2012 - Mormanism & Black Skin (by Edward L. Dalcour, http://christiandefense.org/mor_black.htm )

UPDATE:
Race Relations
article source: http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/topic/race-relations

     It’s been over 30 years since The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints began ordaining its members of African descent to the priesthood.

     It was a pivotal moment in Church history, with implications not only for members in the United States but for the Church worldwide.

     The enthusiasm with which the change in practice was greeted by Church members everywhere was widely noted at the time.  Ken Woodward, religion writer for Newsweek, wrote in the magazine’s 19 June 1978 edition:

     The revelation caught noontime pedestrians in Salt Lake City by surprise.  One man who had turned his portable radio to a church-owned station, called excitedly to workers at church headquarters:  “They’ve just announced blacks can get the priesthood!” James Dawson, one of two black members of the famed Mormon Tabernacle Choir, told fellow Saints: ‘My faith is strengthened, I am very happy.”

Image © 2008 Intellectual Reserve, Inc. All rights reserved.

 

• 
• 

Tony Parker and family.© 2008

     Elsewhere, excited white and black Church members called each other, honked car horns in the street and gathered in groups to discuss the announcement that came so suddenly following a profoundly significant spiritual experience for then - Church President Spencer W. Kimball and his fellow apostles in the Church.

Newsweek’s Woodward went on to predict that the next steps were likely to be the creation of black congregations under the direction of black elders.

     Woodward’s prediction is telling.  Even in 1978, a decade after the civil rights movement changed the face of America, worshipers in many churches across the land remained, in effect, segregated.  Most blacks still worshipped with blacks, and most whites with whites.  Few ordained black ministers preached to white congregations and discrimination in other forms still existed years later.

     In fact, nothing like that happened in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  There was never any policy of segregated congregations.  Where Mormons of various racial or ethnic backgrounds have lived as neighbors, they have always worshiped together throughout Church history.  Blacks had long before 1978 been baptized as members, preached from the pulpit and offered prayers in largely white congregations — none of which required the member to hold priesthood office.

     After announcing the change in June 1978, the Church immediately began ordaining active black male members to priesthood office wherever they attended throughout the world.  The first temple in Africa was built in South Africa in 1981 and two more — in Ghana and Nigeria — were dedicated more recently. 

     A 2007 Washington Post headline referred to “the new face of global Mormonism.”  The New York Times noted in a 2005 article that a new Church building in the city was “one of the most racially integrated congregations in Harlem, with about equal numbers of white and black worshippers.”

     Amid the generally favorable media reports, there have been a few exceptions, especially in the heated atmosphere of an election campaign.

     Ahmad Corbitt, an African-American who is president of a stake (equivalent to a diocese) in New Jersey, said that occasional charges of racism leveled at the Church should be “seen for what they are.”

     “I think everyone understands that people say things for political reasons that just don’t square with the facts,” Corbitt said.

     Corbitt leads one of the more diverse stakes in the Church.   While membership is largely white, his twelve congregations each embrace people of diverse ethnic backgrounds.  Three of his congregations are Spanish speaking, and Corbitt’s own three-member presidency consists of a white counselor and a Tongan counselor.  

“Anyone who says the Church is racist isn’t speaking from experience and has no idea of the racial harmony we enjoy as a Church family,” Corbitt said.  “Perhaps some members of color have had a negative experience here or there in our 13 and a half-million-member church.   But in numerous meetings with members and leaders of the Church at every level over the years I have never experienced anything remotely resembling racism.”

     Tony Parker, another African-American stake president, oversees nine congregations in the Atlanta area, including one headed by a black bishop.  Parker has been a member of the Mormon faith for 25 years.  

“I’m a better person now than I was back then,” Parker says.   “I feel better about myself. They have been years of personal growth and enrichment.”

     Parker says he has a simple answer to critics outside of the Church.  “Anyone who thinks the Church is racist just needs to come and see.  They can sit in our church on the sidelines and watch, or talk to members.”  

Asked if he had ever encountered a prejudicial comment from a fellow Latter-day Saint, Parker said: “My experience has been almost universally positive. Sure, there have been occasional bumps in the road, but nothing to damage my personal convictions.

     Style Guide Note: When reporting about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, please use the complete name of the Church in the first reference. For more information on the use of the name of the Church, go to our online style guide.

---

LDS UPDATE from 30Sep78

Official Declaration — 2

source: http://lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/od/2?lang=eng

To Whom It May Concern:
      On 30 September 1978, at the 148th Semiannual General Conference of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the following was presented by President N. Eldon Tanner, First Counselor in the First Presidency of the Church:
      In early June of this year, the First Presidency announced that a revelation had been received by President Spencer W. Kimball extending priesthood and temple blessings to all worthy male members of the Church.  President Kimball has asked that I advise the conference that after he had received this revelation, which came to him after extended meditation and prayer in the sacred rooms of the holy temple, he presented it to his counselors, who accepted it and approved it.  It was then presented to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, who unanimously approved it, and was subsequently presented to all other General Authorities, who likewise approved it unanimously.
      President Kimball has asked that I now read this letter:
June 8, 1978
     To all general and local priesthood officers of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints throughout the world:
Dear Brethren:
      As we have witnessed the expansion of the work of the Lord over the earth, we have been grateful that people of many nations have responded to the message of the restored gospel, and have joined the Church in ever-increasing numbers.  This, in turn, has inspired us with a desire to extend to every worthy member of the Church all of the privileges and blessings which the gospel affords.
      Aware of the promises made by the prophets and presidents of the Church who have preceded us that at some time, in God’s eternal plan, all of our brethren who are worthy may receive the priesthood, and witnessing the faithfulness of those from whom the priesthood has been withheld, we have pleaded long and earnestly in behalf of these, our faithful brethren, spending many hours in the Upper Room of the Temple supplicating the Lord for divine guidance.
      He has heard our prayers, and by revelation has confirmed that the long-promised day has come when every faithful, worthy man in the Church may receive the holy priesthood, with power to exercise its divine authority, and enjoy with his loved ones every blessing that flows therefrom, including the blessings of the temple.  Accordingly, all worthy male members of the Church may be ordained to the priesthood without regard for race or color.   Priesthood leaders are instructed to follow the policy of carefully interviewing all candidates for ordination to either the Aaronic or the Melchizedek Priesthood to insure that they meet the established standards for worthiness.
      We declare with soberness that the Lord has now made known his will for the blessing of all his children throughout the earth who will hearken to the voice of his authorized servants, and prepare themselves to receive every blessing of the gospel.
Sincerely yours, Spencer W. Kimball, N. Eldon Tanner, Marion G. Romney, The First Presidency
      Recognizing Spencer W. Kimball as the prophet, seer, and revelator, and president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, it is proposed that we as a constituent assembly accept this revelation as the word and will of the Lord.   All in favor please signify by raising your right hand.  Any opposed by the same sign.
      The vote to sustain the foregoing motion was unanimous in the affirmative.
      Salt Lake City, Utah, September 30, 1978.

---

From: An Obama supporter friend. (May he see the error of his ways.)
source: http://christiandefense.org/mor_black.htm

The Department of Christian Defense
P.O. Box 2128, Winnetka, California 91396
818-377-5272 (edward@christiandefense.org)

Edward L. Dalcour, Woodland Hills Chiropractic and Medical Center
5530 Corbin Ave, Ste # 100, Tarzana, CA 91356
Phone: 818-705-1333 (proslogos@gmail.com)

---

Mormanism: http://christiandefense.org/mormon.htm

Witnessing Point: Most of the biblical quotations contained in this LDS section are quoted from the King James Version.  The reason being, the KJV is the only translation that the Mormons recognize. Hence, when dialoging with Mormons it is wise to use the KJV.

reference, Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 5, p. 332: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Journal_of_Discourses/Volume_5/Testimony_of_the_Spirit,_etc.

---

Mormonism and Black Skin

"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)

    When Mormon missionaries come to the door of literally thousands of potential converts they will assure the unsuspecting that they represent "Jesus Christ" and are preaching His Gospel. However, that is not the case on many accounts.   The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS) cannot escape their racist past. For nearly 150 years, the Mormon Church had taught that ALL blacks were cursed. Hence, a black Mormon male could not hold the highly regarded LDS Priesthood1 because of his dark skin. And since he could not hold this Priesthood, he could not enter the Mormon Temple. This doctrine in no way, shape, or form can be substantiated in Scripture. Only in the LDS scriptures does this racist doctrine exist.

 To determine official LDS doctrine from unofficial speculation let us read the statements that were made by the General Authorities of the LDS Church as well as citations from the LDS "standard works." So then, official LDS teaching cannot be evaded or denied as many Mormons (especially uninformed missionaries) often do.

Cursed in Pre-existence

    But, before we read what LDS leaders have taught concerning the "cursed line," we will need to go back and discover as to why dark skinned people are cursed. Then we will have a better understanding of Mormon thought on this issue. Mormons teach that when the "council of the Gods" were planning how to redeemed mankind Jesus desired to save man by giving them their free choice, however Lucifer objected and wanted to force men to serve God.

LDS scholar Bruce R. McConkie tells us:

When the plan of salvation presented . . . and when the need for a Redeemer was explained, Satan offered to come into the world as the Son of God and be the Redeemer. "Behold here am I, send me," he said. . . .  But then, as always, he was in opposition to the full plan of the Father, and so he sought to amend and change the terms of salvation; he sought to deny men their agency and to dethrone God (Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 193).

Therefore, the Gods rejected Lucifer's plan, which resulted in a war between the good spirit children, and the spirit children that sided with Lucifer (a third of them). But there was a group of spirits that were less valiant in this war. Hence, God (the head God) was very displeased with them so He turned their skin black. Tenth President Joseph Fielding Smith explains:

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, 1:61, 65-66; emphasis added).

LDS Apostle Bruce R. McConkie furthers this teaching:

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 mark put 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. . . . " (Mormon Doctrine, 527-28; 1966 orig. ed., changed in the current ed.; emphasis added).

Now, we can have more of a clearer perspective as to why the LDS would teach such blatant racism that Scripture never condones. Now we will read what LDS General Authorities had taught concerning the, what they termed, "cursed lineage," that is, dark skinned people (particularly Negroes).

LDS Presidents/Prophets

Joseph Smith first president, prophet, and founder of the Mormon Church:

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 Fielding Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 270; History of the Church, 5: 218; emphasis added).

"Thursday, 8--Held Mayor's court and tried two negroes for attempting to marry two white women: fined one $25, and the other $5" (ibid.,  6: 210).

and the rebellious niggers in the slave states. . . "  (Millennial Star, 22:602; emphasis added).

When Mormon Historians reprinted this in the History of the Church, they change it to read:

"and the rebellious negroes in the slave states. . . " (History of the Church,  6:158; emphasis added).

Brigham Young second President and Prophet:

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 (Journal of Discourses,  7:290; emphasis added)

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 (ibid., 10:110; emphasis added)

Brigham Young stated that his sermons (as cited above) are Scripture:

I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of man, that they may not call Scripture (ibid., 13:95).

John Taylor, third President and Prophet.

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. . . . (ibid., 23:304; emphasis added).

That the "curse lineage" (dark skin) is Satan's representation on earth, was taught clearly by the third President and Prophet of the Mormon Church, John Taylor. Taylor goes on to teach:

When he [Satan] destroyed the inhabitants of the antediluvian worlds, he suffered a descendant of Cain to come through the flood in order that he might be properly represented upon the earth (ibid., 23:336; emphasis added).

Wilford Woodruff, who became the fourth President and Prophet of the LDS Church:

What was that mark? It was a mark of blackness. That mark rested upon Cain, and descended upon his posterity from that time until the present. To day there are millions of the descendants of Cain, through the lineage of Ham, in the world, and that mark of darkness still rest upon them (Millennial Star, 51:339; emphasis added).

Joseph Fielding Smith, tenth President and Prophet.

In 1963, Look magazine interviewed, at that time, the leader of the LDS Church; Joseph Fielding Smith. Concerning negroes, Smith stated:

I would not want you to believe that we bear any animosity toward the Negro. 'Darkies' are wonderful people, and they have their place in our church (Look magazine, October 22, 1963, 79; emphasis added).

Smith also taught that "Negroes" were inferior to other races:

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 (The Way to Perfection, 101-02; emphasis added).

And, as previously quoted, Smith stated that 

There is a reason why one man is born black and with other disadvantages, while another is born white with great advantages... The Negro, evidently, is receiving the reward he merits (Doctrines of Salvation, 1:61, 66; emphasis added).

LDS General Authorities

Orson Pratt, LDS Apostle:

Among the Saints [Mormons] is the most likely place for these [pre-existent] spirits to take their tabernacles, through a just and righteous parentage [white parentage]. They are sent to that people that are the most righteous of any other people upon the earth. . . . The Lord has not kept them in store for five or six thousand years past, and kept them waiting for their bodies all this time to send them among the Hottentots, the African negroes, the idolatrous Hindoos, or any other of the fallen nations of the earth. They are not kept in reserve in order to come forth to receive such a degraded parentage [African negroes] upon the earth; no, the Lord is not such a being (Journal of Discourses, 1:63; emphasis added)

Mark E. Peterson, LDS Apostle:

President Woodruff added, 'The Lord said, 'I will not kill Cain, but I will put a mark upon him, and that mark will be seen upon every face of every Negro, upon the face of the earth. And it is the decree of God that [the] mark should remain upon the seed of Cain, until the seed of Able shall be redeemed, and Cain shall not receive the Priesthood until the time of that redemption. Any man having one drop of the blood of Cain in him cannot receive the Priesthood' (Race Problems-- As They Affect the Church, address given by Mark E. Peterson at BYU; emphasis added)

In the same address, Peterson goes on to say:

Who placed the Negroes originally in darkest Africa? Was it some man or was it God?. . . The Lord segregated the people both as to blood and place of residence. At least in the cases of the Lamanites and the negroes we have the definite word of the Lord Himself that He placed a dark skin upon them as a curse--as a punishment and as a sign to all others. He forbade intermarriage with them under threat of extension of the curse. . . . And He certainly segregated the descendants of Cain when He cursed the Negro as to the Priesthood, and drew an absolute line. Think of the Negro, cursed as to the Priesthood. Are we prejudiced against him? Unjustly, sometimes we are accursed of having such a prejudice. . . . 

This Negro, who, in the pre-existence lived the type of life which justified the Lord in sending him to the earth in the lineage of Cain with black skin, and possibly being born in darkest Africa--if that negro is willing when he hears the gospel to accept it, they may have many of the blessings of the gospel. In spite of all he did in the pre-existent life, the Lord is willing if the Negro accepts the gospel with real, sincere faith, and is really converted, to give him the blessings of baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost. . . .

If I were to marry a Negro woman and have children by her, my children would be cursed as to the Priesthood. Do I want my children cursed as to the Priesthood? If there is one drop of negro blood in my children, as I have read to you, they receive the curse. . . . There are 50 million Negroes in the United States. If they were to achieve complete absorption with the white race, think what that would do. With 50 million Negroes inter-married with us, where would the priesthood be? Who could hold it, in all America? Think what that would do to the work of the Church! . . .  Now we are generous with the Negro.

We are willing that the Negro have the highest kind of education. I would be willing to let every Negro drive a Cadillac if they could afford it. I would be willing that that they have all the advantages as they can get out of life in the world. But let them enjoy these among themselves. I think the Lord segregated the Negro and who is man to change it?" (ibid.; emphasis added)

LDS Apostle George A. Smith:

There is not a man, from the President of the United States to the Editors of their sanctorums, clear down to the low-bred letter-writers in this Territory, but would rob the coppers from a dead nigger's eyes, if they had a good opportunity (Journal of Discourses, 5:110; emphasis added).

LDS Apostle and prolific writer Bruce R. McConkie: 

Negroes in this life are denied the Priesthood; under no circumstances can they hold this delegation of authority from the Almighty… The gospel message of salvation is not carried affirmatively to them. Negroes are not equal with other races where the receipt of certain spiritual blessings are concerned. . . . (Mormon Doctrine, 477, 527-28; 1966 orig. ed., changed in the current).

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 (ibid.,109; 1966 org. ed., changed in the current ed.; emphasis added).

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 (ibid., 114; current ed.; emphasis added)

Is this Christian? Did Jesus or the Apostles teach prejudice on the basis of skin color? These racist teachings, which were clearly taught by the leaders of the Mormon Church, echo those of the Skinhead, K.K.K. and other destructive groups. This, is not Christianity:

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; emphasis added)

God hath showed me that I should not call any man common or unclean (ibid., 10:28)

Let us conclude by examining the LDS scriptures, which indicates plainly that dark skin was a sign of Gods curse:

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.

In 1978, the LDS god changes his Mind

    Because of this racist teaching, the LDS Church was under enormous political pressure. Hence, June 8, 1978, LDS President, Spencer W. Kimball, after spending many hours in the "Upper Room" of the LDS Temple, claimed that God had removed the curse. All worthy black men could now receive the Priesthood.

This, was a major doctrinal change. Mormons will usually argue: "But it was said that eventually the curse would be removed." However, this assertion cannot be found before 1978. Therefore, we will again, appeal to the official teachings of the LDS General Authorities. What the LDS General Authorities did teach was that the curse would not be removed in this life. LDS Prophet Brigham Young explains, under, so-called, divine revelation:2

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 (Journal of Discourses,  7:290-91; emphasis added).

Young was clear: "they [blacks] never can hold the Priesthood . . . until all the other descendants of Adam have received the promises and enjoyed the blessings of the Priesthood and the keys thereof." The time when the descendants of Adam (white men) are redeemed is at the resurrection, not in this life. According to Mormonism that has not happen yet. Keep in mind, Young declared:

I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of man, that they may not call Scripture (ibid., 13:95).

LDS Apostle Mark E. Peterson  agrees:

And it is the decree of God that [the] mark should remain upon the seed of Cain, until the seed of Able shall be redeemed, and Cain shall not receive the Priesthood until the time of that redemption (Race Problems-- As They Affect the Church, address by Mark E. Peterson at BYU; emphasis added; see above).

LDS Apostle Bruce R. McConkie comments as to the duration of the curse:

Negroes in this life are denied the Priesthood; under no circumstances can they hold this delegation of authority from the Almighty… The gospel message of salvation is not carried affirmatively to them…. (Mormon Doctrine,  477, 527-28; 1966 org. ed., changed in the current; see above).

As observed, and with most non-Christian cults, the god of Mormonism is a changing god. It changes its mind. The God of the Bible does not change:

"For I am the LORD, I change not. . . ." (Mal. 3:6).

Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth: and the heavens are the work of thy hands. They shall perish, but thou shalt endure: yea, all of them shall wax old like a garment; as a vesture shalt thou change them, and they shall be changed: But thou are the same, and thy years shall have no end (Ps. 102:25-27).

Even the Book of Mormon agrees with this point:

Now, the decrees of God are unalterable. . . . (Alma 41:8).3

Mormonism teaches: "The gospel message of salvation is not carried affirmatively to them. Negroes are not equal with other races where the receipt of certain spiritual blessings are concerned. . . . " (McConkie, see above).

    In the end, Mormons reject the words of the Lord Jesus Christ: Preach the Gospel to all nations (cf. Matt. 28:19-20), thus "all nations" certainly includes Africa.

Notes
1, In the Mormon religion there are two priesthoods: Aaronic and the Melchizedek. The Aaronic is the lesser of the two. To have eternal life (i.e., exaltation to Godhood) the "worthy" (and married) Mormon male must be ordained to this higher Priesthood (Melchizedek). This Priesthood is excluded from all females. Thus for nearly 150 years, the Mormon Church taught that dark skinned people (partially Africans) could not gain true salvation, eternal life (i.e., Godhood in the highest heaven: the celestial kingdom).

2, Just as Isaiah, Ezekiel, Peter, and Paul were actual prophets and apostles, in LDS theology the titles, "Prophet" and "Apostle" are literal. Thus, Mormons say that when they are giving sermons they are in fact, speaking for God.

3, Concerning the "decrees" of God, LDS Apostle Mark E. Peterson stated: "And it is the decree of God that [the] mark should remain upon the seed of Cain, until the seed of Able shall be redeemed, and Cain shall not receive the Priesthood until the time of that redemption" (Race Problems-- As They Affect the Church, address by Mark E. Peterson at BYU; emphasis added; see above).

---

religion - "The Reign of the Antichrist" (video: 9 parts, Father John O'Connor, 1986)

article source + videos:  Wed, 03/02/2011 — posted by Arthur Cristian at:

http://loveforlife.com.au/content/11/03/02/1986-excommunicated-priest-john-oconner-talks-about-nwo-rise-anti-christ-masonic-ta

"In 1986 Excommunicated Priest John O'Conner Talks About NWO, The Rise Of Anti-Christ, & The Masonic Takeover Of The Roman Catholic Church"

"Video:  Listen to this riveting 1986 speech given by now deceased Priest John O'Conner exposing Benjamin Creme, Maitreya, Freemasonry, Global elite, Antichrist communist movement, new age occult practices, church infiltration of the homosexual movement, the Federal Reserve and more.  After this speech O'Conner was ORDERED to under go a psychological evaluation and then later dismissed from the church!  You can watch this video in it's entirety below this 3 part YouTube video series.  See the embedded 4 part Google videos or the 8 part YouTube Videos. "

---

videos source: http://www.youtube.com/user/enoch7000#g/u

Part 1 of 9	Part 2 of 9	Part 3 of 9
Part 4 of 9	Part 5 of 9	Part 6 of 9
Part 7 of 9	Part 8 of 9	Part 9 of 9

---

[biograph source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_O'Connor_(priest)]

"Father John O'Connor (1870 - 1952), a Roman Catholic parish priest in Bradford, Yorkshire, was the basis of G. K. Chesterton's fictional detective Father Brown.   O'Connor was instrumental in Chesterton's conversion to Roman Catholicism in 1922.   He also received the poet and painter David Jones into the Church in 1921, and was associated with Eric Gill and The Guild of St Joseph and St Dominic, at Ditchling."

---

American Values - " It's called Christmas with a capital 'C' " (YouTube, song 3m44s)

From: gg Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009

The #1 Christmas song this year. These guys have really got it together....good song...  

click  here: "  It's called Christmas with a capital 'C' " 

video source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAckfn8yiAQ

---

related: http://harrold.org/quotes
              http://harrold.org/Christian
              http://harrolds.blogspot.com/2009/11/values-one-nation-under-god-painting.html

Geert Wilder's Warning to America: Stop Islamification + Fitna, the movie

related: A Just Crusade & The Religion of Peace

Abide by our laws or face deportation. video source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWLfzszaeFM

Action Agenda! video source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-erdvSALCw

Published on Youtube by henningkemner 2Oct09
"It is time You to wake up.

Islam is invading our world, with only one goal:
The destruction of our societies, our culture, our values and religion.
They don't want to coexist or such.  They only accept themselves.
They clearly show that they don't want to be assimmiliated in our societies.
Europe is under attack, soon destroyed by Islamists.

America has had their taste of it, and your fraud in office accepts them.
'Cause he´s a moslem himself.
He claims to be converted, buts a big lie.  He is and will always be a moslem.
Look how he went to the middle-east and bowed to those leaders.
Look upon how little interest he has shown for Americans, he´s not American.
He´s born in Jakarta, Indonesia, he is Asian moslem.
He wouldn't have his hand on his heart on the American anthem.
He is giving a ramadan speech, and refuses to appear on the American flag day.
He's a moslem facist traitor.  And you Americans need to have him removed within this year.

2010 will be that year where a police state is born, your 1st and 2nd Amendment will be removed forever.

DO WHAT IS RIGHT AMERICA, STAND UP FOR AMERICA, NO MATTER WHAT IT TAKES!!!

Here is a few exsamples of how moslems think and work.
America will see much more this in near future, cause your fraudulent president is one of them.

WAKE UP AMERICA, WAKE UP WORLD, ISLAM IS THE ANTICHRIST'S RELIGION.

http://i145.photobucket.com/albums/r238/LoveableMe01/Islam/58888d82.jpg
http://i145.photobucket.com/albums/r238/LoveableMe01/Islam/08a3bf5d.jpg
http://i145.photobucket.com/albums/r238/LoveableMe01/Islam/ObamasDbsattest2.jpg
http://i145.photobucket.com/albums/r238/LoveableMe01/Islam/11024.jpg
http://i145.photobucket.com/albums/r238/LoveableMe01/Islam/Hizbollah20II.jpg
http://i145.photobucket.com/albums/r238/LoveableMe01/Islam/HizbollaNazi4-thumb.jpg
http://i145.photobucket.com/albums/r238/LoveableMe01/Islam/get-attachmentaspx.jpg
http://i145.photobucket.com/albums/r238/LoveableMe01/Islam/get-attachmentaspx1.jpg
http://i145.photobucket.com/albums/r238/LoveableMe01/Islam/get-attachmentaspx2.jpg
http://i145.photobucket.com/albums/r238/LoveableMe01/Islam/get-attachmentaspx3.jpg
http://i145.photobucket.com/albums/r238/LoveableMe01/Islam/get-attachmentaspx4.jpg
http://i145.photobucket.com/albums/r238/LoveableMe01/Islam/get-attachmentaspx5.jpg
http://i145.photobucket.com/albums/r238/LoveableMe01/Islam/get-attachmentaspx6.jpg
http://i145.photobucket.com/albums/r238/LoveableMe01/Islam/get-attachmentaspx7.jpg
http://i145.photobucket.com/albums/r238/LoveableMe01/Islam/get-attachmentaspx8.jpg

Islam, Sharia law, Fatina is a direct threat to our way of life. You must stop them."

Fitna, the movie: EMBED-Fitna - Documentary about Islam - Watch more free videos	Muslim Demographics (redux)

---

What We Need in the American Pulpit

re-Posted from http://earlychristianamerica.com/blog/?p=195

Keys to Changing America Series

Case Study: John Knox and Resistance to Evil - August 6, 2009

1. Case Study: Colonial pulpits v. American pulpits today

Too many Christians today revel in the truism that says “America was founded as a Christian nation.” Certainly this author agrees, having contended for that position for three decades in well over 100 public debates, over 200 radio programs, literally hundreds of lectures in several schools, illustrative material in over 1000 sermons as well as a plethora of position papers, articles, and blog posts over the years. Nobody believes in that position more than I.

However, contending for the past is sort of like having once been in love: it’s over. Learn from what’s been lost, and let’s get on with building a future. One of the most important truths to come down from our colonial past involved the powerful compulsion, deep conviction, and depth of understanding created by American pulpits concerning just about every issue in the decades just prior to and succeeding the War for Independence.

We need a resurgence today in the art and science of real preaching. Why? Of all the resources that people might have at their disposal, one they cannot afford to be without is leadership. The pulpit is designed to create leadership in many different fields and disciplines – as many as may be represented in the pew in front of each preacher. It is the pulpit that trains people to think and act with wise discernment having first identified the obstacles standing in the way of righteousness.

For too many in the pulpits today, the guiding assumption is that...

Read the full article at: http://earlychristianamerica.com/blog/?p=195

---

Lifting the Veil on the Debate over Veils (Muslim burqas)

by Kamran Pasha, Hollywood filmmaker, author of "Mother of the Believers", Posted on HuffingtonPost.com, July 12, 2009

I returned last night from a week in France where a debate is raging over whether Muslim women should be permitted to wear the burqa, the traditional Middle Eastern garment that covers not only the whole body, but the face as well. President Nicholas Sarkozy unleashed a firestorm of controversy with his recent call for a ban against the veil, with supporters calling it a necessary stance to protect women's rights, and opponents decrying the proclamation as racist and symbolic of Europe's bigotry towards its Muslim population.

But what is really going on here? Why does a simple choice of women's attire inspire such fierce emotion? What is it about the veil that brings out such a visceral response? The issue that is not being examined in this debate is one that is perhaps too close for comfort, too sensitive to examine in a post-modern world where assumptions about male and female identities are wrapped in decades of political ideology. The question is not about banning efforts by Muslim men to forcibly wrap women in burqas against their will. The question is over whether Muslim women who freely choose to don the veil should be legally prevented from doing so.

So the real question beneath the debate, the question that is too troubling to ask aloud, is whether there is something about the veil that is actually attractive to some women, and what that means for Western sacred cows about potential differences in masculine and feminine psychology.

I have been forced to look deeply into the issues of masculine and feminine dynamics in recent days. The publication of my novel, Mother of the Believers, which tells the birth of Islam from the perspective of Prophet Muhammad's wife Aisha, has pulled me into the heart of modern discussions regarding the role of women in Islam. On my book tour through the United States, I have found myself at the center of impassioned arguments about women's rights in the Islamic world and the intention behind ancient traditions such as veiling.

I have often found myself standing silent as women in the audience argue the issues among themselves with great passion and intensity. My role as an observer among these debates has allowed me to come to certain perceptions that might surprise both men and women used to speaking of women's rights in the language of modern feminism. And the most startling perception, certainly for me, is that for many women, power is not defined in masculine terms of leadership over others, but in terms of social identity. And for many women, how their bodies are perceived by others is deeply central to their sense of who they are and their power over the world. And I have learned that for some women, the veil is actually a representation of an ancient kind of power, one that is rarely acknowledged in polite circles today - the power of feminine mystique.

Before I wade further into the dangerous waters of post-feminist social critique, I would like to acknowledge a point that opponents of the burqa have made - that the veil is not an Islamic religious requirement. They are correct. The veil predates Islam and was actually invented by Byzantine Christians and subsequently adopted by Zoroastrian Persians, long before Muslims appeared on the scene. In fact, the ironic social origin of the veil is that it was once used as a mark of power, not oppression.

Wealthy Christian women wore veils as a sign of high social status and nobility, while women who were unveiled in Byzantine culture were denigrated as low class, and indeed prostitutes in Byzantium would go about unveiled as a means of advertising their wares. "Respectable" Christian women believed that showing their beauty to all and sundry was cheap and demeaning. This Christian social tradition was not widespread in pre-Islamic Arabia. Like their Semitic sisters among Jews, Arab women would often wear headscarves, but face veiling was uncommon.

As I discuss in my novel, the only women that were required to be veiled in the early days of Islam were the wives of Prophet Muhammad, known in the Qur'an as "Mothers of the Believers." Their role was to serve as the spiritual matrons of the Muslim community, and as a result they were required to live and dress differently from other women to designate their status. According to early historical sources, the veil was introduced for the Mothers after the the Prophet's enemies taunted them and subjected them to demeaning slurs.

The triggering incident (which I recount in my novel) occurred when Aisha, a beautiful and charismatic woman, was being too forward at a social gathering, leading men at the event to ogle her and speak in demeaning terms about a woman they were supposed to revere as a spiritual guide. Shortly thereafter, the Qur'an commanded the Mothers to speak to men "through a curtain" so that their dignity would be preserved and harassment minimized.

This unusual requirement of veiling remained limited to the Mothers of the Believers and was not extended to the entire Muslim community. After Prophet Muhammad's death, the Muslims conquered the neighboring Byzantine and Persian empires, where they first encountered widespread veiling among the upper classes. The egalitarian Arabs were offended by the social hierarchies of their conquered subjects, and Muslim leaders began to encourage veiling across every social spectrum to neutralize the haughty pretenses of aristocracy. So the mass introduction of the veil in the Middle East was originally an effort at elevating lower classes and defusing the privileges of the wealthy. While hard to imagine today, the veil was actually tool of social progress in a world with very different values.

So the critics of burqas are only partially correct - the veil is not Islamic in origin, but was definitely used by Muslims as a means of social engineering in the early days of the religion. Flash forward to the 21st century, where the veil no longer holds the same meaning as it did for Byzantine Christians. Today the veil is perceived by many in the West in opposite terms from its social origins, as a sign of oppression rather than nobility. And thus we come to the debate raging in France and much of Europe over whether the veil should be banished from the public sphere.
But the question then arises as to why Muslim women in free and open societies choose to don the veil in the first place. Certainly for some women, it is the result of social pressure from family members, and so their choice in the matter is not truly free. But in my talks with Muslim women, I was intrigued to hear stories from converts who have chosen to don the burqa despite strong social pressure from family and friends against it.

For these women, the veil represents something that is never raised in the modern debate. It represents an embrace of mystery. A reclamation of feminine mystique. An embrace of an age-old belief that less is more, that the power of the feminine is heightened by the allure of the unseen. Throughout human history, poets have written of love sparked just by seeing a glimpse of a woman's eyes. The veil has often been the ultimate symbol of feminine coyness that activates masculine desire, the quest for the hidden pearl that sparks the dance of Eros. For some women throughout history, the veil has been a symbol of femininity on a deeply primordial level.

There is a strange duality to Western attitudes toward women's liberation. Women are encouraged to pursue and master traditionally male roles in the worlds of business and politics. And yet they are also valued primarily for their physical looks and encouraged to display their charms at every opportunity. And so a strange schizophrenia has set in, where women are encouraged to be masculine in their ambitions while pressured to flaunt their feminine sexuality in public. Carla Bruni, the First Lady of France, is held up as an archetype of the empowered European woman, and is widely admired in the press for her beauty and style. But her intelligence and political savvy are rarely mentioned as assets.

The Muslim argument for the value of modest dress, whether it be the burqa or the less-restrictive hijab (headscarf) has always centered on a critique of the demeaning attitudes of the West toward women's bodies. As the covers of popular magazines from Cosmopolitan (for women) to Maxim (for men) reveal, women's social value in the West is determined by the size of their breasts, the beauty of their curves, the commoditization of their flesh. The end result has been a society in which women struggle with their self-esteem due to their perceived attractiveness. Eating disorders among women are commonplace, and even teenage girls feel pressured to get breast implants to increase their social value. Muslim women who choose to don modest dress say they are making a feminist stance against this cheapening of their bodies by modern culture. For them, wearing modest dress is the contemporary equivalent of burning their bras.

Undoubtedly others would disagree. But then we face the crux of the problem - is it the place of the state to define for women what values they should have? How they should see themselves, their clothes and their bodies? Even if the French are able to successfully enact a ban on the burqa, the attitudes behind the veil will not go away. The argument that the veil serves as an automatic barrier to Muslim women achieving leadership positions in business and politics is false. In my novel, I demonstrate how the Prophet's wife Aisha, was able to become a politician, a scholar, a poet and a military commander - all while donning the veil. Muslim women from the Egyptian queen Shagrat al-Dur to the Mughal empress Nur Jahan have ruled nations from behind a veil. The burqa is not an automatic barrier to success in the public sphere for women. But more importantly, those women who have no desire to embark on such professions will not be coerced into doing so by regulating how they choose to cover their bodies.

It appears that some opponents of the the veil are actually more upset about the choice many women make to continue in traditional lifestyles even though other opportunities are available to them. But many women have no desire to embrace traditionally masculine ambitions, and will not do so no matter how much others try to force them to change. And efforts to compel Muslim women will only be met by anger and resentment. If some women are required by the state to dress in a fashion they find too revealing, even demeaning, there will only be a calcification of rebellion, a hardening of resistance to social control. The unrest that Europe faces with its Muslim population will only increase in intensity. As demographics change, as Europe inevitably moves toward Muslim social prominence, the tensions between the self-proclaimed arbiters of identity and their unwilling subjects will explode.

With all that said, here are my personal opinions on the matter, for whatever they are worth. I am a believer that every society has a right to regulate conduct within its borders, including how people are dressed. France has as much right to ban the burqa as Iran has to require it. But I believe that people should be honest about their motivations in either case. In both instances, such rules are the instruments of control freaks attempting to tell women how to think and feel about themselves based on clothing. And in my experience, efforts to legislate thoughts always fail. As we have seen in recent years, Iranian women have been pushing for greater freedom of dress, despite decades of indoctrination by the country's clerics. At the same time, Muslim women have been pushing for the right to be left alone in Europe, to dress as they wish, despite intense social pressure to conform. The European couture police will no more be successful in compelling Muslim women to think in a certain way than have been the mullahs in the Middle East.

Specifically with regard to France, my own experience in that beautiful country (I lived in Paris for several months in 2007) leads me to believe that the controversy over the burqa is not really about women's rights. It is about preserving a certain cultural heritage from the onslaught of foreign values and perspectives. The burqa controversy is really about attempting to save a beleaguered French identity from being replaced by a new and alien social tradition that is spreading through the power of demographics. But social engineering is a poor tool to curtail the realities of reproduction. At current birth rates, Muslims will become a numerically influential community inside France within this century. The same is true for many other nations in Europe. Efforts to stem the power of Muslim culture from reshaping European identity are as pointless as trying to hold back a river with one's hands.

Of course, fear of change is understandable. But the burqa debate is just the tip of something darker, even sinister, within European culture today. It is based on a hatred of the other that arises from Europe's unacknowledged racism toward its immigrant population. This fear against Muslims has led to some truly horrifying incidents of violence in Europe. A few days ago, a pregnant Muslim woman in Germany was murdered while testifying in court against a man who had subjected her to slurs for wearing a headscarf. Marwa el-Sherbini مروة الشربيني‎; was stabbed 18 times by the man she had accused of racist bullying. Her three-year-old son watched in horror as his mother was killed in broad daylight, inside a court of law. Marwa's husband was shot by court guards when he attempted to save her life.

This truly sickening incident has received scant media coverage in Europe, even though Marwa has become a heroine and a martyr throughout the Muslim world. The fact that Europeans have chosen to ignore the brutal murder of a woman, whose only crime was that she covered her head with a piece of cloth, reveals the real issues beneath the burqa debate. It is ultimately not about women's rights, but about power over immigrants. Marwa was no weak and submissive Muslim woman. She was highly educated, a noted athlete (she was a national handball champion in Egypt), and her husband a genetic engineer seeking his PhD. Marwa represented the future of Europe's Muslim immigrants - empowered, educated and strong. And she was butchered like an animal for having the audacity to dress differently. The fact that her death has not been a source of European soul-searching suggests that some truths are too painful to face.

The debate over Muslim dress and women's rights will continue. But it needs to be seen in a broader issue of cultural values and history. There is much that Europe, with its ancient history and traditions, can add to the melting pot of Islamic identity. And there are important things that Muslims can remind their Western neighbors, including the value of traditional masculine and feminine dynamics. By showing respect for Muslim women's choices in dress, the veil can paradoxically become an instrument to lift the cultural barriers that separate human beings from each other.

Kamran Pasha is a Hollywood filmmaker and the author of "Mother of the Believers", a novel on the birth of Islam as told by Prophet Muhammad's wife Aisha (Simon & Schuster; April 2009). For more information please visit: http://www.kamranpasha.com/
Follow Kamran Pasha on Twitter: www.twitter.com/kamranpasha

---