Seeking a balanced description of Mormoninsm

[RC_Matt]

I’m quite sure depending where you grew up that you may have received the short end of the stick by some. However, this treatment is not exclusive to you as a Catholic, I believe anyone who finds themselves as a member of a religious minority living among greater numbers of another faith will receive similar treatment - My children have, not by other children but by adults. Unfortunately there are bigots most everywhere and need to repent of it.

You know as well as I do that Mormons have a particular dislike for Catholics; those slurs relate specifically to the Catholic Church. It still amazes me that this garbage is taught to children. You have, however, piqued my curiosity. I have been told that this material is institutionalized; never thought to investigate that, but now I will.

I wouldn’t expect you to have everything straight about what LDS think and believe. There is so much around to confuse the issues. However, what we may or may not believe has no bearing on our being just as worthy to receive the blessings of the Gospel, that is the “good news”, Now if you could point out in scripture that because we have some different thoughts about things, even though they may run contrary to the status quo, which makes our faith in Jesus Christ as our Lord and Saviour less valid, I would study it.

Well, here are a couple of quotes from Brigham Young:

"How are you going to get your resurrection? You will get it by the President of resurrection, and that is Joseph Smith, Jun. Hear it all ye ends of the earth; if you ever enter into the kingdom of God it is because Joseph Smith let you go there. This will apply to Jews and Gentiles, to the bond, and the free; to friends and foes; no man or woman in this generation will get a resurrection and be crowned without Joseph Smith saying so. The man who was martyred in Carthage Jail, State of Illinois, holds the keys of life and death to this dispensation…”

“From the day that the priesthood was taken from the earth to the winding up of things, every man and woman must have the certificate of Joseph Smith, junior, as a passport to their entrance into the mansion where God and Christ are - I with you and you with me. I cannot go there without his consent.”

Sorry, this is NOT Christianity. Christians do not believe that Joseph Smith determines salvation.

I think Paul knew what he was talking about, as did Ignatius.

“Am I not able to write to you of heavenly things? But I fear to do so, lest I should inflict injury on you who are but babes [in Christ]. Pardon me in this respect, lest, as not being able to receive [such doctrines], ye should be strangled by them. For even I, though I am bound [for Christ], yet am not on that account able to understand heavenly things, and the places Or, “stations.” of the angels, and their gatherings under their respective princes, things visible and invisible. Without reference to such abstruse subjects, I am still but a learner [in other; for many things are wanting to us, that we come not short of God.”[/COLOR] (The Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians Chapter V)

This has absolutely nothing to do with my point. My point referred to the deceptive Mormon practice of “milk before meat;” whereby CORE dogma, which is highly heretical from a Christian perspective, is withheld from investigators until AFTER they have become Mormon. Mormonism is not a monotheistic faith and it does not worship same the (biblical) Jesus as Christians. This, along with a host of other points, should be disclosed PRIOR to baptism. The missionaries try to sell it as a mainstream Christian Church – and it is anything but that. I am not criticizing your beliefs, nor saying that Mormons are bad people, nor saying that Mormons are not “saved,” but I believe the manner in which you proselytize, to be polite, is somewhat less than honest. Scientology follows a similar practice.

 

[RC_Matt]

Perhaps Paul G was thinking of JS’s “religious teaching” on polygamy, which Joseph practiced secretly for many years, often lied by publically denying it, coerced young girls into it and did not “teach” it until his little secret was discovered.

And which was, by the way, AGAINST THE LAW!

Paul

Somebody please corrrect me if I am wrong, but I believe Joseph Smith had 33 wives; as young as 14, and some already married to other men.

 

[DianJo]

Joseph Smith on one occasion said that He was. But it is not taught in LDS scripture, therefore it is not confirmed LDS doctrine.

NOT OFFICIAL LDS DOCTRINE??? How can you say this when it’s in black and white in your “Gospel Principles” for all to read??

lds.org/library/display/0,4945,11-1-13-1,00.html

This is a very interesting site - LDS’ own - that gives all the crazy details - although brief, you’ll understand the basics.

 

[truthsilence]

I do have another question.

• Who is the God of this earth, Jesus - or Heavenly Father?

I ask because apparently Heavenly Father has his own earth, (per chapter 47 entitled “Exaltation”) at the “Gospel Principles” link DianJo provided.

This isn’t going too well so far.

 

[PaulDupre]

Somebody please corrrect me if I am wrong, but I believe Joseph Smith had 33 wives; as young as 14, and some already married to other men.

That is correct.

Paul

 

[why_me]

and once again zerinus misrepresents LDS doctrine even by his own definition of it.

LDS scriptures STILL describe the skin of blackness as a curse from God:

*1.
2 Ne. 5: 21
21 And he had caused the cursing to come upon them, yea, even a sore cursing, because of their iniquity. For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them.
2.
Jacob 3: 5
5 Behold, the Lamanites your brethren, whom ye hate because of their filthiness and the cursing which hath come upon their skins, are more righteous than you; for they have not forgotten the commandment of the Lord, which was given unto our father—that they should have save it were one wife, and concubines they should have none, and there should not be whoredoms committed among them.
3.
Alma 3: 6
6 And the skins of the Lamanites were dark, according to the mark which was set upon their fathers, which was a curse upon them because of their transgression and their rebellion against their brethren, who consisted of Nephi, Jacob, and Joseph, and Sam, who were just and holy men.

this is fresh from the LDS website*

blacklds.org/Perkins

When I read Alma 3, knowing what I know, it tells me that I have to read all of the Book of Mormon in order to get a complete understanding. I think this is the intention of the Lord. Anyone can read a passage, and take it out of context. But only his true followers will have the desire to feast on all of His words, thus receiving a greater understanding. It does mention skin of blackness, but consider two things if you would, the first will be a philosophy of man, the second, scripture.

You’ve seen Africans from Nigeria and Uganda. Now that’s black. If the
Lamanites are the American Indians, one can see that their skin is darker than
whites, but nowhere near black. You also think about the Middle Eastern region
where the family of Lehi came from. Their skin would not have been white, but
had color to it much like those who come from that region today. So with these
things in mind, literal darker skin and skins of blackness really doesn’t add
up.
Go to 2 Nephi 5:21 Read the passage, and focus in on footnotes d & e.
Follow footnote d - it will take you to 2 Nephi 30:6, where it explains that
“skin” is scales of darkness over one’s eyes. Then go back and follow footnote
e - it takes you to Moses 7:8, but if you go to the Church’s site at
www.lds.org, and go to the scriptures there, the same footnote (e) also brings
us to 2 Nephi 30:6 to reinforce the meaning as well as 3 Nephi 2:15. Then go
to 3 Nephi 2:15 and focus on footnotes a & b. Let’s take b first. b “white”
takes you right back to the same scriptures to further reinforce their
meaning. And a takes you to a place where you can begin to understand what a
“curse” really is. Taking one’s self out of the presences of the Lord because
of the way that they are living, or the way that their fathers lived.

 

[majick275]

or we could read what Leaders have taught that those passages in the BoM meant (and the BoA) and see for ourselves that it did in fact mean that black skin specifically and dark skin in general was a curse from God. Read the words of spencer kimball about the lamanites becoming lighter skinned when LDS or Mark E. Petersen’s teachings on africans. Yuo can read what Joseph Smith taught, Brigham Young and that’s without even resorting to Mconkie’s Mormon doctrine. I think though that those scriptures speak for themselves.

 

[rpp]

blacklds.org/Perkins

When I read Alma 3, knowing what I know, it tells me that I have to read all of the Book of Mormon in order to get a complete understanding. I think this is the intention of the Lord. Anyone can read a passage, and take it out of context. But only his true followers will have the desire to feast on all of His words, thus receiving a greater understanding. It does mention skin of blackness, but consider two things if you would, the first will be a philosophy of man, the second, scripture.

You’ve seen Africans from Nigeria and Uganda. Now that’s black. If the
Lamanites are the American Indians, one can see that their skin is darker than
whites, but nowhere near black. You also think about the Middle Eastern region
where the family of Lehi came from. Their skin would not have been white, but
had color to it much like those who come from that region today. So with these
things in mind, literal darker skin and skins of blackness really doesn’t add
up.
Go to 2 Nephi 5:21 Read the passage, and focus in on footnotes d & e.
Follow footnote d - it will take you to 2 Nephi 30:6, where it explains that
“skin” is scales of darkness over one’s eyes. Then go back and follow footnote
e - it takes you to Moses 7:8, but if you go to the Church’s site at
www.lds.org, and go to the scriptures there, the same footnote (e) also brings
us to 2 Nephi 30:6 to reinforce the meaning as well as 3 Nephi 2:15. Then go
to 3 Nephi 2:15 and focus on footnotes a & b. Let’s take b first. b “white”
takes you right back to the same scriptures to further reinforce their
meaning. And a takes you to a place where you can begin to understand what a
“curse” really is. Taking one’s self out of the presences of the Lord because
of the way that they are living, or the way that their fathers lived.

The original language is English, right?

So we have to look at a series footnotes prepared by some commentators after the Civil Rights Act of 1964 rather than what the original authors (prophets? bishops?) actually said and wrote?

Hmm…

Why doesn’t “skin” mean skin? If the authors meant scales, why did they not use that word? If they are writing what God has spoken, why would God sow such confusion?

Sounds like back-peddling. I do not think God speaks so obtusely in the Bible.

 

[why_me]

The original language is English, right?

So we have to look at a series footnotes prepared by some commentators after the Civil Rights Act of 1964 rather than what the original authors (prophets? bishops?) actually said and wrote?

Hmm…

Why doesn’t “skin” mean skin? If the authors meant scales, why did they not use that word? If they are writing what God has spoken, why would God sow such confusion?

Sounds like back-peddling. I do not think God speaks so obtusely in the Bible.

Well, you would have to ask the african-American who gave the above speech. I do know that there have been GA’s who have admitted that they were wrong. Check out the blacklds website for more information. This issue is also being discussed on the www.mormonapologetics.org website. Mormons do discuss these issues. I do know one thing. The lds church welcomed members of all colors into the church and treated them well. And this was at the time of racial segregation in the USA which many other churches took part in. I see no perfection anywhere. And of course, I could bring up the controversy with the pope and the holocaust. But why would I? There is nothing to gain by mudslinging. All are imperfect in the eyes of God.

What was the mark of cain in the old testament?

 

[why_me]

The original language is English, right?

So we have to look at a series footnotes prepared by some commentators after the Civil Rights Act of 1964 rather than what the original authors (prophets? bishops?) actually said and wrote?

Hmm…

Why doesn’t “skin” mean skin? If the authors meant scales, why did they not use that word? If they are writing what God has spoken, why would God sow such confusion?

Sounds like back-peddling. I do not think God speaks so obtusely in the Bible.

I see nothing in the lds canons that say anything about it. I do see the revelation that gave certain groups the priesthood in 1978. But I see nothing more.

blacklds.org Check it out.

ldsgenesisgroup.org/ This is the official website of the lds church and its african members.

ldsgenesisgroup.org/genesis.html Here is a great newsletter for African-American members.

An excerpt from the newsletter:

Cover Story: Too Precious to Be Left Outside

Joy Holladay of Las Vegas considered herself to be a woman well-acquainted with the scriptures. She was taught about the things of God, her parents made sure she went to church, and she watched both her grandmothers reading the scriptures daily. As a result, she says, she “knew very well there was a God and that Jesus Christ was my Savior. I was told that ‘God had a plan for my life.’ However, nobody could tell me what this plan was.” After joining The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, she now knows what His plan is for her, and she encourages her Black brothers and sisters to investigate the Church for themselves instead of listening to what others have to say about it. “The gospel has been restored, and Heavenly Father is no respecter of persons. These truths are for ALL of His children, and we as a people are too precious to Him to be left behind or outside the wall,” she writes. Sister Holladay, who is a member of Gladys Knight’s Saints Unified Voices Choir, shares her conversion story and her stirring testimony here

 

[rpp]

Well, you would have to ask the african-American who gave the above speech. I do know that there have been GA’s who have admitted that they were wrong. Check out the blacklds website for more information. This issue is also being discussed on the www.mormonapologetics.org website. Mormons do discuss these issues. I do know one thing. The lds church welcomed members of all colors into the church and treated them well. And this was at the time of racial segregation in the USA which many other churches took part in. I see no perfection anywhere. And of course, I could bring up the controversy with the pope and the holocaust. But why would I? There is nothing to gain by mudslinging. All are imperfect in the eyes of God.

What was the mark of cain in the old testament?

Referring to the text in bold, you are free to repeat the lies and false history of others if you like. However, as they are false, that would only erode your credibility. See this thread. Look at this recent news article. And this is one of many web sites that provide accurate information. Just google “myth of hitler’s pope”.

However, to those that hate the Catholic Church, truth often matters little. To those who believe we can loose our place in Heaven by the commission of grave (mortal) sin, we have every motivation to be truthful.

But that is off the subject.

I stand by my post. God is not racist. God is not obtuse. The genuine word of God does not need to be restated using different words, especially in the original language.

God does not ever change. Therefore doctrines and morals cannot change. Changing doctrines and moral teaching is a sign that a religion does not have the full deposit of faith. The Catholic church has not changed doctrines, it has only increased her understanding of them over the centuries.

 

[why_me]

However, to those that hate the Catholic Church, truth often matters little. To those who believe we can loose our place in Heaven by the commission of grave (mortal) sin, we have every motivation to be truthful.

.

However, to those that hate the Mormon Church, truth often matters little.

The above statement that you wrote about those who hate the catholic church is correct. Likewise for those who hate the lds church. Hate is a sorrowful word, isn’t it.

I attend Mass more than I attend lds meetings these days. But I cannot tolerate the antimormonism on this forum. I feel a need to defend the lds church because of it. I see nothing wrong with the lives of my daughters who are being raised mormon. They live a good christian life with Christ in their hearts. I cannot complain about mormonism.

 

[why_me]

Since this is a seeking balanced view of mormonism I added a link about blacks and the priesthood in the lds church.

mormonstories.org/blacksandtheldspriesthood/

 

[majick275]

However, to those that hate the Mormon Church, truth often matters little.

The above statement that you wrote about those who hate the catholic church is correct. Likewise for those who hate the lds church. Hate is a sorrowful word, isn’t it.

I attend Mass more than I attend lds meetings these days. But I cannot tolerate the antimormonism on this forum. I feel a need to defend the lds church because of it. I see nothing wrong with the lives of my daughters who are being raised mormon. They live a good christian life with Christ in their hearts. I cannot complain about mormonism.

well they can’t both be right. They both teach that they can’t both be right. you seem to be a mormon missionary using a catholic background to recruit. telling the truth isn’t “anti” anything. you have given only speculation by individuals who are not in leadership positions in the LDs church. I have quoted LDS scripture, prophets and apostles. if you need more LDS source material:
Scripture
*Moses 7:22
22 And Enoch also beheld the residue of the people which were the sons of Adam; and they were a mixture of all the seed of Adam save it was the seed of Cain, for the seed of Cain were black, and had not place among them.

Abraham 1:21-24,27
21 Now this king of Egypt was a descendant from the loins of Ham, and was a partaker of the blood of the Canaanites by birth.
22 From this descent sprang all the Egyptians, and thus the blood of the Canaanites was preserved in the land.
23 The land of Egypt being first discovered by a woman, who was the daughter of Ham, and the daughter of Egyptus, which in the Chaldean signifies Egypt, which signifies that which is forbidden;
24 When this woman discovered the land it was under water, who afterward settled her sons in it; and thus, from Ham, sprang that race which preserved the curse in the land.
27 Now, Pharaoh being of that lineage by which he could not have the right of Priesthood, notwithstanding the Pharaohs would fain claim it from Noah, through Ham, therefore my father was led away by their idolatry*

official LDS publications:

“The Book of Abraham is rich both in doctrine and in historical incidents. Of the latter the fact of the large influence (if not identity) of Egyptian religious ideas in Chaldea in the days of Abraham is established; the descent of the black race, Negro, from Cain, the first murderer; the preservation of that race through the flood by the wife of Ham–“Egyptus,” which in the Chaldean signifies “Egypt,” “which signifies that which is forbidden”–the descendants of “Egyptus” were cursed as pertaining to the priesthood–that is, they were barred from holding that divine power; the origin also of the Egyptians–these things, together with the account of Abraham migrating from Chaldea to Egypt, constitute the chief historical items that are contained in the book.”

• Comprehensive History of the Church, Vol.2, Ch.47, Pg.128

 

[majick275]

continued

“From this it is very clear that the mark which was set upon the descendants of Cain was a skin of blackness, and there can be no doubt that this was the mark that Cain himself received; in fact, it has been noticed in our day that men who have lost the spirit of the Lord, and from whom His blessings have been withdrawn, have turned dark to such an extent as to excite the comments of all who have known them.”

• Juvenile Instructor, vol. 26, page 635

"We will first inquire into the results of the approbation or displeasure of God upon a people, starting with the belief that a black skin is a mark of the curse of heaven placed upon some portions of mankind. Some, however, will argue that a black skin is not a curse, nor a white skin a blessing. In fact, some have been so foolish as to believe and say that a black skin is a blessing, and that the negro is the finest type of a perfect man that exists on the earth; but to us such teachings are foolishness. We understand that when God made man in his own image and pronounced him very good, that he made him white. We have no record of any of God’s favored servants being of a black race…every angel who ever brought a message of God’s mercy to man was beautiful to look upon, clad in the purest white and with a countenance bright as the noonday sun.”

• The Juvenile Instructor, Vol. 3, page 157

“For instance, the descendants of Cain cannot cast off their skin of blackness, at once, and immediately, although every soul of them should repent,… Cain and his posterity must wear the mark which God put upon them; and his white friends may wash the race of Cain with fuller’s soap every day, they cannot wash away God’s mark;…”

• LDS Publication, The Millennial Star, vol. 14, page 418

"Their skin is quite black, their hair woolly and black, their intelligence stunted, and they appear never to have arisen from the most savage state of barbarism.”

• The Juvenile Instructor, Vol. 3, page 157

“Is or is it not apparent from reason and analogy as drawn from a careful reading of the Scriptures, that God causes the saints, or people that fall away from his church to be cursed in time, with a black skin? Was or was not Cain, being marked, obliged to inherit the curse, he and his children, forever? And if so, as Ham, like other sons of God, might break the rule of God, by marrying out of the church, did or did he not, have a Canaanite wife, whereby some of the black seed was preserved through the flood, and his son, Canaan, after he laughed at his grandfather’s nakedness, heired three curses: one from Cain for killing Abel; one from Ham for marrying a black wife, and one from Noah for ridiculing what God had respect for? Are or are not the Indians a sample of marking with blackness for rebellion against God’s holy word and holy order? And can or can we not observe in the countenances of almost all nations, except the Gentile, a dark, sallow hue, which tells the sons of God, without a line of history, that they have fallen or changed from the original beauty and grace of father Adam?”

• LDS Messenger and Advocate (Mar 1835), Pg.82

 

[majick275]

continued

“History and common observation show that these predictions have been fulfilled to the letter. The descendants of Ham, besides a black skin which has ever been a curse that has followed an apostate of the holy priesthood, as well as a black heart, have been servants to both Shem and Japheth, and the abolitionists are trying to make void the curse of God, but it will require more power than man possesses to counteract the decrees of eternal wisdom.”

• Times and Seasons, Vol.6, Pg.857

official statement of the LDS Church First Presidency issued on August 17, 1951, :

“The position of the Church regarding the Negro may be understood when another doctrine of the church is kept in mind, namely, that the conduct of spirits in the pre-mortal existence has some determining effect upon the conditions and circumstances under which these spirits take on mortality, and that while the details of this principle have not been made known, the principle itself indicates that the coming to this earth and taking on mortality is a privilege that is given to those who maintained their first estate; and that the worth of the privilege is so great that spirits are willing to come to earth and take on bodies no matter what the handicap may be as to the kind of bodies they are to secure; and that among the
handicaps, failure of the right to enjoy in mortality the blessings of the priesthood is a handicap which spirits are willing to assume in order that they might come to earth. Under this principle there is no injustice whatsoever involved in this deprivation as to the holding of the priesthood by the Negroes…”

“Man will be punished for his own sins and not for Adam’s transgression. If this is carried further, it would imply that the Negro is punished or alloted to a certain position on this earth, not because of Cain’s transgression, but came to earth through the loins of Cain because of his failure to achieve other stature in the spirit world.”

• William E. Berrett’s “The Church and the Negroid People,” pp. 16-17

and of course there is the famous Mark E Petersen talk, Spencer Kimballs words and many other LDS apostles and prohets words which you can read here: lds-mormon.com/racism.shtml
these aren't antimormon words they are the teachings of LDS LEADERS over the years regarding what is clearly stated in LDS SCRIPTURE. the truth is obvious and ad hominems that everyone who disagrees is "antimormon" and like the "mobs" in the past won't change it. Either LDS doctrine is true or it is not. if not it MUST be denounced and the correct doctrine taught, preached, etc. this isn't rude or disrespectful it is our duty. even the LDS teach that.

 

[why_me]

continued

these aren’t antimormon words they are the teachings of LDS LEADERS over the years regarding what is clearly stated in LDS SCRIPTURE. the truth is obvious and ad hominems that everyone who disagrees is “antimormon” and like the “mobs” in the past won’t change it. Either LDS doctrine is true or it is not. if not it MUST be denounced and the correct doctrine taught, preached, etc. this isn’t rude or disrespectful it is our duty. even the LDS teach that.

Please listen to the link that I posted in a previous post.

mormonstories.org/blacksandtheldspriesthood/

It is very educational and not propaganda and then get back to me.

 

[majick275]

you seem to be under the misunderstanding that that link contains anything that I am unfamiliar with. I know all Elijah Abel and how Brigham young treated his descendants. That Gordon Hinkley wants to focus on the fact that since 1978 the LDS racism hasn’t had an OVERT effect (denial of priesthood, Temple, etc.) is understandable. But notice none of these earlier teachings has been denounced or “corrected”. The bottom line is that the dark skin in LDs doctrine is a curse from Godbut that since 1978 the “effects” of the curse have been lifted. you link doesn’t do a very good job of addressing the “lamanite” situation at all. just because they weren’t barred from the priesthood doesn’t change the fact the the BoM is very ugly in it’s characterization of what the dark skin means for them. put that into Spencer Kimballs context of becoming “white and delightsome” and I think your position on this issue is incorrect. I KNOW what was taught, I was LDS then. I taught LDS classes, I was in leadership positions, my father is a bishop right now. I think you unwilling to examine LDS history in detail.

 

[why_me]

you seem to be under the misunderstanding that that link contains anything that I am unfamiliar with. I know all Elijah Abel and how Brigham young treated his descendants.

I can see that your mind is closed which is fine. But this presentation is very educational and I know that it contains information that you do not know. It is very balanced. I am also encouraging the mormons to listen to it on mormonapologetics because of its content. Many of those people do not know the facts on this podcast complete with slides either.

Throwing quotations into the mix is not a way to discuss. I have repeatedly claimed that no one is perfect and that we all make mistakes, even lds prophets were/are human beings as were/are popes.

Also, no one has addressed the websites that I have included on this thread. Why? because minds and hearts are closed, unfortunately.

 

[majick275]

that is not true. I DID listen to it. I HAVE gone to your links and they did not contain anything I had not been exposed to while I was LDS. It is YOU with the closed mind who chooses to just blow off everything I have presented. When LDS prophets speak to the LDS church in general conference and then those teachings are put into lesson manuals AND those teachings are in the LDS SCRIPTURES how can you say they were just men who made mistakes? they don’t think they made mistakes. if YOU would listen to Gordon Hinkley HE doesn’t think they made mistakes. NO LDS prophet has denounced or “corrected” ANY of those things that I referred to. If the LDS leaders don’t say it was wrong and the LDS scriptures contain those teachings today then why on earth do you just give them a pass? BTW you still haven’t answered the question which church is the one that GOD established and presides over today?