Conversion to Mormonism?

[evanfaust]

You clearly have no understanding of Christian history. Mormonism is based on anti-Catholicism “the Great Abominable Church”, I see that in your description of the successors of the Apostles.

Wrong! Mormons did not originated from a protest against the Catholic Church…It was originated from Celestial visitors from Heaven. That is why Mormons are not in the same category as Protestants. Restoration and not protestation.

When you read the bible you are opening a Catholic bible which contents were decided by “a group of people; no matter how bright they were.” They also decided the day you will recognize as Easter.

They are not the same church…very little resemblance between Catholic Church and the Early Church of Christ. The Catholic church actually inherited the Bible from the early Christian church.

In 1909 James E. Talmage wrote The Great Apostasy, in which he gathered New Testament passages that Latter-day Saints have cited to show that a great apostasy was predicted by Jesus Christ, Paul, and other apostles and prophets (esp. Matt. 24:4-13, 23-26; Acts 20:29-30; Gal. 1; 2 Thes. 2:7-8; 1 Tim. 4:1-3; 2 Tim. 3:1-6;4:1-4; Jude 1:3-4; Rev. 13:4-9;14:6-7; and in the Old Testament, Amos 8:11-12).

Talmage also chronicled the persecution of early Christians that hastened the Apostasy and described the primitive Church as changing internally in several respects.

He argued that the simple principles of the gospel were mixed with the pagan philosophical systems of the day (Trinitarianism, resulting in the Nicene Creed; false opposition of body and spirit, creating excessive asceticism); that rituals were changed and added to in unauthorized ways (simple early Christian rites were replaced by complex pagan-influenced ceremonies; baptism by immersion was lost; the baptism of infants was introduced; communion was changed); and that church organization was altered (the apostles and prophets, the necessary foundation of the church of Christ, were martyred, leaving a void that could not be filled.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Well it is all about feelings for you. It isn’t for me.

The foundation of Christ’s Church are the twelve Apostles. So-called Mormon Apostles do not meet the criteria laid out in Acts. Your “Apostles” are pretenders.

Interesting that the LDS teachers guide and New Testament study guide both ignore the fact that Acts gives specific qualifications that a replacement for one of one of the twelve must meet in order to even be considered. Qualifications that no one on Earth these days could possibly meet. I’ve also seen that Mormons who post here assiduously avoid any discussion of the first chapter of Acts that lays out these specific qualifications.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Wrong! Mormons did not originated from a protest against the Catholic Church…It was originated from Celestial visitors from Heaven. That is why Mormons are not in the same category as Protestants. Restoration and not protestation.

They are not the same church…very little resemblance between Catholic Church and the Early Church of Christ. The Catholic church actually inherited the Bible from the early Christian church.

In 1909 James E. Talmage wrote The Great Apostasy, in which he gathered New Testament passages that Latter-day Saints have cited to show that a great apostasy was predicted by Jesus Christ, Paul, and other apostles and prophets (esp. Matt. 24:4-13, 23-26; Acts 20:29-30; Gal. 1; 2 Thes. 2:7-8; 1 Tim. 4:1-3; 2 Tim. 3:1-6;4:1-4; Jude 1:3-4; Rev. 13:4-9;14:6-7; and in the Old Testament, Amos 8:11-12).

Talmage also chronicled the persecution of early Christians that hastened the Apostasy and described the primitive Church as changing internally in several respects.

He argued that the simple principles of the gospel were mixed with the pagan philosophical systems of the day (Trinitarianism, resulting in the Nicene Creed; false opposition of body and spirit, creating excessive asceticism); that rituals were changed and added to in unauthorized ways (simple early Christian rites were replaced by complex pagan-influenced ceremonies; baptism by immersion was lost; the baptism of infants was introduced; communion was changed); and that church organization was altered (the apostles and prophets, the necessary foundation of the church of Christ, were martyred, leaving a void that could not be filled.

Talmage wrote a hateful anti-Catholic screed. His book shows just how deeply Mormonism is “protestant” in that it perfectly reflects every “protestant” complaint against the Catholic church.

 

[evanfaust]

This is why so many ex-Mormons become atheist or agnostic at best. They really have no idea who God is and many assume that Christians worship the same kind of god that Mormons worship.

Ancient texts have much to say about the appearance of God, but very little to suggest that he was once mortal. The first account to suggest that there is a tie between men and God is the biblical story of the fall, in which the serpent tempts Eve to eat the fruit of the tree by telling her that “God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil” (Genesis 3:5). That this part of the serpent’s speech was the truth is clear from Genesis 3:22, where the Lord himself says, “Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil.” Two medieval Armenian texts suggest that the serpent said a bit more than what is recorded in the Genesis story. The first of these texts is an account of the fall:

When Adam departed and was walking around in the garden, the serpent spoke to Eve and said, “Why do you taste of all the trees, but from this one tree which is beautiful in appearance you do not taste?” Eve said, “Because God said, ‘When you eat of that tree, you shall die.’” But the serpent said, “God has deceived you, for formerly God was man like you. When he ate of that fruit, he attained this great glory. That is why he told you not to eat, lest eating you would become equal to God.”

Another translator of this text rendered the serpent’s words, “God was a man like you. When he ate of the fruit of this tree he became God of all.” A second Armenian text records:

The serpent said to Eve, “Why do you eat of the fruit from every tree, but you do not eat of this beautiful fruit?” Eve said, “Because the Lord God commanded not to eat of that fruit. He said, ‘When you eat it, you will die.’” The serpent said, “God wants to deceive you, for God was like you, because he had not eaten of that fruit. When he ate it, he attained the glory of divinity. That is why he told you not to eat of that fruit, because you would become equal, sharing the glory and throne of God.”

fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2004-fair-conference/2004-the-king-follett-discourse-in-the-light-of-ancient-and-medieval-jewish-and-christian-beliefs

 

[taylorf]

Wrong! Mormons did not originated from a protest against the Catholic Church…It was originated from Celestial visitors from Heaven…

Wrong. Mormons originated out of the mind of Joseph Smith. You just believe the myth that Joseph created.

They are not the same church…very little resemblance between Catholic Church and the Early Church of Christ.

LOLOL…please show me where the early church practiced the endowment ceremony, taught that blacks were cursed, that God was once a human, that eternal marriage was necessary for salvation (let alone plural marriage), etc. Mormonism resembles NOTHING of the early church

In 1909 James E. Talmage wrote The Great Apostasy…

He was just as misguided as Joseph, Brigham, Wilford, and all the other apostles.

 

[taylorf]

Ancient texts have much to say about the appearance of God, but very little to suggest that he was once mortal. The first account to suggest that there is a tie between men and God is the biblical story of the fall, in which the serpent tempts Eve to eat the fruit of the tree by telling her that “God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil” (Genesis 3:5). That this part of the serpent’s speech was the truth is clear from Genesis 3:22, where the Lord himself says, “Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil.” Two medieval Armenian texts suggest that the serpent said a bit more than what is recorded in the Genesis story. The first of these texts is an account of the fall:

When Adam departed and was walking around in the garden, the serpent spoke to Eve and said, “Why do you taste of all the trees, but from this one tree which is beautiful in appearance you do not taste?” Eve said, “Because God said, ‘When you eat of that tree, you shall die.’” But the serpent said, “God has deceived you, for formerly God was man like you. When he ate of that fruit, he attained this great glory. That is why he told you not to eat, lest eating you would become equal to God.”

Another translator of this text rendered the serpent’s words, “God was a man like you. When he ate of the fruit of this tree he became God of all.” A second Armenian text records:

The serpent said to Eve, “Why do you eat of the fruit from every tree, but you do not eat of this beautiful fruit?” Eve said, “Because the Lord God commanded not to eat of that fruit. He said, ‘When you eat it, you will die.’” The serpent said, “God wants to deceive you, for God was like you, because he had not eaten of that fruit. When he ate it, he attained the glory of divinity. That is why he told you not to eat of that fruit, because you would become equal, sharing the glory and throne of God.”

fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2004-fair-conference/2004-the-king-follett-discourse-in-the-light-of-ancient-and-medieval-jewish-and-christian-beliefs

So you believe the words of the serpent? So did Adam and Eve. Look at where that got them.

 

[zaffiroborant]

He argued that the simple principles of the gospel were mixed with the pagan philosophical systems of the day (Trinitarianism, resulting in the Nicene Creed; false opposition of body and spirit, creating excessive asceticism); that rituals were changed and added to in unauthorized ways (simple early Christian rites were replaced by complex pagan-influenced ceremonies; baptism by immersion was lost; the baptism of infants was introduced; communion was changed); and that church organization was altered (the apostles and prophets, the necessary foundation of the church of Christ, were martyred, leaving a void that could not be filled.

What false opposition of body and spirit, you are doing nothing more than spouting the same hateful misrepresenting of Catholic teaching that I see from members of the LDS church everywhere online. Even Mormon apostates show hints of the same misrepresentations, is that what you “learn” in Sunday school. Apparently LDS are among those hateful religions that spend time every Sunday teaching their members what is wrong with other religions.

When it comes to changing things, if you are going to bring in questionable charges about changes in baptism then in all fairness lets bring up changes in Mormon “ordinances”. Let’s discuss why the Mormon church changed endowments from a completely naked bath given to a member, to a member standing naked under a sheet, to a member standing in their underwear.

 

[iepuras]

Ancient texts have much to say about the appearance of God, but very little to suggest that he was once mortal. The first account to suggest that there is a tie between men and God is the biblical story of the fall, in which the serpent tempts Eve to eat the fruit of the tree by telling her that “God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil” (Genesis 3:5). That this part of the serpent’s speech was the truth is clear from Genesis 3:22, where the Lord himself says, “Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil.” Two medieval Armenian texts suggest that the serpent said a bit more than what is recorded in the Genesis story. The first of these texts is an account of the fall:

When Adam departed and was walking around in the garden, the serpent spoke to Eve and said, “Why do you taste of all the trees, but from this one tree which is beautiful in appearance you do not taste?” Eve said, “Because God said, ‘When you eat of that tree, you shall die.’” But the serpent said, “God has deceived you, for formerly God was man like you. When he ate of that fruit, he attained this great glory. That is why he told you not to eat, lest eating you would become equal to God.”

Another translator of this text rendered the serpent’s words, “God was a man like you. When he ate of the fruit of this tree he became God of all.” A second Armenian text records:

The serpent said to Eve, “Why do you eat of the fruit from every tree, but you do not eat of this beautiful fruit?” Eve said, “Because the Lord God commanded not to eat of that fruit. He said, ‘When you eat it, you will die.’” The serpent said, “God wants to deceive you, for God was like you, because he had not eaten of that fruit. When he ate it, he attained the glory of divinity. That is why he told you not to eat of that fruit, because you would become equal, sharing the glory and throne of God.”

fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2004-fair-conference/2004-the-king-follett-discourse-in-the-light-of-ancient-and-medieval-jewish-and-christian-beliefs

Seriously? Are you really saying that Satan told the truth to Adam and Eve about God and the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil? Have you not gotten the memo that Satan is the father of lies?

Further evidence that Joseph Smith was found his inspiration from someone other than God.

 

[iepuras]

What false opposition of body and spirit, you are doing nothing more than spouting the same hateful misrepresenting of Catholic teaching that I see from members of the LDS church everywhere online. Even Mormon apostates show hints of the same misrepresentations, is that what you “learn” in Sunday school. Apparently LDS are among those hateful religions that spend time every Sunday teaching their members what is wrong with other religions.

When it comes to changing things, if you are going to bring in questionable charges about changes in baptism then in all fairness lets bring up changes in Mormon “ordinances”. Let’s discuss why the Mormon church changed endowments from a completely naked bath given to a member, to a member standing naked under a sheet, to a member standing in their underwear.

And the removal of the blood oaths and and five points of fellowship. And the change of the garment from a one piece garment that went to the wrists and ankles to two pieces that have short sleeves and go to the knees.

 

[zaffiroborant]

man like you

. When he ate of that fruit, he attained this great glory. That is why he told you not to eat, lest eating you would become equal to God.”

Another translator of this text rendered the serpent’s words, “God was a man like you. When he ate of the fruit of this tree he became God of all.” A second Armenian text records:

What translator, if you make a claim you should provide a link to substantiate it and I don’t want a link to FAIR, they will pick out the little bits and rearrange them to suit them. Provide a link so we can read the whole thing and evaluate this in context.

 

[evanfaust]

Interesting that the LDS teachers guide and New Testament study guide both ignore the fact that Acts gives specific qualifications that a replacement for one of one of the twelve must meet in order to even be considered. Qualifications that no one on Earth these days could possibly meet. I’ve also seen that Mormons who post here assiduously avoid any discussion of the first chapter of Acts that lays out these specific qualifications.

*Since an apostle is a witness of Christ and Christ’s resurrection from the dead, how can Latter-day men qualify as apostles? Have they seen Christ? If so why don’t they say so?
*

Many of our Christian brothers and sisters use this supposed requirement to eliminate the LDS apostles as real apostles, and they attempt to use the Bible as the basis for their rejection. How do we respond? Let us take a look at what the Bible says regarding the matter. Most of the critics will use Acts 1:21-26:

Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection. And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen, That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place. And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.

The problem here is Acts 1 does not lay down this criterion for all future apostles. Paul, of course, would not meet this requirement, yet I’ve never met a Christian that didn’t view Paul as an apostle.

Regarding the replacement of Judas, it appears that there was a group of men who did indeed met this criterion, from which they selected Barsabas and Mathias. Now if this is all we knew about additional apostles, it might be a tough call. But this is not the case.

Most LDS critics will admit that Paul was an exception. And while doing so, declare the requirements stated in Acts 1 null and void for future apostles. Paul did not accompany the original apostles from the baptism by John to the day He ascended into heaven.

For some reason, however, the critics claim that this is the lone exception and thus, the Lord would not allow any others. Certainly, one is free to make such a claim, but the Bible contains no foundation for it.

Regardless, all can usually agree that Paul is an exception.

But were there other Apostles? Did we see the pattern continue? Well, up to now, we are certain of 14 Apostles (the original 12, Matthias and Paul). Let’s take a look. First, there was Barnabas. Acts 14:14 records,

“Which when the apostles, Barnabas and Paul, heard of, they rent their clothes, and ran in among the people, crying out,”

There was also Apollos, mentioned in 1 Corinthians 4:6-9,

And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another…For I think that God hath set forth us the apostles last, as it were appointed to death: for we are made a spectacle unto the world, and to angels, and to men.

Then, there was James, the brother of Jesus Christ, who was not one of the original Twelve (there were two other apostles named James). Galatians 1:19, Paul says, “But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord’s brother.” And there was Silvanus and Timotheus. This one slips by some people. In 1 Thessalonians, we find Paul, Silvanus, and Timotheus, writing to those in Thessalonica:

Paul, and Silvanus, and Timotheus, unto the church of the Thessalonians which is in God the Father and in the Lord Jesus Christ: Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ. We give thanks to God always for you all, making mention of you in our prayers; (1 Thessalonians 1:1-2)

Then later, we find them referencing themselves as Apostles…

But as we were allowed of God to be put in trust with the gospel, even so we speak; not as pleasing men, but God, which trieth our hearts. For neither at any time used we flattering words, as ye know, nor a cloke of covetousness; God is witness: Nor of men sought we glory, neither of you, nor yet of others, when we might have been burdensome, as the apostles of Christ. (1 Thessalonians 2:4-6)

There are two others that could be considered apostles, but it’s not absolutely clear, given the language used by Paul in Romans 16:7. But that could be another two.

So, let’s see, where does that leave us? Using the New Testament text, we have found at least 19, perhaps 21, men with the title of apostle. Did all 19 or 21 see the resurrected Lord? We don’t know. If they did, it is not recorded in our current New Testament.

Suffice it to say, there were several other Apostles, in addition to the original 12. And while the original 11 (minus Judas) were chosen from men who had been with Christ throughout His ministry, this was never declared a universal requirement and we have numerous examples of apostles who don’t meet that requirement.

Apostles are special witnesses of Christ, chosen by God to testify, to lead and teach His children and to manage the affairs of His Church. Whether it be 2000 years ago when they wore robes and sandals, or today when they wear suits and ties, apostles are special witnesses of Christ and we are blessed to have them on the Earth today.

fairmormon.org/perspectives/publications/ask-the-apologist-must-all-apostles-literally-see-christ

 

[zaffiroborant]

*Since an apostle is a witness of Christ and Christ’s resurrection from the dead, how can Latter-day men qualify as apostles? Have they seen Christ? If so why don’t they say so?
*

Many of our Christian brothers and sisters use this supposed requirement to eliminate the LDS apostles as real apostles, and they attempt to use the Bible as the basis for their rejection. How do we respond? Let us take a look at what the Bible says regarding the matter. Most of the critics will use Acts 1:21-26:

Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, Beginning from the baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection. And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen, That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place. And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.

The problem here is Acts 1 does not lay down this criterion for all future apostles. Paul, of course, would not meet this requirement, yet I’ve never met a Christian that didn’t view Paul as an apostle.

Regarding the replacement of Judas, it appears that there was a group of men who did indeed met this criterion, from which they selected Barsabas and Mathias. Now if this is all we knew about additional apostles, it might be a tough call. But this is not the case.

Most LDS critics will admit that Paul was an exception. And while doing so, declare the requirements stated in Acts 1 null and void for future apostles. Paul did not accompany the original apostles from the baptism by John to the day He ascended into heaven.

For some reason, however, the critics claim that this is the lone exception and thus, the Lord would not allow any others. Certainly, one is free to make such a claim, but the Bible contains no foundation for it.

Regardless, all can usually agree that Paul is an exception.

But were there other Apostles? Did we see the pattern continue? Well, up to now, we are certain of 14 Apostles (the original 12, Matthias and Paul). Let’s take a look. First, there was Barnabas. Acts 14:14 records,

“Which when the apostles, Barnabas and Paul, heard of, they rent their clothes, and ran in among the people, crying out,”

There was also Apollos, mentioned in 1 Corinthians 4:6-9,

And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another…For I think that God hath set forth us the apostles last, as it were appointed to death: for we are made a spectacle unto the world, and to angels, and to men.

Then, there was James, the brother of Jesus Christ, who was not one of the original Twelve (there were two other apostles named James). Galatians 1:19, Paul says, “But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord’s brother.” And there was Silvanus and Timotheus. This one slips by some people. In 1 Thessalonians, we find Paul, Silvanus, and Timotheus, writing to those in Thessalonica:

Paul, and Silvanus, and Timotheus, unto the church of the Thessalonians which is in God the Father and in the Lord Jesus Christ: Grace be unto you, and peace, from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ. We give thanks to God always for you all, making mention of you in our prayers; (1 Thessalonians 1:1-2)

Then later, we find them referencing themselves as Apostles…

But as we were allowed of God to be put in trust with the gospel, even so we speak; not as pleasing men, but God, which trieth our hearts. For neither at any time used we flattering words, as ye know, nor a cloke of covetousness; God is witness: Nor of men sought we glory, neither of you, nor yet of others, when we might have been burdensome, as the apostles of Christ. (1 Thessalonians 2:4-6)

There are two others that could be considered apostles, but it’s not absolutely clear, given the language used by Paul in Romans 16:7. But that could be another two.

So, let’s see, where does that leave us? Using the New Testament text, we have found at least 19, perhaps 21, men with the title of apostle. Did all 19 or 21 see the resurrected Lord? We don’t know. If they did, it is not recorded in our current New Testament.

Suffice it to say, there were several other Apostles, in addition to the original 12. And while the original 11 (minus Judas) were chosen from men who had been with Christ throughout His ministry, this was never declared a universal requirement and we have numerous examples of apostles who don’t meet that requirement.

Apostles are special witnesses of Christ, chosen by God to testify, to lead and teach His children and to manage the affairs of His Church. Whether it be 2000 years ago when they wore robes and sandals, or today when they wear suits and ties, apostles are special witnesses of Christ and we are blessed to have them on the Earth today.

fairmormon.org/perspectives/publications/ask-the-apologist-must-all-apostles-literally-see-christ

And where is it that Paul includes himself as one of the twelve? Where does member of the twelve list Paul as a member?

 

[iepuras]

Apostles are special witnesses of Christ, chosen by God to testify, to lead and teach His children and to manage the affairs of His Church. Whether it be 2000 years ago when they wore robes and sandals, or today when they wear suits and ties, apostles are special witnesses of Christ and we are blessed to have them on the Earth today.

fairmormon.org/perspectives/publications/ask-the-apologist-must-all-apostles-literally-see-christ

LDS apostles are no longer special witnesses of Christ. They are now special witnesses of the name of Christ. Check out the Gospel Principles manual. The change was made a few years ago. I’m not even sure what a witness to a name even means or entails.

You are also confusing the apostles and the Twelve. Apostle simply means “sent”. All of the Twelve were apostles but not all the apostles were part of the Twelve. This is how Paul and the others were apostles but not part of the Twelve. Mary Magdalene is also the apostle to the apostles because Jesus sent her to tell the apostles of the Resurrection.

So do you believe the LDS apostles have actually seen Jesus?

 

[debbie_h]

All you have to remember is the LDS “god” makes decisions based on money.

cancelling polygamy and blacks getting the priesthood after lds prophets had made horribly racist comments for years are just two examples.

but there are other examples. One of my all-time favorites is the lds god telling mormons that they HAD to pay for and build a house for js.

Of course, js is the one who told them that god had ordered them to build his house.

I love that…

Just curious, did the ban on black people only apply to those of African descent or to all people of ‘colour’ of various races?

 

[RebeccaJ]

There are a couple of ways: When he says, “Thus saith the Lord,”

Alma

Are you sure?

 

[RebeccaJ]

Interesting that the LDS teachers guide and New Testament study guide both ignore the fact that Acts gives specific qualifications that a replacement for one of one of the twelve must meet in order to even be considered. Qualifications that no one on Earth these days could possibly meet. I’ve also seen that Mormons who post here assiduously avoid any discussion of the first chapter of Acts that lays out these specific qualifications.

A lot has to be ignored in order to be a Mormon.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Just curious, did the ban on black people only apply to those of African descent or to all people of ‘colour’ of various races?

LDS teaching subscribes to an interpretation of Scripture that was used to defend the enslavement of Africans. In a nutshell, it goes like this:

• God marked Cain with a curse of black skin.
• One of the sons of Noah was married to a descendent of Cain. These descendants are the African race
• Being a cursed race, it’s ok to mistreat people from Africa (God approves)

Brigham Young and subsequent LDS leaders adopted this interpretation of Scripture, and added to it distinct Mormon beliefs:

• in a pre existence, the less than valiant/righteous spirits were assigned bodies with darker skin, and born to parents of African descent, as punishment for their actions/beliefs in a pre existence
• this “curse” is an indicator from God that Mormon “higher ordinances” and priesthood should be withheld
• In the Mormon idea of heaven, the resurrected people of African descent will be servants of the men who have become gods

Of course, there is a lot wrong with all of this, beginning with it flies in the face of the teachings of Jesus. It also ignores that Cain wasn’t marked by God as a curse, but as protection, and the mark itself is never described. A scar, a birthmark, a tattoo, one eye blue and one eye brown, a Sharpie smiley face?..the speculation could be endless. Mormons have chosen to go with a speculation that comes from slavers.

 

[TexanKnight]

And where is it that Paul includes himself as one of the twelve? Where does member of the twelve list Paul as a member?

and still there is no answer to the fact that the lds church does not have 12…they have 15, including the alleged prophet

 

[TexanKnight]

Wrong! Mormons did not originated from a protest against the Catholic Church…It was originated from Celestial visitors from Heaven. That is why Mormons are not in the same category as Protestants. Restoration and not protestation.

Really? what visitors? was it one visitor? or two? was there one angel with the visitor? or were there many angels? Was js 14, or 15? or 16? Your problem is, your church is based on a vision that even js could not get straight

In 1909 James E. Talmage wrote The Great Apostasy, in which he gathered New Testament passages that Latter-day Saints have cited to show that a great apostasy was predicted by Jesus Christ, Paul, and other apostles and prophets (esp. Matt. 24:4-13, 23-26; Acts 20:29-30; Gal. 1; 2 Thes. 2:7-8; 1 Tim. 4:1-3; 2 Tim. 3:1-6;4:1-4; Jude 1:3-4; Rev. 13:4-9;14:6-7; and in the Old Testament, Amos 8:11-12).

You quote a Mormon “apostle” and believe that is persuasive? I have read the book, it has little to do with reality. I read it when I was lds and did not think it was very logically conceived. It did not research and come to a conclusion. It had the conclusion the manipulated facts to fit the conclusion

 

[debbie_h]

LDS teaching subscribes to an interpretation of Scripture that was used to defend the enslavement of Africans. In a nutshell, it goes like this:

• God marked Cain with a curse of black skin.
• One of the sons of Noah was married to a descendent of Cain. These descendants are the African race
• Being a cursed race, it’s ok to mistreat people from Africa (God approves)

Brigham Young and subsequent LDS leaders adopted this interpretation of Scripture, and added to it distinct Mormon beliefs:

• in a pre existence, the less than valiant/righteous spirits were assigned bodies with darker skin, and born to parents of African descent, as punishment for their actions/beliefs in a pre existence
• this “curse” is an indicator from God that Mormon “higher ordinances” and priesthood should be withheld
• In the Mormon idea of heaven, the resurrected people of African descent will be servants of the men who have become gods

Of course, there is a lot wrong with all of this, beginning with it flies in the face of the teachings of Jesus. It also ignores that Cain wasn’t marked by God as a curse, but as protection, and the mark itself is never described. A scar, a birthmark, a tattoo, one eye blue and one eye brown, a Sharpie smiley face?..the speculation could be endless. Mormons have chosen to go with a speculation that comes from slavers.

Thank you for your response,
Does this also include the ‘lamanites’ as per the BOM?