All of this is true, but can anyone point to anybody committing himself in writing to this happening, other than Joseph Smith? Thirty or ten years before it happened? Pinpointing the exact starting point? Predicting the South seeking help from Great Britain? Including an accurate prediction of world war, with Great Britain playing a prominent role?

The context of the original 1832 prophecy is important. In 1832, South Carolina threatened to "nullify" federal laws under an ultimate "state's rights" position. President Andrew Jackson moved swiftly and decisively to squash this and avoid a dangerous precedent that would unravel our federalist system. At the time, many thought that the "nullification" issue would lead to southern states seceding from the Union, and this was the cause of Joseph Smith inquiring of the Lord in 1832. While some may point out that he may have predicted South Carolina based on conditions in 1832, why did no one else among the U.S.'s political minds predict this then? Subsequent decades led to a diminished fear that the South would secede, and the events leading to the Civil War hit like a whirlwind.

Above all, "state's rights" and state sovereignty were seen as the potential tipping point for the South, but slavery was ultimately the issue. A separate revelation of Joseph Smith's declared:

No I don't agree that for classification purposes I would admit that LDS fit under the sub-heading of Christianity.

I also need to say that instead of saying "right" god, I mean to say God [of the Bible only].  Which I do believe is the right, true God, but it reads weird.

How enlightened of him. 

I am not historian either, but for how long prior to the actual outbreak of the Civil War had grumblings been brewing between the North and the South?  I am sure it didn't just happen in one day, but took some years to get to the point where war was eminent.  Joseph Smith may have just made a good guess, or perhaps the text was changed at a later date?  From my understanding, LDS texts have been changed and modified according to the person in charge?

Also, if Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, then one would think [re the slave question] that he would have come down on the side of free and equal men.  And in doing so, maybe had a prophecy to that point?  But, that didn't happen.  In fact, didn't it take quite a while....a long while....for any LDS leader to denounce racism?  This is just my question in response to the quote.

Which was why I asked the question.  I don't think there was just exclusion of black men, but other people of color as well, until recently.  I just understood that blacks and others have not always been the favorite sons of original Mormons, hence why they were put into classification from the people of Ham and therefore unable to do certain things...I don't know.  Many religions have used the name of God to exclude people (and this is a fact).

In terms of the evidence given at the beginning.  I think again,y ou have to start with  assumption that evangelical Christians accept the Book of Mormon, Doctrine of Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price to be legitimate- which most do not.  So, your quoting from these books as proof of Joseph's Smith's prophesying abilities don't really work. 

Also, there have been many people who have left the Mormon church. There is a group out of Mesa, of former Mormons, who do just that.  And I think they would have better credibility than say I would since I have never practiced the LDS religion.  What do you say about those people who have point by point shown that Joseph Smith was not a prophet etc?

Daybyday,

I don't like getting into the priesthood discussion.  I'm horrible at explaining it - so I'll leave that.  It is such a difficult topic - not that any of these are easy. . .

I will step in for just a second and say there were a handful of black members within the early church that DID hold the priesthood. 

One of my goals in life is to eventually be close enough friends with a black member to discuss their testimony on this very subject.  I imagine it is something that weighed on them heavily at some point in their life. . .

When it comes to discussing the LDS faith with people who have left the church if find it very difficult to have a conversation where things are not either mis-understood, or feelings about the church are so venemous that the truth of the matter is somewhat lost.

(please bare with me - as I am trying to say this the best I can)

I have a wonderful online friend who left the LDS faith.  She is now a Lutheran Minister.  THAT is a change!  She hold no animosity against the LDS faith as many people who leave for other religions often do.  She is absolutely wonderful, and I love her.  One day she told me why she left the church.  It was not something I had questioned.  She is my friend that helps me to understand other beliefs w/o belittling me and I like that.  She can understand much of where I come from and that helps.

She left the church because of our belief that faith w/o works is dead.  She does not fully understand this belief.  She was caught too much in the impression that WORKS is what saves us instead of the Savior.  This is not what we believe.  According to her, she spent 3 yrs trying to study and understand.  She counseled with bishops, and when she just couldn't grasp it she turned away from the LDS faith, and chose to become Lutheran instead.

Throughout the discussions I have had with her, I have been able to tell she does NOT have a full understanding of this principle as it is taught by the church.  So, to have her explain this area of our belief would not be a benefit - no matter that she has no animosity toward the church.

Now, add in the animosity that must exist in a group of people who ban together because they have left the church and are out to PROVE how wrong it is, and I doubt very much that they have a true and decent understanding of what they left.

For instance:  My grandmother was raised Catholic.   She married my grandfather who was an inactive, pipe-smoking man who grew up in Panguitch, UT.  My grandmother somehow managed to get into a conversation about the LDS church with her mailman.  NOT her husband.  She investigated and joined the church - grandpa reactivated. . . .

Grandma - NEVER had a nice thing to say about the Catholic church.  Some of the comments she made were downright mean.  When I would question my parents, I was often told it was because she did not have a good experience with the Catholic church growing up.  I was also always told I should NOT believe what she was saying because of her anger. . .

People who are angry and/ or leave a belief system are not the people to turn to with questions.  They may understand some of the background, but little bits and pieces that they don't understand are not explained correctly - because they either don't want to explain it, or they CAN'T explain it. 

Nostradamus saw it coming.

They have been in the mormon church and have left. Why is their account wrong?

There are many times they are not wrong.  However, with every person who has left the church - you will find they have not fully understood the principle they are discussing.  I had an example in my previous post about my friend and her difficulties with 'Faith w/o works'  If you were to ask her a question about our belief in the godhead she can answer it perfectly - I know - I've discussed it with her. On many other topics she can explain our belief w/o a problem, but on this certain topic she can't.  She does not have a correct understanding of what the church teaches - and believes it is taught differently than it is!  People who do not understand on their own, cannot explain a belief.

My very best friend left the church.  (She doesn't talk to me now - but I still think of her as my best friend)  Her husband had made some choice that were WRONG and she didn't feel like the bishop had led him through enough of a repentance process (obviously, this was something he needed to go to the bishop for - we do NOT confess all of our sins - actually very, very few)  She said to me, "The bishop has not punished him enough.  He needs to be punished much more."   No matter how I tried, I could not convince her that repentance is NOT a punishment and that the bishop was not there to punish but to help him give up the sin and have a full repentance. 

If you were to ask her about repentance within the LDS church she would not give a correct description.  If you ask her WHAT repentance in most religions is she would not be able to give a correct description - why?  Because she doesn't understand that repentance ISN'T punishment - it is turning away from sin.

Another thing to realize, some people who leave the church are very, very bitter.  They are willing to lie to people about the church simply because people will believe the lies.  This is what happens with much of the anti-literature.  They will bring out just enough truth to make people believe they are being honest. 

The 1st time I saw anti-literature I didn't realize what it was.  I was a sophomore in HS.  The Christian club was out in force - warning the rest of the student body about Mormons.  (I say this because that is who was handing the pamphlets out - not to be rude) I highly doubt the administration knew though. . . I remember opening the pamphlet w/o knowing what it was.  It had been handed to me by one of my LDS friends - so I thought is was some missionary pamphlet or something.  You can imagine my shock in learning what I believed.  Here I was, and active member of the church - I went to seminary every morning and I was learning for the 1st time that we revered Joseph Smith over Christ, and that the atonement meant nothing because we save ourselves. . .

It took me a few minutes to realize what I was looking at.  With all my being I could not believe that MY Church was saying such awful things  I knew there was a mistake.  It was then that I realized what I was looking at.  My church was NOT saying those things.  In all of my days of being at church I have never heard those things - the exact opposite actually.  Those pamphlets were filled with enough reference material to make one believe that is what the LDS church taught, but it was twisted and convoluted to the point it was blatent lies. 

These are the reasons going to people who WERE members is not the best way to get information.  Even those who are not angry with the church can't explain because there is always something they cannot understand - and those who are bitter, are often more than willing to spread the lies - or simply have been tricked into believing those lies themselves. . . and it is 'tricked'.