What race will you be in your planet? Can a Mormon answer me this please?

  • Thread starter Thread starter QuietTimes
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
ibkc said:
BDawg, that was an elegant strawman you just built and it was very impressive to see you tear it down. However, what is under discussion here is not what is in some places in the Old Testament. We’re talking about things that your “Prophets” taught as doctrine for many years, then attempted to bury like it never meant anything or wasn’t somehow still in force among the members of the church.

I appreciate the reasons for your attempts to deflect the conversation onto the alleged defects of the Bible because these doctrines have to be extremely embarrassing for you, but honestly, your use of the “answer the question they should have asked” tactic is increasingly transparent. And it’s getting old.
ETA: And I have to say that having no kind of confidence that your Prophets are ever speaking the truth at any time would be amply enough for me to leave a religion.
Click to expand...
bien fait!
 
Scott Hann puts forth this timeline of Covenant History

First, one holy Couple (Adam and Eve) with a relationship with God.

Second, One Holy Family (Noah and them) with a relationship with God.

Third, One Holy Tribe (Abraham) with a relationship with God

Forth, One Holy Nation (12 Tribes of Isreal) with a relationship with God.

Fifth, One Holy Kingdom (Lead by David) with a relationship with God

Finally, One Holy Church (Under Christ) with a relationship with God.

Now, as you can see, the number of people involved increased with each level. When you look at the OT, the Jews were to be a people that were a sign to the world that God is God. Other nations were to join to them becuase of their holiness. Once Jesus ordered the Apostles to teach all nations, there is no more place for racism, ethnocentrism, or any other discrimination. Any church that teaches it is flat out anti-Christ.

To say that that is how the OT was and how it should be today, when Jesus taught differently is very bad theology and Salvation History
 
ibkc,

I can say the same exact thing about your religion. i think we are all past that by now. Its called bigotry.
 
it seems they weren’t very holy if they taught that they should deny the priesthood to a family just because they came from a different race. Crazy Abraham. Crazy Noah.
 
And whats this strawman of drawing out the Jewish priestly duties as a comparison?

Firstly, the tribal denotation had nothing to do with salvation, it was duty specific. Not so with the LDS priesthood.

Sad to say, the priesthood ban just wasn’t a ban on an LDS title. It excluded blacks from endowments, marriage in the LDS church, etc, and ultimately, the highest order of the “celestial kingdom”.
 
falisrm said:
it seems they weren’t very holy if they taught that they should deny the priesthood to a family just because they came from a different race. Crazy Abraham. Crazy Noah.
Click to expand...
You would be 100% correct if they had been told to make beleivers out of all nations. They were not. They were limited in scope compaired to Christianity. The OT shows a growth of inclusion. Eventually, the whole world is to be taught about God and brought into his family
 
falisrm said:
it seems they weren’t very holy if they taught that they should deny the priesthood to a family just because they came from a different race. Crazy Abraham. Crazy Noah.
Click to expand...
Priesthood wasn’t tied to salvation.

Oh no, a Kohanim is eligible to be called to the Torah first, followed by the Levites.

Blacks are cursed with dark skin, unable to hold priestly office, marry or attain the highest levels of salvation.

Apples and rutabagas comparison.
 
ralphinal said:
You would be 100% correct if they had been told to make beleivers out of all nations. They were not. They were limited in scope compaired to Christianity. The OT shows a growth of inclusion. Eventually, the whole world is to be taught about God and brought into his family
Click to expand...
Don’t fall into that strawman argument. The priesthood offices of Judaism don’t even remotely resemble those of LDS.

Its a deflection, plain and simple.
 
scipio337 said:
Don’t fall into that strawman argument. The priesthood offices of Judaism don’t even remotely resemble those of LDS.

Its a deflection, plain and simple.
Click to expand...
I know. But even if they did, at some point “Make Followers of all nations” would trump “Just you guys over here.”
 
falisrm said:
I missed the whole action here but Rebecca, your basically calling Noah and Abraham Racists. The LDS church adopted the principles Noad and Abraham were teaching in the bible.

Quiettimes is a exmo, only exmormons refer to members in the LDS church as SIL. Its good to hear another relative became members.
Click to expand...
Oh No!!
I am not a ex mormom and SIL means sister in law:o I don’t know how you could confuse that. When I was looking around and reading catholic apologetics I found that many of the anti catholic rhetoric came from misunderstandings. I would never be a mormon. I admire their values towards families but thats about it.

And actually they walked out on the elder(s), when he had told them they would be white.

Sorry about the mix up.
 
Supposedly, the ban on the priesthood was supposed to be like the one with Abraham and Noah. Where they were only denied the priesthood. I know they were still allowed to be baptized and receive those ordinances and i suppose they were still allowed to receive their endowments and be sealed in the templebut i have no idea. It all happened before i was even born. Maybe i can ask someone who had to deal with it. So if, the church was following the ban correctly, it shouldn’t have prevented any black member from receiving salvation according to the churches concept of how someone receives salvation.
 
falisrm said:
Supposedly, the ban on the priesthood was supposed to be like the one with Abraham and Noah. Where they were only denied the priesthood. I know they were still allowed to be baptized and receive those ordinances and i suppose they were still allowed to receive their endowments and be sealed in the templebut i have no idea. It all happened before i was even born. Maybe i can ask someone who had to deal with it. So if, the church was following the ban correctly, it shouldn’t have prevented any black member from receiving salvation according to the churches concept of how someone receives salvation.
Click to expand...
According to other threads on this topic, it did prohibit temple ceremonies at some points. There are also quotes from LDS leaders that say that non-whites would be servants in the afterlife.
 
Ya, so can we get onto a real thread for once instead of trash that happened before i was even born? Can we talk about a real issue in today’s timeframe?
 
falisrm said:
Supposedly, the ban on the priesthood was supposed to be like the one with Abraham and Noah. Where they were only denied the priesthood. I know they were still allowed to be baptized and receive those ordinances and i suppose they were still allowed to receive their endowments and be sealed in the templebut i have no idea. It all happened before i was even born. Maybe i can ask someone who had to deal with it. So if, the church was following the ban correctly, it shouldn’t have prevented any black member from receiving salvation according to the churches concept of how someone receives salvation.
Click to expand...
Uhhh, since when was being a priesthood holder not a requirement for marriage or endowment?

Not just “at some points”, BLACKS WERE DENIED ALL LDS ENDOWMENTS, AFTER CONFIRMATION, INCLUDING ENDOWMENTS, MARRIAGES, AND SEALINGS, FOR OVER

And who are you to determined if the LDS presidency “followed the ban correctly”?

The funny thing is, that under his own rules, Joe Smith (as a supposed descendant of Ephriam) would not have been eligible for the LDS priesthood.

Ironic, no?
 
falisrm said:
Supposedly, the ban on the priesthood was supposed to be like the one with Abraham and Noah. Where they were only denied the priesthood. I know they were still allowed to be baptized and receive those ordinances and i suppose they were still allowed to receive their endowments and be sealed in the templebut i have no idea. It all happened before i was even born. Maybe i can ask someone who had to deal with it. So if, the church was following the ban correctly, it shouldn’t have prevented any black member from receiving salvation according to the churches concept of how someone receives salvation.
Click to expand...
falisrm, I was a tried and true Mormon in 1978, was very happy when this “revelation” came about.

No, a person of African decent was not allowed to take out their endowments.

As for “salvation”, yes, a person of African decent could be baptized, no, to anything beyond that. Brigham Young stated clearly that Mormon “negroes” would be servants in the celestial kingdom. ie, no such thing as “families are forever” if you happened to screw up in the pre-existence and were not given the privilege of a white and delightsome body.

It’s all utter nonsense.
 
falisrm said:
Ya, so can we get onto a real thread for once instead of trash that happened before i was even born? Can we talk about a real issue in today’s timeframe?
Click to expand...
That is what this thread is about. Mormons keep trying to change the subject. Why is that?
 
falisrm said:
Ya, so can we get onto a real thread for once instead of trash that happened before i was even born? Can we talk about a real issue in today’s timeframe?
Click to expand...
FOr what it is worth, I feel the same way about the Crusades and the Inquisition.

The OP raised the question because it was told to her relative by a Mormon that this was the teaching TODAY. Now, they may have been wrong, but it is still taught.

There are two reasons that I like to discuss this topic. First, it is a valid question to consider when discussing the validity of the LDS claims of being the restored church and continual revelation. Second, it is a topic that ALL denominations need to address. At one point in time, the only main-line Church in America that was integrated was the Catholic Church. In many places, churches are the last bastion of segregation tolerated by people
 
Its the same relavance as the crusades. Its history. So why does the Catholic church slaughter so many people because they don’t believe in Christ, Huh?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top