Mormon Doctrine that has changed

  • Thread starter Thread starter TexanKnight
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Yes…Mormons taught that if Black Mormons would keep their covenants, they would turn white

wonder how that is working out
 
TexanKnight said:
Yes…Mormons taught that if Black Mormons would keep their covenants, they would turn white

wonder how that is working out
Click to expand...
TexanKnight,

One of the things I love about our day, the twenty-first century, is that the inner radiance of people is seen more often for what it is–their true self coming through in their countenance and their radiance and their love for fellow members of the human race, regardless of outward facial differences.👍
Peace.🙂
 
Constantly changing. But forever enshrined in the Book of Mormon. When will you let go of that? Do you want me to list every racist statement in that book?
 
ParkerD said:
TexanKnight,

One of the things I love about our day, the twenty-first century, is that the inner radiance of people is seen more often for what it is–their true self coming through in their countenance and their radiance and their love for fellow members of the human race, regardless of outward facial differences.👍
Peace.🙂

What I love about the twenty-first century is that, as science and archeology progresses, more and more of Joseph’s Smith hoaxes are uncovered. DNA, Archeology, etc all point to the fact Joseph just made it up. Add to that little things such as Joseph saying black would tuen white and it never happening is simply wonderful. Peace 👍 🙂
Click to expand...
 
Jerusha said:
Constantly changing. But forever enshrined in the Book of Mormon. When will you let go of that? Do you want me to list every racist statement in that book?
Click to expand...
Jerusha,

You may if you would like.😉

I like the entire Book of Mormon, and understand it well enough to not be upset by it at all. A casual reader simply won’t understand what they read for a first time through.

It would be the same if a casual first-time reader were to read about some of the events described in the Old Testament and tried to place them into the context of the twenty-first century and expected to find equal context.
 
Well, as the Texan says, DNA tells the tale, as well as the many plagiarisms.

I will do it tomorrow, as it is getting late. If anybody wants to begin the list for me, go ahead.
 
ParkerD said:
Jerusha,

You may if you would like.😉

I like the entire Book of Mormon, and understand it well enough to not be upset by it at all. A casual reader simply won’t understand what they read for a first time through.

It would be the same if a casual first-time reader were to read about some of the events described in the Old Testament and tried to place them into the context of the twenty-first century and expected to find equal context.
Click to expand...
Luckily for me, I have read it several times from cover to cover and agree it is full of plagiarisms and racist comments. It will only bother those who follow the true God.
 
When I first tried to read it, I was so filled with anger at the racist rubbish in it, that I threw it across the room. Well, to work. BBL
 
Here they are, up to the beginning of Alma;
1 Nephi 12:23, 2 Nephi:21-25, 2 Nephi 30:6, Jacob 3:8, Enos 20, Jarom 6, Mosiah 10:12-17, Mosiah 11:6,
There are two others that are opposed to racism. The utter depravity of the “Lamanites” compared to the “Nephites” is beyond understanding. Their laziness and idle lifestyle is an egregious stereotype. By contrast, the “Jesuit Relations” puffin.creighton.edu/jesuit/relations/ frequntly is complimentary of the lifestyle of the Natives. More later. I am working from the 1920 edition.
 
Jerusha said:
Here they are, up to the beginning of Alma;
1 Nephi 12:23, 2 Nephi:21-25, 2 Nephi 30:6, Jacob 3:8, Enos 20, Jarom 6, Mosiah 10:12-17, Mosiah 11:6,
There are two others that are opposed to racism. The utter depravity of the “Lamanites” compared to the “Nephites” is beyond understanding. Their laziness and idle lifestyle is an egregious stereotype. By contrast, the “Jesuit Relations” puffin.creighton.edu/jesuit/relations/ frequntly is complimentary of the lifestyle of the Natives. More later. I am working from the 1920 edition.
Click to expand...
Jerusha,

So is the following an “egregious stererotype” also, from the book you linked?:
CLXXXVII. A letter (dated November 9, 1712) from Gabriel Marest to a brother Jesuit in France, [Page 19] Barthélemi Germon, gives a full account of the Illinois country and its people; and of the mission which the Jesuits have long conducted there.
…
Marest relates what he has been able to learn about these tribes, the most important and numerous of whom are the Assiniboines and Crees. He mentions various interesting particulars about these people, their country, and their language; he thinks that the Assiniboines resemble the Flemings, and the Crees the Gascons, They are nomadic, but gather wild rice for their winter supplies.
The savages nearest James Bay are very inferior to the tribes just named: “they are base, cowardly, idle, churlish, and wholly vicious;” they are exceedingly superstitious and dissolute.
…
Marest describes the obstacles that he encounters in the nature of the savages — lawless, arrogant, fickle, brutal, and ungrateful; their conversion is “a miracle of the Lord’s mercy.” They are, however, “much less barbarous than other Savages; Christianity and intercourse with the French have by degrees civilized them.” Many Frenchmen have come to Kaskaskia to live, and some of them have married Indian women. Among these savages, as elsewhere, the men are engaged in hunting and war; their wives and daughters perform all other labors. The women thus occupied and humbled by work are thereby more disposed to accept the truths of the Gospel.”
Click to expand...
Source:

puffin.creighton.edu/jesuit/relations/relations_66.html

Sincerely wishing you and all a peaceful day.
 
TexanKnight said:
Luckily for me, I have read it several times from cover to cover and agree it is full of plagiarisms and racist comments. It will only bother those who follow the true God.
Click to expand...
I have read it all through more than six or seven times, and have long lost count of how many times I have read individual books in it. On the first reading I saw many glaring errors, historically, philosophically, linguistically, theologically. Subsequent readings have added to my appreciation of its egregiousness. My study of Mormon apologetics has revealed a complete inadequacy on the part of the very best Mormon scholars to deal with more than a fraction of the substantive problems that this very un-Jewish text presents.

I should note by the way, that the text does not have any spiritual attractiveness for me. It’s an ugly book, and I find it at its worst when it attempts to give moral teachings. I will readily admit, even to Mormons who may construe this as a sign of a closed spirit, that the first time I read it I stopped and threw it across the room when I got to 1 Nephi 2:11, and didn’t read it again for seven years. I could feel the evil on the page. No one who understands good and evil in the teaching of Christ can abide the Law of Opposition, which makes good and evil into eternally interdependent principles, effectively equalizing them. It gives an undue compliment to evil by granting it an eternal status, and it fails to explain why good is superior. An almost identical teaching originally put forth by the Manichaeans was wisely rejected by Christians and thoroughly refuted from Scripture by Augustine a full millenium before Smith. If God is one, then Good is primary, evil secondary. God declared all things good before there was any evil in the world; even Adam delighted in Eve and knew her as a good, before he ate the fruit bringing the experience and knowledge of evil into creation. All forms of good/evil dualism fail to justify the primacy of goodness and provide no basis to reject nihilism.
 
ParkerD said:
Jerusha,

So is the following an “egregious stererotype” also, from the book you linked?:

Source:

puffin.creighton.edu/jesuit/relations/relations_66.html

Sincerely wishing you and all a peaceful day.
Click to expand...
Parker, you are cherry-picking. One individual does not equal the whole of the Jesuit missionaries who participated in that historical record. I did comment on two statements against racism in the BoM. If you total one group against the other, you will find a balance in favor of the JR.

Yes, Soren, the whole of the BoM is egregiously offensive to Catholics, Jews, people of color, Christians in general, and our all-powerful God.

I am not at home right now. Will get back to it later.
 
I grew up LDS and spent about twenty years in the church and I can assure you that the Catholic Church has much more of a negative place in LDS theology than any other group of people. There is negative things about Jews, for example, but they are still considered part of the Abrahamic covenant in LDS theology and are therefore in a better spiritual plain. Protestants are viewed with a great sense of veneration because they are regarded as setting the conditions in which Joseph Smith was able to restore the original church so they are part of God’s great plan to restore true Christianity. The Catholic Church, however, is in the worst position possible because they drove an apostatized version of Christianity for thousands of years and did it while claiming to have God’s priesthood. If you ask any Mormon, they will tell you that if the Mormon church is not true, the Catholic church must be true which would explain why there is much more hostility towards the Roman Catholic Church.
 
Callvenus,

We know that very well, but the Mormons who come on to CAF deny it and make out like we have the problem…

So we are still getting hit, but this time in a passive-aggressive way through denial and invalidation. My friend, a convert, told me the other day that we Catholics have a target on our Bee Hinds by alot of fellow Christians and seculars…but Christ consoles us and strengthens us.

She used to have her Catholic radio program on in our area that was shared by other faiths. While she would start her lunch, the Disciples of Christ, another Restorationist type religion, would come in to her office and begin to renounce the Catholic Church. She finally had to kick them out. It is akin to a spiritual sickness and they can’t see it.
 
I grew up LDS and spent about twenty years in the church and I can assure you that the Catholic Church has much more of a negative place in LDS theology than any other group of people. There is negative things about Jews, for example, but they are still considered part of the Abrahamic covenant in LDS theology and are therefore in a better spiritual plain. Protestants are viewed with a great sense of veneration because they are regarded as setting the conditions in which Joseph Smith was able to restore the original church so they are part of God’s great plan to restore true Christianity. The Catholic Church, however, is in the worst position possible because they drove an apostatized version of Christianity for thousands of years and did it while claiming to have God’s priesthood. If you ask any Mormon, they will tell you that if the Mormon church is not true, the Catholic church must be true which would explain why there is much more hostility towards the Roman Catholic Church.
 
Here is my collection of racist passages in the Book of Mormon:
1 Nephi 12:23, 2 Nephi:21-25, 2 Nephi 30:6, Enos 20, Jarom 6, Mosiah 10:12-17, Mosiah 11:6,

In the second half of the book, the racial dichotomy breaks down, because of the “Nephites” who defected into the “Lamanite” population, and because of the conversion of “Lamanites.” However, there are still plenty of racist passages.

Alma 3:6-10, 14-17, Alma 17: 14-15., 25, Alma 23:18, Alma 30: 25, Alma 43: 45 Helaman 3:16, Helaman 15:4, 3 Nephi 2:15-16, Mormon 5:15

That does not include the anti-Semitic and anti-Catholic passages. Sexism is notable through the near complete absence of female characters.
 
Jerusha said:
Here is my collection of racist passages in the Book of Mormon:
1 Nephi 12:23, 2 Nephi:21-25, 2 Nephi 30:6, Enos 20, Jarom 6, Mosiah 10:12-17, Mosiah 11:6,

In the second half of the book, the racial dichotomy breaks down, because of the “Nephites” who defected into the “Lamanite” population, and because of the conversion of “Lamanites.” However, there are still plenty of racist passages.

Alma 3:6-10, 14-17, Alma 17: 14-15., 25, Alma 23:18, Alma 30: 25, Alma 43: 45 Helaman 3:16, Helaman 15:4, 3 Nephi 2:15-16, Mormon 5:15

That does not include the anti-Semitic and anti-Catholic passages. Sexism is notable through the near complete absence of female characters.
Click to expand...
Note with what radiant clarity modern Mormon leaders have repudiated the church’s traditional account of Negro laziness in the preexistence. When asked about it a few years ago in an interview for the PBS series “The Mormons,” Elder Jeffrey Holland was no more lucid than this:
One clear-cut position is that the folklore must never be perpetuated. … I have to concede to my earlier colleagues. … They, I’m sure, in their own way, were doing the best they knew to give shape to [the policy], to give context for it, to give even history to it. All I can say is however well intended the explanations were, I think almost all of them were inadequate and/or wrong
He tells us the “folklore” must not be perpetuated, but he doesn’t tell us if it is untrue, only that Mormons should stop teaching about it. Then he says the old explanations were “inadequate and/or wring.” That leaves the door pretty wide open, don’t it? The sad thing is, this is about the closest to an actual repudiation, specifically imputing falsehood to the traditional teachings, that I have come across from a real Mormon leader with actual authority over the church. There are a dozen or so other quotes like this that Mormons tout as evidence church teaching has changed, but all of them are similarly equivocal and obviously do not support the conclusion Mormons want draw from them. And of course that just leads to the deeper question: Why would they fail to clearly repudiate those teachings, when they are such a source of controversy, unless, perchance, they actually still believe them? And why would they believe them? Because they are intelligent, and they know with what authority those teachings were always promulgated as a “direct commandment from the Lord.”
 
The real treasure with the LDS Church is that, even doctrines they no longer practice are still doctrines…they just do not practice them.

Polygamy IS STILL DOCTRINE. It is just not practiced “at this time”
 
I found a few more, but that is enough to make the point. III Nephi 19:30 takes the cake. I couldn’t find it until just a bit ago.
 
Jerusha said:
I found a few more, but that is enough to make the point. III Nephi 19:30 takes the cake. I couldn’t find it until just a bit ago.
Click to expand...
And when Jesus had spoken these words he came again unto his disciples; and behold they did pray steadfastly, without ceasing, unto him; and he did smile upon them again; and behold they were white, even as Jesus.

That text is precious, delightsome even.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top