I read this link hoping for some kind of an apology for the years of treating other human beings as inferior, but it seemed like everything I saw was more ‘apologetic’ in the academic sense, mostly an attempt to smooth over the church’s racist past. And I don’t blame it for having a racist past. The church was a product of its times and this country has been racist since its founding. But then I don’t believe there is any particular weight I should give to the LDS prophets that I shouldn’t apply to others. If I did believe that they were prophetic, I’d expect a bit better though than, “well see, everyone else was doing it too.” Really? God can’t look ahead a few decades and see what’s coming up? If so, it doesn’t seem like he’s very good at communicating with his mouthpiece on earth.
No worries man, you can take anything anybody has ever said completely out of context. You can misrepresent and criticize, find fault and denigrate every single person that has lived or will live on this earth… and you know what? there will probably be some validity to what you claim or say.
So I ask you again, what is your point? What is it that you expect from God? or do you even believe he exists? I could very easily pick apart everything you wrote, criticize it and denigrate your comments and thus, as you have done with others, denigrate you. But what would be the point? I have no interest in doing that.
One of the articles of faith states “We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.”
If you agree with that basic premise, then by all means choose the path that you feel is best for you. I don’t stand off to the side, point my finger and criticize or tell you your beliefs are wrong or misguided, why is it so hard for you to do likewise?
I thought the essay explained the situation and put things in context. Unfortunately, no matter what is said or done, apologized for or explained, it is NEVER enough for some people.
We have all experienced this with someone we know. Nothing is ever good enough or satisfactory for them. When we accept that fact, it is easier to understand and deal with.
It’s okay if MikeH doesn’t agree with or accept lds doctrine, principles or anything associated with it. No big deal.
Agreed Jim. If that kind of stuff is good enough for you its good enough for you, and it doesn’t have to be good enough for me. I’m just saying I think if I believed in an organization that told me that I should treat black people as inferior but then changed its mind a few decades later after most others had already changed their minds I’d wonder if there was really much of an advantage to believing in that organization. Its sure not clear to me. Of course this is just one example of many.
When I was at BYU I approached one of my Church History Professors, an awesome guy, Professor Anderson, and asked if he’d mind discussing some things I had recently found out about the church. These involved the Book of Abraham papyri (it had been found and translated and been found to be nothing more than a funeral document that post dated Abraham by a couple thousand years), the multiple first vision accounts, and many other things I won’t bother to go into here. He agreed to meet with me in his office and we talked for hours. Everything I brought up he was fully aware of, and yet managed to maintain his belief because he said he put more weight in what he called ‘The Spirit’ (something I’ve never experienced) than he did in the facts and evidence. I thought this was a perfectly valid way of looking at things, although I could never have done it myself. In the course of the discussions he did express frustration with the church hierarchy though. He told me that he had to purchase books from anti-Mormons, in particular Jerold and Sandra Tanner, who had been reprinting church books by photo offset printing methods for several years. The church wouldn’t even let him into their vaults and they were gathering up and disappearing copies of these books as quickly as possible. I wondered why anyone who really card about truth would to that.
It appears they have come a long way since then and are really trying hard to be more open. Here’s a link that shows they are at least trying:
grasshopper,
This is what they use to say about the War in Heaven,---- almost exactly.
Since we never questioned anything said by those in power, decades,
if not a century went by before we realized that which was being taught
was an opinion but not gospel. (Even when General Authorities were
presiding over the meetings.)
Please give me the book, chapter and versus that state that 10% of the Lords
population, that he, the Lord created, is in sin because of their sexual preference.
When you do this, and prove that this is indeed gospel and not opinion, I will stop
talking about the issue.
Thank you for your expected reply. I would really like to know the printed word that
is gospel and not opinion or confusion, where the opinion or confusion will be
clarified 2-3 decades later.
Ron
“Agreed Jim. If that kind of stuff is good enough for you its good enough for you, and it doesn’t have to be good enough for me.”
----------- Yes it is good enough for me. I do my best to understand that experiences, circumstances and situations are different for different people.
“I’m just saying I think if I believed in an organization that told me that I should treat black people as inferior but then changed its mind a few decades later after most others had already changed their minds I’d wonder if there was really much of an advantage to believing in that organization.”
----------- Unless I was actually there at the time and place that something happened or was said, I KNOW that I cannot possibly understand it completely because I didn’t actually experience it. Even if I had experienced it, I KNOW that my interpretation of what took place might be different than another persons.
“Its sure not clear to me. Of course this is just one example of many.”
----------- This is the case as much for something a prophet (and yes, Brigham Young was a prophet then just like Thomas Monson is today) said or did as it is for the variety of versions Joseph Smith gave for the First Vision. I think he was what, 14 at the time it happened? Assuming that you are a mature adult, is your relation of a particular event that you experience exact and precise in every detail, regardless of who you are relating it to? Would you remember it exactly as it happened and tell each and every person you come in contact with the exact same thing? Or might you remember specific things as you related the experience to a certain person? To someone who believed you, to someone who didn’t, to someone you knew, to someone you didn’t, etc.?
Once again, not sure what your point is other than trying to dissuade somebody from believing as they see fit. I don’t believe in an “organization”, I believe in God and I believe that Joseph Smith was visited by our Heavenly Father and his son Jesus Christ. I also believe the Book of Mormon is true. That is enough for me, I’m not going to complicate my life more than I need to.
Good luck in your search for the truth.
So the main argument for believing in LDS doctrine, as opposed to how it was taught in the past, seems to mostly just be immediacy. Even though church leaders taught the exact opposite at one period of time, its always only the most recent thing that counts. Well OK. But I don’t think we have to experience everything about the past to know that certain events took place, and there is little room for interpretation in the words I quoted. Blind obedience is easy. The search for truth is hard.
Of course I don’t have perfect recollection of events, but then I don’t claim to be restoring the one true church on earth. If I did, I believe I could do better than the disparate ways that they were recorded by Joseph Smith. I really wish LDS people would stop saying that JS was 14 when he translated the plates. This is apparently another of the many faith inspired myths that have been passed down for years. The Church’s own history show he was at least 18 at the time of the translation, and the stories were simply written down later claiming certain events occurred that aren’t very consistent. I’m not sure why the church isn’t an organization, but ok…
You’re right, I probably should go away now. I don’t care what people believe and I don’t want to dissuade people from believing whatever they wish to believe. I just thought it was germane to the discussion that the church taught things in the past and honestly believed they would never change and said so outright. I think all of us, myself included, should be a bit humble in believing we have found an infallible path to heaven. Anyway, sorry if I’ve offended anyone here.
And is it to early to start counting down for the Nebraska game? I’m done talking religion 
It did not say that. It said that BY received revelation to deny Negroes the Priesthood. But, at some point in the future they would receive the Priesthood. It said all Prophets prayed for the change but had to be by way of revelation and nothing to do with racist beliefs changing. President McKay prayed for the change but said he didn’t receive revelation from The Lord to do it. And it is clear that President Kimball received direct thus sayeth The Lord revelation with the present company of Apostles feeling the Holy Ghost gift that the revelation was true. Not a changing of the times. It started and ended by way of direct revelation clearly pointed out in the article.
The racist comment about the past clearly has nothing to do with the banning of the Priesthood to blacks. It had to do with how the members treated blacks during that time. That includes insensitive comments by fallible prophets and apostles. The article clearly makes a distinction between the revelation denying the Priesthood from blacks and the personal racism harbored by members.
And, this is why it’s hard to take what you write as true when you say things like you want us to stop teaching that Joseph Smith translated the plates at 14. We don’t teach that and never have. He received a revelation from the Father and Son at 14. Later, Moroni came to him for 3 year before handing the plate to him at about age 21. He then spent 3 years trying to translated between attacks on him and his family. In those years, he only spent about 50 days with actual translation. Pretty incredible.
With that said, you could possibly be wrong about a lot of other things too. I would also be careful where you get information from. KCBlack posted and article that I hope you read. Like you, KC looks for the bad in articles and misinterprets incorrectly. This is the post I responded to him when he incorrectly interpreted saying that te article says the Prophets were racists, which it didn’t. "It did not say that. It said that BY received revelation to deny Negroes the Priesthood. But, at some point in the future they would receive the Priesthood. It said all Prophets prayed for the change but had to be by way of revelation and nothing to do with racist beliefs changing. President McKay prayed for the change but said he didn’t receive revelation from The Lord to do it. And it is clear that President Kimball received direct thus sayeth The Lord revelation with the present company of Apostles feeling the Holy Ghost gift that the revelation was true. Not a changing of the times. It started and ended by way of direct revelation clearly pointed out in the article.
The racist comment about the past clearly has nothing to do with the banning of the Priesthood to blacks. It had to do with how the members treated blacks during that time. That includes insensitive comments by fallible prophets and apostles. The article clearly makes a distinction between the revelation denying the Priesthood from blacks and the personal racism harbored by members."
As I said, I think you are looking for something to justify denying personal confirmation by the Holy Ghost is true. I will as this question again, why did God restrict the Priesthhod to only the sons of Aaron the Levites? Blacks didn’t get it then either. Jesus didn’t give the priesthood to everyone either. Was Jesus (Jehovah) a racist? Possibly you could study up more on what the priesthood is before crying racist or gender discrimination.
As the article KC gave said, there is a distinction between not allowing blacks to receive the priesthood and racist members. They are not one in the same. The Lord took it away from blacks and gave it back through direct revelation to His Prophets he called. That doesn’t mean members weren’t racist. I’m sure there were and still are racists amongst us.
During the restrictive time period, blacks were baptized, received confirmation and received the gift of the Holy Ghost. They were allowed to perform baptisms for their dead prior to 1978’s revelation. Doesn’t sound like a racist church like those who excludes blacks altogether from baptism and membership. As states before, know what the priesthood is before making blanket statements that are untrue.
Romans Chapter 1. Read it. It’s considered doctrine.
Romans Chapter One:
Nothing until verse 18.
“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against ALL UNGODLINESS, and all unrighteousnes of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness.
Nothing more until Verse 27
And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust toward another:
men with men, working that which is unseeingly, and receiving in themselves,that recompense of their error, which was meet.
Only verse 27 says anything about gays and nothing about Lesbians. Do you have any idea how many scriptures tell us that:
We shall not bear false witness.
We should judge not, lest we be judged, Leave the judging to God.
We should let he without sin cast the first stone.
We should forgive.
We should be tolerant.
We should help the poor.
We should honor our father’s and our mother’s that their days may be long upon the face of the earth.
We shall not steal.
We should not covet our neighbors wife.
We should not etc. etc. etc.
If there is only one sentence in the Bible that states men should not be with men, than I think that we may be targeting in a dangerous manner.
I guess you missed these scriptures iincluding verse 26.
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
And, unnatural affections in this verse in conjunction with all the other vile wicked acts: 29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, 30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
Romans 1:29-31
Then, there are the following that you could have found in the topical guide:
bring them out unto us, that we may know them: Gen. 19:5.
Thou shalt not lie with mankind … it is abomination: Lev. 18:22 (20:13).
There shall be no … sodomite of the sons of Israel: Deut. 23:17.
declare their sin as Sodom: Isa. 3:9 (2 Ne. 13:9).
men … burned in their lust one toward another: Rom. 1:27.
nor abusers of themselves with mankind: 1 Cor. 6:9.
them that defile themselves with mankind: 1 Tim. 1:10.
as Sodom and Gomorrha … going after strange flesh: Jude 1:7.
See also Gen. 13:13; 18:20; Ezek. 16:50; 2 Tim. 3:3; 2 Pet. 2:10; 2 Ne. 9:40
Homosexual Behavior
The number of times something is mentioned is not important. That’s just a bad excuse to justify immorality. Especially when it’s obvious you haven’t done any study on the subject with respects to the scripture.
And, name me one latter-day saint prophet that says homosexual behavior or acts are okay and won’t be counted as sin at the judgment seat. Instead, you bring out other sins that are also important to not commit too. That’s the typical liberal way to approach things when the debate can’t be won.
Grasshopper. Watch out, I might know a bit more about your church than you do. If you keep preaching at me, I might choose to share some of it here to show why about 90% of the stuff you talk about is puerile nonsense. You might not like that. So please stop now OK? Can we just agree to disagree?
I’m actually perfectly fine discussing LDS doctrine with believers. I’ve just never found a good way to explain why I don’t believe without offending them, and I don’t like doing that. So if you want to keep on believing that the reason I haven’t become Mormon (as opposed to Scientologist, Jehovah’s Witness, Rastafarian, or literally one million other faiths that could just as easily ask the same question) is because I want to sin and hate God, you can go right ahead believing that. Whatever makes you feel better. I pick my beliefs based on evidence and logic, but if you want to pick some other criterion have at it. Just realize that you’re on pretty shake ground when you start questioning the motivation of people you don’t even know.
- Mikeat some point in time you will recognize that your evidence and logic wasn’t really that at all. The main problem is that all of this supposed “evidence and logic” comes from detractors, ex-mormons with an axe to grind or some other group of anti-lds, which you seem to be proud of belonging to yourself.
I think you are right about agreeing to disagree and considering some of your comments to this point, you are right in stating that is where it should probably be left… and left alone.
I don’t believe you want to sin… or hate God… or whatever it is that you think that I, or anyone else, anticipates you will do. The statement of not being able to explain without offending is a curious one. “Becoming Mormon” is no guarantee for anything, including sinning, etc. If you read the other posts here, you will recognize right away that the religion has a significant problem right now with members taking advantage of other members.
Does that mean it isn’t true? No… but it does show that a lot of people don’t take their beliefs seriously and there may be a heavy price to pay someday, particularly in the next life.
So then, I’m not questioning your motivation… I’m just still not sure what your point is. What is it that you are hoping to accomplish, particularly with regards to your back and forth with Scott? I can tell you from personal experience that this will be a road that has no end. Start down it if you wish.
Logic and evidence of what? Man’s knowledge of imperfect beings? Evidence of what? The only evidence I need is the witness of the Holy Ghost and what he reveals to me. Such as, Joseph Smith was a Prophet of God who helped The Lord re-establish His church after centuries of darkness brought upon men based on their logic and evidence. Sound familiar?
There is not a thing you can throw at me that I haven’t already debated with anti-Mormons and won every time. Besides, I have my witness and revelations from God that Joseph Smith was a Prophet, the Book of Mormon is true, The Church is Christ’s only Church with His keys to administer the sacred ordinances.
He’s like every anti-Mormon troll thinks that if there is one person making a mistake then everything about the Church is a mistake. I guess since Judas rebelled that makes all the other Apostles and Jesus Christ false. It’s what they do to set themselves up to start their own churches and make money.
You need to stop already.
Why? Do you see a little of him in you?