Not if you want to believe in magic.

Not if you want to believe your favored of God.

Not if you do not want to deal with the looking at the truth.

Maybe a Prophet is only a Prophet when you agree with him.

Why indeed would God command a prophet to wipe out innocent women and children? I’ve studied that story, and it just doesn’t make sense to me. Why would God also command Joseph Smith to marry Helen Mar Kimball, a minor, with a promise to her parents that they would be exalted if they gave permission for him to marry her? There was no material need for her to be married to him, she didn’t want it, and he didn’t need another wife at the time (nor did he “need” any of the other 35 or so women he married, especially since Emma was opposed to the whole thing, and JS had to go get a revelation putting her in her place so he could proceed). Moreover, why would the same God allow Joseph Smith to continue to receive revelation and lead a church when he was caught having extramarital sex with Fanny Alger in the barn? Shouldn’t the keys to all these things he was restoring have been passed along to someone a little more morally clean? It seems that a lot of things are done in the name of God, and followers just take it all for granted on their faith that God exists and indeed told their prophet to do whatever he ordered. That’s a way to “justify” Solomon’s concubines, Jacob’s polygamous practices, Joseph Smith’s sexual escapades and multiple wives, etc. Maybe the question ought instead to be whether there really is a God directing this show, and if there is, whether these guys professing to act in His name are legitimate…

If a true prophet is to be judged by his works, shouldn’t we consider all of his works in order to conclude whether he’s really a prophet or not?

Small point but they were cursed because of being from the loins of Cain. Ham’s wife was supposed to be from Cain.

If one purports to be a Prophet and teaches false ideals as if they are God’s will, then there is a creditability problem with all of their teachings.

The LDS church can ignore what BY and others said and taught from the pulpit and change the religion because a majority of members will refuse to accept the reality of the lies that were preached in the past in name of God. The other option would be the lies are being preached now. Mistakes would be a nicer a word than lies I know.

I would prefer the LDS church to be honest about things in the past and not try to ignore what happened.

ltbugaf, you’ll note the smiley following the first sentence which is my way of indicating a playful barb being thrown your way, not if fact a corollary to my argument.

I am more than capable of arguing from a hypothetical point of view and if that means I’m trying to have it both ways, so be it.

The method seems to work fairly well in most contexts, I’m not sure why you can’t accept that it is applicable here. Whatever works for you.

I was taught they they were inspired of God. If they were uninspired then what were they?

I read in a liberal magazine (Nation) about the Curse of Cain just this week. It surprised me that non-mormons also believe in Noah’s curse on Ham’s son.

You mean in that mine exists and His does not? :P

If people are currently unaware of their Heavenly Father, and will not learn of his existence until they die, then He is explaining the world to some of his children while allowing the other to be raised Fatherless.

Does this have everlasting consequences? I believe that according to the LDS doctrine, it does.

Seems a bit odd that a caring, just Creator would put such a large number of His children at a disadvantage due to something as arbitrary as geography.

Then again, if you believe that the white and delightsome peoples of the world were destined to reign in the highest degrees of glory, then it all just makes sense.