LDS If a universal apostasy really happened?

[Peter1000]

Saying Theodosius II's covening of the council means that he was "the head of the church" makes about as much sense as saying that Constantine was the head of the Church in 325 just because he convened the council of Nicaea in that year. That makes no sense whatsoever when you consider that Nicaea formally condemned the Arians, and yet Constantine himself was baptized by an Arian (Eusebius of Nicomedia) shortly before his death, twelve years after the council.

So either the Church didn't have to listen to its own head (in which case it's kinda difficult to claim that he had the Church under his control), or you're full of baloney for even making such a claim in the first place. The answer is obviously the second option, based on what actually happened.

Wait a minute...so your evidence that "the apostasy was in full swing" was that the heretic Ibas was condemned? Or is your problem that he was condemned without being allowed to defend his letter? Because the problem was that the content of the letter itself was heretical. The letter of Ibas to Maris was one of the "three chapters" subsequently condemned in 543 by the Chalcedonians in the wake of the failure of the Henotikon (482), not without some trouble particularly from Western bishops as it was at Chalcedon that Ibas and others who had been stripped of their positions at Ephesus II were readmitted, so it was felt by some that to condemn the writing of Ibas would be to betray Chacledon. Ultimately, however, they all did so in recognition of the fact that indeed the content of the letter and of Ibas' theology insofar as it can be gleaned from the letter and from what he was known to have said and done as reported in various sources (particularly in comparison to those much closer to him in time and space than anyone in Beirut or Aleppo, such as his own predecessor in the Church at Edessa, Rabbula, who was famous for his opposition to Nestorius and Theodore of Mopsuestia) was very wrong. He was officially condemned, along with others of Nestorius' party, at the fifth ecumenical council of the Chalcedonians in Constantinople (553). So Ibas is condemned by basically everybody with the exception of the Nestorians, and nobody really has any problem with that.

If this is your evidence of the Church being "in apostasy", it's really, really weak.

[/QUOTE]

Saying Theodosius II's covening of the council means that he was "the head of the church" makes about as much sense as saying that Constantine was the head of the Church in 325 just because he convened the council of Nicaea in that year. That makes no sense whatsoever when you consider that Nicaea formally condemned the Arians, and yet Constantine himself was baptized by an Arian (Eusebius of Nicomedia) shortly before his death, twelve years after the council.

So either the Church didn't have to listen to its own head (in which case it's kinda difficult to claim that he had the Church under his control), or you're full of baloney for even making such a claim in the first place. The answer is obviously the second option, based on what actually happened.

The church obviously did not have a head, it had 5 heads all fighting each other for power and supremacy. The bishop of Alexandria was not going to take anything from the bishop of Constantinople or Rome, or Antioch, or lowly Jerusalem.

If Dioscorus I of Alexandria would have convened a council, nobody would have shown up and nothing that came from it would have amounted to anything. Ditto Constantinope, Antioch, Jerusalem and Rome. Rome had a little more pull because of the supposed "keys of Peter", remember those keys.

So the emperor convened it and got 135 bishops to show up. It is true that in 325, the emperor Constantine was the head of the church. At 325 the big 5 could not even agree on what day to hold Easter in the church. Excommunications were ordered by everyone over this petty little quarrel, I believe there was even bloodshed over the whole ordeal. So Constantine ordered the Nicean Council in his back yard, ordered all bishops to come and even paid for their travel expenses. So 300+ bishops showed up.
It made perfect sense in 325 as well as 449, the emperors were telling the bishops what to do, and the bishops paid attention, or they would have lost their thrones and possibly their lives.

So who was the real head of the church in 325 and 449? Not the bishops. Read your history.

Wait a minute...so your evidence that "the apostasy was in full swing" was that the heretic Ibas was condemned? Or is your problem that he was condemned without being allowed to defend his letter? Because the problem was that the content of the letter itself was heretical. The letter of Ibas to Maris was one of the "three chapters" subsequently condemned in 543 by the Chalcedonians in the wake of the failure of the Henotikon (482), not without some trouble particularly from Western bishops as it was at Chalcedon that Ibas and others who had been stripped of their positions at Ephesus II were readmitted, so it was felt by some that to condemn the writing of Ibas would be to betray Chacledon. Ultimately, however, they all did so in recognition of the fact that indeed the content of the letter and of Ibas' theology insofar as it can be gleaned from the letter and from what he was known to have said and done as reported in various sources (particularly in comparison to those much closer to him in time and space than anyone in Beirut or Aleppo, such as his own predecessor in the Church at Edessa, Rabbula, who was famous for his opposition to Nestorius and Theodore of Mopsuestia) was very wrong. He was officially condemned, along with others of Nestorius' party, at the fifth ecumenical council of the Chalcedonians in Constantinople (553). So Ibas is condemned by basically everybody with the exception of the Nestorians, and nobody really has any problem with that.

Since your reading did not bring understanding, then let's break this down into a quick review:

1) Ibas was accused of crimes
2) The case was brought before bishop Domnus of Antioch.
3) He acquitted Ibas of wrongdoing.
4) Ibas accussers then went to the head of the church, the emperor, and reopened the case.
5) The emperor chose 3 bishops to examine the case.
6) The 3 bishops again acquitted Ibas of wrong doing.
7) The accusers then got the governor of Osrhoene to reopen the case.
8) The governor sent a letter to the head of the church, the emporer, and the emperor now ordered Ibas to be removed and another bishop chosen. Who is the head of the church?
9) This report was read by Dioscorus in the council of Ephesus II in which Ibas was condemned and excommunicated.
10) The 3 bishops who had acquitted him earlier, under immense pressure of this council, now reversed themselves giving some stupid excuses and now condemned Ibas.
11) Of course Ibas was not allowed to attend to defend himself.

If you think this trail of keystone cops spiritual justice was just fine, you do not know how the true Church of Jesus Christ works.

If this is your evidence of the Church being "in apostasy", it's really, really weak.

[/QUOTE]

Remember this is only 1 puny case, and took up 1 page of the history of the Christian church. Oh, it gets worse, a lot worse. You just have your eyes closed and do not want to see the truth.

 

[dzheremi]

Goodness, this reply is an absolute mess, Peter...and I don't just mean the quote tags that you should fix.

The church obviously did not have a head, it had 5 heads all fighting each other for power and supremacy.

What on earth are you talking about? Nobody fought each over the condemnation of Ibas, which was your example. The Nestorians may not have liked it, but Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, etc. were all in agreement on this. Subsequent problems at Chalcedon and Constantinople 553 can't really count here, since it's not like the synod could tell the future. If they could, I would think keeping Rome and Constantinople from schism centuries later would be a much bigger deal. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

The bishop of Alexandria was not going to take anything from the bishop of Constantinople or Rome, or Antioch, or lowly Jerusalem.

Again, what on earth are you talking about? Alexandria, Constantinople, Rome, and Jerusalem were all in agreement at this point in time. This is a contentless nonsense statement. Are you just naming random sees that you know?

If

Dioscorus I of Alexandria would have convened a council, nobody would have shown up and nothing that came from it would have amounted to anything.

Is that so? 130 bishops showed up to Ephesus II in 449, and regardless of how it came to be known later on any side of the eventual schism, I'm pretty sure all would agree that something definitely came of it.

Ditto Constantinope, Antioch, Jerusalem and Rome. Rome had a little more pull because of the supposed "keys of Peter", remember those keys.

The bishop of Rome never even showed up to any of the councils. Rome always sent legates. So again: what the heck are you talking about?

So the emperor convened it and got 135 bishops to show up. It is true that in 325, the emperor Constantine was the head of the church.

What? 318 showed up to Nicaea. What council are you thinking of that had 135?

And no, it is not true that Constantine was the head of the Church. He merely convened it. Stop repeating obvious falsehoods that can be debunked with two seconds of research that you obviously didn't do.

At 325 the big 5 could not even agree on what day to hold Easter in the church.

Case in point, Constantinople was not elevated until the subsequent council held in that city in 381, via the infamous third canon. So there was no 'big five' in 325 AD. In fact, the whole concept of the Pentarchy that you seem to be suddenly so enamored with for reasons I cannot begin to fathom wouldn't be made official in the empire until several centuries later, when it was formally expressed in the laws of Emperor Justinian (527-565), and then it was even later in the Quinisext Council (692) that the Chalcedonian Church officially adopted it. So you're only off by anywhere from 202 to 367 years on this one, Peter!

Excommunications were ordered by everyone over this petty little quarrel, I believe there was even bloodshed over the whole ordeal.

To be honest I can't keep track of what quarrel or council you're even referring to by now. I don't think you know, either, based on what you've written so far. You started off talking about some council somewhere which 135 bishops attended, and then moved to Nicaea and Ephesus II. You're kinda all over the place.

So Constantine ordered the Nicean Council in his back yard, ordered all bishops to come and even paid for their travel expenses. So 300+ bishops showed up.
It made perfect sense in 325 as well as 449, the emperors were telling the bishops what to do, and the bishops paid attention, or they would have lost their thrones and possibly their lives.

Hahaha...I'm sure the Chalcedonians will love having Nicaea lumped together with Ephesus II like that. Not that it matters, because you're wrong anyway. Doesn't the ultimate failure of Ephesus II to be recognized as ecumenical by everyone disprove your point? That it was not received even with at least some level of imperial backing shows that it was not possible for the emperor's favor alone to carry the day, just as the earlier many banishments of HH St. Athanasius the Apostolic also proved.

So who was the real head of the church in 325 and 449? Not the bishops. Read your history.

It has never been the bishops, Peter. Christ is the head of the Church. Read your Bible. (Ephesians 5:23, Colossians 1:18)

Since your reading did not bring understanding

1) Ibas was accused of crimes
2) The case was brought before bishop Domnus of Antioch.
3) He acquitted Ibas of wrongdoing.
4) Ibas accussers then went to the head of the church, the emperor, and reopened the case.

Again, the Emperor was not the head of the Church. You can repeat this lie however much you want to, but it is not going to make it true, and simply restating it with no actual evidence (and not addressing the mountain of evidence to the contrary, such as Constantine's Arian baptism) does nothing to make your case.

5) The emperor chose 3 bishops to examine the case.
6) The 3 bishops again acquitted Ibas of wrong doing.
7) The accusers then got the governor of Osrhoene to reopen the case.
8) The governor sent a letter to the head of the church, the emporer, and the emperor now ordered Ibas to be removed and another bishop chosen. Who is the head of the church?
9) This report was read by Dioscorus in the council of Ephesus II in which Ibas was condemned and excommunicated.
10) The 3 bishops who had acquitted him earlier, under immense pressure of this council, now reversed themselves giving some stupid excuses and now condemned Ibas.
11) Of course Ibas was not allowed to attend to defend himself.

That was a terrible summary. What box of Heresy-O's did you read that off the back of? Throw it out.

If you think this trail of keystone cops spiritual justice was just fine, you do not know how the true Church of Jesus Christ works.

Peter, to be entirely frank with you, the day I take Church history lessons from a Nestorian-sympathizing Mormon who apparently thinks the Pentarchy stretches back to before Nicaea is the day that Joseph Smith comes to earth to personally give me access to the golden plates so that I can know that he didn't pull Reformed Egyptian out of his pantaloons -- which appear to be the same place you got your (a)historical summary from.

Remember this is only 1 puny case, and took up 1 page of the history of the Christian church. Oh, it gets worse, a lot worse. You just have your eyes closed and do not want to see the truth.

I'm an Oriental Orthodox person; you don't need to tell me how bad inter-Nicene (heh...sorry; I couldn't help myself) conflict can get. You do, however, need to seriously learn how to read the sources you're apparently grappling with, because stuff like this reply is not going to cut it.

I'm no history professor, but I'd be absolutely shocked if such a reading of Church history were to merit anything greater than a D-, and I think that is being incredibly generous. The only thing you got right was basically "Councils happened, and there were some conflicts and some people like Ibas were eventually condemned." Everything else is entirely baseless conjecture based on Mormon talking points about what must've happened so that Mormonism's idea of a great apostasy can be given some pseudo-historical basis.

I would say go back to the books and try again, but I'm not hopeful about the result, given what you apparently think passes for Christian history. You've certainly shown no grasp on anything of the kind in your reply, or anywhere else for that matter. I'm sorry if that's harsh, but my goodness...it really is that bad.

 

[Peter1000]

Goodness, this reply is an absolute mess, Peter...and I don't just mean the quote tags that you should fix.



What on earth are you talking about? Nobody fought each over the condemnation of Ibas, which was your example. The Nestorians may not have liked it, but Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, etc. were all in agreement on this. Subsequent problems at Chalcedon and Constantinople 553 can't really count here, since it's not like the synod could tell the future. If they could, I would think keeping Rome and Constantinople from schism centuries later would be a much bigger deal. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯



Again, what on earth are you talking about? Alexandria, Constantinople, Rome, and Jerusalem were all in agreement at this point in time. This is a contentless nonsense statement. Are you just naming random sees that you know?

If

Is that so? 130 bishops showed up to Ephesus II in 449, and regardless of how it came to be known later on any side of the eventual schism, I'm pretty sure all would agree that something definitely came of it.



The bishop of Rome never even showed up to any of the councils. Rome always sent legates. So again: what the heck are you talking about?



What? 318 showed up to Nicaea. What council are you thinking of that had 135?

And no, it is not true that Constantine was the head of the Church. He merely convened it. Stop repeating obvious falsehoods that can be debunked with two seconds of research that you obviously didn't do.



Case in point, Constantinople was not elevated until the subsequent council held in that city in 381, via the infamous third canon. So there was no 'big five' in 325 AD. In fact, the whole concept of the Pentarchy that you seem to be suddenly so enamored with for reasons I cannot begin to fathom wouldn't be made official in the empire until several centuries later, when it was formally expressed in the laws of Emperor Justinian (527-565), and then it was even later in the Quinisext Council (692) that the Chalcedonian Church officially adopted it. So you're only off by anywhere from 202 to 367 years on this one, Peter!



To be honest I can't keep track of what quarrel or council you're even referring to by now. I don't think you know, either, based on what you've written so far. You started off talking about some council somewhere which 135 bishops attended, and then moved to Nicaea and Ephesus II. You're kinda all over the place.



Hahaha...I'm sure the Chalcedonians will love having Nicaea lumped together with Ephesus II like that. Not that it matters, because you're wrong anyway. Doesn't the ultimate failure of Ephesus II to be recognized as ecumenical by everyone disprove your point? That it was not received even with at least some level of imperial backing shows that it was not possible for the emperor's favor alone to carry the day, just as the earlier many banishments of HH St. Athanasius the Apostolic also proved.



It has never been the bishops, Peter. Christ is the head of the Church. Read your Bible. (Ephesians 5:23, Colossians 1:18)

Again, the Emperor was not the head of the Church. You can repeat this lie however much you want to, but it is not going to make it true, and simply restating it with no actual evidence (and not addressing the mountain of evidence to the contrary, such as Constantine's Arian baptism) does nothing to make your case.



That was a terrible summary. What box of Heresy-O's did you read that off the back of? Throw it out.



Peter, to be entirely frank with you, the day I take Church history lessons from a Nestorian-sympathizing Mormon who apparently thinks the Pentarchy stretches back to before Nicaea is the day that Joseph Smith comes to earth to personally give me access to the golden plates so that I can know that he didn't pull Reformed Egyptian out of his pantaloons -- which appear to be the same place you got your (a)historical summary from.



I'm an Oriental Orthodox person; you don't need to tell me how bad inter-Nicene (heh...sorry; I couldn't help myself) conflict can get. You do, however, need to seriously learn how to read the sources you're apparently grappling with, because stuff like this reply is not going to cut it.

I'm no history professor, but I'd be absolutely shocked if such a reading of Church history were to merit anything greater than a D-, and I think that is being incredibly generous. The only thing you got right was basically "Councils happened, and there were some conflicts and some people like Ibas were eventually condemned." Everything else is entirely baseless conjecture based on Mormon talking points about what must've happened so that Mormonism's idea of a great apostasy can be given some pseudo-historical basis.

I would say go back to the books and try again, but I'm not hopeful about the result, given what you apparently think passes for Christian history. You've certainly shown no grasp on anything of the kind in your reply, or anywhere else for that matter. I'm sorry if that's harsh, but my goodness...it really is that bad.

If I take out the part that the emperor was the head of the church, was my summary of the Ibas case inaccurate?

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Peter, you seem to want to interpret history overly negatively not according to what actually happened but according to your Mormon precepts. Hence why you seem to accuse every member of the Pentarchy as being Godless men who cared nothing for divine things. Earlier I suggested you couldn't make this claim if you were knowledgeable or were telling the truth, now I have to wonder what your purported knowledge is.

We as Christians can admit a great deal of fault in our leaders, going back even to the Apostles. Peter erred numerous times. I'm sure the Apostles erred numerous times not mentioned in scripture. The difference seems to be between our two perspectives is that we as Christians believe the power of God is greater than human error or sin. The Mormon propensity to exaggerate the corruption of the Church, to imply moral fault on our leaders in order to justify their view of the great Apostasy doesn't speak to the Mormon belief in the power of God, but in the supposed moral superiority of Mormons than the rest of Christendom.

Your leaders are perfect. Your leaders are beacons of the divine, whereas our leaders are sinners and that's why the pentarchy cannot be trusted. I can't take such a simple assertion easily at face value. It's too simplistic. How does it account for someone like John Chrysostom? How does it account for someone like Patriarch Jeramias II who voiced his love for God and knowledge of divine things to the Lutheran Theologians of Tubingin? How does it account for someone like Maximos the Confessor? St Theophylact of Orhid? Your suggestion that our Church leadership was so utterly corrupt and devoid of Godly wisdom doesn't stand up to scrutiny in the face of such examples, martyrs and teachers they were.

Try looking at the Church through this lens. God, had left them to their own devices. He was not sending them Prophets or Apostles to guide them. What did they have then to rely on? They had the New Testament, which they preserved more than any other book. They had the example and tradition of the Church which had been left to them and the sacred mysteries entrusted into their care. They had to make do with the best people they could elevate to positions of spiritual leadership in the absence of God's appointing an Apostle. What more could you expect from the Church? Is it not a secular miracle that the Church, abandoned by God, accomplished so much more than the Mormon God ever has in terms in reforming the mind and intellect of man to things divine?

 

[Daniel Marsh]

You are right about that, but you are not telling the rest of the story in regards to Flavian's history.

Flavian did excommunicate Eutyches for false doctrine, but in the Council of Ephesus II there was a different make-up of leaders and he was deposed, and exiled, and could not even defend himself.

In fact when his sentence was pronounced, the President of the Council, Dioscorus of Alexandria allowed soldiers and monks from the outside into the council. Flavian ran to the altar and grabbed hold of it for his life. The soldiers and monks forcefully took him from the altar and beat him and kicked him and then whipped him.

Flavian died a few days later from his wounds in Lydia, and his body was buried in dishonor and obscurity.

That is why I tell you to read the history of Christianity, it is beautiful when the innocent lived the gospel and made a difference in the world, but it was ugly from a leadership prospective, as they did not live the gospel of Jesus Christ, as the case of Ibas and Flavian clearly demonstrate.
This was no longer the Church of Jesus Christ.

There are similar accounts in LDS history. Using your logic friend, then LDS Church is false too.

"There were also notable incidents in which Mormons perpetrated violence. Under the direction of Mormon prophets and apostles, Mormons burned and looted Daviess County, attacked and killed members of the Missouri state militia, and carried out an extermination order on the Timpanogos. Other Mormon leaders led the Mountain Meadows Massacre, Battle Creek massacre, and Circleville Massacre. Mormons have also been a major part in several wars, including the 1838 Mormon War, Walker War and Black Hawk War."


List of Mormon wars and massacres[edit]

This list includes all wars and massacres that have involved significant numbers of members of the Latter Day Saint movement as victims or perpetrators.

Date Location Name Deaths Description
1838 Missouri 1838 Mormon War 22 (including 17 at Haun's Mill) aka Missouri Mormon War, included the events of the Haun's Mill Massacre, Battle of Crooked River and Daviess County expedition.
1844–45 Nauvoo, Illinois Mormon War in Illinois 3 Skirmish proceeding the Mormon Exodus
1849 Battle Creek (Pleasant Grove, Utah) Battle Creek massacre 4+ Attack on Timpanogos after taking Mormon cattle
1850 Fort Utah(Provo, Utah) Battle at Fort Utah 40-100 Timpanogos, 1 Mormon Mormon settlers attacked the Timpanogos
1851 Skull Valley William McBride Massacre 9 Goshutes Captain William McBride attacked a Goshute camp after they took cattle from Charles White.
April 1851 Skull Valley Porter Rockwell Massacre About 7 Utes In attempt to find horse thieves, Captain Porter Rockwell came upon a tribe of Utes. He took them prisoner, but after determining they didn't know anything about the horse thieves, he executed them.
1853 Utah Walker War 12 Mormons and ~12 Native Americans Series of battles between Mormon and various indigenous tribes led by Walkara
1857 Mountain Meadow, Utah Mountain Meadows Massacre 120 Nauvoo Legion attacked the Baker–Fancher emigrant wagon train, resulting in the mass slaughter of the emigrant party
1857–1858 Utah Utah War some non-Mormon civilians American troops coming into Utah after rumors of a Mormon rebellion
1862 Kington Fort Morrisite War 11 Battle between the Church of the Firstborn (Morrisite) and the Utah Territorial Militia
1865–72 Utah Black Hawk War (Utah) ~70 Mormons and 140 Native Americans Series of battles led by Black Hawk involving various indigenous tribes
1866 Circleville, Utah Circleville Massacre ~30 Paiutes Circleville residents captured and executed the Paiute band as tensions in the Black Hawk War escalated.
Mormonism and violence - Wikipedia

In short, so what we are all only human.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

If I take out the part that the emperor was the head of the church, was my summary of the Ibas case inaccurate?

Huh????!!!!!

 

[Daniel Marsh]

The Mormon Church Has A Domestic Violence Problem | HuffPost
https://psmag.com/social-justice/college-age-mormons-sexual-violence-religious-problem-84637
Mormonism and violence - Wikipedia
https://www.google.com/search?sourc...99.4-1......0......gws-wiz.....10.22JhcZQFXVc

All people in any church are just human and make mistakes. If the existence of violence is proof that a church is false or apostatized than LDS is false and apostatized too.

[/img]

http://www.happletea.com/wp-content/uploads/2013-08-06.jpg

 

[Peter1000]

Peter, you seem to want to interpret history overly negatively not according to what actually happened but according to your Mormon precepts. Hence why you seem to accuse every member of the Pentarchy as being Godless men who cared nothing for divine things. Earlier I suggested you couldn't make this claim if you were knowledgeable or were telling the truth, now I have to wonder what your purported knowledge is.

We as Christians can admit a great deal of fault in our leaders, going back even to the Apostles. Peter erred numerous times. I'm sure the Apostles erred numerous times not mentioned in scripture. The difference seems to be between our two perspectives is that we as Christians believe the power of God is greater than human error or sin. The Mormon propensity to exaggerate the corruption of the Church, to imply moral fault on our leaders in order to justify their view of the great Apostasy doesn't speak to the Mormon belief in the power of God, but in the supposed moral superiority of Mormons than the rest of Christendom.

Your leaders are perfect. Your leaders are beacons of the divine, whereas our leaders are sinners and that's why the pentarchy cannot be trusted. I can't take such a simple assertion easily at face value. It's too simplistic. How does it account for someone like John Chrysostom? How does it account for someone like Patriarch Jeramias II who voiced his love for God and knowledge of divine things to the Lutheran Theologians of Tubingin? How does it account for someone like Maximos the Confessor? St Theophylact of Orhid? Your suggestion that our Church leadership was so utterly corrupt and devoid of Godly wisdom doesn't stand up to scrutiny in the face of such examples, martyrs and teachers they were.

Try looking at the Church through this lens. God, had left them to their own devices. He was not sending them Prophets or Apostles to guide them. What did they have then to rely on? They had the New Testament, which they preserved more than any other book. They had the example and tradition of the Church which had been left to them and the sacred mysteries entrusted into their care. They had to make do with the best people they could elevate to positions of spiritual leadership in the absence of God's appointing an Apostle. What more could you expect from the Church? Is it not a secular miracle that the Church, abandoned by God, accomplished so much more than the Mormon God ever has in terms in reforming the mind and intellect of man to things divine?

No leaders are perfect, but we believe our leaders hold the same keys to the KOG as Peter did.
This makes a big difference to me. No other church on the earth claims that, except the Catholic church and they have proven to be unworthy of those keys, and no longer hold that authority.

I look at the apostasy with both lenses, the good and the bad. I am aware that there were many millions of good people who lived the way the bible said to live, and these people will be saved in the KOG. We just have a different idea about how they will be saved than you do, but do not despair, our way is just and accommodating and happens to be true, Jesus is the obvious centerpiece.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

Ok lets play that game and show that LDS Prophets are unworthy:

Based on First John, those who taught the curse of Cain and thus hated their fellow man, do not walk in the light.

In Fact, Joseph Smith's hate is even in the BoM itself.

Alma 3:6 “And the skins of the Lamanites were dark, according to the mark which was set upon their fathers, which was a curse upon them because of their transgression and their rebellion against their brethren…”

3 Nephi 2:15 “And their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites;”

3 Nephi 19:30 “And when Jesus had spoken these words he came again unto his disciples; and behold they did pray steadfastly, without ceasing, unto him; and he did smile upon them again; and behold they were white, even as Jesus.”

Note: the real Jesus was Jewish, not white. LOL

2 Nephi 5:21 still says:

“And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, and they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.”


Joseph Smith himself:

Having learned with extreme regret, that an article entitled, 'Free People of Color,' in the last number of the Star has been misunderstood, we feel in duty bound to state, in this Extra, that our intention was not only to stop free people of color from emigrating to this state, but to prevent them from being admitted as members of the Church.

History of the Church, 1:378-79

Had I anything to do with the negro, I would confine them by strict law to their own species and put them on a national equalization.

History of the Church, Vol. 5, pp. 218-19.


In the Messenger and Advocate (vol. 2, no. 7, p. 300, April 1836), Smith declares that slavery was ordained by God and consistent with the gospel of Christ.

“…we unhesitatingly say…the project of emancipation is destructive to our government, and the notion of amalgamation is devilish!-And insensible to feeling must be the heart, and low indeed must be the mind, that would consent for a moment, to see his fair daughter, his sister, or perhaps, his bosom companion, in the embrace of a Negro!

We entreat our brethren of the Eastern, the free States, the Canadas, and all, wherever they may be found, not to be surprised or astonished at this step, which we have thus publicly taken: were they acquainted with the present condition of the slave, they would see that they could not be freed, and we enjoy our present, civil and social societies. And further, that this matter cannot be discussed without exciting the feelings of the black population, and cause them to rise, sooner or later, and lay waste and desolate many parts of the Southern country.

This cannot be done without consigning to the dust thousands of human beings. And the bare reflection of being instrumental in causing unprovoked blood to flow, must shock the heart of every saint.”

What is the "Mark of Cain" in the Book of Mormon?

Moses 5:40
"And I the Lord set a a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him."

But what was this mark?

"For behold, the Lord shall curse the land with much heat, and the barrenness thereof shall go forth forever; and there was a BLACKNESS came upon all the children of Canaan, that they were DESPISED AMONG ALL PEOPLE." LDS Pearl of Great Price, Moses 7:8

Alma 3:6-9
6 And the skins of the Lamanites were dark, according to the mark which was set upon their fathers, which was a acurse upon them because of their transgression and their rebellion against their brethren, who consisted of Nephi, Jacob, and Joseph, and Sam, who were just and holy men.
7 And their brethren sought to destroy them, therefore they were cursed; and the Lord God set a amark upon them, yea, upon Laman and Lemuel, and also the sons of Ishmael, and Ishmaelitish women.
8 And this was done that their seed might be distinguished from the seed of their brethren, that thereby the Lord God might preserve his people, that they might not amix and believe in incorrect btraditions which would prove their destruction.
9 And it came to pass that whosoever did mingle his seed with that of the Lamanites did bring the same curse upon his seed.

So, according to the Book of Mormon, not only is dark skin a curse, but interracial relationships are too!

Even more interesting is the changes made. Compare the Book of Mormon (1830 edition), 2 Nephi, Chapter XII, p. 117
"And the Gospel of Jesus Christ shall be declared among them; wherefore, ...their scales of darkness shall begin to fall from their eyes; and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a white and delightsome people."

With the current "translation" of 2 Nephi 30:6
"they shall be a pure and a delightsome people."

Why change "white" to "pure?"

What, according to the Book of Mormon, was the "Mark of Cain?"The Book of Mormon - What is the "Mark of Cain" in the Book of Mormon? (showing 1-50 of 66)

Changing World Chapter 10 Part 1
Curse of Cain? Racism in the Mormon Church Part Two
White and Delightsome or Pure and Delightsome? – A Look at 2 Nephi 30:6
Mormon quotes on blacks
Blacks and the Mormon Priesthood
Are Racist LDS Scriptures Still Deemed “Utterly Reliable” and “Pure Truth”? Part 1 | Mormon Coffee
Joseph Smith Founder of LDS Racist Scriptures and Teachings: Part 2 | Mormon Coffee
Brigham Young's Speech on: Slavery, Blacks, and the Priesthood
google Joseph Smith 1830s "mark of cain" statements

 

[Daniel Marsh]

First John 2

9 If we say that we are in the light, yet hate others, we are in the darkness to this very hour. 10 If we love others, we live in the light, and so there is nothing in us that will cause someone else to sin. 11 But if we hate others, we are in the darkness; we walk in it and do not know where we are going, because the darkness has made us blind.

12 I write to you, my children, because your sins are forgiven for the sake of Christ. 13 I write to you, fathers, because you know him who has existed from the beginning. I write to you, young people, because you have defeated the Evil One.

1 John 3:15 Those who hate others are murderers, and you know that murderers do not have eternal life in them.

First John 4

19 We love because God first loved us. 20 If we say we love God, but hate others, we are liars. For we cannot love God, whom we have not seen, if we do not love others, whom we have seen. 21 The command that Christ has given us is this: whoever loves God must love others also.

The above demonstrates that people who hated others were living in darkness.

If you do not believe the early LDS Leaders hated black people, then follow the link in my OP. Scroll down to the quotes.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

First John 3

6 So everyone who lives in union with Christ does not continue to sin; but whoever continues to sin has never seen him or known him.

7 Let no one deceive you, my children! Whoever does what is right is righteous, just as Christ is righteous. 8 Whoever continues to sin belongs to the Devil, because the Devil has sinned from the very beginning. The Son of God appeared for this very reason, to destroy what the Devil had done.

9 Those who are children of God do not continue to sin, for God's very nature is in them; and because God is their Father, they cannot continue to sin. 10 Here is the clear difference between God's children and the Devil's children: those who do not do what is right or do not love others are not God's children.

Phillips words the bold area like this "The man who lives a consistently good life is a good man, as surely as God is good. But the man whose life is habitually sinful is spiritually a son of the devil, for the devil is behind all sin, as he always has been. Now the Son of God came to earth with the express purpose of liquidating the devil’s activities. The man who is really God’s son does not practise sin, for God’s nature is in him, for good, and such a heredity is incapable of sin."

AMP like this, "
1 John 3:6-10 Amplified Bible (AMP)
6 No one who abides in Him [who remains united in fellowship with Him—deliberately, knowingly, and habitually] practices sin. No one who habituallysins has seen Him or known Him. 7 Little children (believers, dear ones), do not let anyone lead you astray. The one who practices righteousness [the one who strives to live a consistently honorable life—in private as well as in public—and to conform to God’s precepts] is righteous, just as He is righteous. 8 The one who practices sin [separating himself from God, and offending Him by acts of disobedience, indifference, or rebellion] is of the devil [and takes his inner character and moral values from him, not God]; for the devil has sinned and violated God’s law from the beginning. The Son of God appeared for this purpose, to destroy the works of the devil. 9 No one who is born of God [deliberately, knowingly, and habitually] practices sin, because God’s seed [His principle of life, the essence of His righteous character] remains [permanently] in him [who is born again—who is reborn from above—spiritually transformed, renewed, and set apart for His purpose]; and he [who is born again] cannot habitually [live a life characterized by] sin, because he is born of God andlongs to please Him. 10 By this the children of God and the children of the devil are clearly identified: anyone who does not practice righteousness [who does not seek God’s will in thought, action, and purpose] is not of God, nor is the one who does not [unselfishly] love his [believing] brother."

1 John 3:6-10 Contemporary English Version (CEV)
6 and people who stay one in their hearts with him won’t keep on sinning. If they do keep on sinning, they don’t know Christ, and they have never seen him.

7 Children, don’t be fooled. Anyone who does right is good, just like Christ himself. 8 Anyone who keeps on sinning belongs to the devil. He has sinned from the beginning, but the Son of God came to destroy all that he has done. 9 God’s children cannot keep on being sinful. His life-giving power[a] lives in them and makes them his children, so that they cannot keep on sinning. 10 You can tell God’s children from the devil’s children, because those who belong to the devil refuse to do right or to love each other.

1 John 3:6-10 Expanded Bible (EXB)
6 So anyone who ·lives [abides; remains] in ·Christ [L him] does not ·go on sinning [or sin; C the Christian ideal, an implicit call to avoid sin]. Anyone who ·goes on sinning [or sins] has ·never really understood Christ and has never known him [L neither seen him nor known him].

7 Dear children [2:1], do not let anyone ·lead you the wrong way [deceive you]. The one who does what is right is righteous, just as ·Christ [L he] is righteous. 8 Anyone who ·continues to sin [or sins] belongs to the devil [John 8:44], because the devil has been sinning since the beginning. The Son of God ·came [was revealed; appeared] for this purpose: to destroy the devil’s work [Matt. 4:1–11; 12:25–29; Luke 10:18; John 12:31; Rev. 12:7–12; 20:1–3].

9 ·Those [L All] who are ·God’s children [L born of/begotten by God; 2:29] do not ·continue sinning [or sin], because ·the new life from God [or God’s message; or God’s Spirit; L his seed/sperm] ·remains [abides] in them. They are not able to ·go on sinning [or sin], because they ·have become children of God [L are born of/begotten by God]. 10 ·So we can see [L In this way it is apparent/revealed/evident] who God’s children are and who the devil’s children are: Those who do not ·do what is right [practice righteousness] are not ·God’s children [L from/of God], and those who do not love their brothers and sisters are not ·God’s children [L from/of God].

1 John 3:6-10 The Passion Translation (TPT)
6 But the one who continues sinning[a] hasn’t seen him with discernment or known him by intimate experience.

7 Delightfully loved children, don’t let anyone divert you from this truth. The person who keeps doing what is right proves that he is righteous before God, even as the Messiah is righteous. 8 But the one who indulges in a sinful life is of the devil,[c] because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God was revealed was to undo and destroy the works of the devil.

9 Everyone who is truly God’s child will refuse to keep sinning[d] because God’s seed[e] remains within him, and he is unable to continue sinning because he has been fathered by God himself.[f] 10 Here is how God’s children can be clearly distinguished from the children of the Evil One.[g] Anyone who does not demonstrate righteousness[h] and show love to fellow believers is not living with God as his source.

1 John 3:6-10 The Message (MSG)
4-6 All who indulge in a sinful life are dangerously lawless, for sin is a major disruption of God’s order. Surely you know that Christ showed up in order to get rid of sin. There is no sin in him, and sin is not part of his program. No one who lives deeply in Christ makes a practice of sin. None of those who do practice sin have taken a good look at Christ. They’ve got him all backward.

7-8 So, my dear children, don’t let anyone divert you from the truth. It’s the person who acts right who is right, just as we see it lived out in our righteous Messiah. Those who make a practice of sin are straight from the Devil, the pioneer in the practice of sin. The Son of God entered the scene to abolish the Devil’s ways.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

Those quotes are all long enough to give context. What I see in those quotes are people who hate big time. Unfortunately they were the founding prophets of the LDS Church.
The fact, that JS hate spilled over into the BOM makes anything by JS an invalid source for truth. The fact that BY continued that hate rules him out as a source of truth too. Because of that hate according to first John, neither of them walked in the true light of Jesus. We all know that Satan can appear as an angel of light to deceive people.

The Bible in First John clearly teaches that those who hate others are not of God. That can only mean one claiming to be a prophet of God never heard from God. We know from Hebrews that God disciplines his Children. I do not see God disciplining early LDS Prophets or Leaders for that ongoing sin of hate towards black people.

 

[dzheremi]

No leaders are perfect, but we believe our leaders hold the same keys to the KOG as Peter did.
This makes a big difference to me. No other church on the earth claims that, except the Catholic church and they have proven to be unworthy of those keys, and no longer hold that authority.

All traditional churches claim that in some way, Peter. Only the Roman Catholic Church claims it in exactly the way that the RCC does (i.e., with the exact justifications/reasoning that they give for claiming that), but that's neither here nor there.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

Early prophets of LDS were haters of black people.

That practice of hate puts them outside the Christian Church because they are walking in darkness.

I already posted about their violence against others.

Read First John, it is only a few short chapters.

1 John 1-5 Good News Translation (GNT)
The Word of Life
1 We write to you about the Word of life, which has existed from the very beginning. We have heard it, and we have seen it with our eyes; yes, we have seen it, and our hands have touched it. 2 When this life became visible, we saw it; so we speak of it and tell you about the eternal life which was with the Father and was made known to us. 3 What we have seen and heard we announce to you also, so that you will join with us in the fellowship that we have with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ. 4 We write this in order that our[a] joy may be complete.

God Is Light
5 Now the message that we have heard from his Son and announce is this: God is light, and there is no darkness at all in him. 6 If, then, we say that we have fellowship with him, yet at the same time live in the darkness, we are lying both in our words and in our actions. 7 But if we live in the light—just as he is in the light—then we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from every sin.

8 If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and there is no truth in us. 9 But if we confess our sins to God, he will keep his promise and do what is right: he will forgive us our sins and purify us from all our wrongdoing. 10 If we say that we have not sinned, we make a liar out of God, and his word is not in us.

Christ Our Helper
2 I am writing this to you, my children, so that you will not sin; but if anyone does sin, we have someone who pleads with the Father on our behalf—Jesus Christ, the righteous one. 2 And Christ himself is the means by which our sins are forgiven, and not our sins only, but also the sins of everyone.

3 If we obey God's commands, then we are sure that we know him. 4 If we say that we know him, but do not obey his commands, we are liars and there is no truth in us. 5 But if we obey his word, we are the ones whose love for God has really been made perfect. This is how we can be sure that we are in union with God: 6 if we say that we remain in union with God, we should live just as Jesus Christ did.

The New Command
7 My dear friends, this command I am writing you is not new; it is the old command, the one you have had from the very beginning. The old command is the message you have already heard. 8 However, the command I now write you is new, because its truth is seen in Christ and also in you. For the darkness is passing away, and the real light is already shining.

9 If we say that we are in the light, yet hate others, we are in the darkness to this very hour. 10 If we love others, we live in the light, and so there is nothing in us that will cause someone else to sin. 11 But if we hate others, we are in the darkness; we walk in it and do not know where we are going, because the darkness has made us blind.

12 I write to you, my children, because your sins are forgiven for the sake of Christ. 13 I write to you, fathers, because you know him who has existed from the beginning. I write to you, young people, because you have defeated the Evil One.

14 I write to you, my children, because you know the Father. I write to you, fathers, because you know him who has existed from the beginning. I write to you, young people, because you are strong; the word of God lives in you, and you have defeated the Evil One.

15 Do not love the world or anything that belongs to the world. If you love the world, you do not love the Father. 16 Everything that belongs to the world—what the sinful self desires, what people see and want, and everything in this world that people are so proud of—none of this comes from the Father; it all comes from the world. 17 The world and everything in it that people desire is passing away; but those who do the will of God live forever.

The Enemy of Christ
18 My children, the end is near! You were told that the Enemy of Christ would come; and now many enemies of Christ have already appeared, and so we know that the end is near. 19 These people really did not belong to our fellowship, and that is why they left us; if they had belonged to our fellowship, they would have stayed with us. But they left so that it might be clear that none of them really belonged to us.

20 But you have had the Holy Spirit poured out on you by Christ, and so all of you know the truth. 21 I write you, then, not because you do not know the truth; instead, it is because you do know it, and you also know that no lie ever comes from the truth.

22 Who, then, is the liar? It is those who say that Jesus is not the Messiah. Such people are the Enemy of Christ—they reject both the Father and the Son. 23 For those who reject the Son reject also the Father; those who accept the Son have the Father also.

24 Be sure, then, to keep in your hearts the message you heard from the beginning. If you keep that message, then you will always live in union with the Son and the Father. 25 And this is what Christ himself promised to give us—eternal life.

26 I am writing this to you about those who are trying to deceive you. 27 But as for you, Christ has poured out his Spirit on you. As long as his Spirit remains in you, you do not need anyone to teach you. For his Spirit teaches you about everything, and what he teaches is true, not false. Obey the Spirit's teaching, then, and remain in union with Christ.

28 Yes, my children, remain in union with him, so that when he appears we may be full of courage and need not hide in shame from him on the Day he comes. 29 You know that Christ is righteous; you should know, then, that everyone who does what is right is God's child.

Children of God
3 See how much the Father has loved us! His love is so great that we are called God's children—and so, in fact, we are. This is why the world does not know us: it has not known God. 2 My dear friends, we are now God's children, but it is not yet clear what we shall become. But we know that when Christ appears, we shall be like him, because we shall see him as he really is. 3 Everyone who has this hope in Christ keeps himself pure, just as Christ is pure.

4 Whoever sins is guilty of breaking God's law, because sin is a breaking of the law. 5 You know that Christ appeared in order to take away sins,[c] and that there is no sin in him. 6 So everyone who lives in union with Christ does not continue to sin; but whoever continues to sin has never seen him or known him.

7 Let no one deceive you, my children! Whoever does what is right is righteous, just as Christ is righteous. 8 Whoever continues to sin belongs to the Devil, because the Devil has sinned from the very beginning. The Son of God appeared for this very reason, to destroy what the Devil had done.

9 Those who are children of God do not continue to sin, for God's very nature is in them; and because God is their Father, they cannot continue to sin. 10 Here is the clear difference between God's children and the Devil's children: those who do not do what is right or do not love others are not God's children.

Love One Another
11 The message you heard from the very beginning is this: we must love one another. 12 We must not be like Cain; he belonged to the Evil One and murdered his own brother Abel. Why did Cain murder him? Because the things he himself did were wrong, and the things his brother did were right.

13 So do not be surprised, my friends, if the people of the world hate you. 14 We know that we have left death and come over into life; we know it because we love others. Those who do not love are still under the power of death. 15 Those who hate others are murderers, and you know that murderers do not have eternal life in them. 16 This is how we know what love is: Christ gave his life for us. We too, then, ought to give our lives for others! 17 If we are rich and see others in need, yet close our hearts against them, how can we claim that we love God? 18 My children, our love should not be just words and talk; it must be true love, which shows itself in action.

Courage before God
19 This, then, is how we will know that we belong to the truth; this is how we will be confident in God's presence. 20 If our conscience condemns us, we know that God is greater than our conscience and that he knows everything. 21 And so, my dear friends, if our conscience does not condemn us, we have courage in God's presence. 22 We receive from him whatever we ask, because we obey his commands and do what pleases him. 23 What he commands is that we believe in his Son Jesus Christ and love one another, just as Christ commanded us. 24 Those who obey God's commands live in union with God and God lives in union with them. And because of the Spirit that God has given us we know that God lives in union with us.

The True Spirit and the False Spirit
4 My dear friends, do not believe all who claim to have the Spirit, but test them to find out if the spirit they have comes from God. For many false prophets have gone out everywhere. 2 This is how you will be able to know whether it is God's Spirit: anyone who acknowledges that Jesus Christ came as a human being has the Spirit who comes from God. 3 But anyone who denies this about Jesus does not have the Spirit from God. The spirit that he has is from the Enemy of Christ; you heard that it would come, and now it is here in the world already.

4 But you belong to God, my children, and have defeated the false prophets, because the Spirit who is in you is more powerful than the spirit in those who belong to the world. 5 Those false prophets speak about matters of the world, and the world listens to them because they belong to the world. 6 But we belong to God. Whoever knows God listens to us; whoever does not belong to God does not listen to us. This, then, is how we can tell the difference between the Spirit of truth and the spirit of error.

God Is Love
7 Dear friends, let us love one another, because love comes from God. Whoever loves is a child of God and knows God. 8 Whoever does not love does not know God, for God is love. 9 And God showed his love for us by sending his only Son into the world, so that we might have life through him. 10 This is what love is: it is not that we have loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the means by which our sins are forgiven.

11 Dear friends, if this is how God loved us, then we should love one another. 12 No one has ever seen God, but if we love one another, God lives in union with us, and his love is made perfect in us.

13 We are sure that we live in union with God and that he lives in union with us, because he has given us his Spirit. 14 And we have seen and tell others that the Father sent his Son to be the Savior of the world. 15 If we declare that Jesus is the Son of God, we live in union with God and God lives in union with us. 16 And we ourselves know and believe the love which God has for us.

God is love, and those who live in love live in union with God and God lives in union with them. 17 Love is made perfect in us in order that we may have courage on the Judgment Day; and we will have it because our life in this world is the same as Christ's. 18 There is no fear in love; perfect love drives out all fear. So then, love has not been made perfect in anyone who is afraid, because fear has to do with punishment.

19 We love because God first loved us. 20 If we say we love God, but hate others, we are liars. For we cannot love God, whom we have not seen, if we do not love others, whom we have seen. 21 The command that Christ has given us is this: whoever loves God must love others also.

Our Victory over the World
5 Whoever believes that Jesus is the Messiah is a child of God; and whoever loves a father loves his child also. 2 This is how we know that we love God's children: it is by loving God and obeying his commands. 3 For our love for God means that we obey his commands. And his commands are not too hard for us, 4 because every child of God is able to defeat the world. And we win the victory over the world by means of our faith. 5 Who can defeat the world? Only the person who believes that Jesus is the Son of God.

The Witness about Jesus Christ
6 Jesus Christ is the one who came with the water of his baptism and the blood of his death. He came not only with the water, but with both the water and the blood. And the Spirit himself testifies that this is true, because the Spirit is truth. 7 There are three witnesses: 8 the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and all three give the same testimony. 9 We believe human testimony; but God's testimony is much stronger, and he has given this testimony about his Son. 10 So those who believe in the Son of God have this testimony in their own heart; but those who do not believe God, have made a liar of him, because they have not believed what God has said about his Son. 11 The testimony is this: God has given us eternal life, and this life has its source in his Son. 12 Whoever has the Son has this life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life.

Eternal Life
13 I am writing this to you so that you may know that you have eternal life—you that believe in the Son of God. 14 We have courage in God's presence, because we are sure that he hears us if we ask him for anything that is according to his will. 15 He hears us whenever we ask him; and since we know this is true, we know also that he gives us what we ask from him.

16 If you see a believer commit a sin that does not lead to death, you should pray to God, who will give that person life. This applies to those whose sins do not lead to death. But there is sin which leads to death, and I do not say that you should pray to God about that. 17 All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin which does not lead to death.

18 We know that no children of God keep on sinning, for the Son of God keeps them safe, and the Evil One cannot harm them.

19 We know that we belong to God even though the whole world is under the rule of the Evil One.

20 We know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we know the true God. We live in union with the true God—in union with his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and this is eternal life.

21 My children, keep yourselves safe from false gods!

 

[Daniel Marsh]

Each person is responsible for their own sin.

But, JS hate spilled into the Book of Mormon.

Since JS walked in darkness, he was not born of God's Spirit.

If one does not love the persons they do see, they are unable to love God because they do not know God.

If you want to see the darkness, There are many quotes here from LDS Collectors Library from the people I am asking about:


Racism in Mormon History




For nearly 150 years, until the black revelation of 1978, Mormons considered “black skin” a curse and refused to grant them the Mormon priesthood necessary for exaltation in the Mormon plan of salvation. The following are racist statements made by Mormon leaders throughout the history of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints:

JOSEPH SMITH, JR.:

“Had I anything to do with the negro, I would confine them by strict law to their own species, and put them on a national equalization.” (Joseph Smith quoted in Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith by Joseph Fielding Smith, page 270 and History of the Church, vol. 5, p. 218).

BRIGHAM YOUNG:

“But let them apostatize, and they will become gray-haired, wrinkled, and black, just like the Devil” (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 5, p. 332).

“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. . . . Cain slew his brother. Cain might have been killed, and that would put a termination to that line of human beings. This was not to be, and the Lord put a mark upon him, which was the flat nose and black skin. Trace mankind down to after the flood, and then another cursed is pronounced upon the same race–that they should be the ‘servants of servants;’ and they will be until that curse is removed; and the Abolitionists cannot help it, nor in the least alter that decree.” (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 7, p. 290)

“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.” (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 10, p. 110)

“How long is that race to endure the dreadful curse that is upon them? That curse will remain upon them, and they never can hold the Priesthood or share in it until all the other descendants of Adam have received the promises and enjoyed the blessings of the Priesthood and the keys thereof. Until the last ones of the residue of Adam’s children are brought up to that favorable position, the children of Cain cannot receive the first ordinances of the Priesthood. They were the first that were cursed, and they will be the last from whom the curse will be removed. When the residue of the family of Adam come up and receive their blessings, then the curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will receive blessings in like proportion.” (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, 7:290-291)

JOHN TAYLOR:

“For although they were destroyed in the body, yet when Jesus came and …preached to the spirits in prison that were disobedient in the days of Noah. And then the devil put on a long face and said, I imagined I had got rid of these fellows; but they are going to have a chance yet that I did not think of. And after the flood we are told that the curse that had been pronounced upon Cain was continued through Ham’s 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 representation upon the earth as well as God; and that man should be a free agent to act for himself, and that all men might have the opportunity of receiving or rejecting the truth, and be governed by it or not according to their wishes and abide the result; and that those who would be able to maintain correct principles under all circumstances, might be able to associate with the Gods in the eternal worlds. It is the same eternal programme. God knew it and Adam knew it.” (President John Taylor, Journal of Discourses, vol. 22, pages 303-304.)

JOSEPH FIELDING SMITH:

“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 [pre-existence] received greater blessings here, and those who were not faithful received less…. There were no neutrals in the war in Heaven. All took sides either with Christ or with Satan. Every man had his agency there, and men receive rewards here based upon their actions there, just as they will receive rewards hereafter for deeds done in the body. The Negro, evidently, is receiving the reward he merits.“ (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 1 pp. 61, 65-66)

“Not only was Cain called upon to suffer, but because of his wickedness he became the father of an inferior race. A curse was place upon him and that curse has been continued through his lineage and must do so while time endures. Millions of souls have come into this world cursed with black skin and have been denied the privilege of Priesthood and the fullness of the blessings of the Gospel. These are the descendants of Cain. Moreover, they have been made to feel their inferiority and have been separated from the rest of mankind from the beginning… we will also hope that blessings may eventually be given to our Negro brethren, for they are our brethren–children of God—notwithstanding their black covering emblematical of eternal darkness.“ (Joseph Fielding Smith, The Way to Perfection, pp. 101-102.)

BRUCE R. MCCONKIE:

“Cain was cursed with a dark skin; he became the father of the negroes, and those spirits who are not worthy to receive the priesthood are born through that lineage…. 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…. Those who were less valiant in pre-existence and who thereby had certain spiritual restrictions impose on them during mortality are known to us as the negroes. Such spirits are sent to earth through the lineage of Cain, the markput upon him for his rebellion against God, and his murder of Able being a black skin. . . . Noah’s son married Egyptus, a descendant of Cain, thus preserving the negro lineage through the flood. . . . the negro are not equal with other races where the receipt of certain spiritual blessings are concern. . . . ” (Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, pp. 109, 114, 527-528; 1966 original edition, later changed after the 1978 black revelation change).

GOD OF THE BIBLE IS NOT RACIST:

In no place in the Bible is black skin considered the curse of Cain or any other “mark” from God. The Bible declares that God is not racist when it states: “Then Peter open his mouth, and said, ‘Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:but in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.’ ” (Acts 10:34)

Racism in Mormon History

 

[Daniel Marsh]

As I said before it is each person.

But, in the case of Joseph Smith, his hate is reflected in his BoM.

God will not give true revelations, prophecies to those walking in darkness.

Those walking in darkness, God does send a lying spirit.

Bottom line, none of Smith's Scriptures are of God because of his hate.

1 Kings 22:22-23
And the Lord said unto him, ‘Wherewith?’ And he said, ‘Iwill go forth, and I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.’ And He said, ‘Thou shalt persuade him, and prevail also. Go forth, and do so.’ Now therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the Lord hath spoken evil concerning thee.

2 Chronicles 18:21-22
And he said, ‘I will go out, and be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.’ And the Lord said, ‘Thou shalt entice him, and thou shalt also prevail. Go out, and do even so.’
Now therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets, and the Lord hath spoken evil against thee.”

2 Thessalonians 2:11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie,

In those texts I am pointing out that God sends "strong delusion" and a "lying spirit" to prophets walking in darkness.

 

[Daniel Marsh]

"Delusions of Persecution: This is a phrase combining the term delusion (a false belief held despite significant contradictory evidence), with the term persecution (mistreatment, discrimination, or victimization). It refers to a falsely held belief or thought that another entity (person, multiple people or a group) is on a mission to harm or mistreat them."

• Source: Suspicious minds: the psychology of persecutory delusions. - PubMed - NCBI

Personal religiosity: There appears to be an link between individual religiosity and whether someone is likely to experience delusions of persecution. Those who have a faith of personal importance are less likely to experience delusions of persecution compared to atheists. The percentages compiled from research were 73% among those with faith, versus 87% among atheists.
Delusions Of Persecution: Causes, Symptoms, Treatment - Mental Health Daily

Above I only used parts that apply, ignore the rest, I do not think it relates.

Many religions have a false sense of being persecuted, small religious groups prescution complex - Google Search

hypersensitive persecutory complex - Google Search

"According to a recently released Pew Forum poll, a whopping 46% of Mormon respondents said that Mormons face “a lot of discrimination” in modern America. No surprise there, it is a favorite theme in LDS Church meetings at all levels."The Mormon Persecution Complex

"Among self-conscious Mormons and attuned outside observers, there is a popular perception that Mormons have a peculiar sense of their own reproach. Both their beliefs and their sociocultural history, some believe, breed Latter-day Saints to be acutely aware that they are beleaguered in broader society, a feeling that’s sometimes called a “persecution complex.” Mormons are, according to this line of thought, highly sensitive to their own social marginalization. Because of this sensitivity, they are likely to see hostility to their faith, whatever the circumstances."The Mormon 'persecution complex' | LDS Living


The article points out why right-wing religions are prone to persecution complex:Persecution Complex

"History is written by those who survive to tell the events as they want them told. The history of the Mormon Church is no different. What gets told is a colorful tapestry of events which have been recorded by Mormons, edited by Mormons, taught by Mormons, and told to Mormons. While the stories of the early days of the church involving Joseph Smith, the hardships and successes of the early members, the pioneer trek west, and the settlement and build-up of Salt Lake City are often considered inspiring and faith building, many of the actual historical facts are overlooked or simply ignored by the large population of the Latter-Day Saints (LDS). For example, many Mormons don’t know the original name of the church was Church of Christ, later modified to the Church of Latter-Day Saints, and finally, in "Mormon Persecution Complex | Seth Anderson

 

[Daniel Marsh]

The Mormon Persecution Complex - the give and take of Mormon persecution


The 'extermination order' is perhaps the most famous document that Mormons use to show that they are persecuted. Few know the circumstances surrounding its origin. About three months before it was issued, Sidney Rigdon delivered his famous 4th of July speech of 1838 which was partially reproduced in the church's Comprehensive History of the Church, vol. 1, page 441 as follows:

And that mob that comes on us to disturb us, it shall be between us and them a war of extermination; for we will follow them until the last drop of their blood is spilled; or else they will have to exterminate us, for we will carry the seat of war to their own houses and their own families, and one party or the other shall be utterly destroyed.Joseph Smith approved of the speech and it was subsequently printed in The Far West, a weekly newspaper, and the church's own Elders' Journal. Joseph Smith said in History of the Church, "The oration was delivered by President Rigdon, at the close of which was a shout of Hosanna, and a song, composed for the occasion by Levi W. Hancock, was sung by Solomon Hancock. The most perfect order prevailed throughout the day." What were the non-Mormon readers supposed to think of these remarks? What were they to do when the church subsequently led battles against non-aggressive former Mormons and mistakenly led a battle against the state's own militia? A couple of faithful Mormons had this to say about the subsequent Mormon aggressions which occurred before the extermination order of Boggs:"The females hastily took from the houses what they could carry, and here I might say there was almost a trial of my faith in my pity for our enemies... Among the women was one, young married and apparently near her confinement, and another with small children and not a wagon, and many miles away from any of their friends, and snow had begun already... to fall. My sympathies were drawn toward the women and children, but I would in no degree let them deter me from duty. So while others were pillaging for something to carry away, I was doing my best to protect... the lives and comfort of the families who were dependent on getting away upon horse-back....While others were doing the burning and plunder, my mission was of mercy....Before noon we had set all on fire and left upon a circuitous route towards home."
-- Benjamin F. Johnsonand"At the time that Galeton was to be burned, I pleaded with father to let me go; but to no effect. On the appointed day I went to the top of the hill... and cast my eyes in the direction of Galeton...and saw smoke rising towards Heaven, which filled me with ambition, the love of excitement, tumult and something new...The next day I went to Bishop Knights and saw the plunder, and o what lots, I...heard them tell, in what order they took the place... The store they burned, but the goods were preserved."
-- Oliver B. HuntingtonMichael Quinn commented on the events as follows:In the skirmishes that both sides called 'battles,' Mormons used deadly force without reluctance. Benjamin F. Johnson wrote that Danite leader (and future apostle) Lyman Wight told his men to pray concerning their Missouri enemies: 'That God would Damn them & give us pow[e]r to Kill them.' Likewise, at the beginning of the Battle of Crooked River on 25 October 1838, Apostle David W. Patten (a Danite captain with the code-name "Fear Not') told his men: 'Go ahead, boys; rake them down.' The highest ranking Mormon charged with murder for obeying this order was Apostle Parley P. Pratt who allegedly took the careful aim of a sniper in killing one Missourian and then severely wounding militiaman Samuel Tarwater. This was after Apostle Patten received a fatal stomach wound. In their fury at the sight of their fallen leader, some of the Danites mutilated the unconscious Tarwater 'with their swords' striking him lengthwise in the mouth, cutting off his under teeth, and breaking his lower jaw; cutting off his cheeks...and leaving him [for] dead.' He survived to press charges against Pratt for attempted murder. (Pratt subsequently escaped from prison and resumed his position in the Quorum of 12 Apostles)
A generally unacknowledged dimension of both the extermination order and the Haun's Mill massacre, however, is that they resulted from Mormon actions in the Battle of Crooked River. Knowingly or not, Mormons had attacked state troops, and this had a cascade effect. Local residents feared annihilation: 'We know not the hour or minute we will be laid in ashes,' a local minister and county clerk wrote the day after the battle. 'For God's sake give us assistance as quick as possible.' Correspondingly, the attack on state troops weakened the position of Mormon friends in Missouri's militia and government. Finally, upon receiving news of the injuries and death of state troops at Crooked River, Governor Boggs immediately drafted his extermination order on 27 October 1838 because the Mormons 'have made war upon the people of this state.' Worse, the killing of one Missourian and mutilation of another while he was defenseless at Crooked River led to the mad-dog revenge by Missourians in the slaughter at Haun's Mill. (The Mormon Hierarchy, pages 99-100)

Even though Mormons of today know next to nothing about these events and precursors to the Mormon exodus, the Mormons of the day were well aware of why they were being 'persecuted'. When Brigham Young was jockeying the presidency of the church away from Sidney Rigdon after Joseph Smith died he said, "Elder Rigdon was the prime cause of our troubles in Missouri by his fourth of July oration." (Times and Seasons, vol. 5, page 667) As B.H. Roberts said over 50 years later,The deliverance of a very noted "Oration" by Sidney Rigdon at Far West, on the Fourth of July, 1838, in the course of which there was expressed a strong determination to no more submit quietly to mob violence, and acts of pillage. At this distance of time from that occasion, and balancing against the heated utterances of the speaker the subsequent uses made of them to incite the public mind to that series of acts which culminated in the expulsion of the Saints from the state, we say those utterances were untimely, extreme, and unwise. So indeed they were. The speaker seems to have thrown discretion to the winds, and in the fervor of his rhetoric made threats of retaliation on behalf of the Saints.
Although Hinckley's letter doesn't mention it, you frequently hear Mormons claim that they were driven out of Ohio too. For much more on the Ohio issue, see Van Wagoner's book referenced above and Brigham Young University Studies, Summer 1977, pages 437-38, 458 which shows that the Kirtland Bank Joseph Smith established was illegal, and he left Ohio, not because he was driven out but, in order to escape paying his debts and having to face criminal charges.

For more background on the Missouri conflict see: The 1838 Mormon War in Missouri which people have told me is the very best source to finding out both sides of this issue. BYU professor William G. Hartley's My Best For the Kingdom is also an excellent source. For a better background and history of the Mormon Trail (including accounts of the pioneers that needlessly died because they listened to leaders rather than reason) see: The Pioneer Camp of the Saints : The 1846 and 1847 Mormon Trail Journals of Thomas Bullock. [an error occurred while processing this directive]
The Mormon Persecution Complex - the give and take of Mormon persecution

https://www.google.com/search?q=LDS...CKy-jwSw8YuoAQ&start=10&sa=N&biw=1163&bih=538

 

[Daniel Marsh]

Racism in Mormon Scripture




The Mormon belief in black skin being a “curse” is found in uniquely Mormon books they call “Scripture.” These books, known as the Book of Mormon and Pearl of Great Price published by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are racist as the list of verses below show. Remember that the Mormon version of God is not the God of the Bible. The curse of Cain or “mark” mentioned in Biblical Scripture is never said to refer to black skin. The God of the Bible rejects racism. The Bible states that “God does not show favoritism.” (Romans 2:11, New International Version of the Bible). The God of the Bible regards all people alike, regardless of skin color. In fact, He teaches that He made all mankind from “one blood” (Acts 17:26). Since all races come from Adam and Eve, there is no condemnation for mixing race in marriage either. The Bible states that there is no distinction between the races in God’s salvation plan. Galatians 3:28 says: “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”

BOOK of MORMON

1 Nephi 11:13 (Mary) “she was exceedingly fair and white.”

1 Nephi 12:23 (prophecy of the Lamanites) ” became a dark, and loathsome, and a filthy people, full of idleness and all manner of abominations.”

1 Nephi 13:15 (Gentiles) “they were white, and exceedingly fair and beautiful, like unto my people [Nephites] before they were slain.”

2 Nephi 5:21 “a sore cursing . . . as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.”

2 Nephi 30:6 (prophecy to the Lamanites if they repented) “scales of darkness shall begin to fall. . . . they shall be a white and delightsome people” (“white and delightsome” was changed to “pure and delightsome” in 1981).

Jacob 3:5 (Lamanites cursed) “whom ye hate because of their filthiness and the cursing which hath come upon their skins. . . .”

Jacob 3:8-9 “their skins will be whiter than yours… revile no more against them because of the darkness of their skins. . . .”

Alma 3:6 “And the skins of the Lamanites were dark, according to the mark which was set upon their fathers, which was a curse upon them because of their transgression and their rebellion.”

Alma 3:9 “whosoever did mingle his seed with that of the Lamanites did bring the same curse upon his seed.”

Alma 3:14 (Lamanites cursed) “set a mark on them that they and their seed may be separated from thee and thy seed. . . .”

Alma 23:18 “[Lamanites] did open a correspondence with them [Nephites] and the curse of God did no more follow them.”

3 Nephi 2:14-16 “Lamanites who had united with the Nephites were numbered among the Nephites; And their curse was taken from them, and their skin became white like unto the Nephites and . . . became exceedingly fair. . . . ”

3 Nephi 19:25, 30 (Disciples) “they were as white as the countenance and also the garments of Jesus; and behold the whiteness thereof did exceed all the whiteness. . . . nothing upon earth so white as the whiteness thereof… and behold they were white, even as Jesus.”

Mormon 5:15 (prophecy about the Lamanites) “for this people shall be scattered, and shall become a dark, a filthy, and a loathsome people, beyond the description of that which ever hath been amongst us. . . .”

Pearl of Great Price

Moses 7:8 “a blackness came upon all the children of Canaan. . . .”

Moses 7:12 “Enoch continued to call upon all the people, save it were [i.e., except] the people of Canaan, to repent. . . .”

Moses 7:22 “.for the seed of Cain were black and had not place among them.”

Abraham 1:21 ” king of Egypt [Pharaoh] was a descendant from the loins of Ham, and was a partaker of the blood of the Canaanites by birth.”

Abraham 1:27 “Pharaoh being of that lineage by which he could not have the right of Priesthood. . . .” (emphasis added to above citations).
The truth is: Mormonism does not represent Jesus Christ or His Church. The LDS teachings of the “Negro” are not consistent with, as well as, contradict Scripture.

FOR MORE INFORMATION SEE:


Racism in Mormon Scripture

 

[Daniel Marsh]

I was happy to read this, but it does not excuse the founding of your church. I understand that JS gave a black person a token priesthood.

Race and the Priesthood December 6, 2013

• “Today, the Church disavows the theories advanced in the past that black skin is a sign of divine disfavor or curse…. Church leaders today unequivocally condemn all racism, past and present, in any form.” (NOTE: The Church still publishes racist statements in its Book of Mormon and Pearl of Great Price “Scriptures.”)