Dear Americans.....

[Charlotte Smith]

  Up until now, we have had a Catholic/ Christian president. How would you feel if we had a mormon(sp?) president?? Just wondering what you would think about that.

[Julia Chapman]

Oh God, here we go.

In my research I found a more specific idea, but it is essentially the same. Cain's curse, which by definition is racist, is still a widely held belief.

http://www.lds.org/study/topics/priesthood-ordination-before-1978?l...

Before that time only worthy members who were not of black African descent were ordained to the priesthood.

Why not, hm?

And a simple Google search reveals things like this:

The moment we consent to mingle with the seed of Cain, the Church must go to destruction--we should receive the curse which has been placed upon the seed of Cain, and never more be numbered with the children of Adam who are heirs to the Priesthood until that curse be removed. -Brigham Young

Cain, who turned away from Adam, "cursed" his lineage with black skin. What this quote says is that we fair-skinned people should not mingle with them How is this not racist?

Accepting the theory that God had cursed black people, some have used the curse as a Biblical justification for racism,

Yup.

Statements concerning the curse of Cain clearly identify both the mark and curse with the "Negro" race, in Latter Day Saint writings and lectures.

More racism.

Joseph Smith and Brigham Young both identify the Black people of African descent as descendants of Cain.

Even more.

And Enoch also beheld the residue of the people which were the sons of Adam; and they were a mixture of all the seed of Adam save it was the seed of Cain, for the seed of Cain were black, and had not place among them.

From Joseph Smith Jr.'s translation of the Bible.

They excluded "Hamites" from the church. This is slightly weird and I'm not going to into it, but still racist.

There is a Cain doctrine.

Brigham Young kept black people from participating in temple services. This was upheld until 1978.

And [God] had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people, the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them. And thus saith the Lord God; I will cause that they shall be loathsome unto thy people, save they shall repent of their iniquities. (2 Nephi 5:21)

The book of Nephi is only in the Mormon Bible; not Catholic or Protestant.

The mark of blackness was placed upon the Lamanites so the Nephites "might not mix and believe in incorrect traditions which would prove their destruction" (Alma 3:7-9)

Neither is the book of Alma.

Elder Hyde inquired about the situation of the negro. I replied, they came into the world slaves mentally and physically. -Joseph Smith

If they are equal, why are they slaves?

Had I anything to do with the negro, I would confine them by strict law to their own species. -Joseph Smith

Species? Calling them a separate species isn't racist?

So, unless anything I have posted is absolutely wrong, I believe that I am right.

[Wayne Dirac]

Julia, none of those quotes you used came from the website you posted, and it is thus misleading. All of those quotes came from your "independent research." If anyone is following this, then I encourage you to check out the website that Julia posted: post. Especially read the article by Gordon B. Hinckley. These sites give the official explanation of the policy that the LDS church had in giving the priesthood only to people of a certain lineage. Very similar to how the priesthood was only given to the tribe of Levi in the old testament. It is true that this policy meant that people of African descent could not hold the priesthood. This policy was not based on the idea that 1/3 of the people before the world was created could not make up their mind about whether to follow Jesus or Satan.

The fact is you couldn't find anything on lds.org to prove your "rule of thirds" theory so you googled up a bunch of malicious websites, and tried to pass it off as actual doctrine from the LDS church. The scriptures you quote from the Book of Mormon are real alright, but you left out this one: 

 33 For none of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he doeth that which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile. 2 Nephi 26:33

If you would like to continue discussing misconceptions about my religion, then I suggest you start a new thread.

[patch]

I do not think any agnostic, deist, or athiest candidate would ever be forth coming about their beliefs, or lack thereof. "Christian" is what the majority wants - so that is what candidates give them. Anything else is career suicide.

That being said, as an atheist, I have nothing but Christian candidates to chose from. Catholic, Protestant, or Mormon - there is no one representing my (lack of) beliefs. So how much does this matter?

Not much.

It matters when a candidate uses his beliefs, or caters to that of others, to pass laws based in faith and not reason. To push religion in science classrooms. To interpret, legislate and enforce "God's Plan" as he sees it. To make criminals or outcasts out of those who deviate from religion doctrine. To declare war in the name of some higher, unseen, unheard authority who does not speak for itself.

If a candidate rejects evolution, quotes scripture to justify a policy, calls anyone "satan", or puts the "plan" of an unquestionable force above the good of human beings, the quality of life, or the function of a global society - we have a serious problem.

[Julia Chapman]

Truth is, you are still proving yourself stupid. The first site clearly was from the website I posted. And the others came directly from YOUR Bible (I say your because they are just books from the Mormon Bible) or paraphrasing from YOUR leader's teachings, or from the teachings of Wikipedia, which is an unbiased source. You can read the articles for yourself. None of that was malicious and I do not want to talk to you because you refuse to accept facts. Frankly, I refuse to talk to someone who is so childish and refuses to admit that they are in any way less than perfect or their religion is racist. I am not perfect, and I do not know everything. However, it is common knowledge that the LDS church has a racist background. That is not anything but fact. That is not malicious, or lies, like you have said. I refuse to talk to you if you continue to (sorry for the language) pull things out of your ass. ok? If you can act like a grown-up, then I can talk to you.

[Wayne Dirac]

Pause for just a moment and reflect on what you have been saying:

1. You are directly calling me names.

2. You are insulting an entire religion based upon a wikipedia article.

Who is the childish one?

[Julia Chapman]

Yeah, still you.

I didn't call you names at all? And if I did, it was like "you" or "Mormon" neither of which is insulting in the least? I don't know if you are even talking to the right person? You are accusing me of things I didn't do?

And no? I am not insulting anyone? I have some amazing friends who are Mormon, and they are fine. I am discussing one part of a religion that some people do not believe anymore. I don't even know if you are part of this part of the religion?

Yeah, definitely still you. All the question marks are because I don't think it's me you mean to be responding to.

[Wayne Dirac]

" you are still proving yourself stupid"

You called me stupid, directly. Read what you are saying. You said you were "disgusted" with me earlier for saying that my ancestors were murdered by true religious bigots and forced out of America. 

Thats all ok with me, though. I know what I believe, and I know what my church teaches. Non of it is racist or mean spirited in anyway.

[Julia Chapman]

But stupid isn't a name? And you really shouldn't be offended by it? Unless you're in, like, first grade? And I didn't say that at all? I said I was disgusted that you were misrepresenting your church? Not that you had dead ancestors? Did you read what I said at all?

And, yes, it is? It is very racist? Or at least it was? As I proved? And you didn't prove your point?

I am so confused. You are still a child.

[Wayne Dirac]

Yes, calling people stupid is not name calling. That philosophy will take you far in life. I can just imagine that conversation with a future employer/co-worker/professor/classmate/friend...

"You know, you really shouldn't be offended that I called you stupid. It just makes you childish."

You didn't prove anything. You completely abandoned your "rule of thirds" idea because it doesn't actually exist, then you quoted a wikipedia article, and declared yourself more knowledgable about the religion I belong to because you did research on it and have mormon friends. Whereas I have only devoted my entire young adult life to the church, and strived everyday to understand my faith better to try and be a better person, but I guess what I say or do doesn't matter because I'm just a stupid child.

[Julia Chapman]

Well, okay, I am an idiot, I know nothing, you are obviously amazing at life and perfect in every way. You know everything about life and I know nothing.

Sounds weird when I say it, huh? You and I are not going to agree because you keep saying things that make no sense. I am going to be the better person and never reply to you ever, in any thread. Goodbye, child.

[Julia Chapman]

Oh, it's cool. It's all better now. Whatever. (nobutseriously, it's good.)

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

Seriously Julia. Grow up. I'm not a Mormon, and I disagree very strongly with it on many points, but even I can see here that your debating style was frankly rude and unhelpful.