Question for Mormons about Cain

[RebeccaJ]

The thing is ParkerD, if you believe that having a person with priesthood in the home is important to the well being of family, you wouldn’t deny this to a family. You would do everything you could to make it happen. It is rather upside down to believe God withholds the things that are most needed.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I can’t help it if you were taught in a wrong way. “Never wrong” was never taught in the home I was raised in.

I think you are in denial if you believe your church does not teach unquestionable obedience to the brethren.

The word “Brethren” is plural, not singular.

Yes, I know. It specifically refers to 15 men. All who you believe are “prophets, seers and revelators”.

So anyone who cares to can find out what “follow the living prophet” means in the context of where that is talked about, as opposed to getting your sole opinion on the matter.

Listen and obey. If you think something other than this, then I suggest you read up on what your church actually teaches.

 

[ParkerD]

Rebecca,
You’re basically right about a strong LDS teaching of “following the brethren”, except that if anyone had taken a concern about what JFS or BRM had written (as an apostle) to the First Presidency by letter and asked, “do I need to believe this carte blanche?” I would guess that one of the First Presidency would have written back, “Absolutely not. They have written their own opinion.” I have heard several times during my life that President McKay didn’t agree with some of their writings. The First Presidency didn’t control what they wrote, but that doesn’t mean they agreed with it carte blanche, and they certainly wouldn’t expect the general membership to agree with it carte blanche.

Believe me, I wish JFS had kept quiet on a matter he knew nothing about other than his own opinions. He was out of line to write his opinion as if it were “doctrine”; the opinion was vastly wrong, and I think the outcome was a proof that he should have kept his opinion to himself–it has been a stumbling block for many good people.

As to your comment about the priesthood being needed in the home, I agree. I form opinions about why the timing was as it was (or why there needed to be a withholding of priesthood at all, which I would have wished had never happened), but they are only my opinions. I was over-joyed when the policy was changed. I had expressed my hope for such a change to happen soon during my missionary homecoming talk in 1976, because of the wonderful blacks I had met, loved and appreciated. (By the way, my talk was well-received without any cautionary “you shouldn’t have said that”.)

 

[RebeccaJ]

Rebecca,
You’re basically right about a strong LDS teaching of “following the brethren”, except that if anyone had taken a concern about what JFS or BRM had written (as an apostle) to the First Presidency by letter and asked, “do I need to believe this carte blanche?” I would guess that one of the First Presidency would have written back, “Absolutely not. They have written their own opinion.” I have heard several times during my life that President McKay didn’t agree with some of their writings. The First Presidency didn’t control what they wrote, but that doesn’t mean they agreed with it carte blanche, and they certainly wouldn’t expect the general membership to agree with it carte blanche.

Believe me, I wish JFS had kept quiet on a matter he knew nothing about other than his own opinions. He was out of line to write his opinion as if it were “doctrine”; the opinion was vastly wrong, and I think the outcome was a proof that he should have kept his opinion to himself–it has been a stumbling block for many good people.

As to your comment about the priesthood being needed in the home, I agree. I form opinions about why the timing was as it was (or why there needed to be a withholding of priesthood at all, which I would have wished had never happened), but they are only my opinions. I was over-joyed when the policy was changed. I had expressed my hope for such a change to happen soon during my missionary homecoming talk in 1976, because of the wonderful blacks I had met, loved and appreciated. (By the way, my talk was well-received without any cautionary “you shouldn’t have said that”.)

ParkerD, really, I am glad you saw this stuff as BS. I thought it was a very good change as well. I’d say that most everyone I knew saw it that way, with a few exceptions.

At any rate, you attempt to whitewash. These were not JFS opinions. Your church taught this, as God’s revealed truth. I was taught it in primary, sunday school, MIA/YW, and seminary. It was a very consistent teaching of your church, not just some weird OMG, what left field did THAT come out of? Someone ring up SLC and tell them they have lost it!

Perhaps it makes you feel better to remember it that way, but it is not the truth.

 

[Jerusha]

Tryong to get my puny little brain around an idea. Since mormon theology generally denies original sin, they had to find something similar to it. So-- the mark of Cain on people of color is the Mormon original sin. However, it only applies to people of color. And, to Mormon thinking, people of color must become Mormon in order to be relieved to the hereditary “original sin” that weighs on them. Thus, the repeated baptisms, to wash this sin off of their bodies. (Sarcastic, here)

I was reading the Millennial Star yesterday, and saw something relevant to this. They were criticizing Catholicism, with its one Pope, while Mormonism has twelve apostles. That is rather humorous, in light of the Presidency being humorously called the “Mormon Papacy”.

Sorry, one of the temple recommend interview questions refers to “sustaining, obeying, upholding” the leaders of the church. If this does not point to unquestioning obediance for some people, I am a monkey’s aunt.

 

[ParkerD]

ParkerD, really, I am glad you saw this stuff as BS. I thought it was a very good change as well. I’d say that most everyone I knew saw it that way, with a few exceptions.

At any rate, you attempt to whitewash. These were not JFS opinions. Your church taught this, as God’s revealed truth. I was taught it in primary, sunday school, MIA/YW, and seminary. It was a very consistent teaching of your church, not just some weird OMG, what left field did THAT come out of? Someone ring up SLC and tell them they have lost it!

Perhaps it makes you feel better to remember it that way, but it is not the truth.

Rebecca,
I may have heard those kinds of teachings talked about a few times during my youth, but when I heard it, I didn’t feel I was hearing truth. I remember researching the topic in the scriptures, and deciding, “That position is not doctrinally correct.” I did not feel pushed around by what one opinionated Apostle thought.

I don’t think I’m whitewashing. Maybe you had teachers who had a bias on this issue. Teachers teach from their own perspective. I had a Sunday School teacher once who said Adam and the early patriarchs lived over 900 years because they were counting years differently than we count them now. I didn’t believe that either.

 

[ParkerD]

Tryong to get my puny little brain around an idea. Since mormon theology generally denies original sin, they had to find something similar to it. So-- the mark of Cain on people of color is the Mormon original sin. However, it only applies to people of color. And, to Mormon thinking, people of color must become Mormon in order to be relieved to the hereditary “original sin” that weighs on them. Thus, the repeated baptisms, to wash this sin off of their bodies. (Sarcastic, here)

I was reading the Millennial Star yesterday, and saw something relevant to this. They were criticizing Catholicism, with its one Pope, while Mormonism has twelve apostles. That is rather humorous, in light of the Presidency being humorously called the “Mormon Papacy”.

Sorry, one of the temple recommend interview questions refers to “sustaining, obeying, upholding” the leaders of the church. If this does not point to unquestioning obedience for some people, I am a monkey’s aunt.

Jerusha,
Again, it was a JFS opinion, non-doctrinal, non-inspired, non-scriptural.
The temple recommend questions talk about sustaining, which absolutely does not mean “unquestioning obedience,” particularly not “believe and do everything any of the apostles say or write.” That would mean any LDS member who went bankrupt could not hold a temple recommend, because the actions that led to their bankrupcy would not have been “obeying” the Brethren.

When Joseph Smith taught that a prophet is only a prophet when he is acting as such, I think he had in mind a wide range of issues that could come up–the very kinds of issues we’re talking about. He couldn’t control (and didn’t want to, contrary to their agency) everything any of the apostles or even his counselors said or wrote back then, either. The precedent was set in the early days of the LDS church, that to be sure you’re getting inspired doctrine, go to the scriptures as your fundamental source. JFS understood this principle, but by going off on a tangent trying to add to scriptural text his own conclusions about what was written, he was off base. He shouldn’t have done it. He made a significant mistake, and his son-in-law, Bruce R McConkie, was willing to say so.

 

[Jerusha]

Thank you. I certainly wish the LDS church would clarify those teachings.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Rebecca,
I may have heard those kinds of teachings talked about a few times during my youth, but when I heard it, I didn’t feel I was hearing truth. I remember researching the topic in the scriptures, and deciding, “That position is not doctrinally correct.” I did not feel pushed around by what one opinionated Apostle thought.

Seriously, it wasn’t one opinionated apostle. BY taught it from the pulpit. LDS believe what their prophets teach from the pulpit. I did.

I don’t think I’m whitewashing. Maybe you had teachers who had a bias on this issue. Teachers teach from their own perspective. I had a Sunday School teacher once who said Adam and the early patriarchs lived over 900 years because they were counting years differently than we count them now. I didn’t believe that either.

haha, I was taught that they lived so long because they still had the genetic disposition to longevity, based on Adam and Eve being immortal before the fall. After a while that gene faded away so that’s why we don’t live so long any more.

I didn’t believe these things either. After so many years of hearing all this BS, I left. I have no confidence that your leaders are capable of teaching truth. Maybe in a sort of hit and miss fashion. If you guess enough you’ll get a few answers right. But they teach a lot of error, as divine, God given, revealed truth.

I held this belief about all religions for about 20 years. All that time, I based that belief on what I was taught by the LDS. Truth is found, real truth, in the Church that Christ established and has Him at its head. When I asked, God led me here. It appears to me that you have chosen to settle, for a few truths, a trickle when you could be washed in it completely.

 

[Jerusha]

'Becca, don’t sweat it. Some leave the LDS church quickly, others diverge slowly, and don’t realize they are out until other LDS confront them with their divergent theology.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Ah, no sweat. A lot try to stay in, no matter what, in any way they can. It is a test they have to pass in order to become a god.

 

[C2M2C]

Rebecca & Paul,

I’m not getting any response on my temple questions from any Mormons here, do you guys have any insight? I started to look into it a little bit last night on Jeff Lindsay’s sight. He basically says that the Mormon ceremony is a restored truth. So where was it restored from, from the LDS perspective? He mentioned initiatories, citing Exodus, and prayer circles from the writing of an early church father. But it seems like the same old speculation. Because an early church father discussed praying in a circle, voilà, we have the prayer circle in the temple. Another spoke of being clothed in white and,vioila we have temple clothing. etc, etc.

On another note, IMO, if you believe in Mormonism, don’t you by default have to believe in it’s authority? Same with Catholicism? So if a church leader, lets say BY for example makes a statement like (paraphrasing) “…every sermon I’ve ever given is to be considered nothing less than scripture”, is he full of “IT” or is he speaking on the authority he claimed to have? I didn’t watch rated R movies for almost 10 years because I believed in the authority and that’s what the authority said to not do. I knew people whom I considered to be much more “worthy” than I who felt like they could handle rated R movies. This might be likened to cafeteria Catholics. According to members, BY is full of it on one topic, but his JoD is used as a Sunday school manual on other issues, where perhaps the members don’t think he’s full of it. IMO, on both issues, you can’t have it both ways.

And Ps- “Intiatories” another Mormon word that doesn’t pass the spell check:shrug:

 

[RebeccaJ]

Rebecca & Paul,

I’m not getting any response on my temple questions from any Mormons here, do you guys have any insight?

There is no link. They don’t have what you are asking for, other than, God told JS, therefore, all temple practices came from God.

To your question about temple sacrifices. It was practiced by the LDS (Brighamites) for a very, very short time. I don’t know why it was stopped or why they no longer practice it.

And Ps- “Intiatories” another Mormon word that doesn’t pass the spell check:shrug:

I have found the 1828 Webster’s dictionary to be helpful:

INI’TIATORY, a. Initiating or serving to initiate; introducing by instruction, or by the use and application of symbols or ceremonies.
Two initiatory rites of the same general import cannot exist together.
INI’TIATORY, n. [supra.] Introductory rite.

It also helps in understanding the BoM…the parts that aren’t KJV Bible.

 

[LDSGuy]

I apologize for my inability to be clear. What I am saying is this, and let me reiterate what I said earlier about having done no research on this, how can Mormons claim that their temple ceremony is ancient roots & came from God? Mormons claim the Mayans are actually Nephites and as such their temples are proof that the Mayans in fact were Nephites and engaged in the same temple ceremony that Mormons do today as evidenced by their temples. We know for a fact that the Mayans sacrificed humans in the temple. Having been through myself, that is obviously not what Mormons do, so then where is the connection? When was the change?

ParkerD has since explained that there was an apostasy at that time as well. So this is why there is no evidence linking the two temple ceremonies together, or anything for that matter to indicate that they are in any way, shape, or form similar.

About the Jews; the Jews were God’s people correct (pre New Testament)? And their temple ceremonies came from God, correct? So assuming these things are correct (I’ve done no research), and the Jews sacrificed animals in their temple for repentance; when did the temple ceremony change from what the Jews did, to what Mormons do?

And finally, why do we have evidence of Mayans sacrificing humans (post apostasy according to ParkerD) and yet no evidence of an LDS version. pre-apostasy?

I think you’re still confusing ideas. Latter-day Saints do not claim that the “Nephites and engaged in the same temple ceremony that Mormons do today as evidenced by their temples.”. The concept of temple worship and covenant making is a restored practice, however the endowment is a latter-day ceremony based on Biblical principles, in our belief. And again, Latter-day Saints do not claim that the endowment ceremony was practiced by Mayans, Nephites, etc.

 

[Jerusha]

However, in many ways, the LDS church is a re-creation of the Nephite church. Wouldn’t it make more sense if you copied it EXACTLY? Did they baptize the dead? There is no mention of it in the BOM.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I think you’re still confusing ideas. Latter-day Saints do not claim that the “Nephites and engaged in the same temple ceremony that Mormons do today as evidenced by their temples.”. The concept of temple worship and covenant making is a restored practice, however the endowment is a latter-day ceremony based on Biblical principles, in our belief. And again, Latter-day Saints do not claim that the endowment ceremony was practiced by Mayans, Nephites, etc.

This only raises the question, what were the Nephite temples for and what rites were they practicing in them? If this church in the Americas was the same as the church that Jesus established, why would they be different. Why would something restored in 1831 be different than either one?