saturday, two more Mormon historians joined Mauss in calling on the church to disavow its legacy of racism.
They noted that although blacks are now admitted to the priesthood, the underlying theology--particularly discourses and statements by past Mormon leaders on the curses that helped justify the former ban--continues to be widely circulated within the church.
The latest to issue such a call were Mormon historians Lester E. Bush Jr. and Newell G. Bringhurst, who on Friday was elected president of the association.
"Church leaders simply were mistaken in accepting and teaching the notion that blacks had any known relationship to Cain, Ham, Egyptus or any other biblical figure," Bush wrote in a paper delivered here Saturday before the historical association.
Originally posted by dadudemon
On the most fundamental level, it's the thoughts that count as the sin, regardless of sexual orientation. If you read the New Testament, you would know that. 😉But for the scripture reference on the thoughts...
Matthew 5:28Try to keep up, sport.
Current discussion was science and religion. I was commenting, since this is about he weird-ass Mormon belief's cartoon, on Mormons' behaviors. (relevance #1) Since Prop-8 seems to go against the standards behaviors and even common conceptions of Mormonisms, my comment was all too relevant. (relevance #2) Compound that relevance with the previously mentioned science in faith as it specifically pertained to Mormonism and you have found the contextual placement of my post. (relevance #1+#2)
This rarely happens on the internets because I am really laid back. Nothing gets to me, really. However, your pure intentional stupidity pissed me off. One of my pet peeves is dumbassery. There's a difference between ignorance and stupidity; your post was just plain dumb. Please think a little harder than a monkey before making a critical post. 😐 I apologize for being an a**hole in advance...it's just that some things piss me off.
Oh, I just got it.......science and religion. Like the people, places and happenings in the New and Old Testaments proven by science???
Does history and archaeology (the study of the remains of the culture of a people) support the "account of the former inhabitants of this continent" as recorded in the Book of Mormon?
In the Book of Alma 50:15 it is stated "and they also began in the same year to build many cities in the north..." Also in Ether 9:23 we read that "...it came to pass...and (they) did build many mighty cities..." The names of some 38 cities are found in the Book of Mormon.
The Smithsonian Institute in Washington D.C. states, "The Smithsonian Institute has never used the Book of Mormon as a scientific guide. Smithsonian archaeologists see no connection between the archaeology of the New World and the subject matter of the Book of Mormon." In fact, no known non-Mormon archaeologist gives any credence at all to the "history" recorded in the Book of Mormon!
In addition, the Book of Ether 9:17-19 records horses, asses, oxen, cows, sheep, "swine" (and these folks were descendants of the Jews?), and elephants, which scientists claim were not on the American continent until the Europeans brought them many years later. In other places in Mormon writings, steel and other metals are mentioned which were unheard of at the time of the writing of the events in the Book of Mormon.1
That Joey smith is a hoot! 🤣
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Considering he is a Mormon he knows a thing or two about Mormonism. The problem here is that the discussion has moved on since the first post so what you said didn't have much bearing and the way you phrased it came off as offensive. Plus, as you said, you're stupid which doesn't help matters.
I'm not stupid enough to wear sacred underwear to protect me from evil.
Someone here does, huh? 🤣
Originally posted by you get thorns
Oh, I just got it.......science and religion. Like the poeple places and happenings in the New and Old Testaments proven by science???Does history and archaeology (the study of the remains of the culture of a people) support the "account of the former inhabitants of this continent" as recorded in the Book of Mormon?
Yes. Out of the 13+ million people, don't you think one of them would have searched for archaeological evidence surrounding the happenings in the BoM? Don't you think third parties would have, as well?
And you're about a hundred years behind the times. You didn't just have an epiphany by any means. You're just rehashing old questions that have long been addressed. This is why third parties call Mormon haters uneducated and antiquated in their stances.
Originally posted by you get thorns
In the Book of Alma 50:15 it is stated "and they also began in the same year to build many cities in the north..." Also in Ether 9:23 we read that "...it came to pass...and (they) did build many mighty cities..." The names of some 38 cities are found in the Book of Mormon.The Smithsonian Institute in Washington D.C. states, "The Smithsonian Institute has never used the Book of Mormon as a scientific guide. Smithsonian archaeologists see no connection between the archaeology of the New World and the subject matter of the Book of Mormon." In fact, no known non-Mormon archaeologist gives any credence at all to the "history" recorded in the Book of Mormon!
ZOMG! You've got all the Mormons now!
And, you're absolutely incorrect about non-Mormon archaeologists making BoM endeavors. I'll let you use the internet to find out for yourself because you really don't deserve the time I'm giving you now.
Originally posted by you get thorns
In addition, the Book of Ether 9:17-19 records horses, asses, oxen, cows, sheep, "swine" (and these folks were descendants of the Jews?), and elephants, which scientists claim were not on the American continent until the Europeans brought them many years later. In other places in Mormon writings, steel and other metals are mentioned which were unheard of at the time of the writing of the events in the Book of Mormon.1That Joey smith is a hoot! 🤣
ZOMG! No one has EVER made that point before and no person has EVER countered those points! I mean, what the hell! I should just quit my religion now, shouldn't I?
Why don't you come back when you have some arguments that haven't long since been buried for over a hundred years old and then you may have something to talk about.
Oh, and you're off topic. There is an official Mormon discussion thread in this subforum. Try to stay on topic.
Wild elephants roamed the Americas. I remember that from 6th grade life science.
Quit your religion now? Never, that is how we avoid idiots, they lable themselves.
History recent and long past is well documented and proven. But then again when you follow a book of fiction stolen by a murderer and passed off as truth you probably won't look for proof one way or the other.
WWEDD
Something I find interesting is that theboymon has decided that I feel animosity toward him because of some internet girl. I thought my first post in this thread was directly related to the OPs comment in the opening post. It had to do with the cult's teachings on race. (both the OP and myself) I was greeted with animosity by boy. I have gone as far as posting a copy of an article from the L.A. Times to point him in the right direction. I assumed if I showed boy the tip of the iceberg he might look under the water to see what is really there. I pointed out several facts that can't be refuted so he does what he does best which is typing much and saying little. I will admit that in toying with an inferior I will occasionally give him a little meat to chew so he will stick around after the game is over and the lights have been turned off. Since he is what he is I will back out of this thread ,unless I get bored, and leave the boy and his false gods (yes they are all gods, look it up) to you.
I do believe that anyone who wants a good starting point in researching this subject should get a copy of The Godmakers, by Ed Decker.
It is not full of a bunch of hype to yank a moron's chain, just the truth about false teachings and a sham of a religion. And yes, boy, I challenge you to take that book and hold it to the same burden of proof you would hold anything else.
Originally posted by Captain REX
My suggestion is just letting the issue go, Thorns. No good can come of calling someone out on something.
You're a nice person. I appreciate that.
However, I don't mind him making up things about my religion or touting long since debunked myths. Pretty much everybody does that about Mormons. I'm used to that and I actually enjoy pointing people in the right direction. I certainly enjoy learning facts about other's religions when I have a misunderstanding, so I'm sure others enjoy getting correct information on Mormons.
It's his insults and the following me around the boards, replying to every message of mine, trying to get a rise out of me. He is a genuine troll. He's been this way since I spoke to the object of his stalking (seriously). I mean, when was it ever acceptable to insult someone in every portion of the boards?