Met with the Missionaries?

[twhite982]

As part of the Godhead, Jesus, by default, has always and will always exist. The same cannot be said for human beings. I Corinthians 15:42ff makes that abundantly clear.
Quote :"42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption:
43 It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power:
44 It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.
45 And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.
46 Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual.

The "pre-existance" of Mormondom fails to pass the above test.

Sven

Here its clear Paul is speaking of the first man Adam in the sense of the creation of this earth and men upon it.

From Gen God formed Adam's body and then breathed into him his spirit.

No inconsistency here.

Tom

 

[twhite982]

Hi Sven,

I'm going to have to make this response brief as I have alot of catching up to do.

There is "NO scriptural support" for the theology for "pre-existance." Furthermore, even if there were, these "pre-existant beings" are claimed to be spirits waiting for a time to come to earth to obtain a body in order to partake in the LDS eternal progression. How can a spirit have a color if it doesn't have a body?

Open another thread if you want to discuss this. Once again, I am not trying to prove preexistance only responding to questions about it. Please give it a rest.

That one got me, also. I was around when that "revelation" happened and I heard noting about what you stated above.

Follow the thread. I was responding to another's comments, this is not what I believe.

We do? Do you have any idea how arkward it was to attempt to tell my African-American army buddy that he could be a Mormon, but couldn't be a full member because of the color of his skin???? :o This was in 1969, shortly after Martin Luther King was assassinated. What a dastardly theology. I only wish I were wiser then. I would have left that church if I weren't so blinded and Yankee. I grew up in an area that I wasn't even aware of the racial injustices practiced in this land.

Please read my comments a little closer before you respond.

The what is: A priesthood ban initiated by Joseph. However Joseph had prior to this ordained Elijah Abel to the priesthood and he was functioning in that calling.

The ban continued until 1978.

This is the what.


I stated we don't know the WHY, which is what you were having trouble telling your army buddy.

Brigham Young made statements made some that strictly reinforced it.

I have read 1 statement that I consider rascist from him.

The point is that Joseph originated the ban and you can't blame racism on the church for that NEVER was the intent of it as exemplified by Joseph's statements and behavior towards blacks.

Whether or not Brigham Young held rascist views, which was the norm for that day religious leader or not, doesn't put rascism on the church as a reason for the ban.

The problem with that was the racist image that the ban implied. I, for one, am glad I couldn't explain this to my army friend. I can't, for the life of me, wonder why anyone, but specifically an African-American would want to be associated with an organization with such a checkered past. Just my opinion.

As I've already pointed out and you've ignored is that Joseph Smith started the ban. Would you like to prove him a rascist? I have statements to the contrary.

The problem is not in the ban, but in the speculation surroinding the WHY.

Just a thought here and not meant to be insulting. Perhaps the problem you are having is that there are many questionable doctrines or practices that just feel wrong, therefore, it is troublesome to explain it.

Sven

I don't have a problem with my church history. I fully recognize that there were mistakes made. I also fully recognize what the church is NOW and accept it for what it is.

The same standards that you apply to the LDS church would you be willing to apply them to another church's history and see how they fair?

Racism was a part of American history and was NOT excluded from religion, unfortunately. I am not making excuses, but the charicature you paint is largely one-sided and doesn't do anyone justice, including yourself.

Tom

 

[twhite982]

Yes, all men make mistakes. So perhaps all the LDS confirm new revelations in order to not get questioned by their peers. A bunch of robots raise their hands in sacrament meeting.

So these councils were evil for discussing the word of God and praying for enlightenment from the Holy Spirit? I see where you're coming from. How many were on this council? Did it have to be fifteen in order for God to reveal His truth?

Could your post be any less condesending?

You can ask an honest question without the mocking tone.

Its already well established you disagree with the LDS church.

Are you trying to prove something to someone with your comments above or just get a pat on the back from others who also ridicule the LDS faith?

How is a Christian supposed to act?

Tom

 

[Rescued One]

Could your post be any less condesending?

You can ask an honest question without the mocking tone.

Its already well established you disagree with the LDS church.

Are you trying to prove something to someone with your comments above or just get a pat on the back from others who also ridicule the LDS faith?

How is a Christian supposed to act?

Tom

I'm really sorry, Tom, that I sounded like I was mocking. That everyone raises his/her hand out of fear for what their peers will think or a scolding from the bishop is of real concern to me. One has to keep his/her temple recommend; should that person say, "I don't agree with this teaching from our prophet of god?"

I don't want any pats on the back from fellow Christians. My whole aim is to compare Mormonism to the teachings of God so that people are not lead astray. Again, I want to speak the truth in love, and I'm sorry I chose the wrong words. This is a difficult task, when LDS people are so quick to ridicule a council that studied and prayed about the true nature of God in order to prevent heredsies from being spread among the people. Will you please accept my apology?

 

[twhite982]

I'm really sorry, Tom, that I sounded like I was mocking. That everyone raises his/her hand out of fear for what their peers will think or a scolding from the bishop is of real concern to me. One has to keep his/her temple recommend; should that person say, "I don't agree with this teaching from our prophet of god?"

I don't want any pats on the back from fellow Christians. My whole aim is to compare Mormonism to the teachings of God so that people are not lead astray. Again, I want to speak the truth in love, and I'm sorry I chose the wrong words. This is a difficult task, when LDS people are so quick to ridicule a council that studied and prayed about the true nature of God in order to prevent heredsies from being spread among the people.

To explain what it means when we raise our hand to the square in support of something whether its a person being called into a church new position or new doctrine (which hasn't happened in 26 years ). This is a public sign that we will support this person in that calling and more or less show our Christian fellowship.

Some may just go through the motions of raising their hand, but I take it seriously, since I would want the support of others in my calling as well.

Half-heartedness isn't only found in some members of the LDS church its found EVERWHERE, even with those whom you worship with.

I'm guilty of it as well, but as I said I try to make a concious effort to acknowledge what I'm doing and why.

Will you please accept my apology?

I will.

And I'm sorry as well I don't want to sound mean or rude to you, but I get tired of the ridiculing posts about my faith. I welcome honest questions or remarks, but I've NEVER seen an honest question that had a mocking tone to it.

Sometimes we tend to forget about the people behind the faith while we are trying to "evangelize".

I hold my faith personal as I'm sure you do as well. Its very hard to seperate the two as my faith is written upon my heart and it isn't just a superficial belief as I'm sure you feel the same way as well.

Tom

 

[RufustheRed]

Hi Sven,

Hi, Tom

 

[RufustheRed]

Hi Sven,

I'm going to have to make this response brief as I have alot of catching up to do.
Open another thread if you want to discuss this. Once again, I am not trying to prove preexistance only responding to questions about it. Please give it a rest.

I wasn't aware that I was haranguing anyone about it. Sorry. I just happen to believe that it is a lynch pin of LDS theology and I see no foundation for it, but that goes for the LDS need of a restoration and a few other doctrines. If you do not care to discuss the LDS concept of pre-existance in this thread perhaps you should not have responded to other's inquiries. I truely believe that it was in context of the "Met with the Missionaries" subject.

Follow the thread. I was responding to another's comments, this is not what I believe.

I know. I was agreeing with you.

Please read my comments a little closer before you respond.

I did. See the above and perhaps you should look at mine a little more closely, also. That is, if you care to have meaningful dialogue.

The what is: A priesthood ban initiated by Joseph. However Joseph had prior to this ordained Elijah Abel to the priesthood and he was functioning in that calling.
The ban continued until 1978.
This is the what.
I stated we don't know the WHY, which is what you were having trouble telling your army buddy.

Thank you. I read most of this thread before I posted, but I must have either forgotten or overlooked your earlier comments.

I have read 1 statement that I consider rascist from him.

This is in reference to Brigham Young and I won't even bother to quote his numerous racial slurs as I do not want to start a war about if he was speaking as a prophet or not, or it was normal for the culture for that time, etc. Wrong is wrong, no matter what era one puts the misdeed in.

The point is that Joseph originated the ban and you can't blame racism on the church for that NEVER was the intent of it as exemplified by Joseph's statements and behavior towards blacks.

The other point is that J. Smith Jr's successors obviously didn't see it the same way.

Whether or not Brigham Young held rascist views, which was the norm for that day religious leader or not, doesn't put rascism on the church as a reason for the ban.

See above. If it was the "norm for the day" to persecute the LDS, then it was okay

As I've already pointed out and you've ignored is that Joseph Smith started the ban. Would you like to prove him a rascist? I have statements to the contrary.

I haven't ignored your points, only expounded on them. There is no desire on my part to prove that anyone was or is a racist. I find it abhorant. I was merely reviewing some of the attitudes of former leaders of your church.

The problem is not in the ban, but in the speculation surroinding the WHY.

Exactly!

I don't have a problem with my church history. I fully recognize that there were mistakes made. I also fully recognize what the church is NOW and accept it for what it is.

I have a problem with your church history and am willing to admit that it was the foundation on which the present LDS organization evolved.

The same standards that you apply to the LDS church would you be willing to apply them to another church's history and see how they fair?

Sure! I'd be glad to compare the historical racial standards of my church against the LDS. Any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

Racism was a part of American history and was NOT excluded from religion, unfortunately. I am not making excuses, but the charicature you paint is largely one-sided and doesn't do anyone justice, including yourself.

"Just the facts, Sir. Just the facts." - Joe Friday

To the best of my genealogical knowledge, I have no ancestors who participated in the racial bigotry of the 19th century or 18th century. I can't same the same for my ancestors who stole the New England colonies from the Native Americans. Bigotry by any other name is still bigotry and you can paint it into any time line you wish. It remains the same.
I know that you are not in support of racial bigotry and that this was not your theology. However, to say that it was just a thing that happened in a certain culture, is an easy out. "When in Rome, do as the Romans do?" I don't think so.

Sorry if you think I misunderstood you. Think I know where you are coming from and that is commendable, but if someone dyes their hair a different color, the roots will still be the same.

Sven

 

[RufustheRed]

Sorry everyone. I have no idea why my message posted twice. I was only correcting some spelling

Sven

 

[RufustheRed]

Here its clear Paul is speaking of the first man Adam in the sense of the creation of this earth and men upon it.

From Gen God formed Adam's body and then breathed into him his spirit.

No inconsistency here.

Exactly! First the body and THEN the spirit. Which happened first? The creation of Adam's body or spirit? Once there was a body, God breathed give him a spirit. If God could create man (which he can), then he could create a spirit for that man (which he did).

Sven

 

[twhite982]

Sven1967,

In looking through my post again as you quoted me, I want to apologize to you. I was too blunt and could've presented myself better.

Sorry for this as I was rushing through these threads trying to get a response in to everyone who responded to me.


As far as the rascism comments in this thread, true it does fit into the subject matter, but I didn't want to get 30 different subjects going at the same time.
I believe what initiated this subject was speculation about the why in the priesthood ban. I was watching this thread go further away from the initial OP, but I guess at this point its too late.


I wanted to make one more comment regarding something you've said:

I know that you are not in support of racial bigotry and that this was not your theology. However, to say that it was just a thing that happened in a certain culture, is an easy out. "When in Rome, do as the Romans do?" I don't think so.

Sorry if you think I misunderstood you. Think I know where you are coming from and that is commendable, but if someone dyes their hair a different color, the roots will still be the same.

If I were to accept this logic that it seems you're implying to my church it would also disqualify many other churches as well since they also have rascist history within their church as well.

To say that if their were problems within a church, whatever it may be, that this would automatically disqualify that church as God's church is not logical, since ALL church have "skeletons" in their closet.

We don't have to make excuses, but we do need to understand things in context rather than be quick to condemn.

Did that make sense?

Tom

 

[happyinhisgrace]

Sven1967,

In looking through my post again as you quoted me, I want to apologize to you. I was too blunt and could've presented myself better.

Sorry for this as I was rushing through these threads trying to get a response in to everyone who responded to me.


As far as the rascism comments in this thread, true it does fit into the subject matter, but I didn't want to get 30 different subjects going at the same time.
I believe what initiated this subject was speculation about the why in the priesthood ban. I was watching this thread go further away from the initial OP, but I guess at this point its too late.


I wanted to make one more comment regarding something you've said:

If I were to accept this logic that it seems you're implying to my church it would also disqualify many other churches as well since they also have rascist history within their church as well.

To say that if their were problems within a church, whatever it may be, that this would automatically disqualify that church as God's church is not logical, since ALL church have "skeletons" in their closet.

We don't have to make excuses, but we do need to understand things in context rather than be quick to condemn.

Did that make sense?

Tom

The difference is that the LDS church claims to be the only true church of God on the earth. Christianity claims that Jesus is the only truth, not a church.

Grace

 

[Rescued One]

The difference is that the LDS church claims to be the only true church of God on the earth. Christianity claims that Jesus is the only truth, not a church.

Grace

Yes, ma'am. That's what I was going to say. I wouldn't be afraid to call a racist pastor to repentence, or to disassociate myself from a group of racist hypocrites.

 

[twhite982]

The difference is that the LDS church claims to be the only true church of God on the earth. Christianity claims that Jesus is the only truth, not a church.

Grace

[I'm speaking in generalities here]

Does the baptist preach to their congregation to go to a Lutheran or SDA or Pentecostal or Catholic, and vice versa, etc...

They all believe that they have the proper teachings based upon the Bible and that through their interpretation their congregation can know Jesus better.

The LDS church doesn't claim its the source of truth independent of Jesus, in fact we claim our revelation comes through Jesus.

The LDS claim that Jesus is the truth of the word as well and in His bosom all truth is contained.

Tom

 

[twhite982]

Yes, ma'am. That's what I was going to say. I wouldn't be afraid to call a racist pastor to repentence, or to disassociate myself from a group of racist hypocrites.

Were talking about historical foundations of the churches here.

As I stated before many of todays church do have rascist backgrounds, but I don't discount the good the have now because of that fact.

Tom

 

[happyinhisgrace]

[I'm speaking in generalities here]

Does the baptist preach to their congregation to go to a Lutheran or SDA or Pentecostal or Catholic, and vice versa, etc...

They all believe that they have the proper teachings based upon the Bible and that through their interpretation their congregation can know Jesus better.

The LDS church doesn't claim its the source of truth independent of Jesus, in fact we claim our revelation comes through Jesus.

The LDS claim that Jesus is the truth of the word as well and in His bosom all truth is contained.

Tom

All Christian churches recognize other Christian churches as Christian churches focused on God. The focus of a christian church is not "stay in our church, we have the truth" but rather, Jesus and the Bible. When you go to a Christian church you do not hear the pastor tell you not to attend other Christian churches. If you attend a Christian church for worship service and the pastor tells the congergation to attend only their church, that is a red-flag and you best run, not walk to the door and never go back. True Christian churches do not try to control their members and tell them they have the only "truth". True Christian churches realize that man is fallable but the Word of God is not and Jesus is not.

Tom, from things you have said regarding "Christian Churches", I get the impression that you know very little about how things are "done" and "viewed" in the Christian community. Have you ever activly attended Christian churches and been involved in a "non-lds" type fellowship very often? It seems that your views of the "Christian World" are not at all how it really is.

Let me extend an invitation to you to start attending different Christian worship services and see how it really is. You will be very suprized at how different it is than what you thought.

God Bless,
Grace

 

[Rescued One]

Were talking about historical foundations of the churches here.

As I stated before many of todays church do have rascist backgrounds, but I don't discount the good the have now because of that fact.

Tom

It isn't about denominations; it's about Jesus.

 

[twhite982]

All Christian churches recognize other Christian churches as Christian churches focused on God. The focus of a christian church is not "stay in our church, we have the truth" but rather, Jesus and the Bible. When you go to a Christian church you do not hear the pastor tell you not to attend other Christian churches. If you attend a Christian church for worship service and the pastor tells the congergation to attend only their church, that is a red-flag and you best run, not walk to the door and never go back. True Christian churches do not try to control their members and tell them they have the only "truth". True Christian churches realize that man is fallable but the Word of God is not and Jesus is not.

Tom, from things you have said regarding "Christian Churches", I get the impression that you know very little about how things are "done" and "viewed" in the Christian community. Have you ever activly attended Christian churches and been involved in a "non-lds" type fellowship very often? It seems that your views of the "Christian World" are not at all how it really is.

Let me extend an invitation to you to start attending different Christian worship services and see how it really is. You will be very suprized at how different it is than what you thought.

God Bless,
Grace

I've attended only a few and this is why I said I was speaking in general terms.

As a general "feel" of Christendom much of my experience comes from tuning in to a Christian radio station, most likely protestant based, but with a wide variety of sources as well as communicating with you fine folks.

I don't claim to have an extensive knowledge of other churches nor do I want to. I didn't want to single any denomination out with my remarks to racial history for its doesn't matter about the specifics, alls that matter is that it happened and it shouldn't have. The key is what is done now.

Anyways I have been thinking about attending a few churches here locally to get a better feel for how they fellowship one with the other and what they teach to their members.

If I made some huge mistakes with my comments I apologize. I do know my limitations in regards to others faith and do claim ignorance of the day to day happenings and inner workings of the churches.

Hope I didn't offend anyone.

Tom

 

[unbound]

tom, your one of the most humble people Ive met. Dont worry about offences. If the Word offends, then so be it. Were not here to tickle the crowds ears.

 

[MagusAlbertus]

I didn't want to single any denomination out with my remarks to racial history for its doesn't matter about the specifics, alls that matter is that it happened and it shouldn't have. The key is what is done now.

Going to a Southern Baptist church that had a history of racism I feel close to such an issue.



I feel that it's fact that all churches are lead by fallible men, and made up of fallible men, what's important is that the denomination moves towards the truth, not away from it.



But this does strike-issue for me in regards to Mormonism, just as it does in Catholicism... both have a head that determines the ultimate way things should go, because of infallibility on the matter, so when they are found wrong it strikes me that it’s time to stop proclaiming the leader ‘divinely inspired’ any more than the leaders of any other denomination.



I suppose faith can render this view null, but an objective view should find this to be the situation. But i'm open to hearing another view on the subject.

 

[happyinhisgrace]

I've attended only a few and this is why I said I was speaking in general terms.

As a general "feel" of Christendom much of my experience comes from tuning in to a Christian radio station, most likely protestant based, but with a wide variety of sources as well as communicating with you fine folks.

I don't claim to have an extensive knowledge of other churches nor do I want to. I didn't want to single any denomination out with my remarks to racial history for its doesn't matter about the specifics, alls that matter is that it happened and it shouldn't have. The key is what is done now.

Anyways I have been thinking about attending a few churches here locally to get a better feel for how they fellowship one with the other and what they teach to their members.

If I made some huge mistakes with my comments I apologize. I do know my limitations in regards to others faith and do claim ignorance of the day to day happenings and inner workings of the churches.

Hope I didn't offend anyone.

Tom

You didn't offend me at all.

Grace