THE MORMON CURTAIN
Containing 5,709 Articles Spanning 365 Topics
Ex-Mormon News, Stories And Recovery
Archives From 2005 thru 2014
If you have reached this page from an outside source such as an
Internet Search or forum referral, please note that this page
(the one you just landed on)
is an archive containing articles on
"FAITH PROMOTING RUMORS".
The Mormon Curtain
- is a website that blogs the Ex-Mormon world. You can
The Mormon Curtain FAQ
to understand the purpose of this website.
CLICK HERE to visit the main page of The Mormon Curtain.
FAITH PROMOTING RUMORS
Faith Promoting Rumors are rumors spread by Mormons in order to promote the faith.
| Apparently an email is now making the rounds among TBM's (excerpt below) to write Oprah Winfrey and ask that she not publicize Martha's new book coming in March, "Leaving the Saints." This is the book that details Martha's allegations of sexual abuse against her father, Hugh Nibley. As many of you know, Martha is a regular contributer to Oprah's magazine "O" and has appeared on her show. She was also a BYU professor until she resigned from the Church in 1993 or so. The Nibley family denies Martha's allegations of sex abuse. I think this is just the beginning of what will be a vicious campaign.
"I'm writing to ask you to help in an urgent email campaign to Oprah Winfrey. One the regular contributor [sic] to her magazine and sometime guest on her program is a [sic] ex-LDS woman named Martha Beck, who is also the estranged daughter of Church scholar Hugh Nibley. Martha has written a new book, "Leaving the Saints" (Random House/Crown March 2005)in which she claims she has recovered memories of the kind that were popular in the 1990's through which she now "realizes" she was sexually abused by her father. In the book, she also writes some very vicious things about the LDS Church, Joseph Smith, about "patriarchal religions" in general, and ridicules the temple ceremonies. This book is scheduled to be published to coincide with Hugh Nibley's 95th birthday in March.
This kind of campaign will only cause more interest in Beck's book. I am pretty skeptical that Martha Beck is telling the truth, but an LDS campaign against can only make her look more like a martyr. I guess Hugh Nibley is in his mid-90s. This whole thing will just push him into his grave. I don't have a lot of sympathy for him either since he's knowingly tried to cover up the truth about Mormonism.
"I've been asked by members of the Nibley and Beck families to help organize an email campaign to ask Oprah to separate herself from this book and not give it any publicity, either on her TV program or in her magazine. We are hoping to have Oprah inundated with objections from intelligent, articulate women. We want NO emotional or nasty attacks on Martha. If you live outside of Utah, please state the name of your city in your email so that Oprah knows how wide-spread the concern is.
"Please forward this email today to as many people as you can who you believe will write calm and well-reasons [sic] attacks on the promotion of Martha's book."
Follow the money ...
| My SIL is out for a visit, which isn't as bad as it might seem, because she's much more congenial and liberal-minded than most of my TBM in-laws. This afternoon we skipped church and took a scenic drive down to Cape Cod to enjoy some of the few points-of-interest that are worth seeing in the freezing depths of winter. Anyway, on the way back, we were driving into the setting sun and noticed a rainbow halo around it. After we all commented on the general loveliness of the image, my SIL adds, out of the blue, "I guess this means Jesus isn't going to return this year, huh?"
I'm sure you're all familiar with the not-exactly-canonical but widely circulated doctrine (I have no idea who first said it) that the sign of Jesus' return would coincide with a year in which there were no rainbows. Which, even as a TBM, I thought was patently ridiculous. But my SIL believes it. As does my MIL, who has also spouted off about the rainbow thing before.
What's the deal here?
Why do otherwise rational people, who'd roll their eyes and laugh derisively if they heard this kind of nonsense from other religions, accept with total sincerity such bizarre ideas? Does anyone know who first made this "prophecy"? What are its rational limits? Does it just mean rainbows in the sky? Or does it mean that anybody could thwart Jesus' return by holding a prism up to a flashlight beam ever 364 days and shining pretty colors on the wall? What the hell was this person smoking when he made this prophecy?
The "rainbow" prophecy is from Joseph Smith:
"I have asked of the Lord concerning His coming; and while asking the Lord, He gave a sign and said, 'In the days of Noah I set a bow in the heavens as a sign and token that in any year that the bow should be seen the Lord would not come; but there should be seed time and harvest during that year: but whenever you see the bow withdrawn, it shall be a token that there shall be famine, pestilence, and great distress among the nations, and that the coming of the Messiah is not far distant.'
"But I will take the responsibility upon myself to prophesy in the name of the Lord, that Christ will not come this year, as Father Miller has prophesied, for we have seen the bow; and I also prophesy, in the name of the Lord, that Christ will not come in forty years; and if God ever spoke by my mouth, He wiull not come in that length of time. Brethren, when you go home, write it down, that it may be remembered."
-- March 10, 1844, Documentary History of the Church 6:249-254. Also quoted in Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 341
| I am currently in a major housecleaning of my brain of all the childhood myths and stories that I was fed in Primary and Sunday School. They seem to be still embedded and come out and surprise me every so often. It just happened again as I picked up a Utah souvenir spoon with the Seagull monument as the handle.
Just curious, does the legend of the seagulls and the locusts (as told elsewhere than my primary class) include the gulls having the inspiration to eat eat eat and then fly to the lake and regurgitate and then fly back for more? As a child, I found that pretty impressive until I saw gulls following a farmer's plow and realized that is what gulls do (except the regurgitate part).
"Seagulls Saved The Saints!"
*During the early period of Salt Lake settlement, the Saints were afflicted with a plague of crickets. After much prayer, an army of seagulls was sent forth to do away with them (the crickets ). The seagulls gorged until full, and then vomited to make room for seconds.
Mormon Crickets hit the corridor regularly in a seven year cycle. Seagulls are native to the Salt Lake area, and are literally the greediest animal alive. They have been known to gorge until full. Vomit. Gorge. Vomit. Lather. Vomit. Repeat. There is absolutely nothing miraculous regarding this. The tales of the "miracle" seem to be overblown as like many FPRs it didn't gain popularity until nearly 20 years after it occured, and got more magnificent with every retelling.
As a child, I was told the same BS FPS.
Beacuse of this story, I grow up in Utah and always thought of the seagull as a noble bird, until I moved out of state and realized what a filthy flying rat that they really are!
The tales of the "miracle" seem to be overblown as like many FPRs it didn't gain popularity until nearly 20 years after it occured, and got more magnificent with every retelling.
| Looks like Mormons are starting to spread rumors about the recent missionary pull-out from Venezuela. Instead of being politically motivated, Mormons are starting to spread rumors about the whole thing. From Mexico City West Mission:
As you all know, the church recently pulled all the missionaries from Venezuela, leaving only Venezuelans to continue the work.
So the Mormon God would rather these young men dress up rather than just protect them? I thought the whole Temple going Garment Wearing "Servants of the Lord" would be protected by God. Instead, God has them dress up and pretend.
What you probably don't know is the hand the Lord had in carrying out his righteous purposes. One group of missionaries in Maracay Venezuela were told by their president to buy all new clothes, hair dye, and even some fake gold chains. They resisted, thinking it all to be a joke, but later submitted to the will of their divinely ordained priesthood leader. Once they were all dressed up, they had the feeling that the smallest of the 4 elders should dress up as a woman. A quick call to the president confirmed their revelation, and after a quick trip to the wig store and the purchase of a cheap second-hand dress the transformation was complete.
When the time came to flee the city, these elders walked out of their building and past a patrol of 3 local police. When one of the missionaries greeted the officers, he was surprised to find his thick Spanish Fork accent had vanished, replaced with the sing-song lilt of a native.
The missionaries later learned that the police had an arrest warrant for them, and that the fluency of the Spanish spoken and the presence of the "woman" had fooled the cops enough to let them by, and on to a flight to safety.
Truly these missionaries are the Lord's annointed and he will look out for them in these troubled latter-days.
Pay Lay Ale.
| On the Marsh incident, Gordon B. Hinckley offered the following comments in the
April 1984 General Conference:
"According to the account given by George A. Smith, while the Saints were in
Far West, Missouri, 'the wife of Thomas B. Marsh, who was then President of the
Twelve Apostles, and Sister Harris concluded they would exchange milk, in order
to make a little larger cheese than they otherwise could. To be sure to have
justice done, it was agreed that they should not save the strippings (to
themselves), but that the milk and strippings should go all together.....Mrs.
Harris, it appeared, was faithful to the agreement and carried to Mrs. Marsh
the milk and strippings, but Mrs. Marsh, wishing to make some extra good
cheese, saved a pint of strippings from each cow and sent Mrs. Harris the milk
without the strippings. A quarrel arose, and the matter was referred to the
home teachers. They found Mrs. Marsh guilty of failure to keep her agreement.
She and her husband were upset and, 'an appeal was taken from the teacher to
the bishop, and a regular church trial was held. President Marsh did not
consider that the bishop had done him and his lady justice for they (that is,
the bishop's court) decided that the strippings were wrongfully saved, and that
the woman had violated her covenant.
Note how Hinckley asserts that the "milk strippings" incident (if it even
occurred at all) was a major factor in Marsh's defection, and the resulting
Extermination Order. But were Hinckley's remarks (via George A. Smith)
anywhere close to the truth? Let's compare Hinckley's assertions to the
documented facts of history:
'Marsh immediately took an appeal to the High Council, who investigated the
question with much patience, and,' says George A. Smith, .....'Marsh.....made
a desperate defence, but the High Council finally confirmed the bishop's
decision.....This little affair,' Brother Smith continues, 'kicked up a
considerable breeze, and Thomas B. Marsh then declared that he would sustain
the character of his wife even if he had to go to hell for it. The then
President of the Twelve Apostles, the man who should have been the first to do
justice and cause reparation to be made for wrong.....went before a magistrate
and swore that the 'Mormons' were hostile towards the state of MIssouri. That
affidavit brought from the government of Missouri an exterminating order, which
drove some 15,000 Saints from their homes and habitations.....
What a very small and trivial thing--a little cream over which two women
quarreled. But it led to, or at least was a factor in, Governor Boggs' cruel
exterminating order which drove the Saints from the state of Missouri."
("Ensign" Magazine, May 1984, p. 83.)
A "revelation" Smith produced, and published in his 1833 "Book of
Commandments," read as follows:
"For it shall come to pass, that which I spake by the mouths of my prophets
shall be fulfilled; for I will consecrate the riches of the Gentiles, unto my
people which are of the house of Israel." (BOC 44:32.)
In Smith's 1835 revision of the BOC, re-titled the "Doctrine and Covenants,"
Smith altered this verse to read:
"for I will consecrate of the riches of those who embrace my gospel among the
Gentiles unto the poor of my people who are of the house of Israel." (DandC
David Whitmer explained why the original version of this "revelation" had
enraged Missourians against the Mormon immigrants in 1833:
"In the spring of 1832, in Hiram, Ohio, Brothers Joseph and Sidney, and others,
concluded that the revelations should be printed in a book. A few of the
brethren -- including myself --objected to it seriously. We told them that if
the revelations were published, the world would get the books, and it would not do; that it was not
the will of the Lord that the revelations should be published. But Brothers
Joseph and Sidney would not listen to us, and said they were going to send them
to Independence to be published. I objected to it and withstood Brothers Joseph
and Sidney to the face. Brother Joseph said as follows: "Any man who objects to
having these revelations published, shall have his part taken out of the Tree
of Life and out of the Holy City." The Spirit of God came upon me and I
prophesied to them in the name of the Lord: "That if they sent those
revelations to Independence to be published in a book, the people would come
upon them and tear down the printing press, and the church would be driven out
of Jackson county." Brothers Joseph and Sidney laughed at me. Early in the
spring of 1833, at Independence, Mo., the revelations were printed in the Book
of Commandments. Many of the books were finished and distributed among the
members of the church, and through some of the unwise brethren, the world got
hold of some of them. From that time the ill-feeling toward us began to
increase; and in the summer of 1833 the mob came upon us, tore down the
printing press, and drove the church out of Jackson county." ("An Address to
all Believers in Christ")
It's obvious that Smith altered the verse which called for the "consecration of
the riches of the Gentiles unto the house of Israel" because the publication of
such a policy had gotten the Mormons booted out of Jackson County.
Nonetheless, he and Rigdon secretly continued their advocacy of "consecrating"
the personal property of non-Mormons, as well as those of Mormon dissenters,
into his "kingdom," and that was the ultimate cause of the Mormons' final
expulsion from Missouri in 1838.
To today's Mormons, "consecration" means giving of their money or goods to the
church. In 1838, upon the failure of their Kirtland Bank and "United Order,"
Smith and Rigdon went to Missouri and again tried to institute an economic
commune. The Missouri Mormons, who had been expelled from Jackson County in
1834, were living in relative (albeit temporary) peace in Clay County, buying
land and starting farms. But the arrival of Smith and Rigdon in the spring of
1838 brought an influx of thousands more Mormons from Kirtland as well,
spilling them over into "Gentile" areas, causing new tensions. Mormon
population increased from 1,200 to 15,000 in just a few months. Having been
stung by the Kirtland failure, Smith and Rigdon implemented new policies that
they hoped would make the new commune succeed. The policy mandated that all
Mormons sign their lands over to the church, and then the church
would lease the land back to them as "stewardships." The Mormons who had
bought and developed their lands and farms balked at the idea---among them being Cowdery, the
Whitmers, Phelps, Lyman Johnson, etc. They correctly perceived that the new
"consecration" policy was nothing more than Smith and Rigdon's latest scheme to
fleece the flock. Their refusal to sign lands over to the church prompted
Rigdon's "Salt Sermon" (which was heartily endorsed by Smith), and Rigdon's
resulting letter informing the dissenters that they must "depart before a more
fatal calamity" befell them. While the dissenters had gone to procure legal
aid to prevent Smith and Rigdon from taking their land (or their lives), the
"Danites" invaded and plundered their homes and property. So, for those
Mormons, "consecration" meant having their goods taken away by force, upon the
order of church leaders.
"A proposition was made and supported by some as being the best policy to kill
these men that they would not be capable of injuring the church. All their
measures were strenuously opposed by John Corrill and T. B. Marsh one of the
twelve apostles of the church and in consequence nothing could be effected
until the matter was taken up publicly BY THE PRESIDENCY the following (June
17th) in a large congregation..." ("Reed Peck Manuscript")
Thus, according to Peck, Marsh was already opposing Smith's and Rigdon's
heinous policies as early as June 17----four months before Marsh swore his
affidavit. That fact alone destroys the "milk strippings" business.
As many witnesses (including Thomas B. Marsh) testified in court, Smith's
intention was to "take this State,...the United States and ultimately the whole
world" for his theocratic empire. The swelling Mormon population disturbed
the non-Mormons, who had heard that the "Gentiles" were to be evicted and the
land become the Mormons' "New Jerusalem." One Missourian, William Peniston,
remarked in August that the Mormons "are a set of horse thieves, liars, and
counterfeiters. They'll swear a false oath on any occasion to save another
Mormon....no property is safe in Daviess County if they continue to pour into
this area." Tensions soon erupted into violence, with beatings, lootings and
burnings being committed on both sides. By October, believing that they had
enough manpower to "take the state," Smith and Rigdon then sent their "Danite"
forces to begin "consecrating" from the "Gentiles" as well as the dissident "Saints," with the loot going to
support their war effort. Church historian John Whitmer reported that the
Mormon leaders claimed the stealing was justified because they were the "chosen
"After they had driven us and our families, they commenced a difficulty in
Daviess County, adjoining this county, in which they began to rob and burn
houses, etc. etc., took honey which they, (the Mormons) call sweet oil, and
hogs which they call bear, and cattle which they called buffalo. Thus they
would justify themselves by saying, "We are the people of God, and all things
are God's; therefore, they are ours." (John Whitmer's "History of the Church")
John Whitmer's remarks revealed Smith's and Rigdon's true attitude: they viewed
their organization as the literal "House of Israel," and "the Kingdom of God on
Earth"; they taught the imminent return and millenial reign of Christ, wherein
all the "enemies" of the "true church" would be defeated. Since, in the
"millenium," all things on earth would be theirs, they haughtily taught their
subordinates to appropriate the property of the "Gentiles."
Mormon historian Leland Gentry admits to Mormon thefts:
"The Danites were
taught to take from the Gentiles and consecrate to the Church. Nearly every
person who testified at the trial against the Mormon leaders made mention of
this fact. John Clemenson stated that 'it was frequently observed among the
troops at Diahman that the time had come when the riches of the Gentiles should
be consecrated to the Saints.' Jeremiah Myers testified that 'the consecrated
property...was dealt out to those in need' by Bishop Vinson Knight." (A
History of the Latter-Day Saints in Northern Missouri, p. 385-387.)
"Danites struck at Gallatin and two other towns, Millport and Grinding Fork.
The three onslaughts occurred simultaneously and had a crushing impact on the
Missourians who were unaccustomed to Mormon resistance. When Captains Lyman
Wight, David W. Patten, and Seymour Brunson rode into Far West at the head of
their companies, the sight of wagonloads of plunder was offensive to a number
of less aggressively inclined Saints. That night they gathered their families
together and abandoned the settlement. Among the defectors were two of
Joseph's most trusted followers, Thomas B. Marsh and Orson Hyde, both members
of the Council of Twelve Apostles. The two men fled to nearby Richmond and
blurted out everything they knew." ("Orrin Porter Rockwell," Harold Schindler,
"The Mormons were two hundred and fifty men by the time they reached Daviess
County...The bulk of the forces went out in search of the gentile opposition.
They marched through three settlements, including Gallatin, repaying the
Missourians in kind, looting and firing stores, homes, and barns, before their
anger spent itself.....When they returned with their loot, many of their own
people were appalled and frightened. Thomas B. Marsh, Brigham Young's superior
as President of the Twelve, let it be known that he did not approve such
retaliation, and he left the church." ("Kingdom of the Saints", Ray B. West, p.
"There was much mysterious conversation in camps, as to plundering, and
house-burning; so much so, that I had my own notions about it; and, on one
occasion, I spoke to Mr. Smith, Jr., in the house, and told him that this
course of burning houses and plundering, by the Mormon troops, would ruin us;
that it could not be kept hid, and would bring the force of the state upon us;
that houses would be searched, and stolen property found. Smith replied to me,
in a pretty rough manner, to keep still; that I should say nothing about it;
that it would discourage the men...I saw a great deal of plunder and bee-steads
brought into camp; and I saw many persons, for many days, taking the honey out
of them; I understood this property and plunder were placed into the hands of
the bishop at Diahmon....The general teachings of the presidency were, that the
kingdom they were setting up was a temporal kingdom...that the time had come
when this kingdom was to be set up by forcible means, if necessary. It was taught, that the time had come when the
riches of the Gentiles were to be consecrated to the true Israel."
(Testimony of George M. Hinkle, "Senate Document 189".)
"Smith replied, the time had come when he should resist all law...I heard J.
Smith remark, there was a store at Gallatin, and a grocery at Millport; and in
the morning after the conversation between Smith and Wight about resisting the
law, a plan of operations was agreed on, which was: that Captain Fearnaught,
who was present, should take a company of 100 men, or more, and go to Gallatin,
and take it that day; to take the goods out of Gallatin, bring them to Diahmon,
and burn the store...On the same day, in the evening, I saw both these
companies return; the foot company had some plunder..." (Testimony of WW
Phelps, "Senate Document 189").
From Marsh's own sworn legal affidavit of October 24, 1838:
"At the request of citizens of Ray County, I make the following
statement...Joseph Smith, the prophet, had preached a sermon in which he said
that all the Mormons who refused to take up arms, if necessary, in the
difficulties with the citizens, should be shot or otherwise put to death; and
as I was there with my family, I thought it most prudent to go and did go with
my wagon as the driver. We marched to Adam-ondi-Ahman and found no troops or
mob in Davies County....a company of about eighty Mormons, commanded by a man
fictitiously named Captain Fearnaught [apostle and Danite David Patten],
marched to Gallatin...I afterwards learned from the Mormons that they had burnt
Gallatin and that it was done by the aforesaid company
that marched there. The Mormons informed me that they had hauled away all the
goods from the store in Gallatin and deposited them at the Bishop's storehouse
at Diahmon. On the same day, [apostle and Danite] Lyman Wight marched about
eighty horsemen for Millport...The same evening a number of footmen came up
from the direction of Millport laden with property which I was informed
consisted of beds, clocks, and other household furniture...During the same
time, a company called the Fur Company were sent out to bring in fat hogs and
cattle, calling the hogs 'bears', and the cattle 'buffaloes.' They have among
them a company consisting of all that are considered true Mormons, called the
Danites, who have taken an oath to support the heads of the church in all
things that they say or do, whether right or wrong.....The plan of said Smith,
the prophet, is to take this State, and he professed to his people to intend
taking the United States, and ultimately the whole world. This is the belief
of the church, and my own opinion of the prophet's plans and intentions.....The
prophet inculcates the notion, and it is believed by every true Mormon, that
Smith's prophecies are superior to the law of the land. I have heard the
prophet say that he should yet tread down his enemies and walk over their dead
bodies; that if he was not let alone he would be a second Mahomet to this
generation, and that he would make it one gore of blood from the Rocky
Mountains to the Atlantic Ocean....."
I don't find anything about "milk strippings" in Marsh's, or any other
eyewitnesses' testimony of those events; and I have failed to find even one
mention of the alleged "milk strippings" incident in any history on the subject
by any reputable scholar. To the contrary, they all concur that the reason the
Mormons were booted out of Missouri was because of Smith and Rigdon's haughty,
belligerent attitudes and teachings; their calls for violence, their
"revelations" that "justified" their followers stealing from their neighbors;
and their boasts that their organization had a "divine right" to take the state
of Missouri for themselves, by any means necessary, including force.
Late LDS author Harold Schindler recounted the series of events that caused
Governor Boggs to issue his "Extermination Order," which came the day after the
skirmish between Missouri militiamen and Mormon "Danites" at Crooked River:
"Twenty-four hours after the Crooked River fight, Boggs, armed with the
affidavits of Marsh and Hyde plus complaints from frightened settlers
describing a wholesale Mormon rebellion, ordered two thousand militiamen from
five divisions into the field...Then Boggs received a message confirming an
earlier report of Bogart's defeat but compounding the rumors of a
massacre...this report prompted Boggs to issue his infamous 'Extermination
Order' of October 27 to General John B. Clark. In effect, the order challenged
Sidney Rigdon's Fourth of July address in which he defied the Gentiles and
threatened a 'war of extermination.' It was more than coincidence that Boggs
chose that particular word in his instruction to General Clark."
("Orrin Porter Rockwell: Man of God, Son of Thunder," Harold Schindler, pp.
Thus we see that the major incident which spurred Boggs to issue his
"Extermination Order" was the Crooked River skirmish, wherein several men on
both sides were killed. That event made Boggs realize that the Mormons would
not peacefully cohabit the state with non-Mormons, and since many Mormons had
taken a secret oath to obey Smith's every order, even those which called on
them to commit crimes, Boggs was forced to evict all of the Mormons from the
So, in view of the documented facts, can anyone honestly believe that Thomas B.
Marsh's "real gripe" was a fight between two women over "milk strippings"?
And, was Gordon B. Hinckley being "honest with his fellow man" by using George
A. Smith's "faith-promoting" version of events, rather than objectively
relating the numerous testimonies of first-hand eyewitnesses and participants?
Of course he wasn't. Hinckley, as well as most other LDS leaders and
apologists, are not interested in relating the actual history of Mormonism;
their agenda is to spin "faith-promoting" tales that attempt to "teach a
lesson," while simultaneously obfuscating the actual facts. The average
rank-and-file Mormon, upon learning that the first president of the Q12 had
"apostasized," would naturally inquire as to the reasons for his "apostasy";
and the "milk strippings" story is propagated to conceal the actual reasons,
and to provide an "object lesson" for Mormons sitting in Sunday School class.
So, when you say that "logic tells me that people have left the church for
more legitimate concerns" than misspelled names and "milk strippings," you're
right; Simonds Ryder's and Thomas B. Marsh's true "concerns" were a thousand
times greater than the trivial "faith-promoting" smokescreens dispensed by LDS
| Does "wine" in the Bible mean "grape juice"?
Answer: Prohibitionists object saying, "But how do you know that the original Hebrew and Greek words mean fermented wine? Certain historians say the wine used was nothing more than molasses – that this grape drink was nonintoxicating and the ordinary drink of people in Christ’s time."
Here is the truth about this false idea!
There are thirteen original Hebrew and Greek words for "wine" in our English Bible. How can we know which one means fermented wine? To find the answer, do not go to Aristotle or Pliny, but go to the Bible itself. By comparing its usage, the scriptural meaning of wine can be defined.
One of the original Hebrew words for wine is "yayin." This word is first used in Genesis 9:21 where Noah "drank of the wine and was drunken." This wine caused drunkenness! Was it just grape juice or was it molasses?
In Genesis 14:18 we read of Melchizedek – Jesus Christ – who "brought forth bread and wine: and he was the priest of the most high God." God Himself here gave wine to Abraham. And again, the original Hebrew word was "yayin" which always means fermented wine. This same Hebrew word is used in Amos 9:14 speaking of the coming Millennium where the people will "plant vineyards, and drink the wine thereof." They will drink the same kind of wine that Noah drank and became drunk by overindulgence.
In the New Testament, one original Greek word for wine is oinos. Proof that it is alcoholic is given in the story of the good Samaritan. The Samaritan poured oil and wine on the man’s wounds (Luke 10:34), showing that the wine had enough alcoholic content to be used as an antiseptic. Would you pour grape juice or molasses on a wound?
The Greek word oinos is also used in John 2 where Jesus turned water into wine by a divine miracle. It is used in 1 Timothy 5:23, the command of Paul, "Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach’s sake and thine often infirmities." This Greek word is also used in Ephesians 5:18, "And be not drunk with wine wherein is excess."
In ancient times it was impossible to preserve grape juice. Except for a short season the "fruit of the vine" was either made into a thick molasses or into wine. Check Hastings Bible Dictionary for the full proof.
| My father was a devout Mormon, who believed, honestly believed, all the stories.
I recall some he told me:
The "first vision." He believed it, of course, and the official version. Years later, after I had slipped away, I asked him "Which version of the first vision are we supposed to believe?" He was left speechless when I told him about the various versions. He had no answer, other than "You must believe the current version."
The Kirtland temple vision was another. About 35 years ago, we visited the Kirtland temple in Ohio. It was there, after all, Christ appeared, after the curtains had been dropped. "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain."
Father believed it, of course, and I am not mocking him. Many believe it. I just don't. Why the curtain trick? What was Joseph up to?
The Brigham Young becomes Joseph Smith story was another. My father fully believed that Brigham Young took on the appearance of Joseph Smith when the church was leaderless. According to the story, Brigham Young addressed the faithful, and he looked and sounded like Joseph. I have heard this story elsewhere. I used to wish Joseph Fielding Smith could have looked and acted like David O. McKay. It would have been a real improvement.
Jesus visits the temple. My father, along with others, believed Jesus frequents the temples. He told me of a woman who "looked up during a session, and saw Christ walking in the room." Many believe such things.
At any rate, Mormonism used to be full of miracle stories. Where did they all go? You hear individual stories from time to time, but the formal accounts have vanished. There have been plenty of building dedications under Hinckley. Temples everywhere, and a conference center the size of a third world country. Were there any formal miracles? I have not heard of any.
As a kid, I wanted and expected some. No such luck. It was a different church, if the early stories are to be believed. The early Mormons had miracles all the time, including stumbling upon the remains of Zelph, and finding Adam's altar in Missouri. Have the saints become less worthy of miracles, or were the early stories a pack of lies?
I know that one who believes without a sign is blessed. Sadly, I am the sign seeking type, who would love to see some miracles. "Doubting Thomas" was always understandable. I could relate to the guy.
| The rumor goes that before the SLC temple was built, the planners were inspired to put air shafts throughout the building. That was before there was air conditioning.
Also, they were inspired to put a huge hollow shaft in the middle. That was before elevators were invented. But when the wonderful invention of elevators finally made its way to Utah, the mysterious shaft was the perfect size for an elevator. Not 1/16 of an inch too big or too small. Just right.
Both of those sounded funny from day 1. Elevators are not exactly new. And if Mormon leaders are so inspired to include infrastructure for technology that has not been invented yet, why were they not inspired to include blacks in their phony priesthood. The world was, apparently, more ready to accept elevators than it was to accept blacks holding the phony priesthood.
I had a few extra minutes today so I decided to look up elevators. Looks like they've been around since about 236 B.C.
Elevators were in use in the USA in the 1850's, when the SLC temple was built.
Announcement: 28 July 1847
Site Dedication: 14 February 1853 by Heber C. Kimball
Groundbreaking: 14 February 1853 by Brigham Young
Public Open House: 5 April 1893
According to this site, they started building in 1853, so they were or should have been well aware of elevators since they sent people to Europe to find a good architectural model and used Mormon masons who had just moved from the East.
The massive granite edifice was constructed in a neo-gothic style over the course of an astounding 40-year period between 1853 and 1893...
If there is any truth to this at all, it might be that they were not able to fit the building with an elevator when it was built, but they planned to include one later, so they included a place for it and put in the elevator at a later time.
Like I said, they were using masons who had just come across the plains. And they sent people to Europe to borrow architectural cues from their buildings. So why would they not know about elevators being used in the USA at the time?
Just another lame FPR. And it only took a few minutes to debunk.
| I am currently reading The Gathering of Zion by Wallace Stegner, from which I learned something interesting last night. You know that famous "This is the place" declaration by Brother Brigham? Turns out he didn't say that.
I was lead to believe that god directed the Mormon pioneer convoy and revealed the location to his Profit. The real story is that they went West at the direction of Joseph Smith (before his death), (following in the footsteps of the ill-fated Donner Party) and then Young received some travel/geography intelligence from Jim Bridger who suggested that they take a look at the Salt Lake Valley (but avoid Utah valley due to the abundance of Ute Indians in that area).
Not only that but Brother Brigham wasn't even present when they emerged into the Salt Lake Valley. He was sick and his wagon was a day or two behind the leaders of the expedition. Brigham arrived (on "Pioneer Day", July 24th) to find the encampment of his people where SLC stands today and they had already plowed several acres and planted potatoes and seeds. Some had also investigated several miles further to the West but found nothing but vast wasteland and decided they should stay put in the SLC Valley.
During a discussion a couple days later a church member suggested that they make this their ultimate destination and all agreed but one person. The motion carried and 13 years later the official church myth that Brother Brigham emerged triumphantly into the valley at the head of the migration to exclaim "this is the place" became yet another Mormon mythical legend.
| In April of 1838, Church President Joseph Smith and his first counselor Sidney Rigdon moved to Far West, which became the new church headquarters. Although disfellowshipped, David and John Whitmer, Oliver Cowdery, W.W. Phelps and other former leaders (who were known as the “dissenters”) continued to live in the County. By early June, some of the more zealous Mormons, led by Sampson Avard, formed a society which came to be known as the “Danites.” According to Marsh, these men swore oaths to “support the heads of the church in all things that they say or do, whether right or wrong” (Document, p. 57).
According to Reed Peck, two of these Danites, Jared Carter and Dimick B. Huntington, proposed at a meeting that the society should kill the dissenters. Marsh and fellow moderate, John Corrill, spoke vigorously against the motion (Peck, pp. 22-23). On the following Sunday, however, Sidney Rigdon issued his “Salt Sermon” in which he likened the dissenters to salt that had lost its savor and was “good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men” (Van Wagoner, p. 218). Within a week the dissenters had fled the county.
Although he may have been concerned about these events, Marsh remained in the church until late October. According to his sworn testimony, Marsh claimed that a Mormon invasion of Daviess County and the subsequent looting and burning of non-Mormon settlements, including Gallatin, the county seat, were the acts that caused him to leave. Marsh stated:
“A company of about eighty of the Mormons, commanded by a man fictitiously named Captain Fearnot [David W. Patten], marched to Gallatin. They returned and said they had run off from Gallatin twenty or thirty men and had taken Gallatin, had taken one prisoner and another had joined the company. I afterwards learned from the Mormons that they had burned Gallatin, and that it was done by the aforesaid company that marched there. The Mormons informed me that they had hauled away all the goods from the store in Gallatin, and deposited them at the Bishop’s storehouses at Adam-on-diahmon” (Document, p. 57).
On October 19, 1838, the day after Gallatin was burned, Thomas B. Marsh and fellow apostle Orson Hyde left the association of the Church. Marsh drafted and signed a legal affidavit against Joseph Smith on October 24, 1838, which Hyde also signed. In addition to reporting on the organization of the Danites and on the events in Daviess County, Marsh reported rumors that the Danites had set up a “destroying company” and that “if the people of Clay and Ray made any movement against them, this destroying company was to burn Liberty and Richmond.” He further stated his belief that Joseph Smith planned “to take the State, and he professes to his people to intend taking the U.S. and ultimately the whole world” (Document, p. 57). Marsh’s testimony added to the panic in northwestern Missouri and contributed to subsequent events in the Mormon War.
Because a Mormon attack was believed imminent, a unit of the state militia from Ray County was dispatched to patrol the border between Ray and Mormon Caldwell County to the north. On October 25, 1838, reports reached Mormons in Far West that this state militia unit was a “mob” and had kidnapped several Mormons. The Mormons formed an armed rescue party and attacked the militia in what became known as the Battle of Crooked River. Although only one Missourian was killed, initial reports held that half the unit had been wiped out. This attack on the state militia, coupled with the earlier expulsion of non-Mormons from Daviess County led Missouri’s governor Lilburn W. Boggs to respond with force. On 27 October he called out 2,500 state militia to put down what he perceived as a Mormon rebellion and signed what became known as the “Extermination Order” (Baugh, pp. 108–09).
Marsh was excommunicated from the Church in absentia on March 17, 1839 in Quincy, Illinois.
After Marsh moved to Utah and rejoined the Latter-day Saints, he looked back at his decision to leave the Church with regret. Concerning his actions in Missouri, he wrote:
“ About this time I got a beam in my eye and thought I could discover a mote in Joseph’s eye, though it was nothing but a beam in my eye; I was so completely darkened that I did not think on the Savior’s injunction: ‘Thou hypocrite, why beholdest thou the mote which is in thy brother’s eye, when a beam is in thine own eye; first cast out the beam out of thine own eye, then thou shalt see clearly to get the mote out of thy brother’s eye.’ ”
Years later, in 1864, George A. Smith claimed in a sermon that Marsh had left the church because of a dispute between his wife and other Mormon women over a milk cow. Although this tale has made its way into Mormon folklore, Smith’s statements are not supported by any contemporary evidence.
| Bigoted On Bigfoot: Why Mormons Believe In A Big, Black, Hairy, Degenerate, Sinful And Miserable Bigfoot Creature Named Cain |
Wednesday, Aug 17, 2011, at 07:13 AM
Original Author(s): Steve Benson
Topic: FAITH PROMOTING RUMORS -Link To MC Article-
| ↑ |
| --MINDLESS MORMON MONKEY MADNESS
Mormons seems to have a peculiar--and prejudiced--fascination with tales of a large, ominous, ape-like, black-skinned "Bigfoot" (who, they swear, is actually Cain), condemned by the Mormon God to wander the Earth where he ends up scaring the faithful into invoking the Mormon priesthood in order to drive the big, bad, black Bigfoot away.
For instance, one website, calling itself "The Utah County Sasquatch Investigative Society," highlights a supposed "Mormon Connection" encounter with Bigfoot involving early LDS convert, David Patten:
("Sasquatch with a Mormon connection? You decide!," from "The Sasquatch Investigative Society," at: http://sasquatch.i8.com/mormonconnect...; for a larger sense of this society, see also, "Announcing, Our First Annual Event: 'Night of Sasquatch.'" from "The Sasquatch Investigative Society," at: http://www.sasquatch.i8.com/Index.htm...)
Another website called "Utah Bigfoot" describes its purpose as “continu[ing] the search [for] the legendary creature in Utah."
("Utah Bigfoot: The Search Continues for the Legendary Creature in Utah," at: http://www.aliendave.com/UUFOH_Bigfoo...
Yet another website, identifying itself as "Mormon Mentality: Thoughts and Asides by a Peculiar People," headlines claims of Mormon encounters with Bigfoot whom their Mormon observers claim as being Cain.
A self-described researcher on this last site writes about having produced an historical investigative paper on latter-day Mormon run-ins with Cain, alias Bigfoot:
"[My] paper is based on David Patten’s story of encountering Cain, whom he described as very tall and covered in dark hair, in 1835, as described in a letter published in Lycurgus Wilson’s biography of Patten. Spencer Kimball copied the letter in 'Miracle of Forgiveness.'"
The writer also makes reference to Seth Lester's book, "Clan of Cain," describing it as follows:
"I . . . mention [that book] in the paper. Lester begins the novel by fictionalizing Patten’s story in a prologue, then jumps forward to the present day. He bases his Bigfoot mythology on the Patten story, and gives Cain a family of other Bigfoot-type creatures."
Continuing, he claims, "I found evidence, including a poem referencing the event by Eliza R. Snow and records of Quorum of the Twelve meetings, that this story was widely circulated in the 19th century.
"In [the] Church Archives I found a similar story--a page marked 'from the papers of E. Wesley Smith,' mission president in Hawaii in the 1920s and brother of Joseph Fielding Smith, describing Wesley’s meeting with Cain, and explaining that his brother told him of David Patten’s encounter. . . . "
". . . As to [E. Wesley] Smith, I don’t have the materials on hand, but the gist of it is as follows:
"The manuscript I cite is in [the] Church Archives. It describes Wesley being attacked by a huge, hairy creature, whom Smith drives off in the name of Christ and by the power of the priesthood. He then goes to Joseph Fielding Smith, who tells Wesley that it was Cain, and gives him a copy of Patten’s own story, which would seem to imply that Fielding believed it, if the manuscript is to be believed."
"I tied all this evidence, together with numerous folk tales about Cain, into 19th-century Mormon conceptions of evil, arguing that a physical, embodied Cain represented the very material conception of the struggle between good and evil that Mormon leaders expounded upon then--Heber Kimball being harassed by demons in England and such.
"More recently, however, particularly after the ban on African men holding the priesthood has been lifted, such conceptions of evil have shifted; Cain is no longer seen as literally the father of the African race, as folk doctrine once held, and evil is now experienced as wrong action rather than in terms of demonic, physical confrontation.
"Thus, Cain’s identification as Bigfoot has provided Mormons with a way to assimilate the claims of folktale with new conceptions of what Cain, the embodiment of evil, should be like."
In the end, the researcher offers a qualifier of sorts:
". . . I’ve purposely avoided making my own judgment calls about truth claims here--indeed, I avoid making arguments about it in the paper in favor of merely discussing the ways Mormons have thought about the folklore.
"However, none of the sources I’ve dug through describe Cain as being translated; rather, they discuss his state as a 'curse'--Cain himself, in the Patten story, describes himself as a 'very miserable creature, who could not die;' Joseph Fielding Smith, in the Wesley Smith story, uses similar wording that I don’t want to try to reproduce from memory.
"It is true that virtually all assume Cain has a body; there’s some minor theology going on about his relationship to Satan because of that. The state of that body, though, would lend credence to the curse rather than translation theory--he’s warped and animalistic, universally describes as hideous and almost subhuman. Far from a translated body."
("A Mormon Bigfoot," by Matt B., from "Mormon Mentality: Thoughts and Asides by Peculiar People," 15 January 2008, at: http://www.mormonmentality.org/2008/0...)
From where have these weird and wacky Mormon Bigfoot obsessions sprung and been fertilized?
Utah Valley fiction writer Lee Nelson offers a telling clue in his Orem, Utah-published novel entitled "Taming the Sasquatch and Other Bigfoot Tales."
Nelson spins the yarn of a character named "Alvin Sands" who claims to have ultimately encountered Bigfoot, after having first become fascinated consumed with reported sightings of the creature.
According to one of these sightings, Sands recounts that a logging truck driver spotted a "a brown ape-man run[ning] down the road in front of his logging truck. In another, he repeats the claim of someone out in the woods chopping down lodgepole pine spotted "a 300-pound black-haired ape man not more than 30 feet away, in broad daylight."
In Nelson's story, the Bigfoot-consumed Sands talks about setting for himself "a cause, a mission, a goal . . . [of] gather[ing] all the information I could about these strange animals."
Where does Sands turn in his efforts to acquire that information? To resources provided by the Mormon Church.
Says Sands: "Through the periodical index in the Brigham Young University library, I dug out and studied every article ever published on Bigfoot, Sasquatch or the Abominable Snowmen."
While author Nelson admits that his book's main tale is fictional (albeit leaving that confession to its final pages), he acknowledges that "I wonder about some of the other accounts . . . The people I personally interviewed were convinced they had really seen what they described to me. . . . As long as nobody finds a Sasquatch that can undergo scientific scrutiny, the speculation will continue, as more and more sightings are recorded. Bigfoot sightings began in the early 1800's when a trapper and trader by the name of David Thompson reported in his log the discovery of hug man-like tracks over 15 inches long. During the last 15 years nearly 1,000 sightings and tracks have been reported."
(Lee Nelson, "Taming the Sasquatch and Other Bigfoot Tales" [Orem, Utah: Liberty Press, 1984], pp. 2-3, 83-84)
So, do true-believing, Cain-fearing Mormons actually subscribe to the notion that Bigfoot is literally the evil, murderous brother of Abel?
Odds are that some of them definitely do--and they can blame their kooky Mormon leaders for that mind-numbing and -dumbing notion.
--ACCORDING TO TRADITIONAL MORMON BELIEF, BIGFOOT IS, IN FACT, CAIN
As mentioned earlier, a claimed sighting of Cain/Bigfoot was made by early Mormon missionary David Patten:
" . . . David W. Patten, during his mission in the South . . . reported that, as he rode his horse, a large Black man covered with hair appeared beside him and told him that he was Cain and was going to destroy his mission."
("Latter-day Saints/Cain," by John A. Tvedtnes, 10 June 2006, at: http://en.allexperts.com/q/Latter-day...)
In support of the historic likelihood that the notion has circulated in Mormon circles claiming LDS missionaries have actually spotted Cain/Bigfoot, Spencer W. Kimball, in his book, "The Miracle of Forgiveness," describes Patten's encounter with Cain in decidedly Bigfoot-like terms:
"On the sad character Cain, an interesting story comes to us from Lycurgus A. Wilson's book on the life of David W. Patten.
"From the book I quote an extract from a letter by Abraham O. Smoot giving his recollection of David Patten's account of meeting 'a very remarkable person who had represented himself as being Cain':
"'As I was riding along the road on my mule I suddenly noticed a very strange personage walking beside me. . . . His head was about even with my shoulders as I sat in my saddle. He wore no clothing, but was covered with hair. His skin was very dark.
"'I asked him where he dwelt and he replied that he had no home, that he was a wanderer in the Earth and traveled to and fro. He said he was a very miserable creature, that he had earnestly sought death during his sojourn upon the earth, but that he could not die, and his mission was to destroy the souls of men.
"'About the time he expressed himself thus, I rebuked him in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by virtue of the Holy Priesthood, and commanded him to go hence, and he immediately departed out of my sight. . . .'"
(Lycurgus A. Wilson, "Life of David W. Patten" [Salt Lake City: Deseret News, 1900], p. 50. as quoted by Spencer W. Kimball, "The Miracle of Forgiveness" [Salt Lake City, Bookcraft, Inc.]18th printing 1991 pp. 127-28).
Others--including non-Mormons--have referenced Kimball's account as evidence that Cain is (at least the mind of the Mormon true believer) the legendary Bigfoot, as "told time and time again within the Mormon religion."
For instance, Bigfoot buff Michael Nave in his article, "Bigfoot: The Mormon Connection," writes:
". . . I would like to touch on a different aspect of Bigfoot and an encounter that has been told time and time again within the Mormon religion. My work takes me all over the United States for many different training seminars and conferences. Recently, I met up with several people of the Mormon faith.
"One of these people, knowing of my interest in Bigfoot, suggested that I look into the 'Mormon connection,' The following story comes from my research on this topic.
"David Patten was a Mormon Priest who traveled and preached the Mormon gospel from 1832-1838. In author Spencer W. Kimball's book entitled 'The Miracle of Forgiveness,' there is a passage where David Patten is quoted regarding his meeting with 'a very remarkable person who had represented himself as Cain.'"
("Bigfoot: The Mormon Connection," by Michael Nave, under "The Legend Lives," at: http://www.oregonbigfoot.com/newslett...)
--ACCORDING TO OFFICIAL MORMON DOCTRINE, CAIN WAS "CURSED" BY GOD WITH BIGFOOT-LIKE BLACK SKIN AND APPEARANCE
While some nervous, publicity-sensitive Mormon apologists may attempt to deny Mormon-manufactured lineage links between Cain and Bigfoot, the fact remains that high LDS leaders like Kimball have made clear and undeniable connections between a cursed black Cain/Bigfoot and people of African lineage.
Indeed, it is a matter of basic LDS doctrine that Black people descended from Cain.
To be sure, the Mormon Church has, from its earliest days and through the mouth of its presidents and apostles, officially declared that the black-skinned "curse of Cain" was made manifest by the Mormon God in the skin pigmentation of those of African lineage.
Joseph Smith preached that Blacks were the offspring of Cain, as recorded in his own journal:
"In the evening debated with John C. Bennett and others to show that the Indians have greater cause to complain of the treatment of the whites, than the Negroes, or sons of Cain."
(Joseph Smith, "History of the Church," vol. 4, p. 501)
Mormon Church president Brigham Young slurred people born with a black skin, labeling them the depraved, decadent descendants of the murderous Cain and consigning them to perpetual slavery, as willed and until ended by the Mormon God:
"You see some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable and low in their habits, wild, and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind.
"The first man that committed the odious crime of killing one of his brethren will be cursed the longest of any one of the children of Adam. Cain slew his brother. Cain might have been killed and that would have put a termination to that line of human beings. This was not to be, and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin.
"Trace mankind down to after the Flood, and then another curse is pronounced upon the same race--that they should be the 'servant of servants' and they will be, until that curse is removed; and the Abolitionists cannot help it, nor in the least alter that decree.
"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 the blessings in like proportion . . . ."
To place the official stamp of doctrinal approval on his "blame-Cain-for-the-Negroes" utterances, LDS president Young then closed his above racist diatribe by declaring to the Mormon faithful assembled to hear his words:
"I bless you all, inasmuch as you have desired and striven to do right, to revere the name of Deity, and to exalt the character of his Son on the earth. I bless you in the name of Jesus Christ! Amen."
(Brigham Young, “Intelligence, Etc.,” sermon in Tabernacle, Salt Lake City, Utah, 9 October 1859, reported by G. D. Watt in "Journal of Discourses," vol. 7 [Liverpool, England: Amass Lyman, editor and publisher, 1860], pp. 290-91)
Future president of the Mormon Church Wilford Woodruff also announced that, according to official LDS doctrine, Blacks carried the heaven-imposed, color-coded "curse" of Cain:
"What was that mark? It was the mark of blackness. That mark rested upon Cain, and descended upon his posterity from that time until the present.
"Today there are millions of the descendants of Cain, through the lineage of Ham, in the world, and that mark of darkness still rests upon them."
(Wilford Woodruff, "Millennial Star," vol. 51, p. 329)
Further, according to the official LDS publication, the "Juvenile Instructor,” the Mormon God punished those who had turned against the divine will by creating them for Earth life as the black-tainted and divinely-segregated seed of Cain, just as Mormons taught that he had similarly cursed sinful Native Americans with a brown skin:
"The mark set upon Cain was without doubt such a mark as was placed upon the descendants of the rebellious sons of Lehi . . . We are expressly informed by that 'the Lord did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.'
"They were to be made loathsome to the people of God, unless they repented of their iniquities. Not only did this curse fall upon them, but all they who intermarried with them, or mingled with them, were cursed with the same blackness and loathsomeness . . .
"From this it is very clear that the mark which was set upon the descendants of Cain was a skin of blackness, and there can be no doubt that this was the mark that Cain himself received; in fact, it has been noticed in our day that men who have lost the spirit of the Lord, and from whom his blessings have been withdrawn have turned dark to such an extent as to excite the comments of all who have known them."
("Juvenile Instructor," vol. 26, p. 635)
People of black skin, the Mormon Church's "Juvenile Instructor" also declared, are supposedly identifiable as being “pure Negro”:
"Their skin is quite black, their hairy woolly and black, their intelligence stunted, and they appear never to have arisen from the most savage state of barbarism."
Continuing Mormonism's historic, bigoted blatherings, LDS apostle and eventual LDS Church president Joseph Fielding Smith condescendingly taught that people of African descent are the sub-par relatives of Cain:
"Not only was Cain called upon to suffer, but because of his wickedness he became the father of an inferior race. . . .
". . . [W]e will 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)
Likewise, Joseph Fielding Smith’s son-in-law, apostle Bruce R. McConkie, taught that people of African descent were cemented into the direct genealogical lineage of Cain--with Cain being the original human son of perdition:
"Though he was a rebel and an associate of Lucifer in pre-existence, and though he was a liar from the beginning, whose name was ‘Perdition,’ Cain managed to attain the privilege of mortal birth.
"Under Adam’s tutelage, he began in this life to serve God. He understood the Gospel and the plan of salvation, was baptized, received the priesthood, had a perfect knowledge of the position and perfection of God, and talked personally with Deity.
"Then he came out in open rebellion, fought God, worshiped Lucifer, and slew Abel. . . .
"As a result of his rebellion, 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 his lineage.
"He became the first mortal to be cursed as a son of perdition. As a result of his mortal birth he is assured of a tangible body of flesh and bones in eternity, a fact which will enable him to rule over Satan."
(Bruce R. McConkie,” "Mormon Doctrine," [Salt Lake City, Utah: Bookcraft, Inc., 1958], p. 102]
--ACCORDING TO MORMON DOCTRINE, DESCENDANTS OF CAIN RECEIVED THEIR "CURSED" BLACK SKIN BECAUSE OF PRE-EXISTENT SIN
High-ranking Mormon leader and member of the Council of the Seventy B.H. Roberts explained how it was that, through Cain, Blacks were cursed in Mormonism's world with a dark skin:
"Now, why is it that the seed of Ham was cursed to the pertaining of the Priesthood? Why is it that his seed could not have the right to the Priesthood? Ham’s wife was named “Egyptus, which is forbidden: . . . and thus from Ham sprang the race which preserved the curse in the land.” Was she a descendant of Cain, who was cursed for murdering his brother?
"And was it by Ham marrying her, and she being saved from the flood in the ark, that the race which preserved the curse in the land was perpetuated?
"If so, then I believe that race is the one through which it is ordained those spirits that were not valiant in the great rebellion in heaven should come; who rendered themselves unworthy of the Priesthood and its powers, and hence it is withheld from them to this day." (B.H. Roberts, in Joseph Fielding Smith, "The Way to Perfection" [Salt Lake City, Utah: The Genealogical Society of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1958], pp. 104-105)
LDS bigotry booster John J. Stewart, in his book, "Mormonism and the Negro," defended this supposed color curse as a “divinely directed policy," intended by God as punishment for Blacks' misbehavior in the pre-existence--punishment that is manifested through the demonized, dark-skinned lineage of Cain and that “has been affirmed by the Church leaders of our day”:
"Cain, a son of Adam and Eve, apparently had quite a different record in the Spirit world. He was likely one of the valiant ones there, and thus was born into this world under the most favorable circumstances, of noble sire and mother, and was even privileged to walk and talk with God.
"Yet, Cain fell to the temptations of Satan, rejected God, murdered his brother Abel and thus brought upon himself a curse . . .
"Among the Negroid people, as indeed among all the races of the Earth, there is infinite variety and degree of circumstances of birth, of goodness, of opportunity or lack of it. There are Negroes born into families of wealth and refinement, others who are blessed with great talents and there are those born into the lowest classes of society in Africa, in squalor and ignorance, living out their lives in a fashion akin to that of the animals.
"Does not this infinite variety of circumstance give further evidence of man’s being assigned that station in life which he has merited by his performance in the pre-mortal existence?
"Note, also, that part of Cain’s curse was to have as his posterity those spirits unable to bear the Priesthood in this life. In view of the importance that humans rightly attach to their children, their posterity, what greater curse could come upon Cain, as pertaining to this life? And what could be more appropriate than for these spirits to have such a man as Cain as their progenitor? . . .
"In the . . . scripture from Abraham . . . we have a reliable account of the early genealogy of the Negro race, and in Abraham’s comments we have further evidence of the divine direction in the LDS Church policy of not allowing the Negro, the seed of Cain and Ham, to bear the Priesthood."
Stewart then adds this hollow-sounding caveat, before moving on to condemn salvation-stopping marital race-mixing:
"There is nothing in Church policy that forbids nor discourages us from extending brotherly Christian love to the Negro.
"This, however, does not and should not include intermarriage, for we would bring upon our children the curse of Cain, or rather, we would bring unto ourselves children from those spirits destined to be of the seed of Cain."
(John J. Stewart, "Mormonism and the Negro: An Explanation and Defense of the Doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Regard to Negroes and Others of Negroid Blood" [Orem, Utah: Bookmark Division of Community Press Publishing Company, 1960], pp. 39, 44-46, 53-54]
Similarly devoted to defending Mormonism's White supremacist race-based curse of Cain, Mormon author John L. Lund, in his book, "The Church and the Negro: A Discussion of Mormons, Negroes and the Priesthood," argues that LDS prophets have definitively settled the question by confirming that descendants of Cain were marked by the Mormon God with a dark skin:
"On the subject of the mark of Cain, our prophets have given all the important information that is necessary for our salvation.
"Frankly, President Brigham Young has told us that the mark of Cain was a 'black skin.' . . . For the Latter-day Saint no further explanation is required.
"However, it is not necessary to rely on this single statement to arrive at this same conclusion. There are numerous references made by both ancient and modern prophets that point to the fact that Cain was the father of the race that became known as Negroid."
(John L. Lund, "The Church and the Negro" [John L. Lund, 1967], p. 13)
--OFFICIAL LDS FIRST PRESIDENCY STATEMENTS HAVE LINKED THE MORMON "CURSE" OF A BLACK SKIN DIRECTLY TO CAIN
The LDS Church's First Presidency has officially defended the denial of the LDS priesthood to Blacks on the basis of their Cain "curse," declaring it to have been a divinely-commanded consequence arising from the supposed sinful pre-mortal behavior of those who were eventually destined by the Mormon God to be branded with blackness:
"The few known facts about our pre-Earth life and our entrance into mortality must be taken into account in any attempt at an explanation . . . [including] . . . the Negro . . . [being] punished or allotted to a certain position on this Earth . . . through the loins of Cain because of his [the Negro's] failure to achieve other stature in the spirit world.
(LDS Church First Presidency Statement, 17 August 1951, quoted in William E. Berrett, "The Church and the Negroid People," Supplement to "Mormonism and the Negro," pp. 16-18)
Confirming its official race-based, pre-Earth life, curse-of-Cain doctrine, the LDS First Presidency (this time in a 1947 letter to Dr. Lowry Nelson, former head of Brigham Young University's Department of Sociology) stated emphatically:
"Indeed, some of God's children were assigned to superior positions before the world was formed. We are aware that some higher critics do not accept his but the Church does.
"Your position seems to lose sight of the revelation of the Lord touching the pre-existence of our spirits, the rebellion in heaven and the doctrine that our birth into this life and the advantages under which we may be born, have a relationship in the life heretofore."
The First Presidency concluded this official sanction of Mormon Church-approved racial bigotry by declaring:
"We are not unmindful of the fact that there is a growing tendency, particularly among some educators, as it manifests itself in [the] area, toward the breaking down of race barriers in the matter of intermarriage between whites and blacks but it does not have the sanction of the Church and is contrary to Church doctrine."
(LDS First Presidency statement, quoted in Stewart, "Mormonism and the Negro,” pp. 46-47)
--SO, THIS IS HOW THE TRAJECTORY OF SKIN-COLOR "CURSING" TAKES ITS COURSE IN THE MORMON REALITY MENTALITY:
--First, Cain murders Abel.
--Therefore, the Mormon God punishes Cain by cursing Cain with a black skin.
--The Mormon God (whose apparent curse of choice is altering people's skin color) also blights the pigment of those of African descent, punishing them with a black skin as well, and then proceeds to channel them into a deliberately- and divinely-decreed inferior non-White Earth life through the lineage of the "cursed" Cain--all because they supposedly weren't deservingly valiant in their pre-mortal lives to earn themselves a white skin.
--Finally, according to historic LDS teaching, Mormons have actually spotted Cain wandering around the Earth in modern times as a black-skinned, hairy, loathsome, miserable and cursed creature--the supposedly damned, decadent father of the Mormon God-punished and -black swathed African race.
Good gawd, where's the nearest exit out of this hateful, primitive, silly, superstitious Mormon Cult?
How to navigate:
- Click the subject below to go directly to the article.
- Click the blue arrow on the article to return to the top.
- Right-Click and copy the "-Guid-" (the Link Location URL) for a direct link to the page and article.
|Articles posted here are © by their respective owners when designated. |
Website © 2005-2021
Compiled With: Caligra 1.119