It is funny how we are based on faith and you are based on scientific proof and yet you lack it! You claim the you know the background of religion when it is a poor manifistation to justify your incorrect ideals of life! You cannot prove there is a God and yet you cannot prove otherwise! Let go of the foolish posts and move on!
***A common denomiator to all Mormons is that they lack Faith.
] and while everyone is offered sufficient Faith to know God, its acceptance is not mandatory. Imagine that a freewill that is respected by God. 
Personally, I don’t see Mormons as lacking faith. I am thinking of my own devout Mormon friend, and her friends, who truly have faith in Our Lord Jesus.A common denomiator to all Mormons is that they lack Faith.
Faith is a free gift from God [yes there is a God
Without Faith there can be no right understanding. Which explains there rather unusual positions.
So we all need to consider these facts and try to at least be symphetic with them.
Love and prayers,
To be an infromed and practicing Mormon is to deny the Divinity of God, and to understand Jesus as either the reincarnated arch angel gabriel, or as ONLY a very great Prophet; but NOT God.
Whoah! Zelph the Lamanite has been “retconned”. I used to wonder how that fit into the current FARMS limited-geography view of BoM history. Looks like the Zelph story has been shoved into the background. Still, the Limited American worldview means you are dealing with the “Two Hill Cumorah” theories, if the first Hill Cumorah, location of the great battles of the BoM is located somewhere in MesoAmerica, and then they carted all those golden plates up to Upper State New York where Joseph Smith could unearth them.
They’re in apostasy.what about the Romulan’s and Jedi’s?
The history of LDS and blacks in the priesthood has many unanswered questions. Apparently, in Joseph Smith’s lifetime, some were indeed elevated to the office of priesthod. And then the practice stopped. The explanation that seems to be most often given was that the prohibition was based on “lineage”. If you read the Book of Abraham 1:26, it describes as follows:
You’ll read in the LDS church history that the lineage/race issue meant that sometimes a dark-skinned convert would be deemed not part of the priesthood-cursed lineage, and would be granted priesthood, but that others would.
There is an LDS doctrine that allows all worthy males to be ordained. There never was a doctrine that denied this ordination. Joseph Smith did not believe this or teach it. It was only after Smith’s death that Brigham Young instituted his racist views as a divine order. The LDS, believing he was the prophet he claimed to be, followed him in his racism, believing they were following God. Over time LDS leaders created a ever growing theological opinion behind a practice that never had a doctrinal backing.
this is interesting, so there was no revelation that restricted the priesthood, it was just done?
Oh, I didn’t think you would…
Anyway, to get back to the Mormons, there is a relationship between the “curse” and skin and lineage. If you scan those links I indicated above, it is LDS doctrine that priesthood was denied to Cain (and to Ham), something which is not only attested by leaders of the LDS church but also by their own scriptures. The one link suggested that the congenital “curse” of black skin was placed to prevent priesthood-friendly lineages from mixing with this lineage, otherwise their lineage would lose the blessings of the priesthood. And that curse passed to Ham who then passed it onto his descendents.
More than wince.
Hold on just a minute! This can NOT be true! This sounds like some Protestant Apologist referring to the Catholic “man-made” religion that “invents” doctrines! Where did you get this silly line? Wherever you got it, it originated from some ignorant and disgruntled ex-Catholic or non-Catholic.
My understanding is that the reason why Emerich’s work seems to ring false at times, in places such as this, and others, is because her words are not her own. Her words are “as told to” someone else, a Priest, or someone who was her spiritual advisor. He would walk alongside her and listen and later go back and write what he heard. This is how it was explained to me once. The said scribe has been thought to have added some of his own embellishments to round out the story.
I never said anything was “invented”, only that the specific theology wasn’t developed or formulated until years after the fact. Have you read any Raymond Brown?
bc.edu/research/cjl/meta-elements/texts/cjrelations/resources/reviews/gibson_cunningham.htm
Emmerich’s work is racist and anti-semitic.
I think it is more true to say the doctrine was “defined” years after the fact. The doctrine was held and was taught and was believed and accepted - just not formally defined.
I haven’t but I would - he sounds worth reading.
I am not expert on Catherine Anne Emmerich, but I do know that I would not throw out all her works in total because of some controversial aspects that may well have to do with her scribe or the one who edited the works after the death of her and her scribe.
IMO, tthe jury is out on that.
I’ve always treated the Satan-worshipping child-kidnapping phenomena as a kind of urban myth. A lot of these kidnappings take place for mundane reasons. There’s a guy who was exposed recently for having taken a teenager and held her captive as a sexual slave in his backyard - not surprisingly he inculcated her with religious notions that justified the slavery. You have non-custodial parents who involve themselves in kidnappings, or unhapppy teenagers who just want to leave home, for whatever reason. The motives of these are usually less glamorous than the “satanic kidnapping” phenomena, yet it is the latter that feeds the popular imagination. Most evil is banal.