Sargon wrote:One important thing to remember is that a very small percentage of mormon missionaries are trained in apologetics, though most seem to think they are well-enough self-taught. Having once been a missionary myself, I know this from firsthand experience. Having no scholarly works at their disposal while serving as a missionary, they have no access to the vasts amount of information out there.
In this day of telephones and the internet? We don't exactly live in the stone age here.. Sargon, I'm sorry but this is a very weak excuse..
Sargon wrote:And frankly, a very small percentage of them would have been interested or even aware of many of the issues that are criticized by anti-mormons before their missions. Actually, no missionary is formally trained in apologetics, it is nowhere taught in any curriculum in the church, especially not in the Missionary Training Centers around the world.
So they are sending them out with no knowledge? That's like sending a knight to battle with no armour... Are you sure they are Mormons then?
Sargon wrote:Rather than dive into the massive amounts of information available on the topic of race in the Book of Mormon, I will leave you with a link to an article by an apologist named John A. Tvetdnes. He knows alot more than I do and will surely demonstrate to you that racism is not taught in the Book of Mormon. It is a short though intense article, please enjoy.
http://www.fairlds.org/FAIR_Conferences ... ormon.html
Sargon, no offense but this doesn't make sense... The Mormon Doctrine of 1966 seems to contradict much of what it says..
Negroes in this life are
denied the Priesthood; under no circumstances can they hold this delegation of authority from the Almighty. (Abra. 1:20-27.) 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, particularly the priesthood and the temple blessings that flow therefrom, but this inequality is not of man's origin. It is the Lord's doing, is based on his eternal laws of justice, and grows out of the lack of Spiritual valiance of those concerned in their first estate." (Mormon Doctrine, 1966, pp. 527-528)
Mormons believe that the blackness of skin was the mark of Cain.
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 (Mormon Doctrine, 1966, pp. 114)
Or if you would like it from a neutral sourse.. It's all over the internet if you don't believe me... Please read from Wikipedia..
The curse and mark of Cain in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
After the death of Joseph Smith, Jr., The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was the largest of several organizations claiming succession from Smith's church. Brigham Young, the church's president, clearly believed that people of African ancestry were under the curse of Cain. In 1852, he reportedly stated:
"[A]ny man having one drop of the seed of [Cain] ... in him cannot hold the priesthood and if no other Prophet ever spake it before I will say it now in the name of Jesus Christ..." (Diary of Wilford Woodruff, January 16, 1852).
Throughout his ministry, Young maintained his view that black skin was part of the curse of Cain, and that black people were still under that curse. On February 5, 1852, Young stated:
"What is that mark? you will see it on the countenance of every African you ever did see upon the face of the earth, or ever will see.... I tell you, this people that are commonly called negroes are the children of old Cain." (Brigham Young Addresses, Ms d 1234, Box 48, folder 3, located in LDS Church Historical Dept.) On October 9, 1859, he stated:
"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." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 7, p. 290-91.)
Similar doctrine was continued by Young's successors as President of the Church, such as John Taylor, who adopted the theory of W. W. Phelps that Cain's descendants survived the flood via the wife of Ham. In 1881, Taylor stated:
"And after the flood we are told that the curse that had been pronounced upon Cain was continued through Ham's wife, as he had married 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." (Journal of Discourses 22:304)
Throughout the years, various church leaders and theologians spoke on the curse of Cain doctrine. Some of these writings and sermons are included at Curse of Cain/LDS historical statements. Some of the ideas propounded in these sermons and writings included the following:
1. That Cain would not be allowed to enter God's presence, nor would he enjoy the companionship of any member of the Godhead
2. That Cain would be called Perdition and not be resurrected to a degree of glory; He would lose any chance of exaltation
3. That Cain would not taste of death (become a translated being)
4. That the earth would not "yield unto Cain her strength," (or in other words, he would be agriculturally cursed)
5. That a mark would be placed upon Cain so that others would not try to kill him
6. That this mark was "Black skin and a flat nose".
7. That Cain would have to live as "a vagabond" on the earth until the return of Christ as a translated being
8. That Cain would rule over Satan after the final judgement
9. That any mixing of Blacks with any others, would pass the curse upon any of their descendants.
10. The denial of the priesthood and temple ordinances to Cain and his descendants, those being of Black African descent (except in rare occasions), until after Abel's descendants had a chance to receive the gospel and hold the priesthood. No blessing would be denied these people after the resurrection, but it would be denied in this life.
In 1978, after decades of criticism inside and outside the church, the church announced a revelation officially renouncing its policy of excluding blacks from the priesthood. Although the church never has officially stated that the racial curse of Cain doctrine was false, many top church leaders and influential LDS theologians have essentially conceded that the doctrine was not divine truth. For example, Apostle Bruce R. McConkie stated:
"Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world." ("All Are Alike Unto God", pp. 1-2).
When asked, church spokespeople generally repudiate the curse of Cain doctrine. However, despite urging from a number of black Mormons, there has not yet been an official and explicit church repudiation of the doctrine, or an admission that it was a mistake. In 1998, there was a report in the Los Angeles Times that the church leadership was considering an official repudiation of the curse of Cain and curse of Ham doctrines, to mark the 20th anniversary of the 1978 revelation. (Larry B. Stammer, "Mormons May Disavow Old View on Blacks", L.A. Times, May 18, 1998, p. A1). This, however, was quickly denied by the LDS spokesman Don LeFevre. (ABC News report, May 18, 1998). The Times later suggested that the publicity generated by its article may have caused the church to put an official disavowal on hold. (Stammer, "Mormon Plan to Disavow Racist Teachings Jeopardized by Publicity", L.A. Times, May 24, 1998).
I thought this was good too..
http://christiandefense.org/mor_black.htm
