Odd question for Mormons

[twopekinguys]

Twopekingguys: I think you are confusing “not having heard the word of God” with being “denied hearing the word of God”

I suppose I am - I don’t understand what you’re saying.

You kept using the word deny, over and over. The point I was making was there is a difference between something not having happened yet, and something being denied, which is a direct refusal.

Imagine standing in a concert hall with 1000 people, and it’s pitch black. You have a candle, but it isn’t lit. You look out, and you see one small light on the other side of the hall. Then you see 2, then 4, then 8, and so on. Eventually, everyone’s candle is lit.

While you were waiting for the light to come your way, you weren’t being denied light, you just hadn’t received it yet.

That is the way God made himself known. He lit the first candle.

 

[maltmom]

You kept using the word deny, over and over. The point I was making was there is a difference between something not having happened yet, and something being denied, which is a direct refusal.

Imagine standing in a concert hall with 1000 people, and it’s pitch black. You have a candle, but it isn’t lit. You look out, and you see one small light on the other side of the hall. Then you see 2, then 4, then 8, and so on. Eventually, everyone’s candle is lit.

While you were waiting for the light to come your way, you weren’t being denied light, you just hadn’t received it yet.

That is the way God made himself known. He lit the first candle.

^^^^^ very, very good^^^^^

 

[twopekinguys]

Now, as far as blacks and the mormon priesthood, we have to look at this.

The Bible “may”, and I stress “may” show were people appear to have been denied something. I prefer to go with the explanation I gave above. They just hadn’t received it yet.

Mormon leaders however were blatantly overboard with the racist comments. BY, comes to mind immediately. It was more like shoving it in their face and going neener neener, you can’t have it.

Now, fast forward to 1978, and the “revelation” that blacks could now hold the priesthood.

Do you not find it odd that the mormon god, who spoke through his prophets suddenly changed his mind, and was not racist any more?

Do you not find it odd that the mormon god, who spoke through his prophets happened to change his mind right as many major colleges would not play BYU because of its racist policies?

There was also IRS involvement in all of this too.

"*On April 16, 1975, the IRS notified the Bob Jones University of the proposed revocation of its tax-exempt status because of its discriminatory policies.

The IRS officially revoked the University’s tax-exempt status in January, 1976. Bob Jones University challenged the revocation. The case would ultimately reach the U.S. Supreme Court. The government took the position that Bob Jones University’s racial policies made it ineligible for tax-exempt status.

If the IRS’ decision in Bob Jones University was affirmed by the Supreme Court, it would close BYU’s argument that its racial policies were not discriminatory. The Church now was looking at the very real prospect that BYU would lose its tax-exempt status. That would be bad news indeed.

Other things were happening. In 1977, President Kimball was distressed when he was served with a subpoena to give a deposition in a case brought by the NAACP against the Boy Scouts of America and Troop 58, organized in one of the wards of the Liberty Stake in Salt Lake City. There were two black Scouts in the troop. One of them complained to the black ombudsman for Utah because he was deprived of the chance to become the senior patrol leader of his troop because of the Church procedure that the senior patrol leader had to be the deacons quorum president. It was contended that this violated the young man’s civil rights.

While the Church was not a party to the suit, the Church’s practice was a key issue in the litigation. It was for this reason the subpoena was issued to President Kimball. And because it was a subpoena duces tecum, he was directed to bring to the deposition every document relating to the Church’s policy withholding the priesthood from blacks.

Because he had had little to do with litigation during his life and was uncertain about what faced him, President Kimball was distraught. He could not sleep. He reportedly could talk of little else in the meetings with his counselors.

As we know, the change finally came in June 1978, as the Bob Jones University tax case was winding its way through the courts."*

Read the whole article here

Coincidence? I doubt it.

The worst part of it all is that mormons of today are saying it never happened, it wasn’t doctrine, it was misunderstood, everything but facing up to it.

To this day, there has never been an explanation, or apology from the mormon heirarchy.

 

[twopekinguys]

^^^^^ very, very good^^^^^

Thanks!!

 

[twopekinguys]

Pablope: You say when God gives a command to someone he changes their names when there is a significant task. You mention Abram, Jacob, and Simon. What about Adam, Noah, Jonah, and Moses (off the top of my head). You ask why Joseph Smith’s name wasn’t changed. I’d be interested in hearing your answer.

Twopekingguys: I think you are confusing “not having heard the word of God” with being “denied hearing the word of God”

I suppose I am - I don’t understand what you’re saying.

Folks on this thread are criticizing mormon history for not giving blacks the priesthood. When I point out, using RebeccaJ’s quote, Catholic commentary on why God didn’t give non-Abrahamic folks the same thing, I get these answers:

Twopekinguys: “There is/was a progression to the spreading of the knowledge, and word of God.”
SteveVH: “God chose to plant a seed and allow it to grow.”
Pablope: “God made a series of covenants…with a certain chosen people…Noah…Abraham…He also changed the name of Abram to Abraham…and told him to be a father of nations.”

God denies people in the Old Testament, not only priesthood, but also knowledge of Himself - and y’all are fine with that. Ok, I’m fine with it too. So why harp on mormons? Do you hold God to a double-standard? He used to do it and it was fine, mormons tell you He did it again, and you use it as a critism of my faith? Why was it ok then, and not ok now?

See post 110. I shows that Steve, Pablope, Rebecca, and i are all saying the same thing.

I’m not sure if I’ve cleared things up for you at all, or made them worse. Hopefully better.

 

[Arrependida]

Had you actually read the Wiki article, you would have read ““The Oxford Dictionary of Popes” and “The Original Catholic Encyclopedia” list him as being native to Africa.” During that time frame the “white”, or “european” influence had not occurred yet.

.

I am afraid you are wrong about these African popes being black though. Roman Africa of the time was North Africa (the part north of the Sahara). And north Africa has always been mainly caucasian. Like the Arabs and middle eastern peoples nearby. Remember white does not mean necessarily European. Yes, there were some African popes, but they were not black.

Some have asserted that Gelasius was a black African by descent, because the Liber Pontificalis plainly states that he was natione Afer (‘African by birth’). This however makes it unlikely that he was black, because Africa in Latin is only the northern part of the continent, and is contrasted with “black Africa”, then called Aethiopia. Consequently, black Africans were generally referred to in Latin as Aethiopes.

 

[twopekinguys]

I am afraid you are wrong about these African popes being black though. Roman Africa of the time was North Africa (the part north of the Sahara). And north Africa has always been mainly caucasian. Like the Arabs and middle eastern peoples nearby. Remember white does not mean necessarily European. Yes, there were some African popes, but they were not black.

Some have asserted that Gelasius was a black African by descent, because the Liber Pontificalis plainly states that he was natione Afer (‘African by birth’). This however makes it unlikely that he was black, because Africa in Latin is only the northern part of the continent, and is contrasted with “black Africa”, then called Aethiopia. Consequently, black Africans were generally referred to in Latin as Aethiopes.

1. What are your references?
2. From your own post. “mainly caucasian”, in and of itself indicates not all inhabitants were caucasian. Also, the use of “unlikely black” is not very definitive.

In addition to the references I quoted earlier, we also have “The National Black Congress” weighing in on the situation. I am inclined to go with them if they are claiming him as “black”.

nbccongress.org/black-catholics/african-popes.asp

Again, I ask for your references that confirm your assumptions, because Liber Pontificalis does not seem to support what you want it to.

 

[SteveVH]

I am afraid you are wrong about these African popes being black though. Roman Africa of the time was North Africa (the part north of the Sahara). And north Africa has always been mainly caucasian. Like the Arabs and middle eastern peoples nearby. Remember white does not mean necessarily European. Yes, there were some African popes, but they were not black.

Some have asserted that Gelasius was a black African by descent, because the Liber Pontificalis plainly states that he was natione Afer (‘African by birth’). This however makes it unlikely that he was black, because Africa in Latin is only the northern part of the continent, and is contrasted with “black Africa”, then called Aethiopia. Consequently, black Africans were generally referred to in Latin as Aethiopes.

You know, we never had a pope from Poland before John Paul, II. The Catholic Church has had many black bishops and cardinals and has never excluded anyone from ordination based upon race. The fact that we are asked to compare notes with the LDS on this subject is absolutely ridiculous. Any fool can see the racism present in LDS practices of the past. It is good that they have changed, though they still have to deal with the statements which have not been revoked.

 

[LongJourney]

Given the fact that the priesthood ban applied to those with even one drop of Negro blood, comparing it to the African popes is still legitimate.

 

[NeuroTypical]

While you were waiting for the light to come your way, you weren’t being denied light, you just hadn’t received it yet.

I like it. I think I’ll adopt it as a way to explain why blacks weren’t given the priesthood in LDS history. It’s a good enough reason for you folks, right?

TexanKnight:

" you can;t compare 6000 years ago in a different country and culture with 1830s America"

Comment: I’m not comparing people and cultures, I’m comparing God’s ways of dealing with His children at two points in history.

Question: You can’t compare people with different cultures? Isn’t that what you’re doing? Holding quotes from church leaders over 150+ years ago, against modern cultural understanding? I mean, if it’s not valid to compare OT cultures against a culture from 150 years ago, why is it valid to judge pre-civil war slaveowning frontier America culture with our modern 2013 enlightened cultural understandings and beliefs?

The OT did not deny based on color as Mormons did

Ok, God just picked a race to be His chosen people, and everyone else, no matter their color, had to be content with hoping they could be standing somewhere where they could recieve the light someone else was holding. Honestly, besides color, I don’t really see the difference between then and the 1830’s.

Third point you keep dodging: Mormon “prophets” did not just ban…they spewed HORRIBLE things about blacks. They were supreme racists.

Call for sources. Let’s hear these horrible things from prophets. There will be two tests to see if you know what you’re talking about - Did a prophet say it, and was it horrible. Please cut and paste.

I’m out for most of the weekend. I hope I’ll be able to respond on Monday.

 

[TexanKnight]

I like it. I think I’ll adopt it as a way to explain why blacks weren’t given the priesthood in LDS history. It’s a good enough reason for you folks, right?

No…your leader;s horrible comments about blacks were racism of the worst kind…you being ok with it or trying to act like they had beautiful comments is very disturbing

TexanKnight:
Comment: I’m not comparing people and cultures, I’m comparing God’s ways of dealing with His children at two points in history.

Not true. God NEVER has approved of the pathetic and horrible comments made by your leaders against a race. The lds god said, “love your neighbor, unless they black…”

Question: You can’t compare people with different cultures? Isn’t that what you’re doing? Holding quotes from church leaders over 150+ years ago, against modern cultural understanding? I mean, if it’s not valid to compare OT cultures against a culture from 150 years ago, why is it valid to judge pre-civil war slaveowning frontier America culture with our modern 2013 enlightened cultural understandings and beliefs?

Nope. The kind of comments made by people who allegedly spoke to God was horrible and contemptible. You trying to justify it is just as bad. I expect those kind of comments from backstreet racists. Not from “prophets”

Ok, God just picked a race to be His chosen people, and everyone else, no matter their color, had to be content with hoping they could be standing somewhere where they could recieve the light someone else was holding. Honestly, besides color, I don’t really see the difference between then and the 1830’s.

Wrong. You again, in your attempts to justify horrible racism, can;t seem to understand the difference between choosing a people because you love them and excluding a people because you hate them. I hope you can learn to understand this someday. Until you do, you will spend your time justifying repugnant racism

Call for sources. Let’s hear these horrible things from prophets. There will be two tests to see if you know what you’re talking about - Did a prophet say it, and was it horrible. Please cut and paste.

Been done. By me AND others. Don’t act like you did not see it. I have posted it on several threads. It has been posted ad nauseum. Look it up

I’m out for most of the weekend. I hope I’ll be able to respond on Monday.

It would be the first time, should you actually respond. Be well

 

[kimg901]

The core story of the Book of Mormon is racist. It’s about a family in which two of the sons turned bad. God therefore cursed them with a dark skin. Dark skin, according to the Book of Mormon is a curse from God. There is no way Mormons can deny this fact. And the only way they can distance themselves from it is to denounce the Book of Mormon. But how do they do that when for decades they’ve claimed it’s “the keystone of our religion,” and “the most perfect book”? Some more thoughts to ponder: The following quote: Spencer W. Kimball, General Conference Report 1960, Improvement ERA, December 1960, pages 922-923

“I saw a striking contrast in the progress of the Indian people today… The day of the Lamanites is nigh. For years they have been growing delightsome, and they are now becoming white and delightsome, as they were promised. In this picture of twenty Lamanite missionaries, fifteen of the twenty were as light as Anglos, five were darker but equally delightsome. The children in the home placement program in Utah are often lighter than their brothers and sisters in the hogans on the reservation.”

Why is whiter skin color associated with righteousness? Isn’t that racism? A few more quotes from church leaders:

“Now WE ARE GENEROUS WITH THE NEGRO. WE ARE WILLING that the Negro have the highest kind of education. I WOULD BE WILLING to LET every Negro DRIVE A CADILLAC IF THEY COULD AFFORD IT. I WOULD BE WILLING that they have all the advantages they can get out of life in the world. BUT LET THEM ENJOY THESE THINGS AMONG THEMSELVES.” LDS Apostle Mark E. Petersen, “Race Problems – As They Affect The Church,” Address delivered at Brigham Young University, August 27, 1954, as quoted in Jerald and Sandra Tanner’s book entitled, “The Changing World of Mormonism,” p. 307, emphasis added.

“Those who were LESS VALIANT IN PRE-EXISTENCE and who thereby had certain spiritual restrictions imposed upon them during mortality are known to us as the NEGROES.” LDS Apostle Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, p. 527, 1966 edition, emphasis added.

“THE NEGROES ARE NOT EQUAL WITH OTHER RACES where the receipt of certain spiritual blessings are concerned, …but this inequality is not of man’s origin. IT IS THE LORD’S DOING, is based on his eternal laws of justice, and grows out of the LACK OF SPIRITUAL VALIANCE OF THOSE CONCERNED IN THEIR FIRST ESTATE [the Mormon pre-existence].” LDS Apostle Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, p. 527 – 528, 1966 edition, emphasis added.

“We’ve always counseled in the Church for our Mexican members to marry Mexicans, our Japanese members to marry Japanese, our Caucasians to marry Caucasians, our Polynesian members to marry Polynesians. The counsel has been wise. You may say again, “Well, I know of exceptions.” I do, too, and they’ve been very successful marriages. I know some of them. You might even say, “I can show you local Church leaders or perhaps even general leaders who have married out of their race.” I say, “Yes–exceptions.” Then I would remind you of that Relief Society woman’s near-scriptural statement, “We’d like to follow the rule first, and then we’ll take care of the exceptions.” LDS Apostle Boyd K. Packer, from the talk “Follow the Rule” given at Brigham Young University, 1/14/77.

“I will remark with regard to slavery, inasmuch as we believe in the Bible, inasmuch as we believe in the ordinances of God, in the priesthood and order and decrees of God, we must believe in slavery. This colored race have been subjected to severe curses, which they have in their families and their classes and in their various capacities brought upon themselves…

“I am a firm believer in slavery…Those servants want to come here with their masters…and they commence to whisper round their views upon the subject, saying ‘Do you think it’s right? I am afraid it is not right’. I know it is right, and there should be a law made to have the slaves serve their master, because they are not capable of ruling themselves…I am firm in the belief that they ought to dwell in servitude…

“When a master has a negro, and uses him well, he is much better off than when he is free. As for masters knocking them down and whipping them and breaking the limbs of their servants, I have as little opinion of that as any person can have, but good wholesome servitude, I know there is nothing better than that.”

(Speech by Brigham Young delivered in joint session of the legislature, Friday, Jan. 23rd, 1852, recorded by Geo. D. Watt, Brigham Young Papers, Historical Dept. of the Church).

“If there never was a prophet or apostle of Jesus Christ spoke it before, I tell you, this people that are commonly called negroes are the children of old Cain. I know they are.”

“Again to the subject before us: as to the negro men bearing rule, not one of the children of old Cain have one particle of right to bear rule in government affairs from first to last. They have no business there. This privilege was taken from them by their own transgressions, and I cannot help it.

 

[kimg901]

continued…

“I am as much opposed to the principle of slavery as any man in the present acceptation or usage of the term – it is abused. I am opposed to abusing that which God has decreed, to take a blessing, and make a curse of it. It is a great blessing to the seed of Adam to have the seed of Cain for servants…”

“Therefore, I will not consent for one moment to have an African dictate (to) me or my brethren with regard to church or state government…No, it is not right. But say some, is there anything of this kind in the constitution the United States has given us? If you will allow me the privilege of telling it right out, it is none of their damned business what we do or say here. What we do, it is for them to sanction, and then for us to say what we like about it. It is written right in the constitution ‘that every free white male inhabitant above the age of 21 years’, and etc…I have given you the true principle and doctrine.

“What the Gentiles are doing, we are consenting to do [he’s referring to the “evil” abolitionist effort going on in the USA at the time]. What we are trying to do today is to make the Negro equal with us in all our privileges. My voice shall be against it all the day long. I shall not consent for one moment.”

(Speech in joint session, Feb. 5, 1852, Brigham Young Papers, Historical Dept. of the Church)

 

[kimg901]

Now there are some in my above post that are not 'prophets" but are high in the church.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Ok, God just picked a race to be His chosen people, and everyone else, no matter their color, had to be content with hoping they could be standing somewhere where they could recieve the light someone else was holding. Honestly, besides color, I don’t really see the difference between then and the 1830’s.

.

No He didn’t pick a “race” the Israelites are not now and were not then a different “race”.
Like I said even children can understand the difference between one out of all being selected and one out of all being excluded.

*One child in class is given a treat because they listened to the teacher and followed the rules.

Every child in class is given a treat except the fat kid.*

 

[twopekinguys]

I like it. I think I’ll adopt it as a way to explain why blacks weren’t given the priesthood in LDS history. It’s a good enough reason for you folks, right?

You crack me up. Out of all of this, you’re still thinking there is a double standard. Even though we have shown you otherwise.

1. Black popes
2. Quotes from your leaders making clearly racist statements. BY being a prime example.
3. My post 162, which clearly demonstrates institutionalized Racism on the part of the mormon church, and BYU.
4. We have shown how mormon doctrine changes with current events. The mormon god changes his mind based on what is happening today. Whereas the Christian God is never changing.

Show us where the Catholic Church has the racist history that the mormon church does. Show us where the Catholic Church had Racist Doctrines.

You can’t, so therefore no double standard exists now does it?

Gotta admit, you do make me laugh out loud when I look at your reasoning. Or lack there of.

 

[TexanKnight]

The core story of the Book of Mormon is racist. It’s about a family in which two of the sons turned bad. God therefore cursed them with a dark skin. Dark skin, according to the Book of Mormon is a curse from God. There is no way Mormons can deny this fact. And the only way they can distance themselves from it is to denounce the Book of Mormon. But how do they do that when for decades they’ve claimed it’s “the keystone of our religion,” and “the most perfect book”? Some more thoughts to ponder: The following quote: Spencer W. Kimball, General Conference Report 1960, Improvement ERA, December 1960, pages 922-923

“I saw a striking contrast in the progress of the Indian people today… The day of the Lamanites is nigh. For years they have been growing delightsome, and they are now becoming white and delightsome, as they were promised. In this picture of twenty Lamanite missionaries, fifteen of the twenty were as light as Anglos, five were darker but equally delightsome. The children in the home placement program in Utah are often lighter than their brothers and sisters in the hogans on the reservation.”

Why is whiter skin color associated with righteousness? Isn’t that racism? A few more quotes from church leaders:

“Now WE ARE GENEROUS WITH THE NEGRO. WE ARE WILLING that the Negro have the highest kind of education. I WOULD BE WILLING to LET every Negro DRIVE A CADILLAC IF THEY COULD AFFORD IT. I WOULD BE WILLING that they have all the advantages they can get out of life in the world. BUT LET THEM ENJOY THESE THINGS AMONG THEMSELVES.” LDS Apostle Mark E. Petersen, “Race Problems – As They Affect The Church,” Address delivered at Brigham Young University, August 27, 1954, as quoted in Jerald and Sandra Tanner’s book entitled, “The Changing World of Mormonism,” p. 307, emphasis added.

“Those who were LESS VALIANT IN PRE-EXISTENCE and who thereby had certain spiritual restrictions imposed upon them during mortality are known to us as the NEGROES.” LDS Apostle Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, p. 527, 1966 edition, emphasis added.

“THE NEGROES ARE NOT EQUAL WITH OTHER RACES where the receipt of certain spiritual blessings are concerned, …but this inequality is not of man’s origin. IT IS THE LORD’S DOING, is based on his eternal laws of justice, and grows out of the LACK OF SPIRITUAL VALIANCE OF THOSE CONCERNED IN THEIR FIRST ESTATE [the Mormon pre-existence].” LDS Apostle Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, p. 527 – 528, 1966 edition, emphasis added.

“We’ve always counseled in the Church for our Mexican members to marry Mexicans, our Japanese members to marry Japanese, our Caucasians to marry Caucasians, our Polynesian members to marry Polynesians. The counsel has been wise. You may say again, “Well, I know of exceptions.” I do, too, and they’ve been very successful marriages. I know some of them. You might even say, “I can show you local Church leaders or perhaps even general leaders who have married out of their race.” I say, “Yes–exceptions.” Then I would remind you of that Relief Society woman’s near-scriptural statement, “We’d like to follow the rule first, and then we’ll take care of the exceptions.” LDS Apostle Boyd K. Packer, from the talk “Follow the Rule” given at Brigham Young University, 1/14/77.

“I will remark with regard to slavery, inasmuch as we believe in the Bible, inasmuch as we believe in the ordinances of God, in the priesthood and order and decrees of God, we must believe in slavery. This colored race have been subjected to severe curses, which they have in their families and their classes and in their various capacities brought upon themselves…

“I am a firm believer in slavery…Those servants want to come here with their masters…and they commence to whisper round their views upon the subject, saying ‘Do you think it’s right? I am afraid it is not right’. I know it is right, and there should be a law made to have the slaves serve their master, because they are not capable of ruling themselves…I am firm in the belief that they ought to dwell in servitude…

“When a master has a negro, and uses him well, he is much better off than when he is free. As for masters knocking them down and whipping them and breaking the limbs of their servants, I have as little opinion of that as any person can have, but good wholesome servitude, I know there is nothing better than that.”

(Speech by Brigham Young delivered in joint session of the legislature, Friday, Jan. 23rd, 1852, recorded by Geo. D. Watt, Brigham Young Papers, Historical Dept. of the Church).

“If there never was a prophet or apostle of Jesus Christ spoke it before, I tell you, this people that are commonly called negroes are the children of old Cain. I know they are.”

“Again to the subject before us: as to the negro men bearing rule, not one of the children of old Cain have one particle of right to bear rule in government affairs from first to last. They have no business there. This privilege was taken from them by their own transgressions, and I cannot help it.

one of the most humorous points in the Book of Mormon is that Joseph, when he made ikt all up, said in the Book of Mormon that blacks would become “white and delightsome.”. When it was clear Joseph was wrong on yet another point because blacks simply were not turning white, the LDS machine changed that verse to read “pure and delightsome”.

how Mormons can’t see thru that shows the level of brainwashing they experience. They truly need our prayers.

 

[Porknpie]

Here’s Gordon Hinckley on 60 Minutes in 1996. He is asked why blacks were not allowed in the priesthood until 1978. He answers, retorting:

“Because the leaders in the church at that time interpreted that doctrine that way”.

“that’s behind us, that’s behind us”

“don’t worry about those little ficts of history.”

No, I don’t think so…it shows that Mormon prophets are deceived and not of God who loves all.

youtube.com/watch?v=Z-4dKmO8CSw

Now here is Gordon Hinckley interviewed again in 2002 by a German news reporter saying that

“I don’t know, I don’t know. I can only say that”. Wow.

Are you kidding me? He had an answer in '96 to 60 Minutes (a bad one), he’s the head of the Church and says he doesn’t know…

He then goes on to say that of the blacks in Africa “we’ve had them among the leadership of the Church”. What?!? Not one of them are on the council of 12.​

youtube.com/watch?v=P_KERZlwOXM

Here’s Mitt Romney on Meet the Press. When asked about the same subject, why blacks were not admitted to the priesthood until 1978, he avoids answering the question while defending his personal belief. But he does not answer the question, and does not defend the LDS church.

youtube.com/watch?v=6Ek_jkwGg3I

The internet, used wisely, is wonderful to expose the truth.

 

[Pepband_Mom]

As a former Mormon, I cant say that I recall any sense of mysticism within Mormonism?

Are there any Mormon mystics?

from what I gather a mystic lives in the “eternal now” with God. The more holier or sanctified one becomes, one begin to break the confines, the bonds of time & space.

A couple examples:
St Pio bilocated, could read souls
St Claire saw Christmas Mass from her sick bed & is the patron of TV
St Francis had a gift with animals, seeming to speak with them; we bless the animals on his feast day
A Spanish saint, St Joseph of Copertino was known to have levitated, but if you mentioned the holy name of Jesus, he would start levitating in complete joy.
There is a young native girl buried in British Columbia, western Canada, died in the 1980’s is incorrupt, probably one of the first North American Incorruptibles - her name is Rose. Her cause is up for consideration or should be.

Over 100 Incorruptibles (see book “The Incorruptibles” by Joan Carroll Cruz) atesting to the many remaining incorrupt saints still visible today: Best one is St Bernadette who died 3 years before my grandfather was born so it puts it into perspective for me as far as a timeline. I did see St John Southworth @ Westminster Cathedral in London. He was drawn & quartered during the severe Catholic persecution by Queen _____ , took his body to France & buried him @ the College of Douay France brought him up 100 years later in the 1700’s, incorrupt! I saw him & was speechless!

FYI
catholicpilgrims.com Check out St Bernadette : She is GORGEOUS! Anyone able to explain the gifts of the mystics? LDS ever been told about this? Why Not? It’s IMPOSSIBLE to not DECAY after DEATH right?

Why is this phenomenon LIMITED to RCC & Orthodox only? I know of no other case in Prot Chrisitianity, let alone sects, non-Christian world groups? Hmmmmm…

 

[Stephen168]

We are not judging people, we are judging the Mormon Church.

There is a difference between Mormons and Mormon Church teaching/practice.

While there are Mormons who are not racists, the Mormon Church barred people from their priesthood because of their race; the Mormon Church was racist.

Out of curiosity,

Out of curiosity. do you now understand, and we can agree that the Mormon Church was racist until 1978?