Posted on 06/08/2013 9:00:01 PM PDT by Colofornian
In honor of the 35th anniversary of Mormon President Spencer W. Kimball’s announcement of the end of the priesthood ban against black Mormons (D&C Declaration 2), we are reposting Aaron Shafovaloff’s 30th anniversary article, “Shame, Shame, Shame: Thirty Years Later And Still No Apology.”
Mormon apologist Blake Ostler once said, “I personally believe that [Brigham Young’s] theology was a disaster for the most part” (>>). We have multiple reasons to concur with Blake (more than he would agree with), as Mormonism has spent much of its post-Brigham history picking up the pieces from the catastrophic mess of theology he left behind. The 1916 First Presidency statement on divine investiture and Elohim/Jehovah identities was largely driven by an effort to repair Brigham Young’s damaging Adam-God teaching. Contrary to the notion that it died with Brigham, it had carried well on into the 20th century. Some Mormons today are deeply embarrassed over Young’s teaching that Jesus was physically conceived by a natural union between Mary and the Father (who, for Brigham, of course, was Adam). Many Mormons have tragically settled for an “I don’t know” answer to the question of whether sexual intercourse was involved in the conception of Christ. Along with Adam-God, Brigham’s teaching that God still progresses in knowledge and power was condemned as a deadly, damning heresy by apostle Bruce McConkie. Then there’s individual blood atonement, men living on the Sun, participation in polygamy being absolutely necessary for Celestial exaltation, and on, and on. Many Mormons quietly write off Brigham Young as a crazy old uncle who has said very stupid, very irresponsible, very embarrassing, very damaging things. The problem is that he happened to say most of these things from the Tabernacle pulpit in a position of influential leadership and self-claimed prophetic authority. Mormons today try to laugh it off. Stephen Robinson even suggested that Adam-God might have been a joke. But at the end of the day Christians aren’t laughing. We have a higher standard for prophets than Mormonism allows. For us, becoming a Mormon would mean drastically lowering the bar for men who claim to be God’s living spokesmen on earth.
On June 8, 1978, Mormonism attempted to reverse yet another one of Brigham’s embarrassing doctrines, the ban on blacks from holding the Mormon priesthood. The dominant historical explanation given for the ban was an appeal to pre-mortal decisions or indecisions. Negros were not as valiant in the pre-existence, and were cursed with the mark of Cain, black skin. This explanation was taught and expressed by LDS prophets and apostles, from Conference pulpits to a First Presidency statement:
“The attitude of the Church with reference to the Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the Priesthood at the present time. The prophets of the Lord have made several statements as to the operation of the principle. President Brigham Young said, ‘Why are so many of the inhabitants of the earth cursed with a skin of blackness? It comes in consequence of their father’s rejecting the power of the Holy Priesthood, and the law of God.’ They will go down to death. And when all the rest of the children have received their blessings in the Holy Priesthood, then that curse will be removed from the seed of Cain, and receive all the blessings we are entitled to.’ President Wilford Woodruff made the following statement: ‘The day will come when all that race will be redeemed and possess all the blessings which we now have.’ The position of the Church regarding the Negro may be understood when another doctrine of the church is kept in mind, namely, that the conduct of spirits in the pre-mortal existence has some determining effect upon the conditions and circumstances under which these spirits take on mortality, and that while the details of this principle have not been made known, the principle itself indicates that the coming to this earth and taking on mortality is a privilege that is given to those who maintained their first estate; and that the worth of the privilege is so great that spirits are willing to come to earth and take on bodies no matter what the handicap may be as to the kind of bodies they are to secure; and that among the handicaps, failure of the right to enjoy in mortality the blessings of the priesthood is a handicap which spirits are willing to assume in order that they might come to earth. Under this principle there is no injustice whatsoever involved in this deprivation as to the holding of the priesthood by the Negroes.” (Official First Presidency statement, August 17, 1951 [some sources date this to 1949], cf. John Lewis Lund, The Church and the Negro, p.89).
In spite of this, Mormon leaders today continue to say things like,
“When you think about it, that’s just what it is — folklore. It’s never really been official doctrine… We have to keep in mind that it’s folklore and not doctrine… It’s never been recorded as such” (LDS General Authority Sheldon F. Child, quoted in “LDS marking 30-year milestone”, by Carrie A. Moore, Deseret News, June 7, 2008).
“This folklore is not part of and never was taught as doctrine by the church” (LDS spokesman Mark Tuttle, quoted in “Mormon and Black”, by Peggy Fletcher Stack, Salt Lake Tribune, June 7, 2008)
This gives the impression that the teaching and belief had a mere bottom-dwelling existence, only kept alive by the culture in a way not initiated by or acquiesced to by the overarching institution. In the dictionary, “folklore” is defined as unwritten lore that is passed down through tradition or anecdote. Calling the “curse of Cain” teaching mere folklore obscures the fact that it was institutionally promoted and institutionally perpetuated—publicly and explicitly and in writing. It was rooted in the teachings of men considered to be prophets and apostles, the conduits of prophetic counsel and the stream of continuing revelation.
As a Christian I find the reversal on one level insignificant. The Aaronic priesthood is, according to Hebrews, “useless”, “weak”, and “obsolete”, a shadow of the Messiah to come who would serve as our sufficient sacrifice and priest. The “Aaronic priesthood” of Mormonism today doesn’t remotely follow the functions of the priesthood as described by the Old Testament. In the New Testament, Melchizedek is held up as an analogy for Christ’s unique priestly role and identity, but there is never described an ordained Melchizedek priesthood that flows from Christ to male followers. Mormonism simply reads Joseph Smith’s imaginary priesthood structure into the Bible. And I am not at all interested in obeying Satan when he tells people, “See, you are naked. Take some fig leaves and make you aprons. Father will see your nakedness.” Christians don’t feel like any non-Mormon Christian is missing out from Mormon temples. In Christ “are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge” (Colossians 2:3). Our intensified experiences with God and his people come through, among other things, reading his word, serving, singing, loving, suffering, praying, communing with our brotherhood in Christ, being swallowed up in the bigness of God’s creation. We don’t have to step inside a building to experience the Holy Spirit in a deeper way. Christians have the permanently indwelling Holy Spirit, immediately accessible, received at conversion in the same way we received justification and the forgiveness of sins: by grace through faith apart from personal works or merit or earning or worthiness. It is Mormons, white and black, who are missing out by being led astray from having a two-way personal relationship with Jesus Christ, based on the foundation of freely received eternal life.
In his book In the Lord’s Due Time, the first black to receive the Mormon priesthood after the 1978 reversal, Joseph Freeman, tells of hearing about the priesthood announcement. He writes,
“As I hung up the phone, little beads of perspiration broke out on my forehead, and my knees began to shake uncontrollably. It was true! It was really true! I could hold the priesthood! My lifetime dream of becoming a complete follower and servant of Jesus had come true.”
Did you catch that? Mormonism had deceived Freeman into thinking that, because he was black and because he couldn’t enter into a man-made temple, he could not yet be a complete follower and servant of Christ. Let that sink in.
Withholding blessings of the New Testament church (whatever one deems those blessings to be) from people based on skin-color or ethnicity reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the gospel. The promise and assurance of the fullness of eternal life is not for the religious elite, but for the brokenhearted, coffee-drinking, cigarette-smoking, nose-pierced, foul-mouthed, rough-edged, self-despairing, barely spiritual, unworthy moral failures who come to Christ with the empty hand of faith, trusting him for the free promise of eternal life and the heart-changing indwelling of the Spirit. Scripture doesn’t take this lightly. Come to Christ with empty hands and you will have eternal joy. Put up the divisive, unscriptural barriers of moralism or ethnicity or skin-color or quasi-masonic or distinctively Jewish ordinances, and you incite what John Piper calls the “compassionate rage” of true apostles like Paul, who start calling down anathema (Galatians 1:6-9).
Mormon apostle Jeffrey Holland seems to have at least a partial understanding of the institutional responsibility Mormonism has to make right the wrongs. In an interview associated with the PBS special, “The Mormons”, he said the following regarding actions the Mormon Church could take to make sure that the curse of Cain teaching isn’t perpetuated:
“I think we can be unequivocal and we can be declarative in our current literature, in books that we reproduce, in teachings that go forward, whatever, that from this time forward, from 1978 forward, we can make sure that nothing of that is declared. That may be where we still need to make sure that we’re absolutely dutiful, that we put [a] careful eye of scrutiny on anything from earlier writings and teachings, just [to] make sure that that’s not perpetuated in the present. That’s the least, I think, of our current responsibilities on that topic.” (>>)
The problem for Holland is that he has bought into a shallow, inadequate, and irresponsible way of dealing with false teachings and false beliefs once promoted by Mormon prophets and apostles. In a noteworthy Mormon blog post called, “How does Mormon doctrine die?“, Margaret Young is quoted as saying,
“Card-carrying Mormons do often believe that Blacks were fence sitters in the pre-existence and that polygamy is essential to eternal progression. Neither position has been formally repudiated by the powers that be. We have merely distanced ourselves from them.”
Kaimi Wenger, the author of the post, goes on to write:
“To the extent that they are not repeated and reinforced, unrepudiated ideas slowly fade from the community’s consciousness. This is in large degree because of the structure of Mormon belief. Mormon theology is unusually informal, vague and undefined. Because the church does not issue encyclicals or Summa Theologica, our theology is largely of the what-the-prophets-say-today variety… Our belief structure being what it is, [old ideas] cannot truly be killed — but neither are they really alive.“
Mormon leaders depend on this. Formal repudiation is avoided by Mormon leaders, as it would highlight the fallibility of church leaders (particularly prophets and apostles) and potentially bring a sensitive, embarrassing issue to light, prompting many to investigate material from earlier Church leaders which isn’t faith-promoting. Explicit, formal repudiation of past teaching that names names and quotes quotes would set a dangerous precedent in a religion which fosters so much dependency on the reliability of the institution’s succession of leaders. To save face, Mormon leaders opt for a quiet way of distancing old ideas, allowing them to continue amongst the culture in part, but betting on the forgetfulness and historical ignorance of future generations.
Authentic repentance, integrity, and love for people would demand not only a distancing by a lack of repetition, but also a formal, official, explicit apology for and repudiation of the priesthood ban and the teachings historically used to theologically justify it. Mormonism’s institution arrogantly sees itself as above having to give an apology for things like this. In fact, Mormonism has fallen short of even admitting the priesthood ban was wrong or racist. Gordon B. Hinckley had the audacity to say of the ban, “I don’t think it was wrong.” Marcus Martins, a black Mormon and the chair of the department of religious education at BYU-Hawaii, has been warped into thinking “The [priesthood] ban itself was not racist“.
Aspects and echos of the principles behind the curse of Cain teaching continue still today. At a recent BYU devotional the dean of Religious Education, Terry Ball, said,
“Have you ever wondered why you were born where and when you were born? Why were you not born 500 years ago in some primitive aboriginal culture in some isolated corner of the world? Is the timing and placing of our birth capricious? For Latter-day Saints, the answer is no. Fundamental to our faith is the understanding that before we came to this earth we lived in a premortal existence with a loving Heavenly Father. We further understand that in that premortal state we had agency and that we grew and developed as we used that agency. Some, as Abraham learned, became noble and great ones. We believe that when it came time for us to experience mortality, a loving Heavenly Father, who knows each of us well, sent us to earth at the time and in the place and in circumstances that would best help us reach our divine potential and help Him maximize His harvest of redeemed souls” (“To Confirm and Inform: A Blessing of Higher Education,” March 11, 2008, BYU Devotional).
In the DVD set, “Blacks in the Scriptures“, Marvin Perkins was asked if the Church should make a kind of “mea culpa”, an admission of guilt and an apology for past wrongdoings. He responded by saying that his mother has always taught him to eat his dinner before he could have his dessert, that he should be content with what is already available. With all due respect to my black brother in humanity who is equally created (not begotten) in the image of God, it seems Mr. Perkins is still saying, “Yes, master”, to the human institutional powers above him. Instead of appropriately demanding the full dignity that is due, and publicly heralding a call for an explicit repentance and apology and confession from Mormonism’s top leadership for the Mormon institution’s past wrongdoings, he has settled in some significant ways for a continued second-class treatment. That simply bewilders me. I write this to let people like him know that we haven’t forgotten the apology that is due to him. We take note that the Mormon Church decided to publicly schedule a general authority, not an apostle or prophet, to speak at the Sunday, June 8th commemorative event held at the Tabernacle. We take note that, as of this writing, the Mormon institution has no black general authorities. We take note that, as of this writing, the Mormon Church largely (but not absolutely) squelches what could be entirely appropriate black cultural expressions of spirituality in aspects of the Sunday-morning church experience, choosing instead to significantly force culturally homogenous liturgy and hymnody and homiletics.
As an evangelical, I cannot celebrate the half-baked, unfinished reversal of policy and doctrine that happened in 1978. It serves as a reminder of institutional arrogance, of unrepentance, and of a false gospel that puts undue power in man-controlled ordinances. Saving faith instead looks alone to the person of Jesus Christ, who offers the assurance of the full and complete benefits of the gospel to anyone who would receive them by faith as a gift.
As long as you arrogantly refuse to issue an apology and an explicit renunciation, shame, shame, shame on you, Mormon leaders. Let June 8th be a day of shame.
When the apostle Paul asked the Galatians who "bewitched" them, do you claim to say he was "over the top?"
Likewise, as Paul was leaving the church of Ephesus, he warned them with this high-priority alert:
"I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them. So be on your guard! Remember that for three years I never stopped warning each of you night and day with tears." (Acts 20:29-31)
Paul's cultural priority? (Defend against the false disciples who will proselytize the flock and draw away men unto themselves!)
Tell me something, SC: Was the apostle Paul "over the top" to reference these men as "savage wolves?" (Yes or No?)
And if you did something tearfully night and day for three years -- as Paul did in Ephesus -- do you think it's rather important? So what? We're just to conclude, "Oh, the man who contributed a good chunk to the New Testament -- what does he know about cultural priorities?"
Likewise, in post #19, I cited Jesus telling the Pharisees the following... (do you, or do you not, deem these statements as "over the top" -- and why or why not?
27 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of the bones of the dead and everything unclean. 28 In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness.
33 “You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?
You assume (it seems) the error here of some sort of "neutrality" -- as if people & their heresies are out there in "neutral" limboland.
People are NOT spiritually neutral...they are either truly alive in the true Christ, or they are spiritually dead (Eph. 2:1) & still in bondage to their sins (John 8:31-34; Romans 6)
Would you not be at least as humble as Peter?
When Peter (Cephas) was in error about assimilating the Gentiles into the church, what did the apostle Paul do? 11 When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. (Galatians 2:11)
Even vast significant error inside the church needs to be opposed (at least face to face).
And, per, the apostle Paul's daily night-and-day warning to the church in Ephesus for 3 years, false leaders are to be opposed as well. Jude told his readers (Jude 3) to CONTEND for the faith once delivered to the saints.
Paul told Titus to defend vs. heresies.
(I was never Mormon, tho I am a descendant of Lds)
(Why don't you quit on the accusation front til you get your facts straight)
#1...Have you EVER asked Lds missionaries & their leaders this same Question?...and if not, why the religious hypocrisy you're exhibiting?
If this is a "fair question," then it's also a question as to why LDS are constantly proselytizing Christians the world over.
#2...You seem to assume that ALL religious beliefs result in "freedom"
The apostle Paul didn't operate under a mistaken assumption:
To the Galatians: 4 This matter arose because some false believers had infiltrated our ranks to spy on the freedom we have in Christ Jesus and to make us slaves. 5 We did not give in to them for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might be preserved for you.
You see when legalism is spread, what happens is EXACTLY how Jesus described in Matthew 23: 15 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when you have succeeded, you make them twice as much a child of hell as you are."
Legalism is NEVER content to "leave others alone" -- just like the masses of Mormon missionaries traverse land & sea like the Pharisees did!
Legalism leaves many in bondage; that is hardly "freedom"...
No one has to invite them in to proselytize.
(And no one arm wrestles Mormons to come into these online forums, either)
If Mormons don't like these posts, they can simply avoid them. Right?
Absolutely! They are free to do so! I think the real issue here comes down to freedom, and it's very basic. In order to be free to believe what you believe, you have to be willing to let the next guy believe what he believes. You don't have to buy what he believes, just understand that he has a right to his own beliefs.
Otherwise, no one is free.
Obsession is not the right word, but reasons anti-Mormon posts occur frequently on FR include:
Neither Lutherans, 7th Day Adventists nor snake handlers have ever knocked on my door to try to sell me their religion. That makes Mormon's more of a threat. It might not affect politics or the economy. But it's worse, the consequences of getting God and salvation wrong are eternal. What Mormons do affects people's eternal souls. That's a serious threat.
Neither Lutherans, 7th Day Adventists nor snake handlers put propaganda on FreeRepublic, at least not regularly. They may have doctrinal errors, but they aren't parading them on this forum so you won't see many articles dissembling their beliefs.
And of those three, Only 7th Day Adventists got the two critical doctrines on the nature of God and salvation wrong.
Snake handlers err by not understanding what it means to tempt the Lord. Thus they engage in dangerous behavior in hopes of either forcing the Lord to perform miracles to protect them from their actions or in hopes of impressing others with an outward demonstration of their faith. It is error, but it's not an error in either of the core doctrines. And their error reaps it's own reward. They are not a growing group. They aren't aggressively evangelizing. And they haven't nominated anyone for President. They aren't much of a threat.
Lutherans used to preach a reasonably accurate version of Christ and salvation. Since a portion of them embraced homosexuality and most of their members abandoned the Lutheran church in response, I'd be seriously surprised that they still preach an accurate version of Christ and salvation and err only on the doctrine of sexuality. I know there are different groups of Lutherans and they didn't all embrace homosexuality. I don't know what they preach now, but they aren't waiving it around on Freerepublic or knocking on my door, so again I don't waste time on them.
7th Day Adventist does get the core doctrines wrong, believing that in addition to faith in Jesus you must maintain their version of the law. Theirs is a salvation by works not of grace. So while their doctrine does represent a serious spiritual threat to those they can draw in, they don't seem to very active evangelizers, so again the threat is mitigated.
Interesting phrase: "Our own"...
Question: Do Mormon leaders regard Protestant, Catholic & Orthodox Christians as "their own"???
Answer? (Not on your life)
Joseph Smith's 'Graveyard' Narrative About the Historic Christian Church
The LDS church long ago dug a gigantic graveyard for Christianity and told us, "Jump in!"
(Hey, Jim Jones used "koolaid" for over 700 bodies...Joseph Smith tried a "vision" for billions of Christians who have lived since the 2nd century)
How many of you all have played the game Jenga @ Christmas? (You have to remove a block without the whole structure crashing)
Well, in Mormonism, if you remove the 100% apostasy of the Christian church for say, 17 centuries, then guess what? There's absolutely no need for a restoration! (The very existence as a "restoration" church would be 100% pointless).
That's why Mormons are 100% invested in the 100% downfall of the historic Christian church!
* Their very purpose for existence is built upon the foundation that Christendom went 100% AWOL.
* Their very door-to-door & written-word foundation is erected upon convincing the world that we're all apostates.
So how is that anything different than Muslims accusing Christians of being "infidels?"
Maybe, just maybe if Mormons could cite any Biblical verse which talks about a total apostasy…they could let the authority ride upon that verse and let that verse speak for itself & that would be that. But, no…LDS leaders have to try, by hook and by crook, to piece together a tangled web to try to reach a conclusion the Bible itself never reaches.
Even Jesus -- in describing the worst of the end-times -- left the door 'open' on this question by leaving it in question form: "However, when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on the earth?”" (Luke 18:8)
LDS, on the other hand, introduced its grand straw man.
When it comes to describing "apostasy," Mormons seem to have HUGE problems delineating between the qualifiers of...
...“Partial” and “complete”—
...Between “localized” and “universal.”
(What? When your Mom told you that you could have a “piece” of pie, you ate the whole thing because you thought "piece" = devouring its entirety?)
Why do LDS have to conclude that apostasy is ALWAYS an all-or-nothing interpretation?
Well, again, see above: LDS, knowing their weakest foundation is to build a grave for all of Christianity and then have the utter gall to try to build its church on a tombstone it’s created for us is the ultimate “Scripture snipping” job I’ve ever seen.
But “we” understand. Hey, as the LDS leader overwhelmingly elected by Utah Mormon voters but who got booted from Congress before serving (Brigham Roberts) said: "Nothing less than a complete apostasy from the Christian religion would warrant the establishment of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" (Introduction to the History of the Church 1:XL).
So...we all see the sheer desperation of the Mormon church:
No total apostasy, no need for a “restoration.”
No graveyard of Christianity, no “restoration.”
Hence, note the grand “straw men” of Lds "apostle" James Talmage:
2. Evidence that the apostasy occurred as had been predicted is found in the sacred scriptures and in the records of history other than scriptural. From certain utterances of the early-day apostles it is made plain to us that the great "falling away" had begun even while those apostles were living.
(Oh, yeah, we “get it.” LDS believe & teach the following judgmentalism upon all souls living in the following centuries:)
4th century: No REAL Christians in an authorityless Christian church
5th century: No REAL Christians in an authorityless Christian Church
6th century: No REAL Christians in the authorityless Christian Church
7th century: No REAL Christians in the Christian Church
8th century: No REAL Christians in the Christian Church
9th century: No REAL Christians in the Christian Church
10th century: No REAL Christians in the Christian Church
11th century: No REAL Christians in the Christian Church
12th century: No REAL Christians in the Christian Church
13th century: No REAL Christians in the Christian Church
14th century: No REAL Christians in the Christian Church
15th century: No REAL Christians in the Christian Church
16th century: No REAL Christians in the Christian Church
17th century: No REAL Christians in the Christian Church
18th century: No REAL Christians in the Christian Church (including the founding fathers of our country, I might add)
19th century: No REAL Christians in the Christian Church--at least, not until 14 year old glass looker, treasure-seeker Joe Smith came along.
Listen, God created hell because of deep respect for "alternative" beliefs & lifestyles. That doesn't mean He doesn't send out rescue squads to pick off some of the many heading there.
Also, you seem to have a problem properly delineating the difference 'tween imposition (of beliefs upon others) vs. exposition (of the Gospel/beliefs toward others).
Free Expression, the First Amendment, etc. elevates exposition of what each of us believe.
You somehow (& I believe mistakenly) associate others' exposition on Mormonism as some sort of imposition.
I think the real issue here comes down to freedom, and it's very basic. In order to be free to believe what you believe, you have to be willing to let the next guy believe what he believes. You don't have to buy what he believes, just understand that he has a right to his own beliefs. Otherwise, no one is free.
So, let's look @ your comments here with the same sort of treatment you've given me on this thread. So, allow me to partially quote you (italics below)-- to yourself here:
I think, Jenny the real issue here comes down to freedom, and it's very basic. In order to be free to believe what you believe, you have to be willing to let Colofornian believe what Colofornian believes re: Mormonism. You don't have to buy what Colofornian believes re: Mormonism, just understand that Colofornian has a right to Colofornian's own beliefs about Mormonism. Otherwise, no one is free.
Agreed?
I’m glad the Missouri Synod didn’t embrace Homosexuality. It’s sad to hear the spiritual condition of that church though. However, since you are still attending there, for whatever reason, I hope that you can be a light to them.
Danny, I've talked with various Lutherans (of different groups) about the direction the homosexual-promoting ELCA group.
SoConPubbie is right, & it's not just "Missouri Synod"...from what I was told, there's many Lutheran groups...and this Wikipedia source seems to confirm that: Lutheran Denominations in North America
I counted almost 50 listed...and only a few of them (I would think) resemble the liberal ELCA...and some of these are not unlike "new islands" that have been formed due to an active volcano...meaning that precisely due to many congregations & people leaving the ELCA, they have "fed" a new "lava flow" into new start-ups.
...You are NOT seeing them as children of God, but as something way less than God sees.
Did you read the article? The LDS see Blacks as something way less than God sees, and in fact the LDS do not see their members as Children of the Christian God, but as children of a god that used to be a man.
The author of this article esteems many Mormons (the Black ones) greater then Mormonism itself does.
Mormonism still officially consider Blacks inferior.
Once heard a saying, “If you’re not active, you’re passive.”
The reason that JW’s and Mormons put Christians to shame is that they’re on the ground and encountering people with their faith (even if it’s grossly in error). Meanwhile, a good majority of Christians (a broad, generic term anyways) get far too comfortable (lazy!) in the practice of their faith because possibly at some point they were fed the lie of “to each their own” and not to really bother anyone by possibly offending them and what they believe.
The problem is, that’s not how Jesus operated in His ministry and it’s not what He has instructed believers to do.
While you may not agree with the original poster’s method of online evangelism, at least they’re trying to put the Gospel on full display by pointing out the doctrinal and historical errors of a growing, well funded religious group.
By saying “this doesn’t belong here”, I would hate to see what you would have said/done around Jesus when He gave public correction to those who misrepresented God.
If just one person sees any of these posts and comes into a saving knowledge of Christ, then it’s worth the hassle (and worth posting again when relevant).
Thank you for your comment.
Bingo!
Sursum Corda not only provided an attempted "detractor" role, but a distracted one as well.
The poster simply didn't wish to deal with the truth claims at hand within the article at all.
And when one indirectly defends racism by trying to change the subject, what does that then reveal about that poster?
Obligatory Mormon reference: Brigham Young said that the penalty for interracial marriage was "Death on the spot" *and* said that this doctrine could never change. Today interracial Mormon couples can have their marriages "sealed" in the Temple.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.