The answer sadly, is YES he did!! I'm not sure how Mormon Apologists are gonna explain this one away, other than to say, once again that "he was just a product of the times" and he was "just speaking as a man", etc, etc, even though he was addressing the Saints in a General Conference in October of 1900, in the second day-afternoon session, right in front of the Prophet himself, who made no corrections.
To me, it doesn't matter if they said this in the year 1900 or 2007, it's equally wrong, offensive and a complete disgrace for the world to see and supposed "Prophets of God", should have known this, right? If they have no more insight than the average person, then what good are they? They should change their famous song to "We Thank Thee O God For An Average Man, Who Knows No More Than Any Other Man."(and in many cases, much less than the average, decent man)
Regarding the history of Mormonism, Hinckley said , "I knew a so-called intellectual who said the Church was trapped by its history. My response was that without that history we have nothing." And in many cases, WITH that history, you have NOTHING!!
Boyd K. Packer said, "Church history can he so interesting and so inspiring as to be a very powerful tool indeed for building faith. If not properly written or properly taught, it may be a faith destroyer." AMEN to that statement too!!
In the same speech, Boyd K. Packer also quotes Joseph F. Smith, who said:
It has not been by the wisdom of man that this people have been directed in their course until the present; it has been by the wisdom of Him who is above man and whose knowledge is greater than that of man, and whose power is above the power of man; for it is unto God, our Father, we are indebted for the mercies we have enjoyed and for the present prosperous condition of the people of God throughout this inter-mountain region and throughout the world. The hand of the Lord may not be visible to all. There may be many who can not discern the workings of God's will in the progress and development of this great latter-day work, but there are those who see in every hour and in every moment of the existence of the Church, from its beginning until now, the overruling, almighty hand of Him who sent His Only Begotten Son to the world to become a sacrifice for the sin of the world, that as He was lifted up so He, by reason of His righteousness and power and the sacrifice which He has made, might lift up unto God all the children of men who would hearken to His voice, receive His message and obey His law. (Conference Report April 1904-First Day Morning session.)
Boyd K. Packer then says, after quoting Joseph F. Smith:
"If we do not keep this constantly in mind-that the Lord directs this Church--we may lose our way in the world of intellectual and scholarly research."
I've had so many debates and downright nasty arguments with TBMs and Mormon apologists both, regarding the history of racism in Mormonism and the next 3 posts I do, should help put an end to any and all arguments and cement the Mormon racism as absolute FACT, that CANNOT BE DENIED, unless your completely lost in Cognitive Dissonance or just a racist yourself.
There really isn't any in between on this matter and even Gordon B. Hinckley says there's "no middle ground", when it comes to the church being true or false. Did you hear than everyone; NO MIDDLE GROUND.
Of course, we have to once again consider that they claim they can't ever lead you astray, in any way, or EVER teach false doctrines, or God will literally step in and REMOVE them, so I'm guessing that saying the word "nigger" from the pulpit in General Conference, is perfectly fine with the majority of the Mormon apologists, right? I can't say that I've ever seen these exact words addressed by any of the Mormon apologists and certainly not by any of the Mormon Hierarchy.
So, now that I've shown everyone that the Mormon church teaches that "every hour and in every moment of the existence of the Church, from its beginning until now", is inspired directly by their God, we can move onto to what I stated in the Title of this post.
Heber J. Grant, related the following story(I wish I could have been there for this one or that we had audio or video of it), I guess finding it rather humorous:
I went to a negro minstrel show once, and there were about ten or fifteen on the stage. One of them rushed in with his hat off and said. "which of these here niggers am lost two dollars?" holding up a two dollar bill. There hadn't any of them lost two dollars. "Well," he said, "if none of you have lost it, I found these two dollars right by the door here and it is my money."
They said all right, and he put it in his pocket. No sooner had he got it in his pocket than up jumped a nigger and said: "Look here, George Washington Jones, you owe me two dollars; pay your honest debts!" He handed the two dollars to him. Another nigger jumps up and says: "Look here, Julius C. Brown, you owes me two dollars; pay your debt."
He got it, and in this way it went clear round. When the last man got it, up jumps George Washington Jones, and says: "Here, give me back the two dollars; you owes me two dollar." No sooner had he got it in his pocket than a fellow rushes in and said "which of you niggers has found two dollars?" George Washington Jones took it out of his pocket and said: "Here, take your money and go home; we've all paid our debts."
I desire that the Latter-day Saints should all pay their debts. One reason why I desire this is, I am in debt myself and I want to pay my debts. I want to live to see the day when I shall owe no man anything. I want the Latter-day Saints to not only pray for me but to keep a little more money in the country so that I will stand a better chance to get some of it. If they will keep the commandments of God and do less praying, I will be obliged to them.
Wow, now that was truly inspiring, from a so called Apostle of God, wasn't it? Heber J. Grant wasn't the only one to use the term "nigger" in General Conference either. There was also Reed Smoot, who was an Apostle from from 1898 until his death in 1941.
He had the following words to say in the General Conference of 1907, third-day morning session:
I want to speak, for a short thee, upon fakes and fakirs. I am led to speak on this line because of the fact that, not long ago, in one of the counties adjoining this, in a town inhabited almost entirely by Latter-day Saints, there came in the midst of the people-heralded by newspapers-a man claiming that he was the greatest doctor in the world. He was a phenomenon. He had such great wisdom that he could cure all the ills that mankind is heir to. He was well dressed and looked like a gentleman.
One of the first things he did on arriving in the town was to hire the brass band, for the purpose of drawing a crowd and preceding his carriage to all meetings. He went to one of the business corners of the city, where a little stand was erected, and in order to hold the crowd until he could convince some of them that they had worms, or something worse, he had three or four niggers sing songs-by the way, I have been told that the niggers furnished the best part of the entertainment.
Let's just be honest; the Mormon church has been racist since day one and Joseph Smith supported Slavery, as did Brigham Young and John Taylor and many others, as they felt it was truly a "divine institution" of God, which explains why they hated the ABOLITIONISTS so much.
Joseph Smith, in regard to teaching the slaves, said:
"All men are to be taught to repent; but we have no right to interfere with slaves contrary to the mind and will of their masters. In fact, it would be much better and more prudent, not to preach at all to slaves, until after their masters are converted..." (Messenger and Advocate Volume 2, number 7, page 291)
In the same addition of the Messenger and Advocate I just mentioned, from April 1836, it has an entire section regarding the Abolitionists and says:
"If those who run through the free states, exciting their indignation against our brothers of the South, feel so much sympathy and kindness towards the blacks, were to go to the southern states, where the alleged evil exists, and warn those who are guilty of these enormous crimes, to repent and turn from their wickedness, or would purchase the slaves and then set them at liberty, we should have no objections to this provided they would place them upon some other continent than ours. Then we should begin to believe they were acting honestly; but till something of this is manifested, we shall think otherwise. What benefit can the slave derive from the long harangues."
And the following:
"Where can be the common sense of any wishing to see the slaves of the south set at liberty, is past our comprehension. Such a thing could not take place without corrupting all civil and wholesome society, of both the north and the south! Let the blacks of the south be free, and our community is overrun with paupers, and a reckless mass of human beings, uncultivated, untaught and unaccustomed to provide for themselves the necessaries of life-endangering the chastity of every female who might by chance be found in our streets-our prisons filled with convicts, and the hang-man wearied with executing the functions of his office! This must unavoidably be the case, every rational man must admit, who have ever travelled [traveled] in the slave states, or we must open our houses, unfold our arms, and bid these degraded and degrading sons of Canaan, a hearty welcome and a free admittance to all we possess! A society of this nature, to us, is so intolerably degrading, that the bare reflection causes our feelings to recoil, and our hearts to revolt.
We repeat, that we have long looked upon this subject with deep feeling, and till now have remained silent; but for this once we wash our hands of the matter.
We have travelled [traveled] in the south, and have seen the condition of both master and servant; and without the least disposition to deprive others of their liberty of thinking, we unhesitatingly say that if ever the condition of the slave is bettered, under our present form of government, it must be by converting the master to the faith of the gospel and then teaching him to be kind to his slave. The idea of transportation is folly, the project of emancipation is destructive to our government, and the notion of amalgamation is devilish!-And insensible to feeling must be the heart, and low indeed must be the mind, that would consent for a moment, to see his fair daughter, his sister, or perhaps, his bosom companion, in the embrace of a NEGRO!"
Were all of these words inspired by some God? Now, for those that aren't familiar with exactly what the "Messenger and Advocate" was; it was similar to the Ensign today and was the second periodical of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. It was published at Kirtland, Ohio, from October 1834 until September 1837. Each issue consisted of 16 pages, and it was published once a month. It was the "official opinions" and "beliefs" of the church and cannot be disputed.
It was decided to start the "Messenger and Advocate" at a meeting that was held on September 11, 1833, and consisted of F.G. Williams, Sidney Rigdon, Newel K. Whitney, Joseph Smith Jr., and Oliver Cowdery. At the time of the above printing, it was being edited by Oliver Cowdery, Joseph's Right hand man and the "Second Elder of the church", "Assistant President of the Church", which was the modern day equivalent of First Counselor in the First Presidency, which is the position Thomas S. Monson holds today. In other words, Oliver Cowdery was just a heartbeat away from being the head cheese and running Mormon Inc.
Of course, after he rejected polygamy and accused Joseph smith(rightfully so) of adultery(a dirty, nasty, filthy affair with his maid Fanny Alger-in secret behind Emma's back), he was excommunicated. He was later re-baptized about 10 years later, when Joseph was dead and gone.
Now, to help cement that the racism in Mormonism came from the very founder himself, Joseph Smith Jr., I want to end with the following quote, directly out of his very own teachings:
"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." (Teachings of Joseph Smith-Section Five 1842-43, p.269)
I could relate countless other examples of Mormon racism and how they felt toward blacks or anyone of "dark color" or of a "different race" other than Caucasian, but I've covered that in other posts already and I will cover it more in future posts. I think the evidence I've provided here is pretty compelling, thorough and shocking to the average person that wasn't aware of it and hasn't ever read it before and this will suffice for now.
I'll now ask the question I've already asked a thousand times and I'll probably have to ask a thousand more times; has the Mormon Hierarchy ever repudiated these awful racist teachings and statements and the fact that Heber J. Grant, the future Prophet, used the word "nigger" from the pulpit at General Conference, along with the Apostle Reed Smoot?
Mormon apologists out there reading this, please direct me and everyone else, to these repudiations that I can't seem to locate anywhere, so that we can set the record straight and be fair. Also, don't give me any of your bullshit excuses about "everyone was a racist back then" and "they were just men", etc. You know that's BS and just a pathetic excuse that you all use to defend the "one and only true church", because you can't accept the "other alternative"...which is that it's all a fraud and false, led by men that are nothing more then men and not directed by any God.
Hinckley summed it up perfectly(link for the audio) in the April 2006 Priesthood session when he said the following:
"I remind you that no man who makes disparaging remarks concerning those of another race can consider himself a true disciple of Christ, nor can he consider himself to be in harmony with the teachings of the Church of Christ. How can any man, holding the Melchizedek Priesthood, arrogantly assume that he is eligible for the Priesthood while another who lives a righteous life but whose skin is of a different color is ineligible."
Well, I know that the above statement, if true(and he wasn't just speaking as a man), cancels out Joseph Smith Jr., Brigham Young, John Taylor, Heber J. Grant, Joseph F. Smith, Joseph Fielding Smith, Spencer W. Kimball and many others from being "true disciples of Christ" or "eligible for the Priesthood", or "Prophets, Seers and Revelators" that can't lead the Saints astray, without God removing them.
Some argue that God did actually remove Joseph Smith, which would actually make a lot of sense, considering the awful things he was a part of, in addition to his racist attitudes. Of course, to those that revere him, the thought of God removing him is preposterous, because he never did anything wrong, was a "man of God" and they now sing "Praise To The Man."
So, even if God did remove Joseph Smith, it wouldn't explain everyone else on the above list of "ineligibles", as defined by Hinckley, especially the tyrant and disgrace of a man Brigham Young. The reality is; there wasn't any God that had anything to do with any of this and never has and never will, as it's all man made and run. It's not hard to figure out folks, if you have the courage to consider that alternative possibility.
So, in summary, either these men were racists, not inspired or called by any God or Hinckley is wrong now in degrading these beloved, racist Prophets. You can't have it both ways guys!! Hinckley also calls any man who thinks he's eligible for the Priesthood, despite being such clear racists, to be ARROGANT and "not in harmony with the teachings of the Church of Christ." Hard to argue with that, isn't it?
Finally, let's end with more of Gordon B. Hinckley's EXACT WORDS:
Each of us has to face the matter—either the Church is true, or it is a FRAUD. There is no middle ground. It is the Church and kingdom of God, or it is NOTHING.
It is indeed a FRAUD AND NOTHING!! Remember Mormon apologists, according to your current and beloved Prophet, who talks to and for God, "THERE IS NO MIDDLE GROUND!!" Gee, I wonder how FARMS and the Mormon apologists fit into the "NO MIDDLE GROUND" situation? I guess we'd have to ask "NO MIDDLE GROUND HINCKLEY", who made FARMS an official part of BYU in 1999 and was very excited about it and the future of FARMS.
So, what good reason or excuse are your Mormon apologists gonna try to use, to defend Heber J. Grant and Reed Smoot, using the term "nigger", in General Conference? Are you really okay with it? Are you actually gonna tell us it's no big deal and pull a Hinckley and just say "it's in the past" and this is just another example of the racist "little flicks of history." For your sake, I sure hope not.
I look forward to everyone's comments, as I'm sure many of you out there, are reading some of this stuff for the very first time.
Samuel the Utahnite
21 comments:
Mormonism is full of lies. The Book of Zelph, on the other hand, is absolutely true.
^^^ OMG. That was just ingenius! Hilarious!!! The next time someone asks me to produce something like the Book of Mormon, I am definitely going to refer them to that website! Josh Anderson ... you are my hero! LMAO. Kudos.
For people who take pleasure in reading something that reinforces what they already want to believe, I supposed the content of this post is good enough, but if you are seeking for the truth this certainly isn't it. I'll just make two points:
1. While it doesn't matter to the author of this blog whether the word "nigger" was used in 1900 or 2007, it will to any rational person with the intellectual ability and basic historical knowledge of language and culture. The word "nigger" was not always a bad word as it is today. There was a time in our country when it was considered completely harmless and inoffensive. To judge someone of another time and culture by the rules we use today is to rely on ignorance as the basis of argument.
2. A rhetorical question for you...if Joseph Smith was a racist and against the abolition of slaverly then why is one of the reasons given by those who wished his death and the extermination of the LDS Church that the Mormons were against slavery, would vote against Missouri being a slave state (when that was the state where most Mormons lived), and why, when Joseph Smith ran for President of the United States did he use the abolishment of slavery as part of his presidential platform?
Why does the LDS church not have any hispanic or latino GAs? 2/3 of ther membership is hispanic or latino.
Demon of Kolob
You've obviously poured a lot of time and effort into your posting. And for that, I commend you.
But your argument is weak. Back in the 1900's, and indeed a great many years after, it WAS in fact socially acceptable to use the N-word. Not that it was right, but that it was socially acceptable. Whether you choose to agree with that or not, well - that's just what the validity of your entire argument hangs on.
And please cut the "holier than thou" crap. Like you've never heard a Baptist or some other evangelical use the N-word -- and a whole lot more recently than 1900. Like you've never heard an N-word call another N-word the N-word.
Puh-leeeez.
Ken, there are actually quite a few hispanic/latino men who are LDS authorities:
1st Quorum of the Seventy: Carlos H. Amado, Claudio R. M. Costa, Benjamin De Hoyos, Walter F. Gonzalez, Ulisses Soares, Francisco J. Vi�as
3rd Quorum of the Seventy: A. Ven�ncio Caleira, Francisco I. G�menez
4th Quorum of the Seventy: Nelson L. Altamirano, Jose E. Boza, Luis G. Chaverri, I. Poloski Cordon, Luis G. Duarte, Jos� A. Garc�a, Carlos F. Rivas, Jose L. Alonso, David R. Brown, Mario L. Carlos, S. Horacio Guzm�n, Miguel Hidalgo, Jorge Mendez, Jorge A. Rojas, Manuel Araiz, Jorge D. Arrevillaga, Marco A. Cardenas, Mosiah S. Delgado, Manuel Gonzalez, Glendon Lyons, Juan A. Machuca, Raymundo Morales, Juan M. Rodriguez, Jos� L. Torres, Fernando E. Calderon, C�sar A. D�vila, Jaime Ferreira, Jos� L. Gonzalez, Javier Iba�ez, B. Renato Maldonado, Rafael E. Pino, Vladimiro J. Campero, Hector A. D�valos, C�sar H. Hooker, F. Rene Loli, Alexander A. Nu�ez, A. Rolando Oyola, Alejandro M. Robles, Richard C. Zambrano, Willy F. Zuzunaga
5th Quorum of the Seventy: Carlos J. Garcia
6th Quorum of the Seventy: Jorge M. Alvarado, Jos� A. Castro, Miguel A. Lee
7th Quorum of the Seventy: Gutenberg G. Amor�m, Ronaldo da Costa, Luiz C. Fran�a, Domingos S. Linhares, Carlos S. Obata, Pedro J. Penha, Homero S. Amato, Marcelo Bolfarini, Ildefonso de Castro Deus, Fl�vio A. Cooper, Carlos A. Godoy, Paulo R. Grahl, Joni L. Koch, Alfredo Heliton de Lemos, Rodrigo Myrrha, Adilson de Paula Parrella, Gelson Pizzirani, Carlos A.C. Villanova, Gabriel A. Campos, Daniel M. Ca�oles, Oscar W. Chavez, Hernan I. Herrera, Dinar M. Reyes, Gerardo L. Rubio, M. Gonzalo Sep�lveda, Sergio E. Avila, Ernesto A. Da Silva, Heber O. Diaz, Juan A. Etchegaray, Carlos R. Fernandez, Daniel A. Moreno, Fernando D. Ortega, Carlos A. Perez
Visit http://mormonicity.blogspot.com
I don't care if it was socially acceptable or not... If he was a true prophet/apostle, he wouldn't have used those words. I've heard "socially acceptable" to explain away slavery, plygamy, young wives, racism, etc... It's B.S. It's okay if it's socially acceptable? So were using MAN to justify his acts now? And then I'm told to what? Be in the world but not of it, or something along those lines? I'd think an apostle would know better.
What makes a prophet a false prophet, Rich? Think about it.
I'm rambling on, dont' know how to explain myeslf well... It's 5 in the morning and I can't sleep. My brain is goin all funky. Hehehe.
Misfit Marie
Words change and the way they are viewed by the population. A good example is the word "gay". This word used to mean nothing more than "happy" but now it means "same-sex relations". If I had said, "I am gay" 50 years ago, no one would have thought anything of it other than "I am happy". If I say, "I am gay" today, I am looked at in a totally different way.
So I can understand how the N-word might not have been offensive back then. However, even though this was pre-1978, it is and was a racial term. Let's look at some offensive terms used today and their "replacement" counterparts...
Fuck... fudge or fetch
Shit... shoot
Damn... darn
Hell... heck
Anyone who holds a high enough position in the church to speak in general conference should not be using either form of these words. So even if the N-word was used and was socially acceptable, it is still a racial, degrading term.
The church claims that it does not do things that are socially acceptable anyway. They proudly claim that they do not change no matter how much society wants them to. So even if the N-word is totally acceptable, church leaders should be setting an example and refrain from using such terms. Today, it is socially acceptable to have sex before marriage. So does that mean that the church suddenly allows it? It is socially acceptable to drink alcohol, so does the church suddenly allow it? If the church bases it's standards on what is socially acceptable, then something is wrong.
A true prophet or apostle of god should never have said anything like that. And once again, TBM's are willing to justify and excuse it all away just because the church is true no matter what. If you have to defend the church by defending racism, then you will never prevail.
I think when you look back at all the things those past 'self appointed' Mormon Prophets and Apostles said about blacks being cursed with a dark skin , blacks being representatives of the devil ,the more valiants being born into white mormon families etc , the more obvious it is that its all a sham .
Those excuses TBM's come up with are ridiculous ... "men of their time " is one I hear alot . How can Jesus Christ's supposedly chosen, be men of their time . The whole point is that they are supposed to be the light to the world if they were really Jesus's representatives .
Instead they gave us Darkness and utter stupidity . Its blasphemous to even suggest they were under the direction of Jesus Christ .
They were about 50/60 years behind the Evangelical William Wilberforce and the Shakers on the slavery issue . Then Brigham opposed the abolitionists and in the name of God he spoke .
Its a scam from the beginning . Unfortunately Religion attracts Con men who see opportunity to prey on people and Joseph Smith was a master at that ... Testing his followers by asking for their wives ???
The signs are all there from the beginning .
Figures for membership are Bogus , they keep going on about 12 million members , despite the fact that about 3 million are lost and another 4 million inactive .
Well the information age is here and The Mormon church can no longer hide its embarrassing past and there will eventually be more Ex Mormons than Mormons .
Elder Joseph
I was just over on Misfit Marie's blog and guess who is over there? Our old buddy, Jose. And guess what he has to say:
"I won't risk getting a google ID and being traced."
Now isn't that interesting? How many times did he call Samuel a hypocrite for not using his real name? Now this guy not only posts with a dozen different names, but is afraid of being traced. What does he have to hide?
If he's telling the truth, which unfortunately is difficult to discern, he won't be around here any more.
Yeah Ray,
I noticed that too, that "Jose" had basically taken over her blog now and can't stop talking about me, that I'm Satan himself, why is she friends with me, etc? Why does he care? Notice how he now pretends to be so nice and innocent over there, like he tried to pull here?
I guess I(we) got to the son of bitch worse than we thought we did eh? Just remember Marie, that every word that comes out of his mouth is a lie, which he'll admit to later on, down the road, as he laughs at you, calls you stupid, tells you to go fuck yourself, etc.
And you're right Ray, what does "Jose" have to hide? Obviously a lot. He's a hypocrite and an asshole and hopefully he won't be around here anymore, since he's afraid to register, with good reason. If his hate-filled words were revealed to his employer, he'd probably be out of a job and that wouldn't be so good for him.
Did you read where he claims that he has to get tested psychologically every year? Now that's funny!! He must sober up and go through some detox and get it together just for that test and then just fall to pieces again when it's over and become himself. Either that, or he's just lying for the 1,000th time? What a loser!! I can think of several guys from my mission that would fit his description perfectly and that's scary!!
Don't allow this highly abusive and hateful man to get to you Misfit Marie. Both he and his intentions are rotten to the core and I wouldn't even respond to him, as it will get you no where, as you clearly saw over here.
Samuel
I wanted to say thanks Christopher for sharing the link to your site. I had forgotten about that site and it's hilarious!! I found the book of Zelph at some point in my journey to the truth and had many good laughs, which I needed desperately. I'll link to it in under my favorites as everyone should read this.
I was actually researching Zelph a couple days ago, and getting ready to write a post on him and then you posted here. The whole Zelph thing is just another reminder of what a complete and total nutjob Joseph Smith was and how he could just make up shit on the spot and convince everyone that it was "revelation from God."(cue the dumb, dumb, dumb music from South Park) It also proves that the people were extremely gullible back then and must have believed every word the guy said. Sadly, here we are in the year 2007, 187 years after the "First Vision" didn't happen and people are just as gullible now, as they were then...now that's VERY SAD, isn't it?
Thanks again, as we all need some comedy relief here once in a while, to break up the monotony of speaking about the evils of the damn Mormon cult. I'm gonna do an entire podcast soon, with just funny shit about Mormons, so that we can all have a good laugh.
Samuel
First, you should probably take your own advice and do better research, Samuel the On-Crackinite. This comes from Wikipedia:
In the United States, the word nigger was not always considered derogatory, but was instead used by some as merely denotative of black, as it was in other parts of the English-speaking world. In nineteenth-century literature, there are many uses of the word nigger with no intended negative connotation. Charles Dickens, and Joseph Conrad (who published The Nigger of the 'Narcissus' in 1897) used the word without racist intent. Mark Twain often put the word into the mouths of his Southern characters, white and black, but did not use the word when speaking in his own voice in his autobiographical Life on the Mississippi.
Second, your argument that he would never have used such a word if he was a true apostle is also flawed.
Consider Luke 22, in the last hours before his betrayal and arrest, Jesus told his disciples:
36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.
37 For I say unto you, that this that is written must yet be accomplished in me, And he was reckoned among the transgressors: for the things concerning me have an end.
38 And they said, Lord, behold, here are two swords. And he said unto them, It is enough.
And just 13 verses later, Jesus scolds one of the disciples for cutting off the ear of one of the captors.
If I were to apply your logic, Jesus Christ couldn't possibly have been the Son of God because if he was, he wouldn't have told the disciples to buy swords. He should have known that one of them would be used just a little while later.
Yeah, nonsense, right? That's your logic just holding up -- unless you truly DON'T believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. And if that's the case, then you're not exactly the credible authority on apostleship that you purport to be.
And not that I need to justify my words to anyone else, but wouldn't you think that ANYONE who uses ANY racial epithet against another individual - whether of the same race or not - would themselves be subject to the same sort of denigration? Would you have prefered I said "Cracker calling another Cracker a Cracker?"
Samuel,
I can't help but notice that you've used the N-word more in this post and in your comments that there is record of any LDS authority using it.
One might infer that you are even fascinated with the N-word - a sort of obsession, really. So I must wonder if YOU are indeed more racist than those whose words you selectively choose to smith into incoherent drivel to support your feeble logic and hate-driven rhetoric.
You seem to pour a lot of time and effort into constructing your posts and comments - and for what? To spread your own brand of religious intolerance, racism, and hatred? Perhaps if you were to use that time and energy to contribute in a meaningful way to the community, you would be a happier person. So, why don't you get up from your computer in your mommy's basement and actually go outside for a while? Maybe take an evening and help serve meals at a rescue mission? Maybe go read books to terminally ill children at the hospital? Do something meaningful with your life?
We often hear "by their fruits shall ye know them." For all I know, you've probably used that to justify your hatred and religious intolerance on this blog - I really don't know for sure. I mostly just skim your posts and comments, anyway. But the fruit I've seen from you amounts to nothing more than (I've said it before and I'll say it again) hatred, intolerance, and racism.
You say that you "only want to help others to discover what I have found and to know the 'REAL TRUTH' and then be able to better deal with the pain of their discovery," and believe it or not, I respect what you're trying to do (kind of). You are very passionate about your beliefs, and you want to share them with others. But have you ever once stopped to consider that your hatefully intolerant tone may not be the most effective means of accomplishing that? Do you think it might be driving people away from your cause, rather than actually helping you or them - or anyone, for that matter?
To me, you seem very hurt, very angry, and very sad. Whether or not you want it, you have my pity.
OMG, I can't believe what I am reading! Rich, are you serious? First off all, I am sure we have all said the N-word from time to time, but then again, we are not claiming to be prophets, seers, and revelators are we? Like I said before, those men are bound to behave above the social norm, are they not?
Wow, Samuel, you are obsessed with masturbating and now the the N-word too!
Sadly, this is the best defense Mormons can use. Samuel sits in his "mommy's basement" and does nothing but plot how to spread more lies, hatred, racism, and intolerance. Shame on you, Samuel!
Dude, rich, you are truly clueless. Why don't you "skim" a little deeper and see this blog for what it really is: exposing the lies of the Mormon church.
If intolerance is taught here, it is intolerance of men who pretend to be prophets.
If racism is taught here, it is only Samuel QUOTING your precious prophets.
If hatred is taught here, it is hatred of supression of our religious and free speech rights.
Give me one, ONE example of how Samuel is racist! Maybe you need new glasses, because Samuel fights racism and religious intolerance!
Samuel does give a great service and there are many people, myself included, who are very grateful for what he does. He has provided a place for people who have discovered the Mormon fraud to come and be a support to each other. It's really too bad, isn't it, that our own friends and family aren't there to support us. Samuel's blog exists because the Mormon system fails. If the church is all about family, why do so many ex-mos lose friends and valuable relationships? If anyone is intolerant it is the Mormon church. They can't stand to have anyone challenge them and they deal with it by shunning us and doing the best they can to keep us quiet.
And they brainwash the members, just like you, to come in here and do their dirty work for them, and then you have the nerve to talk about fruits! For some reason, TBMs think that if they call us enough names and insult us long enough that we might actually feel the spirit and want to return to the church! This is a delusion, just like all the rest of Mormon thinking.
While you are here stomping Samuel into the ground, he is out there defending YOU from the "real Christians" who believe you will burn in hell if you don't convert to their church. So instead of slam him, why don't you thank him? You are here using your freedom of speech to insult him, and he is out there fighting for your right to believe and say whatever you want.
You asked me for an example of how he defends Mormons; well here it is.
If you want to defend your church, do it in a way that should reflect your church. Because the way you are reflecting the church now only makes you and them look like a bunch of crazed cult members who will do and say anything to silence the opposition. (whisper: why don't you try the Christ way and be loving and understanding? That way, someone just might take you seriously.)
Really, if you defend a church that claims to own the patent on happiness and joy, then why not defend it that way? But if you defend it with insults and BS, what kind of an image are you putting on the church? (Intolerance, hatred, etc. Ironic, huh?)
Just something to think about...
If intolerance is taught here, it is intolerance of men who pretend to be prophets.
Let's not forget intolerance of anyone who would dare oppose you. We all must be "brainwashed" or mentally compromised in some way.
If hatred is taught here, it is hatred of supression of our religious and free speech rights.
It looks like you have a blog in which you are freely expressing your your religious beliefs without fear of the criminal prosecution by the government. That is, after all, what the first amendment is all about. Another civilian person exercising their right to free speech in no way suppresses your first amendment right to free speech.
But you must hate yourselves, though. It seems all Samuel wants to do is suppress anyone whose comments dare to disagree.
And they brainwash the members, just like you, to come in here and do their dirty work for them...
That whole brainwashing thing never gets old for you, does it? It's such an easy cop-out. It seems to me that you have brainwashed yourselves into believing that everyone else is brainwashed.
I can't speak for anyone else, but here's how brainwashed I am: my family converted to the Church when I was 3. I attended Baptist school through grade eight. Then I attended Evangelical high school were I fought for my right to run for student office. I am quite accustomed to the attacks, and am anything but "brainwashed." You people think you are so groundbreaking, but it's still the same crap every time.
Really, if you defend a church that claims to own the patent on happiness and joy, then why not defend it that way? But if you defend it with insults and BS, what kind of an image are you putting on the church?
Perhaps you should skim a little deeper through the comments. Samuel's are be far the most denigrating, insulting, and full of the most "BS." He was first to resort to profanity and ad-hominem fallacy. If that makes him feel better or superior in some way, then that's great for him. He has the right to be angry.
But it's pretty obvious that the only people that take him seriously are his own little group of 5 or so blog friends who all comment on each other's posts to help themselves feel all warm and fuzzy. I have not found any substantive consensus among comments from anyone outside his close-knit circle of haters.
Really, if you defend a church that claims to own the patent on happiness and joy, then why not defend it that way? But if you defend it with insults and BS, what kind of an image are you putting on the church?
I'm not defending the Church so much as defending common sense. I'm sure the Church can deal with whatever image problems my comments on this obscure little blog might cause (none). I am my own person. I think my own thoughts, and I will use my own words in whatever way I choose.
Hey Rich,
My little blog has had over 12,000 hits this month, and it is the 6th straight month my readership has increased and this is the best month so far, up from 9,000 a month ago. We are now coming up on 112,000 hits alone on this blog and over 125,000 when including my other blogs.
When I had videos on YouTube(before they were suddenly deleted without any explanation), I'd had over 150,000 hits and 7,000 comments in about 6 months. Nobody noticed me though...no...not at all!! Even your personal hero Daniel C. Peterson filed a copyright infringement against me for posting his 20 second clip from the "More Good(shit) Foundation."
Oh yeah and BYU Emailed me and asked me to please take down the video I posted of Robert Millet, explaining to future missionaries how to deal with ex-Mormons(don't every answer the actual question, rather the question they should have asked). I can see that you've followed his advice and are a great Robert Millet Disciple.
The Mormon Hierarchy or their goons, are logged onto my blogs all the time from the church office building, but yeah, nobody cares about what I'm doing, right?
I have 31 podcasts out there on iTunes and they are currently being downloaded over 30,000 times a month. But who's listening, right?
I receive over 100+ Emails a week, mostly of support and thanking me for what I do, but I help nobody.
But yeah, nobody knows about me, or any of us ex-Mormons and we impact nobody. Keep telling yourself that and you might actually believe it, despite all the facts to the contrary. Then again, that's exactly what you do with your Mormon cult, isn't it?
Please direct us to your great and powerful body of work, blogs, podcasts, videos, etc, and show us what it is exactly that your doing, other than posting along with my "close-knit circle of 5 haters", on this obscure blog that nobody knows anything about.
Oh and how have I suppressed you dumbass?!! Have I been altering and deleting your comments? Get your facts straight and quit lying!! Strongly disagreeing with somebody on my own blog, isn't "SUPPRESSING", or do you now need me to define the word suppress for you? I guess I'm wasting my time anyway, since all you do is admittedly "skim my posts and comments", right?
By the way, I have well over 200 posts with all kinds of comments from a ton of different people, so do your homework and go through all my posts if you even care a little about accuracy in your statements, which you obviously don't. I only activated the comments last summer and I would say there have already been over 1,300 comments, if you bothered to even look or care.
So, why Rich have you decided to be a part of and comment on my little blog that only 5 or so haters even read or participate on? LOL!!
Maybe you should start a blog in the spirit of the KKK and use it defend, justify and rationalize every racist statement, doctrine and teaching, that any member of the Mormon Hierarchy has ever uttered. Sound good? I'm sure a lot of people would want to be your friends and supporters Rich.
Hey Rich, just for the record, were black people really cursed as the "seed of Cain", with a "flat nose and black skin?"
Me and my five haters will be awaiting your highly intelligent response!!
Samuel
Hi Rich,
Your last comment was much better than the previous one. At least you responded to most of my points without (mostly) name calling, which is more than most do.
Firstly, I really do not care if anyone opposses me or disagrees. Of course, we talk and debate with people of differing views, but I am not intolerant of other people or their religions or their opinions. Just wanted to clarify that. In fact, I think you will find that out of all the ex-mo's who post here, I am one of the more tolerant.
We are all brainwashed to a certain degree. The very fact that we speak the same language as our parents is proof that we are brainwashed and just copy what we see and hear. Our ability to read and write is another example. So there is no escaping brainwashing, BUT there are varying degrees.
Of course, as a TBM I did not consider myself brainwashed although I can look back now and see that I was. Perhaps I am now brainwashed in a different way. At least now I am open to the possibility.
Whether you agree or not with what we have to say, I think you can at least agree that we are sincere in our new beliefs. I wouldn't say there is no Jesus unless I really believed it. So please give us the benefit of the doubt.
I would hardly call it "groundbreaking" but sometimes a thing needs to be said many times before the human mind understands it. I consider anyone who believes in supernatural events as if they actually happened to be brainwashed because that kind of stuff just does not happen. Dead people don't come back to life and since the Bible says they do, I must conclude that the Bible is false.
Samuel has his own way of dealing with people and I admit that it is harsher and stronger than I care to be. I think he could tone it down a bit, but this is his blog and he can say whatever he wants. I can't control him and I'm not even going to try.
I must kindly ask you to stop referring to us as "haters". I have been called this many times recently and it not only isn't true, but is insulting. Leaving the church does not automatically make someone a hater. Samuel is passionate but far from a hater.
"...5 or so blog friends who all comment on each other's posts to help themselves feel all warm and fuzzy."
To be honest, I'm quite surprised that you said this. Isn't this exactly what the Mormons do every single fast sunday? Besides, haven't you ever heard the phrase, "Birds of a feather flock together"? We come here and talk to each other because no one else will listen.
So, first we are outcast by the Mormon community and basically turned into vegabonds, and then we are called haters when we come together to support each other. Can't you see how cruel TBM's are? It seem that they are the real haters because some of them actually threaten our lives. No matter how much I disagree with someone, I would never threaten to kill them. Now you tell me which group intolerant and full of hate.
"defending common sense" Well here is where we have something in common. I will explain common sense in my terms and you explain it in your terms.
Common sense is the most likely outcome of an event or the most likely result of a decision. When a person dies, what is the most likely event? That the person will stay dead. I have never seen a dead person come back to life and I'm pretty sure you haven't either (if a person dies in a hospital and is quickly revived does not count). I am talking about the person being dead, dead, dead. It just doesn't happen and common sense tells me that it never will. I can further conclude from this, that since dead people don't come back to life, and the Bible says they do, then common sense tells me that the Bible is false, like I shared before. And the only way you can prove me wrong is to bring a dead person back to life right in front of my eyes, which you can't and which no one can.
What does common sense mean to you?
Thanks Ray for your comments and I realize you have more patience with these Mormon apologist scumbags than I do. Maybe I've just been called more names and threatened more than you have, I don't know. I have zero tolerance for them and I've heard all of their pathetic excuses a thousand times and so I just tell it like it is, as they are all PATHETIC!!
Anyone that justifies the racism, the serial adultery of Joseph Smith with other men's wives and little girls, along with "blood atonement" and MMM, is not somebody that I want to give the time of day to or even try to understand. They are all mentally ill, with no morals or values and they are repulsive and repugnant to me.
Furthermore, we don't invite these people here or force them to comment, as that is their choice. Do I go over to the MAD boards and purposely stir things up and tell them all how fucked in the head they are and start calling them every name in the book and threatening them?
If you enter the Lion's den, you'd better expect to get attacked. It is no secret what I do here or how I feel and they shouldn't be surprised by my response to them.
Hey Rich, remember this verse?
Matthew 5:44:
"But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;"
So there you go man, if you are a true believer and true disciple of Jesus Christ and consider yourself to be a real Christian/Mormon in good standing; you have no choice but to follow these teachings and words, unless you are a hypocrite. I don't see that happening and you appear to be one of those phony Christian/Mormon types to me.
But Rich, you should love us man, since we are your enemies and "haters"(as defined by you) and Christ teaches you to "love your enemies", right?
Start living your religion man and quit being such a hypocrite. You should enjoy being persecuted, if you really love Jesus, because it's just part of it man.
You poor ol' persecuted Mormons...get over your "persecution complex" already.
Samuel
Ray said...
common sense tells me that the Bible is false, like I shared before.
Then why quote the Bible in your Quixotic quest to prove Mormonism false? To me, that's kind of like using Star Trek to prove Star Wars false. :-)
We don't quote the Bible because we believe it... we quote it because you believe it. Pretty sad when we can use your scriptures to put you in your place. :-)
Post a Comment