A difference exists if only in continued unabashed affirmation of a rather distasteful doctrine.
Joel Send a noteboard - 04/10/2011 11:06:51 PM
I choose to be generous and interpret your subject line to mean "devout Mormons are perfectly sane" rather than a return to "all religious people are nuts." Turn the other cheek, and all that stuff.
Why would they talk about something like this? Do you hear your run of the mill christian or jew discuss the curse of Ham? I really don't see that much difference, except the fact the mormons came around relatively recently so their "origin myths" are much more open to verification/validation and of course ridiculule. For example: you can say that Joseph Smith was a con man but how do you know that Jesus Christ wasn't?
Do I not qualify as a run of the mill Christian, or did you just not see me mention Ham twice in this very sub-thread? Since the first such is currently the post immediately below yours I assume you mean I am exceptional, which I choose to take as a compliment; my thanks. Ham certainly makes more sense as an origin myth, I agree, and the Mormon view of Indians can plausibly be read that way; neither is necessarily malicious or slanderous on that basis, though both can be easily be used to rationalize a great deal of inhumanity. On the other hand, people who wish to indulge inhuman behavior against each other are invariably adept at finding their own rationalizations, or dispensing with rationalizations altogether if they think they can avoid accountability. It is not like anyone was likely to show up in 1845 and tell the Mormons it was wrong to take the Indians land (OK, maybe the Quakers or Sam Houston, but the Quakers would have had to come a long way and Sam Houston had other priorities in 1845.)
Ham was VERY MUCH in vogue as a rationalization for slavery in the mid-1840s; it neared the peak of its popularity around that time and began to wane around a decade later as the Dred Scott and other events began to turn the tide of public opinion against slavery (until then, of course, it had been just, because a majority supported it. ) The MORMONS may not have hopped on that bandwagon until after Joseph Smiths death, but UT is not exactly "Cotton Country."
No need. It will be lifted at the same time as the curse on Adam: At the resurrection of the saints and creation of a new heaven and earth. If you want to yell at the Mormons over something RELEVANT, try asking why they approved polygyny and not polyandry (though I think the answer ultimately comes down to fertility and the fact no one has to wonder who a childs MOTHER is.)
I know some mormons (I might even be related to some mormons) and I'm pretty sure I've never heard any sort of opinion like that before.
Why would they talk about something like this? Do you hear your run of the mill christian or jew discuss the curse of Ham? I really don't see that much difference, except the fact the mormons came around relatively recently so their "origin myths" are much more open to verification/validation and of course ridiculule. For example: you can say that Joseph Smith was a con man but how do you know that Jesus Christ wasn't?
Do I not qualify as a run of the mill Christian, or did you just not see me mention Ham twice in this very sub-thread? Since the first such is currently the post immediately below yours I assume you mean I am exceptional, which I choose to take as a compliment; my thanks. Ham certainly makes more sense as an origin myth, I agree, and the Mormon view of Indians can plausibly be read that way; neither is necessarily malicious or slanderous on that basis, though both can be easily be used to rationalize a great deal of inhumanity. On the other hand, people who wish to indulge inhuman behavior against each other are invariably adept at finding their own rationalizations, or dispensing with rationalizations altogether if they think they can avoid accountability. It is not like anyone was likely to show up in 1845 and tell the Mormons it was wrong to take the Indians land (OK, maybe the Quakers or Sam Houston, but the Quakers would have had to come a long way and Sam Houston had other priorities in 1845.)
Then again, the curse of Ham being used to justify slavery was much less in vogue around the time of Joseph Smith so actually this is something the mormon church should be embarrassed about.
I love this paragraph on wikipedia:
"After the death of Joseph Smith, Jr., Brigham Young, the church's second president, taught that Black Africans were under the curse of Ham, although the day would come when the curse would be nullified through the saving powers of Jesus Christ.[84] In addition, based on his interpretation of the Book of Abraham, Young believed that as a result of this curse Negroes were banned from the Mormon Priesthood,[85] but in 1978 Spencer W. Kimball claimed he received a revelation that extended the Priesthood to all worthy males.[86]"
WORTHY MALES is key.
I love this paragraph on wikipedia:
"After the death of Joseph Smith, Jr., Brigham Young, the church's second president, taught that Black Africans were under the curse of Ham, although the day would come when the curse would be nullified through the saving powers of Jesus Christ.[84] In addition, based on his interpretation of the Book of Abraham, Young believed that as a result of this curse Negroes were banned from the Mormon Priesthood,[85] but in 1978 Spencer W. Kimball claimed he received a revelation that extended the Priesthood to all worthy males.[86]"
WORTHY MALES is key.
Ham was VERY MUCH in vogue as a rationalization for slavery in the mid-1840s; it neared the peak of its popularity around that time and began to wane around a decade later as the Dred Scott and other events began to turn the tide of public opinion against slavery (until then, of course, it had been just, because a majority supported it. ) The MORMONS may not have hopped on that bandwagon until after Joseph Smiths death, but UT is not exactly "Cotton Country."
Any guesses on when the curse on Eve will be lifted?
No need. It will be lifted at the same time as the curse on Adam: At the resurrection of the saints and creation of a new heaven and earth. If you want to yell at the Mormons over something RELEVANT, try asking why they approved polygyny and not polyandry (though I think the answer ultimately comes down to fertility and the fact no one has to wonder who a childs MOTHER is.)
Honorbound and honored to be Bonded to Mahtaliel Sedai
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.
Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!
LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.
Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!
LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
Mormons
03/10/2011 05:46:10 AM
- 2298 Views
Questions.
03/10/2011 11:13:25 AM
- 1060 Views
Re: Questions.
03/10/2011 01:28:28 PM
- 1020 Views
I don't understand why they would be called drinks, if they were not meant to be drunk.
03/10/2011 03:28:48 PM
- 959 Views
Why did I look up what Quorn is? I didn't need to know that. *NM*
03/10/2011 02:04:20 PM
- 595 Views
....did we just get door-to-door'd...ONLINE?!?! *NM*
03/10/2011 11:34:19 AM
- 552 Views
Nope.
04/10/2011 01:32:43 AM
- 891 Views
there's no real point to it
04/10/2011 02:37:24 AM
- 1902 Views
We could use an evil cackling smilie, we do have some other evil ones
04/10/2011 02:49:12 AM
- 867 Views
Do you ever giggle at the name "Moroni?"
03/10/2011 11:39:55 AM
- 957 Views
There are Mormon literalists? Seriously? *NM*
03/10/2011 03:02:18 PM
- 532 Views
In fairness, I wonder the same about Christian literalists. *NM*
03/10/2011 07:57:19 PM
- 552 Views
Yeah, but if you're gonna believe absurdities...
03/10/2011 09:02:32 PM
- 943 Views
Are you trying to suggest that "Reformed" or some other brand of scientology is plausible?
04/10/2011 04:28:40 PM
- 901 Views
Actually, no. It'd be like laughing at... Hosea. Or Nemeiah. It's just an old name.
04/10/2011 12:30:57 AM
- 856 Views
I know they don't have multiple wives anymore, so no misconception there
03/10/2011 01:23:50 PM
- 893 Views
Question: Why are you such a faggot? *NM*
03/10/2011 02:23:45 PM
- 440 Views
Answer: because it's the only way he could return your burning love for him.
03/10/2011 03:24:23 PM
- 667 Views
Better a faggot than a fuckwad. Cheers fuckwad! *NM*
04/10/2011 01:27:20 AM
- 559 Views
Re: You embarrass yourself. *NM*
04/10/2011 01:56:02 AM
- 448 Views
I'll tell you whats embarresing...
04/10/2011 02:08:02 AM
- 773 Views
That is hilarious.
04/10/2011 03:10:50 AM
- 662 Views
Goodness..
04/10/2011 03:20:30 AM
- 607 Views
Re:
04/10/2011 03:28:25 AM
- 637 Views
OK, you need to delete the "Re:" You're using it incorrectly
04/10/2011 01:55:53 PM
- 584 Views
Re: Also.
04/10/2011 02:08:15 PM
- 620 Views
you are still using it incorrectly. *NM*
04/10/2011 02:09:48 PM
- 568 Views
He's doing it on purpose though.
04/10/2011 03:31:39 PM
- 673 Views
Considering that "CaptainHammer" is LDS, I'd rather doubt he's gay.
04/10/2011 02:32:56 AM
- 578 Views
Re: Considering that "CaptainHammer" is LDS, I'd rather doubt he's gay.
04/10/2011 02:37:41 AM
- 598 Views
*sigh* to all of you above....
04/10/2011 03:06:21 AM
- 605 Views
Please explain why you think we should consider you Christians.
03/10/2011 04:33:06 PM
- 1050 Views
you know, that does make me wonder though
03/10/2011 04:58:21 PM
- 947 Views
We're not as immovable as we are sometimes portrayed.
03/10/2011 05:27:17 PM
- 920 Views
That concept is alien to the Christian theological understanding, however.
03/10/2011 10:18:55 PM
- 900 Views
I understand what both you and Danny are saying
04/10/2011 12:19:57 AM
- 868 Views
The absolute best part about your post (plus the best thing about Mo's/LDS's)
03/10/2011 09:02:17 PM
- 888 Views
We believe that Jesus Christ is the Savior of all mankind, and the only way back to God.
04/10/2011 01:29:30 AM
- 976 Views
If you think the Book of Mormon was well-written, there is really little left to discuss.
04/10/2011 03:57:08 AM
- 1140 Views
Re: If you think the Book of Mormon was well-written, there is really little left to discuss.
04/10/2011 07:24:27 AM
- 1105 Views
Woah nelly.
04/10/2011 10:04:33 AM
- 929 Views
I have to "Wow" as well... racist much?
04/10/2011 01:52:48 PM
- 846 Views
Re: I have to "Wow" as well... racist much?
04/10/2011 04:42:47 PM
- 927 Views
oh well that makes it all better...
04/10/2011 04:54:14 PM
- 949 Views
Yikes. Even for religion, that's more than a little crazy.
04/10/2011 03:47:56 PM
- 923 Views
I don't think there's much of a difference in crazy as opposed to other more mainstream religions.
04/10/2011 07:08:06 PM
- 900 Views
A difference exists if only in continued unabashed affirmation of a rather distasteful doctrine.
04/10/2011 11:06:51 PM
- 905 Views
Then why can't women be priests? Or enter the altar? The curse on Eve is very much in place. *NM*
05/10/2011 12:27:04 AM
- 499 Views
Right now I am not making an absolute statement but a relative one.
05/10/2011 08:37:50 PM
- 706 Views
Oh, you didn't know? Joe Smith said black people are cursed for following Satan.
05/10/2011 01:10:35 AM
- 872 Views
I guess this is a variation on Hams punishment; Ghav, at least should know better than to be shocked
04/10/2011 04:13:59 PM
- 823 Views
it's not that we're surprised because it's "novel"
04/10/2011 04:19:16 PM
- 866 Views
It is not NECESSARILY racist.
04/10/2011 04:39:33 PM
- 888 Views
Sure, except ...
04/10/2011 04:50:53 PM
- 908 Views
Well, the funny thing is Christian doctrine presupposes everyone, along with their ancestors...
04/10/2011 06:31:13 PM
- 769 Views
It it is nigh impossible to be a "non-Nicene Christian."
04/10/2011 03:12:06 PM
- 910 Views
I think we've had this discussion before.
06/10/2011 05:54:39 PM
- 899 Views
Arianism is a bad comparison for arguing LDS=Christian.
06/10/2011 11:45:36 PM
- 798 Views
Wikipedia confirms what I already thought: you're off base with the monophysitism.
07/10/2011 12:06:40 AM
- 1143 Views
I had not realized it was that late, but used it only as an example of multitudinous controversies.
07/10/2011 01:03:56 AM
- 1273 Views
Monophysites, miaphysites, monothelites, etc. certainly accept the consubstantiality of God/Christ
07/10/2011 11:58:05 AM
- 826 Views
Virtually everyone has a more sound Christology than Mormons.
07/10/2011 06:45:45 PM
- 893 Views
Your ideas intrigue me and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
08/10/2011 05:30:38 PM
- 909 Views
I can see that with the Monothelites (can see their appeal, in fact,) but not Monophysites.
07/10/2011 09:43:27 PM
- 795 Views
Tempting as it is to prove Joel wrong (since he so frequently is), I need to take issue with this.
07/10/2011 06:59:13 PM
- 891 Views
I was just saying there were competing views.
07/10/2011 07:49:26 PM
- 1258 Views
Oh, there were definitely competing views, just not competing Christian views.
07/10/2011 09:26:22 PM
- 797 Views
That sounds really nice.
04/10/2011 06:38:29 PM
- 863 Views
Why wait though?
05/10/2011 12:12:21 AM
- 1051 Views
So that Vivien can avoid reading and thinking about the stuff that you just wrote. *NM*
05/10/2011 12:28:23 AM
- 486 Views
I really want an answer from a mormon.
05/10/2011 08:48:49 PM
- 899 Views
Good luck with that; just because I can see no explanation save that I offered does not preclude one
06/10/2011 07:03:50 AM
- 832 Views
Yeah, that's what I thought.
06/10/2011 05:43:57 PM
- 782 Views
Oh no you idn't... *waves finger and weaves head*
04/10/2011 03:53:07 AM
- 720 Views
....i don't know what you look like
04/10/2011 03:54:56 AM
- 862 Views
Shoot, my Mick Jagger strut is way better than my angry hispanic girl head/finger bob and weave. *NM*
05/10/2011 04:58:53 AM
- 619 Views
Off-Topic
05/10/2011 01:14:16 AM
- 840 Views
Hmm
05/10/2011 02:03:13 AM
- 990 Views
True
05/10/2011 02:13:00 AM
- 790 Views
I think of Protestantism in terms similar to a Xerox copy.
05/10/2011 04:57:42 AM
- 903 Views
Re: Off-Topic
05/10/2011 02:56:50 AM
- 1016 Views
Uhh...
05/10/2011 03:08:49 AM
- 830 Views
The people at the Nicene Council and the other councils were not prophets.
05/10/2011 04:59:50 AM
- 948 Views
Danny is right, it is a pretty tough crowd, but better tough than weak and whitewashed.
04/10/2011 04:02:16 AM
- 853 Views