yes i did. are you even familiar with genesis or did you just google black mormons to do some quote mining?The presenters are not mormon leaders.Did you listen to it?
Whyme, I read the ppt. And yeah, it is the same old tired spin.
I’m sorry but that’s not good enough if you’re going to consider these men to be true prophets. Whether or not it is doctrine doesn’t matter. I think it’s reasonable to expect that a true prophet teaches the truth when it comes to matters of faith. If your own prophets are unable to make correct interpretations of your scriptures, then what good are they? You can’t have it both ways. You can’t sustain your prophets as true if you can’t rely on what they say from the pulpit. It doesn’t have to be doctrine, but at the very least it should be a correct interpretation and explanation of doctrine. If you can’t count on that from them then I’m sorry but your prophets are worthless. The LDS church makes such a big deal about having a true prophet, called by God, at the helm, but if what you say is correct then the fine print should read, ***“Not to be believed unless directly dictating scripture!” ***It’s almost like you’re saying the truth doesn’t really matter.
Besides the speculation excuse, the one you just gave is the other way LDS can pick and choose which teachings to believe and which to ignore. I don’t buy your argument that their talks were recorded in error. Your own church published these things, not some fringe dissenting group. Please don’t try to muddy the waters by suggesting the talks were badly recorded. I just don’t buy it. You shouldn’t either. Stop making excuses for your prophets and take them at their word.
Yeah it’s different. Your church seems thinks it’s okay for a prophet to teach whatever pops into his mind, true or not, because it can always be dismissed later. If that’s what you really believe, then you don’t have true prophets at all.
Is that how the LDS church operates? Apostles independently publish their own books on doctrine without the approval of the prophet first? How do you think that makes you look?
I said that the presenters are not leaders in the lds church. They are no general authorities. This is what I meant.
The lds church has a different system than the catholic church. They have no catechism as the catholic church does. If god is a living god, then he will give guidence and direction to each generation and dispensation. This is how the lds interpret their beliefs. Very little is etched in stone.
That is true. But that doesn’t mean that the truths of the faith will change from one generation to the next. Truth transcends. God is truth and will provide a way for even the most flawed man to become his messenger to his people. As has already been said, if a prophet can’t be relied upon to faithfully transmit God’s eternal truths, then what good is he? A prophet that speculates and calls it doctrine is not a prophet at all. The fact that he declares his speculations to be doctrinal is a defining feature of a false prophet.
Sorry, but yes. Those are the only two answers.
Well, it would be interesting to know whether blacks that join the LDS church were aware of the church’s history with blacks prior to joining the church, especially the denial of the priesthood until 1978 for no other reason than the color of their skin. I’m betting most of them were not, as such things are not part of the missionary discussions, nor are likely to be brought up by a Mormon to a prospective new member. But then I think many LDS, white or black, are willing to let a lot go regarding church history in order to remain in the church. I think it has a lot to do with the psychology of a situation where you’re told again and again and again at every Sunday meeting that your church is the true church, and then when you find something out that doesn’t make the church look so good you can either: (1) ignore it because you can’t possibly stomach the possibility that everything you’ve vested your life in could be wrong, or (2) explore it further with the possibility that this could cause you to question and even leave the church and the huge social network that comes with it. Most choose # 1. A few choose # 2.
Well, it would be interesting to know whether people that join the Catholic church were aware of the church’s history with their Inquisition, the Crusades, the persecution of the Jews, the burning of witches and heretics, the evil Popes etc., prior to joining the church; especially the condemnation of infants to damnation for no other reason than their not having been baptized. I’m betting most of them were not, as such things are not part of the missionary discussions, nor are likely to be brought up by a Catholic to a prospective new member. But then I think many Catholics are willing to let a lot go regarding church history in order to remain in the church. I think it has a lot to do with the psychology of a situation where you’re told again and again and again at every Sunday meeting that your church is the true church, and then when you find something out that doesn’t make the church look so good you can either: (1) ignore it because you can’t possibly stomach the possibility that everything you’ve vested your life in could be wrong, or (2) explore it further with the possibility that this could cause you to question and even leave the church and the huge social network that comes with it. Most choose # 1. A few choose # 2.
actually all of these were discussed openly in RCIA. it is a lengthy process and ensures everyone knows exactly what they are getting into and this is truly where God is calling them. the biggest difference in your provocative “examples” is that Catholic doctrine had never changed and has never justified evil acts. so we can see that the true wrongs were committed by individual sinners who willfully violated Gods instructions. Mormon evils were claimed by self proclaimed prophets to BE Gods instructions and the doctrines were changed to reflect that so that sinning was considered a righteous act. then doctrines could be changed at later times to prevent prosecution. and again to be more marketable and again to justify the previous changes.
And yet evil acts were committed. In early European Christian history it was very difficult to separate the christian church from the government. Both acted hand in hand on many issues. Denying africans the priesthood cannot be considered an evil act and evil acts committed by the lds church seem to be no where to be seen.
After the collapse of the Roman Empire, Europe descended into the Dark Ages with many little kingdoms and warring rulers dotting the landscape. The only thing most of these little kingdoms had in common was their submission to the authority of the Church. Therefore the Church’s role in “government”, as you rather inaccurately term it, grew organically in response to the needs of the times. Contrast this with the early LDS Church, who arose in a highly evolved government based on peace and freedom, but was not able to get along within those parameters, and eventually had to remove themselves far out into the frontier so that their megalomaniacal leader, Brigham Young, could have himself dozens of wives and total control of his very own theocracy - and that at a time when theocracies were rare. Even medieval Europe with the influence of the Catholic Church at its height cannot be termed a theocracy.
Sure it can. Easy.
you are obviously in serious denial. the treatment of blacks in LDS DOCTRINE is evil. the government in early utah was mormon and so was nauvoo. there was bank fraud, adultery all over the place including pressuring young girls into the beds of old men through “revelation”, there is heresy all over the place, murders. if you think LDS never did evil acts you are wrong. LDS have evil doctrines are evil too. so which catholic doctrines are evil?
this contrast is interestinng. It seems like the mormon were adotpting a theocracy during an age when the whole idea of church control of secualr government was being rejected. The U.S. was an embodiment of this, with its specifically secualr gov’t. the anti-clerical aspects of the French Revolution and the Napoleonic era that followed it. The disembowelment of the Papacy’s control over lands and rulers, especially in Italy, which was mostly complete by the 1870s.
Not sure what you mean by that. You can’t have any “positions” until you are a member of the Church. And when you are a member, “positions” are given, not obtained. You don’t “try to obtain a position”. You wait until you are given one. The priesthood, however, is not a “position” at all! The priesthood is what enables you to serve in various different “positions”. And neither is “obtained,” but “extended” or “given”. You had got an awful lot of things wrong in that one.