Where can I find the Mormon teaching on Africans being fallen Angels?

[ParkerD]

That is exactly the point of this thread. Pointing out that the Catholic Church has skeletons in its closet or also has racists in the fold “so leave the Mormons alone, y’know?” deflects from the real issue at hand.

The LDS Church still teaches that the priesthood ban in effect until 1978 was God’s idea and that He imposed it on the Church. Unlike the Mormon Church, the Catholic Church does not teach that the dark deeds in its past were God’s will, but acknowledges that those were the actions of sinful men.

That is the issue here that the LDS posters on this board are ignoring.

NS

NS,
You don’t seem to understand something you should have understood if you were ever called to teach LDS gospel doctrine. God does not “impose” “on the Church” that which the members are not ready to receive with their own agency and accountability. Nor does He impose on others that which they are not ready to receive with their own agency and accountability.

God does not “impose”. He enlightens, He directs without imposing fear, He pleads, He loves, He encourages, He reminds that there are rewards for good behavior–but He does not “impose”.

 

[NewSeeker]

NS,
You don’t seem to understand something you should have understood if you were ever called to teach LDS gospel doctrine. God does not “impose” “on the Church” that which the members are not ready to receive with their own agency and accountability. Nor does He impose on others that which they are not ready to receive with their own agency and accountability.

God does not “impose”. He enlightens, He directs without imposing fear, He pleads, He loves, He encourages, He reminds that there are rewards for good behavior–but He does not “impose”.

Parker, why would God “enlighten” and “love” the Church into the requirement to practice polygamy, and issue the command to do despite the fact that no one wanted to practice it, but be so sensitive to church members’ sensibilities about black males in the priesthood? Your argument holds water only if church members welcomed polygamy with open arms. History proves otherwise, however.

Even so, the point is moot, since God had nothing to do with the priesthood ban.

NS

 

[NewSeeker]

NS,
You don’t seem to understand something you should have understood if you were ever called to teach LDS gospel doctrine. God does not “impose” “on the Church” that which the members are not ready to receive with their own agency and accountability. Nor does He impose on others that which they are not ready to receive with their own agency and accountability.

God does not “impose”. He enlightens, He directs without imposing fear, He pleads, He loves, He encourages, He reminds that there are rewards for good behavior–but He does not “impose”.

Besides, a commandment is an imposition, by definition. Since when did God ever consider the feelings of His people when issuing commandments? Your argument is silly. God commands; his people listen and choose to follow, whether they like it or not, if they know what’s good for them.

 

[maryjk]

NS,
You don’t seem to understand something you should have understood if you were ever called to teach LDS gospel doctrine. God does not “impose” “on the Church” that which the members are not ready to receive with their own agency and accountability. Nor does He impose on others that which they are not ready to receive with their own agency and accountability.

God does not “impose”. He enlightens, He directs without imposing fear, He pleads, He loves, He encourages, He reminds that there are rewards for good behavior–but He does not “impose”.

So He pleaded, He loved, He encouraged, and He reminded the Mormons that Blacks were not worthy of the Priesthood?

 

[ParkerD]

Parker, why would God “enlighten” and “love” the Church into the requirement to practice polygamy, and issue the command to do despite the fact that no one wanted to practice it, but be so sensitive to church members’ sensibilities about black males in the priesthood? Your argument holds water only if church members welcomed polygamy with open arms. History proves otherwise, however.

Even so, the point is moot, since God had nothing to do with the priesthood ban.

NS

NS,
This is a very good question. God also offers tests of faith. He did that with Abraham. Abraham had faith enough to understand that God would resurrect his son, Isaac, since Isaac was promised to have posterity as the sands of the sea.

Joseph Smith asked a question about polygamy. God answered, then sent an angel to tell Joseph Smith that he was now being given a test of faith. I suppose you can call a test like that an imposition, and it was certainly uncomfortable–out of anyone’s comfort zone among the culture Joseph was familiar with–but I call it a test of faith.

Your supposition seems to be that God should make everything right in the world, all at one time. The notion that the Mormons started out with a thinking idea about Blacks that no one else on earth had in any remote similarity, is simply not true. God allowed the priesthood ban, and allowed people before the Mormons were around to think they were being good people when they treated Blacks the way they treated them. What should God have done to all those people, in your mind?

What God has allowed is not what God has imposed. I disagree that God imposes even commandments. He gives them as “requirements for your greatest and fullest attainment of happiness.” The truth may hurt a person because they find it difficult to live by that truth, but that doesn’t mean the truth was imposed on that person. It means the truth is there for the knowing and the obeying, but if disobeyed there will be consequences based on the laws of the universe. God sends the knowledge about what those truths are, out of love–not out of forced imposition.

 

[ParkerD]

So He pleaded, He loved, He encouraged, and He reminded the Mormons that Blacks were not worthy of the Priesthood?

Mary jk,
I like your quote by Margaret Thatcher.

One of the things we get to do as children of a loving Heavenly Father is figure out that His timing is better than our timing. I have no doubt that many LDS were pleading with God to “lift” the priesthood ban far earlier in time than 1978. As has been noted on this thread, Joseph Smith had ordained blacks to the priesthood. It appears to me that Brigham Young was allowed to have his own thinking, influenced no doubt by his New England heritage, on the question. Brigham Young had a full plate of things to worry about and to ask God about. Maybe he never asked God the question, or if He did maybe God chose to keep silent about an answer. (Does it occur to you that God can do that–can “not answer” and just allow even good people to muddle along doing the best they can?)

What God does plead is that humankind will love. Paul talked about servants. So do the ten commandments. Why would they do that if God were imposing His complete will onto the world? Obviously to us, there should be no such a thing as a “servant.” I think God has allowed humankind to learn to love better, to love our neighbors and people whose ways we may not understand, and has not forced us to love. That would be an oxymoron.

So God allows the growth of society into a better, more intrinsically right frame of mind and way of doing things. He does that rather than impose His will and remove agency.

 

[NewSeeker]

Mary jk,
I like your quote by Margaret Thatcher.

One of the things we get to do as children of a loving Heavenly Father is figure out that His timing is better than our timing. I have no doubt that many LDS were pleading with God to “lift” the priesthood ban far earlier in time than 1978. As has been noted on this thread, Joseph Smith had ordained blacks to the priesthood. It appears to me that Brigham Young was allowed to have his own thinking, influenced no doubt by his New England heritage, on the question. Brigham Young had a full plate of things to worry about and to ask God about. Maybe he never asked God the question, or if He did maybe God chose to keep silent about an answer. (Does it occur to you that God can do that–can “not answer” and just allow even good people to muddle along doing the best they can?)

What God does plead is that humankind will love. Paul talked about servants. So do the ten commandments. Why would they do that if God were imposing His complete will onto the world? Obviously to us, there should be no such a thing as a “servant.” I think God has allowed humankind to learn to love better, to love our neighbors and people whose ways we may not understand, and has not forced us to love. That would be an oxymoron.

So God allows the growth of society into a better, more intrinsically right frame of mind and way of doing things. He does that rather than impose His will and remove agency.

Parker,
I agree with you that God is love, though I’m not so sure that I agree with you that when God issues commands those commands aren’t “hard as nails”. God is love and issues his commands since he loves us and wants what’s best for us, but his commands are commands and we’d best obey or unhappiness will result. I see no reason to believe that God would delay issuing commands or declaring absolute truths out of sensitivity for the feelings of his people. But ironically, your point of view also applies to Catholic history and all of the skeletons in Rome’s closet. We Catholics believe that “God allowed the growth of Catholic society into a better, more intrinsically right frame of mind and way of doing things. He [did] that rather than impose His will and remove agency.” God provides “line upon line, precept upon precept; here a little, there a little.” God allowed popes to have their own thinking and call for inquisitions, influenced no doubt by their medieval European heritage. As church and secular administrators, popes had a full plate of things to worry about and to ask God about. Maybe popes never asked God a question about inquisitions or if they did maybe God chose to keep silent about an answer. (Does it occur to you that God can do that–can “not answer” and just allow even good popes to muddle along doing the best they can?)

It’s nice to know that, like the Mormon Church, God allows the Catholic Church to make mistakes along the way as it learns and grows. It’s also nice to know that the Spirit will continue to be with Christ’s Church, even if church leaders have failings and make unfortunate statements and issue decrees that later turn out not to be true or have negative consequences. Thank you Parker for this point of view. This is exactly what we Catholics say about Catholic history. It’s nice to know that wicked popes or other skeletons in Catholicism’s closet have nothing at all to do with the question of whether there ever was an apostasy.

I wonder if Dianad will agree with you that wicked popes, inquisitions and crusades are not evidence that an apostasy occurred?

NS

 

[dianaiad]

I don’t think the point of this thread is to argue about which Church has the most racists. Since we are all sinners, there will be sinners in both Churches. I think the issue at hand is whether or not God would reveal racist teachings to His people and specifically and explicitly order (not just tolerate) bigotry and discrimination.

There is a school of thought that the reason that God allowed the LDS church to be racist for as long as it was is because the WHITES were not ready to accept it; they brought their racist ideas in from outside, after all–and that the reason for the revelation in 1978 is because the members of the church had been praying so hard, for so long, that God deemed us, finally, ready to obey the higher law. We must have been, since the change was instant and almost without opposition.

I am not claiming that this is what happened, but I lean that way myself. It was certainly true for me.

So the question now is…why did God allow the very highest level of the church YOU claim to be His to be racist for so very long? All those saints, all those visions…all those Popes who declared equality on one hand, and actively supported slavery, discrimination and segregation on the other: who put the doctrine of racial equality in some document somewhere, and saw to it that blacks in America were not allowed to attend seminaries and become priests?

For 400 years in America, and close to 1300 years elsewhere?

Catholics claim a continuation of authority; we claim that the authority needed to be restored. Catholics use a combination of canonized scripture and Sacred Tradition, which they hold equal to scripture…and yet in all your Sacred Tradition, you have no hint that God was not happy with the hypocrisy?

You may have your opinion on this, but Jesus’ opinion of people who preach one thing and do another is rather clear. Try reading Matthew, chapter 23.

NOW, of course, Catholics are making great strides in acceptance and racial equality. You have done a good job, over the last century or so, of getting to where you are now, and you should be congratulated. You have done very good things, and made huge advances. It was difficult; you had to change the tradition and opinions of a great many people in order to get from where you were in the 1800’s to where you are now. It is an accomplishment worth celebrating.

But you are not ‘there’ yet. Again, the percentage of minority priests to white does not accurately reflect the main Catholic population, especially in terms of blacks. Just ask the National Black Catholic Congress.

What’s the difference between LDS and Catholicism in this area? When OUR leaders say that everybody gets the priesthood, everybody actually got it. When YOURS did, nobody listened. More importantly, your leaders didn’t listen to themselves; those declarations can only be seen, in hindsight, as an especiallly cynical and self serving whitewash for a particularly ill-smelling sepulchre.

So here is what I want to see: I want to see Catholics celebrating the very real advances they have made in this area. After all, humanity in general has taken a long time getting to where we are, and in all fairness, many Catholics have led the way. Many have been holding back, too…but that’s the nature of humans. I want to see a reality check here. I want to see that Catholics understand that they CANNOT claim apostolic succession and authority from the beginning and excuse themselves for the ongoing racism of their policies even as the Popes declare equality; one of the signs of having authority is that it is excercised…and in this case, it never was. At least, they cannot excuse themselves if they want to accuse us.

I want to see y’all be fair. The FACT is, in terms of racial equality, looking at the percentages and numbers, the Mormons have come a lot further, and faster, than the Catholics. The representation of black priesthood to worthy black male members is the same as it is for “whites”…100%. For Catholics, according to this, there about about 12,950 Catholics per priest in America. However, according to the National Black Catholic Congress, there is only one black priest per 20,000 black Catholics. That’s better than I earlier thought, but it is STILL only 64% of equality in representation.

What I am saying, finally, is that you may criticize Mormonism because you don’t agree with the doctrine. You may criticise our history in terms of polygamy. You may criticize it for many things; it is your right. You may even criticize us for percieved racism, but if you do, be prepared; you do not hold the high ground. You CANNOT criticize us for this and keep any level of credibility, because every argument you use against Mormonism in this area applies to Catholicism–and we were not hypocrites.

 

[Jay53]

There is a school of thought that the reason that God allowed the LDS church to be racist for as long as it was is because the WHITES were not ready to accept it; they brought their racist ideas in from outside, after all–and that the reason for the revelation in 1978 is because the members of the church had been praying so hard, for so long, that God deemed us, finally, ready to obey the higher law. We must have been, since the change was instant and almost without opposition.

I am not claiming that this is what happened, but I lean that way myself. It was certainly true for me.

So the question now is…why did God allow the very highest level of the church YOU claim to be His to be racist for so very long? All those saints, all those visions…all those Popes who declared equality on one hand, and actively supported slavery, discrimination and segregation on the other: who put the doctrine of racial equality in some document somewhere, and saw to it that blacks in America were not allowed to attend seminaries and become priests?

For 400 years in America, and close to 1300 years elsewhere?

Catholics claim a continuation of authority; we claim that the authority needed to be restored. Catholics use a combination of canonized scripture and Sacred Tradition, which they hold equal to scripture…and yet in all your Sacred Tradition, you have no hint that God was not happy with the hypocrisy?

You may have your opinion on this, but Jesus’ opinion of people who preach one thing and do another is rather clear. Try reading Matthew, chapter 23.

NOW, of course, Catholics are making great strides in acceptance and racial equality. You have done a good job, over the last century or so, of getting to where you are now, and you should be congratulated. You have done very good things, and made huge advances. It was difficult; you had to change the tradition and opinions of a great many people in order to get from where you were in the 1800’s to where you are now. It is an accomplishment worth celebrating.

But you are not ‘there’ yet. Again, the percentage of minority priests to white does not accurately reflect the main Catholic population, especially in terms of blacks. Just ask the National Black Catholic Congress.

What’s the difference between LDS and Catholicism in this area? When OUR leaders say that everybody gets the priesthood, everybody actually got it. When YOURS did, nobody listened. More importantly, your leaders didn’t listen to themselves; those declarations can only be seen, in hindsight, as an especiallly cynical and self serving whitewash for a particularly ill-smelling sepulchre.

So here is what I want to see: I want to see Catholics celebrating the very real advances they have made in this area. After all, humanity in general has taken a long time getting to where we are, and in all fairness, many Catholics have led the way. Many have been holding back, too…but that’s the nature of humans. I want to see a reality check here. I want to see that Catholics understand that they CANNOT claim apostolic succession and authority from the beginning and excuse themselves for the ongoing racism of their policies even as the Popes declare equality; one of the signs of having authority is that it is excercised…and in this case, it never was. At least, they cannot excuse themselves if they want to accuse us.

I want to see y’all be fair. The FACT is, in terms of racial equality, looking at the percentages and numbers, the Mormons have come a lot further, and faster, than the Catholics. The representation of black priesthood to worthy black male members is the same as it is for “whites”…100%. For Catholics, according to this, there about about 12,950 Catholics per priest in America. However, according to the National Black Catholic Congress, there is only one black priest per 20,000 black Catholics. That’s better than I earlier thought, but it is STILL only 64% of equality in representation.

What I am saying, finally, is that you may criticize Mormonism because you don’t agree with the doctrine. You may criticise our history in terms of polygamy. You may criticize it for many things; it is your right. You may even criticize us for percieved racism, but if you do, be prepared; you do not hold the high ground. You CANNOT criticize us for this and keep any level of credibility, because every argument you use against Mormonism in this area applies to Catholicism–and we were not hypocrites.

I’m confused. In all of your pontificating here, are you attempting to say that the Catholic Church decreed on order from God that black men were not allowed to be priests? If so, I would be very interested to see this as Catholic dogma and who instituted this and proclaimed it to be a revelation from God.

I honestly am not interested in one-upmanship as to who’s church is less racist - I’m interested in what God has declared and revealed to His people. Maybe I’m reading the wrong thread, but I thought that was the topic of the thread - God’s revelations on this issue.

 

[twopekinguys]

All right…what do you think of an organization that claims, on one hand, that slavery is wrong and that all men are equal…

and on the other hand owns slaves, supports slave owners, and actively opposes allowing blacks to attend seminaries and become priests?

I think, personally, that a member of an organization like that has no business whatsoever casting stones at an organization that took considerably less than half the time to change a policy that wasn’t even close to being as racist as the Catholics were.

…especially since, if you compare Catholicism and Mormonism NOW, Catholicism falls short. Way short. Mormons turned around in 1978, and went from an officially racist policy to an all inclusive policy, and we did it completely without holding back in any way. There is NO hesitation or racism in the church now; and every black man who is worthy of the priesthood HAS it–and within less than one generation, we have black members at almost every level of the church hierarchy.

Again. HOW long did it take you to ordain an American black priest? WHY, if 4 to 10 % of American CAtholics are black, is the priesthood only 1% black? You aren’t going to give me the ‘blacks don’t feel the call,’ bit, are you?

Have you forgotten that one of your early prophets held slaves? Namely, Charles C. Rich.

Here are some interesting facts from the mormon church history, volume vi, they are JS speaking. (bolding mine)

“It will be more honorable for us to receive Texas and set the negroes
free, and use the negroes and Indians against our foes. Don’t let Texas
go, lest our mothers and the daughters of the land should laugh us in the
teeth; and if these things are not so, God never spoke by any Prophet
since the world began.”

and

"The South holds the balance of power. By annexing Texas, I can do
away with this evil. As soon as Texas was annexed, I would liberate the
slaves in two or three States, indemnifying their owners, and send the
negroes to Texas, and from Texas to Mexico, where all colors are alike.
And if that was not sufficient, I would call upon Canada, and annex it.

Blacks at almost every level? How many are in the First Presidency, quorum of 12,or the 70’s? then take a look at how many black Bishops and Cardinals there are in the Catholic Church. Keep in mind also, that first and foremost, the Pope is a priest. We have had 3 black Popes. How many black prophets have the lds had? That’s right 0.

The first Black Catholic priest was ordained in 1886. Only 110 years after the birth of the US. Compare that to LDS not giving the priesthood to blacks for say 148 years, depending on which date you use for the start of the mormon church. I went with 1830 as the date the BoM was first published. BTW, he was from Quincy Illinois, just up the river from Nauvoo. Another interesting tidbit is that he was ordained at St. John Lateran Church in Rome. Which is actually the Pope’s church.

Keep in mind here that again, you are using an apples and oranges approach.

The leadership of the Catholic Church is determined by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit calls those to serve, the Holy Spirit guides the election of each Pope. The lds use a seniority system. When one of your prophets dies, the next senior person in the first presidency slides right into his position.

 

[dianaiad]

I’m confused. In all of your pontificating here, are you attempting to say that the Catholic Church decreed on order from God that black men were not allowed to be priests? If so, I would be very interested to see this as Catholic dogma and who instituted this and proclaimed it to be a revelation from God.

I honestly am not interested in one-upmanship as to who’s church is less racist - I’m interested in what God has declared and revealed to His people. Maybe I’m reading the wrong thread, but I thought that was the topic of the thread - God’s revelations on this issue.

You should be, and here is why: unlike Protestants, Catholics and Mormons have a very similar claim; Catholics claim that they have the priesthood authority to act in God’s name, and have had it from the beginning: apostolic succession. Because you use Sacred Tradition as well as canonized scripture, and indeed hold that Tradition to be equal to scripture, then you hold the teachings of your leaders (both early and later) to be purveyers of God’s Word. You have this doctrine of papal infallibility. All of this means that when your leaders speak, it is as if God does.

We Mormons claim that this priesthood authority was lost and had to be restored. We claim that this was done through direct revelation, which continues. In both cases, what comes from the top is considered to have come from God. If you do not claim that for yourselves, then you are denying the very basis upon which your church is founded–that of apostolic succession and the continuance of Sacred Tradition.

You might want to look up Pope Nicholas V and his Dum Diversa, which instructed the Portuguese to search out, conquer AND ENSLAVE all pagans and appropriate their wealth. This was in 1452–whereas just 18 years previously Pope Eugene IV condemned just such slavery. Another Bull in 1493 supported slavery, again. In 1537, Pope Paul III issued a Bull against slavery…but in the Americas, where racial slavery was most common, religious orders actually owned slaves, sold slaves–and so did popes. Pope Pius IX was sympathetic to the Confederacy, calling Jefferson Davis “the Honorable President of the Confederate States of America,” thus recognizing the Confederacy as a separate nation apart from the USA, and sent him an autographed picture of himself along with a miniature crown of thorns that he wove himself. In the Papal Bull of 1866, the Catholic church actually recognized the legality of slavery–and this was the year AFTER the North won the civil war and freed the slaves!

the dogma of papal infallibility holds true, then…what?

We believe that God has ALWAYS said that blacks would eventually have all the blessings. That is a teaching that even our worst enemies have to admit is true for us. That time came.

What’s your excuse?

 

[Kdesiel]

Why was there a ban on Blacks holding the Priesthood within the LDS faith to begin with?

Racism is an ugly fact carried by all cultures; it is present to certain and varying degrees in all societies. No organization is totally innocent from Racist ideals.

What the facts are is the LDS church banned the priesthood from Blacks due to their heritage from Cain. They are black because they were not as valiant in the Pre mortal existence as their white counter parts. In fact the color of skin is a depiction of ones valiance in the Pre mortal existence. The darker, the less valiant, and the lighter the more valiant you were. The blacks held the curse of Cain, Black Skin; the Lamenites were also cursed with dark skin due to their sinfulness. In the LDS church this is what was taught prior to the 1978 “Revelation” to lift the ban on the Priesthood.

What are amusing are LDS members denying these teachings when it is documented in THEIR own Histories and publications being taught from the Pulpit as Gods will not Mans Sinful Foley.

I would like a plain answer to the question posed at the top of this post.

Why was there a ban on Blacks holding the Priesthood within the LDS faith to begin with?

 

[NewSeeker]

You should be, and here is why: unlike Protestants, Catholics and Mormons have a very similar claim; Catholics claim that they have the priesthood authority to act in God’s name, and have had it from the beginning: apostolic succession. Because you use Sacred Tradition as well as canonized scripture, and indeed hold that Tradition to be equal to scripture, then you hold the teachings of your leaders (both early and later) to be purveyers of God’s Word. You have this doctrine of papal infallibility. All of this means that when your leaders speak, it is as if God does.

We Mormons claim that this priesthood authority was lost and had to be restored. We claim that this was done through direct revelation, which continues. In both cases, what comes from the top is considered to have come from God. If you do not claim that for yourselves, then you are denying the very basis upon which your church is founded–that of apostolic succession and the continuance of Sacred Tradition.

You might want to look up Pope Nicholas V and his Dum Diversa, which instructed the Portuguese to search out, conquer AND ENSLAVE all pagans and appropriate their wealth. This was in 1452–whereas just 18 years previously Pope Eugene IV condemned just such slavery. Another Bull in 1493 supported slavery, again. In 1537, Pope Paul III issued a Bull against slavery…but in the Americas, where racial slavery was most common, religious orders actually owned slaves, sold slaves–and so did popes. Pope Pius IX was sympathetic to the Confederacy, calling Jefferson Davis “the Honorable President of the Confederate States of America,” thus recognizing the Confederacy as a separate nation apart from the USA, and sent him an autographed picture of himself along with a miniature crown of thorns that he wove himself. In the Papal Bull of 1866, the Catholic church actually recognized the legality of slavery–and this was the year AFTER the North won the civil war and freed the slaves!

the dogma of papal infallibility holds true, then…what?

We believe that God has ALWAYS said that blacks would eventually have all the blessings. That is a teaching that even our worst enemies have to admit is true for us. That time came.

What’s your excuse?

Dianaiad,
No one’s excusing anything. The Catholic Church has addressed its past and has declared past misdeeds to be just that: misdeeds perpetrated by sinful men. Why hasn’t the Mormon Church acknowledged that the priesthood ban was a misdeed perpetrated by sinful men - which is what it was? What’s your excuse? You keep sidestepping the issue.

 

[hosemonkey]

Zaffiroborant,

The Blacks in a few countries in Africa had their “forerunners” in terms of key leaders and whole groups of people who had learned about the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith, and who felt the Spirit and wanted the full blessings of the gospel, but were waiting for the Lord’s timing. There are documented accounts of their experiences. They certainly did help “open the door,” and provided consistent examples to those around them of having patience and faith. They didn’t give up, nor did they protest. They could be baptized and receive the wonderful gift of the Holy Ghost. They still studied the doctrines of the gospel, and were fed by the Spirit and by a personal relationship with the Savior.

In other words, they would remain second or third class mormons until societal pressure and falling numbers among third-world people compelled the then “prophet” to have a “revelation” about their worthiness for the “priesthood”. mormon “prophets” are false and have no credibility because they are of Man rather than of God. You follow a false religion and believe in false “prophets” because your religion is the product of Joseph Smith’s megalomania and his supporter’s greed. Full stop. In no other way can you explain it.

 

[PaulDupre]

You might want to look up Pope Nicholas V and his Dum Diversa, which instructed the Portuguese to search out, conquer AND ENSLAVE all pagans and appropriate their wealth. This was in 1452–whereas just 18 years previously Pope Eugene IV condemned just such slavery. Another Bull in 1493 supported slavery, again. In 1537, Pope Paul III issued a Bull against slavery…but in the Americas, where racial slavery was most common, religious orders actually owned slaves, sold slaves–and so did popes. Pope Pius IX was sympathetic to the Confederacy, calling Jefferson Davis “the Honorable President of the Confederate States of America,” thus recognizing the Confederacy as a separate nation apart from the USA, and sent him an autographed picture of himself along with a miniature crown of thorns that he wove himself. In the Papal Bull of 1866, the Catholic church actually recognized the legality of slavery–and this was the year AFTER the North won the civil war and freed the slaves!

I can’t help noticing your lack of citations for these claims. This sounds like Lorraine Boettner stuff. Could you please provide citations for each of the above claims?

Thanks in advance.

 

[dianaiad]

Have you forgotten that one of your early prophets held slaves? Namely, Charles C. Rich.

Yep, he did. Have you forgotten that even though Utah had to be entered as a ‘slave territory,’ very few Mormons DID own slaves—and that their situation was not slavery…where they were property of owners, but indentured servants, where they were individual humans with civil rights?

But you seem to have forgotten something here too. We don’t pretend that we did NOT have a discriminatory policy in place before 1978. It was hard on us, but we followed the policy…and prayed hard about it. It was changed, and when the policy changed, WE did. This is my point; the Catholic church–even the very leaders and Popes–claimed one thing and did quite another. In fact, you are STILL claiming one thing and doing another, as the statistics show.

Here are some interesting facts from the mormon church history, volume vi, they are JS speaking. (bolding mine)

“It will be more honorable for us to receive Texas and set the negroes
free, and use the negroes and Indians against our foes. Don’t let Texas
go, lest our mothers and the daughters of the land should laugh us in the
teeth; and if these things are not so, God never spoke by any Prophet
since the world began.”

and

"The South holds the balance of power. By annexing Texas, I can do
away with this evil. As soon as Texas was annexed, I would liberate the
slaves in two or three States, indemnifying their owners, and send the
negroes to Texas, and from Texas to Mexico, where all colors are alike.
And if that was not sufficient, I would call upon Canada, and annex it.

Wow. JS is talking about freeing slaves. How horrific of him.

Blacks at almost every level? How many are in the First Presidency, quorum of 12,or the 70’s?

None in the first Presidency, none in the Twelve…but then, what part of ‘ALMOST’ every level seems to have escaped your notice? As to the seventies, there are several–and to think, it only took us 30 years to get there. I rather imagine that there will be a black apostle fairly soon–and if a black apostle, then a black member of the first Presidency.

then take a look at how many black Bishops and Cardinals there are in the Catholic Church. Keep in mind also, that first and foremost, the Pope is a priest. We have had 3 black Popes. How many black prophets have the lds had? That’s right 0.

Actually, you MAY have had three black popes. One I might grant as obvious…but the other two are considered black only because they were from areas where there was a black population. They could quite as easily have been aramaic. The odds are about 50/50. That was a very long time ago, though.

And gee, whiz, even if you are right, THREE black popes out of HOW many? 265? Less than 1% of your popes have been black, in more than 1500 years? …and you BRAG about this?
Goodness.

Let’s see…we have had 16 presidents in less than 180 years, and unlike you guys, the black membership of the church was participating fully by 150 years from the beginning. We will, almost certainly, have a black prophet before the end of this century if not sooner. Given the average, here…lessee…we change presidents about every 11 years, on average…which means that we will have ten presidents or so in the 21st century. If we have a black president before the end of this century, that would be one out of 27, which means…oh, yeah. just one black president for us will increase our percentage of black leaders over yours by three times.

The first Black Catholic priest was ordained in 1886. Only 110 years after the birth of the US.

…and 400 years after the coming of the Catholics to America, and 1500 or so years after the founding of Catholicism…not a really good comparison on your part.

Compare that to LDS not giving the priesthood to blacks for say 148 years, depending on which date you use for the start of the mormon church. I went with 1830 as the date the BoM was first published. BTW, he was from Quincy Illinois, just up the river from Nauvoo. Another interesting tidbit is that he was ordained at St. John Lateran Church in Rome. Which is actually the Pope’s church.

Yes, I am very aware of Father Tolten’s history–including the fact that the reason he had to go to Rome for his training is because the Catholic priests in America would not allow blacks to attend seminary here.

Keep in mind here that again, you are using an apples and oranges approach.

I am? At least I am comparing the length of time from the founding of both faiths. Since when does Catholicism count ANYTHING that it, a world wide church that is run from the Vatican, from the founding of the USA?

The leadership of the Catholic Church is determined by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit calls those to serve, the Holy Spirit guides the election of each Pope. The lds use a seniority system. When one of your prophets dies, the next senior person in the first presidency slides right into his position.

Oh, come on. the leadership of the Catholic Church is determined by votes and by politics.

 

[RebeccaJ]

You have this doctrine of papal infallibility. All of this means that when your leaders speak, it is as if God does.

Not true at all. You are not understanding Papal infallibility. Also, we believe our Bishops and Pastors are guided by the Holy Spirit, but we don’t believe everything they say comes from the God. We are taught to discern. We are able to look what a person is teaching and compare it to Holy Scripture and Sacred Tradition. If a person is teaching something that is contradictory, we know it is not coming from God. If a Bishop taught we should practice polygamy, it is easy to see they are in error.

You might want to look up Pope Nicholas V and his Dum Diversa, which instructed the Portuguese to search out, conquer AND ENSLAVE all pagans and appropriate their wealth. This was in 1452–whereas just 18 years previously Pope Eugene IV condemned just such slavery.

A Papal bull is a form of communication. Most often used to give instruction. They are not doctrinal teachings. Meaning, they do not fall under Papal infallibility.

Another Bull in 1493 supported slavery, again. In 1537, Pope Paul III issued a Bull against slavery…but in the Americas, where racial slavery was most common, religious orders actually owned slaves, sold slaves–and so did popes.

If you can figure out how to get all Catholics to follow Church teaching, you have one up on every Bishop that lives.

Pope Pius IX was sympathetic to the Confederacy, calling Jefferson Davis “the Honorable President of the Confederate States of America,” thus recognizing the Confederacy as a separate nation apart from the USA,

Seriously. That is what Jefferson Davis called himself. I suppose a letter written to your mormon president as Honorable President Monson would be acknowledging the legitimacy of mormonism?

and sent him an autographed picture of himself along with a miniature crown of thorns that he wove himself.

A small gift is not inappropriate to give, to anyone. It is traditional. Catholics give gifts everywhere, all the time. It is a token of Christ’s Peace. Not a bad thing to give to anyone, and something we believe Christ teaches us to do.

And, what exactly was in this letter. Did he offer prayers for the victory of the South or what?

In the Papal Bull of 1866, the Catholic church actually recognized the legality of slavery–and this was the year AFTER the North won the civil war and freed the slaves!

One Papal bull was issued in 1866. It called for the Armenian Church to come back into communion. The ONLY thing it says about slavery is in this paragraph:

We do not need to give a long answer to the question of the so-called national laws. For if it is a matter of civil laws only, the supreme ruler has the power to judge and decide whether he deems them useful and beneficial to his subjects. But if it is a matter of ecclesiastical laws, no one can be unaware that Catholics have never recognized any national or popular laws against the Church, its hierarchy and ordinations. For although peoples and nations have entered the Church from all places, still God has united them all under the supreme shepherd blessed Peter, the prince of the Apostles. Thus there might no longer be Gentile and Jew, barbarian and Scythian, slave and free, but that Christ may be all things in all men.[51] From Him the whole body, joined and knit together by every joint, increases bodily and builds itself up in love.[52] For God has not given any peoples or nations power over the Church, but has entrusted them to the Apostles for teaching and has commanded the duty of belief.[53] For this reason too, the blessed Peter openly declared at the meeting of Apostles and presbyters that God had decreed that the nations should hear the word of the Gospel through him and should believe.

the dogma of papal infallibility holds true, then…what?

It does hold true. Papal bulls are not doctrinal teachings.

We believe that God has ALWAYS said that blacks would eventually have all the blessings. That is a teaching that even our worst enemies have to admit is true for us. That time came.

No Catholic ever taught a person would not gain all the inheritance of heaven because of their skin color.

What’s your excuse?

Indeed. What is the excuse of your church for this teaching that came from so-called prophets?

 

[Jay53]

You should be, and here is why: unlike Protestants, Catholics and Mormons have a very similar claim; Catholics claim that they have the priesthood authority to act in God’s name, and have had it from the beginning: apostolic succession. Because you use Sacred Tradition as well as canonized scripture, and indeed hold that Tradition to be equal to scripture, then you hold the teachings of your leaders (both early and later) to be purveyers of God’s Word. You have this doctrine of papal infallibility. All of this means that when your leaders speak, it is as if God does.

We Mormons claim that this priesthood authority was lost and had to be restored. We claim that this was done through direct revelation, which continues. In both cases, what comes from the top is considered to have come from God. If you do not claim that for yourselves, then you are denying the very basis upon which your church is founded–that of apostolic succession and the continuance of Sacred Tradition.

You might want to look up Pope Nicholas V and his Dum Diversa, which instructed the Portuguese to search out, conquer AND ENSLAVE all pagans and appropriate their wealth. This was in 1452–whereas just 18 years previously Pope Eugene IV condemned just such slavery. Another Bull in 1493 supported slavery, again. In 1537, Pope Paul III issued a Bull against slavery…but in the Americas, where racial slavery was most common, religious orders actually owned slaves, sold slaves–and so did popes. Pope Pius IX was sympathetic to the Confederacy, calling Jefferson Davis “the Honorable President of the Confederate States of America,” thus recognizing the Confederacy as a separate nation apart from the USA, and sent him an autographed picture of himself along with a miniature crown of thorns that he wove himself. In the Papal Bull of 1866, the Catholic church actually recognized the legality of slavery–and this was the year AFTER the North won the civil war and freed the slaves!

the dogma of papal infallibility holds true, then…what?

We believe that God has ALWAYS said that blacks would eventually have all the blessings. That is a teaching that even our worst enemies have to admit is true for us. That time came.

What’s your excuse?

I’ve done a brief search on Pope Nicholas V and have not found where he declared slavery acceptable as a revelation from God and thus part of Catholic doctrine. Perhaps you can give me a link for this?

I fear, however, that you may not understand papal infallibility. Papal infallibility does ***not ***mean that all Popes are not sinners. Perhaps this will help:

Papal Infallibility

The Catholic Church’s teaching on papal infallibility is one which is generally misunderstood by those outside the Church. In particular, Fundamentalists and other “Bible Christians” often confuse the charism of papal “infallibility” with “impeccability.” They imagine Catholics believe the pope cannot sin. Others, who avoid this elementary blunder, think the pope relies on some sort of amulet or magical incantation when an infallible definition is due.

Given these common misapprehensions regarding the basic tenets of papal infallibility, it is necessary to explain exactly what infallibility is not. Infallibility is not the absence of sin. Nor is it a charism that belongs only to the pope. Indeed, infallibility also belongs to the body of bishops as a whole, when, in doctrinal unity with the pope, they solemnly teach a doctrine as true. We have this from Jesus himself, who promised the apostles and their successors the bishops, the magisterium of the Church: “He who hears you hears me” (Luke 10:16), and “Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven” (Matt. 18:18). catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp

Incidentally then, is Pope Nicholas V where Mormons believe the Catholic Church lost its Apostolic Succession? I’ve been unable to find out where Mormons believe we supposedly lost it. Maybe you can help me?

 

[hosemonkey]

Maryjk,

Joseph Smith was commanded to begin the practice himself, and he asked a select group to do it also. Not one of them “wanted to.” He had been commanded to, and he asked others to do it–but not all the members.

Then keep your “elders” at home.

 

[twopekinguys]

Yep, he did. Have you forgotten that even though Utah had to be entered as a ‘slave territory,’ very few Mormons DID own slaves—and that their situation was not slavery…where they were property of owners, but indentured servants, where they were individual humans with civil rights?

1850: Twelve Mormon slave owners possess between 60 and 70 black slaves in Deseret Territory. There is one Apostle, Charles C. Rich, among these slave owners.
Considering the population of Utah at the time, this appears to be a large number

But you seem to have forgotten something here too. We don’t pretend that we did NOT have a discriminatory policy in place before 1978. It was hard on us, but we followed the policy…and prayed hard about it. It was changed, and when the policy changed, WE did. This is my point; the Catholic church–even the very leaders and Popes–claimed one thing and did quite another. In fact, you are STILL claiming one thing and doing another, as the statistics show.

And you don’t think your leaders did the same thing? Seriously, how delusional can you be? The Catholic church is far from doing the same thing, and you know that. You are merely grasping at straw. The Catholic priesthood is open to all men who have a calling. Whether they answer that call, complete the seminary are different things entirely. There has never been a doctrine of the Catholic Church forbidding any male from seeking the priesthood. It is funny how the doctrine of the mormon church changed about the same time as this, which ultimately could have cost the lds their tax exempt status.

The IRS was putting pressure on private schools to stop discrimination with the US vs. Bob Jones University. This ruling would directly affect BYU, Ricks, CCH and other US Mormon owned schools. These schools are organized under separate nonprofit corporations which are owned by the Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. As you can see from the following excerpts from case documents the Bob Jones University case was directed at educational nonprofits. This would have affected the Morg, but not the core corporation.

On January 12, 1970, a three-judge District Court for the District of Columbia issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting the IRS from according tax-exempt status to private schools in Mississippi that discriminated as to admissions on the basis of race. Green v. Kennedy, 309 F. Supp. 1127, appeal dism’d sub nom. Cannon v. Green, 398 U.S. 956 (1970). Thereafter, in July 1970, the IRS concluded that it could “no longer legally justify allowing tax-exempt status [under 501(c)(3)] to private schools which practice racial discrimination.” IRS News Release, July 7, 1970, reprinted in App. in No. 81-3, p. A235. At the same time, the IRS announced that it could not “treat gifts to such schools as charitable deductions for income tax purposes [under 170].” Ibid. By letter dated November 30, 1970, the IRS formally notified private schools, including those involved in this litigation, of this change in policy, "applicable to all private schools in the United States at all levels of education. (emphasis added) " See id., at A232.

Wow. JS is talking about freeing slaves. How horrific of him.

Isn’t it interesting how you must not have understood the part(s) about freeing slaves in 2 or 3 states. You realize that there were more than 2 or 3 slave states right? After all, Utah was one of them. You also realize that by “indemnifying their owners”, he meant to pay them for their salves right? He thought so highly of the blacks that he was willing to buy them, then send them off to fight. What a great humanitarian!!

None in the first Presidency, none in the Twelve…but then, what part of ‘ALMOST’ every level seems to have escaped your notice? As to the seventies, there are several–and to think, it only took us 30 years to get there. I rather imagine that there will be a black apostle fairly soon–and if a black apostle, then a black member of the first Presidency.

30 years after the possibility of losing a tax exempt status, but again, you asked how long before a black priest in America. Lets stick with apples to apples ok? From the beginning of your church in America, it took you just a tad longer now didn’t it?

Actually, you MAY have had three black popes. One I might grant as obvious…but the other two are considered black only because they were from areas where there was a black population. They could quite as easily have been aramaic. The odds are about 50/50. That was a very long time ago, though.

May have? You are just too funny sometimes. If the National Black Catholic Congress accepts them as black, who am I, or you for that matter to disagree?

And gee, whiz, even if you are right, THREE black popes out of HOW many? 265? Less than 1% of your popes have been black, in more than 1500 years? …and you BRAG about this?
Goodness.

No bragging, just fact. By the way, 1% is still larger than 0 isn’t it?