Race, God, and the LDS Church

[aquabatix]

That is a lot of double talk. In one breath it is “policy” but in the same breath it is a “revelation”. (???)

Really? You can’t have it both ways. It is either FROM god or not. Doctrine or public policy?

 

[MelanieAnne]

Agreed.

Ahimsa, it’s hard to say who has said what because it seems like every Mormon that comes to this forum says something else. Some have labeled earlier revelation, that now contradicts current doctrine, as “opinion”. Whether it was you or someone else is not, in the end, all that important. The important thing is that asking a Mormon about doctrine is even more precarious than asking the IRS about the tax code ~ you get a different answer every time a new person answers the same question.

It basically boils down to this:

• At one time, racist policies against blacks were doctrine in the LDS faith.
• In more recent years, all that doctrine has been reversed and, to the extent necessary, scripture has been updated.
• Some Mormons posting to this forum have described the earlier doctrine as “opinion” and said it was never actually doctrine.
• If we accept that explanation, that means numerous persons said to be prophets of the Mormon faith were not, in fact, prophets.
• I’ll grant you, it’s a messy business, but it is entirely of Mormon making.

 

[Ahimsa]

Agreed.

Ahimsa, it’s hard to say who has said what because it seems like every Mormon that comes to this forum says something else. Some have labeled earlier revelation, that now contradicts current doctrine, as “opinion”. Whether it was you or someone else is not, in the end, all that important. The important thing is that asking a Mormon about doctrine is even more precarious than asking the IRS about the tax code ~ you get a different answer every time a new person answers the same question.

It basically boils down to this:

• At one time, racist policies against blacks were doctrine in the LDS faith.
• In more recent years, all that doctrine has been reversed and, to the extent necessary, scripture has been updated.
• Some Mormons posting to this forum have described the earlier doctrine as “opinion” and said it was never actually doctrine.
• If we accept that explanation, that means numerous persons said to be prophets of the Mormon faith were not, in fact, prophets.
• I’ll grant you, it’s a messy business, but it is entirely of Mormon making.

One comment, if you will, which is the one main argument I’ve been making in this thread:

If by “racist policies” you mean the African priesthood ban (APB), then one has to acknowledge that APB was not present during Joseph Smith’s lifetime. Also, whether something is a “doctrine” or not in LDS, is dependent upon many factors, not least of which is incorporation into the core LDS scriptures (which include Prophetic revelations). As far as I know (and no one in this thread has shown me otherwise), the APB has never been part of core LDS scriptures. In fact, as far as I know, core LDS scriptures do not mention Africans; they do mention Ham, of course, but to make “Ham=African” is to make an extra-biblical/extra-scriptural interpolation. Many people have many definitions of what “doctrine” is, but however they define it, it is clear that the APB is not explicit in LDS scripture/revelation texts.

 

[MelanieAnne]

One comment, if you will, which is the one main argument I’ve been making in this thread:

If by “racist policies” you mean the African priesthood ban (APB), then one has to acknowledge that APB was not present during Joseph Smith’s lifetime. Also, whether something is a “doctrine” or not in LDS, is dependent upon many factors, not least of which is incorporation into the core LDS scriptures (which include Prophetic revelations). As far as I know (and no one in this thread has shown me otherwise), the APB has never been part of core LDS scriptures. In fact, as far as I know, core LDS scriptures do not mention Africans; they do mention Ham, of course, but to make “Ham=African” is to make an extra-biblical/extra-scriptural interpolation. Many people have many definitions of what “doctrine” is, but however they define it, it is clear that the APB is not explicit in LDS scripture/revelation texts.

There have been numerous references to various racist doctrines reported in this thread. I submit you merely need to scroll up and read. Reading is not hard and there is no excuse for not doing a bit of it.

If you are not going to take these issues seriously, then I agree with the other posters when they say they will put you on ignore. If you actually expect to have a “conversation” you’re going to have to take this seriously and actually look into the facts of this issue, as well as other issues you wish to discuss. At this point, the Catholics posting to this thread appear to know far more about the subject than any Mormon posting here. Since you’re setting yourself up as a Mormon Apologist, it is incumbent upon you to actually have some information about the subject.

 

[aquabatix]

Ok, I’ll bite. If there is no EXPLICIT scripture that says “west african blacks can not hold the priesthood”, WHO are the “negroes” that are constantly referred to by the prophets, apostles and teachers? Who was supposed to be banned, cursed and exempt? WHO??

 

[Ahimsa]

Ok, I’ll bite. If there is no EXPLICIT scripture that says “west african blacks can not hold the priesthood”, WHO are the “negroes” that are constantly referred to by the prophets, apostles and teachers? Who was supposed to be banned, cursed and exempt? WHO??

It seems pretty clear that the “Negroes” talked about by Mormon leaders are mostly descendants of West Africans. It’s true that most African-Americans have ancestors who came from West Africa.

Christianity has traditionally taught that West Africans are descendants of Ham. Baptist, Methodists, as well as Mormons have taught this, and many still teach this. Southern Baptists often used this teaching to justify enslaving West Africans, since Noah cursed Canaan/Ham.

There’s another idea, which argues that Ham and Cain are connected, via Ham marrying Egyptus, a female descendant of Cain. Thus, Ham’s sons (and daughters) are also Cainites. And since Cain himself was cursed by God Himself, that makes Ham’s descendants “doubly cursed”, if you will.

Now, in the Bible, it’s clear that Cain is cursed, and that Canaan/Ham is cursed.

But, to then say that the curse put upon Cain and his descendants, or upon Canaan/Ham and their descendants, is also placed upon West Africans, is to make a non-biblical statement, not stated in the Bible.

In the LDS scriptures, you can find texs that talk about the Ham and Cain curses. That’s not debated.

What is debated, by me as well as by many Mormons, is whether LDS scriptures goes further and states that West Africans are descendants of Ham and Cain. The LDS scriptures say no such thing.

However, many Mormons have indeed believed and taught that Ham and Cain are (1) ancestors of West Africans; AND (2) that the curse on Ham and Cain is still applicable to West Africans. This Mormon belief, many Mormons say, was a result of Mormons accepting uncritically the wider Christian belief of a genetic connection between Ham (and Cain) and West Africans. But this wider Christian belief is also non-scriptural.

So, both Protestants (and Catholics), as well as Mormons of the 19th century made the mistake of genetically connecting Ham (and Cain) with West Africans.

The LDS scriptures talk about a priesthood ban, but a ban against the descendants of Ham/Cain, NOT a ban against specifically Africans, or West Africans.

So, my simple point, is that the LDS African priesthood ban is a result of a multi-step process: (1) the LDS scriptures, including the Bible, talk about curses being applied to Cain and Ham; the LDS texts also state the existence of a Cain/Ham priesthood ban; (2) the non-scriptural, and non-biblical, assumption that West Africans are the descendants of Cain and Ham is then made, by both Protestants (and Catholics) and Mormons, leading to a justification of slavery on the part of many white Protestants; and (3) in the LDS culture, the Cain/Ham priesthood ban is then applied (unscripturally) to West Africans.

Joseph Smith, though, did ordain African-Americans to the priesthood, so obviously J. Smith did not take step 3, even if he may have believed in step 2 and step 1.

Brigham Young brought in step 3.

In 1978, step 3 was rejected by the LDS – and LDS could do this, because step 3 is not supported by LDS scripture.

 

[MelanieAnne]

It seems pretty clear that the “Negroes” talked about by Mormon leaders are mostly descendants of West Africans. It’s true that most African-Americans have ancestors who came from West Africa.

Christianity has traditionally taught that West Africans are descendants of Ham. Baptist, Methodists, as well as Mormons have taught this, and many still teach this. Southern Baptists often used this teaching to justify enslaving West Africans, since Noah cursed Canaan/Ham.

There’s another idea, which argues that Ham and Cain are connected, via Ham marrying Egyptus, a female descendant of Cain. Thus, Ham’s sons (and daughters) are also Cainites. And since Cain himself was cursed by God Himself, that makes Ham’s descendants “doubly cursed”, if you will.

Now, in the Bible, it’s clear that Cain is cursed, and that Canaan/Ham is cursed.

But, to then say that the curse put upon Cain and his descendants, or upon Canaan/Ham and their descendants, is also placed upon West Africans, is to make a non-biblical statement, not stated in the Bible.

In the LDS scriptures, you can find texs that talk about the Ham and Cain curses. That’s not debated.

What is debated, by me as well as by many Mormons, is whether LDS scriptures goes further and states that West Africans are descendants of Ham and Cain. The LDS scriptures say no such thing.

However, many Mormons have indeed believed and taught that Ham and Cain are (1) ancestors of West Africans; AND (2) that the curse on Ham and Cain is still applicable to West Africans. This Mormon belief, many Mormons say, was a result of Mormons accepting uncritically the wider Christian belief of a genetic connection between Ham (and Cain) and West Africans. But this wider Christian belief is also non-scriptural.

So, both Protestants (and Catholics), as well as Mormons of the 19th century made the mistake of genetically connecting Ham (and Cain) with West Africans.

The LDS scriptures talk about a priesthood ban, but a ban against the descendants of Ham/Cain, NOT a ban against specifically Africans, or West Africans.

So, my simple point, is that the LDS African priesthood ban is a result of a multi-step process: (1) the LDS scriptures, including the Bible, talk about curses being applied to Cain and Ham; the LDS texts also state the existence of a Cain/Ham priesthood ban; (2) the non-scriptural, and non-biblical, assumption that West Africans are the descendants of Cain and Ham is then made, by both Protestants (and Catholics) and Mormons, leading to a justification of slavery on the part of many white Protestants; and (3) in the LDS culture, the Cain/Ham priesthood ban is then applied (unscripturally) to West Africans.

Joseph Smith, though, did ordain African-Americans to the priesthood, so obviously J. Smith did not take step 3, even if he may have believed in step 2 and step 1.

Brigham Young brought in step 3.

In 1978, step 3 was rejected by the LDS – and LDS could do this, because step 3 is not supported by LDS scripture.

OK, let’s pretend all that is true.

How do you explain the rest of the “doctrine” elucidated in the past? Because racism was taught as doctrine by Mormonism. It wasn’t taught as an “idea” or as an “opinion”, it was taught as doctrine and if you simply scroll up, you can find that out. And, quite frankly, it’s hard to understand for THIS Catholic why CATHOLICS have to teach MORMONS their faith. But that seems to be the way of things here.

How do you explain that, even AFTER the 1978 reversal of the racist doctrine (which you seem to believe was not a doctrine before, but then, if it wasn’t doctrine, why did it need to be reversed?) that the Mormon church still taught that interracial marriage was forbidden? That’s another racist doctrine? It wasn’t reversed. WHY? Explain ALL of that.

And while you’re at it, please explain how a so-called prophet of the Mormon church can “reveal” something as doctrine, assert that something is a commandment of the Mormon god, and then a subsequent so-called prophet can reverse that same commandment of the Mormon god, when the tax status of the church is threatened, but never before that.

So, is the Mormon god attentive to politics in the United States? Or are you saying that’s just pure coincidence? Because, quite frankly, it just seems odd that the Mormon god would suddenly have this opinion JUST when the LDS exemption was threatened. The Mormon god never seemed to be too interested before, why then?

 

[aquabatix]

So basically you have “prophets” for 130 years claiming something as with a scriptural basis who were wrong? Did they exclude the Native Americans from the sacraments of the church as well? After all, they are the decendents of the Lamanites who were cursed as well. To misuse scripture to exclude people us the opposite of Jesus’ message of love and the heart of the Torah. So basically the beaten man on the side of the road would get no help from the Mormon version of the Samaritan because he had dark skin and might be of the cursed decent.

 

[MelanieAnne]

I repeat. There is no such thing as racism when it comes to God because we are all “made in the image and likeness of God”. There is no exception to that for any person.

Mormons have asserted, at least in the past, racist doctrine. Racist doctrine cannot have come from God.

Current day Mormons seek to distance themselves from the racist roots of Mormonism. In so doing, they undermine the entire idea that they are led by “prophets”.

Mormons cannot have it both ways. Either they are led by “prophets” or they are not.

If they are not led by prophets, then we can disregard everything from so-called Mormon “prophets” and Mormonism falls apart.

If they are NOT led by prophets, then Mormonism also falls apart.

OOPS!

 

[dianaiad]

I’m sorry. The “sometimes prophet” stance does not hold water. We have no record of any prophet, once called to be one, that was not under God’s call and jurisdiction. When you are called to be a prophet, (not a priest, deacon, elder, bishop, etc) you are one for life and are accountable. There is no record of Moses, Daniel, Jonah, etc shooting off at the mouth about God/faith and it is deemed as simply their “opinion”. I simply don’t buy it.

Of course there isn’t, because those times in which they DID speak only as men, not as prophets, were not recorded. …or do you think that they were put in carbonite between the times they wrote the stuff that actually made it into the canon?

Besides, if there is one thing that is true, it is this: almost every prophet in the bible had a very human failing that was very much pointed out; you don’t believe that prophets are not allowed to be 'just human?" Try the story of Jonah on for size. Peter was an apostle…AND a prophet thereby, from the time Jesus called him…but boy, did he show HIS human side. So, by the way, did Judas, who was as much an apostle as any of them. Moses had a little pride issue. Moses was a murderer and not a very good husband, I gather…Paul was a mysogynist…and we got THAT from the stuff that DID make it into scripture!

the thing is, it is an utterly illogical view to take that because the only thing we have of the ancient prophets are the scriptures they wrote, that they wrote, or said, nothing else!

I’m quite certain that if they had the same technology then as Joseph Smith had, or that we have, we would have all sorts of very human, very imperfect, opinions from them.

Finally, there is this: it is impossible for them NOT to have had very human failings, for doesn’t the scripture say that nobody is perfect save God? No mortal on earth has been sinless save Jesus (and, I gather from Catholic thought, His mother, perhaps…) but nobody else has ever been perfect.

Thus the syllogism goes:
No human but Jesus Christ (and maybe His mother) is perfect.
A prophet is a human.
Therefore no prophet is perfect.

Any prophet.

 

[SirThomasMore]

Of course there isn’t, because those times in which they DID speak only as men, not as prophets, were not recorded. …or do you think that they were put in carbonite between the times they wrote the stuff that actually made it into the canon?

 

[Marc_Anthony]

I repeat. There is no such thing as racism when it comes to God because we are all “made in the image and likeness of God”. There is no exception to that for any person.

Mormons have asserted, at least in the past, racist doctrine. Racist doctrine cannot have come from God.

Current day Mormons seek to distance themselves from the racist roots of Mormonism. In so doing, they undermine the entire idea that they are led by “prophets”.

Mormons cannot have it both ways. Either they are led by “prophets” or they are not.

If they are not led by prophets, then we can disregard everything from so-called Mormon “prophets” and Mormonism falls apart.

If they are NOT led by prophets, then Mormonism also falls apart.

OOPS!

This is about where I’m getting at.

I actually think the Mormons shot themselves in the foot when they got RID of the racist teachings. With the racist teachings, they were racist but at least their religion seemed consistent. But without them, they have contradicted a supposed teaching of God and the foundation of Mormonism collapses.

 

[MelanieAnne]

This is about where I’m getting at.

I actually think the Mormons shot themselves in the foot when they got RID of the racist teachings. With the racist teachings, they were racist but at least their religion seemed consistent. But without them, they have contradicted a supposed teaching of God and the foundation of Mormonism collapses.

Well, they gave it up because they wanted to maintain their tax exempt status.

I have some thoughts on that, but I’m not even going to “go there”.

This issue belongs to Mormons, not me. They can figure out whether they want to be racist or they want to believe they have a “prophet seer & revelator”. They can’t have both. So I guess we’ll just see.

m

 

[aquabatix]

Alright, I am tired of you using some of these holy men to try and justify your “prophets”. Let’s see, Jonah tried to run from his calling as prophet, but the Lord forced him back. Moses did kill a man in defense of a fellow Jew, but this was bfore he was called by God and was in defense of another which led to the accidental death of the Egyptian. Peter denied Christ, 3 times even, but was rebuked during Jesus’ ministry when he was presumptious and Jesus used his denial as a tool to forgive him. Judas betrayed our Lord, and was not brought back. Jesus said it would be better if he was never born and some legends tell of Judas’ suicide or stomach bursting and death.

The point is, NONE of these men spoke wrongly about God or the faith and had to take it back. They may have tried to run away from their calling or done something wrong before their calling or denied God, but never did things after being called and had to use the excuse that they were not a prophet at that time. No sexual immorality or murder. They are not the same as JS, BY or any other prophet of the LDS church. It doesn’t work.

 

[PaulDupre]

When the Mormons, in an attempt to deflect from the shameful behavior and disgusting teachings of their leaders, bash the bible and dishonor the prophets, saints and martyrs, it only serves to show people what they are really about.

Mormons are their own worst enemies.

 

[dianaiad]

Well, they gave it up because they wanted to maintain their tax exempt status.

I have some thoughts on that, but I’m not even going to “go there”.

that’s good, because this ‘losing their tax exempt status’ is bogus. While it is true that the CoJCoLDS is the ONLY church in US history to have American armed services after them, and the only church in US history to be threatened with having all their property confiscated, that was in the 1800’s, not the 1900’s. As it happens, there has never been a church that has lost its tax exempt status for any reason. It is unconstitutional. What HAS happened is that the IRS might rescind the ‘letter’ that is issued to non-profit organizations. This letter must be given to any non-church non-profit group, and if that letter is rescinded for them, that tax exempt status does indeed go bye bye. However, no church need apply for one in order to be tax exempt; it simply needs to exist.

Even if a church is dumb enough to apply for one (and a few are) having the IRS rescind the letter (and that’s only been done…twice, i think?) means that the church might have to pay a token (and I do mean ‘token’) excise tax–and even that’s doubtful. The following year the tax exempt status is automatically assumed to be in place because it is a church. In other words, the IRS would have to go through the process of rescinding the tax exempt letter every single year. If the church doesn’t apply for one, the IRS has no jurisdiction at all. The only thing it can do is attempt to prove that the church isn’t actually a church…that it is simply calling itself a church for the specific purpose of avoiding taxes. Since there is no chance at all of doing that for the CoJCoLDS, I think we can put this piece of stupidity to rest, don’t you?

This issue belongs to Mormons, not me. They can figure out whether they want to be racist or they want to believe they have a “prophet seer & revelator”. They can’t have both. So I guess we’ll just see.

m

I believe that we have continuing revelation; that God guides us, and if we go off the rails, He’ll pull us back on them. So, if there is a thing He doesn’t like, He will talk to the prophet and we will fix it.

Which is why we were ‘racist’ for 138 years, and then instantly, at the word from a prophet, were not. Just think: if Catholics had continuing revelation where God actually would speak to Popes and tell them to knock it off, would we have HAD the Crusades, the Inquisition, the bit with the Albegensians or the wholesale slave trade that was begun, and encouraged, by Catholic popes?

Y’know, I have been told many times that God did not abandon Catholicism; that the ‘gates of hell would not prevail,’ and that He did not leave the church alone. In fact, this idea of apostolic succession is extremely important to Catholic thought and it’s claim to be the 'only true church."

…Yet God allowed y’all to be racist from the top of the heirarcy to the least of the slave owners for hundreds of years. He allowed Popes to not only put up with slavery, but to actively encourage it and offer blanket indulgences for the sins of all those who went slave hunting in Africa. He allowed Popes to officially encourage Portugal in forming that unholy triangle of trade…what was that…molasses to rum to slaves, I think…with the New World. He allowed religious orders to own slaves. He allowed you to do this for hundreds and hundreds of years. He did not say to any of you: stop this.

However, we believe He stopped us cold after 138 years…and during those years He did not allow us to come even close to the monumental cruelty and horror that was a standard part of Catholic policy for hundreds and hundreds of years.

So now somehow it is a problem that He told US to allow all worthy male members of the church to hold the priesthood, and we obeyed Him? Why? is it because He stopped us where He didn’t stop you? Or is it because we listened when He told us what was what…and y’all didn’t?

Or even worse, that we, (if, that is, we ARE a false religion and not led by prophets after all) as mere human beings without guidance did a better job of dealing with a racist policy than y’all, who are SUPPOSED to be listening to what God tells you about it?

 

[CatholicGuyNY]

that’s good, because this ‘losing their tax exempt status’ is bogus. While it is true that the CoJCoLDS is the ONLY church in US history to have American armed services after them, and the only church in US history to be threatened with having all their property confiscated, that was in the 1800’s, not the 1900’s. As it happens, there has never been a church that has lost its tax exempt status for any reason. It is unconstitutional. What HAS happened is that the IRS might rescind the ‘letter’ that is issued to non-profit organizations. This letter must be given to any non-church non-profit group, and if that letter is rescinded for them, that tax exempt status does indeed go bye bye. However, no church need apply for one in order to be tax exempt; it simply needs to exist.

Even if a church is dumb enough to apply for one (and a few are) having the IRS rescind the letter (and that’s only been done…twice, i think?) means that the church might have to pay a token (and I do mean ‘token’) excise tax–and even that’s doubtful. The following year the tax exempt status is automatically assumed to be in place because it is a church. In other words, the IRS would have to go through the process of rescinding the tax exempt letter every single year. If the church doesn’t apply for one, the IRS has no jurisdiction at all. The only thing it can do is attempt to prove that the church isn’t actually a church…that it is simply calling itself a church for the specific purpose of avoiding taxes. Since there is no chance at all of doing that for the CoJCoLDS, I think we can put this piece of stupidity to rest, don’t you?

I believe that we have continuing revelation; that God guides us, and if we go off the rails, He’ll pull us back on them. So, if there is a thing He doesn’t like, He will talk to the prophet and we will fix it.

Which is why we were ‘racist’ for 138 years, and then instantly, at the word from a prophet, were not. Just think: if Catholics had continuing revelation where God actually would speak to Popes and tell them to knock it off, would we have HAD the Crusades, the Inquisition, the bit with the Albegensians or the wholesale slave trade that was begun, and encouraged, by Catholic popes?

Y’know, I have been told many times that God did not abandon Catholicism; that the ‘gates of hell would not prevail,’ and that He did not leave the church alone. In fact, this idea of apostolic succession is extremely important to Catholic thought and it’s claim to be the 'only true church."

…Yet God allowed y’all to be racist from the top of the heirarcy to the least of the slave owners for hundreds of years. He allowed Popes to not only put up with slavery, but to actively encourage it and offer blanket indulgences for the sins of all those who went slave hunting in Africa. He allowed Popes to officially encourage Portugal in forming that unholy triangle of trade…what was that…molasses to rum to slaves, I think…with the New World. He allowed religious orders to own slaves. He allowed you to do this for hundreds and hundreds of years. He did not say to any of you: stop this.

However, we believe He stopped us cold after 138 years…and during those years He did not allow us to come even close to the monumental cruelty and horror that was a standard part of Catholic policy for hundreds and hundreds of years.

So now somehow it is a problem that He told US to allow all worthy male members of the church to hold the priesthood, and we obeyed Him? Why? is it because He stopped us where He didn’t stop you? Or is it because we listened when He told us what was what…and y’all didn’t?

Or even worse, that we, (if, that is, we ARE a false religion and not led by prophets after all) as mere human beings without guidance did a better job of dealing with a racist policy than y’all, who are SUPPOSED to be listening to what God tells you about it?

Here I was thinking that Mormons really believed in free agency. If they do, then I don’t see how you can claim that God would not have allowed certain things to have happened.

Catholics don’t believe that any racial issues were due to some commandment of the Lord. The First Presidency stated that the ban was due to a commandment from the Lord, so the 1978 revelation was a repeal of that commandment. Your comparisons between Catholicism and Mormonism are not equal.

 

[CatholicGuyNY]

I believe that we have continuing revelation; that God guides us, and if we go off the rails, He’ll pull us back on them. So, if there is a thing He doesn’t like, He will talk to the prophet and we will fix it.

Was the priesthood ban really going “off the rails” when it was a commandment from the Lord?

And it’s certainly odd that the original church (or churches in the case of Mormon belief, in the Americas and the Middle East) somehow didn’t get this continuing revelation to keep it from going “off the rails” into Great Apostasy.

 

[SirThomasMore]

that’s good, because this ‘losing their tax exempt status’ is bogus.

The only “stupidity” is your continued whitewashing of your history and victim act

I believe that we have continuing revelation; that God guides us, and if we go off the rails, He’ll pull us back on them. So, if there is a thing He doesn’t like, He will talk to the prophet and we will fix it.

Talk about “piece of stupididty”, for your comment to be true, your “god” would have had to be WRONG. What a weak “god” you have

Which is why we were ‘racist’ for 138 years, and then instantly, at the word from a prophet, were not. Just think: if Catholics had continuing revelation where God actually would speak to Popes and tell them to knock it off, would we have HAD the Crusades, the Inquisition, the bit with the Albegensians or the wholesale slave trade that was begun, and encouraged, by Catholic popes?

DEFLECTION! This is Diana, seeing how awful her prophets were, trying to bring up things that happened 1000 years ago…how so sad…yet so typical

Y’know, I have been told many times that God did not abandon Catholicism; that the ‘gates of hell would not prevail,’ and that He did not leave the church alone. In fact, this idea of apostolic succession is extremely important to Catholic thought and it’s claim to be the 'only true church."

If you had read the Bible, you would not have had to be “told”. It is all there

…Yet God allowed y’all to be racist from the top of the heirarcy to the least of the slave owners for hundreds of years. He allowed Popes to not only put up with slavery, but to actively encourage it and offer blanket indulgences for the sins of all those who went slave hunting in Africa. He allowed Popes to officially encourage Portugal in forming that unholy triangle of trade…what was that…molasses to rum to slaves, I think…with the New World. He allowed religious orders to own slaves. He allowed you to do this for hundreds and hundreds of years. He did not say to any of you: stop this.

We do not claim to have anyone who claims to speak directly to god, so stop your incredibly inappropriate comparisons

However, we believe He stopped us cold after 138 years…and during those years He did not allow us to come even close to the monumental cruelty and horror that was a standard part of Catholic policy for hundreds and hundreds of years.

DEFELCTION!!! She takes people who speak directly to God, and when we shows how they do NOT speak to God, she deflects to things that happened in a different culture, 1000 years ago with people who do NOT claim to speak directly to God.

Diana has already admitted the lds church does not have prophets and that the D&C has no revelations. So, to cover her fraudulant church, she MUST deflect. How sad for her

 

[SirThomasMore]

Was the priesthood ban really going “off the rails” when it was a commandment from the Lord?

And it’s certainly odd that the original church (or churches in the case of Mormon belief, in the Americas and the Middle East) somehow didn’t get this continuing revelation to keep it from going “off the rails” into Great Apostasy.

true. Diana tries to have it both ways.

1. Catholics were in Apostasy due to the conduct she mentioned.
2. God must be stupid, because he then let that same conduct continue in the LDS Church, even though, unlike with Catholics, god spoke directly to Mormons

her position makes no logical sense at all…she has talked herself into a corner and proven her church to be false