Race, God, and the LDS Church

  • Thread starter Thread starter Marc_Anthony
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
twopekinguys said:
You know what is funny about all of this? I don’t think it’s been addressed, but if it has, I apologize.

Jesus wasn’t even “white” in the sense that we consider an individual “white”.

The sad part is, they would have denied Jesus his own priesthood because he wasn’t “white”.
Click to expand...
You know better than that. Do you think that outright lies about those groups that you hate actually are the way Christ would want you to defeat them?

If you must lie about your opponent in order to defeat him, you have already proven him better than you.
 
CatholicGuyNY said:
But Mormons never said that the priesthood could only be held by whites, the priesthood ban was only for black Africans…right? :hypno:

Funny how the Mormons (and Mormon apologist Ahimsa) have left the thread.
Click to expand...
This alleged ban on African males is nonsense; it’s only a recent attempt by apologists to muddy the water and confuse people who don’t know much about the topic. If you look at the statements of the prophets and apostles on this matter, there is not one mention of ‘Africans’ being banned from the priesthood. No, it is always something along the lines of blacks, brethren of Cain, and so forth. To say otherwise simply wouldn’t make sense because in the BOM, blacks aren’t from Africa, they are the products of the curse put on Cain, they are his lineage for which there is ample evidence.

If white people magically became black, how is it that they became like Africans with which they have nothing in common? Does that make sense?

I don’t know that it was never stated that only whites could hold the priesthood in those exact terms, but the implication is obvious because blacks, the seed of Cain, cannot hold the priesthood, according to brigham Young, until after the Second Coming. Either the church jumped the gun or it’s simply not of God.
 
dianaiad said:
You know better than that. Do you think that outright lies about those groups that you hate actually are the way Christ would want you to defeat them?

If you must lie about your opponent in order to defeat him, you have already proven him better than you.
Click to expand...
And as yet, none of us have lied about this.
 
twopekinguys said:
I don’t think this would qualify as “white and delightsome”, do you?

The skin would be a little too dark to be considered “white”.

The nose is also flat and broad.

Hmmm, I guess no priesthood for Jesus.

How sad!!
Click to expand...
You and I are on the same wavelength; that’s exactly the conceptualized bust I was talking about.

Nope, he’s neither white nor delightsome. What a shame, the only person who could hold the Melchizedek priesthood was actually ineligible from the beginning for not being a valiant soul in the premortal existance. Bummer.
 
TikiTokiguy said:
What is the earliest known picture/paining created of Christ?
Click to expand...
As far as I know it is the Good Shepherd depictions.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
dianaiad said:
You know better than that. Do you think that outright lies about those groups that you hate actually are the way Christ would want you to defeat them?

If you must lie about your opponent in order to defeat him, you have already proven him better than you.
Click to expand...
You know, that I usually have you on ignore (for very good and obvious reasons), but when I saw RH’s response to you, I figured your comment was directed at me.

Are you calling me a liar?

Where have I presented a lie?

I suggest you choose your words very wisely.
 
twopekinguys said:
You know, that I usually have you on ignore (for very good and obvious reasons), but when I saw RH’s response to you, I figured your comment was directed at me.

Are you calling me a liar?

Where have I presented a lie?

I suggest you choose your words very wisely.
Click to expand...
You claimed that we (Mormons) would have denied the priesthood to Jesus because He was not 'white."

That is false to fact and you know it. Jesus of Nazareth was Aramaic; decended from David, who was the son of Jacob and the father of two of the men for whom two of the Tribes of Israel were named. He was born, not only as the only Begotten Son of God the Father, but also, through His mother, of God’s chosen people–who, by the way, had the priesthood before anybody ELSE did. In fact, it wasn’t until Jesus said so that anybody but the Jews got it.

As you are well aware, the priesthood ban was restricted to those of African negroid descent. Skin color, in fact, was pretty much irrelevant, given that Australian aborigines, some South Sea Islanders and the darker skinned Indians (East, not American) as well as Native Americans, were all ordained and held the priesthood.

Therefore, since you are quite aware of our beliefs, practices and history in this matter, and chose to tell that untruth anyway, I suppose that yes, I’m calling you a liar.

If I am mistaken and you are referring to something else, then perhaps I owe you an apology.

I doubt it, however.
 
dianaiad said:
You claimed that we (Mormons) would have denied the priesthood to Jesus because He was not 'white."
That is false to fact and you know it. Jesus of Nazareth was Aramaic; decended from David, who was the son of Jacob and the father of two of the men for whom two of the Tribes of Israel were named. He was born, not only as the only Begotten Son of God the Father, but also, through His mother, of God’s chosen people–who, by the way, had the priesthood before anybody ELSE did. In fact, it wasn’t until Jesus said so that anybody but the Jews got it.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
dianaiad said:
You claimed that we (Mormons) would have denied the priesthood to Jesus because He was not 'white."

That is false to fact and you know it. Jesus of Nazareth was Aramaic; decended from David, who was the son of Jacob and the father of two of the men for whom two of the Tribes of Israel were named. He was born, not only as the only Begotten Son of God the Father, but also, through His mother, of God’s chosen people–who, by the way, had the priesthood before anybody ELSE did. In fact, it wasn’t until Jesus said so that anybody but the Jews got it.

As you are well aware, the priesthood ban was restricted to those of African negroid descent. Skin color, in fact, was pretty much irrelevant, given that Australian aborigines, some South Sea Islanders and the darker skinned Indians (East, not American) as well as Native Americans, were all ordained and held the priesthood.

EDITED BY MODERATOR

If I am mistaken and you are referring to something else, then perhaps I owe you an apology.

I doubt it, however.
Click to expand...
The part I have bolded doesn’t really help your case now does it?

Let’s not forget the broad and flat nose aspect shall we?

I find it amazing that you say that we are “quite aware” of your beliefs, but yet are always saying we aren’t understanding them? Which is it? Pick a side, any side, just stick with it.

For the record, no untruth intentional or otherwise has been told. You just want to think it is, and start playing the persecution card. Sorry, not falling for it, but good try.

I am glad you finally admit to calling us liars. That post is being reported to the moderators as soon as this is submitted.
 
Now hear this . . . name calling, i.e. liar, is both unproductive and against CAF rules. Knock it off.

Thomas Casey
Moderator
 
Thomas_Casey said:
Now hear this . . . name calling, i.e. liar, is both unproductive and against CAF rules. Knock it off.

Thomas Casey
Moderator
Click to expand...
What he said…Oh and…
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top