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

[BDawg]

Hi Majick,

It seems to me that you are not being fair-minded, here. That is, you won’t allow yourself to hold yourself to the same standard to which you hold us. Examples below.

you choose a holiness seminary instructor as evidence?

YES!!! I think he was a great person to quote. 1) He’s obviously an expert in his field, otherwise he wouldn’t have been asked to write an article in The Oxford Companion to the Bible. 2) He teaches in a seminary for a denomination that is as fundamentalist as it gets!

amazing. someone can claim that God showed them the exact words to write a s scripture, claim face to face meetings with direct answers to specific questions and yet it’s fallible?
in teh face of propehts and apostles claiming God revealed it to ethem?

Are you talking about the translation of the Book of Mormon? First, all the information about how JS translated is second-hand, but in any case, he did claim it was fallible, whether you like it or not. “And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men” (Title Page of the Book of Mormon). So no, we aren’t fundies, and never have been. Revelations go through fallible human equipment.

i accept it as the word of God. it was OT though which means it was changed by JESUS. He showed us by example that eunuchs could be welcomed into the kingdom of God in great detail. He also showed us that biological lineage was no guarantee of anything and that the kingdom of GOd was now for all.

I’m not sure what you are saying. Are you saying that it was RIGHT for the OT prophets to exclude eunuchs, bastards, and people with particular lineages, but Jesus came along and changed the rules? Or are you saying it was WRONG, but Jesus came along and changed things?

It seems to me that the LDS are in exactly the same dilemma. Do we say that the prophets were RIGHT to exclude blacks, but Spencer Kimball was given revelation to change the rules? Or do we say that the prophets were WRONG to exclude blacks, and the revelation to Spencer Kimball set everything straight?

Please try to be fair-minded about this.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Well, anyway, I’ve tried my best to be honest about the history of LDS thought on the subject, and to answer the original question. If you guys don’t see the relevance of what Old Testament prophets did and said to the question of what prophets can do and say, there’s not much more I can do here.

I hope some things were clarified for you, QuietTimes.

Actually BDawg, I find it sad that you and other Mormons have to go through these hoops in order to defend racism. It shouldn’t have to be that way at all, and would not be, were it not for your “prophets” inserting their own racism into your religion under the guise of “prophetic revelation”.

I find it incredibly sad that you have to choose to view God’s work in the OT as ugly as possible in order to defend what cannot be defended. And ascribing these same things to Jesus, is incomprehensible.

 

[majick275]

Hi Majick,

It seems to me that you are not being fair-minded, here. That is, you won’t allow yourself to hold yourself to the same standard to which you hold us. Examples below.

YES!!! I think he was a great person to quote. 1) He’s obviously an expert in his field, otherwise he wouldn’t have been asked to write an article in The Oxford Companion to the Bible. 2) He teaches in a seminary for a denomination that is as fundamentalist as it gets!

i am confused as to why you think he is a good source. fundamentalists are NOT good custodians of the Bible

Are you talking about the translation of the Book of Mormon? First, all the information about how JS translated is second-hand, but in any case, he did claim it was fallible, whether you like it or not. “And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men” (Title Page of the Book of Mormon). So no, we aren’t fundies, and never have been. Revelations go through fallible human equipment.

these “mistakes” are taught as the failings of the nephite writers. Much has been made of the Bo as “the most correct book on earth”, etc. I think it problematic to now claim the LDs view is little different than their view of the Bible.

I’m not sure what you are saying. Are you saying that it was RIGHT for the OT prophets to exclude eunuchs, bastards, and people with particular lineages, but Jesus came along and changed the rules? Or are you saying it was WRONG, but Jesus came along and changed things?

i wasn’t saying either but you bring up a good point. I think some of the OT is Moses exercising a leadership role as a man. I also see much of it as divine revelation. I see human error in some cases where OT figures such as moses were acting as a human governor. I also see God giving the people a “lesser” law as preparation for humanity to receive God incarnate. Either Way, Jesus came and perfected the Law. I do not see a problem with denying “further perfections” as I see Jesus as the final chapter on God’s Law.

It seems to me that the LDS are in exactly the same dilemma. Do we say that the prophets were RIGHT to exclude blacks, but Spencer Kimball was given revelation to change the rules? Or do we say that the prophets were WRONG to exclude blacks, and the revelation to Spencer Kimball set everything straight?

Please try to be fair-minded about this.

since all of this was AFTER Jesus i don’t see how the LDS position cold be correct either way. I also don’t believe that Spencer Kimball claimed a revelation on this in the manner of D&C sections. It appeared that he made a decision, prayed about it and agreed with his apostles that the decision was correct. Thus the OD vs. a new section. I point to the wording in the OD as evidence of this.

 

[falisrm]

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.

 

[RebeccaJ]

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.

No falisrm YOU are calling them racist in order to support your religious views and doctrines of racism.

 

[BDawg]

Actually BDawg, I find it sad that you and other Mormons have to go through these hoops in order to defend racism. It shouldn’t have to be that way at all, and would not be, were it not for your “prophets” inserting their own racism into your religion under the guise of “prophetic revelation”.

I find it incredibly sad that you have to choose to view God’s work in the OT as ugly as possible in order to defend what cannot be defended. And ascribing these same things to Jesus, is incomprehensible.

Rebecca,

When did I defend racism? I actually believe the LDS Church was wrong to impose the priesthood ban. What I am defending is the ideas that 1) God might not view things the same way I do, 2) prophets are fallible human beings, and 3) people who believe in the Bible shouldn’t throw stones about this issue.

I find it incredibly sad that you reject Mormonism on a certain basis, but refuse to deal with the fact that the same criticisms could be legitimately leveled against the prophets you believe in. Complain about how “sad” it is that I have to attack the Bible all you want–the fact is that you aren’t fair-minded enough to deal with what the Bible says.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Rebecca,

When did I defend racism? I actually believe the LDS Church was wrong to impose the priesthood ban. What I am defending is the ideas that 1) God might not view things the same way I do, 2) prophets are fallible human beings, and 3) people who believe in the Bible shouldn’t throw stones about this issue.

I find it incredibly sad that you reject Mormonism on a certain basis, but refuse to deal with the fact that the same criticisms could be legitimately leveled against the prophets you believe in. Complain about how “sad” it is that I have to attack the Bible all you want–the fact is that you aren’t fair-minded enough to deal with what the Bible says.

No complaints here BDawg, believe whatever you like about this false god of yours. Just, don’t expect that I would or should.

 

[falisrm]

Wasn’t it Abraham that only gave the priesthood if his Sons married in his own tribe. Anyone married outside of the tribe wasn’t allowed to receive the priesthood, let alone any of the other benefits associated with the tribe.

Same thing happened with Noah. Ham was denied the priesthood because he married outside of his group. That’s why he tried to steal the priesthood from Noah because Ham wanted the priesthood anyways.

Theres more examples of this but its been awhile since i read the Old Testament. But obviously, Abraham and Noah followed principles or standards that would be considered racist in our day.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Wasn’t it Abraham that only gave the priesthood if his Sons married in his own tribe. Anyone married outside of the tribe wasn’t allowed to receive the priesthood, let alone any of the other benefits associated with the tribe.

Same thing happened with Noah. Ham was denied the priesthood because he married outside of his group. That’s why he tried to steal the priesthood from Noah because Ham wanted the priesthood anyways.

Theres more examples of this but its been awhile since i read the Old Testament. But obviously, Abraham and Noah followed principles or standards that would be considered racist in our day.

falisrm, maybe you should figure out the difference between tribalism and racism. And then follow that up with what Christ instituted.

And then maybe explain how you believe what one of your so-called prophets comes up with would “trump” anything Christ taught? What is that a “restoration” of? Something that Jesus Himself got wrong?

Yes, Jesus is the New Covenant, not Mormonism.

 

[falisrm]

It’s the same exact thing as racism today. They were considered different at the time. Women outside of the tribe married into Abraham’s tribe. The husbands were then denied the priesthood. I’m sure the women looked different and had different beliefs or traditions too. Sounds just like what racism is today. Abraham followed those principles or traditions if you like it or not.

Wasn’t it Moses who gave the levitical priesthood to the Levites only? Why wasn’t everyone else included. Isn’t that racism too?

How about when Christ denied even the gospel to the Gentiles. That means the gentiles weren’t even allowed to be saved, let alone hold the priesthood.

 

[BDawg]

i am confused as to why you think he is a good source. fundamentalists are NOT good custodians of the Bible

But they are pre-disposed to defend every last jot and tittle of the Bible as literally, absolutely, true. That a Bible scholar from this kind of background could distance himself from this kind of “extreme fundamentalism” is significant, I think. I’m sure he was forced to this conclusion by his studies. And yet, he couldn’t teach at an Assemblies of God seminary if he didn’t exhibit an abiding faith in the Biblical message, despite its faults. He strikes me as the kind of guy who is trying to be fair-minded about the whole thing, instead of believing every argument for his preconceived notions, and finding every tiny flaw and ambiguity in the arguments against them.

these “mistakes” are taught as the failings of the nephite writers. Much has been made of the Bo as “the most correct book on earth”, etc. I think it problematic to now claim the LDs view is little different than their view of the Bible.

If the Book of Mormon is “the most correct book,” does that mean it is perfect? What if all the other books are less perfect? Personally, I think (with good evidence) that the Bible has undergone quite a bit more tampering. Your problem seems to be that you are stuck in some kind of “black-and-white” thinking mode, at least when it comes to groups you disagree with.

i wasn’t saying either but you bring up a good point. I think some of the OT is Moses exercising a leadership role as a man. I also see much of it as divine revelation. I see human error in some cases where OT figures such as moses were acting as a human governor. I also see God giving the people a “lesser” law as preparation for humanity to receive God incarnate. Either Way, Jesus came and perfected the Law. I do not see a problem with denying “further perfections” as I see Jesus as the final chapter on God’s Law.

Now you seem to be understanding what I’m saying. We just disagree about whether everything was absolutely perfect and set in stone after Jesus came, apparently. In any case, I know you give the same room for error to the Popes, who are not thought to be prophets, but have some infallible teaching authority.

Can you agree with my point that you guys have to deal with some very similar issues (albeit more removed in time)?

since all of this was AFTER Jesus i don’t see how the LDS position cold be correct either way. I also don’t believe that Spencer Kimball claimed a revelation on this in the manner of D&C sections. It appeared that he made a decision, prayed about it and agreed with his apostles that the decision was correct. Thus the OD vs. a new section. I point to the wording in the OD as evidence of this.

Well, he said it was a revelation, and so did the apostles who participated in the decision.

 

[scipio337]

It’s the same exact thing as racism today. They were considered different at the time. Women outside of the tribe married into Abraham’s tribe. The husbands were then denied the priesthood. I’m sure the women looked different and had different beliefs or traditions too. Sounds just like what racism is today. Abraham followed those principles or traditions if you like it or not.

Wasn’t it Moses who gave the levitical priesthood to the Levites only? Why wasn’t everyone else included. Isn’t that racism too?

How about when Christ denied even the gospel to the Gentiles. That means the gentiles weren’t even allowed to be saved, let alone hold the priesthood.

False analogy. The Levites and Gentiles weren’t a racial distinction.

I suppose next we’ll hear the “Abraham was a polygamist” as a defense of polygamy?

 

[Jerusha]

How about when Christ denied even the gospel to the Gentiles. That means the gentiles weren’t even allowed to be saved, let alone hold the priesthood.

That was early. Later His ministry was to all. There was a sound reason for this. The earliest believers had to be Jewish, since the foundation was Jewish. Once there were enough Jewish followers of Jesus,----

 

[falisrm]

Actually, the Levites and Gentiles were part of the racism factor because it only based on birth. Just like Racism is. Levites were born into that tribe and they were the only ones allowed to hold the priesthood and officiate in any of the ordinances according to the law of moses.

Gentiles were even more of a birthrite. Gentiles at the time was born as a gentile. They just happened to not believe in any of the Jewish traditions anyways. So basically any Non Jew was a Gentile at that time.

There are different definitions of Gentiles throughout the OT and NT. but that was what Christ was refering to at that time.

 

[BDawg]

That was early. Later His ministry was to all. There was a sound reason for this. The earliest believers had to be Jewish, since the foundation was Jewish. Once there were enough Jewish followers of Jesus,----

And you are absolutely incapable of seeing how this relates to the criticisms of the LDS Church?

 

[scipio337]

To quote old Joe, “a prophet is only a prophet when acting as such”. BY and a vast majority of LDS Presidents/ “prophets, seers and revealators” accepted the Priesthood ban, whether given as prophecy by BY or not, as prophecy. Which is why, like polygyny, it took another “revealation” to cancel it.

While some claime “LDS prophets are not infallible”, they are in matters of prophecy. What’s more, G*d gas his own measuring stick, see Deut 18:21-22.

 

[RebeccaJ]

It’s the same exact thing as racism today. They were considered different at the time. Women outside of the tribe married into Abraham’s tribe. The husbands were then denied the priesthood. I’m sure the women looked different and had different beliefs or traditions too. Sounds just like what racism is today. Abraham followed those principles or traditions if you like it or not.

Wasn’t it Moses who gave the levitical priesthood to the Levites only? Why wasn’t everyone else included. Isn’t that racism too?

How about when Christ denied even the gospel to the Gentiles. That means the gentiles weren’t even allowed to be saved, let alone hold the priesthood.

How about when Christ told the Apostles to teach the gentiles?

Believe whatever you like, and go on defending your racist religion. I want nothing to do with it.

 

[falisrm]

The whole concept of the gospel, during the Israelites and when Christ established the gospel was always related to Race. Christ created his own group of people, based on those following his gospel. Christ always referred to that concept

 

[ibkc]

And you are absolutely incapable of seeing how this relates to the criticisms of the LDS Church?

Look, I see what you are getting at perfectly well, but all you are doing is underscoring the non-Christian nature of LDS beliefs.

The events in the OT occurred under the Old Covenant and they also occurred within the context of a primitive tribal society. God’s revelations to them were for them only. When the time was right, He walked among us as the Christ and instituted the New Covenant. At that point, we were expected to follow the teachings of Christ, which do not exclude anyone based on the color of their skin. If we Christians felt like the events of the OT supersede Christ’s teachings, then we wouldn’t be Christians, would we? And that is exactly why you Mormons are not Christians, because, like the very fundamentalists you keep ragging on, you PICK and CHOOSE which parts of the Bible suit you, and which you can toss out. If you would simply follow Christ, you’d be more honest and less confused. Since you already admit that your so-called “prophets” aren’t really prophets at all, but a bunch of arrogant old men who pull random things out of their posteriors as it suits them, then you are halfway there. The danger is in throwing out Christ along with your false prophets.

Good grief, Mormons are among the most cynical religious people I’ve ever met. It is very depressing.

 

[falisrm]

What i’m saying is your accusations are pretty baseless. Its not about race at all and its a major factor in olden times. Why aren’t you talking about it in this thread?

I find it hilarious too. I was at a Lutheran mass yesturday and they sang. “Onward, Christian Soldiers” which is basically the song the Crusaiders sang when they went off to slaughter thousands for not being Christian.

It seems your the ones that aren’t letting go of old history that has nothing to do with today. Otherwise, why would this thread even be here?