Asa, question for you

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jerusha
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
majick275:
I can appreciate that and agree that things are different now. BUT the fact that past racist practices have never been repudiated and that the current BoM and BoA both still speak in such offensive terms about skin color is , to me at least, a significant problem.
Click to expand...
again why do our beliefs efect you i am not allowed to attack your church on this site so i will not. look at your history get those in authority to repent over your actions then come back and attack us.
 
I believe that has been done by Popes JPII and Benedict both.
I’m still not sure of your point here. I guess I’m looking for some “revelation” that either supports the original LDS position OR denounces past practice while still showing that previous LDS prophets were leading the LDS church by revelation from God.
I stay away from LDS sites and even “neutral” “bash boards”. I’m trying to question here. (apparently I’m expressing myself somewhat clumsily)
 
paul barlow:
…coloured people could be members but not priesthood holders. the injunction was put in place in the old testament and according to us was lifted in the 1970s…
Click to expand...
PB;

Do you realize that Jesus Christ was born of Mary - a semite. It is most likely the case that Mary had an olive complection and so would her child - Jesus. Thus, by your own rule Jesus would have been excluded from the LDS priesthood because he most definitely was “colored.”
 
Robert in SD:
PB;

Do you realize that Jesus Christ was born of Mary - a semite. It is most likely the case that Mary had an olive complection and so would her child - Jesus. Thus, by your own rule Jesus would have been excluded from the LDS priesthood because he most definitely was “colored.”
Click to expand...
and if the priesthood holder can prove he is a levite he is a bishop in our church. I don’t remember our church being called anti semitic in fact in our patriarchal blessing we are adopted into a tribe of israel. and as the saviour is the head of our church it would be a bit difficult to exclude him from the priesthood. Nice try 👍
 
Robert in SD:
PB;

Do you realize that Jesus Christ was born of Mary - a semite. It is most likely the case that Mary had an olive complection and so would her child - Jesus. Thus, by your own rule Jesus would have been excluded from the LDS priesthood because he most definitely was “colored.”
Click to expand...
jesus was Jewish well thats a shocker. the same as the jews in the gettos. no i had better stop or i will get kicked off the site
 
40.png
majick275:
I believe that has been done by Popes JPII and Benedict both.
I’m still not sure of your point here. I guess I’m looking for some “revelation” that either supports the original LDS position OR denounces past practice while still showing that previous LDS prophets were leading the LDS church by revelation from God.
I stay away from LDS sites and even “neutral” “bash boards”. I’m trying to question here. (apparently I’m expressing myself somewhat clumsily)
Click to expand...
can you show me were?
 
originally posted by Paul Barlow
i think and i am probably wrong its to do with cane being the father of the people of Canaan. Cane had made a deal with the devil ect. The injunctions are there but this not the point read my last post. this is now getting repedative.
Click to expand...
Yes, Paul the point IS about racisim and we are trying to get information from you of the “whys”.
Now. Please explain to us how the lds came to believe that Cain made a deal with the devil and why in 1970 the injuction against people of color was lifted and are now entitled to hold the priesthood.
We really are trying to get information here. We can’t understand if you tell us the lds believe or don’t believe something and then not explain.
 
40.png
catsrus:
Yes, Paul the point IS about racisim and we are trying to get information from you of the “whys”.
Now. Please explain to us how the lds came to believe that Cain made a deal with the devil and why in 1970 the injuction against people of color was lifted and are now entitled to hold the priesthood.
We really are trying to get information here. We can’t understand if you tell us the lds believe or don’t believe something and then not explain.
Click to expand...
well lets look at gen4:5-7. then heres the difficult bit except our scriptures and look up moses5:16-31. modern revelation.
you can read that at lds.org
and there is no racism in our church just to pass the message on again.
 
Okay. I read Gen. 4:5-7. That told me that Cain was resentful toward God and that God tells him that he can hold his head up if he does well, if not he is subject to sin. So that’s about all of us, no? Nothing about a deal with the devil.
I then went to lds.org, as you suggested and to the book of mormon.
There is no book of moses listed, only a book of mosiah. Chapter 5 of that book is only is showing 15 verses.
Back to square one.
 
40.png
catsrus:
Okay. I read Gen. 4:5-7. That told me that Cain was resentful toward God and that God tells him that he can hold his head up if he does well, if not he is subject to sin. So that’s about all of us, no? Nothing about a deal with the devil.
I then went to lds.org, as you suggested and to the book of mormon.
There is no book of moses listed, only a book of mosiah. Chapter 5 of that book is only is showing 15 verses.
Back to square one.
Click to expand...
go back and look in the pearl of great price. seperate book of our standard works. good luck
 
40.png
majick275:
Here are a few links. I can’t recall all of the times, places, etc. but surely this will show that I speak the truth on this.

cbc.ca/cgi-bin/templates/view.cgi?/news/2001/05/04/pope_su_010504

stanford.edu/group/wais/Religion/religion_pope.html

users.qwest.net/~landea/pope_apologizes_for_church.htm
Click to expand...
i agree totaly with the second article posted well said by your pope. we do all need to repent of past sins both personally and as churches. the third was in 1998 and you have work to do there still cases happening. but they are in every church we must find them and make sure that they can not hurt innocents again. They are good points well done
 
Okay. I looked the pogp up and found a discourse about Cain rejecting God and embracing Satan.
According to Gen. 4:5-7, it’s pretty much the same thing, but exaggerated in the pogp. So Cain becomes angry at God and follows after the sin of the world.
I did not see anything (in either book) resembling a deal of any kind. Cain doesn’t get anything out of his rejection of God (by murdering his brother in a jealous rage) but a hard life. So how does any of this point to anything to do with colored peoples, that they are somehow “bad” and to be denyed the priesthood?; at least untill 1970.
Help me out as I totally do not get any logic here.
 
Help me out as I totally do not get any logic here.
Click to expand...
Nor will you. Why? Becase the position of the LDS here is that the lds church does not, nor ever really have, taught anything “racist”; which is in clear contradiction to what their revealed scriptures and prophets have said.

Therefore, you have no logic, only untenble and unsupportable propositions being created by lds apologists with their heads deliberately in the sand.

What they are ‘selling’ you here is that when their prophets and accepted scriptures state that black skin is both a “curse” and “lothesome”, that this is not “racist”, simply “divine”. They will not conciously *or publicly * recognize what everyone sees; that these teachings are inseperable from “racism” of any definition or period of time.

Naturally, you are not going to follow their (name removed by moderator)ut on this subject (just like many others) through logic, as they are not using such to make their position. This is one of those subjects that requires them to turn a blind eye to their own faults, and try and blame it on individual sin (such as BY) or as being “progressive” relative to the supposedly “more egregious” racism of their neighbors.

This is also another area wherein the lds members, as individuals, are rejecting a part of their religious doctrine for their own preferred beliefs, either conciously or unconciously, apostasizing from their faith, and selling those who do not know better that their apostate/heretical veiws are the “real” teachings of their church, justified because they **do know ** that what the church is teaching them is wrong, and they are trying to cling to some measure of truth as they, for the most part, are sincerily trying to be what Christ has called everyone to be.

As Majick, Jerusha, and others are very subtly revealing, because the lds will not accept their sin, they are not repentant of it; therefore, in total spite of the individual beliefs and professions of racial equality and lack of racism, they are in fact continuing, enabling, and positively supporting the racism they so “revile” as an individual. No one wants to think that they are “racist” themselves, or that their racial preferrments are unreasonable, unnatural, or in any way “wrong”. Or, if you can keep them from closing their eyes to it, then they immediately attack everyone else’s racism, completely unaware of the impossible position this places them in, which you have seen in this thread, as well as in every thread where this subject (as well as others) crops up.

This is why it is being asked that the lds church openly repudiate their doctrine, rather than sweep it under the carpet through procedural changes in “practice”. This is why some are demanding an official apology, despite the inherent lack of sincerity or even viability (or ‘power’) that such an apology necessarily possesses.

Notice how the OD that gave blacks the preisthood does not repudiate or state that they never should have been denied the preisthood (as many of the apologists here want you to believe by telling you that it was “never doctrine to begin with”), but simply states that it is now ok to ordain them. The OD itself totally rejects the stated positions of many of the lds apologists here.

Of course, they will not see it that way, because they cannot; for to see it such is to recognize their own separation from their professed religion, and utter denial of the teachings of it.
 
Paul’s suggested assertion that the passages regarding black skin as a curse are simply a change in “metaphor” regarding our sinfulness clearly does not appreciate that which those scriptures are positively and undeniably asserting when looked at in their context. Those were “historical” passages, the record of the acts of God and man, not a homily or metaphorical sermon used to teach a higher truth symbolically. As some lds will wish to refute, first answer yourself this: what is the “metaphorical” meaning of the “flat nose” that was also granted along with the black skin?

Trying to equate literal “black skin” with the metaphor “black hearts” is a total breach of symbolic logic within the languages that use these phrases.

Even the most “innocent” interpretation I have seen in lds sources regarding the skin, was this was simply an attempt to create a rationale for the different skin colors that is incongruous with the “fact” of a single set of original parents, A&E.
 
**BJRumph, **thank you for your in depth answer.
I know that **Paul Barlow, **nor any lds, can rationally explain their position on race. But I thought to force an explaination of logic. Perhaps when he/they see that it cannot be explained, a ray of light may come through.
I highly doubt it though. They seem to just get angry and change the subject.
I will sit back on this today and see if Paul comes back with any answer to my post regarding the verses I looked up on his reccomendation. I really do want to know how the lds explain this to others.
 
catsrus said:
**BJRumph, **thank you for your in depth answer.
I know that **Paul Barlow, **nor any lds, can rationally explain their position on race. But I thought to force an explaination of logic. Perhaps when he/they see that it cannot be explained, a ray of light may come through.
I highly doubt it though. They seem to just get angry and change the subject.
I will sit back on this today and see if Paul comes back with any answer to my post regarding the verses I looked up on his reccomendation. I really do want to know how the lds explain this to others.
Click to expand...

if in doubt pray and ask somebody you may listern to.
 
catsrus said:
**BJRumph, **thank you for your in depth answer.
I know that **Paul Barlow, **nor any lds, can rationally explain their position on race. But I thought to force an explaination of logic. Perhaps when he/they see that it cannot be explained, a ray of light may come through.
I highly doubt it though. They seem to just get angry and change the subject.
I will sit back on this today and see if Paul comes back with any answer to my post regarding the verses I looked up on his reccomendation. I really do want to know how the lds explain this to others.
Click to expand...

i think i have made my point very clear we are not racist. we have never blamed any other race for our faults. if we sin we repent. who supported the indians when the US government were murdering them.
 
40.png
BJRumph:
Nor will you. Why? Becase the position of the LDS here is that the lds church does not, nor ever really have, taught anything “racist”; which is in clear contradiction to what their revealed scriptures and prophets have said.

Therefore, you have no logic, only untenble and unsupportable propositions being created by lds apologists with their heads deliberately in the sand.

What they are ‘selling’ you here is that when their prophets and accepted scriptures state that black skin is both a “curse” and “lothesome”, that this is not “racist”, simply “divine”. They will not conciously *or publicly * recognize what everyone sees; that these teachings are inseperable from “racism” of any definition or period of time.

Naturally, you are not going to follow their (name removed by moderator)ut on this subject (just like many others) through logic, as they are not using such to make their position. This is one of those subjects that requires them to turn a blind eye to their own faults, and try and blame it on individual sin (such as BY) or as being “progressive” relative to the supposedly “more egregious” racism of their neighbors.

This is also another area wherein the lds members, as individuals, are rejecting a part of their religious doctrine for their own preferred beliefs, either conciously or unconciously, apostasizing from their faith, and selling those who do not know better that their apostate/heretical veiws are the “real” teachings of their church, justified because they **do know ** that what the church is teaching them is wrong, and they are trying to cling to some measure of truth as they, for the most part, are sincerily trying to be what Christ has called everyone to be.

As Majick, Jerusha, and others are very subtly revealing, because the lds will not accept their sin, they are not repentant of it; therefore, in total spite of the individual beliefs and professions of racial equality and lack of racism, they are in fact continuing, enabling, and positively supporting the racism they so “revile” as an individual. No one wants to think that they are “racist” themselves, or that their racial preferrments are unreasonable, unnatural, or in any way “wrong”. Or, if you can keep them from closing their eyes to it, then they immediately attack everyone else’s racism, completely unaware of the impossible position this places them in, which you have seen in this thread, as well as in every thread where this subject (as well as others) crops up.

This is why it is being asked that the lds church openly repudiate their doctrine, rather than sweep it under the carpet through procedural changes in “practice”. This is why some are demanding an official apology, despite the inherent lack of sincerity or even viability (or ‘power’) that such an apology necessarily possesses.

Notice how the OD that gave blacks the preisthood does not repudiate or state that they never should have been denied the preisthood (as many of the apologists here want you to believe by telling you that it was “never doctrine to begin with”), but simply states that it is now ok to ordain them. The OD itself totally rejects the stated positions of many of the lds apologists here.

Of course, they will not see it that way, because they cannot; for to see it such is to recognize their own separation from their professed religion, and utter denial of the teachings of it.
Click to expand...
i am so glad to be inlightened by your clear logical views. we unlike you claim modern revelation. and you will find that the prophet asked about the priesthood for black members and in a deep and loving moment the lord revealed this doctrine. and when those bigoted members heard this declaration they shouted for joy. ask our coloured members if they are a subgigated by us racists. we need not apologise to you as you have no right to judge what we belive. when your church still condemns the jews for christs death. or has this teaching changed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top