Posted on 01/06/2014 3:53:42 PM PST by Colofornian
In the recently released statement on lds.org on Race and the Priesthood, the modern Mormon Church disavows “that blacks or people of any other race or ethnicity are inferior in any way to anyone else…” This unequivocal truth, that no race or ethnicity is superior to another, is something that Spain (1542), Quakers (1600s), Pennsylvania (1790), England (1807), Abraham Lincoln (1865), and Christians of any era who believe the Bible, know. According to the Bible, God shows no favoritism—never by skin color—and commands his people to do the same.
Lincoln, who often quoted the biblical God, was displeased with the Utah Territory for its stance as a slave territory (and for its polygamy). Finally in 1978, 113 years after Lincoln and 24 years after Brown vs. Board of Education, the Mormon Church gave black members of African ancestry (why not restrict Native Americans—they were the unrighteous dark-skinned Lamanites of the Book of Mormon?) equal access to the priesthood, ergo its Celestial kingdom, eternal life, and the potential for godhood.
As a professor at Brigham Young University (1999-2008), I taught, among other things—multiculturalism. In class, some of my generational LDS students proposed that those with black skin were blighted with something they called “the curse of Cain.” Alarmed by this belief, I began to investigate LDS scriptures on the topic and discovered scriptural support in the Book of Mormon and the Pearl of Great Price corroborating students’ beliefs.
Because these scriptures still exist, are read, and revered, the lingering conundrum for the Mormon Church is this: How to explain the 20-some passages of LDS scripture that can be considered racist. So, this new attempt to state a non-biased position on race, which falls short of an apology, ignores the challenge of present-day scriptures.
As well intended as the latest words on the official church website are, they can affect no real change in policy or teachings because these scriptures remain. Why call these scriptures racist? The definition of racist is the belief that some races of people are better than others because of their race, their skin color. This is precisely what the LDS scriptures STILL teach. Here are few examples just from the Book of Mormon:
Alma 3:6 “And the skins of the Lamanites were dark, according to the mark which was set upon their fathers, which was a curse upon them because of their transgression and their rebellion against their brethren…”
3 Nephi 2:15 “And their curse was taken from them, and their skin becamewhite like unto the Nephites;”
3 Nephi 19:30 “And when Jesus had spoken these words he came again unto his disciples; and behold they did pray steadfastly, without ceasing, unto him; and he did smile upon them again; and behold they werewhite, even as Jesus.”
As these passages explain, the Lamanites (forerunners of the dark-skinned Native Americans descended from the Jews according to the Book of Mormon) were given a mark of dark skin as a curse for their transgression, not toward God, by the way, but toward their brethren, the “righteous” Nephites. Later when some Lamanites became righteous, the curse was removed and their skin became white.
This repulsion for the LDS racist scriptures I had discovered began to soften my heart toward the biblical God who, according to the Bible, is no respecter of persons and who shows no favoritism. When I read the Bible, its teachings were unmistakably clear because they were repeated over and over. One of these undeniable themes is that God is no respecter of persons and shows no favoritism, no bias.
What to do with the racist scriptures? If the LDS Church moves to remove them, then that calls into question all other things Joseph Smith wrote as scripture and said came from God. Can the Mormon Church say they’re an allegory that means something other than what they say literally? As of today, the church is still defending the four standard works on their official website as “utterly reliable” and “pure truth.”
That’s fine with me. If the Lord, on judgement day, says “you rebuked those Mormons, not the Holy Spirit”, I will be glad to have it added to my ledger.
***
Goodness you make it sound like you are going before the World court.
1 Thessalonians 3
11 Now God himself and our Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, direct our way unto you.
12 And the Lord make you to increase and abound in love one toward another, and toward ALL MEN, even as we do toward you:
13 To the end he may stablish your hearts unblameable in holiness before God, even our Father, at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ with all his saints.
In and around Jesus' time, the prophets included...
...Anna (Luke 2:36: 36 "There was also a prophet, Anna, the daughter of Penuel, of the tribe of Asher. She was very old...")
...And Philip's four daughters were prophetesses as well (Acts 21:8-9)
Some "restoration" your church is...when it can't bring itself to come up to the standard of Jesus' day!
As for the priesthood, Peter and John make it clear that the priesthood now belongs to all believers (1 Peter 2:4-9; Revelation 1:5-6).
Unless, of course you don't think females...
...qualify as part of the "chosen PEOPLE" (1 Peter 2:9);
...or that they are not part of God's "holy NATION" (1 Peter 2:9);
...or you somehow rule out that females are not God's "special POSSESSION" (1 Peter 2:9);
...or that when John wrote about our Lord loving US and freeing US "from our sins by his blood," you somehow think that doesn't apply to women (Rev. 1:5-6)...
...or that women aren't somehow subjects within the "kingdom" John references in Rev. 1:6.
Rather exclusively sexist in interpretation of these passages, eh?
Sorry...but you can look high & low for "ordination" in the Bible as it's been interpreted by Catholics, most of Protestantism, and Mormonism, and you won't find it. (There's a KJV usage of "ordain" in Titus 1:5...a Greek word there that just means appointing plural elders in each city...but as this explains, "Ordain", ordination developed a life of its own apart from the Bible...and the Mormon "scriptures" have only served to layer it beyond ANY recognition from how the Church of Jesus Christ operated in the first century!)
In fact, here's a test for you: What's the Greek word for "ordination?" What verses does it talk about in the New Testament, as it applies the way most churches use it today?
Where is priesthood & "ordination" EVER linked up together in the New Testament other than a vague reference to a high priest appointed to offer up sacrifices (Heb. 8:3)? (And what sacrifices do the Mormon "ordained" offer up if that verse applies to them?)
I expect answers if you are going to be so bold as to circulate what you think flies for Biblical instruction. (Hey, I'm ignorant on MANY, MANY things...we ALL are...the difference is, not everybody seeks to export it in areas they've yet to bring to bear upon influencing others).
Maybe you should go talk with boatbums and he can tell you how God never changes His mind. I think you evangelical types need to all get on the same page or some people might start thinking that you’re following every wind of doctrine made by man.
***
You are seeing that two I think it is more accurately call the Whims of men....:)
Hey, for a very, very, very good reason:
"And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall NO MAN see me, and live." (Exodus 33:20)
Btw, who gave you authorization to mess with the Bible...and change "no man" to "a select few?"
Do you do that regularly? (Or only when trying to make a FR baseless point?)
Even when God appeared to Moses He did it thru a burning bush and then by avoiding Moses seeing His full display of glory!
” toward the biblical God who, according to the Bible, is no respecter of persons and who shows no favoritism. “
You might want to read the Old Testament. I seem to remember He had a Covenant with a certain people.
What? Are you saying that everybody else is "blessed by God" so that can keep those blessings for themselves?
Your point?
Even every spiritual gift given by the Holy Spirit is for the common good (1 Corinthians 12:7)
Even the comfort we receive is meant for others (2 Corinthians 1)
Ever hear of the phrase "paying it forward?"
Is there ANYONE God doesn't bless for the common good?
What? A new beatitude from your keyboard: "Blessed are the hoarders, for they shall see God?"
(Still don't see your point 'cause I can't think of a single person who's ever lived on planet earth that hasn't been blessed in order to be a blessing to others...even those regarded as the "least of these" or the mentally retarded bless others with their smiles and their get-down-to-brass tacks hugs & loving dispositions)
(See my last post; it applies to this one as well)
So?
You're not saying God disrespected other people, are you?
IF so, I wanna see it in print: Repeat after me: "I, Stormprepper, firmly believe, that the God of the Old Testament, disrespected other people groups."
Now, IF you wanna make THAT point...let's have a discussion 'bout that...
Tell me something, Stormprepper...If you watch the Mormon Tabernacle Choir, how many directors are there leading? How many conductors are there for orchestras? And in most music groups, is it left up to mere whim as to who picks up and plays what instrument that given day?
Our God created music; His glory demands worship. And the Levites were in charge of that.
We see harmony in music. We see diversity of instruments and sounds and pitches and ranges, etc. all harmonized into one hymn, one song...all of which reflects a diverse God (three personalities) within one God.
Such worship takes a little coordination, and a helter-skelter leadership approach doesn't tend to "cut it."
Just because I only see one pitcher on the mound at a time, or one quarterback calling signals at a time, doesn't make me think that God disrespects an overall "team" approach. In fact, Paul says precisely THE OPPOSITE:
14 Even so the body is not made up of one part but of many. 15 Now if the foot should say, “Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,” it would not for that reason stop being part of the body. 16 And if the ear should say, “Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body,” it would not for that reason stop being part of the body. 17 If the whole body were an eye, where would the sense of hearing be? If the whole body were an ear, where would the sense of smell be? 18 But in fact God has placed the parts in the body, every one of them, just as he wanted them to be. 19 If they were all one part, where would the body be? 20 As it is, there are many parts, but one body. 21 The eye cannot say to the hand, “I don’t need you!” And the head cannot say to the feet, “I don’t need you!” 22 On the contrary, those parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, 23 and the parts that we think are less honorable we treat with special honor. And the parts that are unpresentable are treated with special modesty, 24 while our presentable parts need no special treatment. But God has put the body together, giving greater honor to the parts that lacked it... (1 Cor. 12)
(We're all team members just like we're all worshipers; but not everyone was in charge of worship)
11 All these are the work of one and the same Spirit, and he distributes them to each one, just as he determines.
...Meaning that WE on the outside see differing "respective" gifts; but Paul says tis all the Same Spirit working in and thru each one.
Just as Jesus eventually allowed the Gentiles to hear the gospel, so eventually Jesus allowed the Blacks to hold the priesthood.
Tell us, StormPrepper: How is the Mormon god -- in the Mormon baptism of the dead project -- going to keep from disrespecting the historically obscure? The 100% names forgotten? The illiterate whose names were NEVER recorded on anything that exists for Lds researchers to find?
(Surprising you didn't give THAT one as parallel #9)
Blacks were allowed to join the Church however.
Elijah Abel, 1/8th black, petitioned Brigham Young in 1853 for his temple endowment and was denied; and it came up again on May 31, 1879 at a Provo home; and he was denied again.
No temple access, no Mormon ability to live forever with Heavenly Father. You don't deny that Mormon doctrine, do you?
(Yeah, and I'm sure you and Stormprepper probably entered into a covenant with your spouse a while back, right? Did that make you somehow a "disrespecter" of every person on the planet except your spouse?)
If we're going to go that route, and if marrieds represent "disrespecters of persons," then the flip side of that would be: Dogs in heat become our role models for being "no respecters of" who they "engage" with...
x
(I see you've bought the false Armstrongite teaching in FR's recent midst that generic FR posters are "false prophets", eh?)
(I always thought you had to actually be a "prophet" to be a false one...but with radicalized expansive teachings by those who don't mind editing the Bible, who knows?)
19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
So, I take it, Restornu since you posted this...that this is your "love-side" recommendation for those you disagree with on FR?
(Of course I do! But not every game! In fact, too often gives me too much competition in some of the card games!) : )
My last post to you AppyPappy was my "illustrative" response...my Biblical response to this is two-fold:
IoW, that covenant was due PURELY to (a) God's LOVE; and (b) God by Nature is a PromiseGiver and a PromiseKeeper
It wasn't due to some lengthy inventory of traits He observed in this people.
(The problem HERE is MANY Mormons are STILL influenced by the long-standing Lds teaching of that certain people groups were cursed on earth because their pre-existent spirits were less "valiant" during the rebellion in heaven by attempting to stay "neutral"...hence Mormonism has programmed people to think in terms of God respecting some spirits over others...going back to "the pre-existence!")
The very original covenant God made was with Abraham, as found in Gen. 12:3:
"I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse;
and ALL peoples on earth will be blessed through you.”
So e'en in this covenant God's idea from the start would be that EVERY tribe of the earth would be blessed! (I see only cross-tribal respect there!)
In fact, to "book end" this, we see the "end game" of this in Revelation:
* "23 The city does not need the sun or the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and the Lamb is its lamp. 24 The nations will walk by its light, and the kings of the earth will bring their splendor into it. 25 On no day will its gates ever be shut, for there will be no night there. 26 The glory and honor of the nations will be brought into it." (Rev. 21)
* "On each side of the river stood the tree of life, bearing twelve crops of fruit, yielding its fruit every month. And the leaves of the tree are for THE HEALING OF THE NATIONS." (Rev. 22:2)
” toward the biblical God who, according to the Bible, is no respecter of persons and who shows no favoritism. “
My reading of the Old Testament shows he showed favoritism to the Jews, especially over the pagans who sent their children through the fire.
He also showed favoritism to Noah.
God is not impressed by what we do. He is not impressed with churches or religions. God made a Covenant with the Jewish people, not their religion.
“Therefore blacks, being of a certain lineage being denied the priesthood of God, until He deemed they were ready to receive it, is completely in the character of God as shown in the Bible. “
Except that the lineage is not established but merely perceived by inference. As best I can tell, there is never a definitive link between Africans and the cursed people.
Blacks seemed to be denied simply because the church founders didn’t like them. Granted, that was true of the Southern churches as well.
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.