Delbert L. Stapley
Early in 1964 Mormon Apostle Delbert L. Stapley wrote a letter to his friend, Michigan Governor George W. Romney. Mr. Stapley wrote the letter due to concerns he had after hearing a pro-Civil Rights talk given by Governor Romney. Mr. Stapley wrote that what he heard did not “altogether harmonize with my own understandings regarding this subject.” Upon making it clear that he was not writing in his official Church position (although the letter was written on Church letterhead), and he was not speaking in behalf of the Mormon Church (“Only President McKay can speak for the Church”), Apostle Stapley asked Governor Romney to read and reflect on Joseph Smith’s teachings on the matter (i.e., Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 269-270 “giving particular attention to the closing sentence on page 270,” and History of the Church 2:436-440 “[coming] back to the last paragraph on page 438”).
Mr. Stapley wrote,
“When I reflect upon the Prophet’s statements and remember what happened to three of our nation’s presidents who were very active in the Negro cause, I am sobered by their demise. They went contrary to the teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith – unwittingly, no doubt, but nevertheless, the prophecy of Joseph Smith [quoting from History of the Church 2:438], ‘…those who are determined to pursue a course, which shows an opposition, and a feverish restlessness against the decrees of the Lord, will learn, when perhaps it is too late for their own good, that God can do His own work, without the aid of those who are not dictated by His counsel,’ has and will continue to be fulfilled.”
The Mormon Apostle continued, sharing a personal experience with Governor Romney:
“A friend of mine in Arizona—not a Church member—a great champion of the colored race—came to me after my call into the Twelve, and acknowledged President McKay to be a Prophet of God. He wanted me to ask President McKay to inquire of the Lord to see if the Lord would not lift the curse from the colored race and give them the privileges of the Priesthood. I explained to him that the Lord had placed the curse upon the Negro, which denied him the Priesthood; therefore, it was the Lord’s responsibility—not man’s—to change His decision. This friend of mine met a very tragic end by drowning. He was a most enthusiastic advocate of the colored cause and went about promoting for them all the privileges, social opportunities, and participation enjoyed by the Whites.”
As Mr. Stapley’s letter continued, he expressed his own “understandings regarding the Negro” as influenced by the statements of Joseph Smith. He wrote,
“I do not have any objection to recognizing the Negro in his place and giving him every opportunity for education, for employment, for whatever contribution he can make to the society of men… Yet all these things, in my judgment, should accord with the expressions of the Prophet Joseph Smith.”
Since the Civil Rights Act then before Congress did not accord with Joseph Smith’s views, Mr. Stapley judged it to be “vicious legislation” and apparently feared for Governor Romney’s life if he were to persist in supporting it.
Despite the pointed but kindly-motivated warning from Apostle Stapley, Governor Romney continued to work for and champion Civil Rights. A little more than 30 years later George Romney died of a heart attack. He was 88 years old.
Download a PDF file of Apostle Stapley’s letter, courtesy of the Boston Globe.
OK, let me get this straight. The apostle was not writing in his official position and not speaking for the Utah church BUT he wrote on LDS church stationary. Alright so he couldn\’t afford his own paper to express his opinion. Honestly, sounds like a pretty weak disclaimer.
His OPINION was that if a person went against what Joseph Smith said God said, that person would most likely come to a very bad end; like the guy who drowned.
Well I don\’t get it! Then why didn\’t the Mormon prophet who lifted the band on Negros get smitted or smooted? What\’s the word I\’m looking for here?
This is old time Utah Mormonism. The Utah sect Mormonism of Bruce McConkie. The Mormonism we all miss. My guess is that this type of Mormonism is still practiced in the Mormon cultural enclaves in the west. They haven\’t gotten the memo yet that they are trying to appear to be evangelical Christians.
You know, Joseph Smith was suppose to have received the revelation that restored the original gospel. I continue to point out a couple of facts. First of all there is no record of Mormonism any where prior to 1830. So someone could just say, \”I\’m a prophet. This is what was lost. I\’m restoring it.\” No proof needed.
So when we see all of these fits and starts and zigs and zags within Mormonism you\’d think it would raise a red flag or two among the faithful Mormon believers.
Quite clearly, what this Mormon apostle is attesting to, is the Mormon belief that \”Negros\” carried the curse of Cain because they just didn\’t cut it in the pre-existence.
Now the Utah bunch says, \”Golly we just don\’t know where that curse of Cain doctrine came from.\”
It must have just been somone\’s opinion!
Very interesting view point on history. Fourteen years later the priesthood would be granted and the point would be moot.
What is interesting is what blacks saw in the church. There is something that they saw that made them join the church that a lot of people don’t see. I often wonder on this because I wonder how to get moslem to convert. Must be an odd habit of mine.
clyde,
What did blacks see in the church, you ask? What was and is the percentage of blacks in the Utah LDS church? Are blacks 10% of the Utah sect\’s membership? Is it that high?
I think the point that you\’re trying not too subtley to make is that the LDS church is so awesome that even those who were being discriminated against dug it.
Clyde, why do you think black slaves fought on the side of the Confederacy during the Civil War? Who can account for the type of thinking that led slaves to do that?
I think you\’re trying to tell us that even people who were being discriminated against found Mormonism to be true i.e. they could find the truth in it.
I\’d say that the blacks who joined the LDS church could be fooled just as much as whites are fooled by Mormonism. People who don\’t investigate Joseph Smith and his Mormon creation can be easily taken in by it. There\’s a type of spirituality in Mormonism bolstered by a false spirit that can seduce and draw people in.
Look at you clyde. You swallow the whole program despite seeing all of the holes in the Swiss cheese of Mormonism. Fact of the matter is two-thirds of those on the rolls of the LDS church are inactive, fifty percent of returning missionaries go inactive and people are leaving and resigning from the Utah sect in unprecedented numbers.
Hopefully you will come to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ and leave also.
Clyde , nice try . Care to try again ?
Sep 11, 2011 was my last day in the LDS church, that letter broke the dam open, to finding more of what a dear friend in Co. who is a former Bishop who didn\’t even know of the letter , so as he said \” We dont know what we dont know\” So when a former Bishop dosnt know about the Stapley letter we and in the dark. Now after 36 yrs, I am free and it feels GREAT
Ironman,
Why do you get it and clyde doesn\’t? That\’s what fascinates me. Of course clyde would tell you that Satan deceived you, that someone in the LDS church offended you and finally within six months you will have fallen into serious sin; most likely pornography, fornication, adultery and drug and alcohol abuse.
There are so many red flags associated with this letter that it\’s hard to figure out how Mormons can\’t see it. I know the answer. They believe Mormonism and there is nothing that will dissuade them. That\’s why the Mark Hofmann situation was so pathetic. The LDS church leaders were totally scammed. They had no discernment regarding the forgeries. But they were so frightened that the letters exposed Joseph Smith for what he was that they were willing to fork over major money for the faux letters.
Given all of the excuses Mormons make for their religion and leaders, just about anyone could make it as a Mormon apostle or prophet. Sadly these sincere Mormon people have their heads in the clouds.
Ironman1995, you shared some GREAT news . You\’re free from a false prophet led
organization . Jesus warned us all in advance to beware of such —Mark 13:22-23 .Many
sincere decent people get detoured by these prophets , but thankfully many are finding
that Jesus was right and have walked away from them . Thanks for sharing your experience.
The issue that this thread draws our attention to is important . When we see what Mormon
leaders have taught about Negroes we get a great picture of why we can\’t place our trust
in them to be consistently reliable guides in spiritual truth . While claiming to be hearing from
God in teaching what they have on this issue , Mormon leaders like Brigham Young simply
borrowed the terrible attitudes from some of the Churches of his day . These \” ideas of men\”
masquerading as \” divine direction \” from God , by men 1700 years after Jesus sent out
His apostles with the saving truths of His gospel [Acts 10:34-48], is a clue that Mormon leaders
are like those who did \” teach for doctrine the commandments of men \” . Mormon leaders had
many chances to accept correction from righteous men about their error in doctrine but sadly
they kept claiming it was God who was responsible for it . After all, the promise had already
been made by church leaders that they would never advance , condone , doctrine that was not
true . But many, many, Mormons have since found that promise to be false , and have properly
refused to give these men any more of their allegiance . They deserved and found a better way.
In this age of instant communication where a message can fly around the world in about a second and a half, the Mormon authorities have learned to be very guarded and in most cases, keep their mouths shut.
Far cry is it from the old days of Mormonism beginnings, when these loose cannons masquerading as “prophets” would say and propose the most inane, stupid and inflammatory things. Now they stick mostly to platitudes about doing good and loving everybody and being true to the Mormon gospel and clean living.
If I’m not mistaken, Bruce McConkie was Joseph F. Smith’s son in law. Those two guys represent a long gone era in Mormonism. Mormonism does, in many ways, reflect the generations that are alive at any given moment. Get a hold of some of the statements of Mormon authorities during the red baiting, John Birch Society days of the 1950s.
“…….Benson took the LDS hierarchy’s opposition to communism to extreme levels. Had it not been for the wisdom of President McKay, Benson might have caused the LDS Church embarrassment that it would still be dealing with today. For example, Benson became a disciple of the conspiratorial anti-communist group the John Birch Society, an organization which had already been politically excommunicated from the Republican Party. As Bowman relates, Benson was so impressed with John Birch Society founder Robert Welch — a man who accused his former boss Eisenhower of being a communist — that he lobbied McKay to allow Welch to speak at the church’s semi-annual general conference and lobbied to have the LDS leadership endorse the Birchers. Fortunately, McKay resisted those efforts.”
“As Bowman relates, McKay also nixed Benson’s desire to be the vice presidential nominee of segregationalist third-party candidate George Wallace in 1968. It’s likely that the LDS Church would still be dealing with such an ignoble action today had not the wise McKay told Benson no.”
(from: “The Mormon People: The Making of an American Faith,” review by Dough Gibson)
http://blogs.standard.net/the-political-surf/2012/09/10/lds-retrenchment-and-why-ezra-taft-benson-wanted-to-be-george-wallaces-vp-pick/
This is a very interesting review because Sharon’s article provides a snap shot of the struggle for “truth” that’s gone on within Mormonism.
http://blogs.standard.net/the-political-surf/2012/09/10/lds-retrenchment-and-why-ezra-taft-benson-wanted-to-be-george-wallaces-vp-pick/
From the review:
“In Bowman’s book, he also spends some time on the LDS retrenchment movement among its hierarchy, a conservative movement to interpret doctrine strictly according to Scriptures and revelation received through modern LDS prophets and apostles.
In what serves as a definition of retrenchment, Bowman recounts a message conservative LDS Apostle Bruce R. McConkie sent to an LDS academic (Eugene England). “God has given us apostles and prophets. … It is my province to teach to the church what the doctrine is. It is your province to repeat what I say or remain silent.”
“Retrenchment, with its emphasis on simplistic answers to questions that could be debated thoroughly, fit well with correlation, a concept that by its nature was hampered by multiple alternatives. Retrenchment, which flourished through the last half of the 20th century, was a wish to return to the theological days of Brigham Young, a strong leader who brooked little dissent.”
(LDS President) “Grant wanted no part of the debate and advised the principals to drop the dispute. As Bowman notes, though, Grant’s reluctance to take a side essentially turned the LDS Church into an institution where, “No longer would church authorities debate matters of doctrine in public.” Because the world was slowly moving toward an era of post World War II Cold War conservatism, it’s not surprising that the conservatism that Fielding Smith favored became the ideology most popular among the LDS leadership.”
So where does the author say that Mormonism is today?
“Retrenchment, however, is an ailing, perhaps dying ideology among Mormons. While there are still factions, usually older Mormons, who adhere to the rigidness of a Fielding Smith, Benson, Skousen and McConkie, most Mormons today have moved toward the liberal ideas of Roberts once denounced. In 2010, Deseret Book announced it would no longer print “Mormon Doctrine.” Harsh statements on homosexuality in General Conference by Packer were toned down for revised official publication.”
“History often repeats itself; it appears Mormonism’s leaders have tired of retrenchment. However, the impact of retrenchment should not be downplayed……”
So Mormonism is all about the Mormon god revealing the “truth” to his modern day apostles and prophets. Mormonism claims that there was all this confusion in Christianity and that after the death of the original apostles, the “gospel” disappeared from the earth. It was now the mission of God’s chosen apostle, Joseph Smith, to restore that which had been lost.
What’s interesting is that Mormons don’t seem to question this premise. In fact, it’s the bed rock on which Mormonism is built. It is the very reason for Mormonism. That which was lost has been found and restored.
The problem is that the truth in Mormonism is like trying to nail a cube of jello to a wall. As it turns out, these true blue prophets, starting with Smith, can’t really get a hold on what the truth is. Even the super sacred and secret temple ritual has been significantly changed because of the harshness of the (ritual). Blacks were once barred from the priesthood, then permitted the rite. Polygamy was to be the principle that allowed a man to enter the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom and deification and then that was changed. Even the most correct book, BoM, has under gone significant alterations including portions of significant doctrine.
Mormonism is a continual do over religion. Fact of the matter is, the so called prophets, apostles and other leaders aren’t all that special. In fact, at one time Mormons believed that these guys had actually had Jesus appear to each of them. Now it seems that has been changed and they are said to have a “witness” of Jesus.
I know Mormons can do better. Turn to Jesus.
falcon,
“Why do you get it and clyde doesn’t? That’s what fascinates me.”
I know God did this for me. Why on that day did I decided to dig through old Ensigns? Why out of about 20 magazines did I grab the one that had the article about the Book of Abraham, and why was that the article I turned to? You also have to be willing to let God lead you, not a man claiming authority from God. That’s the beauty of Christianity, you can go straight to God yourself, no middle man. You don’t need a man claiming to be a prophet. You don’t need to hand over your life to a religious institution and have them judge whether or not you are worthy to enter Heaven. There really is freedom in the truth. John 8:32
Why did I get it ? because as i was reading the letter, tears flowed down my face in agony over the ” be in the world but not of it ” My heart was pierced , it was wrong and false, that led to more of the same. Plus that letter pollinated me to Ejiah Abel and Walker Lewis, and I have a book called Story of the Latter – Day Saints, which i purchased on my mission in 1977, and on page 620 it clearly reads ” blacks could never hold the priesthood in the early days of the church”, the writers of that book James B. Allen Ph.D in history and was Assistant Church Historian from 1972 -1979 and Glen M. Leonard, both highly educated in church history, yet left out Ejiah Abel and Walker, Abel, is buried in SLC, was ordained in 1836 by guess who ? Joseph Smith in Kirtland, and it reads that on his gravestone, first African American to hold the priesthood, so when I found all of this and more and went to my stake prez, he said ” I dont care about some guy who Joseph Smith ordained, I have that in writing .
So its nice to be free, its funny, Iam going out with a lovely woman from Jamaica , wonder how Brigham Young would feel ? since he said “death on the spot , and it will always be so” I f a white man had intercourse with a black woman .
Its sad for those still in it, I feel like the guy in Shawshak Remdempion , FREE
Iron man , it seems it’s a trend with many Mormons when faced with evidence that their
leaders have taught some strange doctrine or failed to disclose important information about
some of their doctrines to simply say ” who cares ” , or ” it does’nt matter ” etc , like your stake
President did to you .Some Mormons who stop by here resort to the same rationalizing . You
mentioned of the laws of the Mormon gospel that B.Y. preached , i.e. marrying a Black woman
was forbidden . This law was another rung on what Mormon leaders have referred to as Jesus’
” gospel ladder ” . Since their gospel is said to be a code of laws and commandments whereby
LDS might attain perfection and eventually godhood , it’s no surprise Mormon leaders have
built such a ladder — a long climb up to God’s presence. But even though these men claim
to have been personally directed by Jesus to restore the same gospel of salvation that His
apostles once preached [Rom1:16] , they have resorted to producing addendums to it, thus
diluting it—Gal 1:8. It’s great that you have come to realize their “restored gospel ” is really
more like a “replaced gospel ” . Rev 2:2 .
I’ll be praying for you and your lady as you seek God’s will for your lives .
That”s right Mike.
The excuse makers within Mormonism love to use excuses like, “That was a long time ago”, “The church answered those questions a long time ago”, “I knew all of that stuff a long time ago and it hasn’t effected my testimony one bit”.
The “a long time ago” mantra seems to mean that because it happened or was taught “a long time ago” it is not important, merely incidental, doesn’t effect the truthfulness of the restored gospel and should be ignored. Just keep right on believing and of course, pay your tithe.
Kate,
The very early history of Mormonism, I’m talking about the first five or ten years, is very interesting. One of the features that Joseph Smith promoted in order to gain followers was to tell them that they too could receive revelations directly from God. As Smith sought to solidify and increase his power within the sect, he started doing some back tracking.
One of the things he did was change his original Book of Commandments to the Doctrine and Covenant. Obviously, many of the early believers were upset by the changes Smith made in his original “revelations” which (some) effected how the church was organized. These men saw what Smith was up to and called him on it. Smith however just kept plowing a head.
My point is that the techniques used by Mormonism and the foundation of Smith’s approach laid the foundation for Mormonism. That’s why Mormons are said to be, either by omission or commission, liars. To be fair, the rank and file merely repeat what they’ve been taught so the people who need to be held accountable are the leaders.
For example, one of Smith’s early followers had this to say on the subject of the changes in the Book of Commandments:
“In an article published in The Saints’ Herald on 5 February 1887, Whitmer stated, “In order to set some important facts clearly before your minds, concerning some changes in some of the revelations, I will give you in this article a brief outline of them, and speak in full on the subject hereafter.
“Some of the revelations as they now appear in the Book of Doctrine and Covenants have been changed and added to. Some of the changes being of the greatest importance as the meaning is entirely changed on some very important matters; as if the Lord had changed his mind a few years after he give (sic) the revelations, and after having commanded his servants (as they claim) to print them in the Book of Commandments” (p. 92).
http://www.watchman.org/lds/doctcovn.htm
Yea, that was a long time ago Mormons will tell us. I would think, however, changes in the revelations supposedly which came from God would be important enough to maintain as they were received.
So, does anyone here actually understand what Elder Stapley was saying, or are they just filtering it through their already mistaken understandings?
Falcon
President Kimble was not Smitten (that is the word you were looking for) because he is not the one that lifted the ban. He merely announced what God had already done and revealed to him.
And no one is lying about anything. It is simply that you don’t understand the truth of the matter.
Shem,
You like to use the word “truth” as do many of the Mormons who show-up here. Nit-picking about who lifted the ban is immaterial but it allows you to make yourself feel comfortable with a doctrine that Mormon authorities now can’t quite figure out the origin of.
We keep getting this charge from Mormons that we don’t understand the truth. Let me be blunt. If you understood the truth you wouldn’t be a Mormon.
I’ll refer you to the above posts by Kate and Ironman, former Mormons who got a hold of the truth and were able to flee Mormonism. Maybe you could address them regarding how they came to the conclusion that Mormonism, pick your sect, isn’t true.
You seem like a reasonably intelligent guy who has the ability to research Mormonism and that’s the point. It’s not the information/evidence proving Mormonism in all of its various forms as false, but it gets at your desire to believe it; and that’s really the point. Fueled by that desire you can make anything work.
But here’s the important point. If you have a desire for the things of God, you won’t find it in Mormonism. The good thing is that you keep showing up here. I believe in time, you will open yourself up to the promptings of the Holy Spirit and come to know Jesus as who He is and what He is offering you in terms of eternal life.
Until then you can point out whether it was prophet A or prophet B who lifted the ban on blacks in the priesthood. Keep coming and reading and I, along with the others here, will pray for you and your family. When you get your spirit right, your mind will follow.
falcon,
Interesting stuff. The problem is, lots of Mormons don’t even know about the Book of Commandments. Not until I started researching on non LDS church approved sites did I learn about that. There’s so much I would like to ask my Mom but for reasons I’ve explained to you, I won’t. I don’t want to upset her. You’re right, it doesn’t matter who lifted the ban on Blacks, but the interesting thing is that Spencer Kimball felt it should be lifted and they went into the temple, asked God about it and got a feeling it should be lifted. That is not a revelation from God in my mind. The ban is listed as a “declaration” in the back of the Book of Mormon just as the ban on polygamy is listed as a “declaration.” What does that even mean?? Oh well, it doesn’t matter anyway because Thomas Monson could declare that the ban on Blacks was just Spencer Kimball’s opinion and it could be put back in place at the drop of a hat so that it doesn’t contradict doctrine. Once again, where is Jesus in any of this?
Oops, I meant the back of the Doctrine and Covenants…..
Shem,
“So, does anyone here actually understand what Elder Stapley was saying, or are they just filtering it through their already mistaken understandings?”
Of course. He wasn’t actually saying what he was saying and he didn’t actually mean what he said….
You of course know exactly what he said and meant so please fill us all in on what he was actually saying. I do ask that you use facts though and not just your opinion.
Shem,
……….on second thought.
After I posted to you I got to thinking, “Did I make a reference to any particular prophet/president of the Utah based LDS church ending the ban on blacks receiving the Mormon priesthood?”
I’m not going to pour over my posts to try and find it, so since you said I wrote that, would you do me a favor and tell me where it is?
I don’t know why, but over the years Rick and I in particular have been regularly accused of not knowing what we’re talking about in regards to Mormonism. Then when we ask to be enlightened as to where we are wrong, we get no response.
What we’ve come to learn is that Mormons typically don’t know what they’re talking about when it comes to their religion. Most often what we get is their particular spin on the religion’s doctrines and some fanciful interpretation of historical facts.
There are historical facts that are indisputable. There are Mormons that swear up and down that Joseph Smith wasn’t a polygamist much less married adolescent girls and married women. Those who do fess up to it spin themselves into the ground to excuse the behavior.
As to this ban on blacks in the priesthood, that’s a fact. Why were they band? Because of the mark of Cain or they weren’t valiant in the pre-existence or as is popular now, “We really don’t know where that came from.”
Truth is in vary short supply in Mormonism as anyone who spends any time studying the religion can attest to.
So Shem,
As I’m waiting to hear from you on where I wrote the wrong name of the Mormon president who ended the blacks priesthood ban, would you bother to go a little deeper? What I mean could you tell us why Mormons banded blacks in the first place and why they decided to end the ban?
Try this website, for example, and tell me if there’s any “truth” here regarding our current topic.
http://mormonthink.com/blackweb.htm
There’s a ton of information on this site. Maybe you could take a look at it and tell me if there’s any truth in it.
But here’s the deal, in case of emergency, bear your testimony!
Falcon,
You said,
I’m not sure if you are aware of this or not, But under a older topic a few posts down I said this same exact thing to Shem, His response to me was something like this, Everyone one on this blog, including every Mod and Me and You and every Christian who posts here are extremely ignorant and clueless, none of us knows what were talking about and we all go out of our way to misrepresent Mormonism.
Then Shem said he has gone out of His way to answer everyone of our questions, he never dodges them, and if he does, then he will at least be kind enough to tell us he wont answer them. Also He has bent over backwards to correct us at every turn and it simply is us who refuse to either read what he wrote, or believe him, So according to him, he has and does correct us, we just refuse to listen to him. Just in case you guys missed this, that about sums up how Shem feels about us and what he said about us.
Rick,
I may have missed that. It all runs together after a while.
If Shem has the truth and the rest of us don’t get Mormonism, then what can he say to the former Mormons who post here. I think I know. They never had the truth and their testimony wasn’t strong enough.
A “strong testimony” with TBMs is formed by ignoring any evidence that Mormonism is not true. In other words, just keep believing no matter what.
I don’t know but with all of the study you and I and the other Christians have done regarding Mormonism, it’s surprising that we missed the parts that are “true”.
Correct me if I’m wrong but didn’t Shem sort of disappear when Andy did his very excellent series of articles on the doctrine of the Trinity?
Let me repeat, it’s not that we don’t “understand” Mormonism. It’s that we don’t believe it. Mormons get that confused. They think if people really understood it, they’d believe it. I think we could flip that and say that if Mormons really understood who God is, they’d leave Mormonism
What does anyone think of what I shared about the Book Story of the Latter Day Saints saying on page 620 ” since the early days of the church blacks didn’t hold the priesthood ” ? and how they left out Ejiah Abel in the book , I know must have been another policy change.policy ? prophecy ? or pressure ? I will say 1 and 3 100 % of the time as far as the Mormon church goes
Falcon said
I said the same thing to Shem and here is what he said to me,
Now if you want to read for yourself what he said about us and more of my reply to him, this is the topic we are talking in, The “Most High” has potentially billions of ancestor-gods?
Say, why am I picked out by Shem as to not knowing the truth about Mormonism?
Does that mean that all of the other Christians who post here do know the truth? If that’s so, then I guess that Shem is telling everyone else, by elimination, that they do know the truth, right?
Well that’s OK with me because that would mean that Shem agrees with what Sharon has written and what Kate, Ironman, Rick, Mike R, Bill McKeever and MRM believe and present about Mormonism.
I really don’t see what I write is much different than those listed above (write). I was listening again to a presentation by Sandra Tanner regarding why people leave Mormonism. What was interesting were her points about those who know the “truth” i.e. Mormonism is not true, but choose to stay. It’s just more comfortable for them to stay because of family, financial and other social/cultural reasons.
We go through Mormon posters here and I’m sure it’s because they just run out of gas trying to defend the indefensible. If someone is consistently and firmly presented about the actual truth about Mormonism, it’s got to negatively impact their testimony. That’s why the Mormon authorities warn (Mormonism) off this type of blog. They know if Mormons really start investigating the claims of Mormonism, they will be disturbed by what they learn; hence the term “shaken faith syndrome”.
It’s no fun finding out that what you have believed in and invested yourself in emotionally isn’t true. But the good news is that God is true, as is His Son Jesus Christ. There is life in Christ. Leaving Mormonism isn’t loss as some who don’t know the truth would count it especially when someone gains Christ.
Hey Falcon, leaving the Mormon church is leaving a prison, the thoughts and feelings each day , each month , are so wonderful, so those who are blinded there pain will be greater at first, then there joy will be so much more than where they are.
Again in every loss there is a gain as in every gain there is a loss, beneath the snow green grows, only weeds grow in the Mormon church, once someone leaves, they will bloom and come alive .
I cant ever go back, when I do it hurts because I know saying those words made it worse, ” I know this is the only true church ” over and over, and hearing each month , from small kids, old people, it made it hard to see, feel, think beyond, we dont know what we dont know, now I do, and I am totally free.
So much joy , sounds like what Jesus Christ and God would want us to have, or even a mom or dad would want for there children , JOY and PEACE in our HEARTS
falcon,
I don’t think Shem thinks any of us have it right. It’s just your turn is all 🙂 I’ve read all of his posts here and the Mormonism he presents is not the Mormonism I grew up with and know. So who knows where he’s getting his stuff from.
Ironman,
Was this letter what started your journey out of Mormonism? You asked what those of us here think about what you shared about the Book Story of the Latter Day Saints saying on page 620 ” since the early days of the church blacks didn’t hold the priesthood ” ? and how they left out Ejiah Abel in the book.
Well that doesn’t surprise me at all. It’s more of the same from the LDS church. Hide things, be dishonest, and hope no one researches it and finds out. Nice to see another ex Mormon here 🙂
Shem,
You have said before, you answer every question asked of you and if you dont you will say you wont.
So Let me ask you a question? Me and many others have said on this site many times, Mormonism has changed over the years so much, that if JS and BY were alive today, they would not even recognize it today.
So Kate has said she was a Mormon for 40 years, and here family is Mormon dating back to JS, and a family member was married to JS.
I dont know how old you are, but am guessing Kate was a Mormon Longer than you have been alive.
So are you going to tell me Kate has no clue what she is talking about, or that she is flat out lying? How can she claim it has changed so much, and you say nothings wrong and it is just like it was when JS founded it?
Also when I point out you have not answered every question asked of you, maybe I missed the answer, and I read every topic and every single reply. But Kate did once ask you if you were and apologist for Fair/Farms.
I dont recall you ever answering that question.
Yes Kate, that letter , the Stapley was my miracle that opened the box of lies , coverups, half truths, and not one single church leader had a answer to any question, that sealed the deal .
Kate,
Very interesting point you made and I don’t want it to go by without commenting on it. You wrote:
“I don’t think Shem thinks any of us have it right. It’s just your turn is all 🙂 I’ve read all of his posts here and the Mormonism he presents is not the Mormonism I grew up with and know. So who knows where he’s getting his stuff from.”
I’ve been processing your statement for a while here and am wondering about the implications of what you’ve observed regarding Shem and other TBM Mormons for that matter.
First of all it gets to the point so many of us have made in the past and that is that there seems to be a lot of different types of Mormonism. How is Shem getting his information? Is it through revelation? If he’s practicing a different type of Mormonism that you know from your forty years in the program, that tells us that there is no definitive Mormonism. That’s why it’s so hard to nail Mormons down on any thing. Dr. Walter Martin called Mormonism a “maze” and observed this very thing; that it’s really difficult to nail Mormons down on anything. He also said that Mormons are able to think logically and rationally in all other aspects of their life but not their religion.
I’ve talked about how Andy Watson would carry around a large bag with all sorts of documentation so when he talked to Mormons he could immediately produce his evidence. The interesting thing about it is that Mormons would deny the evidence even though the documentation had the LDS church publisher seal on it.
This tells me that Mormons think they have the truth just based on the fact that they say it, believe it and most importantly “feel” it. When people are in a mind-set that is driven by their emotions, they can’t think critically. The idea that Mormonism isn’t true is so terrible to consider that Mormons will use what ever psychological device they need in order to find a state of equilibrium.
So to say we’re all wrong and don’t have the truth is really whistling while walking past the grave yard.
Ironman & Kate,
What do you think? Do you guys think you have more credibility with active Mormons because you were Mormons or less than those of us who’ve never been inside the program? I’ve heard that there’s just about nothing worse in the eyes of truly dedicated Mormons than a former Mormon. You guys are like the devil himself I understand. So maybe when they read what you write they mentally put their fingers in their ears and sing, “LALALALALALALALA, I can’t hear you!”
To those of us who have never been Mormons, for the arrogant TBM type, we’re just ignorant fools for not joining/accepting this wonderful restored gospel.
I rejoice that God’s promptings led you out of this dark prison and into the light of new life in Jesus Christ.
I think a lesson that can be gleaned from apostle Stapley’s recommendation to Mr Romney is
that while Mormon apostles may kind , polite , individuals , they should definitely stay with
what they were consistent good at being —- businessmen, lawyers, etc. because the whole
episode with their teachings on Blacks in a way is similar to the boy who cried wolf . People
trusted the boy’s calls to be accurate but after being repeatedly duped by the boy , they finally
ignored him . Those who serve as General authorities in the Mormon church have also duped
their followers by repeatedly calling their position on this issue a doctrine , a law, in Jesus’
gospel , and since these men claimed to have restored the very same gospel that Paul
taught , then this issue becomes very very serious in light of Gal. 1:8 . Mormon leaders
rebuffed those who sought to ask them to correct their position but nothing changed.
Then supposedly in 1978 Spencer Kimball issued a declaration . Today, this doctrine is but
another one from Mormon leaders that is now filed under “who cares ” by most Mormons .
Mormons have been well advised that to believe that their leaders are as likely to be wrong as
they are to be right on doctrinal matters is to start on the road to personal apostasy, and that
is a spiritual disease that can end up being lethal . Better to just submit and follow your
leaders , or as one apostle said about this issue , ” …it is time disbelieving people REPENTED
and got in line and believed in a living ,modern prophet. Forget everything that I have said , or
what Brigham Young has said …It does’nt make a particle of difference what anybody ever said
about the Negro matter before the first day of June of this year[1978] . ” ( McConkie).
The Mormon people are kept so busy in Church obligations and everyday life that they
have been lulled into a mind-set of simply obeying their leaders doctrinal revealments , instead
of taking the time to test them [1Jn 4:1] . Jesus gave all of us markers in His Word so that none
would be misled by men in the latter days , these men can come well dressed, and act polite
along with a claim of being appointed by Jesus to preach His gospel of salvation, therefore
it pays to be cautious . To beware of these men we must be aware —by testing . Rev 2:2
Well, its the leaders at every level that have made it easy to see how I trusted them with 36 long painful years of being on a treadmill with one speed, yet never fast enough, good enough, far enough, the leaders, have been down right horrible, from a Bishop saying ” I cannot or will not ever be led astray now or ever from small minded questions ” Or Stake Pres, saying ” I dont call about some guy ordained ” .
I find the less serious I am about them in my thinking is where the true freedom starts , in my mind and heart, I am blessed to have has met best friend who was in the Bishopric he left as well over the blacks,he was in the church about 13 yrs, and convert, so we joke and laugh all the time about the MO -MO”S and feel sorry for them now.
In the stores or wherever we see them , they walk past us , or at best small smile ands walk past us, they dont know what to say or do.
In the first Rambo movie , he just wanted to eat, the big sherif arrested him for how he looked, in the woods he had that knife against his throat and said to him ” let it go ”
So know I have peace, I also seek balance, by not looking back to much , just as a missionary I could not convert many, lol, so to with the MO – MO ” S, they are even more solid in there lies, it truly does take a miracle , a piercing of the heart , then there eyes and heart are open.
I stick with the first vision and pound that over and over, like giving a testimony
I’m curious, does the FLDS ordain blacks into the priesthood? Do they practice polygamy? Do they believe in the Adam-god doctrine? Are they Brigham Young style Mormons? I think we can answer yes to all of these questions. So then, who has the truth? Is it the Community of Christ, the FLDS, the Church of Christ (Temple Lot), or the Utah Mormons? I could also list any number of the 70-100 different off-shoots of the “true” restored gospel.
This is why it’s so difficult to nail down what Mormonism is. In a word, Mormonism is a confused mess.
……and yet the article above tells us that Stapley contends that if Joseph Smith isn’t followed then very bad things will happen; whether someone believes in Smith or not. The problem with this is that Mormonism changes, all the time. So what’s a person to do who wants to follow Smith. Even Smith didn’t follow Smith. He was a believer in the Trinity. Then he wasn’t. The defining feature of Mormonism is that it changes.
I guess that means that Mormons can’t be held responsible for anything that happened before today.
falcon,
While I was a Mormon, I thought we were all the same. Every Mormon in my life is pretty much the same and I would say that we are the naive type. Genuinely living the religion based on faith no matter what others say. Following the prophet with an almost hero worship. I didn’t know there were “types” of Mormons or that I was free to believe absolutely anything I wanted until I came to this blog and have read what other Mormons have to say. I didn’t know the true history of the LDS church, changes to the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith’s polygamy, blood atonement, the Journal of Discourses, etc. until I started studying outside of church approved stuff, which is heavily discouraged. I pretty much lived in la la land where everything was rainbows and butterflies. Finding out the truth was about the hardest thing I’ve been through.
“Do you guys think you have more credibility with active Mormons because you were Mormons or less than those of us who’ve never been inside the program?”
Good question. I think that with the arrogant TBM types we have less. We are apostates bound for Hell unless we repent and rejoin the fold and of course we don’t know what we are talking about. Our years in Mormonism don’t count and we must not have been a good Mormon or we never really had a testimony of Joseph Smith, the restored gospel, God’s plan or someone offended us so we are telling lies. It’s us and not the church. As for the naive Mormons that I’m familiar with, they would probably put their fingers in their ears so they don’t hear the evil that has led me astray. Sad but true.
I find it funny that so many can’t seem to actually discuss things, but turn to mockery, false accusations, and frequently outright lies. Personally, and I have said this before, I am not inclined to answer any question that is given in an attitude of mockery, and that is all that I read in these responses.
Let me ask a question: Why should I answer anything when your obvious intent is only to mock me and my faith? And don’t try to hide behind your claims of worry and love over my soul. There is no love or worry in your words.
However, I will address a few things, though not all.
First, Kate makes a simple error in her posts when she claims that the ban on blacks is in the D&C. It is not the ban that is there, but the lifting of the ban.
Second, President Kimball was not the first to ask about lifting the ban, as is seen in the wording of the Declaration the Kate references.
To Falcon, I never once said you gave a false name. In the very first post of this thread you mentioned the prophet that lifted the ban. That prophet was Spencer W. Kimball, and so I gave his name. Your error was not in giving the wrong prophet, but in saying that it was a prophet at all, as it was God, which is the point that I made.
Lastly, I will make no comment as to Kate’s experience in the church. I do not know her, and thus I can say nothing regarding it. I can say that nothing she has ever said sounds even remotely familiar to me. The doctrine she claims to never have heard before has always been discussed in the wards I have attended. The attitudes she describes are rare to my experience. The history that she claims was hidden has been told to me from an early age. Now, I can only comment on my perceptions, and maybe my parents taught me more than others. I don’t know. But I do know that the church she describes is completely foreign to my experience.
Now, I have met those who are members in form only; those who go through the motions but have never really learned the doctrine and come to know it. I have also met those with very strong testimonies, having a firm grasp of the doctrine and knowing that it was true. Both types of people have fallen away, lost any testimony they once had, and eventually loose their understanding of the doctrine. No one is immune to such, and I cannot say what Kate’s circumstances were.
Now, on a final note, I do not feel obligated to believe anything she says regarding the church or even her experience with it. As I said, I don’t know her outside these blogs, and what she says is so foreign that I find it difficult to believe most of it.
Now, I am not going to discuss the ban on blacks, except as it is directly concerned with this letter. I will be glad to discuss the wording and intended meaning of this letter with anyone, but will not take it beyond that.
I will also not answer question that is asked in mockery.
PS Yes, I did answer Kate’s question: I am not from Fair or Farms. I am not an apologist as I am not apologizing for anything.
Shem,
I feel sorry for you. I really do. I would like to know how old you are. I was LDS for 40 years. I grew up in the faith back before the internet and the information highway. What I learned came directly from church or family who learned the religion from church and church leaders, including prophets and general conference. Lessons were more milk than meat, and if that has changed in the past five years to where the meat is actually being taught then I would say that’s a step in the right direction. But according to an apologist from FAIR that I dialoged with for awhile, milk is taught in lessons because the meat is reserved for those who are ready to hear it and move on in the religion.
I have also said that your form of Mormonism is completely foreign to me. What does that tell you? Since coming to this blog I have learned that not all Mormons believe the same things. It comes from all of the confusion and mess that is Mormonism. There are so many doctrines that have been changed and twisted, and for this younger generation of Mormons, hey you are allowed to believe and think whatever you want about any given doctrine, prophet and revelation. This was not the case when I was growing up LDS. You conformed. When the prophet spoke the thinking had been done for you. I have to ask, if you can choose to believe whatever you want, why do you need a prophet?
“First, Kate makes a simple error in her posts when she claims that the ban on blacks is in the D&C. It is not the ban that is there, but the lifting of the ban.”
Do you ever get tired of playing the semantics game? I did not claim the ban on Blacks is in the D&C. REVELATIONS are in the D&C. My point is that the “lifting of the ban” (Is that better?) on Blacks is in the BACK of the D&C as a “DECLARATION.” I even asked what that means? It’s a declaration not a revelation. The same as polygamy. Why are these two things declarations and not revelations? Could it be that a declaration means it came from the prophet and not God? God did not reveal these things, the prophet declared them. Research this out, it’s funny to me that both declarations came about for political reasons.
Kate
The church that I grew up in, and still participate in, has changed little over the years, except in the activities that the church sponsors. For instance, few wards have Halloween parties anymore, now calling them Harvest Celebrations. I also remember family dances when I was younger, but have not seen one in close to twenty years.
However, I have not yet put forth any doctrine, or any understanding of doctrine that has not been taught, discussed, and understood by my parents and all those of the previous generation. I have been taught by my parents, both in their seventies now, and I am of the opinion that once the Prophet speaks the thinking has been done.
I get many members in the modern day, of my generation or the next, that don’t like this idea, and I have frequent discussions with them on many topics. As I always tell them, it doesn’t matter what anyone else says, once the prophet has spoken and declared the will and knowledge of God on a given subject nothing can alter that. I stand by that statement, and I always will.
The confusion you talk about is not the result of the doctrine of the church, but of too many people in the modern day seeking to redefine the doctrine, even though they have no authority to do so. Many of the younger generation are as you describe, picking and choosing what doctrine to believe, or twisting the meaning of the words of prophets to fit their ideas. These people are wrong, and they will have to repent or be judged for this error at the judgment bar of God.
I do not claim to know everything, and I have had people correct me on occasion; even people who were not members have corrected some things that I have said in the past (on other blogs). I am open to correction. But only when it is correct, which does not happen often here.
As to the declaration, the difference is really quite simple. A declaration is a document written to declare a message to the word. It is a revelation, as is declared in both declarations, but its purpose is to declare something to all people.
The rest of the Doctrine and Covenants is not written to declare something to the world, but to instruct and edify the saints. These are also revelations, but with a different purpose than the declaration.
Kate,
You said the following, “That’s the beauty of Christianity, you can go straight to God yourself, no middle man. You don’t need a man claiming to be a prophet.” Perhaps I am missing something, but most of the Bible is written by prophets, or middle men. Angels and seraphim are ‘middle men’ that deliver messages. Judaism was pretty unique in being able to come up with the concept of god being in a different realm, but how does this god communicate with physical beings on earth? Its been a problem for judaism, so the idea of angels was the solution. Christianity came up with the idea of Jesus being a sort of ‘middle man’ to bridge the gap between god and man. So he had to be both.
Kate
I need no middle man to seek God, or to go to him in prayer and receive an answer to that prayer. I can ask God anything and he will answer me, if I ask in faith (see James 1: 5-6). If I am faithful enough God will reveal all things to me, for he promises that if you ask you will receive.
The prophet is not there as a means to get to God. He is there to keep things running smoothly here on earth, and the govern the affairs of the saints while God is not present. He is the only one with the authority to declare truth to the world. This does not mean he is the only one able to receive revelation and be instructed by angels and by God himself.
We have need of order, for God is not the author of confusion. There is a structure of authority here on earth to establish and maintain this order. But it is not to take the place of personal relationship with God, and personal revelation.
Kate, you’re spot on with your testimony of the fact that you don’t need a prophet as some
sort of ” middle man” in order to establish a right relationship with God that results in eternal
life because THE Prophet and THE “middleman” has come —-Jesus ! Mormons have been
misled by their leaders into embracing an O.T. type arrangement rather than what we see in
in the N.T. , their one man at the top as the sole mouthpiece of God type of structure can
only cause problems sooner or later , and as we look at Mormon history we see how this
has indeed transpired , and this issue with Blacks and the priesthood is a good example . The
Mormon people allowed themselves to be mis-directed by a lone man claiming to be God’s
mouthpiece as a result they were lulled into thinking that in being submissive to this latter day
prophet ( B.Y.) they were being obedient to God ,therefore they merely accepted his doctrines
about Blacks to be restored truth. Forbidding white LDS males to marry Blacks and denying
Blacks the same ordinaces as whites were doctrines said to come straight from Jesus thru His
mouthpiece . Sadly, Mormon prophets refused to accept correction about this false doctrine.
Adding further to this whole mess is that how specific teachings that were once routinely
condoned by Mormon authorities and used to buttress this doctrine are today called
mere “folklore” . Such rationalizing is necessary by those who have been persuaded not to call
into question their prophets counsel on doctrinal positions . LDS have been warned that
Lucifer specializes in suggesting to unsuspecting members that their leaders are in error ,
that they are as likely to be wrong as they are right — so submit or end up losing your salvation !
Kate, your eyes have been opened to how false prophets in these latter days are imitators ,
counterfeits .
Now you have the true gospel and THE Prophet of all prophets and as a result a complete ,
saving relationship with God —Heb 7:25
Mike
Um, did you read my last post, or are you just ignoring it?
And personally, I see the same organization among the early saints as I do in the LDS church. It was certainly much more organized than most of the Protestant church in existence.
Shem, I did read your last post , and I’m sure that is how Mormons view their prophet’s role.
I was looking at some of what Kate said about her experiences and comments about the great
change in her life respecting her relationship to the Mormon prophet . She’s made the right move
in dismissing this prophet who is given a spiritually unhealthy type of allegiance by his
followers . So while much of what you said above is clear , it does’nt go far enough into revealing
how Mormons submit to the one man at the top of their organization . I hear Kate saying that she
came to realize that she does’nt need a man claiming to be THE prophet in order to be accepted
by God . She’s correct . The O.T. arrangement of priests and prophets as ” middlemen” are done,
fulfilled. The N.T. arrangement is beautiful and clear , and it’s that truth which is still sufficient
today , the latter days . This being the case when we hear statements like the following we can
know something is wrong : ” We either have a prophet or we have nothing ; and having a
prophet , we have everything . ” [ Gordon B. Hinckley , Be Though An Example, p123] .
” No salvation without accepting Joseph Smith ” ( and subsequent Mormon prophets)
[ Doctrines of Salvation v 1, p189]. These type of claims are a common feature with other
prophets around today , and underscores the fact in light of Jesus’ apostles warnings about
them that we can find spiritual safety by dismissing them and their new doctrinal revealments
said to be necessary to receive a right relationship with God unto eternal life . This whole issue
about one man sitting at the top of the body of Christ who alone relays important spiritual truth
necessary for everyone is out of sink with the N.T. testimony . Today, 1900 years after Jesus
established His church and sent out men to preach the message of salvation , it is important
that we are leary of men who arise and claim to be God’s sole mouthpiece on earth .
This episode with Blacks and what Mormon prophets taught about them is one way that God
has alerted the Mormon people that their prophets are not the sole authoritive channel He has
established to speak to people His important truths . These men ran ahead of God and claimed
a “restoration” of His necessary truths , but He did not send them . This is not new behavior,
and men with or without well intentions can succumb to such —Jer 23:21
Mike
Let me ask you a few questions.
Would you agree that you either have the prophets of the New Testament or you have nothing; and having those prophet to teach and spread the gospel of Christ, you now have everything?
In other words, what would you have without the prophets of the New Testament?
Would you agree that there is no salvation without accepting Peter, James, and John?
Beyond this, the New Testament is fairly clear that there was one man who stood at the top of the Body of Christ and relayed important spiritual truth for everyone. That man was Peter.
When the Jewish saints tried to force circumcision on the none Jewish converts, the matter was taken to the Apostles, who deliberated the matter. However, when Peter stood and spoke all debate ended and the truth that he revealed was then written down and disseminated among the many congregations of the church. (Acts chapter 15) It is especially interesting to note that the letters declared “Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be acircumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment” This shows clearly that the authority to give such universal commands was held only by the central authority of the Apostles.
Of course, there is also the earlier account of Peter’s great vision in which he was commanded to take the gospel to the gentiles. In reading this please note that no one had, as yet, preached to the gentiles. That door was opened by Peter, chosen by God. Why him if he was not the head of the church, or the one man sitting at the top of the Body.
Peter was the President of the church in the days of the apostles. Though not stated directly, this is seen in the accounts given in the New Testament.
Shem, Sorry but Peter was never acknowleged as the President of the church by those that
served with him as recorded in the New Testament . Unlike today with Mormon apostles
who call Thomas Monson “President Monson” at every turn , those apostles that served
with Peter never did such . You admitted that your doctrine concerning this is not stated
directly in the N.T. , and that’s a big problem considering how important the claim by
Mormon leaders are about how this plays a major part in identifying Mormonism as Jesus’
true church today . It should be mentioned that I have nothing against this claim by Mormons
that their prophet is the one man who alone speaks declares doctrine for the whole Mormon
church , but since the claim is made that the Mormon church organization is a restoring of Jesus
church in N.T. times and therefore it constitutes His true body of believers today , that claim
is just plain wrong . It seems a common m.o. with prophets in the latter days is to introduce new
doctrines that are promoted with the claim that they have some connection with Jesus’ apostles
as recorded in the N.T., this way people are easier misled into thinking they were a part of the
church as organized by Jesus back then etc. Mormon prophets have utilized this same method
when it comes to trying to legitimize some of their important doctrines today . Today the
Mormon church is Jesus’ true church because it is organized according to the pattern that God
has given in the N.T. , the same form and shape along with the same officers etc. , that is the
claim . Yet, even though Mormons teach that Jesus chose 12 apostles to lead His people then ,
now we find that there are three apostles that form a “Presidency” with 12 more apostles who
serve under them , thus 15 apostles . Because the N.T. does’nt teach this arrangement Mormon
leaders have had to resort to assuming it is in there . Creating new doctrines and then trying to
back date them into the N.T. as a way of proving their necessity today in identifying Jesus’ true
church is a common behavior of certain prophets arising in these last days —Matt 24:11,24 .
Now, you asked a question about the importance of believing that Jesus’ apostles who were
sent out to preach the gospel of salvation in the N.T. as being relevant to my salvation . My
answer is : yes . However , since multitudes of people were able to be forgiven and receive a
right relationship with God because of that gospel [Rom 1:16 ] , I find that it is still accomplishing
that even today , this is only logical .Thus the question you asked was a decent question , however
latter days prophets/messengers like Warren Jeffs , John Bryant, and recently Christopher
Nemelka all would have asked the same type of question as a way to try and introduce the need
for us to also accept them along side of Paul, Peter, John’s etc. This is why prophets today
with their new requirements for salvation , any so called “restored truths” are all to
predictable , false prophets are imitators ( whether because of good intentions or not ) .
We’ve all been pre warned —Mk 13:22-23 .This issue with Blacks serves as a good example
of why we hold Mormon prophets with proper suspicion as being also false apostles ,
this is not a new problem faced by those who seek to follow Jesus —Rev 2:2
Mike
In all realty, there is almost nothing said in the New Testament about church organization, except in stating which offices existed. Your claims that there was no organization is based just as much on assumption as ours that there was. However, ours have a more logical reason for the assumption, as we can show how the behavior to the men recorded indicates a very strict organization. All you have is the argument that since it is not directly stated than it can’t be true.
Now, I think you miss the point in my questions. To state it simply: You believe a man to be a prophet, and thus accept that all must recognize him as such to be saved. Then you state that when we made the same claim we are obviously in error. I just wanted to make sure that you realize that we mean nothing by these statements beyond what you would mean saying them in regards to the ancient prophets.
Just like you won’t discuss the 2nd Anointing. LOL. And you haven’t really discussed anything directly IN this letter. All you have done is give your really weird & wrong interpretations of Mormon History and Doctrine, and fantasize about what you desperately want to be in the Bible. For example you said,
Where to start with these fantasies. 1st, Shem the Storyteller says,
Have you ever even read the Bible Shem? Obviously not with comprehension, because this is certainly not what happened. Paul explains about 20 years later what happened,
Before The Council at Jerusalem,
James states that Peter described how God first intervened in Jerusalem. But God was working in other places before this as we shall see. Paul states that “this matter arose because of some false believers that had infiltrated the ranks of the church to make them slaves (slaves to regulations, like Mormonism does with the Word of Wisdom and Tithing). These infiltrators were called the circumcision group. Paul only states that he met with those esteemed LEADERS, not a church presidency of three. He then explains that,
“When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray. When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, “You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs? “We who are Jews by birth and not sinful Gentiles know that a person is not justified by the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ. So we, too, have put our faith in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law, because by the works of the law no one will be justified.” (Galatians 2:11-16)
He then asks, ‘how is it that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?’ He adds, ‘a person is not justified by works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ, because by works of the law no one will be justified.” Paul also says something important here. He says that he condemned Peter. Why? Because Peter was was aligning himself with that very “circumcision group”! And you are saying that it was Peter who received the revelation about circumcision? Again, you are reading a fantasy Bible, not the actual Bible that the rest of the world reads. But no one condemns the “prophet” right? Sure thing. In Paul’s letter to Titus, we read:
But is self control a thing that needs a set of rules and regulations, even commandments that one must live by to force them into submission? That is the whole crux of the argument here. Paul adds,
Here, Paul condemns ‘foolish controversies’, including genealogies (used perhaps to determine ancestry) and quarrels about the law, (regulations)because they are unprofitable and useless. Why? Because we are now no longer bound by regulations in any way, shape or form, and the Mormon Heirarchy’s harping about them for almost 200 years directly contradicts the Bible. Back to Galatians:
We gain faith by believing what we hear. We do not rely on law, or a set of rules to bring us to Christ. Those who have such faith (by believing what we hear) ARE ‘children of Abraham’. Those who rely on this faith ‘are blessed along with Abraham.” Those who rely on law, or regulations are cursed. This applies to the modern church as well as the law of Moses. For what you agree to, you are bound to. Regulations are not based on FAITH. You MUST do what you are told, or you cannot receive promised blessings. We no longer need ‘rules and regulations’, or ‘prophets’ to tell us what to do. As the Book of Hebrews teaches,
Later (circa 54 A.D.)Paul would write to the Corinthians,
Paul’s rule or revelation. Not Peter’s. In that same letter to the Galatians, Paul explains,
Here we see what really happened. Paul (who was already preaching to the Gentiles at Antioch) was in a disagreement about circumcision and had a revelation. He and his brothers (who were preaching to the Gentiles) decided that Paul and Barnabas should take this message to the leaders in Jerusalem. It was then decided that since Peter had so much trouble with the Jews over circumcision that he should preach to the Jews and Paul to the Gentiles, when they “RECOGNIZED THE GRACE” ALREADY GIVEN TO PAUL BY JESUS HIMSELF. It was then that a letter was drafted up for the churches,
It is interesting what happens here. The Apostles(plural) AND Elders and the whole church decided to choose some men and send them with Paul. They chose two men who were called the same thing that Paul called some of the apostles, LEADERS. They chose Judas and Silas who were also PROPHETS. The letter only states that some went to the Gentiles without their (the apostles & elders ) NOT JUST PETER’s authorization. The letter doesn’t even mention circumcision (Only the King James Version does, and this is a mistranslation), and just says to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, the meat of strangled animals and sexual immorality! It unbound them from ALL OTHER REGULATIONS! It says that ANYTHING ELSE IS A BURDEN THAT THEY NEED NOT FOLLOW. So much for tithing, the word of wisdom and all other useless commandments of men.
This was not a revelation from Peter, it was from the whole church at Jerusalem, (It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to US). Paul had a revelation about the gentiles and circumcision that he mentions to the Galatians fourteen years after he was converted, but Peter ALONE did not have a revelation about circumcision, the Holy Spirit confirmed that what Paul was doing was right. That Shem, is another one of your fantasies.
2nd. Peter’s great vision? (circa 37 A.D., which was about four years after Paul’s conversion) Yes Peter did have a vision about unclean foods and how that applied to the gospel being preached to the Gentiles. But Peter did not get that information first. Ananias did. In Acts 9:15 we read,
This was a vision to Ananias, not Peter. Since no one but the President of the Church gets revelations for the church, then I guess according to Mormonism it was Ananias, not Peter who was the President, or the “top of the body”, eh?
3rd, Shem the Storyteller also states,
Wrong. In Acts 11 we read that,
This was before Peter got his vision, so “some men from Cyprus & Cyrene” were scattered at the time of Stephen’s murder (Acts 7, circa 31 A.D.)were preaching to the Gentiles in Antioch before Peter had his vision. The reason that we know this, is because the Church in Jerusalem sent Barnabas to Antioch to check them out at the time of Peter’s vision:
And afterwards,
Peter wasn’t sitting on TOP of the body, he was an EQUAL MEMBER of the body, part of the US that wrote the letter to the church at Antioch, which church had been started before Peter even had his vision.