Viewpoint on Mormonism Archives
Blogroll
- 365 Reasons
- Apologetics 315
- Ensign vs. The Bible
- Heart Issues for LDS
- Heart of the Matter
- I Love Mormons
- Keith Walker
- Latter-day Saint Woman
- Mark Cares
- Mormonism Investigated UK
- Mormonite Musings
- Mormons are Christians… aren't we?
- Musings on Mormonism
- Of First Importance
- Share the Son Ministries
- The Mormon Chapbook
- The Religious Researcher
- Utah Advance
Links
Subscribe
Join the Discussion
Check out our comment policy.Categories
Afterlife Authority and Doctrine Baptism for the Dead Bible Book of Mormon Brigham Young Christianity Coffee Beans D&C and Pearl of Great Price Early Christianity Early Mormonism Forgiveness Friendship, Interaction, and Evangelism General Conference God the Father Gospel Grace Great Apostasy Jesus Christ Joseph Smith King Follett Discourse LDS Church Marriage and Singlehood Misconceptions Mitt Romney Mormon Culture Mormon History Mormon Leaders Mormon Missionaries Mormon Scripture Mormon Temple Multimedia Nature of God Nature of Man Nauvoo Personal Stories Polygamy Priesthood Prophets Salvation Truth, Honesty, Prayer, and Inquiry Uncategorized Viewpoint on Mormonism Virgin birth Worthiness
Policy or Doctrine?
The Mormon Church ban of blacks before 1978
This entry was posted in Authority and Doctrine, Civil Liberties, LDS Church and tagged Brigham Young, Bruce McConkie, Declaration 2, Doctrine, John Taylor, Joseph Fielding Smith, Joseph Smith, Mark Petersen, Racism. Bookmark the permalink.
58 Responses to Policy or Doctrine?
The Mormon Church ban of blacks before 1978
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Eric, that was great. After Jesus rose from the dead and sent the Holy Spirit to help
those who He had picked to spread the good news, the gospel of salvation, when we
see what these men taught and then compare it with the so-called apostles of the
Mormon church , it then becomes clear that we must choose which apostles and
which gospel to embrace . I’m sticking with those apostles in the New Testament.
A question for the LDS about their leadership and following the teaching of the prophet –
1) If a Mormon in Brigham Young’s time through 1978 held that the racist statements of the LDS Church prophets and leaders were accurate and true – and accepted the racist doctrine as truly God’s revelation – were they sinning by believing their leadership? Or would they have been sinning if they rejected what their religious leaders taught?
2) If a Mormon today reads the doctrines expounded upon by LDS prophets and Apostles and accepts their racist conclusions today are they sinning? Or would they be sinning if they failed to reject what Brigham Young and other Apostles taught?
LDS prophets and apostles lead you into all truth? Really??
The only real answer is to reject Brigham Young and these false prophets and apostles. Break free of false religion and fall and the feet of Jesus and worship Him who brings forgiveness and eternal life.
The problem, as has been pointed out on other threads, is that Mormons won’t “own” this. They try everything possible to wiggle out of responsibility for this doctrine including the excuse that the Mormon leaders have no idea where this ban came from. When this doesn’t work then we get the charge that Christian churches had elements of racism in them also. The difference, of course, is that Christian denominations are willing to own it, reject it and confess it.
Mormon leadership has a habit of playing dumb when things get uncomfortable.
We’ve mentioned previously that as bad as it is, at least the FLDS doesn’t change its doctrine to please anyone. The Salt Lake City Mormon denomination changes basic doctrine, temple rituals and even the BoM. Mormonism can’t have it both ways. Do they think that we don’t notice?
I was really glad they gave the names of the two guys at the end of the video, because I was really starting to wonder if the white guy was not really are friend Fred. The Guy in the Video dodged the last question and really did not want to address any other question, sounds like are Mormons today.
How could BY say this was going to stay forever, then the Church later says, It’s ok, Blacks can hold the priesthood and it is no longer is a curse? How come the BoM said the Blacks would start turning white, but when that never happened, they changed it to blacks will be pure? Pure is different than white, I can see black changing to white, I cannot see black going pure.
How come Mormons claim the Bible is corrupt yet they don’t care about the fact that the BoM has been changed and the issue of the pure VS white has and is never addressed?
Every time I hear of these things I am reminded that you can find bad things in good. It is part of the churches history that these things have been said but taking them out of the context of history raises more question. It also makes one think of the character of these men. I have heard several explanations, Not being valiant in the pre-existence, being neutral in the pre-existence and being rebellious. I often wonder why Elijah Abel was ordain an elder and also his sons but were not allow to do temple work. I think of it as part of the puzzle of history.
What were the times like back then? Was one of the reason for the mormons being expelled from Missouri because they did not own slaves? Wasn’t nauvoo one of the routes along the underground railway for smuggling slaves out of the south? What were the other churches doing?
There is something more to what america was like as the church grew that may answer the questions I seek.
Here is the problem. The Mormon church sells itself as the only religion that has “continuous revelation”. They say (and have said over and over) that it is this one thing that makes them different from all others. Along with the continuous “revelation”, came the authority to act in God’s name. Smith, Young, McConkie, Hinckley, et.all, have all claimed to be the “oracles of God”. The last thing these men would ever do, is compare themselves to other churches. The other churches were “dead forms”, with no authority, and no “modern revelation”. This is what makes the Mormon Church what it is, it’s signature, so to speak. But now, things have changed. Mormons have over 150 years of history to look at. The fine words, don’t add up to what actually happened historically. Mormons believe what they want to believe. (Like the Mormons were expelled from Missouri over slavery – me shaking head at that one). If you want to know what it was like back then, start reading. There are many journal accounts, and contemporary sources of information. Few Mormons read them. Few care. They only believe the watered-down history churned out by the Correlation Department. Everything else is A***-Mormon “propaganda”. Nothing in that video was taken out of context. Men calling themselves the “oracles of God” said those things. Yes, Christians did too, BUT MANY DID NOT. They were those who read and understood the word of God. Mormons took the WORST interpretation, and made it doctrine. And then wouldn’t give it up until forced to by society, and had to contradict their own “prophets” to do so. What does that tell you?
I wrote this some time ago to a Mormon Apologist who also said the Missouri problem was due to slavery. This conversation was very long. One day I’ll have to reproduce it on my blog…
In July of 1833, the Mormons published an article in the Evening and Morning Star entitled “Free People of Color.” It stated:
To prevent any misunderstanding . . . regarding Free people of color, who may think of coming to the western boundaries of Missouri, as members of the church, we quote the following clauses from the Laws of Missouri.
The article then quoted two sections from the law which outlined that a “free negro or mulatto” must have a “certificate of citizenship,” and anyone aiding such persons to migrate to Missouri were obligated to ensure the blacks had proper identification and papers. The Mormon article continued:
Slaves are real estate in this and other states, and wisdom would dictate great care among the branches of the church of Christ, on this subject. So long as we have no special rule in the church, as to people of color, let prudence guide; and while they, as well as we, are in the hands of a merciful God, we say: Shun every appearance of evil (Evening and Morning Star, Independence, Missouri, July 1833, p. 109).
On page 111 of the same issue it stated:
Our brethren will find an extract of the law of this state, relative to free people of color, on another page of this paper. Great care should be taken on this point. The saints must shun every appearance of evil. As to slaves we have nothing to say. In connection with the wonderful events of this age, much is doing towards abolishing slavery, and colonizing the blacks, in Africa (Evening and Morning Star, July 1833, p. 111).
Sounds good, doesn’t it? Until you read the RETRACTION. These statements upset their slave-holding neighbors, as some people felt the Mormons were encouraging free blacks to move to the area. In an effort to calm the fears of the Missourians, the Mormons put out a special one page extra of their newspaper dealing with blacks:
“Having learned with regret, that an article entitled FREE PEOPLE OF COLOR, in the last number of the Star, has been misunderstood, we feel in duty bound to state, in this Extra, that our intention was not only to stop free people of color from emigrating to this state, but to prevent them from being admitted as members of the Church. . . . To be short, we are opposed to have free people of color admitted into the state; and we say, that none will be admitted into the church, for we are determined to obey the laws and constitutions of our country, . . . (Evening and Morning Star, Extra, July 16, 1833)
Reading actual historical documents will show the truth. I advise more Mormons to do so.
This raising the ban on blacks and the priesthood isn’t something like the Catholic church lifting the ban on eating meat on Friday. In-other-words, meatless Fridays were a practice like fasting during lent. It wasn’t at the heart of Catholic doctrine.
I use this as an example because Mormons seem to want to speed past this issue in their church as if it were just a “practice” and not something that went to the core beliefs of Mormonism.
When the ban was lifted, all sorts of red flags should have gone up in the minds of the members of the LDS church. Foremost among these is the veracity of the Mormon prophets themselves. If the guidance of past prophets can so easily be dismissed, what is so special about these guys?
Also, if a core doctrine given by the Mormon god, that is related to a whole race of people can be jettisoned, then what can be said about the reliability of the Mormon god?
The doctrine itself is a big deal just as is polygamy. Take these two things away and you have a different religion. It doesn’t reflect anything that would point to the veracity and trust worthiness of neither the Mormon prophet or god.
Why not get rid of baptism for the dead? It’s weird and offensive to the general population. That’s the criteria by which Mormons dump doctrine and practice. That is why they changed their sacred temple rituals that were supposedly handed down through Free Masonry. Mormons have changed the BoM countless times. They’ve even changed the notion that Mormon apostles and prophets have seen Jesus and now say that they are witnesses of Him.
What is it that Mormons say they prayed about and got a confirming feeling anyway? Prior to 1890 did the confirming feeling cover polygamy?
Clyde said
So please do tell us here and now Clyde, What was the Good that we are missing in everything YOUR prophets said about the Black People. You said it so back it up. And dont say the Good is that blacks can now hold the priesthood, that is not what were talking about. Were talking about YOUR prophets saying things about the Blacks like, Why they are cursed, or that they should be put to death if caught marring a white person, or they were less valiant, Etc.
Also you said
How come you say they are taken out of context, but you never gave the rest of the context? I will state here and now, You will not answer me, You will not tell me what good came out of what was said, and you will not not give the added context to show we are wrong. I will state also, that it really is you cannot do it and you know you cannot, so you will simply ignore this post by me, or will do as you have before and Fred does, Simply say, I wont understand, or wont care, so you wont bother me with the facts.
It’s not doctrine today? I beg to differ. Maybe they allow Blacks to hold their priesthood, but all the rest is still believed. Mormons STILL believe that Blacks are the descendants of Cain and that they were less valiant in the pre existence and cursed with dark skin. Those who say otherwise are either ignorant or lying. As one Mormon family member told me recently, “There is a time and a season for everything and it was the time for Blacks to hold the priesthood.” Never mind that a PROPHET said:
“When all the other children of Adam have had the privilege of receiving the Priesthood, and of coming into the kingdom of God, and of being redeemed from the four quarters of the earth, and have received their resurrection from the dead, then it will be time enough to remove the curse from Cain and his posterity. He deprived his brother of the privilege of pursuing his journey through life, and of extending his kingdom by multiplying upon the earth; and because he did this, he is the last to share the joys of the kingdom of God” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 2, p. 143;
I for one am tired of hearing that Christians did this or did that. Let’s look at the Inquisition, is it swept under the rug? Lied about? or said to be just someone’s “opinion’??? No, it’s out there for anyone to study and the Catholic church doesn’t try and whitewash it. Mormons need to OWN their teachings and history. Just because someone, somewhere, did something vaguely similar doesn’t excuse Mormons from doing the same or worse. Where is the integrity or honesty that is supposed to be such an important part of being a Mormon? Where???
So Clyde,
Here we have a couple of canned Mormon lines to be pulled out and applied any time valid criticism of the LDS church is offered.
“Every time I hear of these things I am reminded that you can find bad things in good”
What you are telling us is that the ban on blacks in the priesthood was something that was actually good, but we are finding things in it that are bad. I don’t know if you really want to apply that Mormon line to this topic.
You also like the “historical context” concept in regards to this. Another throw away line unless you actually produce some information to support that notion. I’m all in favor of historical context so give us some as rick as requested.
Let’s take just thirty years of the LDS church from 1948 to 1978. Give us the historical context of some of the statements that were made by Mormon leaders and some of the practices of the church at that time in regards to blacks.
Start with Ezra Taft Benson and his views on the civil rights movement of that era.
Kate, I love that you said this:
As one Mormon family member told me recently, “There is a time and a season for everything and it was the time for Blacks to hold the priesthood.”
Why? Because THAT was the EXACT response I got from my best friend when I brought it up to her. She’s a Mormon and she said “the time was right” regarding the overturning of the priesthood ban.
If every person answers the same way, there’s a MAJOR problem.
Reading Clyde’s comments and Kate’s comments about her experience in the LDS religion, I am beginning to think that Mormon apologists are not telling the truth – that all the statements and doctrine expounded on by Mormon prophets and apostles in the past is more than just folklore. Whoa! This means blacks were forbidden from the Mormon priesthood and temples based on more than just folklore? That new revelation allowing blacks to hold the priesthood was needed because it was actually doctrine! Racism was enshired in official prophetic revelation and doctrine in the LDS religion – either that or Mormon prophets talk and speculate about things that are not official and actually can mislead into falsehood, and Mormons are left to figure it out. I think that is actually accurate in a way – LDS prophets speculate and ruminate on ideas and talk about revelation, all the while it’s just their own bad ideas. I’ve figured it out – not only do they speak falsehood that is later rejected even by their own followers, they are false. The early Mormon prophets just loved making it up.
4five,
Here’s a link to a good article regarding out topic. I didn’t know that this was, at one time, known as the “Negro Doctrine”. Has a nice ring to it don’t you think? And today’s LDS leaders have no idea where this ban on the priesthood for blacks came from. Ezra Taft Benson discussed it from the pulpit at General Conference.
http://progressivemormon.net/archives/314
This idea that the (LDS) church does a lot of good is more of the same attempt to dress the sect up to make it look pretty. Ignore everything that is in the minus column and just focus on the plus. What is the “good” that is in the LDS church that a person couldn’t get out of any family oriented church or organization?
What I mean by historical context is asking what was going on at that time. A lot of states made it difficult for blacks to move into their state. From grindaels’ blog it seems that an article in the state constitution of missouri forbid black from coming into the state unless certain conditions were met. I believe for sure that Texas, Kansas and Oregon had similar articles in their constitutions.
In regards to what Brigham Young said, I wonder what the back ground to it was? Did someone ask him about blacks? What kind of blacks had he ever met with? It also seems to me to be an opinion. Any body can see it the other way.
Clyde,
I find it untenable that what Brigham Young said was thought of by the Mormons of his day as only his opinion, and not doctrine – afterall, blacks actually were forbidden from holding the priesthood and visiting the temple, thus they were denied according to LDS teaching, full access to the benefits of membership -godhood was not in the picture for them. It’s not just a matter of opinion – these people claimed to be prophets of God – revealing his truth. They expounded upon and taught these racist ideas – all from a position of supposed received revelation. I think there possibly could be mounting pressure over the next year for an official apology for all of this – and really, if there is, it leaves the LDS religion without a foundation on which to build. If they can’t be trusted to be true in this case, they can’t be trusted.
Falcon,
I read the article and took a look at the Progressive Mormon blog. Seems to me that while I don’t agree with them, they are at least a bit more intellectually honest – willing to face facts, rather than ascribe to mythical concepts of “it was just opinion” or “it was folklore.” If this doctrine and practice was based on “folklore” then the entire LDS enterprise is based on folklore. Once again, I think there just may be something to that concept that all of Mormonism is folklore, all of it is made up.
Clyde,
It seems I was right, You ignored one of my questions, and I should say, it’s not that you ignore what I say, it’s more a matter of you wont and cannot back up what you say.
The other question was more a matter of partial ignoring and partial side stepping. It really amazes me you guys are so blind and no matter how much evidence is given you guys find ways to suppress it and it does not bother you.
4five,
The “progressive Mormons” are an interesting breed of cats. Your observation that they are more intellectually honest was also my impression. Compare what you read there with what we get from our Mormon contributors clyde and fred. It’s quite a contrast.
There seems to be this fairy tale view of Mormonism and its problems with the naive true believing Mormons. The “progressives” appear to me to be more reality based and willing to acknowledge the Wizard of Oz quality of Mormonism.
I think our Mormon poster TJay is more in line with the progressives. The naive TBMs appear to have a faith that is so fragile that they have to swallow every preposterous claim of Mormonism and the far-out explanations that support these claims.
This idea that the Mormon church is true, infallible, and always right is necessary for the naive TBMs or the whole house of cards will collapse. It’s just easier to do the cult like mind bend and maintain emotional equilibrium than question and go through the (emotional) discomfort that confronting deeply held beliefs brings.
To admit that the Mormon prophets were wrong and the LDS church was wrong regarding blacks in the priesthood brings into question whether or not these men speak for the Mormon god or if the Mormon god and all of his multiple relatives who are in the god business really exist.
Rick B says: – March 15, 2012 at 7:04 pm – (I was really glad they gave the names of the two guys at the end of the video, because I was really starting to wonder if the white guy was not really are friend Fred.)
One of the problems with what you are saying is that as soon as I had joined the LDS Church I had to start changing my habits of thought; the habits of thought that I had learned as a Protestant. One of the biggest habits was the way I thought about blacks. As a Protestant I learned to keep blacks under my heel.
I know my experiences are limited, but I have never seen a Mormon treat a Black as badly as the Protestants treated blacks when I was growing up.
Even today I sometimes find an old habit of thought, a habit of thought that I learned when I was what you refer to as a “christian”, that is just plain wrong. Blacks are a whole lot better than your type of “christian” teaching gave me.
fred
Clyde;
It looks like these folks do not care to find out the things Brigham Young had to say about how Protestants treated their black slaves, and how the Protestants were just plain wrong. Brigham Young may have found the kind of “slavery” taught in the Bible to be OK, but he sure did not think much of how the American Protestants treated there slaves. But the folks here only want what they can make look bad about us Mormons.
fred
Fred, No Christian taught what you to think or not think about Blacks. When I was growing up I was an atheist and I grew up in Michigan, Pretty much lived in Detroit, My best friend growing up was black. Fast forward to when I gave my life to Jesus, I was living in downtown Chicago, I had good friends that were black, I was a new believer. Fast forward to now, 20 years later, guess what, I still have good friends that are black, and I hate the “Race card” Crap. I keep saying their is only ONE RACE, The human race. Blacks are human just like us, their is not 2 races of people, blacks and white, or more races if you count all other people groups. Their is only one people group, the human race.
You simply must throw others under the bus to make you point, your lucky this is not not blog and I cannot say what I want to your stupid comment and subtle attack on the Christians.
The pre existence is a slap in the face to every Black person who has ever lived. They were less valiant? I don’t think so. I come from a very long line of Mormons on both sides of my family. The older generation of Mormons are still prejudiced against Blacks. Not only Blacks, but anyone with a dark skin. Why? Because it was pounded into their heads that these people weren’t as valiant as they were in the pre existence. They weren’t allowed to hold the priesthood or attend the temple until 1978. How does one just stop being prejudiced after YEARS of the horrible, ugly teachings given to them by their so called prophet of God?? Their so called scriptures? Which by the way, those teachings are still in their scriptures. Read the pearl of great price. Why aren’t the LDS scriptures being changed to match their so called “change” concerning Cain’s seed? The doctrine of the pre existence and the war in heaven has not been changed, and can not be changed without the foundation of Mormonism crumbling.
As SR pointed out, Mormons have the same tired line when it comes to the priesthood ban. It was time. It was the season. Even though a prominent LDS prophet said it wouldn’t be time until after all the Whites had received the priesthood and had been resurrected. That hasn’t happened yet, so how can it be “time” ???
The doctrine of the pre existence is still taught in Mormonism, White Mormons still believe that they were more valiant in the pre existence, and Blacks are very fortunate that God has decided it is time and season for them to hold the Mormon priesthood. Yep, the Mormons treat them wonderfully!
fred,
Have you taken leave of your senses, really? Your statement:
“Even today I sometimes find an old habit of thought, a habit of thought that I learned when I was what you refer to as a “christian”, that is just plain wrong. Blacks are a whole lot better than your type of “christian” teaching gave me.”
You grew-up in a bigoted racist protestant church, in a bigoted racist culture and you want to generalize that to “Christians”. Your desperation grows daily.
And yet, think about it, you repudiate, condemn and finger point at this racist protestant church and culture you were a member of and yet you let the LDS church, with its bigoted racists prophets and bigoted racists doctrines, skate.
Why is that fred? I want to hear you go after the LDS church with as much gusto as you go after that racist protestant church you were part of.
The LDS church you have a crush on had as part of its doctrines that blacks were cursed and could not enter the priesthood. They couldn’t enter the temple. They couldn’t get the big payoff of becoming gods.
At least in the south, as wrong as it was, they provided separate bathrooms and drinking fountains for blacks. Blacks in the Mormon church were not afforded any other temple accommodations. There was no way for them to reach the pinnacle of Mormon salvation. It was referred to in the church as the “Negro Doctrine”.
You need to get your head straight fred. This LDS church that you’re so enamored with has a lot of problems past and present. The truth will set you free fred but it’s going to cause you a lot of pain in the process.
Rick
One thing needs to be realized. This is a blog which I do not follow all the time. I reply to what seems to be a general statement. When you say ‘You ignored one of my questions’ I want to ask what question? I look back at the past comments and see no question mark. Makes me wonder what is going on?
My first statement ‘Every time I hear of these things I am reminded that you can find bad things in Good’ Probably should not have been placed where it was. It is something that I read that I can’t seem to get out of my mind. It reminds me of Shakespeare ‘Julius Caesar” famous line,” The evil that men do lives after them, the good is oft interred with their souls.”
At times when I read Ricks’ and fivesolas comment s I wonder if there is any Good in you. I look at your blogs and have to say Thanks a lot Rick I have just gained five pounds and drooled all over myself. To 4fivesolas is Sophie Scholl a movie or documentary. She was a member of the white rose resistance group out of Munich, Germany during World War II. ( OK I just looked it up on Wikipedia) You might be interested in the documentary about Helmuth Hubener.
Getting back to the blog comments-What Brigham young said is very embarrassing. Especially when you have not read or heard of it before. However I have always wonder why blacks would join the church. Darius Gray put out a documentary about Blacks and the church-The untold Story of Black Mormons. He Joined before 1978. The documentary can be found at http://blackmormonfilm.com/. ( It can be purchased there but there is a long trailer on it.)
cont.
I have also seen it on the documentary channel.
I bring this up because Human nature and history are a puzzle to me. When you read about Blacks in Africa before 1978 forming their own congregation and calling it the L.D.S. church and petitioning the church for information because they read the Book Of Mormon. This makes me wonder what they see in the book that I might have missed. A lot of times I see them as better members than I am.
I will have go back and look at your comment again Rick. I am writing this at 5 in the morning. I apologize for side stepping again if you think I have but at times questions can be answered by asking questions. Won’t be posted until 1 due to the fact that I don’t have my password.
Fred
It seems to me that they are beating a dead horse. They also never say any Good things Brigham ever said.
Torquemada oh Falcon
Awesome sight you noted in your comment.
I remember the freedom riders, I was in junior high at the time. to me it was one of those no big deal moments. I did not care that history was being made at the time. The church has changed and so have other churches. So after thinking about it I see that only past history is being brought up.
Clyde,
That’s another good Mormon throw away line; “That all happened a long time ago.” All better now, right Clyde?
Here’s the problem, the LDS church is still full of alibis including they just don’t know where this doctrine came from. It’s a mystery to them. What a laugh. They don’t know their own history these grand poh bahs of Mormonism.
The reason the LDS church won’t own up to this is because they’d have to repudiate the doctrine and the apostles and prophets who promoted it. Then of course the LDS church wouldn’t be perfect. It would also call into question all sorts of other doctrines and practices.
Once someone begins to lose faith in the Mormon institution, it won’t be long before they wave goodbye.
Mormons are in love with the Mormon church. Christians are in love with Jesus. The “church” a born again believer attends is immaterial. To Mormons, the LDS church is everything. That’s why doctrines like polygamy and the ban on blacks in the priesthood are so detrimental to the faith of Mormon believers once they begin to dig into them.
Clyde,
“So after thinking about it I see that only past history is being brought up.”
The revelations and teachings of Brigham Young are more than “past history being brought up.” Do you believe that Brigham Young was a true prophet of God? Was he right in saying that Blacks would never hold the priesthood until all the Whites have had a chance to and only after they were resurrected? He revealed plenty more than this, but let’s just take this one thing for now. It’s more than history. It was revealed by a prophet, it was believed by millions and to some degree it is still believed by Mormons. It’s in LDS scriptures. Brigham Young taught that it came from God, through him as God’s mouthpiece. Did God lie? Did God mislead Brigham Young for a spell and then change his mind with Spencer Kimball? If you would study the Bible, you would see that God doesn’t work this way. He says himself that he is not a God of confusion, nor a man that he should lie. Honestly you can’t believe Brigham Young was a true prophet and also believe that Spencer Kimball was a true prophet. They contradict one another. So which one is the true prophet and which one is the crazy Uncle???
I guess I am not talking about real Christians, just the “Christians” in your “Christian” club.
By every definition you folks use to say I am not a Christian now, I was a Christian then. You are the one who made up the definition and referred to all the “body of Christ” and it was these people who taught me when I was young.
But then again, you can say anyone you do not want in your club is not a “Christian” and you can get away with it BECAUSE YOU HAVE ADDED YOUR OWN WORDS TO GOD’S WORD AND TAKEN AWAY FROM HIS MEANING.
If you do not like what the people in your “Christian” club are teaching, you can join another club and still call yourselves “Christians.”
It must be nice to be able to pick and choose who you will allow in your club, I just do not see your actions here being Christ like.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
falcon says: – March 17, 2012 at 11:18 am – (They couldn’t get the big payoff of becoming gods.)
If you are referring to creating a family in the hereafter, I see you stopped your study when you found something that pleased you in putting down Mormons and you did not learn what we really believe happens in the hereafter, and then you added your own thoughts as if they were ours.
+++++++++++++++
Clyde,
We can only pray that these folks will want to learn more than the deceivers have told them to learn about our Church.
fred
fred,
We’ve been waiting for a long time for you to enlighten us but all we keep getting is vague innuendos and talking in Mormon code words. You have yet to present anything of substance. As an example:
“We can only pray that these folks will want to learn more than the deceivers have told them to learn about our Church.”
We get what we know about your church from your own church sources. I’ll repeat your problem. It isn’t that we don’t know about Mormonism, we don’t believe it. Your’ “learning and knowing” means believing, in your world. Where do you think grindael, who was a Mormon, gets all of his information? He quotes endlessly from Mormon sources as do the rest of us. Kate was a Mormon for forty years. She grew-up in the LDS church. I think she knows Mormonism. So this “deceiver” claim is just you blowing blue smoke.
Were you yelling this at your computer screen?
“BECAUSE YOU HAVE ADDED YOUR OWN WORDS TO GOD’S WORD AND TAKEN AWAY FROM HIS MEANING.”
fred are you really a Mormon? Do you know anything at all about the JST version of the Bible?
Honestly fred I don’t get much from your “Christian Club” rant. You’ve got some burr in your saddle that’s causing you a lot of irritation. My guess is that you left Christianity because someone offended you. Isn’t that the way it works in the world of Mormonism.
fred, you need to wise-up. You didn’t walk away from Christianity when you became a Mormon. What you really did was walk away from the Lord Jesus. You turned from the Living God to a god that doesn’t exist. He can’t turn you into a god any more than you can work to do it yourself.
(You’ve got some burr in your saddle)
Ya, having to listen to your pseudo-Christian ranting.
fred
fred,
I don’t know what denomination you belonged to or even if you showed up on a regular basis, but based on your lack of knowledge they ought to be arrested for malpractice.
Do you even have an inkling about how someone is saved?
This whole idea of jumping to different Christian clubs nonsense shows that you don’t have even a rudimentary knowledge of the basics of Christianity. You, as are Mormons generally, all hung-up on this “one true church” concept.
There is only one true church. As I’ve pointed out endlessly, the Church Of Jesus Christ is made up of all born again believers regardless of where they have their names on a membership roll. In terms of salvation, denominational membership is meaningless.
The basic problem with Mormonism and why Mormons aren’t considered Christians is directly related to the doctrine of the nature of God. That’s it. You can only be saved by the qualified Savior. The qualified Savior isn’t the Mormon Jesus; the offspring of a fictitious mother-father god, one of many gods according to Mormonism.
fred are we deceived about the Mormon doctrine of men becoming gods? Are we deceived about who Jesus is? Or fred, is it you who are deceived?
Clyde and Fred
I’ve been thinking about the two main reasons that I have heard for the Priesthood ban, The Ham curse and the non valiant preexistence (I actually had never heard of the non valiant thing before reading MRM, guess my corner of Utah is sheltered or something). I don’t think that either reason makes much sense and I wanted another couple of Mormons perspectives on my thoughts;
1) Bloodline Curse: This one doesn’t make any sense to me because of the second article of faith. If we’re punished for our own sins and not for Adam’s then why are those of African ancestry punished for Cain’s sin?
2)Non Valiant: This one also doesn’t make any sense to me because of the Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard. Why would it matter how “Valiant” one was in the preexistence? If you chose God and Jesus then you did it.
I ask you both specifically because I’m to young to remember the ban. It sounds like Fred was a member before then and I’m thinking that Clyde is older then me as well. Had people thought about things like this back then?
Clyde said
Clyde, as I said, it was not so much a question(s) posed by me, I was more quoting what you said and simply added that you should put your money where your mouth is and please fill us in an expound with evidence. You said we can find bad in good. So please explain what “Good” was said, and what Bad we found in it? then I said, you cannot answer that, or expound upon it because you cannot say what “Good” was said in those racist teachings, and how we added bad to it.
Here’s the main problem with all of the “it’s just how things were back then” or the “other Christians did way worse!” excuses… the LDS Church claims that they have the mouthpiece of GOD. That’s their kicker. That’s their selling point. If the prophet speaks on behalf of God, then it’s truth and therefore doctrine. This ban of blacks doctrine came straight from a man who is supposed to be getting revelation from God.
Other Christians during that time may have acted sinfully towards black people. Pastors may have taught sermons on something similar (black people being inferior). However, NONE of this lines up with the Bible… God’s Word already revealed. That is why Christians, today, can say that whoever treated these people badly were wrong. Like someone else on here said, this was not the viewpoint of EVERY Christian. There is individual accountability. I remember reading how Billy Graham was entering an arena for one of his crusades. He saw a separate line for blacks and asked why that was there and immediately got rid of it. He went against societal norms and did what Christ would have done. Treated all people fairly.
The problem the LDS Church faces is that this was doctrine revealed by the President of the Church, not just a personal view of some guy that went to their local ward. If this doctrine is now considered false, and (according to the Bible’s standards) it only takes one false prophecy to make a false prophet… then A+B=C, right? Or is it still the Church’s official view that blacks (although now allowed to hold the priesthood) are cursed and inferior?
Clyde,
You are right – there is no good in me. That’s why I need Jesus. There is none good but God. I am completely and utterly dependent on God’s mercy given to me in the cross of Christ. I truly believe this.
Kate
Read article 9 of the articles of faith. If what Brigham Young said was taught it seems to have not been emphasized to heavily or Utah could have become a center for the KKK.
4fivesola and Rick
People see good in you and possible admire you but no matter how good you are they can find the bad.
Clyde, Any good in me comes from Christ. If I claim to be a prophet, but then teach lies I do not know the Lord and I am deceived and a deceiver. Mormon prophets and apostles enshrined racist theology as Divine revelation, however, instead of revealed truth they were just following their culture. That is deception. They were not really receiving Divine revelation.
Clyde,
Funny how you say things but then never back then up, and funny how you quote the AoF yet when you said you trust the Bible, and I said, You LDS trust the Bible only as far as it is translated correctly, you not only accused me of belittling the Bible, You acted as if that was a saying by me. Then when I said it was your church that taught that, you acted like I was making it up. Funny how you quote your church’s AoF or any person for that matter when it suits you, but when we do, you guys act like you have no clue what were talking about and act like were making things up.
For fred’s sake and for any Mormon reading here, I’m going to take a run at this again.
fred, for some reason, is really hung up on this “one true church” scenario. I grew-up Catholic and heard that all the time; the Catholic church being the one true church. However I also learned that people of other faiths could seek salvation through Jesus Christ.
Now according to Catholic teaching at the time, once you were a Catholic you were always a Catholic and leaving the church doomed you. I don’t know where they are on that today since I’ve been out of the loop for 45 years.
None-the-less my point to fred is that he’s battling against Christian denominations because he sees these (denominations) as flawed. The interesting thing is that he can’t see any flaws in the Mormon church despite such glaring examples as the ban on blacks in the priesthood.
fred can make endless mind bending excuses for the Mormon church just to maintain his need for “the one true church” concept. If given the same alibi excuse making mind-set, I’m sure he could pronounce his former protestant denomination as pure and true.
Has anyone noticed that the Christian posters here rarely if ever mention a denomination. I know rick and Sharon personally and if you asked me what denomination they belong to I think I could take a guess at Sharon’s but I don’t have a clue about rick’s. And these are people who I have had face to face conversations with.
According to me, people need two things. First of all faith in the Jesus revealed in the Bible. Just any Jesus will not do. Secondly, they need a working knowledge of the Word of God. Not some willy nilly out of context verse grabbing approach.
Jesus did not establish a denomination. There is only one true church. Here I go again but at some point perhaps this message will penetrate the brain lock that Mormonism produces.
Born again believers in the Jesus revealed in the Bible are part of the one true church. It is not a church contained within a brick and mortar structure. Faith in Jesus results in a regenerated spirit. God comes and indwells the believer. As the Bible teaches, we are the temple of the Holy Spirit as a result of our faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.
Where two or more of us are gathered, Jesus told us that He is in our midst. It doesn’t have to happen at 10:00 AM on a Sunday morning inside some constructed edifice with a sign out front with a name on it.
I have friends who belong to a group that has no name. They meet in houses on Sunday and they have no clergy. They have “workers”. These workers depend on the benevolence of the group to support them. This may mean sharing a meal at someone’s house on Tuesday evenings. It may mean that a physician or dentist gives them free care.
Through out the NT there is a description of the church. The offices are given in Ephesians 4:11-13. The Gifts of the Holy Spirit along with instructions as to there use is given in First Corinthians 12, 13, and 14 for the church (i.e. believers) to function as the Body of Christ.
On-the-one-hand, Mormons have all sorts of tolerance for ambiguity with the doctrines, beliefs and practices of Mormonism. Mormons afford denominational Christianity no such tolerance.
fred, find Jesus and you’ll find His Church.
Clyde,
Don’t stop studying Brigham Young, he was an evil man. Read the Journal of Discourses. I have studied a lot about him. He wasn’t just evil against Blacks. He also wasn’t the only one, Joseph Smith had this to say: “Had I anything to do with the negro, I would confine them by strict law to their own species, and put them on a national equalization” (Joseph Fielding Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 270; History of the Church, 5: 218;)
TJayT,
I want you to ask yourself one thing, why didn’t you know about the whole non valiant thing? I was taught that in primary as a kid. It was talked about at home. It is Mormon doctrine. Blacks may be allowed to hold the priesthood now (what do you think about that contradiction?) but the less valiant thing in the pre existence is STILL doctrine and believed.
TJayT,
One more thing, if you didn’t know about the less valiant thing, what else don’t you know about? There were lots of things I didn’t know, and I was a Mormon for 40 years. Why the secrecy? This is what happens when you claim to be the ONLY ones who have the truth, the ONLY true church. Mormons are backed into a corner because of this. It means their leaders better be RIGHT on every doctrine and teaching they reveal, and clearly they are not.
What does the Mormon testimony consist of? It consists of five points which emphasizes faith in Joseph Smith, the BoM, the Utah based Mormon denomination, the current “prophet” and lastly (of course) someone called Jesus who isn’t the Biblical Jesus but the spirit offspring of one of the Mormon gods and one of his goddess wives who live on or near a planet called Kolob.
What does a Christian testimony consist of? It consists of the person confessing that they were lost in sin and separated from God and that coming to a point of repentance and faith in Jesus, have secured eternal life.
Note the difference.
Jesus is the focal point of the Christian testimony. There are no additions. It’s Jesus who is the Christian’s security. “Works” are a result of faith and a changed life. The Christian’s works are a living testimony to the Savior. If anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature. All the old has passed away. Everything is new.
Jesus said that you can’t put new wine in an old wineskin because the new wine will burst the old wineskin. That’s why a born again believer in Jesus becomes new.
There really is no place in Mormonism for a full on, sold out witness of the Lord Jesus. There is no place for adoration, praise, thanksgiving and prayer to the Savior.
Everything in Mormonism is in the context of the institutional Mormon organization and what that organization can do for a Mormon if they do all that the institutional church demands.
A Christian is a slave to Jesus Christ. A Mormon is a slave to the institution of Mormonism. A Christian serves Jesus as Lord and Savior. The Mormon serves the organization in the hopes that they can achieve the lie of becoming a god.
falcon says: – (We get what we know about your church from your own church sources)
Some of our Church sources, not all; your teachers tell you what you can study and what you should ignore, and then they tell you what conclusions to make from what you have read.
(My guess is that you left Christianity because someone offended you. Isn’t that the way it works in the world of Mormonism.)
No, I left the Protestant form of Christianity to follow Christ through His living Prophets.
You are correct about how many leave the LDS Church, they get offended by something, and then they expand their energy on finding ways to justify their decision.
(As I’ve pointed out endlessly, the Church Of Jesus Christ is made up of all born again believers regardless of where they have their names on a membership roll. In terms of salvation, denominational membership is meaningless.)
Thank you for helping with YOUR definition of your “Christian” club. As you say, those who believe like you are members of your club.
(fred, for some reason, is really hung up on this “one true church” scenario.)
And yet you said,” There is only one true church”, and the “Christian” club you belong to is the only true church.
(The Mormon serves the organization in the hopes that they can achieve the lie of becoming a god.)
This is something else the deceivers want you to believe, but the truth is that:
God’s Church, through Jesus Christ is here to serve God’s children.
(What does the Mormon testimony consist of?)
Two way communication with Heavenly Father through His Son Jesus Christ. The rest is just ways He uses to help us learn and grow.
He wants us to truly be joint heirs with Christ.
fred
TJayT says: ((I actually had never heard of the non valiant thing before reading MRM, guess my corner of Utah is sheltered or something).
No, your experience just goes to show how MRM makes a mountain out of a mole hill.
MaM says: – (If this doctrine is now considered false, and (according to the Bible’s standards) it only takes one false prophecy to make a false prophet… then A+B=C, right?)
We do not say it was false, that is the conclusion MRM and others want you to think we said.
As you do you’re A+B=C study, apply what you said to the NT as compared to the OT. If you follow the conclusions made by MRM and others, you will have to say the NT is false.
This is by their conclusion applied to God’s Word in the Bible, and not what I believe.
Rick B says – (You LDS trust the Bible only as far as it is translated correctly)
Since all English translations of the Bible do not agree with each other, WHICH TRANSLATION IS THE TRUE TRANSLATION? After all, I have heard it said that God will not allow a bad translation of the Bible.
You do believe that, or is that taught by someone else’s ”Christian“ club?
fred
fred’s tale of looking for the one true church is very instructive.
What fred should have been doing instead of wasting his time trying to find a religious sect that would answer all of his questions and fulfill all of his dreams, is encountering the Lord Jesus Christ and in so doing, giving himself to a deepening relationship with the Savior.
Instead he bumps into the Mormon church that, like many heretical religious sects, have available answers ready to all of life’s complex problems, tailor made for the confused and vulnerable.
If fred had had a deep and abiding relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ and understood the Scriptures he’d have blown off the Mormon church at first glance.
There’s a reason why fred keeps coming back here and it’s not to defend Mormonism because he hasn’t done much of a job of that and demonstrates daily that he really doesn’t know much about it.
I believe in the power of the Holy Spirit to draw people to the Lord Jesus. Unlike a born and bred Mormon, fred has had some exposure to who Jesus really is. Why does fred keep coming back here?
Personally I believe that God’s grace and calling are irresistible. I know this because I experienced it. After walking away from the Catholic church at the age of 20 and spending a few years hostile to God but loving sin, something miraculous happened. The hand of God was so heavy upon me that I had little choice but to surrender to Him. I was miserable and in emotional and spiritual pain. God brought me to a decision point and I chose Jesus. I never asked, “What is the one true church?” It’s an irrelevant question. The relevant question is, “Who is Jesus?”
Fred,
Were you part of the LDS religion when blacks were discriminated against? What was the reason you were given? What parts of what the Mormon prophets and apostles taught do you now accept? Can you pick and choose which of their teachings to believe or follow in all cases? In other words, if you thought the temple was just folklore, a wierd adaptation of Masonic rituals, could you toss it aside and relegate it to the opinion heap? With the low attendance in California and South America at LDS temples, I think many Mormons have already adopted this belief. These are just questions for your own self-reflection, no need for any response – just think about it.
4five,
Funny how this “perfect, one, true church” starts falling apart rather quickly when a person starts asking some probing questions instead of just swallowing the party line.
That’s why I put my faith and trust in the Lord Jesus Christ because he is truly perfect; without spot or blemish.
Even the Mormon god who lives on or near the planet Kolob was a sinner.
You know when you think about it, if the Mormon god is constantly progressing in knowledge, wisdom and truth that would pretty much explain why he’s able to pull the plug on polygamy and the ban on blacks in the priesthood. He just progressed. He received more light from the Mormon gods who are his up-line in this multi-marketing scheme known as Mormonism.
Really, since all things in Mormonism are “progressing” we can see where the current crop of Mormons can simply deep six all past revelations that don’t make the grade in today’s world.
That way this perfect and true church can ignore all of the scuff marks on its history. Those early Mormons just hadn’t progressed far enough.
Hay, I just did a pretty good job of thinking Mormon.
Thank you very much ladies and gentlemen!