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

[Janet1983]

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

“When the plan of salvation presented . . . and when the need for a Redeemer was explained, Satan offered to come into the world as the Son of God and be the Redeemer. “Behold here am I, send me,” he said. . . . But then, as always, he was in opposition to the full plan of the Father, and so he sought to amend and change the terms of salvation; he sought to deny men their agency and to dethrone God.”
(Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 193)

This split the spirit children… One third sided with Satan, one third with his brother Jesus and one third stayed more or less neutral… The ones who sided with Satan became the demons being denied bodies of flesh forever… the sort of neutral ones were to be born as black people and the ones that sided with Jesus were to be born as white people…

“Those who were less valiant in pre-existence and who thereby had certain spiritual restrictions impose on them during mortality are known to us as the negroes. Such spirits are sent to earth through the lineage of Cain, the mark put upon him for his rebellion against God, and his murder of Able being a black skin. … Noah’s son married Egyptus, a descendant of Cain, thus preserving the negro lineage through the flood. … the negro are not equal with other races where the receipt of certain spiritual blessings are concern.” (Mormon Doctrine, 527-28; 1966 orig. ed.)

“There is a reason why one man is born black and with other disadvantages, while another is born white with great advantages. The reason is that we once had an estate before we came here, and were obedient; more or less, to the laws that were given us there. Those who were faithful in all things there [pre-existence] received greater blessings here, and those who were not faithful received less. . . . There were no neutrals in the war in Heaven. All took sides either with Christ or with Satan. Every man had his agency there, and men receive rewards here based upon their actions there, just as they will receive rewards hereafter for deeds done in the body. The Negro, evidently, is receiving the reward he merits.”
(Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 1:61, 65-66)

Some sources are even online:
I guess they got it all… the mark of Cain and the curse of Ham (Canaan) on top of being degraded for not being as “valiant”…

“You see some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable and low in their habits, wild and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind. … Cain slew his brother. Cain might have been killed, and that would put a termination to that line of human beings. This was not to be, and the Lord put a mark upon him, which was the flat nose and black skin. Trace mankind down to after the flood, and then another cursed is pronounced upon the same race–that they should be the “servants of servants;” and they will be until that curse is removed; and the Abolitionists cannot help it, nor in the least alter that decree.” (Journal of Discourses, 7:290)

Oh and above quote was written by B. Young… the same who said this:
“I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of man, that they may not call Scripture.” (ibid., 13:95)

 

[Angelo_Michael]

…quote has been edited…]

Some sources are even online:
I guess they got it all… the mark of Cain and the curse of Ham (Canaan) on top of being degraded for not being as “valiant”…

“You see some classes of the human family that are black, uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable and low in their habits, wild and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind. … Cain slew his brother. Cain might have been killed, and that would put a termination to that line of human beings. This was not to be, and the Lord put a mark upon him, which was the flat nose and black skin. Trace mankind down to after the flood, and then another cursed is pronounced upon the same race–that they should be the “servants of servants;” and they will be until that curse is removed; and the Abolitionists cannot help it, nor in the least alter that decree.” (Journal of Discourses, 7:290)

Oh and above quote was written by B. Young… the same who said this:
“I have never yet preached a sermon and sent it out to the children of man, that they may not call Scripture.” (ibid., 13:95)

My argument and/or understanding is that the “curse of Canaan” was transferred from Canaan [and his seed] unto Judas Iscariot (and his seed: which would be/include all who [would] endorse, validate, or replicate his actions); much like when Elisha transferred the leprosy of Naaman the Syrian unto Gehazi [and his seed].

For reference:
Genesis 9:25], Psalms 55:12-14] & 59:5], 2 Kings 5:27], et al.

 

[Janet1983]

My argument and/or understanding is that the “curse of Caanaan” was transferred from Caanaan [and his seed] unto Judas Iscariot (and his seed: which would be/include all who [would] endorse, validate, or replicate his actions); much like when Elisha transferred the leprosy of Naaman the Syrian unto Gehazi [and his seed].

Well according to my sources the curse was transferred onto everybody of Ham’s lineage… basically the people of the African continent to say it somehow in a politically correct manner…
The guys who wrote these quotes were clear racists…
They basically say that the ones who were not all that strongly for Jesus were cursed to be born black… then they are said to have the mark of Cain (“black skin”) and to top it off the curse of Canaan to be servants of servants with a description that is rather rude…
“… black, uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable and low in their habits, wild and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind…”

 

[dianaiad]

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?

Who the flip is Lorraine Boettner? Is she an anti-Catholic? Paul, you should know better than that. I never go to anti-Catholic sources for stuff.

However, if you want the actual titles of the Bulls involved,

Pope Eugene IV, in a Papal Bull entitled “Creator Ominium” in 1434 condemning the practice of enslaving the natives in the Canary Islands and ordering them to be immediately set free. He reaffirmed this in an edict “Sicut Dudum” that prohibited waging war against those islands, and further prohibiting slavery. The problem here is that up until this time, Canon Law sanctioned slavery only in ‘just wars’ and unbaptized captives. Pope Eugene…though I’m not certain he meant to do this…threw out the ‘just war’ provision, and protected only those people who had ‘turned Christian,’ or become baptized before capture. Threw the whole thing open–especially when, in 1442, he issued his “Illius Qui.” That granted full remission of sins to anyone who participated in a ‘crusade’ against the Saracens…which legitimized the enslavement of black Africans.

His activity in this arena, from what I have read in his life, is a study in unintended consequences…but Pope Nicholas V ran with it. The Dum Diversas, issued in 1452 by Pope Nicholas V, instructed the Portuguese to conquer and enslave (in perpetuity, no less) all the peoples (pagans) of the Americas, taking their property and persons.

The Romanius Pontifex was written in 1455, also by Pope Nicholas, extending and emphasizing that earlier Bull, and between them they have been cited as the basis and justification for the global slave trade that then ensued, by most historians.

Let’s see…(I’m going through a history of the lives of the Popes, here, and looking at the edicts and Bulls each one issued, if you want to know where I’m getting all this. NOT anti-Catholic, by any means.) Pope Pius II condemned the enslavement of newly baptised Christians in 1462, and instructed Bishops to penalized transgressors. (Not that they listened…) and only applied to neophytes, not to the vast majority of slaves that had not been converted.

continued on next post…

 

[dianaiad]

continued from previous post…

Pope Sixtus IV confirmed Nicholas’ “Dum Diversas” and “Romanus Pontix” in 1481 with is “Aeterni regis,” though he also was quite clear, in his 1476 “Regimini Gregis,” that recent Catholic converts were to be exempted from the slave trade that he supported.

Pope Innocent VIII (who, evidently, had sixteen illigitimate children…all born before he entered the clergy, don’t panic…) allowed the trading of ‘foodstuffs’ to Barbary merchants in return for slaves…evidently in the hope that those slaves could be converted to Christianity. (sheesh, and you guys object to our proxy baptism!)

Pope Alexander VI…he’s the one whose edicts allowing the enslavement of American natives were addressed in 1993 and 1994…issued “Eximiae deotionis,” “Enter Caetera” and “Dudum Siquidem” in 1493, giving Spain the same rights to conquer and enslave the New World that Nicholas had given Portugal. Again, the reasoning was held, by some historians, to facilitate the conversion of those newly enslaved. Not that converting AFTER they became slaves resulted in their freedom…because it didn’t.

Now, finally, we have Pope Paul III, who in 1537 issued several Bulls: “Sublimus Dei,” "Altituda divini consolii,’ and “Pastorale officium,” which declared that the Indians (American Indians) were human beings with rights, and should not be taken into slavery. They were anulled the following year, but he tried.

In 1545 Pope Paul repealed a law that allowed slaves to claim their freedom if they made it to Rome and did so under a statue of the Emperor on Capitol Hill. He affirmed the right of Romans to publically buy and sell slaves, and in 1548 he authorized the purchase and possession of Muslim slaves in the Papal states (from Clarence-Smith…you can get his article, which is very much NOT anti-Catholic, here. The reference to the authorization of slave selling is on page 10)

As to Pope Pius IX…I understand that y’all have been making fun of the idea that the ‘Curse of Ham’ may have been responsible for the position that black people were 'lesser…" But guess who made that idea official?

Yep, Pope Pius IX (he of the “papal infallibility” and “immaculate conception” fame), as late as 1873, claimed this to be true. (from John Maxwell’s "Slavery and the Catholic Church; the history of Catholic teaching concerning the moral legitamacy of the institution of slavery)

Ok…one last cite: Pope Pius IX stated: “Slavery itself, considered as such in its essential nature, is not at all contrary to the natural and divine law, and there can be several just titles of slavery and these are referred to by approved theologians and commentators of the sacred canons… It is not contrary to the natural and divine law for a slave to be sold, bought, exchanged or given” Pius IX (Instruction 20 June 1866 AD)

I think that about covers the references you asked for.

 

[Angelo_Michael]

Well according to my sources the curse was transferred onto everybody of Ham’s lineage… basically the people of the African continent to say it somehow in a politically correct manner…
The guys who wrote these quotes were clear racists…
They basically say that the ones who were not all that strongly for Jesus were cursed to be born black… then they are said to have the mark of Cain (“black skin”) and to top it off the curse of Canaan to be servants of servants with a description that is rather rude…
“… black, uncouth, uncomely, disagreeable and low in their habits, wild and seemingly deprived of nearly all the blessings of the intelligence that is generally bestowed upon mankind…”

Perhaps I replied a bit off the topic of the thread, yet my comments (in reply #121) are indicative of my own personal beliefs, convictions, experiences, etc.; and are intended to contrast with those [of B. Young and/or the LDS Church] being highlighted and discussed. I apologize for any misunderstanding.

 

[dianaiad]

Not true at all. You are not understanding Papal infallibility.

Yes I do. It means that the Pope is supposed to be protected from even the possibility of error when he 'solemnly declares or promulgates to the church a teaching on faith or morals as it is contained in divine revelation. Which means that…if he quotes scripture, or expounds upon the meaning of scripture, then what he says goes. That IS the ‘right’ interpretation of whatever scripture is in place.

So…when Popes use scripture (and they did…) to talk about slavery, then…they are considered to be infallible in their interpretation of what those verses mean, and what the church did about it.

Am I wrong about this? if so, how am I wrong about it?

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.

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.

They do if the Pope says it does…which of course Pope Pius DID in the cases of The Assumption of Mary and the Immaculate Conception. However, there wasn’t anything in that Vatican Council that said a Pope must DECLARE the infallible nature of the proclamation before it is made. The requirements for papal infallibillity are that

1. “the Roman Pontiff” is doing the speaking. (duh.)
   That he :
2. “speaks ex cathedra” (“that is, when in the discharge of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, and by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority….”)

Note; he doesn’t have to SAY he is speaking ex cathedra. He simply has to speak as Pope…which of course Papal Bulls are all about.

1. “he defines”
2. “that a doctrine concerning faith or morals”
3. “must be held by the whole Church” (Pastor Aeternus, chap. 4)

In other words, that they be about scripture, refer to a moral/faith question (and I don’t know about you, but I’d call slavery that…) and ‘not contradict holy scripture or Holy Tradition.’ Of course, that last is rather circular, since according to the very doctrine of Papal infallibility, whatever the Pope says Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition IS, that’s what it is. It cannot, then, contradict itself.

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

Sorry, but you can’t go there. I’ve been told by too many people here that the discussion is about what is taught, not about who obeys it.

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?

Well…yeah. It would be. At least it would be acknowledging that Mormonism exists and is a real religion. Just as addressing Davis the way he addressed himself (as the lawful president of an accepted and recognized nation apart from the United States) is recognizing that status. ESPECIALLY when the Pope does it.

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.

A crown of thorns braided by one’s own hand (and that had to have made the man bleed; braiding something like that DOES.) when one is the Pope is NOT a 'small gift." Especially when you combine that small gift with this particular Pope’s declaration and support of slavery.

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

Dunno what was in THAT letter, but he did urge support for the south rather clearly and obviously. I have given a quote from one of those publications elsewhere.

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:

Did I claim that this was from a Papal Bull? I gave that cite to Paul, in another post. Take a peek.

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

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

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

What’s your excuse for the exact same teaching coming from your Popes? …

 

[Kdesiel]

Zaffiroborant and TheosisM and Twopekinguys,
Thanks for the insights.

My wife actually does bless our children (I have been very grateful for that), and I would think that in the same way you folks have described, any parent could bless their child and could have before 1978. They have that right and that authority as a parent–any parent, anywhere.

I enjoyed reading about how these blessings are given among you folks.

So your wife has blessed your children by “the laying on of hands” proclaiming through either the Aaronic or Melchizedek priesthoods?
In regards to blessings requiring the use of oil, has she also anointed and or sealed an anointing?

Blessings for healing the sick or healing injury in an LDS home requires the Authority of the Melchizedek Priesthood. Blessings of comfort and “Fathers” blessings also require the authority of the Melchizedek priesthood. This is why there is such an emphasis on having a “worthy” priesthood holder in the home. If no such male were present in the home the duty for such blessings or ordinances would fall into the responsibility of the home teachers.

So if your child were sick, and your husband didn’t have the Melchizedek priesthood you would be encouraged to call your home teachers, then a close family member with said priesthood. If your husband did have the priesthood, you as the wife could not use the laying on of hands to either anoint or seal the anointing. It would have to be performed by a male. True after being sealed in the Temple the wife shares her husband’s authority but can only exercise it through temple ordinance not at home.

Prior to 1978 if you were a Black family, Father, Mother, Children, and you faithfully attended the Mormon Church. Paid tithe, attended sacrament, followed the WOW, accepted the current Prophet and 12 as well as previous as seers and revelators, and your wife, or children became ill, or were injured and, required a Priesthood blessing then the husband would have to seek out his Home teachers(a White, Asian, Hispanic, or Latin…as long as they weren’t black also) for the required ordinance to be preformed.

 

[Stephen168]

So Prior to 1978 if you were a Black family, Father, Mother, Children, and you faithfully attended the Mormon Church. Paid tithe, attended sacrament, followed the WOW, accepted the current Prophet and 12 as well as previous as seers and revelators, and your wife, or children became ill, or were injured and, required a Priesthood blessing then the husband would have to seek out his Home teachers(a White, Asian, Hispanic, or Latin…as long as they weren’t black also) for the required ordinance to be preformed.

That is so racist. I’m glad the Catholic Church has never had such policy. Ofcourse the Catholic Church is not a produce of 19th century America.

 

[ParkerD]

So your wife has blessed your children by “the laying on of hands” proclaiming through either the Aaronic or Melchizedek priesthoods?
In regards to blessings requiring the use of oil, has she also anointed and or sealed an anointing?

Kdesiel,
Here were some of the quotes of those I was responding to:

“When I was growing up my mother would bless me and my brothers and sisters after our prayers at bedtime.” (Zaffiroborant)

"Some Catholic families keep a font with Holy water near the front door of their home.

I don’t ask out of sense of one-upmanship. I just want you to realize that all faithful are made worthy of the promises of Christ. Male, female, black or white. This is the Truth that is given to all, through the Love of God." (Rebecca J)

"Catholics believe not only in a ministerial/sacerdotal priesthood, but a “common priesthood of the faithful” as well. Therefore, it is quite common for Catholic parents to bless their children and spouse. Frequently, this is done through prayer and the sprinkling or anointing with holy water (many parishes have a place where you can obtain holy water to take home). My own father did this many times, and I plan on doing that as well with my family (though I am being called to the diaconate, so obviously the scope of who and what deacons (and priests and bishops) can bless is different).

Catholics frequently will use their own words to impart blessings,…" (TheosisM)

“I give my son, daughter in law, and my grandson a blessing everytime I see them.” (Twopekinguys)

Please understand that I think those blessings are earnestly given and completely recognized by God as well as by the body of the person receiving the blessing, meaning there is an energy transfer from the giver to the receiver.

My wife has placed consecrated oil on the head of a sick child when I wasn’t home and it was late at night. Then she prayed for God’s blessing through the authority of the priesthood. She also has authority as a mother, period. She can place her hand on a part of the body of her child in a way of comforting and healing and love, and say a prayer in behalf of that child.

She also has held her arm in an authoritative manner and done what needed to be done and said what needed to be said, with authority.

You may also be familiar with the case of the mother of Joseph F. Smith, who was the widow of Hyrum Smith. She anointed an ox that had lain down as if dead, and pronounced a blessing of healing on the ox, and it got up and continued on the journey west. Great real-life experience, that:thumbsup:

 

[dianaiad]

That is so racist. I’m glad the Catholic Church has never had such policy. Ofcourse the Catholic Church is not a produce of 19th century America.

No, the Catholic church never had THAT policy. Of course, black families wouldn’t be allowed to attend white parishes, and the church actively supported enslaving them…and when they DID go to their own parishes, most of the time their priest was white (all of the time until the early 1900’s)

but hey, why quibble?

 

[RebeccaJ]

So…when Popes use scripture (and they did…) to talk about slavery, then…they are considered to be infallible in their interpretation of what those verses mean, and what the church did about it.

Am I wrong about this? if so, how am I wrong about it?

The Magisterium, which is comprised of Bishops, is the interpreter of scripture.

Note; he doesn’t have to SAY he is speaking ex cathedra. He simply has to speak as Pope…which of course Papal Bulls are all about.

Good points and questions. They are resolved by going to the Magisterium, which has been done in the case of these two doctrines. The ruling of the Magisterium is that these two doctrines are infallible. There is no doctrine of slavery, which means, this papal bull has never been ruled as infallible. We don’t believe it is, so why would you?

In other words, that they be about scripture, refer to a moral/faith question (and I don’t know about you, but I’d call slavery that…) and ‘not contradict holy scripture or Holy Tradition.’ Of course, that last is rather circular, since according to the very doctrine of Papal infallibility, whatever the Pope says Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition IS, that’s what it is. It cannot, then, contradict itself.

The Pope does not function in a vacuum of himself. The Church is lead by all the Bishops, who are the successors to the Apostles. Just as the in Acts you see the Apostles and disciples gather together to discuss issues of faith and morals, and to come to a conclusion to teach to all the faithful, so do our Bishops.

At any rate, there has never been a doctrine of slavery.

Sorry, but you can’t go there. I’ve been told by too many people here that the discussion is about what is taught, not about who obeys it.

That is not what I meant. What the Church teaches, all are called to follow. I don’t believe Mormonism or Catholicism are immune from people who don’t listen and/or follow the directions of their leaders.

Well…yeah. It would be. At least it would be acknowledging that Mormonism exists and is a real religion. Just as addressing Davis the way he addressed himself (as the lawful president of an accepted and recognized nation apart from the United States) is recognizing that status. ESPECIALLY when the Pope does it.

The Pope addresses people with respect. I’ve read a Papal letter before where he addresses the leader of the UN as “His Excellency”. I can assure you, this does not indicate the Pope is on board with all the UN advocates. That is why I ask, what was in the letter, as the Pope will address people with respect while expressing to them the Catholic view, even when it is a POV that is at direct odds to what the person/organization is asserting itself.

A crown of thorns braided by one’s own hand (and that had to have made the man bleed; braiding something like that DOES.) when one is the Pope is NOT a 'small gift." Especially when you combine that small gift with this particular Pope’s declaration and support of slavery.

You have provided nothing to support this claim. But, you should realize that the Pope does not cease to proclaim the Truth of Christ Crucified, ever. It is a small gift Diana. Given by the pope to a man who practiced distinct Catholic devotions, including that of venerating the Cross. It is a gift of one Christian to another.

(continued…)

 

[RebeccaJ]

Dunno what was in THAT letter, but he did urge support for the south rather clearly and obviously. I have given a quote from one of those publications elsewhere.

Did I claim that this was from a Papal Bull? I gave that cite to Paul, in another post. Take a peek.

You are falling for rumor. One that began shortly after Jefferson Davis received this letter. From the book “Jefferson Davis, Unconquerable Heart” by Felicity Allen, 1924 (underlining mine)

in 1863, they had exchanged letters in which each prayed for the other. Davis had thanked the pontiff for enjoining peace and charity on all Americans, through his archbishops in New York and New Orleans. He had assured him that Southerners always prayed for “the wicked war” to end: “we desire no evil to our enemies, nor do we covet any of their possessions, but we are only struggling to the end that they shall cease to devastate our land…and that we be permitted to live at peace with all mankind, under our own laws.” Davis had made Dudley Mann “Special Envoy” to deliver this letter. After seeing the papal secretary of state, Cardinal Antonelli, and the pope himself, Mann held in his hands a reply address to “Illustrious and Honorable Sir, Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States of America.” Mann took this to be a recognition of the Confederacy: “The hand of the Lord has been in it, and eternal glory and praise be to his holy and righteous name.” Judah Benjamin (Attorney General of the Confederacy] assured him it was only a polite formula with no meaning because no diplomatic action followed. But the notion became widespread.

What’s your excuse for the exact same teaching coming from your Popes? …

None, as Newseeker already said, the Church does not hide from its memory. You can find the apology by the Magisterium, Pope Paul VI, Pope John Paul II, and in the documents of Vatican II.

Vatican II takes the same approach as Paul VI. For the faults committed against unity, the Council Fathers state, “we ask pardon of God and of the separated brethren, as we forgive those who trespass against us.”(8) In addition to faults against unity, it noted other negative episodes from the past for which Christians bore some responsibility. Thus, “it deplores certain attitudes that sometimes are found among Christians” and which led people to think that faith and science are mutually opposed.(9) Likewise, it considers the fact that in “the genesis of atheism,” Christians may have had “some responsibility” insofar as through their negligence they “conceal rather than reveal the authentic face of God and religion.”(10) In addition, the Council “deplores” the persecutions and manifestations of anti-Semitism “in every time and on whoever’s part.”(11) The Council, nevertheless, does not add a request for pardon for the things cited.

Not only did John Paul II renew expressions of regret for the “sorrowful memories” that mark the history of the divisions among Christians, as Paul VI and the Second Vatican Council had done,(18) but he also extended a request for forgiveness to a multitude of historical events in which the Church, or individual groups of Christians, were implicated in different respects.(19) In the Apostolic Letter Tertio millennio adveniente,(20) the Pope expresses the hope that the Jubilee of 2000 might be the occasion for a purification of the memory of the Church from all forms of “counter-witness and scandal” which have occurred in the course of the past millennium.(21)
The Church is invited to “become more fully conscious of the sinfulness of her children.” She “acknowledges as her own her sinful sons and daughters” and encourages them “to purify themselves, through repentance, of past errors and instances of infidelity, inconsistency and slowness to act.”(22) The responsibility of Christians for the evils of our time is likewise noted,(23) although the accent falls particularly on the solidarity of the Church of today with past faults. Some of these are explicitly mentioned, like the separation of Christians,(24) or the “methods of violence and intolerance” used in the past to evangelize.(25) (MEMORY AND RECONCILIATION:
THE CHURCH AND THE FAULTS OF THE PAST)

I hope you have it in your heart to forgive us. Perhaps there will come a day where the Mormon church will apologize for their own doctrines and actions that are the fruit of racism.

 

[why_me]

Now that we have established that the catholic church and the mormon church has a past that is filled with prejudice, we can say that both mormons and catholics have something more in common. As I have said, a church is made up of people who are not perfect. And it is difficult to separate the person from the age in which they live. And in most cases, people learn as they go along and as they do, the church does too.

And I have also said, that catholics who are critical of the lds church need to see the skeletons in their own church’s closet. Best to let sleeping dogs sleep, sometimes.

 

[why_me]

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.

Here is the point of this thread: catholics being self-righteous criticising lds policy toward africans. Now it has been pointed out that the catholic church also had their problems with africans which may seem racist or prejudice. Your statement is not what this thread is about. And the outcome of this thread is: All churches have skeletons in their closet and no one should think that they can open a door to someone else’s closet while keeping their own closet closed from scrutiny.

 

[why_me]

I couldn’t agree more.
I put whyme, dianad, and others on the ignore list some time ago, every now and then I take them off just to see what they have to say…I read their posts…and yup right back on the ignore list.

I can understand why you do this. It is difficult for you to see your understanding challenged and the lds church defended. Dianaid is quite an interesting poster who does her research. She has proved my point over and over again: catholics on this section of the forum should understand that catholic history has not always been wonderful and clean. There are skeletons in the catholic closet as there are skeletons in the mormon closet. But likewise, there are skeletons in the protestant closet. A human being creates skeletons, including in church history.

 

[why_me]

I agree, although I haven’t put diana on ignore yet. Sometimes she has good insight, sometimes not. whyme has deservedly earned his place on my ignore list.

You are a very interesting poster who claims that you are two people, a protestant and a catholic, and yet, you seem to speak with one voice. It is truly amazing. I remember that I was called on being catholic and mormon. But you seem to get away with being two people. Which one put me on the ignore list: the protestant or the catholic?

I have always asked for clarification about who I was responding to, the protestant or the catholic. It would help to know but so far, you have never replied which one you are. Truly amazing just how you two guys blend into one.

 

[Kdesiel]

Kdesiel,
Here were some of the quotes of those I was responding to:

“When I was growing up my mother would bless me and my brothers and sisters after our prayers at bedtime.” (Zaffiroborant)

"Some Catholic families keep a font with Holy water near the front door of their home.

I don’t ask out of sense of one-upmanship. I just want you to realize that all faithful are made worthy of the promises of Christ. Male, female, black or white. This is the Truth that is given to all, through the Love of God." (Rebecca J)

"Catholics believe not only in a ministerial/sacerdotal priesthood, but a “common priesthood of the faithful” as well. Therefore, it is quite common for Catholic parents to bless their children and spouse. Frequently, this is done through prayer and the sprinkling or anointing with holy water (many parishes have a place where you can obtain holy water to take home). My own father did this many times, and I plan on doing that as well with my family (though I am being called to the diaconate, so obviously the scope of who and what deacons (and priests and bishops) can bless is different).

Catholics frequently will use their own words to impart blessings,…" (TheosisM)

“I give my son, daughter in law, and my grandson a blessing everytime I see them.” (Twopekinguys)

Please understand that I think those blessings are earnestly given and completely recognized by God as well as by the body of the person receiving the blessing, meaning there is an energy transfer from the giver to the receiver.

My wife has placed consecrated oil on the head of a sick child when I wasn’t home and it was late at night. Then she prayed for God’s blessing through the authority of the priesthood. She also has authority as a mother, period. She can place her hand on a part of the body of her child in a way of comforting and healing and love, and say a prayer in behalf of that child.

She also has held her arm in an authoritative manner and done what needed to be done and said what needed to be said, with authority.

You may also be familiar with the case of the mother of Joseph F. Smith, who was the widow of Hyrum Smith. She anointed an ox that had lain down as if dead, and pronounced a blessing of healing on the ox, and it got up and continued on the journey west. Great real-life experience, that:thumbsup:

I agree those blessings spoken of by the previous posters are valid and recognized by God. I never said they were not valid. Your original post held a tinge of the specialness of having the priesthood of God and the ability to perform ordinances in your home; you then asked how many lifelong Catholics had enjoyed such blessings in their lives. This spoken with the pretense that they more than likely wouldn’t have had such blessings, giving you the opportunity to illustrate how Catholics don’t really understand the Priesthood.

Interesting about your wife and the oil, but saying a prayer and performing a priesthood ordinance are two different things. I asked if she had performed and ordinance while stating the authority it was to be given under.
Interesting that she would anoint, and seal an anointing while laying on her hands proclaiming the authority of the priesthood, that is what you are implying when you state “She also has held her arm in an authoritative manner and done what needed to be done and said what needed to be said, with authority.” Not sure how that fits within LDS church procedure regarding the Priesthood and the procedure with ordinances. I mean if she were to do that shy couldn’t single Mothers with in the Faith hold the priesthood to do such things? LDS Women who had their husbands divorce them or leave, they cannot with any such authority “Bless” their children, or anoint and seal the anointing, and they must depend on the Priesthood holders with in their respective Wards and extended families. Not so sure your wife, according to procedure in officiating the priesthood has the authority to lay on hands, proclaim authority and anoint with oil. If she were to have that right, why then could a single Woman who is also a member not be able to do the same thing? Blessing that is, not a prayer, you seem to get a little fuzzy when differentiating on the two.
I am well aware of J.F. Smith’s mother and the story of the Ox, however placing the oil on one’s head and pronouncing a Prayer is different from a Priesthood blessing as I stated above and as you well know.
Catholics definition of a blessing is different from that of a Mormon’s. Mormons believe in the laying on of hands, only by someone with authority to do such. They have to have the priesthood authority to perform these ordinances they cannot if they are merely a “member”.
"Catholics believe not only in a ministerial/sacerdotal priesthood, but a “common priesthood of the faithful” Man, Woman, BLACK, or White.

 

[Kdesiel]

That is so racist. I’m glad the Catholic Church has never had such policy. Ofcourse the Catholic Church is not a produce of 19th century America.

It is horrible. The notion that you wouldn’t be able to partake in the all of the Blessings of holding the Priesthood, being able to perform Blessings on your own family, being able to excersise that Priesthood to its full extent due to the color of your skin.
Think of the members who prior to 1978 which were black, believed in the Mormon church and had to accept their 2nd class status not only in the “world” but spiritually as well?
LDS should just own up to the fact it was a false and racist doctrine implimented by biggoted leaders, who seem to only dislike the Black peoples of the world…at least until 1978 of course.

 

[Kdesiel]

That is so racist. I’m glad the Catholic Church has never had such policy. Ofcourse the Catholic Church is not a produce of 19th century America.

Yeah it makes me laugh…I served my LDS mission in Jo-Berg South Africa. Talk about having to dance around these sensitive issues when trying to convert African peoples to the LDS faith. The LDS Church was present in Apartheid South Africa, there were Black members, however their Church services of course were separated from the whites, and because the Sacrament must be blessed by someone holding the Aaronic Priesthood they 1.)Couldn’t take the Sacrament 2.) Would have to wait until a White member who held the Priesthood could come and officiate and bless the Sacrament. This of course would seldom happen, both due to the laws at the time and of course from LDS teaching that Blacks couldn’t hold the Priesthood only re-enforced the already elevated racist attitudes of the White members, needless to say there was a reluctance to head out to the Townships and officiate over a Sacrament Meeting so the “Blacks” could partake of the Sacrament.
As a Missionary, I loved the people I served, I still do. The African people in South Africa are Awesome the friends I’ve made there are family to me. It always made me physically ill to broach the subject of the Priesthood and its lack of availability to Black people until 1978.

When I went to Mass for the first time, what struck me was the availability of Christ to ALL peoples, from ALL walks of life. Not just the white, or the affluent, but all.