Another Gospel

[Zakuska]

Chris-WA:

That doesn’t make sense because the Catholic Church has had black priests for centuries. And it has nothing to do with society. They were not worthy due to the curse of Cain, right? That’s what the Mormon church always taught.

No it was a Protestant teaching that was imported into Mormonism as converts where made. Like I said Joseph Smith Did Give the priesthood to a Black man. And becuase of the times and the nature of the beast with all of the Lynchings and such going on and the violence it was put on hold until the Lord could roll it out of the way. And put it under the feet of the saints.

 

[Zakuska]

edmondhall

This racial cursing is evidence of an apostate church, in my view.

Christ must be an Apostate then?!

Math 15
21 ¶ Then Jesus went thence, and departed into the coasts of Tyre and Sidon.
22 And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou Son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil.
23 But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us.
24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
25 Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me.
26 But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to cast it to dogs.
27 And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters’ table.

Yes I know… he does eventually gives into here plee but that still does not eleviate him calling her a dirty dog not worth of the crumbs from his table.

 

[Zakuska]

wademann

Gotcha.

 

[ben_dy]

Chris-WA:

That doesn’t make sense because the Catholic Church has had black priests for centuries. And it has nothing to do with society. They were not worthy due to the curse of Cain, right? That’s what the Mormon church always taught.

Our 4th Pope was Black… perhaps, as Mormonism is a distinctly American religion, the guy meant that Mormon American society wasn’t ready for a Black priesthood (which, recalling the hullabaloo, was likely true). In that context - marked with the various ‘curses’ of blackness making blacks unworthy of the priesthood - it justifies the (what word should I use?) “prohibition”.

 

[ben_dy]

Zakuska:

edmondhall

Christ must be an Apostate then?!

Math 15
21 ¶ Then Jesus went thence, and departed into the coasts of Tyre and Sidon.
22 And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou Son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil.
23 But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us.
24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
25 Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me.
26 But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to cast it to dogs.
27 And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters’ table.

Yes I know… he does eventually gives into here plee but that still does not eleviate him calling her a dirty dog not worth of the crumbs from his table.

No, you are - again - reading out of context and with no historical knowledge, it seems, of why the term “dog” would be used.

It seems you really ‘have it in’ for Christ and for His Gospel. I have to assume that you truly do believe that the Gospel of Christ in the BoM is “another gospel” and not “another testament”?

 

[ben_dy]

ben_dy:

Our 4th Pope was Black… perhaps, as Mormonism is a distinctly American religion, the guy meant that Mormon American society wasn’t ready for a Black priesthood (which, recalling the hullabaloo, was likely true). In that context - marked with the various ‘curses’ of blackness making blacks unworthy of the priesthood - it justifies the (what word should I use?) “prohibition”.

Make that 14th Pope - my finger skipped by the “1”!

 

[edmondhall]

Zakuska you’re stretching and contorting the Bible as if it were Gumby

First the verses you cite have nothing to do with a racial cursing that prevents a group from the priesthood because of their unworthiness. Remember, Acts 10:34–“God is not one to show paritiality”.

Second, you may want to conclude that section you cited–verse 28–where Jesus says to the woman, “Oh woman, your faith is great; be it done for you as you wish…” That doesn’t sound like a curse to me.

 

[edmondhall]

If the question, “how does Catholic teaching contradict Scripture” was posed to a fundamentalist, he/she would be on that in a second. The fundamentalist would focus on aspects of Catholocism that are not explicitly spelled out in the Bible–sacrament of reconciliation, Marian teachings etc. The problem for the fundamentalist is that he/she doesn’t appreciate doctrinal development. In other words, all those Catholic teachings can certainly be traced to the Bible, but the doctrines are not always explictly stated there. This bugs the fundamentalist, but maybe not the LDS. Maybe because the LDS are familiar with the concept of doctrinal development? Interesting.

From my own experience, I used to be a pretty conservative evangelical. At one point, I thought the Catholic Church was pretty much a ‘fallen away’ organization. When my first daughter was born I wanted to be sure she was raised in a church that was closest to the truth of Christianity. I bought a Catholic Catechism at Barnes & Noble and I was astonished at how ‘Biblical’ Catholocism is. Even the hardest teachings (for me) were clearly based in Scripture. Now I understand Catholcism IS the truth of Christianity and I thank God He led me to His church–to the fullness of His truth.

My point, I guess, is that it’s one thing to say the Catholic Church distorted the gospel and its teachings are an abomination to the truth of the NT. But it’s another thing to investigate precisely what the church teaches and the basis for those teachings.

 

[Chris-WA]

Zakuska:

No it was a Protestant teaching that was imported into Mormonism as converts where made. Like I said Joseph Smith Did Give the priesthood to a Black man. And becuase of the times and the nature of the beast with all of the Lynchings and such going on and the violence it was put on hold until the Lord could roll it out of the way. And put it under the feet of the saints.

This is a perfect example of revisionist history. What you claim completely flies in the face of everything we know about the Mormon Church’s history in regards to blacks and the priesthood. You claim that it was simply a cultural issue–that the church wasn’t ready to give blacks the priesthood due to the way things were back then. But reading Mormon history, it’s quite clear that this was not the reason given by the LDS leadership. They claimed that blacks were the decendants of Cain, a murderer, and were thus cursed with Cain’s mark–which they believed to be dark skin. This therefore made them unworthy of the priesthood. They also claimed that one was born as black into this world because they were less valient during the pre-existance during the war in heaven.

Now you seem to deny all of this and want to smooth it over by calling it a cultural issue? Well, I’ll tell you what–I completely agree with you. It was a cultural issue. Early LDS, just like many others of the day, saw blacks as inferior and unworthy, and certainly not worthy of their priesthood. But the leadership had to make up a supernatural reason for this so they concocted the stuff I mentioned in the first paragraph. This also explains why a hundred years or so later they had to make up a “revelation” from God ending the priesthood ban for blacks, which coincidentally was received during a time when the Mormon church was facing external societal pressure to start treating blacks better.

 

[bones_IV]

arieh0310:

Peter was most likely a widower too. Peter’s wife is never mentioned in Scripture, the only way we know he was once married is the references to his monther-in-law in Matthew 8 and Luke 4.

It actually documented that Peter’s wife became a virgin after the resurrection. There were also kids too in the family as well. Marriage is for everybody? I don’t buy that. They over look the passage where it states “Not everybody can except this word, only those to whom it is given.”

 

[arieh0310]

bones_IV:

It actually documented that Peter’s wife became a virgin after the resurrection. There were also kids too in the family as well. Marriage is for everybody? I don’t buy that. They over look the passage where it states “Not everybody can except this word, only those to whom it is given.”

How does one “become a virgin”? Where did I say that marriage is for everyone? I happen to fully support celebacy for those in Holy Orders (excluding the deaconate, of course).

 

[amgid]

Chris-WA:

Man, you really missed the boat on John 6, Amgid. John 6 so emaphasizes the literal presence of Christ body, blood, soul and divinity in the Eucharist that even many Protestant scholars now are being convinced.

And all I can say to that is that you have an extraordinary propensity for self-deception. I can see that debating with you will be a waste of time.

Why did many of Jesus disciples walk away when He made these incredible statements? Because Jesus was being quite literal. If Jesus were speaking figuratively, it would have been incumbent on him as a teacher to say, “Hey, wait a minute. I was being figurative. I didn’t really mean that you have to eat my flesh and drink my blood. It was a symbolic statement.”

Which is exactly what He did do in verse 63: “It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.” If you cannot see that, then that is obviously intentional, and I am wasting my time, and it is best to call it the day. Evidently you are not ignorant of the truth; neither do you lack the ability to comprehend the truth; but you just don’t want to know the truth. The Lord has made some comments about that in LDS scripture:

D&C 93:

31 Behold, here is the agency of man, and here is the condemnation of man; because that which was from the beginning is plainly manifest unto them, and they receive not the light.

32 And every man whose spirit receiveth not the light is under condemnation.
Therefore it is best to conclude with this comment which the Lord counseled His disciples to give in such occasions: “… notwithstanding be ye sure of this, that the kingdom of God is come nigh unto you” (Luke 10:11).

No, those people walked away because they couldn’t bear to hear what Christ was saying. “How can this man give us his flesh to eat? Who can hear it?” Jesus was being very literal, and those disciples couldn’t handle it, so they left.

Yes, at first they thought that, but after He had clarified His meaning in verse 63, they had no more excuse. Jesus had a habit of doing that sometimes to try both His friends as well as His foes, and to test how faithful they would be to Him. His teaching to Nicodemus about being “born again” is a case in point.

amgid

 

[Zakuska]

Chris-WA:

This is a perfect example of revisionist history. What you claim completely flies in the face of everything we know about the Mormon Church’s history in regards to blacks and the priesthood. You claim that it was simply a cultural issue–that the church wasn’t ready to give blacks the priesthood due to the way things were back then. But reading Mormon history, it’s quite clear that this was not the reason given by the LDS leadership. They claimed that blacks were the decendants of Cain, a murderer, and were thus cursed with Cain’s mark–which they believed to be dark skin. This therefore made them unworthy of the priesthood. They also claimed that one was born as black into this world because they were less valient during the pre-existance during the war in heaven.

Now you seem to deny all of this and want to smooth it over by calling it a cultural issue? Well, I’ll tell you what–I completely agree with you. It was a cultural issue. Early LDS, just like many others of the day, saw blacks as inferior and unworthy, and certainly not worthy of their priesthood. But the leadership had to make up a supernatural reason for this so they concocted the stuff I mentioned in the first paragraph. This also explains why a hundred years or so later they had to make up a “revelation” from God ending the priesthood ban for blacks, which coincidentally was received during a time when the Mormon church was facing external societal pressure to start treating blacks better.

Revisionist history?

Again you must not have read Wikipedia.

Protestants where teaching the Curse of Cain long before Mormons ever arived on the scene and they where using it to justify Slavery in the south.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_and_mark_of_Cain

Read some real history for a change.


Second the civil rights movement had long ended before the ban was removed. There was no preasure what so ever when the “revelation” came. (BTW… Enjoyed the quotes around that)

 

[Zakuska]

edmondhall:

Zakuska you’re stretching and contorting the Bible as if it were Gumby

You can call me Mr. Fantastic.

First the verses you cite have nothing to do with a racial cursing that prevents a group from the priesthood because of their unworthiness. Remember, Acts 10:34–“God is not one to show paritiality”.

Never said they where… Racial banning. They where tibal. Only Lervites could have the priesthood. And because these Levites could not prove who their Grand pappy was, adding insult to injury, they got defrocked.

Second, you may want to conclude that section you cited–verse 28–where Jesus says to the woman, “Oh woman, your faith is great; be it done for you as you wish…” That doesn’t sound like a curse to me.

He treated her with contempt and distain until she demonstrated her faith. He was very suprised how faithful this dirty Dog was. Scratched her behind the ear and patted her on the head, and sent her away wagging her tail.

 

[majick275]

So because pro-slavery protestants taught the “cursing of cain” that makes it okay for LDS up to and including JFS, Mark e. petersen, bruce mconkie, etc. to teach the same thing as “divinely inspired”?

The civil rights movement is STILL going on.
read newspaper

The pressure on the LDS in 1978 was serious on many levels. Lawsuits were threatened asking to revoke the LDS church tax exempt status. Universities were threatening to “shun” BYU both athletically and academically. Foreign governments were threatening to not allow missionaries. There was MUCH pressure to change. BTW, why haven’t we ever seen the “revelation” alluded to in spencer kimballs OD on this?

 

[Zakuska]

So because pro-slavery protestants taught the “cursing of cain” that makes it okay for LDS up to and including JFS, Mark e. petersen, bruce mconkie, etc. to teach the same thing as “divinely inspired”?

Never said that it was. Can a Prophet/Apostle teach false doctrine and still be a bonified servant of God?

Be carefull how you answer that. We would not want your Bible to end up a block of swiss cheese.

The pressure on the LDS in 1978 was serious on many levels. Lawsuits were threatened asking to revoke the LDS church tax exempt status. Universities were threatening to “shun” BYU both athletically and academically. Foreign governments were threatening to not allow missionaries. There was MUCH pressure to change. BTW, why haven’t we ever seen the “revelation” alluded to in spencer kimballs OD on this?

Documentation please?

How many Baptist congregations taught a segregated heaven? The South is largy still segragated to this very day.

The “preasure” came from an expanding church nothing more nothing less.

As we have witnessed the expansion of the work of the Lord over the earth, we have been grateful that people of many nations have responded to the message of the restored gospel, and have joined the Church in ever-increasing numbers. This, in turn, has inspired us with a desire to extend to every worthy member of the Church all of the privileges and blessings which the gospel affords.

scriptures.lds.org/od/2

 

[majick275]

in the interest of brevity I’ll post a link to what I consider an objective “LDS friendly” treatment of this.

signaturebookslibrary.org/neither/neither5.htm#Chapter%205

I am a native Texan I know about the south and it’s history, I have always had issues with the Southern Baptists here as well. I don’t accept anything form them as doctrinally significant. None of this excuses a caste system based on skin color.

It is the LDS church that claims that it’s prophet can NEVER lead the Church astray. (please explain Adam God theory , oops that’s false doctrine then)

I don’t recall the Bible ever showing a true prophet or Apostle being allowed to teach false doctrine to the church without swift correction. I believe in whole bible rather than a bible full of holes but I also believe in sacred tradition to help understand the Bible.

Your reference on expansion does point to the problem the LDS church had in Brazil of not reqally being able to tell who was eligible for the priesthood. I notice that this “scripture” never repudiates the doctrine either it just tells that the “promised” day has come when everyone can have the priesthood if they were otherwise eligible. and where is that revelation that he says he got directing this?

 

[Zakuska]

Lets see…

Paul gives his “opinion” as scripture on Marriage.Then later under strict orders has to recant.

Nathan tells David that God is with him and he can build the temple then latter has a dream and has to recant. (2 sam 7)

One of the things that got Joseph Smith killed was the slave issue. People on both sides of the fence where too rialed up about it.

All we know is the Cannites where cursed. And the Savior seems to exibit the same distain for them. Now… if the cannanites are actually Africians. I know that has been widley debated.

PS. My wife is Brazillian.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

"But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed."

I had to go back to the original post to figure out the topic. We’ve drifted so far afield in this conversation that it appears we’re only discussing issues related to the LDS priesthood. While the early withholding of an equal position from blacks may be some evidence of a “false gospel” it is not the only evidence. I would simply conclude that while it is presently doctrine to open the priesthood to all males regardless of race, it is a historical fact that the doctrine was contrary to that prior to 1978.

It seems to me that the *real * issue vis a vis “true gospel” versus “false gospel” as between Catholics and LDS is whether or not there was ever a “Great Apostasy” that occurred a short time after the death of the last of the Apostles. In other words, to support the LDS position, there must be some evidence that shortly before this alleged total apostasy the early christian church looked mormon. The historical evidence, however, is to the contrary. In fact, a review of the early church and its writers shows that the early church was distinctly Catholic. For example, one can look at its teaching on the trinity, the eternal divinity of Christ, infant baptism, the eucharist, the ministerial priesthood, and so on. Given the lack of historical evidence supporting an early total apostacy from the LDS form of christianity, there is no support for the position that the LDS has the true “restored” gospel.

I am still looking forward to a response to this question, although I have posted it in varying forms on other threads. To date, I have seen very little - if any - response to the substance of the argument. Instead I see attempts to divert focus to other tangential issues.

Simply put … where is the evidence of the “great apostasy” that gave rise to the need for the “restored” gospel that is taught by the LDS church?

 

[majick275]

with apologies to Robert, I say that since the DOCTRINE supporting the ban on priesthood still exists and has yet to be repudiated it IS evidence of “another Gospel”.

Zak’s references to Nathan and Paul show swift correction of their errors. Still waiting on the LDS.

Back to Robert…
I see no evidence of a universal Apostasy. A study of the development of LDS doctrine shows their own doctrine changing significantly during JS time and even continuing to present day. I don’t buy the “line upon line” reasoning for this either as we have examples of newer prophets claiming teachings of older prophets were false doctrine. (Adam God, etc.) The RLDS and FLDS both make compelling arguments regarding the Apostasy of the LDS from it’s own original doctrine.

The Catholic approach has been more focused on applying what Jesus orignally taught. (Don’t see anything in Bible or BoM from Jesus on eternal marriage, Temple Ceremony, vicarious work for the dead or many other unique LDS beleifs that are proclaimed as ESSENTIAL to exaltation.