How to Evangelize Mormons

[Peter_J]

Matt Slick’s CARM section on Mormonism is very extensive, but Slick is also very anti-Catholic.

If there’s one thing I’ve learned from my years on discussion forums, it’s that some things ought to be ignored (or Ignored).

 

[Horton]

Mormons aren’t evangelizable. They are taught anything against their beliefs comes from the devil, and also they have no fathom of church history. They were fed lies about The BOM when it is so obviously fake. I read it and I swear to God Joseph Smith couldn’t stop himself from saying “it came to pass”. The Book is a forgery, The View of the Hebrews" which was published five years before is basically the same story. Might as well call that scripture since it came first, difference the author wrote it as fiction. Pretty sure if the BOM was true there’d be some archeological sites found. And oh yah anachronisms such as animals and weapons that didn’t even exist in the Americas at the time wouldn’t be present. It’s all so ridiculous, plus why do they accept the New Testament which was decided on by the Church if an apostasy happened after the Apostles died? I mean how can they trust bishops from the 5th century on what is scripture and what is Not? Talking to them is like talking to a little kid who just contradicts themselves. It’s kind of funny but also kind of sad. Just pray for them. They follow a false prophet. Jesus warned us about them. Many heresies have come and gone in the history of the Church. Mormonism and JW are probably the worst heresies right now but the Church is Gods and always prevails.

Hi jas84173, I’m one of “them” that you’re referring to.

I can’t say I really appreciate the uncharitable way you’re portraying me and mine here. I mean, you don’t even know me, yet you pronounce me not evangelizable? You insult my knowledge of church history?

I’d hope if you took the time to actually talk to me, rather than talking about me, the experience would be a bit more than “talking to a little kid who just contradicts themselves”.

Not feeling any Christlike love here, friend…

It may not feel Christ like but the truth is not always warm & fuzzy. I’ve never know a practicing Mormon who could be evangelized, and I’ve known many.

The BoM is so full of inaccuracies that even the LDS have changed the most prefect book to clear things up. If the BoM is so questionable then how can anything resulting from it be truth.

I’ve questioned the acceptance by the LDS of a bible complied by the Catholic Church AFTER the “great apostasy”. If the Catholic Church failed shortly after it founding by Christ why would you accept a bible complied after? I get the LDS use the KJV version but the KJV is just another translation of the Vulgate, not a direct translation but still a translation. Why does that not bother the LDS people?

The changing doctrine in accordance with the times. Does that not draw questions about the truth of the LDS? I’ve belonged to two major religious in my life time. The first a mainline Protestant, and now Catholic. In neither has doctrine changed. Practices have but not doctrine. The truth is the truth, it doesn’t change.

In reading the Gospels I’m continually amazed at the number of times Jesus warns against false prophets. Do the LDS just skim over those warnings? All of those can not be mistranslations.

I would, just once, get direct answers to my questions.

 

[Fiasco]

I would, just once, get direct answers to my questions.

Best of luck. It might be a world first.

Galatians 1:8-9

…But even if we or an angel from heaven or an alleged resurrected personage]…

Rev. 14:6 has been used to justify the wholesale ditching of 2,000 years of teaching, but God doesn’t contradict Himself.

 

[gazelam]

Too much in this comment to pass up…

Jesus Christ did not establish his Church just to let it fadeaway and then restore it by some boy in upstate New York.

Acts 20:29 I know that after my departure savage wolves will come among you, and they will not spare the flock. (Apostasy)

Acts 3:21 whom heaven must receive until the times of universal restoration of which God spoke through the mouth of his holy prophets from of old. (Restoration)

It is insulting to the martyrs who died for the faith throughout the ages, it is heresy man.

In 1834 in the home of Edward Stevenson, Joseph Smith came across “The Book of Martyrs” by John Foxe. Brother Stevenson recorded the Prophet’s remarks in reference to Christian martyrs massacred during the Dark Ages:

“*While looking over our copy of a large English Book of Martyrs, he expressed sympathy for the Christian martyrs and a hope for their salvation. He asked to borrow the book, promising to return it when he should meet us again in Missouri.

On returning it he said, ‘I have, by the aid of the Urim and Thummim, seen those martyrs. They were honest, devoted followers of Christ, according to the light they possessed. They will be saved.*’” (Hyrum L. Andrus, They Knew the Prophet, pg. 83)

And then the prophet shoots at people. I never remember any prophets in the Bible shooting at people. They were fine with rejection and death. Read Jeremiah.

OK. How about if you read 1 Kings 18?

1. The LORD’s fire came down and devoured the burnt offering, wood, stones, and dust, and lapped up the water in the trench.
2. Seeing this, all the people fell prostrate and said, “The LORD is God! The LORD is God!”

40 Then Elijah said to them, “Seize the prophets of Baal. Let none of them escape!” They seized them, and Elijah brought them down to the Wadi Kishon and there he slaughtered them.

Seriously man, think! I’m not trying to be rude but sometimes it needs to be laid out straight to us. It is a heresy. The Catholic church has made mistakes in the past but we are human. God’s Church has corrected itself. No apostasy ever occurred.

Pope Adrian VI stated in 1522:

"We know well that for many years things deserving abhorrence have gathered round the Holy See. Sacred things have been misused, ordinances transgressed, so that in everything there has been a change for the worse." (Pastor, History of the Popes, 14:134, as quoted in Durant and Durant, The Age of Faith, 381)

 

[gazelam]

Wait!! There’s more…

And Isaiah says there are no God’s besides me. If he is aware that he was just a mortal at one time and other God’s exist, why lie?

Here is an ample response from FAIR Mormon found at en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_the_nature_of_God/%22No_God_beside_me%22

Passages such as Isa 44:6,8 and 45:5,21 that read “no God beside me” or a variation of that phrase are traditionally interpreted by mainstream anti-Mormons as meaning that other than Yahweh no form of deity exists at all, including exalted men. This type of interpretation at first seems obvious, but after considering similar passages in other parts of scripture it is clear that this interpretation is incorrect.

For example, Isaiah 47:8-10 depicts the city of Babylon as saying:

Therefore hear now this, thou that art given to pleasures, that dwellest carelessly, that sayest in thine heart, I am, and none else beside me; I shall not sit as a widow, neither shall I know the loss of children:

For thou hast trusted in thy wickedness: thou hast said, None seeth me. Thy wisdom and thy knowledge, it hath perverted thee; and thou hast said in thine heart, I am, and none else beside me.

These passages use the exact same phrase as Isa 44 and 45, yet they certainly do not exclude the existence of any city other than Babylon. The city of Ninevah would be very upset if this were the case, as Zephaniah depicts Ninevah in Zephaniah 2:15 as saying:

This is the rejoicing city that dwelt carelessly, that said in her heart, I am, and there is none beside me: how is she become a desolation, a place for beasts to lie down in! every one that passeth by her shall hiss, and wag his hand.

Again it is clear that this phrase does not exclude the very existence of other cities. Using these parallel phrases makes it clear that Isaiah is not excluding the very existence of any other deity when he quotes Yahweh as declaring “there is no God beside me.” There are, in fact, several scriptures in the Old Testament that imply that Yahweh is in fact one of a number of Gods, albeit supreme. Compare the following passages from the KJV, NIV and ESV versions of the Bible:

And the heavens shall praise thy wonders, O Lord: thy faithfulness also in the congregation of the saints. For who in the heaven can be compared unto the Lord? who among the sons of the mighty can be likened unto the Lord? God is greatly to be feared in the assembly of the saints, and to be had in reverence of all them that are about him. O Lord God of hosts, who is a strong Lord like unto thee? aor to thy faithfulness round about thee? (KJV Psalms 89:5-8)

The heavens praise your wonders, O LORD, your faithfulness too, in the assembly of the holy ones. For who in the skies above can compare with the LORD? Who is like the LORD among the heavenly beings [fn. Lit "sons of god(s)]? In the council of holy ones God is greatly feared; he is more awesome than all who surround him. O LORD God almighty, who is like you? You are mighty, O LORD, and your faithfulness surrounds you (NIV Psalms 89:5-8).

Among all the gods there is none like unto thee, O Lord; neither are there any works like unto thy works (Psalms 86:8).

God has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods he holds judgment (ESV Psalms 82:1)

God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods. (KJV Psalms 82:1)

These scriptures speak of divine beings, “gods” who are the “sons of god(s)” who are heavenly beings who dwell in the skies. These cannot be idols or false gods. Yahweh dwells among them, reigns over them, and holds judgment in their midst.

 

[Stephen168]

The Apostles passed on their authority to their successors. The Church combated apostasy and heresy, and still does to this day.
gazelam;14016155:

What has the RCC done to correct the invalid ordinances during the time of Pope Adrian VI?

"We know well that for many years things deserving abhorrence have gathered round the Holy See. Sacred things have been misused, ordinances transgressed

, so that in everything there has been a change for the worse." (Pastor, History of the Popes, 14:134, as quoted in Durant and Durant, The Age of Faith, 381)

What specifically are you talking about? What do you mean by “invalid ordinances”? What does the author you quote mean? As well, I hope you understand that Catholics do not use the word “ordinances” in the same way Mormons do, and they may very well not even be talking about what you think they are talking about (i.e., we speak of “sacraments”, not “ordinances”, and “ordinances” may be referring to laws or something else). So, what are you talking about, and what is the point?

With no response from gazelam

The Catholic church has made mistakes in the past but we are human. God’s Church has corrected itself. No apostasy ever occurred.
gazelam;14544792:

Pope Adrian VI stated in 1522:

"We know well that for many years things deserving abhorrence have gathered round the Holy See. Sacred things have been misused, ordinances transgressed, so that in everything there has been a change for the worse.

" (Pastor, History of the Popes, 14:134, as quoted in Durant and Durant, The Age of Faith, 381)

You were not able to explain what the author meant by this quote the last time you cut and pasted it. Yet, you do it again the same way.
Another case of a Mormon cherry picking a quote which seems on the surface to conform to their testimony. Faith over reason.

 

[Vonsalza]

Acts 20:29 I know that after my departure savage wolves will come among you, and they will not spare the flock. (Apostasy)

In fuller context:

Acts 20:28 Take heed to yourselves, and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
29 I know that, after my departure, ravening wolves will enter in among you, not sparing the flock.
30 And of your own selves shall arise men speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.
31 Therefore watch, keeping in memory, that for three years I ceased not, with tears to admonish every one of you night and day.

So “watch out” because the Church and it’s faithful will be attacked, even by others who claim “Christianity” (like Mormons)? Sounds like a different verse of the same song of “The Plight of the Righteous”. Literally been going on since Cain and Abel. No “great apostasy” required.

Acts 3:21 whom heaven must receive until the times of universal restoration of which God spoke through the mouth of his holy prophets from of old. (Restoration)

Again, in wider context:

Acts 3:18 But those things which God before had shewed by the mouth of all the prophets, that his Christ should suffer, he hath so fulfilled.
19 Be penitent, therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out.
20 That when the times of refreshment shall come from the presence of the Lord, and he shall send him who hath been preached unto you, Jesus Christ,
21 Whom heaven indeed must receive, until the times of the restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of his holy prophets, from the beginning of the world.

Often a little sunlight is the best disinfectant.

In 1834 in the home of Edward Stevenson, Joseph Smith came across “The Book of Martyrs” by John Foxe. Brother Stevenson recorded the Prophet’s remarks in reference to Christian martyrs massacred during the Dark Ages…

So he stuck his face in the hat again and the two “seer rocks” spoke to him about that? I’ve always liked the “seer stone” idea. Where are they? Brigham Young once said “Joseph said there is a [seer] Stone for every person on Earth.” I want mine.

I’ll ask it where I can find the remains of the 4500 year old Mormon Submarine.

 

[Horton]

These pages show the inability of Mormons to answer a question directly and simply. The picking and choosing of select verses in the bible to attempt to prove they are right. Yet when shown the verse in full context…No response.

When asked a direct simple question…No response.

When a statement is refuted with the truth…No response or even more twisting of the facts.

Is this how the LDS get converts? Twist and circle a reasonable person until they are incapable of discerning what is truth or what is false?

 

[gazelam]

With no response from gazelam

You were not able to explain what the author meant by this quote the last time you cut and pasted it. Yet, you do it again the same way.
Another case of a Mormon cherry picking a quote which seems on the surface to conform to their testimony. Faith over reason.

Psalms 44:16 All day long my disgrace is before me; shame has covered my face

“sacrament” and “ordinance” are often used as synonyms .

synonyms.net/synonym/sacrament

The terms sacrament and ordinance, in the religious sense, are often used interchangeably; the ordinance derives its sacredness from the authority that ordained it, while the sacrament possesses a sacredness due to something in itself, even when viewed simply as a representation or memorial.

Synonyms:
ceremony, communion, eucharist, Lord’s Supper, observance, ordinance, rite, service, solemnity

dictionary.reverso.net/english-synonyms/ordinance%20[sacrament]

ordinance
1 canon, command, decree, dictum, edict, enactment, fiat, law, order, precept, regulation, rule, ruling, statute
2 ceremony, institution, observance, practice, rite, ritual, sacrament, usage

dictionary.com/browse/ordinance

Ecclesiastical.

an established rite or ceremony.
a sacrament.
the communion.

See thesaurus.net/sacrament
See thesaurus.plus/synonyms/sacrament
See en.oxforddictionaries.com/thesaurus/ordinance

 

[gazelam]

In fuller context:

Acts 20:28 Take heed to yourselves, and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
29 I know that, after my departure, ravening wolves will enter in among you, not sparing the flock.
30 And of your own selves shall arise men speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.
31 Therefore watch, keeping in memory, that for three years I ceased not, with tears to admonish every one of you night and day.

The additional verses you provide do nothing to show that the flock will be spared.

Again, in wider context:

Acts 3:18 But those things which God before had shewed by the mouth of all the prophets, that his Christ should suffer, he hath so fulfilled.
19 Be penitent, therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out.
20 That when the times of refreshment shall come from the presence of the Lord, and he shall send him who hath been preached unto you, Jesus Christ,
21 Whom heaven indeed must receive, until the times of the restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of his holy prophets, from the beginning of the world.

Often a little sunlight is the best disinfectant.

These additional verses do nothing to show there will not be a restitution of all things. If restitution of all things, all things must have been missing for a time.

 

[Stephen168]

With no response from gazelam

You were not able to explain what the author meant by this quote the last time you cut and pasted it. Yet, you do it again the same way.
Another case of a Mormon cherry picking a quote which seems on the surface to conform to their testimony. Faith over reason.

Psalms 44:16 All day long my disgrace is before me; shame has covered my face

“sacrament” and “ordinance” are often used as synonyms .

synonyms.net/synonym/sacrament

dictionary.reverso.net/english-synonyms/ordinance%20[sacrament]

dictionary.com/browse/ordinance

See thesaurus.net/sacrament
See thesaurus.plus/synonyms/sacrament
See en.oxforddictionaries.com/thesaurus/ordinance

You are still cherry picking a quote from a longer work; a letter in this case. And have not explained what the author, the Pope, meant by it. AND what is your point?

 

[Vonsalza]

The additional verses you provide do nothing to show that the flock will be spared.

If the text said “No believer will be spared”, maybe you might have a point. But unfortunately for Mormonism, that’s not what is written.

Every “flock” I know of has encountered the trials of sin from time to time. Nothing new there. Per the additional context, the Church is preserved by the Bishopric as the anointed agents of Christ.

Sorry Gaz, the Church just can’t fail. It’s God is too strong.

These additional verses do nothing to show there will not be a restitution of all things. If restitution of all things, all things must have been missing for a time.

-OR-

We are restored from sinfulness when he stand before God in the only “Heaven” that exists…

That’s a central problem with Mormonism. In order to be right, it requires SCREECHINGLY tight translations of a given text. Yet more 2 Peter 3:16.

---

Hey, you didn’t address my question about “Seer Stones”. Just like Smith did, I have a hat in my closet waiting to be used. Per Smith, I’ll get my stone, put it in my hat, and just like Smith, put said hat against my face.

Smith said we all have stones. I want my stone. Your reply, sir?

 

[jas84173]

Okay. Why if you are the true Church restored do you not use the books in the Greek Septuagint Old Testament which is what the first Christians used but instead use a Protestant Bible which btw is incredibly inaccurate. The LKV is beautiful but with findings of ancient Greek mss. We now know it isn’t very accurate seeing as it had been translated about four times before English. And why do you use the New Testament the Church chose on formally in the 5th century, far after your apostasy? I mean you could have chosen your own New Testament with the many New Testament books which were deemed uninspired. A great one Mormons should have in their New Testament is the Shepherd of Hermas, as it actually promotes further revelation through time. Actually that may be one of the reasons that very popular early Christian writing was ultimately rejected…

 

[Horton]

.

The BoM is so full of inaccuracies that even the LDS have changed the most prefect book to clear things up. If the BoM is so questionable then how can anything resulting from it be truth.

I’ve questioned the acceptance by the LDS of a bible complied by the Catholic Church AFTER the “great apostasy”. If the Catholic Church failed shortly after it founding by Christ why would you accept a bible complied after? I get the LDS use the KJV version but the KJV is just another translation of the Vulgate, not a direct translation but still a translation. Why does that not bother the LDS people?

The changing doctrine in accordance with the times. Does that not draw questions about the truth of the LDS? I’ve belonged to two major religious in my life time. The first a mainline Protestant, and now Catholic. In neither has doctrine changed. Practices have but not doctrine. The truth is the truth, it doesn’t change.

In reading the Gospels I’m continually amazed at the number of times Jesus warns against false prophets. Do the LDS just skim over those warnings? All of those can not be mistranslations.

Still no answer to any of these questions? I’m willing to answer any question regarding the Catholic Church if I have knowledge of the answer, if I don’t I’m perfectly willing to say I don’t know. Why is it so difficult to answer simple questions?

 

[gazelam]

Okay. Why if you are the true Church restored do you not use the books in the Greek Septuagint Old Testament which is what the first Christians used but instead use a Protestant Bible which btw is incredibly inaccurate. The LKV is beautiful but with findings of ancient Greek mss. We now know it isn’t very accurate seeing as it had been translated about four times before English. And why do you use the New Testament the Church chose on formally in the 5th century, far after your apostasy? I mean you could have chosen your own New Testament with the many New Testament books which were deemed uninspired. A great one Mormons should have in their New Testament is the Shepherd of Hermas, as it actually promotes further revelation through time. Actually that may be one of the reasons that very popular early Christian writing was ultimately rejected…

This is an excellent question. I may have an answer if you are referring to the “Apocrypha”. As part of the Latter-day restoration Joseph Smith received this revelation regarding the Apocrypha: (See lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/91)

1 Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you concerning the Apocrypha—There are many things contained therein that are true, and it is mostly translated correctly;

2 There are many things contained therein that are not true, which are interpolations by the hands of men.

3 *Verily, I say unto you, that it is not needful that the Apocrypha should be translated.
*
4 Therefore, whoso readeth it, let him understand, for the Spirit manifesteth truth;

5 *And whoso is enlightened by the Spirit shall obtain benefit therefrom;
*
6 And whoso receiveth not by the Spirit, cannot be benefited. Therefore it is not needful that it should be translated. Amen.

I hope this helps…

 

[Porknpie]

The biggest problem I have with Mormonism is the teaching about dark-skinned people being cursed by God that’s really hurtful given my heritage.

Well I think those early Christians in Africa including in Hippo and Carthage would be most dismayed by this.

Keep in mind that the LDS tacitly trust that African Catholic Christians were infallible in their repeated decisions on what is and is not New Testament Scripture (Hippo in 393 & Carthage in 397).

And the only way that fallible men can be led to infallible truth, repeatedly, is if they were led by the Holy Spirit.

Of course, those African Bishops did so ~200 years after the Church established by Christ entered into a “great apostasy.”

But me thinks that Joseph Smith knew little on how the canon of scripture came to be.

 

[Arandur]

This is an excellent question. I may have an answer if you are referring to the “Apocrypha”. As part of the Latter-day restoration Joseph Smith received this revelation regarding the Apocrypha: (See lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/91)

1 Verily, thus saith the Lord unto you concerning the Apocrypha—There are many things contained therein that are true, and it is mostly translated correctly;

…
3 *Verily, I say unto you, that it is not needful that the Apocrypha should be translated.
*
…

Punt. Classic JS, the nearest he comes to saying “I don’t know” is this sort of tactic.

Yet he has trapped himself already, elsewhere.

1 Nephi 13:23-28, a slimmed down portion of which is excerpted here (utlm.org/onlinebooks/changech12b.htm, scroll to p. 378+):
"The Book of Mormon plainly states that the changes in the Bible were made after the time of Christ and after the formation of the Catholic Church:

The book … is a record of the Jews … when it proceeded forth from the mouth of a Jew it contained the plainness of the gospel of the Lord …** these things go forth from the Jews in purity unto the Gentiles** … thou seest the foundation of a great and abominable church … they have taken away from the gospel of the Lamb … after the book hath gone forth through the hands of the great and abominable church … there are many plain and precious things taken away from the book … (Book of Mormon, I Nephi 13:23-28)."

The full verbose text is even more clear (lds.org/scriptures/bofm/1-ne/13?lang=eng) that:

1. The Scriptures that the Jews held at the time of Jesus are here considered “pure,” even for the purpose of “going forth unto the Gentiles.” And no wonder, for Jesus accepted the (Septuagint…with Deutero-canonicals…) of his day without correcting the text or calling it into correction.
2. The Apostles still held and worked with the “pure” Scripture, so copies were still remaining accurate (for many centuries if not millennia down to their day), at least up until the death* of the last Apostle/writing of the last of the NT some 90s AD. For those Apostles surely knew the correct Scriptures and would have fought against corruption. Before they passed on, they had already brought Christianity to the Atlantic coasts of Europe and Africa, deep into Africa, far north into Eurasia, and far East into India. Our earliest NT manuscripts are from the 2nd century, by which time Christianity had spread even farther, and still in living memory of those directly taught by some of the Apostles. The revision effort, comprehensively reaching all Christian churches throughout the world to expunge the original and replace with extremely accurate agreement in all the “changes,” is utterly impossible.

*Oops, John is (according to many restoration believers and writers) supposed to still be alive and walking the earth, so…

1. The Dead Sea Scrolls provide incontrovertible proof that the OT has been preserved accurately (aside from the rest of the truly vast body of manuscript, textual, and historical evidence–far greater than for any other historical fact–that the Scriptures have been preserved accurately). There are other corroborating manuscripts of the OT running BC into the first century AD.

So the claims that the “apocrypha” are corrupted/not as original, even intentionally altered to corrupt, as well as the claim in the BoM itself from 1 Nephi, are demonstrably and quite flatly false.

But it gets worse.

The proven integrity of the Scriptures destroys one of the required, essential central premises of the “restoration” – that the Scriptures had been “corrupted” (a claim held in extremely similar fashion by another movement began by a “prophet” to “purify” and “restore” – Islam).

And worse still.

For Joseph Smith, already (as seen above) clearly speaking falsehoods with false prophecy and blaspheming by attributing these falsehoods to God, claiming these they were given him by God, undertook to revise or “translate” the Old and New Testaments for himself, supposedly under God’s direction.

And in this “Inspired Version,” Joseph Smith radically altered (deeply corrupted) the text of a great many books of Scripture. Of course, nowhere, anywhere, has there ever been found in any manuscript any hint of any of his insertions or “corrections.”

Consider that. The Dead Sea Scrolls alone prove his claimed “Inspired Version” false. For by his own attestation in 1 Nephi, Joseph Smith has committed himself to (and attributed to God) the idea that the Scriptures were pure and correct before and at the time of Christ and through the Apostolic Age. Well, we have those OT Scriptures, and they do not agree in the least with Joseph Smith’s “Translation.”

Corrupting sacred Scripture? Does it get worse?

This audacity to change Scripture includes alterations to the Book of Revelation, ones of numbers and symbolism that can be pretty clearly be proven false. That book calls down a curse of damnation upon any who would change it. So…

Is this where you want to place your trust?

 

[adamhovey1988]

Well I think those early Christians in Africa including in Hippo and Carthage would be most dismayed by this.

Keep in mind that the LDS tacitly trust that African Catholic Christians were infallible in their repeated decisions on what is and is not New Testament Scripture (Hippo in 393 & Carthage in 397).

And the only way that fallible men can be led to infallible truth, repeatedly, is if they were led by the Holy Spirit.

Of course, those African Bishops did so ~200 years after the Church established by Christ entered into a “great apostasy.”

But me thinks that Joseph Smith knew little on how the canon of scripture came to be.

This is why the Mormon Church did not ordain black people to the priesthood until 1978. I think a large part of that was because the funding for the temple and Brazil came from people who are of largely of African descent Brazil has a lot of mixed race people and a lot of black people. I mean taking into consideration my Heritage yes I could have been ordained a Mormon priest before black people could have but the Mormon church still teaches that my Heritage is people who are cursed by God and that they were actually Jews cursed by God. I don’t believe the concept of race nor did Pope Pius XI, so it’s sad to see that racism is all too real and that in some religious organizations it is the status quo.

 

[gazelam]

This is why the Mormon Church did not ordain black people to the priesthood until 1978. I think a large part of that was because the funding for the temple and Brazil came from people who are of largely of African descent Brazil has a lot of mixed race people and a lot of black people. I mean taking into consideration my Heritage yes I could have been ordained a Mormon priest before black people could have but the Mormon church still teaches that my Heritage is people who are cursed by God and that they were actually Jews cursed by God. I don’t believe the concept of race nor did Pope Pius XI, so it’s sad to see that racism is all too real and that in some religious organizations it is the status quo.

Actually the LDS Church did ordain males of African descent to the Priesthood until 1852 when Brigham Young announced a ban on the practice. There were exceptions to the ban. The practice was resumed in 1978. For more information see lds.org/topics/race-and-the-priesthood?lang=eng&old=true and blacklds.org/priesthood.

We never know why God chooses to exclude some groups temporarily from portions of His work, whether it’s limiting temple service to Levites anciently, Jesus limiting his earthly ministry to the House of Israel, or the temporary ban on blacks holding the Priesthood.

Both Catholics and LDS today place restrictions on various callings/vocations based on marital status.

 

[Vonsalza]

Actually the LDS Church did ordain males of African descent to the Priesthood until 1852 when Brigham Young announced a ban on the practice…

We never know why God chooses to exclude some groups temporarily from portions of His work…

Wait, so who banned black folks from the priesthood? Was it Brigham Young or God? Are they one in the same?

Some good Mormon quotes on black folks:

“Had I anything to do with the negro, I would confine them by strict law to their own species, and put them on a national equalization” (Joseph Smith, History of the Church 5:217-218).

“Now then, in the kingdom of God on the earth, a man who has the African blood in him cannot hold one jot nor tittle of Priesthood; Why? Because they are the true eternal principals the Lord Almighty has ordained, and who can help it − men cannot, the angels cannot, and all the powers of Earth and Hell cannot take it off, but thus saith the Eternal, ‘I am, what I am, I take it off at My pleasure’, and not one particle of power can that posterity of Cain have, until the time comes the [Lord] says He will have it taken away. That time will come, when they will have the privilege of all we have the privilege of, and more. In the Kingdom of God on the Earth the Africans cannot hold one particle of power in Government” (The Teachings of President Brigham Young: Vol. 3 1852-1854, Fred C. Collier, ed., p. 43. Speech given to the Joint Session of the Legislature in Salt Lake City, on Thursday, February 5, 1852. Brackets in original).

“Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so” (Brigham Young, March 8, 1863, Journal of Discourses 10:110. See also John Lewis Lund’s The Church and the Negro, 1967, p. 54).

That last one’s a doozy.