H
hosemonkey
Guest
You are still wrong. The only justification that Joseph Smith had for inventing mormonism was that there had been a “great apostacy.” As usual, he was wrong.
- Status
M
majick275
Guest
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priesthood_of_all_believers
there is no evidence of a time when Christians ran out of ordained priests or bishops. the total apostasy would have to at the very least be a time with no valid bishops. (the successors to the apostles) we have a pretty well documented chain of bishops from the apostles to the present
A
AMDGtoo
Guest
I too feel that you haven’t gotten it. Perhaps a reading of the Catechism of the Catholic Church will help. Article 6 (paragraphs 1536-1600) deal with the two forms of priesthood–the ministerial (given in Holy Orders by laying on of hands) and the separate common priesthood (that we all share by reason of our Baptism). The common priesthood of the baptized is also covered. (paragraphs 1546-1547 and paragragh 1591 specifically addresses it).
Oh, don’t forget to read the footnotes (my favorite). There you’ll find quotes by early Church Fathers, Bibilical References, and citations of documents and Council decrees
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
The priesthood, as you think of it, lives in the Sacrament of Holy Orders. The priesthood, as it truly is, extends to all who have been baptized. This is a mystical union, and if you think of it as a “club”, as Mormons seem to do, then you won’t understand it.
A practical example of how we participate in the priesthood are the Sacraments. The Eucharist and Marriage, are two that are very obvious to non-Catholics. They are more than rituals.
What is not obvious, and what you seem to have just discovered, is that we see our participation in the priesthood as a part of the living Church. I am sure you have read or heard the Catholic phrase, Body of Christ. It is not a descriptive phrase. It is an actual, mystical, belonging. We belong to the Body of Christ, by virtue of our baptism, and the belonging enables us to share in all He has, including the priesthood.
A practical example of how we participate in the priesthood are the Sacraments. The Eucharist and Marriage, are two that are very obvious to non-Catholics. They are more than rituals.
What is not obvious, and what you seem to have just discovered, is that we see our participation in the priesthood as a part of the living Church. I am sure you have read or heard the Catholic phrase, Body of Christ. It is not a descriptive phrase. It is an actual, mystical, belonging. We belong to the Body of Christ, by virtue of our baptism, and the belonging enables us to share in all He has, including the priesthood.
R
RAR
Guest
Hi rmcmullan,
I began this thread to try to understand the perspective of those who believe in a Great Apostasy. I’ve learned a few things and I think that part of (let’s just say at least my confusion) is that the concepts are understood differently by the two parties, in this case the Catholics and LDS. I better understand now that the LDS hold the position that apostolic authority was lost because of the idea that the ordained fell away and none were left to pass on the keys (correct?). Then it wouldn’t matter if orthodox Christians remained… am I on the right track?
By the way, I wasn’t referring at all to the “common” priesthood the othes are discussing.
RAR
T
teancum79
Guest
I’m starting to wonder if you ever read the BoM. It does not teach that. It teaches very clearly that Salvation is available for all. For you and others to only quote parts of the scriptures in an effort to make us look bad is quite rude. When I used the same tactic to make a point you all get upset. If someone believes the BoM they need to believe all of it not just a few verses.It relates, in that it shows you how Jesus was not acting as you are interpreting.
This goes along with your BoM and teaching that people who are righteous have fair skin, and those cursed by God have dark skin.
.
Jacob condemned his people for judging because of their skin color. Yet you and other here seemed to have missed that part. Once again salvation is for all bond free male female black white etc. You seem to miss that too. It does teach that on one occasion dark skin was used by the Lord as a mark so that group A could tell who was in group B. In Moses’s time God just had Group A knock off most of group B. Here the Lord provides for the laminates to return to him which they do and do well. The BoM records that at times the “white guys” where much more wicked than the the not so white guys. On one occasion it teachers that a different mark was used to separate people. Yet Paul claimed that dark skin is always used. This distortion of the truth is very offensive.
If one is selective enough in their search they can come up with all sorts of bad information. One person concluded that Christ was gay. Others have used Christ teachings to justify their sexism others paint Christ as a feminist some see him as God others the son of God others a man and others a myth. The truth is there but when we only look at small parts and ignore the rest we come up with error.
I don’t expect you to believe that we are right, but I do insist on fair honest representations on what we do believe. The church as a whole not the odd wacko or words unreliably attributed to a church leader.
M
majick275
Guest
you act as if no LDS leaders ever provided “further light and knowledge” on this subject. BY with the BoM in hand preached extensively on this. John Taylor, Joseph F. Smith and many others taught what this meant and how to apply it. Mark E petersen was quite outspoken on the issue, going so far as to define what “salvation for all” really meant.I showed you where Spencer Kimball taught on this. i think you misrepresent what LDS teaching is and has been. why is lineage so important in patriarchal blessings? the abrahamic covenant? mormonism is very much about God’s covenant race, a chosen land, etc. it is not only racist but nationalistic. it is predominantly for white americans. this is easy to see. deny it all you want but aside from the token euro, dieter uchtdorf (who is BTW very aryan) your church is led by white americans. that you have patronizingly assembled a number of native americans and pacific islanders to preside over doesn’t change that.
R
Ravyn_Guiliani
Guest
T
teancum79
Guest
how about some quotes that are from the church leaders in their official capacity.
Personal speculations and opinions are just that. They do not carry the weight of scripture for most LDS people.
Unreliable sources like the Jod are little more than hearsay.
Linage is important to us there are no two ways about it, but linage does not = racism.
If you take the time to look you will notice that the church has many people from many races. As time goes by more and more people are gaining the experience and abilities to lead and are “rising in the ranks”. It is counter productive to take a faithful able man from Mexico and put him in Salt Lake and than import a man back from the States to run things in Mexico.
As more members join and more people have the skills and abilities to lead there will be more diversity.
I suppose you will accuse of of being ageist next as much of the quorum of the twelve are elderly. Oh and you know what most of them are well educated a clear sign of discrimination. And Sexist they are all men. Classist they all wear suits in their official duties . Boy are we bad people we think God can pick people who are able to get the job done rather then playing the politically correct games with rules that change every day. Oh I forgot homophobic all the upper church leaders are straight.
M
majick275
Guest
[/QUOTE]how about some quotes that are from the church leaders in their official capacity.
Personal speculations and opinions are just that. They do not carry the weight of scripture for most LDS people.
the JoD is NOT hearsay. those are general conference talks it is still quoted from in current LDS lesson manuals. in any case i hadn’t even resorted to good old brigham in the JoD. i gave you mark e petersen addressing the LDs educators as an Apostle, I gave you Spencer Kimball in the ensign from his general conference talk, i gave you Joseph Fileding Smith from doctrines of salvation…these aren’t “personal speculations” and if they were you would have an even bigger problem as how can “oracles of the lord” go around spouting false doctrine?
all part of the pattern. an elitist organization with degrees you can aspire to. (with Joseph smith’s approval that is)
i took the time. for many years. are you even aware of how many “faithful able men” from salt lake are running things overseas? that still doesn’t address the issue of global leadership.
you act like this is a new phenomenon. for many generations you have had pac island members in great numbers. same for south and central america and europe. they won’t rise through the ranks.
no PC here just facts. i challenge the “get the job done”. just compare the vibrant local ward of the 70’s with raodshows and stake tournaments for softball and basketball, paid building custodians and workable callings with the dry shells of today’s “mission field”. look at convert retention rates, baptisms per full time missionary, full time missionaries/member, activity rates, etc. where are the important revelations by the living prophet? number of earrings? spending church funds on hoffman’s forgeries and a new shopping mall? please… who you trying to kid. a bunch of elitist snobs from the morridor all pompously live wealthy lives off of the highest per capita tithing church in the world. (i’ll give you that at least)I suppose you will accuse of of being ageist next as much of the quorum of the twelve are elderly. Oh and you know what most of them are well educated a clear sign of discrimination. And Sexist they are all men. Classist they all wear suits in their official duties . Boy are we bad people we think God can pick people who are able to get the job done rather then playing the politically correct games with rules that change every day. Oh I forgot homophobic all the upper church leaders are straight.
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
Hi Teancum,
Yes, this is the “enlightened” view of current Mormonism, which fails to address what your church has taught. Again, I know what it taught, because I was taught it.
I am not out to slander the LDS church, but neither do I pretend like it is something it isn’t.
To your other points. The JoD is BY speaking in his position. It contains his sermons from General Conference and other church functions. It’s express purpose was to provide the teachings of a prophet to those outside of the US. If this is not official, what is? Your own church uses the JoD throughout your CES, does this indicate something to you about its “officialness”?
Or, are you saying only what can be found at lds.org? If that is the case, then yes, today the view softens what your church has taught. It has to, or the criticism of your church would be more than people typing away on the internet.
It is your prophets and apostles who have taught these sort of things. I believed when I was younger that “Lamanites”, ie ALL Native Americans (not the,ok,some people we don’t know who, position of today), were descendents of a cursed people. That belief was tested by my friendships with Navajo girls of my age. I was taught that the descendants of Cain are those of African descent, and that they had indeed made poor choices in the pre-existence. I was taught that because of this, they could not, and never would, be able to participate fully with God in the Celestial kingdom.
If you find this offensive, well duh, so do I.
Yes, this is the “enlightened” view of current Mormonism, which fails to address what your church has taught. Again, I know what it taught, because I was taught it.
I am not out to slander the LDS church, but neither do I pretend like it is something it isn’t.
To your other points. The JoD is BY speaking in his position. It contains his sermons from General Conference and other church functions. It’s express purpose was to provide the teachings of a prophet to those outside of the US. If this is not official, what is? Your own church uses the JoD throughout your CES, does this indicate something to you about its “officialness”?
Or, are you saying only what can be found at lds.org? If that is the case, then yes, today the view softens what your church has taught. It has to, or the criticism of your church would be more than people typing away on the internet.
It is your prophets and apostles who have taught these sort of things. I believed when I was younger that “Lamanites”, ie ALL Native Americans (not the,ok,some people we don’t know who, position of today), were descendents of a cursed people. That belief was tested by my friendships with Navajo girls of my age. I was taught that the descendants of Cain are those of African descent, and that they had indeed made poor choices in the pre-existence. I was taught that because of this, they could not, and never would, be able to participate fully with God in the Celestial kingdom.
If you find this offensive, well duh, so do I.
T
teancum79
Guest
Apparently you’ve made up your mind on this already, but you should know that the church tries to avoid sending a lot of US money elsewhere as it may influence people to join because of money not faith. I’ve meet several of the church leaders. Funny not all of them white or American (various 70’s quorums).
And yes there have been a lot of people from the states going elsewhere, but there are issues of leadership and experience that can not be addressed overnight. Your 1st dozen (preferably 2-3 dozen) or so worthy males are needed to run the local ward or branch. Than you get s stakes which take more people. After that we get into regional representatives who many of whom of late I can’t even start to pronounce their names. Only after all these levels of leadership are filled can the church reasonably call people to be a general authority. Given the large number of converts from the US Canada and the UK many of whom settled in Utah it is not odd that there are more able “white US guys” than other parts of the world.
I don’t think we are going to agree on the nature of the writings you quoted as all to often they are unofficial and/or taken out of context. Also the assumption that such words trump fully the words of scripture shows a clear lack of understanding of the LDS view.
And yes there have been a lot of people from the states going elsewhere, but there are issues of leadership and experience that can not be addressed overnight. Your 1st dozen (preferably 2-3 dozen) or so worthy males are needed to run the local ward or branch. Than you get s stakes which take more people. After that we get into regional representatives who many of whom of late I can’t even start to pronounce their names. Only after all these levels of leadership are filled can the church reasonably call people to be a general authority. Given the large number of converts from the US Canada and the UK many of whom settled in Utah it is not odd that there are more able “white US guys” than other parts of the world.
I don’t think we are going to agree on the nature of the writings you quoted as all to often they are unofficial and/or taken out of context. Also the assumption that such words trump fully the words of scripture shows a clear lack of understanding of the LDS view.
M
majick275
Guest
the GA’a were explaining what those scriptures meant. the “joy” that the lamanites were becoming white and delightsome. the explanation that poor performance in the pre-existence caused people to be born black, the assurance that faithful obedient black people could go to the celestial kingdom…as servants. these are repudiated where? all you have is an OD that doesn’t claim revelation even. you still have a BoM that even with “revisions” (funny that the most perfect book written needed those) still directly assigns dark skin as a mark to identify those who are cursed due to ancestral sin. (interesting how this is reconciled with the articles of faith by claiming “less” valiance in the pre-existence). you still have the PoGP claiming the “curse” of Cain living on in the form of black skin.
your leaders have taught for years, not as men but “oracles of the lord”, what these things mean. you have no correction or repudiation of these by current leaders. only the OD position that all worthy men can hold the priesthood and go to the temple. if you look at how many generations of people have lived even in places overseas with temples i think your argument on leadership pales. in fact i think you dispel the myth of “fastest growing” about the LDS. they may be getting members on paper but they still have to bring in leadership from the morridor. these units are not self sustaining. they exist on paper to comfort the tithepayers. mormonism is a shrinking aberration like the shakers. a white american restorationist church with no more claim to prophecy than the JWs.
T
teancum79
Guest
The JoD was a recored of conference, but it was recorded poorly Thus it is subject to having many errors in it. Given the general opinion in much of society about some races it is possible that the recored was “improved” to make a point. I can’t say if this happened or not but given the errors I find in books (I’ll leave my own writing out of this) that are checked and rechecked for accuracy it is almost impossible that a book from 150ish years ago would not have errors.
Other statements made by some church leaders are their personal opinions. Among the most famous in “Mormon Doctrine”
It however had errors in it. As I’ve heard it the church asked that some of them be fixed because they where very wrong.
I’m making no claim to everyone being perfect or to the church having no one past or present with racial bias, but I do not see the hatred and racism that so many seem to think defines the church.
If you where not taught that the Laminates are a blessed people than your teachers needed to read their scriptures. The BoM is full of promises for those people in particular and to all nations and people in general .
As far as the Cain/African thing I’ve read some speculations, but I’ve yet to see from any reliable source that any of these people where to be denied the full blessings of the gospel in the next life, though many did not have access to the priesthood for a time. It is possible that some read more into this than was there, but that does not change the basic doctrines.
Many have and still do read a whole lot into men having the priesthood and attempt to abuse this fact to dominate and control women. The church has and still teaches that doing so is wrong, but the problem has not gone away. This is not an error in church doctrine, but a weakness of people who are trying to do better.
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
When my parents were on a mission in rural Arkansas, they were there to serve as the leadership of a very small branch. My dad was simultaneously bishop, EQ pres, sunday school pres, etc. My mom was simultaneously RR pres, sunday school secretary, primary pres, etc. (you know the usual gender based leadership roles).
A few months before they left, my dad said there was no one who could take over and that the branch would be integrated into a ward that was 60 miles away. There were 2 men in the branch, but he said they couldn’t lead (they both had major mental health issues). Right before they left, they baptized the husband of one of their branch members. He was baptized, confirmed, ordained to a high priest and made branch president, all within a few weeks.
T
teancum79
Guest
WOW you went all over the world and personally verified how many people are not coming to church. I wish I had talents like that.
I find it interesting that often when I talk with someone about an issue of the church that if I stand my ground for more than 5 min they launch an attack on a scarcely related topic.
Your conclusions are in error, but sense you seem to believe that you have supper powers that defy the basic laws of physics and probability I don’t suppose rational conversation will resolve our disagreement.
R
RebeccaJ
Guest
You can believe that if you wish. This isn’t like we’re taking something from papyrus, translating it into a different language, and then printing it. There are original copies of the JoD around. The online versions are directly taken from these originals. You can find one yourself and buy it if you wish.
Also, you would do well not to trust what is being said to you in conference then, especially if you are a non-English speaker. I have a friend who translates Indonesian for the LDS church conferences. He receives the talks during the week before the conference and translates them himself. Then, during the conference he listens and translates as the person is speaking. Some of the talks he does not receive before hand, so his translation is entirely from what is said.
By your logic, people in Indonesia should not pay attention to anything my friend is translating.
Same goes for what is printed in your Ensign, and online at lds.org. There is room for human error there…garbage in, garbage out.
Yes, and it still comes to the question: How do you know, today, when your prophet and apostles are speaking opinion, or speaking for God?
I have had quite an in depth conversation before on this topic. And I understand that you believe the Holy Spirit guides you, as an individual. However, there remain very distinct occasions, such as the Adam/God doctrine. Where Brigham Young taught clearly, and very succinctly, that what he taught on this was God’s truth, without a doubt and not his personal opinion. Orson Pratt disagreed, quite vocally and publicly. There was division among the Apostles at the time. All claimed to be receiving guidance from the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit cannot reveal one thing to one person and another to another person. So, who was right? A prophet speaking for God, or Orson Pratt who was receiving personal revelation? And how do you know this is happening, now, in your lifetime?
I saw it in my lifetime, where when I was younger, I was taught the things I already told you about. It wasn’t once or even twice, it was infused in every class I had. A part of the curriculum. So no, it wasn’t the mistake of one person, it was your church, teaching me and others.
This is something I can agree with, in the sense that, if you try to find the doctrine for black men NOT having the priesthood, it isn’t there. Not as you are looking for it. It IS there, in the form that we are telling you it is. What your prophets and apostles taught. Today, you are calling it speculation. So, what are your speculations today that you are calling “doctrine”?
Stephen168
New member
M
majick275
Guest
no need. the stats are readily available and you know it.
so are you "standing your ground or launching the attack? interesting that no one can handle more than 5 minutes of your words on mormonism.
nope. i just learned the truth after many years of searching. hopefully you will too.
- Status