The Church of Latter Day Saints' "god" is racist

[CatholicGuyNY]

The real difference between the Catholic and Mormon issues with race, from a First Presidency statement in 1949, under George Albert Smith (I found this quoted on MADB):

The First Presidency of the LDS Church

**The attitude of the Church with reference to Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the priesthood at the present time. The prophets of the Lord have made several statements as to the operation of the principle. President Brigham Young said: “Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a skin of blackness? It comes in consequence of their fathers rejecting the power of the holy priesthood, and the law of God. They will go down to death. And when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the holy priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will then come up and possess the priesthood, and receive all the blessings which we now are entitled to.”

President Wilford Woodruff made the following statement: “The day will come when all that race will be redeemed and possess all the blessings which we now have.”

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 premortal 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 mortality is a privilege that is given to those who maintain 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.**

Here we clearly see the First Presidency teaching that the priesthood ban was a direct commandment of the Lord, and not a declaration of policy.

Catholics have never claimed that any racial issues with the priesthood were due to direct commandment of the Lord. We instead know that they were due to human failings, and no Pope or College of Cardinals has claimed otherwise.

 

[why_me]

Sorry…there is never enough of the TRUE God…of course, since you foloow false prophets, you would not know what I am talking about

If your so called true god allows priests to give the communion at the same time they are molesting children, then I want no part of that true god. I will go to mass to pray for you.

Now I know that god allows free agency and human failings but to hear about a ‘true’ god is the catholic god, well, it makes me sick. But then again I know that you say such unfortunate things just to rile people up. But…bad choice of words when one considers the recent news reports.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Not will I. But as long as tom keeps posting how the catholics have the true god and the mormons the false god, well…it is not irrelevant. Enough is enough with true god posts. Enough is enough with true god posts. And as I said, I would not want anything to do with a ‘true’ god that allows priests to molest children. That is my point. If we accept human failings in the catholic church then, we must accept human failings in all churches, including the mormon church.

No one has the true god. We just have god.

I have no issue at all with human failing in the Mormon Church; as you said, all Churches have human failing.

The problem here is that the racism was taught by Mormon Prophets as a teaching of God, and then later contradicted. And because of the murky criteria for what constitutes Mormon Divine Revelation, Mormons are able to spin that so that the first Prophets who taught that it was a teaching of God were somehow wrong and the next Prophets who taught that racism WASN’T a teaching of God were somehow correct. This is contradictory.

 

[CatholicGuyNY]

Nonsense. It has to do with tom posting that the mormon god is false and the catholic god true. It is an insult to all victims of child molestation by priests to say that catholics have the true god. That is my point. God is god, period.

Sorry, this is a false equivalence. Catholics accept that God does not coerce people to do things that they do not want to do. God gave us free will, and He does not force anyone, including the Pope, to do something that they do not want to do. LDS Church authorities have claimed that God restricted the priesthood. No Catholic authority has ever claimed that God wanted priests to molest children, so your statement is just illogical.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

If your so called true god allows priests to give the communion at the same time they are molesting children, then I want no part of that true god. I will go to mass to pray for you.

Now I know that god allows free agency and human failings but to hear about a ‘true’ god is the catholic god, well, it makes me sick. But then again I know that you say such unfortunate things just to rile people up. But…bad choice of words when one considers the recent news reports.

You’d have a point if we claimed our Priests were free from human failings. But we don’t.

You’re arguing a strawman. That post was probably to rile you up, yes. But the issue is not about human failings, which can be acknowledged in both Churches. The issue is with contradictory divine revelation.

 

[why_me]

The real difference between the Catholic and Mormon issues with race, from a First Presidency statement in 1949, under George Albert Smith (I found this quoted on MADB):

The First Presidency of the LDS Church

The attitude of the Church with reference to Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the priesthood at the present time. The prophets of the Lord have made several statements as to the operation of the principle. President Brigham Young said: “Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a skin of blackness? It comes in consequence of their fathers rejecting the power of the holy priesthood, and the law of God. They will go down to death. And when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the holy priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and they will then come up and possess the priesthood, and receive all the blessings which we now are entitled to.”

President Wilford Woodruff made the following statement: “The day will come when all that race will be redeemed and possess all the blessings which we now have.”

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 premortal 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 mortality is a privilege that is given to those who maintain 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.

Here we clearly see the First Presidency teaching that the priesthood ban was a direct commandment of the Lord, and not a declaration of policy.

Catholics have never claimed that any racial issues with the priesthood were due to direct commandment of the Lord. We instead know that they were due to human failings, and no Pope or College of Cardinals has claimed otherwise.

1949? Move on…if all go by into the past we will find some humdingers everywhere in every corner of all churches. We just need to ask the jewish people their opinion of the catholic church when the catholic church was calling the jews to task for murdering christ. And what happened in their history because of it.

Let skeletons lay low…

 

[CatholicGuyNY]

If your so called true god allows priests to give the communion at the same time they are molesting children, then I want no part of that true god. I will go to mass to pray for you.

Now I know that god allows free agency and human failings but to hear about a ‘true’ god is the catholic god, well, it makes me sick. But then again I know that you say such unfortunate things just to rile people up. But…bad choice of words when one considers the recent news reports.

You just contradicted yourself. You say that you know that God allows free agency and human failings, while at the same time wondering why God would allow certain Catholic priests to molest children. Duh, it’s because of free agency.

If the true God allows free agency, then I don’t see why you’re wondering why He would allow such horrible acts.

 

[CatholicGuyNY]

1949? Move on…if all go by into the past we will find some humdingers everywhere in every corner of all churches. We just need to ask the jewish people their opinion of the catholic church when the catholic church was calling the jews to task for murdering christ. And what happened in their history because of it.

Let skeletons lay low…

This is a deflection. The LDS Church First Presidency taught that the priesthood restriction was due to a direct commandment from the Lord. So was it or wasn’t it? That’s what we’re discussing. If you don’t want to, then please leave the thread.

 

[PaulDupre]

You know, the real story isn’t really LDS racism. I’m sure there were racist Popes and racist Catholics too. The problem is that the LDS prophets were teaching this as divine revelation…that blacks are inferior. Catholics NEVER, ever did that.

Bingo! Give that man a cigar!

 

[CatholicGuyNY]

Bingo! Give that man a cigar!

See my quote above. The LDS First Presidency taught that it was due to a direct commandment of the Lord. The Catholic Magisterium has never made such a statement.

 

[why_me]

You just contradicted yourself. You say that you know that God allows free agency and human failings, while at the same time wondering why God would allow certain Catholic priests to molest children. Duh, it’s because of free agency.

If the true God allows free agency, then I don’t see why you’re wondering why He would allow such horrible acts.

No I don’t wonder that at all. I wonder at tom’s True god. It is the true god that he continues to bring up in almost every other post. He claims, the mormons follow a false god but the catholics have the true god. See my point. It is his statement about the True god that offends me as if the catholic god is more true than the mormon false god.

And if we claim that the mormon god is racist…what can we say about the catholic god?

 

[Marc_Anthony]

1949? Move on…if all go by into the past we will find some humdingers everywhere in every corner of all churches. We just need to ask the jewish people their opinion of the catholic church when the catholic church was calling the jews to task for murdering christ. And what happened in their history because of it.

Let skeletons lay low…

Once agin, you miss the point. LDS claimed that racism was taught by God. They then contradicted this. So why do we believe the later Mormon Prophets and not the earlier ones? Why are the later Mormon Prophets’ divine revelations regarding blacks superior?

In contrast, the Church has never, ever held an official position that was racist. It just hasn’t.

 

[CatholicGuyNY]

No I don’t wonder that at all. I wonder at tom’s True god. It is the true god that he continues to bring up in almost every other post. He claims, the mormons follow a false god but the catholics have the true god. See my point. It is his statement about the True god that offends me as if the catholic god is more true than the mormon false god.

And if we claim that the mormon god is racist…what can we say about the catholic god?

Sorry, this is still not equivalent. We have statements by Mormon authorities that the priesthood ban was due to God/commandment of God. We do not have statements by Catholic authorities that the abuse was due to God/commandment of God. Therefore, you do not have an argument.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

No I don’t wonder that at all. I wonder at tom’s True god. It is the true god that he continues to bring up in almost every other post. He claims, the mormons follow a false god but the catholics have the true god. See my point. It is his statement about the True god that offends me as if the catholic god is more true than the mormon false god.

And if we claim that the mormon god is racist…what can we say about the catholic god?

You’re still arguing a strawman. I’m not arguing about whether Catholics are more or less sinful than Mormons. I’m saying that the official Mormon position was one of racism. It was taught that racism taught by God. Then another PRophet came and said this was wrong. So God changed his mind? If not, why are we believing some teachings of the Mormon Prophets but not others?

And once again, Catholics have never, ever claimed that racism is a teaching of God. Ever. They just haven’t.

 

[why_me]

Once agin, you miss the point. LDS claimed that racism was taught by God. They then contradicted this. So why do we believe the later Mormon Prophets and not the earlier ones? Why are the later Mormon Prophets’ divine revelations regarding blacks superior?

In contrast, the Church has never, ever held an official position that was racist. It just hasn’t.

What is the title of the thread? That the mormon god is racist. Well, if that is the case, what exactly is the catholic god? See my point? The thread title is a strawman and designed to get mormons to react.

I suppose on anticatholic sites one can see a thread: The catholic god is a child molester. How would that make you feel as a catholic? Sad, right? Angry? And then, on the thread you read the OP claiming that her or his church follow the true god and catholics follow a false god…How does that sound to you as a catholic? Is the OP filled with hate or love? Is the OP having charity or spite? You tell me.

The title of the thread is a sad title for a catholic to choose.

 

[CatholicGuyNY]

What is the title of the thread? That the mormon god is racist. Well, if that is the case, what exactly is the catholic god? See my point? The thread title is a strawman and designed to get mormons to react.

I suppose on anticatholic sites one can see a thread: The catholic god is a child molester. How would that make you feel as a catholic? Sad, right? Angry? And then, on the thread you read the OP claiming that heror his church follow the true god and catholics follow a false god…How does that sound to you as a catholic? Is the OP filled with hate or love? Is the OP having charity or spite? You tell me.

The title of the thread is a sad title for a catholic to choose.

You do realize that you have no argument, right? We have statements by LDS prophets and apostles amounting to racism at God’s command, as well as a statement by the First Presidency that the priesthood was due to direct commandment of the Lord. For you to make a real equivalence with the Catholic abuse scandals, you would have to cite statements by Catholic authorities that the abuse was at God’s command. Since you can’t, your argument is a straw man (a very poor one).

 

[Marc_Anthony]

What is the title of the thread? That the mormon god is racist. Well, if that is the case, what exactly is the catholic god? See my point? The thread title is a strawman and designed to get mormons to react.

I suppose on anticatholic sites one can see a thread: The catholic god is a child molester. How would that make you feel as a catholic? Sad, right? Angry? And then, on the thread you read the OP claiming that heror his church follow the true god and catholics follow a false god…How does that sound to you as a catholic? Is the OP filled with hate or love? Is the OP having charity or spite? You tell me.

The title of the thread is a sad title for a catholic to choose.

The difference: Mormons originally claimed that the Mormon God taught racism.

Catholics have never and will never claim that the Catholic God teaches child molestation.

You’re arguing a strawman,

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Here’s the evidence you would need for your arguement to be valid:

You would need an infallible proclamation made by the Pope or one of the ecumenical councils tha officially states that child molestation is a teaching of God and should not be changed. Then you would need another infallible proclamation from the post or an ecumenical council claiming that the previous teaching wasn’t really infallible and should be disregarded.

You will never find this evidence. Why? Because it does not exist. The official position of the Church has NEVER been one that supported child molestation. Ever.

In contrast, the official position of the Mormon Church used to be that God taught racism. Then another Prophet came out and said that the other Prophets were wrong and that God didn’t teach racism.

So don’t the teachings contradict each other? Why should we believe one Prophet over another? It’s an inconsistent position that proves that Mormon teachings change to whatever the Mormons want their teachings to be. How can they actually be the teachings of God if the teachings contradict each other?

 

[why_me]

You’re still arguing a strawman. I’m not arguing about whether Catholics are more or less sinful than Mormons. I’m saying that the official Mormon position was one of racism. It was taught that racism taught by God. Then another PRophet came and said this was wrong. So God changed his mind? If not, why are we believing some teachings of the Mormon Prophets but not others?

And once again, Catholics have never, ever claimed that racism is a teaching of God. Ever. They just haven’t.

What was the catholic church’s position to Jews during the middle ages…can you tell me?

The Early Middle Ages

In the western part of the Empire, the number of Jews was then comparatively small. Moreover, the Goths, now the real masters of the West, were Arian Christians and therefore not under the influence of the Roman Church. Theodoric the Great (c. 520), while expressing the usual Christian view that Judaism was a deviation from the truth, granted that faith could not be forced. PopeGregory I (590–604) applied the same policy. In theory this remained the basic papal policy for many centuries, although in practice it was often flagrantly violated. In a series of Church councils, meeting in Toledo throughout the seventh century, the Visigothic kingdom of Spain, which had by this time become Catholic, passed a series of increasingly stringent laws to compel the Jews to join the Church or leave the country (see anusim). Only the Muslim conquest (711) made it possible for the Jews to return to their homes and their faith.* In the Eastern Empire, Church and state continued to be closely bound together. Under the emperorsHeraclius (632) and Leo III (721), Jews were forced into baptism. It may have been the examples of Spain and the Eastern Empire that led King Dagobert of the Franks to expel the Jews from his kingdom (633), but the order was enforced only briefly. Before long, the kings and nobles, especiallyCharlemagne and his sons, found the Jews very useful, although several Church councils in France and Italy continued to object to friendly relations between Christians and Jews and some important churchmen, like Bishops*Agobard and Amulo of Lyons, agitated against them. The weakening of Pope Gregory I’s policy was exemplified when Pope Leo VII (937) advised the archbishop of Mainz to expel the Jews from his diocese if they continued to refuse baptism. On the other hand, in 1063, PopeAlexander II commended the French and the Spanish clergy for protecting the Jews against physical attack. His successor, Pope Gregory VII (1081), however, objected to the employment of Jews in public office in the rising Christian kingdoms of the Iberian Peninsula. One may conclude that, as the Church in the West grew stronger, its policy grew more hostile; but the economic position of the Jews continued to work in their favor

Theory and practice are at odds with each other.

The Later Middle Ages

During the crusading era, the situation of the Jews underwent radical changes. When the first Crusaders, unorganized peasants and city rabble, reached the Rhineland, they were already convinced that killing a Jew nearby was as meritorious as killing a Muslim in distant Palestine – and much less dangerous. Here and there a local bishop tried to protect the Jews, but with little effect. Pope Urban II, who had started the crusading movement, did not rebuke the rioters; Clement III, an antipope, protested the return to Judaism of those who had yielded to baptism when in danger of their lives. The experience proved to the Jews that their position in Christian society was a precarious one. They asked for and received a promise of protection from the Holy Roman emperor (1103), and they also sought a statement from the pope. Thebull Sicut Judaeis, first issued by Pope *Calixtus II (c. 1120), was evidently meant as an answer to this appeal. The effect of this bull of protection is naturally hard to evaluate. It did not stop threats to various Jewish communities in central Europe when the Second Crusade got under way in 1144. The worst effects of the Third Crusade were felt in England (1190).

Driven out of commerce during the 12th century by the rise of a middle class in the towns, the Jews turned to moneylending, especially since the Church prohibited the taking of interest by Christians. Churchmen, high and low, now joined the popular outcry against the Jews as extortioners ruining the Christian population. The hostility thus engendered resulted in the invention of charges which plagued the Jews for many centuries. The*blood libel first appeared in the 12 th century, and that of the desecration of the Host in the 13th. A number of popes, then and later, denied these accusations, but they continued to crop up in various localities and resulted in the torture and killing of many Jews, since the local clergy were rarely restrained by the expressions of papal doubt. Contact between Christians and Jews being considered dangerous, PopeInnocent III (1215) imposed upon all Jews the obligation of wearing distinguishable garments, and this soon developed into the Jewish *badge. That the unregulated presence of Jews endangered Christianity was accepted by the theologian Thomas *Aquinas, though his approach to the problem of Jews in Christian society was precise, logical, and relatively tolerant.

jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0004_0_04300.html

 

[CatholicGuyNY]

We have a Mormon in this thread (dianaiad) claiming that the priesthood ban was a matter of “policy”, while we also have a First Presidency statement saying that it was NOT a matter of policy, but a commandment of the Lord.