A few questions for Mormons (LDS).

Ephesians432 wrote:
I beg to differ with you when you say most of their work (the Tanners) has been refuted. How do you refute what your prophets have said? Why would you refute it???

Don replies:
I concede a point...I should not have indicated that their work had been refuted. This implies that they have been proven innacurate. Perhaps it would have been more proper to state that their works have been properly answered.

Allow me to give a few specifics. The Tanners love to dig up obscure quotations from LDS leaders...usually from the distant past. The problem is that LDS leaders are, and always have been men. They sometimes say things that portray their personal opinions.

In recent years, the leadership of the church has become more clearly intent on disclosing the fact that certain things that are said are their opinion...and not church doctrine. How does one, then, determine what it is that the LDS accept as doctrine, verses things that are mentioned as teachings, which may or may not be true?

My uncle is a Church Educational System Instructor. As part of his duties, he writes some of the manuals for the SS classes, Priesthood classes, etc.. I recently spoke with him, and asked him this very question. This is his answer.

Those teachings and comments that are offered with the official logo of the church may be considered doctrine. The scriptures certainly are... the First Presidency messages in the Ensign are...while the rest of the content is not... and so on. It is restrictive, simply for the fact that so often, others take obscure comments and seek to impose LDS doctrine upon the LDS...from an alien perspective. It is an illogical and unparallelled thing to conceive. Yet it happens all the time. The Tanners are some of the worst offenders of this point.

The Tanners are also guilty of selective presentation and evidence. The following is taken from a review of one of the Tanners works, "Mormonism, Shadow or Reality?"

"A non-Mormon historian who has spent many years studying Mormonism recently commented that the Tanners choose only the most negative evidence to portray the "reality" of Mormonism and its history, while ignoring evidence or entire issues that do not support their interpretations. It is fair to say also that some Mormon defenders have also done equal disservice to the LDS Church by adopting the same method in reverse: presenting carefully chosen evidence that shows only the positive side of Mormonism, while ignoring or denying the existence of contrary evidence."

The Tanners are also guilty of selectively distorting many points of sacred LDS theology by applying standards that are unflexible and rigid to certain LDS experiences, while not requiring similar standards for similar Biblical experiences.

Other problems associated with the Tanners range from the non sequitur (drawing conclusions that do not have supporting evidence)to misinterpreting historical parallels to straw man argumentation to the improper use of ellipses which draw out of context. Examples of all of the above may be referenced in a number of books and reviews, but for conveinience sake, I recommend the FAIR site under apologetics. There is a lengthy and accurate assessment and review there.

Even many Evangelical apologists have not been kind to the Tanners. For example, Carl Mosser and Paul Owen wrote, "Tanners are keen students of
Mormon history, but do not have the skills necessary for a full-scale rebuttal
of Mormon scholarship." (Mormon Scholarship, Apologetics, and Evangelical Neglect:
Losing the Battle and Not Knowing It?)

I hope this was specific enough for you.

Be blessed!

Don

(Note: several quotes used in this post were taken from an anonymous author. The article may be found at the FAIR website)

[ June 29, 2002, 12:21 AM: Message edited by: Don Layton ]

 

HCL wrote:
Hello, I have a friend who was a Mormon for many years. She was Italian and Ethiopian. She appeared only white in color so was allowed to become a member. She told me that one thing that turned her away from Mormomism was that they would say that black people are not as good as whites and are not allowed in the "church," until one day, I am not sure when they decided that black people were allowed to join. Why is it that one day they were excluded than the next they were included? Anyway, this change helped her to see that Mormonism was not the truth and she eventually became born again.

Don:
This is simply false. Blacks have always been included in the church.

HCL:
Also, you claim that the book of Mormon is part of the Word of God. Why then is Jesus called a murderer in this book? Which is He? Is He a murderer as Joseph Smith wrote or is He the Son of God who takes away the sins of the world who never hurt any person? Why the contradiction? In 3 Nephi 9:15 we are told that, "Jesus Christ the Son of God," was responsible for the murders of innocent women and children.

Don:
3 Nephi 9:15 says " Behold, I am Jesus Christ the Son of God. I created the heavens and the earth, and all things that in them are. I was with the Father from the beginning. I am in the Father, and the Father in me; and in me hath the Father glorified his name."

This claim is another example of the mischaracterization of LDS belief on the part of some Evangelicals. In fact, this is one of the most ridiculous examples of what I call "imposition" that I have ever seen. Nothing could be further from the truth!

HCL:
Mormom leaders admit that they believe in another Jesus. "It is true that many of the Christian churches worship a different Jesus Christ than is worshipped by the Mormons." (Ensign, May 77, pg.26) So, from the mouths of Mormom leaders we have heard that they admit they believe in another Jesus.

Don:
First, see my earlier definition of what it is that constitutes LDS doctrine. This particular quote falls outside of that definition.

Second, if you read the quote in context (by an LDS leader that I have never heard of), it defines what he means. He is simply describing the well documented differences of LDS and Protestant theology regarding Christ. In this sense, I would agree. The LDS do not accept the aspects from an apostate Christianity such as the Trinity and the incorporeality of God.

HCL:
The "church" of Mormom declares that Jesus became a god. But, this contradicts God's Word in John 1 we are told the truth about Jesus that He is and was and always will be God.

Don:
The Bible is very clear that Jesus was and is a separate entity from the Father. Jesus prayed to the Father, was testified of from above, and so on. John 17 makes it very clear that the Godhead is one, in the very sense that we are to be one... in purpose and will.

I do not accept your interpretation of Jn. 1.

HCL:
Mr. Layton, I ask you to consider turning to the Jesus of the Bible. Have you ever studied the Book of John in God's Word? It is not too late. He loves you and wants you to be saved. All you have to do is turn to Him and repent of all your sins. He will save you. He is the One and Only True Christ.

Don:
I very much appreciate your concern. I find it a bit condescending and judgemental on your part to assume that I do not believe in the Jesus of the Bible, or that I am not saved. I DO believe in Jesus Christ as described in the Bible. I love Him. I know Him. I testify of Him. Thank you again for your concern.

Don

 

Alex wrote:
There is no other name given under heaven whereby we must be saved. That at the name of Jesus, every knee shall bow and every tongue shall confess Jesus as Lord to the glory of God the Father. Sorry, not Joseph Smith.

Don:
We agree.

Alex:
Jesus only and we both know that deep study of the Morman faith reveals the belief that your church espouses the idea that Jesus and Satan were brothers.

Don:
Jesus and Satan are as far apart as any 2 can be. The LDS believe that all beings were created (formed-not ex-nihilo) at some point. This would include Jesus. This would include myself. This would include Lucifer.

It seems to me that the doctrinal difference is not the one that you allude to as much as it is to the precursor to it...that of the nature of Jesus Christ.

Alex:
Also that your denomination doesn't believe that salvation is provided by Jesus because the LDS don't believe that Jesus was the son of God. They believe he was a great man and a prophet.

Don:
This is not true. Jesus is the Son of God...as well as a great prophet.

Don

[ June 25, 2002, 05:29 PM: Message edited by: Don Layton ]

 

Hello, Don...welcome back. You did an awful lot of replies in such a short time however the ones directed to me was actually Multimom, I think.

I happened to find the following message and it pretty well sums up what most Christians believe about Jesus as well as a little about your belief. I would like for you to agree/disagree with any part you choose as I think there is a lot you will not agree with. So here it is:

Jesus Saves

Jesus is the most important figure in all of human history. He is God in flesh (Col. 2:9), physically risen from the dead, Lord (Luke 24:34) and Savior (Acts 5:30-32). He came to die for sinners (Rom. 5:8) to remove the separation between God and sinners and to remove the wrath of God upon us.
I ask you, are you a sinner? Have you ever lied, stolen, lusted, coveted, or been angry with someone unjustly? Have you ever offended God in any way? If so, then you have sinned. Your sin is against God because you have broken His law. Also, because He is infinite, your offense to Him is infinite. You are not capable of appeasing an infinite God because you are a sinner. Nothing you can do can undo the damage caused by your sins.
The Bible says that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (Rom. 3:23). That means that your sins have caused a separation between you and God (Isaiah 59:2) and the result is death (Rom. 6:23) and wrath (Eph. 2:3). The only way out, is to be saved by faith in Christ (Eph. 2:8-9; Rom. 5:1). You must trust in what Jesus did on the cross to forgive you of your sins and not trust anything else, not even your own sincerity or works.
Jesus is the one who died for the sins of the world (1 John 2:2). He is the only way to the God the Father (John 14;6). He alone reveals God (Matt. 11:27). He has all authority in heaven and earth (Matt. 28:18). It is only through Him that you can be saved from God's wrath (Eph. 2:3). He can forgive you of your sin (Luke 5:20; Matt. 9:2). He can remove the guilt that is upon your soul. Jesus can set you free from the bondage of sin that blinds your eyes, weakens your soul, and brings you to despair. He can do this because He bore sin in His body on the cross (1 Peter. 2:24) that those who trust in Him would be saved.
Jesus is the One you need.
If you are not a Christian, and want to be delivered from the consequence of your sin, which is damnation, then come to the One who loves you. Come to the One who died for sinners. Receive Jesus as your Lord and Savior (John 1:12). Ask Jesus to forgive you, to come into your heart, and to wash you clean from your sins. Pray to Jesus. Seek Him. Ask Him to save you.
He will.

I would like to note, that the Jesus of Mormonism (the brother of the devil), the Jesus of the Jehovah's Witnesses (an angel made into a man), the Jesus of the New Age (a man in tune with the divine consciousness), etc., cannot save you from your sins. Faith is only as good as who you put it in. Only the Jesus of the Bible can do that. Jesus is God in flesh, the creator.

God Bless...........Alex

 

Hello Alex:

I could have gotten my responses mixed up as you suggest...for which I apologize. I would like to thank you for the spirit in which your dialogue is presented. You are, IMHO a credit to the Christian faith...and I say this fully aware of the differences that do exist in our two particular systems of theology. Now on to your letter.

You write:
Jesus Saves

Jesus is the most important figure in all of human history. He is God in flesh (Col. 2:9), physically risen from the dead, Lord (Luke 24:34) and Savior (Acts 5:30-32).

I reply:
I would agree with all of the above, but I do need to point out that our definition of Jesus as God in the flesh is somewhat different.

Alex:
He came to die for sinners (Rom. 5:8) to remove the separation between God and sinners and to remove the wrath of God upon us.

Don:
Agreed!

Alex:
I ask you, are you a sinner? Have you ever lied, stolen, lusted, coveted, or been angry with someone unjustly? Have you ever offended God in any way? If so, then you have sinned. Your sin is against God because you have broken His law.

Don:
Guilty as charged...and more.

Alex:
Also, because He is infinite, your offense to Him is infinite.

Don:
I am not exactly certain that I follow your meaning of any sin being infinite. For example, I do not believe that a white lie is equivelant to a mass murder. IF, however you are implying that any sin, even the least of sin, will keep souls out of the presence of God, if it is not covered by the atonement of Jesus Christ, then I agree.

Alex:
You are not capable of appeasing an infinite God because you are a sinner. Nothing you can do can undo the damage caused by your sins.

Don:
Agreed!

Alex:
The Bible says that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (Rom. 3:23). That means that your sins have caused a separation between you and God (Isaiah 59:2) and the result is death (Rom. 6:23) and wrath (Eph. 2:3). The only way out, is to be saved by faith in Christ (Eph. 2:8-9; Rom. 5:1). You must trust in what Jesus did on the cross to forgive you of your sins and not trust anything else, not even your own sincerity or works.

Don:
As far as our reconciliation to God through Jesus Christ, I completely agree. It is only through and because of Jesus Christ that men are saved. There is NO other! A fundamental mistake that some Evangelicals claim of LDS theology is that our works can reconcile us to God. This is not true. Our works will bring us eternal blessings...
works will be rewarded, but nothing we could ever do on our own would ever reconcile sinful man to perfect God.

Alex:
Jesus is the one who died for the sins of the world (1 John 2:2). He is the only way to the God the Father (John 14;6). He alone reveals God (Matt. 11:27). He has all authority in heaven and earth (Matt. 28:18). It is only through Him that you can be saved from God's wrath (Eph. 2:3). He can forgive you of your sin (Luke 5:20; Matt. 9:2). He can remove the guilt that is upon your soul. Jesus can set you free from the bondage of sin that blinds your eyes, weakens your soul, and brings you to despair. He can do this because He bore sin in His body on the cross (1 Peter. 2:24) that those who trust in Him would be saved.
Jesus is the One you need.

Don:
Amen and Amen!

Alex:
If you are not a Christian, and want to be delivered from the consequence of your sin, which is damnation, then come to the One who loves you. Come to the One who died for sinners. Receive Jesus as your Lord and Savior (John 1:12). Ask Jesus to forgive you, to come into your heart, and to wash you clean from your sins. Pray to Jesus. Seek Him. Ask Him to save you.
He will.

Don:
I promise you that I have done this. I know my Savior. Our differences continue to be in theological meanings and source of authority only. I can argue one thing and quote passages from the Bible...or pull up a number of statements made by the Patristic or Anti-Nicene Fathers, and you would do the same. I have studied the differences very carefully and at length. I have an intellecutal testimony of the restoration as well as a spiritual one.

Alex:
I would like to note, that the Jesus of Mormonism (the brother of the devil), the Jesus of the Jehovah's Witnesses (an angel made into a man), the Jesus of the New Age (a man in tune with the divine consciousness), etc., cannot save you from your sins. Faith is only as good as who you put it in. Only the Jesus of the Bible can do that. Jesus is God in flesh, the creator.

Don:
The matter of the character of Jesus Christ is one in which we would have some disagreement. But I ask you to consider that perhaps 95%+ of our discipline in this area is very similar.

For example, we would (I assume) both agree that Jesus Christ of Nazereth was the promised Messiah. It was He who fulfilled the prophetic utterances of Isaiah, Jeremiah, and many others. It was Jesus who spoke to Moses, and to other Old Testament prophets.

It was Jesus who was born of a virgin, begotten in the flesh, the Son of God, the Only Begotten in the flesh, the Savior of mankind. He was born under humble circumstances, and Kings and peasants came to worship him.

He taught in the temple. He cast out demons. He healed the sick and raised the dead. He caused the blind to see and the deaf to hear (both literally and figuratively). He taught many, but was believed by few. He was despised among his brethren. Jesus forgave the sinners who came to Him. He taught us to pray and to love. He showered love and compassion and mercy.

He willingly gave His life for the redemption of men. He presented Himself as a sacrifice for sin to all those who believe in Him. He died on the cross and was resurrected on the third day. He was seen by many, and continued to teach His disciples. He sent missionaries to preach the gospel to all the world. He lives! He is God, even the Son of God! He is my Savior, and I know that without Him I am eternally lost.

Sorry to ramble, but we are getting into one of my personal pet peaves. Let's be honest about the differences, and continue to discuss them. But when it comes down to it, we have FAR more in common than we have in differences...and I do not seek to minimize these differences.

God Bless You Too Alex...........Don

 

Don, Mormons continually deny that they believe the bizarre stuff their prophets spoke of. Mormons use a cop-out that the prophet was only giving "his opinion as a man." Well, if "God's" prophet's opinion contradicts the scriptures, then it's very unlikely that he's a true prophet. Why did your church publish all that stuff if the church insists that it just isn't true?

 

According to the Bible, sin is sin. There is no degree. We find that to be true when the Bible says that "neither liars, nor fornicators, nor muderers shall enter the kingdom of God.

Mr. Layton the primary problem here is that not one single Bible believing Christian in this discussion will ever accept the Book of Morman as "another testament of Jesus Christ". So much of what you stated has been "declared opinion" is still held as doctrine in the church despite what anyone tells you your uncle or otherwise. It reminds me of the sudden change of the Jehovah's Witness belief in the literal 700,000 (is this number correct). They believed that they would be the only ones in heaven because they believed they were the literal 700,000 until their church membership passed that number so they had to change their "doctrine" to befit their position.

I cannot and will not and neither will any other Bible believing Christian accept the idea that Jesus and Satan were brothers.

 

Don,

You wrote that blacks have always been able to join the Mormon church. In this you are being very ambiguous and misleading.

Until a "revelation from God" to then LDS president Kimball on June 9, 1978, blacks couldn't hold office or attain priesthood. The "revelation" read as follows: "Aware of the promises made by the prophets and presidents of the Church who have preceded us that at some time, in God's eternal plan, all of our brethren who are worthy may receive the priesthood and witnessing the faithfulness of those from whom the priesthood has been withheld, we have pleaded long and earnestly in behalf of these, our faithful brethren....He has heard our prayers, and by revelation has confirmed that the long-promised day has come when every faithful, worthy man in the Church may receive the holy priesthood, with power to exercise its divine authority, and enjoy with his loved ones blessing that flows therefrom, including the blessings of the temple. Accordingly, all worthy members of the Church may be ordained to the priesthood withour regard for race or color."

Funny thing about this "revelation from God," evidently God needed help with our legal system because it was reviewed by LDS lawyers prior to release.

Why the "revelation" in 1978 that went against so many LDS teachings? Prior to the revelation in 1978, the NAACP had asked all Third World countries to deny visas to Mormon missionaries. Black civil rights groups were calling on boycotts to travel to Utah. A BYU basketball game was disrupted by protests against LDS policies on blacks. Stanford and the University of Washington cancelled all sporting events against BYU. The Boy Scouts were bringing discrimination charges against the LDS church for refusing to allow a Black Boy Scout to be a patrol leader.

In other words the heat was being turned up for a policy change or a "revelation from God."

Let's look at their policy prior to 1978. It is based on their belief in pre-existence of the individual prior to life on earth. They believe that everyone's status here on earth is based on what they did in pre-existence. All people are the "spirit children" who pre-existed with the Heavenly Father and Mother near KOLOB. We are their "spirit children" in human form.

Brigham Young taught in 1859, "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....and the Lord put a mark on him, which is the flat nose and black skin....then, another curse is pronounced upon the same race---that they should be the "servant of servants;" and they will be, until that curse is removed."

In discussing Mormon policy towards blacks in the 1939 conference report, Mormon Elder George F. Richards made the following remarks: "The Negro is an unfortunate man. He has been given a black skin. But that is nothing compared with that greater handicap that he is not permitted to receive the Priesthood and the ordinance of the temple, necessary to prepare men and women to enter into and enjoy a fullness of glory in the celestial kingdom."

In 1966, Bruce McConkie, later to be ordained an apostle, wrote in his book "Mormon Doctrine," "the negroes are not equal with other races where the receipt of certain spirtual blessings are concerned... buth this inequality is not of man's origin. It is the Lord's doing."

Tenth LDS president Joseph Fielding wrote in 1954 in his book, "Doctrines of Salvation:" There is a reason why one man is born black and with other disadvantages, whicle 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 received greater blessings here, and those who were not faithful received less."

This raise some interesting questions (per Richard Abanes excellent book "One Nation Under Gods."):

If God has removed the curse that at one time kept Blacks from the priesthood, then why has he not removed the marks of that curse---i.e., flat nose and black skin (per Brigham Young, see above)?

If some spirits continue to be cursed with black skin because of thier unrighteous behavior in the pre-mortal world, then why does that same unrighteous behavior now no longer diqualify them from the priesthood?

If black skin is no longer a sign of a special curse, then does that mean white skin is no longer a sign of a special blessing?

If a racially mixed couple conceived a child before June 9, 1978, and in so doing sinned by mixing a cursed seed (Black) with an un-cursed seed (White), then after June 9 1978, were they still guilty of the sin of race-mixing since Blacks were no longer cursed from the Priesthood?

[ June 26, 2002, 10:42 AM: Message edited by: Will ]

 

Ephesians432 writes:
Don, Mormons continually deny that they believe the bizarre stuff their prophets spoke of.

To which I patiently reply:
I would like to know what "bizarre stuff" you are referring to. There are a few obscure statements that are non-cannonical in which certain LDS leaders expressed opinions on certain matters. From the hundreds and even thousands of published volumes, magazines, tracts, talks, etc.., you have to look pretty deep to find a few "bizarre" statements. They are not, and have not been considered doctrine.

An LDS leader once corrected a notion that a prophet would always act as a prophet...in other words, some people were requiring perfection from every word that was uttered. This was his reply:

Now, when does a person speak as a prophet? Do you recall that oft-repeated revelation in which the Lord said:

And, behold this is an ensample unto all those
who were ordained unto this priesthood (and He
is talking of General Authorities), whose
mission is appointed unto them to go forth-

...and they shall speak as they are moved upon
by the Holy Ghost.

And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon
by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture...

This is so when a General Authority is speaking by the power of the Holy Ghost.

Someone has rightly said that it is not to be thought that every word spoken by our leaders is inspired.

He then quoted Joseph Smith. "This morning I...visited with a brother and sister from Michigan, who thought that 'a prophet is always a prophet;' but I told them that a prophet was a prophet only when he was acting as such."

I have on file a number of "bizarre" statements made by leading Evangelicals. Would they be considered correct positioning on the part of Evangelicals?

The LDS have an extensive amount of what is correctly considered as doctrine. Let's be fair, and draw from what we consider to be our own doctrine. We don't allow the Queen of England to legislate our laws in the US...why do some Protestants feel that they have the right to define what is and what is not LDS doctrine?

Don

 

Multimom writes:
According to the Bible, sin is sin. There is no degree. We find that to be true when the Bible says that "neither liars, nor fornicators, nor muderers shall enter the kingdom of God.

Don:
The passage claims that sinners will not enter into the Kingdom of God. The Bible does not say that "sin is sin". It does say that sinners will not enter into the Kingdom of God. I agree with this.

I think you would be hard pressed to convince most Christians that "sin is sin". The Bible describes entire cities that God wiped out for certain sins, but I don't find anyone being destroyed for gossip or a harsh word.

Multimom:
Mr. Layton the primary problem here is that not one single Bible believing Christian in this discussion will ever accept the Book of Morman as "another testament of Jesus Christ".

Don:
If that is true, I don't know if I have a reason to stick around. The truth is that many Baptists and other Protestants accept the fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ every day. Just recently, I have met 2 former Protestants...one an ex-Pastor and the other an ex-Youth Pastor...who have been baptized. They are incredible witnesses for the truth.

Multimom:
So much of what you stated has been "declared opinion" is still held as doctrine in the church despite what anyone tells you your uncle or otherwise.

Don:
This is not true. Again, doctrine is contained in the scriptures, First Presidency messages in the Ensign, and in official LDS publications that contain the logo of the church. Please give me specifics. Please provide an example.

Multimom:
It reminds me of the sudden change of the Jehovah's Witness belief in the literal 700,000 (is this number correct). They believed that they would be the only ones in heaven because they believed they were the literal 700,000 until their church membership passed that number so they had to change their "doctrine" to befit their position.

Don:
Our doctrine remains. Per the previous definitions of LDS doctrine, please provide one example. BTW, the number is 144,000, if I am not mistaken.

Also, it is a serious mistake to consider the LDS in the same category as the JWs, as even your own Mosser and Owen have so elequantly pointed out.

Multimom:
I cannot and will not and neither will any other Bible believing Christian accept the idea that Jesus and Satan were brothers.

Don:
Your claim is discounted every time one of them is baptized. See previous comments on the relationship between Satan and Jesus. Good sensationalistic attempt, however.

Don

 

Will comments:
You wrote that blacks have always been able to join the Mormon church. In this you are being very ambiguous and misleading.

Don:
It is not misleading at all. The claim was made that blacks were not allowed to join the church. Then a lengthy description of a particular case was given as an example. Blacks have always been included in the church. It is well known that they were not allowed to hold the priesthood until 1978. It is not me that has been misleading.

Will:
Until a "revelation from God" to then LDS president Kimball on June 9, 1978, blacks couldn't hold office or attain priesthood. The "revelation" read as follows: "Aware of the promises made by the prophets and presidents of the Church who have preceded us that at some time, in God's eternal plan, all of our brethren who are worthy may receive the priesthood and witnessing the faithfulness of those from whom the priesthood has been withheld, we have pleaded long and earnestly in behalf of these, our faithful brethren....He has heard our prayers, and by revelation has confirmed that the long-promised day has come when every faithful, worthy man in the Church may receive the holy priesthood, with power to exercise its divine authority, and enjoy with his loved ones blessing that flows therefrom, including the blessings of the temple. Accordingly, all worthy members of the Church may be ordained to the priesthood withour regard for race or color."

Funny thing about this "revelation from God," evidently God needed help with our legal system because it was reviewed by LDS lawyers prior to release.

Don:
You are making a number of assumptions here...and you presume to know the order of revelation. Revelation usually comes in response to prophets seeking the will of God in connection with cuurent events. Such was the case in 1978.

Will:
Let's look at their policy prior to 1978.

Don:
Let's look at the whole issue, shall we? You are guilty of cherry picking. You refuse to admit that one of the primary reasons that the early Saints were being harrassed and murdered by their Southern (mostly Protestant) neighbors was that they opposed slavery. As a result, people wanted the Mormons out. This was especially true in Mo..

You are also guilty of creating a double standard. There has been at least as much evidence of racism within Protestant circles as there has within the LDS church. Here are a few examples.

Two non-LDS scholars, Richard O. Emerson and Christian Smith (Divided by Faith: Evangelical Religion and the problem of race in America) point out that "In response to King’s famous “I Have a Dream” speech that his children might one day play together with white children, [Billy] Graham, who had been invited but did not attend the 1963 March on Washington, said: ‘Only when Christ comes again will little white children of Alabama walk hand in hand with little black children.’ This was not meant to be harsh, but rather what he and most white evangelicals perceived to be realistic.”"

Three years later, Martin Luther King preached “The Pharisee and Publican” sermon to a Baptist church in which he said, " So often Negroes in Mississippi and Alabama and Georgia and other places have been taken to that tree that bears strange fruit. And do you know that the folk lynching them are often big deacons in the Baptist churches and stewards in the Methodist churches feeling that by killing and murdering and lynching another human being they are doing the will of Almighty God? The most vicious oppressors of the Negro today are probably in church."

Pretty strong words, wouldn't you agree? BTW, I am fairly sure he wasn't referring to the LDS church when he referred to the church. (Grin)

Lou Gossett wrote this, "Virtually all Protestant denominations have separate Negro churches, and thus the areas of association for religious purposes have been very small."

I recently read a thread on this board that lamented this very fact. Although there was some difference of opinion, I recall that the consensus was in complete harmony with Mr. Gossetts' claim.

Nathan O. Hatch wrote this. "By the 1830’s most southern evangelicals had thoroughly repudiated a heritage that valued blacks as fellow church members."

Forrest Wood in "The Arrogance of Faith" wrote, "The black Methodist church, created not from a desire to be separate but from a desire to worship without discrimination at the hands of white brethren, was to become the most enduring legacy of Methodism's refusal to accord the black communicant all of the rights and privileges of membership in the body of Christ."

Dana Martin reported in “The American Baptist Convention and the Civil Rights Movement" that "By November 1968 a survey research by the Home Mission Board revealed that only eleven percent of Southern Baptist churches would admit African-Americans"

The point that I am trying to make is that much of the feeling and teachings of the time were cultural. They were wrong. They were nearly universal. To demand one thing of the LDS while the Evangelicals were at least as guilty is hypocritical.

BTW, Bruce R. McConkie clarified every point you made with one statement. This is what he said.

"There are statements in our literature by the early brethren which we have interpreted to mean that the Negroes would not receive the priesthood in mortality. I have said the same things .... All I can say to that is that it is time disbelieving people repented and got in line and believed in a living, modern prophet. Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world. We get our truth and our light line upon line and precept upon precept. We have now had added a new flood of intelligence and light on this particular subject, and it erases all the darkness, and all the views and all the thoughts of the past. They don't matter any more. It doesn't make a particle of difference what anybody ever said about the Negro matter before the first day of June of this year [1978]. It is a new day and a new arrangement, and the Lord has now given the revelation that sheds light out into the world on this subject. As to any slivers of light or any particles of darkness of the past, we forget about them. We now do what meridian Israel did when the Lord said the gospel should go to the gentiles. We forget all the statements that limited the gospel to the house of Israel, and we start going to the gentiles."

I hope this helps...and please do not interpret this response in a spirit of harshness. It is intended to cut to the chase, but in a spirit of love.

Sincerely,

Don

 

Don,

I started to prepare a point by point response to your "cherry picking" of history. Including why the Mormons left Missouri (great other topic for us to go into after we finish this one by the way.) However, I noticed you didn't answer a single one of my previous questions.

The points I took from your response are that evangelicals have done racist things so we are as guilty as you. Well evangelicals have done and some I'm sure continue to do racist things. However I renounce the teachings of any man that claimed blacks were inferior and cursed by God. We should view any such men and their memory with scorn. As they were not Godly or decent men.

Using the same standard will you renounce Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, along with their teachings?

They made racism doctrine in your (Mormon) church. They did this using the doctrine of pre-existence based on the book of Abraham.

You see we don't put our faith in men we put faith in Christ.

McConkie's response is incredibly weak and funny. Truth is truth. It's eternal. It doesn't change with political pressure.

Your men who you believe receive revelation straight from God, time and time again preached that black men bore the marks of a curse from God. Joseph in an issue of "The Journal of Doctrine" called blacks a different "species."

How can you follow such men? How can any person of conscience? I mean this with all sincerity.

[ June 26, 2002, 07:03 PM: Message edited by: Will ]

 

Will responds:
I started to prepare a point by point response to your "cherry picking" of history. Including why the Mormons left Missouri (great other topic for us to go into after we finish this one by the way.)

Don shoots back:
Wait a minute! I accused you of cherry picking first. You copier you. Anyhow, after we finish the 20-30 topics we have already started on this thread, that would be fine.

Will, being persistent:
However, I noticed you didn't answer a single one of my previous questions.

Don, wondering which board Will has been reading:
I answered the following:
1. Clarification on blacks being allowed in the church...and a reference to my integrity.
2. Why it is and how it is that revelation is received.
3. An outright admission that LDS leaders did not understand the fulness of the doctrine regarding blacks previous to 1978. They were wrong. So were the rest of religionists during that era who taught and practiced racist doctrines.
4. A quote by Bruce R. McConkie answers the rest.

It looks like you are right. I did not answer a single question...a number of them were answered.

Will:
The points I took from your response are that evangelicals have done racist things so we are as guilty as you. Well evangelicals have done and some I'm sure continue to do racist things. However I renounce the teachings of any man that claimed blacks were inferior and cursed by God. We should view any such men and their memory with scorn. As they were not Godly or decent men.

Don:
I have a list of quotes from evangelicals. I shared a few with you. May I ask in all sincerity if you believe Billy Graham and Jerry Falwell as being "not Godly men"?

Will continues on the attack! (grin)
Using the same standard will you renounce Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, along with their teachings?

Don meekly attempting to stave off the offensive thrust: (grin again)
I renounce those things that were said by all men, be it Brigham Young, Joseph Smith, Billy Graham, Pat Robertson, Bill Clinton, or Eddie Murphy that are not correct. See my previous comments on what constitutes LDS doctrinal theology...please do see them, for you see, I am getting rather tired of explaining this well defined position. Thank you.

Will:
You see we don't put our faith in men we put faith in Christ.

Don:
Yet men wrote and translated the Bible...and yes they were inspired as Paul told Timothy, but they were also fallible and imperfect. BTW, you'd better call the Bible Answer Man, To Every Man an Answer, and every Pastor in the book and let them know that they are no longer needed.

Will:
McConkie's response is incredibly weak and funny. Truth is truth. It's eternal. It doesn't change with political pressure.

Don:
I'm pleased that you find it amusing. We do what we can. McConkie was previously in error and he admitted it. Truth never did change with political pressure, but our understanding was increased as the political pressure gave the prophet a need to present the question before the Lord. This is when the revelation occurred. I am sorry that you do not accept modern prophets and apostles. This is the real issue.

Will:
Your men who you believe receive revelation straight from God, time and time again preached that black men bore the marks of a curse from God. Joseph in an issue of "The Journal of Doctrine" called blacks a different "species."

Don:
I am not familiar with what you term as "The Journal of Doctrine". I am familiar with the "Journal of Discourses"...perhaps that is what you meant to say. Continuing on my ramblings, he did say the following in "Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith".

At five went to Mr. Sollars' with Elders Hyde and Richards. Elder
Hyde inquired the situation of the negro. I replied, they came into
the world slaves, mentally and physically. Change their situation
with the whites, and they would be like them. They have souls, and
are subjects of salvation. Go into Cincinnati or any city, and find
an educated negro, who rides in his carriage, and you will see a
man who has risen by the powers of his own mind to his exalted
state of respectability. The slaves in Washington are more refined
than many in high places, and the black boys will take the shine
off many of those they brush and wait on.

Elder Hyde remarked, "Put them on the level, and they will rise
above me." I replied, if I raised you to be my equal, and then
attempted to oppress you, would you not be indignant and try to
rise above me, as did Oliver Cowdery, Peter Whitmer, and many
others, who said I was a fallen Prophet, and they were capable
of leading the people, although I never attempted to oppress them,
but had always been lifting them up? Had I anything to do with the
negro, I would confine them by strict law to their own species, and
put them on a national equalization."

Perhaps this would be the quote that you were looking for. The word species, as used by the prophet, in context, refers to race or kind, not to species as we use in modern conversation. An aquaintance of mine writes this:

"...Websters 1828 dictionary is as follows:

4. Sort; kind; in a loose sense; as a species of low cunning in the
world; a species of generosity; a species of cloth.
5. Appearance to the senses; visible or sensible representation.

In this usage, the word is almost a synonym for "type." People were still
using it in this way as late as the turn of the century. For example, BH
Roberts uses the following sentence in the book Seventy's Course in
Theology, on page 1:164:

"Their opposition arose, however, perhaps more from considerations
looking to the best interests and future welfare of the colony, in
its progress in moral and material development, than from any
feelings of humanity towards the unfortunate victims of this
species of commerce."

It would be foolish, of course, to assert that BH Roberts is only using the
word "species" in this way because he is LDS, or because he is the only
person to use it in such way in his day.

There are many words that were used in the early 1800s, and are not used
today. Likewise, there are many words that are used differently today than
they were then. To assume the worst about the Prophet based on the above
quote shows that the reader has pre-judged the Prophet and is all too ready
to apply today's standards without examining the context and patterns of
speech of the day." (Allen Wyatt)

I hope that this helps.

Will:
How can you follow such men? How can any person of conscience? I mean this with all sincerity.

Don:
Because God chose these good yet imperfect men to do His work in the restoration. Not only has this been revealed to me on a personal level, but in studying both sides of the claims, intellectually I am satisfied.

I follow these men in the same way that early Christians accepted the teachings of Peter and Paul. Peter denied Christ and had a quick temper. Paul consented to the murder of some of the early Christians. If God can use Peter and Paul, He can use Joseph and Brigham. Before you jump so hastily to condemn others, take a peek at yourself. I mean this with all sincerity.

Thanks,

Don

[ June 29, 2002, 12:31 AM: Message edited by: Don Layton ]

 

Hello, Don:

In reading your replies, I find that you make sure you bypass issues that would get you caught up in what one could call a big problem.

In my post about Jesus I would almost believe you were a Baptist! The few spots where we differed, you did not elaborate on any place that you actually said we were some what different. You do the same with most of the others. You are sure right about one thing, if you only use the Mormons doctrine as opposed to our Bible, we will never agree. It seems that we are using both.

The thread I have on Mormonism is based on a book who's co-author is Brigham's great-great grandaughter and who was a Mormon and is now on our side. I'm sure you know who I am talking about.......Sandra(McGhee) Tanner. I think this speaks a lot in itself. This book was published in 1998 and has much in it that differs from what you have been saying. I guess they/she are some crackpots trying to make a dime?? You went to this thread and put a one-liner instead of refuting what I have posted there. I guess the truth hurts.

So, back to square one. Would you explain more clearly where we have a difference of opinion as to how the scriptures in the Christian Bible(under the Jesus post)are different in the Mormon's view. You and your church go both ways, meaning taking some of the bible as fact and the rest from the LDS's NEW, new meaning not the orginal Book of Mormon, as it has been "changed". Was this another revelation that now dis-credits Joseph Smith. Remember, our Bible is from the orginal writtings and does not need to be changed to create a "new vision" of God's divine plan but there are other religions who "change things" to make it please their appetite.

God Bless.........Alex

PS: Sincerely, I wish you would read my first two posts on Mormonism, and if I put something wrong, by all means, let me know.

 

Don shoots back:
Wait a minute! I accused you of cherry picking first. You copier you. Anyhow, after we finish the 20-30 topics we have already started on this thread, that would be fine.

Will responds:
I had to copy your interesting term since it applied so completely to your response.

Don, wondering which board Will has been reading:
I answered the following:
1. Clarification on blacks being allowed in the church...and a reference to my integrity.
2. Why it is and how it is that revelation is received.
3. An outright admission that LDS leaders did not understand the fulness of the doctrine regarding blacks previous to 1978. They were wrong. So were the rest of religionists during that era who taught and practiced racist doctrines.
4. A quote by Bruce R. McConkie answers the rest.

Will replies:
Your non-answers fall down in the following way. When questioned about blacks and the church you completely skipped over the blatantly racist history and teachings of the Mormon church. You did this by simply stating blacks have always been allowed to be members. I'll let anyone who reads this thread judge your truthfulness in that first answer.

The Mormon view of revelation allows the LDS church to re-write any key doctrines and ignore errors in scripture by claiming anytime this unusual doctrine. Such as in the case of polygamy and racism.

You are correct all religionists that proclaim racist views should be rejected unless they repented. Do you have any proof that King Brigham or Joseph Smith repented?

McConkie's quote means truth is flexible to whatever makes the Mormon church at the moment look best. I have a different view of truth.

Don gloats prematurely:
It looks like you are right. I did not answer a single question...a number of them were answered.

Will writes:
Let me refresh your memory Don:

If God has removed the curse that at one time kept Blacks from the priesthood, then why has he not removed the marks of that curse---i.e., flat nose and black skin (per Brigham Young, see above)?

If some spirits continue to be cursed with black skin because of thier unrighteous behavior in the pre-mortal world, then why does that same unrighteous behavior now no longer diqualify them from the priesthood?

If black skin is no longer a sign of a special curse, then does that mean white skin is no longer a sign of a special blessing?

If a racially mixed couple conceived a child before June 9, 1978, and in so doing sinned by mixing a cursed seed (Black) with an un-cursed seed (White), then after June 9 1978, were they still guilty of the sin of race-mixing since Blacks were no longer cursed from the Priesthood?

Don:
I have a list of quotes from evangelicals. I shared a few with you. May I ask in all sincerity if you believe Billy Graham and Jerry Falwell as being "not Godly men"?

Will responds:
Do you know anyone that regards them and their writings as the Gospel? If they do they are surely deluded. All Mormons read Smith and Young as the Gospel. Apples and Oranges, nice try to shift the argument though.

Also, do Graham or Falwell have roving bands of assassins such as the Danites keeping their flock from criticizing them?

Don meekly attempting to stave off the offensive thrust: (grin again)
I renounce those things that were said by all men, be it Brigham Young, Joseph Smith, Billy Graham, Pat Robertson, Bill Clinton, or Eddie Murphy that are not correct. See my previous comments on what constitutes LDS doctrinal theology...please do see them, for you see, I am getting rather tired of explaining this well defined position. Thank you.

Will responds:
The position that allows the (Mormon) church to rewrite any inconsistencies or embarrassments on the fly you mean. Again, I have a different understanding of truth.

Don:
Yet men wrote and translated the Bible...and yes they were inspired as Paul told Timothy, but they were also fallible and imperfect. BTW, you'd better call the Bible Answer Man, To Every Man an Answer, and every Pastor in the book and let them know that they are no longer needed.

Will responds:
I haven't seen the Book of the Bible Answer Man and didn't realize that any pastors were able to translate hidden books that were given to them in a previously unknown language. Again please stop the apples and oranges comparisons.

Don:
I'm pleased that you find it amusing. We do what we can. McConkie was previously in error and he admitted it. Truth never did change with political pressure, but our understanding was increased as the political pressure gave the prophet a need to present the question before the Lord. This is when the revelation occurred. I am sorry that you do not accept modern prophets and apostles. This is the real issue.

Will:
The doctrine before was that blacks bore the curse from their pre-existence. You say truth never changes but your understanding has increased. What do you now understand more about the previous belief in the curse and the marks of the curse? Third time to ask this one.

Don helps by providing copy from a dictionary and quotes B.H. Roberts. By the way I especially enjoy reading about Roberts in "Private Journal of Wesley P. Lloyd." Have you read it? It has some fascinating quotes from Roberts concerning the Book of Mormon.

Don:
Because God chose these good yet imperfect men to do His work in the restoration. Not only has this been revealed to me on a personal level, but in studying both sides of the claims, intellectually I am satisfied.

I follow these men in the same way that early Christians accepted the teachings of Peter and Paul. Peter denied Christ and had a quick temper. Paul consented to the murder of some of the early Christians. If God can use Peter and Paul, He can use Joseph and Brigham. Before you jump so hastily to condemn others, take a peek at yourself. I mean this with all sincerity.

Will:
Comparing Peter and Paul to Joseph and Brigham. Let's look: Peter and Paul had changed characters as a result of experiencing the risen savior. Joseph and Brigham were racist until the end of their lives (unless you can provide evidence of their repentance.)

Peter and Paul forsook earthly wealth and standing to follow the Lord. Joseph and Brigham attained mansions and concubines.

Peter and Paul had no king but Christ. Joseph and Brigham both declared themselves King.

Or I know my imperfections and faults well. But then again I don't claim to speak directly for God. I haven't been convicted for bilking elderly people out of money by claiming to see hidden treasure either, like "Joseph Smith, the glass looker." I also haven't declared myself King and dictator like Brigham.

But on your advice I'll check myself periodically to make sure I don't fall into delusion. I mean this with all sincerity.

[ June 26, 2002, 11:57 PM: Message edited by: Will ]

 

Don, if you want to prove your point to me, toss aside completely the Book of Morman and using only the Bible and show me where it states, eludes or even barely implies that Jesus and Satan were brothers unless for some bizarre reason you think that Caan and Able were Jesus and Satan and even that is a real stretch.

Question too. Have you ever read any of the material written by people who have left Mormanism? And before you turn the question on me yes I've read things by people who have turned away from mainline christianity. I would invite you to take the challenge and read at least one book by a former Morman now Christian. I'm sure that there are many folks here that can recommed an excellent title. One of the best I've seen is Momma, Mormanism and Me.

 

You know what guys??? I am just spending way too much time on this, and I don't think we are going anywhere. You feel that I am not answering you, and quite frankly, I feel the same about all of you not answering my points.

The problem is this. We are now dealing with a number of topics...and have more suggested. There is absolutely no way that I can deal with all of these in a comprehensive manner. (Believe it or not, I do have a life.)

I suggest that you all select one single issue on which we can debate, and go from there. Personally I would like to see a topic on theology (such as the Trinity and Godhead, nature of salvation, the anthropomorphic nature of God, the pre-existence of man...or whatever), rather than some of the other things we have dealt with...but feel free to take this anywhere. All I ask is that we keep it narrow, and if progress is reached, we can continue on.

I really don't want to ignore some of the issues that you raise, but I have been on the Internet way too much today answering all of this. My wife is about to throw something at me!

Don

 

As one who came out of mormonism i am amazed at the changes that have occured to their doctrine in order to present themselfs as a " Christian" Church. When I was growing up in a Mormon church they were very much racist. It was taught that the blacks were fence sitters during the war in Heaven. the decendants of Cain. That this was what caused their skin to be dark. If a person worked to be holy his skin color would lighten as his good deeds multiplied. I often heard from the pulpit that Jesus was just our brother and that if we worked hard enough we to would become gods and have our own world like him. Along these lines when I was young there was a debate as to whether or not Moses was already a god. We were taught that all other Christain groups were evil and doing the biding of Satan. In thoughs days if a mormon would have said he was a Christain he would have been driven from the church in short order. And I could go on about things like Blood attonement, Sex in Heaven, Mother god the wife of God the father, poligamy and how it would be restored. and on and on. Now it is easy to say we dont believe this or you miss understand our position on this but I was there and I bare witness that it is true. It is a little funny but you can sit down with any mormon and if he is not out to convert some poor soul to their beliefs he will tell you the same things.
As a former mormon let me bare my testimony.
\
I believe that Jesus is The Christ , God incarnate. Alpha and Omega.
I believe that he alone paid the sin debt not only for my sins but for the sins of the whole world.
I believe that salvation is the gift of God not of works least any man boost.
I believe that Joseph Smith was a false prophet the worker of craft and guile.
And that the mormon church is false.
I say this in the name of the only true God Jesus Christ.

[ June 27, 2002, 02:30 AM: Message edited by: Jimmy ]

 

Jimmy writes:
As one who came out of mormonism i am amazed at the changes that have occured to their doctrine in order to present themselfs as a " Christian" Church. When I was growing up in a Mormon church they were very much racist. It was taught that the blacks were fence sitters during the war in Heaven. the decendants of Cain. That this was what caused their skin to be dark. If a person worked to be holy his skin color would lighten as his good deeds multiplied. I often heard from the pulpit that Jesus was just our brother and that if we worked hard enough we to would become gods and have our own world like him. Along these lines when I was young there was a debate as to whether or not Moses was already a god. We were taught that all other Christain groups were evil and doing the biding of Satan. In thoughs days if a mormon would have said he was a Christain he would have been driven from the church in short order. And I could go on about things like Blood attonement, Sex in Heaven, Mother god the wife of God the father, poligamy and how it would be restored. and on and on. Now it is easy to say we dont believe this or you miss understand our position on this but I was there and I bare witness that it is true. It is a little funny but you can sit down with any mormon and if he is not out to convert some poor soul to their beliefs he will tell you the same things.

I respond:
It is amazing how I have been an active church going member for some 40 years now, and have never heard most of the teachings that you claim to have been taught. (there are one or two exceptions in your list...that were never doctrine.) In fact, the only time I hear them is when anti-Mormons claim that we teach them as doctrine.

In addition, one of the oft heard criticisms of your particular community is that LDS are ignorant of what they "really believe". (Then we are so condescendingly taught what it is that we really believe.) Yet here you are claiming that you were taught this stuff...apparantly repeatedly. How can this be?

Jimmy continues:
As a former mormon let me bare my testimony.
\
I believe that Jesus is The Christ , God incarnate. Alpha and Omega.
I believe that he alone paid the sin debt not only for my sins but for the sins of the whole world.
I believe that salvation is the gift of God not of works least any man boost.
I believe that Joseph Smith was a false prophet the worker of craft and guile.
And that the mormon church is false.
I say this in the name of the only true God Jesus Christ.

Don:
Tsk, tsk, tsk...this is nothing more than an expression of "feelings" and we all know that one cannot trust "feelings" to determine truth.

I had to answer this post because I felt it was so outrageous... but I am still waiting to hear from some of you regarding my last post. Is there one topic that we could start with?

Don

[ June 27, 2002, 01:47 PM: Message edited by: Don Layton ]

 

Mr. Layton; tsk, tks, tks,.... the truth is the truth. And the statements I made are true. And I did not even mention the" mornons teachings on Planet Kolob home world of heavenly father". My Present conviction are not based on emotion they are based on the word of God. You see God never changes, his word is true and sure. Your teachings, the statements of you prophets Change to fit the situation. Were as Gods word is that same yesterday today and forever. And when a true prophet of God speaks the words that God himself has put on his lips; it will not change down through time.
I pray that God would open your eyes to the truth of the shed blood of Christ Jesus who alone is able to wash away our sin.