Why are people mormon considering it is obvioulsy fabricated?

[Kdesiel]

this is interesting, so there was no revelation that restricted the priesthood, it was just done?

Correct! A male in the LDS Church was given the Aaronic or lesser priesthood when he turns twelve. He goes through an interview process to access his worthiness with his Bishop. Simple questions such as if he has faith in Jesus Christ, Does he support and sustain the leaders of the church, does he follow the comandments. If he passes his interview then he is ordained to the level of Deacon, then when he turns 13 he is ordained a Teacher, then at 15 or 16 he is ordained as a Priest. He has the authority to Bless the sacrament, to collect Fast Offerings, and attend to other affairs of the Church.
At 19 he is given, through the same interview process of course, the Melchizedek or Higher Priesthood. Now he has the authority to bless with the laying on of hands, to heal the sick, give blessings of comfort as well as all previous duties he attended too as an Aaronic Priesthood holder.

As for the Preisthood in general throughout the History of the Church in regards to African American members. Yes the Aaronic preisthood was bestowed on a LIMITED number of African Americans in the early era of the church but NEVER was the Melchizedek preisthood given to Members of African decent. NEVER, not until 1978 with the official decloration from then President Spence W. Kimball. With out the Mel.Preisthood one cannot go to the Temple to receive the endowment, or eternal marriage, two requirements for acheiving the highest Glory in the Celestial Kingdom. The Celestial Kingdom is divided in Glory as well. There are three levels, the highest of which CANNOT be attained unless you are sealed for time and enternity in the Temple. So with out the Mel. Preisthood members of African decent were basically second class members. Their hope was this escential Temple work would be done for them by proxy,or after death.
The American Indian, Men of Latin decent ALL were eligible to receive the higher preisthood, it was just Men of African Decent. Due to the Churches stance they are decendants of CAIN and are not able to receive the Mel. Preisthood.
So yes the Mormon Church is racist. That racism is very prevalent today, talk to any African American member who’s visisted a ward in Salt Lake City, Mormon Mecca, ask them how they are viewed, how comfortable they are? Many members still have this racist view of members of color, its the truth. Mormons also believe out of the pre-existance and your valience in this pre-mortal life determines your status in this life. ie. a WHITE boy born into a MEMBER family was more valiant than lets say a BLACK boy born into a Baptist Family in the south, or in a third world country. They don’t speak much on that outside of Sacrament meetings or Elders Quorm meetings, HMMMMMM I wonder why.

Just adding my two cents.

 

[Eliza10]

As for your take on Old Jewess Meyr, this sounds like something straight out of the book of Pat Buchanan Holocaust Revisionism. Buchanan doesn’t deny the Holocaust, he merely says straight out that they brought on their own troubles on themselves. In other words, we have anti-Semitism because the Jews inspired it and gave people reasons to hate them. It’s their fault.

I am taking on this last half of your post first because it is so offensive. Please don’t go on assuming evil things about me or anyone else. I certianly am not part of that sick fringe who thinks the holocast never happened nor would I ever say that the Jews brought it on themselves! Or that anti-semitism isnt’ real. It was clear in what I wrote that I accept anti-semitism as a reality. It has the prince of this world behind it.

I cannot comment on Patrick Buchanan’s beliefs as I am not informed on them.

Clearly you don’t understand my take on what you quoted of old Jewess Meyr. I think I made it plain. But if you deny the reality of evil, below, then it makes sense that what I wrote would not register with you.

I’ve always treated the Satan-worshipping child-kidnapping phenomena as a kind of urban myth. A lot of these kidnappings take place for mundane reasons. There’s a guy who was exposed recently for having taken a teenager and held her captive as a sexual slave in his backyard - not surprisingly he inculcated her with religious notions that justified the slavery. You have non-custodial parents who involve themselves in kidnappings, or unhapppy teenagers who just want to leave home, for whatever reason. The motives of these are usually less glamorous than the “satanic kidnapping” phenomena, yet it is the latter that feeds the popular imagination. Most evil is banal.

.

I could refer you to a site or sites that would convince you or the reality of SRA but really I don’t want to proselitize evil, only good. If you want to learn about the truth of it you can research it yourself.

Its easy to believe that most evil is banal if that has been your expereince in life. Good for you if thats what you have expereinced. Unfortunately, its worse than that for some; some have expereinced evil in all its force.

The intiial reaction to SRA is disbeleif. Its the normal human reaction. People who report these things were always institutionalized for reporting happpenings that were too sick to be humanly possible/ And then they didn’t heal. However, when thereapists began to treat such claims as if they were real and gave them therapy for it, people began to heal. Which was the proof that it was real for them. Not just one therapist, but many therapists found this to be true which is why its recognizec as reality.

A friend in the Lord of mine has experienced such things and her life is full of amazing graces of God that have helped her heal from what is unthinkable and unbelievable to the average person. This is why I believe it. There are people your life has crossed paths in some capacity with who have had similar expereinces. Either they can’t recall the memories or if they do they are so harrassed and frightened they look like mentally unstable people with screws loose, or they have been healed by much grace.

Just think about the truly saintly holy people who are on this earth. The real Saints - known and unknown. Realize that there are opposites of that here on earth. Just as some people completely give themselves over to God while on earth, there are also those who completely give themselves over to the enemy.

But I don’t want to give any more time to that. If you wish to remain ignorant, thats your perrogative.

 

[Kdesiel]

I am taking on this last half of your post first because it is so offensive. Please don’t go on assuming evil things about me or anyone else. I certianly am not part of that sick fringe who thinks the holocast never happened nor would I ever say that the Jews brought it on themselves! Or that anti-semitism isnt’ real. It was clear in what I wrote that I accept anti-semitism as a reality. It has the prince of this world behind it.

I cannot comment on Patrick Buchanan’s beliefs as I am not informed on them.

Clearly you don’t understand my take on what you quoted of old Jewess Meyr. I think I made it plain. But if you deny the reality of evil, below, then it makes sense that what I wrote would not register with you.

Well said. I couldn’t agree more with you.
In regards to the O.P. and his post about the Jews brought the terrible things upon themselves through their actions? It always amazes me the amount of ignorance that still exists regarding that topic.

If there is a Good there is an Evil. Your analogy regarding Saints and those who’ve given thier lives to God and Good, as well as those who’ve chosen to give their lives over to Evil…Very well put.
My prayers are with your friend. I wouldn’t want to imagine what she has ahd to endure and once again I’m astounded at teh ignorance stated in the post you were replying too.
Well I guess as they say if you don’t see it then it must not exist right? Out of sight out of mind. Too bad for him

God Bless, and have a Great day.

I could refer you to a site or sites that would convince you or the reality of SRA but really I don’t want to proselitize evil, only good. If you want to learn about the truth of it you can research it yourself.

Its easy to believe that most evil is banal if that has been your expereince in life. Good for you if thats what you have expereinced. Unfortunately, its worse than that for some; some have expereinced evil in all its force.

The intiial reaction to SRA is disbeleif. Its the normal human reaction. People who report these things were always institutionalized for reporting happpenings that were too sick to be humanly possible/ And then they didn’t heal. However, when thereapists began to treat such claims as if they were real and gave them therapy for it, people began to heal. Which was the proof that it was real for them. Not just one therapist, but many therapists found this to be true which is why its recognizec as reality.

A friend in the Lord of mine has experienced such things and her life is full of amazing graces of God that have helped her heal from what is unthinkable and unbelievable to the average person. This is why I believe it. There are people your life has crossed paths in some capacity with who have had similar expereinces. Either they can’t recall the memories or if they do they are so harrassed and frightened they look like mentally unstable people with screws loose, or they have been healed by much grace.

Just think about the truly saintly holy people who are on this earth. The real Saints - known and unknown. Realize that there are opposites of that here on earth. Just as some people completely give themselves over to God while on earth, there are also those who completely give themselves over to the enemy.

But I don’t want to give any more time to that. If you wish to remain ignorant, thats your perrogative.

 

[John_Larocque]

As for the Preisthood in general throughout the History of the Church in regards to African American members. Yes the Aaronic preisthood was bestowed on a LIMITED number of African Americans in the early era of the church but NEVER was the Melchizedek preisthood given to Members of African decent. NEVER, not until 1978 with the official decloration from then President Spence W. Kimball.

You might want to acquaint yourself with the trials and tribulations of historian D. Michael Quinn. I am going by memory, but essentially he got in trouble with the LDS church in part by questioning the original timelines of the Aaronic and Melchizidech priesthood. With respect to one African-American LDS candidate, yes, Quinn claimed that BOTH levels of priesthood were given to him within the course of a single day. I don’t know the basis for his claim. In any case, his revisionist take on LDS history take got him excommunicated. Quinn, like other scholars and even people higher up in the LDS hierarchy, were originally hoodwinked by Mark Hoffman’s Salamander letter (which seems to have effected the scholarship behind one of Quinn’s books on folk magic and Mormonism).

Note to those who believe in SRA (and Alien Abductions), I belong in the skeptic’s camp. If you can find a legal case in the North American Court system that validates the evidence, I’ll be happy to look over it. Successful legal prosecutions aren’t the only litmus test for this sort of thing, but it certainly helps to separate the factual wheat from the chaff. (Edit: there appears to be several cases of injustice from the spate of 1980s and 1990s SRA cases). The burden of proof is always on the accuser, and nobody has yet proven that alien abduction, for example, is real, notwithstanding all the anecdotal testimony. As for the other paragraph, IMHO it is correct to label an (offensive) point of view anti-Semitic, even if the person who said it may not be an anti-Semite. There is a difference. But it did surprise me that people in this day and age still hold to the notion that some of the extreme charges levelled against the Jews may be true (blood libel, child kidnappings), even if in a second-hand way (“Satan did it” or “It’s the Satanists fault”).

 

[Kdesiel]

You might want to acquaint yourself with the trials and tribulations of historian D. Michael Quinn. I am going by memory, but essentially he got in trouble with the LDS church in part by questioning the original timelines of the Aaronic and Melchizidech priesthood. With respect to one African-American LDS candidate, yes, Quinn claimed that BOTH levels of priesthood were given to him within the course of a single day. I don’t know the basis for his claim. In any case, his revisionist take on LDS history take got him excommunicated. Quinn, like other scholars and even people higher up in the LDS hierarchy, were originally hoodwinked by Mark Hoffman’s Salamander letter (which seems to have effected the scholarship behind one of Quinn’s books on folk magic and Mormonism).

Note to those who believe in SRA (and Alien Abductions), I belong in the skeptic’s camp. If you can find a legal case in the North American Court system that validates the evidence, I’ll be happy to look over it. Successful legal prosecutions aren’t the only litmus test for this sort of thing, but it certainly helps to separate the factual wheat from the chaff. (Edit: there appears to be several cases of injustice from the spate of 1980s and 1990s SRA cases). The burden of proof is always on the accuser, and nobody has yet proven that alien abduction, for example, is real, notwithstanding all the anecdotal testimony. As for the other paragraph, IMHO it is correct to label an (offensive) point of view anti-Semitic, even if the person who said it may not be an anti-Semite. There is a difference. But it did surprise me that people in this day and age still hold to the notion that some of the extreme charges levelled against the Jews may be true (blood libel, child kidnappings), even if in a second-hand way (“Satan did it” or “It’s the Satanists fault”).

I am aquainted with the workings of D. Michael Quinn. Although there is eveidence members of African Decent did in fact receive both preisthoods, they were not given “full rights” or blessings with in those preisthoods ie Temple Marriage, and The Endowment. The eveidence is overwhelming when it comes to the discrimatory practice of the Mormon church up unitl 1978, but with such a deep seeded racism it is very much present in the Church today.
Most of my comments are drawn from the information given me while growing up in the LDS church, and the lessons learned while serving a mission for the LDS church.
Thanks for the positive feedback.

 

[why_me]

The eveidence is overwhelming when it comes to the discrimatory practice of the Mormon church up unitl 1978, but with such a deep seeded racism it is very much present in the Church today.
Most of my comments are drawn from the information given me while growing up in the LDS church, and the lessons learned while serving a mission for the LDS church.
Thanks for the positive feedback.

Not true. To equate mormons with racism is a stretch to be sure. Most lds are far from racist. I remember quite well when African Americans could not receive the priesthood. I never heard a racist word from any mormon’s mouth. And we need to remember that many people of color did receive the priesthood. Also, no one was denied membership in the lds church and all people worshipped together. No segregation.

Now as a catholic boy I heard a lot of racism or racist comments from the Irish-American catholics in my town. Not to mention from the Italian and Polish American catholics in my town. Why?

 

[why_me]

So yes the Mormon Church is racist. That racism is very prevalent today, talk to any African American member who’s visisted a ward in Salt Lake City, Mormon Mecca, ask them how they are viewed, how comfortable they are? Many members still have this racist view of members of color, its the truth. Mormons also believe out of the pre-existance and your valience in this pre-mortal life determines your status in this life. ie. a WHITE boy born into a MEMBER family was more valiant than lets say a BLACK boy born into a Baptist Family in the south, or in a third world country. They don’t speak much on that outside of Sacrament meetings or Elders Quorm meetings, HMMMMMM I wonder why.

Just adding my two cents.

Your two cents ain’t worth much. However, you can check this site and see just how well african americans are doing in the mormon church:

ldsgenesisgroup.org/

Also you check out this movie:

untoldstoryofblackmormons.com/

You can check out the trailer.

 

[ThuriferAcolyte]

Not true. To equate mormons with racism is a stretch to be sure. Most lds are far from racist. I remember quite well when African Americans could not receive the priesthood. I never heard a racist word from any mormon’s mouth. And we need to remember that many people of color did receive the priesthood. Also, no one was denied membership in the lds church and all people worshipped together. No segregation.

Now as a catholic boy I heard a lot of racism or racist comments from the Irish-American catholics in my town. Not to mention from the Italian and Polish American catholics in my town. Why?

We’ve all seen the racist comments made by various Prophets and other authorities in the Mormon Church prior to 1978. Don’t try to make it seem like if Mormons are all nice and wonderful, and that Catholics are just all racists.

Many people of color (who, Africans?) received the priesthood when? Back at the beginning of the Mormon church? And yes, blacks were allowed to join the Mormon church, however they could not hold the priesthood. This meant that there was no priesthood in the home. Men could not give husband or father blessings. Men and women could not be eternally married. Black men could not bless and pass the Sacrament. Also, the Mormon church did not proselytize in Sub-saharan Africa (save for South Africa, for obvious reasons) before the 1978 revelation, since there would be no priesthood there. They also had a difficult situation in Brazil, which is a very mixed country.

Why did you hear “a lot” of racist comments from Catholics in your town? Because people are people. It had nothing to do with the Catholic Church. It’s actually funny to me that you bring that up. It has nothing to do with a policy that said blacks could not hold the priesthood. The Mormon church said that blacks could not have the priesthood, the Catholic Church did not.

 

[why_me]

We’ve all seen the racist comments made by various Prophets and other authorities in the Mormon Church prior to 1978. Don’t try to make it seem like if Mormons are all nice and wonderful, and that Catholics are just all racists.

Why did you hear “a lot” of racist comments from Catholics in your town? Because people are people. It had nothing to do with the Catholic Church. It’s actually funny to me that you bring that up. It has nothing to do with a policy that said blacks could not hold the priesthood. The Mormon church said that blacks could not have the priesthood, the Catholic Church did not.

The catholic poster implied that mormons are racist. I countered it. He was out of line and he was offensive. I never heard a racist comment from any mormon. Oh, maybe one. And during the priesthood ban the mormons I knew were waiting for the ban to be lifted and when it was lifted, overwhelmingly the lds cheered the decision. No sign of grass root racism.

White america was basically racist and I am sure that this would cover a mormon or two.

 

[why_me]

Here is a terrific podcast about blacks and the priesthood. It is great and well balanced. If interested, click in and listen.

mormonstories.org/?p=83

 

[ThuriferAcolyte]

The catholic poster implied that mormons are racist. I countered it. He was out of line and he was offensive. I never heard a racist comment from any mormon. Oh, maybe one. And during the priesthood ban the mormons I knew were waiting for the ban to be lifted and when it was lifted, overwhelmingly the lds cheered the decision. No sign of grass root racism.

White america was basically racist and I am sure that this would cover a mormon or two.

So it covers " a mormon or two", and then you’ve from heard A LOT of racist Catholics…

Again, the Mormon church had an institutional discrimination, where blacks could not hold the priesthood, which is much more central to Mormon life of the average member than the Catholic priesthood. So when you bring up your “many” racist Catholics from your childhood, that goes right back to your statement on “white america was basically racist”, and has nothing to do with Catholic teaching. The Mormon priesthood ban however was Mormon teaching. That’s all.

 

[John_Larocque]

whyme, as one of the chief LDS apologists here, let me ask you a straight question.

The “Negro Doctrine” as formulated by Bruce McConkie in “Mormon Doctrine”, is not considered official Mormon teaching. Essentially their faults in the pre-existence prohibited Negros from receiving the blessings of the Melchizidech Priesthood.

Do you consider it a racist belief? Yes or no.

If no, do you share the belief, that it was at one time true? Yes or no. If yes, then defend McConkie’s views.

 

[Kdesiel]

The catholic poster implied that mormons are racist. I countered it. He was out of line and he was offensive. I never heard a racist comment from any mormon. Oh, maybe one. And during the priesthood ban the mormons I knew were waiting for the ban to be lifted and when it was lifted, overwhelmingly the lds cheered the decision. No sign of grass root racism.

White america was basically racist and I am sure that this would cover a mormon or two.

My two cents are worth quite a bit because simply I’m putting it how it is.
I served a two year honorble LDS Mission in Johannes burg South Africa. 1997-1999. I grew up in a family of ten kids both my parents are sealed in the temple. My relation to the church stems all the way back to B.Young and the missionary movement to Scandinavia and Europe. My family isn’t new to the religion.
All Mormons aren’t racist but a great majority of them are. When you have a Doctrine of your church that tells its members people of color are not entitled to all of the same “Blessings” due to the color of their skin then…well I don’t know what your definition of racist is but that sums it up for me. John pinted out in one of his posts that you heard Catholics as a boy being racist, yeah due to human ignorance not due to divine teaching.
As for “Many” blacks receivng both preisthoods and full membership rights in the early days of the church, then maybe your standards of MANY and mine totally differ, a handful of members doesn’t constitute as many.
Never heard a Mormon say a racist thing, in the back of your Quad read the Official Decloration stating that Men of African decent can now enjoy FULL membership…that fact an OFFICIAL DECLORATION for FULL RIGHTS within the church community speaks louder than a hundred and fourty eight years of persecution through exclusion.

So yes Mormons for the MOST part are racist, it is in their doctrine, it is the scriptures they read and the teachings of their Presidents and Apostles. You can say and twist it anyway you want, whatever helps you sleep at night. Facts are facts, what I’ve said you can reinforce with the teachings of the Church.
Like or not my two cents are worth while. Take the binders off pick them up and learn somthing.

 

[Eliza10]

…Well said. I couldn’t agree more with you.
In regards to the O.P. and his post about the Jews brought the terrible things upon themselves through their actions? It always amazes me the amount of ignorance that still exists regarding that topic.

If there is a Good there is an Evil. Your analogy regarding Saints and those who’ve given thier lives to God and Good, as well as those who’ve chosen to give their lives over to Evil…Very well put.
My prayers are with your friend. I wouldn’t want to imagine what she has ahd to endure and once again I’m astounded at the ignorance stated in the post you were replying too.
Well I guess as they say if you don’t see it then it must not exist right? Out of sight out of mind. Too bad for him

God Bless, and have a Great day.
…

Thanks so much for your kind thoughts of agreement and also prayers for my friend. Sometimes its too big for me to grasp; then I realise nothing is too big for God and I know and have seen that He gives graces abundantly in accordance to needs.

Yes, don’t know about what else John has to say but he certainly is displaying ignorance as to the magnitude of evil existing on earth.

 

[why_me]

whyme, as one of the chief LDS apologists here, let me ask you a straight question.

The “Negro Doctrine” as formulated by Bruce McConkie in “Mormon Doctrine”, is not considered official Mormon teaching. Essentially their faults in the pre-existence prohibited Negros from receiving the blessings of the Melchizidech Priesthood.

Do you consider it a racist belief? Yes or no.

If no, do you share the belief, that it was at one time true? Yes or no. If yes, then defend McConkie’s views.

Here is one Bruce R. said after the revelation giving blacks the priesthood:

Elder Bruce R. McConkie wrote in Sermons and Writings of Bruce R. McConkie, Part II, The Mission of the Holy Ghost, Chapter 9—Revelation on the Priesthood 1989 (also spoken at a CES conference at BYU in August 1978):

We Follow Living Prophets

"Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whoever 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. We get our truth and light line upon line and precept upon precept (2 Ne. 28:30; Isa. 28:9-10; D&C 98:11-12; 128:21). We have now had added a new flood of intelligence and light on this particular subject, and it erases all the darkness and all the views and all the thoughts of the past. They don’t matter anymore.

“It doesn’t make a particle of difference what anybody ever said about the Negro matter before the first day of June of this year [1978]. It is a new day and a new arrangement, and the Lord has now given the revelation that sheds light into the world on this subject.”

Why should I defend what he said before the revelation?

 

[ThuriferAcolyte]

so what he said before doesn’t matter anymore.

 

[why_me]

Never heard a Mormon say a racist thing, in the back of your Quad read the Official Decloration stating that Men of African decent can now enjoy FULL membership…that fact an OFFICIAL DECLORATION for FULL RIGHTS within the church community speaks louder than a hundred and fourty eight years of persecution through exclusion.

So yes Mormons for the MOST part are racist, it is in their doctrine, it is the scriptures they read and the teachings of their Presidents and Apostles. You can say and twist it anyway you want, whatever helps you sleep at night. Facts are facts, what I’ve said you can reinforce with the teachings of the Church.
Like or not my two cents are worth while. Take the binders off pick them up and learn somthing.

Not true. For the most part mormons are not racist. But I am sure that some have said racist things even though I have not heard racist comments. President Hinckley said the following:

During the 176th General Conference of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, President Gordon B. Hinckley did not speak or conduct in the Saturday morning or afternoon sessions. In the general priesthood session held that same evening, however, he spoke emphatically, urging priesthood holders to do everything in their power to wipe out racism in the LDS Church.

"When a man grows old he develops a softer touch, a kindlier manner. I have thought of this much of late. . . .

"Racial strife still lifts its ugly head. I am advised that even right here among us there is some of this. I cannot understand how it can be. It seemed to me that we all rejoiced in the 1978 revelation given President Kimball. I was there in the temple at the time that that happened. There was no doubt in my mind or in the minds of my associates that what was revealed was the mind and the will of the Lord.

"Now I am told that racial slurs and denigrating remarks are sometimes heard among us. 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 whereas another who lives a righteous life but whose skin is of a different color is ineligible?

"Throughout my service as a member of the First Presidency, I have recognized and spoken a number of times on the diversity we see in our society. It is all about us, and we must make an effort to accommodate that diversity.

"Let us all recognize that each of us is a son or daughter of our Father in Heaven, who loves all of His children.

"Brethren, there is no basis for racial hatred among the priesthood of this Church. If any within the sound of my voice is inclined to indulge in this, then let him go before the Lord and ask for forgiveness and be no more involved in such.

“Why do any of us have to be so mean and unkind to others? Why can’t all of us reach out in friendship to everyone about us? Why is there so much bitterness and animosity? It is not a part of the gospel of Jesus Christ.”

Where is the racism?

 

[Eliza10]

Note to those who believe in SRA (and Alien Abductions), I belong in the skeptic’s camp. If you can find a legal case in the North American Court system that validates the evidence, I’ll be happy to look over it. Successful legal prosecutions aren’t the only litmus test for this sort of thing, but it certainly helps to separate the factual wheat from the chaff. (Edit: there appears to be several cases of injustice from the spate of 1980s and 1990s SRA cases). The burden of proof is always on the accuser, and nobody has yet proven that alien abduction, for example, is real, notwithstanding all the anecdotal testimony. As for the other paragraph, IMHO it is correct to label an (offensive) point of view anti-Semitic, even if the person who said it may not be an anti-Semite. There is a difference. But it did surprise me that people in this day and age still hold to the notion that some of the extreme charges levelled against the Jews may be true (blood libel, child kidnappings), even if in a second-hand way (“Satan did it” or “It’s the Satanists fault”).

Wow, you are aquainting SRA with Alien Aduduction? Well thats not too intelligent. I realize though that you have a normal initial reaction to SRA - that it can’t possibly be true. There is organized generational religion of God, but there can’t be such a religion of prince of this world? Who would agree to that? Surely the good law of our land prevents that? Or whatever you think that makes it not possible? Discounting the wise experience of therapists and wise pastoral leaders? I sympathize with your reaction, but I do not relate to your making a door-shut judgement on your initial reaction.

As to the courts of law proving the existance of it, how about a court of law proving the existance of a Saint? I don’t believe thats ever been proven in a court of law. Come to think of it, I don’t think any court has proven the existance of God. .

I don’t think you grasped my poiint, which was that Satanists mascarading as Jews or Christians do all kinds of horrible things in the name of Isreal or Our Lord. Just because they call themselves that doesn’t mean that they are. There are Jews and Christians and those of other religions who do not live the creed of those religions - they are counterfeits and not what they claim to be.

As to proving alien abduction in court, I don’t know, but I suppose those impudent aliens don’t even show up to court!

 

[John_Larocque]

Here is one Bruce R. said after the revelation giving blacks the priesthood:
Why should I defend what he said before the revelation?

I wasn’t asking you to defend it… unless you STILL believe that it was at one time true. As predicted you ducked the question. Do believe that AT ONE TIME the Negro Doctrine was true?

It’s a simple question. Yes or no. What is it?

 

[why_me]

I wasn’t asking you to defend it… unless you STILL believe that it was at one time true. As predicted you ducked the question. Do believe that AT ONE TIME the Negro Doctrine was true?

It’s a simple question. Yes or no. What is it?

I have never heard of the Negro Doctrine per se. But I know what you are referring to. I don’t remember how I felt about it because that was years ago. It wasn’t that important to me as a twenty one year old if I go back to the 1970’s. But I do remember it being discussed as a young adult in informal settings among us.