Why are people mormon considering it is obvioulsy fabricated?

[RebeccaJ]

What if it wasn’t ever doctrine, was indeed an opinion, and we never taught that?

Because in most cases of accusations by anti’s, that’s true. The anti claims don’t change much. y’see; the same tired old inaccurate claims, refuted by the same arguments—only to be rehashed five years later by some wide eyed enthusiast who claims that the Mormons changed. (shrug)

The “antis”, whoever they are, can clearly see that yes indeed your church does teach erroneous beliefs. Given enough time, there are teachings that mormons and/or the mormon church wants to disown. Especially the really “far out” stuff.

Two facts you cannot ignore:

If you call these teachings “opinion”, it does not change the fact they were taught.

One group of mormons believed your disowned teachings as doctrine (and many still do).

Whatever.

I agree.

 

[dianaiad]

The “antis”, whoever they are,

That’s a rather disengenuous statement, Rebecca. You know who they are. It’s a ‘fruits’ thing. Figure out what a true anti-Catholic is, and apply those same criteria to anti-anything else.

can clearly see that yes indeed your church does teach erroneous beliefs. Given enough time, there are teachings that mormons and/or the mormon church wants to disown. Especially the really “far out” stuff.

Two facts you cannot ignore:

These disowned teachings were taught. If you call these teachings “opinion”, it does not change the fact they were still taught.

One group of mormons believed your disowned teachings as doctrine (and many still do).

I agree.

Uh huh. Well, You cannot ignore the fact that Limbo was taught by Catholics for a great many years. People still believe it. Yet…it is not now official doctrine…and I am told that it never was, but you can’t deny that it was taught, now, can you?

Does this erroneous teaching prove that Catholicism is not true?

 

[RebeccaJ]

Yes there is. Even in your example there is plenty of reason to assume that ‘some others’ did not include “my family,” "my sister’s family,’ or “my brother’s family,” if you are attempting to show that there were other people at the reunion than “my family, my sister’s family and my brother’s family.”

The thing is, Stephen, I don’t get your desperation in this. Really. the fact that there is evidence in the BoM that there were people other than the Nephites, Lamanites and Jaredites doesn’t prove that the book is scripture.

Assumptions are not evidence.

Are you so afraid that the simple truth about the book, and the spirit of God, are not good enough to destroy it, that you have to cling to accusations and positions that don’t work, simply because they are derogatory? Even if they aren’t valid?

Are you so afraid of the simple truth that God’s Church never failed (as God never fails) that you have to cling to assumptions and positions that don’t work, simply because they are “wanted to be believed”? Even if they aren’t reasonable or logical?

 

[RebeccaJ]

That’s a rather disengenuous statement, Rebecca. You know who they are. It’s a ‘fruits’ thing. Figure out what a true anti-Catholic is, and apply those same criteria to anti-anything else.

No, I do not know who they are. You have some sort of “Diana’s Definition” but it is as arbitrary as your definition of who is Christian. ie, whatever works for Diana’s favor or opinions.

Uh huh. Well, You cannot ignore the fact that Limbo was taught by Catholics for a great many years. People still believe it. Yet…it is not now official doctrine…and I am told that it never was, but you can’t deny that it was taught, now, can you?

Does this erroneous teaching prove that Catholicism is not true?

I see. Here we go again. You can’t defend your position.

Please show me where the Catholic Church has denied the teaching of limbo.

 

[Dee_Dee_King]

Uh huh. Well, You cannot ignore the fact that Limbo was taught by Catholics for a great many years. People still believe it. Yet…it is not now official doctrine…and I am told that it never was, but you can’t deny that it was taught, now, can you?

limbo is a theological opinion. it is still taught by those who hold to it. it can neither be proven nor disproven by the sacred deposit of faith which doesn’t mention what happens to babies who die before baptism. nothing has changed. unlike mormonism, catholics never taught that blacks or dark skinned people were inferior. that’s the stupidest thing i’ve ever heard. the fact that mormons follow a religion that once taught such a thing is sad.

islam tells it’s followers that heaven is where they can sleep with 70 virgins, mormons use to teach men can have multiple wives and that they will have spiritual wives to populate a planet they’ll be gods over. stupid, stupid, stupid…

 

[dianaiad]

Assumptions are not evidence.

But the reasons for concluding the thing assumed ARE evidence.

If, because they have been listed we know that only A, B and C came to an event together in a car, and later during the event we find out that A, B, C. and some others went swimming, then we know one thing: those 'some others" were not in the car. That is clearly stated. Since they were not in the car, it is safe to assume that they were elsewhere; either already at the event or they came later; doesn’t matter, if the point being proven here is that there were people at that event OTHER THAN A, B, and C.

You guys need to give this up. Your arguments are starting to look a little silly, and a lot desperate.

Are you so afraid of the simple truth that God’s Church never failed (as God never fails) that you have to cling to assumptions and positions that don’t work, simply because they are “wanted to be believed”? Even if they aren’t reasonable or logical?

I don’t have a problem with simple truths, Rebecca. But then I’m not attacking your beliefs. I’m simply here defending against attacks against mine. You and Stephen are the ones who can’t seem to give up the untenable position that as Mormons we MUST believe that all the native American populations of North and South America descended from Nephites, Lamanites and Jaredites, or admit that the Book of Mormon and the church are wrong.

As you can see, we don’t have to.

What intrigues me is that you are fighting this so hard, with such…odd…methods, that I’m beginning to think that you HAVE to prove that we believe this, or you HAVE to believe that we are ‘true.’

you don’t, y’know. this issue doesn’t prove the Book of Mormon true OR false. That has to be done in other ways.

 

[Stephen168]

I have asked you two times for chapter and verse of the names of all the people who came from the middle east, all the people who did not go with Nephi. Only with this information can you know there were other people with Nephi. Just like my example. Until you know all the people at the reunion and all the people that did not go swimming, you do not know if the other people are related to me or not.

Yes there is. Even in your example there is plenty of reason to assume that ‘some others’ did not include “my family,” "my sister’s family,’ or “my brother’s family,” if you are attempting to show that there were other people at the reunion than “my family, my sister’s family and my brother’s family.”

Yes, all you can do is assume because you don’t know if others are my cousin’s family, or my Aunts and Uncle. You don’t know if my cousin’s family made it to the reunion or if they didn’t go swimming. You don’t KNOW.

The thing is, Stephen, I don’t get your desperation in this. Really. the fact that there is evidence in the BoM that there were people other than the Nephites, Lamanites and Jaredites doesn’t prove that the book is scripture. Are you so afraid that the simple truth about the book, and the spirit of God, are not good enough to destroy it, that you have to cling to accusations and positions that don’t work, simply because they are derogatory? Even if they aren’t valid?

The Book of Mormon as defined by Joseph Smith has been proven to be fiction. Mormonism needs Mormons to believe the Book of Mormon is true so bad they are willing to throw Joseph Smith under the bus.
You promised me clear examples of other people besides Middle Eastern people in the Book of Mormon story. You have not provided any. Joseph Smith said it was THE source and that is what he meant and he lied.

 

[Stephen168]

If, because they have been listed we know that only A, B and C came to an event together in a car, and later during the event we find out that A, B, C. and some others went swimming, then we know one thing: those 'some others" were not in the car. That is clearly stated. Since they were not in the car, it is safe to assume that they were elsewhere; either already at the event or they came later; doesn’t matter, if the point being proven here is that there were people at that event OTHER THAN A, B, and C.

True but you don’t have A & B. Your chapter and verse says C and others went…
You are assuming the others and not A&B

 

[RebeccaJ]

But the reasons for concluding the thing assumed ARE evidence.

If, because they have been listed we know that only A, B and C came to an event together in a car, and later during the event we find out that A, B, C. and some others went swimming, then we know one thing: those 'some others" were not in the car. That is clearly stated. Since they were not in the car, it is safe to assume that they were elsewhere; either already at the event or they came later; doesn’t matter, if the point being proven here is that there were people at that event OTHER THAN A, B, and C.

You guys need to give this up. Your arguments are starting to look a little silly, and a lot desperate.

I don’t have a problem with simple truths, Rebecca. But then I’m not attacking your beliefs. I’m simply here defending against attacks against mine. You and Stephen are the ones who can’t seem to give up the untenable position that as Mormons we MUST believe that all the native American populations of North and South America descended from Nephites, Lamanites and Jaredites, or admit that the Book of Mormon and the church are wrong.

As you can see, we don’t have to.

What intrigues me is that you are fighting this so hard, with such…odd…methods, that I’m beginning to think that you HAVE to prove that we believe this, or you HAVE to believe that we are ‘true.’

you don’t, y’know. this issue doesn’t prove the Book of Mormon true OR false. That has to be done in other ways.

Discussion Diana, discussion. If you think discussion is “attack”, then what are we to do? Nod our heads in agreement and pat you on the head?

I see your POV, I understand what you are saying. I don’t see that it is very logical or reasonable, not to mention, your view is based on a major shift in mormon thought, belief and teaching. Starting with Joseph Smith himself, and all who followed him. You should understand our POV…a major shift such as this is not going to go unnoticed.

All Stephen has done is read the statement of Joseph Smith, which is in your scripture, and read your hypothesis, which is based on a book, and compare the two. They don’t match. “THE source” is not the same as “A source”.

 

[dianaiad]

limbo is a theological opinion. it is still taught by those who hold to it. it can neither be proven nor disproven by the sacred deposit of faith which doesn’t mention what happens to babies who die before baptism. nothing has changed. unlike mormonism, catholics never taught that blacks or dark skinned people were inferior. that’s the stupidest thing i’ve ever heard. the fact that mormons follow a religion that once taught such a thing is sad.

islam tells it’s followers that heaven is where they can sleep with 70 virgins, mormons use to teach men can have multiple wives and that they will have spiritual wives to populate a planet they’ll be gods over. stupid, stupid, stupid…

Oh, Dee Dee…this is delicious. you are defending the idea of limbo with PRECISELY the same methods and words as the ones you condemn when Mormons explain ideas you claim are doctrine…and are not. Double standards are so inconvenient, are they not?

As for the Catholics, I’m a solid “by their fruits ye shall know them” sort of person. On one hand, Mormons have taught all along that Negros of African descent (not all dark skinned peoples were denied the priesthood. You know that, right?) would eventually be granted that, and that whether they got it during their lifetimes or not, they were eligible for all the blessings that anybody else has, all the way to exaltation.

That happens to be true. However, the fact that in spite of this teaching, we withheld the priesthood from blacks of African descent got us labeled 'racist…" and it was an accurate label. It was their race that caused the problem, thus…racist.

We overturned it in 1978; it took about a 150 years for us to go from taking the priesthood away from these people to extending it to all worthy male members (including those who are of African negroid descent.)

A hundred and fifty years. That’s a long time, yes, and during that time there were some very racist comments made—just as there were in many other churches, including CATHOLIC churches, and by Catholic clergy.

You claim that blacks were never told that they were less than equal by the Catholics. That’s fine and all—but if that’s so, why haven’t there been any verified black Catholic popes? (Three possibilities, very early on, but those men are as likely–more likely–to have been Roman or Arabic) Why wasn’t there a black Catholic Cardinal until FIFTY YEARS AGO?

Why, if the Catholic church is so free of racist beliefs and policies, did it take FOUR HUNDRED YEARS to get a black priest in America, and why did he have to go to Rome in order to be trained? (answer…no priests or nuns here would allow him to enroll in any seminaries here.) Why did the real 'first African American priest," (OK, he was a quarter black or less, but the African American community loves to claim him) have to hide the fact that he was black his entire life? He claimed that he was of Irish descent, and never once identified himself as African American, even though he was the son of a slave.

Of course, his father was Irish, and his mother was at least half Irish (if not more than that) so he wasn’t lying…but you know as well as I do what his career would have been like if he had admitted his full heritage.

Why, if the Catholic church was so free of racist beliefs and policies, did the Pope’s stricture against slavery NEVER GET UPHELD? In fact, priests owned slaves. The Vatican declared that southern slave owners should be excommunicated…but none were. In fact, none were asked not to take communion, and no priest was disciplined for allowing them to do so, even though such action was supposed to have resulted in THEIR excommunications.

Dee Dee, you are being unfair. People are people, and people are imperfect. Where people are imperfect, so too are their policies. At least we didn’t declare one thing and act precisely the opposite way; when that proclamation was made in 1978, the priesthood was extended, and that’s it. We already have general authorities of African descent. It looks as if we will have a ‘black’ apostle within the next ten to fifteen years, and if an apostle, then, if he outlives everybody, the president and prophet.

The chances are that we will have a black prophet well before the century is out, anyway. Again. HOW long did it take the Catholics to get to the same level we have managed to get to in less than thirty years?

Fifteen hundred, is it? About that, anyway.

My point? Simple. If you can forgive your own faith for actions which are far more racist and obvious than ours, then you MUST forgive what you see as our racism, too. Either that, or admit that you don’t hate us because we are racist. You are calling us racist because you hate us…and there is a difference.

 

[Stephen168]

I see. Here we go again. You can’t defend your position.

I guess they all snap at some point. Some sooner than others.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I guess they all snap at some point. Some sooner than others.

Would be better, for mind and soul. to just snap out of it.

 

[PaulDupre]

On one hand, Mormons have taught all along that Negros of African descent (not all dark skinned peoples were denied the priesthood. You know that, right?) would eventually be granted that, and that whether they got it during their lifetimes or not, they were eligible for all the blessings that anybody else has, all the way to exaltation.

Not exactly.

Think of the Negro, cursed as to the priesthood… This Negro, who, in the pre-existence lived the type of life which justified the Lord in sending him to earth in the lineage of Cain with a black skin, and possibly being born in darkest Africa…in spite of all he did in the pre-existent life, the Lord is willing, if the Negro accepts the gospel with real, sincere faith, and is really converted, to give him the blessings of baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost. If that Negro is faithful all his days, he can and will enter the celestial kingdom. He will go there as a servant, but he will get celestial glory."

• LDS Apostle Mark E. Petersen, “Race Problems - As They Affect the Church,” Address delivered at Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, August 27, 1954

So yes, the LDS church taught that the negro can enter the celestial kingdom, but he will not be exalted. Rather, he will be a servant to those who are exalted.

However, Diana, I agree generally with your post. While LDS racism was of the vilest sort, it was a product of its time and we should let it lie. I congratulate the LDS church for reversing the policy in 1978. I truly hope that LDS people are less racist now than they were previously.

 

[why_me]

Discussion Diana, discussion. If you think discussion is “attack”, then what are we to do? Nod our heads in agreement and pat you on the head?

Is this a joke? Poor Diana has done nothing but discuss and in return she gets oneliners and mocked. And she also gets attacked. Your post was cute and so hypocritical that it made me barf.

I have warned Diana earlier that she is spending too much time in her posts in explanation to people who really couldn’t care less about what she is writing. She has done a noble job on these threads. And she has done a good job defending the mormon faith.

And Rebecca, you have done nothing but attack, that is your strategy and it is an easy stategy to adopt. Heck, if I really wanted to, I could spend hours attacking the catholic church or for that matter any church. It is easy as eating apple pie that grandma made.

 

[dianaiad]

Discussion Diana, discussion. If you think discussion is “attack”, then what are we to do? Nod our heads in agreement and pat you on the head?

Where did I characterize your arguments as an ‘attack’?

I see your POV, I understand what you are saying. I don’t see that it is very logical or reasonable, not to mention, your view is based on a major shift in mormon thought, belief and teaching. Starting with Joseph Smith himself, and all who followed him. You should understand our POV…a major shift such as this is not going to go unnoticed.

All Stephen has done is read the statement of Joseph Smith, which is in your scripture, and read your hypothesis, which is based on a book, and compare the two. They don’t match. “THE source” is not the same as “A source”.

And I have provided an alternate explanation, with the evidence to go with it. That should be sufficient. It is for me when Catholics change policy or doctrine.

 

[why_me]

The “antis”, whoever they are, can clearly see that yes indeed your church does teach erroneous beliefs. Given enough time, there are teachings that mormons and/or the mormon church wants to disown. Especially the really “far out” stuff.

Two facts you cannot ignore:

If you call these teachings “opinion”, it does not change the fact they were taught.

One group of mormons believed your disowned teachings as doctrine (and many still do).

I agree.

One fact that cannot be ignored is that the book of mormon is a complicated book. It would have taken quite some time to write. Not only does it contain a history but it also as a religious component. This is not a book that could have been written in weeks.

When one looks at it with unbiased eyes, it becomes quite an exercise and it has been noticed by neutral people as a pretty good religious document. Now of course, we have to decide who wrote it. Certainly we need to rule JS out of the contest. He was not seen with paper in hand nor was he seen hermitting around writing something in his mom and dad’s one room cabin. Nor was he known to be buying ink and paper, since this would have cost money and it would have drawn suspicion by the general store. Plus, he was seen stiking his head in a hat reading off the text to a scribe…quite a feat to be sure if one is memorizing their own manuscript or that matter someone else’s manucript. Try it sometime and let me know how you did.

Now of course, we still have the 11 witnesses to deal with…men who never denied what they saw even on their death beds. And many did not follow JS for their entire life. When one pieces all this together we have a greater mystery than the trinity to deal with.

 

[dianaiad]

Not exactly.

So yes, the LDS church taught that the negro can enter the celestial kingdom, but he will not be exalted. Rather, he will be a servant to those who are exalted.

However, Diana, I agree generally with your post. While LDS racism was of the vilest sort, it was a product of its time and we should let it lie. I congratulate the LDS church for reversing the policy in 1978. I truly hope that LDS people are less racist now than they were previously.

Tell you what: you show me anything that can possibly be construed (by the most critical of watchdogs) as ‘racism’ in the church for the last thirty years.

The thing is, if the “LDS people” were all that racist to begin with, that announcement on that June morning in 1978 would have destroyed the church. There would have been riots, demonstrations, people leaving en mass, starting up their own version of the church that continued the policy of restricting the priesthood…

But, wow, there wasn’t any of that. Yes, some people left, but not by any means ‘many’…and we were much better off without the ones who did leave. The rest of us greeted the announcement with joy and enthusiasm.

Not precisely the reaction of a racist people, don’t you think?

 

[why_me]

And I have provided an alternate explanation, with the evidence to go with it. That should be sufficient. It is for me when Catholics change policy or doctrine.

Mormons are generally speaking a polite people. The truth is that mormons could make catholic lives misable on these threads that attack the mormon faith. There is enough out there to lob attacks at the catholic church and make all the so called catholics be on the defensive. But mormons are too polite and do not by an enlarge engage in such attacks.

For example, how would catholics respond to the fact that priests during the Inquisition approached women in confession with the offer of sex or report what they said to the Inquisitors? Quite damaging and yet the information is on the Net. But is it true? It would not really matter… since it is on the Net, the catholics would have to disprove it and then experience more attacks by countering their defense.

It is so easy to attack someone’s church…easy as eating grandma’s apple pie. But mormons do not do it and that says much about the mormon character.

 

[twopekinguys]

Is this a joke? Poor Diana has done nothing but discuss and in return she gets oneliners and mocked. And she also gets attacked. Your post was cute and so hypocritical that it made me barf.

I have warned Diana earlier that she is spending too much time in her posts in explanation to people who really couldn’t care less about what she is writing. She has done a noble job on these threads. And she has done a good job defending the mormon faith.

And Rebecca, you have done nothing but attack, that is your strategy and it is an easy stategy to adopt. Heck, if I really wanted to, I could spend hours attacking the catholic church or for that matter any church. It is easy as eating apple pie that grandma made.

Trust me, Diana doesn’t need your help. She does quite well on her own without it.

If you would notice that the conversations between Rebecca and Diana are quite equal in their tone, and “attacks”.

If you would look through some of their conversations, you would see many cases of cordial discussion, including comments about meeting for coffee, if I remember correctly.

Your barf comment shows a great deal of immaturity, and truly doesn’t add anything to the conversation.

Now, Diana, and Rebecca, I want you to hold hands, sing Kumbaya, then go to a neutral corner. lol

I do truly enjoy your interactions.

 

[ricko]

Here, in easy to understand language is the teaching on limbo from Catholic Answers:

Even though the theory of limbo has **never **been a defined doctrine of the Church, the Church has never rejected it. The official teaching of the Church on the fate of unbaptized children is found in the Catechism:

As regards children who have died without baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved and Jesus’ tenderness toward children, which caused him to say, “Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,” allow us to **hope **that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without baptism. All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy baptism. (CCC 1261)

Now, the reason it is NOT doctrine is because scripture has not revealed what happens to unbaptized children and there is no Tradition regarding same. Instead of making up a doctrine with no basis (as many do) the Church is honest in saying that it simply does not know.