The Church in the Americas and the Great Apostasy

[zaffiroborant]

Christ Is the Way,

Yes, that would concern many people, no doubt.

I look at that situation, was very glad the change came about (many of us were not surprised by the change), and have an understanding about it that would be different than yours since one who has studied Latter-day Saints history in Missouri would be familiar that the member families would have been killed en masse if their church was ordaining blacks to the priesthood at that time and saying it was the true church of Jesus Christ. Why, you likely will ask? Because of the existing culture of the non-LDS people who lived in Missouri, and the already existing animosities toward the Latter-day Saints, including economic factors and secret plots to acquire the Latter-day Saints’ improved lands and farms cheaply.

And in Illinois where the LDS spent quite a bit of time in charge?

 

[NewSeeker]

And in Illinois where the LDS spent quite a bit of time in charge?

As well, Roman authorities threatened to kill early Christians en masse , and in fact did so. That did not stop those Catholic Christians from refusing to sacrifice to the Roman gods nor did it cause the faithful bishops to issue a policy providing a preemptive amnesty to permit pagan sacrifice to Christians who would otherwise be threatened with execution by the state. If the cause was truly fear of persecution, then the Mormon priesthood ban was cowardly. That every prophet through Spencer W. Kimball officially taught that the ban was God’s will makes it even more egregious and inexcusable.

 

[ParkerD]

And in Illinois where the LDS spent quite a bit of time in charge?

Just because they had built Nauvoo doesn’t mean they weren’t looked at with suspicion and animosity by those living in the surrounding parts of Illinois. That suspicion and animosity would have been intensified significantly if the prevailing cultural difference that was already extant in the entire country regarding the question of blacks in church leadership, had been changed at that early point in United States history. There is no way the city of Nauvoo would have lasted as long as it lasted if the Latter-day Saints had made that change in the early 1840’s, and the animosity would have followed them just as intensely to Utah if it had been made in the 1850’s or 1870’s or 1890’s or early 1900’s.

 

[rainman10]

Just because they had built Nauvoo doesn’t mean they weren’t looked at with suspicion and animosity by those living in the surrounding parts of Illinois. That suspicion and animosity would have been intensified significantly if the prevailing cultural difference that was already extant in the entire country regarding the question of blacks in church leadership, had been changed at that early point in United States history. There is no way the city of Nauvoo would have lasted as long as it lasted if the Latter-day Saints had made that change in the early 1840’s, and the animosity would have followed them just as intensely to Utah if it had been made in the 1850’s or 1870’s or 1890’s or early 1900’s.

So then it was a matter if self preservation and not so much a commandment from God? That makes more sense to me because God does not discriminate…as far as I know. He loves all his children and does not separate one from the other. He wants all of us to be saved and to be with Him in Heaven, although, not all humans want the same thing.

 

[ParkerD]

So then it was a matter if self preservation and not so much a commandment from God? That makes more sense to me because God does not discriminate…as far as I know. He loves all his children and does not separate one from the other. He wants all of us to be saved and to be with Him in Heaven, although, not all humans want the same thing.

Rainman10,

That’s one way of looking at it, but the way I look at it is that one seeking inspiration from God, and answers to prayer, needs to be aware that the Lord’s timetable for answers and for inspiration may not be the same as their own timetable for answers, and that in this case the timing wasn’t right in 1840 or 1860 or 1900, for that kind of change even though of course such a change was both necessary and the right thing to do in the long run.

Even a prophet would need to be aware, and would be aware, that God’s timetable is not man’s timetable, and that events unfold according to God’s timetable and His will among humankind. So we can thus learn patience as His timetable unfolds on this earth, moving toward the Millenium of true world peace.

 

[rainman10]

Rainman10,

That’s one way of looking at it, but the way I look at it is that one seeking inspiration from God, and answers to prayer, needs to be aware that the Lord’s timetable for answers and for inspiration may not be the same as their own timetable for answers, and that in this case the timing wasn’t right in 1840 or 1860 or 1900, for that kind of change even though of course such a change was both necessary and the right thing to do in the long run.

Even a prophet would need to be aware, and would be aware, that God’s timetable is not man’s timetable, and that events unfold according to God’s timetable and His will among humankind. So we can thus learn patience as His timetable unfolds on this earth, moving toward the Millenium of true world peace.

Parker,
I can appreciate your answer, but as I understand what you are saying is that God did discriminate against our black brethren, until He decided He needed to change His mind in the 1960’s to make a correction to His previous revelation that blacks are not worthy of being Mormon priesthood holders. Is this correct?

 

[ParkerD]

Parker,
I can appreciate your answer, but as I understand what you are saying is that God did discriminate against our black brethren, until He decided He needed to change His mind in the 1960’s to make a correction to His previous revelation that blacks are not worthy of being Mormon priesthood holders. Is this correct?

Rainman10,

Rather than my answering this particular question about God “changing His mind”, could you re-phrase your question while keeping in mind the very striking example from the Bible of the New Covenant gospel being brought first to the Jews and the House of Israel, and later (when the time was right) to the Gentiles as well as to the House of Israel?

 

[pablope]

Just because they had built Nauvoo doesn’t mean they weren’t looked at with suspicion and animosity by those living in the surrounding parts of Illinois. That suspicion and animosity would have been intensified significantly if the prevailing cultural difference that was already extant in the entire country regarding the question of blacks in church leadership, had been changed at that early point in United States history. There is no way the city of Nauvoo would have lasted as long as it lasted if the Latter-day Saints had made that change in the early 1840’s, and the animosity would have followed them just as intensely to Utah if it had been made in the 1850’s or 1870’s or 1890’s or early 1900’s.

Well…the early christians chose death in the hands of the Romans, rather then give away their faith in Christ. And Catholicism survived, proving the hand of Christ behind it. It survived the persecution of the Romans for three hundred years…heresies that challenged it, the Reformation…and it survives to this day.

From what Parker posted here, it looks the JS’s religion would not have survived unless it played ball…which is indicative of its less than divine origin. For if it really was a restoration of the true Church of Christ, it would have survived any challenge, without having to change or alter any of its teachings, beliefs, and what not…there would be accounts of their members standing firm what they believed, and surviving. A case in point is their teaching on polygamy for starters…then the discrimination against blacks…this to me indicates error to begin with.

 

[ParkerD]

Well…the early Christians chose death in the hands of the Romans, rather then give away their faith in Christ. And Catholicism survived, proving the hand of Christ behind it. It survived the persecution of the Romans for three hundred years…heresies that challenged it, the Reformation…and it survives to this day.

…

Pablope,

I suppose that at some point I will answer your assertions, but in the meantime I might as well ask you to explain your point here about the “early Christians chose death”

and how this is not a case of God having changed or else the people having lost the kind of faith shown in the following experiences where the particular Israelites lived to tell about it:

Daniel 3:4-29, Daniel 6:19-23, and 2 Kings 6:15-23.

 

[pablope]

Pablope,

I suppose that at some point I will answer your assertions, but in the meantime I might as well ask you to explain your point here about the “early Christians chose death”

They did not surrender their beliefs, nor compromised. Are you not aware of the Roman persecution of the 300 years? Read on what St. Ignatius of Antioch did on his way to his death. If you want something more recent…St. Thomas More sometime in the 1500s, or St. Lawrence of Manila, sometime in the 1600.

and how this is not a case of God having changed

 

[ChristIsTheWay]

Christ Is the Way,

Yes, that would concern many people, no doubt.

I look at that situation, was very glad the change came about (many of us were not surprised by the change), and have an understanding about it that would be different than yours since one who has studied Latter-day Saints history in Missouri would be familiar that the member families would have been killed en masse if their church was ordaining blacks to the priesthood at that time and saying it was the true church of Jesus Christ. Why, you likely will ask? Because of the existing culture of the non-LDS people who lived in Missouri, and the already existing animosities toward the Latter-day Saints, including economic factors and secret plots to acquire the Latter-day Saints’ improved lands and farms cheaply.

The next question is why, with a living prophet and ongoing revelation, did it take until 1978 to reverse the ban on black men in the priesthood?

It was not official, and it was not “very popular” at all–it was marginally believed by a few people, and never really understood.

The next question is how a living prophet could have been so wrong about God’s identity.

 

[ParkerD]

(1) The next question is why, with a living prophet and ongoing revelation, did it take until 1978 to reverse the ban on black men in the priesthood?

(2) The next question is how a living prophet could have been so wrong about God’s identity.

Christ Is the Way,

(1) So that members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints could come to understand the importance of the united voice of the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles, then later the Seventy, voting in complete unity on the action that took place in June, 1978. It was not the prophet acting alone. The members also needed to be “ready” such that they would be able to sustain and support this action, and sustain and support those leaders who would in future be called from among those now receiving the priesthood. The members also needed a greater surge in understanding the promises given to Abraham that through his seed all the nations of the earth would be blessed with the blessings of the priesthood, and needed to appreciate this truth by seeing the immediate blossoming of the fruits of this action in several places in Africa and in Central America and Brazil.

And, so that others could continue to have a stumbling block in their minds and hearts about the idea of “ongoing revelation”, rather than it be an “easy thing”. Instead, it is an “hard thing–who can hear it?”

(2) See the first point in item one, above. Also, for another stumbling block and sifting based on the first point in item one–so that those who are opposed to the idea of a united voice and unity, would have an excuse to go off on their own tangent, while the main church body was doing precisely what Joseph Smith taught that should be done by the Twelve. Thus, the Twelve are an important check and balance for an idea that was one person’s opinion, even if that person was the sustained prophet and president of the church. This case history was a very good example of the reason for this united voice being part of the council process of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

 

[Stephen168]

Just because they had built Nauvoo doesn’t mean they weren’t looked at with suspicion and animosity by those living in the surrounding parts of Illinois. That suspicion and animosity would have been intensified significantly if the prevailing cultural difference that was already extant in the entire country regarding the question of blacks in church leadership, had been changed at that early point in United States history. There is no way the city of Nauvoo would have lasted as long as it lasted if the Latter-day Saints had made that change in the early 1840’s, and the animosity would have followed them just as intensely to Utah if it had been made in the 1850’s or 1870’s or 1890’s or early 1900’s.

I have been told by Mormons that the reason Christ waited 1700 years to ‘restore’ his church is because he was waiting for a country with religious freedom to be established, so his church would not apostatize due to persecution like the church he established in 33AD.

Now you are telling us that after a 1700 year wait Christ still got it wrong because the Mormon Church had to adopt false doctrine to keep from getting persecuted. In fact, they had to continue the false doctrine for 120 years after arriving in Salt Lake because of the fear they might persecute themselves.

 

[jediliz]

Jesus did not leave us a Church that would die and have to be “Restored”. That is why the apostles chose successors! For example, after Judas’ betrayal, they were down to 11. They had to choose a replacement for Judas. This is written down in Acts of the Apostles.

The last apostle’s death did not mean the Church died. Christ himself said that the “Gates of the Netherworld would not prevail”. The apostles themselves KNEW they would be persecuted. They passed down what they had learned and taught so the Church would not die and always have a leader.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Christ Is the Way,

(1) So that members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints could come to understand the importance of the united voice of the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles, then later the Seventy, voting in complete unity on the action that took place in June, 1978. It was not the prophet acting alone. The members also needed to be “ready” such that they would be able to sustain and support this action, and sustain and support those leaders who would in future be called from among those now receiving the priesthood. The members also needed a greater surge in understanding the promises given to Abraham that through his seed all the nations of the earth would be blessed with the blessings of the priesthood, and needed to appreciate this truth by seeing the immediate blossoming of the fruits of this action in several places in Africa and in Central America and Brazil.

What is described is a church lead by men, if he membership agrees with what the leadership says.

And, so that others could continue to have a stumbling block in their minds and hearts about the idea of “ongoing revelation”, rather than it be an “easy thing”. Instead, it is an “hard thing–who can hear it?”

This doesn’t make any sense to me at all:shrug:

See the first point in item one, above. Also, for another stumbling block and sifting based on the first point in item one–so that those who are opposed to the idea of a united voice and unity, would have an excuse to go off on their own tangent, while the main church body was doing precisely what Joseph Smith taught that should be done by the Twelve. Thus, the Twelve are an important check and balance for an idea that was one person’s opinion, even if that person was the sustained prophet and president of the church. This case history was a very good example of the reason for this united voice being part of the council process of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Also a stellar example of why the LDS prophet is not a trustworthy source concerning God.

 

[ParkerD]

They did not surrender their beliefs, nor compromised. Are you not aware of the Roman persecution of the 300 years? Read on what St. Ignatius of Antioch did on his way to his death. If you want something more recent…St. Thomas More sometime in the 1500s, or St. Lawrence of Manila, sometime in the 1600.

Do not know what you asking about. How does the following passages help your case…that the LDS compromised to survived, thereby disproving their claim to be of the divine origin from God?

Dan 3:

16 Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego answered and said to the king, “O Nebuchadnezzar, we have no need to answer you in this matter. 17If this be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and he will deliver us out of your hand, O king.[d] 18But if not, be it known to you, O king, that we will not serve your gods or worship the golden image that you have set up.”

From Daniel account, looks like the three chose death than to worship otherwise. So, it lines up totally with what the early christians did…not to compromise their faith.

And this is very much in contrast with what the LDS did to survive by what you have described in previous posts, isn’t it?

Pablope,

What I was wanting to understand is how the belief that God “doesn’t change” lines up in your mind, when Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego were protected by God and did not die as we all know; Daniel was in a lion’s den and did not die, as we all know; Elisha was aware of being protected by spiritual forces even though he and the young man were surrounded by an enemy, and they had power given to them and did not die as we all know.

Yet the martyrs you talked about did die, and some actually welcomed being killed, but the question then is, Why did God change and allow them to die instead of protecting or rescuing them, since even Peter was rescued from prison as described in Acts so there is a New Testament precedent for God rescuing true believers?

 

[Miriam1947]

Pablope,

What I was wanting to understand is how the belief that God “doesn’t change” lines up in your mind, when Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego were protected by God and did not die as we all know; Daniel was in a lion’s den and did not die, as we all know; Elisha was aware of being protected by spiritual forces even though he and the young man were surrounded by an enemy, and they had power given to them and did not die as we all know.

Yet the martyrs you talked about did die, and some actually welcomed being killed, but the question then is, Why did God change and allow them to die instead of protecting or rescuing them, since even Peter was rescued from prison as described in Acts so there is a New Testament precedent for God rescuing true believers?

Peter was martyred for the faith in Rome. Crucified and his bones are in the tomb below St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome. So, Peter was rescued and then he died as a martyr.

God did not change and does not change. Those Christians were willing to die because they knew there was another place for them. Heaven with Christ. They were the first witnesses to the faith. They went to their deaths praising God. Testifying to the truth of Jesus.

You seem to think that God should think like a human. God is not human and has never been human. God has always been God.

That is one of our main differences in belief. You must humanize God because Mormons cannot understand the Trinity. The Triune God. And yet the original teachings of JS were of the Triune God though he changed it later.

I believe the Book of Mormon has no teachings about the human God that JS later taught.

I know you will correct me if I am wrong.

 

[ParkerD]

Peter was martyred for the faith in Rome. Crucified and his bones are in the tomb below St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome. So, Peter was rescued and then he died as a martyr.

God did not change and does not change. …

Miriam,

It is a simple thing: Peter “was rescued” and later he wasn’t rescued. That is a change in outcomes. Either a person would say the hand of God was in one and not in the other, or the person would have to say that God’s hand was in both and thus the change in outcome means that “God does change”.

Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego were protected by God and did not die as we all know, but the martyrs you wrote about did die, and were not protected by God, so “God does change”.

 

[pablope]

Pablope,

Yet the martyrs you talked about did die, and some actually welcomed being killed, but the question then is, Why did God change and allow them to die instead of protecting or rescuing them

 

[pablope]

Miriam,

It is a simple thing: Peter “was rescued” and later he wasn’t rescued. That is a change in outcomes. Either a person would say the hand of God was in one and not in the other, or the person would have to say that God’s hand was in both and thus the change in outcome means that “God does change”.