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

[why_me]

Both are wrong but doctrine (delivered by the mouthpiecetm of God) legitimizes bigotry and empowers bigots. 1978 is repugnant.

Nice dodge. I have said over and over again that catholics need to see the mess in their own house and concentrate less on the mess in other houses. When one looks into catholic history, well, it is less than pure.

This is why posters like you, twopekinguys, Paul and others need to give the antimormonism a rest. If you guys were on a different website that was not so friendly toward catholicism, the posters would have you guys for lunch.

As I have said, the mormons are the lest prejudice people that I have known. I heard no racial slurs by mormons during the 1970’s when I became involved with them. And people of color were welcomed into the lds church and they worshipped with everyone else, And people of color held the priesthood and worshipped with the general membership and were called brother and sister as all lds members are in church.

The leadership did not teach bigotry and no one to my knowledge were wearing white hoods. Now I do know that the white flight in catholic neighborhoods was not catholic church sponsored either. But it did happen.

 

[why_me]

And Catholics don’t believe that we are guilty of Adam’s sin. We inherit the effects of the “original sin”, however we are only guilty of personal sins.

It was explained to me as a boy that babies were baptised because of the original sin of adam. Has this changed now?

 

[TheosisM]

It was explained to me as a boy that babies were baptised because of the original sin of adam. Has this changed now?

How does what I said change anything? All who are baptized are baptized for the remission of sins, including original sin. We inherit the effects of that sin, but we are not guilty (personally responsible) for it as we are guilty of our personal sins.

 

[ParkerD]

How does what I said change anything? All who are baptized are baptized for the remission of sins, including original sin. We inherit the effects of that sin, but we are not guilty (personally responsible) for it as we are guilty of our personal sins.

TheosisM,
I realize that this question is an aside to the topic although relevant in a way:

Why did Christ’s atonement not absolve the “effects of that sin” if no one is “guilty” for that sin besides Adam?

The way it is relevant is that this doctrinal change happened some time after 100 AD, and is still taught, and includes the idea that “Adam and Eve brought sin into the world so we “inherit” the sin they brought into the world. Sinful people (people who miss the mark) can not begin to raise sinless people ( people who don’t miss the mark ever) thus our inheritance”–that from Zaffiroborant.

Does no one who is taught these doctrines then have at least the tiniest bit of resentment toward Adam and Eve? (Especially when their life is not only not perfect, but may seem filled with challenges that seem particularly difficult?)

 

[why_me]

How does what I said change anything? All who are baptized are baptized for the remission of sins, including original sin. We inherit the effects of that sin, but we are not guilty (personally responsible) for it as we are guilty of our personal sins.

The purpose of a child making his or her Holy Communion would have to do with reason and accountability and the understanding of going to confession for remission of sins. It can be compared with a child’s baptism in the mormon faith at the age of eight. But infant baptism has very much to do with adam and eve. As I once stated on a past thread, many catholic families in the past dreaded the death of their baby before baptism because their heavenly station may be compromised.

 

[why_me]

Here is what the Enclyopedia of Mormonism says about Blacks:

eom.byu.edu/index.php/Blacks

The history of black membership in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints can be divided between the era from 1830 to June 1978 and the period since then.

HISTORY. Though few in number, blacks have been attracted to the Church since its organization. Early converts (such as Elijah Abel) joined during the 1830s; others (such as Jane Manning James) joined after the Saints moved to Illinois. Among those who came to Utah as pioneers were Green Flake, who drove Brigham Young’s wagon into the Salt Lake Valley, and Samuel Chambers, who joined in Virginia as a slave and went west after being freed. Throughout the twentieth century, small numbers of blacks continued to join the Church, such as the Sargent family of Carolina County, Virginia, who joined in 1906; Len and Mary Hope, who joined in Alabama during the 1920s; Ruffin Bridgeforth, a railroad worker in Utah, converted in 1953; and Helvecio Martins, a black Brazilian businessman, baptized in 1972 (he became a general authority in 1990). These members remained committed to their testimonies and Church activities even though during this period prior to 1978 black members could not hold the priesthood or participate in temple ordinances.

The reasons for these restrictions have not been revealed. Church leaders and members have explained them in different ways over time. Although several blacks were ordained to the priesthood in the 1830s, there is no evidence that Joseph Smith authorized new ordinations in the 1840s, and between 1847 and 1852 Church leaders maintained that blacks should be denied the priesthood because of their lineage. According to the book of Abraham (now part of the Pearl of Great Price), the descendants of Cain were to be denied the priesthood of God (Abr. 1:23-26). Some Latter-day Saints theorized that blacks would be restricted throughout mortality. As early as 1852, however, Brigham Young said that the “time will come when they will have the privilege of all we have the privilege of and more” (Brigham Young Papers, Church Archives, Feb. 5, 1852), and increasingly in the 1960s, Presidents of the Church taught that denial of entry to the priesthood was a current commandment of God, but would not prevent blacks from eventually possessing all eternal blessings.
Missionaries avoided proselytizing blacks, and General Authorities decided not to send missionaries to Africa, much of the Caribbean, or other regions inhabited by large populations of blacks. Before World War II, only German-speaking missionaries were sent to Brazil, where they sought out German immigrants. When government war regulations curtailed proselytizing among Germans, missionary work was expanded to include Portuguese-speaking Brazilians. Determining genealogically who was to be granted and who denied the priesthood became increasingly a sensitive and complex issue.

During the civil rights era in the United States, denial of the priesthood to blacks drew increasing criticism, culminating in athletic boycotts of Brigham Young University, threatened lawsuits, and public condemnation of the Church in the late 1960s. When questioned about the Church and blacks, Church officials stated that removal of the priesthood restriction would require revelation from God-not policy changes by men.

 

[why_me]

More from the same site:

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS. On June 9, 1978, President Spencer W. Kimball announced the revelation that all worthy males could hold the priesthood (see Doctrine and Covenants: Official Declaration 2). Following the 1978 priesthood revelation, proselytizing was expanded worldwide to include people of African descent. Between 1977 and 1987, Church membership grew from 3,969,000 to 6,440,000, an increase of 62 percent. Because LDS membership records do not identify race, it is impossible to measure accurately the growth of black membership, except in areas where people are largely or exclusively of African descent. In the Caribbean, excepting Puerto Rico, membership grew from 836 to 18,614 and in Brazil from 51,000 to 250,000 during that decade.

In other areas of Latin America, such as Colombia and Venezuela, increasing numbers of blacks also joined the Church. In Europe, blacks, including African immigrants to Portugal, joined the Church. Moreover, in Ghana, Nigeria, and throughout west and central Africa, missionary work expanded at a phenomenal rate. Excluding South Africa, where the membership was predominantly white, membership grew from 136 in 1977 to 14,347 in 1988, almost all in west Africa (see Africa, the Church in).

The LDS Afro-American Oral History Project, conducted by the Charles Redd Center for Western Studies at Brigham Young University, demonstrated the increasing number of black members in the United States. Through interviews with black Latter-day Saints throughout the country, a symposium on LDS Afro-Americans held at Brigham Young University, and responses to a mailed survey, a more reliable flow of data was generated about the thoughts, feelings, convictions, and experiences of LDS Afro-Americans. The study found that within the Church Afro-Americans experience both high acceptance and, paradoxically, cultural miscommunications. For example, in response to the survey, 81 percent felt their future as blacks in the Church was hopeful. They explained that they experienced more social interactions and more meaningful relationships with Church members of all races, especially whites. At the same time, however, 46 percent said white members were not aware of the “needs and problems of black members.” Some felt a lack of fellowship as well as economic and racial prejudice from white members.

Black Latter-day Saints are a nonhomogeneous mix of various “kindreds, tongues, and peoples” emerging from thousands of years of unprecedented religious and cultural exclusions. As with LDS Afro-Americans, many black members outside the United States encounter contrasting circumstances of full ecclesiastical involvement, on the one hand, and general Church ignorance of their respective cultures, on the other hand. Local leaders and members (primarily white Latter-day Saints) often lack a good working knowledge of black members’ needs, concerns, and circumstances. Despite the 1978 priesthood revelation and expanded missionary work among blacks, unexplored challenges to their growth and retention remain in counterpoint to their happiness with priesthood inclusion.

Despite the cultural miscommunications that remain, black Latter-day Saints enjoy opportunities in all phases of Church activity, including missionary work, quorum leadership, bishoprics, and stake presidencies, along with other members. The first entirely black African stake was organized in 1988. Indeed, black Latter-day Saints may be an LDS historical enigma that has emerged as a prime example of success in LDS brotherhood and sisterhood.

 

[NewSeeker]

Nice dodge. I have said over and over again that catholics need to see the mess in their own house and concentrate less on the mess in other houses. When one looks into catholic history, well, it is less than pure.

The issue isn’t whether Catholic or Mormon history is less than pure. Catholics freely admit that the past was messy. If you ever enroll in an RCIA class, you’ll find that Church history, warts and all, is discussed openly; nothing is hidden - unlike in an LDS seminary class or in Gospel Doctrine class, where LDS history is typically glossed and whitewashed. I ought to know - I’m a Catholic that went through the RCIA program and also graduated from LDS seminary and used to teach Gospel Doctrine on Sundays. No, WhyMe, you miss the point. The issue is not whether the Catholic Church has skeletons in the closet too, “so leave the Mormons alone”. The issue is whether past impure deeds are still defended and proclaimed to be God’s will, as they are in Mormonism. Catholicism’s past impure deeds have been addressed and apologized for. Your analogy would be apt if the Catholic Church taught today as dogma that the excesses of the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition were God’s will. But the Catholic Church has apologized for those past deeds and declared them to be the actions of men. The Mormon Church still teaches officially that the priesthood ban was ordered by God. Until the LDS Church officially repudiates the priesthood ban and declares it to be what it was - a man made, racist policy that was a reflection of the times - the issue will never go away. Nor will Mormons’ lame attempts to explain the ban away by pointing to such inanities as “we don’t know why God imposed the ban”, “it was lineage, not race”, or " a people have to be ready before they receive the blessings of the priesthood". But the fact is, the ban was not of God. Mormons waste their own time and everyone else’s trying to deflect attention from this fact by pointing to the dark deeds in Catholicism’s past.

 

[Anna_Scott]

The issue isn’t whether Catholic or Mormon history is less than pure. Catholics freely admit that the past was messy. If you ever enroll in an RCIA class, you’ll find that Church history, warts and all, is discussed openly; nothing is hidden - unlike in an LDS seminary class or in Gospel Doctrine class, where LDS history is typically glossed and whitewashed.

I ought to know - I’m a Catholic that went through the RCIA program and also graduated from LDS seminary and used to teach Gospel Doctrine on Sundays.

No, WhyMe, you miss the point. The issue is not whether the Catholic Church has skeletons in the closet too, “so leave the Mormons alone”. The issue is whether past impure deeds are still defended and proclaimed to be God’s will, as they are in Mormonism.

Catholicism’s past impure deeds have been addressed and apologized for. Your analogy would be apt if the Catholic Church taught today as dogma that the excesses of the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition were God’s will. But the Catholic Church has apologized for those past deeds and declared them to be the actions of men.

The Mormon Church still teaches officially that the priesthood ban was ordered by God. Until the LDS Church officially repudiates the priesthood ban and declares it to be what it was - a man made, racist policy that was a reflection of the times - the issue will never go away. Nor will Mormons’ lame attempts to explain the ban away by pointing to such inanities as “we don’t know why God imposed the ban”, “it was lineage, not race”, or " a people have to be ready before they receive the blessings of the priesthood".

But the fact is, the ban was not of God. Mormons waste their own time and everyone else’s trying to deflect attention from this fact by pointing to the dark deeds in Catholicism’s past.

NewSeeker:

You make excellent points here.

I think the fact that Mormons claim their Church Presidents are “Prophets” is problematic on so many levels.

I think the Mormon claims of “timing” regarding the rights of African Americans does not hold up in any way. The early Mormon Prophets said such offensive things about African Americans–their words involved far more than the ban on the priesthood. Their racist rhetoric can not be justified as coming from God at any point in history.

One can find the hateful words and actions of racism from some people in most religions at some point in history. The difference is that the early Mormons espousing racist doctrines claimed to be Prophets of God.

The Bible is very clear: a true prophet will never proclaim a revelation that turns out to be false. There is just no getting around this Biblical principle.

Anna

 

[TheosisM]

The purpose of a child making his or her Holy Communion would have to do with reason and accountability and the understanding of going to confession for remission of sins. It can be compared with a child’s baptism in the mormon faith at the age of eight. But infant baptism has very much to do with adam and eve. As I once stated on a past thread, many catholic families in the past dreaded the death of their baby before baptism because their heavenly station may be compromised.

And once again: what does this have to do with what I said? We inherit the effects of Adam and Eve’s original sin, since because of their sin, we are all sinners, among other things, We are not guilty of it as we are guilty of personal sins. Zaff explained this already. Baptism is baptism for Catholics, whether done as an infant or as an adult, it has the same effect. Please read the Catechism for more information on this.

 

[dianaiad]

Well, there you have it. 'nuff said. I hope that anyone on these fora who is considering converting to Mormonism reads this. It is quite a wake-up call. Wow.

It is considered a particularely nasty form of logical fallacy to take things out of context, Paul.

 

[dianaiad]

Both are wrong but doctrine (delivered by the mouthpiecetm of God) legitimizes bigotry and empowers bigots. 1978 is repugnant.

Excuse me…but you are saying that the LDS saying that every worthy male member of the church can hold the priesthood is repugnant?

Now that, m’friend, truly is bigotry and racism.

As for the ‘both are wrong,’ bit, I would rather, by far, be convicted by Christ of living according to my beliefs, than of being a member of a systemically hypocritical system…and a system that says one thing but does the exact opposite for literally hundreds of years? That is truly repugnant.

That said, I am quite aware that Catholicism has made huge strides in this area; even though the present percentage of black clergy to black population is lopsided (that is, where a little over 4% of Catholics are black, less than 1% of the priesthood is). Still, there doesn’t seem to be any overt discrimination going on. Everyone should be congratulated, and that is not said with any sense of sarcasm.

I simply am pointing out that no Catholic, considering the history of Catholicism and racism–including just HOW much time it took you to get here, has any right at all to criticize Mormons. After all, it took us 150 years to extend the priesthood to everybody, and thirty years after the 1978 declaration EVERY worthy male member of the church now holds the priesthood, and there is no discrimination going on.

Yet Catholics…still have not repaired the discrepency in their own priesthood. You still do not have black priests in the same percentage as you have black members.

So I suggest that you, y’know, lay off. You are NOT standing on the high ground here.

 

[mjf001]

Excuse me…but you are saying that the LDS saying that every worthy male member of the church can hold the priesthood is repugnant?

Now that, m’friend, truly is bigotry and racism.

As for the ‘both are wrong,’ bit, I would rather, by far, be convicted by Christ of living according to my beliefs, than of being a member of a systemically hypocritical system…and a system that says one thing but does the exact opposite for literally hundreds of years? That is truly repugnant.

That said, I am quite aware that Catholicism has made huge strides in this area; even though the present percentage of black clergy to black population is lopsided (that is, where a little over 4% of Catholics are black, less than 1% of the priesthood is). Still, there doesn’t seem to be any overt discrimination going on. Everyone should be congratulated, and that is not said with any sense of sarcasm.

I simply am pointing out that no Catholic, considering the history of Catholicism and racism–including just HOW much time it took you to get here, has any right at all to criticize Mormons. After all, it took us 150 years to extend the priesthood to everybody, and thirty years after the 1978 declaration EVERY worthy male member of the church now holds the priesthood, and there is no discrimination going on.

Yet Catholics…still have not repaired the discrepency in their own priesthood. You still do not have black priests in the same percentage as you have black members.

So I suggest that you, y’know, lay off. You are NOT standing on the high ground here.

For this statement to be true, you would have to prove that men felt the call to the priesthood and were denied for racist reasons. Since the last time you brought this particular red herring up, you were unable to back up your original premise, in fact, as I recall someone found evidence which directly contradicted the premise you just brought up, I will be surprised if you can show that blacks were systematically denied the priesthood.

Just my two cents,
Michael

 

[PaulDupre]

It is considered a particularely nasty form of logical fallacy to take things out of context, Paul.

I took nothing out of context, I merely quoted you. You said they are the same and it is clear from the rest of your reply that you believe what you said, and you did not qualify your statement.

 

[zaffiroborant]

Excuse me…but you are saying that the LDS saying that every worthy male member of the church can hold the priesthood is repugnant?

Nope saying that it’s repugnant that up until 1978 black men and boys were unworthy because they were black. Just as BJU’s policy in place until 2000 is repugnant.

 

[dianaiad]

For this statement to be true, you would have to prove that men felt the call to the priesthood and were denied for racist reasons. Since the last time you brought this particular red herring up, you were unable to back up your original premise, in fact, as I recall someone found evidence which directly contradicted the premise you just brought up, I will be surprised if you can show that blacks were systematically denied the priesthood.

Just my two cents,
Michael

To believe that black Catholics have simply not been called to the priesthood in the same percentage as white Catholics have been is inherently a racist idea, in and of itself…and the numbers simply do not support you. No matter how you try to twist this, there are not, and never have been, the same percentage of blacks in the priesthood as there have been members.

As well, you simply cannot deny your own history; on one hand, the upper heirarchy has stated that all men are equal–but at the same time the church actively supported slavery, (right down to at least one Pope actually owning slaves…and certainly it is true that priests and religious orders owned slaves).

As to your statement that black Catholics 'simply have not been called" …have you READ the story of Father. Tolton…what he went through in order to become a priest?
…that the most vociferous opponents he had were the priests and nuns who TAUGHT him, and refused to allow him (or any other African American, for that matter) to attend a seminary in the USA?

He had to go to Rome…and when he was sent back to America (against his wishes, mind you; he did not, understandably, WANT to come back) he was given the responsibility of ministering to black Catholics in Quincy and then, when he was so adamantly opposed there by Father. Weiss, was transferred to Chicago, where he ministered to the black Catholics there.

Please note the segregation going on there. It was his fellow CATHOLICS who drove him out of Quincy, and called him that '****** priest"

If you can’t see the incredible racism that your comment about blacks ‘not feeling the call’ reveals…

Great googly moogly, I can’t believe someone actually wrote those words down, and then DARES criticize Mormons for racism. I truly cannot.

 

[dianaiad]

I took nothing out of context, I merely quoted you. You said they are the same and it is clear from the rest of your reply that you believe what you said, and you did not qualify your statement.

You took my quote out of context, Paul.

 

[dianaiad]

Nope saying that it’s repugnant that up until 1978 black men and boys were unworthy because they were black. Just as BJU’s policy in place until 2000 is repugnant.

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?

 

[Jay53]

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.

 

[NewSeeker]

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.

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