1. It is usually assumed by Mormons that Christians don’t know their Bibles so you make the comment on polygamy (who came up with this??? check your Old testament) as though this is going to be a revelation. I know full well the history of polygamy, both in the Old Testament and in the Mormon Church. Abraham was not a polygamist as Mormons fondly believe and I challenge you to show from the Old Testament where God commands polygamy. Where is the Old Testament equivalent of D&C 132?

2. On the issue of racism, last time I looked what a church teaches is doctrine and the Mormon church comprehensively taught that men of African decent carry the mark of Cain and are cursed and barred from the priesthood for most of its history. The men who now insist “we have no idea where this originated” are the same men who taught it and so must be liars. If your happy to buy the lie that is on your conscience but at least have the sense to recognise it for what it is.

3. The film September Dawn has given lazy Mormons an easy out when this subject comes up. The reality is the Mountain Meadows Massacre has been established fact historically for a very long time. Maybe you should stop watching the movie and research it for yourself. I could pass on some links if you like.

4. Your remarks regarding the Book of Mormon and the Mark of Cain teaching is confusing. I was not claiming the doctrine was removed from the Book of Mormon. I was pointing out that it was a fundamental doctrine of the church and in the new preface to 1978′s Declaration 2 Mormon leaders claim they have no idea where it came from even though, before 1978, they all taught it.

But given the opportunity I ought to point out that the Book of Mormon rather reinforces my argument. It clearly portrays the dark skin as a curse from God for disobedience. Take one example, 2 Nephi 5:21

“And he 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.”

This is the wording in the 1981 edition, the 1966 edition, the 1888 edition and the facsimile copy of the first edition (p.73), all of which I have before me as I write this.

This is as good an “official” teaching promoting racism as any but, of you have any doubt you will find the story of Egyptus and the Canaanites in the Book of Abraham. There is an article about on the Mormon Chapbook http://mormonchapbook.blogspot.co.uk/2010/03/mormonisms-real-secret-doctrine.html

I read your answer to Mike’s post with some interest.
It is for instance interesting that you as (I presume) a faithful member of the LDS church, come to sites like this and continue to read and “shelve” many arguments against the faith.
You say that you “don’t know why I keep expecting to find something new” perhaps you are not expecting, perhaps you are in fact hoping?
So many things are obviously off kilter with the LDS that it does not surprise me that every year many such as yourself begin looking for answers, not from your leaders but from outside sources, such as the many ex-Mormons, who use sites like this to help recover from the mentally and emotionally damaging experience of having been faithful LDS.
We ALL like you railed against “distractions from … faith”, the rabid ravings of “anti-Mormons” and “the same old arguments and false misleading statements”.
I’ll assume you have raised your concerns with your chuch authorities and found the only answers the church could give was to first deny without offering alternate explanations that made any sense, refute secular wisdom as unreliable and then to advise you to pray, strengthen your testimony by having faith in the prophet and finally to tell you don’t associate with those who preach this “devil’s doctrine”. In short, they told you to stick your fingers in your ears and go “la la la not listening” until the noise stopped.
You did not heed this, congratulations; that is great, you obviously have enough good sense to know that is no answer and you have enough intelligence to go and find the answers you need elsewhere.
You won’t like them.
You’ll rail against them too, we all did.
Nevertheless, in the end if you are a seeker after truth you will see the irrefutable evidence mounting up to such an extent you will have to listen and you will abandon the false teachings of the LDS and you will find your life so much the better for opening the gilded cage door and setting yourself free.
Keep asking Rodric, keep questioning, question the answers you are give, even if you are told not to (which the church will tell you). Do not be satisfied with blind faith, no honestly benign being would grant you free will and a powerful enquiring mind then condemn you for using it.

I assume, from your attempt at urbanity that you are alright that a major doctrine of your church, taught by generations of church leaders, thundered from Mormon pulpits from Tabernacle to local ward, contained in countless Mormon publications and manuals and mandated by threats of dire and eternal punishments if disregarded, is not only abandoned but, inexplicably, prophets who taught and lived it cannot even explain its origin, or describe the apologetic that nurtured it.

You insult readers of this blog, treating them as though they have an IQ of 24, believing they will be reassured by your weasel words. Try again and this time have a little respect for your elders and betters.

1) He was speaking not in his official capacity but just as a man.
2) it was a different time and so the rules of today did not apply then.

The problem with 1) is that how is anyone therefore to know when ANY prophet etc. from any age was speaking as a prophet and when as only a man?
Invariably throughout recorded history, ANYTHING uttered by such a holy man has been written down and venerated as scripture, does this mean all scripture is in doubt as to its ecclesiastical veracity?

the problem with 2) is even more unsettling as this draws in to contention the unchanging nature of God.
If bigotry was okay with God then, why is it wrong now? If plural marriage was right in the past and is wrong now, did God change his mind? If so how is he unchanging? Where all of the polygamists suddenly evicted from heaven when the rules changed, if so does this mean that no ones salvation is certain, for if the rules change in the future, the good life you lead, might suddenly change in to having been a pernicious and sinful one, because God changed his mind again.

Of course this is all rubbish, Prophets, popes and Presidents are simply vainglorious men and always speak as such some with the best of intentions some with wholly selfish ones. Good is good and evil is evil, and people are both, times and laws change because people become more or less civilised but any one can now when something is cruel, evil or unjust, as humans we are hard-wired to know this, in order to survive.
So if there is a God take the advice of Jesus and judge him and judge his nature by the example of his fruits, those fruits being the unceasing and immutable laws of nature and the universe.