BS: A question for Mormons

Subject: RE: BS: A question for Mormons
From: Pogo
Date: 27 Jan 05 - 02:31 PM

Susu pm'd ya.

Guest S...we teach that entering the covenant of marriage is a way by which one may gain the highest order of the celestial glory (and this applies to both men and women) but we do not teach that you must be married else you won't be allowed into heaven and be able to be with God. Otherwise the men and women who for whatever reasons are unmarried when they depart this life wouldn't have a chance, right? And that would be pretty unfair.

If you wish to talk further on the subject please PM me :)

Subject: RE: BS: A question for Mormons
From: Pogo
Date: 25 Jan 05 - 11:17 PM

*nods*

Then by all means let us shake hands when we meet on the road going to Emmaus. I am glad to know your intent now, thank you. It makes me feel much better about the conversation.

You have to understand...my mother converted from the Baptist faith shortly after her and my father were married in her church (he is fourth generation Southern Mormon) I myself was not baptized and confirmed a member of the LDS church until I was ten years old (the usual age is eight) My mother remains the only member of the church in her family. So yes...I've heard a lot of things (good and bad)about the LDS faith pretty much my whole life and it has given me a more unique perspective on what I believe than say perhaps a Mormon born and raised in Salt Lake City, Utah.

I completely understand what you are saying and I am not offended because I try my best to remember the law of charity and that charity is not easily offended. Yeah...we do believe a lot of strange things that are hard to understand and may not make any sense at all from your perspective. I understand that you are looking at them from your point of view and your religious background. That is quite all right.

I will try to give my opinions and thoughts on the questions asked in a bit :)

Subject: RE: BS: A question for Mormons
From: susu
Date: 25 Jan 05 - 09:08 PM

Pogo...it's like this....


Don't read any assumptions into this because it's just for comparison sake......

There were two boys. One was raised in a poor family and lived in the country. His parents loved him dearly. He had to either grow or hunt for his meals. He would have it no other way. He couldn't understand how anyone would want to go to a market and "buy" what was provided to him with a little hard work and elbow grease. His senses to his surroundings grew strong and he was full of common sense and knew the meaning of a hard day's work.

The other boy was born in wealth. He never had to use his hands to do anything. Everything was either given to him or done for him. His parents loved him dearly. He went to the finest schools and was taught by the greatest lecturers. He had lots of book sense. He could not understand how anybody would want to dig in the ground and butcher their own meat when you could go to the store and get the food already prepared.



....you and I represent these two boys (you can decide who you want to be). Both of us were raised probably with the same family lifestyle but our philosophies on our individual religious doctrines are as far apart as the lifestyles and beliefs of the two boys above. I'm not trying to convert but trying to, perhaps, gain a little better understanding of why you believe in a way that makes no sense to me. Some of the LDS beliefs are so foreign and (for lack of a better word and by no means meant to offend) wacky to me, that I have a hard time understanding why any (again, not meant to offend)sensible person would believe and justify these beliefs when they come from the mouth of a "man" claiming to be a modern day prophet of God......

I hope that I might have cleared up why I was asking the questions above.....if not then we may just have to agree to disagree and continue to pray for each other.......

Susu's hubby!

Subject: RE: BS: A question for Mormons
From: Pogo
Date: 25 Jan 05 - 07:19 PM

Right susu's hubby...or susu, I dunno :) Okay, guess ya want to keep the thread up. I'm game.

Okay...BUT before I go any further with the new stuff...I would like to ask you what your honest intent is in continuing to ask questions. Are you trying to understand the LDS faith better? Are you the kind that just enjoys debate for debate's sake? Are you trying to find things about the LDS faith to prove incorrect and thereby justify why your particular view on things is the correct one? Are you desiring to convert me? Once I know your intent I will perhaps have a clearer understanding of how I need to approach things. Not getting defensive or testy, mind. But I do feel a bit weary from all this work :)

And again I stress. I don't have a degree in theology. I'm about average intelligence. I have not served a mission for the LDS faith and am not preparing to. I am still increasing my knowledge. And all the things I am discussing are not immediately stamped " church doctrine " simply because I am Mormon. And I'm in the process of reading through the Bible cover to cover which is one of my new goals.

They are opinions, ponderings and thoughts directly related to my personal experience as a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. I am trying to answer all of your questions to the best of my ability and praying very hard for inspiration and a spirit of charity and mutual understanding as I do so. I'm not trying to convert you or argue with you or force you to accept my point of view. I am just discussing matters pertaining to the faith I belong to and I'm quite willing to continue the discussion but not ad nasueam. Which it may be already ;o) Hence the offer to continue through PMs.

Ball's in your court now.

MG...Yup. Mormons all have big teeth. And horns. We gore the hell out of Gentiles (non-members) whenever we get the chance. It's great fun...our lizard overlords who live in the vault beneath the temple encourage it.

...I'm being flippant ;O) I needed a mental break...

Subject: RE: BS: A question for Mormons
From: Once Famous
Date: 25 Jan 05 - 11:19 AM

Oh, Joe lighten up, will you?

Subject: RE: BS: A question for Mormons
From: Paco Rabanne
Date: 25 Jan 05 - 11:02 AM

oh, 100 by the way!

Subject: RE: BS: A question for Mormons
From: Paco Rabanne
Date: 25 Jan 05 - 11:02 AM

According to a programme on BBC2 last night, you can't say "pygmy" anymore. They find it demeaning. They prefer to be known as "forest people"

Subject: RE: BS: A question for Mormons
From: GUEST,~S~
Date: 25 Jan 05 - 09:49 AM

What about the teaching that a woman cannot get into the Mormon understanding of the afterlife, without first being married to a man?

~S~

Subject: RE: BS: A question for Mormons
From: Joe Offer
Date: 25 Jan 05 - 01:22 AM

It's cosmetic dentistry done by nondenominational bigamist pygmy dentists, Martin. The teeth have nothing to do with religion, and everything to do with show business. Those are very expensive teeth those Osmond kids have.

Now be nice, or I'll have to use my delete button on you - and I won't use Novocaine...
-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: A question for Mormons
From: susu
Date: 24 Jan 05 - 11:26 PM

"The revelations we do not follow any more are no less inspired than the ones we do and we do not follow them anymore not because we don't " agree " with them anymore...it's just that they served their individual purposes and are now historical footnotes to be studied and pondered for one's own benefit."


Who are we to presume the mind of God and know when His "revelations" through his LDS "prophet" need to be followed or not? If God is the same yesterday, today and forever then why do you trust a self proclaimed prophet to tell you what prophecies do or do not apply anymore? This statement is probably one of the most scary that I've seen on this thread yet.

Subject: RE: BS: A question for Mormons
From: Once Famous
Date: 24 Jan 05 - 11:12 PM

Yeah, but how did Marie and Donny get those type of teeth?

Is that some kind of genetic mormon trait?

And what about all of that Mormon bygamy that's been going on?

Do pygmies practice bygamy?

pygmy bygamy?

Does anyone in Australia know this?

Can anyone in Utah shed any light?

I want and must have some truth on this thread.

Subject: RE: BS: A question for Mormons
From: GUEST,ragdall
Date: 24 Jan 05 - 09:09 PM

Re "blacks are decendants of Cain"
I was raised in a non-Mormon protestant church in which we were also taught this.

From Christianity and History: Bible, Race & Slavery
Repression and Superiority

The later repression and discrimination against the freed black slaves received as much biblical and Christian support as the earlier institution of slavery itself. This discrimination and the choice to enslave blacks only was made primarily on the basis of what has become known as the "sin of Ham" or "the curse of Canaan." Occasionally there would also be defenses of the inferiority of blacks by asserting that they bore the "mark of Cain."

The rest of that essay is worth reading, if you are interested in a wider view of the use of scriptures to validate racism.

rags

Subject: RE: BS: A question for Mormons
From: susu
Date: 24 Jan 05 - 08:06 PM

This is for several people who have posted re: this thread,

Annamill, you are comparing apples and oranges re: blacks and women. If you read the bible it basically states that men are to be the spiritual leader of the household, hence the passage about women submit to your husbands. This does not mean whenever they want sex you have to give in, it means that in the end they have the say on important matters. Does this mean they are always right or that women cannot have a valid opinion? By no means, just that you do not let things get to the point where you are arguing over who is right or wrong. State your case and then let it go. Now if it is a salvation issue, i.e. he and you are differing on your theological beliefs then you are not to compromise, as your salvation is on you.

Pogo, you stated "So far as the actual process of choosing the next Prophet goes I am a little vague on that but I'll see what I can find on it." Let me enlighten you, the one who has the most seniority in the quorum of the twelve would become the next president in the LDS church should something happen to the current president, which would be Thomas S. Monson, if anything happens to him prior to that, then it would be Boyd K. Packer. That brings up another interesting question, which is, what does seniority have to do with it? If all other offices of the church are done by callings and prayer is involved then why not the most important office of the church? Just a thought!

Martin, No Marie Osmond has not appeared anywhere naked, (heck you would have heard about it and seen it by now don'tcha think?) Yes the Osmonds have had their share of troubles just like the rest of the people in this world no matter what religion they are, that has absolutely NOTHING to do with this discussion.

Susu

Subject: RE: BS: A question for Mormons
From: Once Famous
Date: 24 Jan 05 - 05:42 PM

She's a Mormon.

Subject: RE: BS: A question for Mormons
From: artbrooks
Date: 24 Jan 05 - 05:36 PM

Probably on a bearskin rug as a child...who cares.

Subject: RE: BS: A question for Mormons
From: Once Famous
Date: 24 Jan 05 - 12:37 PM

Does anyone know if Marie Osmond has ever appeared anywhere naked?

Subject: RE: BS: A question for Mormons
From: Pogo
Date: 23 Jan 05 - 03:57 PM

" As man now is, God once was/As God now is, man may be. A son of God like God to be/Would not be robbing Deity " is attributed to Lorenzo Snow who was the fifth president of the Church. In 1840 he was spending an evening in the home of one Elder H.G. Sherwood before leaving on a mission to England. They were discussing the parable of the husbandman and as Lorenzo was listening to the discussion, he described it thus " [T]he Spirit of the Lord rested mightily upon me, the eyes of my understanding were opened, and I saw as clear as the sun at noonday, with wonder and astonishment, the pathway of God and man. " He formed that couplet to express what he saw and told no one about this initially except his sister Eliza. When he reached England he talked privately with Brigham Young pertaining to this revelation and when he returned from England in 1843 he also spoke to the Prophet Joseph Smith about it. Joseph Smith then declared that it was true gospel doctrine and that it was a revelation from God to Lorenzo Snow. It was not publicly taught until 1844. Lorenzo Snow by the way did not become prophet until after the death of Wilford Woodruff in 1898 This is all documented in the Improvement Era of June 1919.

Yes I am Mormon and yes I do research my beliefs thoroughly because we as members of the LDS faith are taught to always increase our knowledge, that knowledge goes hand in hand with faith in God (those 'feelings ' you were talking about), to seek wisdom out of the best books and to make a habit of reading and studying the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price as well as many, many others. By all means I am not an atypical Mormon either for believing this. I am currently taking a religion class sponsored by my church and we are learning about Church History and the lives of the individual prophets. It is really quite fascinating. So yes I would fully agree with you on that last point.

I am aware of the Adam/God theory as my father actually enjoyed going up to young missionaries of our church who did not know he was a member and ask them " So tell me about this Adam/God theory you Mormons believe " :)

I am in the process of reading right now the exact sermon of Brigham Young's in which this is mentioned. I also questioned my father about it. He said that I have to also consider that Brigham Young was not a learned man by the standards of his time, that these discourses were all written down by people who were sitting and listening to Brigham Young speak in the tabernacle and the intent behind what he said has to be measured against what he actually said and what was actually written down. So I think it is a matter of going directly to the source, reading it, pondering it with sincere intent and coming to your own conclusions. Apparently Spencer W. Kimball overturned this doctrine in 1976, I will have to check up on that.

My final remarks are this.

On Prophets: There's a difference between ancient revelation and living revelation. Biblical prophets recieved revelation on a great many things pertaining to what was important to their people at particular times. Some of it we still follow, and some we do not. The revelations we do not follow any more are no less inspired than the ones we do and we do not follow them anymore not because we don't " agree " with them anymore...it's just that they served their individual purposes and are now historical footnotes to be studied and pondered for one's own benefit. I would also caution you to be mindful of what prophets say as men and what they say as Prophets. These are two entirely different things.

And a few remarks by Paul who is one of my favorites from the Bible

1 Corinthians 2:10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea the deep things of God.

Phillipians 4:8 Finally brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue and if there be any praise think on these things

I don't think the Devil cares to drive us ever onwards in the direction of a fulfilling life and thereby becoming closer to God by encouraging us (God forbid) to actually think and ponder about what we believe and why we believe it. Anything of Satan does not uplift but drags down, it does not encourage us to be better people but instead encourages to be worse, it does not urge us to seek the wisdom of God but to rely on the arm of flesh. And a house divided cannot stand, plain and simple.

Now...if anyone is still curious I would be more than happy to continue discussing my beliefs and theology in general but by PM's. If any Mudcatters are still actually reading this thread they are probably bored to death by all this endless religious chatter by now :)

Subject: RE: BS: A question for Mormons
From: susu
Date: 23 Jan 05 - 10:58 AM

(from Susu's hubby again)

I never said that the LDS church isn't doing good things. Their benovolence toward fellow man is more than a lot of other faiths tend to do. Their focus on the family is incredible and causing a lot more families to probably stay together than to break apart. These are all wonderful things. Don't misunderstand me. I just think that their doctrine is akin to standing beside a wide open door but refusing to come in because they continue to knock on the window in hopes that somebody will unhitch the latch. It's really sad but I don't see the LDS leadership as sitting in a dark room making up policy and rewriting doctrine in order to keep their machine going. I see them as good men who have been mislead by Satan. They rely too much in "feeling" that they're right and not enough time researching their own scriptures and seeing the discrepancies and questioning those discrepancies to test their validity. Most LDS members don't know what's in their teachings. Brigham Young taught that Adam was God. Does anybody know that? It's in the Journal of Discourses. Check it out. See what the Mormon Bishops or the missionaries have to say about that. This is from one of the former prophets of the Church. Why is it not taught this way? Is it ok only to believe and live by the prophecies that you agree with and not all of them? You will hear LDS parishoners constantly talk about their feelings and just knowing that the way they believe is right. But I think ALL will agree with me in saying "It's not only important to know what you believe, but also, why you believe it."

Subject: RE: BS: A question for Mormons
From: artbrooks
Date: 23 Jan 05 - 09:21 AM

IMHO, all organized religions are a bit silly...but everyone has a right to their own beliefs as long as they don't infringe on someone else's equivalent right.

However, I lived in Utah for a number of years and one of the things that stands out in my memories is the Mormon philosophy of helping others, whether they are LDS or not. I was part of the Federal relief effort that went to Rexburg Idaho when a large dam burst above the town, causing a tremendous amout of destruction and filling what was left of the town with a few feet of mud. Bus loads of Mormons came up from Salt Lake and, starting at one end of a street and going to the other, cleaned up all of the roads, yards and the interior of the homes (with permission, of course).

Having a religion is one thing, but living the precepts of that religion is quite another.

Subject: RE: BS: A question for Mormons
From: Joe Offer
Date: 23 Jan 05 - 03:29 AM

Mr. Susu - you say, "The LDS church has always changed their doctrine to fit the times." I wish more people would bother to change their thinking to fit the times. Some people may call that wishy-washy, but it's what I call "growing."

As for "As man is now, God once was. As God is now, man can become." That sounds like the teaching of many Christian churches, that we will be one with God after death. Sounds pretty close to the teaching of Paul the apostle, too.

I suppose it's comforting at times to do verbal gymnastics and prove others wrong and yourself right, but what good does that do? I believe in tolerance.

I'm a Roman Catholic, and I suppose we're not particularly fashionable these days - so that makes me sympathetic to the LDS and other faiths that are being beaten down by detractors nowadays. It seems that people want to define all religious faiths as "fundamentalist kooks," and then dismiss them all as something evil.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: A question for Mormons
From: Pogo
Date: 23 Jan 05 - 02:00 AM

*sigh*

Okay Susu's husband...I guess you have the God-given right to believe that.

I suppose I could counter it with my own opinions and remarks. But right now...I'm just really tired and it sounds like you've pretty much made up your mind about the LDS faith anyways so I don't think it'd really make a difference what I said.

Perhaps another time. I enjoy discussion of religion in general but I really don't believe in arguing endlessly to prove who's right and who's wrong. Please don't assume however that just because I am Mormon I am automatically out to corrupt the innocent and that I am a lost soul destined for hell. That is insulting to myself as an individual and insulting to what I very strongly believe to be true. Living my faith to the best of my ability has worked fine for me so far.   

So go in peace then and I sincerely hope that whatever your beliefs are, that they will continue to sustain you throughout your life :)

Subject: RE: BS: A question for Mormons
From: susu
Date: 22 Jan 05 - 11:18 PM

by the way....the above message was written by Susu's husband.....

Subject: RE: BS: A question for Mormons
From: susu
Date: 22 Jan 05 - 11:16 PM

I find it really odd(?) or a peculiar coincidence that at the same time the country was being torn apart by racial divides (1960's, 1970's) the Mormon president was praying from an answer from God on whether or not it was OK for blacks to hold the priesthood.
The LDS church has always changed their doctrine to fit the times. Even today, their push to be accepted as a mainstream Christian religion, has affected the way they film their commercials and the way it is presented to the non LDS person. They hammer us all on the fact that they read the bible and believe in Jesus. OK. Even Satan believes in Jesus. Does that make him right in what he believes?
The one thing that I find to be particularly damning is the fact that Mormons believe that if you are a good mormon and make it to the celestial heaven then you will become a "god" of your own universe. The LDS doctrine of "As man is now, God once was. As God is now, man can become" is especially troubling to me if for nothing else than the fact that this is what the serpent told Adam and Eve before their fall from grace. He told them that if they ate of the fruit of the tree then they would be like God.
It's pretty sad that so many are following something so close to the truth that they will miss heaven by so far. Thank God that my wife saw the "light" and turned her back on the LDS church.

Subject: RE: BS: A question for Mormons
From: GUEST,NH Dave
Date: 22 Jan 05 - 06:57 PM

It was my understanding from another site that although the LDS faith used to deny blacks priesthood, every young male normally becomes a priest during his late teen years, they found that this lead to very tough going when they decided to try expanding into the African continent. Some time around this period senior members or THE senior member of the faith had a vision that denying priesthood to blacks was wrong, and they relaxed their former discrimination.

    AFAIK, blacks suffer/enjoy no special treatment in the LDS faith now.

    Dave

Subject: RE: BS: A question for Mormons
From: Pogo
Date: 22 Jan 05 - 06:01 PM

Oh yeah...one last website in regards to the orginal remarks at the beginning of this thread.

http://www.blacklds.org/

someone from another community passed this on to me. I haven't looked through it completely and I present it as I have presented all the other information...it is for you all to study, ponder on and come to your own conclusions about. I hope someone finds it useful.

Subject: RE: BS: A question for Mormons
From: Pogo
Date: 22 Jan 05 - 05:02 PM

Annamill you are welcome :)

Dinavan I will make a point to go nowhere near Bountiful in the future O_O

Subject: RE: BS: A question for Mormons
From: dianavan
Date: 22 Jan 05 - 03:46 PM

From religious tolerance.org

"According to sociologist Amand L. Mauss, a president of the Mormon History Association, the Mormon movement's racist beliefs originated within Protestant denominations from which many Mormons converted. He said: "Every major Protestant denomination in history has taught that blacks are descendants of Cain and Ham." 1 These beliefs were repudiated in 1978 by the LDS. The church received a second major revelation from God at that time. LDS leaders announced that, for the first time, "all worthy male members of the Church may be ordained to the priesthood without regard for race or color." Racism within the church was instantly terminated. Male African-Americans are now regarded as full members of the LDS. Women of all races are still excluded from ordination.

The community of Bountiful in B.C. is under investigation for racism and polygamy. It is a fundamentalist group of Mormons who still believe in the original teachings.

Subject: RE: BS: A question for Mormons
From: annamill
Date: 22 Jan 05 - 03:04 PM

Pogo, thank you so much for understanding my curiosity and giving me such in-depth answers. I have no more questions for now. You certainly have enlightened me as to some of the basic ideals of your religion.

Love, Annamill

Subject: RE: BS: A question for Mormons
From: Pogo
Date: 22 Jan 05 - 12:40 PM

Hm interesting. Without examinining the actual booklet, knowing how old it was, whether it was an official pamphlet endorsed by the church or by " well-meaning " members I'm afraid I really have no room to comment on the pamphlet itself.

So far as the " white bearded god " thing goes, you also have to consider that the word white itself has many different connotations. It can mean one of the Caucasian race, it can mean lighter-skinned, it can mean spiritually pure, it can actually be the color white. In the Book of Mormon as far as I can recall (and I may have to go back and read it again to be absolutely sure) there was no in-depth physical description of Jesus other than than he was clothed in a white robe and he bore the marks of the Crucifixion. Why? Because it wasn't so much about what he looked like physically as who he was. Currently the Prophet at the head of our church today does not say " Worship Jesus because he was blonde, blue-eyed and a white man " He says " Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God, the Savior of the World "

But if you really want to study the whole " white bearded god " idea more, here is also a quote to consider, this from a book called " The World of The Book of Mormon " by Paul R. Cheesman. There is a whole section in there about that. Talking about the Incas it says "...they [the Incas] told their Spanish conquerors that they had obtained their traditions from their ancestors who in turn had been taught by a white, bearded god known as Viracocha, which means " white man. " Sarmiento de Gamboa, a Spanish writer of the sixteenth century wrote '...all agree that Viracocha was the creator of this people. They have a tradition that he was a man of medium height, white and dressed in a white robe...and that he carried a staff and book in his hands. ' (Gamboa, History of the Incas p.247) The book itself for me is quite informative and the writer appears to have documented his sources well. If it's not out of print I'd suggest you find it for further study as well as any of the others historical sources he cites if it is possible to find them. And of course I would recommend going to the source, the Book of Mormon itself and read 3rd Nephi which gives an account of Christ visiting the Americas.

For the record I'm not trying to convince you to believe anything. Converting people is one of the duties of the missionaries of the church. I'm not a missionary and I have not served a mission. I'm just saying " There's some information to study and you are welcome to come to your own conclusions "

Again...it's all one member's opinion

Subject: RE: BS: A question for Mormons
From: EagleWing
Date: 22 Jan 05 - 06:28 AM

Pogo said "Eagle Wing...that's individual artistic interpretation."

Not entirely true - the tract or booklet was an explanation of how certain tribes of Native Americans recognised Jesus because they had a prophecy of a white saviour. I haven't the leaflet handy at the moment but it definitely relied on a "white" Jesus.

Frank L.

Subject: RE: BS: A question for Mormons
From: Pogo
Date: 22 Jan 05 - 12:24 AM

No...I really see no reason to take offense at genuine curiosity. But don't quote me on any of this :)

Gordon B. Hinckley commonly is referred to as the Prophet Gordon B. Hinckley, President Hinckley or Brother Hinckley depending on who is doing the addressing I guess and how respectful you wish to be towards him.

The set-up is the Prophet, his two counselors which make up the First Presidency of the Church and they are over what is called the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles who in turn are over the Quorum of the Seventy. Pretty much we follow the way the church was set up anciently. Jesus, his Twelve Apostles and so on down the line. In my own home church as in all LDS churches, the organization of the First Presidency is echoed in the leadership of the smallest church. You have the President or Bishop (either title is acceptable) who serves along with two counselors and there's many other callings (job titles you might say), clerk, Relief Society President etc. No one is paid to do any of these jobs like say a preacher in the Baptist or Methodist church would be and neither are they required to go through any kind of training or college. This goes right up to the Prophet himself. He isn't paid to be a prophet.

So far as the actual process of choosing the next Prophet goes I am a little vague on that but I'll see what I can find on it. However all callings in the Church are determined after much discussion, fasting and praying among those directly involved and the members also have a say in the process. To add, each prophet that has lead the Church is ultimately chosen by God and sustained by the members as a prophet for that particular time, he recieves revelations that reflects what is going on in the church and the world at that time and he serves for the rest of his life. It's kind of hard to explain spiritual matters in secular terms but I'm trying my best here.

Many doctrines of the church have already been set down for quite some time now. We do however believe that the heavens are not closed, that new revelation from God still goes on today. The prophet has the priesthood authority to recieve revelations from God as it benefits all men, not just members of the church. Many things that previous prophets have recieved by revelation has been put down as permanent doctrine (the Word of Wisdom for example and the Articles of Faith) and some served their purpose and are now footnotes in Church history to be pondered and studied.

Here's just the facts on the organization of the Church and whatnot to add to what I've said. I would suggest reading that as all this above again is all just from the point of view of me and I would not like to think I am telling something wrong here

http://www.mormon.org/learn/0,8672,940-1,00.html

http://www.mormon.org/learn/0,8672,842-1,00.html

Subject: RE: BS: A question for Mormons
From: annamill
Date: 21 Jan 05 - 10:00 PM

Pogo, May I ask how head of your church, Mr., Rev., (please excuse my ignorance) Hinckley is chosen? Does he determine the doctrines of your church without benefit of other council, be it man or woman?

Does he have the authorization to undo previous Presidents doctrines, such as having more than one wife, or, allowing Blacks into the church.

This is merely curiosity as I am a stated non-believer. I hope you're not insulted by my questions.

Annamill

Subject: RE: BS: A question for Mormons
From: Pogo
Date: 21 Jan 05 - 09:37 PM

Lots of wives...hell no Annamill :)...that practice stopped a long time ago. There are a few weirdos up in the hills of Utah that still do that sort of thing...but they are NOT members of the church though they may call themselves Mormon. Anyone who does practice polygamy nowadays is excommunicated. PLEASE I beg you do not start into the polygamy thing...it's another subject I've heard discussed to death.

No women at this point in time hold the priesthood within the Church and this is our current prophet's statement on this subject

http://www.mormon.org/question/faq/category/answer/0,9777,1601-1-63-1,00.html.

as well as this about the role of women in the Church

http://www.mormon.org/learn/0,8672,1588-1,00.html

There are two categories of the priesthood within the church...the Aaronic Priesthood and the Melchezedick (sorry not sure if I spelled that right) Priesthood. Basically both give the authority to perform priesthood ordinances (a blessing for comfort, a blessing for healing, a father's blessing, christenings that sort of thing)

Now...(forewarning...this is just my personal thoughts on the matter it is by no means doctrine set in stone) I have no problem with this and I don't believe it to be an example of women being subjugated under the fist of men or anything. I also believe that it is not God saying " You'll never be allowed to hold the priesthood, frailer sex, so get back in the kitchen where you belong nyeah " There were prophetesses and priestesses in Biblical times and if God sees fit to grant women a priestesshood of their own then he'll ruddy well organize it on his own terms and in an acceptable time. Meantime I ain't hurting because I don't hold the priesthood. I know God will answers my prayers just as readily as he heeds the words of a priesthood blessing because the prayers of women and the priesthood of men are designed to work together. You will note that in many cultures there are powers and forces associated with both the male and female that are exclusive to those genders. That is the way I see the priesthood that is upon this earth at this time. Men hold it because it is a power that works through them but it also benefits both male and female.

We have a women's organization within the church called the Relief Society which I believe (I will have to check this to be sure) is supposed to be one of the oldest women's organizations in the United States if not the world. There is a great emphasis in the church on the importance of motherhood and family. Many LDS women when they are married opt to be stay at home moms and raise a dozen kids or more. These are individual choices made (ideally) after much pondering and praying between husband and wife. Finances and faith doubtless go hand in hand with such decisions. Women who work outside the home to support their families are not looked down upon.

Eagle Wing...that's individual artistic interpretation. From an artist's point of view I personally believe Jesus Christ while he was on this earth looked pretty much like anybody else from that area at the time. The Bible itself states he didn't stand out in a crowd. Now...what he looked like after he was resurrected? Shoot...I don't know. I wasn't around to see him :) But yeah...again this is just one mormon's opinion.

(BTW Rapaire I did get your PM I've been busy I'll try to answer back soon as I can)

Subject: RE: BS: A question for Mormons
From: annamill
Date: 21 Jan 05 - 07:51 PM

Knowing close to nothing about Mormons other than they have lots of wives, I have a question.

So, are woman allowed to be high priests?? I figgered since we were talking about prejudice in this church, well, what about woman??

Does the doctrine state we are just chattel? or, do we woman have a voice also?

Love, Annamill (just thought I'd through in a new monkey wrench)

Subject: RE: BS: A question for Mormons
From: EagleWing
Date: 21 Jan 05 - 05:49 PM

Robomatic said "Much has been done 'in the name of' religion that we wish wasn't."

Much of what is done 'in the name of' religion is not necessarily "religious" in motivation. (N. Ireland is about Union with Britain v, United Ireland more than Protestant or Catholic for example).

Frank L.

Subject: RE: BS: A question for Mormons
From: EagleWing
Date: 21 Jan 05 - 05:31 PM

Akenaton said (way back on 6/1) 'Dont understand the difference between "negro blood" and Christs' "Arab./jewish blood" and brown skin colour...Ake'

But Mormon tracts tend to show Jesus as white, blond and blue eyed - at least the last ones I saw did.

Frank L.

Subject: RE: BS: A question for Mormons
From: Mark Ross
Date: 21 Jan 05 - 02:44 PM

When the LDS church changed their doctrine and said that that black men could become priests, Utah Phillips suggested that the statue of the angel Moroni be replaced with one of Louis Armstrong.

Mark Ross

Subject: RE: BS: A question for Mormons
From: GUEST,Ranting Poof
Date: 21 Jan 05 - 12:57 PM

Here is one for all you biggots. I'm gay, and so to, (and you might just have quessed this!) is my boyfriend, true he no longer attends his church but just as I am ethnically Roman Catholic, he too is ethnically LDS. One of his sisters in law is from Zimbabwe. She and his brother were married in the Church of later day saints. During the reception in the chapple they made a special announcement of who each member of the families were, and of the partners. Thay included me. I have never felt more welcome or accepted by any other christian church, and that includes my own RC. Further more there are and have been High Priests in the LDS who are black, and it is one of the fastest growing churches in Africa. Quite hard to have a growing church in Africa if all your priest have to be WASPs from Utah.

Subject: RE: BS: A question for Mormons
From: GUEST,Aidan.
Date: 21 Jan 05 - 12:33 PM

Subject: RE: BS: A question for Mormons
From: Pied Piper
Date: 21 Jan 05 - 11:32 AM

"For those people who are using this to make racist attacks against Mormons"

Weasel Books words

PP

Subject: RE: BS: A question for Mormons
From: susu
Date: 20 Jan 05 - 09:24 AM

Did I miss something? Who said Mormonism IS a race?

Subject: RE: BS: A question for Mormons
From: robomatic
Date: 20 Jan 05 - 08:48 AM

Joe:
Very much appreciated your general comments above, and agree with 'em. People are people, a varied and cantankerous lot. Much has been done 'in the name of' religion that we wish wasn't.

Subject: RE: BS: A question for Mormons
From: Pied Piper
Date: 20 Jan 05 - 08:32 AM

FIRST OF ALL, IF YOU CHALANGE ANY OF MY IDEAS OR IMPUTE THAT I MAY BE WRONG OR SAY THAT MY SHIT STINKS JUST LIKE YOUR'S, I'LL RUN AWAY AND HIDE.
SO THERE!

Since when has Mormonism been a "race"?

PP

Subject: RE: BS: A question for Mormons
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Jan 05 - 06:35 AM

I seem to remember reading that one of the reasons for the hostility to the Mormons in their early days (ie the days of Joseph Smith/Brigham Young) was their support for the ABOLITION OF SLAVERY. This may have been because Joseph Smith, their founder, came, I believe, from New York, where abolition was presumably stronger than support for slavery. If he had been born in the Deep South his opinions may have been different. The Mormons went west to Utah when they were "persecuted", rather than to the South, where presumably (if they held racist opinions) they would be more welcome (of course this may equally be due to the fact that at that time the west was less populated and territory was available).

Of course their support (at one time) for polygamy also was responsible for their unpopularity.

This doesn't of course preclude the later adoption of rules forbidding blacks to become Priests in the Mormon Church.

P.S. I am not a Mormon!

Subject: RE: BS: A question for Mormons
From: Joe Offer
Date: 12 Jan 05 - 02:39 AM

I think the lesson here is that you can't judge individuals by the organizations they're associated with. Organizations are screwy; and from the outside, they look even screwier. Many of us belong to imperfect organizations, and many good people choose to try to reform their organizations rather then abandoning them. Those organizations may be clubs, churches, political parties, or even families. Although the organization may have serious problems on some levels, we may have had wonderful experiences and relationships through our association with that organization. If the organization has flaws in its history or its leadership, must we abandon it along with all those experiences and relationships?

Sometimes it seems that we expect perfection from everybody but ourselves. It we'd turn the tables and expect perfection only from ourselves, this world would be a much nicer place.

I worked a lot with Mormons in the Boy Scouts. They were the ones you could always count on to sing out at campfires, to go along with the joke in skits, to help clean up after everything was over, and to hug kids who needed hugs. While certain racist beliefs may be part of their history and some vestiges of that may linger, Mormons also have a history of believing they should be responsible for the needs of their fellow human beings. I never saw a Mormon Scout volunteer show any discrimination against anyone.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: A question for Mormons
From: Rapparee
Date: 11 Jan 05 - 10:42 PM

To further my earlier remarks regarding churches and religion, I'd like to direct attention to John D. Lee's book Mormonism unveiled, or life and confessions of John D. Lee (U. of New Mexico's Fierra Blanca Publications, 2001).

Lee, as you may or may not know, was executed for the Mountain Meadows massacre. In this book Lee states (in his last words before his execution):

I am a true believer in the gospel of Jesus Christ, I do not believe everything that is now being taught and practiced by Brigham Young. I do not care who hears it....I believe in the gosple that was taught in its purity by Joseph Smith, in former days.

Reading the book is quite interesting, as Lee was one of the "Danites" and had, at one time, eleven wives.

He also states, again in his last words

...there are thousands of people in this Church that are honorable and good hearted friends, and some are near to my heart.

So it seems in so many churches....

Subject: RE: BS: A question for Mormons
From: Weasel Books
Date: 11 Jan 05 - 08:49 PM

Rapaire,

excellent point.

People who are true followers of Jesus the Christ would never act like the above mentioned.
If they act in that manner, then they are obviously not true followers for all their protestations.

Subject: RE: BS: A question for Mormons
From: Weasel Books
Date: 11 Jan 05 - 08:44 PM

NOTE: DO NOT READ THIS IF YOU INTEND TO MOCK OR ABUSE ME AND/OR MY CHURCH. IF YOU CAN HOLD AN INTELLIGENT AND REASONABLE DISCUSSION, GO AHEAD.



Hi, I'm LDS and have only just noticed this thread.
For those people who are using this to make racist attacks against Mormons, shame on you, how is it acting any better? Does it feel good to mock and put down people of differing beliefs?

Now as to the Priesthood issue, there have been restrictions on it ever since it has been on the face of the earth. Sometimes, such as until the Chruch was restored, the ban was general on all men. At other times, the ban has been narrow. I do not know why it was lifted in 1978 but before that they could still be members of the church, that was never denied them. What's important, getting get it first or last, as long as you get it?
President Kimball was inspired to ask about it and he prayed in the Temple for weeks to receive an answer.
In 1978 the general ban was lifted, but a few select individuals recieved it as early as 1976.


Bruce R. McConkie in his 'Mormon Doctrine' from 1966 writes that Ham was cursed for marrying into the line of Cain, which had been forbidden since the murder of Abel. As a result of the curse, his descendants could not receive the Priesthood. Not a racist doctrine by any means, but one based on personal transgression. Ham knew of the ban and despite that went ahead with his marriage. His descendants can recieve it now, and retroactively, through Baptism for the Dead.

Susu, I don't know why your father changed his mind, but thats the reason for the ban.

Lots of Mormons have/are racists, but that's them, not any official doctrine. Besides, it fits in with the general mood of racism in the US until the 60s.

As Pogo suggests, read more of the LDS materials, and pray and ponder over them. That is the only way you will get a true answer. If it's not true you will know for certain, and if it is then what's to be afraid of.

Diana Ross is not now, nor has ever been LDS as far as I am aware. Gladys Knight on the other hand is, written a book too.

Peter K, how can you say that such things would never have happened if it werren't for religion? As long as wicked people are around such things will happen regardless of any religion. The religion was just the excuse, not the cause of it.

Subject: RE: BS: A question for Mormons
From: Rapparee
Date: 11 Jan 05 - 08:22 PM

I think in those matter, Peter K., you really must seperate the teachings and actions of the founder of ANY religion from the teachings and actions of those of the church that came after. I hardly think that Yeshua of Nazareth, for example, would have approved of Pope Alexander VI or John XXII or the work of Torquemada -- or that of Mary, Queen of Scots, Henry VIII, John Wesley, or any of a number of others.

As a friend of mine once said about his Catholicism, "I don't mix up my church interfer with my religion."

Subject: RE: BS: A question for Mormons
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 11 Jan 05 - 06:40 PM

You're right, Joe, that prejudices were inbuilt in cultures even many centuries ago. For instance a significant and influential faction of first-century Christians who were hostile to their message being spread beyond the boundaries of Judaism. (According to some historians they came within a whisker of having their way.) However the readiness of religions to bend themselves to accommodate prevailing cultural norms is, in my view, a readiness to "blow with the wind" - tangible evidence that mankind makes gods and not vice versa.

Also I don't see any merit in the 100-years test. Christianity has been around for nearly 2,000 years and has been a root cause in some of the most appalling crimes the world has seen. You will say such crimes are the work of "bad apples" but in fact some have been institutional and plainly would not have happened had the church not existed.