Last week Deseret News reported on a new film in the works: “Nobody Knows: The Untold Story of Black Mormons.” Three Latter-day Saints have teamed up to produce this documentary. They hope to present a theatrical release next June to coincide with the 30th anniversary of the LDS Church’s announcement lifting the ban on blacks holding the priesthood. Deseret News reported,
“Before June 1978, the LDS Church had a policy in place that denied the faith’s priesthood to black males. That year, then-church President Spencer W. Kimball announced that he had received a revelation from God lifting the ban, and today the church actively proselytizes to African-Americans. But the history remains a sore spot for many potential converts and some church members.
“Folklore about the reasons for the ban persists in some quarters, and is something the producers — both active Latter-day Saints — are anxious to dispel.
“‘The official answer (from the church) is, “we don’t know why”‘ the ban was in place, [producer Darius] Gray said. ‘And that’s important. It does away with the rationale that Cain killed Abel, or that blacks were less valiant (in a pre-Earth life), or that Noah’s son, Ham, was cursed’ with black skin that marked his descendants as unworthy.
“‘The brethren (top LDS leaders) have disavowed that.'”
Nevertheless, Deseret News reported that according to Mr. Gray, LDS Church leaders have given him permission to publicly “share” his own belief that
“the ban ‘was not imposed by God but was allowed by God’ as a test for Latter-day Saints of all ethnic backgrounds.
“He [Gray] believes it was ‘not a curse but a calling.’
“‘It was a test to see how we would treat one another,’ he said, adding the challenge for all ‘was the same: to maintain the love of the Savior in our hearts for one another. And when that restriction became too much of an impediment for (God’s) work to go forward, there was a revelation.'”
Clearly, this is Mr. Gray’s opinion, not official doctrine. Apparently there is no “official” teaching on why blacks were denied the priesthood. But there are “opinions” which have been expressed by LDS prophets and apostles speaking or writing as Church leaders. One would think the opinions of LDS prophets, seers and revelators might carry a bit more weight than the opinion of an LDS filmmaker. Here are a few “opinions” that may be worthy of consideration.
“Those who were less valiant in pre-existence and who thereby had certain spiritual restrictions imposed upon them during mortality are known to us as the negroes. Such spirits are sent to earth through the lineage of Cain, the mark put upon him for his rebellion against God and his murder of Abel being a black skin … The present status of the negro rests purely and simply on the foundation of pre-existence” (Bruce McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 527, 1966 ed.).
“President Brigham Young … said that Joseph Smith had declared that the Negroes were not neutral in heaven, for all the spirits took sides, but ‘the posterity of Cain are black because he (Cain) committed murder. He killed Abel and God set a mark upon his posterity'” (Joseph Fielding Smith, The Way to Perfection, 105).
“…there is a reason why one man is born black and with other disadvantages, while another is born white with great advantages. The reason is that we once had an estate before we came here, and were obedient; more or less, to the laws that were given us there. Those who were faithful in all things there received greater blessings here, and those who were not faithful received less” (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation 1:61).
“When He [God] placed the mark on Cain, He engaged in segregation. When he told Enoch not to preach the gospel to the descendants of Cain who were black, the Lord engaged in segregation. When He cursed the descendants of Cain as to the Priesthood, He engaged in segregation” (Mark E. Peterson, Race Problems–As They Affect the Church, p.15).
“The attitude of the Church with reference to the Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the Priesthood at the present time. The prophets of the Lord have made several statements as to the operation of the principle. President Brigham Young said, ‘Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a skin of blackness? It comes in consequence of their father’s rejecting the power of the Holy Priesthood, and the law of God'” (Official statement of the First Presidency, August 17, 1951, quoted in John Lewis Lund, The Church and the Negro, 89).
“I know of no scriptural basis for denying the Priesthood to Negroes other than one verse in the Book of Abraham (1:26); however, I believe, as you suggest that the real reason dates back to our pre-existent life” (David O. McKay, November 3, 1947, quoted in William E. Berrett, The Church and the Negroid People, 19).
Addendum: The following excerpt from an interview given by Gordon B. Hinckley may also be of interest. This interview originally aired in Australia on November 9, 1997.
David Ransom: Now up until 1978 I understand Blacks were not allowed to be priests in your Church?
Gordon B. Hinckley: That is correct. Although we have Black members of the Church. They felt that they would gain more in this Church than any other with which they were acquainted and they were members of the Church. In 1978 we (the president of the Church) received a revelation under which all worthy men would receive all the blessings of the Church available to them as well as to any others. So across the world now we are teaching the Gospel to Blacks, Whites, everyone else who will listen.
David Ransom: So in retrospect was the Church wrong in that?
Gordon B. Hinckley: No I don’t think it was wrong. It things, various things happened in different periods. There’s a reason for them.
David Ransom: What was the reason for that?
Gordon B. Hinckley: I don’t know what the reason was. But I know that we’ve rectified whatever may have appeared to be wrong at that time.
Geoff, you said
“..open for critics to scrutinize and harp about decades and centuries later.”
Should the foundation of a building be checked if one were to find the structure built on top of the foundation to be a bit “shaky”? I would like a yes or no answer on this, and if not, please give a reason. One of the reasons issues like this topic are brought to discussion is because prior to the internet, it would take a lot of work to collect all the books any LDS authority has written, read them all, and discuss them with a broad audience. Slightly skewing the words of Bill Gates, its information at the speed of light.
You then spoke of Catholics running the same risks with the pope. If you have any references, I would like to see them. However, before you go through all that work, one thing all of us need to realize is this. One faith’s doctrine differs from another faiths doctrine, or else the two faiths would be one and be called the same. This is the reason for RLDS, FLDS, and LDS. It’s the same reason for Baptist, protestant, catholic, etc..
However, the problems that I see is that the doctrine taught in the LDS church conflict with one another. If BY did in fact believe in the Adam/God doctrine, then he shouldn’t be called an LDS member because he believes in different doctrine. — Heres the issue.. When two prophets of the SAME faith preach different/contradictory doctrine, that could cause major weakening in the LDS faith’s foundation.
The reason I myself am not LDS, in my eyes, is because the LDS house is built upon a faulty foundation (made by men of differing views on foundational construction). If you were asked to live in a house built upon a cracked/eroded foundation, would you live in it? The question is, do you believe the foundation is faulty and has there been enough evidence to support that notion. You can put all the duck tape in the world on that house of yours, but it will fall. *That is my opinion, so don’t take it as an insult please*
Jeff,
You are making the fundamental mistake of thinking that a church *must* have a systematic theology. That is simply false. Mormonism has no systematic theology — it only has sacred texts. So that leaves a great deal of room for opinions and doctrinal speculations within the restored church of Jesus Christ.
The foundations of the restored church are indeed rock solid. Mormonism is founded on Jesus Christ himself and the scriptures we adhere to were revealed to modern prophets by Jesus Christ himself. With that foundation in place the saints carry on trying to do good in the world and become more like our leader — Jesus Christ.
Geoff, You can say all you want about how your prophets are allowed to make mistakes because they are human, The things you and other LDS seem to ignore is this, your Prophets have spoken clearly on many of these issues and said stuff like, This is Gods law, Or the prophet does not need to say Thus saith the Lord to give us scripture, or
Geoff, the problem I see is this, the LDS prophets are very clear that they speak scripture and doctrine not mere opinion but when they teach something you guys dont agree with, you say there only human and made a mistake. Or if the Prophet does not need to say, thus saith the Lord, in order to give us scripture, then how can you tell when it is scripture verses mere opinion, when in cases like the Adam God, BY says it is scripture but you say it is mere opinion. But in the case of the King Follet teaching, it does not say it is scripture, but you guys believe it to be scripture.
This really does pose a problem. Rick b
Rick (Yes, I actually read your last comment for a change),
The Bible has examples of prophets and apostles having incorrect doctrinal opinions (see Acts 10 — God had to straighten Peter out on an incorrect doctrinal opinion he had). The beauty of quorums and common consent in the church (along with the fact that everyone on earth is entitled to personal revelation) is that there is some level of unanimity when it comes to binding doctrine and what is accepted as canonized scripture. Everything except binding doctrine is filed under the general “speculation” folder.
Brigham Young lived in a time and place where he felt largely uninhibited when it came to talking about his own speculations. Again, I say whoop-dee-doo about that.
Geoff, I honestly do not see the problem in acts 10 your speaking of, could you give more detail. Their is still a difference when it comes to your false prophets who cannot get is correct and what the Bible teaches in the OT about how if a prophet speaks for the Lord it must be 100 percent correct.
Your prophets are far from correct, they cannot even agree, Read my topic on this, LDS cannot agree, http://mormonismreviewed.blogspot.com/2006/02/lds-prophets-cannot-agree.html
Rick b
We would do well to remember that there were many things biblical prophets did that were problematic for some of the people around them at the time. Biblical prophets were certainly not perfect. David for example committed adultry with Bathsheeba and the plotted with others to carry out the premeditated murder of her husband so he could have her to himself. Even Joseph Smiths harshest critics cannot come close to accusing him of something that horrific- and yet we will not hear the same critics also questioning weather David was really a prophet of God or not. That is because critics of the LDS church have one standard for Biblical prophets and a different standard for modern day prophets. All that time and distance makes it easy to live with dead biblical prophets- but it is hard to live with modern day liveing prophets. Critics need a much more realistic view of things.
If we lived in Davids time perhaps the same anti-mormon critics of today would be claiming David was not really a prophet of God. I can just see hear them now compileing all the “evidence” against David. Pasteing quotes and attacking his character while those that truly believed David to be a prophet of God would speak of things like a “spiritual witness” prayer, following the spirit of the Lord and much more. What a rock-solid case such critics would feel they had of David not being a “true” prophet of God!!- and yet we all know he was.
Once again critics of the LDS Church have one standard for biblical prophets and diferent standard for modern day prophets.
Many more examples could be listed here.
Geoff, I don’t have a problem with what you said about everyone on earth being entitled to personal revelation. However, what happens when what is “revealed” to two different people is contradictory?
For example, if God reveals “A” to me, and God reveals “B” to you, and the two are contradictory, what conclusions can we draw? Either that God has a double standard somewhere, that God can be wrong and/or change his mind, or that what is “revealed” to one of us is really not from God. This is, I believe, what is really at issue here. And while you may file much of what BY, JS, et al. said under “speculation,” I think it is safe to say that you are probably in the minority among those of the LDS faith.
Geoff, you said
“Mormonism has no systematic theology — it only has sacred texts. So that leaves a great deal of room for opinions and doctrinal speculations within the restored church of Jesus Christ.”
So are you saying that when God speaks THROUGH his prophet, that he is just speculating? A religion may not have systematic theology, but should it not have core foundational doctrine that all authority’s agree upon? I think its perfectly fine that random members of the LDS church have their own speculation or thoughts on their own faith, but when someone claims they are THE prophet of God, that is an extremely heavy responsibility to carry and that person SHOULD be put under a microscope to make sure their teachings fall in line with the teachings of the former prophets, for that is the foundation that people have built their faith upon.
Its outrageous. The prophet proclaims a revelation given by God, and then people who aren’t given that revelation need to VOTE on it?! Doesn’t that sound like slap in God’s face? Hey, God told me we should all stop drinking coffee. Alright everyone, lets vote on whether we should accept what God told him. If the prophet would never lead you astray, if God speaks THROUGH him, should we ever question the prophet?
I don’t care if the Prophet told us all to kill our first child, if I were LDS, I would have to do it. I wouldn’t need to vote on it because that is what God mandated.
You said,
“So the easy way for me personally to deal with all of this criticism is to say that sometimes our leaders were wrong in their opinions.”
The “easy” way isn’t always the right way is it? After all, it’s easy to justify, ignore, be apathetic. You think Jesus Christ did the easy thing when he suffered upon that Cross? It’s EASY for the general body the LDS church to write off contradictory sermons by calling them opinions.
Inhim, you really need to read your Bible better. The Bible does tells us that if a Person speaks and says what He spoke was of God then it does not happen that person is a FALSE PROPHET and in the OT he was to be killed. Now David Did commit Murder He did other Stupid Stuff, but 2 things you need to remember, God said about David, David is A man after my own Heart, and David is the Apple of my Eye.
then when David did these other stupid things, he was not saying, God told me to do this, or God said to everyone, Do this. Yes JS did have many Wives and did many stupid things, the stuff JS did, does not make him a false prophet, the things that make him and the other LDS prophets false is the things they claim God spoke to them about that either never came to pass, or never happend as God spoke.
All humans, prophets included do Sin and commit error, the Prophet is not false because he commits sin, he is false when he says God said this…
then the words of God never happen as the prophet spoke, The OT is clear about this, read it and see
I know people want Quotes to support this, but I keep hearing the LDS say, I know the Bible, so if you know it, then you know exactly what I am talking about, if your really at a loss for what God said about the “Prophets test” in the OT, then I will post the quotes. Rick b
Jeff: So are you saying that when God speaks THROUGH his prophet, that he is just speculating?
Nope.
A religion may not have systematic theology, but should it not have core foundational doctrine that all authority’s agree upon?
The foundations are the canonized revelations from God. The extent of our canon is agreed upon universally in Mormonism.
The prophet proclaims a revelation given by God, and then people who aren’t given that revelation need to VOTE on it?
When has this happened in the last 100 years in the church? The common consent of the church has to do with sustaining leaders generally.
I don’t care if the Prophet told us all to kill our first child, if I were LDS, I would have to do it.
Wow! If that is the is how you feel then I am thrilled you are not LDS. Please never join our church either — you sound like a nutjob…
The “easy” way isn’t always the right way is it? After all, it’s easy to justify, ignore, be apathetic.
Indeed. As I have pointed out, the Jesus described in evangelical theology is a cruel racist and tyrant who bears little resemblance to the Jesus of the Bible. Yet all you evangelicals apathetically justify and ignore those present facts. Why not try the hard thing and find a Christian denomination that doesn’t preach such horrible doctrines?
Geoff and Inhim,
This is almost too painful for me to watch. You guys are getting your clocks cleaned here. I feel that I should step in and stop it because of grown fond of you. You can’t believe how totally pathetic you soun trying to defend your prophets. The whole foundation of your church rests on these guys. I’ve got a load here of what they taught that’s total nonsense but why pile on. If you like the Mormon life and the practices et al that’s fine, but the amount of mind snapping you have to do to maintain the fantasy would give the average person a huge headache.
Yikes. Two typos in my last post. I hate that when it happens!
Really Falcon? I’m pretty sure I’m winning the debate… 🙂
You once again seem to think that prophets who teach *practices* in one era must be false prophets if those practices change over time. If that is the case then you must reject Paul as a false prophet too because the crap about women never speaking in church etc sounds ridiculous to modern ears. But I still think Paul was a true prophet/apostle despite counsel that is not eternal in nature.
Further, prophets/apostles giving personal opinions on metaphysical matters is not cause for concern to me and I don’t see why it should be for anyone.
But there is still this matter of current evangelical theology the nary an evangelical here wants to address (except when it is to reject it like Chloe did…)
Inhim, I think Rick B. did an excellent job explaining what standard we hold prophets to. If you noticed, I didn’t bring up and personal sin that Joseph Smith did because that is useless. I simply pointed out two differing/contradictory statements by two different prophets. THAT is the stuff I see as shaky. One would start to question the character of a man who commits murder or adultery, but that is just sin pure and simple. When two prophets, supposedly receiving divine information from God, proclaim two different things about a single subject, that is where you got to question one of the prophets, both, or God.
Well Geoff, I guess we have to disagree on what we think that comes from the mouth of a prophet is dependent upon how one views his words. You can either take it as truth, or someone running his mouth off. I guess we also have to disagree on what proclamations are doctrines. So you dont believe the King Follett discourse to be doctrine? Just Joseph Smith throwing a few ideas out eh?
Please answer this. If President Hinckley said he received divine revelation from God that we are to kill our first born to achieve salvation, and this was put into doctrine and covenants, would you do it? Let’s go one step further and say you prayed about it and received confirmation from the holy spirit on its truthfulness. This may sound absurd, but humor me here.
All I’m saying is that if God told me to kill someone, I would do it. Luckily, for my own freedom and peace of mind, I haven’t been told to do that.
And as far as our view of a horrible Jesus. How bout your view of God and salvation. What all-loving God would separate his saved children from each other in different heavens? What all-loving God would tear my wife away from me in heaven?
Geoff,
I believe Paul said “I don’t allow…..” So is it discriptive or prescriptive. Oh, and no systmatic theology is nothing to brag about. That’s why you guys are always shooting each other in the foot. By the way Paul also said in a letter to Timothy detailing the qualifications of an elder that he was to be the “husband of one wife.” So much for the restored gospel.
Rick B, your comment –
Their is still a difference when it comes to your false prophets who cannot get is correct and what the Bible teaches in the OT about how if a prophet speaks for the Lord it must be 100 percent correct.
– has been answered by a number of websites, like FAIRLDS and Jeff Lindsay. If a prophet needs to be 100% accurate when speaking for the Lord then quite a number of the Bible prophets, and Jesus Christ, Himself, would be considered false prophets.
For example – Jonah prophesied to he inhabitants of Nineveh that the city would be destroyed in 40 days (Jonah 3:4). There were no provisions in the prophecy about if the people repented. However, they did repent and God decided not to destroy the city.
A longer example given on Jeff Lindsay’s page is Ezekiel prophesying that King Nebuchadnezzar would utterly destroy Tyre and it would never be rebuilt (Ezekiel chapters 26-29). Within these chapters Ezekiel then reports that Nebuchadnezzar never destroyed Tyre. Tyre has since been fought over but it is still a city standing today.
Finally, on the FAIRLDS page it shows that Jesus taught that the prophecies found in Joel 2:28-32 would be fulfilled in ‘this generation’ (Matt 24:29-35). The actual scripture states (He discusses the signs of His second coming then) I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened (NIV from Biblegateway.com).
Others mentioned, but space does not provide explanations, are Isaiah, Peter, Paul, Joel and John (the Revelator). So just as you tell us, you need to be careful about how you interpret and use scriptures.
Jeff: If President Hinckley said he received divine revelation from God that we are to kill our first born to achieve salvation, and this was put into doctrine and covenants, would you do it? … All I’m saying is that if God told me to kill someone, I would do it.
Prophets are obviously not God. So if a prophet tells someone to kill someone that is a LOT different than God telling someone to kill someone. I would never do such a thing unless God told me to do it.
But in the restored church of Jesus Christ we assert that God can and will communicate with us and that we should indeed seek undeniable confirmation from God on any counsel that modern prophets give us. I do that and so far I have never run into a situation in my life where God has disagreed with the counsel modern prophets have given me.
What all-loving God would separate his saved children from each other in different heavens? What all-loving God would tear my wife away from me in heaven?
Ummm… different kingdoms in heaven is a FAR cry from eternity being burned alive in hell. And what makes you think your wife will inherit a different kingdom than you? You may not be sealed together if you reject the fullness of the gospel but that doesn’t mean you wouldn’t end up in the same kingdom within heaven (whatever that ends up really looking like — something the scriptures don’t give much detail on.)
Falcon: Oh, and no systmatic theology is nothing to brag about.
Well when compared to the warped view of Jesus evangelical theology produces, I disagree.
By the way Paul also said in a letter to Timothy detailing the qualifications of an elder that he was to be the “husband of one wife.” So much for the restored gospel.
So I take it you believe Abraham, Isaac, Jacob/Israel, Moses and a host of other great prophets were horribly wicked their plural marriages despite divine approval for them? I happen to believe those men were prophets of God is all…
Geoff,
Let’s see restored gospel……how many wives did each of the apostles have…hmmmmmmm Paul….none….and I think it says something about taking a “wife”. Back to the drawing board for the Mormon prophet excuse makers.
“Warped view” hmmmmmmm
I got this from a secondary source so feel free to correct me if it’s not accurate. But if it is accurate your prophet was one sick puppy. Not a guy I’d follow.
Brigham Young April 9, 1852 “When the Virgin Mary conceived the child Jesus, the Father had begotten him in his own likeness. He was not begotten by the Holy Ghost. And who is the Father? He is the first of the human family…I could tell you much more about this; but were I to tell you the whole truth, blasphemy would be nothing to it, in the estimation of the superstitious and over-righteous of mankind. However, I have told you the truth as far as I have gone…Jesus, our elder brogther, was begotten in the flesh by the same character that was in the garden of Eden, and who is our Father in Heaven. Now, let all who may hear these doctrines, pause before they make light of them, or treat them with indifference, for they will prove their salvation or damnation.” (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 1. pp. 50-51)
aren’t you all getting a headache with all of this?
i think the reason there are so many discrepancies between evangelicals, catholics, mormons and muslims, and what have you, is that we are all humans trying to figure out what the truth is. i think some of us were fortunate enough to be born into households that taught us the truth of our Savior and what He did for us.
i don’t believe any individual finds truth through reason or argumentation. i believe it is His spirit that testifies truth to the humble and penitent (as it states in the scriptures, many times)–so what do we think we are accomplishing? if we all are comfortable in our respective “revelations” that we feel have come from God, then let us be comfortable with that, and only share our convictions with those who want to hear them….in the meantime, i think we would serve each other better to make friendships…only a suggestion.
my side of the family is mostly mormon, and my husbands side of the family all have a rich baptist tradition. it’s very difficult at times- my father in law is concerned for my soul, i am concerned with sharing my deepest convictions with him, and we only butt heads and don’t truly minister. How did the savior minister? he broke bread, healed the sick, turned the other cheek. even in the very hours before his crucifixion, he was more concerned with his apostles, mary magdalene and the mother mary. those times where he did “contend” i would suggests that is the prerogative of the Lord of Hosts to call us to repentance…but it most certainly is NOT man’s prerogative. he gave us two great commandments when he taught about his fulfilling the law of moses. 1. love god and 2. love your neighbor as thyself…i see a lot of commandment #1 on this site, but not a whole lot of commandment #2. that’s all i have to say
Amanda said: “i don’t believe any individual finds truth through reason or argumentation.”
It could just be me, but I’m gonna take a guess and say that most people on this site (at least the Evangelicals) take part in these discussions because they feel the need to (as charged by the following passages):
[blockquote]1 Thessalonians 5:21 “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.”
Jude 1:3 “…ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.”[/blockquote]
While I wouldn’t go as far to say that the end result of all of these arguments would bring a person to “truth”, I WOULD, however, affirm (upon close examination of the material presented by the bloggers, coupled with much personal thought) that one could come to a solid conclusion as to what is NOT truth. (Kind of like process of elimination)
At least that’s how I see it… my opinion, if you will.
… and now you can all make fun of my choppy HTML skills (or lack thereof)… 😛
Indeed it is giving me a headache Amanda. I suspect we have reached an impasse on this discussion anyway. There are different paradigms regarding prophets between evangelicals and Mormons. Since evangelicals believe the last of the prophets died thousands of years ago they have a view that assumes prophets are and should be all but infallible and thus they see the fallibility of the men Mormons believe are modern prophets as evidence that the restored gospel is a farce. Mormons see prophets as men (or women as the case may be) who are just like the rest of us in most ways and who have personal opinions and who are fallible. The difference is that God has given them an unusual stewardship and mantle and inspires them in guiding the restored church of Jesus Christ on the earth today. So if modern prophets misspeak or make mistakes on occasion we Mormons don’t see that as a sign of the incorrectness of the restored church at all.
What the evangelicals here really fail to grasp about Mormons is that we believe that we are all supposed to be “mini prophets” of sorts and inspired stewards over our own little corner of the Lord’s vineyard. So most of us LDS are LDS because we have received direct and and undeniable personal revelation from God that Mormonism is the most correct church on the earth and the place where God wants us. Evangelical harping on the alleged mistakes of our former leaders really has little effect on us. (Unfortunately I suspect my harping in the cruel Jesus their theology paints has little effect on many of them too.)
God does want us all to receive personal revelation and be “prophets” of sorts so Mormonism is right on that count. As Moses said:
thanks alex- i appreciated your remarks (no sarcasm here-even though i have been known to lay it on thick on this website) but i believe your response was without guile. something hard to find in a forum such as this.
“prove all things, hold fast to that which is good” i feel we do this through prayer and the inevitable blessing of the Spirit who teaches us the mysteries of God. i think there is a great deal of good that is found in the book of mormon, which is precisely why i have a testimony of its message.
“ye should earnestly contend for the faith…”- i see this scripture motivating some of what is said on this site…i believe your response was motivated entirely by this scripture, so i am grateful to you for that. i know this is why “Mormons” feel strongly about missionary work- i’m sure you are well aware of the sacrifices our young men in the church make because of their convictions. and i know there are many others not of my faith that do the same. i commend them as well. that kind of love and faith only serves to bless each and everyone of us.
i am blessed every day with a husband who was taught to love the Lord by his father, a former baptist minister…that is easily one of the greatest blessings in my life.
🙂 amanda
i must ask all of you bloggers to forgive me…i don’t blog at all…EVER so i was not aware of the rules of engagement so to speak…was a trolling just barely? i just read the entire thread and realized my mistake…i will do better next time
please advise
Aaron said:
“When people can’t handle the marketplace of controversy, they often revert to associating strong disagreement with hatred. Someday perhaps Mormons will vote for a bill that bans public criticism of Mormonism as a hate crime. Given the propensity of Mormons to identify harsh rhetoric with hatred, I don’t think it’s a stretch.”
This is a perfect example of why I have a hard time trusting the words of LDS critics. If the LDS Church is so clearly false, as the critics claim, why does this type of sensational charge need to be made? No one has once suggested that LDS critics must be silenced. We just want you to be totally honest in your criticism, not just when it’s convenient to your argument.
Rick B said:
“So Do you admit, Islam, JW’s, buddist, hindu Ect preach or teach the Mormon gospel? I bet you will say they have a different Gospel. If they do and you believe the gospel Paul preached, then we come back to Gal 1:8-9, these religions that were started by men are preaching a different Gospel than what you believe or Paul taught, So where do these religions go after death for teaching a gospel other than what Paul taught according to Gal 1:8-9?”
I noticed you posted this question on your website, explaining there was no response back. But I have a response. The LDS Church teaches that those who do not have a chance to hear about the gospel of Jesus Christ in this life, will have a chance to hear it in the life to come. That’s why Latter-day Saints practice baptism for the dead in its temples.
I know you don’t find this teaching biblical, but why did you not mention it on your website post, Rick? It appears you weren’t being fully honest in your response to Geoff’s original post. I don’t know if you intended to be dishonest, but if you and your fellow Christians want me to turn away from Mormonism, I would again ask you to be totally honest and not just when it’s convenient to your argument.
Clark, when Mormons stop identifying their vocal critics as hateful, insidious “anti-Mormons“, and stop associating them with the violent, murderous Missouri mobs, then I’ll take your charge that I’m simply making “sensational” claims more seriously.
Aaron,
I’ll meet you half-way and acknowledge that some of my fellow Latter-day Saints get a little too paranoid when it comes to criticism of our faith. I for one don’t like the term Anti-Mormon either (except in a few instances). On the other hand, the idea that Latter-day Saints would attempt to make criticism of its church into a hate-crime is simply ludicrous. If LDS members somehow got away with that, then every church, political group and organization (especially gay rights groups) would, of course, want the same thing. Free speech would then be totally out the door.
In my opinion, criticism of the church boils down to this. I’m perfectly willing to listen to those who have honest concerns about LDS doctrine and practices. At the same time though, I’m very unwilling to listen to the Ed Decker types. Those who sensationalize, exaggerate or make things up which they use to attack the LDS Church with.
The issue of blacks and the priesthood, for example, is one in which I can totally understand those who might be critical of the LDS Church. But even an issue such as that must be dealt with fairly.
Some say the ban was lifted only because the church got its feathers ruffled a bit. I wasn’t alive at the time, but in talking to many people on the subject, nothing could be further from the truth. Long before 1978, the LDS Church was receiving tremendous pressure to lift the ban. Not only from civil rights groups, but from colleges who refused to compete against BYU in athletics, along with journalists and editorial writers from throughout the country. Some even petitioned the federal government, demanding they force the church to lift the ban. In a few, but rare instances, LDS Church properties were subjected to violence, including a Molotov cocktail, through onto the floor during a BYU basketball game, which nearly hit BYU broadcaster Paul James. (I don’t know the year)
Not only that, throughout the 1960’s and early 70’s, many blacks living in Africa and South America (including future general authority Helvecio Martins) were desirous to join the LDS Church and receive the priesthood.
I believe the ban was lifted at the right time and in the right way. That is simply the way I see it and I’m grateful for it. My wife’s cousin is married to a wonderful guy who is both active LDS and black. I attended their wedding in the Salt Lake Temple and it’s been a real blessing in my life to visit with him and learn more about his life.
Clark, I don’t think the issue is necessarily with racism in the LDS church, as much as it is about the changing revelations of the leaders of the LDS church. As I said above, if God “reveals” things to two people that are contradictory, we can conclude that God is wrong and/or has changed his mind, or that what was “revealed” to one of the two (or both) really wasn’t from God. I think this issue at hand is an example of this in the LDS church.
LDS Friends,
You are mistaken when you say the Ev. Church does not have prophets. I happen to believe in the full Gospel message and the operation of the Gifts of the Holy Spirit which includes prophesy. There are specific “rules” regarding the exercise of the gift of prophesy. Unlike the Mormon church the prophet is to be held accountable for what he says. If what he says contradicts the Word of God it is dismissed. That’s just one of the principles. Prophetic errors are 1) a lack of accountability for prophecies 2) the attempt to establish doctrine or practice by revelation alone, apart from clear biblical support 3) dogmatic assertions in delivery of prophetic words 4) the use of the gift to control others. Prophesy draws us closer to Jesus and not the prophet. When I testify to my faith, I testify to the saving grace of Our Lord Jesus Christ and the shed blood of His cross. I don’t testify to a denomination or a prophet.
I rejected performance based doctrines a long time ago. Lots of churches have them. Jesus saved me from my attempts at getting right with God through rituals or prescribed routines.
One of the things that I’ve noticed about exMormons is an anger at what the discribe as an emptyness of a performance based religion and also the betrayl they fell when they get a good historical view of the leadership/prophets. There seems to be more people going out the back door of Mormonism then are coming in the front so we Christians need to be ready, willing and able to minister to the spiritual needs of these folks.
Two more typos. I’ll write each correctly 25 times.
one comment on all of this outrage by these (i’m assuming) white evangelicals. i know several black mormons who still joined despite this supposedly shady past of mormonism. They certainly didn’t see it as an obstacle to being baptized by priesthood authority (that some of them couldn’t hold at the time) and i think if anyone is going to complain it should be those who are allegedly offended…not white evangelicals just searching for ANOTHER notch on their self-righteous belt.
Amanda, please take a look at my comment a few posts above…again, I believe the issue isn’t with the racism, it’s with the changing revelations of LDS leaders.
Aaron,
Just curious, you called the leaders of the LDS church “cowards” and mocked Joseph Smith. Can you say there was no hate in these comments? What would you call it?
To be honest, I am kind of getting tired of being told what terms I cannot use. According to this site I can’t call myself a Christian, even though I believe in Christ. Now I am told I can’t use the term “anti-Mormon.” Even though “anti” means opposite or opposing. Do you not oppose the LDS Church?
Finally Aaron, you need to provide more than a link to a blog entry by an “anti-Mormon” website, to support your Jane Manning claims. This is the Mormon RESEARCH Ministry, isn’t it?
i understand that argument…i believe on the surface it is reasonable. i guess the only answer i have for that is very simple…and not very intellectual:
During conference time, i listen to the prophets and apostles, and i feel the love of God. I feel a renewed sense of direction and peace. So in terms of what past prophets have said, i have limited knowledge to the context in which it was said and the meaning of those comments because i simply haven’t studied those specific comments.
but i am not surprised why individuals on this website (and other forums) select and nitpick only the alleged discrepancies between apostles and prophets of the past. If you actually read EVERYTHING brigham young and joseph smith said, you might find more that you agree with than things you can disagree with. Just read what the current prophets and apostles have said in recent history, and i think you will find yourself uplifted…however if you seek out discrepancies, you will find them—there is an adversary, and if they were truly prophets, i’m sure the devil would have a reason to deceive you.
Geoff,
So your answer on killing your first born is No, you wouldn’t, even if the prophet said God told him your supposed to, and it gets put into the D&C’s, and you receive confirmation for it? You need God to come down and tell you directly to kill your first born to do it?
If thats the case, then why do you support the past use of polygamy in your church? I’m pretty sure God didn’t come down and tell everyone it is necessary. He said it through his Prophet Joseph Smith, it was put into D&C, and people practiced it.
You can’t hold that double standard. It’s like your picking and choosing what prophetic counsel to obey or not. The reason I’m asking you this is to see if you truly believe that the prophet would “never lead you astray” as they have said they wouldn’t. I agree they aren’t infallible from sin, but my whole argument here is that when you have two members of the same faith speak in a “certain” manner the origin of the black race, and for those two to contradict each other, that creates a problem. Why would a prophet reveal something to his church if it wasn’t revealed to him by God? I’m sorry but I have to refute the notion they were speaking out of opinion. If they are, they sure do run their mouths off with lots of opinions on many subjects. I would reference them but I think they have been referenced enough.
Clark said
Clark, Why should I give people the Idea they have a second chance after death if the Bible does not support this view? The Bible tells us, Hebrews 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:
Then if your view was correct, why Did Paul mislead people with what he said, He had the perfect chance to say anyone who preaches any other Gospel than the one I preach will die and have a second chance to get it correct after death. He did not say that. So I was not even close to being misleading in my topic.
But speaking of misleading and lies, Start telling the LDS missionarys to be up front and honest in the replys they give while on their missions trip.
Many times I have had friends ask Mormon missionarys, do you believe the Bible to be the Word of God, they reply with yes we do, That is a lie, they forget to quote ALL of A of F 8, so it leads people to believe something even you dont.
Friends asked, can we drink Coffee if we convert to Mormonism, LDS say yes, Again this is dectiful, You cannot enter the temple if you do, you know that, why not be honest and tell them this, then they say, the WoW does not allow us to drink coffee. The WoW say, Hot drinks that LDS define as Coffee, So that is a stretch of truth, but also your telling possible converts yes you can drink coffee. I could give other examples of LDS using Decit. Rick b
Ralph, you said
It would be off topic to try and reply to the entire list you gave, These were not false4 Prophecys as LDS would like to believe and teach. Maybe a topic can be done on this to better cover them, but that is not my decision. But to answer this one, I suggest you read your Bible better, and I suggest you or anyone who felt or feels Nineveh Should have been destroyed to “Fuffil” this prophecy is sick and Evil.
God rebuked Jonah for wanting Nineveh destroyed, Plus if you read better the story of Jonah you will know why Jonah ran away in the first place, he Knew God would not destroy Nineveh in the First place, Jonah wanted God to kill them all, knew God would not and God got mad at Jonah for sparing Nineveh. So since Jonah knew this, that is not a false Prophecy.
Then we read in Jonah,
And
This Shows Gods great grace and mercy, to the point where God even wanted to spare the cattle, yet some evil people would say God is a liar and a false Prophet because God was not willing to kill 6 thousand plus people and babys. You guys are the ones crying, the God I serve is Evil, and hateful, yet He showed Love and mercy here, and you still gripe about it.
Rick,
You are very well versed in the Bible. I think it’s unfortunate though that LDS have taken away so much authority from the Bible that it creates a loophole for them to jump in and out of. Quoting from it really doesn’t hold any ground with them. If something doesn’t match up with their doctrine or belief, it is the Bible that is wrong because of its interpretation or translation. However, the BoM is infallible. The Bible could have Jesus straight up say that nobody is ever to become a God. All the LDS will have to do is put a spin on that saying is that what Jesus REALLY meant is that No one would become a God of this earth, but other planets they can. Or something along those lines..
Jeff said
Funny thing Jeff, the BoM has a debate between the False prophet Korihor and Alma read Alma chapter 30 43-46 Alma says their is only one true God. If that is true, how can they become gods? Rick b
Jeff: You need God to come down and tell you directly to kill your first born to do it?
Ummm…. of course I would have to have direct revelation from God before I considered doing something that heinous. Wouldn’t you? If not then I am seriously concerned for you.
If thats the case, then why do you support the past use of polygamy in your church?
Well, because I believe that God approved it. Just like I believe approved it for the Biblical prophets who practiced plural marriage.
You can’t hold that double standard. It’s like your picking and choosing what prophetic counsel to obey or not.
Don’t be ridiculous. Of course we can. When we meet God we’ll just have to account for our choices.
when you have two members of the same faith speak in a “certain” manner the origin of the black race, and for those two to contradict each other, that creates a problem
Maybe they are both incorrect opinions. Whoop-dee-doo. This is an odd false dichotomy you are discussing.
Why would a prophet reveal something to his church if it wasn’t revealed to him by God?
Have you not been paying attention to this conversations. The key word is “opinion”.
If they are, they sure do run their mouths off with lots of opinions on many subjects.
Do you know anyone who doesn’t do that? Again you seem to want to hold prophets to a ridiculous level of infallibility when it comes to personal opinions.
rick b: Alma says their is only one true God. If that is true, how can they become gods?
Hehe.
You crack me up rick b. I answered this question numerous times earlier in this thread. That answer has gone completely over your head once again…
Geoff said
Show me chapter and verse from the Bible where God commanded this, he allowed people to sin, but he never commanded them to sin, big difference.
Now lets look to the book of Mormon. In Jacob 1:15-19 and 2:21-25 it teaches David and Solomon did evil by having many wives. Then in Mosiah 11:2 it teaches many wives is a sin. Now here is a contradiction because in D and C 132:37-39 it says it was not a sin for David Solomon and others to have many wives. Now I thought God could not lie? But Gods word is both in the B.O.M and D and C. So either man wrote it and messed up or God lied.
If the BOM is the fullness of the Gospel why then does it not support D and C 132 About the topic of Plural wives forever.
Then Again if the BOM is the fullness why do we read in Mosiah 11:2 and Ether 10:5 plural wives is a sin, this goes against D and C 132. Add to that Jacob 3:5, the Lamanites are called filthy yet at the same time they are more righteous in their actions because they don’t practice plural wives.
D and C 19:26 and 42:12 states both the Bible and BOM contain truth and are the word of God, yet they deny the teaching of plural wives as a good God ordained teaching.
Moroni 8:18 teach’s God is unchangble yet he changed his stance, saying plural wives is an abomation by allowing it to happen in D and C 132?. Now I know LDS will reply by saying Plural wives was practiced in the Bible. It was a sin even in the Bible, If God were to punish us with death every time we sinned there would only be plants and animals left on this planet. Now if you want to give your Bible scripture on plural wives please give a scripture(s) from the Bible as clear as D and C 132 Where God says here you go a gift of many wives or Hey you I commanded you to take wives and the more the better. It is not in there.
Rick b
rick, rick , rick…
You have been spending too much time reading anti-Mormon sources and not enough time in the primary sources.
The BoM does actually says that God must approve of plural marriage for people to participate in it. Solomon was given as an example of non-approved variety. Jacob 2 says this in verse 27:
But then qualifies that in verse 30 (a point you conspicuously missed):
Now as for Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses and others — we’ll just have to agree to disagree about their wickedness. It seems pretty clear to me that God did not disapprove of their plural marriages but if you think they were fallen prophets or whatever that is your prerogative.
Here is a quote from a recent discussion at my blog that makes a pretty good argument about why you are misreading the Bible on this subject:
Geoff said
This verse indicates that he inherited Saul’s wives, not that David actually married them by God’s appointment. It was the custom of the time for the succeeding ruler to receive all of the prior ruler’s property and women. This is not a proof that God intends people to practice polygamy. It is contrary to the pattern of marriage established with Adam and Eve and His instructions in Deuteronomy.
Geoff,on the Issue of DT 21:15-17 I think you need to read better, that is not God saying, I command you or I allow you to have more than one wife, God is looking out for the Children of the Hated wife, That shows Gods grace again, that you seem to think does not exist.
Then Geoff you said
You need to read better and be more specific, not one place in these 15 verses do we read anything about Plural marriage or a second wife, We only Find Moses sister complaining against Moses, No mention of plural wives.
God instructed Moses that the kings of Israel were to have only one wife:
“Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away.” Deut. 17:17
Geoff, Noah took his one wife into the ark. Again, if polygamy were ordained of God, why didn’t He tell Noah to take additional wives to repopulate the earth faster?
Geoff add this,
In the New Testament the practice of polygamy would have kept a man from leadership in the church. Paul instructed Timothy:
“A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife…” (I Tim.3:2)
Paul also wrote to Titus:
“ordain elders in every city…if any be blameless, the husband of one wife…” (Titus 1:6)
rick b: This verse [2 Sam 12] indicates that he inherited Saul’s wives, not that David actually married them by God’s appointment.
Yes David inherited Saul’s wives, but he also took many wives himself. That whole passage teaches that the only one that displeased God was his stealing of Bathsheba and sending Uriah to his death. Or do you think that every plural wife David took was abominable in God’s eyes? If you claim that, where is the scriptural support for it in the records of David?
God instructed Moses that the kings of Israel were to have only one wife (Dt 17:17)
Wow. Talk about taking a scriptural phrase out of context! You really ought to look at the entire passage, not just pull some phrase out of context to try to make a point, rick. That passage is saying that the kings of Israel must not be greedy. It says Israel’s king should not greedily multiply unto themselves the following things: horses, wives, or gold. So unless you also think God is against people ever owning more than one horse then you are in big trouble with your interpretation there. But in Dt. 21: 15-17 the Lord is not against plural marriage in general; in fact he gives counsel on the proper behavior of his people within plural marriage arrangements at the time.
Look, I am only saying that God is the boss and he can say when plural marriage is ok for his people and when it isn’t. In the OT, it is pretty clear that he considered it ok in many cases and that is why we have records of so many prophets who practiced it. You are fooling yourself and wresting the word of God if you think the scriptures uniformly say plural marriage is wrong in all times and places.
Geoff the scripture says “Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away.” Deut. 17:17
You said the Scripture says God instructed Moses that the kings of Israel were to have only one wife (Dt 17:17)
Quote it correctly. When it says many wives 2 wives is 1 to many. God allows us to sin, he does not command us to sin. Look at all the cases of Plural wives, nothing ever good came from it, A sword was brought in Davids house, Division was that sword, hatred was that sword.
All the cases of plural wives resulted in hatred and strife, Why would God command that. Like I said, I dont deny the sin these guys did, I simply dont see the scriptures teaching any place, God saying, I want you to, or I command you to, or it is required of you, to take many wives for this is my will for you and my law for you.
If that is their please give me chapter and verse. Rick b
You said the Scripture says God instructed Moses that the kings of Israel were to have only one wife (Dt 17:17)
Dude. YOU said that — not me. I was was quoting YOU. That’s what the italics meant in that comment!
(Good grief rick… and you wonder why I often avoid responding to you…)