Milk before meat, the mormons may have gotten it right!

  • Thread starter Thread starter why_me
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I notice that none of our Mormon friends have either confirmed or denied my previous post:

Quote:
Code: 
				Originally Posted by **Ruthie** 					[forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=4163663#post4163663) 				
			Well, I went to scripture.lds.org and searched "gods." It gave me the singular as well as the plural - hmph. But I did find this (bolding mine):
19 And again, verily I say unto you, if a man… (instructions snipped)… 20 Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have call power, and the angels are subject unto them.
DNC 132

So that answers one of Ralph’s questions. Yes, the Mormon church teaches that men can become gods.

End quote

Neither have they answered any of Ralph’s questions… they left that up to us Gentiles!

Ruthie
 
ralphinal said:
And I take it that whatever the current teaching is, that is the correct one until it is changed. What about things that are not openly discussed and there does not seem to be any change on it?

For example, did the Father have sex with Mary?
Click to expand...
You know nothing about Mormonism, and what you post is not true. Mormonism has only one set of doctrines, and that is in the standard works; and it does not change.

zerinus
 
zerinus said:
You know nothing about Mormonism, and what you post is not true. Mormonism has only one set of doctrines, and that is in the standard works; and it does not change.

zerinus
Click to expand...
So blacks were not prohibited from being priests? So polygamy was not allowed at one time?
 
zerinus said:
You know nothing about Mormonism, and what you post is not true. Mormonism has only one set of doctrines, and that is in the standard works; and it does not change.

zerinus
Click to expand...
that’s an outright lie. the LDS standard works have changed a number of times over the years as whole sections have been taken out, put in or substantially changed.
 
ralphinal said:
So blacks were not prohibited from being priests?
Click to expand...
In the Old Testament, only the Levites were permited to have the priesthood. In the New Testament, anyone could hold the priesthood. That was the same kind of change.
So polygamy was not allowed at one time?
Click to expand...
The doctrine has not changed. The practice has been discontinued. That is not a change in doctrine.

zerinus
 
I have come to the conclusion that the reason the Mormons have to give mil before meat is that the only meat they have is baloney.
 
zerinus said:
In the Old Testament, only the Levites were permited to have the priesthood. In the New Testament, anyone could hold the priesthood. That was the same kind of change.
Click to expand...
In the Old Testament, being of one tribe or another did not affect salvation, and wasn’t tied to skin color. In Mormonism, the priesthood and following ordinances are required for entrance into the “celestial kingdom”, and this practice was over the color of skin.
zerinus said:
The doctrine has not changed. The practice has been discontinued. That is not a change in doctrine.

zerinus
Click to expand...
True enough. Much like polygyny (polygamy is one woman married to several men, too), these horrible doctrines are defended to this day.
 
Polygyny was discontinued because Utah wouldn’t have been admitted as a state without it. Even so, the practice continued, fully endorsed by LDS leadership, which is why the LDS made a “2nd announcement” regarding polygyny.

Blacks and the priesthood, on the other hand, was all about $$$. The IRS was taking away the tax exempt status of Bob Jones University due to their racist policies in 1974. The LDS were next.
 
Actually, that comparison is pretty good. I think the “Reverend” Paisley, probably the most notorious bigot and hate-monger ever hatched on Hibernian soil, toned down his rhetoric for political reasons; to avoid being sidelined. He wanted to be First Minister, and there was no way that political objective could be met unless he cooled his jets and accepted power sharing. Similarly, Utah wanted to become a state and polygamy was a barrier to that political objective. I don’t for a minute believe that Reverend Ian has repented and changed his beliefs, just like the Mormons have not changed their doctrine on polygamy; they just don’t practice it (on earth) right now.
 
Originally Posted by ralphinal forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
*So blacks were not prohibited from being priests?

Zerinus replied:
*
In the Old Testament, only the Levites were permited to have the priesthood. In the New Testament, anyone could hold the priesthood. That was the same kind of change.

Serious question: How and when was this change accomplished?

Ruthie
 
How and when did the LDS make the change from Blacks not being allowed into their priesthood, to Blacks being allowed into their priesthood?

Ruthie
 
Ruthie said:
How and when did the LDS make the change from Blacks not being allowed into their priesthood, to Blacks being allowed into their priesthood?

Ruthie
Click to expand...
It was made by an official declaration by the First Presidency on September 30, 1978, presented at the 148th Semiannual General Conference of The Church, and sustained by unanimous vote of the Church. You can read it here:

scriptures.lds.org/en/od/2

zerinus
 
zerinus said:
It was made by an official declaration by the First Presidency on September 30, 1978, presented at the 148th Semiannual General Conference of The Church, and sustained by unanimous vote of the Church. You can read it here:

scriptures.lds.org/en/od/2

zerinus
Click to expand...
But it is not the same kind of change as Christ had all ready open the priesthood to all of the faith. this was a doctrine change from one dogmatic stance to another direct opposite stance.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top