The Hidden Truth of Blacks and Mormon Priesthood

[Grimwyrd]

How convenient. Utah can not be a state, unless polygamy gets thrown under the bus? Revelation! Civil rights is sweeping America? Revelation!

Mark my words. In the next 10-20 years, there will be a "revelation" about homosexuality and Mormons will drop their intolerance and persecution of gays when they realize that the position is untenable.

Maybe I'm a prophet?

[mormonanswerman]

@Grimwyrd How convenient #LOL

I think you have not read the Bible.

Mose brings down a specific set of laws of God from god for the 2,000,000 Israelites that just came across the Red Sea. Many of those people are now NAKED, behaving immoral and worshiping a golden calf. Stone tablets are broken. Moses goes back up and get another law. Another revelation. It's now the basic 10 commandments, etc.

How is this ANY different?

Why didn't God just keep His "first" law and let all be damned?

[mormonanswerman]

@Grimwyrd That is not sound logic. Being black was never a sin. But being homosexual and pushing for that IS a sin. Just like fornication of teenagers is a sin. Just like prostitution is a sin. Just like adultery is a sin. These things are clear, there is no confusion on this. Don't compare disobedience to being black, there is NO COMPARISON. Being black is actually cool, and I love the black members of the church, they are among the coolest and best members ever.

[mormonanswerman]

@Grimwyrd Did you know that in the Old Testament ONLY the LEVITES could hold the Priesthood of God? Nobody else got to. This was not racism. I know there is sensitivity in the recent civil rights movement, but the decisions on priesthood had nothing to do with it, and there is precedent in the Bible for the Lord deciding who would hold the priesthood, and it had nothing to do with skin color then (OR NOW), but had everything to do with LINEAGE. There is a difference. That changed too.

[mormonanswerman]

@Grimwyrd The Lord Jesus Christ changed the requirements of who would hold the Priesthood when he fulfilled the Law of Moses. Then He called 12 Apostles, who were NOT of the Tribe of Levi, and they were given priesthood authority. The Lord decides these things, and he can change who, when, and where. He can do that. We need to be humble about it.

The Lord has also designated that only men will hold the Priesthood. That too was His decision, and is not sexist, but for His purposes.

[Grimwyrd]

@mormonanswerman Then I eagerly await the time when Lord Jesus Christ changes his mind about gays, when he learns enough about basic compassion and biology to realize they are born that way and should be treated with love and respect, not ostracized and marginalized. Oh wait, your religion is hogwash. I should say that I eagerly await the time when the leaership of your cult realizes that an anti-gay stance is hurting membership levels and their financial bottom line. Revelation!

[mormonanswerman]

@Grimwyrd It won't happen! The Apostles have already said that at the last conference "we will nto change. we can not change" and the reason is that this is a MORAL issue. Fornication can't be made to be OK. Gays are ANTI family anyway, they can't have kids. Its all about perverted forms of sex, which may feel good to them, and they may be very emotionally involved in it, but the same is true for guys and girls engaged in immoral relationships as well. Its all the same: SIN.

[Grimwyrd]

@mormonanswerman Yes, yes. And black souls used to be inferior to white souls. Revelation! You are correct that the mormon religion is extremely family-centric. That's what makes it such a dangerous cult. In many non-organized cults, the first thing the cultists do is urge the converted to cut ties with their family and accept the cult as their new family. Mormons build that in. The cult IS your family from birth, and if you try to escape the cult you have to leave your family behind. Insidious.

[mormonanswerman]

@Grimwyrd I will try and remember how "dangerous" my family is to me.

It is no wonder or surprise to me that you would be against the family, being pro-gay marriage and all. That is the last thing from what a real family is, and I don't mean that in a bigoted sense, but in a moral and common sense standpoint. Really. They can't have kids, its just not natures way, so why would anyone defend it as something even remotely related to FAMILY? Its nothing more than mutual masturbation... truth.

[Grimwyrd]

@mormonanswerman The Mormon church uses family as leverage to control its members. Try to leave the church, and you may be shunned, unable to attend funerals and weddings of your loved ones. Cults try to pull you away from your family to separate you from your support structure. In Mormonism, it's the opposite. The cult IS your family and friends. And the threat to keep you in line is possibly losing them all. Families ARE very important, but so is loving and accepting people for who they are.

[mormonanswerman]

@Grimwyrd You are talking about HUMAN NATURE. Show me the person who joined the Mormon church recently, and you will also show me a family who shunned THEM. Its human nature, and you can't peg that onto what you want to call a "cult" because all churches (and families) as a general rule will do this. Jesus knew this and taught:

Matthew 10:35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

[einc70]

@Grimwyrd that s so untrue.. That's the opposite actually ... When people hear that one of their friends joined the Mormon Church they are the ones that shun the relationship either because they drink/mormons don't. they smoke / mormons don't they take drugs / mormons don't.. they are actually open-armed.. but they won't cos they know they won't stand around them because they have different interest.. they get scared to change their life around because of them believe me that's the opposite...

[myeternaldestiny209]

@mormananswerman Show me the scripture that says that please, thank you.

[mormonanswerman]

@myeternaldestiny209 says what? in particular...

[myeternaldestiny209]

Religion=Returning back to GOD your own way

Personal Relationship With Jesus Christ=Returning back to GOD, GOD'S way!

Not trying to argue or fight there is just something wrong with the whole mormon religion KEYWORD RELIGION.

[mormonanswerman]

@myeternaldestiny209 How about a personal relationship with the FATHER? Heavenly Father? Jesus Christ said to pray to the Father, not to Him.

[sapunec7854]

@mormonanswerman It is very good that you are able to differantiate between the ones that rely on assumptions. However I don't think that this would be of any use to you since the entire point of references is to provide you with "facts" (studies, findings, etc) and not hypotheses

[mormonanswerman]

@sapunec7854 you know #LOL, almost everything is relying on assumptions, not facts, when it comes to projecting things out into the future, or back into the past. Its all assumptions. You may think its facts, but its not. It is best guesses.

I do this for a living. I project traffic for instance. We have trip generation rates, but we make the ASSUMPTION that our past growth rates apply to the future as well.

Scientists do this too. They take facts and then draw a long line/curve with it

[sapunec7854]

@mormonanswerman ummm... Nitrogen impurities in natural diamonds? And why do we have to assume anything since there are many things which are perfect indicators of the past years? Such data is preserved in ice (millions of years old) for example. Anyways, nitrogen impurities in natural diamonds, this relies on no assumptions whatsoever. I reccomendT. Evans, Zengdu Qi (1981). "The kinetics of the aggregation of of nitrogen atoms in diamond". if you know nothing about it.

[mormonanswerman]

@sapunec7854 OK, so now we chase yet one more insolvable thing. When anyone says that they have data preserved that is millions of years old, I have to be a skeptic. There is no way that anyone can know this from a chunk of ice bored out of a glacier somewhere in the northern countries. Don't you know that the person examining that chunk of ice is LOOKING at it, and making ASSUMPTIONS about it, and coming to CONCLUSIONS about it? Its all fallible, based on assumptions STILL.

[sapunec7854]

@mormonanswerman OK, fine, that ice is actually not that old. Be that as you wish. What about the Nitrogen impurities in natural diamonds?

[pauldavisfan]

Nowhere in the Bible does it say that God cursed Cain with black skin.

[mormonanswerman]

@pauldavisfan You are right. Nowhere in the Bible does it say that Adam and Eve were white, black, asian or latino, but such details are left to the imagination. The LOGICAL conclusion is that God introduced races later on after Adam and Eve, because there is no way that a chinese person has an african baby, etc. Race begets race, and I think everybody knows this. So where did race come from?

I say, Cain was the first. And the Tower of Babel is when God introduced a large variety.

[paisleydreamz]

@mormonanswerman

You say........ That is the problem with mormonism. It is an "I say" religion.

You put your trust in the words of man. This leads you astray.

Thus saith the LORD; Cursed [be] the man that trusteth in man... Jeremiah 17:5

[sapunec7854]

@mormonanswerman And I say that it will be a VERY good idea to simply do what a normal person does:

Use the internet to find studies of DNA that actually have SHOWN how different races came to be and at what period of time. The Genogrpahic Project is a good one, try out what happens with "mitochondrial DNA", the answer has been already made, you just have to spend around 5 minutes online and check the peer reviewed sources. They tell you why and how this came to be and you can bemore educated

[mormonanswerman]

@sapunec7854 and I say that when a study concludes that a race started 50,000 years ago, etc., that it conflicts directly with the father and mother of the human race who lived 6000 years ago. So how can you trust some scientists conclusion that goes against the Bible? Only if you are an atheist of some sort or another. I can't do that. I have faith and belief to contend with, that offers me real evidences that the Bible record is true, that Jesus is the Christ. I do know that.

[sapunec7854]

@mormonanswerman You mean like the Vatican, some 90% of scientists (according to surveys), 80% of budhists, hindu and 60-70% of jews, catholics, orthodox, 50 of protestant, muslims and some 30% of mormons (remember thats all according to polls, check it on wikipedia) have and do?

I don't know how you call something that conflicts with the truth but where I come from its called a "lie". It might be so indeed but I (and others) don't really see how - thats why it is accepted as a fact you know.

[mormonanswerman]

@sapunec7854 78% of America does NOT believe in evolution.

According to a Newsweek poll done in march of 2007

I don't know what polls you are looking at, but I found one pretty easily that said pretty much the opposite, so... I'm going to be sticking with the BIBLE and the account of Adam and Eve, the first parents of the human race. I am going to believe God created them and breathed into them life, like the record says. I am going to be sticking with my faith that lets me know things.

[sapunec7854]

@mormonanswerman actually its about 60% but nevermind. I was not at all talking about America, I was talking about the world ^_^ I check my sources I assure you.

And I don't think that belief has anything to do with proven facts, there are more than thirty different types of dating that have thousands of reliable instances of an earth proven to be "old". You know that you can date a tree by its rings right? Have you checked out the oldest ones? And this is just the "simplest" method you know.

[mormonanswerman]

@sapunec7854 I do love talking about science. You are talking with a skeptic, a realist, and I will admit that my faith and testimony has MOTIVATED me to think this way, but too many people take science at its word, like a blind faith. I do NOT. I am a realist now.

First of all, I know how fallible man's ways are when it comes to things like THEORIES. Not math, not physics, etc., where things can be measured on the here and now. For instance, we can measure gravity and it will be consistent

[sapunec7854]

@mormonanswerman Indeed! Thats cool :D Just like we can measure cosmic nuclides on terrestrial surfaces (1 000 000 years), dendrochronology (11 years ), distant starligh (1 000 000 000 years), ice layering (160 000 years), naica crystals (1 000 000 years), thermoluninescense (maybe I got it wrong >.<), weathering rings, space weathering and many others (all of which I have already posted and the list as I said is available and easily obtainable + a looot of references and other sources) :)

[mormonanswerman]

@sapunec7854 Yes, a looot of references, but I am differentiating between those references that rely HEAVILY on assumptions or not.

[mormonanswerman]

@sapunec7854 When I think of the theory of evolution, I think of the lack of "in-betweeners" or the half-man/half-ape and all the other graduations in between the two extremes. This lack of in-betweeners is proof positive that evolution is NOT taking place now, and as a result of the theory that says it is a constant occurance, it must therefore be false.  Its NOT happening now. Where's the man/ape RIGHT NOW, if it were happening now? Such a bogus ILLOGICAL theory.

[sapunec7854]

@mormonanswerman I am not at all adressing evolution man, what are you saying?? Maybe you mistook me for someone else

[mormonanswerman]

@sapunec7854 No, its just a tangent.  I am illustrating how certain parts of science rely heavily on ASSUMPTIONS and are fallible as such.

[mormonanswerman]

@sapunec7854 I also want to address carbon and other dating methodologies. These are based on ASSUMPTIONS. There is no way to verify how old something REALLY old is, it is going to be a GUESS, even if it is a scientific guess, it is still a guess and it is based on assumptions.

As an engineer and student of the sciences, I do know that when we draw lines out into the future to predict, or when we draw them into the past to predict, we are making WILD assumptions. Don't you know that??

[mormonanswerman]

The question is, what are those assumptions then?  Well, one of them is to assume that all conditions that comprise the "laboratory" for measuring the age of things remains the same far far far into the past. There is no way to know this is the case at all, so it becomes an ASSUMPTION.

We have the Biblical record that says Adam and Eve lived about 1000 years. Noah too. Then life span started shortening until we have what we have now, about 100 years or a 1/10 of that.

WHY? What changed?

[sapunec7854]

@mormonanswerman ummm, no not really. Mistakes occur in some specific, known cases but this is it. Thats why it is used by every single scientist on the planet :(

[mormonanswerman]

@sapunec7854 You are appealing to large numbers of opinions, and not logic per se. Its like the global warming game, isn't it? Those scientists had some near term facts, and then they used those numbers to draw long long lines/curves to project temperatures far into the future, or look far into the past. I understand the facts, but do you understand the assumptions linking all those facts together to make various conclusions?

You know what they say: figures lie and liars figure. Sometimes.

[mormonanswerman]

@sapunec7854 Rocket science is different. Making rockets and going to the moon, putting up satellites, all high intelligent SCIENTIFIC stuff, built on assumptions of gravity that are more like FACTS...

but biological science and dating systems is another story. You have to make WILD assumptions. You have to assume some constants, and those constants are NOT like gravity that can be readily measured in a real world environment with equations that apply to current day rockets...

[sapunec7854]

@mormonanswerman yup and no. As I said many, many, MANY of these 31 types of dating don't even consern biology or anything, just take the list and paste it in googel it will lead you to a page it rationistwiki wich has everything explained WITH references ^_^

[mormonanswerman]

@sapunec7854 You keep appealing to the shotgun approach of "look it all up, if you only studied as much as these scientists do/did, then you would also see...":

I get that. I just don't by that. I can't be a trusting prisoner to the idea that because I have not read enough, I must trust those who have. I would never trust anyone like that. Look at what the global warming scientist LIARS did to us for a DECADE. They lied to us. They showed how STUPID people were to BELIEVE them. No belief!

[mormonanswerman]

@sapunec7854 If the atmosphere changed from what it was 5000 years ago, would this make a difference in how long people live? If it did change, could an archaeologist measure what the"air" was 5000 years ago? How do they dig into that air? Fact is, they can't. So its a mystery.

But it is a HUGE huge assumption for scientists who PREDICT the age of things to assume that all conditions remained similar back through all the ages of time. When they draw that straight line, ...could be wrong

[sapunec7854]

@mormonanswerman ...Fission track dating Ice layering Lack of DNA in fossils Permafrost

Weathering rinds Amino acid racemization Baptistina asteroid family Continental drift Cosmogenic nuclide dating Erosion Geomagnetic reversals Impact craters

Iron-manganese nodules Length of the prehistoric day Naica megacrystals Nitrogen in diamonds Petrified wood Relativistic jets Sedimentary varves Stalactites Space (the list will become clearer if you just copy it and paste it in google to see more)

[mormonanswerman]

@sapunec7854 Again, the SHOTGUN approach, the power-play of large volumes of information to intimidate others into thinking that they can't know, so they should trust. Its the same thing that happens in government studies, or congressional bills, they make them so VOLUMINOUS and confusing, that no one reads them. Its intimidation and I for one, am on to the game of it. I reject it.

If people can't appeal to my common sense, then don't bother pushing volumes of data at me to silence me.

[mormonanswerman]

@sapunec7854 So many methods, and for each method, there are ASSUMPTIONS if you are going to apply them to thousands of years backward in time, because there is NO WAY that the time of any of those samples/data can be verified in a REAL WORLD environment. Its all THEORETICAL. That makes it based on assumptions. I get and understand this basic concept of assumptions, but I am not sure you do, because you keep thinking that VOLUMES of data proves something. Not to me. I think of assumptions...

[mormonanswerman]

@sapunec7854 I'm not looking to the Vatican for spiritual guidance. I was bothered/amazed 35 years ago when a Catholic Priest came to speak to our class, and in that discussion he said that he did not take the Bible literally and felt that Adam and Eve were a myth.  I was blown away that a PRIEST would say this. Amazed.

Still am. I do take the Bible literally on that, and there is nothing in the Bible that says Adam and Eve were a myth or some allegory. In fact, it says God created them!

[sapunec7854]

@mormonanswerman How dreadful! A misunderstanding has occured between us - I never ever meant something about "A" study or something about the atmosphere Sir. Just look at theseDendrochronology Human Y-chromosomal ancestry Oxidizable Carbon Ratio dating Rock varnish Thermoluminescence dating Coral Fission track dating Ice layering Lack of DNA in fossils Dendrochronology Human Y-chromosomal ancestry Oxidizable Carbon Ratio dating Rock varnish Thermoluminescence dating Coral ...

[mormonanswerman]

@sapunec7854 Listen to your vocabulary here. You seem to think that this adds credibility to your argument in favor of the idea that science has age dating down near perfect back millions of years.

That's a BELIEF system, to think that. I don't believe they actually CAN know that. I am a doubter. I am an agnostic of science's ability to predict with any certain accuracy the age of the earth, etc. There are assumptions in any of that, left and right, all over assumptions. That's a fact.

[NHisMage]

What a bunch of bologna! The God of the Bible has NEVER denied anyone a privilege based on skin color. Kimball and the rest of the Mormon hierarchy saw the handwriting on the wall for the times (civil rights) and that's what precipitated the LDS org allowing blacks the right to their (false) priesthood. I wish that Mormons would just be honest about it for a change!

[mormonanswerman]

@NHisMage You are all wrong on this. It was NEVER based on skin color. That's the bigoted anti-mormon approach to seeing things. It has ALWAYS been about lineage.

In the Old Testament the lineage that was allowed the priesthood of God was LEVITE. If you were not a Levite then you did not get the priesthood. Did you know this??

Stop calling God a racist. Its ridiculous to think you understand the mind of God and why He does what He does.

[ASexyChef]

@mormonanswerman Do you do a testimony about God had many wives, and we are all literal childern, do you belive Jesus had a brother, named Satan, who didn't want the test of the world, do you belive that Jesus, is a God himself, total seperate, and we who live as saints get to become literal Gods and in the highest level of heaven, get to rule over our own planet, do you belive dark skin is a curse, by God but those who live good lives can become white in heaven, do you believe all that too?

[mormonanswerman]

@ASexyChef That's very much off-topic. But since you asked, can I ask some questions about the Old testament that seem to mirror the "strange" things that God does?

First of all, we are going to have to agree that Gods ways are not mans ways. He is going to have a peculiar people. He is going to ask them to do things that are considered "strange" to the world, because the world will mock and turn away from it.

So with that said, do you believe that God killed all the firstborn Egyptians?

[mormonanswerman]

@ASexyChef cont.,

Do you believe that God did all those bad things to the dark skinned Egyptians? Would you consider that racist?

When Moses was told that only the LEVITES could hold the Priesthood, would you consider that racist? Since no other races could hold the Priesthood in the Old Testament? Would you label that racist?

When the Bible says that Lucifer, the devil, was cast down from heaven BEFORE THIS WORLD WAS, would you agree that Lucifer was IN heaven, and was a SON OF THE MORNING?

[iterry54]

Well - hate to tell you this folks but there was no revelation. You can't find one written anywhere because there wasn't one. Quite simply Jimmy Carter then president threaten Pres Kimball that he would use the government to destroy the Church if he didn't give the blacks the priesthood. The result of that action I'm sorry to say removed the higher priesthood from the Church. We have been without the higher priesthood now for over 30 years. That I know is true!

[mormonanswerman]

@iterry54 Your right about one thing, we didn't hear about that. So how do we know it isn't just MADE UP?

Jimmy Carter was about my least favorite president, btw, because he almost ruined this country with his policies and the inflation. Remember the mile line lines to get gasoline??? I would not doubt that he might have threatened the church in some say, but I do know that Spencer Kimball was a true prophet of God, I was alive then and met and witnessed him. I do know he was. .

[iterry54]

@mormonanswerman Yep I went on a mission during the time of Harold B. Lee. I too thought Kimball was a prophet. After he gave the priesthood away under false pretenses the gifts of the Spirit left the Church. No longer were there any miracles that occurred earlier and the Holy Ghost was gone. The ordinances of the temple have now been changed and are invalid and the high priesthood is gone. Only the lesser priesthood is left now. The Church is now a simple protestant Church - Lucifer has won.

[mormonanswerman]

@iterry54 Changes can happen if they are the will of the Lord. Remember when Moses came down with a set of higher law commandments, saw the Children of Israel dancing naked and worshiping a golden calf? Well, Mose went back up and got the 10 commandments instead.

That example alone dwarfs any changes ever made by the Mormons on anything. If Moses was truly dealing wtih God, and he was, we can plainly see that God changed the plan, even though God KNEW the plan in advance.

[iterry54]

@mormonanswerman You're not familiar with the scriptures. Go back and read what happened to Moses. He brought down the 10 commands FIRST. What was taken out of their presence was the priesthood. Your wrong about that. Joseph Smith said that you cannot change the ordinances (TPJS pg 168). Isaiah says that when they are changed they are invalid (Isa 24:5). Also removed was - Patriarch to the Church - Eldredge G. Smith opposed ordination of blacks and he was removed. All contrary to scripture.

[mormonanswerman]

@iterry54 The operative word here is that YOU can not change the priesthood ordinances. But the Lord can.

He did that when He fulfilled the Law of Moses and CHANGED THEM ALL.

[iterry54]

@mormonanswerman Another reference in TPJS p308 Ordinances are not to be altered or changed. Hinckley was an apostate for changing the ordinances. He did it to placate the feminists and protestant religions. He was influenced by Lucifer. Same with Kimball and the priesthood. Also see Zechariah 14:21. Blacks (Canaanite) will be removed from the House of the Lord. You have to get them in before they can be removed. You've been duped by the leaders of the Church. They are apostates for doing this

[mormonanswerman]

@iterry54 Like I said, the LORD can change the ordinances, and He has done that in the past. He did it when He introduced the items for Moses to teach, and He did it again when He fulfilled that law He gave to Moses, and He did it again when He restored the church to the earth and gave authority once more.

I am not duped when I follow the Holy Ghost. I do have a testimony of all these things, and by the power of prayer. I also have a super strong testimony of the apostles and prophets.

[iterry54]

@mormonanswerman For some reason my comments back to you were not published. You are wrong about Moses. He came down First with ten commandments. The Priesthood was taken from Israel. I hope this isn't too controversial to be published. Next The ordinances of the temple cannot be changed see TPJS page 308 and Isaiah 24:5. You reject both of these prophets by accepting Kimball who was not a prophet. Zechariah 14:21 Blacks (Canaanite) someday will be kicked out of the temple. More next time

[mormonanswerman]

@iterry54 My reading of the Old Testament is that Moses BROKE THE TABLETS. So I don't see how I am wrong by just reading the text and not projecting all kinds of conjecture onto the event. I didn't learn this from the 10 Commandments movie, but the Old Testament is pretty clear on what happened.

Exodus 32.

19 ...and Moses’ anger waxed hot, and he cast the tables out of his hands, and brake them beneath the mount.

[mormonanswerman]

@iterry54 Now he broke the first set of tablets in chapter 32 of Exodus. Then he went up to the mountain AGAIN after that with new tablets, and the Lord also put the 10 commandments on those as well. But the first were not broke because Moses threw a temper tantrum. Moses destroyed those first tablets because they had on them something of a higher law that those people were not ready for. The Lord doesn't work with men who throw tantrums and say "come on back up, I'll make another"

[mormonanswerman]

@mormonanswerman In Exodus 34 it says:

1 And the Lord said unto Moses, Hew thee two tables of stone like unto the first: and I will write upon these tables the words that were in the first tables, which thou brakest.

THE JOSEPH SMITH TRANSLATION clarifies that there was a change on these:

but it shall not be according to the first, for I will take away the priesthood out of their midst; therefore my holy order, and the ordinances thereof, shall not go before them...

[mormonanswerman]

@iterry54 Not all revelations make it into the Canon. There was a revelation. I heard about it, and then I read about it. On the churches website it says:

"In June 1978, President Spencer W. Kimball received a revelation extending priesthood ordination to all worthy males of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Official Declaration 2)."

So it is in the Official Declaration.

[omiolo]

I remember the day when the revelation came, I was walking the halls of the Missionary Training Center in Provo, and it was a great moment for me. I knew it was from God.

[warndonboy]

religion has ruined this world.. time for it to go...

[mormonanswerman]

@warndonboy unfortunately, thinking like that will bring about just the opposite of what you desire. It will be the unfaithful unbelieving that will go. Jesus is coming to this earth again, I do await that day, but it will get very bad before this, and it is already pretty bad now, but it will get a lot lot worse and the people will be begging Him to come back and save them. And He will. But the wicked will be burned as stubble and will not remain. I would repent if I were you.

[tnfellow]

,the bible is interesting for sure?? what was Jesus talking about here,,

Matthew 22: 24-34,

[walkonking]

Google Elijah Able

Joe Smith Gave blacks the priesthood. Brigham young took it away. It was not restored in 1978.

The church was baptizing people in Brazil for years before 1978 and they all had african blood in them.

Some divine revelation.

[omiolo]

don't forget the thousands of black Fijians who were priesthood holders before 1978.

[hanslute]

Hey MAM,

I'm got a question for you about this that I hope you can answer for me.

Okay, black people gained the LDS priesthood in 1978, but was the doctrine ever changed as to why black people were born with black skin (the doctrine that it was a punishment)?

And if that doctrine was changed (that it was no longer a punishment to be born with black skin), can you provide me the information where the doctrine was changed?

Thanks,

Hans

[mormonanswerman]

There are sock puppets popping up all over, apparently the exmormons can't leave it alone, they can leave, but can't leave it alone so I had to delete a load of SPAM.

Anyway, YES I can show you where the doctrine was that this changed. It is in the Doctrine and Covenents and was a revelation published into that book by the prophet Spencer W Kimball and all of the Apostles in 1978.

OFFICIAL DECLARATION—2

...every faithful, worthy man in the Church may receive the holy priesthood...

[capobitch]

i feel really sorry for mormons but its a choice to belive w/e they want even if its a lie,next thing people will belive is laptops came down from god

[THELDSLIFE]

@capobitch What? You don't believe that laptops didn't come down from God?

[babybambambumkin]

Woman in the Mormon LOA have priestesses! We are Metatriarchal. Priesthood to All!

[sldeyo]

Mormons believe that God cursed Cain with dark skin and a flat nose. However the mark was set upon Cain BEFORE the flood. In the flood perished all but Noah,his wife,3 sons and their wives. If the curse upon Cain was dark skin, the only way for the race to survive was for Noah to be a direct decendent to Cain. Noah's geneologly didn't come from Cain. It came from Seth. Genesis 5:3,6-29,30-32. 1 Chronicles 1:1-4.

Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. --Jesus Matt 22:29

[saxaphonedude]

hmm...thats if you take the flood to literaly mean the entire world, history proves that the area that Noah lived, or the know world to him did actually totally flood, but not the world, leads me to believe that others around lived... i believe the bible, i was raised on it but i link history and fact to it and rationalize, cause the bible states the world is 6000yrs when really its millions of yrs old

[LawrenceRooney]

Around 4.5 billion, actually. And you are right, there is a large amount of evidence of a large flood in the region Noah would have lived. Stories of the flood have been past on through the thousands of years and have appeared in many other places besides the bible.

[THELDSLIFE]

@LawrenceRooney

Agreed! Take the Popul Vuh, for example (some LDS folks suggest that it was influenced by the seed of Joseph as members of the house of Israel...)

It TOO has the idea of a "Great Flood"

Some suggest that the great flood is also a symbol that is remembered when folks are baptized. A symbol of completely submerging under water and being reborn as a world only inhabited by Noah and his family or people of the covenant; a new world free from iniquity or the evil that lived on it.

[THELDSLIFE]

@saxaphonedude

Nothing suggests that the material that makes up this earth and the length of time it took to cultivate and prepare her for 'Human Inhabitation" took 6 earth days or that the world was even part of this solar system until 6,000 years ago.

According to Isaiah, this world will return to its place of creation and the sun and moon will no longer give light but it will be lit by the heavens where God dwells.

The rock record suggests the earth is a foreign body to this solar system.

[LawrenceRooney]

Nothing suggests that the Earth was part of this solar system until 6,000 years ago? Really? Uhh... do you know where the moon came from? Or how about the crater in the Yucatan? Or... I don't know, fossils? Genetics? Evolution? DNA? RNA? The giant crater on the bottom of the moon? Lava tunnels? Extinct volcanoes? OIL?

What proof is there that this world isn't 4.3 billion years old? A few old books? Fake "scientific" research that isn't subjected to peer review?

[mormonanswerman]

@LawrenceRooney There is nothing in the Bible that says how old the earth is. Some well-meaning Christians out there, a few of them, might say the world is only 6000 years old, but we don't know that from the Bible. It could be billions of years old. This much we DO know from the Bible: Man has been on this earth only 6000 years, and if science is saying millions, well, I would point to the nonsense that science says man came from apes. Not going to believe THAT!!! #LOL

[camdawg7]

Also one of the women on the boat came through the line of Ham which is the pharoes descendants and they had a dark skin.

[sonofcohen]

This video does not say or answer anything!? He was glad the church suddenly had a "new revelation" that changed that "old revelation" just in time to keep the "tithe" checks rolling in?

[Willadamus]

Please check out book "no man knows my history." For more information on the lies of Joseph Smith and the pure foolishness of the people who follow this faith.

[mormonanswerman]

Also, don't forget the book that corrects the lies in that book, please also check out the book "No ma'am, that's not history!"

The angel Moroni said that the name Joseph Smith would be had for good and evil throughout the world, and we see that this has come true 175 years later. So with that, just remember that there will be evil (aka LIES) said of Joseph Smith.

[RuddanFromSweden]

pfff... ; /

[MrNirom]

To see how black people fare in the Church in SoCal:

* To see the Mormon Church in Watts, do a YouTube search on: WATTS BRANCH 2003

* To see the 6th annual "Discover Your Roots" African-american genealogy seminar hosted in the Los Angeles Stake's center, do a YouTube search on: ROOTS 15MAR2008

* To see a ward in Los Angles, do a YouTube search on ADAMS FAREWELL 20JAN2008

[mormonanswerman]

I saw that video before! And it is interesting some guy takes a camera into church and just lets it roll... not everyone likes camera time, but most were good sports.

Quite a diversity in that branch.

[Ilegalplayer]

There were 5 recorded black men ordained to the priesthood before 1978.Elijah Abel was ordained by Joseph Smith in 1836,Walker Lewis in 1844,William McCary also known as "Black Pete"in 1846,Enoch Able in 1900 and Elijah Abel (grandson of the first Elijah Abel) in 1934.So this is the real secret hidden truth about Blacks and the priesthood in the lds church.

[mormonanswerman]

...and how do we know this secret?

The author of the book that proposes these ideas is an historian that ingores the "pros" (mormon) views, as well as the "anti" positions as a historian. In other words, throws them out. Its an interesting approach, but an approach nonetheless, and so who can you trust? Trust the Lord only.

[mormonanswerman]

If the mormons were right, then authors like this missed all of the right history. "Ever learning and never able to come to a knowledge of the truth" is what happens to scholars who do not depend on the LORD.

Again, who do you trust? We trust the Lord.

Prov. 3: 5 Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.

[ChristianVoter]

I think of the response of Mitt Romney, when he heard the revelation. He was so overcome with gratitude that it (the revelation on the priesthood) had come, that he pulled his car over and wept from happiness.

[mormonanswerman]

I have to stay young for these little ones. They keep me young!

The LTM was a fantastic place, and I thoroughly enjoyed my time there. It was renamed to the MTC the next year. I was miffed, because it was the "LTM"

[omiolo]

30 years ago you were in the language training mission. wow, I thought you were in your 30s.

Good clean living?

thanks for the message.

[skyaglow]

omiolo,

I agree,

I thought he was in his mid 30s

If it's by Good clean living, my house is going to be spot less by 10 am. : )

oh yes, and did i mention i'm blonde?

[omiolo]

"If it's by Good clean living, my house is going to be spot less by 10 am. : ) "

I keep hoping it is because he is an engineer and engineers age slower....

/grasping at straws

[rd1999]

too bad about the wind