Odd question for Mormons

[Stephen168]

Out of curiosity, how does the Catholic church view divine law before it came into existence?

How we thought of something before it existed? Like asking what the Catholic Church thought of the automobile before it was invented? This makes no sense.

…….He did indeed used to restrict the priesthood to certain races, sometimes even certain parentage.

Do you have an example in the Old Testament where the priesthood was given to all races except one? Or where it was given to everyone of one race?

Our family has passed down a silver spoon for generations; I have the spoon because I’m the first son of a first son of a first son, not because I’m white. Apostolic Succession is based on the person not his race. True Apostolic Succession is not racist like the Mormon Church was before 1978.

 

[pablope]

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?

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

I hope you rethink and do not do it. You understanding of the analogy is way off. You will not be honest with what you are presenting and saying…and I do hope you are conscientius enough to think about what you are going to be doing…you are sugarcoating your history.

 

[RebeccaJ]

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:
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?

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.

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.

Twisting scripture out of necessity to CYA isn’t the way to go.

In addition, your argument is based on a false premise. Mormonism teaches that every male is a “priesthood holder”. At one time saying a male with dark skin could not be a priesthood holder. The ramifications for a Mormon male are such that the person is an underclass. A husband can’t bless his children, baptize them, can’t hold leadership positions in your church, etc. With the emphasis that Mormonism places on the importance of priesthood in the home, a man who is denied this because of the color of his skin is dependent on another man to do what all Mormons view as the responsibility and right of the father/husband. I hope you can see how degrading this is.

Mormons track very carefully which male members hold what level of priesthood and actively work towards fellowshipping each other so that every male member is actively at the level of priesthood he should be. There was a time that this fellowship was not extended to men because of the color of their skin.

In the OT, not every male was not a priesthood holder, so therefore, individuals were not discriminated against based on race. The differences in OT priesthood and Mormon priesthood are wide and large. You are trying to compare things that cannot be compared.

No one in the OT was denied priesthood based on their race. That is your Mormon leaders, with 19th century views of people, denying them what Mormons view as the major responsibility of ALL male active members. For Mormons it is all about “worthiness”. At one time, men with darker skin were not deemed worthy to hold your priesthood.

There is no comparison. You should stop acting like there is.

 

[TexanKnight]

Twisting scripture out of necessity to CYA isn’t the way to go.

In addition, your argument is based on a false premise. Mormonism teaches that every male is a “priesthood holder”. At one time saying a male with dark skin could not be a priesthood holder. The ramifications for a Mormon male are such that the person is an underclass. A husband can’t bless his children, baptize them, can’t hold leadership positions in your church, etc. With the emphasis that Mormonism places on the importance of priesthood in the home, a man who is denied this because of the color of his skin is dependent on another man to do what all Mormons view as the responsibility and right of the father/husband. I hope you can see how degrading this is.

Mormons track very carefully which male members hold what level of priesthood and actively work towards fellowshipping each other so that every male member is actively at the level of priesthood he should be. There was a time that this fellowship was not extended to men because of the color of their skin.

In the OT, not every male was not a priesthood holder, so therefore, individuals were not discriminated against based on race. The differences in OT priesthood and Mormon priesthood are wide and large. You are trying to compare things that cannot be compared.

No one in the OT was denied priesthood based on their race. That is your Mormon leaders, with 19th century views of people, denying them what Mormons view as the major responsibility of ALL male active members. For Mormons it is all about “worthiness”. At one time, men with darker skin were not deemed worthy to hold your priesthood.

There is no comparison. You should stop acting like there is.

Maybe he knew he could no longer fool us, so he did not respond, as promised, on Monday…or Tuesday…

 

[twopekinguys]

Maybe he knew he could no longer fool us, so he did not respond, as promised, on Monday…or Tuesday…

He has abandoned threads before when it gets too tough for him.

His profile shows last log in at 2:47 pm on 1-14-13 (yesterday) Double

 

[TexanKnight]

He has abandoned threads before when it gets too tough for him.

His profile shows last log in at 2:47 pm on 1-14-13 (yesterday) Double

I admire a guy who has the integrity to stop when it is clear he has lost. Cut him some slack.

 

[twopekinguys]

I admire a guy who has the integrity to stop when it is clear he has lost. Cut him some slack.

Oh, I cut him some slack, but when they come to that realization, I would just prefer him to say…Hmmm, maybe these Catholics are onto something.

I would prefer him to say…that makes sense, I want to learn more.

I don’t want them to just fade away, I want an honest dialogue to begin/continue.

Better yet, have him tell me he’s going to talk to a priest.

I pray for them all.

 

[RebeccaJ]

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.*

 

[RebeccaJ]

Maybe he knew he could no longer fool us, so he did not respond, as promised, on Monday…or Tuesday…

I tend to give the benefit of the doubt. People get, and are, busy. If not, well, at least maybe there is an understanding that the indefensible has no defense.

The Mormon church leaders today should just apologize for this teaching, but that will never happen.

 

[anika001]

I would like to put it to the test. (absent the person of course) If it stops a bullet, ill convert. Alot cheaper than a bullet resistant vest

 

[TexanKnight]

I tend to give the benefit of the doubt. People get, and are, busy. If not, well, at least maybe there is an understanding that the indefensible has no defense.

The Mormon church leaders today should just apologize for this teaching, but that will never happen.

They should not have to.

If I were to come forward today and claim to have spoken to God face to face, have 9 versions of my vision, claim to have a book I translated from plates no one has seen except thru spiritual eyes, and that I translated it from a language no one has ever heard of before and it translated perfectly into King James English and it spoke of a land that no one has ever seen and no one can find evidence of and God told me to have the people build me a house and, oh, God said I can have many wives, mormons would have me committed.

But that is exactly what they follow

 

[Marie5890]

They have no trained clergy. No seminaries for their clergy. Nothing like that. It is more of a second, unpaid job, that takes lots of hours and time away from home. They learn on the job.

When I was a young Mormon I thought this was a plus.
Then, when I was older and in the need of some good guidance and counsel, I went and talked with the bishop of the ward I was a part of.

I left knowing that what he said and his guidance that he gave me was 1)hardly inspired and 2)unwise advice. Very unwise.

Having a clergy with no training at all, no background in anything, has the potential to inflict great harm.

 

[SteveVH]

When I was a young Mormon I thought this was a plus.
Then, when I was older and in the need of some good guidance and counsel, I went and talked with the bishop of the ward I was a part of.

I left knowing that what he said and his guidance that he gave me was 1)hardly inspired and 2)unwise advice. Very unwise.

Having a clergy with no training at all, no background in anything, has the potential to inflict great harm.

And yet comparisons are made between Catholic bishops and Mormon bishops. It isn’t even apples and oranges, its apples and rocks.

 

[Marie5890]

And yet comparisons are made between Catholic bishops and Mormon bishops. It isn’t even apples and oranges, its apples and rocks.

Clearly any one who makes such comparisons are lacking the understanding of how they are not even close in comparison.

 

[RebeccaJ]

When I was a young Mormon I thought this was a plus.
Then, when I was older and in the need of some good guidance and counsel, I went and talked with the bishop of the ward I was a part of.

I left knowing that what he said and his guidance that he gave me was 1)hardly inspired and 2)unwise advice. Very unwise.

Having a clergy with no training at all, no background in anything, has the potential to inflict great harm.

The bishop I had as a teen was a dentist. He was a nice guy and I liked him. He passed out toothbrushes at Halloween.

But I could never get any straight answers out him for anything, let alone good advise.

Before that, the bishop was my dad. Now one of my brothers is a bishop. My parents are very proud. It underlines for me, just how far outside of Mormonism I am.

They don’t believe they need training because they think they have special powers. Delusional is what they are.

 

[Outerspace]

The great majority of Mormons are not allowed any freedom to become mystics. That is allowed only among the leadership-- as prophets. However, the top leadership are businessmen.

Early Mormons spoke in tongues. This was banned, since it would encourage people to challenge Joseph Smith’s leadership.

Citation needed.

Mormons believe we can be ministered to by angels and be in the presence of the savior himself. If that is what is meant by mystical.

I think fishing is a business.

 

[Outerspace]

Twisting scripture out of necessity to CYA isn’t the way to go.

In addition, your argument is based on a false premise. Mormonism teaches that every male is a “priesthood holder”.

No, you have to be ordained. It’s not automatic.

At one time saying a male with dark skin could not be a priesthood holder.

Sort of like how at one point Christians would not baptize gentiles.

The ramifications for a Mormon male are such that the person is an underclass. A husband can’t bless his children, baptize them, can’t hold leadership positions in your church, etc.

Imagine being a gentile in the time of Christ.

With the emphasis that Mormonism places on the importance of priesthood in the home, a man who is denied this because of the color of his skin is dependent on another man to do what all Mormons view as the responsibility and right of the father/husband. I hope you can see how degrading this is.

Mormons track very carefully which male members hold what level of priesthood and actively work towards fellowshipping each other so that every male member is actively at the level of priesthood he should be. There was a time that this fellowship was not extended to men because of the color of their skin.

Sort of like how baptism was denied the unclean gentile.

In the OT, not every male was not a priesthood holder, so therefore, individuals were not discriminated against based on race. The differences in OT priesthood and Mormon priesthood are wide and large. You are trying to compare things that cannot be compared.

No one in the OT was denied priesthood based on their race. That is your Mormon leaders, with 19th century views of people, denying them what Mormons view as the major responsibility of ALL male active members. For Mormons it is all about “worthiness”. At one time, men with darker skin were not deemed worthy to hold your priesthood.

There is no comparison. You should stop acting like there is.

Actually Levites were the only ones allowed to carry the ark and serve in the Temple, so if you were not a Levite your priesthood was limited. As far as I know nobody other than an Israelite was ever allowed the Priesthood, the LDS black ban was far less discriminatory. The original OT ban was incredibly wide and large.

As we all know intermarriages were banned in the Bible, slavery was permitted in the Bible, gentile baptism required a special revelation and so forth.

And of course, how many churches have a female priesthood?

 

[Outerspace]

The bishop I had as a teen was a dentist. He was a nice guy and I liked him. He passed out toothbrushes at Halloween.

But I could never get any straight answers out him for anything, let alone good advise.

Before that, the bishop was my dad. Now one of my brothers is a bishop. My parents are very proud. It underlines for me, just how far outside of Mormonism I am.

They don’t believe they need training because they think they have special powers. Delusional is what they are.

One of the common complaints in the church is too many training meetings.

 

[TexanKnight]

One of the common complaints in the church is too many training meetings.

Citation.

That must be a new thing. The only thing I was ever trained to do, in ALL my callings, was at the MTC

 

[Outerspace]

Well I did 4 years of seminary, the MTC, weekly district meeting, monthly zone meetings, ward mission meeting, PEC meetings, EQ meetings, and of course there are stake high council meetings, relief society presidency meetings, just about any auxillary in the Church has endless meetings.

I guess you didn’t make it out of the MTC?