Mormons?

[MadeByFire]

Do we have any mormons who visit this site?

 

[Lanakila]

This fits in the Spirituality and Religions forum so I am moving it here.

 

[Annabel Lee]

Do we have any mormons who visit this site?

Of course.

 

[Alma]

Yes, but the threads keep getting moved around and it's hard to find where I've been. Anybody seen the thread moved from unorthodox doctrines? It was moved to something called "fellowship" but that doesn't show up on the home page.

Alma

 

[Wills]

Could you clarify the role of Abel, Cain and Seth in the Church of JC of Latter day Saints?

Does the LDS doctrine draw on/ rely somewhat on Cain etc more extensively than other denominations? I seem to get this impression.

 

[Jedi]

Does the LDS doctrine draw on/ rely somewhat on Cain etc more extensively than other denominations? I seem to get this impression.

Yep. Mormonism teaches that all blacks are decedents of Cain and are black with “flat noses” as a part of their curse:

"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. Cain might have been killed, and that would have put a termination to that line of human beings. This was not to be, and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 7, page 290).

What's even more interesting is that the Mormon prophets speak out saying that if a black and white (or perhaps Mormon) person have marital relations, they are to be put to death "on the spot:"

"Shall I tell you the law of God in regard to the African race? If the white man who belongs to the chosen seed mixes his blood with the seed of Cain, the penalty, under the law of God, is death on the spot. This will always be so" (Journal of Discourses, Volume 10, page 110).

I really like the "this will always be so" part; it makes it difficult to wiggle out of and brush aside.

Just some things I thought were interesting concerning the African race's relation to Cain according to Mormonism.

 

[stillsmallvoice]

Hi all!

I've got a question. What are the main doctrinal difference between the LDS, headquartered in Salt Lake City, and the Reorganized LDS, headquartered in Independece, Missouri?

Be well!

ssv

 

[Alma]

Could you clarify the role of Abel, Cain and Seth in the Church of JC of Latter day Saints?

Does the LDS doctrine draw on/ rely somewhat on Cain etc more extensively than other denominations? I seem to get this impression.

Notwithstanding Jedi Knight’s comments about what Mormonism now teaches, I’m not sure it’s legitimate to cite something from over 100 years ago and say that’s what Mormonism teaches.

The roles of Abel, Cain and Seth are really minimal from a doctrinal perspective. They have the same view as others who believe in the Bible regarding the murder of Abel by Cain. I would say that there is no more of an interest in Seth as an individual as there is any one else from the first chapters of Genesis. While it is true that some LDS leaders in the past have believed that Cain was the progenitor of black Africans, so did Protestants of the same time period. I don’t think that any of those ideas are preached today but I’m sure you could find some Mormon who believes them. I don’t believe them and am considered a pretty standard Mormon.

Alma

 

[Alma]

Hi all!

I've got a question. What are the main doctrinal difference between the LDS, headquartered in Salt Lake City, and the Reorganized LDS, headquartered in Independece, Missouri?

The differences are pretty significant. The RLDS Church is now known as the “Community of Christ.” Except for their moderate acceptance of the Book of Mormon, they are very much a mainstream liberal denomination. They reject most of the elements of Mormonism that are seen as distinctively Mormon such as temple worship, eternal marriage, and they mostly reject the idea that Joseph Smith was responsible for implementing polygamy in the LDS Church. Those members of the CoC who do believe he was involved in it believe that this was an aberration along with most other doctrines expounded by Joseph Smith during the Nauvoo, Illinois period (1839-1844)

Initially, the RLDS Church insisted that the prophet needed to be a lineal descendant of Joseph Smith, but recently installed W. Grant McMurray as their prophet – no relation to Joseph Smith. In the 1960’s there were around 500,000 RLDS members but today some people estimate that the number is as low as 70,000. There have been some pretty significant schisms over recent decisions such as ordaining women pastors and bishops, acceptance of practicing homosexuals to communion and movement towards joining the WCC. The RLDS/CoC Church has made extensive additions to its canon of scripture (161 sections to their “Doctrine and Covenants” vs. 138 sections in the LDS Church). The CoC is much less hierarchical than LDS as seen in the differences between world Conferences.

Doctrinally, the LDS Church emphasizes the importance of temple worship, restricts priesthood ordination to males, classifies homosexual activity as fornication (and incompatible with Christian behavior), selects as its prophet and president the senior apostle, and rarely adds to its canon of scripture. The RLDS/CoC doesn’t believe in pre-mortal existence of spirits and doesn’t accept the Book of Abraham as scripture while the LDS Church does.

That’s what I recall off the top of my head. If you have specific questions, I might remember more.

Alma

 

[ByGrace]

Hi all!

I've got a question. What are the main doctrinal difference between the LDS, headquartered in Salt Lake City, and the Reorganized LDS, headquartered in Independece, Missouri?

Be well!

ssv

The fact is that mormonism does not know what it teaches. It has changed so many times since it was created by joe smith that everyone is in the dark about the last generations beliefs. The RLDS church while in the dark too actually is, IMHO, more respectable since they have maintained the basic same teaching since the beginning. Funny thing is though that they are now getting rid of the book of mormon as they see it as the problem it is. They do not adhere to the false prophesies in the doctrine of covenants though they have some of the "prophecies" in the original form. The salt lake church has changed them drastically to fit their current spin on things. RLDS still uses the original temple ceremony with all its penalties and the masonic five points of fellowship that the salt lake church conveniently took out in 1990. David Whitmer, one of the supposed "witnesses" to the book of mormon (though he later made that statement clear to what it actually means) stayed with the rlds and condemned what began happening with joe smith and briggy toward the end of their welcome back east. Very interesting history steeped in evil.

 

[Jedi]

Notwithstanding Jedi Knight’s comments about what Mormonism now teaches, I’m not sure it’s legitimate to cite something from over 100 years ago and say that’s what Mormonism teaches.

Now, now, you can’t wiggle out of that. Remember the “this will always be so” part? You have one of two options here, my friend: (1) Believe you must put to death black & white couples who have marital relations, or (2) discredit your own leaders as the sort of people who don’t know what they’re talking about (in which case, there'd be no reason to listen to them).

I would say that there is no more of an interest in Seth as an individual as there is any one else from the first chapters of Genesis. While it is true that some LDS leaders in the past have believed that Cain was the progenitor of black Africans, so did Protestants of the same time period.

But this is not a parallel comparison. Mormon prophets are stating these things to be true, and a prophet is no good if he cannot be trusted when he states something to be true, especially concerning spiritual matters and the origin of man. I can’t recall any protestant “prophet” saying the same, and if there was such a man, I would not believe him to be authoritative due to the madness of such a statement. Again, you have two options: Either your prophets don’t speak for God, or what they said is true just as they said it: "This will always be so."

The fact is that mormonism does not know what it teaches. It has changed so many times since it was created by joe smith that everyone is in the dark about the last generations beliefs.

Yep. I have an elaborate list of changes in the Book of Mormon from the 1830 version to today’s. This is despite the fact that the golden plates were supposedly translated letter-by-letter "by the power of God." (HISTORY OF THE CHURCH, i, p.54-55). I think it’s interesting to take a look at the changes:

Typos are one thing, profound changes in doctrine, major errors in consistency and common sense are quite another. (Changed parts are highlighted)

DOCTRINAL PROBLEMS:

1) Title page:
1830: "...by Joseph Smith, jr., author and proprietor"

Today: "translated by Joseph Smith, jr."

2) First Book of Nephi, p.25 (1830): "Behold, the virgin which thou seest, is the mother of God, after the manner of the flesh."

Today: 1 Nephi 11:18: "...is the mother of the Son of God."

3) First Book of Nephi, p.25 (1830):."...behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Eternal Father!"

Today: 1 Nephi 11:21: "yea, even the Son of the Eternal Father!"

4) First Book of Nephi, p.26 (1830): "And I looked and beheld the Lamb of God, that he was taken by the people; yea, the Everlasting God was judged of the world..."

Today: 1 Nephi 11:32: "...yea, the Son of the Everlasting God was judged of the world..."

5) First Book of Nephi, p.32; (1830): "...that the Lamb of God is the Eternal Father and the Saviour of the world."

Today: "..the Lamb of God is the Son of the Eternal Father and the Savior of the world."

6) Second Book of Nephi, p.37; (1830): "..and the mean man boweth down, and the great man humbleth himself not..."(cf. Is.2:6-9)

Today: 2 Nephi 12:9: "and the mean man boweth not down and the great man humbleth himself not..."

7) Second Book of Nephi, p.117; (1830): "and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a white and delightsome people."

Today: 2 Nephi 30:6: "and many generations shall not pass away among them, save they shall be a pure and delightsome people."

8) Book of Alma, p.236; (1830): "I know that Jesus Christ shall come; yea the Son of the only begotten of the Father..."

Today: Alma 5:48: "I know that Jesus Christ shall come; yea the Son,[?] the only begotten of the Father..."

9) Book of Alma, p.303; (1830): "yea, I know that he allotteth unto men, yea, decreeth unto them decrees which are unalterable,.according to their wills.."

Book of Mormon (1950):Alma 29:4:"yea, I know that he allotteth unto men [?].according to their wills.. "

Today: Alma 29:4: "yea, I know that he allotteth unto men, yea, decreeth unto them decrees which are unalterable,.according to their wills.. "

10) Book of Alma p.315; (1830): "But behold, as the seed swelleth and sprouteth and beginneth to grow, and then ye must needs say, That seed is good; for behold, it swelleth and sprouteth and beginneth to grow."

Today: Alma 32:30: "But behold, as the seed swelleth and sprouteth and beginneth to grow, and then ye must needs say, That seed is good; for behold, it swelleth and sprouteth and beginneth to grow. And now behold, will not this strengthen your faith? Yea, it will strengthen your faith: for ye will say that I know that this is a good seed; for behold, it sprouteth and beginneth to grow."

11) Book of Alma p.328; (1830): "yea, and that ye preserve these directors. "

Today: Alma 37:21: "yea, and that ye preserve these interpreters. "

12) Book of Alma p.328; (1830): "And now my son, these directors were prepared that the word of God might be fulfilled..."

Today: Alma 37:24: "And now my son, these interpreters were prepared that the word of God might be fulfilled..."

MAJOR ERRORS IN LOGIC, CONSISTENCY OR GRAMMAR:

1) Book of Mosiah, p.200; (1830): "...on learning from the mouth of Ammon that king Benjamin had a gift from God..."

Today: Mosiah 21:28: "...on learning from the mouth of Ammon that king Mosiah had a gift from God..."

2) Book of Mosiah, p.214; (1830): "My soul was wrecked with eternal torment..."

Today: Mosiah 27:29: "My soul was racked with eternal torment..."

3) Book of Alma, p.260; (1830): "Behold, the Scriptures are before you; if ye will arrest them, it shall be to your own destruction." (also p.336)

Today: Alma 13:20: "Behold, the Scriptures are before you; if ye will wrest them, it shall be to your own destruction."

4) Book of Alma, p.270; (1830): "And it came to pass, when they had arriven in the borders of the land..." (also p.443)

Today: Alma: 17:13: "And it came to pass, when they had arrived in the borders of the land..."

5) Book of Alma, p.278; (1830): "the multitude beheld that the man had fell dead..." (also p.310)

Today: Alma 19:24: "the multitude beheld that the man had fallen dead..."

6) Book of Alma, p.299; (1830): "Now when Ammon and his brethren saw this work of destruction among those who they so dearly beloved, and among those who had so dearly beloved them..."

Today: Alma 27:4: "Now when Ammon and his brethren saw this work of destruction among those whom they so dearly beloved, and among those who had so dearly beloved them..."

7) Book of Alma, p.351; (1830): "...he went forth among the people, waving the rent of his garment in the air, that all might see the writing which he had wrote upon the rent... "

Today: Alma 46:19: "...he went forth among the people, waving the rent part of his garment in the air, that all might see the writing which he had written upon the rent part... "

8) Book of Alma, p.353; (1830): "to remove the cause of diseases which was subsequent to men by the nature of the climate"
Today: Alma 46:40: "to remove the cause of diseases to which men were subject by the nature of the climate"

9) Book of Alma, p.388; (1830): "For behold, Ammon had sent to their support..."

Today: Alma 57:17: "For behold, Ammoron had sent to their support..."


**Many other citations could be given, but "out of the mouths of two or three witnesses..." it is evident that although the Lord supposedly dictated the Book of Mormon letter by letter, he could not spell, keep doctrine or characters straight, and even had serious problems with grammar and logic. What is even more bizarre, is the fact that still in the Book of Mormon, after all of these changes, there are still many just plain strange things like:


1) Jacob 7:27: "and to the reader I bid farewell, hoping that many of my brethren may read my words. Brethren, adieu." What is a French word doing in a document supposedly written by a Hebrew in America around 421 BC?

2) Helaman 9:6: "...when the judge had been murdered, he being stabbed by his brother by a garb of secrecy..." How can one be stabbed by a garb (garment)?

3) Alma 13:1: "...my brethren, I would cite your minds forward to the time when the Lord God gave these commandments unto his children..." How can you "cite" someone's mind "forward" to something that happened in the past?

4) Alma 24:19: "...they buried their weapons of peace, or they buried the weapons of war for peace." What is a weapon of peace, and can it be the same as a weapon of war?

5) Alma 43:38: "they being shielded from the more vital parts of the body,..." How does one shield oneself from the vital parts of one's own body?

6) Ether 15:31: "And it came to pass that after he had smitten off the head of Shiz, that Shiz raised up on his hands and fell; and after that he struggled for breath, he died." And we are asked to believe that God wrote this?

7) Jesus was born in Bethlehem (Micah 5:1-2; Matt. 2:1). In the Book of Mormon (Alma 7:9,10) it says it was Jerusalem.

Cheers.

 

[Wills]

Notwithstanding Jedi Knight’s comments about what Mormonism now teaches, I’m not sure it’s legitimate to cite something from over 100 years ago and say that’s what Mormonism teaches.

The roles of Abel, Cain and Seth are really minimal from a doctrinal perspective. They have the same view as others who believe in the Bible regarding the murder of Abel by Cain. I would say that there is no more of an interest in Seth as an individual as there is any one else from the first chapters of Genesis. While it is true that some LDS leaders in the past have believed that Cain was the progenitor of black Africans, so did Protestants of the same time period. I don’t think that any of those ideas are preached today but I’m sure you could find some Mormon who believes them. I don’t believe them and am considered a pretty standard Mormon.

Alma

The Cain progenitor issue seems pretty central to the Mormon doctrine. One hardly ever stops believing in such a foundational doctrine, for the silent unspoken doctrine is the doctrine that governs the heart and mind.
It was never repudiated and struck off confirming the fact that it was NOT considered erroneous. They just went silent on the issue, that's all.
Political correctness has reduced the preaching of that belief, that is far from saying
it is no longer a Mormon belief.

Correct me if I am wrong but I hardly remember Protestant Evangelicals teaching that
doctrine.

 

[Alma]

The Cain progenitor issue seems pretty central to the Mormon doctrine. One hardly ever stops believing in such a foundational doctrine, for the silent unspoken doctrine is the doctrine that governs the heart and mind.

That simply is not true. “Central” means that it constitutes something from which other related things proceed or upon which they depend. There is no doctrine in Mormonism that depends upon Cain being the progenitor of Africans. The idea exists in entirely theoretical opinions. “Foundational” doctrine carries the same connotation and it’s ludicrous to claim that the “foundational” and “central” doctrines of a Church are “unspoken.”

It was never repudiated and struck off confirming the fact that it was NOT considered erroneous.

Now that’s a pillar of logical thought: appeal to a negative to prove a positive thesis while begging the question. Before a doctrine needs to be repudiated, it must first exist as a doctrine. LDS doctrine is found in four books of scripture: Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price. There is no way you can tie post diluvial black Africans to Cain using LDS scripture.

Correct me if I am wrong but I hardly remember Protestant Evangelicals teaching that doctrine.

It just depends on how old you are. If you were around during the debates on slavery and division of the Baptist convention into an American Convention and the Southern Baptist Convention (1800’s), you would have heard Southern Baptists appeal to the idea that God meant for blacks to be servants because they were descended from Cain. It was a popular notion used to justify slavery.

Alma

 

[Alma]

Now, now, you can’t wiggle out of that. Remember the “this will always be so” part? You have one of two options here, my friend: (1) Believe you must put to death black & white couples who have marital relations, or (2) discredit your own leaders as the sort of people who don’t know what they’re talking about (in which case, there'd be no reason to listen to them).

There are more options than the ones you have suggested. (3) realize that recording methods were faulty and many times approximated the comments or failed to get the complete context resulting in faulty quotes, (4) realize that Mormons don’t believe in ex cathedra statements and have always stipulated that a prophet isn’t always acting as such, (5) the quotes don’t necessarily mean what you have assumed they mean. You have assumed that Brigham Young was saying someone must execute interracial couples. Since that was never proposed as a law in Utah Territory, nor was it ever practiced, statements by the former governor may carry a different connotation. “Death on the spot” means immediate but since Young said this was the penalty and always would be, is he talking about spiritual death or physical death? Physical death is hardly a possibility, but spiritual death could be an immediate consequence – but does the “seed of Cain” refer specifically to Africans, or to the metaphorical “seed” of Cain as Jesus referred to the “children of the devil?” There are just too many variables to be able to conclude that you can accurately conclude that Brigham Young was claiming capital punishment was an immediate possibility. When you read the entire discourse, this comment seems to jump out of nowhere in a discussion about the U.S. army and actions of the Federal government. I’m aware of entire paragraphs that have been left out of reports of Brigham Young’s discourses. Who can say if this discourse isn’t similarly flawed?

Yep. I have an elaborate list of changes in the Book of Mormon from the 1830 version to today’s. This is despite the fact that the golden plates were supposedly translated letter-by-letter "by the power of God." (HISTORY OF THE CHURCH, i, p.54-55). I think it’s interesting to take a look at the changes:

I love these cut and paste quotations from other web sites. They’re designed to overwhelm anyone who might be interested in responding to them and I think the only reason people post them is because they are opposed to any real dialogue. I make it a point not to respond to these types of posts simply because the poster took no thought to post it and generally is unwilling to take any thought or responsibility to stand behind the plagiarized work. Rather than take that risk, they usually just cut and paste some more stuff they haven’t thought about and didn’t compile. I’d be happy to discuss any two of the items you’re willing to engage in discussion on, but I’m not about to reply to someone else’s ignorant or hysterical web site.

I say “ignorant” because it’s likely you have no idea that the “History of the Church,” pages 54-55 as you cite it, definitely does not support the claim you provide above. I think that if you post something without attribution, you assume the responsibility for its truthfulness. Are you willing to take the blame for posting a lie about what the “History of the Church” states?

How about posting a complaint that you’re willing to stand behind?

Alma

 

[tigersnare]

Even if you don't like all the negative web sites about problems in your religion, how do you explain away the factual content that some of them contain?

 

[Alma]

Even if you don't like all the negative web sites about problems in your religion, how do you explain away the factual content that some of them contain?

It depends on the criticism. First of all, I try to determine if it is actually factual. If it is factual, I analyze it to see if it’s a legitimate complaint. For example, someone might demonstrate that Joseph Smith sinned with regard to something. If their conclusion is that a prophet cannot be a prophet because he sinned, I see if such a conclusion is valid from a biblical perspective. That is, do we have any indication that no prophets were sinners? I think the Bible claims that everyone but Jesus is a sinner, so I wouldn’t accept that particular criticism against Mormonism as valid. But, there are as many criticisms as web sites. FWIW, I actually enjoy those negative web sites. Often, they’re so false they’re entertaining and sometimes, you’ll see criticisms against Mormonism that have been used to discredit Christianity.

Alma

 

[ByGrace]

MY GOODNESS ALMA ARE YOU BLIND OR JUST STUBBORN??? Can you not see the forest because the trees are in the way? Joe smith was a liar and a charlotten. He was even tried and convicted of using his little seer stones to find treasures on peoples land. With all of the evidence before you and the desire you obviously have to not accept it and just pass it off as garbage it makes me wonder if you are just trying to argue. The evidence is overwhelming. Tell you what since you never addressed the topics I gave to you try this one.

Joe smith said that the book of mormon was the most correct book and that man could get closer to God by abiding by its precepts then any other book. What exactly are those precepts?

Certainly not your important doctrines and ceremonies in the temple or the other things you practice since NONE of it is in the book of mormon. And since a vast portion of the book of mormon is copied from the Bible, and does not come up with some new and neato thing, I just think it was a cute thing to say for him. Anyway, what exactly are those precepts.



Also in your last comment in your last post I want to thank you for at least verifying that mormonism is not Christianity. Glad we can clear that hurdle right up front. Unless you are born again you shall in no wise enter the kingdom of God. God created Christianity and you admit your "religion" is not Christian. Hmmmmm.

 

[tigersnare]

MY GOODNESS ALMA ARE YOU BLIND OR JUST STUBBORN??? Can you not see the forest because the trees are in the way? Joe smith was a liar and a charlotten. He was even tried and convicted of using his little seer stones to find treasures on peoples land. With all of the evidence before you and the desire you obviously have to not accept it and just pass it off as garbage it makes me wonder if you are just trying to argue. The evidence is overwhelming. Tell you what since you never addressed the topics I gave to you try this one.

Joe smith said that the book of mormon was the most correct book and that man could get closer to God by abiding by its precepts then any other book. What exactly are those precepts?

Certainly not your important doctrines and ceremonies in the temple or the other things you practice since NONE of it is in the book of mormon. And since a vast portion of the book of mormon is copied from the Bible, and does not come up with some new and neato thing, I just think it was a cute thing to say for him. Anyway, what exactly are those precepts.



Also in your last comment in your last post I want to thank you for at least verifying that mormonism is not Christianity. Glad we can clear that hurdle right up front. Unless you are born again you shall in no wise enter the kingdom of God. God created Christianity and you admit your "religion" is not Christian. Hmmmmm.

Dude...come on. You can't bully someone into christianity. This isn't fruitful, please don't pursue it, I've been down this road it's a dead end and a step backwards.

 

[Wrigley]

MY GOODNESS ALMA ARE YOU BLIND OR JUST STUBBORN??? Can you not see the forest because the trees are in the way? Joe smith was a liar and a charlotten. He was even tried and convicted of using his little seer stones to find treasures on peoples land. With all of the evidence before you and the desire you obviously have to not accept it and just pass it off as garbage it makes me wonder if you are just trying to argue. The evidence is overwhelming. Tell you what since you never addressed the topics I gave to you try this one.

Joe smith said that the book of mormon was the most correct book and that man could get closer to God by abiding by its precepts then any other book. What exactly are those precepts?

Certainly not your important doctrines and ceremonies in the temple or the other things you practice since NONE of it is in the book of mormon. And since a vast portion of the book of mormon is copied from the Bible, and does not come up with some new and neato thing, I just think it was a cute thing to say for him. Anyway, what exactly are those precepts.



Also in your last comment in your last post I want to thank you for at least verifying that mormonism is not Christianity. Glad we can clear that hurdle right up front. Unless you are born again you shall in no wise enter the kingdom of God. God created Christianity and you admit your "religion" is not Christian. Hmmmmm.

Right now, he doesn't have the ears to hear, or the eyes to see. Pray that God will give him both so he can leave the cult he is part of.

 

[Wills]

Notwithstanding Jedi Knight’s comments about what Mormonism now teaches, I’m not sure it’s legitimate to cite something from over 100 years ago and say that’s what Mormonism teaches.

The roles of Abel, Cain and Seth are really minimal from a doctrinal perspective. They have the same view as others who believe in the Bible regarding the murder of Abel by Cain. I would say that there is no more of an interest in Seth as an individual as there is any one else from the first chapters of Genesis. While it is true that some LDS leaders in the past have believed that Cain was the progenitor of black Africans, so did Protestants of the same time period. I don’t think that any of those ideas are preached today but I’m sure you could find some Mormon who believes them. I don’t believe them and am considered a pretty standard Mormon.

Alma

Why are you bringing in what others (Protestants) did? Guilty conscience? Giving the "protestant" excuse does not justify the action and actually indicates a desire to "share" some blame. Incongruous.
If one is associated with a negative trait, one does not start pointing fingers at others ....see?
This is a Mormon discussion.